Evidence in Chauvin case contradicted first police statement

[Stevicus]

Evidence in Chauvin case contradicted first police statement (apnews.com)

Experts say the problem of inaccurate police reports is widespread. The initial report made no mention of Chauvin's knee in Floyd's neck; it just attributed Floyd's death to "medical distress." A similar report was cited in the Eric Garner case.

PHILADELPHIA (AP) — Moments after former officer Derek Chauvin was convicted of murder in George Floyd’s death, copies of the original Minneapolis police statement began recirculating on social media. It attributed Floyd’s death to “medical distress” and made no mention that the Black man had been pinned to the ground at the neck by Chauvin, or that he’d cried out that he couldn’t breathe.

Many were posting the release to highlight the distance between the initial police narrative and the evidence that led to the conviction Tuesday, including excruciating video shot by a teenage bystander of Chauvin with his knee on Floyd’s neck, even after Floyd had stopped moving.

And while Chauvin’s conviction is a high-profile case of video rebutting initial police statements, criminal justice experts and police accountability advocates say the problem of inaccurate initial reports — especially in fatal police encounters — is widespread.

The article notes a growing chorus of complaints about police misinformation, which is being thwarted by video evidence and body cams.

“If it wasn’t for this 17-year-old who took the video, Derek Chauvin would in all likelihood still be on the police force training officers,” said Andre Johnson, a University of Memphis professor of communication studies. “Sadly, this has been going on for a while, and it’s just now coming to light for a lot of Americans because of video evidence.”

For their part, police officials say they give the most accurate information they can during fast-moving and complicated investigations. But the frequency with which misleading information is published cannot be ignored, critics say.

In 2014, the New York Police Department’s narrative of Eric Garner’s death was that he’d gone into cardiac arrest. It made no mention of an officer’s extended chokehold on Garner, shown in a bystander video that captured repeated pleas that he couldn’t breathe. A grand jury declined to indict the since-fired officer Daniel Pantaleo, who said he was using a legal maneuver called a seat belt.

A year later, then-policeman Michael Slager said he shot Walter Scott because he’d grabbed for the officer’s stun gun. But bystander video of the North Charleston, South Carolina, shooting showed Slager chase Scott after he fled a traffic stop and fatally shoot him in the back. Slager was charged with murder in state court, but released after a hung jury. He later pleaded guilty to federal civil rights violations.

As the chorus of complaints about misinformation on such interactions grows, so do calls for body cameras for police. Roughly 80% of departments with 500 officers or more are now using cameras, but video storage can be costly.

However, police departments still sometimes withhold video footage, refusing to release it to the public.

Official police video is also increasingly showing discrepancies in initial police narratives, though generally the images are withheld for days or sometimes months during internal investigations.

Chicago police were ordered by a court to release dashcam video of the 2014 killing of 17-year-old Laquan McDonald more than 13 months after the shooting. It was initially ruled a justified shooting based on an officer narrative that McDonald had approached police while refusing to drop a knife. The video showed then-officer Jason Van Dyke shooting the teen 16 times as he walked away. Van Dyke was found guilty of second-degree murder.

Johnson said it shouldn’t take video evidence of Black Americans being mistreated or killed for people to support policing changes. He noted that when there is video evidence, it’s often scrutinized and still rejected by some as fake or deceptive.

The implication here is that, without video evidence, police probably would have gotten away with even more killings. Video technology exposes these police departments as liars.

“Why does it have to take the video evidence, the activism, the testimony?” asked Johnson, who is Black. “It takes all that because since the inception of policing, we as Americans have taken the police at their word. But this is nothing new to communities of color.”

“The question is, Have police now begun to lose the default position that they’re truthful?” he said. “I think it’s beginning to erode.”

"Have police now begun to lose the default position that they’re truthful?"

Yes, in my opinion. Of course, many of us already knew the brutality of police departments and their corrupt, mendacious ways. This is why more oversight and transparency are needed. All video feeds should be managed by a third party agency and released immediately upon public demand.

Police and prosecutors in several cities have released body camera videos more quickly after recent fatal encounters. Some experts say that’s in part to quell the potential for large-scale protests against racial injustice and police brutality that took place nationwide after Floyd’s death. Others say it’s a move to regain the trust of the community amid demands for transparency.

Officials in Columbus, Ohio, released initial body camera footage of the fatal police shooting of 16-year-old Ma’Khia Bryant just hours after it happened Tuesday. More footage released Wednesday showed a chaotic scene where the teen charged at two people with a knife.

The release was a departure from the Columbus Division of Police protocol, and it came as the agency faces immense public scrutiny following two other high-profile killings by city police and one by the county sheriff’s department in Columbus since Dec. 3.

Meanwhile, in Tennessee, a district attorney came under fire for initially refusing to release body camera video after an officer shot and killed a student in a Knoxville high school April 12.

Activists, political leaders and media outlets had demanded that Knox County District Attorney Charme Allen’s office release the footage.

Just hours after Knoxville police officer Jonathon Clabough fatally shot 17-year-old Anthony J. Thompson Jr., Tennessee Bureau of Investigation Director David Rausch said the teen had fired shots as officers entered the bathroom, striking an officer.

But, after Allen released the video Wednesday to comply with a judge’s order, it showed Thompson was holding a handgun in his sweatshirt front pocket, fired only one shot and didn’t strike any of the four officers. It was Clabough who accidentally shot fellow Officer Adam Wilson during the scuttle, officials said.

Allen told reporters she had spoken extensively with Thompson’s family, who begged her not to release the video so close to his funeral.

“My preference would be not to do this today, but I’m under pressure from you (the media), from politicians and activist groups,” she said. “I get it. You should be able to see the video. I just think the timing, we have to come up with a better process.”

In Minneapolis, police spokesperson John Elder previously told The Associated Press that he did not visit the scene on May 25, 2020, as he usually does after major events, and he was not able to review body camera footage of Floyd’s death for several hours. Elder released the initial description after being briefed by supervisors, who he learned later also had not been to the scene.

After the bystander video surfaced, the department realized the statement was inaccurate and immediately requested an FBI investigation, he said. By then, state investigators had taken over, and he was unable to issue a corrected statement.

“I will never lie to cover up the actions of somebody else,” Elder said.

 

[Revoltingest]

There can be privacy issues in videos.
Exempli gratia, home invasion by cops is an area
where residents have a legal expectation of privacy.
Automatic release would be irresponsible.

 

[Stevicus]

There can be privacy issues in videos.
Exempli gratia, home invasion by cops is an area
where residents have a legal expectation of privacy.
Automatic release would be irresponsible.

There's also a legal expectation that cops would tell the truth, as lying is irresponsible. But I guess we don't get that either.

 

[Revoltingest]

There's also a legal expectation that cops would tell the truth, as lying is irresponsible. But I guess we don't get that either.

It would be useful if cops who lied regarding material
matters were severely sanctioned. Body camera
footage can be released, but rights of others should
be protected in the process.
Consider....
"You've got the wrong house": Video shows Chicago police handcuffing innocent naked woman during raid on wrong apartment
Would you force videos of this to be released
without addressing the victim's concerns?
I'd tread carefully.

 

[Stevicus]

It would be useful if cops who lied regarding material
matters were severely sanctioned. Body camera
footage can be released, but rights of others should
be protected in the process.
Consider....
"You've got the wrong house": Video shows Chicago police handcuffing innocent naked woman during raid on wrong apartment
Would you force videos of this to be released
without addressing the victim's concerns?
I'd tread carefully.

Well, sure, they obviously would have to use some discretion and blur out some portions of the video. That's to be expected, but the key thing is that there can be no covering up of police misconduct.

I don't think the police are that concerned about privacy anyway. In the Atlanta bomber case, they had no compunction about implicating an innocent man and siccing the media on him. So, they do it when they think it will serve their interests, which means that the only reason they withhold anything is that they're attempting to cover up their own misdeeds.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, sure, they obviously would have to use some discretion and blur out some portions of the video. That's to be expected, but the key thing is that there can be no covering up of police misconduct.

Aye, no cover-up....except that civilians should
be allowed to cover up, ie, dress appropriately.

I don't think the police are that concerned about privacy anyway. In the Atlanta bomber case, they had no compunction about implicating an innocent man and siccing the media on him. So, they do it when they think it will serve their interests, which means that the only reason they withhold anything is that they're attempting to cover up their own misdeeds.

Many cops have no empathy for civilians.
We're the enemy, & less than human.

 

[Stevicus]

Aye, no cover-up....except that civilians should
be allowed to cover up, ie, dress appropriately.

If it were me, I'd rather the cops be exposed for misconduct, even if it means that I might be exposed. I'd probably even get love letters from adoring fans. I have nothing to hide.

Many cops have no empathy for civilians.
We're the enemy, & less than human.

That's exactly the reason they need more civilian oversight.

 

[Polymath257]

It is also possible that video will contain evidence that should not be released immediately. The release can jeopardize the court proceedings in some cases.

That said, the culture that allows for cops to file false or misleading reports is one that needs to change. Holding those cops that file bad reports responsible is basic.

In some ways, it should be a strict honor system: if anyone knows of the transgression and does not report it, they are also held responsible. Covering up should be punished as well as the original false report. Destruction of evidence is another aspect that should be punished.

 

[Revoltingest]

If it were me, I'd rather the cops be exposed for misconduct, even if it means that I might be exposed. I'd probably even get love letters from adoring fans. I have nothing to hide.

That would be your personal choice.
Others won't feel that way, & would want their privacy protected.

 

[Revoltingest]

It is also possible that video will contain evidence that should not be released immediately. The release can jeopardize the court proceedings in some cases.

That said, the culture that allows for cops to file false or misleading reports is one that needs to change. Holding those cops that file bad reports responsible is basic.

In some ways, it should be a strict honor system: if anyone knows of the transgression and does not report it, they are also held responsible. Covering up should be punished as well as the original false report. Destruction of evidence is another aspect that should be punished.

One word of caution about cops lying.
In some circumstances, eg, a chase, perception of reality
is unreliable, as is subsequent memory. This should be
considered.

As usual, I'm remembering a Hidden Brain podcast that
I can't locate on the web.

 

[Stevicus]

That would be your personal choice.
Others won't feel that way, & would want their privacy protected.

Well, okay, that's a point. How about this: The individual civilians in the video would get to make the choice as to whether it should be released. The video would be in the custody of a third-party agency, but the police wouldn't get to make the choice to withhold it.

 

[Stevicus]

It is also possible that video will contain evidence that should not be released immediately. The release can jeopardize the court proceedings in some cases.

That said, the culture that allows for cops to file false or misleading reports is one that needs to change. Holding those cops that file bad reports responsible is basic.

In some ways, it should be a strict honor system: if anyone knows of the transgression and does not report it, they are also held responsible. Covering up should be punished as well as the original false report. Destruction of evidence is another aspect that should be punished.

Well, at the very least, such evidence should be held by a neutral third party agency, not directly controlled by the police department.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, okay, that's a point. How about this: The individual civilians in the video would get to make the choice as to whether it should be released. The video would be in the custody of a third-party agency, but the police wouldn't get to make the choice to withhold it.

Civilians should have some say regarding their rights,
but I wouldn't grant them unconditional veto power
regarding release.

 

[Polymath257]

Well, at the very least, such evidence should be held by a neutral third party agency, not directly controlled by the police department.

It always gets to an issue of 'who watches the watchers'. Neutral third parties are unlikely to *remain* neutral because they interact on a daily basis with those they oversee. Also, it will become common to choose the 'neutral third parties' from former cops, etc.

 

[Stevicus]

It always gets to an issue of 'who watches the watchers'. Neutral third parties are unlikely to *remain* neutral because they interact on a daily basis with those they oversee. Also, it will become common to choose the 'neutral third parties' from former cops, etc.

Yes, I suppose there's no perfect solution out there. But it just burns me up to hear that there's such widespread lying by police in their reports on these incidents. Having video footage available is a way of exposing these lies, yet police departments withhold or unreasonably delay release of such footage, which would indicate a culture of secrecy and a lack of transparency.

They're supposed to be working for us. We're their employers, and if I had an employee who was lying to me, I'd want to know about it.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, I suppose there's no perfect solution out there. But it just burns me up to hear that there's such widespread lying by police in their reports on these incidents. Having video footage available is a way of exposing these lies, yet police departments withhold or unreasonably delay release of such footage, which would indicate a culture of secrecy and a lack of transparency.

They're supposed to be working for us. We're their employers, and if I had an employee who was lying to me, I'd want to know about it.

And I completely agree. The point is that any system we put into place will eventually be corrupted. that is the nature of oversight. But that doesn't mean oversight is useless or irrelevant. It just means we need to pay attention and not expect quick or permanent fixes.

 

[sun rise]

My general view is that video and EVERYTHING else should be under the same process. I'd be happy with a statement such as "we are investigating including reviewing a video and will issue a statement in 48 hours (or a week)".

That avoids the initial claim, argument about video, claim revised etc that we see repeatedly. The date certain is necessary to avoid the demand/refusal cycle.

The statement could be "we're still investigating but we've checked and there's no reason to withhold the video." Or "the naked women in our bodycam asked that we not release the video" - In other words release or tell us why.

Many cops have no empathy for civilians.
We're the enemy, & less than human.

I don't know if it's many but it's certainly 'too many'.

 

[sun rise]

I just checked the news and found this Opinion: After George Floyd's Death, A Press Release Obscured A Police Murder

In other words, get the cops statement and watch the video. THEN say something.

 

[sun rise]

And another story that it was not hate, we're the enemy, but indifference

Derek Chauvin: Why the look on his face was something worse than hate - CNN

 

[Kooky]

It would be useful if cops who lied regarding material
matters were severely sanctioned. Body camera
footage can be released, but rights of others should
be protected in the process.
Consider....
"You've got the wrong house": Video shows Chicago police handcuffing innocent naked woman during raid on wrong apartment
Would you force videos of this to be released
without addressing the victim's concerns?
I'd tread carefully.

Do suspects actually enjoy such legal protection of their image in the US, or is this argument entirely hypothetical?