Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Letter of the Day | The Morning News »

Wednesday, June 13, 2007

George Patterson’s Arrest Video

posted by on June 13 at 18:08 PM

Last week, I wrote about George Patterson’s controversial arrest and I’ve been slogging about the looming OPARB report, which will (hopefully) be out Monday.

Last week we promised we’d post the video of Patterson’s arrest, which was filmed by a nearby Walgreens security camera.

Due to technical difficulties, the video won’t be available on Slog. However, the Times has been doing an amazing job covering all of this, so check out their site for the video.

It’s a long clip, with no sound, but stick it out. It gets really interesting starting around the 16 minute mark.


RSS icon Comments


Well, the video was as interesting as watching paint dry. Are the police accused of boring him to death? Or is that just us?

Its really not clear that anything was put in his hood. One question would be why spend ten boring minutes fingering his clothing if drugs are in his lap?

Posted by Mike | June 13, 2007 6:46 PM

Dah! Real Video. I'm not putting that shit on my computer.

Posted by David in Wedgwood | June 13, 2007 9:07 PM

the point one gets from watching the video (especially if you can watch it frame by frame, like the expert witness did) is that no drugs were recovered.

everybody's focused on looking for proof that drugs were planted.

the video shows not just that one can't see drugs recovered, but that it is not at all possible for rugs to be recovered off of patterson because there are no officer-hand to patterson's person to officer-hand movements at all on the video.

watch again and don't look for planting, instead look for recovery...

if you see points on the video were recovery may have been possible, well look again - if it was possible at that point where patterson is obscured behind an officer, why don't you see that officer afterwards put something in his pocket or in a bag for safe storage(as both officers claim in their testimony and then RECOUNT when they themselves are shown the video)??

Posted by veronica | June 13, 2007 9:33 PM

Grant Fredericks' affidavit explains the video very well. It's an easy read. If you're at all interested in this story, I suggest having a look.

Posted by Phil M | June 13, 2007 9:49 PM

Aside from the direct issue of what happened with Patterson, there's a delicious irony to this video.

Since the Rodney King video police have become somewhat attuned to the fact that they may be captured by civilians wielding video equipment and the public has become a tad more willing to accept that police are sometimes goons and violate as many laws as they enforce (though most folks still tend to reflexively believe the cops).

But now we have video footage not from a citizen, but from a flippin' security camera. The police have long been advocating for increased use of surveillance technology and in this case it bites 'em right in the rear.

Posted by gnossos | June 13, 2007 11:30 PM

#2 lol me neither

Posted by DreadLion | June 14, 2007 8:18 AM


But it really could have used a chase-scene towards the middle of Act Four.

Posted by NapoleonXIV | June 14, 2007 8:20 AM

Aw damn. I should've read the full story first. I watched the whole thing expecting the big drama was going to be that chick going apeshit on them or something. She seemed to be working up to a big screaming match.

Posted by Faux Show | June 14, 2007 8:43 AM

SPD wouldn't know probable cause from a hole in the ground. Neubert was "Officer of the Year" because he's terrific at falsifying police reports -- the envy of the department! Congrats asshole.

Posted by DOUG. | June 14, 2007 9:02 AM


Posted by Mr. Poe | June 14, 2007 9:30 AM

This is a tough one, I mean we need police to stay within the lines but we also need to get crack wielding, wheelchair bound (or -not), pushers off our streets.

I work in the area and have watched this guy sell crack outside my office, do crack in my alley and generally contribute to the skankiness of the area.

I love drugs, don't get me wrong, but I don't sell them or do them in front of kids, mother's, the general public or the police.

I am undecide on this myself but it does remind me how in America the perp. is the victim.

Posted by J | June 14, 2007 9:47 AM

J, rumor has it that in this country, no one is above the law (even the President) and no one is beneath the law (even drug dealers and users).

The issue here is whether the police lied. Patterson's history is irrelevant.

Anyone who wishes not to live in a police state should be outraged.

Posted by Phil M | June 14, 2007 10:28 AM

People ARE above the law and people ARE beneath the law. As an attorney I do not believe in the fairy tale you do.

Police will always lie. Always have and always will. It is more the intention I am concerend with because ideals simply do not exist. You are a peach to think they do and kudos for trying to live them.

You already live in a police state. Just look at the FBI's admission today the violated the privacy of ten of thousand of citizens with the surveillance these past few years.

Personally (and I understand if you think otherwise) I prefer a safe place to live over a society so free you are a prisoner of that "freedom."

Have you eve lied?

His history is NOT irrelevant to me, as it has personally touched me. That fucker deals crack outside my office on a daily basis.

Can we just move him to your office and then let the police take care of it? Is that okay with you? I'd be happy to push his sorry crack smoking ass to your place. Do you have kids? Maybe you would let him, baby-sit as a way out of his lifestyle.

However, I don't care how tyrannical I sound when I say that some asshole doing crack in front of my two kids, deserves to get taken away for it.

I am concerned about the police staying within the law....I have just seen so much drug activity myself from this guy that I know the police had no need to sprinkle crack on him to get a bust.

Oh yeah and OJ is innocent too.

Posted by J | June 14, 2007 10:46 AM

i don't care what he has done, or did, as much as i care about the police lying to arrest someone. people may not understand it, but that is a much greater travisty to justice.

it is unfortunate that police feel they need to lie in order to get a conviction. maybe something needs to be done about that. but once they make up their mind that someone is guilty, and cannot proove it without the lie, they can potentially arrest innocent people.

if you want this guy arrested so much... call the police when you see him selling, or using crack. you should film it. you should be willing to testify.

that the police's job -- it's not your job? well, it's not the police's job to lie.

Posted by infrequent | June 14, 2007 10:58 AM

J: You're an attorney? That's frightening. You "love drugs" but hate the guy who deals them? Do you get your drugs from the drug fairy?

Your willingness to completely disregard a police officer's obligation to search, seize and arrest only upon probable cause is astonishing.

Posted by DOUG. | June 14, 2007 11:23 AM

This is a great debate.

I must admit I poked the bear intentionally on this to elicit response. My true colors run closer to the general opinion here that our police should walk the line all the time.

That being said we really only have preliminary and anecdotal evidence at this time and our justice system will evaluate the case and make a decision. That is why these guys are in trouble, right? A process is in place and advocates have stepped up.

Is it possible to get the best outcome if the police lied?....absolutely not. But it is curious to see all the people so concerned about justice who have made a decision already, instead of staying neutral until ALL evidence is in and the process is complete.

That is a virtual lynch mob.

I am as scared of you as I am of the police.

I know, there I go poking the bear again.

So, I should videotape him? That would create a police state environment would it not?

Can I sit outside your house and smoke crack day after day?....actually yes. Would you get tired of it at some point and take action? Yes,I bet you would. And after the police said they could not do anything and I had been there for days just pointing my crack pipe at you, would you eventually do something such as lie, or take personal action against me to remedy the situation?....I hope you would.

Just a mental exercise.

And for the record we call the police several times a week and they stopped coming because they can only do something if the see it in transaction. Some citizen calling in just doesn't cut it. The law requires more. This is a good thing.

Posted by j | June 14, 2007 11:26 AM

No, you know what is scary as that I am one of the good attorneys...promise. :)

Uh, don't twist the I love drugs thing to fit your position. I love drugs in a safe environment and bought in a private transaction.

I do not hate the drug dealer...I hate drug selling in an inappropriate and public setting. You projected a lot onto me that isn't right.

I am crazy yes!

And agin, I made statments here to elicit a response, not becasue they are my real take on all this.

Posted by j | June 14, 2007 11:32 AM

if what you say is true, j, then you are a troll.

and to risk feeding you, i certainly did not say the police lied. i clearly that that when police lie it is a travesty to justice. which certainly means we should investigate a case where it seems they might have.

Posted by infrequent | June 14, 2007 11:57 AM

if what you say is true, j, then you are a troll.

and at the risk offeeding you, i certainly did not say the police lied. i clearly that that when police lie it is a travesty to justice. which certainly means we should investigate a case where it seems they might have.

Posted by infrequent | June 14, 2007 11:58 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).