NEWS: American Citizen Tortured on American Soil by Navy Police

In a very disturbing account, a man named Glen Lewis was detained, assaulted, and abused by Navy Police after a bizarre chain of events led to his arrest. The gentleman was driving in his vehicle when another car passed him and threw something out their window at him. He gave chase, and followed the car to Mayport Navy Base. That's when he was arrested and detained by Navy Police. The car he was following got away, but he was handcuffed, choked, beaten, and gagged with duct tape. One brave Naval officer watching the event took pictures, and submitted them to his superiors. Lewis has brought suit against a number of police officers and Naval personnel.



I don't know what to say, honestly. Read the link, and post your comments, please. The man's story is distressing, very, very distressing. Photographic evidence backs up his claim. Words fail. Maybe someone else can pick up the ball for me, because I honestly don't know what to say.

I sincerely hope this all comes out at trial. I hope it spills all over the damn place so people see the stinking insides.

As though Abu Ghraib wasn't enough. Where does this all end?



[edit on 29-4-2005 by WyrdeOne]

Its a whole new world out there.. this is going to be the norm.. Get used to it.

Welcome to the New World Order...... fasten your seatbelts, it's going to be a scary ride and we do expect death and injuries.......

haha Jinx.. Sorry had to add that.

[edit on 4/29/2005 by ThichHeaded]

OK, this time I'm calling the first Titor!

Seriously, there's something very wrong in this country right now and it goes from the top all the way down.

Yeah..I guess I'm not shocked.

That, more than anything bothers the hell out of me.

Sad..just so sad.

I think you guys are going way overboard here, comparing what happened to this fellow to Abu Ghraib.

It's not like there are military waiting out there to pounce on and torture innocent civilians, for chrissakes..

There is very little detail in the story. Did this guy drive right past a stop point and onto the base? Was he drunk? Was he out of control, screamimg profanities?

Sounds like he went into uncontrollable road rage.

I for one won't pass judgement or jump to wild-assed conclusions before I see more facts about what happened.

There is very little detail in the story. Did this guy drive right past a stop point and onto the base? Was he drunk? Was he out of control, screamimg profanities?

Sounds like he went into uncontrollable road rage.

He says he was stopped just before the gate. The car he was chasing got inside, he was stopped before entering. He was tried for DUI and Reckless Driving, and found not guilty. They didn't do any tests to determine his BAL. He was screaming profanities, after he was taken into custody. He was angry because they wouldn't answer his questions or talk to him other than to say shut up.

He was angry because somebody threw something at his vehicle. Whatever was thrown did damage. He likely wanted to get the person's information and seek restitution.

I don't know if uncontrollable road rage is an adequate explanation. It sounds to me like a normal reaction. Somebody throws something at your vehicle and speeds away, what is the natural reaction? Follow them to get more information, or beat the hell out of them, depending on your personality. He tried to ask the arresting officers what was going on, and tried to tell them what happened, but they told him repeatedly to shut up, and took him inside the base into a jail cell.

This is all from the article. I thought it was pretty detailed.

Kudos to the victim for not going back to that gate with a loaded gun the day after he was released. That's all I can say.... well maybe kudos or maybe bad form- depends on how you look at it I guess.
The irrational part of me which I almost always supress before acting says that when something like this happens you've got to retaliate, and if it gets you shot at least you die standing. But my sane side says why not just stay calm, see the offenders stand before a court martial, and maybe sue if you've got any real damages.

In all seriousness though, I think it's about time that an angry mob lynched a few people, and the Squidies behind this would be among the candidates for such a thing in my mind. When a line is crossed the person who crossed it has to get knocked on his butt for it, or it will happen again.

And yeah, I know, scarcely a violence-related thread comes up where I don't say that somebody ought to be killed. What can I say. Violence has solved more problems than almost anything else, from the school yard to the UN, nobody really cares how you speak- but people tend to respect a big stick.

vagabond
But you've got to speak softly in order to wield a big stick effectively.

This guy screamed a lot, to hear him tell the story. (I would have been simmering myself)

In principle, I agree with you. Violence has solved every major conflict in history, and pacifism is a nifty idea that gets dusted off during peacetime. However, proactive violence leads to other problems, so I prefer reactive.

He was, unfortunately, at the mercy of law enforcement officers. That reduces his rights to a negative value. So he can't do anything physical without risking 20 years in the hole. Not a pleasant thought.

Honestly, this is one of those situations you have to strive to never find yourself in. Now, that being said, whadya do if you are there?

I would probably shut my mouth and glare menacingly until they let me go or killed me. I mean, surrounded by squids, behind the gate, what do you do?

The problem as I see it is also this: if he had left peacefully before encountering the police, and gone and filed a report, the perpetrators would never be apprehended. Now that he's taken a beating, there's a fair chance someone will be hung out to dry. In the end, he probably got a good result. So that begs the question, were his tactics effective?

I guess it depends on the outcome of the lawsuit.

vagabond
But you've got to speak softly in order to wield a big stick effectively.

I'm not so sure. People tend to get scared and try to run away when you run into a room suddenly screaming incoherently and swinging a baseball bat. So depending on your objective, terror may defeat reason. If you want information or cooperation, maybe not. If you just want to be left alone though it's 99.9% stick.

In principle, I agree with you. Violence has solved every major conflict in history, and pacifism is a nifty idea that gets dusted off during peacetime.

One way I've heard it very well put is this, "Pacifism is a nice idea, but it can get you killed."

However, proactive violence leads to other problems, so I prefer reactive.

Agreed, but a lynch mob is definately reactive, so I think we're pretty much on the same side here. I think that making a fuss with the guards was a mistake, but coming back the next day and shooting them might have worked out OK if he got the drop on them.

He was, unfortunately, at the mercy of law enforcement officers. That reduces his rights to a negative value. So he can't do anything physical without risking 20 years in the hole. Not a pleasant thought.

Yeah, again I think I would have tempered myself while I was in their clutches. Once I was free though, the little devil on my shoulder who is constantly trying to get me sent to prison would be telling me to take the gloves off start making people cry and die.
Just to keep this in the realm of reality (because I hate the way everyone talks a good fight online) I usually supress that devil. I like my computer, I like chinese food, and I don't mind the fact that it takes some effort to make a sit-down head call, if you get my drift. None of those three things are available in prison, which is where I would eventually end up if I listened to that devil.


His tactics may have been effective, but it depends heavily on what the officers at that base are like. I've seen both scenarios.
When I was in guard platoon at SOI I met a guy who just a couple weeks before I arrived had KO'd a captain with the butt of his rifle. The captain showed up drunk and was dicking with him while he was on guard- the guard gave him two warnings to step back, then butt-stroked him right in the chin. After the Batallion commander found in the guards favor at the NJP hearing not only did the Captain get slapped with charges but the Marine who decked him made lance corporal for it. Moral of that story- there are good people in the military who will do the right thing.
Then I had a buddy who got into it with one of his NCOs, also at SOI. The sergeant he fought with was drunk (apparently its an epidemic of sorts at the school of infantry). Two other NCOs who weren't even there came forward as witnesses to say my friend started it, and the duty roster somehow mysteriously changed to say that the sergeant had duty that night (which he didn't- he had come back after work, apparently just to screw with us and show off for some woman he had with him). The moral of that story is that sometimes things just seem to work out for the good ol' boys.

My guess is that unless this gets a lot of media attention, this guy played his cards all wrong. He should have stayed calm and just left, and come back later to avenge himself in a better planned way, which perhaps he could have gotten away with. He probably got his butt kicked for nothing. There's a lot to be said for speaking softly until you have time to go home and get your big stick- THEN you can scream.

This guy's lucky he only got tortured, I mean, these guys are in the Navy afterall.
They could have gone Village People on him. He should count his blessings.

Peace

[edit on 29-4-2005 by Dr Love]

The notion that violence solves problems is a huge misconception.

Why is that? Because violence solves a problem by creating yet another problem. Thus, violence solves really nothing.

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
The notion that violence solves problems is a huge misconception.

Why is that? Because violence solves a problem by creating yet another problem. Thus, violence solves really nothing.

I beg to differ. I've solved plenty of problems with violence. This coke addict named Bush from Texas (no relation to the president- I think) wanted to kick my teeth in because I didn't lie to cover his back on something. That was a real problem, because I'd already watched this guy take apart two guys stronger than myself in the two previous nights.
Now I could have gone the non violent route (and let him kick my teeth in) and that would have created more problems- others would have messed with me too then, and I probably would have gotten my butt kicked TWICE then.
So I used violence to solve the problem. And what do you know, I got in a lucky punch and made his left eye swell shut.
Not only did that not create any more problems for me, it actually won me a little favor with the other Marines.

In other cases violence does beget other problems, but often the problems are easier to deal with that the one that was solved by violence. Take the civil war for example. Yeah it created some great big problems- it cost a lot of money, it killed a lot of Americans, and afterwards some of the veterans went on to be major criminals. Horrible, definately not worth it, right sweat? It saved this nation from a crippling political division.


The idea that violence causes more problems than it solves relates chiefly to first strikes. If somebody calls me a name and I beat him silly, I'm creating more problems than I solve. That is a fairly rare scenario though. It does not apply to this discussion, because the victim was reacting to violence, not initiating it. An aggressor must be met with force. The success rate of every other alternative is insignificant when compared to the historical viability of meeting force with force.

American history 101:
British Monarchy- met with force and defeated.
Barbary Pirates- met with force and defeated.
Kaiser's Germany- met with force and defeated.
Hitler's Germany- met with force and defeated.
North Korea/China- met with force and stalemated.
Russia- deterred and economically defeated by threat of force.
Vietnam- met with indecisive force- not defeated.
Cuba- not met with force, Castro is the longest serving head of state currently in power because of it.
Iraq, 91- met with force and defeated.
Somalian warlords- met with temporary force- only temporarily subdued.
Libyan nuclear program- ended by THREAT of force.
Kim Jong Il- met with incentives and negotiations- now he's aiming nuclear missiles at us.

Gee, I think I see a pattern emerging. Ruthless force, or believable threat of force, gets results. Restricting force, and especially trying to be entirely peaceful, gets you no where at all.

Somehow I'm thinking there's a bit more to the story.

I'm betting the "victim" here entered secured US Gov't property at a high rate of speed, higher than acceptable.

Probably was not close behind the "perpetrator" he's chasing. Which means if this individual even existed, he was already thru the gate.

Some goomba goes speeding up to and through the checkpoint, screaming incoherently about someone throwing something at him. In the faces of anyone trying to settle him down.

Also willing to bet he was swinging punches, too.

Either that or another scenario:

This was a setup. The mentioned "hero" is in place to capture a planned "incident" on base.

A couple of suckers, 19 year old squids take the money, all they gotta do is throw a bottle or someting at cars until someone responds and chases them.

Cameraman just catches the bad parts while the agent provocateur does his best to aggravate the situation.

Media gets the show, the oil royalty-backed Jihad gets another cheap shot at the US military, and no one in America is the wiser.

This kind of story seems like it might have been handled a different way. Perhaps if the victim had witnessed who threw the bottle or whatever it was and written down the attacker's license plate number, he could turn that in. If the attacker wasn't charged immediately by the police, then maybe he could sue the owner of the tag for damages including court costs and any other costs involved. I'm not sure if this method would work but it might.

As far as this story goes, I hope the attackers were charged especially if they haven't been so far (I'm referring to those who threw the object at the truck). I believe someone should sue for evidence of cameras showing the id and tag of the vehicle that was being chased and identified by the defendent. Someone who is purposely attacking other people or their vehicles on a public road should be found and tried. I sure hope these people don't get away with their crime. It sounds like the beating by the military or police is already being investigated.

It's very understandable to be ticked off at someone who drives by and throws an object at you and/or your vehicle which damaged your vehicle and it was an attack on you or your personal vehicle.


[edit on 29-4-2005 by orionthehunter]

haha, I knew Titor's name would be mentioned. This isn't similar to waco at all; and to consider it to be so is disrespecting those who lost their lives in that tragic incident.

The thread title is very misleading. He wasn't tortured, just restrained. Probably excessive force, yes, but not torture.

I agree. The way this story turned out makes me think that the guy did not act rationally or calm when he approached the base.

He tried to ask the arresting officers what was going on, and tried to tell them what happened, but they told him repeatedly to shut up, and took him inside the base into a jail cell.

I somehow doubt that things happened as simply as this. I'd bet that there was speed, tires screeching, loud profanity and more coming from his car.

I have been on many military bases. I know that there are many ways to get your butt roughed up, as well as one sure way to have people listen to you.

Agreed, but a lynch mob is definately reactive, so I think we're pretty much on the same side here. I think that making a fuss with the guards was a mistake, but coming back the next day and shooting them might have worked out OK if he got the drop on them.

You're joking, right? Otherwise, if this is the way you react to situations, you've got a very short time left here, my friend. You may not have learned it yet, but one day you'll run into the guy that's gonna pop your head like a zit.

There are a couple of people inferring things not from the story.

The story was told by the gentleman in question, and was not discredited by the guards who are being charged. Their lawyer spoke for them, and made one comment, disputing only one element of the plaintiff's story (the bit about the duct tape being left on).

It sounds to me like people don't want to hear the truth.

If this was an outlandish lie, I imagine we would have heard exactly that from the defense attorney. Right?

No, what we heard was a minor inconsistency about the length of time the duct tape remained on the plaintiff's face.

This wasn't torture? He was detained against his will in a Naval police interogation room. He was choked, thrown to the ground, beaten, verbally abused, and had his mouth taped shut with duct tape. The picture looks like he's either really sleepy, or really beat down.

Maybe he was drunk and disorderly, but he wasn't convicted of that crime. He was charged with reckless driving, as JSO has inferred, but he was CLEARED of the charges. So he's not guilty of that crime. That's how this system works.

Apologists are incredibly resilient it appears. Smacked in the face with a serious case of abuse of power, and they get right back up to debate minutia and fly in the face of the accepted events. Reminds me a little of Rodney King, how some people were so sure of the side they supported from the begggining, there was no video, no testimony in the world that could shake them from their foundation.

Whatever floats your boat I suppose. But I have to keep mentioning that the story hasn't been contradicted by the defendants, there's photographic evidence, and the story is being backed up by a couple of Naval officers. But go ahead, choose the side of the abusive baby squids.