Oakland officer videotapes his killing of suspect

[Twin Fist]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/10/03/MNGR1LBKEQ.DTL


In a Bay Area first, a fatal shooting by police in East Oakland was captured on video - not by a bystander with a camcorder or a smart phone but by the officer himself, who wore a city-issued camera on his chest.
Oakland police officials will not say what the footage from Sept. 25 depicts, citing an ongoing investigation. But the fact that the shooting was captured at all illustrates a profound change in law enforcement, with officers increasingly strapping on cameras along with their guns, radios and handcuffs.


Read more: [URL]http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/10/02/MNGR1LBKEQ.DTL#ixzz1Zk2lfGAy[/URL]

 

[JohnEdward]

As California goes am surprised there hasn't A) been a riot B) the officer isn't in jail.

 

[oftheherd1]

Thanks for the link; it was an interesting read. Especially as to whether or not an officer should be allowed to view the video before making a statement. My first thought is that no you should not, as long as you allow the officer the opportunity to view the video afterward and make amendments to his statement if he chooses to do so.

That may sound like an opportunity for an officer to change his story to fit the video, and with a person who feels he did wrong, that might be true. However, it must be remembered that the officer is in a stressful situation. First he has shot (perhaps fatally) someone, and then he comes under departmental and pubic scrutiny. Now you start asking him questions that may profoundly effect his future life.

Trained police officer or not, used to stressful situations or not, if he is human and a witness, there are things he may forget, or mix up with another situation. It happens with non-police witnesses and it can happen with police when they are witnesses. Hopefully not as often, but it can happen nonetheless. Will it help a policeman who knew at the time he was doing wrong? It might. Might it help an honest policeman who had to make many split-second decisions, remember more of what really happened?

Remember, our system of justice considers it better for a law breaker to get off that an innocent person go to jai.

 

[MA-Caver]

Thanks for the link; it was an interesting read. Especially as to whether or not an officer should be allowed to view the video before making a statement. My first thought is that no you should not, as long as you allow the officer the opportunity to view the video afterward and make amendments to his statement if he chooses to do so.

That may sound like an opportunity for an officer to change his story to fit the video, and with a person who feels he did wrong, that might be true. However, it must be remembered that the officer is in a stressful situation. First he has shot (perhaps fatally) someone, and then he comes under departmental and pubic scrutiny. Now you start asking him questions that may profoundly effect his future life.

Trained police officer or not, used to stressful situations or not, if he is human and a witness, there are things he may forget, or mix up with another situation. It happens with non-police witnesses and it can happen with police when they are witnesses. Hopefully not as often, but it can happen nonetheless. Will it help a policeman who knew at the time he was doing wrong? It might. Might it help an honest policeman who had to make many split-second decisions, remember more of what really happened?

Remember, our system of justice considers it better for a law breaker to get off that an innocent person go to jai.

I would let the officer see the video AFTER he gives his sworn statement but deny him an opportunity to change his story. Officers are supposed to be trained observers and depending upon how long this one has been on the force he should have logged hours of writing reports of various incidents he was engaged/involved in. So he should have the story down correct... the first time around. An average citizen maybe.
Either way it's far too easy to say one thing and then see what actually happened and then go back and say "oh yeah, I meant after I fired at him first he turned and shot back and then I returned fire which one of the rounds killed him."
umm no, forget it.
Granted under stress it's easy to overlook piddling details and glaring omissions because the point of focus has narrowed to a pin-point, but again, taking time to reflect (i.e. enroute to station-house and waiting for questioning) one has time to recall those little things with remarkable clarity. It's choosing to reveal those "little details" that makes the difference in a witness' testimony.