File:Police Body Cam Video Of San Francisco BART Station Arrest.webm
Original file (WebM audio/video file, VP9/Opus, length 5 min 3 s, 1,920 × 1,080 pixels, 2.19 Mbps overall, file size: 79.23 MB)
Captions
Captions
Summary
[edit]| Description |
English: Newly-released police body cam video shows a Bay Area Rapid Transit passenger scuffling with BART officers during an arrest. The incident happened back in July when BART officers responded to reports that a passenger who was possibly armed tried to rob another passenger. Other witnesses disputed the report, saying the reporting party called police after some sort of diagreement with the passenger. Video of the violent arrest was released Wednesday by the San Francisco Public Defender’s Office. The passenger, Michael Smith, was acquitted last week of battery on an officer. He was not armed during the confrontation.
The video shows officers with guns drawn confronting Smith as he steps off a train at Embarcadero Station. Smith is seen struggling with officers who forced him down, pinning him on his stomach. BART officials said Smith bit, kicked and spit on the officers. Smith looked to be relatively calm until an officer also took down a woman he was with, keeping a knee in her back even after being informed she was pregnant. After repeatedly stating she was pregnant, the officer gets off her and helps her to her feet. In the video, Smith continues to struggle with officers even as he is restrained and at one point, he spits at an officer who responds by punching Smith in the face. Public Defender Jeff Adachi Wednesday called on prosecutors to drop the remaining misdemeanor charges against Smith. A BART spokeswoman issued a statement regarding the case Wednesday. “BART Police’s Internal Affairs investigation regarding the Michael Smith case is ongoing; the agency’s goal is to complete all Internal Affairs investigations within 6 months,” said spokeswoman Alicia Trost. “Once the Internal Affairs investigation is complete, the Office of the Independent Police Auditor conducts a review of the investigation and findings to ensure it is complete, objective, and fair.” Trost said Smith was not cooperative during the arrest and the reporting party had said he believed Smith was armed. Adachi argued in court that Smith had a reasonable response to the excessive force used by police against him and his companion after they had been racially profiled. Trost maintained in her statement that BART Police is now on the forefront of training to deal with racially-charged situations. “BART Police is a progressive agency and has been on the forefront – and in some cases the model approach – to training in the areas of fair and impartial policing, bias-based policing, crisis intervention, cultural competence training, and de-escalation training,” she said. |
| Date | |
| Source | YouTube: Police Body Cam Video Of San Francisco BART Station Arrest – View/save archived versions on archive.org and archive.today |
| Author | BART Police. |
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 | 18:15, 20 May 2023 | 5 min 3 s, 1,920 × 1,080 (79.23 MB) | Illegitimate Barrister (talk | contribs) | Imported media from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZpVrcY-WSc |
You cannot overwrite this file.
File usage on Commons
The following page uses this file: