Man Attacks Cop Attempting Arrest of Other Suspect

This type of incident will happen more and more as the police become more militant in their tactics.
The only thing I see changing is people afraid to go to prison for standing up for another human beings rights.
So, being in fear they will remove any witness who might testify, ie the police.
Then these true patriots will be named domestic terrorists, Bizzarro land indeed.

Right or wrong

Stupid or Good Samaritan

None of this matters

What we should take from this is that the public is fed up with the Police state and the seams of the society are starting to come loose.

You reap what you sow.

yea def not a good idea.


Could've got real ugly ,


Best thing would've been to use the video in court if anything can stick, but probably not .


The guy attacking the officers lol , comes in like super man , But shouldn't have done it .


I've seen much worse events of police brutality where people should've stepped in.

This was not one of them.

Originally posted by Domo1
reply to post by BeforeTooLong

 

Sure he could have controlled himself but I ask you what you would do if a family member was at the hands of police brutality or maybe a child, person with a disability or an elderly person.

Yeah but this was a drunk driver dumb enough to hit a squad with his door. One who was obviously resisting. They weren't using excessive force. Feel free to call other posters idiots though.

It shouldn’t matter if it’s a serial killer of an elderly woman jay walking.. It’s about following the law and understanding the public’s constitutional rights in which everyone is to be treated equally regardless if you have a badge on or not.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
What was the guy being arrested for?
What occurred before the guy started recording the video?
Why are there 2 officers present?
Why was the guy on the ground resisting?

Before congratulating the moronic jackass who attacked the cops, it might be worthwhile to get ALL the info first. The moron is lucky he was only charged with assault.

just saying

I'll generally agree with you, to a degree. And i agree that a 30 second video is certainly NOT a reasonable representation of whatever led up to this incident, but:

A) the guy on the ground, as seen in this short video clip, was NOT resisting. I know that people like to claim resistance when 100% compliance and total submission is not given, both physically AND verbally, but that guy was not resisting (in those 30 seconds).

B) It really doesn't matter what happened "before" the arrest. Once subdued and no longer a true threat (which this guy appears to not be a true threat, even if he was yelling), his (or anyone's) previous actions do not justify the overreaction or unreasonable and escalated force used in a situation.

Hypothetical: "But he kicked a cop." That does not justify the cops beating the crap out of him when he is on the ground and under control. "But he shot a cop." You disarmed him, have him on the ground held by 5 big guys, you do not need to beat the living crap out of him, except to make you feel better.

Why two cops: Well, that's generally the way it works. I generally always see two cops together, whether on patrol, on bikes, whatever. And when there is only one, even on a simple traffic stop, another one or two end up stopping by, like yellow jackets.

Sidenote: That guy who charged the cop was, yeah, just being stupid. Probably watched Braveheart one too many times.

reply to post by BeforeTooLong

It shouldn’t matter if it’s a serial killer of an elderly woman jay walking.. It’s about following the law and understanding the public’s constitutional rights in which everyone is to be treated equally regardless if you have a badge on or not.

There was no violation of anyone's rights except for the cop getting punched. The guy on the ground was not being abused at all, and they would have been justified in using pain compliance techniques since he was resisting.

Originally posted by sweetnlow
GETCHA SOME, thats the name of the game, but be sure you have extra back up to get the partner

this is how fun can be had

edit on 11-1-2012 by sweetnlow because: (no reason given)

Attitudes like that are a problem.
I'm not really sure which country you live in, but in the US, where I live, not all of the cops are a problem. I don't see a problem with them "eroding" my rights and freedoms. Nor do I see them being monsters who are a threat to me or society as a whole.

This is what I see law enforcement doing.

With many friends and family in law enforcement, I don't see how anyone can say "oh let's go have some fun fighting the cops" and still call themselves a human being. That's the monstrous behavior; the mindless violent hatred against those who keep the country as safe as it is.

Originally posted by Liquesence
I'll generally agree with you, to a degree. And i agree that a 30 second video is certainly NOT a reasonable representation of whatever led up to this incident, but:

A) the guy on the ground, as seen in this short video clip, was NOT resisting. I know that people like to claim resistance for 100% compliance is not given, both physically AND verbally, but that guy was not resisting (in those 30 seconds).

Actually he was. Resisting a lawful detention or arrest does not require a knock down drag out fight. Technically speaking if I am arresting you, and I tell you to place your hands behind your back and you refuse the command several times, I could also charge you with resisting an arrest (in my state, which is not Maryland, however the statute is pretty uniform across the country). Secondly he was physically resisting, and that can be seen on the video when he was flailing around on the ground.

Originally posted by Liquesence
B) It really doesn't matter what happened "before" the arrest. Once subdued and no longer a true threat (which this guy appears to not be a true threat, even if he was yelling), his (or anyone's) previous actions do not justify the overreaction or unreasonable and escalated force used in a situation.

Actually what occurs before an arrest IS very important as it can place the entire incident into context, and that occurred when I posted the article that tells us the entire story, with the buildup occurring before the recording started. Again, the guy on the ground was resisting an arrest, and the officers actions were not an over reaction at all. They were within law and policy.

Originally posted by Liquesence
Hypothetical: "But he kicked a cop." That does not justify the cops beating the crap out of him when he is on the ground and under control. "But he shot a cop." You disarmed him, have him on the ground held by 5 big guys, you do not need to beat the living crap out of him, except to make you feel better.

REasonable force can be used to take a person into custody. Those methods can include closed hand strikes, a baton / ASP etc. When those techniques are used, its with the intention of changing the persons "channel" so to speak. To get the person to lose concentration on the officer to focus on the pain long enough to gain control and deescalate and end the encounter. The extent of that force is a judgment call and in the end MUST be justified by the officer(s) present in their reports. Since force was used in this manner, it will be reviewed most likely by IA (if it hasnt already since this was on new years).

Originally posted by Liquesence
Why two cops: Well, that's generally the way it works. I generally always see two cops together, whether on patrol, on bikes, whatever. And when there is only one, even on a simple traffic stop, another one or two end up stopping by, like yellow jackets.

In larger cities or high crime areas is very common to have 2 officers assigned to a car. Its also common to have more than one officer assigned to the same patrol beat. Having the second officer on scene most likely saved the attackers life. If it were just the one officer, dealing with 2 suspects, the use of deadly force just entered the equation.

I would rather have 4 show up and only need me, than it be just me and need 4 more.

Originally posted by Liquesence
Sidenote: That guy who charged the cop was, yeah, just being stupid. Probably watched Braveheart one too many times.

The guy who charged and attacked the cop is the original driver who fled the scene. The guy on the ground was the bystander who started the confrontation with police for questioning the drunk driver.

This is why its VERY VERY VERY important to understand exactly whats going on prior to involving yourself in a police situation. I see a lot of people post they would assault officers if they feel he cops actions are out of bounds. The problem with that is people dont know if the cop is using extreme force because the guy he is fighting with is going for a concealed knife or gun, or has one in his hands.

People need to think before acting, and this video is very much evidence to support that rule.

Originally posted by Mapkar
, but in the US, where I live, not all of the cops are a problem.

With many friends and family in law enforcement,

Thanks for helping prove the point.

Even with MANY freinds and family in law enforcement, you recognize some , `not all`cops are a problem.

Maybe if we could get the bad cops to wear , oh I don`t know, a ankle monitor or something, we the unsuspecting public would stand a chance.

Back in the day they use to be called "Peace Officers". Law Enforcement officers have the rights that we use to have. Ever been to a "Law Library"? You gonna tell me that they know them all? hahaha. Now the tax payers are gonna have to pay for the civilian takedown of the Officer..

That video reminds me of the music video "I was a teenage anarchist".

reply to post by Xcathdra

If it were just the one officer, dealing with 2 suspects, the use of deadly force just entered the equation.

Really, deadly force is acceptable dealing with "suspects"??

I guess cops never try to save lives anymore, except their own I guess... what ever happened with wounding someone? Hit a guy in the leg, he isnt gonna be running from you anymore

Originally posted by Tw0Sides

Thanks for helping prove the point.

Even with MANY freinds and family in law enforcement, you recognize some , `not all`cops are a problem.

Maybe if we could get the bad cops to wear , oh I don`t know, a ankle monitor or something, we the unsuspecting public would stand a chance.

I really don't think there was a point that needed to be proven, we all know there are bad cops out there. The very same county I just posted had a video last year of a deputy breaking a prisoners leg with a baton. I know they're out there.

I think what you need to realize is the point of my post. You can't just jump out there and assume any particular cop is bad. The "Get some" comment was directed to the two in the video, which with more story seem to be acting well within reasonable limits.

If you see something happening, and know the entire story, and know that someone's life is in danger then by all means do what is necessary to resolve the situation. If a cop just randomly stops and starts using his ASP on the old lady at the sidewalk, I'd totally feel like you're justified in taking aggressive action. However, the behavior in the video is unjustified.

If you think you could accurately identify problem cops I'd suggest that you do more than give them an ankle bracelet or something. However, you'd better be prepared to justify yourself and your actions or be prepared to face the consequences of your actions.

reply to post by lacrimosa


The guy may have been an Idiot , but just imagine if 20 or 30 of those People Standing around watching that charged those two cops not with the Intent of Assaulting them , but just Subduing them because of their Uncalled for Treatment of their suspect . Back in the 70's , in most big Cities , any Cop facing a Hostile Crowd in a Neighborhood would be Hightailing it out of there if Challenged like that . Today , most people act like Sheep............

Originally posted by morder1
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

If it were just the one officer, dealing with 2 suspects, the use of deadly force just entered the equation.

Really, deadly force is acceptable dealing with "suspects"??

I guess cops never try to save lives anymore, except their own I guess... what ever happened with wounding someone? Hit a guy in the leg, he isnt gonna be running from you anymore

Put yourself in a cops position for a second. Imagine you're on a traffic stop on an empty interstate. It's you and two people who you suspect have something illegal going on. You run the tag and find that the driver is wanted for aggravated assault, murdering a law enforcement officer, and they're known to carry a weapon at times. They've also got their buddy, who just so happens to have a clean record, but a strong "i'm going to defend my friend from the cops" attitude.

They both start approaching you, and they look ready to fight. What are you going to do? Pull your taser or pepper spray out? I doubt it. That firearm would look like a pretty good option at that point.

Let's turn the tables a little bit and bring it closer to reality. You're afraid the cops are a fascist implement of the government. Two of them show up and come toward you with their batons drawn saying they're going to beat you until you can't breath because they hate you. Are you going to pull out a stick and fight them back, or will you draw the firearm you've been licensed to carry?

Originally posted by BeforeTooLong

Originally posted by lacrimosa

Good Samaritan!

or an idiot, depends on your IQ i guess.

Only the truly idiotic stand by while tyranny runs wild.
What you’re seeing is the exact opposite of an idiot, but in fact the result of frustration. It takes a very smart person to see through social influence, which in this case would be 'it’s ok for them to beat the crap out of us'. After probably a few years of seeing the police state for what it is and not having a means to express it or change the injustices that he sees this was probably the final straw. Sure he could have controlled himself but I ask you what you would do if a family member was at the hands of police brutality or maybe a child, person with a disability or an elderly person.
Do not mock the one bird that flies away from the flock resting on the burning tree even if he flies into powerlines.

I think you are giving the man too much credit. I bet he and his homies had been listening to some rap album, and thought, "This is my chance to F--- the po-lease." There is a strong social influence that promotes cop-killing and lawlessness, so I wouldn't necessarily jump to this guy being an out-of-the-box thinker. This man made a bad choice.

reply to post by Xcathdra


I understand these points of law quite well, but

I do not think you understand my position very well.

To the first point: I am not arguing the color of law, simply because the color of law is not necessarily right in any given situation. Just because the color of law says X is resisting, does not mean that is actually what is happening in a circumstance. "Technically speaking" if an arresting officer tells the suspect to "don't look at me!!!" and the suspect continues to look at the officer that can be considered resist under the color of law. THAT (IMO) is pure BS. I might not follow a lawful command, and i might be "resisting" the command, but i am not resisting arrest or impeding you from arresting me, i am simply disobeying, which is not, technically, resisting. Which brings me to the next point:

Resisting: too many times i see this: "He was flailing around, resisting." When one has one's arm bent backward in an unnatural position, or when one's face is being pushed into concrete, it's a NATURAL, INSTINCTIVE reaction to tense up and "resist" bodily harm (and oftentimes mere tensing can be "resist." Keyword: INSTINCT. An uncontrollable instinctive action should not be the same (or regarded as the same under law) as a voluntary action, but under the color of law, unfortunately, it is. This, however, is used to justify and further the resisting arrest charge (and subsequent police action), under the color of law, and which is also BS.

Point three: Please try to understand my initial point. While what happens before an arrest is certainly important and places everything in context, it does NOT, as my example and many other real life examples show, justify the actions taken by police in some situations AFTER a person is under control and no longer a true threat. Just because someone does something horrible wrong, once that person is under control and not a true threat, there is NO justification for beating the crap out of a person, no justification for most pf what goes on, even if that person is "resisting," as a natural, instinctive reaction. Yet the color of law sadly allows this.

Point four: Please try to understand my point, again. I am not arguing (in this example) what is allowable to bring a person into custody. I am arguing actions after a person is controlled (although "controlled" is subjective, which is another problem with the law, as one could argue "he wasn't in handcuffs therefore not controlled," and another could argue, "he was on the ground pinned by 5 cops, struggling, but we still had him under control). See my point. And even if pinned and struggling that does not justify beating, even if allowable under the "law."

I am NOT arguing what is permissible under the law. I am arguing what is RIGHT and what is not right, and why just because something is LAW doesn't mean that it is RIGHT.

Now, you can argue color of law and what is allowable under law all you want, and i will continue to argue what is RIGHT and JUST. And this is the problem with Law. And why we will likely never come to a compromise in argument.

Originally posted by morder1
Really, deadly force is acceptable dealing with "suspects"??

Deadly force is allowable when dealing with any person where you feel that persons actions has placed you or the life of another in immediate imminent danger / possibility of serious physical injury / harm. The person using that force must justify those actions.

That rule applies to everyone, including law enforcement (*NOTE - Some states require civilians to disengage and retreat if that option is available. Failure to do so can result in criminal charges. Michigan is an example of that standard when outside the home).

To be a bit more snarky towards your comment. If a person attacks you in the same manner are you not going to defend yourself because of the label suspect? Respectfully please stop trying to make a double standard for law enforcement.

Originally posted by morder1
I guess cops never try to save lives anymore, except their own I guess... what ever happened with wounding someone? Hit a guy in the leg, he isnt gonna be running from you anymore

Are you so jaded towards law enforcement that you will say / spin anything to portray them as something they are not? You guys get pissed when cops stereotype, yet you guys have no problems doing the one thing you hate the police for.

Had you taken the time to understand what I typed, you would have noticed my deadly force comment was based on one officer being present confronting BOTH suspects, the one on the ground and the one who attacked. The fact a second officer was present reduced the officers ability to use deadly force since additional options were present.

I did not state the officer could just up and shoot both people if he were alone. I did say it becomes an option and justifiable because of a 2 on 1 encounter.

Respectfully, is it to much to ask for people to read before twisting my words?

From what ive seen about America the American people and the American police, we are lucky that the man attacking the police didn't have a gun ( as its their god give right to hold one ) and shot the officer that was making an arrest. We are also lucky that the officers partner didnt draw his gun and shot the male that assaulted the police officer too.

The fact is that stupid people are all around the world and that stupid people do stupid things and going by the video the guy that attacked the cop was Stupid.

Originally posted by Liquesence
I understand these points of law quite well, but

Respectfully, I dont think it as well as you think.

Originally posted by Liquesence
I do not think you understand my position very well.

ok

Originally posted by Liquesence
To the first point: I am not arguing the color of law, ..snipped for response room

An officer telling you to stop looking at him is not resisting an arrest. Resisting a lawful detention or arrest is when a person takes an action that interferes with the officer who is taking them into custody. A suspect who is looking at me is not resisting. A person who refuses to allow me to place them into handcuffs, refuses to stand still (IE flailing around like in the video) - that is resisting an arrest.

The statute and case law that goes along with resisting an arrest / detention is well established in all states. Respectfully I urge you to read up on those cases to see what actions are defined.

Originally posted by Liquesence
Resisting: too many times i see this: "He was flailing around, ...snipped

Again you are off base and point. The only time a persons arm is being twisted in an unnatural manner is when they are in fact resisting. The techniques used fall under PPCT / CLAMP, and utilize pressure point and joint manipulation control in order to gain compliance. The compliance result falls under pain compliance, and again its designed to change the person channel, to concentrate on the temporary pain, in order to gain control.

Placing your hands behind your back is a natural position. Larger people / medical issues are taken into consideration on how handcuffs are used (or how many are chained together to create more room.

Originally posted by Liquesence
Point three: Please try to understand my initial point. ...snipped

A person is under control once placed into handcuffs. I dont condone the use of excessive force, and I try to avoid use of force if I can in my job. There are times however when that is the only option available to gain control over a resisting person.

As far as being in handcuffs, I have seen people fight while handcuffed, and ive seen a couple of those who could most likely kick someones ass no problem with their hands in cuffs. When a person in custody escalates the situation to the point of assault, he has demonstrated he has a unique ability to fight, which is taken into account when confronting the person again.

Not every single person taken into custody is beat by the police, so please stop trying to stereotype that position to all police.

Originally posted by Liquesence
Point four: Please try to understand my point, again.snip

I get what you are saying. I am saying that not all cops do that. Secondly having 5 cops on top of a person doesnt mean the person is being beat. Have you ever had the experience of fighting with a person on PCP?

I have and it was not fun. It took about 10 officers from 2 agencies to gain basic control over the guy. Once at the Hospital it went downhill again when the cuffs came off. Even in handcuffs, he was escorted by 6 officers who remained. My point is not every single "beating" is a beating. Without all the facts I can certainly see how it can be perceived as a beating.

If you arent familiar with medical procedures, and walked into a trauma room only to see the doctor standing over the patient, both hands gripped into one fist, slamming it down on the patients chest while medical staff stood off to the side, you might think the doctor went bonkers and was attacking the patient.

In reality its called a cardio thump and is an old school technique to get the heart beating again.

Just because you see a cop hitting a person in the arm leg or chest doesnt mean he is being beat.

Originally posted by Liquesence
I am NOT arguing what is permissible under the law. I am arguing what is RIGHT and what is not right, and why just because something is LAW doesn't mean that it is RIGHT.

No I understand. I am saying that without full information your examples are coming across as a stereotype toi all police (I dont think its intended but its coming across that way). As I said above, a person with no background in law enforcement / criminal / con law could easily mistake an officer beating a person when in reality its an approved and valid use of force.

Being in handcuffs does not make a person immune. If they are going to fight in handcuffs, they made their own bed.

Originally posted by Liquesence
Now, you can argue color of law and what is ..

Fair enough. Thanks for sharing your point of view. While I dont agree with the bulk of it, some does make sense and I will try to take that into account while doing my job.

Respects