|
Police body cameras are absolutely worthless if the cops and prosecutors won't show the videos to the public when cops who are wearing body cameras commit crimes.
The cops give us the line of BS that the body cameras will stop police crimes. And that's complete rubbish when the cops refuse to release videos of cops who are accused of committing crimes. The other problem is cops are NOT required to turn the body cameras on 24/7, so most police crimes are not videotaped. Remember back before the LAPD beat the living sh*t out of Rodney King. Back in those days the cops gave us the line of BS that all cops were 100% honest and it was impossible for cops to commit crime. And the public was dumb enough to buy that line of BS. After Rodney King's beating was video taped, now the police just give us the usual lie that the cops had to do it because they "feared for their lives" and then refuse to release the videos.
Daniel Shaver widow wants Mesa police video released: 'People need to see the truth' Garrett Mitchell, The Republic | azcentral.com 10:03 a.m. MST April 27, 2016 The widow of the victim and the prosecutor haven't always been on the same page in the case of a Texas man's shooting death by police. A battle over whether body-camera footage should be released and whether a pretrial offer should be made to the Mesa police officer charged have been flash points between widow Laney Sweet and Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery. As a hearing looms next week on whether a version of the video should be released, Sweet said it's her priority to have it made public to advocate justice for Daniel Shaver, who was fatally shot by a then-Mesa police officer as Shaver was crawling toward police at a Mesa La Quinta Inn and Suites. Philip "Mitch" Brailsford, who has been fired from the force, faces a second-degree murder charge. Sweet expressed frustration about the lack of details made available to the public in the first two months after the Jan. 18 shooting, including the circumstances surrounding her husband's death. She said she has been denied an opportunity to review the footage because of prosecutors' fear that she would speak out. Montgomery said he understands Sweet's stance but believes release of the video of Shaver's death only would tamper with prosecution of the case. The County Attorney's Office prides itself on a victim-centric focus, he said. Sweet's attorney filed a motion on her behalf seeking a release of the sealed video, and several media companies, including the parent of The Arizona Republic and azcentral.com, have made a similar request. Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Sam Myers will consider the motions May 4. Quotes from both offer insight on their divergent ideas of pursuing justice. Sweet: "People need to see the truth." Montgomery: "There's really nothing more to be gained, other than the shock value." As the high-profile case continues, both Montgomery and Sweet are likely to continue as active participants who agree to disagree. Sweet: I shouldn't 'be begging for the right thing to be done' Sweet contends that Montgomery has withheld information from her by not producing the video. She said she was told early on that she had to agree to remain publicly silent if she were to watch the footage. Instead, she has remained a vocal critic of the county attorney and the case on social media, where she has offered insight on her life with Shaver and her pursuit of justice. On March 30, Sweet uploaded an abridged audio recording of a 2½-hour March 14 meeting between her and county prosecutors the day before Brailsford's initial court appearance. Sweet said she secretly recorded the conversation for her own records as she was hearing a lot of information for the first time and was under the impression she would be able to watch the footage. But something didn't seem right to her, she said. She said it felt like she was added to the meeting as a formality, not actually to be consulted in the case going forward. The 15-minute recording offers some insight on the exchange in which it was ultimately decided Sweet would not watch the footage to avoid being under a gag order. "If you haven't seen it, there's no risk of you saying something that could become problematic that we have to address to the court and defense ... I think if you watch the video, though, there's a risk that you'll wind up talking about what's in the video and miscommunicate," Montgomery told Sweet about 10 minutes in. "...There are ethical rules that restrict what we can do as prosecutors and what we can say." Making the video of Brailsford shooting her husband public is of the utmost importance to Sweet as a way to show the "obvious" disregard for human life that took place, she said. Even though she brought a $35 million wrongful death lawsuit against the city of Mesa in early March, it's not really on her mind, she said. "I want justice; the police officer who murdered him needs to be behind bars. That's my priority," she told The Arizona Republic on April 20. "What's important is getting a plea deal stopped, getting the video released and justice." "My attorneys and myself are working toward fighting for justice against a police department that has not been forthcoming with information and ultimately the prosecution and the county attorney is trying to withhold information as well," Sweet said. "I don't know how any of this is supposed to feel but I don't think that I, as a victim, should be begging for the right thing to just be done. "People need to see the truth." The Maricopa County Attorney's Office has argued that the public release of the body-camera footage would affect the jury pool and the fairness of an impending trial. A 12-page supplemental report of the video's content was released by Mesa police late last month, which prosecutors said accurately and adequately represented what the video showed. However, there is a "canyon-wide schism between a verbal description of a murder and the viewing of a murder," according to prosecutors' objection to the motions to release the video. "There's really nothing more to be gained, other than the shock value," Montgomery said at an April 13 news conference. "Everything that is in the video has been described in a police report, so I don't see any further real value other than the salacious nature of it." Prosecutors intend to play the video as evidence at trial, he said. “There's really nothing more to be gained, other than the shock value.” Bill Montgomery Montgomery briefly addressed Sweet's release of her secret recordings, saying Sweet's action was not illegal. He described the recorded encounter as a personal meeting. A spokesman for the County Attorney's Office said that the office works tirelessly to ensure victims have their rights respected and upheld. In late March, Montgomery spoke about his experience in working with families who have lost loved ones as the result of violence. Any case's result won't be satisfactory in their eyes, he said. "The pain is something that as prosecutors we can't take away. The best we can try to do is to achieve a measure of justice that's gonna be imperfect," he said. "This is a human system. And perfect justice would be returning and restoring their lost loved one, and we can't do that. So, we're going to fall short. Beyond it, we do the best we can with a criminal-justice system." Another issue of contention involves Sweet's claims that Brailsford has received unjustified preferential treatment. After the former officer’s first court hearing March 15, Sweet told reporters outside the courthouse that discussions of a sweetheart plea deal were underway before her meeting with the county attorney. Sweet said the possibility of Brailsford being sentenced to a lesser charge felt like she was "slapped in the face.” Montgomery maintained that the 2 1/2-hour long March 14 meeting with Sweet was meant to discuss the entire scope of the case and its potential outcomes and that he addressed every question and concern the afternoon before anything was mentioned to the defense. “There’s nothing that’s been communicated to the defense that the victims were not provided an opportunity to be heard on,” Montgomery said during a March 23 news conference. “For the victim or a victim’s representative to assert that they didn’t have an opportunity to review anything or ask questions is completely false.” He said that his office almost always will aim to seek a "potential resolution short of trial" with the defense. Jerry Cobb, Maricopa County Attorney's Office spokesman, said victims do not have any veto power of a potential plea deal, but they are consulted and can give input on what is being done in the case. Montgomery acknowledged Sweet’s grief and hurt were palpable, but said it would be an ignorant conclusion to assume Brailsford has received preferential treatment because he was a police officer. “I will not fault the victim for what they feel, but from a factual standpoint, there is nothing objective to support any kind of an assertion that just because of this particular defendant’s status as a police officer that we’re handling the case any differently. I mean, for heaven’s sakes, we filed a charge of second-degree murder and (are) seeking to resolve the case in as just a manner as we can. (It) is consistent with what we do in virtually every case we handle.” Media outlets objection to video seal While Sweet argues the seal violates her victim's rights, The Arizona Republic and five other local media outlets also have filed a motion in Maricopa County Superior Court to protest the court order sealing the body-cam video. Prosecutors and defense attorneys responded that the request from The Republic, 12 News, ABC 15, CBS 5, 3TV and the Associated Press was a "voyeuristic and sensational" pursuit. The media entities said in their filing that a judge may first review the video prior to its release and redact any portions that would be too invasive. The outlets contest that some of the footage is public record unless attorneys can prove an "overriding public interest in concealing the videos from the public." The oral argument is scheduled for May 4 to determine if the seal is to remain. Brailsford is expected to return to court for a preliminary hearing May 16 and 17. More articles on the murder of Daniel Shaver by the Mesa Police
|