Police State - Official Thread

[avxo]

The article is probably not written technically correct. For example it first states because he is an active officer, but I think the reality is that he is a Sheriff. They are a unique entity as they are elected. Historically Sheriffs were afforded extra protections due to political entities attempting to use the law for their political purposes. To afford some immunity to them so they could fairly enforce the laws without fear of reprisal some protections were put in place. In this case, it certainly shows the flaw in the system. At any shooting there is forensic evidence. For example, was a swab done of the his hands prior to being able to leave? If not, that would be a big mistake. As far as "cooperating" he would be afforded similar rights as to any citizen with regard to speaking about it. He can't legally be compelled to provide a statement at that moment. I suspect a warrant will be forthcoming   

I agree - there are good reasons to afford certain privileges to some officials to enable them to do their job. But those privileges should be tightly proscribed and come with obligations, and they should only ever apply when the person is acting in their official capacity. Based solely on information on the article, it's hard for me to see why he should be afforded the privileges and protections of the Sheriff's office instead of being treated as any other citizen would.

[Agnostic007]

I agree - there are good reasons to afford certain privileges to some officials to enable them to do their job. But those privileges should be tightly proscribed and come with obligations, and they should only ever apply when the person is acting in their official capacity. Based solely on information on the article, it's hard for me to see why he should be afforded the privileges and protections of the Sheriff's office instead of being treated as any other citizen would.

Can't argue with that

[Skip8282]

He was elected AFTER he was indicted for felony charges. This one isn't all on the police system. For whatever reason, the public hired him for the job even with the red flags. They shouldn't be too upset about the results   

It's rarely all on the police, it's a whole system.  Naturally there are the small number that are truly highly abusive.  But we've all agreed that's a small number (maybe rising, maybe not).

However, to believe your nonsense, we would have to accept that 6 bad cops just happened to magically come together in Baltimore at the same place, same time, same shift...and on.  Your argument defies basic logic.

It's the whole system from the laws that are passed, to new cops being socialized on the force.  It's reluctant prosecutors and judges who cover up.  It's a blue wall and an apathetic public.  It's lawmakers trying to make cops immune to situations while having insufficient controls to prevent abuse.  It's unions that will stand behind corrupt cops no matter how egregious the abuse.  It's civil service systems that prevent accountability.  And it's good officers who sit back and do absolutely nothing.

I would doubt all 6 of these cops went into work that day hoping to kill a man.  But knowing they are rarely held accountable for their actions or inactions, knowing that convictions are near impossible, knowing that accountability is low, knowing that most of the force they use will be considered 'justified' leads to, IMO, this type of stuff.



Right now, it's being reported that the knife was illegal, not legal.  So they may have had good reason to arrest him - not looking to hurt him.  But the guy still ended up dead.  6 bad cops who just magically came together?     Nope, it's a whole system that needs to be examined.

[Agnostic007]

It's rarely all on the police, it's a whole system.  Naturally there are the small number that are truly highly abusive.  But we've all agreed that's a small number (maybe rising, maybe not).

However, to believe your nonsense, we would have to accept that 6 bad cops just happened to magically come together in Baltimore at the same place, same time, same shift...and on.  Your argument defies basic logic.

It's the whole system from the laws that are passed, to new cops being socialized on the force.  It's reluctant prosecutors and judges who cover up.  It's a blue wall and an apathetic public.  It's lawmakers trying to make cops immune to situations while having insufficient controls to prevent abuse.  It's unions that will stand behind corrupt cops no matter how egregious the abuse.  It's civil service systems that prevent accountability.  And it's good officers who sit back and do absolutely nothing.

I would doubt all 6 of these cops went into work that day hoping to kill a man.  But knowing they are rarely held accountable for their actions or inactions, knowing that convictions are near impossible, knowing that accountability is low, knowing that most of the force they use will be considered 'justified' leads to, IMO, this type of stuff.



Right now, it's being reported that the knife was illegal, not legal.  So they may have had good reason to arrest him - not looking to hurt him.  But the guy still ended up dead.  6 bad cops who just magically came together?     Nope, it's a whole system that needs to be examined.

NONSENSE ASIDE, lets wait to hear the details before we get all crazy. for one example, I doubt all 6 cops where there the whole time and had all the information. Someone, or some of them, obviously dropped the ball on calling for medical attention sooner.. but lets not get carried away

[Skip8282]

NONSENSE ASIDE, lets wait to hear the details before we get all crazy. for one example, I doubt all 6 cops where there the whole time and had all the information. Someone, or some of them, obviously dropped the ball on calling for medical attention sooner.. but lets not get carried away

If we're to accept the given timeline, then we know not all of the cops were there at the exact same time.  By 'same time' I meant the whole period which relatively was (or at least seems to be) 20 to 40 minutes or so.  Did my point completely sail over your head?

[Agnostic007]

If we're to accept the given timeline, then we know not all of the cops were there at the exact same time.  By 'same time' I meant the whole period which relatively was (or at least seems to be) 20 to 40 minutes or so.  Did my point completely sail over your head?

as it often does for some reason

[Skip8282]

as it often does for some reason

Not to worry.  Under my tutelage you will better, smarter, faster, and stronger.  I have the tools to rebuild you.  You will be the first of your kind.

[Agnostic007]

Not to worry.  Under my tutelage you will better, smarter, faster, and stronger.  I have the tools to rebuild you.  You will be the first of your kind.

im honored

[Skeletor]

Remember this incident?

DEA agents jailed a student for 5 days without food, water — and just got a slap on the wrist

Federal agents responsible for leaving a 23-year-old UC San Diego engineering student in a holding cell for five days without food or water received only reprimands or short suspensions from the Drug Enforcement Administration, according to the Justice Department.

Daniel Chong was swept up in a 2012 DEA raid on his friends' house, where he had gone to smoke marijuana. After an interrogation, he was told he would be released.

But the agents responsible forgot about him, according to a Department of Justice Office of Inspector General report last summer, leaving him to drink his own urine to stave off dehydration.

The Justice Department, in a letter to members of Congress obtained by the Los Angeles Times, said that “what happened to Mr. Chong is unacceptable” and that “the DEA’s failure to impose significant discipline on these employees further demonstrates the need for a systemic review of DEA’s disciplinary process.”

Chong, who was never charged with a crime, was kept in total isolation with his hands handcuffed behind his back in a windowless cell with no bathroom, calling out periodically for help. Midway through the ordeal someone turned off the light in his cell, leaving him in darkness.

When he was finally discovered he was delirious, with serious respiratory and breathing problems. He was hospitalized for four days, and he and his lawyers said at a news conference last summer that he underwent intensive therapy for post-traumatic stress disorder. The department paid Chong a $4.1-million settlement.

The Inspector General Report said that three DEA agents and a supervisor bore primary responsibility for Chong’s mistreatment and that the DEA San Diego Field Division lacked procedures to keep track of detainees. They were not named in the report.

The Department of Justice letter said that DEA officials forwarded a report on the incident to a disciplinary board, the Board of Professional Conduct, without conducting its own investigation. The board issued four reprimands to DEA agents and a suspension without pay for five days to another. The supervisor in charge at the time was given a seven-day suspension.

This is not the first time that DEA disciplinary procedures have been called into question. Last month House Oversight Committee members expressed outrage that then-DEA Administrator Michele Leonhart had not seriously punished agents involved in sex parties with prostitutes in Colombia. They received suspensions of two to 10 days.

Leonhart, under pressure from the Obama administration, announced her retirement April 22. Former Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. ordered a review of DEA disciplinary procedures.

“The Department of Justice has serious concerns about the adequacy of the discipline that DEA imposed on its employees,” in the Chong case, said Patrick Rodenbush, a Department of Justice spokesman, in a statement.

He said that Department of Justice’s Office of Professional Responsibility “will make recommendations on how to improve the investigative and disciplinary processes for all allegations of misconduct at DEA.”

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-dea-chong-20150505-story.html

[240 is Back]

Remember this incident?

DEA agents jailed a student for 5 days without food, water — and just got a slap on the wrist

liberal college student probably deserved it.   Right, guys?

[illuminati]

NONSENSE ASIDE, lets wait to hear the details before we get all crazy. for one example, I doubt all 6 cops where there the whole time and had all the information. Someone, or some of them, obviously dropped the ball on calling for medical attention sooner.. but lets not get carried away

The 'lets not get carried away' comment ??
 
There is one man dead because of 6 cops.
Scumbag he may of been, so is the sherif that shot that woman
Imagine the out cry if he had been shot.!!
Yet he is just as much if not a bigger scumbag.

As skip pointed out 6 cops all in the same unit
Likely didn't set off to work intending to kill someone
The subconscious thought that No Punishment No Conviction
We're Cops & Cops don't get held to account.
The Problem is Institutionalised in the Police, it appears so
Deeply Institutionalised that 6 cops in on place come together.
 

[Skeletor]

One of the Biggest Privacy Wins in Recent Memory Has Been Reversed

Cops no longer need a warrant when seeking cellphone records from wireless carriers in the US a federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday—reversing its own decision from last year.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled that citizens have no expectation of privacy when it comes to records held by a third party, such as a cellphone company.

The ruling is a significant setback for privacy rights in the digital age—one expert called it “devastatingly bad for privacy”— and runs contrary to trends in several states. In the last couple of years, Montana, Maine, and Minnesota, have all passed laws requiring local police to obtain warrants when requesting cellphone records, including historical location data pulled off of cell phone towers, from phone carriers like AT&T or Verizon.

In this case, prosecutors obtained 11,606 location records from MetroPCS, the cellphone carrier of Quartavious Davis, a suspect in a series of armed robberies. The records showed Davis’ whereabouts based on the cellphone towers that his phone connected to over the span of 67 days.

“The government’s obtaining MetroPCS records, showing historical cell tower locations, did not involve a physical intrusion on private property or a search at all,” reads the decision. “The records belonged to a private company, not Davis.”

That's why obtaining that data without a warrant is not in violation of the Fourth Amendment, the court ruled. The court's reasoning was based on two landmark US Supreme Court cases from the 1970s, United States v. Miller and Smith v. Maryland, which defined a much discussed legal theory known as the “third party doctrine.”

The same Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, just last year, ruled the exact opposite in this case.

“We hold that cell site location information is within the subscriber’s reasonable expectation of privacy,” the decision from last year read. “The obtaining of that data without a warrant is a Fourth Amendment violation."

Digital rights activists called the court’s reversal a “disappointing” decision based on an old law which has been made outdated by rapidly-changing technology.

“It's a shame the court felt confined by a case decided from the 1970s to decide the constitutionality of a very modern form of surveillance,” Hanni Fakhoury, a surveillance law expert and an attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), told Motherboard.

Nate Wessler, an American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) staff attorney who argued the case, said that what the court did was “apply outdated doctrine from the analog age to this very sensitive digital records.”

For Wessler, the decision is far-reaching because the same interpretation could be used for other types of sensitive data held by third parties, such as email or cloud providers.

“The implications of applying the third party doctrine to these digital records are really wide reaching,” he told Motherboard, “because we live so much of our lives online, in the cloud or using technologies that leave a trail of digital breadcrumbs behind us.”

Judge Beverly Martin, who dissented with the majority ruling in this case seemed to agree with Wessler. She wrote that the ruling gives the government too much power to look into the digital lives of Americans without first obtaining a warrant.

“Now, under the majority’s rule, the Fourth Amendment allows the government to know from YouTube.com what we watch, or Facebook.com what we post or whom we ‘friend,’ or Amazon.com what we buy, or Wikipedia.com what we research, or Match.com whom we date—all without a warrant,” she wrote.

The Department of Justice did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Davis can now appeal his case to the Supreme Court. According to both Wessler and Fakhoury, it’s likely that the Supreme Court will soon hear a case on cellphone location privacy, which will give justices a chance to set the record straight.

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/one-of-the-biggest-privacy-wins-in-recent-memory-has-been-reversed



Another analysis, more in depth, by Orin Kerr here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/05/eleventh-circuit-rules-for-the-feds-on-cell-site-records-but-then-overreaches/

[Primemuscle]

One of the Biggest Privacy Wins in Recent Memory Has Been Reversed

Cops no longer need a warrant when seeking cellphone records from wireless carriers in the US a federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday—reversing its own decision from last year.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled that citizens have no expectation of privacy when it comes to records held by a third party, such as a cellphone company.

The ruling is a significant setback for privacy rights in the digital age—one expert called it “devastatingly bad for privacy”— and runs contrary to trends in several states. In the last couple of years, Montana, Maine, and Minnesota, have all passed laws requiring local police to obtain warrants when requesting cellphone records, including historical location data pulled off of cell phone towers, from phone carriers like AT&T or Verizon.

In this case, prosecutors obtained 11,606 location records from MetroPCS, the cellphone carrier of Quartavious Davis, a suspect in a series of armed robberies. The records showed Davis’ whereabouts based on the cellphone towers that his phone connected to over the span of 67 days.

“The government’s obtaining MetroPCS records, showing historical cell tower locations, did not involve a physical intrusion on private property or a search at all,” reads the decision. “The records belonged to a private company, not Davis.”

That's why obtaining that data without a warrant is not in violation of the Fourth Amendment, the court ruled. The court's reasoning was based on two landmark US Supreme Court cases from the 1970s, United States v. Miller and Smith v. Maryland, which defined a much discussed legal theory known as the “third party doctrine.”

The same Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, just last year, ruled the exact opposite in this case.

“We hold that cell site location information is within the subscriber’s reasonable expectation of privacy,” the decision from last year read. “The obtaining of that data without a warrant is a Fourth Amendment violation."

Digital rights activists called the court’s reversal a “disappointing” decision based on an old law which has been made outdated by rapidly-changing technology.

“It's a shame the court felt confined by a case decided from the 1970s to decide the constitutionality of a very modern form of surveillance,” Hanni Fakhoury, a surveillance law expert and an attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), told Motherboard.

Nate Wessler, an American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) staff attorney who argued the case, said that what the court did was “apply outdated doctrine from the analog age to this very sensitive digital records.”

For Wessler, the decision is far-reaching because the same interpretation could be used for other types of sensitive data held by third parties, such as email or cloud providers.

“The implications of applying the third party doctrine to these digital records are really wide reaching,” he told Motherboard, “because we live so much of our lives online, in the cloud or using technologies that leave a trail of digital breadcrumbs behind us.”

Judge Beverly Martin, who dissented with the majority ruling in this case seemed to agree with Wessler. She wrote that the ruling gives the government too much power to look into the digital lives of Americans without first obtaining a warrant.

“Now, under the majority’s rule, the Fourth Amendment allows the government to know from YouTube.com what we watch, or Facebook.com what we post or whom we ‘friend,’ or Amazon.com what we buy, or Wikipedia.com what we research, or Match.com whom we date—all without a warrant,” she wrote.

The Department of Justice did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Davis can now appeal his case to the Supreme Court. According to both Wessler and Fakhoury, it’s likely that the Supreme Court will soon hear a case on cellphone location privacy, which will give justices a chance to set the record straight.

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/one-of-the-biggest-privacy-wins-in-recent-memory-has-been-reversed



Another analysis, more in depth, by Orin Kerr here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/05/eleventh-circuit-rules-for-the-feds-on-cell-site-records-but-then-overreaches/

Four words...Big Brother is watching!

[sync pulse]

Telephone calling records have been subject to search for a considerable time.  I believe there is a legal basis in that there is no expectation of privacy of calling records,…because you are making it known to a third party, (the telephone company) by dialing the number of whom you are calling.

As I understand it…the legal precedent was set when calls were connected by human operators shoving plugs into jacks,… you had to tell the operator the number and thus you had no expectation of privacy…she would make a paper trail of the call. 

When telephones got dials, local calls were routed by large arrays of mechanical switches…(the first computer logic was based on telephone switching offices). With the exception of long distance which were still handled by human operators (who timed calls with the same timers that pool rooms used to time pool table use) no routine record was kept of local telephone calls.

To obtain a record of who people called locally became something you had to seek out by installing a device called a “pen register” on the line in question. If you refer back to the earlier telephone era of human operators whom the callers had to tell the number that they were calling…only now you are dialing the number into the switching system…with no expectation of privacy.

Enter into the scene ESS…electronic switching systems…controlled by computers.  Calls are always super clear, easy to understand, with lots of neat new things that the telephone can do.

Such as:

• You dial someone and if the line is busy…when the person you called hangs-up the  system will call you back and connect you.
• You can see the number of who is calling you.
• If you are going to the gym you can have the system forward your calls to the gym’s front desk.

And many more.
All this requires the system to remember the numbers of whom you are calling,…with no expectation of privacy.

Fast forward to the cell phone era:

• Like wired telephones you have to tell the system (dial) the number you want to call.
• The system in order to route calls it has to know which tower you are closest to (your cell phone reports to the nearest tower every six seconds)…so the system knows where you are.

All with no expectation of privacy because originally you had to talk to human operators to route calls.

[Skeletor]

Federal Appeals Court Says NSA Phone Records Program Illegal

A federal appeals court ruled against the National Security Agency's bulk collection of telephone call information on Thursday, completely rejecting the government's legal justification for the program.

A three-judge panel of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York unanimously found that Congress has not given the NSA approval for storing massive amounts of data so that it can be searched later.

The court said federal law permits gathering information only when there's something specific to investigate. By contrast, today's ruling says, the government is storing huge amounts of data so that it can be searched later when the need arises.

"Such expansive development of government repositories of formerly private records would be an unprecedented contraction of the privacy expectations of all Americans," the ruling said.

Maybe such a program is needed to fight terrorism, the court said. But if so, "such a monumental shift in our approach to combating terrorism requires a clear signal from Congress."

The court declined, however, to order the government to stop the program. It sent the issue back to a lower court, in view of the fact that Congress is now debating what to do about bulk telephone data collection.

If Congress votes to let the NSA program continue -- or votes to have the phone companies, not the government, store the data -- then the lower court can get to an issue the appeals court today left untouched: whether such a program, even if authorized by Congress, would be unconstitutional.

http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/federal-appeals-court-says-nsa-phone-records-program-illegal-n355271

[andreisdaman]

The 'lets not get carried away' comment ??
 
There is one man dead because of 6 cops.
Scumbag he may of been, so is the sherif that shot that woman
Imagine the out cry if he had been shot.!!
Yet he is just as much if not a bigger scumbag.

As skip pointed out 6 cops all in the same unit
Likely didn't set off to work intending to kill someone
The subconscious thought that No Punishment No Conviction
We're Cops & Cops don't get held to account.
The Problem is Institutionalised in the Police, it appears so
Deeply Institutionalised that 6 cops in on place come together.
 

The "guy" wasn't even a scumbag...he was riding his bike with a knife that was perfectly legal.....the arrest has since been determined to have been illegal...he was doing nothing wrong........but the fact is that due to overpolicing, black guys get caught up in this type of thing all the time...the cops aren't racist per se.....they too get caught up in a system where their supervisors want arrests and tickets so as to make quotas......these quotas which are off the record, are to insure to the supervisor that the cops are actually working and not playing billiards somewhere

[whork]

The "guy" wasn't even a scumbag...he was riding his bike with a knife that was perfectly legal.....the arrest has since been determined to have been illegal...he was doing nothing wrong........but the fact is that due to overpolicing, black guys get caught up in this type of thing all the time...the cops aren't racist per se.....they too get caught up in a system where their supervisors want arrests and tickets so as to make quotas......these quotas which are off the record, are to insure to the supervisor that the cops are actually working and not playing billiards somewhere

It happens too everybody.

Im white as a bandage and i've meet some prick cops in my days. I have meet some good ones also though.

[andreisdaman]

It happens too everybody.

Im white as a bandage and i've meet some prick cops in my days. I have meet some good ones also though.

for God's sake, man...get a tan!

[avxo]

Another civil asset forfeiture case: DEA agents confiscate $16,000 from man travelling to Los Angeles. This is OK, because the DEA doesn't have “to prove that the person is guilty, it’s that the money is presumed to be guilty.” Civil asset forfeiture needs to go away.

For the details: http://www.abqjournal.com/580107/news/dea-agents-seize-16000-from-aspiring-music-video-producer.html

[whork]

for God's sake, man...get a tan!

It's raining everyday how the fuck am i supposed to get a tan?

[andreisdaman]

It's raining everyday how the fuck am i supposed to get a tan?

rains a lot there, I take it?

[whork]

rains a lot there, I take it?

Yup.

[Skeletor]

Phoenix Police Detective Kevin McGowan fired after alleged police brutality

PHOENIX - A fired Phoenix police detective is asking for his job back in the wake of an investigation into alleged police brutality.

“I just tasted the blood,” said 18-year-old Patrick D’Labik, remembering the moment Detective Kevin McGowan stomped D’Labik’s back, sending his face into a convenience store floor.

“As soon as I spit, I realized my teeth was out,” D’Labik said.

McGowan told police internal affairs investigators that he stomped D’Labik’s back because he was not obeying commands.

The incident, in late December of last year, began when McGowan stopped D’Labik, who was walking near 38th Street and McDowell Rd.

McGowan wanted to ask D’Labik if he had any information about a homicide suspect.

D’Labik, who feared the officer would discover the marijuana in his pocket, ran.

McGowan caught up with D’Labik in a convenience store. A surveillance video without audio shows McGowan, gun drawn, approaching D’Labik. D’Labik, who had his hands up, begins to get on the ground.  When he is in a “push up” position, McGowan stomps him in the upper back. That sent D’Labik’s face into the floor. He lost several teeth.

“There was no need for it at all,” D’Labik said. “It makes me angry and it still makes me angry.”

The Phoenix Police Department fired McGowan, a decision the detective is appealing through the City’s Civil Service Board.

A Phoenix police spokesman released the following statement:

The use of excessive force will not be tolerated by the Phoenix Police Department, but because this case is currently being appealed we cannot discuss the specifics and will respect the civil service process."

McGowan’s personnel file shows that the department hired him in late 1997.  Of a handful of complaints against him, only one was substantiated.  He received a written reprimand after shoving a citizen in 2013 after the citizen got in his “personal space.

McGowan's attorney released this statement:

Officer McGowan is a decorated 17-year veteran of the Department. He earned dozens of commendations and has no significant prior discipline. The video obtained by the media does not show the complete series of events related to this detention/arrest.

The entirety of this incident, including the video, was reviewed by an independent expert and by a panel of attorneys at the Maricopa County Attorney's Office.

These reviews resulted in a determination that no crime was committed by Officer McGowan. Officer McGowan filed an appeal of his termination and is looking forward to being reinstated to complete his career with the Phoenix Police Department.

Officer McGowan will not be giving any interviews related to this incident, and this will be the only statement he will give related to this matter, as his appeal is currently pending before the Civil Service Board.

http://www.abc15.com/news/region-phoenix-metro/central-phoenix/phoenix-police-detective-kevin-mcgowan-fired-after-alleged-police-brutality-

[illuminati]

Phoenix Police Detective Kevin McGowan fired after alleged police brutality

PHOENIX - A fired Phoenix police detective is asking for his job back in the wake of an investigation into alleged police brutality.

“I just tasted the blood,” said 18-year-old Patrick D’Labik, remembering the moment Detective Kevin McGowan stomped D’Labik’s back, sending his face into a convenience store floor.

“As soon as I spit, I realized my teeth was out,” D’Labik said.

McGowan told police internal affairs investigators that he stomped D’Labik’s back because he was not obeying commands.

The incident, in late December of last year, began when McGowan stopped D’Labik, who was walking near 38th Street and McDowell Rd.

McGowan wanted to ask D’Labik if he had any information about a homicide suspect.

D’Labik, who feared the officer would discover the marijuana in his pocket, ran.

McGowan caught up with D’Labik in a convenience store. A surveillance video without audio shows McGowan, gun drawn, approaching D’Labik. D’Labik, who had his hands up, begins to get on the ground.  When he is in a “push up” position, McGowan stomps him in the upper back. That sent D’Labik’s face into the floor. He lost several teeth.

“There was no need for it at all,” D’Labik said. “It makes me angry and it still makes me angry.”

The Phoenix Police Department fired McGowan, a decision the detective is appealing through the City’s Civil Service Board.

A Phoenix police spokesman released the following statement:

The use of excessive force will not be tolerated by the Phoenix Police Department, but because this case is currently being appealed we cannot discuss the specifics and will respect the civil service process."

McGowan’s personnel file shows that the department hired him in late 1997.  Of a handful of complaints against him, only one was substantiated.  He received a written reprimand after shoving a citizen in 2013 after the citizen got in his “personal space.

McGowan's attorney released this statement:

Officer McGowan is a decorated 17-year veteran of the Department. He earned dozens of commendations and has no significant prior discipline. The video obtained by the media does not show the complete series of events related to this detention/arrest.

The entirety of this incident, including the video, was reviewed by an independent expert and by a panel of attorneys at the Maricopa County Attorney's Office.

These reviews resulted in a determination that no crime was committed by Officer McGowan. Officer McGowan filed an appeal of his termination and is looking forward to being reinstated to complete his career with the Phoenix Police Department.

Officer McGowan will not be giving any interviews related to this incident, and this will be the only statement he will give related to this matter, as his appeal is currently pending before the Civil Service Board.

http://www.abc15.com/news/region-phoenix-metro/central-phoenix/phoenix-police-detective-kevin-mcgowan-fired-after-alleged-police-brutality-

Ha, it's amusing that when ever it is a video
Of a cop potentially doing something Wrong.
The ole 'it doesn't show the full entirety of the facts '
& 'let's not jump to conclusions' Phrases are rolled out.
Yet video evidence in most other cases is always used
As facts of the case.
Can't have it both ways, well cops do.

[andreisdaman]

Ha, it's amusing that when ever it is a video
Of a cop potentially doing something Wrong.
The ole 'it doesn't show the full entirety of the facts '
& 'let's not jump to conclusions' Phrases are rolled out.
Yet video evidence in most other cases is always used
As facts of the case.
Can't have it both ways, well cops do.

Good observation