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: 3
44
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 10:32 AM
link   
To everybody saying the cop was in the wrong, show some evidence. All that was in the Raq Story report was one second of video. You have no idea what the guy did before that. He was admittedly part of an unruly crowd, and was pulled out of a brawl.

Plus all you see is the cop striking down. Of course the first time through it looks like another cop steps in to stop it. However, in subsequent replays the replay is cut short. We don't know the whole story and we don't have enough video to make a judgement. If somebody has the original You Tube video post it.

Before everybody decides to jump on my back, check out my previous posts about the police. You will see that I am not an apologist. I do believe they deserve the same consideration everyone else does.

Edit to add:

I watched the video posted in the thread. The cop struck the guy repeatedly. Another cop appeared to grab his arm, or attempted to. The camera swings around wildly and comes back to the police hand cuffing the guy with a zip tie. The guy pushes up and tries to run. He was then struck again and forced to the pavement.

It appears to me that the cop may have been excessive in the punches to start with. However, in a crowd like that mace or pepper spray is a danger to other officers and citizens. He could have used his taser, but it didn't appear that they were carrying tasers. This is a situation where we need to know more.

However, the guy did resist arrest when he pushed off the ground and tried to run away. That does not make the first set of blows acceptable, however it does lend credence to the need for a second series of punches. If the officer did not have a taser his options were limitted.

I think the cop is very likely guilty of excessive force. The suspect is also guilty of resisting arrest.


edit on 27-11-2010 by MikeNice81 because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 10:42 AM
link   
This is proof that we at all times need to be ready to stand witness against the hands of Evil. Protest events at present that truth may be spoken. Every cell seems to have a camera even short vid capability. Let use them people! Love thy neighbor! Protect the innocent! Help the needy where you are with what ever you have.



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 11:28 AM
link   
Ok, we're gonna tazer you ... STAND STILL!!

Not going to happen.

Not sure which is worse, pathetic cops doing their job badly, or the hastily constructed charges against a clearly innocent man.

It's built into the justice system, to do this. Protect your own, and charge with anything. To them it's just another day at work, to you it's your life being shaken up.



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 01:05 PM
link   
Homeland Security has re-trained America's police officers in Homeland Security's mindset. You can see their mindset acting out in the airports. Police officers are acting as if they are a military occupation force. We are all the potential domestic terrorists they must take out.

Get rid of the Patriot Act and Homeland Security. They were a careless over-reaction used by the government and playing on the 911 fear of the American people. There is such a thing as Islamic terrorists and they do what to hurt us. However, what we put in place in the US government (a kgb) is more terrorifing than the terrorists.



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 01:18 PM
link   
I remember when living in Iraq that it illegal for you to cover yourself if a cop was beating you. It wasn't a written rule but a stupid rule that if you don't comply with than no judge will hear your case and you stay in jail until they feel necessary.

These cops are starting to look more and more like them.



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 01:21 PM
link   
Not at all surprised that it happened in Miami, and I know somebody who got charged with resisting without violence and then another time with violence and both times he didn't do anything to the officer. Miami police are dirty and have been for a long time...



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Equinox99
I remember when living in Iraq that it illegal for you to cover yourself if a cop was beating you. It wasn't a written rule but a stupid rule that if you don't comply with than no judge will hear your case and you stay in jail until they feel necessary.

These cops are starting to look more and more like them.


Iraq is where most of the new recuits for local and state police got their "training". The returning vets are sought after as prime meat for the goons turned loose on society as "law enforcement officers" not "public servants" as they used to be ID'd.

Today everyone is considered a terrorist or criminal till proven different. Avoid police...all of them. They ARE NOT your "friend". They are almost all corrupt and ignorant goons..



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 01:47 PM
link   
My question is this. He claims he was doing "nothing wrong" but was "picked out of an unruly crowd".

He then claims he went from "unruly" to "passive" while being arrested?

I would say that when the police release video of the crowd in court there will be a second side to this story.

Not really defending police bully tactics here, just saying its very, very unusual for someone to go from being "unruly" to being "passive" when police arrest them.



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by MikeNice81
 


Well see, that's where you are wrong, as the Constitution protects our rights and the government can't legislate or pass laws in a manner that violates the Constitution. If they want to pass a law that violates the Constitution in its current, they must first amend it in a manner that permits said laws.

For instance, when the government prohibited alcohol in the early 20th century, they first had to amend the Constitution, thus the 18th Amendment was introduced. After the 18th Amendment was ratified, they then needed to pass a law, the Volstead Act (later amended with the Cullen-Harrison Act), in order to prohibit the alcohol accordingly.

The 18th Amendment didn't outlaw the sale or consumption of alcohol but instead, it gave the government the authority to outlaw it, which they did with the Volstead Act.

This was back in the days when the Constitution was at least semi abided by and the American public wouldn't tolerate the subversion of our charter and founding document.

You see, the Constitution limits the authority of the government and if the Constitution doesn't explicitly give the government authority to do something, then they can't, unless they add that authority into the Constitution, via the amendment process.

The 10th Amendment to the Constitution states:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

So, not only can the government not violate our rights laid out in the Constitution (particularly the first 10 amendments known as the Bill of Rights), but they also can't make stuff up as they go along, as they only have the authority that is explicitly delegated to them by the Constitution.

Now that is common-law, though common-sense would also dictate that a lot of our laws are not only bogus and anti-Constitutional, but also tyrannical in nature. If an action is considered a crime, yet doesn't produce a victim, then it is a crime in name only, or a political crime, as opposed to a real crime. If a victim is not produced by an action, then it shouldn't be considered a crime, as that is tantamount to force and is a crime in of itself, if enforced. We should not be able to initiate force against any other, as not one single one of us was born with any authority over any other. God (whatever and whoever you believe it/him to be) did not send any of us down here with any more rank than anyone else, thus it should be peoples' liberty to do what they please, so long as that action isn;t impeding on the liberties of anyone else.

This country was founded on the idea of liberty, yet liberty is hard to find when you can be persecuted for political crimes, or "crimes" that do not produce a victim. Yes, we do have laws, though those laws are supposed to be in accordance with the supreme law of the land, our Constitution and when they aren't, then they are invalid laws and the people should have the right to use whatever force necessary (even death) to stop the enforcement or block the initiation of that force.

Congress is not free to inact any laws they wish, as they absolutely must abide by the Constitution and if they feel that a law [which would violate the Constitution] needs to be passed for any reason at all, then they need to first amend the Constitution in a manner that would allow them to pass that law. However, these days that step is skipped and most likely because they know they wouldn't have the public support to amend the Constitution. However, sadly most Americans couldn't even list two single protections that are guarenteed by the Constitution, ultimately allowing Congress and the government to get away with what they are doing, for the time being.

By enforcing laws that violate the Constitution or our protections mandated under the Constitution, you are then committing a real crime, making the roles reversed as the real criminals are the ones enforcing the illegal laws (ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking the law).

We have gone from a nation based on the rule of law (ultimately the supreme law of the land), to a nation based on oppression and the enforcement of will. Nobody should have the right to enforce their will on others and the Constitution makes that notion the law.


--airspoon
edit on 27-11-2010 by airspoon because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


Wow. If I were to ever see this happen to anyone and knowing they didn't do a thing wrong... I'd would step in whatever way I could. Even if it means me getting beaten. This is SICK PEOPLE... When are we going to stand up and say ENOUGH IS ENOUGH AND WERE NOOOOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE. I hear rumors in my town... if they pick up someone they don't like or is trouble. They go to the inmates and say.. " Whoever beats the # out of this guy gets a pack of cigarettes" If thats not illegal idk what is. They should screen these psychopaths before they get a chance to "protect and serve". I'm sorry.. i'm a little more than ticked off this time... That could have been your friend or your son... What would you do if you saw your son getting beaten for something he didn't have a part of. And people wonder why our youth is so anarchistic....
edit on 27-11-2010 by vertedtwylight because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


So, you are saying that police are against the constitutuion? Are you saying laws against resisting arrest are unconstitutional? What is unconstitutional about this? Are you saying every law must be written in to the federal or state constitution? You keep rambling about tyranny and constitutional law, but you aren't being clear. If you address what specifically is unconstitutional about the law or this situation I will be happy to debate or conceed.

Edit to add:



If an action is considered a crime, yet doesn't produce a victim, then it is a crime in name only


So a rowdy and unruly crowd engaging in "brawl"s doesn't produce a victim? How about the disruptance ot traffic, commerece, or residents trying to peacefully sleep, does that not create victims.

Remember the old idea, your freedom stops where your neighbors nose begins. If they were being unruly and fighting or causing destruction they were creating victims. If he was not charged for such things then the system actually worked. He was arrested and released because he was not guilty.

However, the video does show him trying to run away after being handcuffed. He should thank the guy that posted it on You Tube. That guy is the reason he was charged with resisting arrest. It had nothing to do with him covering up. He tried to run after he was in custody. Would it be preferable that they change the charge to "flight?"
edit on 27-11-2010 by MikeNice81 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


Things aren't getting worse. In the old days (I was around because I'm OLD) there was much more arbitrary and for TPTB justice. It happens in small towns and on Islands. In 2005, in St Thomas, USVI (owned by the USA) I was assaulted in a courthouse by two court guards. The assault was setup by two crooked lawyers (one black, one Jewish). They arrested me, booked me, put me in jail.

The whole event was caught and reported by a Court Reporter who was there.

The Police and the Attorney General of the USVI -- even the FBI -- refused to investigate. The local paper wouldn't cover it.

An acute case of TPTB!! Russia, no, the good ole USA:



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 06:26 PM
link   
The behavior of those cops appears to be no different than that of lawless thugs. If I ever saw a cop beating a relative, friend, or acquaintance like that I would be on him before he knew what happened, come what may. Anyone who thinks this cop was justified in pummelling that young man in the head until he became unconscious has some serious soul searching to do. Their job is to protect and serve, not to take out their aggressions on the public.

Some criminals hide behind a badge and a uniform, yet are no less a criminal for their costume. The amazing thing is that the crowd just stood there and watched.

The other cops who were holding the young man down while being repeatedly punched in the head are no less culpable than the cop delivering the punches. When they see a fellow officer breaking the law and abusing a citizen their duty is to intervene, stop the assault, arrest, cuff, book, and prosecute the bad cop no differently than they would a non-cop.

These are the kind of cops who give law enforcement a bad name. Yet, how many cops do you hear criticizing their misconduct? We even have posters on this thread who practically applaud their behavior.
edit on 11/27/2010 by dubiousone because: Tone down the outrage



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 07:09 PM
link   
Aw,
This is one of those threads that can get you going down the wrong road in a hurry all built up with extra emotions and such.
Not ALL police are bad and beat people for no reason,
Not ALL police think they are above the law,

clearly though THIS policeman shouldnt be one.
I'll 'never' understand why 3/4/5 officers hovering around and holding down 1 person cant seem to 'police' themselves when one of them starts beating a person.
I've been saying it for awhile now, there needs to be MORE screening and testing for the position.



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


Sounds to me like the old cliche: Being in the wrong place at the wrong time." Yes, its very scary. Even if he is guilty of something, that doesn't give the "arresting authorities" the right to diperse justice in the street like that.



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 09:51 PM
link   
attempted kidnapping and assault

actions that sound s very unconstitutional,..




posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 09:56 PM
link   
Another good catch good eyes Airspoon. The sad part is that because of the unions these cops get away with doing things such as this. Even when they do get in trouble it is a far cry from the charges that would be pressed upon the average person. Just another example of how disgusting some people can be.



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by jaynkeel
 


i was under the impression that only thing unions do is look out for the common man so that he does not get screwed on his paycheck , health insurance etc etc things that a company can/has to provide for the workers ,

so im a bit confused as to how unions protect Leo´s from assault charges and such when it has more to do with conflicts between the company and its workers ?

as far as i know my old union wouldent do jack squatt if i did something unlawfull during my time in the card since it has nothing to do with the union ,



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by zerbot565
 


Rest assured because of their strong unions that when it comes to something of importance, they are taken care of. Especially cops or LEO's. Either that or there are just a lot of judges looking the other way when it comes to officers committing an offense weather on the clock or off. Here is a perfect example of what goes on, now if this was an average person - a. They wouldn't be getting paid leave, -b. They wouldn't be called back to work because of short staffing while on administrative leave, -c. They wouldn't get "special treatment" overall. Yes the officer that actually did the arrest did their job to the T, yet the one guilty gets treated differently than you or I in the same position. Which to my belief and many others is due to their "union support". Yes unions can do wonderful things for employees but they can also add to the darker side.

www.buffalonews.com...



new topics

top topics



 
44
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join