Police Video

 

 

An officer was working patrol. He happened upon a man and woman who had run out of gas. They are both black, although that is probably not an issue as the incident is not racially motivated. The man, who is very much overweight, was pushing the car on a busy street. The officer, not having a push bumper to push the stalled vehicle safely with, pulled in behind them and activated his overhead lights. He also activated his video camera.

 

The man was not wearing a shirt, and was wearing loose fitting shorts which began to fall down as he pushed the vehicle. He was also, I believe, was wearing loose fitting boxers under his shorts. The boxers also began to fall down, exposing his butt cheeks. He hitched up his shorts when they began to fall, but it was a problem for him. The car was pushed into a parking lot where fuel was available, however, the incline made it difficult for the man to push the vehicle to the pump. The officer apologized for not having a push bumper and offered to assist the man in pushing the vehicle to the pump. The man declined the offer of help.

 

Upon reviewing the video, the officer found the falling pants issue amusing, and made a digital copy of the video. He included innocuous music, and forwarded the video via e-mail to his sergeant, at the sergeant's request. He titled the e-mail, "Another day at the office." Then, as others heard about the video, he forwarded it to other officers, to include the Chief of Police, two Deputy Chiefs of Police, Lieutenants, Sergeants, Detectives, a Texas Ranger, and other officers. The video was forwarded by others, including the Chief of Police, to two Deputy City Managers (one of whom is black), a Municipal Court Judge, and a Lieutenant who is the husband of a District Judge. None of them found the video disturbing and in turn, many forwarded the video again.

 

Someone posted the video on YouTube, but it was not the officer who made the video. A television production company saw the video and filed a freedom of information request to officially obtain the video from the City. This is allegedly when the City Manager first learned of the existence of the video.

 

The City Manager demanded that the Chief of Police fire the officer who made the video. The Chief of Police conducted an investigation and determined that no law had been violated and no internal policy had been violated. (Certainly, this incident points out a deficiency in the Department's written policies, and I understand the policy will be tightened to avoid a similar future incident.)

 

The officer is a seventeen year veteran who is on a committee that is reviewing police officer pay. The (Black) Deputy City Manager suggested to the Chief of Police at the outset of the investigation that this was an opportunity for the City to get rid of an outspoken officer who was on the salary review committee. The Chief of Police told the Deputy City Manager that his comment amounted to a vendetta, and that he would have no part of it. The Chief of Police refused to discipline the officer, as no law or policy was violated. The City Manager gave the Chief the choice of firing the officer or being fired himself.

 

The Chief then announced his retirement publicly and denied that this incident was the impetus for his retirement. However, it is well known that there has been growing friction between the Chief and the City Manager, and the Chief told the officer not to worry about it. Unofficially, he said that this incident was just the straw that broke the camel's back. The officer offered to accept punishment to avoid placing the Chief of Police in this position. The Chief refused to discipline an officer who has violated no law or policy.

 

The City Manager has obtained a list of every City employee who received the video, and who forwarded the video after receiving it using a City owned computer and e-mail account. That is, he knows that much higher ranking personnel than this officer viewed and forwarded the video. He has demanded that the investigation be re-opened, found two police officers who neither received nor forwarded the video to investigate, and took the Chief of Police out of the chain-of-command (since he viewed and forwarded the video himself) for the purpose of this investigation.

 

The officer expects to be disciplined, even though he did not violate any law or policy, and it has been reported that the City Manager has instructed the investigators to recommend punishment ranging from a day off without pay to termination. 

 

The video was obtained from an un-named source, who I am assured was not the officer involved, and aired on the local news. The wife of the man in the video has complained, via the news media, that it was an embarrassment for the video to be shown and feels that the officer failed in his duty to assist the public without prejudice. Neither she nor her husband has filed an official complaint with the police department or city officials at this time.

 

The officer involved has contacted me and asked, since I have been teaching and involved in police ethics for 16 years, would I be willing to testify as an expert in Police Ethics at a hearing or any other court proceeding as to the merits of this incident in the light of Police Ethics. I have agreed to offer testimony; however, I do not believe I can represent myself as an expert. That should be determined by the court.

 

In the mean time, I would like to encourage knowledgeable individuals in the field of Police Ethics to offer an analysis and opinion on this incident. That is, I need to hear other voices on this issue. I am hoping that others may broaden my perspective and help me cut to the heart of the issue as it pertains to this officer. I am looking for careful analysis.

 

Unlike, perhaps, the UK and Canada, the State of Texas has no legal requirement for Peace Officers to treat the public with respect. That is, while the officer violated no law, there is the question of the dignity of the citizen involved. In this state, a person in a public place, like a city street, may be photographed or videoed without the person’s express consent.

 

Additionally, reality television programs frequently air video footage of citizen-police incidents that could be construed as embarrassing to the subject of the video. In this case, the man’s face is not toward the camera, although he turns his head to the side for a brief second, which may or may not have been enough for an acquaintance to identify him.

 

I am conducting my own analysis of the incident, but do not want to prejudice the thinking of others by voicing my opinion at this time. I need thoughtful analysis of the issues in light of the facts of the delima as presented. Please do not post a response in light of local or national law or policy that is different from the facts of this case. I want to thank anyone who responds in advance, as I value additional perspectives and analysis.

 

John,

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I agree that the motorist was not afforded a duty of care. For my benefit, and the benefit of others who read this, would you define your understanding of "a duty of care?"

I also agree that the motorist is justified in feeling embarrassment and feeling a degree of animosity towards the officer and his department. Additionally, I agree that the existence or non-existence of a law or policy does not override the application of common sense.

Then the question that comes to mind is this: If the officer violated no law or policy, however, failed to apply common sense and a duty of care towards the public, then what is the appropriate action? That is, how should the department address an error in judgement? Training? Censure? Admonishment? Termination? Where does his action fall on the scale between good and evil? And what of those in positions of responsibility, who viewed the video, showed no concern nor took any action, and forwarded the video to others?

Chris Cherry

Edited by texascop

Chris

I wonder whether this might be a situation demanding a lateral thinking approach. You say there are no policies governing this kind of conduct.

What about not proceding punitively, despite the injury to the aggrieved party, and look at the possibility of bringing this injured party and those officers who engaged in forwarding the video images into a room together to talk through the situation. In this way there might be an opportunity for learning on the part of the police personnel, and an opportunity to restore the victim's faith in law enforcement.

Wouldn't it be refreshing in police circles to address issues like these in a way that learning and personal development is maximized? In situations like these, and where an approach like this one is adopted, there really would be no need to resort to an exisiting policy, or, indeed, to develop yet another policy.

I would submit the to proceed summarily in a punitive fashion is not always the best route to go.

Peter,

Thank you for organizing the issues in the manner presented. I very much like the way you have done that.

With regard the officer making the video, when his overhead warning lights were activated, the video camera was also automatically activated. As might be expected, this is an automatic function because in the heat of the moment, during critical incidents, it has been found that officers often forget to turn on the video camera.

I agree that more has been made of this incident than it warranted. However, as William Tafoya once noted, ethical delimas can become the center of an ever more rapidly spinning vortex. Sometimes people on the edge of the incident find themselves sucked in to the vortex.

In this incident, the officer has found a mountain made of a mole hill. That is, as has been suggested, there were and are excellent opportunities for dealing with the root issue in a positive manner. However, the Chief of Police in this case has also been swept into the vortex, and now the City Manager is being swept in as well. It is interesting to note, that the officer, who started all of this when he copied the video, had no intention of setting off a series of events that would cause the Chief of Police to announce his retirement, nor that would provoke the local police association to publicly challenge the City Manager. Make no mistake, while the police association commented on man-power issues, the impetus for those remarks was the demand for termination and subsequent retirement announcement.

Then there are the others in positions of responsibility who contributed to the dissemination of the video, and whose names will eventually become known to the news media. The vortex can be relentless.

Attempting to place ourselves in the shoes of others is an eminently decent thing to do. How would I feel if I were the butt of this incident?  I agree with Kiplin that when an action of ours has been hurtful and wrong, that an apology is in order.  There is something entirely redemptive (for both parties) in the issuing of a sincere apology, even, and perhaps especially, when to do so might be to get us into legal difficulties.

We have an Aboriginal expression here in Canada that goes something like this: Never judge another man until you have walked at least two moons in his moccasins. Perhaps there is a message here regarding this situation we are discussing.