Judge deciding whether to reveal police shooting video

[StrangeSox]

You know, that's the first blog post/article I've read on this subject the last few years that's pretty level headed and reasonable. No "cops hate black people," no "cops are just evil killers," no pretending that cops don't have legit reasons to fire and fire quickly, etc. Just pointing out that cops keep inserting themselves into dangerous situations where shooting someone becomes the next seemingly reasonable step.

 

I think if you look back to last year, especially at the conversations around Tamir and the guy shot in the Walmart, the subject of deescalation came up frequently.

 

[MexSoxFan#1]

All these recent incidents of cops shooting civilians under at best iffy circumstances have largely come about since everyone nowadays are walking around with video cameras so scrutiny of the police at work has intensified like never before and it has shown some very ugly results.

 

The Chicago PD tried to cover this up, unfortunately for them, there was irrefutable evidence that Van Dyke shot a stoned out of his mind kid that posed very little threat to the cops and he easily could've been dealt with in a different manner without resorting to lethal force.

 

Kind of makes you wonder how many times something similar like this has happened before. How many times have we heard the classic cop excuse "he lunged at me" while witnesses tell a different story? Only difference was there was no video to clearly contradict the cop's version of the incident.

[bmags]

Rahm now "welcoming" a DOJ investigation. I think one is absolutely necessary, and his opinion does not matter. The Chicago force needs a profound reason to clean up, and know that this isn't going to go away with time. A DOJ investigation helps with that.

[Y2HH]

All these recent incidents of cops shooting civilians under at best iffy circumstances have largely come about since everyone nowadays are walking around with video cameras so scrutiny of the police at work has intensified like never before and it has shown some very ugly results.

 

The Chicago PD tried to cover this up, unfortunately for them, there was irrefutable evidence that Van Dyke shot a stoned out of his mind kid that posed very little threat to the cops and he easily could've been dealt with in a different manner without resorting to lethal force.

 

Kind of makes you wonder how many times something similar like this has happened before. How many times have we heard the classic cop excuse "he lunged at me" while witnesses tell a different story? Only difference was there was no video to clearly contradict the cop's version of the incident.

 

No, the Chicago PD did not try to cover this up...that's not how such investigations work. This is what Rahm wants people to believe, however. But when evidence is collected, including internal investigations, it's handed off to a 3rd party and/or locked up/tagged so that the CPD has no control over, or extremely restricted access too. Rahm is trying to use the CPD (and it's chief) as a scapegoat for a coverup he himself had a hand in architecting because this shooting occurred right before his re-election...and had this come out then, he'd have lost to Garcia.

Edited December 3, 2015 by Y2HH

[Kyyle23]

No, the Chicago PD did not try to cover this up...that's not how such investigations work. This is what Rahm wants people to believe, however. But when evidence is collected, including internal investigations, it's handed off to a 3rd party that the CPD has no control over. Rahm is trying to use the CPD (and it's chief) as a scapegoat for a coverup he himself had a hand in architecting because this shooting occurred right before his re-election...and had this come out then, he'd have lost to Garcia.

 

I would say the cops that walked into Burger King and deleted the video tried to cover this up

[Jenksismyhero]

No, the Chicago PD did not try to cover this up...that's not how such investigations work. This is what Rahm wants people to believe, however. But when evidence is collected, it's handed off to a 3rd party that the CPD has no control over.

 

After such an event occurs, it's handled by outside powers/departments, and people such as the mayor and judges may have some sort of control over what happens, but cops do not.

 

What are you talking about? This is not how it works. The CPD collects all relevant evidence. It keeps said evidence until the states attorney's office decides it's going to indict and charge someone. At some point, the file and evidence is handed over so the SA can prosecute the case.

 

There is no 3rd party that "handles" the case. In certain situations other state/federal agencies may get involved and want to view/test/look over evidence, but generally the police department that has jurisdiction over the crime scene handles the evidence and the "case" up until the time it's handed over to the SA.

 

edit: internal affairs is a subset of CPD. If there's some mass coverup, they'd be in on it too. And they just interview people and review reports. They don't handle evidence.

Edited December 3, 2015 by Jenksismybitch

[StrangeSox]

I would say the cops that walked into Burger King and deleted the video tried to cover this up

Plus the ones that lied about what happened

[bmags]

The Tribune is going hard after the audio and why it was obscured.

[Y2HH]

I would say the cops that walked into Burger King and deleted the video tried to cover this up

 

http://chicago.suntimes.com/chicago-politi...n-mcdonald-case

 

Other than the fact that didn't happen, sure.

[NorthSideSox72]

It does work like that...but you're also twisting my words a bit here. The CPD doesn't "keep said evidence", since most of it has to get sent off to independent labs for analysis...the CPD aren't scientists. They don't perform ballistics, or bloodwork, etc...all of which is evidence given to a 3rd party.

 

There is a lot of separation of duty throughout the government for this very reason.

This runs counter to my experiences (in another state admittedly) as well. We had an evidence room, with a tagging system, regular cleanouts, access controls, etc. We only sent evidence out the door if it needed specific testing (which was only for a very small percentage of it) or for legally allowed destruction (which was done periodically).

 

[bmags]

Everyone try to read this without cringing:

http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/7/71/1147...pd-another-blow

[Y2HH]

This runs counter to my experiences (in another state admittedly) as well. We had an evidence room, with a tagging system, regular cleanouts, access controls, etc. We only sent evidence out the door if it needed specific testing (which was only for a very small percentage of it) or for legally allowed destruction (which was done periodically).

 

Right, but this is where the confusion lies...I attempted to clear this up a bit in my previous post.

 

Of course not everything is sent away...but it's all collected and LOCKED UP in a room with strict controls...and anyone that tampered with any of it would be caught...this isn't the 1950's where any random cop could walk into evidence lockup and mess with things...

 

The person I originally replied too basically said the CPD tried to cover this up...and it wasn't the CPD. No run of the mill cop could cover this up with the protocols they have in place now.

Edited December 3, 2015 by Y2HH

[bmags]

Right, but this is where the confusion lies...I attempted to clear this up a bit in my previous post.

 

Of course not everything is sent away...but it's all collected and LOCKED UP in a room with strict controls...and anyone that tampered with any of it would be caught...this isn't the 1950's where any random cop could walk into evidence lockup and mess with things...

 

The person I originally replied too basically said the CPD tried to cover this up...and it wasn't the CPD. No run of the mill cop could cover this up with the protocols they have in place now.

 

That type of cover up isn't necessary in a police shooting. People are saying its a cover up because the other police there, the head of the fraternal order of police, and the officer all claimed the officer was in danger and was being lunged at when he was not. The other officers took no witnesses when there were. They may have deleted video evidence and tampered with audio. All of that is while they were gathering said evidence, not changing it after the fact. All it took was for people to see a cop acted over the line, and they all worked to protect him because they think it's protecting themselves. Shortterm it is, long-term it's not.

[Y2HH]

That type of cover up isn't necessary in a police shooting. People are saying its a cover up because the other police there, the head of the fraternal order of police, and the officer all claimed the officer was in danger and was being lunged at when he was not. The other officers took no witnesses when there were. They may have deleted video evidence and tampered with audio. All of that is while they were gathering said evidence, not changing it after the fact. All it took was for people to see a cop acted over the line, and they all worked to protect him because they think it's protecting themselves. Shortterm it is, long-term it's not.

 

Obviously that kind of coverup is necessary or we wouldn't be where we are right now.

 

1) Is it true no witnesses were interviewed at any point? Source please, because I'm curious to know if this is true.

2) The FBI has apparently debunked the Burger King thing.

 

Also, the cops on the scene wouldn't be the cops investigating it...detectives are called in for that.

 

My point is this: the CPD (as a whole) didn't try to cover this up...people in power above the CPD did. IMO, Rahm had a hand in this, and is now in the process of trying to throw the CPD under the bus. The fact this happened right before the election points to Rahm and others in power far above the CPD. A few cops on the scene aren't going to be enough to cover this up...and as we can see, IF they tried, they failed in spectacular fashion.

Edited December 3, 2015 by Y2HH

[bmags]

http://chicagoreporter.com/how-chicago-tri...lice-execution/

 

Last December, Kalven and Futterman issued a statement revealing the existence of a dash-cam video and calling for its release. Kalven tracked down a witness to the shooting, who said he and other witnesses had been “shooed away” from the scene with no statements or contact information taken.

 

There is a trib story interviewing a father and son who were in a car that was stopped as it happened but I can't find it now.

[bmags]

Wow, yeah, look at this article that quotes witness recounting events from the night. Matches to a tee the video. It's from 2014:

http://invisible.institute/news/2014/laquan-mcdonald

[Y2HH]

Apparently Rahm is suddenly willing to release another video like this one.

 

As I was saying...none of these were the CPD covering them up...it was the city itself. The police aren't the ones that get to decide what gets released and what gets buried.

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/b...1203-story.html

Edited December 3, 2015 by Y2HH

[Y2HH]

What are you talking about? This is not how it works. The CPD collects all relevant evidence. It keeps said evidence until the states attorney's office decides it's going to indict and charge someone. At some point, the file and evidence is handed over so the SA can prosecute the case.

 

There is no 3rd party that "handles" the case. In certain situations other state/federal agencies may get involved and want to view/test/look over evidence, but generally the police department that has jurisdiction over the crime scene handles the evidence and the "case" up until the time it's handed over to the SA.

 

edit: internal affairs is a subset of CPD. If there's some mass coverup, they'd be in on it too. And they just interview people and review reports. They don't handle evidence.

 

Sorry I went back and altered my post, I left out some info, and you are correct based on what I had written.

[bmags]

You don't think there is intense pressure from city officials that work with CPD to prevent stuff like this from coming out to "protect morale"?

 

See:

http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/7/71/1147...pd-another-blow

Edited December 3, 2015 by bmags

[Y2HH]

You don't think there is intense pressure from city officials that work with CPD to prevent stuff like this from coming out to "protect morale"?

 

See:

http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/7/71/1147...pd-another-blow

 

It wouldn't ultimately be their decision though. I'm sure they wouldn't want it released, but they're not the ones that decide.

 

This is Emmanuel trying to cover his own ass at this point...he's in full damage control mode.

Edited December 3, 2015 by Y2HH

[Jenksismyhero]

The Tribune is going hard after the audio and why it was obscured.

 

I'm very interested in the audio issue. I have an excessive force case right now and we have a dashcam video. Different department, but the EXACT same audio issue. If you crank your speakers up, you can actually hear sirens and some sound (like in the McDonald case), but not much else. It's working, but not working properly.

[Jenksismyhero]

It wouldn't ultimately be their decision though. I'm sure they wouldn't want it released, but they're not the ones that decide.

 

This is Emmanuel trying to cover his own ass at this point...he's in full damage control mode.

 

They all are/were.

[Harry Chappas]

What would camera audio do? Is the mic powerful enough to pick up noise outside the car? I am not certain what the great expectation is there. I think the video tells the whole story what more is needed?

[StrangeSox]

Dash cams can usually pick up external audio

[bmags]

Here's the thing, Emmanuel's position, to me, sustains a cover up. I don't think he would squash an ongoing investigation into a police murder if it was being honestly investigated. The problem was it just was never investigated to begin with and he did not overturn that behavior. And we all know the incentives here (you can see it in the fraternal order of the police statement above), any statements or investigations that indicate a single police officer acted wrongly is apparently an idictment on the whole police.