Kudos to HOI News for asking the Peoria Police Department about the effectiveness of their surveillance cameras. I was pleased to see they got reaction from Officer Ann Ruggles, the police department’s spokesperson. I e-mailed Ofc. Ruggles with my questions about the cameras Thursday morning and have yet to receive a reply.

They also got statistics on the number of police calls there have been to the two camera locations from 2004 to present. It looks to me like the number of calls dipped initially, but is now rising again. Perhaps the old saying is true: “Familiarity breeds contempt.”

In the “Police and Courts” section of the Journal Star today (couldn’t find it online to link to it), there’s this story:

Customers at Peoria store attacked by about 12 men

PEORIA — A group of about a dozen men attacked three customers at an East Bluff convenient store with metal poles and a bottle Wednesday night, according to police and witnesses at the scene.

Three young men were inside the Short Stop Food Mart, 1302 E. Frye Ave., about 10:05 p.m. when the group rushed inside and began beating two of the the three, a witness said. During the fight a display of candy and food near the cash register was knocked over and bits of glass were left upon the floor.

The third victim, believed to be the youngest of the trio, ran to the back of the store and was reportedly unharmed. After the brawl, the dozen or so men left the store and drove off in two vehicles in unknown directions. Police and witnesses said the two older victims suffered what appeared to be nonlife-threatening injuries.

This story caught my eye because it’s one of only two locations in Peoria where police surveillance cameras have been deployed. In fact, if you click here, you can see a live picture of the Short Stop Food Mart. These cameras are supposed to deter crime and assist the police in solving any crimes that might occur.

I don’t think anyone expected that all crime would stop once the cameras went up, but now that there has been some blatant violence right in front of one of them, I wonder how the camera will play into the investigation of this crime. It apparently isn’t sharp enough to help officers know exactly how many perpetrators there were (“A group of about a dozen men…”), or which direction they made their getaway (the men “drove off in two vehicles in unknown directions“). Another question is, was police response any quicker because of the camera?

Phil Luciano reports today that he’s seen the surveillance video of the Terry Beachler incident from March 26, and it’s not pretty.

The tape shows the youth’s attempt to buy the smokes, and the clerk’s dumping of the ID into the safe. Two minutes later, Jordan – dressed in plainclothes – bursts through the front door, steps to the cash register and flashes a badge at the clerk – fast enough that the clerk might not have seen it well.

“Give me the boy’s ID!” Jordan yells.

The clerk quietly explains that the ID is in the safe. Jordan cuts him off, shouting, “I need the ID, or you’re going to get arrested. You can’t take someone’s ID!”

The clerk (who declined to comment for this story) calmly asks if he should call the owner to get the ID out of the safe.

“No, I’ll arrest you,” Jordan says. “You can’t take someone’s ID. … You have no right to take someone’s property. You understand me?”

The clerk tries to explain that he is simply following the policy of the boss. Again, Jordan cuts him short.

“I don’t care what he says,” Jordan yells. “The law says you can’t take somebody’s property.”

The clerk nervously replies, “OK, OK.” He then grabs the phone to call Beachler, and Jordan walks outside.

Did you notice Jordan’s very first interaction with the clerk? “Give me the boy’s ID!” He’s already yelling. Sort of dispels the notion that he acted “with restraint.” The police chief hasn’t seen the video yet, but I’m going to bet he sees it soon. I’m guessing the public is going to want this officer to account for his actions.

Defense of the officer up to this point has been essentially, “Terry Beachler is a jerk, so the officer was justified.” I don’t buy that defense, but if you do, consider that Terry Beachler wasn’t even there when the officer first started yelling and making threats. It was just a 27-year-old clerk trying to do her job. No need to threaten and intimidate, especially right off the bat.

I still say the officer needs to be reprimanded.

Peoria Police Chief Steve Settingsgaard held a press conference yesterday to address the controversy surrounding Terry Beachler.

I didn’t know about the press conference, so I didn’t get to hear all of the Chief’s comments in person. But it’s a hot topic in the local media, so I saw many quotes on the news. Here’s a compilation of all the Chief’s comments I could find:

“Terry [Beachler] had every intention of delaying and stalling this officer and, I believe, goading the officer into anger. There’s no question in my mind he knew it was the police.”

“In this case, I’ll give the station credit. They didn’t sell the juvenile cigarettes.”

“Terry, I believe had a mindset to play games, which he did. And I think that’s evidenced by the fact he walked in with a recording device pre-set.”

“The story that appears to be out there. The angle and the spin on it I believe is very inaccurate.”

“[Officer] Scott Jordan held his professionalism. He did raise his voice and he was clearly agitated but I think he had a good reason in this case and I think he acted with great restraint.”

“When it becomes clear it’s part of a police operation, you get the property back and you return it.”

On the one hand, I think it’s commendable that the police chief would defend his officers. If you’re in law enforcement, you want to have a chief that’s going to back you up. I think in general we want a police chief that defends the actions of his officers when he feels they were in the right.

On the other hand, I don’t think the officer was in the right in this case. Before I go into why, I think we have to recognize that the audio recording catches a moment in time, and we can’t draw conclusions about this officer’s overall conduct nor the police department’s conduct from this one episode. So, I would have to part ways with several commenters who, I believe, are making some rather hasty generalizations about the police in this city. I just want to speak about this singular incident.

And in this incident, I think the officer was clearly angry from the beginning of the exchange. Did you look at the time on that recording? From the time Beachler walked in the station to the time he handed over the I.D. card, it was about four minutes. Granted, the officer had been waiting for twenty minutes for Terry to drive in from Mossville, but one could hardly characterize that as “playing games” or “stalling.” It takes 20 minutes to drive in from Mossville. There’s nothing Terry or the officer can do about that.

On the recording, Terry asked for identification from the officer. Whether or not Terry knew Officer Jordan is immaterial. He was completely within his legal rights to ask this officer for identification. Consider the fact that this officer was not in uniform and driving an unmarked vehicle, and the police had just finished trying to trick Terry’s employee into committing a crime. I’m not going to criticize Terry for wanting identification from the officer before handing over evidence of a crime.

Immediately, the officer escalated the confrontation and started threatening Terry.

The officer demands the I.D. back, Terry says it will be just a second while he gets some information, and the officer immediately responds with a raised voice, “In another second, I’m calling a marked car and making an arrest….” That escalation transpired within twenty seconds. Twenty seconds, people. How do you “goad” an officer into anger in twenty seconds by saying, “I need to get some information”?

From there it was nothing but yelling and threatening, all the while Terry is trying to open the safe and get the I.D. back for the officer. And again, it only took him four minutes total. I hardly consider four minutes “delaying” or “stalling.” As far as “goading” someone to anger, I think it’s clear who was goading whom, and it wasn’t Terry goading the police officer. The police officer was already angry.

Beachler gave the I.D. back within four minutes, and all he asked for was the officer’s badge/I.D. before he would return it. The rest of the time was spent opening the safe. What exactly was the sense of urgency here? Why was four minutes not fast enough? How was asking for the officer’s badge number considered “obstruction”? If you’re not moving as fast the officer thinks you should be moving, you’re obstructing him?

Even if we accept the premise that Terry was being a jerk and “playing games,” that is still no justification for the officer’s actions. Twenty seconds is too short of a fuse for an officer to lose his temper when no physical or verbal aggression has been displayed.

I like the chief, and I mean no disrespect to him or the officers under him, but I must disagree with his assessment of this incident. Officer Jordan did not act professionally, he did not act with restraint, he was not goaded into anger. He was angry from the beginning, he escalated the situation without warrant, he was impatient, he abused his authority, and he made an arrest just to take out his frustration on Terry.

I don’t believe the officer should be fired just because of this one incident, but he should be reprimanded.