US: State police won't release dashcam video of officer shooting

[webfact]

State police won't release dashcam video of officer shooting
By JEFFREY COLLINS

COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) — When a white police officer in South Carolina chased a black man nine miles by car, then shot him to death in his driveway last year, the shooting apparently was captured on the officer's dashboard camera — a video that state police have steadfastly refused to release.

North Augusta officer Justin Craven tried to pull 68-year-old Ernest Satterwhite over for drunken driving, then followed him with blue lights to his home after Satterwhite refused to stop in February 2014, authorities said. When Satterwhite stopped in his driveway, Craven ran up to his car and fired several shots through the closed door, telling deputies later that Satterwhite tried to grab his gun, according to a report from Edgefield County deputies who joined the chase after it crossed the county line.

Now Craven faces up to 10 years in prison if convicted of misconduct in office and discharging a firearm into an occupied vehicle. A prosecutor sought to indict him for voluntary manslaughter which carries guaranteed prison time and a maximum sentence of 30 years, but a grand jury refused.

Craven's dashcam video has been shown to a few people outside of law enforcement. Several who saw say say it's horrible and offensive, and Satterwhite had no time to respond to Craven. They won't speak on the record because they have been threatened with legal action since the video hasn't been publicly released.

The State Law Enforcement Division's decision to withhold the video contrasts with its handling of another police shooting. Earlier this year the agency quickly released a dashcam video of a case in which a white officer shot an unarmed black man in North Charleston.

SLED says its reasoning is simple. Unlike the North Augusta case, the North Charleston shooting happened away from the dashcam video.

SLED Chief Mark Keel worries releasing the North Augusta video could hamper the officer's right to a fair trial.

"In the North Augusta case, you've got a different set of facts that has a great concern. It's about justice and seeing everybody regardless gets a fair trial," said Keel, whose agency denied a Freedom of Information Act request for the video from the Associated Press in September and again in April after SLED released footage from the North Charleston case.

But public records advocates said that reasoning is wrong. They cite a 2011 court ruling that law enforcement agencies can't refuse to release dashcam videos unless they give a specific reason, like concerns about releasing the name of a suspect before an arrest or the location of a sting operation

"That is totally unequal. Public records law needs to be applied the same in every case. Why do the police get to decide what the public sees? That's not their job," said Bill Rogers, executive director of the South Carolina Press Association.

In North Augusta, Satterwhite's family reached a $1.2 million settlement with the city over the shooting. Lawyers in the case were allowed to see the video, but had to sign an agreement not to disclose it to anyone else.

Now Craven's lawyer is asking a judge to prevent anyone from releasing the video until it's shown in court. Before filing the motion, defense attorney Jack Swerling said releasing the video would do no public good, and would just provide fodder for TV commentators.

"He thinks he acted appropriately," Swerling said. "He regrets a life was taken."

The prosecutor handling Craven's case promises to release the video, but only after it's aired in court.

"As Edgefield County is a small county, the premature release of the video to be used at trial ... would be harmful, unfairly prejudice the pre-trial opinions of potential jurors, prejudicial to the defendant and not in the interest of justice," Solicitor Donnie Myers wrote in denying the release of the video this week to The Aiken Standard, which filed an open records request in April.

In denying release of the video to the AP last fall, Myers' office simply said it was part of an ongoing investigation.

In other South Carolina police shootings, authorities have released dashboard camera video well before the case was settled.


-- (c) Associated Press 2015-05-04

[noitom]

Why is this relevant in Thai news with so many issues relating to Thailand going on?

[BigBadGeordie]

Why is this relevant in Thai news with so many issues relating to Thailand going on?

This post is in the "World News" forum!

[noikrit]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Why is this relevant in Thai news with so many issues relating to Thailand going on?

Thats why it's in the World News thread ......

[stevenl]

Why didn't' the grand jury see the video? Or did they?

[alfalfa19]

You can bet the video is not complimentary to the officer, and probably contradicts his statement, else it would have been released to the press and public.

[BudRight]

"It's about justice and seeing everybody regardless gets a fair trial."

By "everyone" they mean cops and by "fair" they mean given a medal and sent to rejoin their death squad.

[JoePai]

Why is this relevant in Thai news with so many issues relating to Thailand going on?

To show Thai police are not a bad as the US police maybe ?

[oneday]

Of course the Grand Jury was shown the video. How could they not be shown the video in order to make a decision. All the article said was the Grand Jury refused to indict him on "voluntary manslaughter" which is what the prosecutor wanted.

If the video shows the officer was telling the truth, then there could be no harm releasing the video. You have to assume the video DOES NOT back the officer up or is ambiguous at best.

[NeverSure]

The officer is entitled to an unbiased jury even if he's later found guilty. If the police release the tape to the public it could taint the jury pool and make any trial difficult to hold. Prospective jurors are always asked what they know about the matter and if they have preconceived notions. If they already think someone is guilty (or not) they are excused.

I once got out of jury duty that way because my schedule was crowded and there were lots of other people to choose from. Both the prosecutor and the defense attorney have the right to object to anyone. The defense attorney asked us as a group if we knew what the process of the trial was. I spoke up and stated that "that man sitting over there" is innocent before the law and it's "that man's" (the prosecutor's) job to prove to us that's wrong. That of course meant "innocent until proven guilty".

That was true but I was outta there. The prosecutor obviously didn't want a rebellious leader type in that jury.

[ggt]

Cover ups...tampering with evidence...planting evidence...lying to Grand Juries...all part of a pattern of a police culture believing itself to be above the law...I trust the system...I do not trust the police or their cronies...

[stevenl]

Of course the Grand Jury was shown the video. How could they not be shown the video in order to make a decision. All the article said was the Grand Jury refused to indict him on "voluntary manslaughter" which is what the prosecutor wanted.

If the video shows the officer was telling the truth, then there could be no harm releasing the video. You have to assume the video DOES NOT back the officer up or is ambiguous at best.

You're contradicting yourself here.

If the video does (at best) contradict the officer than there could be a case for man slaughter.

[Broeno]

They didn't publice it yet. South Caroline has become a Thai province. Only that can explain the way things are going there.

[HerbalEd]

Why is this relevant in Thai news with so many issues relating to Thailand going on?

You appear to make the misassumption that thaivisa.com news is supposed to be about Thai news ONLY. That obviously is not the case.

If non-Thai news doesn't interest you here, you don't have to click on it. Just move on to something you do want to read. It's really that easy.

[HerbalEd]

You can bet the video is not complimentary to the officer, and probably contradicts his statement, else it would have been released to the press and public.

Exactly. You can bet if the video showed the driver was at fault the police would release that video in a heartbeat.

[HerbalEd]

The officer is entitled to an unbiased jury even if he's later found guilty. If the police release the tape to the public it could taint the jury pool and make any trial difficult to hold. Prospective jurors are always asked what they know about the matter and if they have preconceived notions. If they already think someone is guilty (or not) they are excused.

I once got out of jury duty that way because my schedule was crowded and there were lots of other people to choose from. Both the prosecutor and the defense attorney have the right to object to anyone. The defense attorney asked us as a group if we knew what the process of the trial was. I spoke up and stated that "that man sitting over there" is innocent before the law and it's "that man's" (the prosecutor's) job to prove to us that's wrong. That of course meant "innocent until proven guilty".

That was true but I was outta there. The prosecutor obviously didn't want a rebellious leader type in that jury.

"Leader type"? How did your slipping out of jury duty indicate that? You flatter yourself.

[Expat1]

"He thinks he acted appropriately," Swerling said. "He regrets a life was taken."

Do I get this correct , he shot the guy in his driveway. The officer acted appropriately? Ok, fine I was not there but, please explain to me why the city settled at $1.2 million.? "Satterwhite's (the victim of the shooting) family reached a $1.2 million settlement with the city over the shooting. Lawyers in the case were allowed to see the video, but had to sign an agreement not to disclose it to anyone else."

Call me me crazy but I just can't figure why the city would settle for that amount so relatively quickly if this was an "appropriate" shooting as the defense claims.

In any case, the US seems to have more and more Type A personalities running around in blue with guns. It must be an extension of all those money confiscation laws that allow the Police and Feds to take citizen's wealth and never charge them with a crime. Under that mind set shooting any one that won't do what they are told, when they are told to do so, would seem justified to that authority and would appear as an extension of this concept that we can do pretty much what we (Police) want with little fear of legal reprisal. Money means more to American legal system than lives, it always has, look at the sentences handed out in comparison of the 2 crimes. Or so it seems. I truly feel for the poor Amer citizenry now that has to live under such a regime.

[NeverSure]

They didn't publice it yet. South Caroline has become a Thai province. Only that can explain the way things are going there.

That's really not the case. The Thai police are very quick to literally point fingers and spell out their case before even they have done a proper investigation. The accused also doesn't first get a grand jury of his peers, and then a trial jury of his peers. The rules of evidence are totally different.

In the US the accused is Constitutionally Guaranteed a presumption of innocence, an attorney if he can't afford one, a jury of his peers, and multiple appeals at government expense if he's convicted.

In the instant case the government is withholding the tape because the accused is entitled to a presumption of innocence and an unbiased jury. The tape would be shown to the jury during the trial and to the public after the trial.

This is a matter of constitutional rights of the accused. If the tape were shown to the public it might be nearly impossible to find an unbiased jury and therefore even hold a trial. The withholding of the tape is appropriate until the guy gets a "fair trial."

[Credo]

Since people shouldn't be convicted in the court of public opinion, the tape shouldn't be released, except to a court. If the case goes to trial, it will be available. These recordings are a little different and fall under a different jurisdiction than a CCTV from the local 7/11.

I doubt they are trying to hide anything.