For my own internal consistency, neither a prosecutor, nor a court nor a jury should trust anything the cops said or wrote in a police report from the point the cameras were turned off. And the cops should be disciplined.
citizens are held to a higher liability in court than those who administer the law for example, if you delete video in a lawsuit, they are allowed to assume the worst
Been on a jury. They wouldn't say a word about anyone turning off a camera. The lawyers have turned it into a process for extracting money rather than a process for determining truth.
If you or I are on a jury when this happens, absolutely assume innocence of a citizen and guilt of an officer if the officer turns the camera off. I don't know what the law says about it, but I do know what my conscience is and how I would vote.
We had a Seargeant like that at my agency. He committed Domestic Violence battery on his teenage daughter, transported alcohol in a Sheriff's office vehicle, and sexually harassed female employees (just to name a few of his more memorable hits). But, no one dared touch him or criticize him. He was a clinical narcissist with impressive anger management issues and was also a close personnel friend of a Sheriff's Office Major who was best friends with the Sheriff. Not only did he never loses so much as a stripe, but he was also never substantially punished in any way I know of. He retired with 30 years of service a full 100% pension, a half-million DROP Program dollars, and the thanks of a grateful State of Florida. You just can't make this stuff up. I still shake my head to this day.
Not disturbing at all. Unprofessional? Sure. Disturbing? No. If your definition of disturbing is this, then you have lived an extremely sheltered life. You act the fool in public, expect to be mocked.
All of it. Maybe he was having a medical issue and was overheating and attempting to undress because of overheating. No reason to mock ANYONE when you don't know what's happening.
@@ObservationofLimits Disturbing is killing someone and dressing in their skin and singing show tunes. People are too damn thin skinned these days. Joking about something odd happening is not disturbing, that's human nature. You must be a laugh riot at parties or comedy shows. Jokes and comedy is all about mocking the things we all do and are guilty of. Mocking is healthy! I am mocking you right now, and it feels GOOD! Not because i wish you ill, but because it's funny. I guarantee you if you find me half naked and drunk in the street, and you mock me, i will find it hilarious!
These cops screwed up in the worst way. Either treat him like any other suspect, or play dumb and find a way to subtly let your brother in blue off the hook; but to charge him while also turning off body cams and deferring to him is just a bad look. As Mike advised Walter White, no half measures.
There was another video where the cops came to the scene of an accident where the driver was already in his wife's car (his truck being totalled). When they found out that he was a city councilman, they let her drive him home because they didn't have evidence of him actually driving the truck. Even though he fully admitted it, was drinking earlier, and was pretty waisted on scene.
@@adamf663 Not necessarily criminal. Other than warrants and domestic violence, cops, legally speaking, enjoy a considerable amount of discretion when it comes to making arrests. (Which is why you should never buy their “I don’t make laws, I just enforce them” line). As Jimmy McNulty once put it, the cop on patrol is the one true dictatorship in America. Of course, cops who willfully refused to make obvious arrests would likely get fired, but outside of a few crimes, it wouldn’t necessarily rise to a criminal act.
That chief and any cop who turns off their body cam needs to be fired and lifetime banned from ever working in law enforcement anywhere ever again. The only way we get better cops is zero tolerance for this shit.
It would help if only one person at the precinct who is not a patrolman has the username and password to access the firmware within the bodycam to turn it off. This way an officer would have to go back to the precinct, hand it to the bodycam management officer, and that officer would have to log in with his/her username and password to do so, at which time the event is logged by the firmware and uploaded to the internet cloud.
At the very least, any time that a cop turns their camera off, that should immediately disqualify that footage for use in a courtroom. How is that not premedatative tampering of evidence?
I sort of agree, but I think it would be better to set a precedent that any evidence that is not backed up by footage (video+sound) cannot be entered as evidence. A second precedent would be that if the suspect and the LEO say different things, the suspect's testimony to taken as true unless bodycam footage (again, video+sound, no sound only recordings) can be provided. It's a weird world when we all assume the cop is lying, but they've done it to themselves.
I feel that one rather important question here isn't why they turned the cams off... But why they were _able_ to. Why are cops allowed to turn off the devices that are there to keep them accountable?
It is because there may be “private” moments. One example is that video a while back of a cop forgetting to turn off his cam while he took a dump. Obvious reasons like that should be a reason to allow the camera to be turned off, but any time it is turned off on purpose during an investigation, that should warrant immediate disciplinary action and even firing in instances like in this video.
@@newsnownorthkorea3836 That's more of what I was thinking; not that they're incapable, but that they're not allowed to. Them hiding footage of them interacting with someone sounds awfully close to "destruction of evidence", "tampering with evidence", or "obstruction of justice", after all.
And 800 videos taken by the public show up on TH-cam within a day, making it hard to pretend it didn't happen. Phone cameras are like Pokemon, gotta catch 'em all, and good luck with that.
The moment a cop's body cam gets shut off in a situation like that, it should be auto mandatory felony and all the "privileges and benefits" that come with being a felon.
In 1984 my buddy Sam and Sam's son Dave owned a really well respected collision repair place on 39th Street in Brooklyn called Culver Auto Body. Dave was Sam's only child and Dave had 3 young daughters who were the pride of Sam's life as a grandfather. One day, Dave was driving to work from Rockaway, Queens at 5:30 AM and he was hit head on by a NYPD who was completely DUI. (The bars in NYC close at 4 AM). Dave died. Sam was never the same and got cancer and died a couple of years later. The worst part for Sam was that the entire incident was covered up, to no one's surprise, of course. The drunk cop survived and the victims didn't. Body cams, dash cams are game changers but only if they can't be turned off.
Well, at least they arrested him unlike the Aurora, CO cops that didn't even bother to do that when they found one of their own passed out in his cruiser while it was running upon the public roadways.
It's people trying to protect the image of the industry. We hear about this all the time with drunken airline pilots as well. They know this video will get out to the public and then all hell breaks loose. It's not an excuse, it's and explanation.
@@BillySBC the special treatment and unaccountability hurts the image of their industry, seeing cops actually held accountable would help. Police live in a bubble of their own making, they have no idea why people hate them. They think they know, but they clearly don't.
@@admthrawnuru Like every other fraternal overtly visible industry. Cops, Lawyers, Doctors, Media. Nothing new. Why do you think they want a disarmed population. They will never.benevolently give up their power. It has taken back to be returned to the people.
@@admthrawnuru: That’s not true at all; LEOs understand why people look at them negatively, the problem is bad LEOs are few and far between yet all LEOs take the blame for the few bad apples. Most LEOs are good people just looking to serve their community in the best way they can. Don’t get me wrong outside of criminal acts you have LEOs that just don’t understand a simple concept, when you’re called it’s just another day to you, but to the people that called or which you stopped have lives for which this call may be the lowest point or this stop may effect them well beyond the actual contact. Entry into the system can lead to a lifetime of issues; a lot of LEOs could benefit from more training, less adversarial attitudes, and more empathy, as you can still do your job while allowing these things to inform your actions.
Bank tellers don't carry the camera into the bath room. Where in most states that is illegal to do. Cops having no ability to shut off the camera at all would then be breaking the law anytime they went into a bathroom for a call of nature. Some way of shutting that camera off or not having it at all on them has to be available or you simply force them to break other laws.
Would you say dirty cops should be removed on the spot?! Stuff like this one doesn't need law suits spanning over years. It's a clear cut case of corruption.
@@coastalpaladin5024 I think you’re right. Unions aren’t protecting the good cops. They’re only helping the bad ones. And with the hours required of further education, I don’t think qualified immunity is necessary
@@ElGoogKO I think every American has a right to due process. I’d definitely need some answers to why they turned their cameras off. I cannot think of a good reason to turn them off.
Sure hope to hear the follow up on this one.... Both officers need to be FIRED. The Chief needs to be dealt with under the justice system. As impaired as he seemed to be, he did not instruct the officers to shut off their cameras. This is just another example of "The Thin Blue Line Gang" that is alive and well across America...
How are cops that turn off their body cameras not immediately charged with obstruction of justice and tampering with evidence? That would definitely get cops think twice about shutting it off. You can go to court to prove your innocence if there was a legitimate and provable reason why you thought it was okay to remove this evidence from the record.
because the courts and DAs have no interest in charging cops because there are so many asshole cops that will refuse to work with the DA if they hold them accountable. Its bullshit. Far too many baby cops with huge, yet fragile egos
Except that presumes the purpose of the bodycams is to preserve evidence. Many police depts specifically started using them because, in the majority of situations, they prove the cops were operating properly. So, many depts allow officers to turn them off at will. Probably need some sort of change to state laws to clarify their mandatory use except for a short list of situations like restroom breaks.
What’s worse is knowing that the on duty leos would have covered up the entire ordeal if they could have, but there was already too many witnesses, video, and damage to do so.
Why do some of the people in this comment section refer to police as Leo’s? Do they really think the thugs we hired to patroller streets are any braver (LEO is Latin for lion) are better than the thugs we have them kidnap?
@@LawlessChemistry I prefer more accurate terms for these parasitic pigs like "blue costume wearing welfare queens" or "parasites who I never wanted or needed but am still forced to fund"
@@Hoffman-Creations suits them more than "peace officers". "crime fighters" is no good either, since they don't do much to prevent crimes from occurring. "Law enforcement" works since it best describes what they should be doing. Whether it is done competently and not selectively is a separate issue.
There is NEVER a "positive" way to read shutting off cameras in the middle of police work. The least nefarious interpretation in this case was they turned off their cameras to discuss if they could let the guy off somehow, concluded they couldn't, and then turned their cameras back on. They all get more and more nefarious from that, and that's already really bad.
The problem is body cams are only mandatory in 7 states. Police agencies only use them to protect themselves. Unfortunately it is not against the law to turn off/mute the camera. The officer make break agency policy but not the law.
It has nothing to do with whether or not the cams are mandated by law or policy, or if they're being worn voluntarily. Once it's in use, turning it off to conceal evidence becomes a HUGE legal issue. Probably could(SHOULD) result in criminal charges against the officers, and unquestionably a massive problem in court. Look up the term spoliation.
A cop should NEVER be allowed to turn off the camera OR the sound without approval. I understand there are times and situations where something private has to be protected. I just think that when a camera is turned off or the sound muted there should be some kind of a warning tone on the air and the officer MUST articulate the reason why. This goes to accountability and for everyone's protection those cameras MUST stay on.
"Dispatch, I am currently turning off my camera because of [list a reason on an approved list of reasons] for X minutes." And dispatch sends a 60 second warning, for which an additional, separate request must be made, all of which is in the public record, certified under oath by the officer making the request.
They forgot to charge him with Indecent exposure and pissing in public And you this is something they knew was happening his whole career . Drunks running over signs and through corn fields don’t happen over night. I worked with 3 guys like that and they all drank at least a fifth or 12 pack every day for years
Steve have you ever talked about the Baltimore Maryland gun trace task force ? Its a wild story that ends with a detective being assassinated and alot of cops robbing drug dealers and giving the drugs to others to sell.
There’s so many stories like that though. I know somebody who Was a medical marijuana patient in the 80s and 90s he got his house rated and I think it was about a half a dozen officers got arrested for having his stolen firearms and collectibles. I think one of the officers had over five dozen guns stolen from different people.
I once followed a drunk driver and called it in. When the cops arrived, they pulled him over into a grocery store parking lot. I stayed around to see if the cop wanted to ask me anything. While the cop was talking to the drunk, it appeared they asked him to get out, and as he started to get out, the car began rolling forward. No one was hurt. Another cop came over to us and said they didn't need us anymore. They had more than enough evidence.
Hearing about the chief lying in the road reminds me of the intro to WKRP in Cincinnati, where a news story has the line "The senator, while denying he was intoxicated, could not explain his nudity" And yes, I really know what time it is-Chicago told us. It's 25 or 6 to 4.
Wow. Find the video and watch. The incredulous look on the chief's face when he's told that he's being arrested is perfect. "I drove?" Pesce asked. "I wasn't driving anywhere ... No one was driving."
Cops turning off their body cam / mic should be immediately fired and charged with a felony destruction of evidence with mandatory minimum 1 year in jail.
The bodycam should be turned on by a supervisor at the precinct who is the only one with the password to turn it off, and turning it off should involve a login username and password, the time and location of which should be logged by the firmware and uploaded to the cloud once complete.
@Bobb Grimley We know SOME will... like some doctors will, some lawyers will, some newspaper boys will, ect... ect... Not every cop is a bad guy, most aren't.
@@BillySBC Cops need to be able to turn them off or leave them behind at some times (think going to restroom, or meal break). Now, what happens when they are eating and there’s a robbery at that restaurant, did they flip it back on? Now, balancing their privacy vs the public’s request for transparency is difficult. I definitely agree there should be time stamps (hopefully location also) when they turn it on/off.
@@racvets1 Simple solution, if you're going to take a bathroom break just radio back to the precinct that you are and the bodycam officer will remotely turn your camera off until you radio back that you are done. Everything can be done over the cell network or satellite network. Not a problem.
I can’t really see why they would need to be turned off for Meals or bathroom breaks, especially since they are normally worn on body armor or an duty shirt, which can be taken off easily enough.
I have a nephew. Did the work and made to be County Officer. They had a question for him. What would you do if you had to arrest your own mom? Without missing a beat he said "Call for backup."
Many years ago I was traveling north on I-85 in Georgia and noticed someone driving all over the road as well as changing speeds. I called 911 and gave them the information. I got a call back about 10 minutes later asking me if I was still following the vehicle. I was. I was asked to let them know when I passed the next mile marker, and I did. Several minutes later a Georgia State Trooper pulled in front of me and followed the car for about a mile. That was all it took to establish a prima facie case. Anything I could have added was no longer needed. The problem today is most 911 operators ignore road calls and will only take action if they start to get a series of calls.
There are instances where they need to be turned off, however there is no reason with the technology we have today to allow the officers themselves turn them off. Rather have dispatch have the means to turn them off remotely and if they are on a call require supervisor approval.
@@yunofun I'm saying that that power should not be in the patrol officers hands. I've seen so really sus video. Case that comes to mind is some state troopers that pulled over a family because they were chasing a red car. Cuffed them all and when they realized that it was the wrong car, 6 bodycams went dark. The case against the officers can't proceed because no one can be sure what happened after they turned the cams off. I will continue to say it. If something needs to be redacted, do it after the fact. It too dangerous to allow it in the field.
A) Any cop who for any reason or for any length of time while on the job fails to carry, maintain, and make use of a working body camera should be subject to automatic review of their actions during whatever length of time the camera was absent, obstructed, or in any way inoperative. Officers who can be shown to have willfully rendered their body cameras inoperative or who fail to carry one when one is available to them should be deemed guilty of destruction of evidence and obstruction of justice, and should be charged and prosecuted accordingly. B) The only wearer-operable interface on a cop's body camera should be one that adds an extra layer of encryption to the resulting data, with an automatic review of the reasons for its use to take place within two weeks.
The cameras were shut off for ALMOST AN HOUR - You can see it on the body camera video that was released. Shut off at 20:37 and turned back on at 21:23 as he was being loaded into the ambulance. I'm curious what took an hour for the ambulance to get there and what they were talking about. "At least he stopped" - Yeah maybe, but lets ask the question of WHY he stopped. When the cops showed up he was passed out lying behind his truck which looked like it was parked on the side of the road. His phone and keys were in the MIDDLE of the road 15+ feet away from him. The cops noticed a large puddle around his back tire and close to where he fell. One cop commented that it looked like he got out to take a piss on his tire then fell down and passed out. So yeah, "at least he stopped' - but in reality it looks like he only stopped to take a piss then passed out while doing it, which is also why his pants were down.
Police officer body cams should not have a manual off/on button available to the individual officer - Once turned on, the bodycam should record until turned off at the end of that tour of duty by the commanding officer of the precinct and footage must be inspected within 24hr of that tour -
They shut the camera's off because they know that the punishment from other cops would be much more severe than the punishment they will get for turning them off.
Todays vocabulary lesson - Omniscient - adjective - knowing everything. Thank you Steve. To be on topic - IMO police have too much "discretion" and extend "professional courtesy" too often.
When the cops turned off their cameras, they were breaking their own rules. Right? Aren't they supposed to be on when they're investigating a traffic stop?? 🤔🤔
As someone else here mentioned, those body cams are there to protect the police, and rules are not the same as laws, but in these cases the rule-breaking can go all the way to the top so there will be nobody left to enforce them.
The officers who turned their body cams off should be sanctioned. It’s a part of their job to have it on during interactions. When they turn it off. That’s negligence. Willful negligence. And that’s a fireable offense.
For those that are curious, his pants were down not off. Also, you can see what little video exists of the event. Just type "bordentown DWI" into youtube and it's the top result right now.
Yup, only in N.J.! Especially in South Jersey, those 08 zip coders are odd ducks! Benny poking out from behind the State seal of Michigan can't tell if he has misplaced his pants from the photo. I have always maintained those body cams should not be able to be turned off.
They need to make it impossible for officers to even have the ability to turn off their body cameras. It should only be activated and turned off at the station.
I look forward to your 2 posts everyday. They are entertaining and educational. "Does Anybody Really Know What Time It Is"" reminds me of CHICAGO "38" coming out this summer, of all new songs.
Hahahah I am a retired Police Officer from a neighboring town to Bordentown NJ PD. SMH Bordentown Twp. PD has been riddled with issues. The Former Chief was incarcerated for lying to FBI
How about we make a new rule. If a cop turns off their body camera when dealing with a situation with another cop, they're fired without any investigation and charged with a felony. Or maybe it should be a crime if it's done during any interaction.
This was a real shame. As soon as he saw the Badge he knew he was in trouble for making all those statements earlier on camera. As I recall from the what little body cam footage there was of the event, the Chief was already asking the other cops "Do you have evidence I was driving?" Rumors are he is pleading not guilty because his story is someone else drove and abandoned him there. His lawyers are going to argue there is no footage of the DUI investigation and all the officers testimony will be hearsay even if they showed up to court, which they wont. They will use what little footage they have to show "See? He wasn't behind the wheel. Keys were in the street as the officer said, not in the ignition. My client was taking a nap after being abandoned by a friend" "Who was the friend?" "He will plead the 5th to anything because he doesn't want to get in trouble so lets just let this rest shall we?"
He can't deny the pants down part. That's indecent exposure. Hit him with a sex crime. Hang the pervert tag on his neck, and he'll never be a cop again.
Every police officer directly involved should be suspended AND ALSO charged with obstruction of justice and failure to perform their duties. No IF, ANDS or BUTS. RockOn, Steve.
A national minimum standard should govern that body cameras manufactured with the ability to mute or switch off by the user should not meet the minimum standard. A complete objective record should be created at all times. If footage is released with redactions, a citizen should be able to petition the court to remove those redactions. Need to potty? Leave your camera and firearm in your cruiser. If you “forget” to place your bodycam back on, 60 days with no pay and all charges dropped for arrests made with no camera.
The George Floyd Police Reform bill addressed some of these issues and many others but the police unions and other rich, powerful interests saw to it that it never had a chance of getting passed.
any officer that shuts off their body cam for any reason should have their police credentials revoked permittivity. I have no tolerance for corruption. Freedom
I have no doubt that in many jurisdictions, there is a standing order from on high to shut off body cams whenever officers encounter "one of their own" driving under the influence.
I saw this video. There is NO EXCUSE for this dude actions. He should have been IMMEDIATELY FIRED! Cops that responded should be fired as well. They treated him like a joke until they realized who he was, then gave preferential treatment.
Intentionally shutting off a camera for any reason while on a mission should be an automatic obstruction of justice conviction and be punishable with prison time.
Turning off the body cam shouldn't be an option and failure to have one running should be a felony and grounds for instant dismissal. It's way past time that those who operate above the law be held accountable.
I recall a time I was out with my supervisor and we were talking to an individual in the woods near their trailer home and the individual walked over, turned away, and started peeing in the woods; the individual said he had to pee and I turned away as to not record it. My supervisor was out with me and told me to turn the camera off and when we got back told me to edit out that portion of the video; I didn’t do either and noted it was against policy and when turned off or edited it will never be viewed to the benefit of LE as a missing portion/video will always be looked at as hiding something. While out I never intentionally stopped recording with my body camera, though depending on call type wouldn’t always turn it on if going to a call with other LEOs. I loved wearing a body camera and actually sought and received permission from my small department to buy and use my own body camera as the department didn’t have the money for them; the body camera saved me numerous times from false accusations and never once caught me doing something wrong. If you always act at your best and as though you’re being recorded you’ll never have an issue; I recall this speech years ago when cell phone cameras first became a thing as everyone has them and can record you. A video record should be as complete as possible. While I can understand with the idea of turning things off but they shouldn’t have; I believe it should be about not publicly releasing videos over turning things off. One benefit of body cameras is being able to watch them yourself and work through things slower and with more through to think of what was done well and what could be done better as typically you always view things from a perspective and not unvarnished, which video can provide.
@@toolbaggers: Short of maybe a criminal or mentally unhealthy’s best looking bad to others maybe but unless your worldview is just an unabashedly negative one the notion that someone’s best behavior, particularly a law abiding g individual, would be bad to near everyone is laughable. Moreover the statistically measured nature of law enforcement is a good baseline to specifically and factually demonstrate that the great majority of officers and interactions occur without criminality or issue respectively. And short of some massive evidence to the contrary all you’re asserting is your opinion, which is your right to have, but which is massively misinformed as to the totality of any negative behavior. This is a big reason that people are so scared today and have such a negative view that negativity is reinforced in the media and they sensationalize and scare because that’s what’s good for ratings, so people think they’re surrounded by negatives instead of the overwhelmingly positive world we actually live in.
Congressperson, senators, lawmakers,who are just people but in positions of power,are all very aware of the practices of law enforcement officers turning off and turning on of publicly funded body cameras at their own convenience.What we all really should be asking is why is this still going on after 20 years?That is how you protect your friends and at the same time keep the prison full.This is a police state we live in.
As I always ask in these scenario's.......did he have his gun with him? Didn't hear any gun charges but we know that does not mean he didn't have his gun with him.
Charges for what reason? You can only charge for possession when there is no license. However even that in my opinion is a rights violation of the second amendment. I'm certain if there was misconduct with the firearm. You would have heard about it. Before the police discovered they were dealing with a police captain.
A proper DA would charge these Criminals with Tampering with Evidence, Obstruction of Justice and Conspiracy... and have them thrown in Prison for a couple of years.
Recording until they saw this was a fellow COP, is DESTRUCTION of EVIDENCE based on "professional courtesy". ALL of these Cops NEED to be Charged with CRIMES.
Not destruction. Destruction would be erasing, breaking the chip containing the video. Not saying that it's right, but depending on the location it may not even breaking the law or even department policy. I don't live in NJ so no idea and not interested enough to look it up. They did charge him though.
@@duanesamuelson2256 Its destroying evidence. Plain and simple. Just coz you got this view its not against the law and want to give these cops a break for breaking the law.... smh. When the whole point of the body cam is to get an exact recording of the incidents as they unfold and a cop then turns off the device. They are destroying what would of been recorded. You want to give them an out because the cops hit stop rather than delete. In this situation there isn't a difference. Smh
@@Jamez84 you have reading comprehension issues. Not gathering evidence is police misconduct. Next in all but 7 states it's department policy not law which requires the use of body cams, so a violation of department policy, so no legal consequences. I was not making excuses for the cops, it was the point that unfortunately in most areas there was nothing illegal. In NJ body cams are mandatory by state law, and the turning off is still not destruction of evidence and penalties are set in the state law.
Clear OBSTRUCTION of JUSTICE on ALL three officers! 👍 They ALL should be arrested, prosecuted, convicted, to the full extent of the law! Then BANNED from public service! NONE, of them can professionally serve anymore, their credibility is DEAD! 😱👍✌
Should be a crime, not a policy violation. Tampering with evidence.
It's about time for this.
Obstruction of Justice.
Unfortunately this is commonplace in Australia. They can turn off the camera all they want
No, it’s not
For my own internal consistency, neither a prosecutor, nor a court nor a jury should trust anything the cops said or wrote in a police report from the point the cameras were turned off. And the cops should be disciplined.
citizens are held to a higher liability in court than those who administer the law
for example, if you delete video in a lawsuit, they are allowed to assume the worst
Been on a jury. They wouldn't say a word about anyone turning off a camera. The lawyers have turned it into a process for extracting money rather than a process for determining truth.
Your right in that they should be disciplined. To the tune of a interference conviction with jail time.
"the cops should be disciplined" Don't hold your breath.
If you or I are on a jury when this happens, absolutely assume innocence of a citizen and guilt of an officer if the officer turns the camera off. I don't know what the law says about it, but I do know what my conscience is and how I would vote.
Any "good cop" that covers for a "bad cop" in any way shape or form is also a "bad cop" and in my opinion even worse than the original "bad cop"
Any cop that covers a bad cop is a bad cop.
Any cop that removes the bad cop is a good cop.
What's more disturbing: that LEOs were "mocking" him OR that they STOPPED when they realized *who he was* ?
Thanks for up-streaming this story 👍
We had a Seargeant like that at my agency. He committed Domestic Violence battery on his teenage daughter, transported alcohol in a Sheriff's office vehicle, and sexually harassed female employees (just to name a few of his more memorable hits). But, no one dared touch him or criticize him. He was a clinical narcissist with impressive anger management issues and was also a close personnel friend of a Sheriff's Office Major who was best friends with the Sheriff. Not only did he never loses so much as a stripe, but he was also never substantially punished in any way I know of. He retired with 30 years of service a full 100% pension, a half-million DROP Program dollars, and the thanks of a grateful State of Florida. You just can't make this stuff up. I still shake my head to this day.
Not disturbing at all. Unprofessional? Sure. Disturbing? No. If your definition of disturbing is this, then you have lived an extremely sheltered life.
You act the fool in public, expect to be mocked.
All of it. Maybe he was having a medical issue and was overheating and attempting to undress because of overheating. No reason to mock ANYONE when you don't know what's happening.
@@ObservationofLimits Disturbing is killing someone and dressing in their skin and singing show tunes.
People are too damn thin skinned these days.
Joking about something odd happening is not disturbing, that's human nature. You must be a laugh riot at parties or comedy shows. Jokes and comedy is all about mocking the things we all do and are guilty of.
Mocking is healthy!
I am mocking you right now, and it feels GOOD! Not because i wish you ill, but because it's funny.
I guarantee you if you find me half naked and drunk in the street, and you mock me, i will find it hilarious!
Or he could have been drugged etc.
These cops screwed up in the worst way. Either treat him like any other suspect, or play dumb and find a way to subtly let your brother in blue off the hook; but to charge him while also turning off body cams and deferring to him is just a bad look. As Mike advised Walter White, no half measures.
There was another video where the cops came to the scene of an accident where the driver was already in his wife's car (his truck being totalled). When they found out that he was a city councilman, they let her drive him home because they didn't have evidence of him actually driving the truck. Even though he fully admitted it, was drinking earlier, and was pretty waisted on scene.
Not just a bad look, but criminal.
@@adamf663 Not necessarily criminal. Other than warrants and domestic violence, cops, legally speaking, enjoy a considerable amount of discretion when it comes to making arrests. (Which is why you should never buy their “I don’t make laws, I just enforce them” line). As Jimmy McNulty once put it, the cop on patrol is the one true dictatorship in America. Of course, cops who willfully refused to make obvious arrests would likely get fired, but outside of a few crimes, it wouldn’t necessarily rise to a criminal act.
Us and them. Us, guilty until proven innocent. Them, the good ol' boys club.
@@billruss6704 if they consider the populace as the enemy, they shouldn't act surprised when the populace considers them to be the enemy.
That chief and any cop who turns off their body cam needs to be fired and lifetime banned from ever working in law enforcement anywhere ever again. The only way we get better cops is zero tolerance for this shit.
Police unions need to go away. Police should serve at the pleasure of the public. But good luck with that.
It would help if only one person at the precinct who is not a patrolman has the username and password to access the firmware within the bodycam to turn it off. This way an officer would have to go back to the precinct, hand it to the bodycam management officer, and that officer would have to log in with his/her username and password to do so, at which time the event is logged by the firmware and uploaded to the internet cloud.
At the very least, any time that a cop turns their camera off, that should immediately disqualify that footage for use in a courtroom. How is that not premedatative tampering of evidence?
Simple policy should be: "No camera, no gun, no exceptions."
I sort of agree, but I think it would be better to set a precedent that any evidence that is not backed up by footage (video+sound) cannot be entered as evidence. A second precedent would be that if the suspect and the LEO say different things, the suspect's testimony to taken as true unless bodycam footage (again, video+sound, no sound only recordings) can be provided. It's a weird world when we all assume the cop is lying, but they've done it to themselves.
I feel that one rather important question here isn't why they turned the cams off... But why they were _able_ to.
Why are cops allowed to turn off the devices that are there to keep them accountable?
Great point
It is because there may be “private” moments. One example is that video a while back of a cop forgetting to turn off his cam while he took a dump. Obvious reasons like that should be a reason to allow the camera to be turned off, but any time it is turned off on purpose during an investigation, that should warrant immediate disciplinary action and even firing in instances like in this video.
@@newsnownorthkorea3836 That's more of what I was thinking; not that they're incapable, but that they're not allowed to.
Them hiding footage of them interacting with someone sounds awfully close to "destruction of evidence", "tampering with evidence", or "obstruction of justice", after all.
So they can visit the potty in private. Obviously.
@@newsnownorthkorea3836 Have them call in 10-200, dispatch remotely turns off camera, then when back in service it goes back on.
Cops turn their body cams off:
Tell me you're completely unworthy of your job without telling me you're unworthy of your job.
And 800 videos taken by the public show up on TH-cam within a day, making it hard to pretend it didn't happen. Phone cameras are like Pokemon, gotta catch 'em all, and good luck with that.
The moment a cop's body cam gets shut off in a situation like that, it should be auto mandatory felony and all the "privileges and benefits" that come with being a felon.
Everyone involved here needs to be fired.
...and go to prison
In 1984 my buddy Sam and Sam's son Dave owned a really well respected collision repair place on 39th Street in Brooklyn called Culver Auto Body. Dave was Sam's only child and Dave had 3 young daughters who were the pride of Sam's life as a grandfather. One day, Dave was driving to work from Rockaway, Queens at 5:30 AM and he was hit head on by a NYPD who was completely DUI. (The bars in NYC close at 4 AM). Dave died. Sam was never the same and got cancer and died a couple of years later. The worst part for Sam was that the entire incident was covered up, to no one's surprise, of course. The drunk cop survived and the victims didn't. Body cams, dash cams are game changers but only if they can't be turned off.
What a tragic story.
This is the rule, not the exception.
Well, at least they arrested him unlike the Aurora, CO cops that didn't even bother to do that when they found one of their own passed out in his cruiser while it was running upon the public roadways.
It's people trying to protect the image of the industry. We hear about this all the time with drunken airline pilots as well. They know this video will get out to the public and then all hell breaks loose. It's not an excuse, it's and explanation.
@@BillySBC the special treatment and unaccountability hurts the image of their industry, seeing cops actually held accountable would help. Police live in a bubble of their own making, they have no idea why people hate them. They think they know, but they clearly don't.
@@admthrawnuru Like every other fraternal overtly visible industry. Cops, Lawyers, Doctors, Media. Nothing new. Why do you think they want a disarmed population. They will never.benevolently give up their power. It has taken back to be returned to the people.
@@admthrawnuru: That’s not true at all; LEOs understand why people look at them negatively, the problem is bad LEOs are few and far between yet all LEOs take the blame for the few bad apples. Most LEOs are good people just looking to serve their community in the best way they can. Don’t get me wrong outside of criminal acts you have LEOs that just don’t understand a simple concept, when you’re called it’s just another day to you, but to the people that called or which you stopped have lives for which this call may be the lowest point or this stop may effect them well beyond the actual contact. Entry into the system can lead to a lifetime of issues; a lot of LEOs could benefit from more training, less adversarial attitudes, and more empathy, as you can still do your job while allowing these things to inform your actions.
They're all in the cult. Not like it's unknown. If you know you know.
A cop turning off his bodycam is no different than a bank teller disabling the bank's security cameras.
Change my mind.
no thank you. seems about right
The bank teller would be charged.
Obviously different. Police are above the law of course.
Well said 🍸👍
Comparing a decent private sector bank teller to a tax sucking porker is an inexcusable insult to the teller
Bank tellers don't carry the camera into the bath room. Where in most states that is illegal to do. Cops having no ability to shut off the camera at all would then be breaking the law anytime they went into a bathroom for a call of nature. Some way of shutting that camera off or not having it at all on them has to be available or you simply force them to break other laws.
Both officers should be fired immediately with no benefits or pensions
all 3*
Love the videos Steve. I’m a LEO and think we should hold each other accountable in these instances and I’m others. Appreciate the great work.
We need to end qualified immunity and police unions and we would see massive change.
Would you say dirty cops should be removed on the spot?!
Stuff like this one doesn't need law suits spanning over years. It's a clear cut case of corruption.
@@ElGoogKO There needs to be a procedure, but it needs to be swift and fair, not dragged out over years.
@@coastalpaladin5024 I think you’re right. Unions aren’t protecting the good cops. They’re only helping the bad ones. And with the hours required of further education, I don’t think qualified immunity is necessary
@@ElGoogKO I think every American has a right to due process. I’d definitely need some answers to why they turned their cameras off. I cannot think of a good reason to turn them off.
Sure hope to hear the follow up on this one....
Both officers need to be FIRED.
The Chief needs to be dealt with under the justice system. As impaired as he seemed to be, he did not instruct the officers to shut off their cameras.
This is just another example of "The Thin Blue Line Gang" that is alive and well across America...
How are cops that turn off their body cameras not immediately charged with obstruction of justice and tampering with evidence? That would definitely get cops think twice about shutting it off. You can go to court to prove your innocence if there was a legitimate and provable reason why you thought it was okay to remove this evidence from the record.
because the courts and DAs have no interest in charging cops because there are so many asshole cops that will refuse to work with the DA if they hold them accountable. Its bullshit. Far too many baby cops with huge, yet fragile egos
Fool don't you get it....they are in cahoots with the justice system and politics....normal citizens are the only ones who get pentalized .
Except that presumes the purpose of the bodycams is to preserve evidence. Many police depts specifically started using them because, in the majority of situations, they prove the cops were operating properly. So, many depts allow officers to turn them off at will. Probably need some sort of change to state laws to clarify their mandatory use except for a short list of situations like restroom breaks.
@@alexjones7845 No need to EVER allow them to be turned off. They can take their vest off and point it away from them when going to the washroom.
@@alexjones7845 sounds shady AF. Why is it you named your account after that CIA $hill Alex Jewns?
What’s worse is knowing that the on duty leos would have covered up the entire ordeal if they could have, but there was already too many witnesses, video, and damage to do so.
Why do some of the people in this comment section refer to police as Leo’s?
Do they really think the thugs we hired to patroller streets are any braver (LEO is Latin for lion) are better than the thugs we have them kidnap?
@@Hoffman-Creations leo is an acronym for "law enforcement officer". Nothing to do with " leo" the latin root for lion
@@LawlessChemistry I prefer more accurate terms for these parasitic pigs like "blue costume wearing welfare queens" or "parasites who I never wanted or needed but am still forced to fund"
@@LawlessChemistry that makes a little bit of sense now. I think calling them law enforcement officers is a bit excessive though isn’t it.?.
@@Hoffman-Creations suits them more than "peace officers". "crime fighters" is no good either, since they don't do much to prevent crimes from occurring. "Law enforcement" works since it best describes what they should be doing. Whether it is done competently and not selectively is a separate issue.
There is NEVER a "positive" way to read shutting off cameras in the middle of police work. The least nefarious interpretation in this case was they turned off their cameras to discuss if they could let the guy off somehow, concluded they couldn't, and then turned their cameras back on. They all get more and more nefarious from that, and that's already really bad.
The problem is body cams are only mandatory in 7 states. Police agencies only use them to protect themselves. Unfortunately it is not against the law to turn off/mute the camera. The officer make break agency policy but not the law.
It has nothing to do with whether or not the cams are mandated by law or policy, or if they're being worn voluntarily. Once it's in use, turning it off to conceal evidence becomes a HUGE legal issue. Probably could(SHOULD) result in criminal charges against the officers, and unquestionably a massive problem in court. Look up the term spoliation.
A cop should NEVER be allowed to turn off the camera OR the sound without approval. I understand there are times and situations where something private has to be protected. I just think that when a camera is turned off or the sound muted there should be some kind of a warning tone on the air and the officer MUST articulate the reason why. This goes to accountability and for everyone's protection those cameras MUST stay on.
And if it's personal they can always redact a foia request.
"Dispatch, I am currently turning off my camera because of [list a reason on an approved list of reasons] for X minutes." And dispatch sends a 60 second warning, for which an additional, separate request must be made, all of which is in the public record, certified under oath by the officer making the request.
When you're a cop on duty nothing is private.
@@the_once-and-future_king. I would exempt using the bathroom.
@@MonkeyJedi99 Obviously you're not on duty when in the can. But as soon as you're not in the can, the camera goes live again.
They forgot to charge him with
Indecent exposure and pissing in public
And you this is something they knew was happening his whole career .
Drunks running over signs and through corn fields don’t happen over night.
I worked with 3 guys like that and they all drank at least a fifth or 12 pack every day for years
Indecent exposure should get them on the sex offender list
Steve have you ever talked about the Baltimore Maryland gun trace task force ? Its a wild story that ends with a detective being assassinated and alot of cops robbing drug dealers and giving the drugs to others to sell.
The HBO series is pretty good so far
Sounds like an episode of The Shield
There’s so many stories like that though. I know somebody who Was a medical marijuana patient in the 80s and 90s he got his house rated and I think it was about a half a dozen officers got arrested for having his stolen firearms and collectibles. I think one of the officers had over five dozen guns stolen from different people.
I once followed a drunk driver and called it in. When the cops arrived, they pulled him over into a grocery store parking lot. I stayed around to see if the cop wanted to ask me anything. While the cop was talking to the drunk, it appeared they asked him to get out, and as he started to get out, the car began rolling forward. No one was hurt. Another cop came over to us and said they didn't need us anymore. They had more than enough evidence.
Hearing about the chief lying in the road reminds me of the intro to WKRP in Cincinnati, where a news story has the line "The senator, while denying he was intoxicated, could not explain his nudity"
And yes, I really know what time it is-Chicago told us. It's 25 or 6 to 4.
"We don't know if his pants came off or down."
Well, that sounds like a distinction without a butt of difference.
Didn’t want vid of pissed pants cuz then he makes sex offenders list and public exposure or just getting rid of evidence of drugs and liquor
I saw a longer version of the video and they said it looked like a puddle of piss near the back tire. He stopped to pee and then passed out.
Wow. Find the video and watch. The incredulous look on the chief's face when he's told that he's being arrested is perfect.
"I drove?" Pesce asked. "I wasn't driving anywhere ... No one was driving."
The thin Blue Line runs thick in most depts.
Cops turning off their body cam / mic should be immediately fired and charged with a felony destruction of evidence with mandatory minimum 1 year in jail.
The bodycam should be turned on by a supervisor at the precinct who is the only one with the password to turn it off, and turning it off should involve a login username and password, the time and location of which should be logged by the firmware and uploaded to the cloud once complete.
@Bobb Grimley
We know SOME will... like some doctors will, some lawyers will, some newspaper boys will, ect... ect... Not every cop is a bad guy, most aren't.
@@BillySBC Cops need to be able to turn them off or leave them behind at some times (think going to restroom, or meal break). Now, what happens when they are eating and there’s a robbery at that restaurant, did they flip it back on?
Now, balancing their privacy vs the public’s request for transparency is difficult. I definitely agree there should be time stamps (hopefully location also) when they turn it on/off.
@@racvets1
Simple solution, if you're going to take a bathroom break just radio back to the precinct that you are and the bodycam officer will remotely turn your camera off until you radio back that you are done. Everything can be done over the cell network or satellite network. Not a problem.
I can’t really see why they would need to be turned off for
Meals or bathroom breaks, especially since they are normally worn on body armor or an duty shirt, which can be taken off easily enough.
I'd like to know why they have the ability to turn the camera off period. To many times they prove they can't be trusted with the on/off button.
Let's be grateful that on this occasion they managed to prove they could be trusted with a trigger.
I have a nephew. Did the work and made to be County Officer. They had a question for him. What would you do if you had to arrest your own mom? Without missing a beat he said "Call for backup."
Shutting off body cams should be a crime, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.
Steve your pro tips are priceless.
It's funny how cameras go off when they find a fellow officer is involved.
It is exactly the opposite of funny.
@@davidh9638 I meant Funny as in Strange
To be fair, during the Covid, I misplaced my pants for over 1 year.
I saw the video. This cop was so wasted he couldn’t get up. Passed out on the road behind his vehicle. Black out drunk.
Many years ago I was traveling north on I-85 in Georgia and noticed someone driving all over the road as well as changing speeds. I called 911 and gave them the information. I got a call back about 10 minutes later asking me if I was still following the vehicle. I was. I was asked to let them know when I passed the next mile marker, and I did. Several minutes later a Georgia State Trooper pulled in front of me and followed the car for about a mile. That was all it took to establish a prima facie case. Anything I could have added was no longer needed. The problem today is most 911 operators ignore road calls and will only take action if they start to get a series of calls.
Thought this was going to be a follow-up to the cop driving drunk and hit firefighter's vehicle, but it's Another One...
I have noticed that police officers also have covered their cameras so you can't ALWAYS see what they do
Some cameras aren't in the best spot, like middle of the chest.
The fact that cops being caught drunk driving is unremarkable, is itself remarkable.
I've been saying this for years "Cops shouldn't have the ability to turn off body and!". That defeats the purpose.
There are instances where they need to be turned off, however there is no reason with the technology we have today to allow the officers themselves turn them off. Rather have dispatch have the means to turn them off remotely and if they are on a call require supervisor approval.
@@yunofun I'm saying that that power should not be in the patrol officers hands. I've seen so really sus video. Case that comes to mind is some state troopers that pulled over a family because they were chasing a red car. Cuffed them all and when they realized that it was the wrong car, 6 bodycams went dark.
The case against the officers can't proceed because no one can be sure what happened after they turned the cams off.
I will continue to say it. If something needs to be redacted, do it after the fact. It too dangerous to allow it in the field.
A) Any cop who for any reason or for any length of time while on the job fails to carry, maintain, and make use of a working body camera should be subject to automatic review of their actions during whatever length of time the camera was absent, obstructed, or in any way inoperative. Officers who can be shown to have willfully rendered their body cameras inoperative or who fail to carry one when one is available to them should be deemed guilty of destruction of evidence and obstruction of justice, and should be charged and prosecuted accordingly.
B) The only wearer-operable interface on a cop's body camera should be one that adds an extra layer of encryption to the resulting data, with an automatic review of the reasons for its use to take place within two weeks.
The cameras were shut off for ALMOST AN HOUR - You can see it on the body camera video that was released. Shut off at 20:37 and turned back on at 21:23 as he was being loaded into the ambulance. I'm curious what took an hour for the ambulance to get there and what they were talking about. "At least he stopped" - Yeah maybe, but lets ask the question of WHY he stopped. When the cops showed up he was passed out lying behind his truck which looked like it was parked on the side of the road. His phone and keys were in the MIDDLE of the road 15+ feet away from him. The cops noticed a large puddle around his back tire and close to where he fell. One cop commented that it looked like he got out to take a piss on his tire then fell down and passed out. So yeah, "at least he stopped' - but in reality it looks like he only stopped to take a piss then passed out while doing it, which is also why his pants were down.
That's a pretty long time. The article made it sound like they took 5 minutes to help him back into his pants and turn the cameras back on.😮
Police officer body cams should not have a manual off/on button available to the individual officer - Once turned on, the bodycam should record until turned off at the end of that tour of duty by the commanding officer of the precinct and footage must be inspected within 24hr of that tour -
They shut the camera's off because they know that the punishment from other cops would be much more severe than the punishment they will get for turning them off.
People just started looking at me as I started screaming curses like I had Tourette’s when Steve said “…the officers turned of their bodycams”!
It should be illegal to turn off camera, to deny accountability, to destroy by NOT capturing evidence.
Todays vocabulary lesson - Omniscient - adjective - knowing everything. Thank you Steve. To be on topic - IMO police have too much "discretion" and extend "professional courtesy" too often.
Turns them off... or tosses them off. Tactically
The officers should be charged with tampering with evidence.
It should be a crime punishable by jail time in and of itself for police to turn off or deliberately obstruct their body camera in the line of duty.
When the cops turned off their cameras, they were breaking their own rules. Right? Aren't they supposed to be on when they're investigating a traffic stop?? 🤔🤔
As someone else here mentioned, those body cams are there to protect the police, and rules are not the same as laws, but in these cases the rule-breaking can go all the way to the top so there will be nobody left to enforce them.
Steve says it will be a while before he talks about cops drinking and driving. Somewhere out there, there's a cop saying, "Hold my beer!"
Thanks for your pro tip. Next time waking up in the middle of the street I will try to remember it
An officer shutting off a bodycam should be grounds for immediate termination.
The officers who turned their body cams off should be sanctioned.
It’s a part of their job to have it on during interactions.
When they turn it off. That’s negligence. Willful negligence.
And that’s a fireable offense.
At least he was charged, that's one small point in the favor of the cops.
"If you're not cop, you're little people." My favorite quote from Blade Runner, never more true than today.
You know why they would do that... they should be in jail right next to the chief
For those that are curious, his pants were down not off. Also, you can see what little video exists of the event. Just type "bordentown DWI" into youtube and it's the top result right now.
"They're the wrong trousers, Grommit!"
Wallace
Yup, only in N.J.! Especially in South Jersey, those 08 zip coders are odd ducks! Benny poking out from behind the State seal of Michigan can't tell if he has misplaced his pants from the photo. I have always maintained those body cams should not be able to be turned off.
Me: *walks into store
Clerk; "Hey buddy! Look at the sign!!!"
Sign: "No shirt, No shoes, No service"
Me: "It Doesnt say anything about Pants!!"
No dresses/skirts allowed
The Police will investigate themselves and find no wrongdoing.
I think the only way this will stop is if it's pushed and pushed.
Nobody's held accountable.
They need to make it impossible for officers to even have the ability to turn off their body cameras. It should only be activated and turned off at the station.
Police cameras should be on from the start of their shifts til the end ... they can edit out stuff they release to the public ...
Ah my proud state.
I look forward to your 2 posts everyday. They are entertaining and educational. "Does Anybody Really Know What Time It Is"" reminds me of CHICAGO "38" coming out this summer, of all new songs.
Hahahah I am a retired Police Officer from a neighboring town to Bordentown NJ PD. SMH
Bordentown Twp. PD has been riddled with issues. The Former Chief was incarcerated for lying to FBI
I would love to see tampering with evidence charges against those officers
How about we make a new rule. If a cop turns off their body camera when dealing with a situation with another cop, they're fired without any investigation and charged with a felony. Or maybe it should be a crime if it's done during any interaction.
Turning off their cameras should be a terminal offense.
And they wonder why people call them pigs.
Love listening to your videos-I always learn something. 😊 I wish you would provide the links to the stories when you have them.
This was a real shame. As soon as he saw the Badge he knew he was in trouble for making all those statements earlier on camera. As I recall from the what little body cam footage there was of the event, the Chief was already asking the other cops "Do you have evidence I was driving?" Rumors are he is pleading not guilty because his story is someone else drove and abandoned him there. His lawyers are going to argue there is no footage of the DUI investigation and all the officers testimony will be hearsay even if they showed up to court, which they wont. They will use what little footage they have to show "See? He wasn't behind the wheel. Keys were in the street as the officer said, not in the ignition. My client was taking a nap after being abandoned by a friend" "Who was the friend?" "He will plead the 5th to anything because he doesn't want to get in trouble so lets just let this rest shall we?"
He can't deny the pants down part. That's indecent exposure. Hit him with a sex crime. Hang the pervert tag on his neck, and he'll never be a cop again.
it should be a felony, federal level, to shut off a body camera. Period.
Every police officer directly involved should be suspended AND ALSO charged with obstruction of justice and failure to perform their duties. No IF, ANDS or BUTS. RockOn, Steve.
Those officers should be immediately fired and charged with destruction of evidence.
The consequences for turning off the body cam should be immediate termination.
I am hard pressed to even consider this is a rare occurrence
A national minimum standard should govern that body cameras manufactured with the ability to mute or switch off by the user should not meet the minimum standard. A complete objective record should be created at all times. If footage is released with redactions, a citizen should be able to petition the court to remove those redactions.
Need to potty? Leave your camera and firearm in your cruiser. If you “forget” to place your bodycam back on, 60 days with no pay and all charges dropped for arrests made with no camera.
The George Floyd Police Reform bill addressed some of these issues and many others but the police unions and other rich, powerful interests saw to it that it never had a chance of getting passed.
any officer that shuts off their body cam for any reason should have their police credentials revoked permittivity. I have no tolerance for corruption.
Freedom
There needs to be severe penalties for intentionally shutting off a car or body cam by cops for any reason.
I have no doubt that in many jurisdictions, there is a standing order from on high to shut off body cams whenever officers encounter "one of their own" driving under the influence.
I saw this video. There is NO EXCUSE for this dude actions. He should have been IMMEDIATELY FIRED! Cops that responded should be fired as well. They treated him like a joke until they realized who he was, then gave preferential treatment.
Intentionally shutting off a camera for any reason while on a mission should be an automatic obstruction of justice conviction and be punishable with prison time.
Steve, you are correct about Homer misplacing his pants. He answered the door wearing a grocery bag as pants.
Chief belongs in jail. Both officers who turned off cameras shud be FIRED.
Ben peeking out beside Red Viper, Steve's RHS
Steeeeve, you didn't give me enough time to write down the Pro-Tip! LOL!
Turning off the body cam shouldn't be an option and failure to have one running should be a felony and grounds for instant dismissal. It's way past time that those who operate above the law be held accountable.
I recall a time I was out with my supervisor and we were talking to an individual in the woods near their trailer home and the individual walked over, turned away, and started peeing in the woods; the individual said he had to pee and I turned away as to not record it. My supervisor was out with me and told me to turn the camera off and when we got back told me to edit out that portion of the video; I didn’t do either and noted it was against policy and when turned off or edited it will never be viewed to the benefit of LE as a missing portion/video will always be looked at as hiding something. While out I never intentionally stopped recording with my body camera, though depending on call type wouldn’t always turn it on if going to a call with other LEOs. I loved wearing a body camera and actually sought and received permission from my small department to buy and use my own body camera as the department didn’t have the money for them; the body camera saved me numerous times from false accusations and never once caught me doing something wrong. If you always act at your best and as though you’re being recorded you’ll never have an issue; I recall this speech years ago when cell phone cameras first became a thing as everyone has them and can record you. A video record should be as complete as possible. While I can understand with the idea of turning things off but they shouldn’t have; I believe it should be about not publicly releasing videos over turning things off. One benefit of body cameras is being able to watch them yourself and work through things slower and with more through to think of what was done well and what could be done better as typically you always view things from a perspective and not unvarnished, which video can provide.
Somebody acting their best might be considered bad behaviour to most. The best behaved Notsee is still a Notsee.
Don't film people urinating on their own property.
@@toolbaggers: Short of maybe a criminal or mentally unhealthy’s best looking bad to others maybe but unless your worldview is just an unabashedly negative one the notion that someone’s best behavior, particularly a law abiding g individual, would be bad to near everyone is laughable. Moreover the statistically measured nature of law enforcement is a good baseline to specifically and factually demonstrate that the great majority of officers and interactions occur without criminality or issue respectively. And short of some massive evidence to the contrary all you’re asserting is your opinion, which is your right to have, but which is massively misinformed as to the totality of any negative behavior. This is a big reason that people are so scared today and have such a negative view that negativity is reinforced in the media and they sensationalize and scare because that’s what’s good for ratings, so people think they’re surrounded by negatives instead of the overwhelmingly positive world we actually live in.
Congressperson, senators, lawmakers,who are just people but in positions of power,are all very aware of the practices of law enforcement officers turning off and turning on of publicly funded body cameras at their own convenience.What we all really should be asking is why is this still going on after 20 years?That is how you protect your friends and at the same time keep the prison full.This is a police state we live in.
The literal GTA V Lester phone call functions:
"Cops turn a blind eye" and "Remove wanted level"
As I always ask in these scenario's.......did he have his gun with him? Didn't hear any gun charges but we know that does not mean he didn't have his gun with him.
Charges for what reason? You can only charge for possession when there is no license. However even that in my opinion is a rights violation of the second amendment. I'm certain if there was misconduct with the firearm. You would have heard about it. Before the police discovered they were dealing with a police captain.
@@cliffordcooley1273 possession of a weapon while intoxicated, licensed or not, is a crime in most states, even gun friendly states
A proper DA would charge these Criminals with Tampering with Evidence, Obstruction of Justice and Conspiracy... and have them thrown in Prison for a couple of years.
Recording until they saw this was a fellow COP, is DESTRUCTION of EVIDENCE based on "professional courtesy". ALL of these Cops NEED to be Charged with CRIMES.
Not destruction. Destruction would be erasing, breaking the chip containing the video.
Not saying that it's right, but depending on the location it may not even breaking the law or even department policy. I don't live in NJ so no idea and not interested enough to look it up.
They did charge him though.
@@duanesamuelson2256 Its destroying evidence. Plain and simple. Just coz you got this view its not against the law and want to give these cops a break for breaking the law.... smh. When the whole point of the body cam is to get an exact recording of the incidents as they unfold and a cop then turns off the device. They are destroying what would of been recorded. You want to give them an out because the cops hit stop rather than delete. In this situation there isn't a difference. Smh
@@Jamez84 you have reading comprehension issues.
Not gathering evidence is police misconduct. Next in all but 7 states it's department policy not law which requires the use of body cams, so a violation of department policy, so no legal consequences.
I was not making excuses for the cops, it was the point that unfortunately in most areas there was nothing illegal. In NJ body cams are mandatory by state law, and the turning off is still not destruction of evidence and penalties are set in the state law.
Ah, the blue wall of silence at work again.
Clear OBSTRUCTION of JUSTICE on ALL three officers! 👍 They ALL should be arrested, prosecuted, convicted, to the full extent of the law! Then BANNED from public service! NONE, of them can professionally serve anymore, their credibility is DEAD! 😱👍✌