Previous Post
Next Post

“Should cops see body cam video before giving UOF (use of force) statements?” That’s the question posed in a debate sponsored by Lexipol (“America’s leading provider of state-specific policies and verifiable policy training for public safety organizations”). According to Force Science News, Certified Forensics Video Analyst Grant Fredericks doesn’t like the idea.

It’s been his experience, he says, that officers can easily “misinterpret” video of force events they’ve been involved in. “They don’t want to be perceived as lying,” so if the video seems to contradict what they remember, “they’ll change their memory to accommodate the video.”

Maybe it’s me, but that seems an extremely charitable way of putting it. The more blunt way to express this process: officers who see video of an officer-involved-shooting or other use-of-force incident change their story to avoid legal or career blowback. The panel noted the potential for this pre-statement video screening to be used against the cop in court.

Then again, factual discrepancies between a pre-video-viewing statement and what’s on the actual video (e.g., the number of shots fired) can also be used against officers in court. Judges and juries may not appreciate the fact that an officer’s memory of events is inherently — but not necessarily deceptively — unreliable. Especially after a high-stress event.

It’s a difficult call no matter how you slice it. But one thing’s for sure: allowing cops to view video evidence before making a statement — but not other civilians involved — is a cop carve-out. Not dissimilar to some department’s policy of waiting 24 hours before interviewing an officer about a UOF incident, and always with a union rep and/or lawyer present.

According to Force Science News, the UOF video panel discussed “whether police previewing [UOF video] constitutes an unfair special privilege for officers that is not extended to suspects and key witnesses” and “whether officers should be entitled to preview relevant video from all cameras, including cell phones and surveillance units, that are known to have recorded the action in question.”

FSN’s email blast neglected to mention the results of that discussion. The fact that it’s even a matter of debate raises important questions about police transparency and the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. Police are civilians too. They should be afforded no special privileges when it comes to use-of-force events.

Or should they?

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. No I don’t think they should be allowed to. When they interview suspects the suspect doesn’t get that right. Police should not get special rights. They should be subordinate to the public they serve.

    • The suspect has the right to remain silent. Cops, wanting to stay cops, do not. Cops do not have a special benefit here, they are worse off.

      • So do you think policer should be able to see UOF bodycam or dashcam video before making a statement? Should they have the right to see other video first as well, such as smart phone video? If so, should non-LEOs have the same right?

        • Yes, bodycam or dashcam if its from a perspective they would have seen. I’d say probably not to other cameras that show a perspective the officer could not have seen.

          Yes, anyone else with a bodycamera dash camera etc should be afforded the same opportunity… of course they are, because they don’t need to say anything to anyone and can get that (and any) video in discovery before they mount a defense.

        • Hannibal beat me to it – but to continue….doesn’t a regular civilian already have that same right? You can decline to speak to the police without representation. Is it not possible for you and your attorney to view video of the event (if it was taken) before entering a plea? Certainly prior to trial, the discovery process enables you and your attorney to request and review any and all material evidence.

        • If you’re involved in a DGU as a private citizen and it happens to be video taped, wouldn’t hyou want to view it first?

        • The criminal defendant (suspect) DOES have the right to see the video before making a statement. It’s called the 5th Amendment and the right to discovery. The defendant can wait all the way until the case is completely done, not saying a thing, then demand the video, watch it (plus review ALL OTHER EVIDENCE), and then give a statement. People who make this argument know nothing of the law. I think officers shouldn’t watch the video first for evidentiary reasons (perception will be altered after watching the video and perception is important), but this argument is naive regarding the law.

      • Exactly. Do not – do not – DO NOT talk to the police. There is, really & truly, no good reason to ever talk to them. Further, the police are not required to tell you the truth. They can deliberately lie to you all day long, just to see how you respond.

        Your only capacity to control information is to remain silent.

        • I watched a sort of smart-alec violate the “don’t talk to cops” rule recently in a crazy way. An officer wasn’t sure if the guy was just a bystander or involved, and asked, “Is there anything you’d like to tell us?”

          The guy said, “Sure. All men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. I have the right to remain silent, and” — he pointed to the other people the cops wanted to question — “”so do they.” He said it loud enough for everyone within twenty yards to hear clearly.

          Only one person talked to the cops after that — she said she was watching her kid in her shopping cart and hadn’t seen a thing.

        • Talking to the cops worked out just fine for Zimmerman. They were on his side throughout his ordeal.

        • Tim- 100% true. The courts allow police to lie. Since they do it regularly, most become pretty good at it.

          When interacting with cops, use my five favorite words: “I have nothing to say.”

          Examples: “Do you know how fast you were going?” I have nothing to say.

          “What’s in the trunk?” I have nothing to say.

          “Do you have any guns or drugs in the car?” I have nothing to say. (Except if you have an Illinois concealed carry license, in which case you gave up your right to remain silent, because NRA lobbyist Todd Vandermyde set you up to be arrested & killed by police criminals)

        • “Talking to the cops worked out just fine for Zimmerman. They were on his side throughout his ordeal.”
          How’d it work out for Richard Jewell?

          I have about as much trust for the police as I do for traveling driveway resurfacers.

        • It actually worked out well for Zimmerman because they recorded it, and then the prosecutor put it into evidence, so Zimmerman didn’t have to testify. Zimmerman’s lawyer said he would have been a horrible witness. A lot of people do not help themselves when speaking in court.

          This was a fluke situation. Zimmerman’s attorney was elated that the prosecutor used the video. A smart prosecutor trying to railroad a clearly innocent defendant would not have used the video. Then Zimmerman would have had to testify to get his side of the story out.

          No one knows what the specific issues will be at trial until at least all discovery has been made. Also, I wouldn’t recommend talking to the police with a lawyer. Clients often don’t take their lawyers advice.

      • BS, the cop has the right to remain silent too. If he f’d up to the point where he needs to ‘harmonize’ his testimony with the video he shouldn’t be a cop.

        • Having spent seven years as a lifeguard, I have to say that APM is really unaware. I made rescues where I remember everything with such clarity I could tell how many strokes I took to get to the victim, every move I made to gain control and get back to shore — but I also made rescues where I couldn’t have told you anything except that I focused on the victim, got there, and got back.

          Memory and adrenaline have an unpredictable relationship. When there’s training involved, it becomes more complex: a couple of rescues, I clearly remembered doing one thing, but fellow guards agreed that I had done it differently — what I remembered is the way I’d trained, not the way that (for some reason) I judged better at that moment.

          I can’t imagine that things would be any different for cops. In a crisis situation, it isn’t always the conscious mind that makes the decisions, and — as one fellow guard learned — it’s possible to remember what the conscious mind thought was best while the subconscious was in control and did something else.

          Interestingly, ancient historians knew this; they counted the testimony of people caught up in the emotions of a situation as less reliable than those of calmer observers.

        • Thinking that a non-cop should have the same access to justice that a cop does is indicative of a lack of knowledge about memory? Thinking that the freedom of a non-cop is at least as important as a cop keeping his job is too?

        • Where I was wrong, though, was in implying that the cop doesn’t need to make a statement to keep their job. However, I don’t think it was incorrect to imply that that seeing the video will make their statement more in line with the video than it would be without seeing the it and if the cop intends to lie, that video is a great help to them in doing so and is stacking the deck against the accused. If the cops statement cannot be used to prosecute them, then I posit that them not seeing the video is better since they cannot use it to bolster a lie to harm the accused.

      • Bull. When cops have to make statements, those statements can’t be used against them in criminal proceedings. Plenty of civilians are compelled to give statements as a condition of employment, but their statements can be used to prosecute them.

      • “The suspect has the right to remain silent. Cops, wanting to stay cops, do not. Cops do not have a special benefit here, they are worse off.”

        Oh dear God, that tired old talking point again.

        In the first instance, it is the suspect’s right to life, liberty, and property that are in jeopardy — rights that are explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.

        In the second instance, it is merely the officer’s authority and power (“wanting to stay cops”) that is in jeopardy.

        The two are not even remotely comparable, because there is no “right” to be a cop.

      • Becoming a cop or remaining a cop is not a right. If the public is better served with policies that cost a few decent cops their jobs, so be it. Public service is a privilege and we don’t always get to decide when that service ends.

      • Cops have an absolute right to remain silent pursuant to the constitution; however, their employer may require a statement but that’s a different issue.

        I guarantee you that the police wouldn’t let you watch a video before making a statement if you’re involved in a self-defense shooting unless you’re in some good ol boy town and you’re a good ol boy. God help you if you defend yourself in any jurisdiction that isn’t 100% pro 2nd amendment.

        • TRUTh- “I guarantee you that the police wouldn’t let you watch a video before making a statement if you’re involved in a self-defense shooting unless you’re in some good ol boy town and you’re a good ol boy.”

          True. Making a statement to police at the scene of a shooting is the 1972 version of legal advice for Massad Ayoob groupies. What’s amazing is how many NRA members buy this nonsense in 2017.

          90% of the time, the cops will twist what you say, write it down, and use it against you later in court. Not recommended.

    • “I was in fear for my life; my lawyer will contact you about making a statement as soon as practical” That works for EVERYBODY.

      • Not true. A policy can administratively coerce a police officer to give statements and do so within a mandatory time. These policies have withstood court appeals and must be followed. If not, termination can be a result, along with other sanctions against their civil rights.

        • I guess that is why I am not a COP and NEVER will be one. “I respectfully decline to give up my Constitutional Rights.” I am very sorry to hear this. I am morally opposed to that Orwellian world where “all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others”.

      • Missouri- That rap is the Massad Ayoob version of how to “talk” to police after a self-defense shooting, and he’s been teaching the same thing since 1972. It might work if you’re a good old boy in your hometown.

        Mostly cops never let you talk, they just yell at you and make demands. Don’t speak and be prepared to take an arrest. They will take you to the station and then really put the screws on you.

        You’re just a statistic on a scoreboard at the cop station. Seizing your gun can be counted in their stats as “taking a gun off the street” and qualify them for some more federal funds to buy bazookas or whatever.

  2. One way of saying things you’re (rightfully) off the hook. Another way of saying it you (in-appropriately) get a cigarette and a blindfold.

    Cops aren’t required to fill out paperwork during per-in-progress work, they shouldn’t have to compete with something with a “perfect” memory after-the-fact. So [as long as they cannot also alter the body-cam footage] yes. And GOD truly help them all.

    • I would bet even well trained and experienced (even combat experienced) cops couldn’t swear even what they said to each other during incidents like the above video.

      This one was broad daylight too, and as a someday potential juror, I would say the dead guy was hoping for death by cop. And, if he wasn’t hoping for it, he did everything he could to avoid leaving the scene alive.

    • What makes cops dangerous is that they can plan a crime, commit the crime, and then cover it up. If you want to buy a judge or politician, there are at least two parties to the conspiracy.

      The key thing with cops is that when you sue for civil rights violations, the unit of government/city/county/etc. pays the settlement. Usually they are paid by insurance companies.

      Most cops are cheap, nosey, mooches with their hands out for free coffee. If they had to self-insure and pay out their own lawsuits, 90% of excessive force incidents would disappear overnight.

  3. Has the Equal Protection clause ever been used to argue equality because of employment? That sounds like a stretch. Cops can run red lights, speed, and carry weapons you or I can’t in the course of and because of their duties.

    • Alex- True story. When Illinois’ shit concealed carry bill sponsored by racist hick state Rep. Brandon Phelps was being debated in the legislature, some of the NRA and ISRA (IL state rifle association, the state tumor of NRA) members expressed concern about the Duty to Inform provision that NRA lobbyist Todd Vandermyde placed in the Phelps’ bill.

      Since the DTI and every alleged violation of the carry bill is criminal, police have the excuse to kill armed citizens by claiming they “resisted arrest.” At that time in 2013, recording police in Illinois was still a FELONY.

      Valinda Rowe of Illinois Carry forum was telling her “followers” that the eavesdropping law was going to be changed, and that licensed citizens could simply record their police-citizen interactions if there was any question as to who said what. Big Sister told her children that everything was going to be okay and mommy would take care of them.

      Valinda lives in southern Illinois maybe thirty miles from Brandon Phelps in Harrisburg, he’s the state Rep. for her district. The idea that a cop would execute an armed citizen like Philando Castile in Minnesota is not a fact that the clowntards in southern Illinois can process.

      No matter how many people police kill, losers with no education and no self respect will continue to not only tolerate but applaud police state murder. People like this is how we got Duty to Inform in our carry bill, and that’s why there are no criminal penalties in Illinois’ 2015 Body Cam bill.

  4. WTF? Was there a gun? I never saw one? Pumping rounds into a prone target? With a shotgun no less? Again WTF? That’s an execution, not a “good shoot”.

    • Hey, no special rights. If someone keeps advancing on me, won’t show what’s in his hands, and ignores repeated warnings that I will shoot him if he doesn’t stop, I really don’t want to find out what his plan for me is once he gets within arm’s reach.

      And you stop shooting when the threat is over, not simply when an attacker is on the ground. A weapon can still kill you whether the person using it is standing or prone.

    • It doesn’t matter if he had a gun. He had his hand behind his back reaching for something. A reasonable person in that situation would consider it a potential threat of serious bodily harm. Then when he was down, he kept reaching for something, despite multiple warnings and pleas not to.

      The video looks like an attempt at suicide by cop.

      But cops should have the same right to remain silent and review evidence before making a statement that the rest of us do. Taking an oath to uphold the Constitution doesn’t eliminate their protections under it. And they should also be held to the same standards of judgement and held responsible for their actions, whether malicious, negligent, or accidental.

  5. Yes, they should be able to.

    Any civiliancitizenwhatever you want to call it using a camera who happens to use force should also be able to. I’ve seen many encounters, including just simunition training scenarios, where someone using force does the RIGHT thing, clear as day, but has no good memory of what happened; to the point where sometimes he or she doesn’t even remember shooting 2 ‘suspects’ instead of one. Luckily we can go to the helmet-cam and then the person says “oh… right” and their memory is jogged to the point where they can explain what happened.

    But in a high-stress environment memory just doesn’t always function the way it does normally. Ultimately, if there is video, I don’t much care if the person’s memory ends up merging with what is shown in the video; because that’s reality.

    Trying to play ‘gotcha’ is absurd and incorrectly treats memory as if it’s a VCR that we can play back- and that someone who’s memory is not right is lying.

    Now, we can and should talk about what this means for the reliability of eyewitness testimony (it’s often not and should be backed up with other evidence) during high-stress, dangerous encounters but that’s for another subject.

    As to the “NO SPECIAL RIGHTS!!1!” part… nope. Not on this specific topic.

    A plumber who uses force has the absolute right to remain silent. A cop does not. So the plumber who uses force is much better off in the narrow sense that he is under no legal obligation to give a report at all, or can wait as long as he wants to get a lawyer, etc; the video can speak for itself.

    But a cop has to give a statement if prompted under the Garrity case and “I’m not sure what happened” probably isn’t going to work.

    Although if there’s a video, maybe “I can’t remember, watch the video and you tell me” might be where we should go if we can’t stand the idea of someone reviewing evidence.

    • I do not follow you logic regarding Garrity vs. New Jersey, and could not find the text stating that employees of the state are forced to give testimony that could be incriminating. In fact, it said the opposite. Please provide the text if you are going to make that claim.

      Should someone be able to look at relevant videos prior to making a statement? Absolutely.

      Now, let’s delve into the corruption here.

      1. ANYONE under investigation is entitled to the public domain of body camera footage. The camera footage belongs to the people who paid for the cameras, the memory storage facilities, the repair costs, etc. It does not belong to the police department. It does not belong to the chief. It does not belong to a judge. That RIGHT of the people to the public property is meaningless if access to it can be denied with force by arms of the state.

      If I walk into a police station and say “I want to see the footage of the Main St shooting that happened 3 hrs ago, a refusal is the same thing as the IRS saying it won’t publish a budget this year, or the FBI saying there won’t be an audit of accounts this year, or your mayor saying we won’t have an election this year.

      2. Ok, so the usual bullshit obstruction will be something along lines of “Privacy” or “pertinent to investigation”, “next of kin notification” or something like that.

      This is ALWAYS a lie. It’s an excuse, but it isn’t the reason. The reason is always to misdirect the public

      When a maniac misbehaves in public and is killed by police, and it “looks good” for the police, the video is shoved upon the public forcefully.

      When the video is embarrassing for police, and shows misconduct, carelessness, or criminal behavior, they steal the video and withhold the public’s property from the taxpayer for weeks, if not years.

      Why do they do that? Well, most everywhere, the police chief is subservient to the mayor or the city counsel. In other cases, it is a sheriff of constable who is elected directly. It is an attempt to buy time and delay public judgment for poor performance best case, and outright treason in the worse case. Delaying the release of video footage is no different than trying to pretend the financials for a company are not yet completed when the board asks for them.

      That was a rousing defense of police you just gave us, and you basically argued that a taxpayer has the right to taxpayer-funded information, and also has the liberty given under the 5th amendment. Bravo! Great! Let’s have a toast.

      Now, I want to hear what you propose happens to those who purposely violate these 2 rights you so strongly defended sir.

      Where I to be questioned about a shooting, and asked to see video footage gathered from some public traffic camera or body camera, would it be forthcoming? Would I be advised to take 1-2 days before I made any statement at all? Would I be required to have a lawyer advise me and look at all public records before I spoke?

      Or, would I have to ask for a lawyer, be balked in this for several hours to several days, lied to, threatened, neglected thirst, hunger, and medication), then would the lawyer have to turn over hell and earth to make public servants, MY servants in a small part, cough up public property? Would that property be altered, or something unlawfully kept?

    • Garrity protects cops as any statement given under Garrity cannot be used in a court of law…equal justice under law? I think not, at least when it comes to cops…the thin blue line protects its own, right or wrong…

  6. Yes, they should be able to. And so should I, if I have to use deadly force to protect myself and it’s captured on video.

    But if I can’t view the video before making a statement, why should a cop?

  7. I can tell a cop at the scene of a defensive shooting, “I’d like to consult with my attorney before making a statement,” especially when high-stress events like a shooting can cause a faulty memory.

    I see no reason a cop, who is also human and subject to the same foibles, should not be allowed to review UOF camera footage in the presence of their attorney before making a statement.

    Trying to catch a cop in a contradiction by showing inconsistencies in the footage and their written reports or oral statements, is just as shady as prosecutors trying to frame someone who used deadly force to protect themselves, as murderers.

    On the flip side of that coin, that UOF camera footage should be subject to FOIA requests from the public as well.

  8. Two videos here in two days illustrating the sort of industrial grade stupid that cops deal with on a daily basis.

    I have two nephews pursuing careers in law enforcement. God bless ’em. I don’t know what’s drawing them to that line of work. All I know is, you couldn’t pay me enough to do that job.

    • I know two people who went into law enforcement as probation/parole officers because family members on parole or probation got treated like garbage by their P.O.s. One has learned really fast just how bad the attitude toward “clients” is from P.O.s. — and how hard it is for those who really want to help their “clients” succeed, because so many cops seem to delight in screwing over people on probation or parole in every way they can (which she attributes to cops getting points for making arrests, and since cops can butt into the lives of people on supervision just about at will, it’s an easy way to rack up arrests).

      • So cops were checking up on parolees or probationees (because it’s something they agree to, to avoid or get out of incarceration), and then they arrest them.

        Arrest them for what? Breaking the law? It boggles the mind how hard it is for some people to just not break the law. These people have a larger incentive than most of us to… not break the law, but they still break the law.

        Please refer back to the “industrial grade stupid” that I referred to above.

        • In many states when someone is on parole or probation a police officer’s mere statement is considered solid evidence, and it is up to the accused to prove that the cop is lying. So cops stop people on supervision and if the person doesn’t kiss ass nicely enough they make an arrest and then decide what it was for, knowing that whatever they say will be taken as gospel truth. Or they’ll see someone on supervision do something no one would get arrested, and construe it as a crime, twisting the event and anything the accused says to support their lie. I saw a kid get arrested for vandalism because the top of his ice cream cone fell off and discolored the side of a building, and another arrested for producing and distributing porn because a picture in his house of his niece in a diaper — despite the fact that the guy wasn’t capable of understanding how to even operate a computer printer.

          They finally caught one P.O. around here at lying about a “client”, in court. Anyone else would have been whacked for perjury; this guy got suspended, then hired as a sheriff’s deputy, at which point since he no longer worked as a P.O. the matter was dropped and nothing went on his record — a cute trick to evade responsibility. They caught another carrying packets of meth, which pretty much confirmed accusations that she’d planted them on the premises of people she supervised and then made arrests for drug possession — but did she get charged with anything? No, she got sent to a rehab program, which the department paid for — and she continued to draw her salary while at the program!

          And when talking with a P.O. about a guy who was on supervision, I got told flat out that I’d better tell them exactly what they wanted to hear or I’d be charged with Obstruction (the same P.O. threatened another “client’s” mother with arrest for obstruction if she didn’t let him search her apartment without a warrant).

          The gal I know who became a P.O. has told me that half her colleagues should be in prison for what they’ve done to their “clients” — but she doesn’t dare say a thing; at best, her job would become unbearable, while at worst she would end up shot “resisting arrest” for some trumped-up accusation.

          As far as I’m concerned, in many places cops are in reality an occupying army.

      • Roy- I explained to you before not to waste your time with people like Curtis.

        They actually believe that Illinois has a “shall-issue” carry bill.

        They don’t care about the hundreds of gun-free zones, because they live in exurbia or southern Illinois and drive everywhere.

        They don’t care about the criminal penalties of SIX MONTHS or ONE YEAR in jail for every violation of gun-free zones, because they are stupid enough to believe that the “responding officer” will “give them a break” because they are one of the local good old boys.

        They support Duty to Inform because they want to “help the cops” to “do their job” and besides, it’s for “officer safety.”

        These are the white racist clowntards who used Otis McDonald for the lawsuit against the city of Chicago which won every American in fifty states their 2nd Amendment rights, then flushed Otis down the toilet.

        They don’t want to carry a firearm legally, they want a piece of plastic in their wallet that makes them junior policemen.

        Because they have no self respect, they will always support “authority” whether it be cops, probation hacks, or prison guards. Save your breath and count the days until they die off.

  9. I have to agree with Ralph. Hey I was driving with a cop directly ahead if me today. He failed to use a turn signal several times and drove erratically. I would havebeen stopped. Probably looking for a donut shop…

  10. If police had to make a statement immeaditly, it could show how memory gets tricked. The police have used this against citizens for years, twisting thier words to make it appear they were in the wrong. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, things should be different?
    We see body language, it speaks to us. The camera does not always pick this up. We might remember that “body language” as a spoken threat or a movement that wasn’t made. We are full of adrenaline at the time, both cops and citizens. Being hammered by 2 LEOs in an interview room after that type of situation by cops that believe you did something for an nefarious purpose is no different than being guilty unless you can prove yourself innocent. This is natural for a suspect that should be innocent. The guilty one already knows he is guilty, so is not as likely to get caught in this type of thing.
    This should be shown to all potential jurors, but the DAs would not allow this, even though they say that are for equal rights under the law.

  11. If anything, police should be held to a higher standard than that of the public…As it stands now, police can commit crimes with impunity because, in most situations, they investigate themselves…Behavior that would get an ordinary citizen charged, convicted and incarcerated is routinely ignored by “the powers that be” because police are considered to be “above the law” as the “law” is whatever they say it is, the Constitution be damned…
    Ever notice that police unions are “fraternal”? This should tell you something. The “thin-blue-line” is a gang, little different than street gangs–at least when it comes to “covering-up” their questionable and quite often, illegal and criminal behavior.
    In today’s day and age, “officer safety” trumps de-escalation of force. This, in part, is due to the militarization of the police along with training in Israeli police tactics. This becomes a problem, with the “us vs. them” attitude that is fosters, along with the fact that Israel is a very different place, being on a constant “war footing”, and by necessity, its police tactics are very different.
    There are too many instances of police being “given a pass”, even when incontrovertible video and audio evidence is presented. Grand juries, guided by police-friendly prosecutors, quite often refuse to charge those police officers who abuse their authority.
    Police officers, who want to do the right thing, are quite often marginalized and put into harms way, by their own brethren…When a police officer is beating on someone that is already restrained while yelling, “stop resisting” THAT is but one reason police have a “bad name” in many instances…this makes the “good cops” who are standing around, witnessing their “brethren in blue” beating on a restrained suspect, culpable as well…
    Here are changes that can help reduce police-induced violence:
    1. Get rid of police unions. Police unions (fraternities) protect the guilty, and are responsible for the massive whitewashing of questionable police behavior that is presently being committed.
    2. Eliminate both “absolute” and “qualified” immunity for all public officials. This includes, prosecutors and judges, police and firefighters, code enforcement and child protective services officials, and others who deal with the citizenry. The threat of being sued personally would encourage them to behave themselves. Require police officers to be “bonded” by an insurance company, with their own funds. No bond= no job.
    3. Any public funds disbursed to citizens as a result of police misconduct should come out of police pension funds–NOT from the taxpayers.
    4. Regular drug-testing of police officers as well as incident-based drug testing should take place whenever an officer is involved in a violent situation with a citizen–no exceptions.
    5. Testing for steroid use should be a part of the drug testing program. You know damn well, many police officers “bulk up” with the “help” of steroids. Steroids also affect users mentally as well, making them more aggressive. The potential for abuse of citizens increases greatly with steroid use.
    6. Internal affairs should only be used for disagreements between individual officers–NOT for investigations involving citizen abuse. State-level investigations should be mandatory for all suspected abuses involving citizens.
    7. Prosecutors should be charged with malfeasance IF any evidence implicating police officer misconduct is not presented to the grand jury.
    8. A national or state-by-state database of abusive individuals who should NEVER be allowed to perform police work should be established–a “blacklist” of abusive (former) police officers.
    9. Most people are unaware that police have special “rules” that prohibit them from being questioned for 48 hours. This allows them to “get their stories straight” and makes it easier to “cover up” bad police behavior. Police must be subject to the same laws as civilians.
    10. All police should be required to wear bodycams and utilize dashcams that cannot be turned off. Any police officers who causes a dash or body cam to be turned off should be summarily fired–no excuses. Today’s body and dash cams are reliable enough to withstand harsh treatment. Body and dashcam footage should be uploaded to a public channel “on the cloud” for public perusal.
    11. All interrogations must be video and audio recorded. Police should be prohibited from lying or fabricating stories in order to get suspects to confess. False confessions ARE a problem in many departments. Unknown to most people, police can lie with impunity while civilians can be charged with lying to police…fair? I think not…
    12. Any legislation passed that restricts the rights of ordinary citizens, such as firearms magazine capacity limits, types of weapons allowed, or restrictive concealed-carry laws should apply equally to police. No special exemptions to be given to police. Laws must be equally applied.
    Police work is not inherently dangerous…there are many other professions that are much more dangerous.
    A little “Andy Taylor” could go a long way in allaying fears that citizens have of police.
    That being said, I have no problem with police officers who do their job in a fair, conscientious manner…however, it is time to call to task those police officers who only “protect and serve” themselves.

  12. I don’t really have an opinion on whether or not they should review the video first. All things being equal I don’t think it matters.

    The video either shows misconduct or it doesn’t. The officer’s imperfect memory doesn’t matter. What matters is if they can justify what’s on the video. Holding them to a perfect memory standard in court happens and it’s stupid but really what matters is if what’s on candid camera can be legally, ethically and morally justified within the scope of the training the officer has received.

    That said, per the video provided with this story, which I’ve seen before, what police do need to get better at is a situation like this. Homeslice just got shot multiple times, most of which was unnecessary. The chances he’s going to roll over and spread his hands out, rather than place his hands over the wound he just received, a natural human response, is limited at best.

    By my count the police have at least five seconds after the initial shot is fired where the guy is face down on the ground with both hands visible/rolling over. They’re close enough to have grabbed him at that point but instead they just stand there and continue issuing commands that the guy is even less likely to comply with now that he has a GSW and may well be rapidly going into shock and then they shoot him again, and again with a shotgun. Further, they keep yelling to keep his hands visible when, at least to the camera, they both are.

    I don’t fault their actions in this particular case but generally speaking this kind of thing is a bit of a problem and I’d argue it speaks to a failure of training.

  13. All videos of everything need to be seen immediately by everyone. All of the recent prosecutorial fails with the “irrefutable videos” proves that joe public can be trusted just fine with the evidence.

    For example;

    Keep in mind that Shelby released her Garrity interview through her lawyer, BEFORE she had seen the tape herself.

  14. police carve-outs are bullshit and that was outright murder both of the officers that fired after he was down deserve to be hanged

  15. Illinois passed a hugely ballyhooed police Body Cam bill in 2015, which was supposed to be the Great Leap Forward for “police-community relations” and bring the post Jon Burge Chicago Police Department into 1985 at least.

    The swarms of police unions got their snouts into the bill behind the scenes, and there are NO CRIMINAL PENALTIES for deleting vids, or just turning the device off. That’s why only two of five cameras on scene were “working” when Laquan McDonald was shot.

    Turning off the device or deleting the vid is a “departmental charge” so the whole thing is a joke.

    Collusion behind the scenes with police unions in Springfield is exactly how Duty to Inform was placed in Illinois’ 2013 concealed carry bill by NRA lobbyist Todd Vandermyde. Carry bill sponsor Rep. Brandon Phelps and Vandermyde slipped DTI into the bill and hoped the rubes were too stupid to read it, which they were. Yee-haw!

        • You are your own worst enemy. Even if you have a valid point, nobody cares cause you’re an as*hole doing his best to turn people away from your side. Whatever that is. You’ve yet to make a clear point except that you hate white people, cops, the nra and your elders.

          So, you’re doing a great job making yourself look like a rascist, hater, troll. You and more dead soldiers ought to get a room.

        • Pigs are a race? 🙂

          I do like how you admit he has a point, but you’re just too butthurt to respond with logic so you just call him a hater. Much dialectical skill.

        • MDS. Once again you miss the point. Try to keep up. ‘even if he has a valid point’ is not accepting that he does have a point. Valid or otherwise.

          He, like you, presents himself as an as*hole and a racist. Although to give credit you’ve always come across as an as*hole but not a racist.

          If either of you wants credibility(I suspect that neither does) you need to refine your style a bit.

        • “racist”

          You should really stop using that word without knowing what it means, in hysterical leftist fashion.

          Or maybe you are actually a hysterical leftist-statist, which would certainly explain a lot. 🙂

        • “If either of you wants credibility(I suspect that neither does) you need to refine your style a bit.”

          Pro-tip: style and credibility are two different things. One does not beget the other.

          Then again, it is hardly surprising you would blurt out this sort of howler, since your posts consist entirely of pro-government sound-bites and one-liners, without any substance whatsoever. 🙂

        • mds. Man that’s always going on a rag about white people, which demo man does, is a racist. Continue to defend him and I’ll have to rethink my exception for you.

          As for leftist, statist. You’re the one that went on a rampage after hillary lost. I voted for Trump. Who did you vote for?

        • jwm- “You are your own worst enemy.”
          I’m just not your friend.

          “…nobody cares…”
          Define “nobody.” You and the shuffleboard players at the over-55 trailer park?

          “…cause you’re an as*hole doing his best to turn people away from your side.”
          Define “your side?” If you’re referring to NRA, nothing is more dangerous than a traitor. Where I come from, rats get garroted and dumped in the river, we don’t send checks to their bosses at NRA HQ.

          “Whatever that is.”
          Newsflash: you lack the necessary education, life experience and basic common sense to understand that NRA is your worst enemy. You are a rube in the carney show of life. You perfectly represent the clowntards that got Illinois one of the worst concealed carry bills possible, because the worst garbage in our bill was placed there by NRA lobbyist Todd Vandermyde, not Chicago politicians.

          “You’ve yet to make a clear point except that you hate white people, cops, the nra and your elders.”
          You lack the education and legal knowledge to understand constitutional law, if it’s not served up to you in a simple form, such as an NRA press release.

          “So, you’re doing a great job making yourself look like a rascist, hater, troll.”
          The less education people have, the more they lash out at the world around them, because they can’t understand it. Soak up some wisdom, it’s free.

          “You and more dead soldiers ought to get a room.”
          Crude, low-class comments from a crude, blue-collar person. You are uninteresting as well as unintelligent.

        • demo man. You talk pretty. Must be frustrating as hell for you to be just another no name nobody on the interwebz.

          Us peons are so beneath a great man like you. Why you coming here and not sticking with your own kind? Oh yeah. You’re just another paper hat wearing nobody who likes to pretend.

        • “Why you coming here and not sticking with your own kind?”
          Is that your version of, “you’re not from around here, are you boy?
          Who’s my own kind, humans?

          It may have been possible to train you to speak and understand English at some point in the past, but consumption of moonshine causes permanent brain damage when used consistently.

          Which train line did your Okie forebears hop that landed them in the Golden State of California? Southern Pacific? I heard the dust bowl was tough.

        • Cool story, bro. What inbred royal line you from? Got your mail order degree and some day soon you’ll bust out of that food service job and make your mark on the world.

          You’re just waiting for people to recognize your greatness. And 40 years from now you’ll still be waiting. Bitter. Angry. And totally convinced it’s a big conspiracy to hold you back.

    • Deleting a vid or turning off the cam should carry a fine of one month’s salary, to be donated to a fund to help people sue officers for misconduct. That would be sufficient motivation to make them grow up.

      And I say “Grow up” because when I worked with Boy Scouts, most of the new 12-year-olds had more integrity than a cop who would be so dishonest.

      • Roy- You are much too nice. Cops who destroy evidence should be charged with a crime, convicted, and sentenced to prison. I’ve known a lot of cops that thought they were tough guys, but I’ve never known a tough guy that was a cop. Cops will continue to destroy and delete vids that make them look bad, because they can.

        I’ve seen the MMPI results for police recruits, and they score vastly higher than the median American population for divorce, suicide, alcohol and drug abuse, domestic violence, and depression. In short, every possible indicator of sociopathic behavior and deviancy. Sociopaths lie and manipulate others, it’s what they do.

        In simple terms, most cops are bullies, think about the guys you went to grade school and high school with that became cops. If you let them review the vids first, they will collude to harmonize their testimonies as the Chicago cops who shot Laquan McDonald.

        • Okay, for deleting a vid I’ll agree on criminal charges; that makes sense.

          As for the brutality of cops, that reminds me of an argument on another board about priests and sex abuse: one guy posted statistics from his state showing that a higher percentage of cops committed sexual abuse than priests. It shocked everyone, but given the power they exercise it really shouldn’t be surprising.

        • Roy- “Okay, for deleting a vid I’ll agree on criminal charges; that makes sense.”

          I wrote a legal brief for my state Rep. in 2015 before Illinois’ SB1304 Body Cam bill passed. I explained to her how you must have mandatory criminal penalties, or the police will just delete the vids if it shows them in a bad light. When Laquan McDonald was shot by Chicago cops, only two of five cameras on scene were “working.”

          When the Body Cam bill passed, the police unions got it bargained down to a “departmental charge.” The police union lobbyists roam the halls at the state Capitol in Springfield, and they got to the small town hick Reps. This is the same thing that happened in Illinois’ 2013 concealed carry bill, and the reason we have Duty to Inform, because of police unions.

          “…one guy posted statistics from his state showing that a higher percentage of cops committed sexual abuse than priests.”

          That stat. I never saw. I was assisting my professor at the time I saw the MMPI statistics. As far as I know, at the time the MMPI was the most comprehensive personality test available, and every cop takes it. Our stats were nationwide.

          The divorce stats indicate high incidence of marital infidelity. I can think of several examples in our burg where cops are married to deputy sheriffs, who used to be married to other cops, etc.

          The point is that cops as a group score totally off the charts for every possible indicator of deviant behavior, at least back when I saw this stuff.

          Mostly cops are sociopaths. If they can con a village board to let them on the job, they know they can later abuse other people and get away with it. The key is the pretense, pretending to be something they are not.

  16. Yes, police should review the video evidence. Evidence is a great thing. If mistakes were made, they need to be corrected and / or punished. We routinely use video footage as a debrief and training tool. Also, non-police should have the same rights to review video as well.

    I’m sure the anti-coppers on TTAG will freak out since I commented, but I can and do practice this. For instance, I recommend having one of the portable dash cam digital video recorders for drivers. It’s easy to see who blew the red light in an intersection prior to a crash, for example. Or what the motorcycle driver with the Go Pro was doing before he crashed (which is usually speeding).

    I’ve given defendants the opportunity to review my dashcam video prior to testifying, which is available through the subpoena process.

    I certainly review my own video, and found it to be remarkably consistent with my memories and notes, and I’ve used it to correct my mistakes and mistakes others have made. I’ve shown dash cam video to drivers who were “convinced” they weren’t speeding, DUI, reckless driving, or blowing red lights.

    Audio and video are great tools to improve police accountability and training, and as evidence against criminals. It’s still important to have intelligent analysis, though. Just like different perspectives on a close call in a football game, a single video perspective isn’t everything. The more evidence the better.

    I just got a bogus complaint and a false accusation against me dismissed based on audio / video evidence. I could go after that person civilly, but it’s not worth the time and effort.

  17. 1. )Full independent civilian review boards for ALL rank and File Police officers…No police unions, no politicians, no police tribunals, etc…Just “We the People, US Constitutional-Bill of Rights, and a Jury Pool system…

    To 2nd Amendment Coalition.
    2.) How about we just concentrate on making the 2nd amendment available to “all ” lawful US citizens ! Especially, those who live in “anti freedom states / Anti pro2@ / authoritarian states”. Who INFRINGE on it’s citizens Constitutional rights on daily basis ! We need an addendum to the 2nd amendment that makes it a “Capital crime” for any Politician, Police , Judge, Private landlord , Private Organizations, Employer, Doctor, etc. to infringe upon in any manner. A lawful US citizens Constitutional rights. With compensatory damages of not less than 250k per event . As well as fines, prisonment , and other legal liabilities… All Civil Rights should be available to “all ” Americans, NOT just a few…[Re: Any person going from one state into another…Has the same rights as any other citizen in any other state…] …Also, there is no such thing as “Pre crime “… And Murder is a crime…It is already against the law…

  18. Police enforce the laws, they are not above them. While I will grant them huge amounts of leeway with certain things ‘in the line of duty,’ granting them special privileges like seeing evidence before giving statements is not one of the things for which they should get leeway. I fully understand that they are only human but they are supposed to be trained to handle the ‘stressful situations.’ If they can’t they are welcome, just as I am, to seek other forms of employment.

    • This is a point where I am attracted to Milton Friedman’s notion of private police forces, because it would mean that different forces could keep an eye on each other. That isn’t going to happen, but there ought to be a way to give incentives for different police forces to enforce the laws on/against each other.

Comments are closed.