New Years Police Brutality *CAUGHT Red Handed*

Let me start off by saying that I only read the first page of replies maybe half the first page, so I do not know if what I am going to say was already addressed or not.

I noticed a few things in the video. As one poster said, as citizens the best thing we can do is capture video of these types of instances. That is all we can do to protect ourselves. The problem with this however is that local laws are passing that are making it illegal to video tape officers (public servants) while they are on the job. This video really highlighted that point to me. Did anyone else notice the person video taping this on his cellphone was VERY VERY careful not to get caught doing so? You can see anytime the officer even looks like he is going to look in the direction of the camera, the operator pulls it down.

Now before anyone comes to bash me about how this cop was just doing his job, save it. The "suspect" was not a threat of any kind. Even when being beat, I saw no sign of aggression. He allowed himself to be pulled out of the car, he was flat on the ground while being beat. You saw no arms come up, no kicks, just the repeated swing of a blackjack. I have been hit and busted wide open with a blackjack and from experience I can tell you that it hurts. The lack of reaction I saw from the "suspect" tells me the guy was probably too drunk to do much more than cover up, if he even did that. As another poster said, there may come a day when bystanders have had enough and come to the defense of "suspects" like this guy. That is a scary, although very realistic possibility. The problem with this action however is that there is no shortage of idiots in the USA, as evidenced by the store owner/clerk who is currently defending the officer. In that guy's mind, the "suspect" deserved it because he was drunk. When did being drunk become a crime? Fact is, it has not, but there are plenty of idiots out there who will see it that way and keep defending officers like this.

It really is a sad state of affairs.

reply to post by groingrinder


Just because you post something in different colors does not make the statement true....

Please elaborate as to why the law enforcement we have now is not the one guaranteed under the constitution. Have you even read the constitution? Please cite an example from it where law enforcement is unconstitutional.

There is a form of civilian review in every police department in the United States. If an officer shoots someone, the incident goes before a grand jury to review the case. If it is justified, no indictment is issued. If the shooting is not justified, an indictment is handed down for murder.

If a citizen disagrees with something that happened, they can make a complaint to Internal Affairs. The incident will be investigated and whatever is found will be reviewed by the State's Attorneys office who will charge based on the findings. That is why anytime there is alleged wrongdoing an investigation ensues.

The reason it is not solely a citizen review board and the case is investigated by Internal Affairs is because of people who make knee jerk accusations such as yourself. You have no idea what its takes to do the job of a police officer. You have no idea of the state laws applying to the rules of a police officer. You have no idea of the policies of the police department. The people in Internal Affairs know what it is to be police and can apply this to their investigations.

The reason police who are accused of wrongdoing still get a paycheck is because everyone, including police, is entitled to due process. If officers were fired for every complaint against them without due process, many police officers would be fired over unsubstantiated, frivolous complaints.

No one likes bad cops. Not even good cops. What you are failing to understand is that even the good cops realize there are bad police. They hate them as much as you do. What you are also failing to understand is that these bad cops are the minority of police officers but get the most attention because this is the only side the news reports on. What you also fail to understand is that police officers MUST use force in certain situations because not every criminal wants to be arrested.

reply to post by MrWendal


Again, the video does not show what the suspect is doing on the ground. If you would have read past the first page you would have recognized this.

You make several large assumptions in your post. One assumption is that he was too drunk to do more than cover up. Well tell me what he was doing behind the wheel of a car? Another assumption is that the suspect is laying on the ground with his hands behind his back waiting to be arrested. You can not see in the video what he is doing.

The sad state of affairs is that you are willing to view a video like this, which only provides a small view of what was happening, and allow your emotions to make up the rest.

reply to post by areyouserious2010


Sorry, no assumptions made here. I would strongly suggest you go back and view the video a second time. First off, the man is pulled out of the car from the back seat, not behind the wheel. Listening to the audio the man's crime was telling the officer to shut up.

Secondly, you can see the man on the ground enough to get a sense of what he is doing. If you watch the video, shortly after the first strike with the blackjack, you can see the man's leg come up bent. Unless his knee is double jointed and can bend backwards, he is lying face down.

Third, the officer makes no defensive moves at all. There is no action taken by the officer to indicate that he was assaulted in any way. He is not shoved back, pushed, and it clearly does not appear that the man attempts to even kick at the officer. Again, watch the video closely, you see the man's foot and leg come into the frame, so unless he can bend in ways most people are unable to, he is face down.


ETA: upon further review it is possible that the man is lying on his back. It is tough to tell, but you can clearly see his foot come into the frame. No kicking motion, it just rises up by the door of the car. It begins after the second strike with the blackjack

Originally posted by Vizzle
reply to post by TKDRL

 

I take it you have never had some drunk jerkoff invade your personal space. I have. It is not an enjoyable experience. If he would have let go after the first 6 wacks with the baton, he would have never gotten the 7th... or the pepper spray for that matter.

Like I said I was a martial arts teacher for many years and studied so far for 30. I was also a bouncer for many years so here is MY OPINION again.

From his body language and or motions the cop was not defending and or in danger. He was irate, out of control and only attacking. As a bouncer I have had MANY drunks invade my space and fall at my feet grabbing my ankles and knees.

The officers stance and movements were not that of a person whose lower extremities were being restricted. In the one part you can tell his feet were spread and he dropped his body weight and center of gravity to deliver more power in his strikes. This is done in several steps, one being opening your stance to a shoulders width and bending you knees,

You can argue anyway you like but i base these statements on my EXPERT experience in martial arts body mechanics and kinesiology (study of skeletal and muscular motion and structure).

I said before if you resist a LAWFUL COMAND or try to use force against an officer then you get what you deserve 100%. I do not feel this was the case.

reply to post by MrWendal


I will agree with you that yes it does appear, upon closer inspection of the video, that he is being pulled from the back seat. The video does not show the events that lead up to this encounter and based on the other witnesses' testimony, his crime was tresspassing and disorderly conduct not just telling the officer to shut up.

You still can not see, clearly, what the guy is doing on the ground. Even after your analysis of the video it is still reasonably possible that the guy is grabbing the officer's ankles. The video simply does not show enough to be definitive proof that it was police brutality. Based on the witness testimony, the guy grabbed the officer's ankles warranting the use of the asp baton.

The fact that you are flip flopping with your determinations of whether he is lying on his back or stomach proves that the video simply is not clear enough to make a determination.

reply to post by areyouserious2010


How does one trespass while sitting in a car?