http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/030636.html The cops knew there was live audio and video in the store as well, and simply did not care, they stuck a pistol into that woman's neck and told the clerk to destroy the evidence of what they had done.. Which would have left just the police perjury about the incident as the only information about what happened. ETA: http://www.philly.com/philly/news/51196597.html The store video is at the link, it's in high quality color as well.
She got lucky that the tapes weren't destroyed. In most cases I think they would have been. I have a case right now with the charge of 'uttering a false instrument' (stolen checks). The person who gave the checks was ready to testify that they weren't stolen then she disappears before trial. The former defense attorney (this is on appeal) testified in court that before she disappeared she told him that the cops threatened her with arrest if she testified (she had a prior record). His statement is hearsay though and considered unreliable. The court will most likely just affirm the conviction.
Exactly Rafael, Judge Napalitono frequently says "Cameras are more dangerous to the state than guns" and I fully agree with that thought as when what is on film does not equal what the police version of the incident is, the defendant has a chance in a courtroom. Otherwise the officers can testilie and there is nothing to dispute their fabrications. And do notice, in that story the corrupt father/son combo was merely suspended, not fired, which is a fairly typical outcome.
