Started By
Message

re: Texas Police Want Uvalde Bodycam Footage Suppressed

Posted on 6/16/22 at 12:56 pm to
Posted by lostinbr
Baton Rouge, LA
Member since Oct 2017
9341 posts
Posted on 6/16/22 at 12:56 pm to
quote:

Only giving investigators 24 hours before the public release is too short of a time.

I don't think the public having to wait 7-10 days for the release is that bad.

I don’t really understand your point here. The shooting happened May 24. DPS received the request on June 8 (15 days after the shooting). They replied to the request and sent their letter to the Texas AG asking to withhold the information on June 9 (16 days after the shooting). It is now June 16 (23 days after the shooting).
Posted by dallastigers
Member since Dec 2003
5702 posts
Posted on 6/16/22 at 2:35 pm to
quote:

The part about revealing police response/methods is what rubs people the wrong way - the response/methods are the entire reason everyone wants to see the footage.


As for as article in OP that was in reference to state DPS officers both gathering evidence for investigation into response and any state DPS officer that showed up eventually to the scene to support the local cops after call for help. It was not talking about the local cops response outside of marked evidence DPS has gathered themselves for investigation into response. The letter to AG had multiple references and ruling requests, and it’s wasn’t an all or nothing pile on but had more nuance into various types of data they had which could have different rulings. It’s also mentioned several times at least until their active investigation is completed.

It was also not asking for all law enforcement but was specific to state DPS and records requests it had received (more than just VICE). Local cops, city, and district have been sent their own requests for cams and data, and the city has declined for now due to request of their local DA. Now that the school district’s chief of police is on city council (elected before and sworn in after) the city better push for transparency. Hiring a law firm to send a request for AG to rule on if dead suspect loophole applies to their police’s body cams and so on isn’t a good start as that could be use for a much longer time frame than current active investigation.

Not sure why people keep thinking the state DPS request for a ruling by AG about their specific requests in OP’s article is about all law enforcement.

Same for revealing methods as this was also about state DPS. Not just their marked evidence in an active investigation into response but any state DPS officer who eventually showed up to support the local response. They are not first responders to something like this, and how quickly they arrived, routes, specific departments/groups within state DPS that showed up could reveal things on similar responses as well as some who might have been in area investigating something else at the time. The Border Patrol declined same records request from VICE stating active investigation.

Posted by theenemy
Member since Oct 2006
13078 posts
Posted on 6/16/22 at 11:05 pm to
quote:

don’t really understand your point here. The shooting happened May 24. DPS received the request on June 8 (15 days after the shooting). They replied to the request and sent their letter to the Texas AG asking to withhold the information on June 9 (16 days after the shooting). It is now June 16 (23 days after the shooting).



Well I was replying to the following post:

quote:

I believe all body and dash cam video should be available on line within 24 hours of its recording.


I even quoted it. I never said the Uvalde video shouldn't be posted. Only disagreed that all video should be posted within 24 hrs from being recorded. That is too early..
first pageprev pagePage 4 of 4Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram