Why is it Legal for Cops to Lie?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

They released it 18 months later because they had to. But for 18 months they never once told the media or the family members what they knew to be obviously true from watching the footage. The BS version told by the cop lives on. They're content to let this meme stay alive, suggesting the cop was justified in his actions. This happens all the flippin time actually.

I suspect the city's legal team and policymakers determine what is said and when they release camera footage.

- Doc

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Retired Dallas Assistant Chief Randy Blankenbaker was in charge of the unit that investigated the case. He said the video was clear to him that both officers violated the use of force policy.

"You are responsible for every round that leaves your weapon. You are told that every time you go to the pistol range to qualify,” said Blankenbaker.

If there's a coverup the city sucks at it.

- Doc

[_Morley]

Gotta say that I'm with Cam on this one.

[_EAllusion]

How are they covering for him if they release the video and the cop was charged and arrested?

- Doc

They had information sufficient to arrest and hold him without bail almost immediately after the incident. That did not occur. And the reason that did not occur will result in no consequences to those responsible. Instead a false version of the events given by the police department was allowed to circulate in public for months. They had contradicting information in hand.

What I think you're really missing though is the fact that his partner who also responded, also fired shots into the car, and also lied to investigators about what occurred, was not charged with anything.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I'd like to think EA understands how reviews happen, how legal processes happen, how review boards are set up and conduct their business, and how incidents like these have a process to them. I'd like to think that, but I'm not hopeful he has a basic understanding of how something like that would work. Instead we get his usual reorienting the narrative to show people aren't as smart as he is, and he answers the new problem he just created in order to show everyone how incredibly smug he is brilliant he thinks he is.

*shrugs*

- Doc

[_EAllusion]

I'd like to think EAllusion understands how reviews happen, how legal processes happen, how review boards are set up and conduct their business, and how incidents like these have a process to them. I'd like to think that, but I'm not hopeful he has a basic understanding of how something like that would work. Instead we get his usual reorienting the narrative to show people aren't as smart as he is, and he answers the new problem he just created in order to show everyone how incredibly smug he is brilliant he thinks he is.

*shrugs*

- Doc

So the topic is how the process for evaluating illegal actions for the police is corrupt and allows police to act with relative impunity. As an example of this, we have an officer who participated in the coverup of the murder of someone caught on video who was charged with nothing. Your response is to insist there is a process and anyone who complains about its integrity just must not be aware of it.

Would you care to retract all your other complaints about government actions, both domestic and foreign, that involved a process?

Doc: What do you want? The system works! They eventually arrested him.

Uh, but they didn't arrest the other guy.

Doc: What part of "the system works!" did you not understand?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I dunno. Maybe in some sort of theoretical universe one of us sits on a civilian review board for incidents just like this one?

I'll leave it at that, but EA is woefully wrong on virtually everything he's posted on this thread. I get his desperate need to compensate for whatever it is he feels bad about, but he's wrong. There's a process that dictates, well, the process.

- Doc

[_Dr Exiled]

18 months is too long to have the body cam video come out. The defense doesn't need that long to review the video and interview the persons involved before the public sees it. I would suggest mandatory public access after 90 days. That should give the defense whatever time it needs to review what happened and interview the other cops involved. Good cause should be shown if they need more time.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

18 months is too long to have the body cam video come out. The defense doesn't need that long to review the video and interview the persons involved before the public sees it. I would suggest mandatory public access after 90 days. That should give the defense whatever time it needs to review what happened and interview the other cops involved. Good cause should be shown if they need more time.

You should write the mayor of Dallas. Otherwise, there's nothing stopping a complainant from suing to try to move it along quicker.

- doc

[_Dr Exiled]

18 months is too long to have the body cam video come out. The defense doesn't need that long to review the video and interview the persons involved before the public sees it. I would suggest mandatory public access after 90 days. That should give the defense whatever time it needs to review what happened and interview the other cops involved. Good cause should be shown if they need more time.

You should write the mayor of Dallas. Otherwise, there's nothing stopping a complainant from suing to try to move it along quicker.

- doc

I just wrote the mayor a long letter ....

But don't you think the public should see this footage a lot sooner? These cops were incredibly irresponsible and this along with too many other shoot first incidents warrants major training/philosophical changes. Letting the public at large know how poorly these cops acted and sooner will promote better conduct/change.