One cop fired another disciplined for ordering deletion of recording

[rudeguy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mU0mEcc6Lg&list=UUr3FngGDAWJDWJX70j2fsmg

The video that went viral after it was posted on PINAC Monday, showing a woman being placed in a chokehold after she refused to provide identification, led to the resignation of one officer and disciplinary action against another after a dash cam video obtained through a PINAC public records request ended up contradicting an earlier statement from the police chief.
The day the initial video was posted, Corpus Christi Police Chief Floyd D. Simpson issued a press release in which he said Lanessa Espinosa was involved in a fight with a large group of people, which is why the officers had probable cause to demand her identification.
Simpson also stated the following:
The Corpus Christi Police Department prides itself in transparency and respects the public’s right to photograph and record in public. Our officers are trained to be respectful during police/citizen contacts and de-escalation techniques.
Furthermore, members of the Corpus Christi Police Department do not interfere with citizens who wish to photograph or record our officers in the public space.
But then the dash cam footage requested by PINAC’s growing research team revealed that Corpus Christi Police Sergeant Jerry Lockhart ordered her to delete the footage she had recorded of him placing her in handcuffs after a Nueces County district attorney officer placed her in a chokehold.
It also shows she was not part of the fight because they had that group lined up against a van away from Espinosa.
Nueces County district attorney officer Gary Witherspoon ended up resigning to avoid termination because of that chokehold.
And Lockhart was “formally disciplined” for ordering her to delete the footage, although Simpson did not specify exactly how he would be disciplined.
ChiefFloydSimpson
Corpus Christi Police Chief Floyd D. Simpson
Simpson followed up his first statement with the following statement after the truth emerged:
Based on the news stories aired locally and on the internet, it was brought to our attention that an Officer had requested Ms. Espinosa to delete the video that was recorded. We viewed the entire dash cam video and found the conversation between Officer Lockhart and Ms. Espinosa. It was discovered that Officer Lockhart did request that the video be deleted.
Officer Lockhart took full responsibility for his statement on the video and was formally disciplined for those actions.
A memo, to the entire department, will follow on Wednesday regarding Texas Penal Code Sec. 38.02 “Failure to Identify” and our commitment to transparency by allowing citizens who wish to photograph or record our officers in a public space.
KIII-TV, which reported on the story this week, mistakenly claiming that citizens are required by law to provide identification to cops, even if they have not been lawfully arrested, clarified that mistake in the following statements.
It shows a local woman, Lanessa Espinosa, as she repeatedly refuses to show law officers her I.D. She was seen arguing correctly that unless they planned to arrest her, she could legally refuse.
So perhaps Simpson had been misled by his own officers when he issued the first press release, but he followed through on his promise of transparency in his second press release as soon as he learned the truth.
The video below combines Espinosa’s video footage from Lockhart’s dash cam video. The incident took place in August but Espinosa didn’t publish it until last weekend because she was afraid of retaliation. She has since retained an attorney.

http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2014/12/texas-cop-loses-job-chokehold-woman/

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mU0mEcc6Lg&list=UUr3FngGDAWJDWJX70j2fsmg






http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2014/12/texas-cop-loses-job-chokehold-woman/

Both should be fired. One did the choking, the other told them to do the deleting, correct?

Yeah, uhhh, fuck this whole "discipline" thing, when you rape someone of their rights, that is a "go to jail" card. The least you can do is relieve them and strip them of their badge. To represent someone that stupid and ignorant in your police force is filthy.

 

[dmcowen674]

They made a Home and Garden forum but should have made a Police out of Control forum first.

 

[brycejones]

They made a Home and Garden forum but should have made a Police out of Control forum first.

I would support this.......

 

[Blanky]

Why don't you as a non police officer go and willfully destroy evidence used during an arrest and let me know how much prison time you get. Exactly.

Cops are just let off and slapped on the wrist like they are retarded children who can't know better (often, not far from the truth).

Any cop doing this should be given jail time, let alone ever work as a cop again.

 

[rudeguy]

Why don't you as a non police officer go and willfully destroy evidence used during an arrest and let me know how much prison time you get. Exactly.

Cops are just let off and slapped on the wrist like they are retarded children who can't know better (often, not far from the truth).

Any cop doing this should be given jail time, let alone ever work as a cop again.

My vote is that any cop who gives an order that is unlawful should be guilty of a felony.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

My vote is that any cop who gives an order that is unlawful should be guilty of a felony.

Agreed.

 

[JEDIYoda]

just wow..I am agreeing with rudeguy!! Agreed!!

In before The Merg enters and says the cops were allowed to request she identify herself and that she had over the video....

 

[The Merg]

just wow..I am agreeing with rudeguy!! Agreed!!

In before The Merg enters and says the cops were allowed to request she identify herself and that she had over the video....

Sorry to disappoint you...

Reading the code section, you only need to identify yourself if you are arrested, so there was no reason to arrest her for not identifying herself. Also, I assume that they used the reason that she was involved in the fight to say they had reason to arrest her, but the video contradicts that.

As for the video, the cop should not have told her to delete the video.

- Merg

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Sorry to disappoint you...

Reading the code section, you only need to identify yourself if you are arrested, so there was no reason to arrest her for not identifying herself. Also, I assume that they used the reason that she was involved in the fight to say they had reason to arrest her, but the video contradicts that.

As for the video, the cop should not have told her to delete the video.

- Merg

Wait a second, the cop lied? What? You said that rarely happens. How can that be? I mean we have all the police abuse threads with cops lying. How can this be true?

Just another isolated case of a bad cop, bad apple, etc, etc, etc. No pattern of abuse found of course.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Wait a second, the cop lied? What? You said that rarely happens. How can that be? I mean we have all the police abuse threads with cops lying. How can this be true?

Just another isolated case of a bad cop, bad apple, etc, etc, etc. No pattern of abuse found of course.

....Yes... that does RARELY happen. Do you need a dictionary to know the meaning of the word rare?

Do you need to know how many officers there are in the united states employed currently? These cases that crop up are RARE. These aren't day-to-day activities that go on in every police force.


I know the liberal media talks about it every day and you suck it up like the puppet sponge they want you to, but the real world doesn't exactly work that way.

 

[The Merg]

Wait a second, the cop lied? What? You said that rarely happens. How can that be? I mean we have all the police abuse threads with cops lying. How can this be true?

Just another isolated case of a bad cop, bad apple, etc, etc, etc. No pattern of abuse found of course.

And your argument is that they are never punished for it. The cop lied and was punished. In this case the officer was disciplined, although we don't know what that is yet. I know a lot of departments are now going to a rule that if you are caught lying, especially to IA, you are terminated.

- Merg

 

[Kwatt]

....Yes... that does RARELY happen. Do you need a dictionary to know the meaning of the word rare?

Do you need to know how many officers there are in the united states employed currently? These cases that crop up are RARE. These aren't day-to-day activities that go on in every police force.


I know the liberal media talks about it every day and you suck it up like the puppet sponge they want you to, but the real world doesn't exactly work that way.

I don't have any idea how many are employed currently. It really doesn't matter to me.

What matters is the ones who are charged with upholding and enforceing the law. Doesn't know the law or is lying to make a false arrest.

If there had been no video that woman may have ended up in a court room in the middle of a "he said she said" case with a cop. And most times what he says is final.

.

 

[runzwithsizorz]

....Yes... that does RARELY happen. Do you need a dictionary to know the meaning of the word rare?

Do you need to know how many officers there are in the united states employed currently? These cases that crop up are RARE. These aren't day-to-day activities that go on in every police force.


I know the liberal media talks about it every day and you suck it up like the puppet sponge they want you to, but the real world doesn't exactly work that way.

Obviously, you have never been to traffic court. Over 10,000 lies, embellishments, or omissions will be told, under oath, on the witness stand, across the nation, TODAY!

 

[JEDIYoda]

Sorry to disappoint you...

Reading the code section, you only need to identify yourself if you are arrested, so there was no reason to arrest her for not identifying herself. Also, I assume that they used the reason that she was involved in the fight to say they had reason to arrest her, but the video contradicts that.

As for the video, the cop should not have told her to delete the video.

- Merg

so basically the cop were doing what they were trained to do in the "Academy"........

 

[The Merg]

so basically the cop were doing what they were trained to do in the "Academy"........

Yup. You got it. All cops are trained to lie and take away people's rights in the Academy. </s>

- Merg

 

[JEDIYoda]

....Yes... that does RARELY happen. Do you need a dictionary to know the meaning of the word rare?<-- RARE is another word that cop apologists use to down play this epidemic of Police abuse and lying and try to circumvent our rights....

Do you need to know how many officers there are in the united states employed currently? These cases that crop up are RARE. These aren't day-to-day activities that go on in every police force.
<--- arguments been used before...let me point out that is a lot of bad cops.......YES these are day to day activities that do go on daily.....in fact these activities are taught in Police Academy.......such as lying and they even teach how use technology...opps I mean how to erase cell phones...etc...

I know the liberal media talks about it every day and you suck it up like the puppet sponge they want you to, but the real world doesn't exactly work that way. <--- yes the real world does work that way sadly!! Use to be you could teach your children that Police were their friends.....you cannot do that anymore......for fear your child`s banana that they are eating will be mistaken for a gun....after all it does not have the orange tip on it....lolol or the cop feared for his life....

That`s okay we learn quickly who and who is not to be trusted....the new Hero`s are the firefighters...

 

[Blanky]

No pattern of abuse found of course.

Oh heavens no. Virtually all cops are excellent, honorable people, didn't you know?

 

[JEDIYoda]

Oh heavens no. Virtually all cops are excellent, honorable people, didn't you know?

The Police ought to be allowed to Police themselves. After all other organizations Police themselves with fantastic results......

 

[Pipeline 1010]

Yup. You got it. All cops are trained to lie and take away people's rights in the Academy. </s>

- Merg

I don't understand the sarc tag. Cops literally are trained to lie. Not to "take away" rights, but to trick people into voluntarily waiving their rights. Nice try, but your deliberately misleading lawyer-speak doesn't fool anybody.

Laws are specifically formulated so that non-cops cannot lie to cops, but it's OK for cops to lie to non-cops. Why would that even be codified if that isn't a tool that cops use?

To argue otherwise is cynical and Orwellian. For someone who tries to paint yourself as one of the "good ones" this is an especially disappointing comment from you.

 

[Jeff7]

My vote is that any cop who gives an order that is unlawful should be guilty of a felony.

"Ignorance is no excuse." Only applies to regular citizens, I guess.


Of course, I read somewhere that there are over 4000 things that qualify as federal crimes. Bet ya can't name them all!

 

[The Merg]

I don't understand the sarc tag. Cops literally are trained to lie. Not to "take away" rights, but to trick people into voluntarily waiving their rights. Nice try, but your deliberately misleading lawyer-speak doesn't fool anybody.

Laws are specifically formulated so that non-cops cannot lie to cops, but it's OK for cops to lie to non-cops. Why would that even be codified if that isn't a tool that cops use?

To argue otherwise is cynical and Orwellian. For someone who tries to paint yourself as one of the "good ones" this is an especially disappointing comment from you.

My point was that cops are not trained to lie in the sense of concealing a crime that they've committed, which I think is what JediYodi was implying (if not, I apologize).

Yes, a cop can lie to a subject that they are interviewing/interrogating. They can say they have evidence of a crime, when they really don't. They can say that other people arrested gave them up. Do people fall for that? Sure. But, that doesn't mean that the person needs to confess to the crime. And the cops can't lie to trick you into waiving your rights. If they are interrogating you, they MUST read you your rights. There's no exception to that. A person can stop talking at any time they want or ask for a lawyer at any time as well.

As for subjects lying to police, it is done all the time and in most cases, it is not a crime. If you are arrested for theft and the cop interrogates you and lie about where you were or that you didn't do it (when in reality you did), that's not against the law. However, if you lie to cover up what someone else has done, then yes, you can be charged with obstruction in many places. If you lie about who you are, depending on the location and if you are detained or arrested, you can be charged with obstruction or a similar charge.

- Merg

 

[rudeguy]

My point was that cops are not trained to lie in the sense of concealing a crime that they've committed, which I think is what JediYodi was implying (if not, I apologize).

Yes, a cop can lie to a subject that they are interviewing/interrogating. They can say they have evidence of a crime, when they really don't. They can say that other people arrested gave them up. Do people fall for that? Sure. But, that doesn't mean that the person needs to confess to the crime. And the cops can't lie to trick you into waiving your rights. If they are interrogating you, they MUST read you your rights. There's no exception to that. A person can stop talking at any time they want or ask for a lawyer at any time as well.

As for subjects lying to police, it is done all the time and in most cases, it is not a crime. If you are arrested for theft and the cop interrogates you and lie about where you were or that you didn't do it (when in reality you did), that's not against the law. However, if you lie to cover up what someone else has done, then yes, you can be charged with obstruction in many places. If you lie about who you are, depending on the location and if you are detained or arrested, you can be charged with obstruction or a similar charge.

- Merg

Lets talk real world, not your made up, "what if" world.

Do you believe that police lie?

Yes or no. Not a 3 page dissertation.

 

[master_shake_]

2 amendments violated.

stay classy Corpus Christi

 

[glenn1]

2 amendments violated.

stay classy Corpus Christi

Cities with GOP voters fire and prosecute police misconduct (see OP news story). Cities run by Democrats like NYC and Ferguson don't even indict misconduct when it happens. So you're telling exactly the wrong people to stay classy.