Police State - Official Thread

[avxo]

Another excellent example of why police can't police themselves.  These officers have been cleared and they fought the fuck out of releasing the video.  Can't imagine why. 

My opinion is that the guy really behaved stupidly here - he put his hands in his pocket first, then again lowered his hands despite having multiple weapons trained on him... I can't say I fault the cops for shooting here. I question the wisdom of doing it when two other people, who are compliant and obeying their orders, are right there and likely to get injured but sometimes you can't help it. I wonder why it took a Judge's order to release this video; why did the police not want it shown? It seems to me to cast the incident in a light that's favorable to them.

[Agnostic007]

fighting the release of the video is strange. Video's of police shootings, good bad or suspect get released as a matter of course all the time. Why this one was so special is beyond me. I watched the video earlier today and knew we'd be talking about it soon.

Your right in the regard the subject acted abnormally. The officers were under the impression they were out on the actual subject of the robbery. Likely based on information given to them. I don't know and I suspect that source wouldn't disclose it if it were fact. So the officers based on information they recieved (not sure, but probably) believe they are out on an armed subject. The subject is acting like a complete idiot with guns pointed at them. Very similar to the shooting we discussed at the convenience store.

What I feel added to the negative outcome besides the persons irrational reaction and actions to the situation, is the officers not being tactically sound in their approach and leaving the cover of their vehicles to expose themselves to possible gunfire if in fact the subject been armed and tried to shoot at them. Had they been behind cover they could have taken the luxury of another milisecond to determine what he was about to do. When they were out exposed like that it took that option off the table.   

[Skeletor]

Here is a bodycam video (bodycams were recently deployed in LVMPD) of a recent officer involved shooting. In this case  I think the reactions of the cops were justified, if not delayed (the gun makes a clicking sound but does not fire as there was no round in the chamber so the cop with the bodycam was extremely lucky). One cop was injured by a bullet that grazed his neck.

I think most citizens would not have a problem with this officer involved shooting. But when you have cops invading homes without warrants, arresting or killing the occupants, stealing money, detaining or arresting for bogus or no reason and not facing any real consequences, then most people would react.

[Skeletor]

City fires investigator who found cops at fault in shootings

A Chicago investigator who determined that several civilian shootings by police officers were unjustified was fired after resisting orders to reverse those findings, according to internal records of his agency obtained by WBEZ.

http://www.wbez.org/news/city-fires-investigator-who-found-cops-fault-shootings-112423

[Agnostic007]

City fires investigator who found cops at fault in shootings

A Chicago investigator who determined that several civilian shootings by police officers were unjustified was fired after resisting orders to reverse those findings, according to internal records of his agency obtained by WBEZ.

http://www.wbez.org/news/city-fires-investigator-who-found-cops-fault-shootings-112423

Could be he was the only honest member of the civilian monitors office.. or, he could be similar to our own retired Capt. Louie White, the first black promoted to the rank of Captain. He retired and never voiced a concern about the department. Later he became a vocal NAACP spokesperson and was very anti police. I wouldn't have wanted him sitting on any review panel either.

[Skip8282]

My opinion is that the guy really behaved stupidly here - he put his hands in his pocket first, then again lowered his hands despite having multiple weapons trained on him... I can't say I fault the cops for shooting here. I question the wisdom of doing it when two other people, who are compliant and obeying their orders, are right there and likely to get injured but sometimes you can't help it. I wonder why it took a Judge's order to release this video; why did the police not want it shown? It seems to me to cast the incident in a light that's favorable to them.

Never disagree with me in public again.

[Skip8282]

fighting the release of the video is strange. Video's of police shootings, good bad or suspect get released as a matter of course all the time. Why this one was so special is beyond me. I watched the video earlier today and knew we'd be talking about it soon.

Your right in the regard the subject acted abnormally. The officers were under the impression they were out on the actual subject of the robbery. Likely based on information given to them. I don't know and I suspect that source wouldn't disclose it if it were fact. So the officers based on information they recieved (not sure, but probably) believe they are out on an armed subject. The subject is acting like a complete idiot with guns pointed at them. Very similar to the shooting we discussed at the convenience store.

What I feel added to the negative outcome besides the persons irrational reaction and actions to the situation, is the officers not being tactically sound in their approach and leaving the cover of their vehicles to expose themselves to possible gunfire if in fact the subject been armed and tried to shoot at them. Had they been behind cover they could have taken the luxury of another milisecond to determine what he was about to do. When they were out exposed like that it took that option off the table.   

The guy was trying to communicate with the officers that his friends had done nothing wrong.  From the 2nd angle, his hands don't go into his pockets, they were just going up and down, and they've noted that all the cops were shouting at them at the same time.

He didn't help himself with meth in his system, or moving around.  But the instantaneous application of deadly force is jumping the gun.  I don't buy for a moment that 3 cops, all pointing guns at him and a 4th in the background were so terrified for their lives they had to kill him.

You point out something interesting with them not behind their doors.  Why isn't this an indicator that their level of supposed fear is something other than lethal?

I get the standard that it's measured from the cops perspective.  But there's something fundamentally wrong with not considering their point of view.  They did nothing and they're instantly surrounded by bunch of thugs pointing guns at them, all shouting, and clueless as to what the problem.  I doubt for a moment that any of them figured cops, of all people, would gun down innocent people.  We're becoming more acclimated to knowing the opposite is true.


As an aside, do cops presume that the people they are dealing with can speak and understand English?  I would think it a fair presumption, but problematic in certain circumstances.

[Skip8282]

Here is a bodycam video (bodycams were recently deployed in LVMPD) of a recent officer involved shooting. In this case  I think the reactions of the cops were justified, if not delayed (the gun makes a clicking sound but does not fire as there was no round in the chamber so the cop with the bodycam was extremely lucky). One cop was injured by a bullet that grazed his neck.

I think most citizens would not have a problem with this officer involved shooting. But when you have cops invading homes without warrants, arresting or killing the occupants, stealing money, detaining or arresting for bogus or no reason and not facing any real consequences, then most people would react.

Telling the guy shit like 'you're a grown man', doesn't help to diffuse the situation.  But yes, it's 100%, unquestionably (IMO), a good shoot.

[Agnostic007]

1..The guy was trying to communicate with the officers that his friends had done nothing wrong.  From the 2nd angle, his hands don't go into his pockets, they were just going up and down, and they've noted that all the cops were shouting at them at the same time.

2...He didn't help himself with meth in his system, or moving around.  But the instantaneous application of deadly force is jumping the gun.  I don't buy for a moment that 3 cops, all pointing guns at him and a 4th in the background were so terrified for their lives they had to kill him.

3...You point out something interesting with them not behind their doors.  Why isn't this an indicator that their level of supposed fear is something other than lethal?

4..I get the standard that it's measured from the cops perspective.  But there's something fundamentally wrong with not considering their point of view.  They did nothing and they're instantly surrounded by bunch of thugs pointing guns at them, all shouting, and clueless as to what the problem.  I doubt for a moment that any of them figured cops, of all people, would gun down innocent people.  We're becoming more acclimated to knowing the opposite is true.


As an aside, do cops presume that the people they are dealing with can speak and understand English?  I would think it a fair presumption, but problematic in certain circumstances.

1. From the 2nd angle might not be the angle the cop firing first saw. One of the things we remind people about when showing video is the video camera location may give a point of view different from the cops point of view. Something to consider, but yes, from the 2nd angle I can see that his hand didn't go under his shirt. I can also see a ball cap blocking the view from other angles.
There is a time to ignore cops directions and become animated with your movements.. when they are pointing a gun at you is not one of them.

2. I get that you wouldn't think that someone who is alleged to be armed with a gun, disobeying your orders and being animated while you have more than one subject at gun point wouldn't be a serious concern.. but it is. I don't think they "had to kill him" I think they obviously felt they needed to stop the threat.  
  
3. Because we know from a gazillion videos, including the one where they take the shooter of the 9 church people into custody that cops sometimes get tunnel vision or react in a manner that puts themselves at risk. We try and train that out of them but sometimes they forget cover is your friend. Cost a few their lives. I wouldn't say that diminishes the danger. But again, it is poor tactics, (based on the video) and could have limited their options.

4. I have stopped people who were the wrong people on a few calls. When adrenaline is flowing and you've just been in a bad situation, witnesses often get descriptions wrong. I'm sure these officers likely have done the same. In every case, we were able to resolve the issue safely because the people didn't act in a way that would cause me to be concerned. At gunpoint they may voice their innocence but they would do what they were directed to do. The ones who didn't follow instructions turned out the be the right ones. So while I agree, lets look at their perspective.. again.. when 4 guns are pointing at you, 9 out of 10 times the innocent people are going to follow instructions even if they are voicing their innocents.

5. It's a presumption. But put me in any country where I don't speak a word of their language.. I will guarantee you that if 4 uniformed officers are pointing their guns at me yelling.. I am not moving an inch and will have my hands on my head.

I think the shooting was tragic. I can safely watch video from my computer, see it several times and certainly conclude he didn't need to be shot. I have a good camera angle and can see his hand didn't go in a pocket or under a shirt. But..     it's absolutely not a clear example of why the cops can't police themselves. It may be a clear example of why civilians shouldn't determine the outcome of the investigation

[Skip8282]

1. From the 2nd angle might not be the angle the cop firing first saw. One of the things we remind people about when showing video is the video camera location may give a point of view different from the cops point of view. Something to consider, but yes, from the 2nd angle I can see that his hand didn't go under his shirt. I can also see a ball cap blocking the view from other angles.
There is a time to ignore cops directions and become animated with your movements.. when they are pointing a gun at you is not one of them.

2. I get that you wouldn't think that someone who is alleged to be armed with a gun, disobeying your orders and being animated while you have more than one subject at gun point wouldn't be a serious concern.. but it is. I don't think they "had to kill him" I think they obviously felt they needed to stop the threat. 
 
3. Because we know from a gazillion videos, including the one where they take the shooter of the 9 church people into custody that cops sometimes get tunnel vision or react in a manner that puts themselves at risk. We try and train that out of them but sometimes they forget cover is your friend. Cost a few their lives. I wouldn't say that diminishes the danger. But again, it is poor tactics, (based on the video) and could have limited their options.

4. I have stopped people who were the wrong people on a few calls. When adrenaline is flowing and you've just been in a bad situation, witnesses often get descriptions wrong. I'm sure these officers likely have done the same. In every case, we were able to resolve the issue safely because the people didn't act in a way that would cause me to be concerned. At gunpoint they may voice their innocence but they would do what they were directed to do. The ones who didn't follow instructions turned out the be the right ones. So while I agree, lets look at their perspective.. again.. when 4 guns are pointing at you, 9 out of 10 times the innocent people are going to follow instructions even if they are voicing their innocents.

5. It's a presumption. But put me in any country where I don't speak a word of their language.. I will guarantee you that if 4 uniformed officers are pointing their guns at me yelling.. I am not moving an inch and will have my hands on my head.

I think the shooting was tragic. I can safely watch video from my computer, see it several times and certainly conclude he didn't need to be shot. I have a good camera angle and can see his hand didn't go in a pocket or under a shirt. But..     it's absolutely not a clear example of why the cops can't police themselves. It may be a clear example of why civilians shouldn't determine the outcome of the investigation

I don't know about that, but I've had a couple of similar personal experiences overseas to know that people react differently when guns are pointed at them.

Of course, when you're trained to be scared shitless of your own shadow, there can really only be one inevitable result.  As I noted, I doubt innocent kids would have thought for a moment that cops - of all people - would gun them down for doing nothing.

And yes, we got it the first time.  Civilians are beneath you and only your cop buddies can 'objectively' and 'fairly' judge you.  And the comedy ensues...

[Agnostic007]

I don't know about that, but I've had a couple of similar personal experiences overseas to know that people react differently when guns are pointed at them.

Of course, when you're trained to be scared shitless of your own shadow, there can really only be one inevitable result.  As I noted, I doubt innocent kids would have thought for a moment that cops - of all people - would gun them down for doing nothing.

And yes, we got it the first time.  Civilians are beneath you and only your cop buddies can 'objectively' and 'fairly' judge you.  And the comedy ensues...

And we got it the first time.. you hate cops in spite of your "I have friends who are black so I'm not a racist" equivelant of "There are some good cops so I don't hate cops" claims..

Why can't you stick with the discussion for more than a couple sentences before resorting to that tired worn out crap?

There are a hundred posts saying cops are corrupt, cops have no integrity, cops strangle their mothers after birth, cops are theives, cops love to shoot innocent citizens... Yet I say cops are better qualified to review use of force incidents than citizens based on knowledge, experience, training and its 'See, you think you're better than us!" Seriously? 

[Skeletor]

"Stop resisting"...  Ironic that citizens (who shouldn't dare think they can review a cop's actions) are likely to determine the cop's fate..

(it's interesting that even though the cop was black and the victim white there was no outrage or racial angle-as it so often happens in similar cases with white cops and black victims).

Alabama Police Officer Breaks Down on Stand, Admits to Repeatedly Lying to Cover Up for Fellow Cop Beating Handcuffed Man

An Alabama police officer broke down at the federal trial of a fellow cop, admitting that he lied to internal affairs investigators twice, lied to an FBI agent and lied to a federal grand jury when he was questioned about his colleague brutally beating a handcuffed man and keeping his property as “trophies.”

Joshua Bates, an eight year veteran of the Huntsville Police Department, testified Tuesday that he lied to cover for fellow officer Brett Russell out of fear of losing his job, but admitted that the incident has haunted him ever since.

The incident took place on December 23, 2011 after Russell responded to a domestic violence call at the home of Gary Wayne Hopkins.  Bates, who was training a cadet at the time, was called to the scene to assist Russell with putting leg shackles on the suspect.

Once Hopkins was in custody, the dashcam footage showed Russell punching and kicking the suspect, ordering him to “stop resisting,” despite the fact that he was restrained.

Hopkins was so badly injured that the jail refused to take him until he was treated at a hospital.

Following the incident, the officers on the scene reported that Hopkins was combative and defended Russell’s actions.  A few days before testifying, Bates contacted the U.S. Attorney prosecuting the case and agreed to tell the truth about what really happened that night in exchange for immunity.

According to WAFF:

    “I didn’t think he was resisting,” Bates said on the stand. “I was still in shock about what was going on.”

Bates told the court that he had been in disbelief as the incident unfolded, and admitted that Hopkins was not resisting and had not spit at officers or head butted anyone – as was previously reported.

Another witness who testified Tuesday was the first officer who had arrived at Hopkins’ home.  He stated that he found property belonging to Hopkins inside the officer’s vehicle on January 5, 2012, which corroborates the prosecutions claims that Russell had stolen his property to keep as trophies.

In dashcam footage from the incident, Russell could reportedly be heard saying, “You deserve to get that ass whooping.”

Despite Hopkins having to be treated in the hospital for his injuries, Russell reported that he had taken the man into custody “without incident,” withholding the fact that he had beaten the man.

In May of 2012, Rusell was fired from the department, however, he was reinstated three months later by a unanimous vote from Huntsville City Council.

He is now facing federal charges of deprivation of a person’s civil rights under the color of law and obstruction of justice. If convicted on both counts, he faces up to 30 years in prison.

http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2015/07/alabama-police-officer-breaks-down-on-stand-admits-to-repeatedly-lying-to-cover-up-for-fellow-cop-beating-handcuffed-man/

[illuminati]

^^^^^

Ahh that is Good the cop finally came clean as to what happened to the victim.
Shame it took him 4yrs & several bouts of lying to various authorities.
Will he now be prosecuted for perverting the course of justice,
Falsifying statements, ( these are just guesses) or other breaches of law.
Hope agnostic can clarify what he could be charged for.

No doubt this will be passed off as a one off, & police public relations office
Will work overtime to assure public this is just a isolated case.
And cops up & down the country are Honest & Trustworthy....

Good to see they rehired the thug cop again so quickly that is so reassuring..Not.
Again agnostic maybe good enough to tell us what he could / should be charged with.

[Skip8282]

And we got it the first time.. you hate cops in spite of your "I have friends who are black so I'm not a racist" equivelant of "There are some good cops so I don't hate cops" claims..

Why can't you stick with the discussion for more than a couple sentences before resorting to that tired worn out crap?

No idea what the fuck you're babbling about, but:

-I mentioned nothing about hating or not hating cops.  Nothing.
-You all are not the equivalent of an entire race of people who have been discriminated against for decades.  So, fuck your wannabe persecution nonsense. 

There are a hundred posts saying cops are corrupt, cops have no integrity, cops strangle their mothers after birth, cops are theives, cops love to shoot innocent citizens...

Uh...exactly.  We've been down this road before.  Nobody needs to discuss when you do your jobs correctly.

You're SUPPOSED to do your jobs correctly.

You're paid to do your jobs correctly.

The purpose of this thread is discuss when cops DON'T do it correctly.

Not that hard to understand...unless you might be cop with a persecution complex who thinks us Mensch are beneath him.

Yet I say cops are better qualified to review use of force incidents than citizens based on knowledge, experience, training and its 'See, you think you're better than us!" Seriously? 

That's exactly what you're saying, and you know it, which might be why is pisses you off so much when it's pointed out.

Let's not act like cops are on the level of physicians, spending countless years in rigorous study, residencies, tough licensing requirements, etc.

You spent several months at an academy, some of you may have a degree, some may not even have anything more than high school.  And those that have a degree may not even have it in Criminal Justice, policing, etc.

The public in general is more than capable of evaluating reasonableness as any cop is and juries do it EVERY SINGLE DAY.

So take your trade school diploma, and go fist yourself.

[Skip8282]

This is the slow motion version of the cop shooting Samuel DuBose.  The fast version is really hard to see:

The cop has been charged with murder, pled not guilty under the justification that his hand or watch was caught in the car and the guy was trying to drive off so he feared for his life and had to kill him.

I seem to recall a case where the cop did something similar and judges let him off.

Hard to tell from the video what the truth is, but the slow motion version doesn't seem to substantiate the cops claim.

[240 is Back]

wow, it looks pretty clear there.   he pulled gun and if anything, braced the driver so the headshot would be accurate.

tough to charge anything but murder there... particularly when he keeps changing story about being dragged, etc.

Without the body camera, the cop gets a medal and promotion for her heroics.

[whork]

No idea what the fuck you're babbling about, but:

-I mentioned nothing about hating or not hating cops.  Nothing.
-You all are not the equivalent of an entire race of people who have been discriminated against for decades.  So, fuck your wannabe persecution nonsense. 




Uh...exactly.  We've been down this road before.  Nobody needs to discuss when you do your jobs correctly.

You're SUPPOSED to do your jobs correctly.

You're paid to do your jobs correctly.

The purpose of this thread is discuss when cops DON'T do it correctly.

Not that hard to understand...unless you might be cop with a persecution complex who thinks us Mensch are beneath him.




That's exactly what you're saying, and you know it, which might be why is pisses you off so much when it's pointed out.

Let's not act like cops are on the level of physicians, spending countless years in rigorous study, residencies, tough licensing requirements, etc.

You spent several months at an academy, some of you may have a degree, some may not even have anything more than high school.  And those that have a degree may not even have it in Criminal Justice, policing, etc.

The public in general is more than capable of evaluating reasonableness as any cop is and juries do it EVERY SINGLE DAY.

So take your trade school diploma, and go fist yourself.

Awesome post.

+1

[Skeletor]

Teenager Sues Police After Being Jailed for 40 Days Over a Snowball Then Cleared of Wrongdoing

Detroit, MI — A Detroit teenager is suing police in federal court after being wrongfully jailed for 40 days over a snowball.

Dominique Rondeau thought he would have some fun with the other kids after school by throwing snowballs. In Police State USA, however, even this immortal pastime can get you thrown in jail.

One of those icy snowballs from the crowd hit the windshield of a police car parked at East English Village High School, in just the right way to shatter it. Although officers Floyd Jenkins and Freddie Wilson did not see who threw the snowball, they looked at security camera footage and fingered Rondeau for the “crime.”

Later that day of December 16, 2013, they would nab Rondeau from his home and put him in juvenile detention for nearly 40 days under a charge of destroying police property.

“They knocked. I cracked the big door open to see who it was … They opened the (screen) door, and they just walked in, and they started putting me in handcuffs,” according to Rondeau.

He was separated from his family during Christmas and New Year’s holidays, as they could not afford the $2,000 bond to release him.

At the bench trial on February 26, the two cops testified that they saw Rondeau on the video, but when the footage was played in court, they could not pick out Rondeau. Based on this and the fact that no other evidence was offered, the case was dismissed and Rondeau was freed.

What possessed these police officers to not only go after a kid over a snowball, but also attempt to deceive the court so the kid would stay in jail?

This abuse of power is not being forgotten. Dominique Rondeau is suing the two district police officers, along with Detroit Public Schools, in federal court for false arrest and malicious prosecution. The lawsuit says his constitutional rights were violated by being arrested without probable cause or a warrant.

Rondeau’s mother, Sheron Rondeau, said the arrest and jail time has emotionally scarred her son, adding, “There’s a fear now. He doesn’t trust police officers.”

They are seeking a jury trial and unspecified monetary damages.

The district denies any wrongdoing, setting a precedent for their officers to go after kids if play time impinges upon the sanctified property of law enforcement.

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/teenager-sues-police-jailed-40-days-snowball/

[illuminati]

Teenager Sues Police After Being Jailed for 40 Days Over a Snowball Then Cleared of Wrongdoing

Detroit, MI — A Detroit teenager is suing police in federal court after being wrongfully jailed for 40 days over a snowball.

Dominique Rondeau thought he would have some fun with the other kids after school by throwing snowballs. In Police State USA, however, even this immortal pastime can get you thrown in jail.

One of those icy snowballs from the crowd hit the windshield of a police car parked at East English Village High School, in just the right way to shatter it. Although officers Floyd Jenkins and Freddie Wilson did not see who threw the snowball, they looked at security camera footage and fingered Rondeau for the “crime.”

Later that day of December 16, 2013, they would nab Rondeau from his home and put him in juvenile detention for nearly 40 days under a charge of destroying police property.

“They knocked. I cracked the big door open to see who it was … They opened the (screen) door, and they just walked in, and they started putting me in handcuffs,” according to Rondeau.

He was separated from his family during Christmas and New Year’s holidays, as they could not afford the $2,000 bond to release him.

At the bench trial on February 26, the two cops testified that they saw Rondeau on the video, but when the footage was played in court, they could not pick out Rondeau. Based on this and the fact that no other evidence was offered, the case was dismissed and Rondeau was freed.

What possessed these police officers to not only go after a kid over a snowball, but also attempt to deceive the court so the kid would stay in jail?

This abuse of power is not being forgotten. Dominique Rondeau is suing the two district police officers, along with Detroit Public Schools, in federal court for false arrest and malicious prosecution. The lawsuit says his constitutional rights were violated by being arrested without probable cause or a warrant.

Rondeau’s mother, Sheron Rondeau, said the arrest and jail time has emotionally scarred her son, adding, “There’s a fear now. He doesn’t trust police officers.”

They are seeking a jury trial and unspecified monetary damages.

The district denies any wrongdoing, setting a precedent for their officers to go after kids if play time impinges upon the sanctified property of law enforcement.

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/teenager-sues-police-jailed-40-days-snowball/

Jeez... You just couldn't make a such ridiculous stories & expect people to believe it.
Yet it happening & it's Real.
No doubt the two cops will have Perfectly valid reason to keep him detained for
40 days, I know... They were in Fear of Losing Their Lives.
Why have not been sacked, clearly not suitable as cops.

[Skip8282]

wow, it looks pretty clear there.   he pulled gun and if anything, braced the driver so the headshot would be accurate.

tough to charge anything but murder there... particularly when he keeps changing story about being dragged, etc.

Without the body camera, the cop gets a medal and promotion for her heroics.

I lose sight of his left hand, but I can't imagine what it could've possibly got caught on that would drag him under the car as he claiming.

[Skip8282]

Ya gotta be shittin' me.

 



Santa Ana police officers sue to quash video of pot shop raid

SANTA ANA – Three Santa Ana police officers want to quash a surveillance video that shows officers making derogatory comments about a disabled woman and possibly snacking on pot edibles during a recent raid of a medical marijuana dispensary.

A lawsuit, filed last week in Orange County Superior Court by three unidentified police officers and the Santa Ana Police Officers Association, seeks to prevent Santa Ana Police Department internal affairs investigators from using the video as they sort out what happened during the May 26 raid of Sky High Collective.

Lawyers for police and the dispensary said the video – which has been widely seen on television and several online news sites, including ocregister.com – could play a key role in the ongoing investigation into the officers’ actions.

The lawyers disagree about the video’s accuracy and authenticity.

Matthew Pappas, a lawyer for Sky High, pointed to the irony of police seeking to shoot down the use of video as evidence in an investigation when they routinely use videos to investigate other crimes.

“It’s pretty pathetic for police to say if we don’t like something that it can’t be used as evidence,” Pappas said.

Corey W. Glave, a Hermosa Beach attorney representing the Santa Ana Police Officers Association and the three officers, said the video was taken without the officers’ knowledge and was handled by Pappas, among others, prior to being made public.

Glave said Pappas has altered the video in a way to make the police look bad.

“The attorney representing the drug dispensary intentionally has misrepresented what happened,” Glave said.

Pappas has provided the Register and Santa Ana police with two versions of the raid footage, a highlight reel with subtitles and what he says are unedited video clips.

In one of the shortened video clips, armed Santa Ana police officers, some wearing masks, are seen breaking through the front door of the 17th Street dispensary and ordering at least a half-dozen customers to the floor.



At the time, Santa Ana city law did not allow for the operation of marijuana dispensaries.

After entering the building, police are seen dismantling video cameras inside the store.

After most of the cameras are taken down, a camera they didn’t detect shows the officers talking about a woman with an amputated left leg who at the time of the raid was in her wheelchair inside the dispensary.

“Did you punch that one-legged old Benita,” a male officer asks a female officer, apparently referring to the woman in the wheelchair.

“I was about to kick her in her (expletive) nub,” the female officer replies, according to subtitles with the video.

In another clip – which Pappas has titled “Officers eating edibles and playing darts” – a voice can be heard asking, “What flavor?” before an officer is seen unwrapping a small package and putting something in his mouth.

The lawsuit argues that the video doesn’t paint a fair version of events. The suit also claims the video shouldn’t be used as evidence because, among other things, the police didn’t know they were on camera.

“All police personnel present had a reasonable expectation that their conversations were no longer being recorded and the undercover officers, feeling that they were safe to do so, removed their masks,” says the suit.

The dispensary also did not obtain consent of any officer to record them, the suit says.

“Without the illegal recordings, there would have been no internal investigation of any officer,” the suit says.

Pappas counters that the suit is baseless because the officers were aware the dispensary had video cameras and managed to disable most of them.

“They knew they were on video. ... Just because they missed one camera doesn’t make it illegal.”

The city of Santa Ana, the Police Department and Chief Carlos Rojas are named as defendants. Officials with the Santa Ana Police Officers Association did not return phone calls seeking comment.

No officers have been terminated in connection with the ongoing internal affairs investigation, said Santa Ana police spokesman Cpl. Anthony Bertagna.

The three officers have received threats since the raid and have incurred damages, including attorney’s fees and lost wages, according to the suit.

A hearing date for the case has not been set.


http://www.ocregister.com/articles/police-675722-officers-video.html

[Agnostic007]

I lose sight of his left hand, but I can't imagine what it could've possibly got caught on that would drag him under the car as he claiming.

possibly the drivers fingers...

[Skip8282]

possibly the drivers fingers...

I suppose it's possible the guy grabbed him, though one would think he might mention that to the other cops.  That hasn't been reported, so it may come out on trial.

Here's the police report that was released (short read):

http://www.uc.edu/content/dam/uc/ucomm/docs/incident-report.pdf

[Agnostic007]

It's possible but the officer appears to be unaware and just says his arm or hand was caught on something. I've looked at the video a number of times and it is horrible in determining whether the car was moving or not. I can only surmise from the camera view of the officer on the ground and the car 20 ft down the road already that it was certainly in drive.. and possibly moving.

When I was a rookie officer I got my right arm rolled up in a window while trying to pull the keys out of the ignition so they wouldn't drive off as they were trying to do. They put it in drive and start off at a fast speed. Thought I was going to die. Couldn't reach my flashlight to break the window, couldn't reach my gun.. the only reason I survived was my back up saw what was happening as he was pulling up and managed to cut in front of the vehicle and stopped them. Never reached in a vehicle again after that..         

[illuminati]

It's possible but the officer appears to be unaware and just says his arm or hand was caught on something. I've looked at the video a number of times and it is horrible in determining whether the car was moving or not. I can only surmise from the camera view of the officer on the ground and the car 20 ft down the road already that it was certainly in drive.. and possibly moving.

When I was a rookie officer I got my right arm rolled up in a window while trying to pull the keys out of the ignition so they wouldn't drive off as they were trying to do. They put it in drive and start off at a fast speed. Thought I was going to die. Couldn't reach my flashlight to break the window, couldn't reach my gun.. the only reason I survived was my back up saw what was happening as he was pulling up and managed to cut in front of the vehicle and stopped them. Never reached in a vehicle again after that..         

The police have a very Dangerous job.
They have to fear for their lives everyday they go to work.

Top 10 Most Dangerous Jobs in the Country: Police Officer is NOT on the List


http://thefreethoughtproject.com/cop-top-10-dangerous-jobs-country-tanks/