The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

KOTV: "The highway patrol isn't sure yet if Trooper Williams was driving with his emergency strobes or siren activated or if his dashboard camera was running when the accident happened."
http://www.kotv.com/news/local/story/?id=140803

"Initial reports indicate that the woman pulled out from a convenience store and was trying to turn left in front of the trooper. Her car was hit near the driver's door."  (Tulsa World)

My question would have been the issue with night vision related to the victim having just pulled out of a brightly-lit gas station onto a dark country road.

Channel 8 is reporting both lights and siren were on:

http://www.ktul.com/news/stories/1107/476866.html

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wilbur

Channel 8 is reporting both lights and siren were on

---

...as did everyone else who quoted the OHP spokeswoman's initial statement.

quote:

---

Originally posted by patric

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wilbur

Channel 8 is reporting both lights and siren were on

---

...as did everyone else who quoted the OHP spokeswoman's initial statement.

---

knowing quite a few troopers personally, I can say once they turn on the lights their dash cam already goes into record mode and their body mic (if they are wearing it) is turned on.  So if his lights were on, the camera was recording and vise versa.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TUalum0982

I can say once they turn on the lights their dash cam already goes into record mode and their body mic (if they are wearing it) is turned on.  So if his lights were on, the camera was recording and vise versa.

---

Yup, that's how I understand it.
So an absence of dashcam video documenting the crash might imply what?

quote:

---

Originally posted by patric

quote:

---

Originally posted by TUalum0982

I can say once they turn on the lights their dash cam already goes into record mode and their body mic (if they are wearing it) is turned on.  So if his lights were on, the camera was recording and vise versa.

---

Yup, that's how I understand it.
So an absence of dashcam video documenting the crash might imply what?

---

Coverup?

quote:

---

Originally posted by wavoka

quote:

---

Originally posted by patric

quote:

---

Originally posted by TUalum0982

I can say once they turn on the lights their dash cam already goes into record mode and their body mic (if they are wearing it) is turned on.  So if his lights were on, the camera was recording and vise versa.

---

Yup, that's how I understand it.
So an absence of dashcam video documenting the crash might imply what?

---

Coverup?

---

WINNAR!!!! something just doesnt seem right with this situation.  In the absence of no dashcam, one would have to believe he didnt have his lights on.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TUalum0982

quote:

---

Originally posted by wavoka

quote:

---

Originally posted by patric

quote:

---

Originally posted by TUalum0982

I can say once they turn on the lights their dash cam already goes into record mode and their body mic (if they are wearing it) is turned on.  So if his lights were on, the camera was recording and vise versa.

---

Yup, that's how I understand it.
So an absence of dashcam video documenting the crash might imply what?

---

Coverup?

---

WINNAR!!!! something just doesnt seem right with this situation.  In the absence of no dashcam, one would have to believe he didnt have his lights on.

---

And just how did we jump to that conclusion?
  Your personal investigation has revealed what?  Your knowledge of the facts has determined what?  Your discussions with investigators has found what?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wilbur

quote:

---

Originally posted by TUalum0982

quote:

---

Originally posted by wavoka

quote:

---

Originally posted by patric

quote:

---

Originally posted by TUalum0982

I can say once they turn on the lights their dash cam already goes into record mode and their body mic (if they are wearing it) is turned on.  So if his lights were on, the camera was recording and vise versa.

---

Yup, that's how I understand it.
So an absence of dashcam video documenting the crash might imply what?

---

Coverup?

---

WINNAR!!!! something just doesnt seem right with this situation.  In the absence of no dashcam, one would have to believe he didnt have his lights on.

---

And just how did we jump to that conclusion?
  Your personal investigation has revealed what?  Your knowledge of the facts has determined what?  Your discussions with investigators has found what?

---

Well process of elimination would lend us to believe that in order for the dashcam to be on, he either has to activate his lights, or turn it on himself and his dashcam wasnt on, then that would lead me to believe that he didnt have his lights on. Unless he reached up himself to turn off the recording but that would go against policy.  So I am not implying there was a coverup, quite frankly I dont care either way, but I am pretty confident that if his lights were on, the dashcam would have been recording.  I thought that was common knowledge.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TUalum0982

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wilbur

quote:

---

Originally posted by TUalum0982

quote:

---

Originally posted by wavoka

quote:

---

Originally posted by patric

quote:

---

Originally posted by TUalum0982

I can say once they turn on the lights their dash cam already goes into record mode and their body mic (if they are wearing it) is turned on.  So if his lights were on, the camera was recording and vise versa.

---

Yup, that's how I understand it.
So an absence of dashcam video documenting the crash might imply what?

---

Coverup?

---

WINNAR!!!! something just doesnt seem right with this situation.  In the absence of no dashcam, one would have to believe he didnt have his lights on.

---

And just how did we jump to that conclusion?
  Your personal investigation has revealed what?  Your knowledge of the facts has determined what?  Your discussions with investigators has found what?

---

Well process of elimination would lend us to believe that in order for the dashcam to be on, he either has to activate his lights, or turn it on himself and his dashcam wasnt on, then that would lead me to believe that he didnt have his lights on. Unless he reached up himself to turn off the recording but that would go against policy.  So I am not implying there was a coverup, quite frankly I dont care either way, but I am pretty confident that if his lights were on, the dashcam would have been recording.  I thought that was common knowledge.

---

Do we know if:

1.  He even had a dash camera?  Not all OHP cars do.  They are very expensive.

2.  If he had a dash camera, did it have the option to automatically activate when the emergency lights are turned on?  Not all of these systems do this automatically.  Again, an issue of expense.  When Tulsa had dash cams, none of the systems did this.

If I remember correctly, he was responding to a collision.  Most officers would not activate a dash camera simply when responding to a wreck.

I don't know if his lights/siren were on the the time of the wreck, but I'm not going to scream coverup simply because there is no dash cam footage put out by OHP.  They have stepped up when one of their troopers was at-fault in a wreck in the past, so no reason not to do so again.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wilbur

quote:

---

Originally posted by TUalum0982

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wilbur

quote:

---

Originally posted by TUalum0982

quote:

---

Originally posted by wavoka

quote:

---

Originally posted by patric

quote:

---

Originally posted by TUalum0982

I can say once they turn on the lights their dash cam already goes into record mode and their body mic (if they are wearing it) is turned on.  So if his lights were on, the camera was recording and vise versa.

---

Yup, that's how I understand it.
So an absence of dashcam video documenting the crash might imply what?

---

Coverup?

---

WINNAR!!!! something just doesnt seem right with this situation.  In the absence of no dashcam, one would have to believe he didnt have his lights on.

---

And just how did we jump to that conclusion?
  Your personal investigation has revealed what?  Your knowledge of the facts has determined what?  Your discussions with investigators has found what?

---

Well process of elimination would lend us to believe that in order for the dashcam to be on, he either has to activate his lights, or turn it on himself and his dashcam wasnt on, then that would lead me to believe that he didnt have his lights on. Unless he reached up himself to turn off the recording but that would go against policy.  So I am not implying there was a coverup, quite frankly I dont care either way, but I am pretty confident that if his lights were on, the dashcam would have been recording.  I thought that was common knowledge.

---

Do we know if:

1.  He even had a dash camera?  Not all OHP cars do.  They are very expensive.

2.  If he had a dash camera, did it have the option to automatically activate when the emergency lights are turned on?  Not all of these systems do this automatically.  Again, an issue of expense.  When Tulsa had dash cams, none of the systems did this.

If I remember correctly, he was responding to a collision.  Most officers would not activate a dash camera simply when responding to a wreck.

I don't know if his lights/siren were on the the time of the wreck, but I'm not going to scream coverup simply because there is no dash cam footage put out by OHP.  They have stepped up when one of their troopers was at-fault in a wreck in the past, so no reason not to do so again.

---

1.  I have never seen an OHP car that did not have a dash cam.  When they go through their academy they get specific training on how to properly use their dash cam.  Secondly, OHP is not like TPD where alot of times they have a backer.  OHP is out working on the highways 95% of the time by themselves without a backer.  

2.  Every single OHP car equipped with a dash cam is automatically turned on when the lights are activated.  Once again, I have never seen one that doesnt do this, its standard procedure.  You can not compare the dash cams that TPD used vs the ones that OHP uses.  TPD used a Sony unit that was very expensive to buy, maintain and replace.  It was a normal sony handycam you could buy in the stores that was retrofitted to mount to the dash.  Meanwhile, the OHP use a camera that is mounted to the windshield of a car next to the rearview mirror.  It is not of a typical design like you could buy in stores.  Next time you see a trooper have someone pulled over, check out the way they are parked behind them.  They park at an angle so their in car camera system can record anything that happens.  

They typically look like this:
http://www.mobile-vision.com/products/camsmicsmonitors/nitewatchcamera.htm  

and to your comment which stated "If I remember correctly, he was responding to a collision.  Most officers would not activate a dash camera simply when responding to a wreck"

Ask any OHP officer and they will tell you, once they turn on their lights, the camera AUTOMATICALLY STARTS RECORDING unless they manually stop it.  THATS STANDARD PROCEDURE ACROSS THE BOARD FOR ANY OHP TROOPER.  I have never ever ever seen an OHP cruiser that did not have a dash cam for the reasons I explained above.  Like I said earlier, I am not saying there is a cover up, but to sit there and try to compare TPD in dash cams to that of OHP is like comparing apples to oranges.  OHP's equipment is far superior then most TPD equipment.  

Who originally put the LED light bars on their cars to better be seen? thats right, OHP.  Who followed suit 2 or so years ago? thats right, TPD.  OHP has had these mobile vision cameras in their cars for years.  They are quite handy as well, you can rewind, pause, fast forward and delete just like you can with a typical VCR all on a nice 4" sized screen or so.  


Do me a favor, the next time you get pulled over a by a trooper check two things....Is he parked at angle behind you so his camera will catch anything that would happen and secondly, does he have a camera installed next to the rear view mirror.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wilbur

They have stepped up when one of their troopers was at-fault in a wreck in the past, so no reason not to do so again.

---

OHP has gone to extraordinary lengths to avoid accountability in past at-fault wrecks, hardly what I would call 'stepping up'.
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=5058
Maybe months of going over laser-mapped evidence will again find the young mother's brakes werent "100%" or that pulling out of the blinding lights of the gas station made it more difficult to see a speeding car...  Maybe all of these factors could be true but it wont change the fact that a life was taken unnecessarily because someone was doing something they shouldnt be doing.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TUalum0982

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wilbur

quote:

---

Originally posted by TUalum0982

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wilbur

quote:

---

Originally posted by TUalum0982

quote:

---

Originally posted by wavoka

quote:

---

Originally posted by patric

quote:

---

Originally posted by TUalum0982

I can say once they turn on the lights their dash cam already goes into record mode and their body mic (if they are wearing it) is turned on.  So if his lights were on, the camera was recording and vise versa.

---

Yup, that's how I understand it.
So an absence of dashcam video documenting the crash might imply what?

---

Coverup?

---

WINNAR!!!! something just doesnt seem right with this situation.  In the absence of no dashcam, one would have to believe he didnt have his lights on.

---

And just how did we jump to that conclusion?
  Your personal investigation has revealed what?  Your knowledge of the facts has determined what?  Your discussions with investigators has found what?

---

Well process of elimination would lend us to believe that in order for the dashcam to be on, he either has to activate his lights, or turn it on himself and his dashcam wasnt on, then that would lead me to believe that he didnt have his lights on. Unless he reached up himself to turn off the recording but that would go against policy.  So I am not implying there was a coverup, quite frankly I dont care either way, but I am pretty confident that if his lights were on, the dashcam would have been recording.  I thought that was common knowledge.

---

Do we know if:

1.  He even had a dash camera?  Not all OHP cars do.  They are very expensive.

2.  If he had a dash camera, did it have the option to automatically activate when the emergency lights are turned on?  Not all of these systems do this automatically.  Again, an issue of expense.  When Tulsa had dash cams, none of the systems did this.

If I remember correctly, he was responding to a collision.  Most officers would not activate a dash camera simply when responding to a wreck.

I don't know if his lights/siren were on the the time of the wreck, but I'm not going to scream coverup simply because there is no dash cam footage put out by OHP.  They have stepped up when one of their troopers was at-fault in a wreck in the past, so no reason not to do so again.

---

1.  I have never seen an OHP car that did not have a dash cam.  When they go through their academy they get specific training on how to properly use their dash cam.  Secondly, OHP is not like TPD where alot of times they have a backer.  OHP is out working on the highways 95% of the time by themselves without a backer.  

2.  Every single OHP car equipped with a dash cam is automatically turned on when the lights are activated.  Once again, I have never seen one that doesnt do this, its standard procedure.  You can not compare the dash cams that TPD used vs the ones that OHP uses.  TPD used a Sony unit that was very expensive to buy, maintain and replace.  It was a normal sony handycam you could buy in the stores that was retrofitted to mount to the dash.  Meanwhile, the OHP use a camera that is mounted to the windshield of a car next to the rearview mirror.  It is not of a typical design like you could buy in stores.  Next time you see a trooper have someone pulled over, check out the way they are parked behind them.  They park at an angle so their in car camera system can record anything that happens.  

They typically look like this:
http://www.mobile-vision.com/products/camsmicsmonitors/nitewatchcamera.htm  

and to your comment which stated "If I remember correctly, he was responding to a collision.  Most officers would not activate a dash camera simply when responding to a wreck"

Ask any OHP officer and they will tell you, once they turn on their lights, the camera AUTOMATICALLY STARTS RECORDING unless they manually stop it.  THATS STANDARD PROCEDURE ACROSS THE BOARD FOR ANY OHP TROOPER.  I have never ever ever seen an OHP cruiser that did not have a dash cam for the reasons I explained above.  Like I said earlier, I am not saying there is a cover up, but to sit there and try to compare TPD in dash cams to that of OHP is like comparing apples to oranges.  OHP's equipment is far superior then most TPD equipment.  

Who originally put the LED light bars on their cars to better be seen? thats right, OHP.  Who followed suit 2 or so years ago? thats right, TPD.  OHP has had these mobile vision cameras in their cars for years.  They are quite handy as well, you can rewind, pause, fast forward and delete just like you can with a typical VCR all on a nice 4" sized screen or so.  


Do me a favor, the next time you get pulled over a by a trooper check two things....Is he parked at angle behind you so his camera will catch anything that would happen and secondly, does he have a camera installed next to the rear view mirror.

---

I'll ask again.  Do we know, with first hand knowledge, if that specific OHP police car had a dash cam and was it activated at the time?  Don't give me 'most police cars have them.'  Don't give me 'all troopers train on them.'  Don't give me other probabilities.  Give us facts, not assumptions!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wilbur

I'll ask again.  Do we know, with first hand knowledge, if that specific OHP police car had a dash cam and was it activated at the time?  Don't give me 'most police cars have them.'  Don't give me 'all troopers train on them.'  Don't give me other probabilities.  Give us facts, not assumptions!

---

If dashcam video were public record in Oklahoma (like it is in other states) we would have a better chance of answering those questions.  As it is now, it's like the fox guarding the hen house.

quote:

---

Originally posted by patric

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wilbur

I'll ask again.  Do we know, with first hand knowledge, if that specific OHP police car had a dash cam and was it activated at the time?  Don't give me 'most police cars have them.'  Don't give me 'all troopers train on them.'  Don't give me other probabilities.  Give us facts, not assumptions!

---

If dashcam video were public record in Oklahoma (like it is in other states) we would have a better chance of answering those questions.  As it is now, it's like the fox guarding the hen house.

---

With nearly everything being public record, including all cellphone bills, emails and everything else, do we know for sure dash cam videos are not public record?  Has anyone asked?

Are officers required to maintain these videos in any way? If so, there is no doubt they are public record. They have been made with public dollars so they are probably are subject to an open records request, but I believe some states do have exemptions for records pertinent to an ongoing criminal investigation.

quote:

---

Originally posted by recyclemichael

Are officers required to maintain these videos in any way? If so, there is no doubt they are public record. They have been made with public dollars so they are probably are subject to an open records request, but I believe some states do have exemptions for records pertinent to an ongoing criminal investigation.

---

They are allowed to rewind and tape over them if its something routine where just a contact was written (a warning).  If its a simple "hey mam, the reason I stopped you is because I clocked you doing 71 in a 65. Do you have your insurance and DL on you?  Thank you mam please slow it down, have a good day" Then they would just rewind the tape alot of the times.  

I am not 100% on their actual policy and how it is written though.  I am sure if someone were to request it through the freedom of Information Act, it could probably be made available.

quote:

---

Originally posted by recyclemichael

Are officers required to maintain these videos in any way? If so, there is no doubt they are public record. They have been made with public dollars so they are probably are subject to an open records request, but I believe some states do have exemptions for records pertinent to an ongoing criminal investigation.

---

Different departments do things different (imagine that).  Some require their officers to turn in their 'tapes' each day and the tape must contain the entire shift (except for lunch/dinner).  Some don't require that they be turned in at all.  Some leave it up to the officer to determine what evidence should be turned in for use in court.

quote:

---

Originally posted by recyclemichael

Are officers required to maintain these videos in any way? If so, there is no doubt they are public record. They have been made with public dollars so they are probably are subject to an open records request, but I believe some states do have exemptions for records pertinent to an ongoing criminal investigation.

---

I think they are public record until the trooper twists off and starts shouting , "get out of the car mother ****er!"  Or "I'm going to stomp a mud-hole in you ***** just because I feel like it!!!"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wilbur

With nearly everything being public record, including all cellphone bills, emails and everything else, do we know for sure dash cam videos are not public record?  Has anyone asked?

---

The Tulsa Whirled asked to view dashcam video of the potty-mouth trooper incident
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=071004_1_A13_hrpah60381
but was told "The official Department of Public Safety video of the traffic stop isn't accessible through the state's Open Records Act, (OHP lawyer) James said.

quote:

---

Originally posted by patric

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wilbur

With nearly everything being public record, including all cellphone bills, emails and everything else, do we know for sure dash cam videos are not public record?  Has anyone asked?

---

The Tulsa Whirled asked to view dashcam video of the potty-mouth trooper incident
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=071004_1_A13_hrpah60381
but was told "The official Department of Public Safety video of the traffic stop isn't accessible through the state's Open Records Act, (OHP lawyer) James said.

---

That was when there was an ongoing criminal investigation. Someone should ask now and see what happens.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MH2010

quote:

---

Originally posted by patric


The Tulsa Whirled asked to view dashcam video of the potty-mouth trooper incident
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=071004_1_A13_hrpah60381
but was told "The official Department of Public Safety video of the traffic stop isn't accessible through the state's Open Records Act, (OHP lawyer) James said.

---

That was when there was an ongoing criminal investigation. Someone should ask now and see what happens.

---

The "perjury" charges are still open to be re-filed (after the DA's untruthful statements got the first one thrown out) so nothing has changed. Also...

"I promise you Miss White’s going to pay for her actions from a legal standpoint because we are going to file suit on her in Oklahoma for libel and slander. And we’re going to go after her". -- Oklahoma City attorney Gary James who represents the Oklahoma State Troopers Association.
http://bubbaworld.com/2007/09/29/liar-liar-pants-on-fire
..but odds are the unedited original is long gone...

If dashcam video would have cleared the speeding trooper in the young mother's death, you would  think OHP would have rushed to make it public given their obsessive sensitivity to criticism.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TUalum0982

I can say once they turn on the lights their dash cam already goes into record mode and their body mic (if they are wearing it) is turned on.  So if his lights were on, the camera was recording and vise versa.

---

Yup, that's how I understand it.
So an absence of dashcam video documenting the crash might imply what?
[/quote]

Coverup?
[/quote]


WINNAR!!!! something just doesnt seem right with this situation.  In the absence of no dashcam, one would have to believe he didnt have his lights on.


[/quote]
And just how did we jump to that conclusion?
  Your personal investigation has revealed what?  Your knowledge of the facts has determined what?  Your discussions with investigators has found what?
[/quote]

Well process of elimination would lend us to believe that in order for the dashcam to be on, he either has to activate his lights, or turn it on himself and his dashcam wasnt on, then that would lead me to believe that he didnt have his lights on. Unless he reached up himself to turn off the recording but that would go against policy.  So I am not implying there was a coverup, quite frankly I dont care either way, but I am pretty confident that if his lights were on, the dashcam would have been recording.  I thought that was common knowledge.
[/quote]

Do we know if:

1.  He even had a dash camera?  Not all OHP cars do.  They are very expensive.

2.  If he had a dash camera, did it have the option to automatically activate when the emergency lights are turned on?  Not all of these systems do this automatically.  Again, an issue of expense.  When Tulsa had dash cams, none of the systems did this.

If I remember correctly, he was responding to a collision.  Most officers would not activate a dash camera simply when responding to a wreck.

I don't know if his lights/siren were on the the time of the wreck, but I'm not going to scream coverup simply because there is no dash cam footage put out by OHP.  They have stepped up when one of their troopers was at-fault in a wreck in the past, so no reason not to do so again.
[/quote]

1.  I have never seen an OHP car that did not have a dash cam.  When they go through their academy they get specific training on how to properly use their dash cam.  Secondly, OHP is not like TPD where alot of times they have a backer.  OHP is out working on the highways 95% of the time by themselves without a backer.  

2.  Every single OHP car equipped with a dash cam is automatically turned on when the lights are activated.  Once again, I have never seen one that doesnt do this, its standard procedure.  You can not compare the dash cams that TPD used vs the ones that OHP uses.  TPD used a Sony unit that was very expensive to buy, maintain and replace.  It was a normal sony handycam you could buy in the stores that was retrofitted to mount to the dash.  Meanwhile, the OHP use a camera that is mounted to the windshield of a car next to the rearview mirror.  It is not of a typical design like you could buy in stores.  Next time you see a trooper have someone pulled over, check out the way they are parked behind them.  They park at an angle so their in car camera system can record anything that happens.  

They typically look like this:
http://www.mobile-vision.com/products/camsmicsmonitors/nitewatchcamera.htm  

and to your comment which stated "If I remember correctly, he was responding to a collision.  Most officers would not activate a dash camera simply when responding to a wreck"

Ask any OHP officer and they will tell you, once they turn on their lights, the camera AUTOMATICALLY STARTS RECORDING unless they manually stop it.  THATS STANDARD PROCEDURE ACROSS THE BOARD FOR ANY OHP TROOPER.  I have never ever ever seen an OHP cruiser that did not have a dash cam for the reasons I explained above.  Like I said earlier, I am not saying there is a cover up, but to sit there and try to compare TPD in dash cams to that of OHP is like comparing apples to oranges.  OHP's equipment is far superior then most TPD equipment.  

Who originally put the LED light bars on their cars to better be seen? thats right, OHP.  Who followed suit 2 or so years ago? thats right, TPD.  OHP has had these mobile vision cameras in their cars for years.  They are quite handy as well, you can rewind, pause, fast forward and delete just like you can with a typical VCR all on a nice 4" sized screen or so.  


Do me a favor, the next time you get pulled over a by a trooper check two things....Is he parked at angle behind you so his camera will catch anything that would happen and secondly, does he have a camera installed next to the rear view mirror.


[/quote]
I'll ask again.  Do we know, with first hand knowledge, if that specific OHP police car had a dash cam and was it activated at the time?  Don't give me 'most police cars have them.'  Don't give me 'all troopers train on them.'  Don't give me other probabilities.  Give us facts, not assumptions!
[/quote]

I am giving you facts.  I dare you to find an OHP car that goes on regular patrol that does not have a dash cam.  I honestly don't think you can do it.  I know some of the supervisors cars dont have them, etc but like I said, I dont think you will be able to find one that goes out on his regular shift to do patrol that does not have a dash cam.  I am not making assumptions, I have been giving facts.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TUalum0982

quote:

---

Originally posted by TUalum0982

I can say once they turn on the lights their dash cam already goes into record mode and their body mic (if they are wearing it) is turned on.  So if his lights were on, the camera was recording and vise versa.

---

Yup, that's how I understand it.
So an absence of dashcam video documenting the crash might imply what?

---

Coverup?
[/quote]


WINNAR!!!! something just doesnt seem right with this situation.  In the absence of no dashcam, one would have to believe he didnt have his lights on.


[/quote]
And just how did we jump to that conclusion?
  Your personal investigation has revealed what?  Your knowledge of the facts has determined what?  Your discussions with investigators has found what?
[/quote]

Well process of elimination would lend us to believe that in order for the dashcam to be on, he either has to activate his lights, or turn it on himself and his dashcam wasnt on, then that would lead me to believe that he didnt have his lights on. Unless he reached up himself to turn off the recording but that would go against policy.  So I am not implying there was a coverup, quite frankly I dont care either way, but I am pretty confident that if his lights were on, the dashcam would have been recording.  I thought that was common knowledge.
[/quote]

Do we know if:

1.  He even had a dash camera?  Not all OHP cars do.  They are very expensive.

2.  If he had a dash camera, did it have the option to automatically activate when the emergency lights are turned on?  Not all of these systems do this automatically.  Again, an issue of expense.  When Tulsa had dash cams, none of the systems did this.

If I remember correctly, he was responding to a collision.  Most officers would not activate a dash camera simply when responding to a wreck.

I don't know if his lights/siren were on the the time of the wreck, but I'm not going to scream coverup simply because there is no dash cam footage put out by OHP.  They have stepped up when one of their troopers was at-fault in a wreck in the past, so no reason not to do so again.
[/quote]

1.  I have never seen an OHP car that did not have a dash cam.  When they go through their academy they get specific training on how to properly use their dash cam.  Secondly, OHP is not like TPD where alot of times they have a backer.  OHP is out working on the highways 95% of the time by themselves without a backer.  

2.  Every single OHP car equipped with a dash cam is automatically turned on when the lights are activated.  Once again, I have never seen one that doesnt do this, its standard procedure.  You can not compare the dash cams that TPD used vs the ones that OHP uses.  TPD used a Sony unit that was very expensive to buy, maintain and replace.  It was a normal sony handycam you could buy in the stores that was retrofitted to mount to the dash.  Meanwhile, the OHP use a camera that is mounted to the windshield of a car next to the rearview mirror.  It is not of a typical design like you could buy in stores.  Next time you see a trooper have someone pulled over, check out the way they are parked behind them.  They park at an angle so their in car camera system can record anything that happens.  

They typically look like this:
http://www.mobile-vision.com/products/camsmicsmonitors/nitewatchcamera.htm  

and to your comment which stated "If I remember correctly, he was responding to a collision.  Most officers would not activate a dash camera simply when responding to a wreck"

Ask any OHP officer and they will tell you, once they turn on their lights, the camera AUTOMATICALLY STARTS RECORDING unless they manually stop it.  THATS STANDARD PROCEDURE ACROSS THE BOARD FOR ANY OHP TROOPER.  I have never ever ever seen an OHP cruiser that did not have a dash cam for the reasons I explained above.  Like I said earlier, I am not saying there is a cover up, but to sit there and try to compare TPD in dash cams to that of OHP is like comparing apples to oranges.  OHP's equipment is far superior then most TPD equipment.  

Who originally put the LED light bars on their cars to better be seen? thats right, OHP.  Who followed suit 2 or so years ago? thats right, TPD.  OHP has had these mobile vision cameras in their cars for years.  They are quite handy as well, you can rewind, pause, fast forward and delete just like you can with a typical VCR all on a nice 4" sized screen or so.  


Do me a favor, the next time you get pulled over a by a trooper check two things....Is he parked at angle behind you so his camera will catch anything that would happen and secondly, does he have a camera installed next to the rear view mirror.


[/quote]
I'll ask again.  Do we know, with first hand knowledge, if that specific OHP police car had a dash cam and was it activated at the time?  Don't give me 'most police cars have them.'  Don't give me 'all troopers train on them.'  Don't give me other probabilities.  Give us facts, not assumptions!
[/quote]

I am giving you facts.  I dare you to find an OHP car that goes on regular patrol that does not have a dash cam.  I honestly don't think you can do it.  I know some of the supervisors cars dont have them, etc but like I said, I dont think you will be able to find one that goes out on his regular shift to do patrol that does not have a dash cam.  I am not making assumptions, I have been giving facts.
[/quote]


You may be giving us facts as to SOME or even several OHP cars, but you are not giving us direct facts related to this specific case.  You are simply jumping to conclusions based on facts that are unrelated.

Thank god you are not heading up this, or any other, investigation.  The poor soles you would be hanging out to dry as you jump to conclusions.

Are you saying your comments to the jury would go something along the lines of:  'Ladys and gentlemen, he must be guilty because everyone else has one, so he must have one too.'

I don't think so.  You'll never find any DA to run with that flimsy argument.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wilbur

quote:

---

I'll ask again.  Do we know, with first hand knowledge, if that specific OHP police car had a dash cam and was it activated at the time?  Don't give me 'most police cars have them.'  Don't give me 'all troopers train on them.'  Don't give me other probabilities.  Give us facts, not assumptions!

---

I am giving you facts.  I dare you to find an OHP car that goes on regular patrol that does not have a dash cam.  I honestly don't think you can do it.  I know some of the supervisors cars dont have them, etc but like I said, I dont think you will be able to find one that goes out on his regular shift to do patrol that does not have a dash cam.  I am not making assumptions, I have been giving facts.

---

You may be giving us facts as to SOME or even several OHP cars, but you are not giving us direct facts related to this specific case.  You are simply jumping to conclusions based on facts that are unrelated.

Thank god you are not heading up this, or any other, investigation.  The poor soles you would be hanging out to dry as you jump to conclusions.

Are you saying your comments to the jury would go something along the lines of:  'Ladys and gentlemen, he must be guilty because everyone else has one, so he must have one too.'

I don't think so.  You'll never find any DA to run with that flimsy argument.
[/quote]

You are putting words in my mouth sir.  For God sake,the last time I checked, this was a message board not a court room, correct??  I am not saying that in any way, form, shape or fashion.  I was simply posting my knowledge of OHP dash cams to the people that read this board.  So for you to sit there and put words in my mouth is absurd.  I gave facts about the OHP cars.  Once again, I ask that you find me an OHP car that goes on regular patrol that doesn't have a dash cam.  I would be willing to bet you cant, hence why I would say over 95% of them patrol by themselves without a partner. (and there are over 800 troopers in the state). How hard of a concept is this to understand?

I am not saying he did or didnt have his lights and sirens on. I was posting FACTUAL INFORMATION ABOUT OHP CARS.  Once their lights are turned on, their camera is activated and if they are wearing their body mic, that is turned on as well.  Easy enough for you?  

Now as to how many in dash cams are actually installed, I will find out for you if you give me some time.

To your comment about "SOME or several OHP cars".  I dont know what your definition of "some or several" is but to me that means a handful of say 10-20.  If you think there are just "some or several" OHP cars with in dash cams then you are dumber then I originally thought.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TUalum0982

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wilbur

quote:

---

I'll ask again.  Do we know, with first hand knowledge, if that specific OHP police car had a dash cam and was it activated at the time?  Don't give me 'most police cars have them.'  Don't give me 'all troopers train on them.'  Don't give me other probabilities.  Give us facts, not assumptions!

---

I am giving you facts.  I dare you to find an OHP car that goes on regular patrol that does not have a dash cam.  I honestly don't think you can do it.  I know some of the supervisors cars dont have them, etc but like I said, I dont think you will be able to find one that goes out on his regular shift to do patrol that does not have a dash cam.  I am not making assumptions, I have been giving facts.

---

You may be giving us facts as to SOME or even several OHP cars, but you are not giving us direct facts related to this specific case.  You are simply jumping to conclusions based on facts that are unrelated.

Thank god you are not heading up this, or any other, investigation.  The poor soles you would be hanging out to dry as you jump to conclusions.

Are you saying your comments to the jury would go something along the lines of:  'Ladys and gentlemen, he must be guilty because everyone else has one, so he must have one too.'

I don't think so.  You'll never find any DA to run with that flimsy argument.

---

You are putting words in my mouth sir.  For God sake,the last time I checked, this was a message board not a court room, correct??  I am not saying that in any way, form, shape or fashion.  I was simply posting my knowledge of OHP dash cams to the people that read this board.  So for you to sit there and put words in my mouth is absurd.  I gave facts about the OHP cars.  Once again, I ask that you find me an OHP car that goes on regular patrol that doesn't have a dash cam.  I would be willing to bet you cant, hence why I would say over 95% of them patrol by themselves without a partner. (and there are over 800 troopers in the state). How hard of a concept is this to understand?

I am not saying he did or didnt have his lights and sirens on. I was posting FACTUAL INFORMATION ABOUT OHP CARS.  Once their lights are turned on, their camera is activated and if they are wearing their body mic, that is turned on as well.  Easy enough for you?  

Now as to how many in dash cams are actually installed, I will find out for you if you give me some time.

To your comment about "SOME or several OHP cars".  I dont know what your definition of "some or several" is but to me that means a handful of say 10-20.  If you think there are just "some or several" OHP cars with in dash cams then you are dumber then I originally thought.


[/quote]

I'm finally glad we can both agree that neither of us know if his specific car (we don't even know if he was driving is regularly assigned car or a spare) was equipped with a dash cam, which has been my point throughout.  Thus, neither of us have any knowledge that there ever was a video tape of the event.

And I'll leave the personal attacks out of my posts.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TUalum0982

I dont know what your definition of "some or several" is but to me that means a handful of say 10-20.

---

I cant speak for the accuracy of your numbers, but with a ballpark figure of 800 troopers and only 10-20 not having functioning dashcams, the odds are that Williams car had a camera.

If any of our resourceful LEO's have asked their colleagues for the low-down on this, they dont seem to be publicizing the results here, at least, but for the sake of discussion, if the odds are in favor of Williams car having a camera, the odds are in favor OHP would have attempted to retrieve the video as part of their "extensive" investigation.

If they found no recording was made, the odds are in favor that the camera wasnt activated by the light bar, perhaps by some mechanical defect or the failure of Williams to activate his light bar before speeding down the highway.  

If Williams failed to activate his light bar, the odds are the OHP spokeswoman's initial statement that he did was a routine uninformed assumption that he followed policy and not a finding of facts (but she and the media rushed to incorrectly report it as fact).  The odds are also that OHP now has enough of those facts to go into silent mode and prepare to face the judge.

Perhaps what struck me the most was the cold, calloused way they reported the wreck as a "trooper injured" and the death of the young mother was just something inconsequential.

quote:

---

Originally posted by patric

quote:

---

Originally posted by TUalum0982

I dont know what your definition of "some or several" is but to me that means a handful of say 10-20.

---

I cant speak for the accuracy of your numbers, but with a ballpark figure of 800 troopers and only 10-20 not having functioning dashcams, the odds are that Williams car had a camera.

If any of our resourceful LEO's have asked their colleagues for the low-down on this, they dont seem to be publicizing the results here, at least, but for the sake of discussion, if the odds are in favor of Williams car having a camera, the odds are in favor OHP would have attempted to retrieve the video as part of their "extensive" investigation.

If they found no recording was made, the odds are in favor that the camera wasnt activated by the light bar, perhaps by some mechanical defect or the failure of Williams to activate his light bar before speeding down the highway.  

If Williams failed to activate his light bar, the odds are the OHP spokeswoman's initial statement that he did was a routine uninformed assumption that he followed policy and not a finding of facts (but she and the media rushed to incorrectly report it as fact).  The odds are also that OHP now has enough of those facts to go into silent mode and prepare to face the judge.

Perhaps what struck me the most was the cold, calloused way they reported the wreck as a "trooper injured" and the death of the young mother was just something inconsequential.

---

Awful lot of playing the odds here.

And the media determines the headlines of a news story, certainly not OHP.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wilbur

And the media determines the headlines of a news story, certainly not OHP.

---

I wish that were true, but if you go from media outlet to media outlet and read the same story, many make just cosmetic changes to press releases until someone actually has the gaul to pin them down on the facts.

There's a reason the OHP doesnt play nice with the Whirled when there are so many other media that appreciate a regular spoon-feeding.  A PIO can misrepresent a case freely during the excitement of the news breaking, but a defense attorney knows that any sort of factual balance will have to wait till the trial.  By then, it's too late for any retractions or clarifications.

The trooper was speeding down a highway, and should have activated his lights.  The OHP apparently assumed that's what he did, and reported that as fact to media that didnt question it.
The very evidence who's presence might have backed up that claim may, by it's apparent absence, backfire on the OHP by casting doubt on their story.  If the tape did exist, dont you think they would have paraded it before a sympathetic OKC paper they way they did with the
Potty Mouth Traffic Stop (http://"http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=7719") case?

It was all a cover-up.
What a surprise.

http://www.fox23.com/news/local/story/Investigating-OHP/EUJIqhHnUkSvNxSlINlSjw.cspx


"I think [OHP] did not tell the truth to cover up for their highway patrolman. I have no doubt that this has happened before and I have no doubt that this has happened again."

The more I read this, the more it says "As he traveled in the opposite direction on the same highway, a mother, with her baby in the back seat, turned left off the highway, directly into the path of the trooper. "

Regardless of whether his lights were on, why would it be his fault if she didn't yield?

If he was traveling at an excessive speed, then she could have easily misjudged the time it would take him to overtake him.  After all, when you turn onto a street, do you wait until no cars are coming at all, or do you judge the distance they are away and guestimate how long it will reach you and decide to wait or go?  But this is just a possibility that could have been at play (and comes to mind because of the times I've almost been hit by misjudging how much some idiot is speeding).

I'll have to wait 'til I get home to read the link, Fox is blocked here.  However, misjudging crossing in front of people while making a left turn happens frequently enough that I would not instantly assume the trooper was going too fast.

It is also probable that mothers with babies in the car have joined the ranks of "cannot be at fault".  It's kind of like having the right of way if you post a "baby on board" tag in your car rear window.   A friend and I came across a driver that thought that the "Baby on Board" sign gave him the right to pull into the disappearing lane (the one that goes away on the other side of an intersection) at an intersection and try to beat the rest of traffic across the intersection.  When my friend and I (following each other) got through the intersection before he did, the jerk rode my friend's bumper to the next light. Then got out of his car, stormed up to my friend and proceeded to lecture my friend about safe driving and asked if my friend did not see the "Baby on Board" sign.  Whew!

Perhaps what is most damning here is not so much that the trooper causing a fatality wreck, but the OHP as a whole got caught lying about it.

The OHP finally decides to comment (only after being caught in a lie):
http://www.fox23.com/mediacenter/local.aspx?videoId=42702


 On an early dark November morning in 2007,  a young mother was driving down county Highway 9.  At the same time, an OHP trooper was called to an accident down the road.
   As he traveled in the opposite direction on the same highway, a mother, with her baby in the back seat, turned left off the highway, directly into the path of the trooper.  The collision report shows no signs of braking. Her car was thrown more than 200 feet.  The baby and trooper survived, but 24-year-old Tiffany Brown died that morning.
 
  Within hours of the accident, before any formal investigation, a spokesperson for OHP told the media that trooper Justin Williams had his emergency lights and sirens activated, and that Tiffany was to blame for turning in front of the trooper despite those signals. 
 
  Tisha Brillo was horrified to learn of her sister's death and shocked to hear that OHP was laying the blame on her sister, accusing her of ignoring an emergency vehicle with lights and sirens.
  Tisha Brillo didn't believe her sister would make that mistake. She believed that if the trooper did have his emergency lights and sirens on, Tiffany would have been able to see him coming down a half mile stretch of flat highway, and she wouldn't have made the left turn.
 
  Tisha said, "I wanted to know the truth."
 
 Tisha hired attorney Steven Horton, and filed a civil lawsuit.  She and her attorney got their hands on the investigative report, a  report OHP would not release to the pubilc, or even Tiffany's family.   
 
 Tisha's attorney, Steve Horton, read the report, and did his own investigating.  He called OHP's investigation "inaccurate and irresponsible."
 
  When Horton interviewed OHP's lead investigator on the case, Captain Ronnie Hampton, the captain said OHP did not tell the truth from day one.

Deposition documents show Horton asked Captain Hampton, "When you were at the scene, tell me what evidence you had that Trooper Williams had his lights and sirens on?" Hampton responded, "None."  That was a fact OHP never corrected in public after telling everyone Tiffany had ignored those emergency lights and sirens the morning of the accident.
 
 During the same deposition, Horton asked the captain,  "Do you believe that it is irresponsible for the spokesperson of the highway patrol to mislead the media regarding a fatal accident?" Captain Hampton answered, "Yes."
 
  When Horton was asked if he believed there was any intention on OHP's part to distort those facts, Horton responded, "Well, I don't think that someone accidentally said that the trooper had his lights and sirens activated. I think someone had to intentially tell someone, which, in turn was relayed to the media.  I don't think that was inadvertant. It was reported as a fact and it wasn't."
 
  Tiffany's sister Tisha said, "It was a highway patrolman that gave false information that made my sister look bad and their trooper look good and I don't think that's fair."

Horton also deposed the eyewitness who was driving behind Tiffany Brown at the time of the accident. Horton found out OHP did not record the only eyewitness interview.  Horton found that to be a serious problem when the eyewitness said she never said the things OHP reported she said.
 
  During the deposition, Horton spoke to the eyewitness. "[OHP investigators] say you saw [the trooper] coming from the other direction."  She responded, "No, I did not see him." She went on to say "I never saw [the trooper] until the collision."
 
  During the deposition, Horton said, "[the eyewitness]was very adamant [the trooper] did not have his lights and sirens on."
 
  Horton also took issue with the fact that OHP never interviewed Trooper Justin Williams as part of its investigation.  Williams was allowed to decline an interview with investigators.
 
  Throughout the OHP investigation, Tiffany's sister says OHP stuck with the same story, and then something changed.
 
   Tisha said, "When we were in mediation, the one thing [the trooper] continued to stick with the whole time was that he was on his way to an accident.  He had just gotten a call, he was on his way to an accident.  Then when the captain gave his deposition, suddenly [OHP is] calling my attorney wanting to settle things.  That's because someone finally told the truth." 

  During Captain Ronnie Hampton's deposition with the family's attorney, the captain told Horton, OHP was wrong when it reported Trooper Williams was responding to an accident the morning he collided with Tiffany Brown's car.
 
  The captain said the accident Trooper Williams was allegedly responding to had already been cleared and Trooper Williams was notified before he ever started driving down the highway that morning, well before he crashed into Tiffany Brown's car.

   Captain Hampton said Trooper Williams told him in an unofficial, off-hand conversation "he had been called, told that the road was clear, that the cars had been moved off the road..."
 
   Tisha was shocked. She said, "[Trooper Williams'] car was still cold. He got the call before he even left the driveway. He knew that the roadway was clear.  He knew that the victims had been transported. There was no need in him going and there was definitely no need in him speeding.  Yet he did it anyway and he chose to do it without his lights on. That, to me, just says, you think you're above the law. You think you can do what you want.  Obviously he can because he still has had no repercussions.  He's not been reprimanded in any way, shape or form."

OHP did settle with Tiffany's family, but the amount, regulated state law, was no more than $175,000. It was an offer Tisha said she had to accept, because her sister left behind two children who need support and any court battle would only further drain that maximum settlement amount. 
 
  Tisha said, "I don't think it's fair.  That's what I think.  I think it is a double standard when it comes to [OHP]. If the roles had been reversed that day and that had been my sister, and the trooper had died, she would be in prison.  I don't think that just because you're a highway patrolman that that makes you above the law."
 
  Tisha believes as long as OHP investigates its own, the public, and possibly other families, may always have to fight for the truth.
 
  Tisha said, "I think [OHP] did not tell the truth to cover up for their highway patrolman. I have no doubt that this has happened before and I have no doubt that this has happened again."


http://www.fox23.com/content/fox23investigates/story/Investigating-OHP/EUJIqhHnUkSvNxSlINlSjw.cspx

Almost a carbon copy of this wreck, where the officer was speeding but not on a call, and a vehicle ahead misjudged the distance between them and the speeding car.  Two teens died in this one, and the cop was charged with manslaughter.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DREC97JZSdo&videos=53bJgXD-ARY[/youtube]

 The main reason that the police park at an angle behind a stopped car is not for benefit of getting a better camera angle. It is a safety issue. 1) If the car is hit from behind there is less of a chance it will slide into the other car, and 2) In the event of an armed confrontation, it will give some cover due to the fact that the engine will stop pretty much any incoming fire.

I had assumed the reason was to deflect a colliding car in a side-swipe back off into the roadway instead of into the car which had been stopped in front of the troopers car.  FWIW, I think OHP is the only agency I've noticed doing this.  I don't think I saw this in Missouri last week and can't think of any other state patrols where I've noticed it.  Not so say they don't, just that I have not noticed elsewhere.

I'd rather sacrifice a "cop car" than a trooper.

Oh, absolutely.  I certainly wasn't trying to imply that they way they park them on the shoulder is wrong.  Makes good sense, get a glancing blow and it would shoot a car back to the left before it could hit the trooper or the person's vehicle he/she has stopped. 

The angle that the LEO is parked at has NOTHING to do with the view of the camera,
and EVERYTHING to do with officer safety.

The camera should be pointed directly forward, which will give a great view both during a stop, and during a response, chase, or the traffic up to a stop. 

Of course - now that it is used by more and more agencies, they are reconsidering if just using a 3 foot offset is more appropiate.

How the state of Illinois recently handled such a crash:

Trooper in fatal crash loses paycheck

The Illinois State Police suspended Trooper Matt Mitchell's pay Tuesday, more than two years after he lost control of his squad car and caused an accident that killed two teenage sisters.

Lt. Scott Compton said Mitchell was served with papers Tuesday that removed him from the state's payroll. Mitchell made $67,023 per year, according to the last available pay records.

Compton said the state police agency has also taken steps to remove Mitchell as a trooper. The agency filed a complaint Tuesday with the Illinois State Police Merit Board, which handles discipline of state troopers.
Compton said it took so long for the action because the agency had to wait until the criminal proceeding was adjudicated.

Prosecutors said Mitchell had been talking on a cell phone and e-mailing on the patrol car's computer as he drove 126 mph on Interstate 64 near Scott Air Force Base,
answering a call to a traffic crash that had already been cleared by other agencies.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20100422_11_A13_TheIll968126

I no longer trust the OHP any farther than I could throw one of them. While I would like to try throwing one, I doubt they will give me the chance.
 It's time the OHP was either disbanded or replaced. The only purpose they serve these days is to abuse their authority and generate income for the state.

No, I have not been pulled over by OHP in the past 10 years. Yes, I have to deal with them occasionally in work related matters.