To Protect and to Serve II

#13,602
#13,602
Rickyvol77 said:
Because current investigations prevent the release of body cam footage sometimes until the investigation is complete even because of state law.
Click to expand...
Interesting...

So hypothetically, if I am a bystander with a cellphone and I'm filming a police interaction with a civilian (for example like how the George Floyd video was obtained), then should those civilians run it by the police first before they post it on social media? I mean, because there could be an investigation that might be hindered if the video is on YouTube, right?

If someone posts a video like that on social media, using your logic, they are obstructing in a legal matter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolStrom
#13,603
#13,603
Rasputin_Vol said:
Interesting...

So hypothetically, if I am a bystander with a cellphone and I'm filming a police interaction with a civilian (for example like how the George Floyd video was obtained), then should those civilians run it by the police first before they post it on social media? I mean, because there could be an investigation that might be hindered if the video is on YouTube, right?

If someone posts a video like that on social media, using your logic, they are obstructing in a legal matter.
Click to expand...
I think the difference is it is police footage, and some evidence or information may get out that could hinder a possible investigation.

If we broaden your example then police should just be able to post any footage they take of anyone indiscriminately, just as anyone else does.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#13,604
#13,604
Rasputin_Vol said:
Interesting...

So hypothetically, if I am a bystander with a cellphone and I'm filming a police interaction with a civilian (for example like how the George Floyd video was obtained), then should those civilians run it by the police first before they post it on social media? I mean, because there could be an investigation that might be hindered if the video is on YouTube, right?

If someone posts a video like that on social media, using your logic, they are obstructing in a legal matter.
Click to expand...
KB5252 said:
I think the difference is it is police footage, and some evidence or information may get out that could hinder a possible investigation.

If we broaden your example then police should just be able to post any footage they take of anyone indiscriminately, just as anyone else does.
Click to expand...
it’s all public anyway as anyone can file FOiA or anyone can go plunk down $10 and get a while shift on video
 
#13,610
#13,610
Rasputin_Vol said:
Interesting...

So hypothetically, if I am a bystander with a cellphone and I'm filming a police interaction with a civilian (for example like how the George Floyd video was obtained), then should those civilians run it by the police first before they post it on social media? I mean, because there could be an investigation that might be hindered if the video is on YouTube, right?

If someone posts a video like that on social media, using your logic, they are obstructing in a legal matter.
Click to expand...
Twitter wants to make it that way on purpose. I'm sure major news corps will have an exception of course, while their smaller competition won't. I'm sure twatter can be trusted to apply the rules to everyone right? They wouldn't pick and choose for whatever different reasons? Lazy mans blue font.
 
#13,612
#13,612
#13,614
#13,614
Rasputin_Vol said:
Can anyone tell from this article WTF this LEO did to trigger a TBI investigation? Cops protecting cops. Had this been a civilian, all of the details would have been out already.

Tennessee deputy terminated; TBI investigating
Click to expand...
Seems his chief talks an awful lot about his drug busts. My guess is he was planting to get those convictions. JMO. This would cause a world of crap with previous cases.

edit: read several articles, one time complaint evidence found immediately sooo that takes planting out of the equation.
 
Last edited:
#13,615
#13,615
NurseGoodVol said:
Seems his chief talks an awful lot about his drug busts. My guess is he was planting to get those convictions. JMO. This would cause a world of crap with previous cases.

edit: read several articles, one time complaint evidence found immediately sooo that takes planting out of the equation.
Click to expand...
I thought I had posted my reply to @Rickyvol77, but i guess not. But what i was going to say is that there is some reason why they are not revealing what the issue is. They only thing i could think of at the time was that whatever he was doing, it likely involves or will have some blowback on other cops if it goes public... so they are having to cover up.

Having to re-address a bunch of old arrests over drugs would potentially put a lot of people back out on the streets and tarnish that sherriff's department reputation.
 
#13,616
#13,616
Rasputin_Vol said:
I thought I had posted my reply to @Rickyvol77, but i guess not. But what i was going to say is that there is some reason why they are not revealing what the issue is. They only thing i could think of at the time was that whatever he was doing, it likely involves or will have some blowback on other cops if it goes public... so they are having to cover up.
Click to expand...
If it’s illegal they are likely building a criminal case and can’t just release everything if it jeopardizes a conviction
 
#13,618
#13,618
Rasputin_Vol said:
What is the harm of telling what he did?
Click to expand...
Because it could be seen as sullying a possible jury in public and could be grounds for a mistrial if it’s truly a criminal case. Or they could be looking at possible civil rights violations and discussing further charges with feds. Or they could be shoring up other criminal cases connected to this officer to avoid letting actual criminals out of prison. It’s stupid to release all the facts before any investigation is complete.
 
#13,619
#13,619
Rickyvol77 said:
Because it could be seen as sullying a possible jury in public and could be grounds for a mistrial if it’s truly a criminal case. Or they could be looking at possible civil rights violations and discussing further charges with feds. Or they could be shoring up other criminal cases connected to this officer to avoid letting actual criminals out of prison. It’s stupid to release all the facts before any investigation is complete.
Click to expand...
Civilians often don't get that same privilege. That is my point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NurseGoodVol and hog88
#13,620
#13,620
Rasputin_Vol said:
Civilians often don't get that same privilege. That is my point.
Click to expand...
Yes they do. All the time especially in certain crimes. Just because YOU only see or hear about some doesn’t mean it’s always talked about by police. Many case details are talked about by the media themselves and it’s not the police always giving them facts
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top