Police State - Illegal to Record On-Duty Police Officers

page: 7
89
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 05:55 PM
link   
I agree too and see this as the only place online worhty of prophecy. I hope people take it in, there are so many doom in the world today as to dual nature of the existence of reality, ontologically exteistneially at least.!!




posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 05:58 PM
link   
Guess that is end of the home of the brave, land of the free, hello american nightmare, goodbye american dream.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Xcathdra
 

Your post showed just the video with no other info to place it into context. It occurs a lot in these forums, where a video is posted and info is either left our, or specific info is left out, changing the nature of the video being shown.


How is the nature of the video shown changed? I do admid I thought first he was in cuffs. Turns out he only has his hands to his sides/back. Also when I say boys in blue the same applies both to cops and security guards who sometimes are offduty cops. None of that changes the content of the video. It's a guy in uniform on a power trip beating up a defenseless man who doesn't pose a threat.



You linked a video with no info about it. You state the camera captures a crime comitted by the blues, yet fail to say what that crime is or give any info to support the charge claim. You point out how afraid the camerman is, which is actually the camera mans problem and is completely irrelevant aside from trying to paint it to fit the thread here. The implication is the cop will beat him if he sees him recording the incident, which is unfounded.


What more info do you need? It's all in the video. That crime in case you dont seem to see is assault and batter or assault with a deadly weapon. The whole point of the cameraman is very ontopic and good to note. It's not unfounded to think he might get beaten for the video. I however was thinking it would get confiscated and conviniently erased. Happens alot.



So please, again, when you post footage, please provide information if possible, and dont editorialize and insert your opinions and try to pass them off as fact.


Those are the facts on the video. Deny it all you want.



You hear from all cop defenders.. lol. What you did in your post is what you accuse the cops of doing. Lieing to change the story. So yeah, when I say please show the entire story, its meant jsut as that. The entire story and not your added statements that never occured.


I made one mistake in my assesment of the video cause I first watched it embedded. I wasn't intentionally lying to change the story. The video speaks for itself.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


This is my point. The video does not speak for itself. It does not show anything prior to contact by the Officer. It does not show the disturbance. It does not show any type of exchange between the Officer and the driver, except for the moment the driver is removed from the vehicle. It does not show what occured once the guy was on the ground aside from the officer hitting the guy with a collapsible baton.

It does not show what occured after the officer stopped, other than people leaving the area. The guy recording the incident can be paranoid all he wants, but the fact there were people outside the vehicle, standing feet away from the officer watching the incident, with absolutely no action taken against them for witnessing it, leads the camaeraman to be nothing but paranoid of being assaulted with no actual evidence to support that. A fact you seized on to portray the camerman as being scared he would be beat, which is never even suggested in the video itself.

At no point did you ever make an attempt to set the video up for people who were going to view it. You made no effort to find news articles to place it in context. You made no effort at all to show any other side of the story other than the one you wanted to portray, and when you did that, the statements were misleading.

If we want to use your cavalier attitude of the video speaks for itself attitude we can.

What I saw was a person refusing lawful verbal commands from a law enforcement officer. The officer had to escalate the use of force to remove an unwilling and resisting individual from a vehicle, and in the process the driver resisted a lawful detention / arrest by failing to comply with further verbal commands, going to the ground to assume a non compliant position. While on the ground the individual took action that made the officer in fear of his life, who took defensive action to stop the threat and regain control of the situation.

You buy my version of opinionated events as much as I buy yours.

The video does NOT speak for itself. Further proof of that is the fact that you, and I, had to interpret the video.
edit on 5-1-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)
edit on 5-1-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)
edit on 5-1-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)
edit on 5-1-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


This is my point. The video does not speak for itself. It does not show anything prior to contact by the Officer. It does not show the disturbance. It does not show any type of exchange between the Officer and the driver, except for the moment the driver is removed from the vehicle. It does not show what occured once the guy was on the ground aside from the officer hitting the guy with a collapsible baton.

It does not show what occured after the officer stopped, other than people leaving the area. The guy recording the incident can be paranoid all he wants, but the fact there were people outside the vehicle, standing feet away from the officer watching the incident, with absolutely no action taken against them for witnessing it, leads the camaeraman to be nothing but paranoid of being assaulted with no actual evidence to support that. A fact you seized on to portray the camerman as being scared he would be beat, which is never even suggested in the video itself.

At no point did you ever make an attempt to set the video up for people who were going to view it. You made no effort to find news articles to place it in context. You made no effort at all to show any other side of the story other than the one you wanted to portray, and when you did that, the statements were misleading.

If we want to use your cavalier attitude of the video speaks for itself attitude we can.

What I saw was a person refusing lawful verbal commands from a law enforcement officer. The officer had to escalate the use of force to remove an unwilling and resisting individual from a vehicle, and in the process the driver resisted a lawful detention / arrest by failing to comply with further verbal commands, going to the ground to assume a non compliant position. While on the ground the individual took action that made the officer in fear of his life, who took defensive action to stop the threat and regain control of the situation.

You buy my version of opinionated events as much as I buy yours.

The video does NOT speak for itself. Further proof of that is the fact that you, and I, had to interpret the video.
edit on 5-1-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)
edit on 5-1-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)
edit on 5-1-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)
edit on 5-1-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)




The guy was handcuffed and sitting on the ground, Even if he had touched the officers ankle, how does that warrant a beat down with a nightstick? Did he accidentally hit the ankle, did he intentionally hit the ankle? Was he really going to cause damage by hitting the ankle with his finger or hand? Talk about comment sense here. That cop should be sued and relieved of duty pending investigation. That was uncalled for. You can get assault charges for telling a cop to shut up? Come on. If that cop felt his life was in danger at that moment, maybe he isn't fit to be an officer.
Possible reason no one did anything?? Again, because if you say anything to a cop, He'll most likely tell you to screw off and not tell him how to do his job, or 2 detain or arrest you for interfering.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mastermook
The guy was handcuffed and sitting on the ground,


I see you paid as much attention to the video as psycheops did. The guy was not handcuffed, nor was he sitting on the ground. The guy was in the drivers seat behind the wheel when he was removed from the vehicle.


Originally posted by Mastermook
Even if he had touched the officers ankle, how does that warrant a beat down with a nightstick?


Again changing the info to paint a picture. The store clerk did not say the guy touched the Officers ankle, what he said was


The convenience store owner, Joel Platke, says the officer was off-duty working security at the store when the young man came in and caused a disturbance. He says what the video doesn't show is the young man grabbing at the officer's ankles. Platke says he believes the officer did nothing wrong.


and the answer to your question there, does it warrant a deployed baton, I will say yes and no to that. Some officers carry backup duty weapons, and that is one area. Even if the guy on the ground did not know there was the possibility of a weapon on the officers aside from his duty weapon, you still latched on. There is a HUGE difference between touching, and grabbing / latching on.

What I find disturbing in some of these cases is the manner in which people, who seem to hate law enforcement no matter what, will condemn the officers reactions while completely ignoring the fact the officer was assaulted. If you don't want to get hit, don't latch onto an officer while being detained. If you dont want to get hit, then comply with verbal commands. Complying or failure to comply is not the dault of the Officer, but the person the officer is giving the verbal commands to.

If that Officer had an ankle holster, he would have been justified in shooting the guy right then and there.


Originally posted by Mastermook
Did he accidentally hit the ankle, did he intentionally hit the ankle? Was he really going to cause damage by hitting the ankle with his finger or hand?


What was intentional or unintentional is actually irrelevant in this case. The guy refused verbal commands and in the process resisted arrest and assaulted the officer. Have you ever had your ankle kicked, hit or sustained any direct contact from an item with force behind it? Its pretty easy to disable a person by targeting their ankle, kneecap and other strategic pressure points / joints.

RSMo 565.080 - Assault on Emergency Personnel 1st Degree


Originally posted by Mastermook
Talk about comment sense here. That cop should be sued and relieved of duty pending investigation. That was uncalled for. You can get assault charges for telling a cop to shut up? Come on. If that cop felt his life was in danger at that moment, maybe he isn't fit to be an officer.


Common sense should of told the kid not be be go into a conveince store and cause a disturbance. Common sense should of told the kid not to continue the inicident into the parking lot. Common sense should of told the kid to follow the directions of the Officer present who was giving commands. Common sense should of told the kid not to resist a lawful detention / arrest.

Example: If a Law Enforcement Officer makes a valid contact, as in this case since it was a disturbance and the officer was present and working on behalf of the property manager, then you have no choice but to comply. If this officer told the kid to step out of the car, and the kid refused, he is resisting a lawful detention / arrest, which is an arrestable offense.

Passive resitance is one thing. When the person being arrested decides to take action to make the detention / arrest more difficult, he moved from one charge, resisting arrest, into a second charge of assault since his actions were no longer passive.

Do I condone the Officers use of the Baton? I will reserve my judgment on that and let the investigation run its course. I gurantee you the Police Department knows who the officer is, since they know where the incident took place. Since its an ongoing investigation, the Police do not have to release any information until the investigation is concluded. In this case I would imagine there will be multiple departments involved. An outside agency to conduct and offical investigation, and a paralell one done by the agency for policy violations.



Originally posted by Mastermook
Possible reason no one did anything?? Again, because if you say anything to a cop, He'll most likely tell you to screw off and not tell him how to do his job, or 2 detain or arrest you for interfering.


I love these answers.. Tell you what, take some time and research law enforcement, how laws work at the state level, and how they work at the Federal level, then come back and tell me how this works. All I see are people throwing legal terms around with absolutely no idea how it works.

I see comments berating the police for their actions that violate constitutional rights, while at the very same time you guyshave no issues stripping those same rights from law enforcement officers.

I was not present at this, and neither were you or Psyche. We do not have the entire story, as the article on the incident clearly show. Another item of intrest I will point out that people are ignoring is the fact there has been on complaint filed by any victim. The Police department stated in the release that their investigation started when the video showed up on youtube.

How many people would file immidiate complaints against the officer and the department for actions like this? I think its telling there is no personal complaint file by a "victem" as of yet. Absent the victem coming forward and pressing charges / filing a complaint, no crime has been comitted.

If a person does come forward it will trigger a Civil rights investigation along with criminal investigations, followed by civil.

The US Supreme Court is very clear on the use of force vy Officers. The manner in which these incident can be viewed is only what was occuring at the exact moment the officer used force. 20/20 hindsight cannot be used, what if cannot be brought up.

Its clear on how use of force is reviewed and used in court. What did the officer perceive at the exact momeny force was used. The other thing to keep in mind is we did not see where the officer deployed the baton. A Baton is not considered deadly force unless deliberatly used against the head with the intention of striking the head.

It is used on muscle groups, and is a hard impact option for use of force. If the guy latched onto the officers legs, and refused to let go, its possible the officer deployed the baton against arms/shoulders to break the grip, or to secondary groups (leg muscle) in a distraction technique, which we use to "change the channel" of the person.

If the officer was deploying the strikes against the guys arms, and the guys moves and takes a hit to the face, its a valid hit, and is a direct result of the suspect and not the officer.

This is why I get irritated. People do not understand their right, how they work and when they are valid and when they are curtailed by law enforcement actions. A valid detention / arrest is a seizure under the 4th amendment, which means the guy in the car had no ability to resist, not comply etc etc. In Missouri a person cannot resist an unlawful arrest. It must be dealt with in courts.

So before you warm up the drumhead, let the investigation take its course. Lets wait and see if the suspect/victem comes forward to file charges. My guess is going to be there wont be any complaints coming from the kid, since he will most likely face charges as well.

Anyt questions on how use of force, arrests, etc work? I will be more than happy to attempt to answer questions. Please though, drop the rhetoric about guilt and charging the cop etc. We wont have an answer for that until either the suspect/victem come forward, or the department finds a policy violation.
edit on 5-1-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)
edit on 5-1-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 09:58 PM
link   
In lamens terms: Federal Supreme Court ruling for the use of Force for Law Enforcement as well as a Private Individual. This sets the standard, and alost all States laws covering the use of force fall within the scope of this Supreme Court Rulings. Several states have contradicitons under their state constitutions in terms of deadly force and Federal Rulings on it.

An example would be a person writing a bad check, which is a Felony. Some states have laws that allow an Officer to use deadly force to stop and apprehend a person writing a bad check because its a Felony. This is in obvious contradiciton to Tenn Vs. Garner, and because it is, its noted in Law Enfordcement manuals suggesting the use of federal ruling.

In Missouri, the crime of tresspassing is when a person is told to leave property by an individual who has lawful control over that property. FAilure to elave property allows the person to use whatever force neccissary, minus deadly force, to forcibly remove that person from property. This also includes the use of force to detain an individual, either by police by agreement or private security / individual, who refuses to leave property. A tresspass citation can be signed by the property manager, and the person can be cited and released with a court date, or taken and booked into jail.

This is what the Supremes say.


The Supreme Court has ruled that, depending on the circumstances, if an offender resists arrest, police officers may use as much force as is reasonably required to overcome the resistance. Whether the force is reasonable is determined by the judgment of a reasonable officer at the scene, rather than by hindsight. Because police officers can find themselves in dangerous or rapidly changing situations where split second decisions are necessary, the judgment of someone at the scene is vital when looking back at the actions of a police officer.

The Supreme Court has defined the "objective reasonableness" standard as a balance between the rights of the person being arrested and the government interests that allow the use of force. The Fourth Amendment protects U.S. citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures, the category into which an arrest falls. The Supreme Court has said that a search and seizure is reasonable if it is based on probable cause and if it does not unreasonably intrude on the rights and privacy of the individual. This standard does not question a police officer's intent or motivation for using deadly force during an arrest; it only looks at the situation as it has happened.

For deadly force to be constitutional when an arrest is taking place, it must be the reasonable choice under all the circumstances at the time. Therefore, deadly force should be looked at as an option that is used when it is believed that no other action will succeed. The Model Penal Code, although not adopted in all states, restricts police action regarding deadly force. According to the code, officers should not use deadly force unless the action will not endanger innocent bystanders, the suspect used deadly force in committing the crime, or the officers believe a delay in arrest may result in injury or death to other people.

Circumstances that are taken into consideration are the severity of the offense, how much of a threat the suspect poses, and the suspect's attempts to resist or flee the police officer. When arresting someone for a misdemeanor, the police have the right to shoot the alleged offender only in self-defense. If an officer shoots a suspect accused of a misdemeanor for a reason other than self-defense, the officer can be held liable for criminal charges and damages for injuries to the suspect. This standard was demonstrated in the Iowa case of Klinkel v. Saddler, 211 Iowa 368, 233 N.W. 538 (1930), where a sheriff faced a wrongful death lawsuit because he had killed a misdemeanor suspect during an arrest. The sheriff said he had used deadly force to defend himself, and the court ruled in his favor.

When police officers are arresting someone for a felony, the courts have given them a little more leeway. The police may use all the force that is necessary to overcome resistance, even if that means killing the person they are trying to arrest. However, if it is proved that an officer used more force than was necessary, the officer can be held criminally and civilly liable. In Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 105 S. Ct. 1694, 85 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1985), the Supreme Court ruled that it is a violation of the Fourth Amendment for police officers to use deadly force to stop fleeing felony suspects who are nonviolent and unarmed. The decision, with an opinion written by Justice Byron R. White, said, in part, "We conclude that such force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."

When deadly force is used by a private citizen, the reasonableness rule does not apply. The citizen must be able to prove that a felony occurred or was being attempted, and that the felony threatened death or bodily harm. Mere suspicion of a felony is considered an insufficient ground for a private citizen to use deadly force.




edit on 5-1-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 01:33 AM
link   
Watch the video again:

Where is the suspect resisting arrest??

www.youtube.com...

He was thrown onto the ground, he did not move, he was then struck i counted 7 times in the back.
Still not moving, he was then pepper sprayed and detained

flexyourrights.org...
It is not illegal, but if the police see you videotaping them, they will usually respond aggressively, and quite often arrest you.

I would like to hear honestly, from the cops or ex cops on this forum. Would you give somebody a hard time for videotaping you, during an incident, though not interfering.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 02:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mastermook

I would like to hear honestly, from the cops or ex cops on this forum. Would you give somebody a hard time for videotaping you, during an incident, though not interfering.


Xcathdra is a cop.

Read his posts and see if they inspire any confidence.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 02:48 AM
link   
why isnt every officer fitted with a camera sown in to the jacket/vest/shirt . modern day apparatus with grps or wifi cant weigh more then a small mobile phone , and i bet it can be implemented ergonomicly without any interfarence to movement,and with induction technology the battery would recharge it self everytime when seated in/on a vehicle

i mean , when they are in uniform they are representing federal/state property/entity which are paid by the public ,

officers refusing being taped is like destroying/denying evidence in a sence , which to is obstruction of justice if that even exists , i mean how can they deny reality , and besides its a public service meaning its a public job ,.
its not like they can deny what they do , ...

heck part of their proccedure is to identify them selfs,..










edit on 6-1-2011 by zerbot565 because: spelling bee



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 03:04 AM
link   
reply to post by zerbot565
 


This is already being worked on.

Axon

A device manufactured by the same corporation that produces CEDs (Conducted Energy-Devices). Otherwise known as the 'Taser'.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mastermook
Watch the video again:

Where is the suspect resisting arrest??


Refusing to obey a lawful command is resiting arrest. When the driuver was removed from the vehicle and taken to the ground, an eyewitness, the gas station attendant, stated the guy grabbed the officers ankles, which is resisting n arrest as well as an assault on emergency personell.


Originally posted by Mastermook
www.youtube.com...

He was thrown onto the ground, he did not move, he was then struck i counted 7 times in the back.
Still not moving, he was then pepper sprayed and detained



I didnt realize you had exray vision since the recording of the incdent only shows the actions that took place above the hood of the car. The moment the guy went to the ground, there is nothing on the video that shows that you are stating a fact. It does not show the individual so we dont know if he was moving or not on the ground.

The term you are using is called leap of logic, which draws what is supposedly a logical conclusion to actions that are not in evidence or fact, and are not always accurate.

Can you provide your secondary video source that confirms your claims?


Originally posted by Mastermook
flexyourrights.org...
It is not illegal, but if the police see you videotaping them, they will usually respond aggressively, and quite often arrest you.


Oh please.. quit fearmongering and grandstanding for the thread. It is not illegal to film Police while in public. While a gas station is private property, the parking lot is open to the public, and at no point were these people recording ever told to stop their actions. The number of witnesses present and the ations taken towards them, which was zero, derails the argument that something would have happened to the kid recording. If they were going to arrest him, they would have to arrest everyone else, and this never occured. The officer paid no attnetion to them or their actions because of what he wa dealing with.

You really need to quit taking incidents and converting them into an everyday norm when its not true or supported in fact,

and again your conclusions are a leap of logic and are not supported by the video.


Originally posted by Mastermook
I would like to hear honestly, from the cops or ex cops on this forum. Would you give somebody a hard time for videotaping you, during an incident, though not interfering.


As a Police Officer no I would not. I have told media and bystanders who were present to get out of the way, and I have come close to arresting media for ignoring a command by sneaking back to the location I told them to move from. If they want to record and it poses no danger to them, myself, the scene intgrity and in no way shape or form tampers with witness, victims or evidence, I got better things to do than worry about them.

Aside from the above, I can count on one hand only one incident where I had to turn my focus to an uninvolved 3rd party who was recording what was going on. This individual got my attention not because he was recording, but because he was verbally taunting a person I was trying to interview near my patrol car. The person recording was told multiple times to shut up, and the last straw was when he entered and stood in the middle of the sreet and continued to lip off towards my interview subject.

I am sure their is video somewhere that shows me entering the street and escorting this individual back to the sidewalk and hving a coming to jesus talk with him about his actions followed up with a threat that if he entered the street one more time to record, he would be cited for obstructing the flow of traffic, failing to use a cross walk and obstruction.

I left him there and returned back to my task, but at no point did I ever tell him to stop recording, nor did I threaten to arrest him for video recording.


Back to the video.. It does not show all of the events that transpired. It does not show what occured on the ground. It does not show the drivers actions while on the ground. It does not show what led up to the incident, nor does it show what took place after the incident since the people recording left.

The witness from the gas station said the guy came in and caused a disturbance. He also stated that the guy grabbed the officers ankle once on the ground.

As I stated many posts back - Should this incident be investigated? ABSOLUTELY

From a department review of the officers actions to make sure he was within policy.
A Criminal investigation? No, UNLESS the individual who was shown in the video being hit by the officer comes forward and files a criminal complaint aganist the officer.

Absent Domestic Violence laws which do not require the cooperation of a victim, failure to come forward and file a criminal complaint effectivley ends any criminal investigation.

Since the video does not adequately record the verbal exchange, or show what occured on the ground, it would be prudent to track down the individual from the car to interview him to find out if he was threatened in any manner against filing criminal charges or complaining about his treatment.

Based on my experience when comments like that are made by an officer to an individual usually has the complete opposite effect, where they immediately go and file a complaint and lawsuit against the officer.


The video does not show the entire incident. It does not allow us to hear the verbal exchange. It does not show us what transpired prior to contact, or anything after contact.

Let all of the facts come out and go from there. If the cop was in the wrong then by all means yank his POST and chuck his ass in jail if convicted. If the kid was in the wrong and took actions against the officer, then by all means charge him and fine / chuck his ass in jail if convicted.

Absent the above occuring, no one knows the entire story and are basing their arguments off personal opinion and a lack of understanding on how the law works, up to and including use of force.
edit on 6-1-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by Mastermook

I would like to hear honestly, from the cops or ex cops on this forum. Would you give somebody a hard time for videotaping you, during an incident, though not interfering.


Xcathdra is a cop.

Read his posts and see if they inspire any confidence.


Care to qualify your statement? I think I have demonstrated on many occasions in these forums that when it comes to wrong doing by officers / suspects to allow benefiet of the doubt, warning to let investigations run their course for the entire story to come out, and have taken the time to explain the law, how it works, is applied, process used along with other information in an attempt to help others understand the thought process that occurs in these situations.I have sided with people when officers actions were cleary in the wrong.

What exactly is your concern with me being in Law Enforcement or the manner in which I do my job?
edit on 6-1-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 08:44 AM
link   
Heres the fun part and you have the ability as well. You can wiretap and observe them as well but without devices.

Remote Viewing is primitive



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 08:47 AM
link   
Remember the death of Ian Tomlinson at the G20 in London?
I'd predicted on these pages that 'some' official surveillance cameras in London would be out of commission that day, or footage would be 'lost.'
Strangely, the ones near the Tomlinson incident we not working. Had there not been civilian footage of his treatment his death would have been swept under the rug and little said about it.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by zerbot565
 


For the most part we are. From Dash cam to audio mics in the car and on our bodies. Some agencies in other states are fitting duty weapons with audio / video. The newer Tasers have camera / audio built into the front that activate the momeny the device is turned on (not deployed, by turned on).

A city in California is testing video equipment on the Officers.

This is why the argument people make in these forums go beyond common sense and delve into the realm of extreme paranoia. Law Enforcement is already wired from head to toe. There are procedures in place that do not allow officers access to their own equipment so it cannot be tampered with in any fashion. This footage has been ruled as evidence by the Supreme Court and is submitted with reports when incidents do occur.

Hell the systems in the vehicles also track GPS coordinates, our speed, whether our lights and siren or both are activated, braking information etc etc.

An agencies refusal to allow video / audio footage to be released to the public is not an effort to hide anything (at least in most cases). Since the video / audio is actual evidence, it is treated as such. Police arent going to release a gun or other evidence to the public, and this is no different.

Its an ongoing investigation, and because of that anything done that can jeopradize evidence, impartiality etc will cause more harm than goodm and can actually cause a person to walk because the argument can be made there was an effort to try to the case in the public arena instead of a courtroom.

That pesky right to a fair trial and due process issues.....



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Badgered1
 


Are you sure about the cameras not working? I thought the Police intially stated there were no cameras period in the area, and only after having 6 camera spointed out did the IPCC reverse there statement and confirm there was video footage of the incident.

There is a wikipedia entry for the incident that has the info I typed above.

G20 Incident



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Xcathdra, I agree with your point about resisting arrest but in this case we are talking about an off-duty police officer working as a security guard. I won't even attempt to guess at what a security guard is able to do - but I would expect it would not exceed the rights of a normal civilian. If you showed up on this scene and the 'drunk' stated he was beaten 7-8 time on the back and legs with a night club and the security guard was not an off-duty police officer - would you ask him if he wanted to press charges for assault?



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by ararisq
 


It would depend on my investigaton and the evidence. It could be possible the drunk, who was beaten, started the fight and lost. He could be making the entire thing up. He could be angleing for a lawsuit. He could have just fallen due to intoxication etc etc.

The other side is why did the officer take the action he did in your scenario (private security officer / police officer). Going back to the standard, what occured at the exact moment the officer use force?

Where did the incident take place? etc etc etc.

There is a difference between a night stick and a collapsible baton (thick wood vs hollow metal).

We dont know where the deployed strikes landed in the video, since it was out of camaera view. People again are assuming that his back was the target with no way to back that up. Deploying an asp on a person is specific. The targets are muscle groups, not the back nor the head (if the person tries to evade and an out of bounds area is hit, its documented but not a violation).

First and foremost, a thorough investigation must be done. All parties interviewed, witnesses located and interviewed, evidence collection (collected video by people with cell phones / collected video from any security / atm / cctv cameras in the area to see if any one of them caught the incident.

Is there evidence of drug / alcohol influence on either side? Is there any indiciation of diminished mental capacity not cause by alcohol or drugs. Is there any evidence of a medical condition that was a factor. If there is a medical / psychiatric issue present, were they on their meds? If they took their meds is there any other element present that enhances or alters the drugs effects?

Is their any type of history between the 2 parties? What was the altercation over? How did the 2 come into contact with each other at the time and place the incident occured. Are there any people who were involved that instigated the altercation? Was the person who was beaten armed when the incident occured (and weapon can be gun, rocks, knives, shoes, flashlight etc etc).

Can the information provided by either party be confirmed? Was the use of force justifiable based on the evidence collected?

As I said its not as simple as people want to make it out to be..The video footage does not show the entire story.

Until the above questions are answered through investigations, all the video shows is a guy being taken out of a car by someone in a uniform. It shows the guy being taken to the ground. It shows the officer moving around, pulling his baton and deploying it towards something out of camera view. It shows the officer pulling pepper spray but does not show if it was deployed or not. If it was it does not show the area it was deployed to on the person.

Until both parties are located and talked to, absolutely no crime was comiited because there is no wronged party who wants to press charges.

If an investigation does occur and its determined the officer used excessive force etc etc, then by all means, charge him and let the courts take care of it. If an investigation occurs and its determined the guy who was hit performed any action that that violated law, then by all means let the courts take care of him.

Until this happens, none of us in this thread have any idea of what actually occured and why.

The video does not tell the entire story.
edit on 6-1-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Badgered1
Remember the death of Ian Tomlinson at the G20 in London?
I'd predicted on these pages that 'some' official surveillance cameras in London would be out of commission that day, or footage would be 'lost.'
Strangely, the ones near the Tomlinson incident we not working. Had there not been civilian footage of his treatment his death would have been swept under the rug and little said about it.



Here's the video footage of Tomlinson's death.
www.youtube.com...





new topics
top topics
 
89
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join