BART police released a second video from security cameras operating during a July 3 officer-involved shooting late Friday, but said it held no “evidentiary value.”

The video, taken from a camera at the Civic Center/UN Plaza BART station, shows an area approximately 600 feet away from the fatal shooting of Charles Hill, 45, and on the opposite platform. No sign of the shooting can be seen in the footage.

BART police Chief Kenton Rainey released the tape Friday after initially saying there was no other video available from the shooting.

“I was misinformed,” Rainey said Friday evening. “In the interest of transparency, I’m ordering the immediate release of the video, which the public can view on BARTtv.”

Rainey said the video was turned over to the San Francisco Police Department immediately after the shooting and that BART’s independent auditor also has a copy.

A video from another security camera released on Thursday does not show Hill, as it shows only part of the platform, but it shows what police say are a bottle and a knife being thrown at the officers.

The two officers were called to the station around 9:45 p.m. on July 3 after BART received reports that Hill was carrying an open bottle of alcohol and was wobbling on the platform.

Hill was shot three times, allegedly after throwing a knife and bottle at the officers. A second knife was also found on the platform and BART police believe Hill was armed with that knife as well, Rainey said.

Investigations into the incident are being conducted by the San Francisco Police, the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office, the BART Police Department’s internal affairs unit and BART Independent Police Auditor Mark Smith.

Sara Gaiser, Bay City News

Want more news, sent to your inbox every day? Then how about subscribing to our email newsletter? Here’s why we think you should. Come on, give it a try.

Please make sure your comment adheres to our comment policy. If it doesn't, it may be deleted. Repeat violations may cause us to revoke your commenting privileges. No one wants that!
  • John Sacramento

    Recalling that the police spokespersons stonewalled the nature and cause of the (very minor) “injury” reported as received by one of the two BART police person involved in the July 3, 2011, killing of Charles Hill. The injury as it turns out had occured when the police person slipped on the liquid in a liquor bottle that Hill had in his hand prior to being shot and presumably cut himself on a piece of broken glass.

    This stonewalling by the police allowed the press to speculate and the public to imagine that he might have been injured in a close confrontation with the deceased. Thus, it is a good idea to look closely at the wording in statements by police spokespersons.

    The BART chief of police, acting as a spokesperson for BART said in reference to the two video’s BART released, that: “… in the interest of transparency, I’m ordering the release of the video from the only other platform camera to record at the time of the incident. ” This is diffrent than saying “the only other platform camera that was lacated wher it could have recorded the incident.”

    An important questions is what other BART video cameras, if any, were in locations that COULD HAVE recorded the events on the platform where Hill was shot–especially the deceased himself, and the area behind him when he was shot but which cameras were allegedly not recording at the time of the shooting?.

    Given the importance to the BART police of not having any video showing what the deceased was doing just prior to being shot, and the very strong likelihood that there were other BART cameras in the area that could have captured this information if they had been turned on and if the video were saved, it is important to know where those cameras were or are and what they could have shown if they had been turned on..

    It would also be important to know who in BART has direct knowledge of the location of camera’s in the area. A spokesperson, such as the BART police chief, who does not have direct knowledge may knowingly or indifferently or perhaps inadvertently provide erroneous information.

    In order to evaluate the reasonableness of the BART spokespersons assertion that there were no other BART cameras in the area recording at the time of the killing, you need to know how many and where the cameras, if any, that were not recording were located and what they might have shown if they were recording.

  • John Sacramento

    Recalling that the police spokespersons stonewalled the nature and cause of the (very minor) “injury” reported as received by one of the two BART police person involved in the July 3, 2011, killing of Charles Hill. The injury as it turns out had occured when the police person slipped on the liquid in a liquor bottle that Hill had in his hand prior to being shot and presumably cut himself on a piece of broken glass.

    This stonewalling by the police allowed the press to speculate and the public to imagine that he might have been injured in a close confrontation with the deceased. Thus, it is a good idea to look closely at the wording in statements by police spokespersons.

    The BART chief of police, acting as a spokesperson for BART said in reference to the two video’s BART released, that: “… in the interest of transparency, I’m ordering the release of the video from the only other platform camera to record at the time of the incident. ” This is diffrent than saying “the only other platform camera that was lacated wher it could have recorded the incident.”

    An important questions is what other BART video cameras, if any, were in locations that COULD HAVE recorded the events on the platform where Hill was shot–especially the deceased himself, and the area behind him when he was shot but which cameras were allegedly not recording at the time of the shooting?.

    Given the importance to the BART police of not having any video showing what the deceased was doing just prior to being shot, and the very strong likelihood that there were other BART cameras in the area that could have captured this information if they had been turned on and if the video were saved, it is important to know where those cameras were or are and what they could have shown if they had been turned on..

    It would also be important to know who in BART has direct knowledge of the location of camera’s in the area. A spokesperson, such as the BART police chief, who does not have direct knowledge may knowingly or indifferently or perhaps inadvertently provide erroneous information.

    In order to evaluate the reasonableness of the BART spokespersons assertion that there were no other BART cameras in the area recording at the time of the killing, you need to know how many and where the cameras, if any, that were not recording were located and what they might have shown if they were recording.