Youtube Video Prompts FBI Probe of LAPD 537
PachecoJ writes "The AP has a story of a Youtube video showing police brutality that has sparked an FBI probe of the LAPD. A group called 'Cop Watch LA' placed the video online to draw attention to the actions by officers. The officers pictured in the video are now being defended by police defense attorney John Barnett, who defended the officers in the 'Rodney King' trial of 1991." From the article: "A search on YouTube for the terms 'police brutality' found more than 500 videos, including ones that claim to show police violence in the U.S. and as far away as Egypt and Hungary. A search of Google's video site also yielded hundreds of videos. In response to the surge in amateur videos, some law enforcement agencies have installed cameras in squad cars to protect officers against false allegations."
Are we all really that suprised? (Score:2, Insightful)
Anyway, that's my two cents
Is it that bad? (Score:5, Insightful)
In response to the surge in amateur videos, some law enforcement agencies have installed cameras in squad cars to protect officers against false allegations.
Why exactly would amateur videos help create the false allegations? Are people doing a little post-production work on them before they go up online to show a closed fist hitting not once, but twice? If anything, I'd think that video in squad cars would reduce the possibility of police brutality, since the cops know that they are being recorded on video, and an allegedly beaten person can get that video.
Except it's not the same (Score:5, Insightful)
And Egypt is the second most moderate muslim country there is.
Read how the police responds in a moderate muslim country :
http://forsoothsayer.blogspot.com/2006/10/mass-se
Read how the police responds in a reasonably muslim country :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saud
Do I really need to provide a link to what happens in a really muslim country, like palestine or afghanistan or pakistan ? Do you want to see ?
Why does this happen ? Here's one opinion :
http://www.faithfreedom.org/challenge.htm [faithfreedom.org]
pretty good here (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:They can only take soo much (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:They can only take soo much (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, sometimes the suspect is black. Sometimes they dont have the 'right attitude'. Sometimes you get a cop who had a bad day and abused their power to feel better about themselves. And sometimes you deserve it.
Obedience now, asthma meds later (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Is it that bad? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Is it that bad? (Score:5, Insightful)
not so much changing the video, as possibly chopping the start or end off... imagine watching a cop shoot someone, without seeing the part where that person drew a gun and threatened the cop. it is so easy to get the wrong impression just by cutting in to an incident part way through.
having cruiser-cams is a good thing for everyone, it helps reduce the likelyhood of a cop doing something wrong in a routine stop, but it also does a good job of countering unsupported allegations and partial truths.
Re:Are we all really that suprised? (Score:2, Insightful)
Some people flip burgers, some people fix computers, and some people enforce our laws. They are all just jobs and if both cops and civilians would begin treating them like normal human beings doing a job life would probably be better for the majority of us out there. Just because someone is wearing a uniform does not mean you should respect them, fear them, or treat them any different then anyone else.
Re:Are we all really that suprised? (Score:0, Insightful)
Wrong.
Police, military, and other authority figures are not just your average joe. They are higher, and must be treated as such. Just be glad we have social mobility so anyone can be an authority figure.
Re:Is it that bad? (Score:4, Insightful)
We know there are plenty of people out there that hate the cops, such a thing is not so far fetched.
So video cameras in cars are just good all around. As you noted they help reduce events of police brutality, and provide the method to go after cops that do, but they also protect the cops from false allegations. I think it's a wonderful idea, the police are public servants with a lot of power, what they do while on the job should be recorded.
Re:Except it's not the same (Score:5, Insightful)
What the hell happened to progress?
Just because other countries have a shitty way of life, you are saying we should sit down and take this kind of crap because we have it "the best"?
This kind of thinking is wrong, completely and utterly retroactive (or is it proactive?) to everything that has made this country what it is today: a nation of beer swilling SUV driving ass kicking meat eating gun toting nut bags that can do whatever the hell they want. To that effect the only way to move forward is to raise the bar, not accept the norm, if you get my drift.
Re:Except it's not the same (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:They can only take soo much (Score:1, Insightful)
Correction: The cops SAY he is a gang member.
3. Offender was running from the police officers before they had tackled them.
Um, if THIS is what they do to people, is it any wonder people run from them??
4. In the video, you can see the offender grabbing the officer's inner thigh before the officer started to punch the offender.
You forgot to mention the cop was KNEELING ON THE GUYS NECK.
Re:They can only take soo much (Score:5, Insightful)
Where's the context? (Score:5, Insightful)
1: The guy clearly was breathing. It can be seen and heard.
2: Scum will lie through their teeth in order to gain an advantage. You can't believe a word they utter. e.g. "Got the time mate", "Excuse me miss I'm lost could you help", "Do what I say and you won't get hurt".
3: Where's the rest of the video? Why was it cut off? Could it be that the suspect wouldn't be seen in quite the same light? Not an innocent victim but a violent attacker?
I'm not a big fan of the police but this is a bullshit video. It's propaganda designed to manipulate me. Show me the whole video and let me make my own decision.
Re:Except it's not the same (Score:4, Insightful)
All you need is be declared an enemy combatant, in which case you loose US citizenship (if you were an American) and they can make you disappear without having to bother with a trial or ever charging you of anything. Add to that they can torture you as much as they like as long as its not life threatening.
All nice and legal. Don't believe? Do some research. There is even a lot of examples for you.
Re:Are we all really that suprised? (Score:5, Insightful)
Nah, the point is that they are your average Joes and Janes doing a job. Just because they're doing a particularly tough job shouldn't mean that they aren't held accountable for their breaches of the law. In fact, they should be held *more* accountable, since if cops are seen as brutal without accountability, citizens will lose their respect for the law, so examples must be made.
-b.
Re:A Measured Response to Police Brutality (Score:1, Insightful)
I don't care what he did. The policed are not tasked with punishing the bad guys. He had two big cops sitting on him. He wasn't going anywhere. These cops were big guys. They could have forced his arms together long enough to get the cuffs on him.
Besides, I'm a rarity, a nerd who parties and gets involved with shady people. THeir probably aren't very many people on
Fuck that. I'm a geek and I've spent time at parties with of ALL kinds of unsavory characters. From high level drug dealers to Klansmen. I've also had federal agents knocking on my door at 10:00 AM. Those guys were the ultimate professionals. They spoke to me civilly and recieved courtesy from me in return.
Local cops are usually dicks.
I think most people who don't deal with the police very much have a negative view towards them (as brutal or power tripping or whatever) and that is messed up because you are the people the police are protecting.
Who protects us from them? I'm from Pittsburgh, a local radio personality was mistreated in an encounter he had with a police officer. He went on to give the cops badge number and police department over the air. He faced all kinds of threats from police over it. They're a gang. They control their turf and retaliate against anyone who they think have wronged them.
Sooo, support the boys in blue!
I'll volunteer to console their widows when someone blows their faces off.
LK
Re:A Measured Response to Police Brutality (Score:5, Insightful)
It is not ok just because he "wasn't hitting the dude with his mag-light.". He shouldn't have been hitting him in the face at all.
It is not ok because he was resisting arrest. You can hear the panic in his voice that he was being suffocated. That's why he was still struggling, rightfully so.
It is not ok because cops are specifically not allowed to put a knee to the kneck like that. If that windpipe collapsed, the coroner would have to rule "Suspected homicide secondary to blunt force trauma or compressive force."
It is not ok because you can see one cop trying to restrain the other and prevent further hits.
The punching cop should be immediately suspended without pay pending an immediate hearing for his permanent removal from the force. It should then be followed by a punitive civil suit to both the cop and the department.
We are rapidly approaching a country in which I do not care to live. I would rather live in a socialist nation with lower levels of violence from people and institutions (eg New Zealand, far Northern Europe) than here. I will have defacto more freedom.
Re:They can only take soo much (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:not in Massachusetts (Score:5, Insightful)
A cop at home, or in civilian clothes walking down the street, has the same rights as anyone else, including the right to privacy. A cop in uniform, on duty, is acting as an arm of the State, and has temporarily surrendered many of the rights of a private citizen, privacy definitely among them.
This doesn't apply just to cops, of course; also to politicians, soldiers, and anyone else acting in a governmental capacity, whether local, state, or federal. We always have the right to know what they are doing in our name, and every time we surrender this right, whether in the name of "privacy" or "national security" or "efficiency" or any other excuse, we surrender a vital piece of our freedom.
Re:The video is propaganda. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Is it that bad? (Score:4, Insightful)
No.
a.) The cameras are usually far away, so we cannot see the whole picture. If the suspect is standing behind a car, for example, a threatening gesture may not be seen.
b.) The 'ameteur' video may not have started recording to see the entire event take place. There could be an important bit of context missed.
c.) The media can grab a clip of the video and give the PD a hard time.
There's no need to go as far as 'post-production' to grab a vid used for false allegations. They say the camera never lies. That's utter bullshit. You can make a camera send any message you want. That's why the evidence collected by cameras needs verification.
Re:Are we all really that suprised? (Score:5, Insightful)
This, however, does not mean all cops and soldiers are like that. But by no means are they all saints. Stressed out or not, you don't have the right to beat someone when it's not a necessity. I can certainly understand the desire to (I currently am a student part time and work retail part time. I deal with more morons per day than I care to calculate, but the people cops must deal with... I don't envy them.) But that's still no better a justification than "she was asking for it" as a defense for rape.
There are good cops and soldiers out there, and while I don't always agree with what they do (moreso for the soldiers), I respect their patience, and their dedication for helping people. But that doesn't mean anyone in a uniform deserves jack shit from you. Some of them are still assholes. As the saying goes, a turds a turd, no matter how you dress it up or polish it off.
Re:They can only take soo much (Score:3, Insightful)
He was in no position to inflict any harm on either of the police officers, defend himself or escape. That is adequate restraint. The penalty for resisting arrest is not a punch in the face and a police officer has no right to deal out that punishment either.
Re:Resisting Arrest Is A Crime In This Country (Score:5, Insightful)
It's simply not up to police to deal out punishment in a way they think fit. It is their place to detain the person in question, using the absolute minimum amount of force necessary to get them tied up and in a car and off to proper judgement.
A skill a good police officer needs to have is the ability to stay clear and focused and not absolutely batshit crazy no matter what the situation. It's the kind of people they are arresting who aren't able to do this and kill their step-child when they realise the child is not theirs.
Obviously the person in the video probably didn't commit the aforementioned crimes but even if they had the way the police officers behaved was completely unreasonable.
Re:They can only take soo much (Score:5, Insightful)
You're right - between the foot massage/grape option and the 'repeatedly punching subdued suspect in the face' option, there is no middle ground.
I think you're underestimating the survival reflex here. As an asthmatic, I know (like thousands of other asthmatics) the terror of not being able to breath, and the panic it causes. If the suspect genuinely was unable to breath, it may have been all he could manage to do to just wave his arms around and croak "I can't breathe" now and then, rather than trying to punch the officers and struggle like hell. When you can't breathe, I'm guessing a lot of people would fight like hell until they can. If I was in his situation, and actually unable to breathe, I'm not sure I'd be able to put my arms calmly by my side and wait for the officer to stop suffocating me.
And the point that if he can't breathe, then he can't say that he can't breathe is just stupid. Believe me, someone fighting for breath will vocalise their distress if they think it will help.
I'm not trying to patronise you re: being in the position of not being able to breathe easily, but I think you're underestimating (or just not remembering) the panic it can cause.
(btw, I offer no opinion as to whether the suspect involved is a scumbag or not.)
I agree with the other guys... (Score:5, Insightful)
But, again, I would also easily believe that there are lots of cases where it was justified.
Sorry, it is never justified when the police do it.
Re:[OT] On dangerous terminology (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:The video IS propaganda. (Score:2, Insightful)
Answered elsewhere, by myself and others.
Not only that, before the officer punches him he tries to get a grip on the officers upper thigh or groin with his right hand. Watch the video. 15 seconds in. Given the proximity to the officer's groin I'm not surprised he got hit.
You left out the fact that the officer WAS KNEELING ON THE GUYS NECK. I'd be 'trying to get a grip' on the leg that was kneeling on my neck, too.
Re:Except it's not the same (Score:4, Insightful)
A lawyer of the family demanded Haebus Corpus but was initially refused for bullshit reasons which were later shot down. After that he was able to formally charged and a judge has ruled he is given a fair trial.
Bush has since passed a law (with his torture bill) that now automatically denies the right of Haebus Corpus for anyone deemed as a terrorist. Its backdated too so the government can't be done for whats happened so far. So they won't make that mistake again.
Here's something to get you started.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Padilla_(a
What does it tell you about you own country.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:A Measured Response to Police Brutality (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it makes no difference what happened before the video started. For one thing, everyone is assumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Every single person arrested is assured that right.
Second, every police officer should be expected to treat every single suspect with the same rights. Saying "it is alright for the police to beat someone up because the suspect just shot a little girl" is simply inexcusable. It does not matter the crime, the police are not around to dole out punishments. We have an entire branch of the government set aside to determine guilt or innocence, and then to give appropriate punishment for crimes.
Re:Are we all really that suprised? (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you really think that's all a small-town cop has to do? Small towns, like large ones, have domestic violence, mentally unstable people with weapons, robberies, rape, assault, dishonest businesses, unauthorized dumping of hazardous chemicals, racial discrimination, problems with crack and meth and alcoholism
Re:They can only take soo much (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:They can only take soo much (Score:4, Insightful)
Also...
5. LAPD have a long history of brutality.
"There is a significant number of officers in the LAPD who repetitively use excessive force against the public and persistently ignore the written guidelines of the department regarding force" -- Christopher Commission report, p. iii and p. 31.
Re:I agree with the other guys... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, it is never justified when the police do it.
Please mod parent up! This is exactly right. While on the job, upholders of the law must be held accountable for breaking laws they are working to enforce. Government by hypocrisy is immoral.
Just my two... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:No more videogames for you! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:A Measured Response to Police Brutality (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sure choosing the nickname "Sergeat Slaughter" has nothing to do with your authoritarian attitude toward law enforcement.
Exactly (Score:5, Insightful)
Do they ever do it? Almost never, and if they did they would lose their job as the absolutely best-case scenario. More likely, they get fired, get sued, never work again, and have to spend the rest of their life giving handjobs to support their crack addiction. What makes cops think they're above that? Firing cops who abuse their power is the very least that should happen to them.
It's arguably closer to treason, since they're abusing a sacred trust that has been placed in them. The power to use violence is a very serious one, and it is not casually that we've waived the right to claim our own justice with vigilanteism and lynch-mobs. The whole point is for police officers to be better than vigilantes and mobs -- otherwise, how are they worth the tremedous price? Why entrusting them with anything if we can't actually trust them?
Re:A Measured Response to Police Brutality (Score:3, Insightful)
If someone has a dissenting opinion they should not have to leave the country. What that statement suggests is they you do not believe in the system of government this country was founded on. You're accepting violence as a way of life and shutting down any possibilities for civil discourse which the founders of this country would likely endorse. I doubt you really believe those things but that's what your statement suggests. If the US is too violent that is something that needs to be corrected, not run away from.
Re:I agree with the other guys... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:A Measured Response to Police Brutality (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Except it's not the same (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, so surprising. (Score:5, Insightful)
The LAPD is discovered to be corrupt. Officers from Rampart Division are dipping into the dope stash in the evidence room, or some officers are engaging in "monkey slapping time". There's an outcry. Something Must Be Done. The Christopher Commission or its like is convened. Anti-corruption measures are proposed. Memory fades, and they never really get implemented. Lather, rinse, repeat.
You can go back to 1902 with this shit. [laweekly.com]
Re:Exactly (Score:0, Insightful)
Re:pretty good here (Score:3, Insightful)
That, and government welfare systems do not work - they decide who needs help based on politics (in this case, I believe racism was involved), not need. (Why does more than 1/3 of my income go to welfare again?)
Re:Except it's not the same (Score:3, Insightful)
http://forsoothsayer.blogspot.com/2006/10/mass-se
And then read the comment, on that same page, from the author of that blog about YOU Christophe Devriese and others just like you:
Re:Are we all really that suprised? (Score:5, Insightful)
The only way that sentiment makes any sense is if most police officers and soldiers were crazy, sadistic, power-abusing jerks. That isn't the case, and it's really quite the opposite. The uniform can be abused by the rare few, just like the liberties and responsibilities of being a citizen are abused by, well, rather a lot of people.
But these people don't get to wear a law enforcement or military uniform just by asking, and they operate under a lot more scrutiny than most of would tolerate at our own jobs. You do owe people in uniform respect, as a default position. You owe people who abuse that respect nothing - but unless you start out with the premise that all who serve are like that, which is crap, your position is just plain insulting. To a lot of people. If you assume you owe all of those people nothing, then do you also expect nothing from them? You can't have it both ways, even if it is easy to sit at your keyboard spewing nonsense. When your car is in a ditch and it's a state trooper that finds your ass in the middle of the night, be sure to start out by saying you don't respect him, OK? And if it's your ass that's being helicoptered off a rooftop in New Orleans by Coast Guard personnel that risk their lifes to save idiots every day, make sure the first thing you tell them as they pull you aboard is that you don't owe them any respect.
Grow up.
Re:Exactly (Score:4, Insightful)
The difference is that policemen are a part of a system that protects itself.
Cops know that. They know that if they behave like dicks on a power trip, most of the time it's your word against theirs and judges will take a cop's word over yours any day of the week (if it ever gets to a judge, that is). They know that even if there's some evidence against them, their buddies will lie to protect them or the prosecutors will recommend to close the case. And in the worst case, if they are proven to be guilty, the "punishment" will be laughable.
If I put some guy in traction because he was "disrespectful" to me, I can expect to spend a lot of my free time in a small isolated cell and have a criminal record for the rest of my life. If a cop does the same, probably the worst they can expect is having a "note in their record".
So yes, a lot of people will become little dick-tators in this kind of situation.
Politicians are the same. If I made you a promise that if you nominate me to the "best neighbour" award, I'd mow your lawn and then reneged on it, you could sue me for breach of contract -- especially if this promise was made to a lot of people and publicized in the media. Unfortunately, political campaign promises are exempt.
Why?
Because people know which side the of bread is buttered.
My solution: Any breach of the law that was made while abusing a position of authority (a) must be prosecuted, and (b) upon conviction, double the maximum penalty prescribed in the law must be applied.
Unfortunately, no one would pass such a law.
Re:Are we all really that suprised? (Score:3, Insightful)
And sadly, my family has a long history of involvement in the military as well as emergency aid and fire fighting, and even the police. And straight from their mouths come more examples of assholes with badges and people who shouldn't be wearing said uniform. (Sometimes, it's even that relative). So, pardon me if I offend, but I don't believe that the enlistment process for certain jobs (such as being a soldier or a cop), do the best job of getting rid of some of the douchebags. It's certainly better than nothing, but...
Look, all it boils down to is that I will not automatically respect someone because they're in a uniform. Not a soldier, cop, or firefighter. I will, however, respect them for doing a good job. If I were stuck in a ditch, do you seriously think I'd think poorly of a cop who pulled over to help me? If so, well, you're just plain wrong. That would be a cop, you know, doing his job, and quite well, might I add. I do see examples of these people, and I respect them for the work they do. Just as I respect the teachers I have and have had who did their jobs well, but not the ones who clearly were clueless jerks.
At the end of the day, a uniform is nothing but a pile of cloth. The people within remain. No one, in any job, immediately deserves respect or disrespect until their actions are observed. Not you, not me, not the garbage man, not a cop, and not anyone else.
Re:Are we all really that suprised? (Score:3, Insightful)
But I've also known a lot of good cops, and I've gained a certain amount of respect for people who are willing to put their lives on the line to protect their fellow citizens. I've known cops who do serve as officers as a day job and spend most of their time off work as volunteer firefighters or medics; people with an admirable ethic of public service, who are cops because they want to devote their lives to the people around them.
I believe that corrupt cops ought to be punished very severely. Corruption in the police should not be tolerated. There is an inherent danger in having a police force, and one of several ways to deal with that danger is to be on the lookout for bad behavior and come down hard when it's found. But I'm very defensive about the 'all cops are evil scum' reaction that comes up every time a police brutality incident comes to light. It isn't true and it isn't fair. Your post suggested that the job of being a cop is equivalent to "...pissing people off and harassing them, assaulting teenagers for the heinous crime of loitering, ignoring rape victims while using deadly force to deal with noise complaints..." and that when someone applies for the job, that's what they're signing up for. There are many ethical and upright people who don't deserve to be painted with that assumption.
Re:Cops (Score:3, Insightful)
That's what a Human life is worth to the police...
There is no such thing as 'the police'. There is only a wide range of people. Your choice to condemn every person in the world who choses that career as subhuman is almost in the same species of hatred as racism. It's blindly irrational, and it's deeply wrong. Speaking it in public is an unethical act akin to claiming that all Gypsies are thieves or that all Jews hoard money. The only difference is that the group you're condemning is made up of people who can leave the group. And the statement that every member of the group is subhuman until every member of the group is ethical, is so far beyond rationality as to have strayed into the absurd.
I can understand where that kind of hatred comes from. But I hope you can understand that even though you have reasons to feel that way, your reasons don't justify the broad scope of your hatred, or the assertion that every person in the world who wears a uniform is subhuman. The world isn't really made up of such convenient black and white, all-or-nothing distinctions. The world is actually a complicated place. If there's anything constant, it is that offering simple answers to complex problems, or giving simple descriptions of complex systems, is folly -- though admittedly, such folly is emotionally comforting and intellectually satisfying.
If every man and woman in uniform threw in the towel tomorrow, most of them would be acting unethically and abdicating responsibility, and many people would suffer and die for that abdication. That, if nothing else, really ought to give you pause.
Re:Are we all really that suprised? (Score:3, Insightful)
GP didn't say that people in uniforms deserved no respect, he said that the fact that there are good cops in existence does not imply that all cops therefore deserve respect automatically. In fact, he says he does respect them! You turned around and said "No you're wrong! They deserve respect because they are under more scrutiny!", which in no way contradicts, nor is contradicted by, what the GP said. Geez. Think before you post.
And thank you for such a clever demonstration of this fact.