Cops don't like people with cameras

You never know it could just save your a$$ and your career some day.
One of the LEO's here once said that a "quoted" website I used was invalid as it was biased. So this part here goes directly to you.

Why we pulled the 7/16 San Francisco shooting report
By David, on July 17th, 2011

Around 4:45pm on Saturday San Francisco police fatally shot a young man who fled after being detained for jumping fare on a light rail vehicle. Initial reports were that police insisted the young man was armed and had opened fire and officers returned fire without being injured. However, police could not find the alleged weapon and people claiming to be witnesses were contradicting their version of events by insisting the man was not armed and had his arms up when he was shot.

I initially added this to the news feed since it did meet our reporting criteria with 3rd party witnesses alleging misconduct and a lack of evidence supporting the police narrative. However, as time went by the story changed and finally came to a point where I felt it was no longer sufficiently credible to keep for our database.

What changed? A private citizens video of the incident

What was the turning point? An alleged bystander’s cell phone video posted to YouTube in the aftermath of the shooting appeared to capture what seems to be a firearm on the ground approximately 6-7 yards away from the victim which, according to the person posting the video, was retrieved by a person in the crowd who later disappeared.

Now, this does not mean that either narrative is correct. After all, it seems strange that the person who took the video doesn’t alert anyone to the alleged gun, that others appear to walk right past it, and at least 5 officers with a line of sight on the alleged weapon do not react to it either. It is also questionable as to how the person who shot the video claims to know who picked up the gun when the video doesn’t pan over to where that alleged incident occurs but does capture someone picking up a cell phone that may have belonged to the victim.

However, it does cast enough questions on the incident to make the police version of events plausible where it wasn’t before. So, in fact, this may well be an incident where private citizens videotaping police may turn in favor of the police, which at least should make officers who want to make recording the police a crime think twice about that stance.

www.injusticeeverywhere.com... %29

Now all you cops out their should be encouraging citizen video tapping as it may just get you out of a whole lot of dog poop.

While I may not like you people with a badge and a gun, and have even less respect for the majority of you, I will say if you are in trouble for something you didn't do, then by god, I I will say you didn't do it. And for all you true Officers of Peace, my hat goes off to you for doing what you do

WARNING THESE VIDEOS CONTAIN RAW, UNCUT FOOTAGE

You've been warned.



Here is another angle which takes place BEFORE the above video.



MODS: Feel free to convert to clickable links, if you deem necessary.

I know this is covered in your link, but I want to clarify a bit more, since most people won't read this aspect. The YouTube video's annotations seem to claim quite a bit, but seem to be nothing more than a way to excite people.

This is the part that gets me:

As documented in a cell phone video of the shooting incident posted on YouTube, a witness to the shooting had retrieved the gun and ran off with it. Investigators tracked down the weapon several hours later.

www.ktvu.com...

At 1:16 you can clearly hear an object fall to the ground, and the guy in the striped hoody points it out and say's "Phone. Somebody's phone." He then picks it up to examine it, since the person who dropped it obviously didn't turn around.

There is ZERO evidence showing that:
A - Someone retrieved "the" gun
B - Ran off with "the" gun

Shortly after he grabs the cell phone, or whatever it was, he does appear to have 'disappeared' but if you look closely, you'll notice the friend takes his attention into the other direction. Why? Could be for a multitude of reasons. Maybe they saw the person who dropped the phone? Maybe they went to meet up with some friends? Doesn't matter.

There is no key evidence even showing the guy in striped hoody next to the "gun".

He's in standing in the 1st box. The supposed "gun" is in the 2nd.

Perspective Shot - Showing the gun clearly in 2nd box (from the chain)


Clearly showing guy in the hoody pick up rectangular object from 1st box - Note the round piece of grass

Police have yet to release details about the man's record, but the Seattle police said Sunday night that the suspect was considered a person of interest in a south Seattle shooting on Wednesday that killed a 19-year old woman and injured three others.

They say he was 'considered a person of interest' in the other case. Not 'confirmed as the shooter' as many people seem to be assuming.

The link below also states he was only a person of interest, not confirmed the shooter.

---------------

Chief Greg Suhr told KGO someone picked up the suspect's hand gun in the moments after the shooting and ran away. He credits multiple cell phone videos from the scene for helping police catch up with the person who look it. When asked if he was sure the firearm police obtained was the one used to shoot at police, Suhr said he was confident that it was the suspect's weapon.

www.nbcbayarea.com...

Wait, since when does 'confident' mean 'confirmed'?

Look forward to some actual evidence being thrown in this mix.

What gets me most is why the supposed "gun" is about 25 feet or so in front of him. Since this is the gun they are all referencing to from the 'YouTube' video evidence. Of course, had it been closer to him (within a few feet) officer's wouldn't have to spend the next several hours investigating the location of said gun.

So...

A. Did he wait to be shot before throwing his gun 25 feet away?
What motive would be behind this? Also, seems like a difficult task after getting shot. He looks to be in pain.

B. While shooting at police, did he just decide "I'm gonna throw my gun over there."?
Had he done this, that'd automatically mean they shot an unarmed man.

He obviously didn't come from the parking lot. But from the street. Hence why police are behind him.

If the police in the second video are coming up from behind him, it's because they shot him in the back. I highly doubt there was any point in which this guy stopped to turn around and face police, then did A or B. Plus, nobody would take a bullet, and start crawling towards the police, you'd continue in whatever direction you were going, getting away from them, so it's no doubt at all which direction he was going in.

Just trying to put the pieces together here. Anyone's guess as to where it goes next.

reply to post by BeyondPerception


Very well observed. His murderers MUST face trial.

Originally posted by BeyondPerception

Just trying to put the pieces together here. Anyone's guess as to where it goes next.

edit on 7/18/2011 by BeyondPerception because: (no reason given)

C. Running at a high rate of speed carrying a small heavy metal object when falling that object more often then not will travel some distance from the impact area. Try running with your phone in your hand and tripping on a curb.

The point of the OP was to show that sometimes private video can actually confirm, as in this case most likely that he did have a weapon.

Originally posted by NuroSlam

Originally posted by BeyondPerception

Just trying to put the pieces together here. Anyone's guess as to where it goes next.

edit on 7/18/2011 by BeyondPerception because: (no reason given)

C. Running at a high rate of speed carrying a small heavy metal object when falling that object more often then not will travel some distance from the impact area. Try running with your phone in your hand and tripping on a curb.

The point of the OP was to show that sometimes private video can actually confirm, as in this case most likely that he did have a weapon.

So this guy a Ford Mustang? He sure must run fast.

How much does a gun weigh? About 3-5 lb?

How fast is this guy going to be running in order for this gun to be launched about 25 feet forward?
He'd have to be going pretty damn fast in order for this 'fallen object' to travel that kind of distance.

The scenario you are trying to imply, is highly, highly, I'll say it again, highly unlikely to happen.

Go outside with something of similar weight and size, sprint as fast as you can, and drop it on some pavement. I'd love to see it slide 25 feet away without you intentionally tossing it forward some.

reply to post by BeyondPerception

You dont tend to drop things when you trip, you launch them. I am not saying this is the case, but another option to be looked at, add to that the slide effect and I dont see it as so implausible. Strictly speaking from experience here, I'm actually pretty clumsy which is why I don't run, I have launched a lot of things even at a normal walk.

reply to post by NuroSlam


Yes but gravity works downwards. One has to run at incredible speeds to launch an object like that to reach that far taking into account the weight of the object, gravity and the friction it experiences on the ground.

Shooting someone who has his arms up =/= running at incredible speed to launch something that far.

Originally posted by Zamini
reply to post by NuroSlam

 

Yes but gravity works downwards. One has to run at incredible speeds to launch an object like that to reach that far taking into account the weight of the object, gravity and the friction it experiences on the ground.

Shooting someone who has his arms up =/= running at incredible speed to launch something that far.

If i had a toss away piece i would go outside and see how far a simple low angle toss would travel, but my stuff is far bigger then that pea shooter. You have to remember, the natural thing to do is extend your arms in front of you to break your fall, you'll get a far longer slide effect at low angle then a high angle which would give you a bounce. Say for example his arm is at the near mid level upward swing you are looking at a high velocity release if say at a sprint. Again, just looking at it from anothe angel not saying this is what happened.

Originally posted by NuroSlam
reply to post by BeyondPerception

 

You dont tend to drop things when you trip, you launch them. I am not saying this is the case, but another option to be looked at, add to that the slide effect and I dont see it as so implausible.

Not saying it's impossible either. Just saying it's highly unlikely to happen.

All of the following would have to play out...

- He'd have to have his hands swinging in the upward direction when he decided to 'release' the weapon. This is necessary in order to gain the right angle, else the energy is dissipated into the ground, preventing the 'slide' effect.
- He'd have to be traveling at a very high speed. Yes, we all know black guys can run fast. In jeans, you're a little limited on your speed though, compared to shorts.
- He'd have to perfectly release the weapon upon being shot - no sloppy tosses count here.
- All of this, under the assumption that he'd let go of the weapon upon being shot.

Then we have to factor in why it took several hours for the police to locate a weapon.

Originally posted by NuroSlam

Originally posted by Zamini
reply to post by NuroSlam

 

Yes but gravity works downwards. One has to run at incredible speeds to launch an object like that to reach that far taking into account the weight of the object, gravity and the friction it experiences on the ground.

Shooting someone who has his arms up =/= running at incredible speed to launch something that far.

If i had a toss away piece i would go outside and see how far a simple low angle toss would travel, but my stuff is far bigger then that pea shooter. You have to remember, the natural thing to do is extend your arms in front of you to break your fall, you'll get a far longer slide effect at low angle then a high angle which would give you a bounce. Say for example his arm is at the near mid level upward swing you are looking at a high velocity release if say at a sprint. Again, just looking at it from anothe angel not saying this is what happened.

Not everyone would fall this way.
Not everyone would fall this way immediately after being shot. Maybe a leg shot, but not a back or body shot.. This type of thing would probably slow you to a halt, but not 'stop' you in your tracks.

Just saying.

reply to post by NuroSlam


'Most likely' that he had a weapon? Did you see the pictures posted earlier showing a rectangular silver object being picked up, rather than a gun?

Why do we now assume that in America you are supposed to get shot by the cops if you have a gun? We have the right to carry guns, don't we?

Originally posted by Malcram
reply to post by NuroSlam

 

'Most likely' that he had a weapon? Did you see the pictures posted earlier showing a rectangular silver object being picked up, rather than a gun?

And you don't see in the photo above that a gun on a different part of the sidewalk?[

Originally posted by earthdude
Why do we now assume that in America you are supposed to get shot by the cops if you have a gun? We have the right to carry guns, don't we?

I don't see anyone assuming that at all, really, read the article, the police said there was a gun, witnesses said there wasnt, private video shows gun, that is all this is about not really about why.

OffTopic : Could any one please post this to main thread??? seems interesting!!!

To TPTB that changed the title of this thread, you could have followed the idea of the post and changed it to "why cops should encourage video taping"

The cops should always welcome the camera from concerned onlookers.

Perhaps more people will recognize that based on this situation.

reply to post by BeyondPerception


It isn't that unlikely, actually.

25 feet is only 8 metres, any half decent human being should be able to hit 8m/s at full sprint. If the lad was holding the gun in his hands and ends up lunging forward after being shot, releasing the weapon, it stands to reason it will travel quite some distance. Factor in any sliding effect, seeing as it is metal on concrete and 8 metres is pretty damn easy to do. I am surprised it didn't go further. I could jump 6 metres at full sprint when I was at school doing athletics and I wasn't that good at the long jump.

That said, I think 25 feet is an over estimate of the distance. The camera can distort your perception.

If I could be arsed, I would do the maths and I am 100% confident that if I did, we would see that this is entirely within the realms of possibility.

I think the only reason you're saying it is "highly, highly unlikely" is because you don't want it to be and nothing more. Science would say otherwise.