Avoiding the cops when they’re looking for you does not make them happy. When cops aren’t happy, they typically aren’t very nice to you.
I don’t try to avoid the cops so much as trying to keep my interactions with them to a bare minimum.
Now, I know Crooks is the one who didn’t show, and who hung up on them. But I think his insistence on giving LAPD a copy of the video, instead of the original, was another straw.
In his position, I don’t believe I would have let go of the original either.
What difference would that make? Every news organization in the country had a copy of the tape already, and millions of people had seen it. The original tape was merely evidence, at that point.
Crooks is an idiot. The best protection against police brutality is to have the media watching you like a hawk. And the best way to REALLY piss off the cops is to interfere with a criminal investigation.
I think they want the original to have it checked for ‘fake photography’ or its equivalent on video tape.
Er, I thought he had the media watching him.
And what criminal investigation did he interfere with?
The investigation of officer Jeremy Morse.
Interfering with the goat guarding the cabbages.
The original might also be quite useful if Crooks chose to give the media only the “good” parts of the tape. Nobody knows if there is stuff on that tape that would exonerate the officer, or further implicate him, we have only seen what Crooks allowed us to see.
He did. Which is why he’s an idiot. By being uncooperative and getting his ass arrested, he turned the media against him. He could have been a hero, but instead, Crooks is now portrayed as…well, a crook.
Fair enough. But Crooks is not the only person who might tamper with it.
The damning evidence is already out there as public knowledge, there is no erasing that, no matter what happens to the original. Nobody’s going to do a James Bond on the thing and superimpose false events on the tape. There must be someone in this world that can be trusted to copy an entire tape.
The officer being charged has the absolute right to see the original tape (or a complete copy), to see if the events leading up to the act were taped as well. We are all supposed to believe that Crooks just happened to turn his camera on 3 seconds before the punch?
Have you ever fumbled with a camcorder or camera, trying to get it turned on, set properly, and focused, before the sunset fades, your kid stops doing that cute thing, or the band stops playing, and ended up recording only the last thirty seconds of whatever you wanted to capture?
That is exactly my point, the video that I saw was at least reasonably steady, showing the slamming and punching scene in clear detail. There was no fumbling, no partial shots, nothing. It is certainly reasonable to assume that Crooks had been filming the scene for a period of time before the actual assault took place. That period of time could be from 5 seconds to 5 minutes, we don’t know. There may very well be nothing of value whatsoever on the rest of the original tape, but we don’t know that unless the whole thing is made available in its entirety.
Who knows, if Crooks taped the whole incident start to finish, we might be shocked and horrified at the level of violence displayed by the kid who got punched. We might be amazed at the remarkable level of restraint displayed by the officers.
Punching a child with his hands cuffed behind him is not restraint.
The police are the good guys. They do not beat bound children or adults for that matter no matter how large and ugly they are or what they did.
Fair enough. No further questions, Your Honor!
Emphisis added by me.
I think it is disingenuous to refer to him as a child, as he is larger than I am, and 16 years old. The ‘beating’ consisted of weak punch to the face. It has been suggested that the teen had a hold of the officers nads at the time. If this is true, the punch was to get the teen to release. There has also been talk that the teen was beligerent and combative before and during being cuffed.
You could argue that police officers should not be act on, or be affected by, the fear, frustration or anger that they go through. This strikes me as a tad unrealistic. When someone is rough with you, you pretty much have to be rough right back. That may be what happened here, I don’t know. Neither does anyone else at this point. That’s why they need the tape.
A question for our legal eagles: If an original of a video exists, and is available, does the original HAVE to used as evidence, or can a copy be used?
I quess the emphisis wasn’t added by me. Nor did I notice that this debate was several days old. My bad.
That’s the most stupid thing I’ve ever heard.
If it’s “mild” then it is not provoked.
You don’t hit someone who is handcuffed. If a cop can’t deal with that, he needs to get a job as a professional wrestler, where he will find people who share his political, intellectual and social interests.
16 years old is still a minor child in most jurisdictions. It’s the legally correct term.
and, re “weak punch to the face” /“teen had hold of the officer’s nads at the time”, my suggestion is that you pick one and go with it, either it was a ‘weak punch’ or the officers’ groin was being grabbed. From what male posters said in other threads on the subject (and what the officer is later claiming) the pain is mindbogglingly bad.
wring, a “child” is typically understood to be someone between birth and puberty. If you want to make the distinction that he’s not legally an adult you would just use the term “minor”. IANAL, but I thought the"child" in the term “minor child” is used in court cases where that person’s status as someone’s offspring has a bearing on the case- if they’re not a minor, then they’re called an “adult child”.
he’s 16, in special ed, legally a minor - I have no problem identifying him in publications as a ‘child’. The girl in Utah who was kidnapped is 14 and being referred to as a child as well. From her photo’s, I doubt that your stance of “between infancy and puberty” would be appropriate. Yet she’s one of the ‘missing children’ being publicized.