View Full Version : Police Beat Man to Death, Intimidate Witnesses, Steal Evidence
Just more good times in Cali, testing ground for Neuvo Amerika....
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/15/us/fatal-encounter-with-police-is-caught-on-video-but-kept-from-the-public.html?_r=0
:mad:
GeorgiaBoy
05-15-13, 23:22
Life in Prison for those involved in the beating and resulting death. Further prosecution for those who are involved in attempting covering it up.
No excuses.
Absolutely abhorrent that these officers are still on duty!
http://libertycrier.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/David-Silva-murdered-by-police.jpg
domestique
05-16-13, 00:01
Saw this the other day on The Blaze. Truly disturbing times we live in.
Even if he was drunk..... was causing a disturbance...... NO EXCUSE to beat him to death. Isn't that why tasers are carried.
But remember CA, you only need to worry about crazy law abiding citizens with guns..
If they were smart they'd have uploaded those videos to the net immediately.
If it went down as they claim, that is some really bad shit. Even Rodney King came out alive.
kinda why I like having my photos videos go directly to the cloud ! confiscate I already have a copy the wife does and its on my puter at home ! and in a secure area on the net !
I think we should always be allowed to video any police event with no intimidation etc. kinda like the press is to be able to ask what they want ! we know how that is turning out
glad I kept my popular CCCP stuff from the 80s its going to come in handy to fit in soon the way this country is going !
domestique
05-16-13, 04:19
Not that I am a fan of the ACLU.
BUT, they have a phone app that records video (with your cell phone screen blank so it doesn't look like it is recording) and the video automatically is uploaded to their servers.
http://phandroid.com/2012/07/05/aclus-police-tape-app-for-android-lets-you-discreetly-record-and-backup-police-interactions/
Littlelebowski
05-16-13, 05:45
Just more good times in Cali, testing ground for Neuvo Amerika....
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/15/us/fatal-encounter-with-police-is-caught-on-video-but-kept-from-the-public.html?_r=0
:mad:
Not a new thing in CA..... (http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/08/us/california-police-beating)
What really bothers me is the seizure of cell phones by detectives.
Life in Prison for those involved in the beating and resulting death. Further prosecution for those who are involved in attempting covering it up.
No excuses.
Absolutely abhorrent that these officers are still on duty!
Perhaps we could have an investigation and trial before they go to prison?
Not a new thing in CA..... (http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/08/us/california-police-beating)
What really bothers me is the seizure of cell phones by detectives.
I tried to find a cause of death in this case with no luck. I'm interested since he died 5 days after the incident. The ME lists it as a homicide, but no actual cause such as blunt force trauma to the head.
That App from the NJ-ACLU only works on Android phones. It's available for the iPhone, but there is no video capability, the audio sucks, and it only records when you can see it's on. No stealth mode.
The two people who took the video should have "lost" their phones until copies could have been made. Too bad.
Does anyone know of a similar App for iPhones?
Littlelebowski
05-16-13, 07:22
I tried to find a cause of death in this case with no luck. I'm interested since he died 5 days after the incident. The ME lists it as a homicide, but no actual cause such as blunt force trauma to the head.
Are you inferring that the beating didn't have something to do with his death? NSFW pic of him after the beating (http://publicintelligence.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Kelly-Thomas-Police-Beating.jpg)
Wow...that pic seems pretty hard to justify. Note to self....upload video to the cloud immediately.
Are you inferring that the beating didn't have something to do with his death? NSFW pic of him after the beating (http://publicintelligence.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Kelly-Thomas-Police-Beating.jpg)
No, I just would like to gather more facts before formulating an opinion. Looking back at the story's date, it may be a while before the actual cause of death is determined. It can take a couple of months for the ME in my neck of the woods to make a final determination in some cases - particularly if the toxicology results play a role.
Littlelebowski
05-16-13, 07:40
No, I just would like to gather more facts before formulating an opinion. Looking back at the story's date, it may be a while before the actual cause of death is determined. It can take a couple of months for the ME in my neck of the woods to make a final determination in some cases - particularly if the toxicology results play a role.
Why don't you go gather more facts on the Kelly Thomas case and get back to us, then?
NCPatrolAR
05-16-13, 09:17
What really bothers me is the seizure of cell phones by detectives.
If its being worked as a homicide and the phones contain video of the incident why would they not be seized?
polymorpheous
05-16-13, 09:21
If its being worked as a homicide and the phones contain video of the incident why would they not be seized?
Have any of the officers been charged with homicide?
Do officers facing this charge regularly return to duty while under investigation?
NCPatrolAR
05-16-13, 09:34
Have any of the officers been charged with homicide?
Got me; I don't work or live in the area.
Do officers facing this charge regularly return to duty while under investigation?
I've seen people came back to work while shootings were still being investigated but its typically been in an admin capacity.
We don't know enough of what actually happened. It's too soon to condem the cops, but it's also too soon to exonerate them. The sad thing is, those who have power/authority should not be trusted. Recent events should prove this to any sceptic, but it's nothing new.
One tool to keep the powers-that-be honest would be an App that stealthily records audio and video and uploads it to a non-gov server in real time. Just what the ACLU-NJ app is supposed to do, but doesn't.
Littlelebowski
05-16-13, 09:42
If its being worked as a homicide and the phones contain video of the incident why would they not be seized?
So, educate me (said without rancor, please note). Was the manner in which they said the phones were seized appropriate? Is there no chain of custody or warrant needed to show up and demand the phones?
Don't jump to conclusions. This guy may have been prior Mil, a Conservative, or any other high risk domestic terrorist.
Just ask Janet Mulletano! :rolleyes:
If its being worked as a homicide and the phones contain video of the incident why would they not be seized?
Because the 4th amendment protects citizens from having their property seized. If the police seized the phones right after the incident then they were wrong. The most they should have done was take witness statements and gather contact information. Then they could have acquired the videos with a search warrant. They went about it all wrong. Now here's the question of the day. If the officer's are shone to have acted criminally, can the videos be used as evidence since they were presumable illegally seized? :nono:
NeoNeanderthal
05-16-13, 09:49
If its being worked as a homicide and the phones contain video of the incident why would they not be seized?
People are pissed that the same department (kern county sheriffs dept) that allegedly beat a man to death, also confiscated cell phone footage. Its not like the state police or other separate agency took the phones.
NeoNeanderthal
05-16-13, 09:50
Because the 4th amendment protects citizens from having their property seized. If the police seized the phones right after the incident then they were wrong. The most they should have done was take witness statements and gather contact information. Then they could have acquired the videos with a search warrant. They went about it all wrong. Now here's the question of the day. If the officer's are shone to have acted criminally, can the videos be used as evidence since they were presumable illegally seized? :nono:
"Ray Pruitt, a sheriff’s spokesman, said the two phones were confiscated in accordance with search warrants and had been handed over to the Bakersfield Police Department as part of the investigation."
"The sheriff has requested that the F.B.I. investigate the episode." However this is AFTER the phones had already been taken by the sheriffs department.
NCPatrolAR
05-16-13, 09:56
So, educate me (said without rancor, please note). Was the manner in which they said the phones were seized appropriate? Is there no chain of custody or warrant needed to show up and demand the phones?
Not sure about how they were seized though the printed stories are odd IME. I'd like to see the warrant affidavits and other associated paperwork but that isn't likely to happen at this point
Perhaps we could have an investigation and trial before they go to prison?
Crazy talk! :D
NCPatrolAR
05-16-13, 10:12
People are pissed that the same department (kern county sheriffs dept) that allegedly beat a man to death, also confiscated cell phone footage. Its not like the state police or other separate agency took the phones.
I would expect the agency that is initially handling to seize any evidence. Also, Its not unheard of for an agency to investigate a homicide involving their officers. Some default to sending it outside the agency, but others keep it internal... all depends on the agency
VooDoo6Actual
05-16-13, 11:56
"Obviously, the answer appears to be yes, the video was deleted. Now the question is, will criminal charges be filed against the deputies who deleted the footage?"
http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2013/05/fbi-investigating-california-deputies-for-deleting-footage-of-beating-death-from-confiscated-phones-2649372.html
http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2013/05/15/fbi-investigating-california-deputies-for-possibly-deleting-footage-of-beating-death-from-confiscated-phones/
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-kern-beating-fbi-20130515,0,760051,full.story
Is there any chance the FBI could conduct forensic data recovery with the phones ?
This is truely disturbing.
crusader377
05-16-13, 13:17
No, I just would like to gather more facts before formulating an opinion. Looking back at the story's date, it may be a while before the actual cause of death is determined. It can take a couple of months for the ME in my neck of the woods to make a final determination in some cases - particularly if the toxicology results play a role.
What additional facts do you need? IMO there is no circumstance ever which someone deserves to be beaten to death by the police in order to bring him into custody.
This is just another terrible case on the decline in institutional integrity and competence that is happening all too often in this country at every level of government.
Is there any chance the FBI could conduct forensic data recovery with the phones ?
This is truely disturbing.
Yes, unless they wiped the phone it should still be there. If they wiped it with the proper methods it's probably gone though. Although if they leave it alone now and have wiped it... it may be possible to tell it was done intentionally.
What additional facts do you need? IMO there is no circumstance ever which someone deserves to be beaten to death by the police in order to bring him into custody.
This is just another terrible case on the decline in institutional integrity and competence that is happening all too often in this country at every level of government.
Perhaps I'd like all of the facts - not just one side's accounting of what happened. I suppose you think there is enough evidence in this media account to support a conviction? Before you answer, understand that the article appears to have already misstated one key fact when they said that the police seized the phone without a warrant.
Also, people are often described as "beaten to death" when facts of the case do not support this. The Kelly Thomas case is a perfect example of this. His cause of death was asphyxia from his chest being compressed while the cops were trying to subdue him. Yes, he was beaten. No, those blows did not kill him. While the face wounds seen on LL's picture are grotesque and damning from a legal perspective, they have little to do with his actual cause of death.
FWIW, this is an all to common occurrence when suspects are resisting arrest, and we even see it in patients suffering from aggitated delirium who are mishandled by EMS or hospital staff. It is so common that a seasoned ER doc will often sedate, chemically paralyze, and intubate these types of patients rather then risk harming the person with physical restraints.
madisonsfinest
05-16-13, 15:16
Come on Sensei. You know these media accounts are gospel, and enough to convict the officers.
I hope the phones were not iphones which took these videos.
If the owners enabled secure erase after 10 tries the sheriffs dept. could simply state that they tried to unlock the phones and the data erased due to a feature the owners enabled. That would be a terrible excuse but I would not be surprised.
Come on Sensei. You know these media accounts are gospel, and enough to convict the officers.
Funny how many who consider themselves to be discriminating connoisseurs of information fall for these articles that have glaring holes. I wonder if they will change the thread's title now that we have determined that the police had a warrant for the phones.
Alaskapopo
05-16-13, 16:41
Because the 4th amendment protects citizens from having their property seized. If the police seized the phones right after the incident then they were wrong. The most they should have done was take witness statements and gather contact information. Then they could have acquired the videos with a search warrant. They went about it all wrong. Now here's the question of the day. If the officer's are shone to have acted criminally, can the videos be used as evidence since they were presumable illegally seized? :nono:
Actually no that is wrong. I can sieze your phone and apply for a search warrant. If no warrant is granted it will be returned to you. That is how it works. The court does allow you o sieze property while you are applying for a warrant to get information off said property.
Pat
I don't think the issue now is that the phones were taken as evidence it is that the videos on the phones were deleted.
Alaskapopo
05-16-13, 16:45
I would expect the agency that is initially handling to seize any evidence. Also, Its not unheard of for an agency to investigate a homicide involving their officers. Some default to sending it outside the agency, but others keep it internal... all depends on the agency
That is true and it depends on the agencies size and resources. If we had an officer involved shooting the Troopers would be asked to investigate it. But if the Troopers have a shooting they will send an investigator from another area of the state to investigate it.
Pat
Alaskapopo
05-16-13, 16:48
What additional facts do you need? IMO there is no circumstance ever which someone deserves to be beaten to death by the police in order to bring him into custody.
This is just another terrible case on the decline in institutional integrity and competence that is happening all too often in this country at every level of government.
I bet if you were charged with this serious of a crime you would want people to have all the information before convicting you. If this happened the way its described in the thread its very bad. But I have found the whole truth seldom matches media reports.
Pat
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes...
Alaskapopo
05-16-13, 16:53
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes...
Who will guard the guards themselves?"
There are many layers of oversite from other police agencies, citizen watch dog groups etc. The police are under extreme scruteny as is even evidenced on this forum.
Pat
Perhaps I'd like all of the facts - not just one side's accounting of what happened. I suppose you think there is enough evidence in this media account to support a conviction? Before you answer, understand that the article appears to have already misstated one key fact when they said that the police seized the phone without a warrant.
Also, people are often described as "beaten to death" when facts of the case do not support this. The Kelly Thomas case is a perfect example of this. His cause of death was asphyxia from his chest being compressed while the cops were trying to subdue him. Yes, he was beaten. No, those blows did not kill him. While the face wounds seen on LL's picture are grotesque and damning from a legal perspective, they have little to do with his actual cause of death.
FWIW, this is an all to common occurrence when suspects are resisting arrest, and we even see it in patients suffering from aggitated delirium who are mishandled by EMS or hospital staff. It is so common that a seasoned ER doc will often sedate, chemically paralyze, and intubate these types of patients rather then risk harming the person with physical restraints.
so asphyxiating someone to death is better than beating them?
I don't get it. I thought there was a standard of care to protect against things...
Funny how many who consider themselves to be discriminating connoisseurs of information fall for these articles that have glaring holes. I wonder if they will change the thread's title now that we have determined that the police had a warrant for the phones.
When it supports their existing belief system, threshold for discriminating of the information being supplied drops at an alarming rate sadly.
I'd also like some more information on the case, but will admit that it doesn't look too good. The pic of the dude is pretty bad and the missing videos raise a lot of questions.
You do have to give the CLEO some credit in bringing in the FBI and trying to get the investigation done by someone without conflicts.
I'd also like some more information on the case, but will admit that it doesn't look too good. The pic of the dude is pretty bad and the missing videos raise a lot of questions.
And those questions need to be answered for to be sure.
so asphyxiating someone to death is better than beating them?
I don't get it. I thought there was a standard of care to protect against things...
The difference becomes important during a trial or admistrative hearing. Had the cause of death been intracranial hemorrhage, intra-abdominal hemorrhage, or some other injury, the government would have a much easier case proving 2nd degree murder. Especially if there is video showing the officers violating department policy by delivering baton blows to the head. Death from compressive asphyxia gives the defense a lot more ammunition to show that the police where simply trying to restrain the subject.
If its being worked as a homicide and the phones contain video of the incident why would they not be seized?
I'd be a lot more ok with the "gathering evidence" suggestion if the videos didn't suddenly disappear.
So far this looks really, really bad.
Alaskapopo
05-16-13, 23:28
I'd be a lot more ok with the "gathering evidence" suggestion if the videos didn't suddenly disappear.
So far this looks really, really bad.
Yep that is bad (evidence being destroyed) but siezing the phones is legal if applyiing for a search warrant.
Pat
brushy bill
05-16-13, 23:29
Actually no that is wrong. I can sieze your phone and apply for a search warrant. If no warrant is granted it will be returned to you. That is how it works. The court does allow you o sieze property while you are applying for a warrant to get information off said property.
Pat
And then if there is no evidence on the phone because it was erased no problemo?
Not sure if its just the iphone 5 ?
But with their cloud setup and sharing
Its kinda built in but of course not a stealth mode :) that could be handy
That App from the NJ-ACLU only works on Android phones. It's available for the iPhone, but there is no video capability, the audio sucks, and it only records when you can see it's on. No stealth mode.
The two people who took the video should have "lost" their phones until copies could have been made. Too bad.
Does anyone know of a similar App for iPhones?
Alaskapopo
05-17-13, 00:46
And then if there is no evidence on the phone because it was erased no problemo?
If the police destoryed evidence it will come out and they will answer for it. You however do not have a right to refuse to give up your phone for an officer asking for it while he applies for a search warrant. If we did not have this ability you could simple delete the evidence yourself just as your accusing the cops of doing.
Pat
If the police destoryed evidence it will come out and they will answer for it. You however do not have a right to refuse to give up your phone for an officer asking for it while he applies for a search warrant. If we did not have this ability you could simple delete the evidence yourself just as your accusing the cops of doing.
Pat
not sure up there ? I know you have to give them the phone but they are not allowed to do anything with it meaning they cant look at it etc. until a warrant arrives if it does :) and if it does not they have to give it back ?
also the warrant has to specify a video or something they cant start cruising your contacts and such
might have to ask my brother but do you know is there a reasonable time limit set how long LEO can hold it ? waiting on a warrant ?
kinda like a stop where you cant wait all day ?
I don't know what the "rights" of the police are to seize, without a warrant, evidence from witnesses, nor what the "rights" of the witnesses are to refuse, but the simple solution in cases such as this is for the cell phone video to be immediately uploaded to a 3rd party server or other independant storage devise.
Then there would be no discussion of was the video deleted, who deleted it, and can it be recovered. An uploaded video may or may not be admissible in court, but it could still force an investigation, when otherwise the event might get covered up.
The only stock feature which will upload data from an iPhone is iCloud photo stream. If the photos are take by the phone they will be uploaded to the photo stream if that feature was enabled.
RogerinTPA
05-17-13, 10:45
If they were smart they'd have uploaded those videos to the net immediately.
If it went down as they claim, that is some really bad shit. Even Rodney King came out alive.
I use the Qik Video phone app, which streams live to their online server...
RogerinTPA
05-17-13, 10:49
What is most disturbing in this case is the fact that even an immediate supervisor was incapable of preventing or stopping the illicit acts of subordinates. That many LEOs on the scene and involved, and no one capable of processing what they are doing is wrong, and not one having the moral or ethical courage to stop it from happening? No one is clearly doing any thinking. It doesn't sit well with the badge.
Quite frankly, I'm surprised that the witnesses weren't beaten or shot in this incident (well, one was tased, but what if that person died of a heart attack???). My concern is that there are more of 'those types' among the ranks than most realize, or are comfortable admitting to. Given the long history of these types of occurrences, I wonder just how many would shoot civilians if ordered to VS how many would speak up and try to prevent it. Group Think & behavior is the culprit. It's incidents like this that is burned into the mind of the community for a generation. It is this immoral and illegal LE behavior that law abiding citizens fear the most.
domestique
05-18-13, 03:35
What is most disturbing in this case is the fact that even an immediate supervisor was incapable of preventing or stopping the illicit acts of subordinates. That many LEOs on the scene and involved, and no one capable of processing what they are doing is wrong, and not one having the moral or ethical courage to stop it from happening? No one is clearly doing any thinking. It doesn't sit well with the badge.
Quite frankly, I'm surprised that the witnesses weren't beaten or shot in this incident (well, one was tased, but what if that person died of a heart attack???). My concern is that there are more of 'those types' among the ranks than most realize, or are comfortable admitting to. Given the long history of these types of occurrences, I wonder just how many would shoot civilians if ordered to VS how many would speak up and try to prevent it. Group Think & behavior is the culprit. It's incidents like this that is burned into the mind of the community for a generation. It is this immoral and illegal LE behavior that law abiding citizens fear the most.
Mob mentality.... sad and scary to think that men sworn to protect and serve could do this. I never like arm chair quaterbacks, but unless this man was holding a detonator in his hand there is NO reason he should have been beaten to death.
I can only pray for his family, and hope that justice is brought to all those at fault.
There is another app "Dropbox" can be set to automatically upload photos and videos to a private server. I have never used it, but a freind of mine has all of his photos uploaded to it, and he really likes it.
VooDoo6Actual
05-18-13, 09:42
There is another app "Dropbox" can be set to automatically upload photos and videos to a private server. I have never used it, but a freind of mine has all of his photos uploaded to it, and he really likes it.
Indeed. Using dropbox on my iPhone 5. Software works well.
If the police destoryed evidence it will come out and they will answer for it. You however do not have a right to refuse to give up your phone for an officer asking for it while he applies for a search warrant. If we did not have this ability you could simple delete the evidence yourself just as your accusing the cops of doing.
Pat
Keep in mind that this is not directed at you...
But that seem like complete bullshit. I am not saying you can't do it. I am saying you should not be able too. My property is my property. Unless you have a warrant you can not be on it or handle it. Anything else seems like a crime on the part of the officer.
I understand that the people could delete evidence however that doesn't mean that police should have the right to just take something. Heck what is to stop them from taking the phone. Deleting a video, photo, whatever. Then giving it back when they don't get a warrant and claim there was never anything on there.
Alaskapopo
05-19-13, 00:42
Keep in mind that this is not directed at you...
But that seem like complete bullshit. I am not saying you can't do it. I am saying you should not be able too. My property is my property. Unless you have a warrant you can not be on it or handle it. Anything else seems like a crime on the part of the officer.
I understand that the people could delete evidence however that doesn't mean that police should have the right to just take something. Heck what is to stop them from taking the phone. Deleting a video, photo, whatever. Then giving it back when they don't get a warrant and claim there was never anything on there.
I understand what you are saying however your cell phone video contains evidence. Don't you think the court should be able to get that evidence to make sure they have all the information possible? You will get your phone back and the video back. In this case something fishy happened and people need to answer for that. But not all police are bad and there should be a way to collect the evidence berore it can be destroyed. Perhaps in the future their will be a way to instantly download on scene so you can keep your phone and we can get the video. I am also not saying take your property and keeping it without a warrant. Just holding it long enough to get a warrant and if one is rejected you get your phone back then.
Pat
I understand what you are saying however your cell phone video contains evidence. Don't you think the court should be able to get that evidence to make sure they have all the information possible? You will get your phone back and the video back. In this case something fishy happened and people need to answer for that. But not all police are bad and there should be a way to collect the evidence berore it can be destroyed. Perhaps in the future their will be a way to instantly download on scene so you can keep your phone and we can get the video. I am also not saying take your property and keeping it without a warrant. Just holding it long enough to get a warrant and if one is rejected you get your phone back then.
Pat
This would work...in a perfect world, but evidence can and has been tampered with.
I understand what you are saying however your cell phone video contains evidence. Don't you think the court should be able to get that evidence to make sure they have all the information possible? You will get your phone back and the video back. In this case something fishy happened and people need to answer for that. But not all police are bad and there should be a way to collect the evidence berore it can be destroyed. Perhaps in the future their will be a way to instantly download on scene so you can keep your phone and we can get the video. I am also not saying take your property and keeping it without a warrant. Just holding it long enough to get a warrant and if one is rejected you get your phone back then.
Pat
Too many incidents of our liberties being trampled so I will never side with Leviathan as its in the business of perpetuating self not defending my liberties and constitutional guarantees.
What makes you think I would erase data that would convict what many people consider murderers? Well, I wouldn't. I WOULD make as many copies as possible prior to offering it - probably to the media - to "insure" it doesn't get permanently tampered with (they can show what they want out of sequence, too...) or "disappeared".
You seem to entirely forget that one must be vigilant when dealing with gov't and gov't agents. The historical value has been documented for ages in all cultures.
"One man with courage makes a majority."
Littlelebowski
05-19-13, 09:03
Phone is set up properly now.
Don't you think the court should be able to get that evidence to make sure they have all the information possible? You will get your phone back and the video back. In this case something fishy happened and people need to answer for that. But not all police are bad and there should be a way to collect the evidence berore it can be destroyed. Perhaps in the future their will be a way to instantly download on scene so you can keep your phone and we can get the video. I am also not saying take your property and keeping it without a warrant. Just holding it long enough to get a warrant and if one is rejected you get your phone back then.
Pat
In bold order...
Yes, the court, not a potential criminal in the ongoing crime.
Not necessarily.
"something fishy"?!?! Something fishy is when a bunch of kids run around in a store and some candy is missing afterwards. Not when a varied group of law enforcement professionals beat a man to death.
That too is for a court to decide.
Not sure what reality you live in but that technology exists now and has for quite some time. Nothing needed to be confiscated. Everything could have been done in the open with witnesses.
I mean why not rope off a city block and confiscate every potential form of evidence, detain every person in sight, every person that may have heard something, simply because the officer doesn't understand what s/he is dealing with? The "evidence" was a simple file not the device the file was stored on. This futuristic technology is ubiquitous in our society and every LEO should at the least be aware it exists. The evidence should have been and could have been archived on the spot. To do otherwise suggests "something fishy" on the part of one not allowing that to take place.
Cause of Death - Terminal Ignorance
Hopefully that's not the conclusion the ME reaches.
RogerinTPA
05-19-13, 09:24
I understand what you are saying however your cell phone video contains evidence. Don't you think the court should be able to get that evidence to make sure they have all the information possible? You will get your phone back and the video back. In this case something fishy happened and people need to answer for that. But not all police are bad and there should be a way to collect the evidence berore it can be destroyed. Perhaps in the future their will be a way to instantly download on scene so you can keep your phone and we can get the video. I am also not saying take your property and keeping it without a warrant. Just holding it long enough to get a warrant and if one is rejected you get your phone back then.
Pat
Absolutely, as soon as the citizen volunteers to turn it in, post it on YouTube and any other media outlet, otherwise, it's illegally obtained and theft without a warrant.
It is quite clear that they illegally broke into that home and seized property because they saw witnesses filming their crime. If you are defending their actions and the way they performed as legally justified, you are nothing more than a criminal with a badge...
Littlelebowski
05-19-13, 09:26
Phone is set up properly now.
And by that I mean that the phone is encrypted and a not so easy password to unlock is set. Also, straight to the cloud video/photo uploads are set. NOT because I have run-ins with cops (got a speeding ticket that I deserved 7 years ago, that's about it) but I think if I need video/audio recording, then I'm going to really need it.
Alaskapopo
05-19-13, 10:59
This would work...in a perfect world, but evidence can and has been tampered with.
Bad things happen its not a perfect world but generally cops don't destroy evidence and your more at risk of having citizens destroy evidence.
Pat
Alaskapopo
05-19-13, 11:00
Absolutely, as soon as the citizen volunteers to turn it in, post it on YouTube and any other media outlet, otherwise, it's illegally obtained and theft without a warrant.
It is quite clear that they illegally broke into that home and seized property because they saw witnesses filming their crime. If you are defending their actions and the way they performed as legally justified, you are nothing more than a criminal with a badge...
With a warrant you don't need the citizen to volunteer anything. If they did volunteer as many will no warrant is needed. We are talking about those not so good citizens trying to conceal evidence.
Pat
Alaskapopo
05-19-13, 11:01
In bold order...
Yes, the court, not a potential criminal in the ongoing crime.
Not necessarily.
"something fishy"?!?! Something fishy is when a bunch of kids run around in a store and some candy is missing afterwards. Not when a varied group of law enforcement professionals beat a man to death.
That too is for a court to decide.
Not sure what reality you live in but that technology exists now and has for quite some time. Nothing needed to be confiscated. Everything could have been done in the open with witnesses.
I mean why not rope off a city block and confiscate every potential form of evidence, detain every person in sight, every person that may have heard something, simply because the officer doesn't understand what s/he is dealing with? The "evidence" was a simple file not the device the file was stored on. This futuristic technology is ubiquitous in our society and every LEO should at the least be aware it exists. The evidence should have been and could have been archived on the spot. To do otherwise suggests "something fishy" on the part of one not allowing that to take place.
Cause of Death - Terminal Ignorance
Hopefully that's not the conclusion the ME reaches.
City block possible no but the people gawking on with cell phones immediately around the crime yes. Anyway its not worth arguing as the court allows it and its a good thing.
Pat
generally cops don't destroy evidence
Pat
Well as long as they don't "generally" destroy evidence of their merciless and sadistic beating of someone to death. :rolleyes:
You however do not have a right to refuse to give up your phone for an officer asking for it while he applies for a search warrant. If we did not have this ability you could simple delete the evidence yourself just as your accusing the cops of doing.
Pat
Watch me. You want to confiscate my legally owned property without a warrant? Not a chance. I would never voluntarily turn over my property that has evidence of police misconduct on it so that they can begin their cover up by erasing the evidence. After a quick Google search this is not an isolated incident and appears to happen all too frequently.
Then again I wouldn't say anything to anybody about taking the video in the first place. The first time they'd hear about the evidence would be the nightly 5 o'clock news.
The whole things reeks of collusion.
ETA - The Newark, NJ police don't agree with you assertion. http://www.aclu-nj.org/files/3313/5307/6147/2012_11_19_nwk.pdf
City block possible no but the people gawking on with cell phones immediately around the crime yes. Anyway its not worth arguing as the court allows it and its a good thing.
Pat
Those damn gawkers, they should be arrested too. Some of them could be ex-felons and we all know they belong in jail anyway. Gawking is just a misdemeanor in disguise. It's a gateway to a life of crime...
I think there should be a crime viewing radius. Sort of like parking next to a fire hydrant.... Or like when you are driving and have to pull over.... there should be a law where everyone has to run to the nearest court defined "safe zone" and place all recording and communication devices in the "temporary evidence safety container" until given the all clear. ... and NO PEEKING!!!!
i did see part of the second video (the one that the police department didnt delete)
it was extremely dark but the "group" was backlit by a porch light and you could see the suspect on the ground with what looked like 2-3 officers on top and one officer repeatedly hammering the suspect with some type of baton, just in the short clip i counted over 15 strikes to what looked like the back of the head.
not judging just sharing my info.
Boston bombing. Relevant to the conversation (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/america-boston-marathon-bomb-suspect-wrote-boat-officials/story?id=19193153&google_editors_picks=true#.UZlGPZV0UzZ).
The discovery of writings intensified tensions between the FBI and local police when FBI agents believed some Boston officers and state police had taken cell phone pictures of the writing.
Agents demanded the phones of all officers at the scene the night of the capture of Dzhokhar be confiscated to avoid the photos becoming public before being used as evidence at trial, according to two law enforcement officials.
A FBI spokesperson said agents cannot confiscate phones without a warrant and officials said none of the police approached would agree to turn over their phones to the FBI.
VooDoo6Actual
05-19-13, 18:49
I cannot recall ever seeing so much hinkey crazy stuff like this.
I have no idea what to think at this point until I get more facts...
You cannot make this stuff up...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDTmIwqcqmE&list=FLP7AtkXBLAT9PUudzcm2zBw&feature=mh_lolz
Bad things happen its not a perfect world but generally cops don't destroy evidence and your more at risk of having citizens destroy evidence.
Pat
And what you totally fail to see is that the power given to agents of the government makes the potential severity of an abuse by them far, far greater. A representative of this power should be extremely careful to avoid even the appearance of abuse, because it is far more damaging for society to loose faith in it's government/LE than for a few criminals to avoid prosecution.
I cannot recall ever seeing so much hinkey crazy stuff like this.
I have no idea what to think at this point until I get more facts...
You cannot make this stuff up...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDTmIwqcqmE&list=FLP7AtkXBLAT9PUudzcm2zBw&feature=mh_lolz
Sure looks like he got his hands down his pants for something..
https://www.m4carbine.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=16742&stc=1&d=1369016189
domestique
05-19-13, 23:38
How about having on uniform video? If cell phone "evidence" is soo useful in court make every police officer wear one.
With the advent of small recorders it wouldn't be too hard, or expensive for officers to wear cameras. Yes, the cameras could "fall off in the scuffle" but no way 7 or 9 of them would stop working at the same time as they beat the man to death. Would speed up shooting incidents and keep police officers accountable.
Alaskapopo
05-20-13, 07:14
Watch me. You want to confiscate my legally owned property without a warrant? Not a chance. I would never voluntarily turn over my property that has evidence of police misconduct on it so that they can begin their cover up by erasing the evidence. After a quick Google search this is not an isolated incident and appears to happen all too frequently.
Then again I wouldn't say anything to anybody about taking the video in the first place. The first time they'd hear about the evidence would be the nightly 5 o'clock news.
The whole things reeks of collusion.
ETA - The Newark, NJ police don't agree with you assertion. http://www.aclu-nj.org/files/3313/5307/6147/2012_11_19_nwk.pdf
Well be prepared to get thrown to the ground and cuffed while your property is held while a warrant is applied for.
Pat
Alaskapopo
05-20-13, 07:18
How about having on uniform video? If cell phone "evidence" is soo useful in court make every police officer wear one.
With the advent of small recorders it wouldn't be too hard, or expensive for officers to wear cameras. Yes, the cameras could "fall off in the scuffle" but no way 7 or 9 of them would stop working at the same time as they beat the man to death. Would speed up shooting incidents and keep police officers accountable.
We are testing some body worn video cameras right now actually. The picture quality is not that good with the ones we have been testing but its a good idea.
Pat
Alaskapopo
05-20-13, 07:43
Those damn gawkers, they should be arrested too. Some of them could be ex-felons and we all know they belong in jail anyway. Gawking is just a misdemeanor in disguise. It's a gateway to a life of crime...
I think there should be a crime viewing radius. Sort of like parking next to a fire hydrant.... Or like when you are driving and have to pull over.... there should be a law where everyone has to run to the nearest court defined "safe zone" and place all recording and communication devices in the "temporary evidence safety container" until given the all clear. ... and NO PEEKING!!!!
Actually Gawking is a problem and failure to disperse from a crime scene when ordered to by police is a crime in many areas.
Pat
We are testing some body worn video cameras right now actually. The picture quality is not that good with the ones we have been testing but its a good idea.
Pat
Ear/head mounted is better; allows you to see what the operator is looking at, etc.
Littlelebowski
05-20-13, 10:22
We are testing some body worn video cameras right now actually. The picture quality is not that good with the ones we have been testing but its a good idea.
Pat
And that's the answer to so many problems. Glad to see it getting rolled out.
Well be prepared to get thrown to the ground and cuffed while your property is held while a warrant is applied for.
"Thrown to the ground", eh? Is the attitude really that cavalier?
Well be prepared to get thrown to the ground and cuffed while your property is held while a warrant is applied for.
Pat
Unless the person is under arrest wouldn't this be assault? I asked a couple buddies of mine about this from two different local city forces. Both told me that there is no way they would be allowed to take property from someone while waiting for a warrant. Nor could they attack someone for refusing to comply with an illegal order to turn over property without a warrant.
Alaskapopo
05-20-13, 15:16
"Thrown to the ground", eh? Is the attitude really that cavalier?
Well he said he would not give it up and I have a legal right to sieze it while I apply for a warrant. So something is going to give. I will use the amount of force reasonably necessary based on the suspects level of resistance. What did you expect. Well gee you don't want to give it up. Oh darn I guess I should just give up. Not likely.
Pat
Alaskapopo
05-20-13, 15:19
Unless the person is under arrest wouldn't this be assault? I asked a couple buddies of mine about this from two different local city forces. Both told me that there is no way they would be allowed to take property from someone while waiting for a warrant. Nor could they attack someone for refusing to comply with an illegal order to turn over property without a warrant.
No I can use reasonable force to secure evidence. Same thing goes for people who body carry drugs. If they want to leave they can't and I can secure them until a judge rules on a warrant application. When your acting with in the scope of your job its not assault. With respect to your friends the courts say different. You can take property like a cell phone while you apply for a warrant. What you can't do is start snooping through the device before you have the warrant.
Pat
Well be prepared to get thrown to the ground and cuffed while your property is held while a warrant is applied for.
Pat
I've provided links to relevant info from the FBI and the NJ police contradicting your claim. Since you say the courts uphold the confiscation of people's property without a warrant please provide a citation or reference to clear things up.
Well he said he would not give it up and I have a legal right to sieze it while I apply for a warrant. So something is going to give. I will use the amount of force reasonably necessary based on the suspects level of resistance. What did you expect. Well gee you don't want to give it up. Oh darn I guess I should just give up. Not likely.
Pat
Please provide the source for the information you're espousing. Also, a person recording something isn't a "suspect", they're a witness.
So you are saying that you can take my personal property without a warrant and people have to rely on your good will not to do anything while it is in your possession? All because you may CLAIM that it is evidence of something.
There is a line between what is legal and what is right. What you say may be legal where you are but it is not right in any way shape or form. I trust an officer like yourself to not screw with things and only do something like the above when you are dealing with an actual jackwad criminal. But the law has to take into account the worst case scenario. and not all police are worthy of such trust.
In one of my friends exact words from his text. "If I was to do that to anyone I would expect to be sued and lose."
Alaskapopo
05-20-13, 15:37
Please provide the source for the information you're espousing. Also, a person recording something isn't a "suspect", they're a witness.
Its not confiscation without a warrant its holding until you get the warrant. Big difference.
Common example your at an airport with a bag I suspect has drugs in it. I can seize your bag while I apply for a search warrant. The court has ruled that this is acceptable so long as the amount of time is reasonable in that I did not hold it for longer than is reasonably necessary to apply for the warrant.
Pat
Well he said he would not give it up and I have a legal right to sieze it while I apply for a warrant. So something is going to give. I will use the amount of force reasonably necessary based on the suspects level of resistance. What did you expect. Well gee you don't want to give it up. Oh darn I guess I should just give up. Not likely.
I'd just advise picking your battles wisely and not being too cavalier or overzealous with the whole "throwing to the ground" thing. We're talking about a bystander's phone, not the lost film of the JFK assassination, after all.
Its not confiscation without a warrant its holding until you get the warrant. Big difference.
Pat
You're trying to argue semantics rather than providing references to court cases that support your position. You are seizing something under color of law and that is defined as confiscation. If you're physically attacking someone and arresting them in order to remove their personally owned possessions then you are confiscating the item.
Alaskapopo
05-20-13, 15:48
You're trying to argue semantics rather than providing references to court cases that support your position. You are seizing something under color of law and that is defined as confiscation. If you're physically attacking someone and arresting them in order to remove their personally owned possessions then you are confiscating the item.
If you want cites you will have to wait till I go back into work. However it should be common sense to anyone with half a brain to know that for the police to search something with a warrant they must first have it in their possession. Worked the drug unit for 3 years and the airport example is common. I can not just go looking through your bag without a warrant but I can take it and apply for a warrant. The reason the court allows this is to prevent loss of evidence. If I could not seize it I would not be able to search it once the warrant is granted. By the way law is all about semantics.
Pat
If you want cites you will have to wait till I go back into work. However it should be common sense to anyone with half a brain to know that for the police to search something with a warrant they must first have it in their possession. Worked the drug unit for 3 years and the airport example is common. I can not just go looking through your bag without a warrant but I can take it and apply for a warrant. The reason the court allows this is to prevent loss of evidence. If I could not seize it I would not be able to search it once the warrant is granted.
Pat
You're in front of a computer and can't provide a citation? I guess it isn't such a common thing if you can't Google it with ease or know it off the top of your head is it?
Just to clarify, you're saying when the police get a warrant to search a house they have it in their possession?
You're veiled insults about common sense and having half a brain are sophomoric at best.
Alaskapopo
05-20-13, 16:01
You're in front of a computer and can't provide a citation? I guess it isn't such a common thing if you can't Google it with ease or know it off the top of your head is it?
Just to clarify, you're saying when the police get a warrant to search a house they have it in their possession?
You're veiled insults about common sense and having half a brain are sophomoric at best.
Search warrant exemption to prevent the destruction of evidence applies off the top of my head.
1. Exigent circumstances are situations where immediate action is necessary. If the officer takes the time to get a warrant, evidence will be destroyed, life could be lost, or the suspect could escape. It is time consuming to get a warrant. First, the officer has to get the physical description of the place to be searched. A detailed affidavit, describing all the elements required by the court including the probable cause information, has to be crafted. In many jurisdictions, the District Attorney’s office has to review the affidavit. A judge then has to be contacted for his approval and signature. During normal business hours, this can take two to three hours. At night, or on weekends or holidays, this can take much longer. The Ninth Circuit Court in the case of United States v. McConney, 728 F.2d 1195, 1199 1984) provides a good definition of exigent circumstances-
.
And no you can't google every aspect of search and seizure law with ease. That is why they have special members only legal search engines like West law.
Alaskapopo
05-20-13, 16:03
You're in front of a computer and can't provide a citation? I guess it isn't such a common thing if you can't Google it with ease or know it off the top of your head is it?
Just to clarify, you're saying when the police get a warrant to search a house they have it in their possession?
.
In some cases yes. You have an active drug investigation going on your informant goes into a home and buys a controlled substance. You can make entry to the home and secure it while you wait for a warrant to search it.
Pat
Search warrant exemption to prevent the destruction of evidence applies off the top of my head.
Fair enough. We'll never agree on this but if you could provide a cite later that would be cool. The difference in our perspectives is that I come from a position of freedom. You come across as having an authoritarian, do as your told type attitude and obviously we'll continue to butt heads over issues like these.
A person's personal property is their own. I don't give a **** what the state says. I know what's right. Your response of "throwing someone to the ground..." is all I need to know. You believe in getting what you want through force and the state believes it has a monopoly on force.
I'll provide some examples of why I wouldn't turn over my own personal property to a police officer just so we're on the same page. Remember this thread highlights the fact that police ERASED THE VIDEO on the witness' phone! They tampered with evidence to cover up the fact that they murdered a man!
A police shooting of a man in Miami Beach on Memorial Day was terrifying, but when it was over, officers turned their attention to a man filming the violent scene with his cellphone. They demanded the device, smashed it and probably thought that was that; no video anymore. It was not: Narces Benoit had had the presence of mind to pull the phone's memory card with the video on it from his cellphone and put the card in his mouth. (http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/memory-card-mouth-saves-police-shooting-video-122903)
Journalist recovers video of his arrest after police deleted it. (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/02/journalist-recovers-video-of-his-arrest-after-police-deleted-it/)
Police Arrest Man Filming Police & Delete Camera Footage, Hacker Gets It Back. (http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2013/05/video-police-arrest-man-filming-police-delete-camera-footage-hacker-gets-it-back-2637356.html)
Ass. Police Chief arrests CT man for filming cops with iPhone, confiscates and deletes videos. (http://www.intomobile.com/2010/11/15/cops-arrest-iphone-video-phone/)
I could go on and on...
So you are saying that you can take my personal property without a warrant and people have to rely on your good will not to do anything while it is in your possession? All because you may CLAIM that it is evidence of something.
There is a line between what is legal and what is right. What you say may be legal where you are but it is not right in any way shape or form. I trust an officer like yourself to not screw with things and only do something like the above when you are dealing with an actual jackwad criminal. But the law has to take into account the worst case scenario. and not all police are worthy of such trust.
In one of my friends exact words from his text. "If I was to do that to anyone I would expect to be sued and lose."
^This.
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized” 4th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America
^^Seems pretty clear to me^^.
Even if it is "legal" by the grace of illegal/unconstitutional laws- it is a violation of our 4th amendment rights.
Is anyone else sick of the fact that: legal > moral/ehtical/right these days? I sure am...
It's not like there is any historical evidence of governments ever instituting laws that lead to non-criminal/law-abiding citizens being taken advantage of or murdered; right?:rolleyes:
Call me silly, but "body slamming someone to the ground" (Especially when it is a witness and not even a suspect- such as the case in the OP) for merely refusing to allow you to violate their 4A rights (based on the POSSIBILTY that their property MIGHT be evidence) seems a bit over the top does it not? Even if the "law" allows it.
Actually Gawking is a problem and failure to disperse from a crime scene when ordered to by police is a crime in many areas. Pat
I'm telling you... they are a scourge on the planet. .... by the way.. You still got that bullet in your shirt pocket that Andy gave you?
Alaskapopo
05-20-13, 17:35
I'm telling you... they are a scourge on the planet. .... by the way.. You still got that bullet in your shirt pocket that Andy gave you?
Since your ignorant as to why gawking can be a bad thing. Let me try to explain in a way you may be able to understand. Allowing a crowd to assemble at a crime scene can cause all kinds of safety problems as well as generally just impede the investigation as well as cause traffic problems.
Pat
Alaskapopo
05-20-13, 17:38
Fair enough. We'll never agree on this but if you could provide a cite later that would be cool. The difference in our perspectives is that I come from a position of freedom. You come across as having an authoritarian, do as your told type attitude and obviously we'll continue to butt heads over issues like these.
A person's personal property is their own. I don't give a **** what the state says. I know what's right. Your response of "throwing someone to the ground..." is all I need to know. You believe in getting what you want through force and the state believes it has a monopoly on force.
I'll provide some examples of why I wouldn't turn over my own personal property to a police officer just so we're on the same page. Remember this thread highlights the fact that police ERASED THE VIDEO on the witness' phone! They tampered with evidence to cover up the fact that they murdered a man!
A police shooting of a man in Miami Beach on Memorial Day was terrifying, but when it was over, officers turned their attention to a man filming the violent scene with his cellphone. They demanded the device, smashed it and probably thought that was that; no video anymore. It was not: Narces Benoit had had the presence of mind to pull the phone's memory card with the video on it from his cellphone and put the card in his mouth. (http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/memory-card-mouth-saves-police-shooting-video-122903)
Journalist recovers video of his arrest after police deleted it. (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/02/journalist-recovers-video-of-his-arrest-after-police-deleted-it/)
Police Arrest Man Filming Police & Delete Camera Footage, Hacker Gets It Back. (http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2013/05/video-police-arrest-man-filming-police-delete-camera-footage-hacker-gets-it-back-2637356.html)
Ass. Police Chief arrests CT man for filming cops with iPhone, confiscates and deletes videos. (http://www.intomobile.com/2010/11/15/cops-arrest-iphone-video-phone/)
I could go on and on...
Personal freedom matters quite a bit to me as well however the police need to be able to do their job. There is a line and I don't think taking your phone until a warrant can be obtained (45 to an hour and a half minutes up here) is really infringing on your personal freedom all that much. Hell if the roles were reversed I would want to help the cops so the criminals could be caught.
Pat
Personal freedom matters quite a bit to me as well however the police need to be able to do their job. There is a line and I don't think taking your phone until a warrant can be obtained (45 to an hour and a half minutes up here) is really infringing on your personal freedom all that much. Hell if the roles were reversed I would want to help the cops so the criminals could be caught.
Pat
If it wasn't infringing on someone's personal freedoms than a warrant wouldn't be needed, in my opinion.
I would want to help the cops as well, in every possible way, and I go out of my way to do so now. The difference is that I would want it to be voluntary and cooperative rather than adversarial. You're coming from a position that a possible witness will comply with your demands or you will use force to get them to comply.
The problem I have is that your basing your position on the assumption that there is video evidence and you're willing to use force under color of law to impose your will on a possible witness to a crime. Strong-arming people to make them comply is what creates an adversarial relationship. How willing do you think that person is going to testify on that officer's behalf after they bodyslam them and confiscate their belongings?
Peace Officer or Law Enforcement Officer? That is where the difference lies for me.
Alaskapopo
05-20-13, 17:55
If it wasn't infringing on someone's personal freedoms than a warrant wouldn't be needed, in my opinion.
I would want to help the cops as well, in every possible way, and I go out of my way to do so now. The difference is that I would want it to be voluntary and cooperative rather than adversarial. You're coming from a position that a possible witness will comply with your demands or you will use force to get them to comply.
The problem I have is that your basing your position on the assumption that there is video evidence and you're willing to use force under color of law to impose your will on a possible witness to a crime. Strong-arming people to make them comply is what creates an adversarial relationship. How willing do you think that person is going to testify on that officer's behalf after they bodyslam them and confiscate their belongings?
Peace Officer or Law Enforcement Officer? That is where the difference lies for me.
Lets turn it around. Say the cell phone in question had information on it regarding the abduction of your child. Would you still not want the police to be able to seize the phone and apply for a warrant so they could get your kid back to you safe and sound. It is a balancing act. I value personal freedom and I don't want to live in a police state either. As for using force, I personally have never had someone refuse such a request for a cell phone video. As you said most people are good people and want to help out.
Pat
Alaskapopo
05-20-13, 17:59
If it wasn't infringing on someone's personal freedoms than a warrant wouldn't be needed, in my opinion.
I would want to help the cops as well, in every possible way, and I go out of my way to do so now. The difference is that I would want it to be voluntary and cooperative rather than adversarial. You're coming from a position that a possible witness will comply with your demands or you will use force to get them to comply.
The problem I have is that your basing your position on the assumption that there is video evidence and you're willing to use force under color of law to impose your will on a possible witness to a crime. Strong-arming people to make them comply is what creates an adversarial relationship. How willing do you think that person is going to testify on that officer's behalf after they bodyslam them and confiscate their belongings?
Peace Officer or Law Enforcement Officer? That is where the difference lies for me.
The body slam comment would be towards someone who was reacting violently to me trying to legally seize their property to apply for a warrant. I should have clarified that.
Alpha Sierra
05-20-13, 18:13
I don't think taking your phone until a warrant can be obtained (45 to an hour and a half minutes up here) is really infringing on your personal freedom all that much.
Say the cell phone in question had information on it regarding the abduction of your child. Would you still not want the police to be able to seize the phone and apply for a warrant so they could get your kid back to you safe and sound.
The end NEVER justifies the means.
Since your ignorant as to why gawking can be a bad thing. Let me try to explain in a way you may be able to understand. Allowing a crowd to assemble at a crime scene can cause all kinds of safety problems as well as generally just impede the investigation as well as cause traffic problems.
Pat
Yep, especially when you have just beat someone to death....
Seriously Pat... I'm on your side man... Throw them on the ground and cuff them. 30 days in the hole... bread and water.
Calling me ignorant is a nice touch too. You're the man!
The body slam comment would be towards someone who was reacting violently to me trying to legally seize their property to apply for a warrant. I should have clarified that.
No! Don't ever change... we love you just the way your are. Run a topic so far off course no one remembers what the subject was and then 5 pages later say...."Oh, what I meant was..."
Alaskapopo
05-20-13, 18:29
Yep, especially when you have just beat someone to death....
Seriously Pat... I'm on your side man... Throw them on the ground and cuff them. 30 days in the hole... bread and water.
Calling me ignorant is a nice touch too. You're the man!
You called me Barney I called you ignorant tit for tat. Perhaps we can both agree to avoid such petty insults.
Pat
Alaskapopo
05-20-13, 18:30
The end NEVER justifies the means.
They do if their withing the guidelines established by the court.
Pat
Alaskapopo
05-20-13, 18:31
No! Don't ever change... we love you just the way your are. Run a topic so far off course no one remembers what the subject was and then 5 pages later say...."Oh, what I meant was..."
Wow and you cried about me calling you ignorant. Just wow.
Pat
Personal freedom matters quite a bit to me as well however the police need to be able to do their job.
Got it. When it comes to 'doing your job' and the personal freedom of the American people, personal freedom can go **** itself.
I don't think taking your phone until a warrant can be obtained (45 to an hour and a half minutes up here) is really infringing on your personal freedom all that much.
Pat
Again, got it. **** freedom.
So something is going to give. I will use the amount of force reasonably necessary based on the suspects level of resistance. What did you expect. Well gee you don't want to give it up. Oh darn I guess I should just give up. Not likely.
Roger that, everyone in the vicinity of an incidence of the police sadistically beating someone to death who has a cell phone is considered by you to be "a suspect".
You however do not have a right to refuse to give up your phone
I believe Ernst Röhm's brown shirt might just fit you (if you have it taken out a bit).
Well be prepared to get thrown to the ground and cuffed while your property is held while a warrant is applied for.
It is becoming increasing clear that in fact you have never once in your entire life ever had a girlfriend.
polymorpheous
05-20-13, 18:45
Pats been on my ignore list for a while now.
Reading the quotes posters used from him I must say, it's scary that that guy has a badge.
GeorgiaBoy
05-20-13, 19:14
Got it. When it comes to 'doing your job' and the personal freedom of the American people, personal freedom can go **** itself.
One of the few times I am in 100% agreement with you Belloc.
Wow and you cried about me calling you ignorant. Just wow.
Pat
LOL... Pat.. not only did I not cry about you calling me ignorant, I'm about to fall off my chair laughing..
I think I just found my first signature line.
Alaskapopo:
"You called me Barney I called you ignorant...."
LOL, I actually didn't call you Barney but that is one the funniest things I have ever heard a grown man say on a gun forum.
davidjinks
05-20-13, 20:14
Excellent! In agreement 1,000%!
Do a little bit a research on the net for alaskapopo. He's the same on just about every board that he's a member of. Typical fascist bullshit!
People like Pat are why cops have bad names.
This whole ridiculous BS of taking people's private property without a warrant is illegal.
That's like saying, if the people didn't have any means of video recording ability, you arrest/detain them in order to get witness statements. Not gonna happen...
^That last part came directly from a cop.
Pats been on my ignore list for a while now.
Reading the quotes posters used from him I must say, it's scary that that guy has a badge.
RogerinTPA
05-20-13, 20:55
Pats been on my ignore list for a while now.
Reading the quotes posters used from him I must say, it's scary that that guy has a badge.
Yup. Even if this despicable conduct is lawful in his AO, not recognizing that it is a bad law, then following it anyway, especially when it comes to doing it to innocent citizens witnessing their crime, is disturbing...
Not sure what to say. Mr Alaskapopo seems to have had no problem with the Gestapo tactics used in Boston, and he seems to have no problem with them being used here.
Perhaps he could find better employment opportunities with the DOJ or the IRS. He would fit right in.
BACK ON TOPIC. Additional cell phone video released (http://www.turnto23.com/news/local-news/cellphone-video-of-alleged-beating-death-of-david-silva-to-be-released). I have not viewed them all in their entirety but if you click on the small boxes below the initial news video there is additional coverage.
Alaskapopo
05-21-13, 00:45
I'm telling you... they are a scourge on the planet. .... by the way.. You still got that bullet in your shirt pocket that Andy gave you?
What is the above post saying if its not referring to Barney Fife. Sounds like you were not being truthful when you denied calling me barney.
Alaskapopo
05-21-13, 00:47
Not sure what to say. Mr Alaskapopo seems to have had no problem with the Gestapo tactics used in Boston, and he seems to have no problem with them being used here.
Perhaps he could find better employment opportunities with the DOJ or the IRS. He would fit right in.
Gestapo? the anti cop peanut gallery speaks. To some no matter what an officer does its bad. The officers in this topic may well deserve that but not the ones in Boston who caught the terrorists.
Pat
Alaskapopo
05-21-13, 00:51
Excellent! In agreement 1,000%!
Do a little bit a research on the net for alaskapopo. He's the same on just about every board that he's a member of. Typical fascist bullshit!
People like Pat are why cops have bad names.
This whole ridiculous BS of taking people's private property without a warrant is illegal.
That's like saying, if the people didn't have any means of video recording ability, you arrest/detain them in order to get witness statements. Not gonna happen...
^That last part came directly from a cop.
Actually you can hold people who are witnesses to a crime if they refuse to identify themselves as material witnesses until they do identify themselves or you get prints and pictures.. And again yes you can take private property while you apply for a search warrant. I don't care what your cop friend says, what matters is what the courts have said. Also since this seems to be turning into a personal attack fest vs talking about the issues in this thread I am out. The ignore list is getting bigger. The discussion with Irish and others was fine even with the disagreement. Some however quickly went to personal attacks.
Pat
BACK ON TOPIC. Additional cell phone video released (http://www.turnto23.com/news/local-news/cellphone-video-of-alleged-beating-death-of-david-silva-to-be-released). I have not viewed them all in their entirety but if you click on the small boxes below the initial news video there is additional coverage.
I read the article and I can understand why the witnesses are upset about being held until the search warrant arrived, but crucial evidence has to be collected in a timely manner. When I served search warrants over the years I never lost sight of the fact that the people involved were someone's family and I acted accordingly. Not everyone was happy or agreed with the process, but they understood why I was at their residence and were issued a receipt for anything seized pursuant to a search warrant.
Case law on cellular telephone evidence and other electronic media is still evolving. As far as the argument that police could tamper with or destroy evidence goes, the same can be said for a witness who is a friend or neighbor of the victim. Someone who has an axe to grind with police would also be motivated to tamper with video evidence. Evidence needs to be collected and secured without delay. Given the nature of this case, there is no question in my mind that LEO contacted the Prosecutor's Office about how to handle evidence collection early in the investigation.
In most jurisdictions in my part of the country you can be detained at your residence until a search warrant arrives. Who enters and leaves the residence can be controlled by LEO. Reasonable accommodation for medical needs is always taken into consideration.
The video is damning and an independent agency needs to thoroughly investigate the case. An independent prosecutor needs to thoroughly review the evidence, the criminal code, applicable case law and department policy.
It appears that the Kern County Sheriff's Department has a working relationship with Bakersfield PD. I agree that the FBI should be investigating this case to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. The sooner the FBI is asked to investigate, the better.
Don't lose sight of the fact that lawyers are going to make a huge amount of money in a case like this and they will play to the media to sway public opinion and strengthen their own position.
Bolt_Overide
05-21-13, 02:12
Personal freedom matters quite a bit to me as well however the police need to be able to do their job. There is a line and I don't think taking your phone until a warrant can be obtained (45 to an hour and a half minutes up here) is really infringing on your personal freedom all that much. Hell if the roles were reversed I would want to help the cops so the criminals could be caught.
Pat
And that right there is where you're wrong Pat. There is no however, not now, not ever.
Your attitude on this subject is exactly what Ben Franklin was warning us about. Your job NEVER involves a compromise of any citizens freedom.
davidjinks
05-21-13, 06:31
Deleted because you ain't worth the time Pat.
The ignore list is getting bigger.
Pat
Let's see who's made your ignore list thus far.
1. Personal freedom
2. Me
3. davidjinks
davidjinks
05-21-13, 07:03
Hey! How the hell did I make the list?
:)
Let's see who's made your ignore list thus far.
1. Personal freedom
2. Me
3. davidjinks
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.