UK Police Taser

This is incredibly distressing and raises many questions. It’s also why serious questions need to be asked about the mass roll out of tasers on our streets. These weapons put people’s rights and lives at risk.

Would the police of reacted in the same manner if the gentleman was white?

Would the police refer the incident to the IOPC if it wasnt caught on a citizens camera ?

Manchester police refer Taser incident of man with child to IOPC
Greater Manchester police have said they are investigating an incident in which a man was Tasered by officers in front of his young child, after a video circulated on social media.

A video of the incident, which happened at a petrol station in Stretford at approximately 11pm on Wednesday, shows Desmond Ziggy Mombeyarara, 34, being confronted by two GMP officers while carrying the boy.

Shortly after he puts the child, who can be heard screaming “Daddy” throughout the footage, on the ground, the man is Tasered by one of the policemen.

He is then repeatedly shouted at to put his hands behind his back by the officer, while still incapacitated on the floor, and in the view of the young child.

The force have since confirmed that Mombeyarara was stopped by police after allegedly driving over the speed limit.

He has since been charged with two counts of resisting a constable in the course of their duty, as well as single counts of driving at excess speed, not having vehicle insurance, being unfit to drive through drink and failing without reasonable excuse to cooperate with a preliminary test.

He was also charged with failing to stop when required to do so by police, and unnecessary travel.

GMP said they had referred the deployment of the Taser to the Independent Office for Police Conduct, as well as to their own professional standards branch.

Supt Mark Kenny said: “We are aware of public concern regarding this arrest and I want to reassure the public that this matter is being reviewed and treated seriously. In addition we have voluntarily referred this matter to the IOPC.”

Dionne Allman, 19, who lives across the road from the Salford service station on Chester Road and filmed the incident, said she had heard shouting outside at about 11pm on Wednesday.

“A lot of disturbances happen at that petrol station and it’s something that I usually ignore, but I heard the kid screaming and that’s when I started to pay attention,” she said, adding that the boy looked to be about two or three years old.

She said she had heard “a lot of back and forth between him and the police” but could not work out what was being said, although she described the officers as being “aggressive and threatening”.

She said: “For most of it it just seemed like they were trying to detain him but there was no sort of progression with it, there was no trying to deescalate the situation.”

She added: “I was in complete shock. You don’t really believe that something like that could happen, especially in the UK. My immediate thought was, ‘Oh my God, that child just had to watch that,’” she added.

When the footage went viral, the public called for the incident to be addressed and Greater Manchester’s mayor, Andy Burnham, said he had asked for an “urgent and independent” review into the events.

“From what I have been told, it would appear that the officers were right to apprehend the individual who was putting his child and others at risk by his actions,” he said in a statement.

“But it is not at all clear that the level of force used in this instance, particularly in front of a child, was proportionate or justified and that is why I have asked for an urgent and independent review to be carried out.”

Clare Collier, Liberty’s advocacy director, said: “This video is incredibly distressing and raises many questions. Tasers put people’s lives at risk, which is why the mass rollout of these weapons on our streets is dangerous and must be stopped. The growing use of Tasers will exacerbate the overpolicing of minority and marginalised communities, particularly people of colour, as well as those experiencing mental health issues.”

Spies and civil servants who leak secrets face 14 years in jail in first overhaul of the Official Secrets Act for 100 years

Spies and civil servants who leak national security secrets face up to 14 years in jail, in a major overhaul of the Official Secrets Act in the face of the growing threat from Russia, the Daily Telegraph has learnt.

Foreign spies who steal information from the Government and leak it overseas, or those who snoop on British embassies, will also face prosecution in British courts for the first time, under plans to be considered by ministers.

Under the proposals, which are published today, officials who leak “sensitive information” about the British economy that damages national security could also be jailed.

The proposals from Government’s independent law advisers also advise that the four Official Secrets Acts, which back to 1911, are scrapped and replaced with a modernised Espionage Act and a data disclosure law.

Experts said the Law Commission’s plans – drawn up after a request from the Cabinet Office and in consultation with MI5 and MI6 as well as civil liberty groups – were vital to help Britain tackle the snooping threat from Russia.

The review says: “It is crucial that the United Kingdom has a robust legislative response that meets the challenges posed by espionage in the 21st century.” Current legislation is “not capable of reflecting the potential harm and culpability that may arise in a serious case” of stealing state secrets, it says.

Under the Official Secrets Act 1989, an “unauthorised disclosure” of classified information carries a maximum sentence of just two years in jail – the same penalty as for a data breach by a National Lottery worker.

The review is the first time that official secrets legislation has been overhauled in a century amid concerns that it is “archaic” and has failed to keep pace with advances in technology and modern threats.

It says: “In the digital age, the volume of information that can be disclosed without authorisation is much greater than when the Official Secrets Act 1989 was originally drafted.” This meant that “the ability to cause damage to the national interest and the risk of such damage occurring has also increased”.

Pointing out that the maximum jail term for such breaches in Canada is 14 years in jail, it adds: “We provisionally conclude that the maximum sentences currently available for the offences contained in the Official Secrets Act 1989 are not capable of reflecting the potential harm and culpability that may arise in a serious case.”

Writing in today’s Daily Telegraph, Professor David Ormerod, the Law Commissioner who drew up the reforms, said at present Britain’s “principal legal protection in the United Kingdom against espionage” was the 1911 Official Secrets Act.

He says: “Some offences in the 1911 Act are focussed narrowly on protecting specific locations, but are mainly related mainly to sites of munitions of war.

“But what about an embassy abroad? Or a data centre? The legislation needs to protect against modern threats.”

Lord Carlile of Berriew, the former reviewer of anti-terrorism legislation, added that the reforms would help combat “hacking by either the Russians or people who disclose what they have hacked to the Russians, or anybody with malign motives started to hack into British national security materiel”.

The overhaul comes after Alex Younger, the head of MI6, warned in December that cyber attacks and attempts to subvert democracy by states such as Russia posed a fundamental threat to British sovereignty.

And it comes in the wake of the Edward Snowden case which saw the former US defence contractor copied classified information from the National Security Agency, before fleeing fled to Hong Kong where he passed the data to journalists. He eventually flew to Russia where he is thought to reside today.

The 324-page review suggests that anyone who leaks “sensitive information” that damages the economy could be jailed under the Official Secrets Act.

Currently official secrets legislation is limited to breaches which jeopardise security, intelligence defence, confidential information and international relations.

The review suggests the law is expanded to cover “information that affects the economic well-being of the United Kingdom in so far as it relates to national security”.

Foreigners who leak information overseas that damages British national security could also be prosecuted in the UK for the first time.

This would include a non-British citizen seconded to a government department and in that role have access to information that relates to security and intelligence”.

Currently, they can only be prosecuted if the leak is by a British national or happens on UK soil.

The Official Secrets Act from 1911, 1920 and 1939 will be replaced with the new Espionage Act.

The most recent Official Secrets Act 1989 will be replaced with a new data disclosure law.

Changes include dropping use of the word “enemy” to describe foreign powers which are hostile to the UK to allow prosecutions for leaking of information to terrorist groups.

“Anachronistic” jargon to describe secrets used in the earlier legislation like “sketches”, “plans”, “models”, “passwords” and “code words” will be replaced with the more generic “information”.

A Government spokesman said: “We welcome the important work undertaken by the Law Commission, at the request of Government.

“As the work is ongoing and no final conclusions have been made, it would be inappropriate to comment at this stage.” A public consultation on the plans runs until April 3, after which the Government will draw up a draft Bill for the Government to consider.

The Law Commission is a non-political independent body, set up by Parliament in 1965 to keep all laws under review, and to recommend reform where it is needed.

Since the Commission was established in 1965, 73 per cent of its reforms have been accepted or implemented in whole or part by the Government.

Overhauling the Official Secrets Act – the Law Commission’s proposals
  • Civil servants who leak files of state secrets could be jailed for up to 14 years. Currently the maximum term is two years, under the Official Secrets Act 1989
  • Official secrets legislation to be expanded to cover “information that affects the economic well-being of the United Kingdom in so far as it relates to national security”
  • Foreigners who leak classified information overseas that damages British national security could be prosecuted in the UK for the first time
  • Dropping the use of the word “enemy” to describe foreign powers which are hostile to the UK to allow prosecutions for leaking of information to terrorist groups
  • “Anachronistic” jargon to describe secrets in law  like “sketches”, “plans”, “models”, “passwords” and “code words” to be replaced with the more generic “information”
  • The Official Secrets Acts 1911, 1920 and 1939 to be replaced with a modernised Espionage Act
  • The Official Secrets Act 1989 to be replaced with a data disclosure law amid concerns that it is “archaic” and has failed to keep pace with advances in technology
  • Prosecutors no longer to have to prove damage to national security to secure a conviction for disclosure of classified information
  • Spies and civil servants to be allowed “to seek authority” to release confidential information
  • An offence is committed if the defendant “knew or had reasonable grounds to believe his or her conduct was capable of benefitting a foreign power”

 

The WHO sent 25 international experts to China and here are their main findings after 9 days

The WHO has sent a team of international experts to China to investigate the situation, including Clifford Lane, Clinical Director at the US National Institutes of Health. Here is the press conference on Youtube and the final report of the commission as PDF who-china-joint-mission-on-covid-19-final-report (cw_mirror) after they visited Beijing, Wuhan, Shenzhen, Guangzhou and Chengdu. Here are some interesting facts about Covid that I have not yet read in the media:

  • When a cluster of several infected people occurred in China, it was most often (78-85%) caused by an infection within the family by droplets and other carriers of infection in close contact with an infected person. Transmission by fine aerosols in the air over long distances is not one of the main causes of spread. Most of the 2,055 infected hospital workers were either infected at home or in the early phase of the outbreak in Wuhan when hospital safeguards were not raised yet.
  • 5% of people who are diagnosed with Covid require artificial respiration. Another 15% need to breathe in highly concentrated oxygen – and not just for a few days. The duration from the beginning of the disease until recovery is 3 to 6 weeks on average for these severe and critical patients (compared to only 2 weeks for the mildly ill). The mass and duration of the treatments overburdened the existing health care system in Wuhan many times over. The province of Hubei, whose capital is Wuhan, had 65,596 infected persons so far. A total of 40,000 employees were sent to Hubei from other provinces to help fight the epidemic. 45 hospitals in Wuhan are caring for Covid patients, 6 of which are for patients in critical condition and 39 are caring for seriously ill patients and for infected people over the age of 65. Two makeshift hospitals with 2,600 beds were built within a short time. 80% of the infected have mild disease, ten temporary hospitals were set up in gymnasiums and exhibition halls for those.
  • China can now produce 1.6 million test kits for the novel coronavirus per week. The test delivers a result on the same day. Across the country, anyone who goes to the doctor with a fever is screened for the virus: In Guangdong province, far from Wuhan, 320,000 people have been tested, and 0.14% of those were positive for the virus.
  • The vast majority of those infected sooner or later develop symptoms. Cases of people in whom the virus has been detected and who do not have symptoms at that time are rare – and most of them fall ill in the next few days.
  • The most common symptoms are fever (88%) and dry cough (68%). Exhaustion (38%), expectoration of mucus when coughing (33%), shortness of breath (18%), sore throat (14%), headaches (14%), muscle aches (14%), chills (11%) are also common. Less frequent are nausea and vomiting (5%), stuffy nose (5%) and diarrhoea (4%). Running nose is not a symptom of Covid.
  • An examination of 44,672 infected people in China ( Epidemiological characteristics of new coronvirus) showed a fatality rate of 3.4%. Fatality is strongly influenced by age, pre-existing conditions, gender, and especially the response of the health care system. All fatality figures reflect the state of affairs in China up to 17 February, and everything could be quite different in the future elsewhere.
  • Healthcare system: 20% of infected people in China needed hospital treatment for weeks. China has hospital beds to treat 0.4% of the population at the same time – other developed countries have between 0.1% and 1.3% and most of these beds are already occupied with people who have other diseases. The fatality rate was 5.8% in Wuhan but 0.7% in other areas of China, which China explained with the lack of critical care beds in Wuhan . (Text record of the press conference on February 4, 2020) In order to keep the fatality rate low like outside of Wuhan, other countries have to aggressively contain the spread of the virus in order to keep the number of seriously ill Covid patients low and secondly increase the number of critical care beds until there is enough for the seriously ill. China also tested various treatment methods for the unknown disease and the most successful ones were implemented nationwide. Thanks to this response, the fatality rate in China is now lower than a month ago.
  • Pre-existing conditions: The fatality rate for those infected with pre-existing cardiovascular disease in China was 13.2%. It was 9.2% for those infected with high blood sugar levels (uncontrolled diabetes), 8.4% for high blood pressure, 8% for chronic respiratory diseases and 7.6% for cancer. Infected persons without a relevant previous illness died in 1.4% of cases.
  • Gender: Women catch the disease just as often as men. But only 2.8% of Chinese women who were infected died from the disease, while 4.7% of the infected men died. The disease appears to be not more severe in pregnant women than in others. In 9 examined births of infected women, the children were born by caesarean section and healthy without being infected themselves. The women were infected in the last trimester of pregnancy. What effect an infection in the first or second trimester has on embryos is currently unclear as these children are still unborn.
  • Age: The younger you are, the less likely you are to be infected and the less likely you are to fall seriously ill if you do get infected:
Age % of population % of infected Fatality
0-9 12.0% 0,9% 0 as of now
10-19 11.6% 1.2% 0.2%
20-29 13.5% 8.1% 0.2%
30-39 15.6% 17.0% 0.2%
40-49 15.6% 19.2% 0.4%
50-59 15.0% 22.4% 1.3%
60-69 10.4% 19.2% 3.6%
70-79 4.7% 8.8% 8.0%
80+ 1.8% 3.2% 14.8%

Read: Out of all people who live in China, 13.5% are between 20 and 29 years old. Out of those who were infected in China, 8.1% were in this age group (this does not mean that 8.1% of people between 20 and 29 become infected). This means that the likelihood of someone at this age to catch the infection is somewhat lower compared to the average. And of those who caught the infection in this age group, 0.2% died.

  • Your likelihood to die: Some people who are in an age group read the fatality rate and think this is their personal likelihood that they will if they get infected. No, because all the other risk factors also apply. Men in this that age group will more likely die than women, people with preexisting conditions more than healthy people, and people in overcrowded hospitals more than those in hospitals where they get the care they need.
  • The new virus is genetically 96% identical to a known coronavirus in bats and 86-92% identical to a coronavirus in pangolin. Therefore, the transmission of a mutated virus from animals to humans is the most likely cause of the appearance of the new virus.
  • Since the end of January, the number of new coronavirus diagnoses in China has been steadily declining  with now only 329 new diagnoses within the last day – one month ago it was around 3,000 a day. “This decline in COVID-19 cases across China is real,” the report says. The authors conclude this from their own experience on site, declining hospital visits in the affected regions, the increasing number of unoccupied hospital beds, and the problems of Chinese scientists to recruit enough newly infected for the clinical studies of the numerous drug trials. Here is the relevant part of the press conference about the decline assessment.
  • One of the important reasons for containing the outbreak is that China is interviewing all infected people nationwide about their contact persons and then tests those. There are 1,800 teams in Wuhan to do this, each with at least 5 people. But the effort outside of Wuhan is also big. In Shenzhen, for example, the infected named 2,842 contact persons, all of whom were found, testing is now completed for 2,240, and 2.8% of those had contracted the virus. In Sichuan province, 25,493 contact persons were named, 25,347 (99%) were found, 23,178 have already been examined and 0.9% of them were infected. In the province of Guangdong, 9,939 contacts were named, all found, 7,765 are already examined and 4.8% of them were infected. That means: If you have direct personal contact with an infected person, the probability of infection is between 1% and 5%.

Finally, a few direct quotes from the report:

“China’s bold approach to contain the rapid spread of this new respiratory pathogen has changed the course of a rapidly escalating and deadly epidemic. In the face of a previously unknown virus, China has rolled out perhaps the most ambitious, agile and aggressive disease containment effort in history. China’s uncompromising and rigorous use of non-pharmaceutical measures to contain transmission of the COVID-19 virus in multiple settings provides vital lessons for the global response. This rather unique and unprecedented public health response in China reversed the escalating cases in both Hubei, where there has been widespread community transmission, and in the importation provinces, where family clusters appear to have driven the outbreak.”

“Much of the global community is not yet ready, in mindset and materially, to implement the measures that have been employed to contain COVID-19 in China. These are the only measures that are currently proven to interrupt or minimize transmission chains in humans. Fundamental to these measures is extremely proactive surveillance to immediately detect cases, very rapid diagnosis and immediate case isolation, rigorous tracking and quarantine of close contacts, and an exceptionally high degree of population understanding and acceptance of these measures.”

“COVID-19 is spreading with astonishing speed; COVID-19 outbreaks in any setting have very serious consequences; and there is now strong evidence that non-pharmaceutical interventions can reduce and even interrupt transmission. Concerningly, global and national preparedness planning is often ambivalent about such interventions. However, to reduce COVID-19 illness and death, near-term readiness planning must embrace the large-scale implementation of high-quality, non-pharmaceutical public health measures. These measures must fully incorporate immediate case detection and isolation, rigorous close contact tracing and monitoring/quarantine, and direct population/community engagement.”

 

source : https://www.reddit.com/r/China_Flu/comments/fbt49e/the_who_sent_25_international_experts_to_china/

Clearview

Before Clearview Became a Police Tool, It Was a Secret Plaything of the Rich

One Tuesday night in October 2018, John Catsimatidis, the billionaire owner of the Gristedes grocery store chain, was having dinner at Cipriani, an upscale Italian restaurant in Manhattan’s SoHo neighborhood, when his daughter, Andrea, walked in. She was on a date with a man Mr. Catsimatidis didn’t recognize. After the couple sat down at another table, Mr. Catsimatidis asked a waiter to go over and take a photo.

Mr. Catsimatidis then uploaded the picture to a facial recognition app, Clearview AI, on his phone. The start-up behind the app has a database of billions of photos, scraped from sites such as Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. Within seconds, Mr. Catsimatidis was viewing a collection of photos of the mystery man, along with the web addresses where they appeared: His daughter’s date was a venture capitalist from San Francisco.

“I wanted to make sure he wasn’t a charlatan,” said Mr. Catsimatidis, who then texted the man’s bio to his daughter.

Ms. Catsimatidis said she and her date had no idea how her father had identified him so quickly. “I expect my dad to be able to do crazy things. He’s very technologically savvy,” Ms. Catsimatidis said. “My date was very surprised.”

Clearview was unknown to the general public until this January, when The New York Times reported that the secretive start-up had developed a breakthrough facial recognition system that was in use by hundreds of law enforcement agencies. The company quickly faced a backlash on multiple fronts. Facebook, Google and other tech giants sent cease-and-desist letters. Lawsuits were filed in Illinois and Virginia, and the attorney general of New Jersey issued a moratorium against the app in that state.

In response to the criticism, Clearview published a “code of conduct,” emphasizing in a blog post that its technology was “available only for law enforcement agencies and select security professionals to use as an investigative tool.”

The post added: “We recognize that powerful tools always have the potential to be abused, regardless of who is using them, and we take the threat very seriously. Accordingly, the Clearview app has built-in safeguards to ensure these trained professionals only use it for its intended purpose: to help identify the perpetrators and victims of crimes.”

The Times, however, has identified multiple individuals with active access to Clearview’s technology who are not law enforcement officials. And for more than a year before the company became the subject of public scrutiny, the app had been freely used in the wild by the company’s investors, clients and friends.

Those with Clearview logins used facial recognition at parties, on dates and at business gatherings, giving demonstrations of its power for fun or using it to identify people whose names they didn’t know or couldn’t recall.

“As part of the ordinary course of due diligence, we provided trial accounts to potential and current investors, and other strategic partners, so they could test the technology,” said Hoan Ton-That, the company’s co-founder.

Mr. Catsimatidis first heard about Clearview from his friend Richard Schwartz, another founder of the company, who served as an aide to Rudolph W. Giuliani when Mr. Giuliani was mayor of New York. Last summer, Mr. Catsimatidis ran a trial project with Clearview at an East Side Gristedes market. The company used the system to identify known “shoplifters or people who had held up other stores,” Mr. Catsimatidis said.

“People were stealing our Häagen-Dazs. It was a big problem,” he said. He described Clearview as a “good system” that helped security personnel identify problem shoppers.

BuzzFeed News has reported that two other entities, a labor union and a real estate firm, also ran trials with a surveillance system developed by Clearview to flag individuals they deemed risky. The publication also reported that Clearview’s software has been used by Best Buy, Macy’s, Kohl’s, the National Basketball Association and numerous other organizations.

When Clearview first developed its facial recognition service in 2017, Mr. Ton-That and Mr. Schwartz were uncertain about who might pay for it, and they courted a range of clients including real estate firms, banks and retailers. At the same time, Clearview was seeking outside investment. Many of the individuals the company approached got personal logins to the app.

Clearview received a seed investment round of about $1 million in July 2018. Its backers included the billionaire investor Peter Thiel, the venture capitalist David Scalzo and Hal Lambert, an investor in Texas who runs an exchange-traded fund with the ticker symbol “MAGA,” which tracks companies that align with Republican politics.

“I have the app,” Mr. Lambert said in an interview. “I’ve used it to talk about what we’re doing in the space. I show it to friends of mine, potential investors.

“They thought it was amazing,” he added. “They say, ‘How do I get that?’ And I say, ‘You can’t.’”

Mr. Scalzo, the founder of the investment firm Kirenaga Partners, said in an interview that his school-aged daughters enjoyed playing with the app.

“They like to use it on themselves and their friends to see who they look like in the world,” he said. “It’s kind of fun for people.”

A spokesman for Mr. Thiel did not respond to a request for comment.

When Clearview was seeking its Series A round of funding, which was completed in 2019, the start-up contacted a number of venture capital firms, including Sequoia Capital and Khosla Ventures. Access to the app was offered as a perk, according to people familiar with the company’s fund-raising attempts.

Doug Leone, a billionaire partner at Sequoia, was given a login, according to three people with knowledge of Clearview’s operations. But his account was revoked when Sequoia declined to invest. A spokeswoman for Sequoia declined to comment.

In September, Ashton Kutcher, the actor turned venture capitalist, described an app much like Clearview during a YouTube series called “Hot Ones,” in which guests are interviewed while eating spicy chicken wings.

“I have an app in my phone in my pocket right now. It’s like a beta app,” Mr. Kutcher said. “It’s a facial recognition app. I can hold it up to anybody’s face here and, like, find exactly who you are, what internet accounts you’re on, what they look like. It’s terrifying.”

Mr. Kutcher did not respond to a request for comment.

Mr. Ton-That contends that Clearview is doing nothing wrong — that his app simply replicates what other search engines do. Instead of allowing internet users to search for people’s public images by name, as one can do on Google, he said, Clearview allows them to do the search by uploading a face.

For now, it’s a power that Clearview controls and can give out as it pleases.

In October, Clearview asked Nicholas Cassimatis, an expert on artificial intelligence, to help conduct an internal accuracy test. He did the work for free, he said, because he knew Mr. Ton-That socially. The test consisted of submitting the faces of 834 federal and state legislators. Clearview’s algorithms accurately identified every one of the politicians.

After the test was complete, Mr. Cassimatis was allowed to keep Clearview’s app on his phone. He said he had since run dozens of searches.

“I tested it in surprising places: smoky bars, dark places. And it worked every time,” Mr. Cassimatis said. “It’s road testing. I do it as a hobby. I ask people for permission. It’s like a parlor trick. People like it.”
source: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/05/technology/clearview-investors.html

Edward Snowden on the rise of authoritarianism during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The fact that we tend to orient ourselves more towards our own group during the crisis can have many positive consequences, “such as people putting on a mask or showing a high level of acceptance for contact restrictions,” says Fritsche.

But the community orientation also has a “dark side”: authoritarian thinking. This leads people to follow the perceived rules and norms to a greater extent in their group and take stronger action against those who break them.

“It’s called authoritarian aggression,” says Fritsche. This is directed not only against people who do not adhere to the coronavirus measures, but also against people who generally have different political or religious affiliations.

 

Dr David Nabarro from World Health Organisation talks fact.

With nation states across the world struggling to contain the coronavirus pandemic, there is an urgent need for an internationally coordinated response. That is where the UN agency the World Health Organisation leads with a vital role to play, but right now the WHO is at the centre of a political storm not scientific! storm . Donald Trump has withdrawn US funding as he leads with enticing far right voters while saying fuck you to the world, accusing the WHO agency of being China-centric. Stephen Sackur speaks in the standard BBC colonial tone to WHO special envoy for Covid-19 David Nabarro. David Nabarr gives clear answers often lost in the sea of mud the governments wish to fling.

Video shows LAPD officer striking man repeatedly in Boyle Heights

Video shows LAPD officer striking man repeatedly in Boyle Heights.
The incident happened on April 27 in the 2400 block of Houston Street, near Soto Street, according to the Police Department.
A video apparently recorded by a bystander from across the street shows two LAPD officers, one male and one female, detaining a man on a sidewalk by a church.