Posted on 05/04/2013 6:55:32 AM PDT by redreno
San Antonio Park police violently beat a woman who had walked into the wrong room at a gas station, then arrested her brother for trying to video record the altercation.
They also deleted the footage from her brother’s camera while charging the woman with felony assault on a peace officer.
But her brother managed to recover the footage that contradicts the police version of the story.
Christina Oliver, who ended up with a broken nose and black eye, told her story to KENS 5:
(Excerpt) Read more at photographyisnotacrime.com ...
thugs; I don’t stop in San Antonio.
One good reason the government should not own all the guns.
A lawsuit will be filed but the city will pay, not the thumpers.
IOW, the taxpayers of San Antonio.
This will not stop until serious, long-lasting financial damage is done to the individuals/organizations responsible for these actions, and those operating under color of law spend some time in jail with their “friends”.
That this hasn’t happened yet is indirect proof that the entire justice system is in cahoots protecting one another.
Waiting for the law and order apologists to respond...coming up in 3...2...1...
Someone made a good point. If the police arrested Jason for “interference with police” after they would not stop recording then. Isn’t the deletion of that video tampering with evidence at the scene of a crime?
It seems anytime an officer destroys any video of ayn arrest they are committing a crime themselves. They have just destroyed evidence in the person being arrested case regardless if it favors the police or the arrested.
If Jason and his sisters charges are not kicked out of court they should fight any verdict on the grounds that the police destroyed exculpatory evidence at the scene of the arrest.
If this type of case is pushed into a court then the police will have to stop destroying property when they make an arrest.
I have been asked, many times, why I never weep for a fallen LEO.
Care to posit an opinion?
Where are the cops can do no wrong crowd, a/k/a jack boot lickers? This thread has had 7 responses and no has come on telling us how much we hate cops ; how brave the cops were,; and how much the woman deserved what she got.
I’ve heard it before...”We are the law”...
“Someone made a good point. If the police arrested Jason for “interference with police” after they would not stop recording then. Isn’t the deletion of that video tampering with evidence at the scene of a crime?”
If those guys who threw out the fireworks and the laptop after the bombing get jail time for it, then these police need to do some time also. The evidence that it was done deliberately and with prior knowledge is even more clear in the case described in this post. It’s that simple. Any other result is additional evidence of the system protecting itself.
So, who protects us from the system? Answer: Us.
There was a time in our nation’s history, that the public would have snatched those “officers” at the moment of the transgression and seen justice done upon them.
We need to return to those days and put these thugs in their place..
Bump
No no, officers saw a metallic object in her hand.
We just don't understand what the officers go through day by day.
This kinda of thing has been on the increase in all major metro areas. Officers are trained to use overwhelming force...problem is, every situation does not justify overwhelming force.
Officers are accountable just like everyone else. We had several officers here in Houston indicted for using force well beyond what was needed...caught on video.
Yea, the burglar was/is a thug and deserved a good @$$ woopin, but not on the ground, several officers holding them down, handcuffed and each officer taking turns kicking the guy in the head and torso.
Just cause they are cops, doesn't give them the right to beat the crap out of someone after gaining control over them.
That is a great point!
It is still early. You have to give it some time. Before long they’ll be here saying how the lady resisted and the guy taping was being rude.
Ever since the so-called War On Drugs (WOD) and, now, the War On Terror (WOT) — actually more like the War On The Bill of Rights) — began, our civilian cops have been undergoing MILITARY training. The “authorities” gentle it down with the prefix “Para” but those “dynamic entry” teams would be more at home in Baghdad than Boston. (Well, unless they hit John Kerry’s front door at 3 am, Boston might not be a good example.) Watch “Dallas SWAT” for a dose of how it works.
I have long thought that that sort of activity within the ranks of otherwise “civilian” law enforcement was a push by those with an agenda to bypass posse comitatus for purposes BEYOND the WOD/WOT and other currently criminal behavior.
That the mass of that shrinking minority – the American citizen (thank you Mr. Open Borders Bush and Total Amnesty Obama) – has NOT objected to this erosion of personal liberty does NOT bode well for the future of freedom here.
I wonder what sort of body count of innocent grandmothers and others it will take before folks begin to grasp that they might be more at risk from the cops than the criminals and bring the situation back under control?
My Uncle Bob (R.I.P.) would be horrified.
My Uncle Bob was a 30-year veteran of a police force in suburban Cleveland. He was best man at my wedding in 1962. He served in an era when MOST cops embodied the now frequently hollow motto emblazoned on police units all over this country: “TO PROTECT AND SERVE.”
The last 10 years of his career were spent as the chief Juvenile Detective in his department. When he died, a number of the young men whose lives he had touched years before came forward to tell how his timely and sometimes tough-love intervention turned them around.
I know that many officers STILL try to live that creed today. I also know that there are officers out there who, despite the rulings by the Supremes that they have no obligation to specific, individual citizens (see Warren v. DC for some fascinating and frightening reading on that), would stand between one of us and a bullet – and have.
Having said that, I must also lament that SOME cops are “cowboys.” Too many are simply power driven megalomaniacs who would have dropped on the OTHER side of the law had their lives drifted a degree or two off the course they did take.
I believe this to be especially true of far too many federal law enforcement types who have allowed their egos and hubris to become as bloated as the bureaucratic federal behemoth they serve. (See footnote below). Their mandate is no longer to “…protect and serve” the citizens who pay their salaries: It is to crush any meaningful resistance to a growing body of procedures, regulations and policies – too frequently enforced under severely tortured interpretations of the underlying legislative enactments (if any) – and often put in place by executive fiat. The massively abused SEIZURE statutes – laws the author of which now seeks to RESCIND! — spring to mind.
And one cannot but help to wonder how the clear to anyone with half a brain criminality of the Clintons and now Obama – and their subsequent avoidance of any penalty – has played into the problem? There now seems to be a bright line between the easy, highly flexible, slap-on-the-wrist law for the rich and powerful and the rigidly enforced law against even the tiniest victimless “crimes” committed by those of us further down the food chain. Does anyone in his right mind believe THAT will NOT engender added disrespect for ALL law?
Could those things be a large part of the problem in some of the highly disturbing – and DEADLY (on BOTH sides) – confrontations we have witnessed over the past decade or so? Gordon Kahl, Ruby Ridge, OK City, Waco, Beck… This list WILL lengthen and we’d all better pray that WE will be spared.
Roman historian Tacitus warned that one could tell the level of corruption in a society by the NUMBER of its laws. Anyone doubt the level of corruption here?
Am I the only one who thinks we’re long overdue a serious review of the NUMBERS of laws under which we are now forced to exist – and which are increasingly used not to assure our safety or well-being, but to COMMAND AND CONTROL us and KEEP US IN LINE.
Only the most tyrannical and power-crazed members of law enforcement could possibly object to that.
The modern counterparts of my uncle would not object.
It is THEY, after all, who are most likely to catch that bullet – probably fired by someone who has symbolically screamed to himself “I’M MAD AS HELL AND I’M NOT GONNA TAKE IT ANY MORE” — referred to earlier when they sally forth to serve that flimsy warrant or make that bogus arrest.
Dick Bachert (1999) Updated 12/2010
FOOTNOTE:
At a cocktail party back in the late 80’s, I struck up a chat with a fellow — his name was Joe M. — whom I’d met on one or two previous events. After my first encounter, Joe’s neighbor and my boss at the time told me that Joe was an alcoholic who had just retired from 25 years with the IRS. Needless to say, I was guarded in expressing my political views to Joe as the IRS had helped my dad into an early grave in 1977 — at age 59 over an estate matter. Joe was pretty deep into his cups at the function in question and began telling IRS “war stories.” Most had to do with clear cases of criminal conduct by not very nice people. Joe — who was a few years short of 60 — sounded to me like someone who enjoyed helping getting really bad people off the street and I asked why he’d retired early. He told me that what he called “the service” had changed for the worse. Then I asked him about the new people coming in. He shook his head, actually teared up and said that many of them were “really bad.” I pressed. “Really bad” meant incompetent? “No — DANGEROUS,” he responded “they like to hurt people.”
It was then that I think I understood why Joe drank.
So, just what exactly were these cops doing in the back room of a Shell station that they were worried about her seeing. Drug deals?
Cops like this need to be beaten by a large crowd of people who are sick and tired of their arrogant brutality!
I assume you think things would have turned out better in this case if the woman or her brother had been armed. I wonder how you think that would work.
Had either of them drawn a weapon, would the cops just have decided to walk away? Or is it more likely things would have immediately escalated to a shootout? What do cops do when a suspect draws a weapon? What should they do?
2A rights are very important for providing the people a method of collective armed defense against oppression. It is more or less by definition useless as a means for individuals to protect themselves against the same. If these two people had been armed, and "won" a shootout with the cops, would they (being in the moral right) just be able to go on their way? Or would more and more force have been called in by LEO until they were subdued or dead?
IOW, sometimes armed resistance against the cops might be morally in the right, but the chance of it turning out well for the resisters (as in being able to go on with their lives) is essentially nil.
The question you need to ask yourself before getting into armed confrontation with cops, "Am I willing to die on this hill?" Because it is just about certain you will either die or spend a very long time indeed in prison.
I will gladly agree some hills are worth dying on, but is this the one that justifies such a sacrifice?
None of this has any bearing on whether the cops acted stupidly in this case or not, although it should be pointed out that this article is not "the truth," it is one side's version of the story.
BTW, looked up some info about the Park Police. Sound like armed security guard types, with all their wannabee problems.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.