LA Police beating caught on tape (again).

[Bjorn]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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

[Mr. Skinny]

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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...


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

[Whoracle]

The beatings will continue until morale improves.

[zenith-nadir]

Some statistics.

Quote:

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.)

Quote:

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...

[Bottle or the Gun]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

Originally posted by Bjorn

I understand you stand by your original comment:

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

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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:

Quote:

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

And then in the next:

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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.