It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Man charged for covering head during police beating

page: 2
44
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


very good post. although i do not have the facts of what led up to the confrontation, i do know, that the behaviour shown by leo would not be tolerated from any other group of citizens, not matter what the circumstances..

why is this officer being treated any differently than any other citizen?? it's been a month, and no charges??

shouldn't this officer actually be held to a higher standard?? after all he is a trained peace officer.

from the miami police dept. web page, the chief of police mission statement, "the over 1,100 sworn members of our police force are relentlessly committed to ensuing that the citizens of miami are not deprived of their fundamental right to feel safe in their neighborhoods"


apparently, this does not include the right to feel safe from police brutatility in their neighborhoods.


now, it's apparent that we are all disgusted with this behaviour, but, are we going to spend our time just venting about it on web sites?? or, are we willing to actually attempt to correct the situation??

I highly recommend that if you would like to try and make a difference in this world, that you contact the miami police dept, civilian investigative panel @ 305-579-2444 or you could contact the miami police dept. @ 305-579-6111, and let them know how you feel.

if they recieve enough complaints, then they will have no choice but to act responsible.


a bit of advice, please make all complaints in a respectful manner, do not cuss, or threaten in any way.

also, remember, don't fight fire with fire, fight fire with water.


the link for the miami police dept. is: www.miami-police.org/


S&F for you.
edit on 26-11-2010 by ParkerCramer because: spelling




posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 





What happens if you don't agree with an officer and decide to nicely question him or oppose his reasoning, are you then resisting arrest without violence?


It is mainly for situations where a drunk guy decides he doesn't want to go to jail and yanks free. It is for situations like that. It isn't for situations where you ask a cop why you are being arrested. Now if you are beligerent and try jerking away from the cop, or walk away, then it is resisting without violence.

It really isn't a great law, but it helps diferetiate in court. It helps a DA or judge know what kind of criminal they are dealing with. They are much more likely to work with a non-violent resistor than a violent one. It is simply a way of classifying the nature of the crime.




What if he is beating you and you decide to cover your face because you want as little permanent damage as possible?


From a technical stand point it is. You are making it harder for the cops to cuff you. I disagree with using it in such a way though. I believe that if police officers step across the line in to abuse, citizens have a right to self protection. I do not believe in going along and then suing or filing a report. I believe if a police officer is going to far he has become a criminal. In that case you should have the same rights to stop his criminal activity that you have to stop any other criminal.

With the tasers and pepper spray that cops have at their disposal a beating is never necessary. There is a proper use of force continuim. It starts with physical presence, then goes to words, soft hands, hard hands, chemical (pepper spray), blunt object (flashlight, baton), then lethal force.

At no time is beating someone sensless acceptable. If presence and words don't work then use soft hands and restraining holds. If you must use "hard hands" and strike some one it should only be two or three times. It should be a strike intended to soften the criminal to encourage compliance.

A strike should never be intended to break bones or cause permanent damage unless absolutely nesecary. If the criminal has you trapped where you can not acces your pepper spray, taser, or gun, then a head but to the nose is understandable. As soon as feasible you should move on to pepper spray or taser though. If at anytime you believe there is an imminent threat to your life or the threat of grave and serious bodily injury you can escelate to the highest form of force you find necessary.

Hitting someone repeatedly in the face or head, to the point they feel the need to cover up for protection is not something any honest cop would condone. If it is at the point where that may be necessary it is time for the taser or pepper spray.

If a person is resisting without violence things probably should not progress past soft hands, or a single strike, 90% of the time. I think this charge shows that their actions were over the line. Judging solely by the proper use of force continuim.




If you don't want to be arrested, it should be your liberty to walk away and if the police feel that they have enough to arrest you, then they can follow.


What will make you eventualy stop and consent to the arrest? Do they need to leave, present their findings to a judge, get a warrant, then hope they can find you later?

I can see it now.

Well officer can you explain why you let the bank robber drive away?

Well, he said he didn't think he should be arrested. Since he was not violently resisting I had to let him drive away.

Can you imagine if they let the criminals decide when they should be arrested? How many people do you think would consent to being arrested? I don't think a single crack dealer, bank robber, or murderer would just say, "okay I agree to go along." The police have to have the power to force compliance on the spot. Other wise their authority equals up to a strong suggestion.




We should not be subject to the whim of police officers,


I agree completely and believe that in many places the police need a lot more oversight. However, I don't believe that people should be able to pick and chose when they are subject to the law. Police should enforce the laws in as fair a manner as possible with as little violence as possible.




The police are supposed to serve the public,


I agree completely. That is why I am considerring taking the required courses to become a police officer. I think we need good people that believe in freedom and serving their community to sign up. If the people complaining about cops become cops it will be easier to effect real change. It will be much easier to make the police respectable again if respectable men sign up for the job.




"Resisting arrest without violence", should not be a viable and valid charge in a so-called free-country.


I disagree. A man can resist a valid arrest without becoming violent. This charge tells the difference between him and the guy that decided to fight it out with six cops.

It has nothing to do with submitting to a police state. You can still question the officer. The DA can drop the charges, a judge can through out charges. You still have the right to defend yourself in court. The cops are not excercising ultimate authority in any way.



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


I was beaten by six police officers and charged with assault and then they lied in court,..I ha no say and was not allowed to speak a went to jail for 41 days,...that was 12 years ago.
They do what ever they want.
While I was hog tied with plastic zips they kicked and beat me and hit me repeatedly with flashlight and batons while they called me skin head.
I have lived in fear ever since,...and all for saying some cross things and calling a security guard a "renta-cop.
They really enjoyed themselves for about 5 minutes.
I know I will die if it ever happens again,..i cannot let someone touch me like that again.
I will have a reason to be charged next time.



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by MikeNice81
 



It is mainly for situations where a drunk guy decides he doesn't want to go to jail and yanks free. It is for situations like that. It isn't for situations where you ask a cop why you are being arrested. Now if you are beligerent and try jerking away from the cop, or walk away, then it is resisting without violence.


"The road to tyranny is paved with good intentions"

Unfortunately, we can't be so ambiguous with the rules, otherwise they will be taken advantage of. We can't exactly count on people to interpret things in a certain way. If we have learned anything through history, it's that. In fact, tyranny has almost always started out in such a way or with good intent. Power corrupts and that is just the sad truth of it. Thankfully (and unfortunately), we have a Constitution that is supposed to leave as little ambiguity as possible, however irrelevant it may now be and regardless of how people try to reinterpret it.

"The evil that is in the world almost always comes of ignorance, and good intentions may do as much harm as malevolence if they lack understanding." --Albert Camus

If we give the government an inch, it will almost always take a mile.

I like to look at tyranny as a constant. Tyranny will always be there, trying to thwart freedom and liberty. I liken it to river-water, with our Constitution being the dam and the town beneath it, in the valley being the public. If our dam is not maintained to complete standard or if there is even the smallest little crack, the water will eat or work it's way through, ultimately causing the dam to come crashing down and tyranny [or water] flooding the town [or public]. Over the years, people start to be complacent with the dam because for them, it has always been there and they just assume that it works. They then aren't as vigilant in the upkeep and they allow little cracks to form in the structure. After all, without upkeep and a strict adherence to standard, the pressure from the water will almost always force cracks, ultimately eating away at our dam.

Right now, we have so many cracks in our dam, that it is basically hemorrhaging water, though those cracks didn't appear out of thin air. Instead, they were created due to the enormous pressures of tyranny beating at its door. Sadly, our founding fathers built the dam for us and left us a clear and concise standard for easy upkeep of this dam [Constitution]. They even warned us about keeping to the exact letter and not veering even an inch from this standard, lest the water [tyranny] flood our town.

Many people like to blame this group or that politician but the truth is, if it wasn't for that group or this politician, then it would be some other group or politician, as tyranny will always exist and it will always create a pressure that threatens our freedoms and liberties. It is a constant.

Our founding fathers knew this and we can judge their intent for the Constitution from other founding documents, such as the Articles of Confederation, the Declaration of Independence and others writings, diaries, quotes and records. The Constitution is not supposed to be left up to interpretation and instead, it is meant to be taken quite literally, word for word. It also isn't a living breathing document either, like certain politicians and political groups like to suggest. In fact, this is the reason that the whole amendment process was included. If it was a living and breathing document, then there would be no purpose in the amendment process. If a guideline in our Constitution becomes outdated or irrelevant due to the changing times, then we have the amendment process to change it. When we allow a wide interpretation of our Constitution, then the whole thing becomes irrelevant and such a notion defeats the whole purpose of the document in the first place.

Why am I going into all of this? Well because our Constitution protects certain rights that have been determined to be handed to us by our creator. The powers not delegated to the federal government by our Constitution, are reserved to the States and the people. This means that if the Constitution doesn't specifically allow the government to do something, then it is up to the individual state and of that state Constitution doesn't allow something, then it is left to the people. It also prevents both the state and federal government, from impeding on our rights laid out in the "Bill of Rights".

We can't allow the authorities to trample all over us and hope that their intentions will remain good. It doesn't work that way. Everytime we give up a liberty, that is it, as we will never again get that liberty back, nor will our children or their children and worst of all, it jeapordizes the rest of our liberties. Each liberty that we lose, makes the whole structure less secure.

In closing, I'd like to leave these two quotes, both from our founding fathers and both indispensible.

"Whoever shall trade a little liberty for a little security, deserves neither and will lose both." --Ben Franklin

"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." --Thomas Paine






--airspoon



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 10:23 PM
link   
That's like dismembering (be creative) someone and expecting them not to scream in agony.
Or like inviting someone for a few beers and be surprised when you don't have any beers... maybe...



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 10:25 PM
link   
I never used to believe in the NWO but the system is F*C**D something needs to be done soon before we see this type of crap happening all around us they say we're free but we can't even defend ourselves, use freedom of speech.

Never Bow Down!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Pix
edit on 26-11-2010 by pixiekaram because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 10:36 PM
link   
i hope the police in the beating are held for thier crimes upon this man...



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 10:44 PM
link   
[Anyone recall the case of the guy who had his teeth smashed into the sidewalk?

Jury Acquits Denver Officer Who Broke Teeth of Man By Slamming His Head Into the Pavement

ex]It took a jury only two hours to acquit Denver Police officer Cpl. Michael Cordova of excessive force, even though a videotape (above) of his actions breaking the teeth of John Heaney caused public outrage. Cordova faced a charge of third-degree assault after he slammed Heaney's face into the pavement while Cordova served as a member on an undercover anti-scalping Vice unit. Cordova charged Heaney with assault on a police officer and criminal mischief until a video showed that the charges were false.

Heaney was on his way on his bike to visit his terminally-ill mother at a nursing home when he ran a red-light. Not knowing that the men were undercover detectives, he got into a verbal exchange with the detectives and says that he knocked the Colorado Rockies hat off the head of Cordova. It went from the mundane to the medieval at that point.

Three officers proceeded to pummel Heaney, causing facial, neck, and shoulder injuries. The video shows them throwing him to the ground and Cordova pulling his head back by his hair and slamming it into the cement breaking his teeth

www.puppetgov.com...

Nice huh?


edit on 26-11-2010 by zorgon because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 10:55 PM
link   
Here's his facebook page. Gilberto Matamoros

What does his profile picture look like to anyone? It looks like not only does he like to brawl. He's very well proud of it.

Before jumping to conclusions, we need to get the entire story. Not just his side and a few seconds off a video clip.

With all the scrutiny the police is being subjected to around the nation, does anyone really think that the police would want to jeoardize their jobs by subjecting themselves to actions that would likely destroy their careers?



edit on 26/11/10 by Intelearthling because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Intelearthling
Here's his fcebook page. Gilberto Matamoros

What does his profile picture look like to anyone? Before jumping to conclusions, we need to get the entire story. Not just his side and a few seconds off a video clip.



dont see what you are alluding too.

may i suggest to you not to jump to any conclusions. there is nothing nefarious about his facebook page.

please tell, what do you believe warrants being pounded in the face while 3 other officers hold you down, a bad facebook photo????

folks like you, uninformed and blindly believing what authority figures spew as gospel is why we are in the dire straits we are presently.



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 11:07 PM
link   
For those having problems seeing this...


I honestly don't get it. These pigs are there toi stop a fight or something, yet they are the ones being the most vicious and even that FAT POS at the end has to drag another person in as he's obviously not had his fill of beating people.

Jesus......

edit on 26/11/2010 by badw0lf because: double tags for youtube lol ?!



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 11:11 PM
link   
Gilberto Matamoros 21 who's mom is an illegal Alien and the police beat him hummmm. Sounds to me like he might have said something or done something to provoke the cops before the camera's started rolling thats why now he doesn't want attention. Its a shame story to try and make American's deal with the border being open like its our fault. Mexican lawyer ,mexican journalist, All guilt trip right before the big announcement some mexican guy just got caught with a ton of bombs in his house yet it isnt getting the press this is why?



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by pcrobotwolf
 


The camera was rolling for a good few minutes before they dragged him into the arena for a punching.

Did you even watch it?




posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 11:20 PM
link   
reply to post by ParkerCramer
 


Me jumping to conclusions?

I'm just pointing out that his facebook profile shows him being victorious in an apparent boxing match. Men in this sport tend to be more agressive than the profile his lawyer gave the media. The article itself said that he was in a brawl. He loves this kind of stuff and when he's under arrest he'll want to demonize the arresting officers for beating him down, something that I will tend to believe that he provoked and invited.

Like the OP said, IF this story is true.



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 11:30 PM
link   
Ah even if it was provoked, I think 3 or 4 knocks to the noggin would have been enough. What happened? Taser out of batteries? If the guy needed a lick or 2 fine, but come on who's gonna hold still while getting bashed? Squirming is not resisting.



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 11:40 PM
link   
reply to post by badw0lf
 

opps now i saw the whole thing i thought it was the first guy being arrested with the moron claiming he got that roddney king
edit on 27-11-2010 by pcrobotwolf because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 12:05 AM
link   
reply to post by pcrobotwolf
 


These people here don't listen to reason. They're quick to condemn. Maybe anarchy will be the best way to rid these people of their criticism.

The guy running his mouth while vidiotaping this incident would cower in fear if threatened. The ONLY reason he could run his mouth the way he did is because the police WAS psesent.

I agree with this post of yours as well as the previous one.

A star to both of them.



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 02:06 AM
link   
Anyone who excuses these cop's behaviour is insane.

There were 4 police officers. All they had to do was trip him, handcuff him and arrest him . . .
if he'd actually committed a crime.

Curious there is no charge other than resisting arrest.
Obviously they had no reason to arrest him in the first place.

As for judging the victim by a perfectly ordinary picture on facebook . . .





The question is, should we judge the integrity of the police by the lack of integrity of those who defend them here?
Or should we just judge them by their own actions?
edit on 27/11/10 by Kailassa because: still barfing



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 02:53 AM
link   
starred and flagged.


Originally posted by harrytuttle
Since when is receiving a beating considered "arrest"?

If they called it what it really was, then the picture becomes clear: Resisting a beating

If you want someone to keep their hands still so you can cuff them, then it probably isn't a good idea to be sucker punching them in the back of the head.

This is like pressing charges against someone for having involuntary reflexes: dehumanizing insanity.
edit on 26-11-2010 by harrytuttle because: (no reason given)


Exactly. People seem to be forgetting that police have no right to beat anyone, save receiving violence themselves. Now when I watched this video the man shown being turned into a pulp didn't seem to be violent with the two police officers that threw him to the ground initially or else you would've probably seen the other officers who were standing around come to help the officers who were being attacked. It seemed in this video they were just selecting random targets and beating / arresting them with their fellow cronies standing guard or literally participating with them. Needless to say this video made me bulls-eye red when seeing this.
Is it a little too much that I want to dress a punching bag and or shooting target as a cop?



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


That was a great post. Too bad it has nothing to do with the law in question. The law is not a violation of the constitution or civil rights. By living in a society you agree to live by the rules of that society. That means you agree to abide by the enforcement of said rules. So, if you resist those rules, or their enforcement, then you have to pay the consequences.

If you leave the enforcement up to the discretion of those violating the law, there is no enforcement. The rules become a suggestion and carry no weight, A murderer is no more guilty than a shop lifter unless he wants to be.

Yes tyrany is ever present and power does corrupt. That is why it is up to the citizen to work in checking the tyranny. Fighting tyranny does not mean lifting all rules. It means working with other citizens to counter the tyranical measures. In other words call the chief, call the mayor, adress the city council, work to set up a civilian oversight committee. Go out and record the police during arrest so that they know they are being held accountable.

If you really think the abuse is so out of control, become a cop. Better yet join the internal affairs division of the police department. Be the guy that holds other cops accountable for their actions.

Telling a cop you don't want to be arrested and walking away is not fighting tyranny.



new topics

top topics



 
44
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join