Cops And Union Rep Lie About What Video Shows Because Judge Never Allowed Recording As Evidence

from the sometimes-evidence-isn't-evidence dept

Mon, Jul 8th 2013 9:22am — Tim Cushing

The video recording of St. Louis police officer Rory Bruce's unprovoked attack on a handcuffed suspect speaks for itself. Within the first 15 seconds of the video captured by the police van's camera, Officer Bruce slams a forearm across the face of his arrestee. The attack was "unprovoked" in any legal sense of the word. The audio quality is negligible but it appears to be a response to the handcuffed teen's contemptuous (of cop) laughter.

For this action, Officer Bruce lost his job. Not only was Bruce fired by the St. Louis PD, but he was charged with assault, something rather uncommon in the police world. Of course, Bruce was still in his probationary period, something that made his firing much easier.

What's captured on the video doesn't mesh with statements made by Bruce's lawyer.

Bruce's attorney, Joseph Hogan, said his client was squatting down, performing a search, when the "guy makes a move," and Bruce jumped up and hit him with a forearm.

This clearly isn't true. The suspect makes no move and neither officer is squatting at any point before Bruce struck the handcuffed teen. Hogan also suggested police officers shouldn't be held accountable for actions performed under the influence of "adrenaline."

Hogan complained that police and prosecutors didn't take into account the shooting before the teen's arrest, saying that adrenaline must have been pumping for both officers.

This shooting involved Bruce's partner Jacob Fowler (another rookie who was fired for this incident) firing his weapon at the suspect after the teen pointed a gun at him.

While this video clearly shows an attack on a handcuffed suspect, this recording was never viewed by the presiding judge, Theresa Counts, who found Rory Bruce "not guilty" of assault. Plenty of outrage has bubbled up over this fact, but Scott Greenfield at Simple Justice details the events that led to a crucial piece of evidence being ignored.

There was nothing life or death about the decision Rory Bruce made to pound this cuffed teenager in custody. Yet, he was acquitted by Associate Circuit Court Judge Theresa Counts Burke. Not because she found this conduct acceptable, but because she never watched the video.

"Prosecutors had also tried, but failed, to get the teenager on the stand. First they couldn’t find him, then when they did, he asserted his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

But the video never made it into evidence because the law required prosecutors to authenticate it with someone who had personal knowledge of the events. Bruce refused to testify against himself, on the same constitutional grounds as the teen."

The teenager involved was never charged, leaving the prosecution with nothing to trade off for his testimony. As for doing the right thing against Bruce, well, the right thing on the street can sometimes be a bit different than what some of us might hope for.

But what of the other officer present, Bruce's partner, Jacob Fowler?

"That left Fowler, who claimed the same but was forced to testify after prosecutors granted him immunity from charges and obtained a last minute order from another judge.

When Fowler viewed the footage, he testified it differed from his recollection of events."

Maybe he recalled rainbows and unicorns. Who knows? What he clearly didn't recall was anything that could be used against his partner. What a surprise.

"Burke ruled she thus couldn’t authenticate it. That left only the testimony of a few police employees, who couldn’t say much because of hearsay rules."

So, now we know, if we weren't clear before, a recording of an event sometimes just isn't enough evidence. It may be crystal clear in the court of public opinion (and it certainly seemed "authentic" to the St. Louis PD, which fired Bruce and his partner) but can turn absolutely useless when it catches in the gears of the justice system.

But the most troubling (read: repulsive) aspect of this whole debacle isn't the fact that Bruce wasn't charged, or that Judge Theresa Burke didn't watch the video. It's the words of Jeff Roorda, the business manager of the St. Louis Police Officers Association, who not only flat out lies about the events clearly captured by the camera, but claims this sort of footage is being used the wrong way.

Words are exchanged and then; “It’s one forearm blow as he’s trained to do,” said Jeff Roorda with the St. Louis Police Officer’s Association.

Roorda says he can see Bruce crouched down and the suspect moving forward. He says Bruce was only defending himself.

Again, at no point before Bruce hits the suspect are either of the officers "crouched down." Both are completely upright for the entire 15 seconds before Bruce's attack.

Roorda says the judge did right—he told News 4, police videos like these should be used to protect police. "Now, it’s become a “gotcha-head hunter” tool that we’ve seen internal affairs go over-board with."

That's the most disgusting sentiment. Roorda feels video captured by police cameras should only be used when what's recorded justifies police actions. If St. Louis cops can't behave themselves, despite knowing they're on camera and despite believing internal affairs is prone to "going overboard," the problem isn't with the cameras or internal affairs. Roorda wants these two officers reinstated, even though the St. Louis PD itself doesn't want them around. After all, they've been exonerated by the court, so in Roorda's mind, there's no reason to keep two bad cops off the street any longer.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: evidence, judge, police, police brutality, videos

53 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Rikuo (profile), 8 Jul 2013 @ 4:48am

Wait what? A video recording is presented and all a guy has to do to get it discounted is say that's not what happened? So there's no questions on the guy like "Are you then saying the video is doctored?" or anything like that? So what does this mean for example for CCTV footage of a robbery in a shop? The robber just has to say "Nope, that didn't happen" and thus, he gets off?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), 8 Jul 2013 @ 7:35am
  
  Re:
  It appears as if the prosecutors granted Fowler immunity in hopes he would authenticate the recording, but that obviously didn't work. And if Fowler knew he was the last chance the prosecution had to get the video entered as evidence, it's little surprise he chose to deny its "authenticity."
  
  In the robber scenario, I would imagine the shopkeeper would authenticate the recording as it's in his own interest -- pressing charges against the thief. The teen who was struck had little to gain. He wasn't suing the PD or pressing charges against the officer who hit him. Testifying would have seen some more interest being paid to his own criminal activity.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2013 @ 9:46am
    
    Re: Re:
    You'd assume that means he lost his immunity. If his testimony did nothing, then he wouldn't have said anything inciminating and thus given nothing in exchange for immunity. That should nullify any deal they have with him and hopefully they ram whatever charges they can down his throat.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2013 @ 10:14am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      He was given immunity to testify, not immunity to testify to the authenticity of the video.
      If a person is given immunity so they will testify, there isn't anything that legally binds them to say what the prosecution wants them to say. They just agree to testify and then they are granted immunity, no matter what they end up saying.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 8 Jul 2013 @ 7:43am
  
  Re:
  Presumably in that case, the shop owner would be around to say that the recording is accurate. In this case, there was no one to claim that since they couldn't find the teen or get him to cooperate.
  
  My question is when is this authentication rule applied? How does this rule work when there is no one but the suspect present (such as burglary of an unattended shop), or when only the suspect survives (murder)? How would recordings of those be authenticated by someone with personal knowledge of the incident?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Atkray (profile), 8 Jul 2013 @ 8:35am
    
    Re: Re:
    THIS ^^^
    
    So if someone breaks into some place that has a camera when no one is there to see it they can just claim it was edited and isn't authentic and that means it cannot be used as evidence?
    
    This makes no sense whatsoever.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2013 @ 9:48am
    
    Re: Re:
    That's my question. Shouldn't the person who made/set up the recording be able to authenticate it? Why do they need the teen or one of the officers who was in the video? Don't you just need to prove it hasn't been edited to authenticate it?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - GMacGuffin (profile), 8 Jul 2013 @ 10:08am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "the law required prosecutors to authenticate it with someone who had personal knowledge of the events"
      
      This is most odd. I don't know from criminal law or MO law, but usually authentication requires "sufficient evidence that it is what you say it is." I.e., not a whole lot. And that it was filmed by the police would in my mind cover that. It should be self-authenticating due to the source.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2013 @ 9:34am
  
  Re:
  Nope. That's not how the law should work.
  
  Welcome to Fascist America! Enjoy your imaginary freedoms!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- stk33, 21 Oct 2014 @ 7:00am
  
  Re:
  If the store owner refuses to testify, and thus there's nobody to confirm that the robbery took place, then yes, he gets off.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 8 Jul 2013 @ 9:59am

More frightening is the idea that we can no long trust video coming from the police.
Someone who saw it needs to back it up.
Dash cam shows you failing a sobriety test, cop claims the video is accurate target claims otherwise... so the tape gets thrown out right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Uriel-238 (profile), 8 Jul 2013 @ 11:28am
  
  Selective access to police video is old news
  It's routine in most municipalities for street-corner videos to disappear when they show something that would put police in a bad light. I've advocated that public video (including dashcams and such) should be public access and governed by a party independent to the police for exactly that reason.
  
  This is the sort of thing for which vigilante gangs are made. For when the Department of Justice no longer gives a shit about justice.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- stk33, 21 Oct 2014 @ 7:02am
  
  Re:
  There must be one party who confirms the video. If the cop confirms, it's enough. But when nobody confirms, like in this case, then nothing. That's why the cops ask "do you want to press charges?".
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anon, 8 Jul 2013 @ 10:14am

No Surprise...
Let's see - you refuse to testify against the guy that assaulted you, you refuse to verify the video. Should you or anyone be surprised the guy gets off?

What bothers me is the law about validating video. As mentioned above, if a burglar does not authenticate the video, then what? It didn't happen? More likely, a video should be admitted with the defence right to challenge its acuracy - is the provenance correct - can the people who set it up and made it, stored it, retreived it able to show its origin? Is it apparently altered or not, according to forensic analysis?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RyanNerd (profile), 8 Jul 2013 @ 10:15am

Does this stupid authentication law apply to only the police?
I wonder if this scumbag used the same lame excuse of not being able to authenticate a video to get off being charged?
I did a quick internet search about this law but was unable to find it. Anyone out there with more time on their hands than I that maybe has found this? I just want to see how it is worded and if it only applies to police videos.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- stk33, 21 Oct 2014 @ 7:07am
  
  Re: Does this stupid authentication law apply to only the police?
  Here's an article that discusses this, and confirms that it's a requirement that "a competent witness can testify that the photograph fairly and accurately depicts the scene about which he or she is testifying", with further references to the case law.
  
  http://apps.americanbar.org/lpm/lpt/articles/tch06061.shtml
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
ArdvarkMaster, 8 Jul 2013 @ 10:15am

Thin Blue Line
Cases like these are the reason why fewer and fewer people trust the police. If the only thing you can count on them to do is back each other up, then "Protect and Serve" really means nothing.

And before someone says "it's only a few bad apples", those few bad apples spoil the whole barrel because their fellow officers insist on protecting the few bad apples instead of tossing them out. Until the police start acting like the law applies to the police, until they treat those among their ranks who break the law as criminals, more and more people will believe they are no better than armed thugs, to be avoided at all cost.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 8 Jul 2013 @ 10:41am
  
  Re: Thin Blue Line
  those few bad apples spoil the whole barrel because their fellow officers insist on protecting the few bad apples instead of tossing them out
  
  This. There are bad people in every profession (although some professions are more attractive to bad people than others, and I would maintain that law enforcement is one of those). What determines the trustworthiness of a profession is how those bad people are dealt with. Police have a terrible track record at this, and so on the whole it's dangerous to place much faith in them. If you're victimized by a bad cop, it won't be you vs the bad cop. It'll be you vs the entire police department.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- MikeC (profile), 8 Jul 2013 @ 11:06am
  
  Re: Thin Blue Line
  "Protect and Serve" is out of context, the didn't have room on the banner to put "fellow officers and he controls my paycheck"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - btr1701 (profile), 9 Jul 2013 @ 3:03pm
    
    Re: Re: Thin Blue Line
    > "Protect and Serve" is out of context
    
    That's also just the motto of the LAPD and doesn't apply to police everywhere.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Sheogorath (profile), 28 Jul 2013 @ 11:50pm
  
  Re: Thin Blue Line
  If the only thing you can count on them to do is back each other up, then "Protect and Serve" really means nothing.
  Oh, yes it does. It means "Protect and Serve each other".
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mason Wheeler, 8 Jul 2013 @ 10:27am

Fifteen seconds
If the pertinent part of the action happens within the first fifteen seconds of the video, I wouldn't accept it as valid either, because by definition everything that happens is out of context. We're walking in on Act 2 of a play, with no idea what happened in Act 1 and no way to judge whether or not anything that we're seeing (on either side's part) is justified.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), 8 Jul 2013 @ 10:34am
  
  Re: Fifteen seconds
  The St. Louis PD must have thought it was valid AND had access to the entire video. After all, they canned both the officers involved.
  
  Prior to that, it looks like the perp was in the van. The union rep makes the excuse that previous to his detainment, he pulled a gun on the officer, who then shot at him (and missed). Does that Act 1 excuse Act 2? It may make it more understandable (cops are human beings) but it doesn't justify the action.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2013 @ 10:43am
  
  Re: Fifteen seconds
  there's not context beforehand. the van door is shut. there's no interaction. it doesn't matter what happened prior to him being held in the van as whatever he has done has now passed and normal rules should apply. your reasoning is dumb. I mean, if someone broke into somebody's house and immediately shot them and you had it on video, you'd want it thrown out?? I can understand if the video just starts when they're all out of the van. But the guy is in the van. He's in custody. There's really nothing he could have done that could have justified the cops reaction. I honestly can't think of *one* remote possibility let alone one idea that will actually make sense. You're reasoning shows very little thought.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- FarSide (profile), 8 Jul 2013 @ 10:45am
  
  Re: Fifteen seconds
  Gimme a break. Did you even watch the video?
  
  The kid was in the van, handcuffed behind his back. They made him step out.
  
  They pulled his coat down to make it even harder to move his arms, as if he could do anything anyway.
  
  BAM, arm to the face.
  
  Unless the kid had a gun hidden under his tongue, there was NO reason for that. Other than no control.
  
  (Also, they seriously think cops should be excused from responsibility because of 'adrenaline'??)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - stk33, 21 Oct 2014 @ 7:09am
    
    Re: Re: Fifteen seconds
    There was a reason: the blow was direct response to what the kid just said to them.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2013 @ 10:48am
  
  Re: Fifteen seconds
  I would imagine that there is more video than what was shown, I can't see the video switching "on" at where the above video starts. It was most likely shortened for internet consumption. In fact to be at all effective as a deterrent the video must run constantly and there should be no way for the officers to turn it off.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- slick8086, 9 Jul 2013 @ 2:07pm
  
  Re: Fifteen seconds
  You're crazy.
  
  What could have happened before the prisoner got up from inside the van, walked out stood on the ground with his hands cuffed behind his back, that would allow a police office sucker punk him?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
MikeC (profile), 8 Jul 2013 @ 11:01am

In the immortal words of Richard Pryor - caught in flagrante
�Who you gonna believe, bitch? Me? or your lying eyes?�
― Richard Pryor
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2013 @ 11:16am

...also suggested police officers shouldn't be held accountable for actions performed under the influence of "adrenaline."

Shoot...are they going to update the Controlled Substances List for the rest of us?

"P1: Book him for failure to submitting to a Drug Test.
P2: You suspect Iodine (table salt)?
P1: No, I suspect...Adrenaline!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2013 @ 11:36am
  
  Re:
  Don't worry, the good news is that if adrenaline is ruled of absolving responsibility we'll see hilarity ensue.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Votre (profile), 8 Jul 2013 @ 11:51am

Simple solution
Very simple way to deal with something like this: GO PUBLIC! Big time.

Get a few thousand people to upload the video to YouTube. It will be even funnier when YT gets a DMCA takedown from the St.Louis Police Dept. alleging the video is somehow copyrighted.

Hello Streisand Effect!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2013 @ 12:11pm
  
  Re: Simple solution
  its already on YT
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Liar cop, 8 Jul 2013 @ 12:22pm

Liar cop
More cops who are demonstrated liars. Perhaps the police should ask themselves why some people cheer when they hear about a cop getting killed on duty, why people distrust them, and why the police credibility is at an all time low.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- stk33, 21 Oct 2014 @ 7:15am
  
  Re: Liar cop
  Lying is not some aberration, but a technique they are taught in the police academy, and are required to use. More generally, the whole concept of investigation and "interview" is based on deception. Here's good article on the subject that gives lots of details, which I'm sure most people will qualify as dirty tricks.
  
  http://people.howstuffworks.com/police-interrogation1.htm
  
  "With a few exceptions, the police are allowed to lie to a suspect to get him to confess. The belief is that an innocent person would never confess to a crime she didn't commit, even if she were confronted with false physical evidence of her involvement."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2013 @ 12:32pm

Geez, I thought the Supreme Court judges were incompetent, but this so called 'judge' Theresa Counts, almost makes them look Supreme Court look competent.

Come'on Theresa, we know what's going on here ;). Turning a blind eye to video tape evidence that shows a police officer beating a suspect in hand cuffs.

For shame.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- stk33, 21 Oct 2014 @ 7:17am
  
  Re:
  Theresa couldn't do much. If she did "the right thing", there's no doubt that it would be overturned on appeal.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2013 @ 12:32pm

If your dumb enough to point a gun at a police officer, Well you need hit in the face. Simple as that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rikuo (profile), 8 Jul 2013 @ 12:52pm
  
  Re:
  Says the guy who clearly didn't read the article, watch the video or comprehend that the kid getting hit in the face did NOTHING to deserve it, least of all point a gun.
  Congratulations, dickwad.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2013 @ 1:28pm
    
    Re: Re:
    This shooting involved Bruce's partner Jacob Fowler (another rookie who was fired for this incident) firing his weapon at the suspect after the teen pointed a gun at him.
    
    Sure he was in custody and hand cuffed. This day and age be smart enough, to kiss an arresting officers, ass. Once in custody your state owned, DICKWAD
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - John Fenderson (profile), 8 Jul 2013 @ 1:54pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Once in custody your state owned
      
      Even if this were true, it's still gross misbehavior on the part of the cops. The police were criminally wrong here, and their actions are yet another indication that the police are often little more than goon squads.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - dickwad, 9 Jul 2013 @ 2:13pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      > Once in custody your state owned, DICKWAD
      
      You own your own dog too, but it is still illegal to beat it.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 8 Jul 2013 @ 1:51pm
  
  Re:
  Even if the guy that got hit was the one who pointed the gun, you're still stupendously wrong. You're suggesting that the police should dole out punishments -- which is one of the big things that the police should never, ever, ever do. Doling out punishments is for the courts.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2013 @ 4:53pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Exactly. The court must first determine guilt and determine an appropriate punishment before punishment is given.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
gorehound (profile), 8 Jul 2013 @ 1:13pm

Another Case of Cop Brutality is what you see here.I do not need to even bother to explain myself.All you need do is to keep your eyes on that video.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
mattshow (profile), 8 Jul 2013 @ 1:15pm

Times like this really make me wish I could get a hold of the transcript or judge's decision. All the blog posts on this are based on media reports, and the media is SO awful at reporting on things like this.

As people here and on Simple Justice have posted, there are ways to get video evidence admitted without independent corroboration. There's a chance the judge provided more of an explanation as to why she wouldn't admit the video, and if so, I'd like to read it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2013 @ 3:01pm

"Hogan also suggested police officers shouldn't be held accountable for actions performed under the influence of "adrenaline." "

So if I shot a cop can I then claim that I was under the influence of adrenaline as a defense?

If that defense works for cops then why can't it work for me?

It is the job of a cop to be able to handle these sorts of situations properly. If a cop can't do it because of adrenaline or whatever other reason then they should lose their jobs and should have never became cops in the first place.

"video captured by police cameras should only be used when what's recorded justifies police actions."

Because the cops shouldn't serve the people, they should serve themselves. Everything they do should be self serving.

No, the opposite should be true. Those videos should be around to ensure that cops don't do anything wrong and to ensure they receive punishment when they do something wrong. The cops should hold the burden or filming everything and proving their case when they make a case against someone and proving their innocence whenever the possibility of guilt arises (ie: when someone got hurt and it could have been a cop hurting them).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2013 @ 4:29pm
  
  Re:
  If those tasked with being able to control their adrenaline under tense situations are not expected to do so then how can I, a normal citizen not tasked with such a requirement, be expected to do so? So this adrenaline argument applies more to me than to cops.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2013 @ 3:22pm

Union Liars!
Get rid of the public sector union pigs at the trough.
They abuse the tax paying public and should be dismantled.

Court Skeptical That LA Cops Can Just Look At Any Motel Guest Record Without A Warrant
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130702/08571523692/ordinance-allowing-los-angeles-law-en forcement-to-sweep-up-motel-guest-records-without-warrant-being-challenged-federal-court.shtml

Ma yor Bloomberg Opens Own Wallet To Erect Protective Wall Of Money Around His Beloved Stop And Frisk Program
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130702/16394323699/mayor-bloomberg-opens-own-wallet-to-e rect-protective-wall-money-around-his-beloved-stop-frisk-program.shtml

New Orleans Cops Caught Filling Their Pockets With Red Light Camera Cash
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130617/17584023513/new-orleans-cops-set-up-private-company- to-fill-pockets-with-red-light-camera-cash.shtml

Utah Sheriff Claims Copyright On Mugshot Photos To Avoid Releasing Them
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130531/01293823260/utah-sheriff-claims-copyright-mugshot-ph otos-to-avoid-releasing-them.shtml

Stop & Frisk Accomplishments: Barely Any Illegal Weapons Recovered, But Tons Of Weed Smokers Jailed
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130523/08220523185/stop-frisk-accomplishments-barely-any- illegal-weapons-recovered-tons-weed-smokers-jailed.shtml

Released Video From Silva Beating Shows His Last Moments; Video Of Actual Beating Still Missing
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/17321623162/released-video-silva-beating-shows-hi s-last-moments-video-actual-beating-still-missing.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2013 @ 7:37pm

BTW here is the original story

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zg4zQbnwSoY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Digger, 8 Jul 2013 @ 8:43pm

This type of officer better run and hide
Because now, there will be all sorts of video cropping up, real or not, showing him assaulting everyone from babies to grandmas, and that video will be authenticated and he will spend the rest of his life being Bruno's bitch.

Actually, any law enforcement officer who abuses his / her position of authority should be sent to gitmo, before being summarily executed.

This applies to the FBI, CIA, NSA as well. So all you constitutional terrorists - you know who you are - the assholes who think that the constitution doesn't say what it says and doesn't mean what it means - watch out - you're going to rue the day you stepped outside the law and committed treason against the United States citizens which you swore to protect against your own type of actions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
btr1701 (profile), 9 Jul 2013 @ 3:00pm

Cops
> This shooting involved Bruce's partner Jacob
> Fowler (another rookie who was fired for
> this incident) firing his weapon at the suspect
> after the teen pointed a gun at him

Was he fired for this? Or for something else? Because it's perfectly reasonable and justifiable to shoot someone (teen or not) who's pointing a gun at you.

If he was fired for legitimate self-defense, that's just as much bullshit as his partner's assault of the cuffed kid.

> But the most troubling (read: repulsive) aspect
> of this whole debacle isn't the fact that Bruce
> wasn't charged, or that Judge Theresa Burke didn't
> watch the video.

Bruse *was* charged. What do you think the trial was all about? You don't go on trial for assault if you haven't been charged with assault to begin with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2013 @ 9:47pm

Porno New ! Porno Porno For You ! If You Want Best Porno ..You Find Best Porno All For Free...All For Your Maximum Pleasure And Best Porno
http://www.porno--porno--porno.blogspot.com
http://www.porno--porno--porno.blogspot.com
http://ww w.porno--porno--porno.blogspot.com
http://www.porno--porno--porno.blogspot.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]