Olympus' Micro Four Thirds 75mm prime
Pentax K-30: a pretty package of a camera
Can you fix the focus on a blurry photo after the fact?
The birth of Mirrorless Cameras
The Joy Of Winning A Photo Contest
Choosing your first dSLR camera
New York City can be beautiful!
Choosing the Right Light Stand
Photojojo iPhone Telephoto Lens review — AudioCast
How To Buy Digital Photo Frames For An Exhibit - Part 2
Hey MAC users! A great source and an April Fool that is no joke
My week with Q
How To Become A Successful Photographer
"When the Wind Stopped" — poem with 4 photos
Creating The New Family Portrait
Tips for Textures 
Cast aways - saving those photographic memories
One Man Show: My 25 Years With Digital Photography
Studio, Flash, & Available Light — Three Books Reviewed
Portrait styling: dangerous pairings
Adobe Photoshop CS6 Product Managers Interview Audiocast
A gift of flowers: unfold your senses
On Set of "Love & Robots" the Film
No-Brainer Setup For A Digital Photo Frame Exhibit - Part 3
Exhibiting With Digital Photo Frames (DPF) Part 1
Planning “National Geographic” style photo travel
Find Inner Peace and Beauty at San Jose, California, Airport
Wilderness Travel 1 Rainforests – Essential Gear
Backlighting Basics
What Moves You?
FIGURES IN MOTION: Decades of Evolving Personal Imagery in Photography, Part 7
Lomography Store, Austin, Texas — GALLERY
GALLERY — Up to $1,000 Reward for Cattle Rustlers
25% off on photography eBooks
eyePhone: The eBook for iPhone Photographers
Interview with Harold Davis — Closeup Maestro of Flowers & Water Drops
Interview with Steve Caplin — Photoshop Digital Artist, Commercial Illustrator, & Author
A Brief History Of Light & Photography: Part 3 of 3
A Brief History Of Light & Photography: Part 2 Of 3
Easy technique to select, edit and sequence keywords for web
How much should you charge for a photograph?Judge Bars Release of Video That Shows Police Beating
A surveillance video that allegedly shows a group of Houston police officers severely beating a 15-year-old suspect will not be released to the public, despite persistent requests from local media stations and newspapers.
U.S. District Judge Ewing Werlein Jr. barred the release of the video because "in all likelihood it will repeatedly be streamed on television and the Internet into every home and venue, seen by millions of persons, and become the subject of pervasive opinioned commentary."
So what?
The final decision lies with the jury anyway, which will get to see the video. To say they are incapable of reaching an objective decision despite media commentary is saying they are incabable of serving on a jury in the first place.
The beating was apparently so severe that the seven officers involved were fired, instead of placed on paid administrative leave as is customary in these cases.
One of the officers is accused of running him over with a squad car. The officers then pounced on him and kicked and hit him repeatedly, which is being compared to the Rodney King incident by those who have seen it.
Four of those officers are now facing misdemeanor charges. If the video is as inflammatory as the judge confirms, then it is likely they should be facing felony charges.
And maybe that's the real reason the video is not being released.
Comments
Nah, this is SOP. The jury will see the video, but with the commentary that the prosecution and defense provide at the time.
Once the trial is over and the appeals (if any) are finished and they STILL won't release the video, then you'll have a story. Until then, it just sounds like whining to me.
Yes, it's Standard Operating Procedure for cops to use every means possible to shirk responsibility for their thuggish and criminal behavior.
If you think it's "whining" for people to protest, and to demand that the video be released while the memory of the cops' crime is still fresh, then you'd better prepare yourself for a LOT more "whining"!
The point he is trying to make is that it is standard to take measures to avoid tainting the jury pool. It's why major local cases are often moved to another district and why jury selection in big cases can take so long. The desire of both sides is to select jurors who are unfamiliar with the case.
Yes, prosecutors want that, too, for a whole host of reasons (not the least of which is, they don't want their victories overturned). Same with judges.
I think it's whining to expect special treatment just because:
1. It's a video
2. It's cops
This is how evidence is treated in a criminal proceeding - and for good reason.
I agree with swashbuckler. You do want the cops to have a fair trial right? A video with tons of commentary will influence the jury in one way or another. The best solution is to simply wait until the jury gets to look at it in a neutral environment and make their own conclusions.
Innocent until proven guilty and all that noise...right? Sounds like you (Carlos) have already convicted them. Hopefully the jury will maintain a bit more of an open mind.
And no doubt, you've exonerated them, given your propensity to stick up for dirty cops.
I don't know if they are guilty are not. I haven't seen the video and this article is the first I have heard of it. The fact that they were fired so quickly makes me think they probably did screw up. I hope they didn't but either way they deserve fair treatment under the law.
I would think someone that uses "ACLU" in their name would understand that. I guess you only worry about rights and fair trials when they involve non-cops?
JL is right, folks. Cops are no better (or worse) than anyone else. They should get a trial by jury, unprejudiced by any outside opinions. Once the trial is over, there is no compelling reason to keep it under wraps.
The problem comes in when incriminating evidence against cops "disappears" or when cops suspected of DUI are tested HOURS after the accident. If me and four of my friends beat a guy to within an inch of his life, then drive over him with my car, can I count on misdemeanor charges too?
I don't care what the rules are. I just think they should be applied equally to everyone, regardless of whether they carry a badge. And let's stop pretending they already do.
Was that my friend Carlos in the fray making comments? Lol! Hello Carlos, still at it huh?
Have you ever considered selling your camera equipment and becoming a civil rights lawyer?
...pierresplace... ;)
A group, possible 7, of so called police officers beating up a 15 year old boy! What the hell is happening to America?
Screw yourself judge!
Animal!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What a crap decision.
I'd like to read the whole thing. MAYBE the judge makes a strong case that it will be too difficult to sit an impartial jury if the video is released prior to trial ... but you know what? The jury is still bound by the law, as is the judge. They still have to decide based on the legal evidence before them. This is why appeals courts exist. To overturn bad decisions if and when they're made.
Good point. Media on this is not making any distinction between held back until trial and being locked up forever. Its a slam dunk that it will be appealed, and eventually it will come out. Prior restraint does not go over well in the US.
Not that it's a major question in this case, but juries are also able to weigh the merits of the law itself - jury nullification and etc.
Not that I would expect a jury to find a law against beating people to be wrong... but still, they're not as "bound by the law" as some judges and prosecutors would like people to believe.
Will the real Bill Cooper please stand up?
"They still have to decide based on the legal evidence before them."
No, they are still SUPPOSED to decide based on the evidence presented at trial. It doesn't always happen.
I, for one, would like the tape to be released after the trial. My reasons is for the exact reason that the cops were acquitted during the Rodney King trial. Showing the tape over and over will desensitize the community and the defense will show frame by frame reason will the "beating" was justified. Let it rest until trial and then release it after.
What kind of trial are you expecting? Not guilty to the cops???
That's the morning line. 6-5 for the court letting the cops walk.
My take would be that the cops will plead to minor offenses with the stipulation that the tape never be released. That is why you never give the police the only copy of any media in your possesition.
I think it's funny that a website that is dedicated to protecting rights is upset because a judge is trying to protect the defendant's right to a fair trial. Is it just me or is that just a little hypocritical.
Why didn't the cops protect the 15yo's rights? Seems more than just a little hypocritical, to me.
Nemo,
Apples and oranges buddy. One has nothing to do with the other. Especially when you are considering a fair trial. Are you implying that people accused of certain crimes should have less legal rights than others?
Are you comparing the right to videotape with an alleged "right" to have an incriminating video suppressed indefinitely? That makes no sense to me.
I've never understood how it makes any sense to equate a "fair trial" with hiding information from the public.
This site is about getting MORE information out to the world, not less. Your "that's hypocritical" claim is without merit.
"Werlein's ruling is not a gag order preventing the media from posting the video but instead prevents Hall or any of his employees from releasing the tape until the criminal trials of the four officers are concluded."
That's not exactly indefinitely.
As far as a judge limiting the ability of the attorneys involved in the case to affect pre-trial publicity, I don't think that's going anywhere too soon. The judge didn't and really can't tell anyone ELSE to not release the video...
Release the video now. Let the public decide the context with the statements from the defense and prosecution. Finally, let the jury decide what is the truth and justified based on the video, given the perspective of the defense and prosecution.
Tom Joad
Yeah yeah, trial but media that's ALWAYS a good idea. (rolls eyes)
Stop talking, you are making yourself look like an idiot.
I find the comments here to be remarkably free from gratuitous personal insults. Are you determined to be an exception?
I'm still trying to figure out what you mean by "trial but media". Did you mean trial BY media?
I understand the concern that juries may be "tainted" by sensationalistic reporting, but believe that trying to fix the problem by suppressing a free flow of information will ultimately only make it worse.
Shouldn't the decision to release the video be in the hands of the owner of the video? Whoever owns the building with the camera on it, owns the film no matter what the judge decides. That is who we should be appealing to. Hopefully he made a copy before giving it to police.
A number of commenters here have stated that the cops can't get a fair trial unless the video of their actions is suppressed, presumably until the trial, and any appeals, are over, which could take years.
I wonder if those same commenters are equally vociferous regarding cops tipping off news crews when they're about to make a high-profile arrest, during which they make the accused take a "perp walk" in handcuffs while the cameras roll.
You got a good point JdL. Maybe before showing anybody taking a "perp walk" the media should get permission from the court.
There is also a difference between showing somebody after they are arrested and showing the actual alleged crime.
From article:
".S. District Judge Ewing Werlein Jr. barred the release of the video because "in all likelihood it will repeatedly be streamed on television and the Internet into every home and venue, seen by millions of persons, and become the subject of pervasive opinioned commentary."
and from article:
"If the video is as inflammatory as the judge confirms, then it is likely they should be facing felony charges."
Nice putting words into the judge's mouth.
So, the officers have already been fired? Do you think that communicates anything to the public? Do you think we have to see the video at all? Of course we want to see it but doesn't their firing tell us what we want to know? That they're Nazi Facists disregarding human decency AND the law and think that they're immune? Their superiors were so offended by their actions that they fired them before a trial. So, can any trial acquit them or can any juror be objective? I doubt it. The trouble is that there has been so much police abuse in the past that the chickens are coming home to roost and the judge is trying to hold off the tidal wave of public response to these heinous crimes. Crimes that have been going on since police forces were invented. It's clear that certain types of human beings decide to become cops and they're many times the worst choices for the job.
Firing = administrative
Trial = criminal
That is less inflammatory that having this video plastered all over the media and internet. I remember when that one Chicago cop beat up the female bartender. The media showed that video so many times, it was impossible for the officer to get a fair trial. Why do you have such a hard time with holding off on releasing it until the trial is over? Is the concept of judicial fairness so awful to you when a cop is involved? Would you feel the same way if it was some photographer?
"It's clear that certain types of human beings decide to become cops and they're many times the worst choices for the job."
So why doesn't a perfect person like yourself sign up and show all us nazi facists how it is done? Maybe you will find out that you're a nazi facist too.
a drunk cop beating a tiny woman is your kind of guy huh?
If I were a Nazi Facist you'd be the first to go, lol.
Administrative. Criminal. The effect is the same. Are you trying to say that even though their firing is administrative it won't have any effect on the public's thinking? Or are you trying to pretend they didn't committ that act? You write complete sentences, surely you know there won't be any difference. Besides which, getting fired from a job is always administrative, but the reason for it is... you already know why.
I'm not perfect, just close to it. However, I do have clarity of vision and it seems pretty clear to me that if the video is broadcast, and the trial takes place, etc. we're going to see what we already have witnessed. That's why the judge is trying to hold it at bay, he doesn't want prejudice but errant police are already in hot water whether they did it or not. The public is also adept at being biased toward them as they are toward us.
Know when to chill out Johnny. :) Like you said above:
"The fact that they were fired so quickly makes me think they probably did screw up."
Who GAF anyway? Let the chips fall where they may.
So you are saying since the public is already going to be somewhat biased, we should just say the hell with it and not try to minimize that bias? I don't understand that line of reasoning (even though I write complete sentences).
Just wait a little bit. The video will be released soon enough (probably leaked) and then everyone can have their pound of police flesh.
And I really don't think someone who is ranting about nazi facists has any ground to tell someone else to chill out.
Look, you just seem to have some axes to grind and are argumentaive and combative. None of this amounts to a hill of beans. It's the ongoing saga of who's will is going to prevail. It'll never stop when it comes to the fraility of human nature which I might add, will always have it's natural streak of bias. You show your bias against me because you don't care for what I say so go back to your cave and leave me alone in mine. Ok?
HAHAHAHAHA!!!! You're funny!
Post new comment