18-year-old Michael Brown was killed by police over the weekend. It turns out he was unarmed and the preliminary story of what happened is all kinds of fishy.
Based on this LA Times story, Brown and a friend were walking in the middle of the street to Brown's grandmother's house. A patrol car pulled up and told them to get out of the street and some kind of scuffle ensued with Brown in the car. Then, Brown got out, put his hands up and was shot repeatedly?
Try to disregard all the ridiculous looting and vandalism by the opportunistic scum.
The officer who fired the shots was a 6-year vet of the force and is on paid administrative leave.
LA Times Reporting - (
New Window )
When they said confiscated - all that could mean is that the phone is in police custody. As long as it is not tampered with and the evidence - why worry about it?
we still don't know what the facts of this case are.
I've never been arrested, am an upstanding member of my community, have a nice job, have an undergrad and master degree from great schools, and am in terrific physical shape as a 29 year old (end subtle brag). In theory I'd have been an easy candidate for the force if I myself had opted for that career. I'd imagine the same is true for the majority of BBIers. Yet I could walk outside right now, be ticketed by an officer purely for his/her entertainment, and roughed up. And I'd have what recourse, exactly? That's scary
Arm yourself (if that's what intimidating you), or just fight back, no one has a right to rough you up.
I know there are bad policeman and women, but it's not the wild wild west out there or nazi germany. The overwhelming majority of the time law enforcement is acting solely in the best public interest, not going out wilding and roughing up the burberry manning's of the world for no apparent reason.
Re: the video...who the hell do you think investigates the shooting? You say they can't take it without a warrant? Bull shit. They can seize it to prevent evidence from being destroyed. The search warrant is necessary to SEARCH the phone for the video.
The police can't take a random persons phone off the street for no reason.
Sorry, in this situation YOU don't know what you're talking about.
I have a link from the Department of Justice that literally says the police CANNOT seize the video in this scenario unless they have reason to believe that the evidence will be destroyed.
Can you enlighten me as to why the girl would destroy the cell phone video? It's a video of the police shooting a kid. They confiscated it on the spot after the shooting, so let's not pretend that they went back to her and took the video during the course of the investigation. It was an obvious to move to cover their ass.
Don't believe me? Go look at the above links I posted.
Don't believe me, I don't care, and that's your prerogative.
In the grand scheme of things it's something that happens all the time, whether or not you believe it happened to me in my specific incident is pretty inconsequential. And that isn't even my point -- my point is that people are obviously going to draw biases against cops when they are treated like that.
So you don't see a conflict of interest when a group of police is present while a man gets beat to death, or shot, or even to take it down a couple notches, is stopping someone for a traffic stop... and then the SAME PEOPLE confiscate the video evidence?
Quote:
Who do you think collects evidence at potential crime scenes?
So you don't see a conflict of interest when a group of police is present while a man gets beat to death, or shot, or even to take it down a couple notches, is stopping someone for a traffic stop... and then the SAME PEOPLE confiscate the video evidence?
Of course it is, but what's the alternative? They will likely not be the organization that does the subsequent investigation but because they're the ones there at the scene when it happens they will still collect evidence.
Quote:
It is a bit worrisome that at the end of the day there is really little stopping an officer from the law from imposing their will on a citizen. Why should that power go largely unchecked?
I've never been arrested, am an upstanding member of my community, have a nice job, have an undergrad and master degree from great schools, and am in terrific physical shape as a 29 year old (end subtle brag). In theory I'd have been an easy candidate for the force if I myself had opted for that career. I'd imagine the same is true for the majority of BBIers. Yet I could walk outside right now, be ticketed by an officer purely for his/her entertainment, and roughed up. And I'd have what recourse, exactly? That's scary
Arm yourself (if that's what intimidating you), or just fight back, no one has a right to rough you up.
I know there are bad policeman and women, but it's not the wild wild west out there or nazi germany. The overwhelming majority of the time law enforcement is acting solely in the best public interest, not going out wilding and roughing up the burberry manning's of the world for no apparent reason.
Cmon Pjacs, it sounds good in theory, but even if a cop is roughing you up, we all know the worst thing to do is arm yourself or fight back.
You need to sit there and take it, cause if you fight back, it's going to get way way way worse.
Quote:
Who do you think collects evidence at potential crime scenes?
So you don't see a conflict of interest when a group of police is present while a man gets beat to death, or shot, or even to take it down a couple notches, is stopping someone for a traffic stop... and then the SAME PEOPLE confiscate the video evidence?
By that logic, the police shouldn't be allowed to collect any evidence in case there was any misconduct on whatever case they're working. That's just plain silly.
Quote:
In comment 11804101 halfback20 said:
Quote:
Who do you think collects evidence at potential crime scenes?
So you don't see a conflict of interest when a group of police is present while a man gets beat to death, or shot, or even to take it down a couple notches, is stopping someone for a traffic stop... and then the SAME PEOPLE confiscate the video evidence?
Of course it is, but what's the alternative? They will likely not be the organization that does the subsequent investigation but because they're the ones there at the scene when it happens they will still collect evidence.
The alternative is that whoever is doing the investigation looks into gathering the appropriate evidence, as opposed to the cop or other cops present when the kid was shot. It can't be a group of people who benefit from deleting evidence.
The DOJ said that you cannot seize or destory this evidence without a warrant or without due process. Likely to prevent this exact conflict of interest.
In this case, it looks like the evidence may surface due to the highly publicized nature of this shooting, and the fact that there were multiple cell phones. But in general, cops CANNOT take your phone if you are recording them. They do this all the time anyway.
Reposting the DOJ decision here - ( New Window )
When they said confiscated - all that could mean is that the phone is in police custody. As long as it is not tampered with and the evidence - why worry about it?
we still don't know what the facts of this case are.
Who gives a shit who said what? Why don't you address the content, not the person who originally said it. Are cops intrinsically more moral or have better judgement than regular humans? No, they don't. What he said makes sense.
Also, does anyone else see the hypocrisy in these statements:
1) Wal-Mart guy was pointing an air soft gun at people, witnesses saw it!
2) Ok, maybe a group of witnesses saw the teenager with his hands in the air fleeing when he was murdered, but lets wait for the facts!
Quote:
In comment 11804101 halfback20 said:
Quote:
Who do you think collects evidence at potential crime scenes?
So you don't see a conflict of interest when a group of police is present while a man gets beat to death, or shot, or even to take it down a couple notches, is stopping someone for a traffic stop... and then the SAME PEOPLE confiscate the video evidence?
By that logic, the police shouldn't be allowed to collect any evidence in case there was any misconduct on whatever case they're working. That's just plain silly.
What I'm saying is that officer specifically, or that team specifically. I think it makes sense. I'm not saying the police force as a whole, even though they usually work to cover for eachother anyway.
Yeah, I'd agree with that. I was just responding to the hypothetical posed. But your response to that hypothetical would honestly probably get you shot, and you'd have a ton of people defending it anyway.
That being said, I also do think that disproportionate use of force is fairly common within police-citizen interactions, and I still think the worst thing to possibly do is fight back.
Yeah, you'r not part of the "knee jerk "fuck cops" reaction crowd."
Quote:
maybe, but I'm going to go out on a limb without statistical data and say it's rare, maybe not unicorn and mermaid rare, but pretty rare for a person of any race, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation to be abiding the law and for zero reason be attacked physically by law enforcement.
Yeah, I'd agree with that. I was just responding to the hypothetical posed. But your response to that hypothetical would honestly probably get you shot, and you'd have a ton of people defending it anyway.
That being said, I also do think that disproportionate use of force is fairly common within police-citizen interactions, and I still think the worst thing to possibly do is fight back.
Even if you don't fight back, many police will say "stop resisting" and use force. I don't know if that's a code word or what, but it seems like if they are saying "stop resisting" it's like a license to use force.
I've experienced this personally while not resisting even a little, you see it on leaked videos, and you see it on cops when 5 or 6 cops are tooling on a suspect saying stop resisting while the dude is barely moving.
You're right resisting will 100% make it worse, and I'm not talking about suspect apprehension, I was talking about the unicorn scenario where you are attacked for no reason. In that case my advice (not sure how I'd react and I hope I never find out) would be to defend yourself.
Quote:
...even though they usually work to cover for eachother [sic] anyway.
Yeah, you'r not part of the "knee jerk "fuck cops" reaction crowd."
Calling out reality is NOT a knee jerk reaction and saying fuck the cops. I posted an article that said NINETY NINE PERCENT of complaints police go un-investigated. It wasn't some tinfoil website, it was NJ.Com and I posted it earlier in this thread. What do you consider that?
And let's think about this anecdotally for a second, although this will admittedly carry less weight. Have you not heard stories of cops pulling over other cops for DUIs and essentially doing nothing? Do you not believe that police reports are always accurate, and that in the case of an inaccurate police report, the partner says anything to correct it?
There are probably actual sociological reasons for this. When you have a tight knit community like cops, who literally call themselves a brotherhood, OF COURSE they will cover for eachother. It's expected!
These are human beings! They aren't sentient robots! They have emotions, and they are 100% going to cover for eachother. You never had an employee you were close with at your job who you found yourself in a similar situation with? And then imagine that camaraderie times 1000.
Right, and that's why the DOJ says you can seize the property if you have evidence to believe it will be deleted, which is something I made clear from the very first time I raised this issue.
In this case, there is no reason why that girl would delete the teenager being shot. And the cops who were actually on site when the teen was shot are the ones who are far more likely to tamper with the evidence and have no business collecting it.
I can't think of any scenario where it makes sense for someone to be trusted with collecting evidence that incriminates them. Who in their right mind would do that honorably?
Quote:
if the bystanders scatter to the winds you may never find them again, particularly if the evidence incriminates their friend or family member. They still have to account for what is seized and anything that is done to it.
Right, and that's why the DOJ says you can seize the property if you have evidence to believe it will be deleted, which is something I made clear from the very first time I raised this issue.
In this case, there is no reason why that girl would delete the teenager being shot. And the cops who were actually on site when the teen was shot are the ones who are far more likely to tamper with the evidence and have no business collecting it.
I can't think of any scenario where it makes sense for someone to be trusted with collecting evidence that incriminates them. Who in their right mind would do that honorably?
Of course there is a good reason. If the video incriminates her friend or her family member it could have been used against him at trial if he lived and to prevent a successful lawsuit by the family.
No one is saying police can't be recorded. No one is saying police can take someones phone and delete evidence. However, basic search and seizure knowledge tells you that if the police have probable cause to believe there is evidence on your phone, they absolutely CAN seize it and later obtain a search warrant. They can not search it without your consent, or without a search warrant (without exigent circumstances). They can seize it to preserve evidence from being destroyed. Much like searching a house....police can not search an entire house because they found drugs in one room. They can secure the scene (the house) and attempt to get a search warrant.
Quote:
if the bystanders scatter to the winds you may never find them again, particularly if the evidence incriminates their friend or family member. They still have to account for what is seized and anything that is done to it.
Right, and that's why the DOJ says you can seize the property if you have evidence to believe it will be deleted, which is something I made clear from the very first time I raised this issue.
In this case, there is no reason why that girl would delete the teenager being shot. And the cops who were actually on site when the teen was shot are the ones who are far more likely to tamper with the evidence and have no business collecting it.
I can't think of any scenario where it makes sense for someone to be trusted with collecting evidence that incriminates them. Who in their right mind would do that honorably?
What if the evidence exonerates the officers? Maybe it shows the victim assaulting the officer and then making a move like he was reaching for a weapon?
Quote:
In comment 11804184 Dunedin81 said:
Quote:
if the bystanders scatter to the winds you may never find them again, particularly if the evidence incriminates their friend or family member. They still have to account for what is seized and anything that is done to it.
Right, and that's why the DOJ says you can seize the property if you have evidence to believe it will be deleted, which is something I made clear from the very first time I raised this issue.
In this case, there is no reason why that girl would delete the teenager being shot. And the cops who were actually on site when the teen was shot are the ones who are far more likely to tamper with the evidence and have no business collecting it.
I can't think of any scenario where it makes sense for someone to be trusted with collecting evidence that incriminates them. Who in their right mind would do that honorably?
What if the evidence exonerates the officers? Maybe it shows the victim assaulting the officer and then making a move like he was reaching for a weapon?
If a cop was beating a guy up and someone taped it, do you think he should have the authority to confiscate the tape as evidence? Because it's essentially the same situation.
I'm trying to wrap my head around people thinking its okay for someone to just confiscate a tape of a person murdering someone else, just cause he's a cop and he can be trusted to do the right thing. There are multiple examples of police taking tapes and deleting evidence. I posted some examples in this thread.
lol. no, halfback20 on BBI is the supreme lord and ruler of the land.
if this is how this conversation is going to go, fuck this, i have better shit to do and really should get to work.
you win, congrats. cops can take whatever they want from whoever they want, even if its a tape of them murdering an 18 year old kid, cause theyre cops.
i give up. it's mind boggling that some people cannot see why that would be inherently wrong.
So, I can see a video that might exonerate an office absolutely being deleted.
Can't you?
At the same time I can see an officer confiscating a video that clearly shows him unprovoked executing someone.
it's a conundrum.
Quote:
does the DOJ create laws?
lol. no, halfback20 on BBI is the supreme lord and ruler of the land.
if this is how this conversation is going to go, fuck this, i have better shit to do and really should get to work.
you win, congrats. cops can take whatever they want from whoever they want, even if its a tape of them murdering an 18 year old kid, cause theyre cops.
i give up. it's mind boggling that some people cannot see why that would be inherently wrong.
You're right. When you begin arguing against a position that nobody on this thread has taken, it probably is time to get back to work.
Is your persecution complex so bad that you think anyone is arguing that cops should be able to just take whatever they want?
They collect evidence- it's part of their job. For all you know, the video is going to show that the cops did nothing wrong in this case (considering the conflicting stories).
Sheesh.
Imagine if there was no video in the Rodney King debacle.
Quote:
In comment 11804210 halfback20 said:
Quote:
does the DOJ create laws?
lol. no, halfback20 on BBI is the supreme lord and ruler of the land.
if this is how this conversation is going to go, fuck this, i have better shit to do and really should get to work.
you win, congrats. cops can take whatever they want from whoever they want, even if its a tape of them murdering an 18 year old kid, cause theyre cops.
i give up. it's mind boggling that some people cannot see why that would be inherently wrong.
You're right. When you begin arguing against a position that nobody on this thread has taken, it probably is time to get back to work.
Is your persecution complex so bad that you think anyone is arguing that cops should be able to just take whatever they want?
They collect evidence- it's part of their job. For all you know, the video is going to show that the cops did nothing wrong in this case (considering the conflicting stories).
Sheesh.
Cam, I've said multiple times that obviously cops have to take the evidence... not the actual cop who committed the murder or his immediate colleagues.
Also, not sure what conflicting evidence there is. Witness reports are pretty consistent, from what I've read. Kid had his hands up, was backing up, got shot once, fell to the ground, was shot multiple times on the ground.
Maybe that's what we should be talking about, not the video evidence.
I'm out to a meeting, goodbye. Thank you, Dunedin81 and a few others, for having an actual discourse, not some stupid A vs B, Up vs Down bullshit.
Imagine if there was no video in the Rodney King debacle.
And if your friends had video of you punching a police officer when you were saying that you had complied with all of their instructions and been roughed up anyway, would your friends put it on Youtube or would they forget that they ever had it? There can certainly be incentive to delete.
If the police are involved in a shooting, it is going to be investigated. If someone has recorded that shooting, that recording is evidence. Again, no one is saying police have the right to delete that evidence. I'm not even saying they have a right to search the phone, unless they have a warrant/probable cause or exigent circumstances. However they do have every right to seize the phone and preserve the evidence while they attempt to obtain a search warrant.
Even if you don't fight back, many police will say "stop resisting" and use force. I don't know if that's a code word or what, but it seems like if they are saying "stop resisting" it's like a license to use force.
I've experienced this personally while not resisting even a little, you see it on leaked videos, and you see it on cops when 5 or 6 cops are tooling on a suspect saying stop resisting while the dude is barely moving.
You're right resisting will 100% make it worse, and I'm not talking about suspect apprehension, I was talking about the unicorn scenario where you are attacked for no reason. In that case my advice (not sure how I'd react and I hope I never find out) would be to defend yourself.
I just recently enjoyed a BBQ with the in-laws where I met a family friend of theirs that is a retired NYPD detective. He was a wildly entertaining gentleman and I was very interested to hear his tales of infiltrating pick-pocket gangs and various methods of crime fighting that he would employ. After listening to him for a few hours three points stuck out to me;
- I now epathized with officers operating in dangerous and dynamic environment and their need to employ "unconventional" methods to get the job done
- When I asked him how officers rose the leadership ranks within the force he was quick to mention that careers are made via politics, education, or more commonly by making big busts. He went on to tell me that making these bigger busts were usually the result of superiors implying to their underlings that they would look the other way in order for their officers to perhaps take certain liberties in order to facilitate these career-building cases
- He had me demonstrate one such way that he would gather information if he so chose; he had me stand up to mimick the process of being cuffed, he twisted my arm a bit to make it look like I was flexing my shoulder or resisting, and he yelled "stop resisting." Now, he mentioned, he had cause to search within an arms length into my vehicle and/or person if he so wanted. He had thought the procedure was slick but I was rightfully concerned.
Now, will that Unicorn scenario happen to either of us? The odds are most certainly against it. But does that mean that we, as a society, shouldn't examine the systematic mechanisms in place to prevent that sort of liability? Really, my concern is when I read about a liquored up Trooper that seriously injured a gentleman on the Turnpike without public reprimand, or the inebriated officer that fired a barrage of bullets at an occupied vehicle in Westchester. Sure, there are individuals in every profession that could cause a degree of harm to an individual but the stakes happen to be ultimate within this profession and the mechanisms in place to monitor these liabilities seem to be flawed.
Where did you hear that the city policeman that was involved took charge of the evidence?
I've read in three different sources that the County Police were asked to lead the investigation, however, I didn't read the initial reports on this incident.
When exactly did you say the police have to take the evidence? In fact, I thought your original post was about how you were upset that they confiscated the video in the first place?
8 most dangerous unarmed teens at large - ( New Window )
Exactly. Story seems so confusing. Police say he jumped into the car, scuffled, and a shot was fired. Then he exited and was shot twice more.
Witnesses say he had his hands up and was running, then was shot. But is this after the scuffle in the car? Kinda sounds like it to me.
Video footage hopefully clears a lot of it up.
"The versions agree on some basic facts: The officer approached the teens, who were walking in the street, there was an altercation in or near the car, and the officer fired several shots at the unarmed Brown, who was then several yards away, killing him.
In Johnson’s version, the officer reached out of the car to grab Brown by the throat. In Belmar’s version, which cited his department’s investigation, Brown reached into the car to attack the officer, and struggled to grab his weapon."
Link - ( New Window )
It's my understanding that shooting someone in the back is a huge no-no for cops
If he was shot in the front, and was running (per the witnesses), it's likely he was running toward a police officer, which is a huge no-no for suspects.
As for who collects evidence in the immediate aftermath of such an incident, it's probably the locals, since they're the ones on the scene. Dunno the timing of when the county got involved, but if they were only called in for the investigation afterwards, they're not likely to be on the scene. Still, it's prejudicial to already have decided that they confiscated it only to destroy it, when there's no evidence at all that it's been destroyed.
Word of advice - maybe stay out of the way when someone gets trolled by Nitro on a thread (or threads, in this case) they haven't posted on - the responses are usually not for general consumption.
I mean like my personal tinker bell you did in fact show up to give me a presumptive two-cents about why I have great disdain for police, so expecting you to be regular like clockwork was hardly a reach.
I've never owned a skateboard.
"As federal and local authorities begin investigating the case, the key question will be whether the officer had reason to believe Brown, 18, posed a threat — gun or no gun."
"“The federal courts are very clear that there are times and places where officers are allowed to shoot people in the back when they are running away, even if they are unarmed,” said David Klinger, a criminal justice professor at the University of Missouri-St. Louis and expert on police shootings."
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
Cam, I've said multiple times that obviously cops have to take the evidence... not the actual cop who committed the murder or his immediate colleagues.
When exactly did you say the police have to take the evidence? In fact, I thought your original post was about how you were upset that they confiscated the video in the first place?
Yes, it is absolutely wrong that they confiscated it at the scene of the crime immediately. If this was not a heavily publicized event, I would bet it likely would have been deleted. And what recourse would a private citizen have? Nothing.
This has happened on multiple occasions previously. Does it happen every time? Who knows, likely not. But that doesn't matter, it should never happen, and if there was an independent Internal Affairs type organization, it would probably mitigate that.
Instead of condescending posts and hypotheticals, I don't understand why some of the following points cannot be addressed:
There aren't many organizations that have shown that they are able to police themselves. Why are cops different?
If cops are adept at policing themselves, how come 99% of complaints go completely uninvestigated?
Why do they confiscate recordings so often in situations such as traffic stops, when it has been stated by the courts time and time again it is the right of citizens to record police officers?
If they follow the rules, why do they hate being recorded so much? Why the opposition to having a recording device while on the clock? Would this not make police safer, while still protecting citizens? Even if it didn't make police safer, would it put them at greater danger? As a parallel, do dashcams have any negative affect on cops safety, or make their jobs harder? So why would a GoPro like device?
I don't understand halfback20's retort to this. Why question the DOJ's authority... do you not want police to be filmed? How are police reacting with arrests to being filmed good for the public?
Is it difficult to fathom that most people don't believe the cops have citizen's best interest at heart? Is it hard to believe that such a tight knit group, that calls themselves a Fraternal order, would really cover up eachothers actions, especially when there is virtually nobody to check this power?
If one group of people have cart blanche to say whatever they want and never have it questioned in the court of law, wouldn't they be more inclined to lie and stretch the truth?
Why is it just acceptable that a group of officers can beat someone or shoot someone, then those same officers are able to confiscate video? It goes back the same premise that cops are human beings also, and they aren't above discretely destroying evidence to protect their reputations and careers provided nobody is able to find out. I think 99% of people in similar situations would do so.
And what's up with the double standard regarding eyewitness testimonies? According to some on here, the Wal-Mart incident was cut and dry, black and white: one or two witnesses said they saw a guy pointing a pellet gun at people while on the phone. I didn't see anyone question whether or not this eyewitness testimony was accurate, and don't recall anyone asking for the surveillance tape. But in this situation, the eyewitness testimony of WAY more people is invalid because we need to wait for the facts. Taking this a step further, not one witnessed (to my knowledge so far) claimed that the teenager tried to take the cops gun. which is supposedly the cops story. Ask yourself: if these were ordinary citizens in a confrontation, and multiple people saw one thing, and the one party who shot the other was claiming self defense, who is more likely covering their ass? It doesn't make any sense.
Maybe I'm the asshole for thinking this, but it seems way more likely to me a hothead cop felt disrespected by some punk ass kid and tried to grab him, than some kid reaching INTO a cop car Grand Theft Auto style to try and take a cops gun.
Generally, I am inclined to believe that cops are more likely to lie or exaggerate the truth - not because they are inherently bad people, but because they are never questioned by the judge in court. They will always win a he said-she said argument, but I can guarantee you they are not always truthful in those situations. While I have some anecdotes about this regarding experiences of my duplex neighbors in college, I'm sure nobody is interested in hearing them, people will tell me I'm lying, so I won't even bring them up. Having said that, I'm sure some of you have been in police reports that are incongruent with the actual sequence of events.
Cops don't deserve to be above reproach. There should not be situations like some of the ones cited earlier in this thread, where there is video of cops shooting and killing a driver of a car and injuring four others in the vehicle, and then not give any explanation for the next 3-4 years. Or situations where a phone is confiscated, evidence is deleted, and the phone is then farmed for dirt on the victim. These types of scumbag moves will happen because every profession has their scumbags, but nothing has happened to these officers. That's the sad part.