These used to be a rarity - recordings proving a citizen's side of the story over a cops (see Rodney King, I know I know...). But they are just becoming common place now:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20071207/D8TCC55G0.html?123
A cop interrogated a teenager for over an hour without a parent or attorney, then lied about it on the stand. The kid recorded it on his Ipod. The cop is now facing jail for perjury.
So do you think the police will learn and start playing by the rules, or just learn that they need to ensure they are not being recorded before breaking them?
Standard disclaimer: lots of respect for cops, tough job, deal with lots of scum, most follow the important rules (I do think most speed and turn on their lights to run reds). But there is a large number and growing evidence to suggest the rules are suggestions and "getting the job done" is more important.
Will they quit tasing people for no good reason?
http://www.statesman.com/news/mplayer/other/32386?f=1
Have always found it interesting the Department of Justice (FBI) will neither record or video any statement or confession. Have always wondered WHY!
This thread appears to be about the minority (of Police) rather than the majority....
Suppose there is any reason for that.?
I imagine every profession has it's fair share of weasels.....
[}:)]
quote:
Originally posted by TeeDub
Will they quit tasing people for no good reason?
http://www.statesman.com/news/mplayer/other/32386?f=1
You are asking for it. I am buying a taser and coming to your house. TeeDub will be remembered as Tasered Well.
Should The Police change? I heard other than their first show that their latest tour was great!
quote:
Originally posted by Rico
This thread appears to be about the minority (of Police) rather than the majority....
Suppose there is any reason for that.?
I imagine every profession has it's fair share of weasels.....
[}:)]
How about we have a contest... Cops who come up with the sneakiest way to ticket motorists win a new police cruiser.
Bonus: This nationwide program funded by your gas tax money.
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/21/2106.asp
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
These used to be a rarity - recordings proving a citizen's side of the story over a cops (see Rodney King, I know I know...). But they are just becoming common place now:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20071207/D8TCC55G0.html?123
As society is being empowered by emerging technologies such as camera phones and YouTube, you might be inclined to think this story will eventually have a happy ending.
The Rodney King video may have confirmed what a lot of people already suspected, but for many it was such an affront to their beliefs that they refused to accept it. When the LAPD countered with "you arent seeing what you're seeing" there was a signifigant segment of the population so wanting to hear something in line with their beliefs that they eagerly shut out the evidence in favor of the LAPD's reassuring smokescreen.
According to an FOP memo obtained by KOTV, the local reaction to the videotaping was to advise officers observing a taped arrest to halt the arrest long enough to "secure" the camera, then resume the arrest. That was 1991.
More recently, a Utah trooper was cleared by his department in a Taser assault, based on the trooper's claim that a man stopped for speeding had tried to flee and put his hand in his pocket, despite unmistakable photographic evidence to the contrary. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=865_1196542044
The case did little to reform a copycat Austin trooper, who probably set a new speed record for Tasering a suspected speeder. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=81b_1196962512
People accept only what their prejudices allow, so it seems the lack of universal shock and disgust of videotaped abuses hasnt caused any great leaps in department-level police reform in the time between King and now. We simply have more tools to uproot those bad apples but not to keep them from being quietly rehired or anonymously settling in somewhere else.
quote:
Originally posted by patric
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
These used to be a rarity - recordings proving a citizen's side of the story over a cops (see Rodney King, I know I know...). But they are just becoming common place now:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20071207/D8TCC55G0.html?123
As society is being empowered by emerging technologies such as camera phones and YouTube, you might be inclined to think this story will eventually have a happy ending.
The Rodney King video may have confirmed what a lot of people already suspected, but for many it was such an affront to their beliefs that they refused to accept it. When the LAPD countered with "you arent seeing what you're seeing" there was a signifigant segment of the population so wanting to hear something in line with their beliefs that they eagerly shut out the evidence in favor of the LAPD's reassuring smokescreen.
According to an FOP memo obtained by KOTV, the local reaction to the videotaping was to advise officers observing a taped arrest to halt the arrest long enough to "secure" the camera, then resume the arrest. That was 1991.
More recently, a Utah trooper was cleared by his department in a Taser assault, based on the trooper's claim that a man stopped for speeding had tried to flee and put his hand in his pocket, despite unmistakable photographic evidence to the contrary. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=865_1196542044
The case did little to reform a copycat Austin trooper, who probably set a new speed record for Tasering a suspected speeder. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=81b_1196962512
People accept only what their prejudices allow, so it seems the lack of universal shock and disgust of videotaped abuses hasnt caused any great leaps in department-level police reform in the time between King and now. We simply have more tools to uproot those bad apples but not to keep them from being quietly rehired or anonymously settling in somewhere else.
MH2010 hereabout previously affirmed that police desire CELL PHONE JAMMERS, like the kind used by our armed forces in Iraq to jam IED transmitters.
Reason being: The Ubiquitous Cell Phone camera becomes an impartial 3rd party to police abuse of the citizenry. And, they don't want any impartial witnesses.
None living, that is.
Oh, did I mention that AP news today reported that the U.S. now has the HIGHEST incarceration rate in the WORLD? We've finally surpassed Russia for the highest incarceration rate: IN THE WORLD.
In the world.
Home of the Brave.
Maybe.
Land of the Free.
NOT.
[:O]
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by patric
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
These used to be a rarity - recordings proving a citizen's side of the story over a cops (see Rodney King, I know I know...). But they are just becoming common place now:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20071207/D8TCC55G0.html?123
As society is being empowered by emerging technologies such as camera phones and YouTube, you might be inclined to think this story will eventually have a happy ending.
The Rodney King video may have confirmed what a lot of people already suspected, but for many it was such an affront to their beliefs that they refused to accept it. When the LAPD countered with "you arent seeing what you're seeing" there was a signifigant segment of the population so wanting to hear something in line with their beliefs that they eagerly shut out the evidence in favor of the LAPD's reassuring smokescreen.
According to an FOP memo obtained by KOTV, the local reaction to the videotaping was to advise officers observing a taped arrest to halt the arrest long enough to "secure" the camera, then resume the arrest. That was 1991.
More recently, a Utah trooper was cleared by his department in a Taser assault, based on the trooper's claim that a man stopped for speeding had tried to flee and put his hand in his pocket, despite unmistakable photographic evidence to the contrary. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=865_1196542044
The case did little to reform a copycat Austin trooper, who probably set a new speed record for Tasering a suspected speeder. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=81b_1196962512
People accept only what their prejudices allow, so it seems the lack of universal shock and disgust of videotaped abuses hasnt caused any great leaps in department-level police reform in the time between King and now. We simply have more tools to uproot those bad apples but not to keep them from being quietly rehired or anonymously settling in somewhere else.
MH2010 hereabout previously affirmed that police desire CELL PHONE JAMMERS, like the kind used by our armed forces in Iraq to jam IED transmitters.
Reason being: The Ubiquitous Cell Phone camera becomes an impartial 3rd party to police abuse of the citizenry. And, they don't want any impartial witnesses.
None living, that is.
Oh, did I mention that AP news today reported that the U.S. now has the HIGHEST incarceration rate in the WORLD? We've finally surpassed Russia for the highest incarceration rate: IN THE WORLD.
In the world.
Home of the Brave.
Maybe.
Land of the Free.
NOT.
[:O]
I don't think I just "affirmed" that. I believe I spoke about the officer safety issue of someone calling someone on the phone during the traffic stop. There have been numerous instances where a person that was stopped called a third party in an effort to defeat the traffic stop. Many times by shooting at the police. It happened here in Tulsa in 2001 or 2002. It happened in the area of 5100 North Frankfort Avenue. Officers had a car stopped. An individual in the car got on a cell phone and called his buddies. Someone ( I can't remember his name of hand.) then walked up the creek bed and shot at officers on the traffic stop.
I also listed the cell phone gun when you stated there was nothing dangerous about a "cell phone".
Since people like to group all police together, let me speak for "all of us". "The police" like cameras that have both audio and video and that show what the officer sees and hears. The dashboard cameras in patrol cars are okay but you can't see what the officer sees when they get out of the car or if the incident is happening somewhere other than in front of the vehicle. The audio helps but this set up is far from perfect. There are cameras available now that are placed on the officer but they are expensive. The city of Tulsa won't purchase simple in car cameras w/ audio so I don't see them buying the smaller "officer cameras".
In almost all cases, video and Audio is used as great evidence in court and to counter false complaints on officers. The most recent high profile case, is the OHP officer that recently got found innocent of a complaint because of the audio (The video was only of the vehicle he had stopped in front of him. The lady that complained was off camera.) of his traffic stop with the lady from Louisiana.
I know that if someone made a false complaint on me and I had video and audio proof that they purposefully lied, I would sue them in civil court.
Can officers supply their own equipment? Would they need to declare that the citizen is being recorded versus accusations of wire-tapping?
Also, jammers would be great to defeat ambushes, but would not prevent the device from acquiring video/audio for storage.
CF, you posted this in 'politics,' do you see some political solution to this?
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
Can officers supply their own equipment? Would they need to declare that the citizen is being recorded versus accusations of wire-tapping?
Also, jammers would be great to defeat ambushes, but would not prevent the device from acquiring video/audio for storage.
CF, you posted this in 'politics,' do you see some political solution to this?
Sure, the cell phone could capture the event "off-line", presuming the device has sufficient memory for the length of the encounter.
Problem is: If the police become aware that there is an independent video record of the event, that cell phone or video recorder will be confiscated as "evidence". Even if taken by a passenger or a bystander.
And, most assuredly, if incriminating of the behavior of the police, the record will be: Erased.
All police interviews with the public should be mandatory videotaped.
Videotaping or streaming video would eliminate a lot of false complaints against the police, and it would also massively change police behavior in their interactions with the public, with suspects, and with prisoners.
To priortize their deployment, we should start with a MANDATORY video record of EVERY NO-KNOCK SEARCH WARRANT executed by the police.
Any judge that signs a No-Knock Search Warrant without the proviso in the Warrant that every second of the search be videotaped is signing a potential Death Warrant for the suspect.
There is a literal hill of dead bodies from the beginnings of Nixon's "War-on-Drugs" through this a.m. due to No-Knock searches.
The police knocked a residential door down in the middle of the night, and sleep-dazed resident armed himself to confront the intruder (The Police), and was promptly shot to pieces by an adrenaline-pumped policeman. Sometimes, even at the WRONG house.
Or, what was ultimately found in the subsequent search while the suspect is left to bleed out, cuffed on the floor, that the police found a misdemeanor level of contraband.
No Knock Search Warrants are DEATH WARRANTS. Sometimes even for the police, but normally for the resident.
quote:
Originally posted by Rico
This thread appears to be about the minority (of Police) rather than the majority....
Suppose there is any reason for that.?
I imagine every profession has it's fair share of weasels.....
[}:)]
Sure there is a reason. The police are a bunch of jackbooted Nazi scum...The police do nothing but run around, indiscriminately beating and killing innocent people who are just minding their own business. Heck, just yesterday I was walking in my neighborhood when seven squad cars appeared from nowhere. The police jumped from their cars, encircled me, and just started shooting at me. Since this sort of thing happens all the time here, I just ducked the bullets, paid the required bribe, and went home.
quote:
I also listed the cell phone gun when you stated there was nothing dangerous about a "cell phone".
The "cell phone gun" was a European proof-of-concept design for a video, and no working models have been seen in the U.S.
quote:
The most recent high profile case, is the OHP officer that recently got found innocent of a complaint because of the audio (The video was only of the vehicle he had stopped in front of him. The lady that complained was off camera.) of his traffic stop with the lady from Louisiana.
The edited videos the OHP submitted didnt prove anything, and their refusal to make the original unedited video public casts more suspicion on their credibility.
Dashcam video should be public record by default. Tampering with it should be a crime.
quote:
Problem is: If the police become aware that there is an independent video record of the event, that cell phone or video recorder will be confiscated as "evidence". Even if taken by a passenger or a bystander. [/quote]
When TPD killed a bipolar man during a standoff Oct. 29, officers demanded reporters at the scene turn over their tapes or be arrested. The media resisted what they knew was an unlawful order and used their cell phones to contact their managers and legal council. Is there a reason the average citizen shouldnt also be able to do something similar when faced with what they believe to be an abuse of authority?
The "cell phone gun" was a European proof-of-concept design for a video, and no working models have been seen in the U.S.
-I know I don't want to be the first policeman killed in the USA by it. Besides that was just one quick example. There are other devices that cause harm that look like cell phones.
The edited videos the OHP submitted didnt prove anything, and their refusal to make the original unedited video public casts more suspicion on their credibility.
-Sorry, I should say it proved it to everyone but the black helicopter people. I wonder if the black helicopter people still watch reruns of the X-files because they think it brings "the truth" to light?
Dashcam video should be public record by default. Tampering with it should be a crime.
- Talk to your state senator or representative. There will be alot of resistance to this. Some people would not want their videos made public record. What about them?
Problem is: If the police become aware that there is an independent video record of the event, that cell phone or video recorder will be confiscated as "evidence". Even if taken by a passenger or a bystander.
- Here is one experience I had with someone videotaping a car stop. Some guy came out and videotaped a car stop I had on E. pine street. I didn't care that he did it and allowed it to continue. However, if something would have happened (person arrested for a criminal offense, possession of CDS, firearm, Kidnapping if he had someone tied up in the car, he resisted arrest ect.) then that video would have been evidence of the event and I would probably have seized it. If I didn't seize the tape, I could just imagine the fun a defense attorney would have.."Officer, you mean you knew there was a videotape of this incident and you failed to retreive it? Why did you not retreive this footage? Do you have something to hide? What happened on this tape that you don't want the jury (or judge) to know?" ect. It would go on for hours.
When TPD killed a bipolar man during a standoff Oct. 29, officers demanded reporters at the scene turn over their tapes or be arrested. The media resisted what they knew was an unlawful order and used their cell phones to contact their managers and legal council. Is there a reason the average citizen shouldnt also be able to do something similar when faced with what they believe to be an abuse of authority.
- And that is why fox23 was airing the footage minutes after it happened. The complete story was that officers needed the original unedited footage for evidence. The footage was later subpoenaed from the stations that did not make it available. This footage was needed because just like you have previously shown, if the "orginal" unedited footage was not available defense attorneys and police conspiracy wingnuts would say the footage was altered or that it "casts more suspicion on their credibility".
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
The complete story was that officers needed the original unedited footage for evidence. The footage was later subpoenaed from the stations that did not make it available. This footage was needed because just like you have previously shown, if the "orginal" unedited footage was not available defense attorneys and police conspiracy wingnuts would say the footage was altered or that it "casts more suspicion on their credibility".
Police departments routinely subpoena video they need from broadcasters, and the media routinely complies. Threatening reporters with arrest at the scene is NOT how honest cops perform an investigative function.
...and that's also an interesting double-standard you're applying to availability of "original" footage...
quote:
Some guy came out and videotaped a car stop I had on E. pine street. I didn't care that he did it and allowed it to continue. However, if something would have happened (person arrested for a criminal offense, possession of CDS, firearm, Kidnapping if he had someone tied up in the car, he resisted arrest ect.) then that video would have been evidence of the event and I would probably have seized it.
Again, a subpoena of the tape would have been a better option than an illegal search and seizure fueling speculation of evidence tampering.
[/quote]The edited videos the OHP submitted didnt prove anything, and their refusal to make the original unedited video public casts more suspicion on their credibility.
-Sorry, I should say it proved it to everyone but the black helicopter people. I wonder if the black helicopter people still watch reruns of the X-files because they think it brings "the truth" to light? [/quote]
In your mind, do you consider anyone questioning abuses of authority "black helicopter people"?
quote:
Originally posted by patric
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
The complete story was that officers needed the original unedited footage for evidence. The footage was later subpoenaed from the stations that did not make it available. This footage was needed because just like you have previously shown, if the "orginal" unedited footage was not available defense attorneys and police conspiracy wingnuts would say the footage was altered or that it "casts more suspicion on their credibility".
Police departments routinely subpoena video they need from broadcasters, and the media routinely complies. Threatening reporters with arrest at the scene is NOT how honest cops perform an investigative function.
...and that's also an interesting double-standard you're applying to availability of "original" footage...
quote:
Some guy came out and videotaped a car stop I had on E. pine street. I didn't care that he did it and allowed it to continue. However, if something would have happened (person arrested for a criminal offense, possession of CDS, firearm, Kidnapping if he had someone tied up in the car, he resisted arrest ect.) then that video would have been evidence of the event and I would probably have seized it.
Again, a subpoena of the tape would have been a better option than an illegal search and seizure fueling speculation of evidence tampering.
The edited videos the OHP submitted didnt prove anything, and their refusal to make the original unedited video public casts more suspicion on their credibility.
-Sorry, I should say it proved it to everyone but the black helicopter people. I wonder if the black helicopter people still watch reruns of the X-files because they think it brings "the truth" to light? [/quote]
In your mind, do you consider anyone questioning abuses of authority "black helicopter people"?
[/quote]
Please list the names of the news media that were "threatened" instead of making vague allegations. If you think "they" do not wish their names to be known, tell them "they" can file anonymous complaints at....
http://www.tulsapolice.org/oic.html
or they can go to 600 Civic Center Suite 302 and make the complaint in person Monday - Friday 8:00am to 5:00pm. If "they" wish to talk to someone on the phone they can call 918-596-9379 or if they wish to write a letter directly to Chief Palmer, 600 Civic Center Tulsa, OK 74103.
I have a feeling no news media individuals will make a complaint because it simply did not happen like you said.
- There is no reason to get a subpoena for something that people are willing to just give to you.
What do you mean double standard? Please explain your position.
People can investigate abuses of authority all they want. Most people encourage it but if there is evidence that the abuse did not occur then it should accepted. I make fun of the black helicopter people because they are the ones that always scream, "The tapes were altered or everyone is in on the fix!"
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
I have a feeling no news media individuals will make a complaint because it simply did not happen like you said.
Did you already forget the part where they phoned their supervisors?
quote:
There is no reason to get a subpoena for something that people are willing to just give to you.
Why follow the law when you can bully your way? Reporters dont work at the pleasure of police, and they were right to stand their ground and not surrender the only copies of their footage in an illegal seizure. It's just a shame the average citizen doesnt have a legal department on-call to quickly intervene during abuses.
quote:
I make fun of the black helicopter people because they are the ones that always scream, "The tapes were altered or everyone is in on the fix!"
Muskogee defense attorney Lance McCrary is the one complaining about the edited dashcam video. The Tulsa World also reported they were not allowed to examine the recording in detail. Black Helicopter People?
quote:
Originally posted by patric
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
I have a feeling no news media individuals will make a complaint because it simply did not happen like you said.
Did you already forget the part where they phoned their supervisors?
quote:
There is no reason to get a subpoena for something that people are willing to just give to you.
Why follow the law when you can bully your way? Reporters dont work at the pleasure of police, and they were right to stand their ground and not surrender the only copies of their footage in an illegal seizure. It's just a shame the average citizen doesnt have a legal department on-call to quickly intervene during abuses.
quote:
I make fun of the black helicopter people because they are the ones that always scream, "The tapes were altered or everyone is in on the fix!"
Muskogee defense attorney Lance McCrary is the one complaining about the edited dashcam video. The Tulsa World also reported they were not allowed to examine the recording in detail. Black Helicopter People?
As of this date, no complaint has been received from any media outlets regarding the seizure of any tapes of the incident. No media outlet was "bullied" into giving the tapes up. There was no illegal seizure. Is that clear enough for you?
The average person can know their rights.
Lance McCrary is attempting to get his client out of trouble. His first defense for his client was "The trooper is lying." After the tape was released, his second defense for his client was "the tape has been altered!". That was the only defense for his client left to him.
The Tulsa world received copies of the original. They wanted THE orginal or at least access to the orginal. That is simply not going to happen when there is litigation pending.
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
quote:
Originally posted by patric
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
I have a feeling no news media individuals will make a complaint because it simply did not happen like you said.
Did you already forget the part where they phoned their supervisors?
quote:
There is no reason to get a subpoena for something that people are willing to just give to you.
Why follow the law when you can bully your way? Reporters dont work at the pleasure of police, and they were right to stand their ground and not surrender the only copies of their footage in an illegal seizure. It's just a shame the average citizen doesnt have a legal department on-call to quickly intervene during abuses.
quote:
I make fun of the black helicopter people because they are the ones that always scream, "The tapes were altered or everyone is in on the fix!"
Muskogee defense attorney Lance McCrary is the one complaining about the edited dashcam video. The Tulsa World also reported they were not allowed to examine the recording in detail. Black Helicopter People?
As of this date, no complaint has been received from any media outlets regarding the seizure of any tapes of the incident. No media outlet was "bullied" into giving the tapes up. There was no illegal seizure. Is that clear enough for you?
The average person can know their rights.
Lance McCrary is attempting to get his client out of trouble. His first defense for his client was "The trooper is lying." After the tape was released, his second defense for his client was "the tape has been altered!". That was the only defense for his client left to him.
The Tulsa world received copies of the original. They wanted THE orginal or at least access to the orginal. That is simply not going to happen when there is litigation pending.
Oh Pardon, Monsieur.
When the Tulsa police shoot someone to death, no INDEPENDENT investigation is ever conducted.
Rather, the Police investigate THEMSELVES.
How can the police be INDEPENDENT to investigate themselves?
Answer:
They CANNOT.
When the police investigate a police shooting death, the facile D.A. is already inking up the
"JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE" rubber stamp.
Period.
All of what seems to the citizen as murderous madness actually has a rationale basis:
Namely, to make you AFRAID.
Be Afraid. Be very Afraid. This could happen to you.
Obey, or ELSE.
Welcome to the New World Order, Kameraden.
[}:)]
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
quote:
Originally posted by patric
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
I have a feeling no news media individuals will make a complaint because it simply did not happen like you said.
Did you already forget the part where they phoned their supervisors?
quote:
There is no reason to get a subpoena for something that people are willing to just give to you.
Why follow the law when you can bully your way? Reporters dont work at the pleasure of police, and they were right to stand their ground and not surrender the only copies of their footage in an illegal seizure. It's just a shame the average citizen doesnt have a legal department on-call to quickly intervene during abuses.
quote:
I make fun of the black helicopter people because they are the ones that always scream, "The tapes were altered or everyone is in on the fix!"
Muskogee defense attorney Lance McCrary is the one complaining about the edited dashcam video. The Tulsa World also reported they were not allowed to examine the recording in detail. Black Helicopter People?
As of this date, no complaint has been received from any media outlets regarding the seizure of any tapes of the incident. No media outlet was "bullied" into giving the tapes up. There was no illegal seizure. Is that clear enough for you?
The average person can know their rights.
Lance McCrary is attempting to get his client out of trouble. His first defense for his client was "The trooper is lying." After the tape was released, his second defense for his client was "the tape has been altered!". That was the only defense for his client left to him.
The Tulsa world received copies of the original. They wanted THE orginal or at least access to the orginal. That is simply not going to happen when there is litigation pending.
Oh Pardon, Monsieur.
When the Tulsa police shoot someone to death, no INDEPENDENT investigation is ever conducted.
Rather, the Police investigate THEMSELVES.
How can the police be INDEPENDENT to investigate themselves?
Answer:
They CANNOT.
When the police investigate a police shooting death, the facile D.A. is already inking up the
"JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE" rubber stamp.
Period.
All of what seems to the citizen as murderous madness actually has a rationale basis:
Namely, to make you AFRAID.
Be Afraid. Be very Afraid. This could happen to you.
Obey, or ELSE.
Welcome to the New World Order, Kameraden.
[}:)]
Who would you like to do the investigation?
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
quote:
Originally posted by patric
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
I have a feeling no news media individuals will make a complaint because it simply did not happen like you said.
Did you already forget the part where they phoned their supervisors?
quote:
There is no reason to get a subpoena for something that people are willing to just give to you.
Why follow the law when you can bully your way? Reporters dont work at the pleasure of police, and they were right to stand their ground and not surrender the only copies of their footage in an illegal seizure. It's just a shame the average citizen doesnt have a legal department on-call to quickly intervene during abuses.
quote:
I make fun of the black helicopter people because they are the ones that always scream, "The tapes were altered or everyone is in on the fix!"
Muskogee defense attorney Lance McCrary is the one complaining about the edited dashcam video. The Tulsa World also reported they were not allowed to examine the recording in detail. Black Helicopter People?
As of this date, no complaint has been received from any media outlets regarding the seizure of any tapes of the incident. No media outlet was "bullied" into giving the tapes up. There was no illegal seizure. Is that clear enough for you?
The average person can know their rights.
Lance McCrary is attempting to get his client out of trouble. His first defense for his client was "The trooper is lying." After the tape was released, his second defense for his client was "the tape has been altered!". That was the only defense for his client left to him.
The Tulsa world received copies of the original. They wanted THE orginal or at least access to the orginal. That is simply not going to happen when there is litigation pending.
Oh Pardon, Monsieur.
When the Tulsa police shoot someone to death, no INDEPENDENT investigation is ever conducted.
Rather, the Police investigate THEMSELVES.
How can the police be INDEPENDENT to investigate themselves?
Answer:
They CANNOT.
When the police investigate a police shooting death, the facile D.A. is already inking up the
"JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE" rubber stamp.
Period.
All of what seems to the citizen as murderous madness actually has a rationale basis:
Namely, to make you AFRAID.
Be Afraid. Be very Afraid. This could happen to you.
Obey, or ELSE.
Welcome to the New World Order, Kameraden.
[}:)]
Who would you like to do the investigation?
Greg Bledsoe.
or,
Clark Brewster
or,
Louis Bullock.
How's Zat?
THREE (3) independent investigators.
I'll volunteer as a fourth.
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
quote:
Originally posted by patric
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
I have a feeling no news media individuals will make a complaint because it simply did not happen like you said.
Did you already forget the part where they phoned their supervisors?
quote:
There is no reason to get a subpoena for something that people are willing to just give to you.
Why follow the law when you can bully your way? Reporters dont work at the pleasure of police, and they were right to stand their ground and not surrender the only copies of their footage in an illegal seizure. It's just a shame the average citizen doesnt have a legal department on-call to quickly intervene during abuses.
quote:
I make fun of the black helicopter people because they are the ones that always scream, "The tapes were altered or everyone is in on the fix!"
Muskogee defense attorney Lance McCrary is the one complaining about the edited dashcam video. The Tulsa World also reported they were not allowed to examine the recording in detail. Black Helicopter People?
As of this date, no complaint has been received from any media outlets regarding the seizure of any tapes of the incident. No media outlet was "bullied" into giving the tapes up. There was no illegal seizure. Is that clear enough for you?
The average person can know their rights.
Lance McCrary is attempting to get his client out of trouble. His first defense for his client was "The trooper is lying." After the tape was released, his second defense for his client was "the tape has been altered!". That was the only defense for his client left to him.
The Tulsa world received copies of the original. They wanted THE orginal or at least access to the orginal. That is simply not going to happen when there is litigation pending.
Oh Pardon, Monsieur.
When the Tulsa police shoot someone to death, no INDEPENDENT investigation is ever conducted.
Rather, the Police investigate THEMSELVES.
How can the police be INDEPENDENT to investigate themselves?
Answer:
They CANNOT.
When the police investigate a police shooting death, the facile D.A. is already inking up the
"JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE" rubber stamp.
Period.
All of what seems to the citizen as murderous madness actually has a rationale basis:
Namely, to make you AFRAID.
Be Afraid. Be very Afraid. This could happen to you.
Obey, or ELSE.
Welcome to the New World Order, Kameraden.
[}:)]
Who would you like to do the investigation?
Greg Bledsoe.
or,
Clark Brewster
or,
Louis Bullock.
How's Zat?
THREE (3) independent investigators.
I'll volunteer as a fourth.
So I see the Bear isn't here he is just a pigment of my imagination...?
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
quote:
Originally posted by patric
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
I have a feeling no news media individuals will make a complaint because it simply did not happen like you said.
Did you already forget the part where they phoned their supervisors?
quote:
There is no reason to get a subpoena for something that people are willing to just give to you.
Why follow the law when you can bully your way? Reporters dont work at the pleasure of police, and they were right to stand their ground and not surrender the only copies of their footage in an illegal seizure. It's just a shame the average citizen doesnt have a legal department on-call to quickly intervene during abuses.
quote:
I make fun of the black helicopter people because they are the ones that always scream, "The tapes were altered or everyone is in on the fix!"
Muskogee defense attorney Lance McCrary is the one complaining about the edited dashcam video. The Tulsa World also reported they were not allowed to examine the recording in detail. Black Helicopter People?
As of this date, no complaint has been received from any media outlets regarding the seizure of any tapes of the incident. No media outlet was "bullied" into giving the tapes up. There was no illegal seizure. Is that clear enough for you?
The average person can know their rights.
Lance McCrary is attempting to get his client out of trouble. His first defense for his client was "The trooper is lying." After the tape was released, his second defense for his client was "the tape has been altered!". That was the only defense for his client left to him.
The Tulsa world received copies of the original. They wanted THE orginal or at least access to the orginal. That is simply not going to happen when there is litigation pending.
Oh Pardon, Monsieur.
When the Tulsa police shoot someone to death, no INDEPENDENT investigation is ever conducted.
Rather, the Police investigate THEMSELVES.
How can the police be INDEPENDENT to investigate themselves?
Answer:
They CANNOT.
When the police investigate a police shooting death, the facile D.A. is already inking up the
"JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE" rubber stamp.
Period.
All of what seems to the citizen as murderous madness actually has a rationale basis:
Namely, to make you AFRAID.
Be Afraid. Be very Afraid. This could happen to you.
Obey, or ELSE.
Welcome to the New World Order, Kameraden.
[}:)]
Who would you like to do the investigation?
Greg Bledsoe.
or,
Clark Brewster
or,
Louis Bullock.
How's Zat?
THREE (3) independent investigators.
I'll volunteer as a fourth.
I love Clark Brewster. He represented Rico Yarbrough. He tried everything to get him accuited. He almost got thrown in jail for contempt of court on two occassions during the trial. In the end, he just couldn't overcome the recorded phone conversations. When he gets really mad in court, he moves his head back and forth and he looks kind of like a rooster.
Louis Bullock isn't as good as Brewster. He really just goes after the deep pockets. I don't think the city could afford him to investigate anything.
I haven't had any dealings with Greg Bledsoe.
These were all funny picks but I am still curious who you think would be "independent" and could do an thorough investigation?
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
quote:
Originally posted by patric
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
I have a feeling no news media individuals will make a complaint because it simply did not happen like you said.
Did you already forget the part where they phoned their supervisors?
quote:
There is no reason to get a subpoena for something that people are willing to just give to you.
Why follow the law when you can bully your way? Reporters dont work at the pleasure of police, and they were right to stand their ground and not surrender the only copies of their footage in an illegal seizure. It's just a shame the average citizen doesnt have a legal department on-call to quickly intervene during abuses.
quote:
I make fun of the black helicopter people because they are the ones that always scream, "The tapes were altered or everyone is in on the fix!"
Muskogee defense attorney Lance McCrary is the one complaining about the edited dashcam video. The Tulsa World also reported they were not allowed to examine the recording in detail. Black Helicopter People?
As of this date, no complaint has been received from any media outlets regarding the seizure of any tapes of the incident. No media outlet was "bullied" into giving the tapes up. There was no illegal seizure. Is that clear enough for you?
The average person can know their rights.
Lance McCrary is attempting to get his client out of trouble. His first defense for his client was "The trooper is lying." After the tape was released, his second defense for his client was "the tape has been altered!". That was the only defense for his client left to him.
The Tulsa world received copies of the original. They wanted THE orginal or at least access to the orginal. That is simply not going to happen when there is litigation pending.
Oh Pardon, Monsieur.
When the Tulsa police shoot someone to death, no INDEPENDENT investigation is ever conducted.
Rather, the Police investigate THEMSELVES.
How can the police be INDEPENDENT to investigate themselves?
Answer:
They CANNOT.
When the police investigate a police shooting death, the facile D.A. is already inking up the
"JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE" rubber stamp.
Period.
All of what seems to the citizen as murderous madness actually has a rationale basis:
Namely, to make you AFRAID.
Be Afraid. Be very Afraid. This could happen to you.
Obey, or ELSE.
Welcome to the New World Order, Kameraden.
[}:)]
Who would you like to do the investigation?
Greg Bledsoe.
or,
Clark Brewster
or,
Louis Bullock.
How's Zat?
THREE (3) independent investigators.
I'll volunteer as a fourth.
I love Clark Brewster. He represented Rico Yarbrough. He tried everything to get him accuited. He almost got thrown in jail for contempt of court on two occassions during the trial. In the end, he just couldn't overcome the recorded phone conversations. When he gets really mad in court, he moves his head back and forth and he looks kind of like a rooster.
Louis Bullock isn't as good as Brewster. He really just goes after the deep pockets. I don't think the city could afford him to investigate anything.
I haven't had any dealings with Greg Bledsoe.
These were all funny picks but I am still curious who you think would be "independent" and could do an thorough investigation?
Oh, maybe a Citizens Committee, made up of those names I mentioned, plus some other men and women of good character and intelligence who are INDEPENDENT of the police force. Former judges, attorneys, accountants, clergy who had the time to spend evaluating whether the police killing was justified.
THEY, not the police would evaluate the evidence.
And, if wrongdoing was suspected, make a referral to OSBI for further investigation, and then to the State Attorney General if confirmed.
Not handed over to the local facile D.A., who already works hand-in-glove with the TPD, and rubber-stamps every TPD investigation of a police killing.
The police simply are NOT independent to investigate themselves. Ever.
Have you guys seen those bastard police officers out helping those allegedly suffering from this storm. Just look at them, "pretending" to care about Tulsa citizens and "pretending" to tolerate the freezing temperatures and rain and slick streets while more likely than not their own families are without power. I saw a couple of police officers helping a stranded motorist near a downed power line. No doubt the police staged that potentially life-threatening scene to appear as if they are heroic. Sorry, I did not have my digital camera to record the latter event. No one on this thread would beileve it. Hey, here's a thought, let's hire three plaintiff lawyers or form a Citizens Commission to handle this weather disaster. I bet those folks would brave the temperature and dangerous conditions to make a difference in this world.
I saw them in Home Depot for crowd control when the generator shipment arrived.....heh...
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Have you guys seen those bastard police officers out helping those allegedly suffering from this storm. Just look at them, "pretending" to care about Tulsa citizens and "pretending" to tolerate the freezing temperatures and rain and slick streets while more likely than not their own families are without power. I saw a couple of police officers helping a stranded motorist near a downed power line. No doubt the police staged that potentially life-threatening scene to appear as if they are heroic. Sorry, I did not have my digital camera to record the latter event. No one on this thread would beileve it. Hey, here's a thought, let's hire three plaintiff lawyers or form a Citizens Commission to handle this weather disaster. I bet those folks would brave the temperature and dangerous conditions to make a difference in this world.
Excellent time for TPD to get mucho Overtime.
I am sure it is definitely a case of a few good apples spoils the bunch.
The problem has always been there are those few people who wanted to be bullies in school, but were too small... Now they have badges.
Lucky for us, those people don't tend to gravitate towards larger cities with more oversight.
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
Excellent time for TPD to get mucho Overtime.
I'll pay you my husband's overtime so he can come back and help me with our one year old and two year old, we are staying with friend's who thankfully have power, it's the third place we've been in three days. No one else I know does. You know, they have families too. Such ungrateful people, at least ***** about something that is worth it. This isn't even topic!
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Have you guys seen those bastard police officers out helping those allegedly suffering from this storm. Just look at them, "pretending" to care about Tulsa citizens and "pretending" to tolerate the freezing temperatures and rain and slick streets while more likely than not their own families are without power. I saw a couple of police officers helping a stranded motorist near a downed power line. No doubt the police staged that potentially life-threatening scene to appear as if they are heroic. Sorry, I did not have my digital camera to record the latter event. No one on this thread would beileve it. Hey, here's a thought, let's hire three plaintiff lawyers or form a Citizens Commission to handle this weather disaster. I bet those folks would brave the temperature and dangerous conditions to make a difference in this world.
Excellent time for TPD to get mucho Overtime.
Yeah Friendly, that's what its all about. Making money. The police are just raking it in over there.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Have you guys seen those bastard police officers out helping those allegedly suffering from this storm. Just look at them, "pretending" to care about Tulsa citizens and "pretending" to tolerate the freezing temperatures and rain and slick streets while more likely than not their own families are without power. I saw a couple of police officers helping a stranded motorist near a downed power line. No doubt the police staged that potentially life-threatening scene to appear as if they are heroic. Sorry, I did not have my digital camera to record the latter event. No one on this thread would beileve it. Hey, here's a thought, let's hire three plaintiff lawyers or form a Citizens Commission to handle this weather disaster. I bet those folks would brave the temperature and dangerous conditions to make a difference in this world.
Please read my standard disclaimer in my post.
I would never argue that police do more harm than good. But even the cops that are currently out helping are guilty of the minor infractions i have mentioned. I expect the me employees who exist to enforce the laws to do nothing less than FOLLOW THE LAWS. This includes seemingly petty things like speed limits, traffic laws, and due process.
and wow, Police doing their jobs and helping people. Strange that you felt the need to point that out since that is what should USUALLY be happening. Of my direct encounters of the TPD (not counting them running lights in front of me or wizzing by me on the highway) I'd saw 85% have been very positive [one tried to give me a ticket for going 40 in a 40 - he thought it was a 35 and refused to admit he was wrong].
And hey, I spent 16 hours the first 2 days chainsawing my street clear, helping neighbors, and other miserable tasks in 33 degree rain. Heck, i wasn't even employed to help the citizens of Tulsa. How amazing (read: expected).
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Have you guys seen those bastard police officers out helping those allegedly suffering from this storm. Just look at them, "pretending" to care about Tulsa citizens and "pretending" to tolerate the freezing temperatures and rain and slick streets while more likely than not their own families are without power. I saw a couple of police officers helping a stranded motorist near a downed power line. No doubt the police staged that potentially life-threatening scene to appear as if they are heroic. Sorry, I did not have my digital camera to record the latter event. No one on this thread would beileve it. Hey, here's a thought, let's hire three plaintiff lawyers or form a Citizens Commission to handle this weather disaster. I bet those folks would brave the temperature and dangerous conditions to make a difference in this world.
Please read my standard disclaimer in my post.
I would never argue that police do more harm than good. But even the cops that are currently out helping are guilty of the minor infractions i have mentioned. I expect the me employees who exist to enforce the laws to do nothing less than FOLLOW THE LAWS. This includes seemingly petty things like speed limits, traffic laws, and due process.
and wow, Police doing their jobs and helping people. Strange that you felt the need to point that out since that is what should USUALLY be happening. Of my direct encounters of the TPD (not counting them running lights in front of me or wizzing by me on the highway) I'd saw 85% have been very positive [one tried to give me a ticket for going 40 in a 40 - he thought it was a 35 and refused to admit he was wrong].
And hey, I spent 16 hours the first 2 days chainsawing my street clear, helping neighbors, and other miserable tasks in 33 degree rain. Heck, i wasn't even employed to help the citizens of Tulsa. How amazing (read: expected).
Yeah, "read my standard disclaimer, then watch me turn right around and rip away..." CF
Sorry buddy, you are an ingrate.
An ingrate is one who shows no gratitude, my statements make it very clear that I am grateful for the job they perform. I simply want the police to live up the image they portray - it's hard to enforce the laws you don't follow without being a hypocrite.
Watching me "rip away" is watching me state that I expect officers to follow the laws. I will need you to explain to me how expecting officers to follow ALL the laws they enforce makes me somehow ungrateful or even offensive. I, and most everyone else, commonly observes officers breaking the laws they enforce. Wanting to see that behavior stop is offensive to you?
What the hell? Do you not realize that the perception of a minimal level of corruption in the justice system (starting with law enforcement) is essential for its functioning? The more people see cops running red lights, speeding, and getting caught cheating citizens in court the less faith we will have and more problem officers will have doing their jobs. The last thing I want is to live in a neighborhood or society where the police are viewed with actual suspicion (not just many ignore minor traffic laws and a few are corrupt, but that MOST look to plant evidence and such - that perception leads to serious problems).
Then I point out that I was just as heroic as the officers by helping out my neighbors that were allegedly suffering because I was "pretending" to care - and I did so without overtime pay! Gasp! Doesn't that make me some kind of hero? Should you not be singing my praise because I not only did my job (as a citizen) and did not break any laws while doing it, but I did so without overtime pay.
I helped people out of goodwill, bow down and worship me.
You ingrate.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
An ingrate is one who shows no gratitude, my statements make it very clear that I am grateful for the job they perform. I simply want the police to live up the image they portray - it's hard to enforce the laws you don't follow without being a hypocrite.
Watching me "rip away" is watching me state that I expect officers to follow the laws. I will need you to explain to me how expecting officers to follow ALL the laws they enforce makes me somehow ungrateful or even offensive. I, and most everyone else, commonly observes officers breaking the laws they enforce. Wanting to see that behavior stop is offensive to you?
What the hell? Do you not realize that the perception of a minimal level of corruption in the justice system (starting with law enforcement) is essential for its functioning? The more people see cops running red lights, speeding, and getting caught cheating citizens in court the less faith we will have and more problem officers will have doing their jobs. The last thing I want is to live in a neighborhood or society where the police are viewed with actual suspicion (not just many ignore minor traffic laws and a few are corrupt, but that MOST look to plant evidence and such - that perception leads to serious problems).
Then I point out that I was just as heroic as the officers by helping out my neighbors that were allegedly suffering because I was "pretending" to care - and I did so without overtime pay! Gasp! Doesn't that make me some kind of hero? Should you not be singing my praise because I not only did my job (as a citizen) and did not break any laws while doing it, but I did so without overtime pay.
I helped people out of goodwill, bow down and worship me.
You ingrate.
Uhhhh, Nope, last post doesn't help. You are still an ingrate. Maybe we should wait until after this weather mess is straightened out, when the police can quietly return to random beatings of citizens, planting evidence, or otherwise simply not living up to YOUR expectations, before we debate the issue.
Guido, you are clearly not getting the point.
I do not think most cops plant evidence, beat citizens or the like. I want to give the citizenry LESS reason to believe such proven actions are common place. One way of doing so would be to cut down on the petty violations that citizens see all the time.
If nothing else, answer one question for me:
Is expecting officers to follow the law an unreasonable expectation?
I guess I fail to see where your complaint is coming from. If you feel that the police should be above the law then I total disagree with you as fervently as I can. If you feel that I am condemning officers at large then you are not reading critically. All public servants MUST be open to public criticism to sustain a free society.
If nothing else, please answer my above question. If you feel it is unreasonable, there is no need to discuss with you really.
Guido not getting the point seems to be his standard M.O.
[}:)]
quote:
Originally posted by tulsa_fan
Such ungrateful people, at least ***** about something that is worth it. This isn't even topic!
If this is a sympathy competition: no one I know has power, not one person I could stay with. So my family sits at home in the cold instead of at a friends. And hey, instead of overtime I actually missed work (read lost pay) and spent 10+ hours each day helping people out anyway. So while I understand it is hard for you and I can empathize with your situation, the sympathy level around here just isn't shooting up.
That said, why is this "not a thread?" Are you not concerned that the action of some of your husbands brothers on the thin blue line effecting the public image of him? Do you not expect your husband to follow the laws he is asked to risk his life to enforce?
I just don't get why criticizing police for breaking the law is controversial to some people. I'm an attorney - do I defend other attorney's who embezzle money, over charge, or other illegal and unethical behavior because some attorneys are in it for the greater good? I simply don't get it.
I would think law abiding police, their families , and most people who support a law abiding society would agree that those that enforce the laws should be expected to follow them. As with Guido, if you for some reason think the police are above the law then I wholeheartedly disagree.
and again, since some people NEVER get it. I understand the job of a policemen is very hard at times. Dealing with scuzzy and dangerous people, working odd hours and so on. I greatly appreciate the vast amount of good they do and recognize that they enable a civil society. However, at the end of the day they are public employees and citizens - just like me. They are compensated to perform a vital job but have no special prowess to usurp the legal system or other day to day laws. I appreciate that the scandals are such because such horrific breaches are rare - but I think they can do better.
quote:
I love Clark Brewster. He represented Rico Yarbrough. He tried everything to get him accuited. He almost got thrown in jail for contempt of court on two occassions during the trial. In the end, he just couldn't overcome the recorded phone conversations. When he gets really mad in court, he moves his head back and forth and he looks kind of like a rooster.
His huge head looks like a television set...
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
quote:
Originally posted by tulsa_fan
Such ungrateful people, at least ***** about something that is worth it. This isn't even topic!
If this is a sympathy competition: no one I know has power, not one person I could stay with. So my family sits at home in the cold instead of at a friends. And hey, instead of overtime I actually missed work (read lost pay) and spent 10+ hours each day helping people out anyway. So while I understand it is hard for you and I can empathize with your situation, the sympathy level around here just isn't shooting up.
That said, why is this "not a thread?" Are you not concerned that the action of some of your husbands brothers on the thin blue line effecting the public image of him? Do you not expect your husband to follow the laws he is asked to risk his life to enforce?
I just don't get why criticizing police for breaking the law is controversial to some people. I'm an attorney - do I defend other attorney's who embezzle money, over charge, or other illegal and unethical behavior because some attorneys are in it for the greater good? I simply don't get it.
I would think law abiding police, their families , and most people who support a law abiding society would agree that those that enforce the laws should be expected to follow them. As with Guido, if you for some reason think the police are above the law then I wholeheartedly disagree.
and again, since some people NEVER get it. I understand the job of a policemen is very hard at times. Dealing with scuzzy and dangerous people, working odd hours and so on. I greatly appreciate the vast amount of good they do and recognize that they enable a civil society. However, at the end of the day they are public employees and citizens - just like me. They are compensated to perform a vital job but have no special prowess to usurp the legal system or other day to day laws. I appreciate that the scandals are such because such horrific breaches are rare - but I think they can do better.
Ooohhh. That explains alot.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Guido, you are clearly not getting the point.
I do not think most cops plant evidence, beat citizens or the like. I want to give the citizenry LESS reason to believe such proven actions are common place. One way of doing so would be to cut down on the petty violations that citizens see all the time.
If nothing else, answer one question for me:
Is expecting officers to follow the law an unreasonable expectation?
I guess I fail to see where your complaint is coming from. If you feel that the police should be above the law then I total disagree with you as fervently as I can. If you feel that I am condemning officers at large then you are not reading critically. All public servants MUST be open to public criticism to sustain a free society.
If nothing else, please answer my above question. If you feel it is unreasonable, there is no need to discuss with you really.
I get your point. I got it the first time. This statement from your post in this thread is what triggered my "ingrate" accusation:
"and wow, Police doing their jobs and helping people. Strange that you felt the need to point that out since that is what should USUALLY be happening."
What does that statement have to do with YOUR point about police following the law? Absolutely nothing. What is does show me, however, is a lack of gratitude or perhaps contempt for the police. Gee, sort of fits the definition of an "ingrate", don't ya think? Indeed, that soldier died for his country, but isn't that their JOB!
And RW, I fully expect you to weigh in with the correct 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, and 14th Amendment constructs governing police misconduct once this thread gets there.
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
quote:
Originally posted by patric
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
I have a feeling no news media individuals will make a complaint because it simply did not happen like you said.
Did you already forget the part where they phoned their supervisors?
quote:
There is no reason to get a subpoena for something that people are willing to just give to you.
Why follow the law when you can bully your way? Reporters dont work at the pleasure of police, and they were right to stand their ground and not surrender the only copies of their footage in an illegal seizure. It's just a shame the average citizen doesnt have a legal department on-call to quickly intervene during abuses.
quote:
I make fun of the black helicopter people because they are the ones that always scream, "The tapes were altered or everyone is in on the fix!"
Muskogee defense attorney Lance McCrary is the one complaining about the edited dashcam video. The Tulsa World also reported they were not allowed to examine the recording in detail. Black Helicopter People?
As of this date, no complaint has been received from any media outlets regarding the seizure of any tapes of the incident. No media outlet was "bullied" into giving the tapes up. There was no illegal seizure. Is that clear enough for you?
The average person can know their rights.
Lance McCrary is attempting to get his client out of trouble. His first defense for his client was "The trooper is lying." After the tape was released, his second defense for his client was "the tape has been altered!". That was the only defense for his client left to him.
The Tulsa world received copies of the original. They wanted THE orginal or at least access to the orginal. That is simply not going to happen when there is litigation pending.
Oh Pardon, Monsieur.
When the Tulsa police shoot someone to death, no INDEPENDENT investigation is ever conducted.
Rather, the Police investigate THEMSELVES.
How can the police be INDEPENDENT to investigate themselves?
Answer:
They CANNOT.
When the police investigate a police shooting death, the facile D.A. is already inking up the
"JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE" rubber stamp.
Period.
All of what seems to the citizen as murderous madness actually has a rationale basis:
Namely, to make you AFRAID.
Be Afraid. Be very Afraid. This could happen to you.
Obey, or ELSE.
Welcome to the New World Order, Kameraden.
[}:)]
Who would you like to do the investigation?
Greg Bledsoe.
or,
Clark Brewster
or,
Louis Bullock.
How's Zat?
THREE (3) independent investigators.
I'll volunteer as a fourth.
Here's a panel that would be right up your alley, Clark Brewster, Louis Bullock, Ed lutz, Jeff Fisher, Caesar Latimer, and Michael French.
I'm sure that is the kind of "independent" investigators you are looking for.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
I get your point. I got it the first time. This statement from your post in this thread is what triggered my "ingrate" accusation:
"and wow, Police doing their jobs and helping people. Strange that you felt the need to point that out since that is what should USUALLY be happening."
What does that statement have to do with YOUR point about police following the law? Absolutely nothing. What is does show me, however, is a lack of gratitude or perhaps contempt for the police. Gee, sort of fits the definition of an "ingrate", don't ya think? Indeed, that soldier died for his country, but isn't that their JOB!
Let me frame the argument:
Me: Police should follow the laws.
Guido: The police help people, you're an ingrate.
Me: The Police are supposed to help people, they still need to follow the laws.
Guido: Stop saying the police are bad.
So your argument is the police help people so criticizing them for breaking the law makes me ungrateful? Totally irrational.
and to answer your question, the statement has little relation to my point - it was directed at YOUR point. Your response to "they should follow the law" was "they help people." Therefor making my counter point "they are supposed to help people" a response to your tangent, thus redirected attention and shortly thereafter restating my original point: that police should follow the laws they enforce.
So... if wanting the police to follow the laws and expecting them to help people while repeatedly expressing my gratitude for the good they perform is inexplicably ungrateful, then yes, I'm an ingrate. However, I would be deeply troubled if you do not share the same expectations for police officers in your community. What in the hell is the point of having a police force if you do not expect them to follow the laws and help people?
- - -
and since you are now into coaxing comments and then trying to utilize them as stand alone points I'll be perfectly clear here... in response to your solider comment:
I never said "they were just doing their jobs and therefor deserve no gratitude." I am grateful for the QT clerk who rapidly checks me out. To the firemen who cleans up the oil slick after an accident. To the janitor who cleans my office. And to the doctor who quelled my friends cancer. Even though they are just doing their jobs and I EXPECT them to do so - I remain grateful (and no, I am not implying my gratitude to the QT clerk is on par with my gratitude towards perhaps more noble professions). For most, this is not a hard concept.
I expect the police to help people and it is their job. I am very disappointed when they do not. But I remain grateful for the task they perform.
Likewise, it is - unfortunately, on occasion a soldiers job to die. I expect a U.S. soldier to put themselves in harms way and if need be to stand their ground and die. I would be disappointed if a service man or woman abandoned their unit in a firefight. But that expectation of service in harms way in no manner, way, shape or form diminishes my gratitude to any service member nor my remorse for those that are injured or killed.
Similarly, I criticize the conduct of our service members when they break the law. Abuse of prisoners, disrespect to the Iraqi people, and on rare occasions even murder. I think our soldiers should follow the laws set down for them and am disappointed when they do not. However, that does NOT diminished my gratitude for the job they are performing nor does it imply that I think all, most, or even many soldiers are guilty of serious infractions.
I hope you see the parallel and consistency in my answers. I have been perfectly clear in my responses and positions and have been met by extrapolations and insults. If you have any questions in my position or lingering doubt about my gratitude feel free to ask. I hope I did not write this in such a way as to be insulting, but I attempted to make it entirely clear and cover any misconception you may either have or conjure.
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
quote:
Originally posted by patric
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
I have a feeling no news media individuals will make a complaint because it simply did not happen like you said.
Did you already forget the part where they phoned their supervisors?
quote:
There is no reason to get a subpoena for something that people are willing to just give to you.
Why follow the law when you can bully your way? Reporters dont work at the pleasure of police, and they were right to stand their ground and not surrender the only copies of their footage in an illegal seizure. It's just a shame the average citizen doesnt have a legal department on-call to quickly intervene during abuses.
quote:
I make fun of the black helicopter people because they are the ones that always scream, "The tapes were altered or everyone is in on the fix!"
Muskogee defense attorney Lance McCrary is the one complaining about the edited dashcam video. The Tulsa World also reported they were not allowed to examine the recording in detail. Black Helicopter People?
As of this date, no complaint has been received from any media outlets regarding the seizure of any tapes of the incident. No media outlet was "bullied" into giving the tapes up. There was no illegal seizure. Is that clear enough for you?
What is clear is that you are rewording my questions to avoid having to face them.
Media at the scene RESISTED unlawful demands by officers to turn over their original tapes, despite officers at the scene threatening them with arrest. The reporters immediately COMPLAINED via their supervisors by cell phone. The stations then COMPLAINED to police administration to halt the unlawful actions of it's officers. The department was later provided with duplicates of the video once legal procedure was followed.
Seizing reporters notes/tapes/pictures in the field is not something honest LEO's do, is not department procedure and is a violation of law.
Had police followed the law they would not have had their hands slapped, but the fact remains the officers at the scene intended to seize the only pictures of them killing the mental patient.
quote:
The Tulsa world received copies of the original. They wanted THE orginal or at least access to the orginal. That is simply not going to happen when there is litigation pending.
Wrong. The Tulsa World was not given any video. The OHP trooper's lawyer played an edited DVD of the alleged potty-mouthed traffic stop in his office in front of a reporter. When the World asked for a copy of the DVD the lawyer refused. They were also denied any opportunity to independently validate the original recording. http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=071004_1_A13_hrpah60381
Doing so would have verified whether or not the audio was edited separate from the video track, or that the evidence was tampered with.
This is the main reason Oklahoma needs to include dashcam video in the open records act and make it public record (as most other states have done).
quote:
Originally posted by patric
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
quote:
Originally posted by patric
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
I have a feeling no news media individuals will make a complaint because it simply did not happen like you said.
Did you already forget the part where they phoned their supervisors?
quote:
There is no reason to get a subpoena for something that people are willing to just give to you.
Why follow the law when you can bully your way? Reporters dont work at the pleasure of police, and they were right to stand their ground and not surrender the only copies of their footage in an illegal seizure. It's just a shame the average citizen doesnt have a legal department on-call to quickly intervene during abuses.
quote:
I make fun of the black helicopter people because they are the ones that always scream, "The tapes were altered or everyone is in on the fix!"
Muskogee defense attorney Lance McCrary is the one complaining about the edited dashcam video. The Tulsa World also reported they were not allowed to examine the recording in detail. Black Helicopter People?
As of this date, no complaint has been received from any media outlets regarding the seizure of any tapes of the incident. No media outlet was "bullied" into giving the tapes up. There was no illegal seizure. Is that clear enough for you?
What is clear is that you are rewording my questions to avoid having to face them.
Media at the scene RESISTED unlawful demands by officers to turn over their original tapes, despite officers at the scene threatening them with arrest. The reporters immediately COMPLAINED via their supervisors by cell phone. The stations then COMPLAINED to police administration to halt the unlawful actions of it's officers. The department was later provided with duplicates of the video once legal procedure was followed.
Seizing reporters notes/tapes/pictures in the field is not something honest LEO's do, is not department procedure and is a violation of law.
Had police followed the law they would not have had their hands slapped, but the fact remains the officers at the scene intended to seize the only pictures of them killing the mental patient.
quote:
The Tulsa world received copies of the original. They wanted THE orginal or at least access to the orginal. That is simply not going to happen when there is litigation pending.
Wrong. The Tulsa World was not given any video. The OHP trooper's lawyer played an edited DVD of the alleged potty-mouthed traffic stop in his office in front of a reporter. When the World asked for a copy of the DVD the lawyer refused. They were also denied any opportunity to independently validate the original recording. http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=071004_1_A13_hrpah60381
Doing so would have verified whether or not the audio was edited separate from the video track, or that the evidence was tampered with.
This is the main reason Oklahoma needs to include dashcam video in the open records act and make it public record (as most other states have done).
Okay. One more time.
No media outlet filed a formal complaint with the police department for the incident. Officers told the media outlets they would need the tapes for evidence. Some of the news stations willingly gave the video of the incident to the officers at the scene. Others said they would need a subpoena. Officers at the scene said okay but they did tell the cameramen to stay at the scene. The officers needed to check with their supervisors to see if they could let the video leave or if we need to hold it there until a search warrant was obtained. An agreement was reached between the news outlets and the police regarding the custody of the tapes. The police now have the tapes.
Seizing videotapes of crimes in progress is something police officers do. Sometimes officers get a warrant for the video and sometimes they just get permission.
It should also be noted that no police hands were slapped during this incident.
The OHP incident was posted on several websites. The lawyer for Rocky Northcutt did not give Rhett Morgan his only copy of the incident. Lance McCrary was given a copy of the video. I thought the Tulsa World got the video. I guess everyone but the Tulsa World got a copy. I guess OHP doesn't think much of the Tulsa World.
I guess you better get busy writting your state congressman about making dashcam videos part of the open records act. Maybe if they do, the state would be forced to fund webcams for all department vehicles!
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
Okay. One more time. No media outlet filed a formal complaint with the police department for the incident. Officers told the media outlets they would need the tapes for evidence. Some of the news stations willingly gave the video of the incident to the officers at the scene. Others said they would need a subpoena. Officers at the scene said okay but they did tell the cameramen to stay at the scene. The officers needed to check with their supervisors to see if they could let the video leave or if we need to hold it there until a search warrant was obtained.
Your earlier statement "No complaint has been received from any media outlets" apparently meant going downtown later and filling out paperwork to you, when in fact it worked out to media legal teams having to remind TPD administration about certain guarantees against unlawful search and seizure.
It is never legal for police to seize reporters notes or recordings without a specific court order, and what you just described at the scene was an unlawful arrest to facilitate an unlawful seizure.
quote:
The OHP incident was posted on several websites.
Please give a link to any of those several websites that have the video. An edited audio excerpt doesnt count.
quote:
The lawyer for Rocky Northcutt did not give Rhett Morgan his only copy of the incident.
He didnt give him
any copy of the incident. Really, how hard would it have been to make a copy, or another DVD with the reporter's laptop?
quote:
Lance McCrary was given a copy of the video. I thought the Tulsa World got the video. I guess everyone but the Tulsa World got a copy. I guess OHP doesn't think much of the Tulsa World.
The victim's defense attorney got a copy full of "gaps", which prompted the Tulsa World's inquiry.
The OHP has a responsibility to be honest to the public, and which outlets they may or may not like shouldnt affect the quality of their sincerity.
Your earlier statement "No complaint has been received from any media outlets" apparently meant going downtown later and filling out paperwork to you, when in fact it worked out to media legal teams having to remind TPD administration about certain guarantees against unlawful search and seizure.
It is never legal for police to seize reporters notes or recordings without a specific court order, and what you just described at the scene was an unlawful arrest to facilitate an unlawful seizure.
- Yes. That is what I meant. What I described was not an unlawful arrest to facilitate an unlawful seizure. The police wanted the cameramen (and camerawomen) to stay at the scene with the tapes. They were free to leave but not with the tapes until an agreement was reached.
Please give a link to any of those several websites that have the video. An edited audio excerpt doesnt count.
-I saw it on the channel 6 website and I think the channel 8 website. I don't know where it is now. You can always call Wellon Poe and ask for a copy. I'm sure the investigation is over now.
He didnt give him any copy of the incident. Really, how hard would it have been to make a copy, or another DVD with the reporter's laptop?
- Maybe they had laptops like mine that doesn't have a DVD burner. Maybe they were cheap and wouldn't splurge for the blank DVD. Why don't you call Rhett Morgan or Gary James and ask them directly.
The victim's defense attorney got a copy full of "gaps", which prompted the Tulsa World's inquiry.
Actually, the defense attorney said "skips". Gary James said "It just floors me for people to believe the Department of Public Safety or Highway Patrol are back there altering tapes," he said. "If they were, I wouldn't be representing troopers in disciplinary actions."
The videotape of the White traffic stop contains a digital counter and clear background audio on which no breaks are seen or heard, James said.
"That's why I challenge Mr. Roy, Ms. White. Mr. McCrary, don't just talk," he said. Attorney Chris Roy Sr. represents White in civil litigation against Northcutt, and Lance McCrary of Muskogee is her criminal defense attorney.
"If you have something that shows this tape was altered, bring it on; get your expert out there, and we'll have a battle of experts," James said. "This innuendo is amazing to me."
"You can't ask for a police officer to have anything better than an audio-video of the incident. If that audio-video of the incident bears out that the trooper is wrong, he'll pay for it. But the corollary is true. If the audio-video bears out that the citizen is wrong or committed the violation, they should also pay for it."
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
They were free to leave but not with the tapes until an agreement was reached.
That is not within the authority of police. The reporters were within their legal rights to peaceably resist.
quote:
"That's why I challenge Mr. Roy, Ms. White. Mr. McCrary, don't just talk," he said. Attorney Chris Roy Sr. represents White in civil litigation against Northcutt, and Lance McCrary of Muskogee is her criminal defense attorney.
What are you citing? Can you provide a link?
quote:
Originally posted by patric
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
They were free to leave but not with the tapes until an agreement was reached.
That is not within the authority of police. The reporters were within their legal rights to peaceably resist.
quote:
"That's why I challenge Mr. Roy, Ms. White. Mr. McCrary, don't just talk," he said. Attorney Chris Roy Sr. represents White in civil litigation against Northcutt, and Lance McCrary of Muskogee is her criminal defense attorney.
What are you citing? Can you provide a link?
We'll just have to agree to disagree on the tape deal.
I got his quote from this article...
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070929_1_A1_hApap21583
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
quote:
Originally posted by tulsa_fan
Such ungrateful people, at least ***** about something that is worth it. This isn't even topic!
If this is a sympathy competition: no one I know has power, not one person I could stay with. So my family sits at home in the cold instead of at a friends. And hey, instead of overtime I actually missed work (read lost pay) and spent 10+ hours each day helping people out anyway. So while I understand it is hard for you and I can empathize with your situation, the sympathy level around here just isn't shooting up.
That said, why is this "not a thread?" Are you not concerned that the action of some of your husbands brothers on the thin blue line effecting the public image of him? Do you not expect your husband to follow the laws he is asked to risk his life to enforce?
I just don't get why criticizing police for breaking the law is controversial to some people. I'm an attorney - do I defend other attorney's who embezzle money, over charge, or other illegal and unethical behavior because some attorneys are in it for the greater good? I simply don't get it.
I would think law abiding police, their families , and most people who support a law abiding society would agree that those that enforce the laws should be expected to follow them. As with Guido, if you for some reason think the police are above the law then I wholeheartedly disagree.
and again, since some people NEVER get it. I understand the job of a policemen is very hard at times. Dealing with scuzzy and dangerous people, working odd hours and so on. I greatly appreciate the vast amount of good they do and recognize that they enable a civil society. However, at the end of the day they are public employees and citizens - just like me. They are compensated to perform a vital job but have no special prowess to usurp the legal system or other day to day laws. I appreciate that the scandals are such because such horrific breaches are rare - but I think they can do better.
Cannon - I think you missed my point entirely. The catty jab at the police milking this for overtime was what I snapped at. After working 16 hour shifts, my husband was lucky to get about 2 or 3 hours of sleep then either had to take care of the kids so I could work, we had power, or he was out helping other people get limbs out of the way, there's no sympathy contest here, it sucked for everyone affected, but for Friendly to act like overtime is something police get excited about during a disaster when their families are enduring the same hardships as everyone else is wasn't correct and was OFF TOPIC, which is what I said. I'm not sure what you mean by not a thread?
I have disagreed with others when I think an officer is wrong. I believe I tried hard emphasize with ?Swake? when he got his ticket and believed he was screwed. I can happen. I do agree officers should abide by the laws they enforce, but I also live in the real world and understand why they do a lot of the things they do. I rode along Friday night, we responded to an alarm call, and we sped, without our lights on and then the call was cancelled on the way, since I needed to go to the bathroom, we went on to UDN. So someone following us around would assume we were just speeding to get to the station and have no idea what was really going on. I know you think they should only speed, or anything, if they are running code, but I've been in the car when code is running and seen how STUPID drivers become when the lights are running.
Just as you continue to make your disclaimer, here is mine, THERE ARE BAD COPS, there are cops that abuse their power, there are cops who break laws only because they think they can. I can't stand that, it makes me sad because I know my husband and hundred of other officers who don't. They work hard at their job. I just don't always agree because you think you see something you are right. I am willing to believe there may be two sides to the story.
I wish we could all sit around and hold hands and all get along. But I've seen the crappy side, I wish he could go on a car stop and say, hey gentlemen, how are you doing tonight. I know I can't see inside your car because your windows are so dark, and the fact that the car is registered to a convicted felon, who has multiple assult with a deadly weapon charges, really doesn't mean anything, I'm going to pretend you are an upstanding respectable citizen, I'm going to treat you the same as the 80 year old man I helped across the street. I'm sure you will respond with respect when I ask to see your license, I'm sure you would never carry a weapon on your person, which would be illegal. I'm not going to drop the F-bomb when you reach between your seat, I'm sure you are just looking for your license. I'm just going to stand here, and not have my hand on my weapon because that may make you feel uncomfortable . . . you see officers can't always act like that, because sometimes that will leave an officer dead, remember Trooper Nicky Green who went, off duty, to check on a car who a passerby thought was in need of help? Have you heard that tape? I have, I know he begged for his life, as that thug shot him execution style. See sometimes, just being a nice old police man gets them killed. Sometimes officers say things that most of us, including myself, don't think appropriate, but needed, when the thugs they are dealing with only respond to it.
Anyway, I'm not arguing, I'm proud of what our police do, I'm proud Chief Palmer is back at the helm, he has before proven himself as a leader who will not accept disgraceful behavior. I hope he will continue to push the bad cops out and make things better for those who make us proud everyday.
I just would rather our focus be on getting rid of officers who are corrupt, like tipping witnesses off before raids, or stealing property, or some of the other scary stuff that we have heard about in the last few years. I really don't care that some officers speed, I speed most days . . . and sometimes I get pulled over and get a ticket for it. Guess I just would rather focus on the bigger battles and don't get why there is such an alarm about such petty things, like they didn't use their signal at a car light . . .
Anyway, hope your power is back on. Mine came back on Saturday and we are much happier people in our family! This has been the pits.
Thanks for sharing TulsaFan.
I know many police officers and they are all outstanding individuals doing a difficult job. Yes, there are always going to be some who let the power go to their head and feel they are above the law.
My father was a police officer here in Tulsa for twenty years, retiring when I was in Clooege. He always wanted me to join the force, but I remember the difficult times, like when was of his friends on the force was killed in a routine traffic stop or the time when he had to arrest a neighbor and close friend for drunk driving. I also will never forget the time when we were minding our own business shopping in a local grocery store and someone he arrested months before attacked him. Being a police officer must be a very difficult job even when off the clock.
For that reason alone they deserve our respect.
tulsa_fan
I think we share the same sentiment. My "overtime" comment was in response to a raised point and thus slightly out of context. I understand that it was essentially forced overtime and in a 20 hour shift the overtime pay is no incentive at all.
And I agree, most cops do everything reasonable to stay on the straight and narrow. If I occasionally saw an officer do the petty things I mentioned it would not cause me any alarm. I just see it constantly - it really is not a big deal, just annoying.
What is a big deal is the fact that more and more bad cops are being exposed. My childhood (and well into adulthood) delusion that the police side of the story was always right no longer really holds true. Ride alongs, police practices classes, and other items discussed have dispelled that myth. That's what concerns me. When an officer testifies to something it is very likely it is the truth, but no longer absolute. And that causes problems for your husband and for me.
That's all I'm saying.
Nonetheless, I'm very glad you have your heat back on (so do we!) and I hope your husband can cut back to "normal" hours. Are there any plans to give officers/firemen additional days off to compensate them for their extended overtime &/or save budget money? Seems like it might be something all parties would be happy with (assuming the reserves/additional officers can carry the load).
p.s. See why I put this in politics? [:P]
My husband 99.9% of the time takes his overtime in time off rather than pay. I guess it's the benefit of me working and us not having to live paycheck to paycheck. So his time won't hurt the budget this year! Of course, I think with all the disater declarations, the city will be reimbursed all costs related to the storm so I think that will be OK. I did hear from tons of officers how impressed they were with how things were handled from a law enforcement point of view. The extra manpower was needed and it was put to use, not just come to work and not have a plan. They did a good job of controlling loitering, my hubby was part of a group that caught a few burglars on Tuesday. With no power and Christmas time, I am very pleased with how well police were able to control the crime.
So let's focus on a good police thing . . . of course, would be off topic . . . .
The police will be handing out computers to children who need them on Friday. This is a project that has been going on for several years. Its a very hard year, as the founder of PC Power, Retired Officer Gary DeWeese passed away this past weekend. Many people have picked up the ball and are carrying his legacy this weekend! There is good to be seen within the department!
On that happy note, I must get back to work!
Honestly, I would thus far have no complaints about any of the services.
To me, it appears the City, the Police, Fire, EMSA; all responded very well. AEP brought in a ton of crews quickly (ask OKC how they like OG&E right now). Everything worked as well as one could have hoped.
Thank your husband for me.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-philadelphia-police-charged-20150205-story.html
After video surfaces, grand jury charges 2 Philadelphia policemen in beating
Two Philadelphia police officers were charged Thursday with beating a man on a scooter nearly two years ago and lying about it, resulting in wrongful charges against him.
A Philadelphia grand jury decided to charge Officers Sean McKnight and Kevin Robinson after the district attorney presented evidence. The use of prosecutor-led grand juries met deep scrutiny across the country last year after several high-profile investigations resulted in no charges for officers involved in the deaths of suspects in Ferguson, Mo., and New York City.
In Philadelphia, charges came after the surprise emergence of a surveillance video that shows two officers pummeling a scooter rider. The scene appeared to contradict the officers' original account of the incident, in which they had portrayed the suspect, Najee Rivera, as a violent and vicious attacker.
"The video undermined every aspect of the officers' account of the incident," Philadelphia Dist. Atty. Seth Williams said at a televised news conference Thursday, appearing alongside Police Commissioner Charles H. Ramsey. "As a grand jury found, none of it was true -- except for the blows inflicted on Najee Rivera."
On May 29, 2013, McKnight and Kevin tried to pull over Rivera, who was riding a scooter. Rivera told the grand jury that he became frightened and sped away after the officers got out of their car with their batons extended and said, "Come here!" according to grand jury charging documents.
In the officers' original account of the incident, they said Rivera then fell off his scooter and attacked one of them.
"While running towards my partner I saw the Hispanic male grab my partner with both his hands by his chest upper vest area and slammed him into a brick wall of the building. The Hispanic male held my partner up against the wall and began throwing elbows towards my partner's face and head area," McKnight said in a signed statement, echoing the account given by Robinson, according to the charging documents.
The officers said they they had to beat Rivera to subdue him. Rivera faced charges including assault and resisting arrest based on their statements.
But officials said those charges were dropped after Rivera's girlfriend canvassed the neighborhood after the incident and found surveillance video from a local store that "directly refuted" the officers' "false and inaccurate" statements, according to the documents.
Williams, the district attorney, gave a blistering account of what the footage showed.
"In reality, Rivera didn't just fall off his scooter as officers approached in their patrol car. Instead, one of them actually reached out of the window and clubbed Rivera in the head; the car bumped the scooter and Rivera fell to the ground," Williams said at the news conference.
"Both officers then got out and immediately placed Rivera in their control. He never resisted, he never struck them, he never fought back, they just started hitting him," Williams continued. "First, one held him against the wall, while the other beat him with a baton. Then they held him on the ground and beat him some more, with both fist and baton.
"There's no doubt that the blows were connecting, because the video also had audio, and you can hear Mr. Rivera from the time he fell off his scooter, writhing in pain, screaming for help."
The beating fractured Rivera's right orbital bone of his face, swelled one of his eyes shut, and left him with cuts requiring stitches and staples, according to the charging documents.
The grand jury recommended eight charges for each officer: criminal conspiracy, aggravated assault, reckless endangerment, tampering with public records, false reports to law enforcement, obstruction, and official oppression.
The officers were arraigned Thursday, Williams said. A representative for the Philadelphia Fraternal Order of Police, the local police union, could not confirm whether the officers had union attorneys yet.
Williams' office has recently pressed charges in two different cases alleging police misconduct. On Monday, Sgt. Brandon Ruff was accused of providing false identification to law enforcement for giving a false name while dropping off guns belonging to other people, according to a news release.
On Jan. 22, a homicide detective, Ronald Dove, was charged with several counts related to obstructing a murder investigation after officials said they discovered Dove had been hiding the prime suspect.
The charges against Dove also came after a grand jury investigation, and Williams said Thursday that prosecutors had a responsibility to use grand juries to hold police accountable for abuses.
"We don't need to create other agencies, other entities," such as civilian review boards to investigate police abuse, Williams told the Los Angeles Times in a phone interview Thursday. "It's my responsibility as [district attorney] to investigate crimes. If the citizens believe I can't do that, or won't do that, the recourse is to get rid of me."
Williams said at the news conference that two weeks ago he convened a meeting of black district attorneys to talk about how to handle grand juries in the wake of widespread protests after grand juries rejected indictments in the deaths of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., and Eric Garner in New York. Both Brown and Garner were black; the officers involved in their deaths were white.
"The consensus was that it is our responsibility not only to work with police day in and day out, but also to hold them accountable on those particular occasions when an officer does wrong," Williams told reporters.