Just heard this on MSNBC and then found this

[safeinOhio]

https://photographyisnotacrime.com/2015/06/chicago-police-accused-of-deleting-video-threatening-witnesses-after-teens-execution/

Police detectives are accused of spending 3 hours deleting videos from Burger Kings cameras showing, before, during and after the shooting of the teen.

If this is true, they all need to be charged with destroying evidence and perhaps conspiracy to commit murder.

Time to destroy the blue line that makes cops the biggest gang in the country.

[randys1]

1. Yep...charge em

[spanone]

2. good god.

[MynameisBlarney]

3. They're Americas largest gang

and it's most violent.

[Liberal_in_LA]

4. k&r

[Dont call me Shirley]

5. Tampering with evidence. Murder. He should get a pretty stiff sentence. KKK is starting full blown

race wars.

[valerief]

6. Organized crime. nt

[mopinko]

7. obstruction of justice.

just like the rest of the fop.

i believe the feds are investigating the case, so hopefully....

[safeinOhio]

9. RICO

Organized criminal org.

[mopinko]

13. wouldnt that be sweet.

dont doubt they could dig up a rico case in about every precinct in the city.

[SusanaMontana41]

15. I like! eom

[WheelWalker]

36. That's the path, I agree.

[Enthusiast]

8. K&R! This bullshit must come to an end!

[stillwaiting]

10. My God. So much corruption. Thugs. nt

[SoapBox]

11. It wouldn't even be a surprise.

[tk2kewl]

12. oh man

"We had no idea they were going to sit there and delete files,” he said. “I mean we were just trying to help the police officers."

[Uben]

14. Felony obstruction of justice

It carries a 20 year max sentence. If they did it, hit em hard!

[Divernan]

16. Opens cops up to civil suit as well as criminal prosecution.

Under many states' civil law codes, deliberate destruction of evidence results in a de facto assumption that the destroyed evidence would have benefitted/proven claims by a plaintiff.
So if the teens' parents were to sue the police department, these cops, individually, as well as the City of Chicago would be shit out of luck and liable for whatever compensation the jury decides upon.

It is a tort called spoliation of evidence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoliation_of_evidence

The spoliation of evidence is the intentional, reckless, or negligent withholding, hiding, altering, fabricating, or destroying of evidence relevant to a legal proceeding.[1] Spoliation has two possible consequences: in jurisdictions where it is the (intentional) act is criminal by statute, it may result in fines and incarceration (if convicted in a separate criminal proceeding) for the parties who engaged in the spoliation; in jurisdictions where relevant case law precedent has been established, proceedings possibly altered by spoliation may be interpreted under a spoliation inference, or by other corrective measures, depending on the jurisdiction.

The spoliation inference is a negative evidentiary inference that a finder of fact can draw from a party's destruction of a document or thing that is relevant to an ongoing or reasonably foreseeable civil or criminal proceeding: the finder of fact can review all evidence uncovered in as strong a light as possible against the spoliator and in favor of the opposing party.

The theory of the spoliation inference is that when a party destroys evidence, it may be reasonable to infer that the party had "consciousness of guilt" or other motivation to avoid the evidence. Therefore, the factfinder may conclude that the evidence would have been unfavorable to the spoliator. Some jurisdictions have recognized a spoliation tort action, which allows the victim of destruction of evidence to file a separate tort action against a spoliator.[2]

Spoliation is often an issue in the context where a person claims he has been injured by a defective product which he then discarded or lost.[3] In that circumstance, the defendant manufacturer or distributor may move to dismiss the case on the basis of spoliation (instead of just having to rely on the plaintiff's usual burden of proof, the argument being that any testimony of plaintiff's witnesses would not overcome the spoliation inference born of the lost evidentiary value of the missing product itself).[4]

[IDemo]

17. Why is local access to the video even an option?

This defies belief, that anyone, including the police, Burger King management or security staff (if any) can randomly delete or edit video that may be critical evidence. I'm not familiar with current security cam technology, but this isn't 1995; any of this should have gone directly to a server machine, not onto tape or flash memory within the camera. And I wonder if they 'deleted', or actually wiped the data. Big difference.

[packman]

20. It's a strange world with technology

I read a while back that a man wiped potential evidence from his HOME computer which would have involved him in a crime - child porn, I think and they charged him with destruction of evidence. Which has the implication, IMHO, you need police permission before you wipe your computer disc clean. DO NOT USE THE CLOUD for storage if you are involved in anything remotely suspicious.

[IDemo]

21. Which doesn't address the point of my post

The data from the security cam had no business residing on the camera or on a hard drive under the counter where it could be screwed with by anyone from the night clerk to cops trying to cover their asses - it should have gone onto a remote server with access restricted to the corporate security officials, and provided to police as part of an official crime investigation.

[Logical]

29. So you want to implement laws for privately owned security equipment? nt

[IDemo]

30. I made no mention of laws

I'm just pointing out that any business with such a casual attitude with their surveillance system, supposedly set up with capturing criminal activity at least one major reason, needs to re-examine things if data deletion is such an open and accessible thing to accomplish.

[Logical]

33. Just be smart enough not to let the the police access the equipment. nt

[bullsnarfle]

32. I don't see how

they could make that stick. Seems like the it would violate the 5th amendment; a person cannot be forced to incriminate his- or herself?

[Logical]

28. The burger king has no requirements to lock it down or protect it. No more than I would at home. nt

[Hoppy]

18. No donuts for those little piggies today.

[Stellar]

19. Kick! nt

[Fast Walker 52]

22. just a few bad apples, dontcha know

[damnedifIknow]

23. Dismantle the entire force and start over

This PD is plain rotten

[libdem4life]

24. Beginning to reframe the book "1984". Big Brother can cut both

ways...who knew? The rest of the cops...good and bad and silent...listen up, watch and beware. You too could end up in probably the place that is a cop's worst nightmare. Lockup...on the other side.

[wolfie001]

25. Beyond the pale! nt

[TeamPooka]

26. Conspiracy to commit is a pre-crime activity. You mean accesory after the fact or

at the very least obstruction of justice.

[Logical]

27. The issue is there is no proof. The burger king manager did not watch them.....

because he is an idiot and trusted the cops. The cops denied doing it. So they will not have enough to prove it.

[gratuitous]

31. Just following the pattern laid down by CIA

CIA freely admitted to destroying its tapes of the "interrogation" of Moussaoui and Abu Zubaydah. Better to be charged with "destroying evidence" or "obstructing justice" than to be convicted of torture, crimes against humanity, or worse. The cops made a reasoned calculation that what the restaurant's cameras showed would result in far worse punishment than simply confiscating the tapes and destroying them.

And, if CIA's experience was any indication, there will be some ineffectual official harrumphing, an impotent public statement or two, and nobody will face charges. Now, can we PLEASE talk about black on black crime? That's what we're supposed to talk about whenever there's white on black crime.

[lark]

34. The terrorists are already in the US and some of them wear blue suits to work.

Guess what, most of them aren't Muslim either, they are white Christian terrorists that frankly have me afraid to ever call them if I'm in a dangerous situation.

[houston16revival]

35. Integrity in any human endeavor

Evaluations by psychologists are supposed to weed out the mentally unfit
but it seems some leak through

Those who should be flagged include those who

- see no shades of gray, only black and white
- have low or no impulse control
- lack empathy and moral integrity
- are totally self-centered or narcissistic

These to me are the problem populations in any occupation or really
any human endeavor

Some of them, though, are so convincing and charming they probably
deceive the shrink-evaluators