San Francisco police on Friday said they are investigating video clips posted on social media that appear to show two officers joking in graphic detail about what they would and would not want recorded on body-mounted cameras if they shot someone.
The two clips, posted on the popular photo-sharing service Instagram, show the policemen talking in what appears to be a public cafe.
The officers appear to joke about how they would want a suspect pointing a gun at them to be captured on video when shot but not a suspect putting their hands up.
In one clip, an officer can be heard saying “what you want is video of the guy holding the gun still” directly at the camera before being shot multiple times.
In the second clip, the same officer can be seen pantomiming someone raising their hands and being shot, before the two joked that the “red splatter” and “cherry pie all over the wall” would not look good.
“Upon learning of these videos clips, the Department initiated an immediate investigation that is ongoing,” San Francisco Police Officer Albie Esparza said in a statement. “Disciplinary action will be taken as appropriate.”
The filmed conversation follows a police shooting in Ferguson, Missouri and high-profile killings in cities from New York to Los Angeles that sparked waves of sometimes destructive protests over police violence, particularly against minorities.
The shooting of an unarmed black 18-year-old in Ferguson in August 2014 prompted protests in which chants of “hands up, don’t shoot” became a rallying cry.
Police departments across the country have turned to the so-called bodycameras in part as a way to restore public trust in the wake of the killings, several of which were caught on film.
San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee has budgeted millions to equip the city’s force with the devices.
The city’s police officials called on the person who recorded the clips to turn them in for examination.
An Instagram user who posted the videos under the account name “lastrella,” could not be immediately reached for comment on Friday.
Things are so bad for Republicans the GOP had to send money to Texas
In 2016, then-anti-Trump Republican Sen. Linsey Graham proclaimed, "If we nominate Trump, we will get destroyed.......and we will deserve it." It seems his prediction is coming closer to fruition.
Financial reporting reveals that the Republican Party was forced to send $1.3 million to ruby-red Texas as the election nears.
It was something spotted by ProPublica developer and ex-reporter Derek Willis Sunday.
"That's never happened before," he tweeted.
He noted that the Texas GOP raised $3.3 million in August, but nearly half of that came from their national parents.
What the London ‘Blitz’ reveals about how much pain and tragedy people can handle in 2020
It's hard to imagine how 2020 could possibly get worse. "If we lose Betty White," a friend said on a drive to the Supreme Court to lay flowers.
So many Americans have lost friends or family members to COVID-19. Thousands of Americans survived the virus only to desperately needed organ transplants and forever will struggle to breathe the way they once did. Others are still suffering without smell or taste even three months after having the virus. Millions of Americans are out of work. Debt is stacking up for those trying to survive in the COVID economy. A lack of health insurance can mean hospitalizations from the virus are putting people into bankruptcy.
Stop trying to convince people you’re right — it will never persuade anyone: expert
MSNBC host Joshua Johnson noted that this year has been full of strife, with Americans having a lot to stand up about. Whether the slaying of unarmed Black men and police brutality, or healthcare, and the coronavirus, Americans are lining up to protest.
Johnson asked if people try to start tough conversations, how do they keep it productive, and when it's time to give up. In her book, We Need to Talk, Celest Headlee explains tools that people can use to have productive conversations about tough issues that help move the needle.
"Keep in mind that a protest isn't a conversation, right?" she first began. "That's a different kind of communication. The first thing is that our goal in conversations is not always a productive one. In other words, oftentimes, we go into these conversations hoping to change somebody's mind or convince them that they are wrong. You're just never going to accomplish that. There's no evidence. We haven't been able to -- through years and years of research we haven't been able to find evidence that over a conversation somebody said, 'You're right, I was completely wrong.' You've convinced me. So, we have to stop trying to do that. We have to find a new purpose for those conversations."