These cases blow me away - not because they reveal something about cops that I didn't already suspect but that it's a rare glimpse at the extreme lengths cops will go to cover their tracks.
Second Video without Commentary -
Here is Sean Groubert's, the officer in second video, statement about what happened and why he shot. Compare his statement to the events depicted in the video.
http://www.wltx.com/story/news/local...ones/16295527/I pulled him over for a seat belt violation, Before I could event get out of my car he jumped out, stared at me, and as I jumped out of my car and identified myself, as I approached him, he jumped head-first back into his car."
"I started retracting back towards the rear of his vehicle telling him 'Look, get out of the car, let me see your hands. He jumped out of the car. I saw something black in his hands. I ran to the other side car yelling at him, and he kept coming towards me. Apparently it was his wallet."
So here on the forums we have discussed at length the shootings of quite few black men. Without fail someone jumps to the defense of the cops involved using the Cop's account of the situation as their defense. These rare incedences where a conspiracy executed by cops to tamper with evidence and fabricate a story caught on camera, at least from my vantage point, make such blind faith in the words of law enforcement a tad foolhardy.
In this first video the hidden dash cam tape reveals officers beating the man who has his hands raised and screaming "Don't touch my gun" <--- the default defense, is it not? "He reached for my gun that's why I killed him." Except here we have irrefutable evidence that despite the officers clear insistance that the man reached for his gun he in fact did not.
The same happens in the second video.
So when a cop kills someone and the circumstances seem dubious - is it wise to put some much faith in the officers account of what happened?