By J.L.Heinze
A Sacramento city council video has emerged showing Major Steinberg’s less than friendly behavior towards citizen commenters during public testimony. The city council meeting was called to address the Sacramento Police Department’s request for an extension of the thirty-day deadline to release a dash cam video which captured the shooting of 28-year-old Armani Lee on February 10. Mayor Steinburg became visibly angered by public testimony comments which expressed distrust in Sac PD, as he frequently interrupted speakers in the middle of their statements.
As one woman recounted past police killings against black men, Steinbeurg became upset at her use of the term “murder”. Steinberg interrupts the commenter, saying “NO! I’m not going to have you calling our police officers murderers! When you start using the word murder and throwing that around about people dedicated to public service I’m going to take offense to it. I don’t like it!”
Steinberg could not hide his annoyance towards many speakers, as he yells several times, “Finish your testimony!” or “NEXT!” in a perfunctory way.
Another commenter challenges Steinberg’s unlawful interruptions, saying “It is a brown act violation- do not address me right now. Don’t take my time.”
The Brown Act of 1953 was enacted to stimulate more public engagement and access to local legislative decisions. The law states “The state body or the legislative body of a local agency may not prohibit public criticism of the policies, procedures, programs or services of the body, or the acts or omissions of the body.”
The public also expressed concern over Mayor Steinberg’s allowance of those in favor of the extension to speak longer than their allotted time- a privilege he did not give to those who expressed criticism towards police.
See the video here from BlackLivesMatter Sacramento:
embed for Vanguard:
Wow.
What’s missing from the narrative seems important… the motion was to deny the waiver for extension for release of the cam footage…
So, those “shut off” already had the votes in the bag… weird…
Smells like a “set-up”…no clue as to why…
No cites as to action by the CC…
Just found: http://www.kcra.com/article/sacramento-pd-misses-deadline-to-release-officer-involved-shooting-video/9171984
Seems like contributor has an axe to grind about Steinberg, rather than the outcome.
Correction… seems like those who made/edited the tape had an axe to grind… author/contributor may well have taken it in good faith… my bad…
Mayor was boorish, and out of line, but couldn’t legally say “don’t waste my time, this is a done deal, and the videos will be released…”
Jerika doesn’t have an axe to grind about Steinberg
The “denial” of the waiver was purely symbolic. The Mayor and council may have “denied” the request for 60 additional days, but they provided more time for the police department to edit the videos with no specified end date – therefore they provided UNLIMITED time.
Additionally, the police department didn’t even begin to review the videos until well beyond the 30 day time limit in which they were to have reviewed, redacted, and released the videos. No one was held accountable.
David, (and Jerika)… I realized that was likely, after I posted originally, then thought further… hence my attempt at correction… but I still think those that filmed, then edited the video may well have an agenda other than “transparency”… another poster is concerned about editing of the police video… seems to be a lot of that sort of editing going around. All ‘sides’…
Howard
You may well be right about bilateral editing. But I think that it is important to understand the power disparity between the “two sides”. The police and city officials are paid to protect and represent actions honestly, not so the individual citizen.
So, that applies to the Planned Parenthood “expose” as well (private citizens)? That is now being prosecuted as a crime… there is a “power disparity” there, as well… only difference appears to be “public venue” where the raw tapes are “public record”, as opposed to illegally/inappropriately obtained (which I thinkis a very valid charge, as a wrongful act)… the “editing” is “editing”… the “manipulative intent” is the “manipulative intent”… the latter two sets means (in both cases) that there is malevolence…
It looks like even die hard left wing Democrats like Steinberg are getting tired of the liberal activists.
This once again is the liberal-progressive split.
Keith… that’s just bull-crap. There is something else going on.
There is a lot going on – liability. There was an interesting column by Breton a few weeks ago where Steinberg was ticked at the police chief for dragging his heels on this case with no good explanation.
Howard
As usual Howard, it’s always a pleasure.
Yeah, Keith, you’re right … just a spat between “lefties” (who are inherently both wrong)… how could I have been so blind? Will try to defer to your great wisdom/insight… and, a pleasure, as always… g’nite… best to you and yours (the latter, honestly meant)…
Try and get a good night’s sleep and wake up on the other side of the bed tomorrow.
You had a rough day today.
You too, Keith… pleasant dreams… I normally sleep on the right side of the bed, towards the middle … will try sleeping on the left… per your advice…
Seriously, though, best to you and yours… however we may disagree, we are all people…