• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Pulling a Gun and Running from the Sheriff While Hispanic?

William Parcher said:
This is curious to me. Why break the cameras?

When you take the DVR you take away all of the recorded footage. There is no need to even touch the cameras.

Then they got a warrant for the equipment. This might mean that the (now broken) cameras were collected per the warrant and not just left as (broken) things in the shop. If so, then police now have cameras in evidence that were broken by police. It begs an explanation. You can imagine the gravity of that at a trial or before any trial.

The way I figure, either this is a very odd case, or something(s) that we have been told as being factual is not.
Click to expand...
Breaking the cameras after-the-fact serves no purpose at all, and anyone able to cogitate to the level of a gerbil would know this.

So, why claim that the police broke the cameras (for no reason)?
 
Captain_Swoop said:
How can the cameras have recorded anything if they are broken?
Click to expand...
I believe that the cameras recorded the interaction and the shooting - and that the recorded footage was contained in the DVR.

We are told that the police then took the DVR (with the footage) and broke the cameras.

They did those two things after they shot the victim.
 
Distracted1 said:
So, why claim that the police broke the cameras (for no reason)?
Click to expand...
Two things come to mind.

1) The police broke the cameras for unknown reasons and it was just like the shop manager said.
2) The police did not break the cameras and the shop manager is not telling the truth.
 
Distracted1 said:
Perhaps the cameras were already broken, and the DVR recorded nothing?
Click to expand...
Well, that may have been the situation before the incident. But then we still have the manager telling a lie because he said that the police broke the cameras.
 
P.J. Denyer said:
Then taking it would be pretty pointless.
Click to expand...
As would breaking the cameras after the fact.

ETA Actually, upon consideration it would not necessarily pointless. The DVR could very well have recorded hours of static - or of a "no signal" message, or just a black screen. The DVR would not necessarily stop recording just because there was nothing to record.

Two days of recorded static could prove that the cameras were not working in the first place.
 
Last edited:
It occurs to me now that the police may have accidentally broken the cameras when collecting them (before or after the warrant) or whatever. The manager is not obligated to say that it happened by accident even if he knows that for a fact. If it was an accident then he might be just simply expressing something like, "They broke our stuff!", without feeling the need to explain how it happened.
 
William Parcher said:
It occurs to me now that the police may have accidentally broken the cameras when collecting them (before or after the warrant) or whatever. The manager is not obligated to say that it happened by accident even if he knows that for a fact. If it was an accident then he might be just simply expressing something like, "They broke our stuff!", without feeling the need to explain how it happened.
Click to expand...

They broke all 7 cameras by accident? Come on... pull the other leg.

Why would the cops break the cameras as well as taking the DVR? My first guess is that they were not technical experts and were concerned that video might have been stored on chips in the cameras as well as on the dvds. In fact it well may have been, depending on how the system was set up.

My second guess is that it was intended as intimidation of the manager: “If you are going to tell bad stuff about us remember that we can hurt your stuff, your business, and maybe even you!”
 
Last edited:
Giordano said:
They broke all 7 cameras by accident? Come on... pull the other leg.
Click to expand...
Well, consider the possibility that they did't break all 7 cameras. Pretend that they broke 2 of the 7 cameras. The manager can still express his disgust by saying, "they broke our cameras", and he is not obligated to say how many were broken or how it happened.


Why would the cops break the cameras as well as taking the DVR? My first guess is that they were not technical experts and were concerned that video might have been stored on chips in the cameras as well as on the dvds. In fact it well may have been, depending on how the system was set up.
Click to expand...
But taking the cameras because you erroneously think they contain footage does not explain breaking them. And remember that you are implying that all 7 of them were broken. Why intentionally break any of the cameras if you already know that you are going to be removing them pronto?

My second guess is that it was intended as intimidation of the manager: “If you are going to tell bad stuff about us remember that we can hurt your stuff, your business, and maybe even you!”
Click to expand...
If so then again I say that it will be an interesting trial. That is: seven cameras that were intentionally broken by police being displayed in court. A humdinger!
 
I don't care about whether the cameras were broken. Whether DVR or body-cam, some video is going to have to be made public. The owner of the business where the guy was killed, who was a witness, says the dead man was on his knees with his hands up and the police shot him in the back. That's not some minor difference in detail from the police's account.
 
Checkmite said:
I don't care about whether the cameras were broken. Whether DVR or body-cam, some video is going to have to be made public. The owner of the business where the guy was killed, who was a witness, says the dead man was on his knees with his hands up and the police shot him in the back. That's not some minor difference in detail from the police's account.
Click to expand...
Is he the owner or manager or what?
 
William Parcher said:
Thanks, Captain Swoop said manager.

ETA: Or do we have quotes from both the owner and also the manager?
Click to expand...
The OP included a report which said owner of a body shop (presumably car body....) The owner may well also be the manager.
 
William Parcher said:
Thanks, Captain Swoop said manager.

ETA: Or do we have quotes from both the owner and also the manager?
Click to expand...

The only video I've seen of somebody associated with the place of business is of the same guy. But pull quotes I've read in the newspaper and online have been attributed to the "owner" and the "manager" depending on the source. Similarly the gun the kid had has been described as "unmarked" and "unregistered" depending on the source. Right now it I think that I don't know what to think. There's alot of information that doesn't add up, as others have pointed out.
 
I'm going to go with it being only one guy and I'm going to call him owner, though I previously called him manager.

The owner says that the victim was shot 7 times in the back. Reports say it was only one officer that did the shooting.

The owner says the victim wasn't even carrying a gun let alone displaying one. He says the cops had him on his knees with his hands up (or on head). Then he is shot 7 times in the back, all coming from one shooter. Wow!
 
Just an advisory:

The Wikipedia article on this has a link (#13) to The International Business Times piece. It triggered my antivirus twice - might be nothing - surf advised.

The IBT article has and embedded twitter video of the owner showing 2 cameras , one at the front end of the business and the other in the back, which have been pulled from the wall. A third camera is shown intact.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom