Officer Threatens To Beat Up Man And Plant Cocaine On Him - Video

Originally posted by Slugworth
reply to post by Malcher

 

The videos audio is pretty bad. We dont know what transpired before this happened, in other words where is the rest of the video?

What could have possibly happened that would justify a threat of planting evidence? Is there any reason for a law-abiding officer to suggest that?

See below.

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed

Originally posted by Malcher
The videos audio is pretty bad. We dont know what transpired before this happened, in other words where is the rest of the video or did he start filming at that point?

I cant imagine how a video that shows one side of the story gets considered as evidence. The recent stream of videos is like reading a book with 50 percent of the pages torn out.

edit on 22-5-2013 by Malcher because: (no reason given)

Could you think of any scenario leading up to that video that would justify the officer's actions?

I sure can't.

People (not necessarily you, but people in general) should stop automatically assuming that since the cop looks like he is in the wrong that there MUST be more to the story, since police officers are always right, and can do no wrong

edit on 5/22/2013 by Corruption Exposed because: (no reason given)

A lot could have happened prior to that video, that is the whole point. With the bad audio and beeps i cannot make out much of what is being said. Also, saying something is not a crime, if that was even said because some people are disputing that point and to be honest i couldnt really make most of it out anyway.

You would not view this as getting the complete story if the roles were reversed.

i love how scared the policeman is, "if you see me off duty u walk the other way", uniform or not , any "officer" talks to me like that and they will soon see how i feel, u only get pushed around if u dont stand up for urself, recording videos wont teach these scum the lesson they need, a good old fashioned can off ass-whoop to remind them not everyone will take their bull#, and if 1 person fights back they might not be so quick to harrass the public next time, anyon who thinks the law is there to serve is needs a slap, the law wouldnt exist if there was no way of corrupting it.

reply to post by Malcher


My best advice is to plug in some earphones (if possible) and listen to the audio while not looking at the text that "The Star" provides in their version of the video.

In my opinion what is being said is very clear, and there is no excuse for it no matter which context, or what lead up to the situation.

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
reply to post by Malcher

 

My best advice is to plug in some earphones (if possible) and listen to the audio while not looking at the text that "The Star" provides in their version of the video.

In my opinion what is being said is very clear, and there is no excuse for it no matter which context, or what lead up to the situation.

The video is edited, i cannot hear the audio good and i am listening with headphones.

reply to post by Malcher

A lot could have happened prior to that video, that is the whole point.

No, the point is that it does not matter what happened before, during, or after the video. Planting evidence is illegal.

Also, saying something is not a crime

Yes it is, if that being said is a threat.
Criminal Code

either way this officer probably mixes in the wrong crowds, sooner or later he will try this on some gang banger with nothing to lose and end up in a ditch

Originally posted by Slugworth
reply to post by Malcher

 

A lot could have happened prior to that video, that is the whole point.

No, the point is that it does not matter what happened before, during, or after the video. Planting evidence is illegal.

Also, saying something is not a crime

Yes it is, if that being said is a threat.
Criminal Code

I dont live in Canada so their laws i am not familiar of or would even attempt to comment on. Threats of imprisonment or even "trumped up" charges are very common and used in law enforcement. They use them in interviews of criminal suspects, for that matter just stating something to the effect "were gonna get you for (insert infraction here)" can be viewed as a threat.

Another example, someone tells you "Joe said he wants to fight you" and you respond "I am gonna punch Joe" or "I will kick Joe's ***" Would you expect the person to go to the authorities and have you arrested? The cops will say "did he actually punch Joe?"

reply to post by Malcher

I dont live in Canada so their laws i am not familiar of or would even attempt to comment on.

Can you read and understand Canadian English? Do you need me to translate the very clearly worded criminal code into American English?

Threats of imprisonment or even "trumped up" charges are very common and used in law enforcement.

The threat of arresting him is not the criminal part. It is all of the other threats that violated the law. Read the law.

Uttering threats

264.1 (1) Every one commits an offence who, in any manner, knowingly utters, conveys or causes any person to receive a threat
(a) to cause death or bodily harm to any person;
(b) to burn, destroy or damage real or personal property; or
(c) to kill, poison or injure an animal or bird that is the property of any person.

Assault

265. (1) A person commits an assault when
(a) without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly;
(b) he attempts or threatens, by an act or a gesture, to apply force to another person, if he has, or causes that other person to believe on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose; or
(c) while openly wearing or carrying a weapon or an imitation thereof, he accosts or impedes another person or begs.

Application

(2) This section applies to all forms of assault, including sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon, threats to a third party or causing bodily harm and aggravated sexual assault.
Consent

(3) For the purposes of this section, no consent is obtained where the complainant submits or does not resist by reason of
(a) the application of force to the complainant or to a person other than the complainant;
(b) threats or fear of the application of force to the complainant or to a person other than the complainant;
(c) fraud; or
(d) the exercise of authority.

Criminal Code

I can read very well, not so sure about Canadian English though.

You quoted a law that encompasses bodily injury and actual physical assault.

Things said in the heat of the moment are often disregarded.

reply to post by Malcher

You quoted a law that encompasses bodily injury and actual physical assault

This is incorrect. I quoted a law that includes "Uttering Threats" at the very top, and defines them in such a way that the officers actions would qualify. Additionally, the definition of assault includes:

(b) he attempts or threatens, by an act or a gesture, to apply force to another person, if he has, or causes that other person to believe on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose;

The officer threatened, in act AND gesture, to apply force to another person. It is reasonable to assume that the other person had not committed a crime that would allow the officer to act in defense of the law, given that he was not arrested and the cop gave no indication that he was in a mood to do him any favors.

Truth is .. this is street life .. and this kind of police brutality and abuse happens with equally tough guys on the receiving end .. they will cancel each other out in their own way.
They will run into each other on the streets again and one will eventually do the other in and it will be over ..
This pig was definitely oinking out of line ..should have grabbed his badge # and sued ..already have video evidence .. what you waiting for ..?

Originally posted by Slugworth
reply to post by Malcher

 

You quoted a law that encompasses bodily injury and actual physical assault

This is incorrect. I quoted a law that includes "Uttering Threats" at the very top, and defines them in such a way that the officers actions would qualify. Additionally, the definition of assault includes:

Re-read 264.1 points a, b and c.

Also, there is something in law called "spontaneous utterance"

reply to post by Malcher

Re-read 264.1 points a, b and c.

264.1 (1) Every one commits an offence who, in any manner, knowingly utters, conveys or causes any person to receive a threat
(a) to cause death or bodily harm to any person;

In the video the officer says:

I hurt people . . . and then I make their coc aine f****** appear, . . . You see how I work. . . . See what I do

Seems pretty clear to me that he violated (a). Points B and C are irrelevant to this event.

Also, there is something in law called "spontaneous utterance"

I don't think the officer's words would qualify as such, but even if they do it doesn't help him at all.

An excited utterance, in the law of evidence, is a statement made by a person in response to a startling or shocking event or condition. It is an unplanned reaction to a "startling event". It is an exception to the hearsay rule.[1] The statement must be spontaneously made by the person (the declarant) while still under the stress of excitement from the event or condition. The subject matter and content of the statement must "relate to" event or condition. The statement could be a description or explanation (as required for present sense impression), or an opinion or inference. Examples include: "Look out! We're going to crash!" or "I think he's crazy. He's shooting at us!" The basis for this hearsay exception is the belief that a statement made under the stress is likely to be trustworthy and unlikely to be premeditated falsehoods. Compared to present sense impression, excited utterance is broader in scope for permitting a longer time lapse between event and statement, and a wider range of content in the statement...Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, an excited utterance is a hearsay exception, and is admissible to prove the truth of the statement itself .

Excited Utterance

Which is why i said we dont know what transpired prior to the camera starting. The video is too edited, starts and stops, to really give an unbiased comment on and would\may fall under the realm of "spontaneous utterance" aka "excited utterance".

Originally posted by MrJohnSmith
reply to post by Corruption Exposed

 

Respectfully, we don't have the antecedence to this scenario. This doesn't excuse the officers threats or bad language, but when the police have to deal with the dregs of society every day, they are only human.

I think the officer here was reinforcing a point to make himself very clear to the citizen, but going about it the wrong way..

Some people will always strain to excuse any misconduct by their civil servants! Unbelievable! Are you a cop? Are there cops in your family? Do you have cop friend who do this sort of thing?

The old "we have not seen what preceded this officer's bad behavior, therefore I conclude that he was probably fully justified in doing and saying everything the he did and said as seen in that misleading video" excuse is about as lame as you can get under the circumstances shown in that video.

There is nothing misleading about the video, except maybe the cop-friendly deletions via "beeps" and redactions. We can plainly see and hear that this guy is unfit to be clothed with color of any law enforcement authority, to wear a uniform, a badge, possess a police officer I.D., carry a weapon.

The cop's behavior breeds disrespect and hatred for law enforcement.

The same goes for the other cop who was present quietly watching the entire disgusting interaction. His fellow officer was committing a crime in his presence. Yet he took no action to intervene. He should have arrested and handcuffed his fellow a**hole cop right there on the spot.

I conclude that his department is corrupt if he still has a job representing government at any level.

The POS in this video needs his arse kicked in a seriously bad way. When cops sink to this level they are in fact a much worse degree of criminal than the criminals they are meant to arrest. When a person entrusted with a responsibility to serve their community does so in a manner that is full of contempt, corruption, and malfeasance there is not a punishment fitting their degree of crime.

Personally if this had occurred at my house and the pig was on video/audio making threats to me of this nature the shelf would hit the fan. I have a constitutionally declared right to defend myself from tyranny and I would not hesitate to invoke that right. Sure I may find myself in quite the legal battle before it was all said and done but I would much rather be judged by 12 of my peers than carried by 6.

The sooner people set aside their fear of these thugs and the system that they serve the sooner we will be able to rid our society of these thugs with badges. Here in America we are brainwashed into believing that we are free, however no man can ever call himself free and truly live in liberty when we are at the mercy of tyrants such as this.

I think this is another result of the War on Drugs, in order to catch the criminals these officers need to think and act like the criminals they pursue. If we took the drugs out of the thugs hands, Police, DEA, FBI, CIA, Mafia, we could start restoring some civility to this world and take the money thats made off these things and put it to good use as a form of balance.

Just remember this, the universe naturally restores everything back to balance, it has to in order to exist.

reply to post by bigfootgurl
Wow. I don't usually promote the murder of human beings, but this guy should be flat out killed and his corpse defecated on in front of his mother. Actually, he should be horribly tortured for several weeks then killed. I sincerely hope he gets bone cancer and suffers a long, slow agonizing demise. Not only is he a corrupt police officer, but he is also just an awful, awful person. I would walk into his funeral and spit right in his dead face.



Im usually not up for encouraging violence but this guy needs to have a mob of citizens find him and drag him behind a car and hung up on display. The amazing part is the cop will probably be let off with a slap of the wrist, which is quite sick

Wow, it sucks that police officers have to be like that.

Around here (NE Oklahoma) most of the cops, not all of them, but a lot of them are that kind of person. A lot of them were too fat to get into the military, so they become a cop and try to be a tough guy. There should be a battery of questions designed to find out if this person would go on a power trip, and that battery should be mandatory for anyone seeking to be a law enforcement officer. I think they should also have to see a psychiatrist before they're hired.

I don't know if it would work, but it seems like they don't do anything to determine a prospective LEO's demeanor.

Originally posted by Slugworth
I think it is probable that the bald guy is a dope dealer, and the cop wants his cut. He is insulted that the guy isn't paying his tribute. There is one word that is incorrectly transcribed from the audio. At 1:40 they quote the officer as saying "appear", but in the context it makes more sense if he says "disappear".

I hurt people and then I make their cocain **** (dis)appear

The context that I am referring to is the way that, later in the video (6:00) the officer says:

You see me again you....Yes sir, no sir, three bags full, whatever the **** you want.

He is obviously telling the victim what he wants to hear from him when he sees him again, speaking from the victim's perspective. This is apparent because of the vulgar suggestion that he makes immediately following that line, and the backflip comment. In the context the bald guy is the one who is giving up the three bags full of something, else the cop is suggesting that he would like to perform a sex act and do a backflip on the victim should they meet again. This makes no sense, so I am inclined that he is telling the victim to have his three bags ready for him if he sees him again. The captions are from the source uncensored video, so the guy who captioned it may have chosen to use "appear" insted of "disappear" to avoid the implication that the bald guy is a dealer.

Even if the cop did say that he could make the drugs "appear" it pretty much incriminates him as a drug user or dealer because it means he has drugs available to plant on people. It means he is robbing dealers for their drugs.

The cop either has a habit, or he re-sells the dope to another dealer. The way he is acting I would suspect he likes to powder his nose, and he supplies his habit by shaking down guys like this. He thinks the guy is holding out on him, and the references to "chirping" (disrespecting) suggest that the cop is tired of hearing excuses of why he has nothing for him.

Cop is a criminal who should be locked up. However the "three bags full" is from a nursery rhyme and in common use means "everything he wants" and not a specific reference to drugs.