Police Photoshopped An Innocent Man’s Mugshot So He’d Get Fingered For A Bank Robbery

[ZiprHead]

https://god.dailydot.com/photoshopped-mugshot-facial-tattoos/?utm_content=buffer484f0&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=thegoodlordabove&utm_campaign=bloomjoy

Well, here’s a horrendous story that illustrates why no one has any faith in the justice system. While many police officers are corrupt, racially biased, and poorly trained to deescalate dangerous situations, these cops from the Portland police department really went above and beyond when they essentially framed a man named Tyrone Lamont Allen. Allen was arrested and charged with bank robbery after a few tellers pointed at his photo as they went through pictures of potential suspects.

But police had altered Allen’s mugshot. None of the witnesses to the robbery said the robber had facial tattoos, but Allen has several highly visible ones across his cheeks and forehead. The department erased his tattoos, Oregon Live reports.

 

[fast]

Police Photoshopped An Innocent Man’s Mugshot So He’d Get Fingered For A Bank Robbery

I’m very wary of headlines that attribute explanatory reasons to actions. In this case, we have what may have happened (which incidentally isn’t all that uncommon or unacceptable): Police photoshopped an innocent man’s mugshot.

That part is one thing, and there is usually evidence cited to support what happened, so i’m inclined to keep objections to the low roar of a kitten, but the other part is another thing—the WHY part of the equation that follows the WHAT part of the transpired events that unfolded.

When it comes to backing up the WHY part, crickets. Something happened alright. Something followed, for sure. IN THIS INSTANCE!

Let us look at what the headline DOES NOT read:

“Police Photoshopped An Innocent Man’s Mugshot And He Gets Fingered For A Bank Robbery”

See, that is a headline I can more comfortably handle. It’s easier to trust. Simpler to substantiate. Much less fear of slant. Unlikely to be FAKE news.

But noooo, it’s more sensational and cringe worthy and more apt to upset the populace to twist things up a bit.

Never trust the why. If you do, at least keep it separate.

 

[laughing dog]

Police Photoshopped An Innocent Man’s Mugshot So He’d Get Fingered For A Bank Robbery

I’m very wary of headlines that attribute explanatory reasons to actions. In this case, we have what may have happened (which incidentally isn’t all that uncommon or unacceptable): Police photoshopped an innocent man’s mugshot.

That part is one thing, and there is usually evidence cited to support what happened, so i’m inclined to keep objections to the low roar of a kitten, but the other part is another thing—the WHY part of the equation that follows the WHAT part of the transpired events that unfolded.

When it comes to backing up the WHY part, crickets. Something happened alright. Something followed, for sure. IN THIS INSTANCE!

Let us look at what the headline DOES NOT read:

“Police Photoshopped An Innocent Man’s Mugshot And He Gets Fingered For A Bank Robbery”

See, that is a headline I can more comfortably handle. It’s easier to trust. Simpler to substantiate. Much less fear of slant. Unlikely to be FAKE news.

But noooo, it’s more sensational and cringe worthy and more apt to upset the populace to twist things up a bit.

Never trust the why. If you do, at least keep it separate.

What possible legitimate reason would police have to erase the facial tattoos of a suspect in his mug shot to show to witnesses?

 

[Rhea]

Police Photoshopped An Innocent Man’s Mugshot So He’d Get Fingered For A Bank Robbery

I’m very wary of headlines that attribute explanatory reasons to actions.
Let us look at what the headline DOES NOT read:

“Police Photoshopped An Innocent Man’s Mugshot And He Gets Fingered For A Bank Robbery”

I agree. I like that headline better. Minor quibble with news editors.


Now, about that egregious and unjustifiable action by the police department...

 

[Horatio Parker]

I don't have a problem with the headline, since that's exactly what they did.

What I wonder though is: can tattoos be covered with makeup? Is there other exculpatory evidence?

 

[Keith&Co.]

I don't have a problem with the headline, since that's exactly what they did.

What I wonder though is: can tattoos be covered with makeup? Is there other exculpatory evidence?

So, witnesses and tellers describe the perp, no one mentions face tattoos, the cops immediately think, "hey that sounds like a guy we know who does not fit the description, but would with a lot of makeup. Let's pretend he had that much makeup on, but applied with tge skill of a major movie studio, so five pounds of base does look just as noticeable as the damned tattoos...."

 

[Horatio Parker]

I don't have a problem with the headline, since that's exactly what they did.

What I wonder though is: can tattoos be covered with makeup? Is there other exculpatory evidence?

So, witnesses and tellers describe the perp, no one mentions face tattoos, the cops immediately think, "hey that sounds like a guy we know who does not fit the description, but would with a lot of makeup. Let's pretend he had that much makeup on, but applied with tge skill of a major movie studio, so five pounds of base does look just as noticeable as the damned tattoos...."

Something like that, assuming they had other reasons for suspecting him. If not, if the DA said "this is the guy, get him convicted", then sure, it's way out of bounds. Also, the witnesses should be told and shown both pictures.

Does it take five pounds of foundation and movie studio level makeup artist to cover a tattoo? I have no idea.

 

[ronburgundy]

I don't have a problem with the headline, since that's exactly what they did.

What I wonder though is: can tattoos be covered with makeup? Is there other exculpatory evidence?

So, witnesses and tellers describe the perp, no one mentions face tattoos, the cops immediately think, "hey that sounds like a guy we know who does not fit the description, but would with a lot of makeup. Let's pretend he had that much makeup on, but applied with tge skill of a major movie studio, so five pounds of base does look just as noticeable as the damned tattoos...."

Something like that, assuming they had other reasons for suspecting him. If not, if the DA said "this is the guy, get him convicted", then sure, it's way out of bounds. Also, the witnesses should be told and shown both pictures.

Does it take five pounds of foundation and movie studio level makeup artist to cover a tattoo? I have no idea.

Yeah, it could be quite valid to see if the tellers pick the guy if his tattoos are not visible. It isn't difficult to cover tattoos, its something that people do, and a person planning a crime with definite witnesses would be stupid not to cover their face tattoos given how identifying they are. In fact, a smart criminal might get face tattoos precisely so they can cover them up during crimes and a way of "hiding in plain sight" without a mask.

However, the cops should first show the pics with the tattoos and then with them covered up. They should also have to make it clear in their reports exactly how a photo was altered. Apparently these cops basically covered up the fact that they altered the photos. Plus, the altered photo differs in other ways, making the suspect look like he has more hair and more facial hair than he does.

Apparently the robber was actually wearing a ballcap and sunglasses, so most of the tatts would have not been visible, even without makeup (except the one on the side of his face). They are trying to claim that is why they removed the tatts. But it seems to me that they should have added a ballcap and glasses to the pics of all suspects. So long as the jury is made aware that the witnesses only identified the altered pic and that makes it weaker evidence, then I don't think that altering lineup pics in specified ways inherently invalidates that lineup.

 

[laughing dog]

Apparently the robber was actually wearing a ballcap and sunglasses, so most of the tatts would have not been visible, even without makeup (except the one on the side of his face). They are trying to claim that is why they removed the tatts. But it seems to me that they should have added a ballcap and glasses to the pics of all suspects.

Exactly. Clearly they had no problem with photoshopping, so why not do it right?

 

[Derec]

I don't have a problem with the headline, since that's exactly what they did.

We don't know this guy is innocent, and neither does the author.

This is an older article about the robberies.
‘Foul mouth bandit’ to appear in court
It does look a lot like him.

 

[laughing dog]

I don't have a problem with the headline, since that's exactly what they did.

We don't know this guy is innocent, and neither does the author.

Um, the presumption is innocence in criminal matters. Does the police behavior bother you?

It does look a lot like him.

Outside of being black and man, not they do not look very much alike. The shape of the face and the color of the skin are not that similar.

 

[Bronzeage]

I would like to be the defense attorney who gets to go into court for a case where the crime was committed by a person in a disguise and the police disguised my client in order to get a witness ID. It will be a very short trial, whether he did it or not.

 

[Derec]

Um, the presumption is innocence in criminal matters.

Yes, there is a presumption of innocence in criminal matters. That is very different than declaring a suspect an innocent man. There is a big difference there.

Does the police behavior bother you?

Not really. Apparently it is very easy to conceal tattoos with makeup. As such, witnesses not seeing tattoos is not indicative of anything. And if a witness says the robber looks

The shape of the face and the color of the skin are not that similar.

Exact shade of the skin has a lot to do with lighting and the properties of the camera. As far as face shape, I do not see much difference.
He may or may not be innocent or guilty of the robberies. But it is premature to declare him innocent.

 

[laughing dog]

Yes, there is a presumption of innocence in criminal matters. That is very different than declaring a suspect an innocent man. There is a big difference there.

Not really, since this is not a court.

Not really. Apparently it is very easy to conceal tattoos with makeup. As such, witnesses not seeing tattoos is not indicative of anything.

Sorry, but if the witnesses did not see tattoos, then the police have no business doctoring a photo of someone with tattoos. The police ought not to be doctoring photos at all.

Exact shade of the skin has a lot to do with lighting and the properties of the camera.

Spin away.

As far as face shape, I do not see much difference.

I am not surprised Even the OP article cited people who thought they did not look alike.

He may or may not be innocent or guilty of the robberies. But it is premature to declare him innocent.

Not in the court of public opinion.

 

[Jarhyn]

Not really, since this is not a court.

Sorry, but if the witnesses did not see tattoos, then the police have no business doctoring a photo of someone with tattoos. The police ought not to be doctoring photos at all.

Exact shade of the skin has a lot to do with lighting and the properties of the camera.

Spin away.

As far as face shape, I do not see much difference.

I am not surprised Even the OP article cited people who thought they did not look alike.

He may or may not be innocent or guilty of the robberies. But it is premature to declare him innocent.

Not in the court of public opinion.

"Doesn't look like anything, to me".

I guess it's Innocent until proven guilty, but only if you are well connected and wealthy.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

This depends on context. Is this the only police line up they did? I see nothing wrong with it if it's merely part of a series they did because they were concerned he would have covered up the tatoos etc, but also did ones without this doctored photo. And also who else was in the linenups with him? That also matters and can make an even bigger difference.

Also, even if this guy was outright framed by the police, why are we presuming racism? Just because he is black? There could be many reasons officers screw him over. This daily dot (not a very reliable source) article notes that the doctoring of photos isn't uncommon. Does it happen only when people are black or especially then? This black person treated badly doesn't automatically nmean racism.

 

[dismal]

This just means less weight will be placed on the evidence of them picking him out.

I suppose if they disclosed that they did it, say because their theory of the crime was that he had on makeup or it was dark, and left jurors to put whatever weight on it they chose it's not flat out evil.

In general witness identifications are unreliable, so unless they had other evidence I doubt the case would have gotten far.

 

[Gun Nut]

Police Photoshopped An Innocent Man’s Mugshot So He’d Get Fingered For A Bank Robbery

I’m very wary of headlines that attribute explanatory reasons to actions. In this case, we have what may have happened (which incidentally isn’t all that uncommon or unacceptable): Police photoshopped an innocent man’s mugshot.

That part is one thing, and there is usually evidence cited to support what happened, so i’m inclined to keep objections to the low roar of a kitten, but the other part is another thing—the WHY part of the equation that follows the WHAT part of the transpired events that unfolded.

When it comes to backing up the WHY part, crickets. Something happened alright. Something followed, for sure. IN THIS INSTANCE!

Let us look at what the headline DOES NOT read:

“Police Photoshopped An Innocent Man’s Mugshot And He Gets Fingered For A Bank Robbery”

See, that is a headline I can more comfortably handle. It’s easier to trust. Simpler to substantiate. Much less fear of slant. Unlikely to be FAKE news.

But noooo, it’s more sensational and cringe worthy and more apt to upset the populace to twist things up a bit.

Never trust the why. If you do, at least keep it separate.

What possible legitimate reason would police have to erase the facial tattoos of a suspect in his mug shot to show to witnesses?

Federal guidelines on using photoshop on mugshots (yes, there are guidelines for the practice) state that the purpose of the practice is to "level the playing field" of lineups so that no one image stands out due to lighting and camera lense differences, causing a subliminal urge for witnesses to pick the one that stands out the most.

I'm not saying the practice is not abused in a malicious way... just responding to the question... it's an established practice with an alleged good reason.

Completely erasing facial tatoos off a picture does not sound like it fits the intended purpose of the practice, though. no even close.

 

[AirPoh]

I don't have a problem with the headline, since that's exactly what they did.

What I wonder though is: can tattoos be covered with makeup? Is there other exculpatory evidence?

When I had my mugshot taken, they gave me twenty minutes alone to put on my makeup.

 

[AirPoh]

I don't have a problem with the headline, since that's exactly what they did.

We don't know this guy is innocent, and neither does the author.

This is an older article about the robberies.
‘Foul mouth bandit’ to appear in court
It does look a lot like him.

In America, we assume he is innocent.