Combs Trial Demonstrates Need To Use Recording Devices

The trial of Sean Combs demonstrated that wearing recording devices, and using them, may make a big difference in a case.

In Sean's case, he did not wear a recorder. The prosecutor and the police witnesses tried to sway the jury by saying Sean was "loud" and "boisterous". Sean did not have audio or video to rebut that. The only rebuttal was defense witness testimony.

During closing arguments, the prosecutor really tried hard to hammer on Sean being "loud" and "boisterous", possibly to sway the jury in finding him guilty of at least disturbing the peace.

If Sean had at least his own audio recording of the encounter, that would have been 100% rebuttal to one of the key points the prosecutor was trying to use.

The Combs case is proof, yet again, that recording devices will never be a tool that you can presume you don't need.

DanM said:

The trial of Sean Combs demonstrated that wearing recording devices, and using them, may make a big difference in a case.

In Sean's case, he did not wear a recorder. The prosecutor and the police witnesses tried to sway the jury by saying Sean was "loud" and "boisterous". Sean did not have audio or video to rebut that. The only rebuttal was defense witness testimony.

During closing arguments, the prosecutor really tried hard to hammer on Sean being "loud" and "boisterous", possibly to sway the jury in finding him guilty of at least disturbing the peace.

If Sean had at least his own audio recording of the encounter, that would have been 100% rebuttal to one of the key points the prosecutor was trying to use.

The Combs case is proof, yet again, that recording devices will never be a tool that you can presume you don't need.

Click to expand...

+ 1,000,000... regardless of OC or CC.

Shyster says the B'ham police didn't have a recording of the stop to turn over for exculpatory evidence...how convenient.

TheQ said:

Shyster says the B'ham police didn't have a recording of the stop to turn over for exculpatory evidence...how convenient.

Click to expand...

I know, right? Further proof that you need to provide your own capability to record . . . and use it!

maybe have some way to back up your recording too. if they do arrest you, your recordings could be "lost" or accidentally deleted" while you are in custody.

detroit_fan said:

maybe have some way to back up your recording too. if they do arrest you, your recordings could be "lost" or accidentally deleted" while you are in custody.

Click to expand...

Some of the newer smartphones have apps available that stream directly to an online storage. At least I think that is what I read. Getting one at the end of the month so will be able to better research it then.

Ezerharden said:

Some of the newer smartphones have apps available that stream directly to an online storage. At least I think that is what I read. Getting one at the end of the month so will be able to better research it then.

Click to expand...

Porcupine 411 and speaker phone is something everyone should be ready to deploy instantly. Definitely not as good as video, but whatever you can get said while the phone is connected won't be getting erased.

Ezerharden said:

Some of the newer smartphones have apps available that stream directly to an online storage. At least I think that is what I read. Getting one at the end of the month so will be able to better research it then.

Click to expand...

Qik

I have been happy I was running one a couple times.

DanM said:

The trial of Sean Combs demonstrated that wearing recording devices, and using them, may make a big difference in a case.

In Sean's case, he did not wear a recorder. The prosecutor and the police witnesses tried to sway the jury by saying Sean was "loud" and "boisterous". Sean did not have audio or video to rebut that. The only rebuttal was defense witness testimony.

During closing arguments, the prosecutor really tried hard to hammer on Sean being "loud" and "boisterous", possibly to sway the jury in finding him guilty of at least disturbing the peace.

If Sean had at least his own audio recording of the encounter, that would have been 100% rebuttal to one of the key points the prosecutor was trying to use.

The Combs case is proof, yet again, that recording devices will never be a tool that you can presume you don't need.

Click to expand...

Are You saying police lie to cover their arse's(feign amazement)?If so,I can only say they lied in 3 instances since 06' in my case!Thats 3 for 3 in my contacts with Warren Leo's!I would call that a "pattern"! I believe audio-video is a must at this time!It's become that bad! It SHOULD NOT BE THAT WAY but IT IS!! CARRY ON!

I caught them lying too. Those recorders are great.

Voice recorder = good but ...

Per his lawyer "video is even better".

Or to put it another way video is priceless because it not only captures the verbal commands etc of officers it captures your reactions(or no actions at all). Details which can be, and are often shall we say are "fudged" in police reports. Ask any good lawyer - Omissions or other little tricks can get you locked up for something you did not do, as was the objective here, Had there been a video record, oh my how different things would have been.

Imagine this ... you are OCing in a public place somewhere minding your own business. A foaming at the mouth anti walks by and once out of your sight dials 911. He/She/It says to the dispatcher "some Ahole just pulled/waived a gun at me!" Want to bet how useful your voice recorder is going to be?

Video of the nut stomping past you while you are harmlessly looking at flowers in the garden section of Lowe's PRICELESS! Think about it people, it is your word against their's. What if there were no words spoken? ,,,,,,,

Glock9mmOldStyle said:

Per his lawyer "video is even better".

Or to put it another way video is priceless because it not only captures the verbal commands etc of officers it captures your reactions(or no actions at all). Something which is often shall we say are "fudged" in police reports.

Imagine this ... you are OCing in a public place somewhere minding your own business. A foaming at the mouth anti walks by and once out of your sight dials 911. He/She/It says to the dispatcher "some Ahole just pulled/waived a gun at me!" Want to bet how useful your voice recorder is going to be?

Video of the nut strolling past you while you are harmlessly looking at flowers for your wife PRICELESS! Think about it people it is your word against their's. What if there were no words spoken? ,,,,,,

Click to expand...

Your word against theirs and who the judge believes!Thus explains the Stainless deal according to his lawyers explaination!Simple! Audio-video was needed in the Stainless case,Right Stainless? I Get It,so should everyone!CARRY ON!

Glock9mmOldStyle said:

Per his lawyer "video is even better".

Or to put it another way video is priceless because it not only captures the verbal commands etc of officers it captures your reactions(or no actions at all). Something which is often shall we say are "fudged" in police reports.

Imagine this ... you are OCing in a public place somewhere minding your own business. A foaming at the mouth anti walks by and once out of your sight dials 911. He/She/It says to the dispatcher "some Ahole just pulled/waived a gun at me!" Want to bet how useful your voice recorder is going to be?

Video of the nut strolling past you while you are harmlessly looking at flowers for your wife PRICELESS! Think about it people it is your word against their's. What if there were no words spoken? ,,,,,,

Click to expand...

Well said! Video+Audio always! Preferably multiple units... one to capture the incident and one to capture the destruction of the first one.

Bikenut said:

Well said! Video+Audio always! Preferably multiple units... one to capture the incident and one to capture the destruction of the first one.

Click to expand...

Could not have said it better friend! Well done!

hamaneggs said:

Your word against theirs and who the judge believes!Thus explains the Stainless deal according to his lawyers explaination!Simple! Audio-video was needed in the Stainless case,Right Stainless? I Get It,so should everyone!CARRY ON!

Click to expand...

Yes sadly,

Had stainless had better equipment the first time around he would have walked away untarnished, The second time around it sure would of helped. The third time it ... Never mind! Not meant to be a dig at stainless - just a glaring example of how video can really help.

hamaneggs said:

Your word against theirs and who the judge believes!Thus explains the Stainless deal according to his lawyers explaination!Simple! Audio-video was needed in the Stainless case,Right Stainless? I Get It,so should everyone!CARRY ON!

Click to expand...

Yes. On all counts.

It comes down to money, if I had the money, I would use video. I got a 40$ spy pen for a birthday gift, but it lasted 2 weeks or 3, and just quit.

This is one of mine. Video and audio. Works great. I had it with me at the first Birmingham gathering.


http://www.amazon.com/Veho-VCC-003-MUVI-BLK-camcorder-Surveillance-Includes/dp/B0029631VI

Pay for protection now or lose it and pay more later...

ken243 said:

This is one of mine. Video and audio. Works great. I had it with me at the first Birmingham gathering.


http://www.amazon.com/Veho-VCC-003-MUVI-BLK-camcorder-Surveillance-Includes/dp/B0029631VI

Click to expand...

Good choice. Only issue is battery life on some of the smaller units. Also many police carry these too, so they know what they are. In my opinion - the best bet is a mixture of devices, including a cheap "bait" camera (Jazz flip $20) stealth video devices ($50 - $200). Voice recorder $30 - $100. Is it a pain to carry the extra gear? Not when one thinks about just how easy it is to be falsely charged and lose your PRICELESS freedom.

Stainless got brought up and he is a living breathing example of everything that can go wrong while OCing. He has a valid point about cost, but he now also carries a pistol that costs nearly a $1,000? It comes down to priorities. If Stainless had opted to gear up with some of the more expensive choices above his extra cost would have been approximately $320 - sounds like a lot until you consider he has had to pay much more than that in lawyer fees, fines, probation costs etc....

In my honest opinion it boils down to pay a little extra now or pay a lot later...

Stainless - this is in no way a bash against you, just a cautionary tale to others of what can and does happen out there in the real world to OCers sometimes.