Authorities won't release Benson arrest audio

[sprout]

from profootballtalk.com

 

AUTHORITIES WON’T RELEASE BENSON ARREST AUDIO

Posted by Michael David Smith on May 21, 2008, 10:22 a.m. EDT

Law enforcement authorities are refusing to release an audio recording taken during the arrest of Chicago Bears running back Cedric Benson, the Austin television station KXAN is reporting.

 

Assistant County Attorney Daniel Bradford told KXAN that the decision to withhold the audio “is based on the public’s desire to protect the integrity of the county’s investigations into and prosecution of crime.”

 

But what about the public’s desire to find out whether the police are mistreating citizens? Benson has claimed he was treated badly by the officers who arrested him for boating while intoxicated, and the audio could shed light on whether Benson’s claims are valid.

 

Benson claims he was not drunk and was simply enjoying an evening on his boat with friends and family when police stopped him. His next court hearing is scheduled for June 30.

[KiLoc69]

from profootballtalk.com

 

AUTHORITIES WON’T RELEASE BENSON ARREST AUDIO

Posted by Michael David Smith on May 21, 2008, 10:22 a.m. EDT

Law enforcement authorities are refusing to release an audio recording taken during the arrest of Chicago Bears running back Cedric Benson, the Austin television station KXAN is reporting.

 

Assistant County Attorney Daniel Bradford told KXAN that the decision to withhold the audio “is based on the public’s desire to protect the integrity of the county’s investigations into and prosecution of crime.”

 

But what about the public’s desire to find out whether the police are mistreating citizens? Benson has claimed he was treated badly by the officers who arrested him for boating while intoxicated, and the audio could shed light on whether Benson’s claims are valid.

 

Benson claims he was not drunk and was simply enjoying an evening on his boat with friends and family when police stopped him. His next court hearing is scheduled for June 30.

 

I'm guessing we'll hear this audio tape eventually so I'm not too worried.

[selection7]

I'm guessing we'll hear this audio tape eventually so I'm not too worried.

That can't be good for the cops. It doesn't have to mean they're hiding something, I'm just saying...

[Mongo3451]

That can't be good for the cops. It doesn't have to mean they're hiding something, I'm just saying...

You would think if there were any "high ground" to be gained it would be now. One would assume they have nothing to help them.

[jason]

That can't be good for the cops. It doesn't have to mean they're hiding something, I'm just saying...

 

Or, it could be easily seen as the cops don't have to divulge information to the public or the news just because people are asking for it. It's not incumbent upon the cops to release the data until the time of the trial, or when otherwise requested by an authority ruling on the case.

 

I don't know if we'll ever hear that tape.

[balta1701-A]

Or, it could be easily seen as the cops don't have to divulge information to the public or the news just because people are asking for it. It's not incumbent upon the cops to release the data until the time of the trial, or when otherwise requested by an authority ruling on the case.

 

I don't know if we'll ever hear that tape.

But yeah, usually...if something helps your side, like video that would be seen widely by a jury pool, you tend to want it out there.

[KiLoc69]

But yeah, usually...if something helps your side, like video that would be seen widely by a jury pool, you tend to want it out there.

 

 

At the same time, I wonder why Benson is not planning on pursuing civil action. Could it be his lawyer advised him there is not enough evidence or does he really just want everything to go away despite being in the right? Maybe he was drunk and doesn't want to open a bigger can of worms.

[nfoligno]

I would argue there likely is not much to gain from a civil suit.

 

Benson likely believes that, through the course of the criminal trial/process, the "truth" will come out. When that happens, he will likely feel exonerated. To pursue a civil complain "may" further exonerate him, but would at the same time (a) be a lengthy distraction and ( keep Benson's off-field problems in the news.

 

I think Benson's best option is to find a way, any way, of making the issue go bye bye. Publicity for anything beyond his play on the field is simply not a good thing for him at this point. A civil action serves no purpose other than to keep the issues front page.

 

Consider how Benson is dealing w/ the situation as a whole. He really isn't out there talking about it. He has given his side of it, and provides little more other than to say the truth will eventually come out. Even when the news came out the police have audio but will not release it, you don't hear Benson making an issue of that. He isn't out there on the offensive, but seems to be simply trying to allow his attorneys to "take care of the issue". IMHO, that is the right thing to do. He needs to focus on football, and leave the rest behind.

[Connorbear]

I would argue there likely is not much to gain from a civil suit.

 

Benson likely believes that, through the course of the criminal trial/process, the "truth" will come out. When that happens, he will likely feel exonerated. To pursue a civil complain "may" further exonerate him, but would at the same time (a) be a lengthy distraction and ( keep Benson's off-field problems in the news.

 

I think Benson's best option is to find a way, any way, of making the issue go bye bye. Publicity for anything beyond his play on the field is simply not a good thing for him at this point. A civil action serves no purpose other than to keep the issues front page.

 

Consider how Benson is dealing w/ the situation as a whole. He really isn't out there talking about it. He has given his side of it, and provides little more other than to say the truth will eventually come out. Even when the news came out the police have audio but will not release it, you don't hear Benson making an issue of that. He isn't out there on the offensive, but seems to be simply trying to allow his attorneys to "take care of the issue". IMHO, that is the right thing to do. He needs to focus on football, and leave the rest behind.

Agreed. He has to find a way to move forward and leave this behind him.

 

Peace

[KiLoc69]

I would argue there likely is not much to gain from a civil suit.

 

If you don't think a couple million dollars is much to gain...

 

Or maybe a civil suit is a backup in case he doesn't come back 100% healthy. Lets say we cut him and other teams want to give him peanuts, he can then retire and he could say the officers injured him when they "took his legs out from under him" thus ending his once promising career. Guess when we hear the tape it will tell us a bit more about who's telling the truth.

[jason]

But yeah, usually...if something helps your side, like video that would be seen widely by a jury pool, you tend to want it out there.

 

That really only holds true on a large scale as it applies to the little guy, and when referring to this type of case (i.e. against cops), from the side of those against law enforcement.

 

The cops do not just give out all of their evidence to the public. They wait it out and go to court. This is nearly universally true. It benefits them to have ample time to analyze every little aspect of their possible defense before simply tossing out a piece of evidence that, if in the hands of the plaintiff, could be modified or skewed to represent a different angle.

 

Person against person, I agree with you. But when the cops are involved, I don't think they benefit nearly as much by releasing the video.

[nfoligno]

If you don't think a couple million dollars is much to gain...

 

Try again. In Texas, there is a law that limits civil suits against the Gov't, and all governmental bodies (which includies the police) to $250k. To break this limit, Benson would have to prove the police agency trained its officers to intentionally exhibit racist acts, which is unlikely. So he would have only about $250k to potentially gain, which I would argue he would lose in PR alone.

 

Or maybe a civil suit is a backup in case he doesn't come back 100% healthy. Lets say we cut him and other teams want to give him peanuts, he can then retire and he could say the officers injured him when they "took his legs out from under him" thus ending his once promising career. Guess when we hear the tape it will tell us a bit more about who's telling the truth.

 

Again, the NFL vet minimum is greater than what he could get in a civil suit against a Texas state (or local) agency.

[nfoligno]

So why was the video of Benson being booked released?

[KiLoc69]

If you don't think a couple million dollars is much to gain...

 

Try again. In Texas, there is a law that limits civil suits against the Gov't, and all governmental bodies (which includies the police) to $250k. To break this limit, Benson would have to prove the police agency trained its officers to intentionally exhibit racist acts, which is unlikely. So he would have only about $250k to potentially gain, which I would argue he would lose in PR alone.

 

Or maybe a civil suit is a backup in case he doesn't come back 100% healthy. Lets say we cut him and other teams want to give him peanuts, he can then retire and he could say the officers injured him when they "took his legs out from under him" thus ending his once promising career. Guess when we hear the tape it will tell us a bit more about who's telling the truth.

 

Again, the NFL vet minimum is greater than what he could get in a civil suit against a Texas state (or local) agency.

 

Didn't know that, now it all makes sense. He really doesn't have much to gain unless he just wanted to spite the cops on principle which will probably happen anyway if his version of the truth goes public on that audio tape.

[LT2_3]

If you don't think a couple million dollars is much to gain...

 

Try again. In Texas, there is a law that limits civil suits against the Gov't, and all governmental bodies (which includies the police) to $250k. To break this limit, Benson would have to prove the police agency trained its officers to intentionally exhibit racist acts, which is unlikely. So he would have only about $250k to potentially gain, which I would argue he would lose in PR alone.

 

Or maybe a civil suit is a backup in case he doesn't come back 100% healthy. Lets say we cut him and other teams want to give him peanuts, he can then retire and he could say the officers injured him when they "took his legs out from under him" thus ending his once promising career. Guess when we hear the tape it will tell us a bit more about who's telling the truth.

 

Again, the NFL vet minimum is greater than what he could get in a civil suit against a Texas state (or local) agency.

 

That is something that we didn't know. That being said, I would want to know if the River Authority (an obviously FOR profit entity) would have the same protection since they aren't paid for by public funds.

[nfoligno]

GREAT point. Your right. The LCRA does not appear to be a Gov't authority. Benson would not have much of a case against the sherrif's office which actually arrested and booked him, but could in fact have a case against the LCRA who pepper sprayed him.

 

W/ that said, my advice to Benson would be to wait, for the following reasons.

 

1. He doesn't need a distraction, and a civil suit can be a big time distraction. LCRA's attorney's could make his life hell if he tried to bring a suit against them during the season, and since suits often take years, they could really wreak havoc on his career.

 

2. As mentioned before, I believe the sooner he gets past this issue, the better for him.

 

3. The statute of limitations on the suit is 2 years. He should wait the max time allowed before filing any suit, if ever. If in two years, his career is done, he may want to then bring the suit, where he could also try to make the argument the "false arrest" caused irreconsilible harm to his career. Not saying this is true, but an argument he could make.

 

If he is playing well in 2 years, then he has no reason to sue the LCRA, as he will not need their money. Point is, he has two years to go after them for money. Right now, I think a lower profile is more valuable.

[jason]

So why was the video of Benson being booked released?

 

That's a good question. I believe this will come out later on as well. The video didn't help one side either way, IMO. I suspect that it was accidentally leaked, or something similar.

[GrizzlyBear]

That's a good question. I believe this will come out later on as well. The video didn't help one side either way, IMO. I suspect that it was accidentally leaked, or something similar.

 

I believe that it was released because it was a different agency then the one that is odds with Benson. The Sherriffs office just booked him on what lake authorities stated. I dont believe he was mistreated by the sherriffs office at all.

 

Plus i believe the Prosecuting office is having issues with the arrest and them not releaseing the tape maybe that issue. If the lake authority is seen as being out of line then it would make sense for them not to release it pending a speration of responsibility. meaning, They will try seperate themselves from the entire matter before releasing the tape. Also could the DA reverse the charge to to Racial profiling and descrimination? Dont know that one But that my belief anyway. I feel Benson was singled out. And JA can say what he wants, But under the guise of sounding stupid, What JA want him to do? Stay inside all time and not be with freinds? Stupid!!!

[madlithuanian]

I do hear you...but as a public figure, Benson should have known there can be consequences from doing things in public. Right or wrong, if he would have just bought a big pool and invited the fllozies over, this would have been a non-issue. As I mentioned in a different area...even the notorious partying Cowboys of the 90's were smart enough to set up their "White House". Keep is out of sight and out of mind. That's simply the price many celebrities pay for being well compensated and in the public eye.

 

I believe that it was released because it was a different agency then the one that is odds with Benson. The Sherriffs office just booked him on what lake authorities stated. I dont believe he was mistreated by the sherriffs office at all.

 

Plus i believe the Prosecuting office is having issues with the arrest and them not releaseing the tape maybe that issue. If the lake authority is seen as being out of line then it would make sense for them not to release it pending a speration of responsibility. meaning, They will try seperate themselves from the entire matter before releasing the tape. Also could the DA reverse the charge to to Racial profiling and descrimination? Dont know that one But that my belief anyway. I feel Benson was singled out. And JA can say what he wants, But under the guise of sounding stupid, What JA want him to do? Stay inside all time and not be with freinds? Stupid!!!

[nfoligno]

Disagree on so many levels.

 

One.

 

if he would have just bought a big pool and invited the fllozies over, this would have been a non-issue.

 

Tell that to Leinart, who had a party at his home, and still caught hell for it.

 

even the notorious partying Cowboys of the 90's were smart enough to set up their "White House

 

Um, the boys of the 90s got into plenty of trouble for their white house, so I am not sure how good of an example this is. If the boys tried to have a white house today, w/ the culture of the NFL and Goddell as commish, Dallas may never win a game due to all the suspended players.

 

Keep is out of sight and out of mind

 

In both your prior two examples, and this statement, I think you are really creating a mis-perception. To compare what Benson did w/ what the cowboys did at the white house is way off. Or to make the out of sight comment really implies he was doing something truly wrong. Your comments in this post would seem like he was out there doing drugs, or some other truly elicit things. This was not the Minny Love Boat. That was not some sinister thing. This was a guy on the boat w/ some friends and family, including his freaking mother. You make it sound like he was engaging in beastiality or something.

 

In no way do I agree w/ the idea that because they are professional athletes, they must go into hiding. You say Benson should not be allowed to go onto the lake w/ his own boat. I guess players should not be allowed to go on ski vacations, or how about beach vacations? Would you argue that if they want to ski they should buy a Wii? Come on. Not in any field (sports, movies, TV, execs, politics) are public figures expected to stay away from the public and hide in their home.

[madlithuanian]

I still disagree...

 

1. Leinart did do that...but was dumb enough to have people take pictures. Nothing is fail safe. But he certianly has less chance of a slip up doing it there than if he were doing so at a public fountain.

 

2. You're arguing semantics... The chief point is that a private place was set up to keep generic eyes away. They didn't rent out a public park and throw down. Much worse was going on there than what Benson is being accused of... But the point I was making is not specifics to the exact goings on at the White House, but that the element of setting up a "safe house" will keep prying eyes away better than partying up on a public lake.

 

3. Again, I think you misunderstood my point with the White House... It's the idea of a safe house. My freinds do it all the time. Poeple come over to one house, we drink a lot, eat a lot, tell nasty jokes our wives wouldn't like, smoke cigars, and crash or get a cab home depending. If we were to do similar in a bar, odds are some yahoo would take offense, fights would ensue,etc... It's safer to do certain things in private. That's the point I'm making. And yes, it's applicabile to the White House. While the goings on there were far more intense...the generic idea is still the same. Keep things to yourself.

 

And let's be honest...what the heck was his mom doing there? Did anyone not see the parade of floozies and brews all over the place? Maybe it wasn't Ced's brew, but it was there. Nothing legally wrong with throwing down while you mom is there looking at the scantily clad girls. But for me, that's just a bit odd. I'd rather take mom to brunch.

 

 

 

Disagree on so many levels.

 

One.

 

if he would have just bought a big pool and invited the fllozies over, this would have been a non-issue.

 

Tell that to Leinart, who had a party at his home, and still caught hell for it.

 

even the notorious partying Cowboys of the 90's were smart enough to set up their "White House

 

Um, the boys of the 90s got into plenty of trouble for their white house, so I am not sure how good of an example this is. If the boys tried to have a white house today, w/ the culture of the NFL and Goddell as commish, Dallas may never win a game due to all the suspended players.

 

Keep is out of sight and out of mind

 

In both your prior two examples, and this statement, I think you are really creating a mis-perception. To compare what Benson did w/ what the cowboys did at the white house is way off. Or to make the out of sight comment really implies he was doing something truly wrong. Your comments in this post would seem like he was out there doing drugs, or some other truly elicit things. This was not the Minny Love Boat. That was not some sinister thing. This was a guy on the boat w/ some friends and family, including his freaking mother. You make it sound like he was engaging in beastiality or something.

 

In no way do I agree w/ the idea that because they are professional athletes, they must go into hiding. You say Benson should not be allowed to go onto the lake w/ his own boat. I guess players should not be allowed to go on ski vacations, or how about beach vacations? Would you argue that if they want to ski they should buy a Wii? Come on. Not in any field (sports, movies, TV, execs, politics) are public figures expected to stay away from the public and hide in their home.

[LT2_3]

I still disagree...

 

1. Leinart did do that...but was dumb enough to have people take pictures. Nothing is fail safe. But he certianly has less chance of a slip up doing it there than if he were doing so at a public fountain.

 

2. You're arguing semantics... The chief point is that a private place was set up to keep generic eyes away. They didn't rent out a public park and throw down. Much worse was going on there than what Benson is being accused of... But the point I was making is not specifics to the exact goings on at the White House, but that the element of setting up a "safe house" will keep prying eyes away better than partying up on a public lake.

 

3. Again, I think you misunderstood my point with the White House... It's the idea of a safe house. My freinds do it all the time. Poeple come over to one house, we drink a lot, eat a lot, tell nasty jokes our wives wouldn't like, smoke cigars, and crash or get a cab home depending. If we were to do similar in a bar, odds are some yahoo would take offense, fights would ensue,etc... It's safer to do certain things in private. That's the point I'm making. And yes, it's applicabile to the White House. While the goings on there were far more intense...the generic idea is still the same. Keep things to yourself.

 

And let's be honest...what the heck was his mom doing there? Did anyone not see the parade of floozies and brews all over the place? Maybe it wasn't Ced's brew, but it was there. Nothing legally wrong with throwing down while you mom is there looking at the scantily clad girls. But for me, that's just a bit odd. I'd rather take mom to brunch.

 

Madlith - I get your point, but it's not something that you can really argue. Sure, you can say "it would be a good idea if", but it still remains that Benson really didn't do anything wrong short of not having a designated captain.

[nfoligno]

No. It appears that Mad believes that since Benson is a pro athlete, he does not have the right to own a boat and use it on a public lake. He should have simply invited guests to his house for a pool party, though also making sure none had cameras. Is that about right Madman?

[bear trap]

No. It appears that Mad believes that since Benson is a pro athlete, he does not have the right to own a boat and use it on a public lake. He should have simply invited guests to his house for a pool party, though also making sure none had cameras. Is that about right Madman?

You're really taking the entire thing out of context. No one said benson couldn't own a boat or take it out and have a good time. All we (the people who see the wrong in his decision) is saying is he shouldn't have had alcohol on board. I mean c'mon their grown adults they know what's putting them at risk. Your telling me they couldn't have went to where ever they were staying and had their drinks there? A person is putting himself at risk just by having the crap on board. keep it on land and drink it when you're at rest and away from the wheel of a car or boat or a lawnmower for that matter, cause otherwise you're just showing bad judgement. It's like your friend drinking in your car and leaving an empty can in it. Sure you may feel you've done no wrong, but you're still leaving yourself open to bad situations if a cop sees it. Benson can go do whatever he wants, but if it's alcohol related he better be off any motorized vehicle if he doesn't want to put himself at risk! Not saying he's guilty or not, just that he showed bad judgement. And if he didn't want to put himself in a bad situation he should have had someone else host the get-together, cause 9 times out of 10 the authorities will go after the person responsible or the host of the party, that's just life.

 

Here's an example. Shortly after I moved out on my own I had two friends come over (no presence of alcohol at this time) We played some madden and watched an NBA playoff game. Around 9:00 I left to go meet someone. I told my friends that they could stay and lock-up when they leave. I came home at 11:00PM and found that 5 more people had come over and beer had been purchased and they were playing cards on my table. 4 minutes after my entry the police raided my apt and butsted 4 of my friends for underage consumption and me for providing a place for underage consumption. After a lot of legal issues I ended up accepting a plea bargain and pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor. I still insist to this day I did not furnish a place for underage consumption seeing as how I left and no alcohol was purchased and came back and was busted rather quickly after entry. Not to mention I had to take a breathalyzer and showed nothing. But to not see the ignorace at the fact that I left myself in a position to get in trouble is just being blind. I should have made everyone leave when I left I was just trying to be a good friend. So yeah Benson may not be guilty of jack sh##, but he did put himself in a bad situation that maybe his "FRIENDS" exploited. Just as I had done.

[LT2_3]

You're really taking the entire thing out of context. No one said benson couldn't own a boat or take it out and have a good time. All we (the people who see the wrong in his decision) is saying is he shouldn't have had alcohol on board. I mean c'mon their grown adults they know what's putting them at risk. Your telling me they couldn't have went to where ever they were staying and had their drinks there? A person is putting himself at risk just by having the crap on board. keep it on land and drink it when you're at rest and away from the wheel of a car or boat or a lawnmower for that matter, cause otherwise you're just showing bad judgement. It's like your friend drinking in your car and leaving an empty can in it. Sure you may feel you've done no wrong, but you're still leaving yourself open to bad situations if a cop sees it. Benson can go do whatever he wants, but if it's alcohol related he better be off any motorized vehicle if he doesn't want to put himself at risk! Not saying he's guilty or not, just that he showed bad judgement. And if he didn't want to put himself in a bad situation he should have had someone else host the get-together, cause 9 times out of 10 the authorities will go after the person responsible or the host of the party, that's just life.

 

Here's an example. Shortly after I moved out on my own I had two friends come over (no presence of alcohol at this time) We played some madden and watched an NBA playoff game. Around 9:00 I left to go meet someone. I told my friends that they could stay and lock-up when they leave. I came home at 11:00PM and found that 5 more people had come over and beer had been purchased and they were playing cards on my table. 4 minutes after my entry the police raided my apt and butsted 4 of my friends for underage consumption and me for providing a place for underage consumption. After a lot of legal issues I ended up accepting a plea bargain and pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor. I still insist to this day I did not furnish a place for underage consumption seeing as how I left and no alcohol was purchased and came back and was busted rather quickly after entry. Not to mention I had to take a breathalyzer and showed nothing. But to not see the ignorace at the fact that I left myself in a position to get in trouble is just being blind. I should have made everyone leave when I left I was just trying to be a good friend. So yeah Benson may not be guilty of jack sh##, but he did put himself in a bad situation that maybe his "FRIENDS" exploited. Just as I had done.

 

Quick question: What reason did the police have for entering your apartment? My point is that it all comes down to probable cause. In Benson's case, it's not illegal to have alcohol on the boat and the engine wasn't running. As far as I'm concerned, I can see no probable cause there. As you describe your situation, whoever let the cops in is a moron. They can't enter without an invitation or a warrant. It's a matter of understanding your rights and the law. Benson was within his rights and he shouldn't be held accountable for the actions of overagressive, jack-booted, facist, bullyboys.