Page 4 of 5

Re: Police Kill Innocent Man / Swatting Incident

Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2018 3:37 pm
by gfrlaser
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/01/13/ca ... oting.html
A California man accused of making a hoax call in connection to an online quarrel between two “Call of Duty” gamers that led to the fatal police shooting of an unarmed man in Kansas has been charged with involuntary manslaughter.

Tyler Barriss, 25, made his first court appearance in Kansas via video link from jail on Friday following his extradition from Los Angeles. The 25-year-old was also charged with giving false alarm and interference with a law enforcement officer. Bond was set at $500,000.

Re: Police Kill Innocent Man / Swatting Incident

Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2018 10:41 am
by catfish86
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... nslaughter

This article has some additional details.

The charge of involuntary manslaughter carries a sentence ranging 31 months to 136 months. That is 2 yrs 1 mo to 11 yrs 4 mos in human years and depends on criminal record. Not sure if history of doing the same thing prior without getting somebody killed counts for that.

Second tidbit:
Sedgwick County district attorney Marc Bennett told reporters following the brief hearing that he is still reviewing whether any charges will be filed against the police officer, and once he makes a determination that decision would be made public. He said he was awaiting a final autopsy report.
Seeing the released video it is hard to see what the guy is dong before being shot. At the end of the day, I believe there needs to be consequences for being wrong and shooting an unarmed man. Take into account a man with no reason to believe that law enforcement should be on his doorstep doesn't follow directions to a T...btw, I heard "show us your hands" and "walk this way" but nothing about keeping hands in the air. You are behind cover and in body armor, not that those are guarantees of no harm but you shouldn't be so jumpy as to shoot for no real reason.

Re: Police Kill Innocent Man / Swatting Incident

Posted: Tue Jan 23, 2018 5:23 pm
by DontTreadOnMe
Didn't take long for a 2nd example of death by swatting - this one from New Year's Day

Attorney provides more details on fatal officer-involved shooting in Walker County

Woman is in the process of getting a divorce.
Her mother-in-law (yes, the mother of her estranged soon-to-be ex-husband) calls 911 sometime before 3am and reports "that her daughter-in-law texted her and told her she was going to harm herself, her husband, and the children. And advised she does carry a firearm in her purse."
Police show up at about 3am and bang on the door.
They say they announced themselves.
The woman's 65-year old husband armed himself.
He was spotted with the gun while still in the home (the kitchen, not a doorway).
One of the deputies fired 3 shots and killed him.

I guess the deputy thought the 65 year old man could've been the "daughter-in-law" who was the alleged threat.

Re: Police Kill Innocent Man / Swatting Incident

Posted: Tue Jan 23, 2018 5:54 pm
by qmti
Well, I'll say this. I live alone (widower) and out in the country. If someone is banging on my door a 3am in the morning, I'm not coming downstairs unarmed. By the time I get to the bottom of the steps they could be inside the house. They better have a bullhorn to announce who they are if THEY don't want to be shot.

Re: Police Kill Innocent Man / Swatting Incident

Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2018 2:10 pm
by drc
another police killing of an unarmed person,

http://www.cleveland19.com/story/373386 ... d-motorist" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Re: Police Kill Innocent Man / Swatting Incident

Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:26 pm
by Brian D.
drc wrote:another police killing of an unarmed person,

http://www.cleveland19.com/story/373386 ... d-motorist" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
This incident happened November 17, and "in the name of transparency", according to the police, dash cam video was released just yesterday. Color me a little skeptical or cynical, but that's too long.

Re: Police Kill Innocent Man / Swatting Incident

Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2018 4:16 pm
by JediSkipdogg
Brian D. wrote:
drc wrote:another police killing of an unarmed person,

http://www.cleveland19.com/story/373386 ... d-motorist" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
This incident happened November 17, and "in the name of transparency", according to the police, dash cam video was released just yesterday. Color me a little skeptical or cynical, but that's too long.
Well...I think it is Cleveland PD that is currently under fire by its department for releasing that info and they could pay out big if union members find enough personal harm caused by it.

Technically, under Ohio sunshine laws it should not be released until the department either charges and has a win/loss or declines to charge the officers involved in the case.

Re: Police Kill Innocent Man / Swatting Incident

Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2018 4:26 pm
by DontTreadOnMe
JediSkipdogg wrote:Technically, under Ohio sunshine laws it should not be released until the department either charges and has a win/loss or declines to charge the officers involved in the case.
That may be how the union sees it but the Ohio supreme court disagrees. Raw dash cam video is not generally considered investigatory work product and must be released in accordance with Ohio's sunshine laws (State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Ohio Dept. of Pub. Safety, 148 Ohio St.3d 433, 2016-Ohio-7987).
In the end, we hold that decisions about whether an exception to
public-records disclosure applies to dash-cam recordings require a case-by-case
review to determine whether the requested recordings contain investigative work
product. Having reviewed the three recordings at issue here, we conclude that
respondents should have released all three recordings to the Enquirer upon request,
with the 90 seconds of post-Miranda questioning of Teofilo redacted as
investigatory work product.

Re: Police Kill Innocent Man / Swatting Incident

Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2018 8:23 pm
by true_pair
Unreal!!!!!!!. So this guy gets rear ended by another car (article calls it a minor fender bender) and leaves the scene. He then gets cut off by police and approached with guns pointed at him and finally gets executed. WTF?????????????

Re: Police Kill Innocent Man / Swatting Incident

Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2018 8:25 pm
by Brian D.
I remember that case, DTOM, and it factored into my earlier post.

Re: Police Kill Innocent Man / Swatting Incident

Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2018 10:22 pm
by M-Quigley
JediSkipdogg wrote:
Brian D. wrote:
drc wrote:another police killing of an unarmed person,

http://www.cleveland19.com/story/373386 ... d-motorist" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
This incident happened November 17, and "in the name of transparency", according to the police, dash cam video was released just yesterday. Color me a little skeptical or cynical, but that's too long.
Well...I think it is Cleveland PD that is currently under fire by its department for releasing that info and they could pay out big if union members find enough personal harm caused by it.

Technically, under Ohio sunshine laws it should not be released until the department either charges and has a win/loss or declines to charge the officers involved in the case.
Cleveland P.D. released video of something that happened in Virginia? Or do you mean Cleveland PD released video of a different incident too early?

Re: Police Kill Innocent Man / Swatting Incident

Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2018 11:15 pm
by JediSkipdogg
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
JediSkipdogg wrote:Technically, under Ohio sunshine laws it should not be released until the department either charges and has a win/loss or declines to charge the officers involved in the case.
That may be how the union sees it but the Ohio supreme court disagrees. Raw dash cam video is not generally considered investigatory work product and must be released in accordance with Ohio's sunshine laws (State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Ohio Dept. of Pub. Safety, 148 Ohio St.3d 433, 2016-Ohio-7987).
In the end, we hold that decisions about whether an exception to
public-records disclosure applies to dash-cam recordings require a case-by-case
review to determine whether the requested recordings contain investigative work
product. Having reviewed the three recordings at issue here, we conclude that
respondents should have released all three recordings to the Enquirer upon request,
with the 90 seconds of post-Miranda questioning of Teofilo redacted as
investigatory work product.
Depending on the circumstances of the video. In the cases there, the defendants were charged with a crime. Under Ohio Sunshine law Confidential Law Enforcement Investigatory Records can be withheld if it would strongly disclose... (a) The identity of a suspect who has not been charged with the offense to which the record pertains, or of an information source or witness to whom confidentiality has been reasonably promised;

In the case you quoted, the suspect was charged. In the case of Cleveland, they are possibly still determining if charges are too be filed against the officers. If the prosecutor has decided to not indict, then it can and should be released. If the decision is still pending, then the video should not be released.

Re: Police Kill Innocent Man / Swatting Incident

Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2018 1:17 pm
by DontTreadOnMe
JediSkipdogg wrote:Depending on the circumstances of the video. In the cases there, the defendants were charged with a crime. Under Ohio Sunshine law Confidential Law Enforcement Investigatory Records can be withheld if it would strongly disclose... (a) The identity of a suspect who has not been charged with the offense to which the record pertains, or of an information source or witness to whom confidentiality has been reasonably promised;

In the case you quoted, the suspect was charged. In the case of Cleveland, they are possibly still determining if charges are too be filed against the officers. If the prosecutor has decided to not indict, then it can and should be released. If the decision is still pending, then the video should not be released.
You're already assuming the videos constitute investigatory work product, but from what the Ohio SC said that's not generally the case. If CPD dash cams record automatically, then it probably isn't (except possibly for parts recording specific investigatory work such as questioning potential suspects/witnesses).

Re: Police Kill Innocent Man / Swatting Incident

Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2018 1:20 pm
by DontTreadOnMe
Brian D. wrote:I remember that case, DTOM, and it factored into my earlier post.
It certainly does seem to often be the case that the speed at which video is released correlates to the likelihood of it supporting LE actions.

Re: Police Kill Innocent Man / Swatting Incident

Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2018 1:46 pm
by JediSkipdogg
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
JediSkipdogg wrote:Depending on the circumstances of the video. In the cases there, the defendants were charged with a crime. Under Ohio Sunshine law Confidential Law Enforcement Investigatory Records can be withheld if it would strongly disclose... (a) The identity of a suspect who has not been charged with the offense to which the record pertains, or of an information source or witness to whom confidentiality has been reasonably promised;

In the case you quoted, the suspect was charged. In the case of Cleveland, they are possibly still determining if charges are too be filed against the officers. If the prosecutor has decided to not indict, then it can and should be released. If the decision is still pending, then the video should not be released.
You're already assuming the videos constitute investigatory work product, but from what the Ohio SC said that's not generally the case. If CPD dash cams record automatically, then it probably isn't (except possibly for parts recording specific investigatory work such as questioning potential suspects/witnesses).
The supreme court also weighed that the OSP was withholding the video because they claimed they needed it for court and the court process was part of the investigatory work exception. In the Cleveland case, it's being used to decide if criminal charges even occurred. Under public record law, those two are treated totally different. I can place your name in a police report as the suspect in a theft and withhold a ton of information from you and the public. The second I charge you and change you from suspect to arrested, the public record exemptions change greatly.

Also, OSP was arguing that (c) Specific confidential investigatory techniques or procedures or specific investigatory work product; applied in their case. They were not fighting over part (a) that I quoted above. They were claiming their methods of handling stuff on the side of the road was a confidential investigatory technique.