steve09ru Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 (edited) In your opinion, how does that information alter this case, let alone rise to the level of "false reporting"? I'll also ask you, how do you feel about the state police feeding fake video to the press? I'll let you re-read the post. False Reporting is not including the actual encounter of the instance. Have you seen the full video? Not the one in the article that leaves everything out leading up to it? And, what 'fake video' was fed to the press? The one in the article I'm referencing was edited to leave out the actual dashcam footage. Edited July 23, 2015 by steve09ru Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 In your opinion, how does that information alter this case, let alone rise to the level of "false reporting"? I'll also ask you, how do you feel about the state police feeding fake video to the press? In a serious moment, kind of pertaining to your question, I would like to see a thread discussing this. You can't feed anything to the press without fearing trial by the media. How do you stop the runaway train of reporting of good/bad information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamebreaker Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 What's hurting this country and is causing more issues is the reporting and the media such as the below: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/07/21/much-too-early-to-call-jail-cell-hanging-death-of-sandra-bland-suicide-da-says/ The videos completely edit out the part of the PO stating that he is giving a warning and she'd be on her way. We really need to focus on media rights forcing issues and leaving things out when the information is available to report. Reporters, and media outlets, need to be held accountable for false reports. Was the PO in the right in asking her to remove herself from her car? No, probably not. But it's ridiculous that we allow the media so much wiggle room without any consequences for false reporting. Why not play the whole video? The PO was wrong either way in forcing the removal from the vehicle. There are many instances of false reportings where it ruins people's lives and reputations and no one is held responsible. Of course it's not the main issue but one that needs to be addressed. Freedom of the Press and Freedom of Speech are 2 different things and the media is starting to combine these two things into one where they can report complete BS or half of a story and not be held accountable. I must've watched the unedited version of the video, because I saw the part when he said she was getting a warning...but when he said it, it was after he was already arresting her for no reason. You say he probably shouldn't have asked her to leave the vehicle. Considering how he opened her car door and put his hands on her, because she wouldn't stop exercising her right to smoke a cigarette in her car, I would say that probably is more like a definitely. I find it, curious, she ends up dead of a "suicide" in police custody when she kept saying she couldn't wait to take them to court over this. Does that sound like someone who is willing to take their own life as soon as they are left alone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve09ru Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 In a serious moment, kind of pertaining to your question, I would like to see a thread discussing this. You can't feed anything to the press without fearing trial by the media. How do you stop the runaway train of reporting of good/bad information. The full dashcam video was released, the WP decided to alter it from the full account, leaving out the portion of the PO saying it was only a warning and she'd be on her way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRAVEONAWARPATH Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 (edited) jesseWilliams. @iJesseWilliams Coroner just texted #SandraBland family atty: they messed up autopsy & "have to do another one. Edited July 23, 2015 by BRAVEONAWARPATH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 The full dashcam video was released, the WP decided to alter it from the full account, leaving out the portion of the PO saying it was only a warning and she'd be on her way. Exactly my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Harris Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 But,,but, chip. ...If you make that point, it means that you think the cops wye completely justified and probably actually showed restraint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve09ru Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 Exactly my point. Sorry just use to the 'everything bad' mentality in here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 The full dashcam video was released, the WP decided to alter it from the full account, leaving out the portion of the PO saying it was only a warning and she'd be on her way. 1). Was the full video released? Cause, if you read the last page, it sure looks like the state police released 52 minutes of video which have been edited, and had information removed. (Like, apparently, all time stamps from the video). 2). And can you please tell us which part of the video which the WP removed, would have altered the story? I mean, if there's video of her taking a swing at the cop, before he lays a hand on her, then that sure changes the story. But I haven't heard about any such scene. Please tell us, what part of this supposedly unedited video, that you've seen, justifies what the officer did? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 But,,but, chip. ...If you make that point, it means that you think the cops wye completely justified and probably actually showed restraint. You gotta print what sells, regardless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve09ru Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 (edited) 1). Was the full video released? Cause, if you read the last page, it sure looks like the state police released 52 minutes of video which have been edited, and had information removed. (Like, apparently, all time stamps from the video). 2). And can you please tell us which part of the video which the WP removed, would have altered the story? I mean, if there's video of her taking a swing at the cop, before he lays a hand on her, then that sure changes the story. But I haven't heard about any such scene. Please tell us, what part of this supposedly unedited video, that you've seen, justifies what the officer did? Again, Larry, you didn't read what I said (not uncommon). Here's a tweet posted that has circulated (on the last page). Did you see this in the video as well? Shaun King @ShaunKing Witness said #SandraBland was pulled THROUGH HER WINDOW and slammed by police after being pulled over for not using a turn signal. What I said, in the video I saw (again stated in my post), is that the PO stated that she was given a warning. I'll look around for other videos from the one I saw, but again, I'm referencing the video I saw. Edited July 23, 2015 by steve09ru Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamebreaker Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 (edited) Did he tell Sandra Bland she was getting a warning for the traffic violation before or after he violated her rights? I ask this because I watched a 50+ min video that didn't show him even mentioning a warning until he had her handcuffed outside the vehicle, and they'd both clearly made some poor choices at that point. Edited July 23, 2015 by Gamebreaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve09ru Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 The couple videos I saw earlier in the day showed it; not sure if those were the 'edited' ones that Larry's mentioning. I've only seen those and the one from that WP link. Finishing up work now so may have to browse a bit. More than happy to admit if I'm wrong but just saying from what I've seen so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 I must've watched the unedited version of the video, because I saw the part when he said she was getting a warning...but when he said it, it was after he was already arresting her for no reason. You say he probably shouldn't have asked her to leave the vehicle. Considering how he opened her car door and put his hands on her, because she wouldn't stop exercising her right to smoke a cigarette in her car, I would say that probably is more like a definitely. I find it, curious, she ends up dead of a "suicide" in police custody when she kept saying she couldn't wait to take them to court over this. Does that sound like someone who is willing to take their own life as soon as they are left alone? she was arrested for obstruction when she would not exit the vehicle as requested he opened the door after she refused that request she refused to exit after he opened the door and tried to assist her out he then threatened to tase her if she did not comply and on and on ...... seems a theme , probably didn't comply with the ins regs either laws are really just suggestions 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRAVEONAWARPATH Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 (edited) Click to read the rest http://www.wbez.org/news/city-fires-investigator-who-found-cops-fault-shootings-112423 City fires investigator who found cops at fault in shootings A Chicago investigator who determined that several civilian shootings by police officers were unjustified was fired after resisting orders to reverse those findings, according to internal records of his agency obtained by WBEZ. Scott M. Ando, chief administrator of the city’s Independent Police Review Authority, informed its staff in a July 9 email that the agency no longer employed supervising investigator Lorenzo Davis, 65, a former Chicago police commander. IPRA investigates police-brutality complaints and recommends any punishment. Davis’s termination came less than two weeks after top IPRA officials, evaluating Davis’s job performance, accused him of “a clear bias against the police” and called him “the only supervisor at IPRA who resists making requested changes as directed by management in order to reflect the correct finding with respect to OIS,” as officer-involved shootings are known in the agency. Since its 2007 creation, IPRA has investigated nearly 400 civilian shootings by police and found one to be unjustified. Davis served in the police department for 23 years. As a commander, he headed detective units, the department’s Austin district and, finally, its public-housing unit. He retired from the department in 2004. “I did not like the direction the police department had taken,” Davis said. “It appeared that officers were doing whatever they wanted to do. The discipline was no longer there.” After leaving the department, Davis says, he kept thinking about police conduct, especially shootings. Davis, who had a law degree, says he wondered how often the officers really faced life-threatening dangers that would justify deadly force.“If there are a few bad police officers who have committed some shootings that are unnecessary or bad then it erodes the public’s confidence in all the other police officers out there,” Davis said.A series of police-conduct scandals, meanwhile, led Mayor Richard M. Daley to move a unit called the Office of Professional Standards from the police department to his direct control. He renamed the unit the Independent Police Review Authority.IPRA hired Davis as an investigator in 2008. Two years later, around the time he completed a master’s degree in criminal justice, IPRA promoted him to lead a team of five investigators. Through most of his IPRA tenure, Davis’s performance evaluations showered him with praise. They called him an “effective leader” and “excellent team player.” The final evaluation, issued June 26, said he “is clearly not a team player.”Davis, who earned $93,024 a year in the job, says he applied at different points for higher IPRA posts, including chief administrator. He says getting passed over for them did not affect his performance.“Things began to turn sour, I would say, within the last year,” Davis said. “Chief Administrator Ando began to say that he wanted me to change my findings.” Edited July 23, 2015 by BRAVEONAWARPATH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamebreaker Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 she was arrested for obstruction when she would not exit the vehicle as requested he opened the door after she refused that request she refused to exit after he opened the door and tried to assist her out he then threatened to tase her if she did not comply and on and on ...... seems a theme , probably didn't comply with the ins regs either laws are really just suggestions Seth Stoughton, a University of South Carolina law professor and former Florida police officer, said Enicinia missed several opportunities to de-escalate tension and should have explained in calmer tones what he was doing and why. “He certainly has the legal authority to get her to step out of the car,” Stoughton said. “But in this case, if he is exercising his authority because she defying his direction to put out the cigarette, then that is more based on his ego than public safety.... Just because it is legal to order her out of the car doesn't make it a professional approach in modern policing." http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-sandra-bland-arrest-experts-20150722-story.html#page=1 This goes back to what I wrote earlier about authority and respect. You don't get respect from citizens when you abuse your authority, neither do you deserve it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 I agree respect is a two way street http://www.texastribune.org/2015/07/22/dps-sandra-bland-video-wasnt-doctored/ Editor's note: This story has been updated throughout. As she was being booked into the Waller County Jail following her arrest on July 10, Sandra Bland apparently told officers she had attempted suicide earlier this year, records released on Wednesday show. According to the mental health questionnaire filled out by the Waller County Sheriff's office during her booking, a deputy marked "yes" to the question: "Have you ever attempted suicide?" The deputy also wrote "Lost Baby" and "2015" in the boxes next to that answer. However, on a computerized summary of her intake form, "No" appears in response to the question: "Attempted suicide?" the request to be free of smoke while performing his duty seems reasonable in light of the fact they can forbid me to smoke in my own damn office. of course reasonable seems perverted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 In a serious moment, kind of pertaining to your question, I would like to see a thread discussing this. You can't feed anything to the press without fearing trial by the media. How do you stop the runaway train of reporting of good/bad information. REALLY difficult. I worked on the student newspaper in college, and went to a bunch of conferences with professional expert speakers and work shops covering ethics and practices. This was a common topic. The thing is, news is still a competitive business where breaking news and sensational stories translate to eyes on the page/screen and advertising dollars. In the race to be first with the story, news organizations *try* to get it right but everyone from witnesses to police tend to pass on lots of false leads and info because *they* haven't actually figured out what happened yet and taking the time to properly vet the story means being last with it. Television news is horrible because not only are they racing to get info out, the on air reporters are pretty much just talking heads and even the ones who are real journalists can only report what they are fed without giving it a second thought. The problem is compounded once the first trusted news source reports false info because now it is "confirmed" to everyone else and it spreads like wild fire. Next thing you know some conspiracy theorist is claiming a cover up when stores are retracted and change once the real truth comes out. As a basic rule I expect lots of mistakes in any breaking news story. I guess what I'm saying is that we would get better milage educating viewers about how to view the news rather than expecting more from the news. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 she was arrested for obstruction when she would not exit the vehicle as requested he opened the door after she refused that request she refused to exit after he opened the door and tried to assist her out he then threatened to tase her if she did not comply and on and on ...... seems a theme , probably didn't comply with the ins regs either laws are really just suggestions LOL. "Obstruction" (as well as resisting arrest) often mean whatever the cop doing the arresting wants it to mean. Just because a person has a badge and a gun doesn't mean you have to do whatever they say. They are bound by laws just like everyone else. Here is a video of a defense attorney (who you can be sure knows the law better than the cops) being arrested for "resisting arrest." http://abovethelaw.com/2015/01/lawyer-arrested-for-doing-her-job/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 arrested for resisting arrest. Great circular logic (especially considering she did not resist the arrest for resisting arrest). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 (edited) arrested for resisting arrest. Great circular logic (especially considering she did not resist the arrest for resisting arrest). She actually ENCOURAGED them to arrest her, which is the opposite of resisting. Cop: If you continue with this, I'll arrest you for resisting arrest. Attorney: Please do. /handcuffs Edit: Needless to say, charges were never filed against her, and she filed a complaint against the investigator (as she should). http://www.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2015/02/05/jami-tillotson-prosecutors-wont-file-charges-against-public-defender-who-was-arrested-at-court-during-spat-with-cop Edited July 23, 2015 by PleaseBlitz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 (edited) She actually ENCOURAGED them to arrest her, which is the opposite of resisting. Cop: If you continue with this, I'll arrest you for resisting arrest. Attorney: Please do. /handcuffs Edit: Needless to say, charges were never filed against her, and she filed a complaint against the investigator (as she should). http://www.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2015/02/05/jami-tillotson-prosecutors-wont-file-charges-against-public-defender-who-was-arrested-at-court-during-spat-with-cop Not good enough. I want him tried for false arrest. Edited July 23, 2015 by PokerPacker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Harris Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 LOL. "Obstruction" (as well as resisting arrest) often mean whatever the cop doing the arresting wants it to mean. Just because a person has a badge and a gun doesn't mean you have to do whatever they say. They are bound by laws just like everyone else. Here is a video of a defense attorney (who you can be sure knows the law better than the cops) being arrested for "resisting arrest." https://youtu.be/7qhzdxYnwhg http://abovethelaw.com/2015/01/lawyer-arrested-for-doing-her-job/ But she's white? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 But she's white?Yeah, but she was helping black people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 But she's white? She was defending a black man (in the background in the video) who's rights the cops wanted to violate, so it's almost as good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now