Search This Blog

Thursday, April 28, 2011


In yesterday's posting regarding the video of the Pawtucket Street shooting, I need to make a correction.

Several sources familiar with the investigation called or contacted me to let me know that my perception of what happened was wrong. In watching the video, I thought that a shot was actually fired from inside the car through the rear passenger window.

Apparently the suspects (or victims, depending on how you look at it) never fired any shots. Any shots fired were fired by Police Officers outside of the car. Although a gun was recovered from inside the car, it was never fired.

One source close to the investigation also stated that with the heavy tints on the cars window, they felt it would have been difficult for anyone outside of the vehicle to actually see anyone pointing a gun at them as one officer was heard saying on the video.

In looking at the video again, I think we are very lucky no police officers were shot by each other. If the shot was fired by a police officer, as I was told, from outside the vehicle, they would have been on the sidewalk and officers were approaching from both directions.

This video should be used by every Police agency in the country to show how things should NOT be done.



The 13 minutes of stolen, low resolution footage you are linking to is framed with suggestive and inaccurate text. As the owner of the full-resolution footage, I can assure you, a far greater, meaningful and unexpected tale, will soon emerge...and then the conversation will undoubtedly change.

Jeffrey B. Teitler

Matt said...

Jeff I look forward to seeing your final product but unless your full-resolution footage is shown raw with no comments or narration it to will be framed in suggestion.



Your accusation that the video is "stolen" is totally untrue. I appreciate your protection of the product, but once that became part of the Connecticut State Police criminal investigation it essentially became a "public document", available to anyone that wants to put in a request for it. I have confirmed that with the Freedom of Information Commission.

And if it truly is about change, don't you think you are doing far more good by allowing people to see what actually happened that day, rather than just an edited portion in your final product?

hoseloader said...

The video speaks for itself. The high def, raw version speaks even clearer.

Kevin why cant they contact you on the City phones or computers? Is reporting corruption wrong? Is keeping a citizen informed wrong?

Excellent job posting this stuff, finally....



the demise of Eddie Perez was in no way the end of corruption in City government. Those that try to do the right thing are not appreciated, but rather punished. Just ask Neville Brooks and Dan Nolan. If things had changed, Nolan would be back to work by now, rather tomorrow is the end of the 30 day period to appeal and the City has not announced their intent, which most likely signals an appeal will be coming.

Believe it or not, people have actually been questioned as to why they call me when my number shows up on their city phones. It is just a lot easier for people to contact me outside of the City's reach. I protect my sources and the less trail to them the better.


I understand your position and its "responsibilities". I am also not in favor of censorship. However, posting 14 minutes of raw SWEETEST LAND footage, when your focus is only on the first 30 seconds is clearly gratuitous and harmful to all involved. It does not promote larger conversations/insight, (as evidenced by the on-line comments you are receiving). Rather, it continues a cycle, incites rage and potentially inspires additional acts of preventable violence/death.

With that, the documentary is not seeking to protect footage or appease participants as your letter suggests. The objectives here are far greater, ethically sound and aimed at improvement from ALL perspectives.

Out of respect for all those represented in the footage, (enforcement and injured), the documentary has taken all steps to have that footage removed. It was NOT obtained with an FOI request, which suggests other motives.

At the end of the day, those who stream it must decide if the benefits of having 2300 hits are worth the potential rage, violence, hate and hurt which can come from it.

As far as I'm concerned, that answer is a resounding no.

Jeffrey B. Teitler

Anonymous said...

I think the cops should be trained to wear police stuff in these situations, or at least yell "police." Isn't there a "police shooting review board" that reviews each police shooting? Did they see this video? Please don't tell us that McKoy is involved in that too?

peter brush said...

decide if the benefits of having 2300 hits are worth the potential rage, violence, hate and hurt
Since the risk of enumerated potentials is pretty close to zero, I recommend the continued posting of the video. It is valuable to have graphic evidence of how things are on Hartford's streets to supplement dry reporting. Thanks, Kevin, for your work.
If the complete documentary were to achieve "improvement from ALL perspectives" it, too, would be appreciated.


Whether it is 13 minutes or 30 seconds, I have no control over that. I linked to a youtube video that was posted on line.

The reason for linking to it was to provide a factual "snapshot" of a real life incident that now is potentially playing a role in the transfer of a well respected police lieutenant. I can see why high ranking police officials would not want to answer any questions regarding the actions in that video. My agenda is not to politely frame a message in a one hour documentary to promote anyone or anything with select edited, neat video clips.

It may me raw, grainy video but it does an excellent job of depicting the facts. And if "the benefits of having 2300 hits are worth the potential rage" I would be the first to answer yes. Many things in society don't change until people feel the rage to finally act. I could sit here and explain what happened, but when people see an actual video clip it seems to stir them to action. Whether the video that enrages people comes from a gas station video, a camera mounted in an ATM or a videographer riding with police, it is a factual representation of what happened.

The debate over whether people should be spoon fed a clean and neat end product fresh from the editing room or be able to make their own decision by watching a raw clip is nonsense. It brings to mind one of the rawest video clips of our time that resulted in huge change, the Rodney King video.

I don't agree with your viewpoint, but I still look forward to your end product

Anonymous said...

As someone that sat through a seminar put on by the Hartford Police Union regarding the reliance on "raw video" and the false perception these videos can provide, I would love to say that I am surprised at your opinion. But as someone that has read your blogs I am not at all surprised that you conveniently set aside your knowledge in this situation. This video was reviewed at many levels during the legitimate investigation that followed this shooting. From the State Police investigators to the State’s Attorney to the Shooting Review Board, the video and, more importantly, the facts and circumstances leading up to the video were thoroughly examined and the officers were found justified and not charged. This comes up now that your schoolyard chum is under investigation? What a surprise! While Brooks may very well be the victim, he may also be guilty of wrongdoing. I find it interesting that you are willing to condemn, or at the very least, not defend or give an objective chance to others that are dragged through the mud based on your opinionated "sources." Interesting that people speak of Brooks’ perfect record without mentioning how he became a Hartford Police Officer. If his record is without reproach, why isn’t he retiring as a high ranking State Trooper? Your favoritism is transparent; your "sources" should be ashamed that they pass judgment without all of the facts. You should be ashamed that you post without verifying the facts delivered by your rumor mongering sources. As a person that claims to be a "whistle blower" on those that do wrong, you rely on and post information every week that is given to you in violation of policy! I wonder, is one of your “protected sources” a guy that also passed notes to you in the back of class? You defended the righteous actions of the Chief in his pursuit to tear down the wall that covered up police misconduct, until it struck your grade school buddy. The list of those that have been wronged by the current Chief is growing with every decision he makes. Not because the Officers are not guilty, but because the Department can't seem to follow the most rudimentary procedures to properly investigate and process their cases. Some were wrongfully accused and others acted inappropriately but will be saved by the incompetence of Roberts and those he chose to carry out these tasks. But that is not what decides who is embarrassed by you on this blog. That is a simple matter of one’s connection to Brookman. An alleged drunk State Trooper is defended because he is your neighbor; Brooks is immediately wronged because you went to school with him. Do you ever stop to think that the people you immediately slam on this blog have high school pals and neighbors that think they are good guys? If you look back at your yearbook, you will find the man that was overseeing many of the investigations that will turn into successful litigation down the road, by people above and below his rank. If it is not the fault of Brooks, it’s only because he can claim he wasn’t present to be culpable. His attendance record may be his best defense. The one thing that is clear; the Chief can't figure out how to instill "fair, firm and consistent" discipline and you can't figure out how to be fair or consistent.


There are several errors in your comments. First, I don't recall any information as to the use of "raw" video. Are you saying that edited footage would be preferable?

Second, several sources I have spoke with have said that the video was not available to the firearms review board and that is part of the reason that the IAD was still ongoing. I was also advised that the Hartford States Attorney never disclosed the existence of the video to the defense attorneys for the two suspects in the video.

As far as your accusation of not giving the others "dragged through the mud" the chance to comment, I suggest you re[read the posting. All members of the command staff were given the opportunity to comment. Chief Horvath refused to comment, Chief Heavren and Sansom never returned my calls.

Your reasoning seems to be all over the place and I had trouble following which side of the fence you were on. And your comment that I was defending a State Trooper charged with DUI is way off base. I never defended his actions, only raised issues regarding the behavior that I still think are valid and those I will defend.

Finally, at least I have the conviction to stand by what I believe in and actually put my name to it, unlike your "anonymous" comments. I wonder which one of the people in the video you are. I have a good idea based upon your comments, maybe you deserve a medal for your performance.

Anonymous said...

it sounds like this is going to become a huge mess. the cover up is always worse than the original actions.

Who is the guy in the video that was diving under the truck to hide when the gunfire started?

Anonymous said...

Your response is telling. The State Police did ALMOST make an arrest based on the disclosure of the video, but it was reviewded by all who investgated.
I don't have a side or position and am "on the fence" in many of the stirring alligations as should you be until the facts are in. It is easy to see that you are quick to condemn in certain situations and quick to defend in others. That is just not fair to those who are affected by your blog.
By "raw" video I simply mean that it has been proven that video does not always tell the whole story as was learned in the Union presentation.
Even after being accused of certain things in this blog, I give credit to those that have the discipline to adhere to policy and let the truth eventually tell their story. Is Brooks guilty of wrongdoing, or is he a victim of a corrupt administration? Only time will tell. Until then, I am comfortable on the fence, not ignoring the facts or jumping to cnclusions because of my connections to those involved. If by "all over the place" you mean looking at all of the possibilities and not taking one side; guilty.
Those shown in the video are responsible for many firearms that sit in the police property room rather than behind the tinted glass of vehicles in the City. There was a gun in that car and it wasn't on its way to a firing range.

Matt said...

Personally I think both Mr Teitler and Mr Brookman are both correct.

A case can be made to why full disclosure is important in society. It keeps people and agencies honest, exposes problems, and can lead to real positive change.

A case can also be made that raw footage without being put into context or explained through eye witness testimony can be misleading and even fuel social anger. While powerful, videos rarely can be misleading. For example, Kevin himself thought the hole in the passenger back window was an exit shot from the car. It took phone calls from people who were there or investigated this shooting to clarify it was not.

With that said, I personally appreciate Kevin posting the full raw footage because I'm intelligent enough to not jump to conclusions and watch it with an open mind. I also realize many people can't do that. Like I said, both of you gentleman have a valid point.

Anonymous said...

Simple questions for anonymous:
1. Did the firearms review board have the video?
2. If no, why not?
3. Explain the lack of police identifiers on the detectives, or the lack of even yelling "Police". (you dont have to explain that, but somebody eventually will.)

Anonymous said...

Who is the guy hiding on the ground? Why it is the unit supervisor Mack Hawkins! And imagine that before this was posted he was recommended for a medal for the incident!

Matt said...

correction on my above post.

"While powerful, videos CAN be misleading."

Matt said...

Someone in that car had a gun and a cop is saying he saw it pointed at him before he fired. Case closed.

What are cops suppose to do wait until people shoot at them first? Wow, there would be a lot of dead law enforcement officers in America if that was a requirement.

Not sure what everyone is saying about identification. I see most of those cops wearing badges clearly displayed on their chests with neck chains.

Anonymous said...

All I have to say is that the truth will eventually come out and command staff members will be looking to retire and or sent back to their former ranks.

If the mayor had a set he would of called The infamous, Mr. Fair Firm and consistent, aka Chief Roberts, into his office and told him to suspend McKoy for at least two weeks for that lame ass excuse of how his vehicle got damaged, maybe it happened on one of his weekend visits to Atlantic City or maybe when he tried to pull over another good looking female out of his jurisdiction, again, oh, who just so happened to be a wife of a police officer, oops. Good one "Lester".

Now getting back to the whole mess, you cannot and I repeat you cannot shove 100 lbs of shit into a 5 pound bag is just isn’t going to work. That's why they need to flush this command staff.

If your platform is public safety in this upcoming election then let’s do the right thing and clean up these piles of shit they call commanders in HPD. They are nothing but bullies and thugs, Officers feel safer on the streets of Hartford than walking into HPD headquarters.

Roberts has over stayed his welcome and to believe he wanted a raise and he has the nerve to think he should be the highest paid Police Chief in the state, WOW.

Lester should have been gone after the dept. audit that Chief Harnett started but there was DKR's first mistake covering for his ass. The only think DKR has been fair, firm and consistent on is screwing up the P.D.

Heavren is just collateral damage, poor Brian, get out while you can before you’re not employable anywhere.

The Hulk, aka Horvath, the name itself tells you almost all you need to know when he gets mad watch out "Hulk smash". Anything that is wrong with the intelligence division should fall directly at his and Mack "the diver" Hawkins, not anyone else.

Then there is the Hulk-a-maniacs, D/C Paul and D/C Scott, their heads are so far up Horvath's ass they can see through his eye glasses. D/C Paul aka "DOC" who is charged with the I file into Lt. Brooks be careful not to throw stones from your glass house, like the good book says, he who is without sin shall cast the first stone, I can tell you one thing there should be no stone throwing here because they he has sinned, a lot.

It's amazing how these guys get into their positions of power by drinking the "kool aid" (ref: to Jim Jones) and they think they are doing something good in the process but their ego's and arrogance just get in their way and blind them to the truth.

Do the honest hard working men and women of HPD a great favor and get rid of these individuals who are nothing but self center and do not care about the community they serve and only care how they can further their own agenda.

Maybe the only thing to do if the Mayor wont do Kevin is to request the DOJ to get involved, then watch how fast some of these guys get out of dodge.

Anonymous said...

How is talking to Kevin a violation of policy? Are we scared of shining a light in dark places?

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

What about the Chief coming to roll calls and telling officers not to read or listen to what people are saying about the "blog", and that its one sided. If you are doing everything right and by "the book" and have nothing to hide then why steer people away from bog. Unless, you know what is being said it truthful and if it gets exposed will be factual.

If you want a good one about the Chief, everyone should inquire about Whitey's towing ****** Johnsons car down by Morris street who argued with Whitey's at the time and said her "boyfriend" will take care of it. Who could that be, some how Whitey's got a call from Chief Roberts, could he be the "the boyfriend" asking about the towed vehicle,oh yeah, she is now the PD's weed and seed coordinator. I wounder how that happened. Food for thought.


part of a name in the above comment was taken out. I understand the accusations made, but let's focus on the important facts. The incident you mention is pretty much common knowledge and several people have called me about it in the last few days. it will all be put together eventually.

Anonymous said...

Funny thing, 1000's of people are clicking on this blog. I have not seen one blog in support of DKR or Lester. Just sayin...

It's weird; DKR used this blog to his advantage and had no problem meeting and calling Mr. Brookman, paling around with him at comstat; mentioning him during his superb public speaking engagements and providing him information and secrets regarding his detractors. Now it aint so cool anymore. He wants everyone to stop that now. That’s odd, no?

You see DKR, you bully people, you selectively punished, and you take care of your buddies. That's not leadership. It’s neither fair nor consistent. In case you haven't figured it out (and I would not be surprised if you hadn't), you have over extended your welcome as your integrity has become sadly transparent. My suggestion to you would be for you and Lester to ride off into the sunset. Cash your chips in and walk away; because your lies and your disgracing leadership are catching up to you, and its getting ugly for you and expensive for the city. I mean if 25% of the stuff on this blog is true, you and the City are screwed. Move to Florida; unplug your computer; and let everyone’s litigation rain on the city. Hartford’s son is sure costing mom and dad a lot of money.

No, I won’t throw mud on you, or expose any of your many dirty secrets. I won’t trash my friends who stand to gain from your fall either. I would never throw any of my friends under this bus. But I will gladly talk openly about factual “business” matters in which you and Lester have wronged me, my family or the city of Hartford. I speak about your poor leadership from pure experience and simple documentation.

There really is no need to sign my name, you know who it is.

peter brush said...

As a citizen it's difficult to know what is or isn't going on in the police bureaucracy, who is and who isn't concealing evidence, fixing tickets, crashing cars, abusing power..., but does the council have no oversight responsibilities? Or is it only allowed to focus on Obama-war funding, trans-gender discrimination, and Arizona immigration policy?

peter brush said...

PD's weed and seed coordinator
Who knew they needed coordinating? Honestly, as The Donald might ask, wtf?
What Is Weed and Seed?

A comprehensive strategy designed to create partnerships to benefit the community and create a sustainable program. Weed and Seed is foremost a strategy designed to help build the momentum needed for the residents of a community to establish themselves and to steer their community in the direction that they want.