San Francisco (Crohn) – A police officer in San Francisco did not disclose that his son threw a punch on a man during a hot interaction that did not reveal the attack, according to Recently A report from the Ministry of Police in San Francisco (DPA). It turned out that the officer violated many management policies throughout the accident.
On June 5, 2024, San Francisco Police Management Officer was accused of an inappropriate behavior, a failure to stimulate the camera worn by his body, submit an incomplete report on the accident, and a failure to submit his name and the badge number and the failure to take the “required action”. The complainant described the officer as “aggressive and hostile”, according to the DPA report.
The complaint clip submitted by the complainant to the employees of the employee wrote to the employee using the profanity words and asks the complainant to leave him alone. The officer, as shown in the reported video, suggested preparing a boxing match between them and announcing it as “gangs for a policeman”. In the video, DPA reported that the complainant described the officer as a “prostitute”, as the officer has repeatedly shouted “if you saw a prostitute for them.”
Then the complainant described the officer as a “mouse”, wrote DPA, and the officer responded through the screaming over and over again, “Kill these mice!”
During the tense exchange, the son of the officer arrived and “the owner of the complaint faced while the officer stood up,” and the report mentioned. The brother of the officer and his friend were also present at the scene.
DPA wrote: “Footage of the accident showed that the officer named was standing next to his son, where he faces the owner of the complaint and his son, slapped the phone of the complainant from his hand, and the complainant has a closed grip towards his head area.” The complainant reported that he had a punch in the face and ended up with a swollen lip.
The body’s camera was activated for the officer, which DPA stated 12 minutes after the reaction started, and the owner of the complaint and the son exchanging words before the complainant left the area. The officer initially requested a backup copy of the transmission before the request is canceled, according to DPA results.
“The evidence showed that the attack took place in the presence of the named officer,” DPA stated. “He failed to investigate, and the complainant did not ask whether he was injured or injured, and the supervisor did not notice about what happened with the involvement of a member of his family.”
In the officer accident report, DPA found that he “did not document his son paid or punched the complainant, as the officer described in an interview with Dubai ports. The report did not document that the officer’s brother and friend saw the accident. [body-worn camera] Footage later noticed that a member of the community expelled the complainant’s phone from his hand and pushed away from the complainant. “
DPA concluded in five complaints against the officer that “the prevalence of evidence proves that the alleged behavior has occurred” and violated SFPD or its procedures. Sixth complaint raised “issues outside the jurisdiction of DPA”, and was sent to the internal SFPD affairs.
The name of the officer and potential disciplinary procedures were not disclosed in the police accountability complaint report.