LA Police beating caught on tape (again).

[Tmy]

When the LA police ask for your name...........YOU BETTER TELL THEM! :p


Video Shows Police Hitting Suspect With Flashlight After Apparent Surrender (http://www.local6.com/news/3451670/detail.html)

Police officers who arrested a man suspected of driving a stolen car were shown in televised news footage repeatedly hitting him with a flashlight after it appeared he had surrendered.

News footage shot from a helicopter showed the chase end on a Compton street and the suspect take off on foot. After a short pursuit, the man appeared to surrender to an officer. After several other officers arrived, the man was forced to the ground, where the videotape shows an officer striking him at least 10 times with a flashlight

[crimresearch]

Please...as anyone can plainly see, the officer is just trying to get the light to start working again, by repeatedly striking it on a solid object.
:rolleyes:









(For the sarcasm impaired, that was not what is going on in that video...on the other hand, the media has a track record of labelling any police use of force as brutality, and then mysteriously dropping all coverage of the story after more information comes forth).

[Bottle or the Gun]

He stole a car. Probably from some poor guy that will lose his job and not be able to pay the rent now because his car was jacked by some peice of garbage in a hurry to buy more crack after robbing a quickie-mart. Screw him. And when he gets out of jail, beat him again.

[American]

Good.

And anyone who doesn't think so, I hope it's your car that's stolen next time, and I hope you die in a high speed chase while walking down the street one day.

Flashlight nothing. He should have shot him in the head.

[gnome]

Damn right! Because we should institute beatings and the death penalty for thieves now, and give the police the power to distribute that justice without those stupid trials and lawyers and stuff...

[gnome]

Trials are for Communists! let the police beat the perps on the spot, they deserve it.

[Virgil]

Judge Dredd....

[Bottle or the Gun]

Screw him. I hope he lost IQ points like Rodney did. Maybe now he'll be too stupid to steal a car.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Bottle or the Gun
Screw him. I hope he lost IQ points like Rodney did. Maybe now he'll be too stupid to steal a car.

I don't know. I think all the cops involved should be fined twenty dollars.

[Lisa Simpson]

Don't they teach cops anything in the academy anymore? Never, ever, ever beat the suspect when news helicopters are flying overhead.

Wait till you get back to the station.

[Grammatron]

Can't we all just get along?

[Tony]

Originally posted by gnome
...let the police beat the perps on the spot...


That is practically what we have right now, the only reason this is an issue is because it was caught on camera. Your rights as an American citizen effectively evaporate once you are in the custody (either arrested, detained or pulled over) of the police.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Tony



That is practically what we have right now, the only reason this is an issue is because it was caught on camera. Your rights as an American citizen effectively evaporate once you are in the custody (either arrested, detained or pulled over) of the police.

It's easy to get caught up in this. We don't want the cops to beat the hell out of someone.

This person has not been tried for any crime so we presume him innocent until such time as a jury finds him guilty.

Why not apply the same standard to the cops?

[TAILGUNNER]

Good for the police maybe if every villian realised they would get a good beating it would reduce the crime rate

i wonder if the police should now recieve anti aircraft weapons for use against news helicopters

[Lisa Simpson]

In Los Angeles, since Rodney King, the police are guilty. Being proved innocent is irrelevant.

I was watching the news this morning, and the in-studio guest was the chief of the LAPD. He was trying to tell the news media not to jump to conclusions. The female anchor said something along the lines of "we won't do that" but then immediately jumped in with a question comparing this incident to Rodney King.

[Dorian Gray]

That is practically what we have right now, the only reason this is an issue is because it was caught on camera. Your rights as an American citizen effectively evaporate once you are in the custody (either arrested, detained or pulled over) of the police.

It's the same principle that is in operation in the US Armed Forces. We torture prisoners, it's only because there were pictures that could be distributed that it's an issue. F--- the Geneva Conventions. And F--- the Constitution. And justify it with fear and hatred and panic.

[TAILGUNNER]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray


It's the same principle that is in operation in the US Armed Forces. We torture prisoners, it's only because there were pictures that could be distributed that it's an issue. F--- the Geneva Conventions. And F--- the Constitution. And justify it with fear and hatred and panic.

Wow thats a leap, from perp breaking the law being beaten back to torturing iraqis

[Tony]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray


It's the same principle that is in operation in the US Armed Forces. We torture prisoners, it's only because there were pictures that could be distributed that it's an issue.


Not true, the investigations into the prison abuse began in January. It was in the news. It was only when the pictures were produced that it became the big, new sensationalized news story.

Contrast that with this incident where the likelihood of these cops being held accountable without the footage would have been nil.

[zenith-nadir]

I say good. Beat the living crap out of him. Perhaps next time he will respect other people's property instead of stealing cars. Now watch the liberals climb down my throat...that is until they get T-boned at an intersection and paralyzed like my friend Cal did by a perp running from the cops in a stolen automobile.

[Psi Baba]

Just business as usual for the
Lillywhite ********** Pummelling the Defenseless.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray

It's the same principle that is in operation in the US Armed Forces. We torture prisoners, it's only because there were pictures that could be distributed that it's an issue. F--- the Geneva Conventions. And F--- the Constitution. And justify it with fear and hatred and panic.

I don't recall ever being involved with the torture of prisoners. I do recall the prosecution of some that were/may have been.

You should stop F--- the Constitution and allow the justice system to do its job. You may be able to justify your post with fear and hatred, but it is not reasonable that you do so, in my opinion.

[TAILGUNNER]

Originally posted by Psi Baba
Just business as usual for the
Lillywhite ********** Pummelling the Defenseless.

I take it your going to sign up and help change the image accepting the pressure and responsibility that comes with the job

[gnome]

That's at least three people that want the cops to be able to beat perpetrators on the spot...

And yes I will jump down your throat for it...

Will you still agree when they beat the wrong man? or beat someone who's been a thorn in their side politically, and SAY they saw him stealing something?

Just what kind of country do you think America should be?

[Bjorn]

Screw him. And when he gets out of jail, beat him again. Flashlight nothing. He should have shot him in the head. I hope he lost IQ points like Rodney did. Maybe now he'll be too stupid to steal a car. I think all the cops involved should be fined twenty dollars. Good for the police maybe if every villian realised they would get a good beating it would reduce the crime rateBeat the living crap out of him.Soooo many of you mocking our American standards of law and order .... innocent until found guilty .... punishment is not metered out by the police. Five big police guys beat up one guy that had already surrendered and you cheer.

And this is supposedly a skeptic forum .... :(

[gnome]

To those cheering the police and saying they should have the right to beat suspects... answer one more question... SERIOUSLY. I dare you to answer honestly... if the police were beating you mistakenly would you still agree they had the right? Or only if it happens to other people?

Since when is "getting" criminals more important than our freedom? What the heck happened?

[TAILGUNNER]

Originally posted by gnome
That's at least three people that want the cops to be able to beat perpetrators on the spot...

And yes I will jump down your throat for it...

Will you still agree when they beat the wrong man? or beat someone who's been a thorn in their side politically, and SAY they saw him stealing something?

Just what kind of country do you think America should be?

OH confusion here, because i read the report in the link and this man was definately not the 'wrong man' and given he was driving a stolen car in excess of the speed limit IMHO he deserved all he got

btw i live in britain and also think our police should engauge in a more 'hands on' approach when its clear the suspect has broken the law

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Bjorn
Soooo many of you mocking our American standards of law and order .... innocent until found guilty .... punishment is not metered out by the police. Five big police guys beat up one guy that had already surrendered and you cheer.

And this is supposedly a skeptic forum .... :(

I believe I suggested they should be fined. My suggestion hinged on their first being tried and found guilty of the reported crime. I made this clear in subsequent posts.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Rob Lister


I believe I suggested they should be fined. My suggestion hinged on their first being tried and found guilty of the reported crime. I made this clear in subsequent posts. I saw that and should have deleted your quote. Sorry.

[Tony]

Originally posted by gnome
To those cheering the police and saying they should have the right to beat suspects... answer one more question... SERIOUSLY. I dare you to answer honestly... if the police were beating you mistakenly would you still agree they had the right? Or only if it happens to other people?

Since when is "getting" criminals more important than our freedom? What the heck happened?

Mark this day on your calendar. We finally agree on something. :)

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by TAILGUNNER


I take it your going to sign up and help change the image accepting the pressure and responsibility that comes with the job

If that's the way those/that officer handles pressure and responsibility perhaps he needs to find a more suitable job, like a tollbooth attendant.

[TAILGUNNER]

Originally posted by Grammatron


If that's the way those/that officer handles pressure and responsibility perhaps he needs to find a more suitable job, like a tollbooth attendant.

Not sure what your saying

are you signing up to change it and see how you cope in a similar situation or are you just going to sit back in a place of saftey and criticise because you can

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by TAILGUNNER
OH confusion here, because i read the report in the link and this man was definately not the 'wrong man' and given he was driving a stolen car in excess of the speed limit IMHO he deserved all he got Great to know where you stand: If someones steal a car and drives in excess of the speed limit you think it's OK if he's beaten up by the police.

Where is that in the law again? Or don't you think it matters if the police follows the law or not?

[Tmy]

Typical cop groupies. The police do no wrong, perp had it coming, these cops havent been found to have done any wrongdoing bla bla.

THERES A F'N VIDEO!!! And dont give me that angle of the camera crap. Its so easy to find Scott Peterson or Kobe Bryant guilty the second you hear of wrongdoing. But for the police, a video means nothing to the cop ass kissers.

Quick, someoen que the "they have a tough job" and "adrenalin" lines.

[TAILGUNNER]

Originally posted by Tmy
Typical cop groupies. The police do no wrong, perp had it coming, these cops havent been found to have done any wrongdoing bla bla.

THERES A F'N VIDEO!!! And dont give me that angle of the camera crap. Its so easy to find Scott Peterson or Kobe Bryant guilty the second you hear of wrongdoing. But for the police, a video means nothing to the cop ass kissers.

Quick, someoen que the "they have a tough job" and "adrenalin" lines.

OK so the video shows clearly everything that happened from the start to the finish and from it you can gauge the full emotions of the officers involved?the risks they had to take to capture this criminal? The level of personal threat they felt due to the criminals actions

because until thats the case having a F'N VIDEO doesnt quite mean a lot does it

[TAILGUNNER]

Originally posted by Bjorn
Great to know where you stand: If someones steal a car and drives in excess of the speed limit you think it's OK if he's beaten up by the police.

Where is that in the law again? Or don't you think it matters if the police follows the law or not?

Never said it was in the law if you care to read back i said IMHO the perp got what he deserved

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by TAILGUNNER


Not sure what your saying

are you signing up to change it and see how you cope in a similar situation or are you just going to sit back in a place of saftey and criticise because you can

I am saying if you crack under pressure and can't follow the rules you are obviously not right for the job.

[Mr. Skinny]

I saw the video on the news the other night. It appeard to me that the cop was striking the suspect on his left arm with his flashlight.

My first thought was that he was (rather forcefully, I admit) trying to get the suspect to bring his hands out from under him and out to his sides (or behind his back).

An almost identical situation occured here in Dayton yesterday. The cops takled a suspect. He went down with his hands under him. On of the cops immediately starts wacking his upper arm with a collapsible police baton. Didn't see any national coverage of that film clip....but DPD doesn't have the "Rodney King rep" to contend with.

I'll wait for the investigation results, but mostly it looks like "much ado about nothing".

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by TAILGUNNER
Never said it was in the law if you care to read back i said IMHO the perp got what he deserved I covered that already when I asked: Or don't you think it matters if the police follows the law or not?.

Now we know the answer.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by TAILGUNNER


OK so the video shows clearly everything that happened from the start to the finish and from it you can gauge the full emotions of the officers involved?the risks they had to take to capture this criminal? The level of personal threat they felt due to the criminals actions

because until thats the case having a F'N VIDEO doesnt quite mean a lot does it

So because the cops have a stressful job its ok for them to wail on people??? Who doesnt get stressed out at work. What happens to you if you beat down a customer or client or whatever.

Just cause your upset doesnt give youthe OK to step out of police parameters. Its unprofessional to say the least.

Next time theres a story about some kid spitting in a customers burger I wanna hear what "happened from the start to the finish and from it you can gauge the full emotions of the burger jockey."

[TAILGUNNER]

Originally posted by Grammatron


I am saying if you crack under pressure and can't follow the rules you are obviously not right for the job.

And obviously every human being is able to garentee that in a stressful situation they would react in the perfect way

I dont think so, so should we suspend every cop just in case they crack forget their records of arrests and a job well done they being human are clearly not right for the job

Wheel in ROBOCOP somebody that should stop the beatings of criminals

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by TAILGUNNER


And obviously every human being is able to garentee that in a stressful situation they would react in the perfect way

I dont think so, so should we suspend every cop just in case they crack forget their records of arrests and a job well done they being human are clearly not right for the job

Wheel in ROBOCOP somebody that should stop the beatings of criminals

That's where proper training comes in and the ability of the academy to single out those who can't follow the rules.

[TAILGUNNER]

Originally posted by Tmy


So because the cops have a stressful job its ok for them to wail on people??? Who doesnt get stressed out at work. What happens to you if you beat down a customer or client or whatever.

Just cause your upset doesnt give youthe OK to step out of police parameters. Its unprofessional to say the least.

Next time theres a story about some kid spitting in a customers burger I wanna hear what "happened from the start to the finish and from it you can gauge the full emotions of the burger jockey."

where did i say its ok for cops to wail upon people?

as before IMHO 'criminals' and lets not forget who we are dealing with deserve all they get and if they are guilty or as in this case get caught red handed and get roughed up a little please dont expect my heart to go out to them as my loyalties lay with those who protect me and mine not with those who think its correct to steal from, kill etc me and mine

as for your bit about the burger jockey the moment they recieve the reputation of the LAPD then we'll discuss it

[Mr. Skinny]

Originally posted by Tmy


So because the cops have a stressful job its ok for them to wail on people??? Who doesnt get stressed out at work. What happens to you if you beat down a customer or client or whatever.

Just cause your upset doesnt give youthe OK to step out of police parameters. Its unprofessional to say the least.

Next time theres a story about some kid spitting in a customers burger I wanna hear what "happened from the start to the finish and from it you can gauge the full emotions of the burger jockey."
There's really no indication that what the cop did was due to stress, or that he was upset, or that what he did was unprofessional.

If, in fact, the suspect had his hands under him, it is entirely appropriate and professional to use force to bring his hands into view.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Mr. Skinny

There's really no indication that what the cop did was due to stress, or that he was upset, or that what he did was unprofessional.

If, in fact, the suspect had his hands under him, it is entirely appropriate and professional to use force to bring his hands into view.

That's beside the point, TAILGUNNER is saying it's ok for cops to occasionally to beat down on suspects because their job is stressful. Whether or not the cop in this current situation is guilty does not factor into this argument.

[TAILGUNNER]

Originally posted by Grammatron


That's where proper training comes in and the ability of the academy to single out those who can't follow the rules.

And thats 100%, again i think not, there are countless instances where fully trained individuals suddenly forget their training in stressful situations and react by instinct

in this instance a criminal got slapped big deal, if the cop involved had suddenly lashed out at an innocent member of the public , or wailed upon somebody for no reason then i'd have a problem and say the system had failed completely

[Tmy]

Originally posted by TAILGUNNER


I dont think so, so should we suspend every cop just in case they crack forget their records of arrests and a job well done they being human are clearly not right for the job



Do they even get suspended?? The public beef is based on this notion that the police are never held accountable for wrong doings.

Dont forget this is on tape. Otherwise there wouldnt be a whimper about the case. The expection is that nothing is going to happen anyway.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by TAILGUNNER


where did i say its ok for cops to wail upon people?

as before IMHO 'criminals' and lets not forget who we are dealing with deserve all they get and if they are guilty or as in this case get caught red handed and get roughed up a little please dont expect my heart to go out to them as my loyalties lay with those who protect me and mine not with those who think its correct to steal from, kill etc me and mine

as for your bit about the burger jockey the moment they recieve the reputation of the LAPD then we'll discuss it

Does innocent until proven guilty mean anything to you?

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Grammatron


That's beside the point, TAILGUNNER is saying it's ok for cops to occasionally to beat down on suspects because their job is stressful. Whether or not the cop in this current situation is guilty does not factor into this argument.


Why stop there. I guess its ok for him to beat his wife too. He's all stressed out and dinners cold! Who can blame him.

[TAILGUNNER]

Originally posted by Tmy


Do they even get suspended?? The public beef is based on this notion that the police are never held accountable for wrong doings.

Dont forget this is on tape. Otherwise there wouldnt be a whimper about the case. The expection is that nothing is going to happen anyway.

OK i can see that point, but then its a another topic given whats an appropriate sentence that is going to appease a section of the community that feels an injustice has been done

suspension fine but thats another cop off your streets

a fine, actually i'd go with this

again though more info would have to be forthcoming such as is this the first instance if not then i'm fully behind an investigation to see if this is just an over enthusiatic cop or a person with a serious problem and thats without considering the job history of the cop involved what if he/she is supercop just having a bad day?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Tmy



Why stop there. I guess its ok for him to beat his wife too. He's all stressed out and dinners cold! Who can blame him.

It's ok, he didn't mean it. It's that damn stressful job! He still loves her, you know that right? Right?!

[TAILGUNNER]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Does innocent until proven guilty mean anything to you?

Lets see the guy was in a stolen car got chased up to speeds of 60mph and was caught fleeing from the car as per the link supplied which states that the end of the pursuit including the man fleeing was caught on the same tape in question

yes clearly innocent just a victim of circumstances

and for the record my stance on this is not its ok for a stressed up cop to beat just for the sake of my mention of stress in the first instance was to highlight we know nothing of the cops mental state during the arrest and that is important given it could have just been an overenthusiatic response to getting the perp to give him his hands compared to willful beating for beatings sake

[TAILGUNNER]

Originally posted by Grammatron


It's ok, he didn't mean it. It's that damn stressful job! He still loves her, you know that right? Right?!

Yes good turn i have to admire the way this has jumped from one thing to something completely irrelevant

is it becomming difficult to stay focused on whats being discussed?

[Tmy]

The wifebeating comments are in responce to the "under stress" justification that often comes up in police brutality cases. Stress is no excuse to beating a wife, why should it be for beating a perp.


Whats with the "60mph" line from the story? Is that supposed to be really impressive high speed chase?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by TAILGUNNER


Lets see the guy was in a stolen car got chased up to speeds of 60mph and was caught fleeing from the car as per the link supplied which states that the end of the pursuit including the man fleeing was caught on the same tape in question

yes clearly innocent just a victim of circumstances

and for the record my stance on this is not its ok for a stressed up cop to beat just for the sake of my mention of stress in the first instance was to highlight we know nothing of the cops mental state during the arrest and that is important given it could have just been an overenthusiatic response to getting the perp to give him his hands compared to willful beating for beatings sake

Who needs courts when you have a videotape from the helicopter, we can just assume the guy is guilty and forgo due process.

I don't know if the cop is guilty or not, from the looks of it he was being unnecessarily aggressive in that he used a flashlight to beat up a suspect. I'm not sure who is wrong and who is right in this case so I will wait for the trial to see what the facts of this case are.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by TAILGUNNER


Yes good turn i have to admire the way this has jumped from one thing to something completely irrelevant

is it becomming difficult to stay focused on whats being discussed?

True but lions don't usually hunt.

[TAILGUNNER]

Originally posted by Tmy
The wifebeating comments are in responce to the "under stress" justification that often comes up in police brutality cases. Stress is no excuse to beating a wife, why should it be for beating a perp.


Whats with the "60mph" line from the story? Is that supposed to be really impressive high speed chase?

No the wife beating comments are somehow in some way some means of taking what i actually was saying out of context and as i'm saying clearly they are irrelevant it should tell you its an excercise is wasted typing

Have you or anybody you know ever been hit by a car doing 30mph

if you have not it could explain why you think 60mph is nothing in terms of speed and the potential for death isnt it the case that most deaths occur at speeds above 30 given that this criminal was risking lives or doesnt that concern you unless they break the 100mph limit because it sounds more exciting

[TAILGUNNER]

Originally posted by Grammatron


True but lions don't usually hunt.

:D i like your style

[Tmy]

Originally posted by TAILGUNNER




if you have not it could explain why you think 60mph is nothing in terms of speed and the potential for death isnt it the case that most deaths occur at speeds above 30 given that this criminal was risking lives or doesnt that concern you unless they break the 100mph limit because it sounds more exciting

Heres my take. The "60 mph" line is an attempt to pull in the old "high speed adrenalin high" excuse that is so often used in these brutality cases. The implication is that after a high speed chase some police officers just cant control themsleves.

Which is really silly when you think about it. Might as well excuse the driver on the same adrenalin theory.

[TAILGUNNER]

Originally posted by Tmy


Heres my take. The "60 mph" line is an attempt to pull in the old "high speed adrenalin high" excuse that is so often used in these brutality cases. The implication is that after a high speed chase some police officers just cant control themsleves.

Which is really silly when you think about it. Might as well excuse the driver on the same adrenalin theory.

Agreed in theory though the perp would have governed the speed involved whereas the cops are somewhat commited to following, but basically yes if that was used as a defence it sucks just a little

far better just to state over enthusiasm in achieving the arrest its more believable

[crimresearch]

"I don't know if the cop is guilty or not, from the looks of it he was being unnecessarily aggressive in that he used a flashlight to beat up a suspect. I'm not sure who is wrong and who is right in this case so I will wait for the trial to see what the facts of this case are."

Being aggressive in using appropriate force isn't a criminal charge.
Neither is 'repeatedly striking a suspect's hands with a flashlight'.

Beating someone up would fall under the category of excessive force, which nobody here has substantiated, and which has nothing to do with being a cop.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah they have a F**in' video...
They had F**in' videos in those other cases of police 'brutality' and when those turned out to be nothing more than a rapid deployment of legal force in a dramatic manner, the media slunk back into their holes muttering something about 'the *other* media getting it wrong first...'.

In a perfect world, cops could just ask suspects to drop the knife, vial of crack, or whatever.

In a magical world, cops would have X-ray vision and telepathy, and would know whether a suspect who says that they have 'surrendered' is really planning to lash out with a hidden weapon.

In a fantasy world, cops would be quicker and smarter than any subject, able to easily render the biggest resister calm in a few simple moves with no injuries, able to perform instant psychoanalytical cures of the violently insane, able to resolve all community and social issues by making all parties happy,
and never make mistakes, for little pay and less training....
:rolleyes:

In the world that most of us are stuck with, high speed forceful encounters aren't siimply remedied by a handful of training hours.

So suspects with a closed fist, or a rigid arm, or a tensed up back (which doesn't show up in the grainy footage of a video), are triggers for primitive reactions, and in true tachyphasic fashion, when results don't come, 'faster-and-harder-and-more' is the hardwired response for Homo Sapiens...

So whether anyone 'wants to hear' about adrenaline and stress or not, these incidents will continue to play out in a predictable manner, complete with honking politicians and news anchors, opportunistic race baiters, and wannabes trying to sell a new package of 'Verbal Judo' or a new magic wand stun gun to the cops...

Unless of course anyone who truly cared about reducing incidents like these wanted to apply some science amid the cluster of woo-woo that surrounds policing in this country.

You could start by doing a search for Diop Kamau, or going to policeabuse.org

[gnome]

Originally posted by TAILGUNNER


OH confusion here, because i read the report in the link and this man was definately not the 'wrong man' and given he was driving a stolen car in excess of the speed limit IMHO he deserved all he got

btw i live in britain and also think our police should engauge in a more 'hands on' approach when its clear the suspect has broken the law

You're missing the point AGAIN. It's the whole reason we have trials. If you give the police the power to say "This person was clearly in the wrong, so he was fair game"... they can do that to ANYONE and have an automatic defense. Again, I'm not saying anything about what this guy deserves... I'm saying I don't TRUST the police with that power. This is NOT a new idea!

Since when is something that's a cornerstone of American justice considered namby-pamby? I just don't get it.

[gnome]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Who needs courts when you have a videotape from the helicopter, we can just assume the guy is guilty and forgo due process.

I don't know if the cop is guilty or not, from the looks of it he was being unnecessarily aggressive in that he used a flashlight to beat up a suspect. I'm not sure who is wrong and who is right in this case so I will wait for the trial to see what the facts of this case are.

I agree with this. I don't want to assume the policeman's guilt any more than I want to assume the perpetrator's guilt.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by gnome
I agree with this. I don't want to assume the policeman's guilt any more than I want to assume the perpetrator's guilt. The Police Chief agrees:

"There is no denying that it looks very bad from what is seen on the video," Police Chief William Bratton told the Los Angeles Times. "But there should be no rush to judgment before the investigations are completed." Notice the difference between the Chief's comment and:

"Beat the living crap out of him" or "Flashlight nothing. He should have shot him in the head."

[Doghouse Reilly]

Originally posted by Psi Baba
Just business as usual for the
Lillywhite ********** Pummelling the Defenseless.

Actually, in this case, the cop utilizing the flashlight of mass destruction was Hispanic. So your acronym should read: Latino ********** Pummeling the Defenseless.

Which, needless to say, lessens some, but of course not all, of the potential for this to become a racial powderkeg issue.

[zenith-nadir]

A guy stole a car. He led the police on a chase that not only endangered the lives of the police but the innocent civilians around him. He bailed from the auto and had to be chased and tackled by the police. And the concern here is the "law" and the "rights" of the thief.

Sometimes a good crack upside the head is a lesson some people will never forget. What about the rights of the car owner? What about the rights of the police and the innocent bystanders the thief endangered when he chose to STEAL a car...naaaaa, forget those "rights" and demand those nazi-like police officers, who risk their lives for you every day, be tried convicted and run out of town on a rail.... :rolleyes:

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
A guy stole a car. He led the police on a chase that not only endangered the lives of the police but the innocent civilians around him. He bailed from the auto and had to be chased and tackled by the police. And the concern here is the "law" and the "rights" of the thief.

Sometimes a good crack upside the head is a lesson some people will never forget. What about the rights of the car owner? What about the rights of the police and the innocent bystanders the thief endangered when he chose to STEAL a car...naaaaa, forget those "rights" and demand those nazi-like police officers, who risk their lives for you every day, be tried convicted and run out of town on a rail.... :rolleyes: In this country the right of the car owner is supposed to be taken care of by our legal system - and in this case it will, he's behind bars already. I expect exactly the same treatment for the police officers involved: If there is sufficient evidence (to try them) they will be tried and found guilty or not guilty.

Sometimes giving people a good crack upside the head will get you in trouble. If you want the law to change, work for it. In the meantime, we should follow those we have.

Isn't it funny how the Police Chief is not saying the guy deserved a beating?

"There is no denying that it looks very bad from what is seen on the video," Police Chief William Bratton told the Los Angeles Times. "But there should be no rush to judgment before the investigations are completed."

[zenith-nadir]

This debate reminds me of an email I received a couple years ago...

Question:

You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children. Suddenly, a man with a huge knife comes around the corner and is running at you while screaming obscenities. In your hand is a Glock .40 cal. and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family. What do you do?

Liberal Answer:

Well, that's not enough information to answer the question! Does the man look poor or oppressed? Have I ever done anything to him that is inspiring him to attack? Could we run away? What does my wife think? What about the kids? Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand? What does the law say about this situation? Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me? Does he definitely want to kill me or would he just be content to wound me? If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me? This is all so confusing! I need to debate this with my liberal friends for a few days to try to come to a conclusion.

Conservative Answer:

BANG!

[Bjorn]

Are you saying that conservatives defend the right of the police to give people a good crack upside the head to teach them a lesson they will never forget?

I thought conservatives were all for law and order? :con2:

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by Bjorn
In this country the right of the car owner is supposed to be taken care of by our legal system - and in this case it will, he's behind bars already. I expect exactly the same treatment for the police officers involved: If there is sufficient evidence (to try them) they will be tried and found guilty or not guilty. Sometimes giving people a good crack upside the head will get you in trouble. If you want the law to change, work for it. In the meantime, we should follow those we have.Isn't it funny how the Police Chief is not saying the guy deserved a beating? Of course the police chief isn't advocating beatings, nor am I advocating beatings for traffic stops. But I am not going to loose one minute of sleep over a punk who decides to STEAL cars. Nor am I going to indict the entire LAPD or defend the thief's violated rights. Sorry, call me a neanderthal.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
Of course the police chief isn't advocating beatings, nor am I advocating beatings for traffic stops. You seem, however, to be advocating it for car thieves. What about shoplifters? People who cheat on taxes? Rapists? (You don't have to answer that one.)

Law and order, except for the police?

[gnome]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
A guy stole a car. He led the police on a chase that not only endangered the lives of the police but the innocent civilians around him. He bailed from the auto and had to be chased and tackled by the police. And the concern here is the "law" and the "rights" of the thief.

You have repeatedly ignored that my concern here is not for the THIEF, but for the power of the police officer. That power can be used on others besides obvious car thieves...you seem to think they will use that power only on the guilty.

And you probably call liberals naive.

[gnome]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
This debate reminds me of an email I received a couple years ago...

Question:

You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children. Suddenly, a man with a huge knife comes around the corner and is running at you while screaming obscenities. In your hand is a Glock .40 cal. and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family. What do you do?

Liberal Answer:

Well, that's not enough information to answer the question! Does the man look poor or oppressed? Have I ever done anything to him that is inspiring him to attack? Could we run away? What does my wife think? What about the kids? Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand? What does the law say about this situation? Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me? Does he definitely want to kill me or would he just be content to wound me? If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me? This is all so confusing! I need to debate this with my liberal friends for a few days to try to come to a conclusion.

Conservative Answer:

BANG!

Worst straw man I ever heard. Any sensible liberal would also shoot the man, since your scenario is designed that there is no sane alternative.

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by Bjorn
You seem, however, to be advocating it for car thieves. What about shoplifters? People who cheat on taxes? Rapists? (You don't have to answer that one.) Law and order, except for the police? But that doesn't happen Bjorn. Those are all hypotheticals.

What I am advocating is some common sense, this car thief; a) disrespected society by stealing property that was not his, b) disrespected police by not stopping for them, c) disrespected the safety of innocent civilians by causing a car chase. So after bailing from the stolen car he got his head knocked in. A lesson he will probably never forget.

Had he not stolen the car or ran from the cops none of this would have ever happened, nor would the cop have lost his cool. But am I going to blame the cops or the thief? I chose to blame the thief for the entire incident and prefer to cut the cop some slack.


Originally posted by gnome
Worst straw man I ever heard. Any sensible liberal would also shoot the man, since your scenario is designed that there is no sane alternative.It's a joke, humor, I thought gnomes were jolly and not so serious! ;)

[gnome]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
It's a joke, humor, I thought gnomes were jolly and not so serious! ;)

I can be jolly... just that one sticks in my craw usually. But I'll cut you some slack :)

As for the rest, if you want to say that you sympathize with the police in this case, thats something understandable. If you want to say that they have the right to beat on suspects and cheer them on, as others have done, I still must point out the dangers of giving police that power.

[RSLancastr]

Originally posted by Psi Baba
Just business as usual for the
Lillywhite ********** Pummelling the Defenseless. Are you aware of the fact that the oficer wielding the flashlight is Hispanic?

[Commonwealth Cousin]

Originally posted by gnome


You're missing the point AGAIN. It's the whole reason we have trials. If you give the police the power to say "This person was clearly in the wrong, so he was fair game"... they can do that to ANYONE and have an automatic defense. Again, I'm not saying anything about what this guy deserves... I'm saying I don't TRUST the police with that power. This is NOT a new idea!

Since when is something that's a cornerstone of American justice considered namby-pamby? I just don't get it.

I know this is moving away from the present discussion but as a Brit I find your quoting the cornerstone of American justice to be laughable.

Taking Peterson and Bryant as prime examples, both have been dragged through the media and TV news in the USA before even having stepped into a courtroom. You have people on Court TV discussing the rights and wrongs of the accused, based on *evidence* leaked by either the police or the prosecution and even phone callers giving their views on cases of which they have no knowledge whatsoever - otherwise they would be witnesses.

To an outsider of the American system, this isn't justice, it's guilt by association.

The UK may have it's problems but once a charge is laid and the accused appears in Court to be remanded or bailed pending the case, it becomes sub-judice and cannot be discussed in the press or on TV. Given that it takes months for the case to go to trial, most people will have forgotten the circumstances even if they remember the crime and a jury can be sequestered who can be assumed to not be aware of the case they are about to try.

You cannot say that about the USA and until you do, justice isn't justice in the true sense of the word , neither is the US the land of the free.

[Hand Bent Spoon]

I saw it live. It looked a lot worse than it actually was. The fact is, the man has no injuries as a result of this so-called 'beating'.

Where's the outrage this man stole a car? Where's the outrage he endangered many lives by leading the police on this car chase?

And what police academy did you armchair police sargeants attend in order to differentiate allowable force and unnecessary force?

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
But that doesn't happen Bjorn. Those are all hypotheticals. Oh, the crimes all happen all the time. But they're not hit in the head (or maybe you would hit them in the head, what do I know. Maybe you have a system on where to hit for which crimes).

What I am advocating is some common sense, this car thief; a) disrespected society by stealing property that was not his, b) disrespected police by not stopping for them, c) disrespected the safety of innocent civilians by causing a car chase. And none of those actions are punishable by hitting someone in the head. We have laws, you know.

So after bailing from the stolen car he got his head knocked in. A lesson he will probably never forget.What is it that makes this right? The fact that he won't forget it? The fact that he was a car thief? The police do not have any authority or right to hit anyone in the head or punch them in the face because they want to punish someone. Punishment is for the court to decide upon. Are you serious?

(By the way: To say 'after he bailed from the stolen car is, of course, technically correct, however it seemed to be also 'after he surrendered' - but I won't go into that).

Had he not (insert crime here) or (insert different ways of avoiding arrest here) none of this would have ever happened, nor would the cop have lost his cool. But am I going to blame the cops or the thief? I chose to blame the thief for the entire incident and prefer to cut the cop some slack.If he was innocent the police wouldn't have arrested him (well, let's just assume that's correct) - but from where comes the right to hit him in the head? Are there other rights you want to give to the police, or is hitting suspects in the head the only one? Don't you see any problems letting the police start punishing, there and then, instead of letting the legal system take care of it?

[Doghouse Reilly]

Originally posted by RSLancastr
Are you aware of the fact that the oficer wielding the flashlight is Hispanic?

Beat you to it...a few posts above yours ;)

It should properly be: Latino ********** Pummelling the Defenseless

That is, if we wish to make silly acronyms about the whole thing, as well as make the assumption that this guy was "Defenseless" which of course we have no way of knowing at this point in time.

[fishbob]

Of course the police chief isn't advocating beatings, nor am I advocating beatings for traffic stops. But I am not going to loose one minute of sleep over a punk who decides to STEAL cars. Nor am I going to indict the entire LAPD or defend the thief's violated rights. Sorry, call me a neanderthal. You neanderthal. The cops have rules they are supposed to follow. It is not OK when cops break the rules. It is even worse when cops feel that it is OK to break the rules. What the punk did, or is suspected of doing, is irrelevant to the rules the cops are supposed to follow.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Hand Bent Spoon
And what police academy did you armchair police sargeants attend in order to differentiate allowable force and unnecessary force? There's no point in going into the arguments about how much he was fighting the officers and how they used the force necessary to stop him. If that was what was posted here, we could have finalized by quoting the Police Chief: Investigations will determine.

However, that's not what some people have argued here. It has been: Flashlight nothing. He should have shot him in the head.
Screw him. And when he gets out of jail, beat him again.
I hope he lost IQ points like Rodney did. Maybe now he'll be too stupid to steal a car.
Good for the police maybe if every villian realised they would get a good beating it would reduce the crime rate
Beat the living crap out of him.
I see no arguments there about necessary force - just the primitive "yeah, hit him, that f***ing bastard!"

Scary, that's what it is. And I'm not talking about the police.

[crimresearch]

So the assumption exists that the police were administering an illegal and excessive beat-down in 2 camps, those who assume it happened and are appalled by it, and those who assume it happened, and are getting their jollies from it...

Sigh...

You know, if there was one place where you would think people could critically and skeptically examine the assumption first, it would be here at JREF...


but NOOOO...nothing like that going on here.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by crimresearch
So the assumption exists that the police were administering an illegal and excessive beat-down in 2 camps, those who assume it happened and are appalled by it, and those who assume it happened, and are getting their jollies from it...

Sigh...

You know, if there was one place where you would think people could critically and skeptically examine the assumption first, it would be here at JREF...There is a camp wondering what happened. Fine. I haven't argued against anyone who has posted stuff about how this might have been necessary use of force.

We simply don't know. I'm all for examining the assumption first and I support the Police Chief - let investigations determine.

Those I have tried to argue against are quoted in my post above (in your words): Those who assume it happened, and are getting their jollies from it.

[shuize]

I'll second the post above that reminds everyone to think about the poor s.o.b. who had his car stolen. How often do victims ever get full compensation for damage to their vehicles? As pointed out above, tough sh*t for him if he needed that car for work. And fat chance trying to squeeze any money out of the criminal.

Once upon a time we used to hang horse thieves. Now we just sit around and feel bad for their modern day equivalents when the police knock them around a bit.

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by fishbob
You neanderthal. The cops have rules they are supposed to follow. It is not OK when cops break the rules. It is even worse when cops feel that it is OK to break the rules. What the punk did, or is suspected of doing, is irrelevant to the rules the cops are supposed to follow.Well cops are humans like you and me, they are not perfect and 98% of the time they do "follow the rules" under extremely stressful and dangerous circumstances. This one cop smacked a punk with his flashlight, wow, it's the end of the world as we know it. Had the punk not created the situation in the first place the cop would not have lost his cool. I still blame the punk and not the cop.

Originally posted by shuize
Once upon a time we used to hang horse thieves. Now we just sit around and feel bad for their modern day equivalents when the police knock them around a bit. My feelings exactly.

Originally posted by Bjorn
I see no arguments there about necessary force - just the primitive "yeah, hit him, that f***ing bastard!" Cops lay their lives on the line to protect me every single day and I appreciate it, punks don't. I could care less about a few physical hits when a punk steals a car, leads the cops on a chase then bails and has to be wrestled to the ground to finally stop the little piece of crap. Had you been t-boned at the intersection by this punk and you or you or a friend been severely injured by his recklessness I don't think you would be so upset that the mean old nazi policeman smacked him in the head a couple times.

[Mr. Skinny]

Originally posted by Hand Bent Spoon
I saw it live. It looked a lot worse than it actually was. The fact is, the man has no injuries as a result of this so-called 'beating'.

Where's the outrage this man stole a car? Where's the outrage he endangered many lives by leading the police on this car chase?
Well said.

I tried to point out in a previous post that the use of force in this instance may have been entirely reasonable. I'm willing to wait for the results of any investigation that might be conducted, however.

I'm suprised to see the reactions from people in this thread. Can't anyone wait for the facts to surface before shouting either "shoot the perp" or "hang the cop"? Sheesh.


And what police academy did you armchair police sargeants attend in order to differentiate allowable force and unnecessary force?
Ohio Peace Officer's Training Academy, 1983

[mjv]

Wow.

This is truly disturbing. I cannot believe some of the idiotic knee jerk posts on this thread.

Its real simple people. We give policemen special authority to use necessary and possibly deadly force to subdue a suspect. Because we give them this substantial authority, we also hold them to a very high standard in how and when they can use this authority.

No reasonable person can look at that video without coming to the conclusion that those officer’s actions need to be extensively reviewed.

The suspect appears to have surrendered and dropped to the ground, several officers seemed to be in the process of cuffing him when the policeman with the flashlight began kicking him in the head and beating him with the flashlight.

What the suspect did or did not do prior to the arrest has nothing to do with how the police responded. If a policeman cannot control himself enough to not beat on someone when they appear to be surrendering and reasonably under the control of other officers, then he has no business being a policeman.

[Virgil]

well if mr. bush's lawyers say he can beat prisoners....maybe the LAPD's lawyers said the police can beat suspects...


Virgil

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by mjv

No reasonable person can look at that video without coming to the conclusion that those officer’s actions need to be extensively reviewed.
The suspect appears to have surrendered and dropped to the ground, several officers seemed to be in the process of cuffing him when the policeman with the flashlight began kicking him in the head and beating him with the flashlight.
What the suspect did or did not do prior to the arrest has nothing to do with how the police responded. If a policeman cannot control himself enough to not beat on someone when they appear to be surrendering and reasonably under the control of other officers, then he has no business being a policeman.

You know, in the legal arena, 'a reasonable person' is defined as a person having the same knowledge that these officers had.

There is no requirement that if a suspect "appears to be surrendering" or 'seems to be under the control of other officers when viewed on a video' that the police are forbidden to use more force.

'Surrender' is a term taken from Hollywood war movies, and it has no place in the law enforcement lexicon.

The objective that justifies use of force is ***safety***...safety of the officers, of bystanders, and even of the suspect.
That is why police are authorized to keep striking and even kicking a subject until the subject COMPLIES, not until they 'appear' to have surrendered.

(On the off chance that someone doesn't 'get it' suspects are perfectly capable of raising their hands and yelling 'I surrender', or 'Don't shoot Gmen' while continuing to resist, go for weapons, destroy evidence, or what have you).

So until a suspect is in restraints (and even is cuffs, there are recorded instances of officers being killed and hurt) any comments that this was deliberate and illegal police brutality need to be backed up with some facts.

You know, facts? The same things that never turned up to susbtantiate the baselesss claims in the last over-dramatized media frenzy over a legitimate arrest?

[Bottle or the Gun]

Sorry....seen too many families wrecked, lives screwed because of some thoughtless a$$holeoid stealing a car, breaking into a house, etc etc. I predict that this criminal trash will just be up to his old tricks like all the others in similar situations, except now he has a get out of jail free card for life.

It's funny how these guys sometimes get a big settlement from the city, or know they will soon be getting a big payoff but still feel the need to rob liquor stores, buy drugs or stab a pregnant woman with a screwdriver after raping her.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Bottle or the Gun
Sorry....seen too many families wrecked, lives screwed because of some thoughtless a$$holeoid stealing a car, breaking into a house, etc etc. I predict that this criminal trash will just be up to his old tricks like all the others in similar situations, except now he has a get out of jail free card for life.

It's funny how these guys sometimes get a big settlement from the city, or know they will soon be getting a big payoff but still feel the need to rob liquor stores, buy drugs or stab a pregnant woman with a screwdriver after raping her. What an army of strawmen.

I understand you stand by your original comment?

Screw him. And when he gets out of jail, beat him again.

[Mr. Skinny]

Originally posted by mjv
Wow.

This is truly disturbing. I cannot believe some of the idiotic knee jerk posts on this thread.

Its real simple people. We give policemen special authority to use necessary and possibly deadly force to subdue a suspect. Because we give them this substantial authority, we also hold them to a very high standard in how and when they can use this authority.

No reasonable person can look at that video without coming to the conclusion that those officer’s actions need to be extensively reviewed.

The suspect appears to have surrendered and dropped to the ground, several officers seemed to be in the process of cuffing him when the policeman with the flashlight began kicking him in the head and beating him with the flashlight.
I'm sort of OK with what you say to this point, assuming the "no reasonable person" definition doesn't include most cops I think most ordinary citizens would want a review/investigation.

I don't recall any kicks to the head, but I'll go review the video.

What the suspect did or did not do prior to the arrest has nothing to do with how the police responded. If a policeman cannot control himself enough to not beat on someone when they appear to be surrendering and reasonably under the control of other officers, then he has no business being a policeman.
I disagree with you here. What the suspect does prior to arrest has a LOT to do with how the cops respond. Fleeing and eluding, and endangering other people are likely to elicit a response from police that is not forgiving. The police will attempt to protect the public safety, and themselves, in the most efficient mannner.

It's not a matter of the police officer controling himself, it's more a matter of the officer taking decisive control of the situation until the suspect is cuffed and there is no longer any danger.

[mjv]

Originally posted by crimresearch

So the assumption exists that the police were administering an illegal and excessive beat-down in 2 camps, those who assume it happened and are appalled by it, and those who assume it happened, and are getting their jollies from it...

Sigh...

You know, if there was one place where you would think people could critically and skeptically examine the assumption first, it would be here at JREF...


but NOOOO...nothing like that going on here.



...any comments that this was deliberate and illegal police brutality need to be backed up with some facts.

You know, facts? The same things that never turned up to susbtantiate the baselesss claims in the last over-dramatized media frenzy over a legitimate arrest?

So let me get this straight, everyone who is concerned by an apparent excessive use of force is wrong because there was no excessive force used. Perhaps you have a different video than the rest of us have seen, or perhaps you are just psychic and used those “facts” to come to your conclusion.

We require policemen to be held to a higher standard than others because we authorize them to use deadly force, but that is why after an incident such as this, we require an investigation. It may or may not be excessive force, but any implication on your part that this was not excessive force is not a statement of fact, it is simply your opinion.

[gnome]

Originally posted by mjv
We require policemen to be held to a higher standard than others because we authorize them to use deadly force, but that is why after an incident such as this, we require an investigation. It may or may not be excessive force, but any implication on your part that this was not excessive force is not a statement of fact, it is simply your opinion.

I agree with this. Perhaps it was not excessive force--but it is worthy of investigation. As with any other, the policeman can be legally assumed innocent until and unless it is proven they broke the law.

[TAILGUNNER]

Originally posted by gnome


I agree with this. Perhaps it was not excessive force--but it is worthy of investigation. As with any other, the policeman can be legally assumed innocent until and unless it is proven they broke the law.

This gets better every time i log in and look at it

so to sum up, thug breaks the law creates yet another statistic and victim uses typical criminal logic "i cant escape the police in a car so i'll do a runner" realises he's unfit and stands more chance of becoming citizen of the year than getting away from the law, policemen rightly put the man down and restrained him using what force they consider correct

And you want an investigation!!!?

so on top of the usual costs involved in manpower and actually taking this 'innocent' man to court you now wish to waste more money and manpower in case the police were slightly according to your standards too rough in slapping the scum

why not burn some more money by having a second investigation into the first to ensure nobody who took part was of a sadistic police groupie nature, that way your poor perp is fairly certain of justice for his needless injured pride

or ,and its just a suggestion instead of wasting funds and time on the protection of scum that break the law we use the cash and time your going to waste to help the victims of crime and just leave the police alone to actually do their job instead of burdening them by having to account for every action they take to an investigation team
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh and on the issue of standards that have been raised on this topic i take it those that have suggested police should be raised to certain standard and its an expected level, understand that at the end of the day they are there to catch criminals while protecting the innocent and themselves

And in this specific case thats just what they did

Would you have prefered it if the criminal had got away, or worse still injured or killed one of the cops, i'm hoping nobody answers that in the criminals favour

And while i appreciate just how easy it is to sit back in saftey and criticize try and remember the next time your cars stolen or your neighbours mown down by a thug in a stolen car just what crud the police have to deal with on a daily basis hopefully their standards wont let you down when you need them to save you from the type of scum your defending

[crimresearch]

"So let me get this straight, everyone who is concerned by an apparent excessive use of force is wrong because there was no excessive force used. Perhaps you have a different video than the rest of us have seen, or perhaps you are just psychic and used those “facts” to come to your conclusion."

Ahh, the twisted logic of the keyboard commando.

I ask you for your facts to support the assertion that this was an illegal 'beating', and of course, you don't have a single fact.

You have wild assertions, you have veiled references to *your* police expertise, ( you of course are the reasonable person, i.e. one with the same level of training and knowledge as those officers) and you have outrage that anyone would dare ask to question the evidence...but facts?

How dare we try to confuse you with the facts...
:rolleyes:

Don't worry I'll try not to make that mistake again

[Whoracle]

The beatings will continue until morale improves.

[zenith-nadir]

Some statistics (http://www2.chass.ncsu.edu/avery/class16/class16.htm).
A study by the ACLU reported that from 1993-1995 there were 5,776 chases in Los Angeles in which 47 persons were killed (1% of collisions); and 363 officers, 1240 suspects, and 314 third parties were injured. (33% of 1917 chases resulted in injury.)
Nationally, statistics show that from 5,000 pursuits reported, 1716 (33.6%) ended in collision . Of these collisions, the offender's vehicle alone was involved (45.8% of the time, police involved 27.6% of the time, and innocent third parties 30.6% of the time).But god forbid you crack a punk over the head with a flashlight, now that's the real crime... :rolleyes:

[Bottle or the Gun]

Originally posted by Bjorn
What an army of strawmen.

I understand you stand by your original comment?



Yep. And when i say I've seen what happens to victims, I'm speaking from a position of first hand knowledge. I had a different job once. Oh yeah, the statement I made about people with payoffs still acting like trash: One was Rodney and the other was and the other was that guy Goetz shot in the subway when he was being robbed at screwdriver-point.

The ones that whine have usually been 'harrassed' right? It wasn't your fault you were speeding while sucking a bong. It was THE MAN out to get you.

The funny thing is I'm incredibly anti-authority, but I also believe in personal responsibility, something most people are not familiar with. You don't need a bunch of fascists beating heads if most people didn't act like a$$holeoids all the time. Steal a car, go to jail. Beat someone for no reason, go to jail. Take drugs, go to jail.

[billydkid]

Originally posted by Rob Lister


It's easy to get caught up in this. We don't want the cops to beat the hell out of someone.

This person has not been tried for any crime so we presume him innocent until such time as a jury finds him guilty.

Why not apply the same standard to the cops?

The question is whether or not the police will be charged with a crime and mpy whether or not we are prejudging them guilty.

[mjv]

How dare we try to confuse you with the facts...

Don't worry I'll try not to make that mistake again

Okay, last post, because I’m tired of this, but your response is just ridiculous.

What facts are you talking about? You have not presented any facts, only your opinion.

I ask you for your facts to support the assertion that this was an illegal 'beating', and of course, you don't have a single fact.

I never asserted it was an “illegal beating”, so no, I didn’t feel the need defend that position. And no, I am not going to take the bait and get into a little high school debate with you over semantics.

You have wild assertions, you have veiled references to *your* police expertise, ( you of course are the reasonable person, i.e. one with the same level of training and knowledge as those officers) and you have outrage that anyone would dare ask to question the evidence...but facts?

Sorry, but I have made no wild assertions; I’ve simply said this bears looking into. A wild assertion would be, oh I don’t know, maybe assuming you have psychic knowledge of what actually happened and declaring for a fact that the use of force was not excessive.

And I have made no veiled references to “my” police expertise; because I don’t need to. A reasonable person need not have the exact same level of training and knowledge as the police to be able to see that that situation needs to be investigated.

You want facts? The fact is that the LAPD is in fact investigating the incident, so it would appear they agree with me.

Maybe they are just confused too, I bet you could send them one of your emails to set them straight.

[crimresearch]

"What facts are you talking about? You have not presented any facts, only your opinion."

My expressed opinions are about the ability of this video rto eally show what happened...I haven't expressed any opinions about this case, but your false claim that I have, does in fact confirm my opinion about your honesty.

I have repeatedly **asked** where the participants in this thread are getting facts that back up the use of words like 'beating', 'kicked in the head', and 'brutality' with regards to this incident, and no one has come up with any, including you.

What you have come up with has been regurgitated straight from the glass teat, and those of us who are skeptics spit that out a long time ago.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"And I have made no veiled references to “my” police expertise; because I don’t need to. A reasonable person need not have the exact same level of training and knowledge as the police to be able to see that that situation needs to be investigated."

Ah, so when you use the term 'reasonable person' in a legal/criminal justice/ law enforcement discussion AND claim that term allows one to know what that video shows re use of force , you actually redefined it to mean something that only you knew about, instead of sticking to the standard meaning?
Nope, no high school semantic games being played by you, nosirreebob...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"You want facts? The fact is that the LAPD is in fact investigating the incident, so it would appear they agree with me.
Maybe they are just confused too, I bet you could send them one of your emails to set them straight"

The fact that there is an routine investigation means that the LAPD agrees with you that this a beating instead of a standard arrest???
Oh, that is a good one.

And BTW, feel free to send the LAPD any emails you like...or you could save yourself further embarrassment by actually looking at the use of force standards for LAPD, reviewing pertinent case law on the matter, attending various levels of police use of force training to see what is being taught, actually graduate from a police academy, join professional organizations like ASLET, research the medical and legal implications of various LE tactics, get certified as an expert witness or consultant in this area, and otherwise becoming knowledgable before you shoot off your mouth....
...or not, your choice.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Bjorn

I understand you stand by your original comment:

Screw him. And when he gets out of jail, beat him again.Originally posted by Bottle or the Gun

Yep. ..... Steal a car, go to jail. Beat someone for no reason, go to jail. Take drugs, go to jail.The irony.

[Bottle or the Gun]

There's no irony. He got beat because he stole a car. Wait until yours is stolen.

[Tmy]

So police brutality depends on whether or not the perp is guilty of a crime?

[Bottle or the Gun]

You steal my car, better hope the cops beat you before I do.

[Tmy]

And if a cop mistakes you for a criminal and smacks you across the head be sure to say "thank you sir, may i have another."

[Bikewer]

I'm a police officer of 30+ years experience. I have been in these situations, and I have seen necessary force and unneccesary force.
My single viewing of the tape leads me to believe that this incident is in the latter category.

If the guy is down, with what, 4 other officers on him, he does not need to be whacked in the head with a flashlight.

Generally speaking, blows to the head are prohibited in all circumstances except when deadly force is required. That's according to Use-Of-Force policies in all departments with which I'm familiar. These large "tactical" flashlights are a poor impact weapon at any rate. large in diameter and heavy, they are more likely to cause severe injury than "compliance".

I hate to see this sort of thing in general, as it gives all of us in the "biz" a bad name. One video like this can undo years of good work. And LA.... Jeez, you'd have thought they'd have learned by now.

And all the posted comments to the effect that the jerk "got what he deserved".... That's not for the officers to decide, gentlemen. We are supposed to be professionals. The courts in this country are for exacting justice, not the cop on the street. After all, we are occassionally wrong.

[Tmy]

Last I heard the cop said that he thought the perp "had a gun". Sounds like BS to me. If he thought he had a gun why would he wack him with a flashlight? Wouldnt the cops all have guns drawn??


Incidents like this do all sorts of damage. Perp will probably sue the city, the public gets all bent, another black mark on the LAPD, and future runners are less likely to surrender thinking that you catch a beating either way.

[gnome]

Originally posted by TAILGUNNER
And you want an investigation!!!?

So what would it take to warrant one? Or are the police immune, if you had your way?

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Bottle or the Gun
There's no irony. He got beat because he stole a car. Wait until yours is stolen. First of all, beating is not one of the legal options in punishing car-thieves. The irony, however, was that you say in one post:

And when he gets out of jail, beat him again.And then in the next:

Beat someone for no reason, go to jail.If you don't see it, don't bother answering.

[mjv]

Enough with the “debate club” crap already!

My expressed opinions are about the ability of this video rto eally show what happened...I haven't expressed any opinions about this case, but your false claim that I have, does in fact confirm my opinion about your honesty.

Since I do not know you and you certainly do not know me, I do not care in the least what your opinion is on my honesty. Or increasingly, on anything.

You have repeatedly argued against me for stating that a reasonable person can look at the tape and see that this incident should be investigated. You are by default taking the contrary position that nothing at all is wrong with what we see in the video and there should be no investigation. I have repeatedly asked you for evidence for taking that position and yet you reply only with more first year debate club semantics games.

I have repeatedly **asked** where the participants in this thread are getting facts that back up the use of words like 'beating', 'kicked in the head', and 'brutality' with regards to this incident, and no one has come up with any, including you.

Try watching the video, Mr. Criminologist…the policeman appears to kick him in the head and then beat him with a flashlight.

Then look in a dictionary.

Main Entry: beat
Function: verb
1 : to strike repeatedly: a : to hit repeatedly so as to inflict pain -- often used with up…c : to strike directly against forcefully and repeatedly : dash against
2 a : to drive or force by blows

Ah, so when you use the term 'reasonable person' in a legal/criminal justice/ law enforcement discussion AND claim that term allows one to know what that video shows re use of force , you actually redefined it to mean something that only you knew about, instead of sticking to the standard meaning?
Nope, no high school semantic games being played by you, nosirreebob...

Main Entry: rea·son·able
Function: adjective
1 a : being in accordance with reason b : not extreme or excessive
2 a : having the faculty of reason b : possessing sound judgment

Either you are woefully ignorant of the “standard meaning” of reasonable as it is used in “a reasonable person” or you are again resorting to pathetic debate club tricks to somehow “win” this argument.

The fact that there is an routine investigation means that the LAPD agrees with you that this a beating instead of a standard arrest???
Oh, that is a good one.

I never said this was “a beating” in the sense you are using it, what I said was that in the video the officer appears to be “beating him with a flashlight” (see definition above).

I’ll say it again since you appear to be a bit slow to grasp it; the police are given special authority and are therefore held to a higher standard. In a case such as this where a reasonable person viewing the video would have reason to be concerned about it, there should be an investigation. The LAPD agrees with me in that they have automatic procedures to require the review of cases where officers use force to determine whether that use of force was excessive. If you still don’t get it, I’m afraid I can’t help you.

And BTW, feel free to send the LAPD any emails you like...or you could save yourself further embarrassment by actually looking at the use of force standards for LAPD, reviewing pertinent case law on the matter, attending various levels of police use of force training to see what is being taught, actually graduate from a police academy, join professional organizations like ASLET, research the medical and legal implications of various LE tactics, get certified as an expert witness or consultant in this area, and otherwise becoming knowledgable before you shoot off your mouth....
...or not, your choice.

Wow, you must have really been into debate club. I bet you still have all your ribbons; don’t you?

Very impressive use of the lingo though, makes you sound real important.
Yes I could take all of those courses and do all of those things, but I doubt they would change the content of the videotape. And until there is anything other than the videotape, there is really no evidence to make a claim one way or the other. That’s why an investigation is necessary.

Anyway, I am tired of this, so respond if you want or not, your choice. No offense (well, not much anyway), but I really don’t care about your opinions on this issue anymore.

[Bottle or the Gun]

Originally posted by Tmy
Last I heard the cop said that he thought the perp "had a gun". Sounds like BS to me. If he thought he had a gun why would he wack him with a flashlight? Wouldnt the cops all have guns drawn??


Incidents like this do all sorts of damage. Perp will probably sue the city, the public gets all bent, another black mark on the LAPD, and future runners are less likely to surrender thinking that you catch a beating either way.

Cops had a choice then: Shoot and kill him, or hit him? I hope most, since they had already grabbed him, would go for the hitting.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Bottle or the Gun


Cops had a choice then: Shoot and kill him, or hit him? I hope most, since they had already grabbed him, would go for the hitting.

OR they couldve just grabbed him and handcuffed him. Which is what the other cops were doing when Officer BamBam put in his 2 cents.

[Bottle or the Gun]

Originally posted by Bjorn
First of all, beating is not one of the legal options in punishing car-thieves. The irony, however, was that you say in one post:

And then in the next:

If you don't see it, don't bother answering.

I see it. You don't. Steal a car, get your ass kicked. This was Piece Of Crap vs Cop. Not Surprised Innocent Guy vs Other Guy Who Threw A Punch.

Who said this was punishment? He wasn't punished. He wasn't sentenced or convicted. He was apprehended after a high speed car chase and treated as if armed and dangerous. Would he have gotten beat if he stayed home and watched tv that night? Uh, no.

You get hurt in the commission of a crime, tough. Maybe shouldn't have stole a car. Now, if he was beaten when he was innocently minding his own business, owned or had permission to use someone else' car, then fry the cops.

There are ads on tv in California that tell people not to pull over for unmarked cars, not to pull over in deserted areas, but instead drive to a public area where there are people, especially for women drivers. But they said drive, not flee at 100 mph for a half hour on a highway.

I tell my wife the same thing. Slow down, but get to a gas station or mall. Don't stop on an abandoned forest road. If the cop gets pissed because you didn't pull over for another half mile, take the ticket and fight it in court. Use their tv spots in your defense. If you get beat, then its a payday. 3 million can buy a lot of bandages.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Bottle or the Gun


You get hurt in the commission of a crime, tough. Maybe shouldn't have stole a car. Now, if he was beaten when he was innocently minding his own business, owned or had permission to use someone else' car, then fry the cops.

.

I must admit. The thought of Enron officals getting pistol whipped when be lead out in handcuffs does make me laugh. Why save all the beatings for petty crimes?

[gnome]

Originally posted by Bottle or the Gun
I see it. You don't. Steal a car, get your ass kicked. This was Piece Of Crap vs Cop. Not Surprised Innocent Guy vs Other Guy Who Threw A Punch.

Who said this was punishment? He wasn't punished. He wasn't sentenced or convicted. He was apprehended after a high speed car chase and treated as if armed and dangerous. Would he have gotten beat if he stayed home and watched tv that night? Uh, no.

You get hurt in the commission of a crime, tough. Maybe shouldn't have stole a car. Now, if he was beaten when he was innocently minding his own business, owned or had permission to use someone else' car, then fry the cops.

There are ads on tv in California that tell people not to pull over for unmarked cars, not to pull over in deserted areas, but instead drive to a public area where there are people, especially for women drivers. But they said drive, not flee at 100 mph for a half hour on a highway.

I tell my wife the same thing. Slow down, but get to a gas station or mall. Don't stop on an abandoned forest road. If the cop gets pissed because you didn't pull over for another half mile, take the ticket and fight it in court. Use their tv spots in your defense. If you get beat, then its a payday. 3 million can buy a lot of bandages.

Ok... we get it... don't run from the cops.

You still have not faced the main issue... do the cops have the RIGHT to beat on people that were resisting, but have stopped? Currently, they do not. One would have to write a new law that allowed it... if you wrote the law, how would you write it?

[Bottle or the Gun]

I have no idea how I would write a law that way. Who could advocate still hitting someone who was under control? Resisting is not a reason to be hit. Fighting or possibly being a danger to others is.

Once you are aprehended, your safety is the responsibility and duty of the police. He may still have been resisting, trying to fight or stand, even when held. But no, cops should not hit someone after they are under control. But was he? There is a point when the hitting needed to stop, but did they exceed that point?

You ever try to hold someone down when they really don't want to be held? Cops and medical personnel know what this is like. In one second you are securely holding an arm and the next your head is cracked. It's easy to judge they were out of control until you are the one who may not go home that night when wrestling with a scared, irate or altered person.

And being handcuffed means nothing, it just means your hands are behind your back. One of the most dangerous things an officer will do is handcuff someone. I had one guy snap my cuffs (they were metal-fatigued and defective) and swing at me. My back up and I were paying attention and controlled him without injury to anyone.

Still, he's a criminal. A parasite. A predator. Don't care if he gets hurt while he was plying his trade. He directly, through his own actions, contributed to the result. That's the biz, sweetheart.

I'm not being flippant. I don't know, maybe some people look at it like there is 'good crime' and 'bad crime'? A bad crime would be someone hit by drunken driver? Good crime would be two drug dealers shooting each other?

Any controversy is because of the emotional quotient, I expect. Those who don't care that the guy got beat feel that way because maybe they have no empathy for a criminal. It isn't like bad things happened to good children. I reserve my caring for his family and the victim. A valid point, I think. And on the other side are those who think he should not have been manhandled because he is a human being, he has rights, he deserves to be treated like a person. Also valid.

Maybe if he respected others' rights as much as some are concerned about his right now, perhaps none of this would have happened.

[billydkid]

Originally posted by Bottle or the Gun
I have no idea how I would write a law that way. Who could advocate still hitting someone who was under control? Resisting is not a reason to be hit. Fighting or possibly being a danger to others is.

Once you are aprehended, your safety is the responsibility and duty of the police. He may still have been resisting, trying to fight or stand, even when held. But no, cops should not hit someone after they are under control. But was he? There is a point when the hitting needed to stop, but did they exceed that point?

You ever try to hold someone down when they really don't want to be held? Cops and medical personnel know what this is like. In one second you are securely holding an arm and the next your head is cracked. It's easy to judge they were out of control until you are the one who may not go home that night when wrestling with a scared, irate or altered person.

And being handcuffed means nothing, it just means your hands are behind your back. One of the most dangerous things an officer will do is handcuff someone. I had one guy snap my cuffs (they were metal-fatigued and defective) and swing at me. My back up and I were paying attention and controlled him without injury to anyone.

Still, he's a criminal. A parasite. A predator. Don't care if he gets hurt while he was plying his trade. He directly, through his own actions, contributed to the result. That's the biz, sweetheart.

I'm not being flippant. I don't know, maybe some people look at it like there is 'good crime' and 'bad crime'? A bad crime would be someone hit by drunken driver? Good crime would be two drug dealers shooting each other?

Any controversy is because of the emotional quotient, I expect. Those who don't care that the guy got beat feel that way because maybe they have no empathy for a criminal. It isn't like bad things happened to good children. I reserve my caring for his family and the victim. A valid point, I think. And on the other side are those who think he should not have been manhandled because he is a human being, he has rights, he deserves to be treated like a person. Also valid.

Maybe if he respected others' rights as much as some are concerned about his right now, perhaps none of this would have happened.

I am no fan of criminals, but your whole arguments hinges on whether or not the suspect "deserved it". What I am sure you must understand is that it is not policeman's job to make the judgement whether or not someone "deserves it". It is their job to apprehend suspects using the force necessary to protect themselves and bystanders. However you cut it anything beyond that is unlawful.

[gnome]

Originally posted by Bottle or the Gun
Once you are aprehended, your safety is the responsibility and duty of the police. He may still have been resisting, trying to fight or stand, even when held. But no, cops should not hit someone after they are under control. But was he? There is a point when the hitting needed to stop, but did they exceed that point?

If I don't quote all of your post, it's not because I didn't pay attention, but that I didn't find much to add in response. It's a reasonable point of view that you don't care much if a criminal gets hurt while committing a crime. As I've said, my issue is police power.

You say there is a point when the hitting needed to stop, but did they exceed that point? Maybe you can't tell from a videotape. But what is wrong with--when you have a formal complaint of excessive force--going through the usual process of investigation, followed by either charging the officer or clearing them?

Surely the videotape is evidence enough that the claim is not frivolous.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Bottle or the Gun
Now, if he was beaten when he was innocently minding his own business, owned or had permission to use someone else' car, then fry the cops.Beat someone for no reason, go to jail.I can only interpret from your different statements that it is legal to beat him when he gets out of jail.

And when he gets out of jail, beat him again.Or did you mean that those following your advice in the last quote should go to jail?

[Commonwealth Cousin]

Originally posted by Bikewer
I'm a police officer of 30+ years experience. I have been in these situations, and I have seen necessary force and unneccesary force.


When I lived in the UK I had a friend in the police force. He once mentioned to me that when he was not on cars but was with a number of other officers in the rear of a wagon and they received a call to attend a fight, they would wind themselves up on the way by stamping their feet on the floor and banging their fists on the sides. By the time they arrived on the scene, they were anything but composed and it usually resulted with those who caused the fight ending up the worst for wear.

Which begs me to ask the question - were you ever placed in a similiar situation?

[Bikewer]

Rather reminds me of the pre-game banging and bumping engaged in by pro football players.

No, never. We tend to work in one-man units in this area, seldom even having the luxury of two-man cars. Responding to a "fight in progress" or other such disturbance means every officer assigned has to get there as quickly as possible, usually running "code three".

Of course, there's nothing like a code-three run through heavy traffic to "wind you up".