Cop beats 66 year old man with dementia for no reason

Originally posted by DarthMuerte

Originally posted by groingrinder
When are the GOOD COPS going to come forward and weed the thugs, gangsters, and misfits out of their own midst?

Probably around the same time that the "moderate muslims" do the same with their psychos.

WHAT?

Things are getting funnier and dumber on ATS by the day.

reply to post by DarthMuerte


You've got Muslims on the brain my dude.
It makes you sound a little crazy. This thread has nothing to do with Muslims you know?
I understand it was an analogy, but it made little to no sense.

where do i begin. I will just say that I've been assaulted by a cop before. Off camera. And I sent him and his partner to the hospital. Punching someone in the face or kicking them in the stomach unprovoked should elicit a fight or flight response in most people. The old man tried to fight back because he couldn't run away. Nowadays I know to stay away from confrontations with police in the first place. But I wouldn't change a thing in my past. Its who I am and in my nature to defend myself, its just how I was taught. Its not my fault if you punch me and I end your career.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by DarthMuerte

 

You've got Muslims on the brain my dude.
It makes you sound a little crazy. This thread has nothing to do with Muslims you know?
I understand it was an analogy, but it made little to no sense.

Yes it was an analogy, and an apt one imo. While there likely are good police officers who are embarrassed by the actions of the few wacko cops out there, they will not likely cross the blue line and speak out against them. The cop brotherhood is more important to them than we are. "Moderate muslims" will not speak out because they don't exist imo.

Originally posted by popsmayhem
The guy had a knife..

What would of you rather the
cop done SHOOT HIM WITH BULLETS>/>?

His age does not matter.

edit on 16-1-2012 by popsmayhem because: (no reason given)

Poeple on this site dont care if he had a knife or not. All they want is to slam the police and accuse them of brutality blah blah blah.

If you notice the recent spat of police threads have been started by people who dont bother to link all of the information. Its either just a youtube video, as in this case, or they purposely leave information out that changes the entire context of the incident (ranger).

We need to come up with olympic games for ATS -
* - the 100 meter rush to judgment
* - blame game relay
* - cross country stereotype

reply to post by Xcathdra


Maybe you didn't read this thread if you think it was created just to slam the police. It was initially just a YouTube video which I found from another news site, but hadn't found an article to go with it yet. It didn't take long for another user...which I was also looking for more info.... Thanks to Frogs for the additional links

There was an abundance of additional info. There was nothing left out from this thread which was intentional. If there is something I didn't cover, please let us know. Everything I knew was covered between the video and the articles posted just a couple of replies into the thread.

Now idk if your response here is aimed at me or now, but I do NOT just slam the police every chance I get. They often make it easy to slam them, but I will also post articles I find about police which I think go beyond what you would expect in this day and age.
As in here, where a sheriff turns himself in for slapping a handcuffed suspect.

I might have agreed with the sheriff this guy needed to be slapped after what he did there, but he certainly didn't have to admit it to State officials investigating the case because weapons were discharged.

This officer in this thread though intentionally turned off the recording of his camera. Or he thought he did... Premeditation if you ask me. And if he did have a knife, turning it off actually makes it worse, because the dash cam video could have HELPED the officer. Instead...turning it off when he didn't have a knife has hurt him.

reply to post by DerepentLEstranger


You really need to understand how case law works. The court case you referenced does not allow a person to just up and kill a law enforcement officer. The Supreme Court has ruled reasonable amount of force is required.

If you see an officer making an arrest, you have no legal right to shoot and kill that officer. If you see an officer wrestling with a civilian, you do not have a legal right to shoot and kill the officer, let alone use any other deadly force.

If you are going to give legal advice, you may want to understand how the law works. You may also want to understand that each state has differing criteria for a civilians use of deadly force. Some states allow for defense of yourself and others, where other states, like michigan, require a civilian to retreat from a deadly encounter if they can do so.

Having an avenue of retreat and failing to use it will result in charges being filed against that person.

An example for you -
In Tennessee vs. Garner the US Supreme Court ruled that the officer had no justification for shooting a fleeing suspect in the back in order to effect an arrest. That ruling does NOT prohibit that action when the suspect is armed and an imminent danger to the community as a whole.

A court case that ruled on one issued, defining the issue across the nation, allowing for case by case basis. The use of deadly force can only be viewed in the context of what did the officer percieve at the exact moment force was used, because hindsight 20/20 in these cases does not take into account the moment.

That standard applies to law enforcement because of the very nature of our jobs. The standards for a civilians use of force are somewhat less than police, however the qualifiers are more strict.

reply to post by webpirate


Here is the conclusion -

Reprimanded Melbourne officer assigned new area


I take exception when people just post a youtube video without doing any type of research to place it in context.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by webpirate

 

Here is the conclusion -

Reprimanded Melbourne officer assigned new area


I take exception when people just post a youtube video without doing any type of research to place it in context.

edit on 5-2-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

Perhaps he should have been stripped of the badge as well? It seems you could get away with anything in that proffession......

reply to post by v1rtu0s0


Yeah having a mentally imbalanced guy coming at you with a knife leaves so much room for ambiguity in his actions.

Maybe we should make him a special deputy at the same time the officer he went after with a knife is stripped of his badge.

/end sarcasm

All things being considered, the guy is lucky he was not shot and killed, which based on the info would have been justified.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by webpirate

 

Here is the conclusion -

Reprimanded Melbourne officer assigned new area

I take exception when people just post a youtube video without doing any type of research to place it in context.

OK...First off...I agree with you. I also take exception to just a video without further context. While I can not tell you exactly why I posted this without further links initially, because I honestly can't remember, I do believe it was because the source of the video..and not YouTube I initially found this on was one I am familiar with and felt comfortable enough with posting.
I actually did have a little more information than just the YouTube video, but from what I was able to see initially, this was very blatant. So I felt it needed to be put out there while I looked for alternative sources.Fairly quickly after i started this another member as I have already stated found local news sources on this which were in print and not just the news.

It is also possible I had the original link where I got the info from that isn't in the video, and just forgot to post it, and neither I, nor a mod caught it. I do know I had information that wasn't in the video, but like I said, I honestly can't tell you why there was no additional link because I don't remember. It isn't just a dash cam video though, it is backed by a news report. Maybe all I had was the news report with the video and was still trying to find written sources. I can assure you though, I do not just randomly post things I find on YouTube without at least some preliminary research on my part if not a lot more.

Then again...you don't know me, so don't take my word for it. I don't know you and probably wouldn't take yours without additional evidence to back it up. But the news report is pretty clear about what happened.

As for the officer involved, as near as I can determine, he was never reprimanded. He was placed on desk...or light duty shortly after this incident occurred due to an unrelated injury. Or so the story goes....

reply to post by Xcathdra


You are indeed correct in your post about individuals getting involved in an arrest, or someone being arrested resisting if they feel it is unlawful. It is not only going to get you in more trouble, but liable to get you killed. And I think it was this thread I spoke about this in..maybe it was a different one though, some states have laws concerning disobeying an order from a police officer.

If the gentleman here was told to stop, and didn't, and this state had one of those laws, then the arrest could well have been legal even if there were NO other circumstances involved for failing to obey a lawful order. SO resisting or having an outsider...like the nephew step in would not have been smart.

I personally do not "get off" so to speak on posting videos of police in less than professional conduct.

As for this:

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by v1rtu0s0

 

Yeah having a mentally imbalanced guy coming at you with a knife leaves so much room for ambiguity in his actions.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by v1rtu0s0

 

All things being considered, the guy is lucky he was not shot and killed, which based on the info would have been justified.

That in itself, is all the more reason he should have left the camera and audio recordings on. This could have gone bad really really fast. Worse than it did. If the man had a knife, and the officer shot him, and there was no audio or video to back him up...especially after he made a conscious intentional action to attempt to turn these devices off, then it may well have hindered the investigation into a justified shooting, or at the very least obfuscated the facts...as is already known since there is no audio. And we have no idea the commands the elderly gentleman was given, if any, before the beating commenced.

I'm not siding with this officer in any way or any manner. He started breaking the rules even before he arrived on scene. All police have procedures they are supposed to follow. Turning off recording devices on weapons calls is in no way conforming to any modern day procedure out there. As I already stated, some places even have officer stage away from the scene till backup arrives so they can go in together on weapon calls. I don't know about here, but I can tell from what I see, and only from what I see there is no way in hell proper procedure was followed. On several levels.

reply to post by webpirate


No I believe you since you have never given me any reason not to. As I said my irritation comes from an incident not being placed into context, which allowed people to jump to a conclusion without having all the facts.

As far as the officer goes he was reprimanded for violating department policy with regards to his dashcam. He also has been transfered to a different patrol beat. Turning off his dash came made no sense to me since the call involved a weapon. The officer would most likely have been justified in his actions while recording.

As far as resisting arrest and comments about using deadly force on law enforcement. People dont comprehend the fact that the person being arrested nor the officer making the arrest can state the action was unlawful. It must go through the courts since a false arrest can be a criminal offense, in addition to violating a persons civil rights.

Originally posted by popsmayhem
The guy had a knife..

What would of you rather the
cop done SHOOT HIM WITH BULLETS>/>?

His age does not matter.

edit on 16-1-2012 by popsmayhem because: (no reason given)

Boy you must make daddy proud, all that courage is leaking from your balls of steel...

Its a 66 years old man, you gonna tell me that a 200lb man in in prime with a kevlar vest couldn't handle this in a matter that wouldn't of injured the man.

Your going to tell me he was so lazy he couldn't even run the name of the suspect to get important information on how to deal with him... Had he took 1 f'ing minute to check he would of found out that this type of treatment was dangerous for his health he had bypass and that his action weren't legitimate...

The guy's sick for Christ sake... Come see me when you have a cold, I'll push that mucus all out for you... After all its your fault if your sick... Don't walk too fast I might shoot...

Your going to tell me you didn't even listen the video and your babbling? The family told the cop it was a misunderstanding there was NO knife involved and it had been resolved.


No wait I'm sorry I didn't mean to bash on you, just get the papers your ready for the force son you'll make a mighty fine job shooting women and seniors...

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by v1rtu0s0

 

Yeah having a mentally imbalanced guy coming at you with a knife leaves so much room for ambiguity in his actions.

Maybe we should make him a special deputy at the same time the officer he went after with a knife is stripped of his badge.

/end sarcasm

All things being considered, the guy is lucky he was not shot and killed, which based on the info would have been justified.

-If you see someone coming toward you and your not sure he has a knife or not it takes 30 seconds to take out his pepper spray and finish this in non violent matters...

-He turned off the camera before getting out of the car, his actions were intended WAY before it all happen.

-Family member notified the police officers that there was no knife and the matter had been resolve, why did he stayed on him plus they tazed him in the face...

##snipped##

Wow... we're really doomed there's no hope left in this world... really...

reply to post by _R4t_


Its irrelevant when it comes to use of force and age. The call was a person with a knife and thats the presumption law enforcement goes into it. The officer did not know there was a medical condition when he arrived on scene.

It along the same lines where an officer had to shoot and kill a student who had a gun. It was not until after the fact was it discovered it was a bb gun. Just because a person is 10 years old or 110 years old, they are just as able to kill a person.

The standard for reviewing use of force is what did the officer perceive at the moment force was used.

reply to post by _R4t_


No thanks... The term is called a reactionary gap.


A person armed with a knife can traverse 21-26 feet and reach an officer before that officer can draw his duty weapon and fire.

You dont bring pepper spray to a knife fight and you dont bring a knife to a gun fight. The easiest and best solution would be for people to comply when given verbal commands to drop the knife or to stop where they are at and show their hands.

Also - Its fine people are speculating about the incident and what could or could not have happened. What we do know, for fact, is stating a course of action after the fact and actually employing that course of action if you were the officer are almost never the same.

People claim how they would act, yer have never been in that position to know for sure.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by _R4t_

 

Its irrelevant when it comes to use of force and age. The call was a person with a knife and thats the presumption law enforcement goes into it. The officer did not know there was a medical condition when he arrived on scene.

Your taxes pay so they have a nice little computer in the car to check that stuff out....

It along the same lines where an officer had to shoot and kill a student who had a gun. It was not until after the fact was it discovered it was a bb gun. Just because a person is 10 years old or 110 years old, they are just as able to kill a person.

Shoot in the f'ing shoulder the gun will drop... if he pick it up again than use deadly force... you don't have to be a genius to do that neither a marksman...

And if your a cop going to a scene where you might get attacked by some guy with a knife isn't the last thing you are going to do is turn off the camera??? So in case stuff happen to you, the camera has it all and TRUE justice can be served...

No this waste of flesh knew damn too well what he was in for and he wanted to have a little fun to boost is still wounded ego from high school.

I mean who doesn't feel superior and almighty after beating a senior...

And if anybody has anything to say against what I just said before you start flaming me I challenge you to give me one not 2,3,4,5 just ONE legit reason why a police officer would turn off the camera on this type of scene.

Or even WHY they have access to turn it off it first place...

If you can't just remain silent you'll sound more intelligent...

Originally posted by _R4t_
Your taxes pay so they have a nice little computer in the car to check that stuff out....

How do you know the name and information of the person you have not encountered yet? Your rationale is based on a lack of understanding of how law enforcement works. How do you know the person you are dealing with is giving you the right info and not lying to you? How do you know the people who called 911 arent setting you up to be ambushed and killed? Since he was in the store with a knife, he could have forced any number of people to call 911 and give information that is not correct.

If you were an officer and you were dispatched to a man with knife / gun call, are you going to make contact with him first and demand his name and info so you can run him through the system?

Originally posted by _R4t_
Shoot in the f'ing shoulder the gun will drop... if he pick it up again than use deadly force... you don't have to be a genius to do that neither a marksman...

Supreme Court ruling forbids firing a wounding shot. We shoot to stop the threat, not to woulnd it.

Originally posted by _R4t_
And if your a cop going to a scene where you might get attacked by some guy with a knife isn't the last thing you are going to do is turn off the camera??? So in case stuff happen to you, the camera has it all and TRUE justice can be served...

True justice was served, regardless of the dash cam being on or off.

Originally posted by _R4t_
No this waste of flesh knew damn too well what he was in for and he wanted to have a little fun to boost is still wounded ego from high school.

I didnt realize you were a police officer and worked with this officer during the call. I mean how else could you come to such a clueless and fact lacking conclusion?

Originally posted by _R4t_
I mean who doesn't feel superior and almighty after beating a senior...

Not senior... Man with a weapon.

Based on your rationale and thought process I can see you are not, nor have you ever been, in law enforcement. We refer to people like you as Monday morning quarterbacks. If I have questions about the law, I will ask a fellow officer. If I am feeling suicidal and need ideas on how to end my life through stupid actions, you will be my first call.

Your hatred of the police and the stereotypical manner you present that hatred is preventing you from learning how the profession works. If you want to know, by all means ask. If you want to continue to accuse an show off your ignorance on the topic, more power to you.