Police Camera Pans Away As Officers Beat Suspect

[Modbert]

Yeah, I saw all of that, and no, it doesn't make me feel better. Those officers should never carry a badge again and those guys deserve a hell of a lot larger settlement than that.

I agree. I was being sarcastic of course about their punishment.

 

[MikeK]

No he did not have to get off the phone.

If he wanted to comply with the law he should have gotten off the phone.

What I saw was an arrest in progress with three citizen bystanders observing, one whom was talking on a cell phone. One of the police officers who was handcuffing the arrestee on the ground stood up and, without any cause or provocation I could see, struck the bystander who was talking on the phone on the head and threw him to the ground.

Unless the laws affecting conduct on the public streets have changed drastically in recent years I'm having trouble understanding what you've said here. If the bystander was not required to get off the phone, how would doing so represent compliance with the law?

Unless there are circumstances I'm not aware of, what I saw appears to be a clear example of oppressive police conduct and felonious assault.

Am I mistaken?

 

[ConHog]

The guy wasn't a pedestrian, he was involved in the incident, he was in the vehicle which was pulled over, and thus under police control, he definitely should have complied with orders to get off the phone. The LEO definitely went over board , by a mile, in making him do so.

The city claims the cameras are operated by automation. I have seen no evidence to suggest they are lying.

 

[DiveCon]

Yeah I noticed that too. Is there someone in control of that camera or is it like an automatic thing?

The police claim that it is automatic, and that it is actually programmed to pan away.

Police Camera Pans Away As Officers Subdue Suspect - Denver News Story - KMGH Denver

The part that gets me is that someone managed to program a camera to pan away when things get bad for cops, and then to pan back after it is over.

I know things have progressed, but how do you program a camera to pan away when a cop is doing something illegal? That is some damn scary future stuff right there.

there is no AI that could do such a thing
that had to be someone doing it

 

[DiveCon]

The guy wasn't a pedestrian, he was involved in the incident, he was in the vehicle which was pulled over, and thus under police control, he definitely should have complied with orders to get off the phone. The LEO definitely went over board , by a mile, in making him do so.

The city claims the cameras are operated by automation. I have seen no evidence to suggest they are lying.

how could a program know when to move away and when to move back?

 

[Mini 14]

If the guy settled for $15K, then he obviously didn't feel it was as egregious as some seem to think. If he thought it was so awful, why did he settle at all?

I support the police cracking skulls whenever those skulls don't cooperate. God knows, their job is dangerous enough without a bunch of red and black pussies running around crying about peace, love, and communism.

 

[ConHog]

The guy wasn't a pedestrian, he was involved in the incident, he was in the vehicle which was pulled over, and thus under police control, he definitely should have complied with orders to get off the phone. The LEO definitely went over board , by a mile, in making him do so.

The city claims the cameras are operated by automation. I have seen no evidence to suggest they are lying.

how could a program know when to move away and when to move back?

Programming a camera to zoom in on an LEO would be a simple matter. Install an RFID on police uniforms that emits radio instructions for the camera to zoom in on X GPS coordinates when the RFIDs came within a certain distance from the camera. After that it would just be a matter of programming the camera to focus so long on the incident then pan out to get a broader view for so long, and then to zoom back in on the RFID.

It's just a matter of whether you want to believe it's a coincidence that it happened the way it did. Given the lack of evidence to suggest a pattern, I will say yes. Show me several instances where the timing is so unusual and I will believe otherwise.

Seriously, I have a fairly inexpensive security camera setup on my property and I could program them to do exactly that, Im sure the PD could do it as well.

No opinion on the fact that the innocent bystander was actually a passenger in the car?

 

[DiveCon]

The guy wasn't a pedestrian, he was involved in the incident, he was in the vehicle which was pulled over, and thus under police control, he definitely should have complied with orders to get off the phone. The LEO definitely went over board , by a mile, in making him do so.

The city claims the cameras are operated by automation. I have seen no evidence to suggest they are lying.

how could a program know when to move away and when to move back?

Programming a camera to zoom in on an LEO would be a simple matter. Install an RFID on police uniforms that emits radio instructions for the camera to zoom in on X GPS coordinates when the RFIDs came within a certain distance from the camera. After that it would just be a matter of programming the camera to focus so long on the incident then pan out to get a broader view for so long, and then to zoom back in on the RFID.

It's just a matter of whether you want to believe it's a coincidence that it happened the way it did. Given the lack of evidence to suggest a pattern, I will say yes. Show me several instances where the timing is so unusual and I will believe otherwise.

Seriously, I have a fairly inexpensive security camera setup on my property and I could program them to do exactly that, Im sure the PD could do it as well.

No opinion on the fact that the innocent bystander was actually a passenger in the car?

LOL
ok, i guess the cop must have known just when the camera would be focusing in on him to only be abusive during the time it was moving away
LOL
it just seems too damn convenient for me to believe that was a programed response

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The guy wasn't a pedestrian, he was involved in the incident, he was in the vehicle which was pulled over, and thus under police control, he definitely should have complied with orders to get off the phone. The LEO definitely went over board , by a mile, in making him do so.

The city claims the cameras are operated by automation. I have seen no evidence to suggest they are lying.

The part that amazes me is how the camera managed to pan away from the action when it began, and then panned back after it was over. While this is not proof that it was being controlled, claiming it is not evidence that the city is not being completely honest is disingenuous.

 

[ConHog]

The guy wasn't a pedestrian, he was involved in the incident, he was in the vehicle which was pulled over, and thus under police control, he definitely should have complied with orders to get off the phone. The LEO definitely went over board , by a mile, in making him do so.

The city claims the cameras are operated by automation. I have seen no evidence to suggest they are lying.

The part that amazes me is how the camera managed to pan away from the action when it began, and then panned back after it was over. While this is not proof that it was being controlled, claiming it is not evidence that the city is not being completely honest is disingenuous.

The timing is questionable, but from a technological standpoint it is feasible. Despite what some are trying to contend. Would the city lie? No doubt, but I'm sure they had to show someone how their system worked and we'd know if that were the case.

Still no comment on the fact that the guy was not an innocent bystander?

 

[cad]

if there were no blacks invovled, who the **** cares?

there is no teachable moment here.

move along..

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The guy wasn't a pedestrian, he was involved in the incident, he was in the vehicle which was pulled over, and thus under police control, he definitely should have complied with orders to get off the phone. The LEO definitely went over board , by a mile, in making him do so.

The city claims the cameras are operated by automation. I have seen no evidence to suggest they are lying.

The part that amazes me is how the camera managed to pan away from the action when it began, and then panned back after it was over. While this is not proof that it was being controlled, claiming it is not evidence that the city is not being completely honest is disingenuous.

The timing is questionable, but from a technological standpoint it is feasible. Despite what some are trying to contend. Would the city lie? No doubt, but I'm sure they had to show someone how their system worked and we'd know if that were the case.

Still no comment on the fact that the guy was not an innocent bystander?

I never claimed he was, but even if he had been in the car that does not justify the actions of the cop who threw him to the ground and beat the crap out of him.

If, as you theorize, it was tracking an RFID chip the cop was carrying, why did it pan away? Why did it pan back when the cop had not moved yet? I would love to get my hands on the code that is being used on those cameras.

 

[ConHog]

The part that amazes me is how the camera managed to pan away from the action when it began, and then panned back after it was over. While this is not proof that it was being controlled, claiming it is not evidence that the city is not being completely honest is disingenuous.

The timing is questionable, but from a technological standpoint it is feasible. Despite what some are trying to contend. Would the city lie? No doubt, but I'm sure they had to show someone how their system worked and we'd know if that were the case.

Still no comment on the fact that the guy was not an innocent bystander?

I never claimed he was, but even if he had been in the car that does not justify the actions of the cop who threw him to the ground and beat the crap out of him.

If, as you theorize, it was tracking an RFID chip the cop was carrying, why did it pan away? Why did it pan back when the cop had not moved yet? I would love to get my hands on the code that is being used on those cameras.

Some were saying he was just a bystander, and he wasn't . He was detained, which is standard procedure when you have to remove a driver from a vehicle. As I posted in my OP on the matter, the cop went too far and frankly should be fired, if that's the only way they will get the message start firing them.

As for the cameras, As I said, the city claims it was just coincidental timing on the panning in and out, now barring evidence to the contrary we don't presume people guilty in this country do we? Including a city? Now gather 3 or 4 incidents where the timing is questionable and I'll be crying bullshit....

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The timing is questionable, but from a technological standpoint it is feasible. Despite what some are trying to contend. Would the city lie? No doubt, but I'm sure they had to show someone how their system worked and we'd know if that were the case.

Still no comment on the fact that the guy was not an innocent bystander?

I never claimed he was, but even if he had been in the car that does not justify the actions of the cop who threw him to the ground and beat the crap out of him.

If, as you theorize, it was tracking an RFID chip the cop was carrying, why did it pan away? Why did it pan back when the cop had not moved yet? I would love to get my hands on the code that is being used on those cameras.

Some were saying he was just a bystander, and he wasn't . He was detained, which is standard procedure when you have to remove a driver from a vehicle. As I posted in my OP on the matter, the cop went too far and frankly should be fired, if that's the only way they will get the message start firing them.

As for the cameras, As I said, the city claims it was just coincidental timing on the panning in and out, now barring evidence to the contrary we don't presume people guilty in this country do we? Including a city? Now gather 3 or 4 incidents where the timing is questionable and I'll be crying bullshit....

As I said, there is a difference between proof and evidence. I would need more than one incident to call proof that the city is lying, but I tend to think anyone in public service lies first. That is just my cynicism talking though.

 

[ConHog]

I never claimed he was, but even if he had been in the car that does not justify the actions of the cop who threw him to the ground and beat the crap out of him.

If, as you theorize, it was tracking an RFID chip the cop was carrying, why did it pan away? Why did it pan back when the cop had not moved yet? I would love to get my hands on the code that is being used on those cameras.

Some were saying he was just a bystander, and he wasn't . He was detained, which is standard procedure when you have to remove a driver from a vehicle. As I posted in my OP on the matter, the cop went too far and frankly should be fired, if that's the only way they will get the message start firing them.

As for the cameras, As I said, the city claims it was just coincidental timing on the panning in and out, now barring evidence to the contrary we don't presume people guilty in this country do we? Including a city? Now gather 3 or 4 incidents where the timing is questionable and I'll be crying bullshit....

As I said, there is a difference between proof and evidence. I would need more than one incident to call proof that the city is lying, but I tend to think anyone in public service lies first. That is just my cynicism talking though.

LOL - I must confess to not trusting politicians anymore than you do. I just think that in this case I'll believe the guy unless I see further evidence. and honestly a single other instance of such questionable timing would have me doubting the guy.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The man didn't have to get off the phone.

No he did not have to get off the phone.

If he wanted to comply with the law he should have gotten off the phone.

The officer had no authority to tell him to get off. He wasn't the one being arrested or involved in the incident in the nightclub. Just because someone carries a badge doesn't mean they have the right to tell you to do what ever they want.

 

[MikeK]

If the guy settled for $15K, then he obviously didn't feel it was as egregious as some seem to think. If he thought it was so awful, why did he settle at all?

Probably because he's broke and the lure of a fast fifteen thousand dollars overcame the prospect of a (possibly) lucrative punitive award which would have taken years of litigation with one appeal and delaying tactic after another and a contingency lawyer taking a huge chunk.

I support the police cracking skulls whenever those skulls don't cooperate. God knows, their job is dangerous enough without a bunch of red and black pussies running around crying about peace, love, and communism.

There was a time when I would have agreed 100% with that position. But over the years I've come to understand that, with few exceptions, authoritarian agents of the state tend to compusively exceed the prescribed limits of their official power. And that compulsion is never satisfied.


"Whoever would make his own liberty secure must guard even his most despised countryman from oppression by government, for if he ignores this sacred duty he thus establishes a precedent which someday will surely reach to himself." (Thomas Paine)

 

[ConHog]

The man didn't have to get off the phone.

No he did not have to get off the phone.

If he wanted to comply with the law he should have gotten off the phone.

The officer had no authority to tell him to get off. He wasn't the one being arrested or involved in the incident in the nightclub. Just because someone carries a badge doesn't mean they have the right to tell you to do what ever they want.

You're wrong on that point. When a vehicle is pulled over the LEO is in affect detaining everyone in the vehicle. Now why the guy wasn't frisked and set on the curb is beyond me, but I have sen officer order passengers to put cigarettes out and they better comply. How do you know he wasn't involved in the incident? How would the LEO have known? They wouldn't have until the detained him and go to toe bottom of the story. you are ENTIRELY incorrect on this point. Don't believe me? Next time you're in a car that gets pulled over , get out and run, even if you've done nothing wrong.

 

[Leweman]

No he did not have to get off the phone.

If he wanted to comply with the law he should have gotten off the phone.

The officer had no authority to tell him to get off. He wasn't the one being arrested or involved in the incident in the nightclub. Just because someone carries a badge doesn't mean they have the right to tell you to do what ever they want.

You're wrong on that point. When a vehicle is pulled over the LEO is in affect detaining everyone in the vehicle. Now why the guy wasn't frisked and set on the curb is beyond me, but I have sen officer order passengers to put cigarettes out and they better comply. How do you know he wasn't involved in the incident? How would the LEO have known? They wouldn't have until the detained him and go to toe bottom of the story. you are ENTIRELY incorrect on this point. Don't believe me? Next time you're in a car that gets pulled over , get out and run, even if you've done nothing wrong.

Absolutely Correct. Some people just think they can do whatever they want. Now this cop went waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too far in my opinion by beating the crap out of this guy but I only can base that on what I saw on camera and have none of the other facts. It was odd the guy walking around talking on the phone and ignoring the officer ... It dont work like that. So noone is completely blameless here.

 

[Zona]

The guy wasn't a pedestrian, he was involved in the incident, he was in the vehicle which was pulled over, and thus under police control, he definitely should have complied with orders to get off the phone. The LEO definitely went over board , by a mile, in making him do so.

The city claims the cameras are operated by automation. I have seen no evidence to suggest they are lying.

Soooooo...it automatifcally pulled away the second that cop started beating that guy? It knew to come back after the beating ended? That is some high tech stuff right there then.