Discussion - Video Taping Police

[LEO 229]

imported post

imperialism2024 wrote:

swillden wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

But still... the assault itself..... is a dead issue. It was a drunk citizen assaulting a bartender. Only in the news because the guy turned out to be an off dutycop and that makes for good news headlines.

I don't think it's even the fact that it was an off duty cop that makes it worthy of headlines. It's headline-worthy because of the initial leniency of the charges, and doubly so because of the way the charges were upgraded after the video was made public.

What makes this of interest to the public is the appearance of a partial cover-up. Had he been charged and prosecuted fully from the start, I think the general response would have been much less.

I'm not so sure it's that much of a cover-up as it is an example of how the system should be operating. Innocent until proven guilty. If there was no good reason to charge for a greater crime, then they were correct in not upgrading the charge until the video came out. Unfortunately, we've become so accustomed to the "guilty until plea bargained to slightly less guilty" or "guilty until bankrupted but proven innocent" standards that anything less seems like a cover-up.

I would not even call it a "cover up" as all they did was ask to not press charges. I have seen citizens asking for charges to be dropped. Were they involved in a cover up?

A cover up is going to require some type of activity to make it look like it never happened. Take him away saying nothing and write a bogus report with a fake name.

 

[sjhipple]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

ne1 wrote:

ama-gi wrote:

Let's keep the cop bashing off this thread. I think the video speaks for itself.

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/Story?id=4862057&page=1

This is the video of the off duty cop in civilian clothing that got drunk and then assaulted the bartender.

Many people get drunk and do stupid stuff. I do not believe this was a premeditated crime. He was not abusing his position as a cop as he was drunk as hell and dumb just like many civilians that drink and fight.

LEO, you and I have had this go-around about a hundred times, but I'll say it again. It's not that the officer did something wrong. It's the the department didn't fire him or charge him with the felony he committed until AFTER the media got involved.

The problem isn't the actions of the individual. It's the actions (or lack thereof) of the entire department, and those actions make what would be an individual problem stain the reputation of the entire department.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

ama-gi wrote:

LEO, you and I have had this go-around about a hundred times, but I'll say it again. It's not that the officer did something wrong. It's the the department didn't fire him or charge him with the felony he committed until AFTER the media got involved.

The problem isn't the actions of the individual. It's the actions (or lack thereof) of the entire department, and those actions make what would be an individual problem stain the reputation of the entire department.

I do not work that high up in the agency so I have no idea what they do on a normal basis behind closed doors.

 

[swillden]

imported post

imperialism2024 wrote:

If there was no good reason to charge for a greater crime, then they were correct in not upgrading the charge until the video came out. Unfortunately, we've become so accustomed to the "guilty until plea bargained to slightly less guilty" or "guilty until bankrupted but proven innocent" standards that anything less seems like a cover-up.

You're assuming that the police and DA didn't have access to the video earlier. I would be surprised by that. Why wouldn't the victim have provided them with the video?

As I understood it, the charges were upgraded after the video was released to the public, and after the expected public outcry for the wrist-slap.

 

[swillden]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

I would not even call it a "cover up" as all they did was ask to not press charges.

Yes, "cover up" was the wrong phrase.

However, I wasn't really referring to the "asking" not to press charges. I was referring to the decision by the police and DA's office to charge the guy with misdemeanors, rather than the felonies his actions warranted. Whatever the reality, the appearance was that the police and DA's office were protecting one of their own by slapping him on the wrist, rather than applying the full force of the law.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

swillden wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

I would not even call it a "cover up" as all they did was ask to not press charges.

Yes, "cover up" was the wrong phrase.

However, I wasn't really referring to the "asking" not to press charges. I was referring to the decision by the police and DA's office to charge the guy with misdemeanors, rather than the felonies his actions warranted. Whatever the reality, the appearance was that the police and DA's office were protecting one of their own by slapping him on the wrist, rather than applying the full force of the law.

I cannot comment on that as I have no information on who did what.

 

[swillden]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

swillden wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

I would not even call it a "cover up" as all they did was ask to not press charges.

Yes, "cover up" was the wrong phrase.

However, I wasn't really referring to the "asking" not to press charges. I was referring to the decision by the police and DA's office to charge the guy with misdemeanors, rather than the felonies his actions warranted. Whatever the reality, the appearance was that the police and DA's office were protecting one of their own by slapping him on the wrist, rather than applying the full force of the law.

I cannot comment on that as I have no information on who did what.

You know what he was charged with originally, and what the new charges were after the public outcry. From the public's perspective, it doesn't matter who made the decisions -- a bad cop was being protected.

 

[sjalterego]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

sjalterego wrote:

LEO 229 is correct in that at the time of the beating in the Chicago bar case the police officer Anthony Abbate was off-duty and not abusing his LEO powers. The victim bartender did not know he as a cop at the time. I assume other patrons likewise didn't know. However, the allegations are that at some later time, he and/or his brother (also a cop) identified themselves as cops and tried to "convince" the bartender not to file charges or to be a witness. Charges of obstruction of justice/witness intimidation have been added to the assault and battery charges.

At that point, this ceased to be just another a s s h o l e drunkbut an abuse of authority as well.

The other factor that made this a cause celebre is that initially Abbate was charged only with a misdemeanor. It was only after the videotape was released to the public and received attention that charges were upgraded. There is some suspicion that Abbate's fellow cops "protected" Abbate in their reports etc. so that only a misdemeanor was charged. That also makes this a sort of abuse of authority if true.

Now I agree that the responding officers should notask charges be dropped. That is wrong to do. But keep in mind that citizens do that too. They mother of the arrested will approach the family of the victim and beg for the charges to be dropped. So this is not limited to what the police cando.

But still... the assault itself..... is a dead issue. It was a drunk citizen assaulting a bartender. Only in the news because the guy turned out to be an off dutycop and that makes for good news headlines.

Of course citizens ASK the powers that be not to file charges etc. The clear implication here is that the officers THREATENED bad consequences (consequences they as police officers are uniquely situated to deliver)if the victim and witnesses continued with the prosecution.

Chicago PD has acquired (whether deserved or not I won't say) a reputation forhaving a rather large rogue element that is not adequately disciplined and which frequently gets away with abuse of authority. So anytime a police officer is undeniably caught doing something wrong it is big news. I agree this should be a smaller story than it became. However, if Chicago PD historically did a better job of disciplining its officers and earning the trust and respect (rather than the fear) of the citizenry then such stories would in fact be and remain small.



To address someof the above discussion, the news reports that the police and DA did have access to the videowhen they made the charging decision. It was only AFTER the video was released to the public and public outrage manifested that the charges were upgraded. I can't remember exactly but there wasthen some fingerpointing between the police and DA as to who was responsible for the misdemeanor charge. The police saying the DA had all evidence and independently charged and the DA saying they relied on the police reports (which downplayed the incident), and recommendationsand didn't have the video or something to that effect.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

I am not really interested in debating the incident.... The off duty cop was wrong and alcohol is no excuse. He should rightfully be arrested with the proper change and take his lumps.

If his fellow employees did threaten then they too should be charged.

I can overlook a trafficticket as I do for many other citizens.... but criminal charges must be placed where appropriate.