Sheriff Deputy Pistol Whips 19-Year-Old in the Head (Surveillance Video)

This incident could be used to make an example to all police forces out there what happens when corruption takes over. The citizens of the county should be demanding the sherrifs resignation loudly in their community. The officer who pistol whipped the boy should be charged with attempted murder along with various other charges. If that gun had been turned in a different direction he would have put that round right through that kids skull.

The officer with the pistol whipping officer should be charged as an accomplice if he did not throw the red flag right then and there and arrest his fellow partner for assualt. Any other officer in the department who had anything to do with this investigation needs to be investigated and charged appropriately as well. Corruption breeds corruption and if examples aren't made out of these incidents then they will continue to happen.

The actions or history of the two young men does not matter one bit in this incident. Even if the kid was resisting and puting up a fight( which he was clearly not) pistol whipping him with your finger on the trigger is excessive force and assualt; or in this case since he discharged a round, possibly attempted murder. Anyways, just my take on the situation.

Originally posted by DelMar

Originally posted by onthedownlow

Originally posted by raiders247
The absolute worst part of all this is that cpl scumbag taylor will probably never serve any time in prison for something I personally think he should be executed for. There is no excuse for this, if you defend this person in any way there is something very wrong with your brain.

So you advocate the death penalty for excessive force (which is not apparent from viewing the video), or for lying, which is the crime that the officer committed? The officer obviously lied because he made a mistake- what is unclear is if he believed the mistake to be the accidental discharge or the pistol whipping of the suspect. This officer will mostly likely lose his job because he is dishonest, not because he was overly aggressive in detaining a suspect.

So correct me if I'm wrong here. The officer in question pursues a young man walking away from him, draws his weapon and proceeds to smash it into the head of the young man and discharges a round. How is excessive force not apparent from the video. Whatever happened to verbal commands and then a less lethal method of detainment if that doesn't work?

I would hate to see what you believe is overly aggressive if that video doesn't show it clearly.

The officer arrives on the scene of what may be an armed robbery, and when one of the suspects fails to follow verbal commands, he uses less than lethal force to detain the witness. Wait, it sounds like he used your suggested remedy- verbal commands and less than lethal force. The real issue is that the officer made an egregious error when he used his firearm as less than lethal force (even though it was no more intrusive than a taser or baton), and then he lied. The more critical issue is that the officer lied. He deserves the termination and lawsuits that will be forthcoming, but he hardly deserves to be executed.

reply to post by Corruption Exposed
I told a couple people I would keep my distance from this thread, but I couldn’t help but reply from my inbox. Like I told the other posters…

I won’t go further. I think I’ll just keep to myself on this thread. The more I seem to say “what if”, the more in trouble I seem to get myself in to.

Of course there IS a big difference between the two articles. I was trying to point out that there are TWO sides to every story. Can YOU tell me with 100% certainty what happened before the video? If not, you are doing the exact opposite of what the ATS motto stands bye. You aren’t denying ignorance; you are accepting it with open arms! Everyone went BALLISTIC with the Zimmerman case until the facts started to come to light. And THEN once they did, everyone all-of-a-sudden disappeared. It’s amazing how that works.

I should not have even put my 2 cents in on the matter. Big waste of font’ll space…

reply to post by Propulsion


Although I cannot say with 100% certainty the exact details of what took place I'm quite confident about my position. The reason I can feel so confident is because of a key fact that we do have. And that fact is that the officer involved lied. If the officer lied it's because the facts of the case don't support his side. Otherwise there is no reason to lie. So the fact that he lied tells me pretty much all I need to know.

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
reply to post by onthedownlow

 

How is pistol whipping an unarmed young man because his friend was wearing a ski mask not excessive force? It is very apparent from the video that the officer used excessive force to the point where it is beyond criminal. I don't think this officer deserves the death penalty, but I wouldn't lose any sleep if he got his ass beat in a back alley bad enough so he will finally regret his actions and never consider performing such a cowardly act ever again.

I don't normally condone violence, but in situations like this my opinion is that two wrongs can make a right even though it goes against my belief in Karma and how none of us have the right to upset the balance.

And you are right that this officer will lose his job, and lying should be part of the reason, but the main reason should be the cowardly assault he took part in. Non only should he lose his job, but he should be penalized to the full extent of the laws which he is supposed to uphold.

edit on 5-9-2012 by Corruption Exposed because: (no reason given)

Would we even have heard about the issue in question had the officer used his flashlight to subdue the suspect? I'm guessing no, but I wasn't there, so I don't know the circumstaces that led up to the use of force. I doubt that anyone would have questioned the officer if he used a taser.

It does not appear the kid was doing anything wrong at all. I wonder what the kid said to the cop before it all went down? Cops are known to go off over a little backtalk. Although, there is no excuse for what that cop did. The young man is clearly in the right.

reply to post by Corruption Exposed


This is absolutly dissgusting to see this. He gets pistol whipped and thrown in jail for 4 months. WTF , I am so glad I dont live in the states. And I must say that I feel sorry for this young man. Cops are supposed to be people you can trust, But Im sure no1 really trusts them nowadays everytime I turn around its another police beating case

Originally posted by onthedownlow

The officer arrives on the scene of what may be an armed robbery, and when one of the suspects fails to follow verbal commands, he uses less than lethal force to detain the witness. Wait, it sounds like he used your suggested remedy- verbal commands and less than lethal force. The real issue is that the officer made an egregious error when he used his firearm as less than lethal force (even though it was no more intrusive than a taser or baton), and then he lied. The more critical issue is that the officer lied. He deserves the termination and lawsuits that will be forthcoming, but he hardly deserves to be executed.

We do agree on some things but not on others. I agree that execution of the so called officer is way over the top. I also agree that he made an egregious error by lying about the event. However, saying a firearm is no more intrusive than a taser or baton is just plain silly. Yes people have been killed by tasers and batons but you're comparing apples and oranges. I would challenge you to find any police academy is the US that teaches officers to go for the sidearm first as a clubbing instrument.

IMO, the more critical issue is that he used a firearm as a club, not that he lied. This officer could have killed an innocent bystander by his choice of weapons on a person that was walking away from him.

Also, I did remove the previous quote from another poster that had little to do with what I referenced in your post. I just hate that whole black hole quoting thing.

who goes to buy snacks at night wearing a ski mask?

Originally posted by DelMar

Originally posted by onthedownlow

The officer arrives on the scene of what may be an armed robbery, and when one of the suspects fails to follow verbal commands, he uses less than lethal force to detain the witness. Wait, it sounds like he used your suggested remedy- verbal commands and less than lethal force. The real issue is that the officer made an egregious error when he used his firearm as less than lethal force (even though it was no more intrusive than a taser or baton), and then he lied. The more critical issue is that the officer lied. He deserves the termination and lawsuits that will be forthcoming, but he hardly deserves to be executed.

We do agree on some things but not on others. I agree that execution of the so called officer is way over the top. I also agree that he made an egregious error by lying about the event. However, saying a firearm is no more intrusive than a taser or baton is just plain silly. Yes people have been killed by tasers and batons but you're comparing apples and oranges. I would challenge you to find any police academy is the US that teaches officers to go for the sidearm first as a clubbing instrument.

IMO, the more critical issue is that he used a firearm as a club, not that he lied. This officer could have killed an innocent bystander by his choice of weapons on a person that was walking away from him.

Also, I did remove the previous quote from another poster that had little to do with what I referenced in your post. I just hate that whole black hole quoting thing.

I think that my words are being twisted or taken out of context, the force used was a blunt strike to the head- necessary or not. The officer's misuse of his sidearm, while egregious, will not be the determining factor in his likely termination, more likely it will be his lack of integrity. I could be wrong, it is just my opinion- but, officers are human and they make mistakes, and they should own those mistakes. The deputy in question put his own interests above the interests of his community when he lied to cover his mistake. I seriously doubt that any department advocates using a lethal force weapon for anything less than lethal force, and I am not defending what I believe to be a gross error in judgement, but he could have salvaged his career by owning his mistake.

reply to post by Kino321


People who live in a cold climate. I live in Minnesota where the weather can be pretty darn brutal and have worn ski masks routinely, regardless of where I'm going. Everyone handles temperature differently and from the article you'll find this:

Dorm says his friend was wearing a ski mask because it was cold, but two police officers thought he looked suspicious and were going to rob the store.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by mikellmikell

Originally posted by mikellmikell
So cold the cops didn't have coats on and when they grabed his friend he took off. Yup that sounds innocent to me

As mentioned by other members, there are some procedures to arrest someone.
It is a court of justice to decide whether this kid should get his backside kicked/sepnd time in jail, etc... Not the policeman, not you, not me.

And even more scary here is that you have a policeman, a professional guy who SWORE AN OATH, who openly lied about the whole thing!!!

I can prove to you all that there are no good cops out there.
A good cop would refuse to work with a tainted one.....simple as that
This leaves only 1 conclusion

So cold the cops didn't have coats on and when they grabed his friend he took off. Yup that sounds innocent to me

In my town during the cold winter and even during snow storms I sometimes will see a person who is wearing shorts, tennis shoes and a tee shirt.

Some people do have high tolerance to cold, others do not.

48. See Aryan v. Mackey, 462 F. Supp. 90, 93 (N.D. Tex. 1978); Schumann v. New
York, 270 F. Supp. 730, 733 (S.D.N.Y. 1967); Ghafari v. Municipal Court, 150 Cal.
Rptr. 813, 816 (Cal. Ct. App. 1978); City of Pineville v. Marshall, 299 S.W. 1072, 1074
(Ky. 1927); see also N.Y. Penal Law § 240.35(4) (McKinney 1989) (New York's anti-
mask statute is contained in title N of its criminal code, which is titled "Offlenses Against
Public Order. ... "); Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 21, § 1301 (West 1983) (Oklahoma's anti-mask
statute is contained in part VI of the state's criminal code, which is titled "Crimes
Against Public Peace."); Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-422 (Michie 1988) (Virginia's anti-mask
statute is contained in chapter 9, article 5 of its criminal code, which is titled "Activities
Tending to Cause Violence.").
The court in City of Pineville v. Marshall, 299 S.W. 1072 (Ky. 1927), in upholding an
anti-mask ordinance, succinctly explained the problem faced by law enforcement where
the government permits random mask-wearing:
If every one [sic] is permitted to go disguised upon the streets of a city or town,
the innocent and unwary may fall easy victims to the criminal and vicious, and
peace officers be [sic] powerless to afford protection, unless a crime is commit-
ted in their presence and the offender then seized.

I borrowed this from a pdf file called "Who goes There" interesting read,I will try and do more research later, but it maybe against the law to cross dress in some states.

Originally posted by Propulsion
reply to post by Corruption Exposed

 

I told a couple people I would keep my distance from this thread, but I couldn’t help but reply from my inbox. Like I told the other posters…

I won’t go further. I think I’ll just keep to myself on this thread. The more I seem to say “what if”, the more in trouble I seem to get myself in to.

Of course there IS a big difference between the two articles. I was trying to point out that there are TWO sides to every story. Can YOU tell me with 100% certainty what happened before the video? If not, you are doing the exact opposite of what the ATS motto stands bye. You aren’t denying ignorance; you are accepting it with open arms! Everyone went BALLISTIC with the Zimmerman case until the facts started to come to light. And THEN once they did, everyone all-of-a-sudden disappeared. It’s amazing how that works.

I should not have even put my 2 cents in on the matter. Big waste of font’ll space…

You couldn't be any more wrong if you tried. I already addressed hypothetical situations and several what if's various times. The focus of this thread is what happened on that video, not what happened before. Even if the kid spat in the cops face and called his mom a dirty name it would not warrant the officer's actions. Even if the kid decided to call the cop a racial slur and pull his pants down and take a leak on the cop it would not justify the officer's actions.

What happened before the footage has no relation to what happened on the video. The video clearly shows an officer committing a crime, lying about it with the blessing of his department, and the kid spent 4 months in jail and you are still trying to justify this incident with a bunch of "what if's".

There are two sides to every story, sometimes even more, but that does not change the fact of what happened on the video. The actions we see in this video cannot be justified no matter what kind of twisted logic you try to use.

What does Zimmerman have to do with this? You cannot intelligently prove your point so you end up going all ove the place with other incidents including but not limited to posting a picture of a hooded person robbing a store at gun point, which has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion.

You mentioned the site's motto...you should try practicing it.

Your showcase of ignorance has left me baffled and I'm chuckling at myself for even responding to your off topic deflections. Thank you for bring some laughter to my day though

Originally posted by Propulsion
Two words that make this whole story fishy…

HOCKEY MASK!!!

Why in the HELL is a kid wearing a hockey mask at night?

And PLEASE don’t throw out the proverbial….”You have a problem with a black man wearing a hockey mask at night” line! Your race baiting won’t work on me…!

edit on 4-9-2012 by Propulsion because: (no reason given)

The cop lied about why his gun was discharged ... pretty simple really ... the cop LIED!

The temperature was about 35 degrees F at almost 10PM on 2/3/12 (the date the video recorded the incident).

www.wunderground.com...

And why was the safety off??

reply to post by onthedownlow

Would we even have heard about the issue in question had the officer used his flashlight to subdue the suspect? I'm guessing no, but I wasn't there, so I don't know the circumstaces that led up to the use of force. I doubt that anyone would have questioned the officer if he used a taser.

I disagree, using a flashlight in the same manner that he used his gun would have also been unaccepable as well. First off IF there was a crime committed, which at this point there is no proof of even happening, he had other ways to subdue the suspect. If a crime was commited and the would be suspect needed to be apprehended the officer could have tackled him as he looked much bigger and I'm confident they train officers how to take down suspects in certain situations.

In this incident I do not think a tazer would be a valid option either due to the fact that the suspect was not threatening the officer and was walking away. Once again, IF something happened off camera that warranted the victim to be detained the officer had many options that are much better than pistol whipping, whacking in the head with a flashlight, and or tazing the kid.

There were two officers which should easily be able to physically apprehend a suspect if needed without using excessive force.

At the very least the officer could have said "Freeze!" and then point his gun which would still be an overreaction in my opinion because the suspect was not threatening the officer.

People need to accept that this was a rogue thug who lost his cool and brutally assaulted what seems to be an innocent person. His fellow colleagues helped with the attempted cover up so we need to shift some of the blame to the highest level of that department.

I hate repeating myself since I have explained this many times to various members but I'm doing my best to address individual posts as reduntant as they may be.