File:BART Police Bodycam Video Of Shaleem Tindle Shooting.webm
Original file (WebM audio/video file, VP9/Opus, length 57 s, 1,920 × 1,080 pixels, 2.51 Mbps overall, file size: 17.01 MB)
Captions
Captions
Summary[edit]
| Description |
English: The BART Police Department on Wednesday released the full bodycam video from a fatal officer-involved shooting in January that an East Bay family is calling murder and has prompted legal action. The East Bay family of Shaleem Tindle, 28, who was killed in the Jan. 3 shooting is demanding justice after reviewing the officer’s body camera video on Tuesday. The video shows what the BART police officer saw before, during and after he fired his weapon at Tindle, who was scuffling with another man on a sidewalk across the street from the West Oakland BART station. LaRon Mayfield says his brother didn’t do anything to deserve getting shot in the back by BART police Officer Joseph Mateu. "It was an unjustified murder, and it wasn’t right,' Mayfield said. Mateu responded to a fight near the West Oakland BART station after hearing shots fired. His body camera video shows Tindle and another man wrestling on the ground. Twice Mateu yells, "Raise your hands!" Then gunshots are heard. The officer fires, striking Tindle in the back three times.
"My brother didn’t even know who shot him until he turned around with hands up, and then he saw it was the police," Mayfield said. "My brother didn’t have no gun in his hand." The family’s attorney calls the video disturbing, claiming it clearly shows the shooting was not justified. "What we can see is the man’s hands come up and nothing in his hands, at least at the time the police shot him," attorney John Burris said. But former officer and certified police practices expert Richard Correia points out it’s only a few seconds from a limited view and just one piece of the puzzle. "I don’t see anything on this video that suggests at this point on this video that this was unreasonable," Correia said. "It’s intense. You can’t tell a lot of things. I don’t think it solves the puzzle of exactly what happened here." Tindle’s loved ones, however, say the video is convincing, and they want Mateu prosecuted. They've also planned on filing a lawsuit against BART police and the officer. "He just went out like a cowboy and shot my brother in the back," Mayfield said. BART police Chief Carlos Rojas said in a news conference Wednesday that Mateu was dealing with a fare evader when he heard the gunshots. His bodycam video captures the sounds of the gunshots and later shows the two men struggling over a handgun. "It looks like one individual is trying to pin that gun to the ground," Rojas said, showing a printed screen shot from the bodycam footage. "And I believe the individual who's trying to fight for his life has already been shot by Mr. Tindle. Did the officer see this? I don't know if he did or not; that will come out as part of the criminal investigation. But what I can tell you is this is what the video shows." Rojas said he called the news conference to dispel some of the misinformation that was being published after portions of the bodycam video were leaked. |
| Date | |
| Source | YouTube: BART Police Bodycam Video Of Shaleem Tindle Shooting – View/save archived versions on archive.org and archive.today |
| Author | BART. |
Licensing[edit]
|
This work was created by a government unit (including state, county, city, and municipal government agencies) that derives its powers from the laws of the State of California and is subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act (Government Code § 6250 et seq.). It is a public record that was not created by an agency which state law has allowed to claim copyright, and is therefore in the public domain in the United States.
Records subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act
Pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Government Code § 6250 et seq.) "Public records" include "any writing containing information relating to the conduct of the public’s business prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristics." (Cal. Gov't. Code § 6252(e).) notes that "[a]ll public records are subject to disclosure unless the Public Records Act expressly provides otherwise." County of Santa Clara v. CFAC California Government Code § 6254 lists categories of documents not subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act. In addition, computer software is not considered a public record, while data and statistics collected (whether collected knowingly or unknowingly) by a government authority whose powers derive from the laws of California are public records (such as license plate reader images) pursuant to EFF & ACLU of Southern California v. Los Angeles Police Department & Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department and are not exempt from disclosure and are public records. Although the act only covers “writing,” the Act, pursuant to Government Code § 6252(g), states: “Writing” means any handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostating, photographing, photocopying, transmitting by electronic mail or facsimile, and every other means of recording upon any tangible thing any form of communication or representation, including letters, words, pictures, sounds, or symbols, or combinations thereof, and any record thereby created, regardless of the manner in which the record has been stored. Agencies permitted to claim copyright
California's Constitution and its statutes do not permit any agency to claim copyright for "public records" unless authorized to do so by law. The following agencies are permitted to claim copyright and any works of these agencies should be assumed to be copyrighted outside of the United States without clear evidence to the contrary:
County of Santa Clara v. CFAC held that the State of California, or any government entity which derives its power from the State, cannot enforce a copyright in any record subject to the Public Records Act in the absence of another state statute giving it the authority to do so. This applies even if there is a copyright notice, so long as the State of California or one of its agencies (other than those listed above) is indicated as the copyright holder. Note: Works that are considered "public records" but were not created by a state or municipal government agency may be copyrighted by their author; the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution prevents state law from overriding the author's right to copyright protection that is granted by federal law. For example, a state agency may post images online of the final appearance of a building under construction; while the images may have to be released by such agency since they are public records, their creator (eg. architecture/construction firm) retains copyright rights to these images unless the contract with the agency says otherwise. See: Government-in-the-Sunshine Manual: To what extent does federal law preempt state law regarding public inspection of records?. Copyrightable Works by the State in the United States: Works published by agencies that are permitted to claim copyright per state law should be tagged with {{PD-US-GovEdict}} instead of this template due to the reasons listed on that template. Disclaimer: The information provided, especially the list of agencies permitted to claim copyright, may not be complete. Wikimedia Commons makes no guarantee of the adequacy or validity of this information in this template (see disclaimer). |
 |
File history
Click on a date/time to view the file as it appeared at that time.
| Date/Time | Thumbnail | Dimensions | User | Comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| current | 16:22, 20 May 2023 | 57 s, 1,920 × 1,080 (17.01 MB) | Illegitimate Barrister (talk | contribs) | Imported media from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrVBY-mTOpk |
You cannot overwrite this file.
File usage on Commons
The following page uses this file: