Dallas Police Rule Change Gives Officers 72 Hours To Get Their Stories Straight After Shooting Citizens

from the accountability-is-for-bullet-riddled-civilians dept

The Dallas Police Department can't seem to get its officers' statements on shootings to agree with recordings of the incidents. So, it's doing what any forward thinking law enforcement agency would do -- changing the rules.

Any Dallas officer involved in a police shooting — whether the officer fired a weapon or witnessed the gunfire — will now have the right to remain silent for 72 hours under a new department policy.

And even before they give a statement about the shooting, the officers can watch any available video before they give a statement.
Very convenient. This policy change, which was ushered in under the cover of the Thanksgiving holiday, will help ensure that DPD officers don't find their statements directly contradicted by the inconveniently unblinking eye of the camera, as happened just recently.

On October 14th, Dallas police officer Cardan Spencer shot a mentally ill man four times in the stomach. According to Spencer's partner, Christopher Watson (who wrote the report), the man (Bobby Gerald Bennett) moved "in a threatening manner" towards him and the other officer. Watson's statement even went so far as to say Bennett "lunged" at them. A statement released by the DPD a few hours after the shooting claimed the situation "escalated."

A surveillance camera caught the entire confrontation on tape. Less than 20 seconds pass before Spencer opens fire. See if you can catch a glimpse of the "lunge" or the "escalation."

Bennett never lunges. He doesn't do anything more threatening than stand up from the chair he was sitting in. Four bullets later, Bennett is on the ground. Somehow, being shot four times by a DPD officer is "aggravated assault," a charge the DPD pressed (it was later dropped) while Bennett was still in critical condition.

As a result of this, Spencer was fired and Watson suspended for making false statements. But this was only after Bennett's mother took the video to the media. Before she did this, DPD Chief David Brown watched the video and claimed his own officer's statement trumped his lying eyes.
"The unfortunate thing here is that Officer Watson's statement really overrode what the video showed," Brown said. "We had not at that point determined if the video captured the entire incident, or if the video had not been altered in any way. We put a lot of credibility on officer's statements until we have other evidence to prove otherwise."
Not so much anymore. Former DPD officer Cardan Spencer may be facing assault charges for shooting Bennett. Perhaps the saddest aspect of this whole debacle is the fact that Bennett's mother called the police because she was afraid her son (who has mental issues and was off his medication) might hurt himself.

As this has caused the DPD considerable embarrassment (not the least of which is the chief claiming a recording of the shooting is less trustworthy than statements given by an officer later suspended for making false statements), the only solution was (apparently) to buy time for officers to fix their narratives should inconvenient recordings surface.

Supposedly, this 72-hour waiting period is better for memory. Chief Brown refers to research by Alexis Artwohl which indicates recall of traumatic events increases over time. Immediate statements may be less accurate. That may be, but this report has been available since 2002 and there hasn't been a large shift in policies regarding police shootings across the nation. This looks like nothing more than someone finding the justification they need to install an insular policy that will allow bad cops to be even worse. This gives shelter to liars by allowing them to craft a plausible narrative that can't be undone by a single surveillance video.

This also doesn't explain why police insist on questioning suspects and eyewitnesses immediately after a criminal incident. But Artwohl has an explanation.
Artwohl, the memory expert, said officers treat civilian witnesses differently because officers won’t always be able to find the person again. That usually isn’t true of officers, she said.
Unsurprisingly, attorneys for the Dallas Police Association "applauded" Chief Brown's application of an additional layer of paint to the thin blue line. Anything that makes it easier to defend cops who are threatened by people standing motionless is a win for the PD's lawyers.

Defense attorney Mark Bennett flips the scenario to show just how outrageous this policy would be if it was applied to anyone else.
As a result of this incident, the Dallas Police Department changed its policy regarding gang-related shootings. Instead of pressing gang members for statements immediately after shootings, police officers will advise them that they have seventy-two hours to get together and make up a story, and will provide them, during that time, with any video the police can find, so that they can conform their stories to the video.

It makes no sense, does it, that police policy should not just permit but encourage members of a criminal street gang who witness a gang-related shooting to take three days to talk to each other and their lawyers and review the facts that are beyond dispute before making a statement?

It makes sense only if the police want the perpetrators of such shootings to walk free. The idea would be farcical if the criminal street gang were anything other than the police.
It's a farce, alright. The DPD has just ensured no one will trust the narratives constructed by its officers. And every citizen who's been paying attention will know to hang onto their recordings for at least 72 hours, rather than see it twisted into "evidence" that keeps bad cops employed.



Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    Skeptical Cynic (profile), Dec 4th, 2013 @ 8:02am

    Sounds like it makes sense, no, not really...

    So time and time again it has been proven that memory of an event can be modified by our own needs, emotions, morals, and perception.

    And studies have show that memory accuracy decreases over time.

    See:
    http://www.nasams.org/forensics/for_lib/Documents/1150823205.44/Article-Intl%20J.%20L.%20Psy.-Ac curacy%20of%20eyewitness%20memory...Morgan.pdf

    http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/How-Our-B rains-Make-Memories.html

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flashbulb_memory

    So it totally makes sense to let officers to submit statements 72 hours after they have seen video or other evidence to contradict what they might have said.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    icon
    silverscarcat (profile), Dec 4th, 2013 @ 8:06am

    *Sigh*

    Can it be official yet?

    Can we just officially rename police officers as Government Sanctioned Mobsters already?

    At least then we know what we're dealing with.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    icon
    Skeptical Cynic (profile), Dec 4th, 2013 @ 8:27am

    Re: *Sigh*

    Police have by need, circumstance, and desire for power forgotten that they are there to "To Protect and Serve".

    Instead they believe they are there to do what they think is OK and act as if they are the power when the power is derived from the authority we give them to enforce the laws we should be defining. They have gone to a place where they react first from over-caution instead of using rational thought.

    IMHO if an officer shoots someone it has to be shown without a doubt that they were doing what was required to protect innocents or themselves from real harm. Not just a dude that was unarmed and "OMG" lunging. That officer was a person we do not want helping to enforce our laws.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    icon
    ltlw0lf (profile), Dec 4th, 2013 @ 8:54am

    Re: *Sigh*

    Can we just officially rename police officers as Government Sanctioned Mobsters already?

    Considering that is how they started out eons ago...as muscle for the rulers/business owners, no problem here with that rename.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    icon
    Ninja (profile), Dec 4th, 2013 @ 8:54am

    Seems the executive branch and law enforcement really want to be above the law and these pesky commoners, eh?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    icon
    Trails (profile), Dec 4th, 2013 @ 9:00am

    :(

    I find this to be unbelievably depressing.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 4th, 2013 @ 9:09am

    This is absolutely ridiculous. It's true that your memory of traumatic events can be much better a couple days after the event - something about adrenaline and your fight-or-flight response really messes with memories of extremely stressful situations*.

    But cops are trained to be extra-observant in these situations already. There's no reason for them to need the "buffer" if they're doing their job correctly.

    * Seriously, it's weird how this works. Memories are a fragile thing and easily affected by hindsight and your emotional state, but in a traumatic situation you can have trouble recalling even the basic order of events until things "settle" in your brain. I was robbed at gunpoint just over a month ago and when I talked to the responding officer a half hour later I had problems really giving any details into what had happened. He said the detective assigned to the case would likely call me in a couple of days, and I'd probably be able to remember things more clearly. At the time I thought he was nuts, but a few days later when the detective called I remembered a lot of details that were absolutely correct (they caught the suspects and they're facing aggravated robbery charges - hope the six bucks you got from me was worth it, assholes). There were no leading questions or anything of that nature involved, it had just had time to percolate in my brain a bit.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 4th, 2013 @ 9:11am

    Almost there...

    And if we can reduce the statue of limitations to less than 72 hours, we will have the perfect society.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 4th, 2013 @ 9:14am

    It's time to disarm our police force. They're irresponsible with their weapons so we should take them away from them.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 4th, 2013 @ 9:16am

    more than anything, this shows the length law enforcement of all levels will go to to 'be right'! when there is, atm, no charges being directed at the police chief for out and out lying! he knew full fucking well what had happened, that the officers were lying and totally in the wrong, but he still put out a complete bullshit claim!
    i wonder how long before everyone realises that the USA is a total Police State now? there is nothing that can happen whereby the law enforcement are excluded from blame and punishment and anything done by the non-law enforcement is twisted, lied about, completely made up and the evidence twisted to ensure the crime committed was the fault of who you like, but not a police or agency officer!
    what wants severe scrutiny is the person/people behind these changes and them being slung in jail!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 4th, 2013 @ 9:17am

    Re: Re: *Sigh*

    In my opinion, any officer involved in a shooting should be forced into early retirement immediately.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Dec 4th, 2013 @ 9:17am

    Re:

    It's true that your memory of traumatic events can be much better a couple days after the event


    It's really not true. What is true is that you'll feel like your memory is better. Your will have vivid, clear memories that you didn't immediately after the event.

    The trouble is that those memories are less likely to actually be accurate. Human memory is a very weird thing, and we all make up or infer most of what we think we "remember". This is especially true of traumatic events. The effect is called "confabulation", and is why the least reliable evidence for anything is eyewitness evidence.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 4th, 2013 @ 9:24am

    It seems to me that if they use the 72 hours, some lawyer will use it as evidence of collusion to commit perjury.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 4th, 2013 @ 9:25am

    Better idea!

    Ban all new video evidence after the police give their side.




    SMMFH

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    icon
    Deranged Poster (profile), Dec 4th, 2013 @ 9:25am

    Yet some will still defend the pigs.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    icon
    Transmitte (profile), Dec 4th, 2013 @ 9:31am

    >.

    Who can you trust to uphold the public trust when the police are now given carte blanche to make the story fit to what they want it to?

    I've been seriously toying with the idea of mounting multiple cameras in my car and wearing a camera like they are talking about making police wear just to protect my own rights from disappearing in a 72 hour span if something were to happen to me involving an ever growing untrustworthy police figure(s).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    identicon
    vastrightwing, Dec 4th, 2013 @ 9:35am

    Simplicity please.

    The only admissible evidence is that of the police officer unless a victim is coerced into a confession, which will be perfectly legal.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    icon
    lucidrenegade (profile), Dec 4th, 2013 @ 9:38am

    The government has become the enemy.

    Wolverines!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    identicon
    Me, Dec 4th, 2013 @ 9:49am

    Dallas PD are the enemy, like most other urban police forces. This video makes that fact clear.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 4th, 2013 @ 10:03am

    unreal

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    icon
    Deranged Poster (profile), Dec 4th, 2013 @ 10:10am

    Re: >.

    Make sure that the feeds upload to a secure server in the cloud, given that pigs have been known to take / break / delete footage from visible cameras.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    identicon
    Digitari, Dec 4th, 2013 @ 10:20am

    Does this mean.....

    We, the general populous, can take 3 days to answer an Officers questions?? So if you get pulled over, and a Cop asks if you are drinking... "Well officer, I don't recall right now, get back to me in 3 days please"....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 4th, 2013 @ 10:32am

    Plays out something like this...

    Officer is involved in a shooting.

    Public/Investigator/Reporters start asking for answers about what happened.

    Dallas Police Officer: “You want answers?”
    Public/Investigator/Reporters: “I think I’m entitled.”
    Dallas Police Officer: “You want answers?”
    Public/Investigator/Reporters(yelling): “I want the truth!”
    Dallas Police Officer (yelling): “I haven't made up the truth yet!!! Come back in 72 hours!”

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    identicon
    Sketch, Dec 4th, 2013 @ 11:10am

    73rd hour

    This just means I wait 73 hours before posting said videos to Youtube and liveleak, THEN send it to the media, and then maybe to the 5-oh.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    identicon
    eric, Dec 4th, 2013 @ 11:36am

    but wait… there's more!

    wait until the cops can disable video and audio capture at the scene (this feature is being implemented as a hidden feature in many smart phones. This means a cop can press a button on his MDT and anyone in the area with a smartphone suddenly can't record video or audio. great way to cover up even more for lawless behavior on the part of those tasked with enforcing the law. Fortunately, there are actually only a few bad cops. the vast majority of them are just trying to do their jobs.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    icon
    Deranged Poster (profile), Dec 4th, 2013 @ 11:58am

    Re:

    "the vast majority of them are just trying to do their jobs."
    Do their jobs include covering up the ones breaking the law?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    icon
    kP (profile), Dec 4th, 2013 @ 12:22pm

    FTFY

    And even before they give a statement about the shooting, the officers can watch^H^H^H^H^Hsuppress any available video before they give a statement.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    identicon
    kog999, Dec 4th, 2013 @ 12:43pm

    Re: Re: Re: *Sigh*

    "my opinion, any officer involved in a shooting should be forced into early retirement immediately"

    With full pension and benefits. i suspect we might we might see a sharp increase in police shootings.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 4th, 2013 @ 12:49pm

    Times have changed in Texas

    The rule used to be a saying: One riot, one ranger -- because Texas rangers were legendary for their toughness AND for their ability to face down trouble without actually getting into a fight.

    Now we see that they're snivelling, whining cowards who are so pathetically weak, so scared, so worthless that they can't even face one sick, unarmed man without wetting their pants and reaching for their guns.

    Texas citizens should carefully consider what this says about the ability of their police force to protect them from actual threats.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Dec 4th, 2013 @ 1:14pm

    Re: Times have changed in Texas

    Texas is just following the trend in law enforcement across the land, and that's just following the trend set by US foreign policy: making the mistake that you can hide abject cowardice by shooting the place up. Pro tip: Being a quick trigger has never made anyone look brave.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    icon
    aldestrawk (profile), Dec 4th, 2013 @ 1:30pm

    Re:

    "But cops are trained to be extra-observant in these situations already. There's no reason for them to need the "buffer" if they're doing their job correctly."

    Cops are humans and the studies that Alexis Artwohl did, and the ones she reviewed show that, under the stressful situation where the officer fired a gun they, like all people, experience perceptual and memory distortions. Given that, the police chief's pronouncement that he was willing to trust his officer's statement over the video evidence makes no sense at all. He is referencing Artwohl's research in one sentence and ignoring it in the next. Anyway, the question becomes, what can be done about memory distortions if training can't eliminate them?

    I am rather skeptical about the claim that memories of a stressful event becomes more accurate over 3 days. Firstly, Artwohl's 2002 article states that, based on a 1998 publication by someone else, that officers should wait at least 24 hours before participating in a formal interview. Why did the DPD choose 3 days, rather than 1 day? After a stressful event memory can be fragmented such that you remember certain portions of the incident vividly and the order of the fragments may be inverted. After a day, details that weren't recalled initially may become clear. These additional details makes a later debriefing valuable. Over this short time a fragmented memory will be replayed and woven into a narrative sequence that makes more sense to the officer and the interviewer. That doesn't mean the narrative is becoming more accurate and this is where I think Artwohl's analysis is lacking. You have two potential sources of distortion. One is the person's own alterations due to emotion or presumptions as to what makes sense. That sort of distortion may not be consciously done. The other source comes from talking or listening to others about the incident. Already, there will be an immediate, if limited, discussion that is needed for the investigation to continue. Beyond that, how is the officer supposed to avoid discussion with his colleagues, family, or friends over a 3 day period? I wonder if the DPD is willing to state that no such discussions will take place with the officer(s) in question until the formal debriefing 3 days after the incident.

    This is what I suggest:
    1). As soon as possible after the incident the officer records his impressions which should not be expected to follow a sequential narrative. (I am not sure how an officer's legal rights would influence such an initial statement or recording.)

    2). 1 day after the incident, the officer is formally interviewed, one on one, by someone who has been trained to elicit a sequential narrative. If we are interested in accurate memory, the officer should not be discussing the incident or watching any video before this interview.

    3). a group debriefing with all the officers involved in the incident. This is more useful to the police themselves rather than being used in court as part of any official police testimony.

    The only reason I see that the DPD should adopt 3 days rather than 1 day is, as many suspect, to coordinate any official testimony with whatever outside evidence arises in that period. An important aspect of policing is gaining the trust of the community. This policy that DPD is adopting undermines that trust.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    icon
    aldestrawk (profile), Dec 4th, 2013 @ 2:28pm

    source of the psychological research on memory

    Alexis Artwohl is a psychologist who has been a law enforcement consultant for many years. She wrote an article in 2002 titled "Perceptual and Memory Distortion
    During Officer-Involved Shootings" that was published as an FBI law enforcement bulletin. In that article she write:

    "These researchers pointed out, and the author agrees, that officers may make more thorough and accurate statements if they wait at least 24 hours, during which time they should get some sleep, before participating in their formal interview with investigators."

    The publication she cites is:
    D. Grossman and B.K. Siddle, Critical Incident Amnesia: The Physiological Basis and Implications of Memory Loss During Extreme Survival Stress Situations (Millstadt, IL: PPCT Management Systems, Inc., 1998).

    Siddle was the founder of PPCT Management Systems (PMS?) which has been the contracting company that has provided TSA with passenger screener training.

    Grossman, among many other publications, co-authored this book: "Stop Teaching Our Kids to Kill: A Call to Action Against TV, Movie and Video Game Violence"

    Both authors are now part of Warrior Science Group. It does not appear that any of these people have written articles for a peer reviewed academic journal. That, in itself, does not invalidate what they write about in articles that are self-published or published by law enforcement related agencies or groups. What it does mean is that one has to dig a bit deeper to find any original research that their articles are based on.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 4th, 2013 @ 2:45pm

    Orwell is proven correct...AGAIN

    "The unfortunate thing here is that Officer Watson's statement really overrode what the video showed," Brown said.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    icon
    That One Guy (profile), Dec 4th, 2013 @ 3:01pm

    Re: Better idea!

    That may have been sarcasm, but I would not be surprised if they attempt that very thing, objecting to any 'new' video evidence that could disprove the 'official statement'.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 4th, 2013 @ 4:50pm

    >Perhaps the saddest aspect of this whole debacle is the fact that Bennett's mother called the police because she was afraid her son (who has mental issues and was off his medication) might hurt himself.

    "Don't worry ma'am; we're on it. No one's allowed to hurt themselves on our watch; that's our job. Don't worry, we're professionals at this sort of thing. Everything else, not so much."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    identicon
    Paris Hilton, Dec 4th, 2013 @ 5:25pm

    Corruption in Dallas PD

    It's clear DPD Chief David Brown should be fired as well. Covering up for your officers in the face of the unaltered truth is not something the public should tolerate or accept. It speaks volumes about police corruption, cover-ups, and intimidation and is not acceptable. Do the right thing and resign, otherwise DPD Chief David Brown should not be a cop, or work in any public capacity. You sir, are a bold faced liar.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 4th, 2013 @ 5:37pm

    Wait for it

    Now all they need is a friendly politician to introduce a new law stating any evidence located more than 72 hours after the crime can be excluded from court at the discretion of the police or DA and the circle will be complete.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38.  
    icon
    Bergman (profile), Dec 4th, 2013 @ 6:51pm

    Re: Re:

    The thing is though, one of the reasons police testimony carries more weight than non-police testimony is because they ARE considered to be a more reliable observer due to their training.

    Rule 1: police are trained observers and therefore more reliable.
    Rule 2: if police prove unreliable, see Rule 1.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39.  
    icon
    Bergman (profile), Dec 4th, 2013 @ 6:52pm

    Re: Re: Better idea!

    We have always been at war with Eastasia.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40.  
    icon
    Bergman (profile), Dec 4th, 2013 @ 7:14pm

    Re:

    "Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States." --- 18 USC 2381.

    The USA is governed of The People, by The People and for The People. If The People are the enemy of the government and the government uses military tactics and weapons, then they are traitors and disqualified from holding any position in the government.

    Given how broad conspiracy and accomplice statutes and case law have gotten of late, it's entirely possible that even the janitors wold be guilty of treason.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 4th, 2013 @ 9:50pm

    "Supposedly, this 72-hour waiting period is better for memory. Chief Brown refers to research by Alexis Artwohl which indicates recall of traumatic events increases over time. Immediate statements may be less accurate."

    That may or may not be true but I think there is a big difference between "he attacked me and I shot him in self defense" and "he did nothing and I shot him for no reason". It maybe the case that the recall of a traumatic event you were involved in increases over time but that's not to say that recall of what you did (vs recall of what happened to or around you out of your control that someone else did) will improve from saying one thing in five minutes and saying something so different and opposite over a long period of time, especially when the one thing is so different as to be "I shot him for no reason" vs "I shot him in self defense".

    Also, these are police officers. They should be trained and able to handle these sorts of situations without being so traumatized that they can't

    A: handle it correctly

    B: have such a bad recall of the situation that they said they did the exact opposite of what they actually did when what they did involved making such an important decision.

    If a cop is really that incapable so as to mistake a harmless situation as being attacked when they weren't, shoot the guy for no reason, remember that they were attacked five minutes later when they clearly weren't, and maybe remember the truth 72 hours later after maybe watching footage showing the truth then this person is probably not qualified to be a cop and should be fired on the grounds of being incompetent for the job and replaced with someone more capable of performing police duty. Before making a decision to shoot someone the cop needs to be in a mental state of awareness and if they are incapable of being in such a state and are so confused and traumatized that they will become forgetful and make bad decisions then they shouldn't be cops.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 4th, 2013 @ 9:56pm

    Re:

    "And every citizen who's been paying attention will know to hang onto their recordings for at least 72 hours, rather than see it twisted into "evidence" that keeps bad cops employed. "

    and this gives officers a chance to look for footage and confiscate it before it gets released. What does that sound like? A police state.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 4th, 2013 @ 10:04pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    So we should either

    A: Not give police statements more weight

    B: Not give them that 72 hour period since they are trained observers.

    it seems contradictory for them to have it both ways.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 4th, 2013 @ 10:17pm

    Also, what ever happened to the idea that cops should be required to provide their own video footage of everything. Cops, being officers of the law charged with handling harmful weapons, being predisposed to get involved in these sorts of situations by the nature of their work, should hold a higher burden than the rest of us (don't like it then don't become a cop). When they approach a situation the cop cars should have their own cameras and when they shoot anyone they should have and release their own uncut and complete footage of everything (all of the footage from each camera) showing exactly what happened. If they can't prove their innocence then maybe they should be presumed guilty and responsible of any deaths they caused. and don't tell me the govt. can't afford cameras, the government can afford very expensive red light cameras and speeding cameras and they can afford to waste money on all sorts of other things when it suits them.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  45.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 4th, 2013 @ 11:12pm

    Re: *Sigh*

    Can we just officially rename police officers as Government Sanctioned Mobsters already?


    There's already a term in the English language for this: "Privateer"
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privateer
    Given that the police are always fighting a war on something or something else... i think the terms applies very well especially considering that sometimes they pocket/make disappear things that they "capture" (e.g. mobile phones, with or without recordings, memory cards (again, with or without recordings), etc.)
    wikiquote:
    The proceeds would be distributed among the privateer's investors, officers, and crew.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  46.  
    icon
    btrussell (profile), Dec 5th, 2013 @ 2:05am

    Re:

    "*"

    Do you have you a patent on this?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  47.  
    icon
    btrussell (profile), Dec 5th, 2013 @ 2:08am

    Re: Re: Times have changed in Texas

    *Pro tip: ...or smart.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  48.  
    icon
    silverscarcat (profile), Dec 5th, 2013 @ 5:56am

    Re: Orwell is proven correct...AGAIN

    He's just a lying sack of crap.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  49.  
    identicon
    The Real Michael, Dec 5th, 2013 @ 6:56am

    This reactionary 'rule change' was done in the interests of self-preservation by the Dallas PD and for no other reason. Perhaps it's time that the people got together and formed their own police force, i.e. not run by the state, for the purpose of defending the public from the hostile forces from within. The People don't need anyone else's permission to do so as We derive the power from ourselves. Do it with the justification that it's for the security of the people. When confronted by the state, the People would say, "We learned it from you."

    Nobody should feel threatened by law enforcement in a free republic.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  50.  
    icon
    ChrisB (profile), Dec 5th, 2013 @ 8:57am

    Re:

    If you disarm the police force, you have to arm the public. Do you want that?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  51.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 5th, 2013 @ 1:46pm

    Fuck the police. They think it's a fucking movie.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  52.  
    identicon
    Kronomex, Dec 5th, 2013 @ 1:49pm

    Dallas, Texas? Say no more.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  53.  
    identicon
    Mr. Jonz, Dec 5th, 2013 @ 2:23pm

    Give them a break, it takes a while to get your lies coordinated.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  54.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 6th, 2013 @ 7:50am

    Re:

    Also, being confronted with an unarmed person doing nothing should not be considered 'traumatic' enough to shoot that person and forget what happened. If the cop considers that traumatic then why is this person even a cop.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  55.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 6th, 2013 @ 7:56am

    Re: Re:

    and don't tell me they won't do it. They'll try to get a warrant under the pretext they are 'looking for evidence' and confiscate whatever footage they can. Or they'll just skip the warrant and go in your house and take what they can under the pretext of looking for evidence and deny everything or claim they had some bogus legal reason to enter without a warrant like they thought they saw an illegal weapon or something in plain view. They'll try and think of something. Worst case scenario they might lose a civil case (unlikely and such a case would be expensive and difficult to bring up against them) but without insanely hard evidence it's very unlikely they will ever get criminal charges brought against the cops.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  56.  
    icon
    Deranged Poster (profile), Dec 6th, 2013 @ 8:56am

    Re: Re:

    HELL YES !!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  57.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 6th, 2013 @ 1:57pm

    Re: Re: *Sigh*

    According to the courts the police have no duty to protect, and the only people they serve are the state.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  58.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 19th, 2013 @ 7:26am

    Re: Re: *Sigh*

    "To Protect and Serve".
    "To Protect and Serve… Themselves." (there - fixed it for you).
    Too often this is the unfortunate case in Dallas. I'm lucky enough to live in the DFW area (sarcasm), and I took extra steps when choosing where to live that I am residing just _outside_ of the Dallas county line. This was _precisely_ to avoid dealing with Dallas county/city government at all levels, which is just a loathsome experience.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  59.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 19th, 2013 @ 7:31am

    Re: Re:

    Yes,
    Radiolab had a _wonderful_ episode on how your memory is a very malleable thing that changes with time. This was a few years ago, so perhaps I'm not remembering it exactly as it was ;)

    http://www.radiolab.org/story/91569-memory-and-forgetting/

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  60.  
    identicon
    Nunya Beeswax, Mar 17th, 2014 @ 9:29pm

    There is TONS of criminal activity within the Dallas Police Department right now, as I type this here. It is real. It is big. And it is scary.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This