Any word on release of body cam video?
Officer involved shooting off Spring Loop (February 8, 2023)
87,521 Views |
330 Replies |
Last: 3 days ago by Brian Alg
Last time I asked was in 2024. They cited an Open Records ruling from the Texas AG's office in 2023. See link below
https://www2.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/openrecords/51paxton/orl/2023/pdf/or202315343.pdf
They didn't specify what investigation the video might interfere with. I have trouble believing, 2.5 years after everything, that could still be true.
I went ahead and asked again.
A 3:12 video was attached to the Hopkins family and Ms. Watson's Complaint against the City, et al. Somebody might try contacting the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, to see if they can get a copy of that (Civil Action No. 4:25-cv-00473).
Below is a description of the video from a report I got from DPS. My understanding is that "distraction device" is what they call a flash bang. I understand these are 10-100 times louder than a gunshot and are intended to cause temporary hearing loss and confusion.
https://www2.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/openrecords/51paxton/orl/2023/pdf/or202315343.pdf
They didn't specify what investigation the video might interfere with. I have trouble believing, 2.5 years after everything, that could still be true.
I went ahead and asked again.
A 3:12 video was attached to the Hopkins family and Ms. Watson's Complaint against the City, et al. Somebody might try contacting the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, to see if they can get a copy of that (Civil Action No. 4:25-cv-00473).
Below is a description of the video from a report I got from DPS. My understanding is that "distraction device" is what they call a flash bang. I understand these are 10-100 times louder than a gunshot and are intended to cause temporary hearing loss and confusion.
Quote:
As part of this investigation, I, Texas Ranger Cody Rogers, reviewed Officer Dakota Norris' body camera footage from the day of the shooting. The audio and video are listed in this supplement as S5.P1 and a copy will be maintained in my digital case file. The following are my observations:
A. Officer Norris' body worn camera (BWC) activates at approximately 5:52 AM. Officer Norris is riding in the back of the tactical vehicle as they travel to 925 Spring Loop. A marked College Station Police Department (CSPD) Tahoe is caravanning and stopping traffic along the route.
B. At 6:02 AM, the vehicle carrying the CSPD tactical team, stops just short of 925 Spring Loop. Officer Norris exits the rear and Detective Jonathan Huth exits from the front passenger's seat. Officer Norris and Detective Huth team up and begin their approach to the residence. Detective Huth shines his light mounted on his rifle and confirms the address of "925".
C. Officer Norris knocks on the front door and announces, "Police Department! Search Warrant! Come to The Door!" five times and on the sixth announcement yells "Police Department". This lasted for approximately fourteen to sixteen seconds before the command of "Breach! Breach! Breach!" was loudly given. The front door was mechanically breached and then a distraction device was deployed into the front entry way of the home.
D. Officer Norris enters the residence at 6:02:46 AM announcing "Police Department! Search Warrant!". Officer Norris makes his way through the entry way of the home and into the living room with the light on his rifle illuminated. After entry into the residence, three additional CSPD Officer's announce "Police Department! Search Warrant!" approximately six times over the course of approximately nine seconds. Officer Norris approaches the kitchen area with a closed door to his right. Note: Detective Huth tells Officer Norris "Hey I'm with you, bedroom on your right".
E. At 6:02:54 AM, Officer Norris breaches the bedroom door with his foot and announces "Police Department! Search Warrant!". Mark Bennett Hopkins, standing in the closet, points the shotgun into the center of the room and into the direction of Officer Norris and Detective Huth. Hopkins emerges from the closet in a firing position with the over and under shotgun and fires one round in the direction of Officer Norris and Detective Huth. Officer Norris returns fire from his rifle four times, striking Hopkins. Hopkins collapses into the adjacent closet and Detective Huth announces over police radio "shots fired; shots fired".
F. Flashing red and blue lights from a CSPD marked unit are seen through the bathroom window. A female voice is heard screaming from the closet. CSPD removed the female from the bedroom with her hands raised. Officer Norris maintains cover while the female is removed. Officer Norris leaves the bedroom saying, "He shot at me". An officer with CSPD checks Officer Norris for injuries. Detective Huth and Officer Norris clear the bedroom and bathroom. At 6:04:45 AM, Officer Norris exits through the front of the residence and turns the BWC off at 6:05:16 AM.
Brian Alg
My words are not intended to be disrespectful to any of the staid and venerable members of College Station City Council
My words are not intended to be disrespectful to any of the staid and venerable members of College Station City Council
Brian Alg said:
...and turns the BWC off at 6:05:16 AM.
Is that normal? Seems deceptive.
What be interesting to know what statements the female gave.
I'm guessing that any commands spoken after the "distraction device" was tossed into the dwelling were not clear as the occupants would have instant ear ringing that would make most sounds muffled or strained at best.
Turning off the bodycam when leaving the incident scene or search warrant area is completely normal.CS78 said:Brian Alg said:
...and turns the BWC off at 6:05:16 AM.
Is that normal? Seems deceptive.
What be interesting to know what statements the female gave.
Smeghead4761 said:Turning off the bodycam when leaving the incident scene or search warrant area is completely normal.CS78 said:Brian Alg said:
...and turns the BWC off at 6:05:16 AM.
Is that normal? Seems deceptive.
What be interesting to know what statements the female gave.
Turning it off 45 seconds after shooting someone? Seems like things are being said that you don't want recorded.
I have a lot of problems with what happened. Norris removing himself from the area, turning his camera off, and I presume getting an attorney immediately is not one of them.
I presume by that point, he had stopped doing police stuff. If he were arresting, interviewing, searching, etc. then it would be a problem.
I presume by that point, he had stopped doing police stuff. If he were arresting, interviewing, searching, etc. then it would be a problem.
Brian Alg
My words are not intended to be disrespectful to any of the staid and venerable members of College Station City Council
My words are not intended to be disrespectful to any of the staid and venerable members of College Station City Council
So the only thing different from a no knock warrant was 14-16 seconds at 6 am? Then they crashed the door and threw a device inside that is designed to overwhelm your senses further? Do I have that right?
Yes, andMarlin39m said:
So the only thing different from a no knock warrant was 14-16 seconds at 6 am? Then they crashed the door and threw a device inside that is designed to overwhelm your senses further? Do I have that right?
Quote:
The City still maintains that the affidavit and warrant were executed and presented correctly on Feb. 8, 2023
Paraphrasing - This was all perfectly reasonable. Unfortunate, but not unfortunate enough to make any changes.Quote:
"The Texas Rangers, the Brazos County district attorney, and the Brazos County grand jury all found no wrongdoing on the part of the officers,"
Throwing a "distraction device" that ruins your hearing and then yelling instructions seems kind of counterintuitive.
I want to know who decided a raid was the right action here and why.
I think it is important to note that the people responsible for the statement, when asked for documents from the Texas Rangers in an Open Records Request, claimed to not have any.
Their claim, that the Texas Rangers "found no wrongdoing," appears to have been a fabrication. Which makes sense, because I understand that Texas Rangers' job is to investigate, not adjudicate (i.e., make findings of wrongdoing/no wrongdoing).
The DA who shepherded the grand jury to a no-bill finding was Jarvis Parsons. DA Parsons is the same who got a grand jury to no-bill for perjury charge against the TABC agent who repeatedly made false accusations, including under oath in court, that a bartender gave alcohol to a minor. But it was revealed during trial that the accusation was false. Indeed, it showed the TABC agent had given beer to the minor informant.
https://www.kbtx.com/content/news/TABC-changing-investigation-procedures-after-agent-accused-of-perjury-in-Brazos-County-511209791.html
A finding of no wrongdoing from Parsons' office has no bearing on whether wrongdoing occurred. Anyone citing to that as evidence of anything either doesn't know his history or is arguing in bad faith.
Edit: Also, there is a big difference between A) wrongdoing so gnarly a DA gets involved (felony murder) and B) wrongdoing like performing a search that probably shouldn't have been done (because of clear lack of probable cause) and doing it in a dangerous way that a reasonable person would have known was inappropriate.
Their claim, that the Texas Rangers "found no wrongdoing," appears to have been a fabrication. Which makes sense, because I understand that Texas Rangers' job is to investigate, not adjudicate (i.e., make findings of wrongdoing/no wrongdoing).
The DA who shepherded the grand jury to a no-bill finding was Jarvis Parsons. DA Parsons is the same who got a grand jury to no-bill for perjury charge against the TABC agent who repeatedly made false accusations, including under oath in court, that a bartender gave alcohol to a minor. But it was revealed during trial that the accusation was false. Indeed, it showed the TABC agent had given beer to the minor informant.
https://www.kbtx.com/content/news/TABC-changing-investigation-procedures-after-agent-accused-of-perjury-in-Brazos-County-511209791.html
A finding of no wrongdoing from Parsons' office has no bearing on whether wrongdoing occurred. Anyone citing to that as evidence of anything either doesn't know his history or is arguing in bad faith.
Edit: Also, there is a big difference between A) wrongdoing so gnarly a DA gets involved (felony murder) and B) wrongdoing like performing a search that probably shouldn't have been done (because of clear lack of probable cause) and doing it in a dangerous way that a reasonable person would have known was inappropriate.
Brian Alg
My words are not intended to be disrespectful to any of the staid and venerable members of College Station City Council
My words are not intended to be disrespectful to any of the staid and venerable members of College Station City Council
CSPD's pat answer is that they don't make body cam footage available.
To me, that is unacceptable in this current climate. It gives the overall air that their personnel are unaccountable. I think that it is only a matter of time before some event like another George Floyd, etc. makes this the law of the land, and have it available.
I also think our elected officials are adding to the perception that we are just a bunch of good ole boy bubbas. I don't see that changing until they are either forced, or there is a compelling event.
To me, that is unacceptable in this current climate. It gives the overall air that their personnel are unaccountable. I think that it is only a matter of time before some event like another George Floyd, etc. makes this the law of the land, and have it available.
I also think our elected officials are adding to the perception that we are just a bunch of good ole boy bubbas. I don't see that changing until they are either forced, or there is a compelling event.
Hornbeck said:
CSPD's pat answer is that they don't make body cam footage available.
To me, that is unacceptable in this current climate. It gives the overall air that their personnel are unaccountable. I think that it is only a matter of time before some event like another George Foreman, etc. makes this the law of the land, and have it available.
I also think our elected officials are adding to the perception that we are just a bunch of good ole boy bubbas. I don't see that changing until they are either forced, or there is a compelling event.
George Foreman?
Floyd.
Freudian slip.
Freudian slip.
It has been a little over 2.5 years since CSPD, through some combination of incompetence and/or disregard for the life, liberty, and property of citizens, decided to perform a search in a needlessly dangerous fashion. They did so, presumably (judging by the affidavit), knowing that there was probably no evidence to find.
They busted into this home, with no reasonable expectation that the occupants were dangerous. They did it at 6am by breaking into the door and using a flash bang that is designed to cause people to be confused and unable to hear. As any reasonable person would expect, this caused confusion and made the occupants fear for their lives. After Officer Norris kicked in the bedroom door of Mark Hopkins, shots were fired.
CSPD says that the video shows Hopkins shot first. The Hopkins lawsuit indicates:
I have not seen the video. Hopkins attorneys have. CS and CSPD personnel as well as CS statements have repeatedly misrepresented facts about this case. But I cannot be sure who is correct on this point.
Some might ask: "What difference, at this point, does it make?"
CSPD protocols apparently presume a standard of professionalism and competence which is, apparently, not present and not to be expected at CSPD.
Mark Hopkins death was entirely avoidable. If there were competent and professional personnel working the case or if protocols were in place that prevented the officers and investigators to act like buffoons/maniacs, Mark Hopkins would still be alive. Given personnel changes are not being made, protocols need to be changed. People like Investigators Lovelace and Huth and Officers Le and Norris need to be prevented from performing such a needlessly dangerous search and potentially killing more people needlessly.
If this is the caliber of staffing we have at CSPD, CSPD management needs to set up systems to prevent this lack of professionalism from creating another senseless disaster.
They busted into this home, with no reasonable expectation that the occupants were dangerous. They did it at 6am by breaking into the door and using a flash bang that is designed to cause people to be confused and unable to hear. As any reasonable person would expect, this caused confusion and made the occupants fear for their lives. After Officer Norris kicked in the bedroom door of Mark Hopkins, shots were fired.
CSPD says that the video shows Hopkins shot first. The Hopkins lawsuit indicates:
Quote:
Third, upon information and belief, Defendant Norris fired first and the return-firing of Mark's shotgun was the result of an involuntary muscle contraction or neurological shock or disruption followed by an involuntary muscle contraction upon being hit by a bullet or bullets.
I have not seen the video. Hopkins attorneys have. CS and CSPD personnel as well as CS statements have repeatedly misrepresented facts about this case. But I cannot be sure who is correct on this point.
Some might ask: "What difference, at this point, does it make?"
CSPD protocols apparently presume a standard of professionalism and competence which is, apparently, not present and not to be expected at CSPD.
Mark Hopkins death was entirely avoidable. If there were competent and professional personnel working the case or if protocols were in place that prevented the officers and investigators to act like buffoons/maniacs, Mark Hopkins would still be alive. Given personnel changes are not being made, protocols need to be changed. People like Investigators Lovelace and Huth and Officers Le and Norris need to be prevented from performing such a needlessly dangerous search and potentially killing more people needlessly.
If this is the caliber of staffing we have at CSPD, CSPD management needs to set up systems to prevent this lack of professionalism from creating another senseless disaster.
Brian Alg
My words are not intended to be disrespectful to any of the staid and venerable members of College Station City Council
My words are not intended to be disrespectful to any of the staid and venerable members of College Station City Council