While YDMFWS is a huge fan of the TV show Cheaters (if you never have seen the show, please, please do a YouTube search post haste), but that doesn't mean we are big fans of little "c" cheaters. So we weren't to happy when Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo announced that all officers involved in shootings of civilians would be allowed to view their videotapes before making statements to investigators.
Regardless of the subject matter, when an investigator is trying to get information from a witness, it is important to speak to them as soon as possible after the incident, before the witness's memory becomes tainted by other witnesses, third parties that are trying to influence the outcome, or anything else that confuses the issue of what exactly the witness, saw, heard, smelled, or generally perceived. Naturally, this sentiment was reflected in subsequent communications to Acevedo by current and former investigators.
You simply cannot give people evidence, then turn around and expect them to give an independent recollection of what happened. Let's take a simple example: an officer tells an investigator that he thought the suspect had a weapon in his hand when the suspect exited a vehicle. There are three general possibilities here:
- If the video reflects that fact, then clearly investigators can more easily conclude that the officer was telling the truth because it is verifiable on video
- If the video reflects an object that looks similar to a gun, then the same result is likely. It is easier for the investigator to conclude that the officer made a mistake and that a reasonable officer in that situation would have discharged his or her weapon.
- If the video shows that the witness is clearly not holding anything, then we have a different situation. The cop gets to watch the tape, let the facts play out that are on the tape, then craft a story that reflects what's on the video. Clearly, there are limits to how far someone can go to this, but a reasonably savvy person can at least eliminate a story that does not match up with the video.
If the facts surrounding a civilian shooting suggest that a crime has occurred, this procedure could very well infect any subsequent investigation into the shooter's criminal or civil liability. The procedure in effect legalizes the Blue Shield and gives cops a chance to protect their own. Civilian suspects are not allowed to view evidence of their suspected crimes before offering statements, and there's no good reason cops should automatically be afforded this opportunity.
Hell, it's an idea that doesn't make any sense when it comes to athletes, so how does it make any sense when we're talking about cops shooting civilians?
Monday, November 19, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Replays of sporting event calls by professional referees show that frequently their perception and subsequent calls are wrong. In police shootings studies show that the involved officers experience "sensory distortion" and you advocate officials not allow them to review the replay?
The big difference between sports and the police officers is that getting it right is much more critical for police officials who have officers making split second life and death decisions than it is getting it right when it comes to the actions of over-paid, spolied, athletes.
You're absolutely incorrect.
The nature of the review and the results of reviewing the video are fundamentally different. In football, the call is made, challenge initiated, and the review done by the referee and the chief official up in the booth. Once the referee makes his call, that's it. No amount of grousing by coaches/players/fans will change it and all the league can do (at least in the case of the NFL) is discipline the officials who made the mistake.
In the case of officers, giving the statement after watching the video does not end the affair. The investigator could conclude that the officer committed a crime or violated department procedures (making him or her subject to administrative discipline). Both of those paths involve hearings and the possibility of a criminal trial. If you've tainted the statement of a witness by giving them clues as to what they can or cannot say, what's the point?
With that in mind, every detective in the world would tell you that you don't give the facts to a witness/suspect. You get a statement from them first, because this hopefully reflects their independent recollection of the events, not something that they have had time to practice and craft to fit the other evidence. This is not to say that all cops who discharge their weapons at civilians are criminally or civilly culpable or are bad people. But it's really impossible to determine whether or not that is the case if you give a critical piece of evidence to consider when giving their statement ahead of time.
It's a procedure designed to protect cops when they have made poor choices or when they themselves have engaged in criminal acts. I'd agree with you that huge risks come with the job, it's not an easy one, etc. It also comes with great responsibility and they have to be accountable for the decisions that they make in stressful, life-threatening situations. That should mean having to give statements coming from only their personal recollections.
I'd very much like to have a conversation with you about this matter. I've heard both sides and haven't been able to come to any concrete conclusions, and well, I need to--cuz of the role I play in the community (ACLU local chapter head).
What I'm looking for are concrete examples of how that tweaking of the story to the benefit of the accused officer. It's all theoretical at this point, and until we see it play out--or perhaps if you can point to past like examples--hard to determine whether this is detrimental or beneficial to the public.
BTW: The Chief has publicly stated he WILL in fact make such video available prior to being questioned when the accused is a civilian having perpetrated something against an officer. He says the openness will go both ways. He says...so far, he hasn't outright lied...
Anyway--could you ping me elvez at my email to promote a phone convo?
debmocracy@yahoo.com THANKS! Debbie Russell, ACLU-TX Central TX Chapter
Post a Comment