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, tha
Re: (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 o
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.
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: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:Exactly (Score:5, Interesting)
Jail time for politicians who break their campaign promises? That would be so fucking sweet that I'm getting diabetes thinking about it. Elections would actually mean something. Politicians might have to ... gasp ... make reasonable promises and argue sensibly and rationally!
You know, I actually read a newspaper article about a group of law school students (in Toronto, I think) who formed a legal aid society to press lawsuits against cops. The trick was that they did it exclusively in small-claims court, where the burden of proof is much lower. And if you lose, the amount that you can be forced to pay to cover your opponents legal costs is quite small, making it the society more economically viable. Getting cops put in jail is virtually impossible; taking a few thousand dollars out of the station's pockets (plus legal fees) and generating massive amounts of bad publicity for the police sends a dire message. They had actually won a number of cases, and established some (admittedly minor) precedents for suing police officers. They had a whole archive tracking greviances against various cops. Pretty impressive for a bunch of students. I bet they'll have no trouble making top dollar in their own practices someday. I wish I had a link to post to the story.
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: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: (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 thei
Re: (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! Yo
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
>
> 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.
My Army vet buddy (who served in both Korea and 'Nam) is also an ex-cop from the LAPD, an
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Key point here being they chose the job. I'll admit I have some respect for cops in Gary, Indiana and Washington DC where they literally put their life on the line just donning a uniform and are kept busy from the time they show up until the day is over, and sometimes even after that. They chose that life th
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: (Score:3)
"Universal" is a pretty big word, coming from such a small, whiny source. Big, in the sense that it means "everything," "everyone." Which is, as you probably already know, utter horseshit, in the context in which you used it. The "universe" consists of a lot more than just your own personal tinfoil-lined paranoic fantasies. I know lots of people, and I know cops. I don't know anyone, including people who've had to p
Cops (Score:3, Interesting)
Or, and this one is particularly good, my Dad's affair; the woman's husband was a high-ranking, highly-decorated detective. When they both decided to divorce their current partners, this pinnacle of the community, this
Re: (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 mo
Cops (Score:4, Interesting)
One winter back in the 1990s in Manitoba, there were some cops who picked up a local teenager, drove him to the outskirts of town, and left him there. It's important to note at this point that during a Manitoba winter, the temperature gets down to -30 celsius and the wind chill can easily bring it further down to -50. Unsurprisingly, the kid froze to death and died. Guess who covered it up? Every single cop in the entire city. No heroes, no whistleblowers, just a blue wall of evil, evil people.
Then it turned out that they did this regularly with anyone who was homeless, perceived as a troublemaker, or "First Nations". It took an extensive public inquiry to determine what happened and collect enough evidence to make a case. A good, decent, honourable cop would have spearheaded the investigation and crucified his colleagues for committing such a heinous act in inhumanity. A shitty evil cop would avoid doing an investigation because he doesn't give even the slightest thought to justice, the law, or even Human life.
Stonechild Scandal [www.cbc.ca].
So what was the final outcome? The officers responsible were suspended WITH PAY, and the family got an apology from the current police chief. That's what a Human life is worth to the police: early retirement and some hollow words from someone who has nothing to do with the situation whatsoever.
Re: (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 condemnin
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: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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not the author, but if you take that into context with his previous sentence: I'm not surprised at all that there are hundreds of instances where an officer may have overstepped justified force., I think what he meant to say is that a lot of those cases were actually justified but appeared to be overstepping the bounds because people don't get to see the whole
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If I went to someone's house and they were beating on a child or their wife, you better believe I'd crack them upside their head. Or if in arresting someone and they spit on me or something, you better believe there would be a physical response.
In theory, I don't have a problem with a cop shelling out a little bit of punishment. The problem for
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.
Re:Is it that bad? (Score:5, Insightful)
YES! (Score:5, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
and ps, i doubt the the police would be willing to give up these videos unless they really had no choice - kinda similar to the recent story about a person asking for a complaint form in a florida police station and being intimidated and told to get the fuck out by the cop on duty.
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: (Score:2)
Unjust is unjust, even if you dislike the victim.
Re: (Score:2)
That tends not to fly too well with many courts, especially in civil suits where the standard is a "preponderance of evidence" not "beyond a reasonable doubt."
-b.
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]
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: (Score:2)
The egyptians in those videos will be killing people on the streets tomorrow, as will the palestinians, the afghans, the pakistanis, the saudi's.
Therefore these cops in the U.S. are not that big a problem, while the ones in those muslim countries are a huge problem.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
In order to get into guantanamo you have to meet 2 conditions
1) you need to get caught fighting american troups abroad
2) in a country that is not your own
If this doesn't prove that these people are seriously fucked up, then nothing will.
Look at what they do in those countries to people who MIGHT be guilty, without trial
http://www.nakedterror.net/galleries/thumbnails.ph p?album=7 [nakedterror.net]
These people want to do the same in the US.
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: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Except it's not the same (Score:5, Informative)
> Court concluded it was not. What exactly is wrong ?
Nothing wrong at all. Those countries quoted earlier have similar laws making detention and torture without being charged perfectly legal too.
> He is a terrorist.
Until he is tried and convicted in a court of law no he isn't. Having one law for yourself and another for *terrorists* makes you no better then the terrorists or states quoted earlier.
> Do you have any idea what that word means ?
I have lived in Ireland and England during the worst times of the troubles between the two countries. Do I know what it means? Yes I do. For me and family/friends I know it means having to be taken out school in England for fear of being beaten by children/adults every time the IRA set off a bomb. It means being segregated every time you took a flight or a boat. It means being treated like a criminal every time you entered a pub in England. It means having a rifle pointed point blank range at your face while customs check your car or being detained for over an hour being asked endless stupid questions and then getting an armed police escort to a plane yet.
For others it means being picked up off the street and thrown into a camp where you are tortured for months on end because you may have a similar sounding name as a terrorist or just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time or due to a clerical error on the pickup warrant. It means not being able to get work because people denote your race/religion to mean terrorist.
All that did was escalate terrorism in Ireland/England.
So I know full well what the word means. Do I agree with terrorism? Fuck no. However throwing laws out the windows or implementing laws of torture and denying rights to people to protect yourself is folly in the extreme and will only bite yous in the ass years from now.
And unless your willing to experience such laws enacted on yourself you have no right to claim that they are good or bad.
Here is more reading material for you.
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/intern/index.html [ulst.ac.uk]
Re:Except it's not the same (Score:4, Informative)
What does it tell you about you own country.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
http://forsoothsayer.blogspot.com/2006/10/mass-sex ual-assault-in-downtown-cairo.html [blogspot.com]
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: (Score:2)
The fact that you claim to know more about islam than thousands of ex-muslims is very telling. Have you ever seen a koran ? Ever read some part of it ?
"9:5, But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Infidels wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem."
Infidel ? that's probably you.
Being a muslim implies that you follow this rule TO THE LETTER (ask any
Re: (Score:2)
you seem to be from a planet where there are no such things as moderate muslims. me, in NY, i'm surrounded by them.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
A muslim recites the basic tenet of islam, which implies following the koran and surah.
And then you have these muslims
http://www.faithfreedom.org/ [faithfreedom.org]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In Soviet USA, cameras watch authorities! (Score:5, Funny)
In democratic UK, Big Brother... err... wait... hang on
Re: (Score:2)
How about islamic government, what the terrorists are demanding ? What 87% of the british muslims are demanding ?
There can be different types of bad government, though. Some homegrown and some imposed from abroad. Your statement is like telling a condemned man that he should be happy that he's being shot in the morning because he won't have to burn to death in the electric chair. In the end
Re: (Score:2)
pretty good here (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:pretty good here (Score:5, Informative)
We have it pretty good in the USA, you should see the other places in the world
Yeah... your obviously white and middle class... I recall being in Oakland and SF in 2003, the amount of homeless was disgusting. Come to think of it, I think on the TV there was a proposed plan to relocate the homeless out of public view...
Get your head out of the sand.
Re: (Score:2)
Go down there and start an IT school. Should be doable. These people have all the time in the world, and a LOT of willpower, due to their situation. They will beat a lot of lazy slobs work in way to high places after only a few months of trained.
Maybe just buy 5 books on various subjects and give them some. "Becoming an electrician", "Starting out in auto repair", hell even
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
not in Massachusetts (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
A Measured Response to Police Brutality (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyway, the video on youtube is a little brutal but I don't think either officer should be fired. Maybe a short suspension for the guy punching the perp in the face, because that is not a move that helps get the suspect into custody. We also have no idea what that guy did before the video starts. He might have just shot a little girl, spit in the cop's face, or jay walked. We have no idea what the context was, so it's hard to pass judgement. Either way, that wasn't all that brutal, at least he wasn't hitting the dude with his mag-light.
I have had a few bad experiences with the police (like the one mentioned above) and believe that it is always better not to get them involved. However, I have also had police save me from a machete weilding maniac that had me pinned in my bedroom (adn believe me, I wanted them to kick the crap outta him). They are necessary, and I think we should all try to keep open minds. Besides, I'm a rarity, a nerd who parties and gets involved with shady people. THeir probably aren't very many people on
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: (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
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming a cop's salary is $50,000 per year and this amount was personally paid by the cop, that would be just about right. Deprivation of half of his salary for 6 years. If nothing else teaches the cop a lesson, I'm sure that hitting it in the pocket will.
-b.
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sure choosing the nickname "Sergeat Slaughter" has nothing to do with your authoritarian attitude toward law enforcement.
There are three kinds of cops in the world (Score:4, Interesting)
2) Cops who are not corrupt, but ignore the corruption of others
3) Cops too stupid to know what's going on around them
I know plenty of cops that fit into varying categories above. Personally, I don't give a shit if some guy dealing drugs to kids (note to kids) or some guy abusing his wife gets an extra knock to the skull. At the same time, cops are typically dicks to people for no reason. They spend 90% of their time raising taxes (writing tickets) or playing cleanup after some dumbass.
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: (Score:2, Informative)
Sheesh. Read some of the other posts here. The cop was kneeling on his neck. They had Pepper-sprayed him, too. He was evidently having trouble breathing. He said "I can't breathe." WHat he meant was "I am having trouble breathing, do to your KNEE on my NECK and the PEPPER-SPRAY you squirted me with." He just chose the more concise way of saying it.
3: Where's the rest of the video? Why was it cut off?
RTFA. It was taken with a camera phone. Those thi
People just want something to cry foul over (Score:2)
Video is difficult (Score:4, Interesting)
Our aim was to observe the actions of the police and record what they did during the demonstration, be that behaviour good, bad or indifferent. We used written notes and (later) dictaphones for this. We did not use cameras (still or video) because we knew that photographic evidence was very problematic in court. It was too easy to challenge on points of detail. It was instead far easier to secure a conviction of police brutality by having detailed (and consistent) written observations of three or four individuals given as evidence by the prosecution. Having evidence that nothing happened at a specific time was useful if the police said that there was an incident, so we used to take notes at 5-minute intervals whether or not there was anything to observe.
When riots happend (and they usually did), I remember you needed a bottle of water to stop your mouth running dry as you had to constantly describe the events around you.
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]
Some of these replies... (Score:5, Interesting)
Some are saying things to effect of "The guy was breaking the law, so he deserved it!" What about the fact that the officers who behave as such, meting out their own justice whenever it suits them? Are they obeying the law, or are they breaking it also? Why is one any better than the other? Should I, seeing an officer behaving badly, beat the living shit out of him, or should I record him acting badly and report him to his authorities?
By the way, I have seen this argument from both sides. I have been thrown on many hoods of many cruisers for no good reason. I have been harassed by police officers who later claimed "they were just bored". Also, 3 of my uncles are cops, and every one of them is crooked. Then again, when I was falsely accused, one particularly stand-up cop was my strongest advocate, and the charges were dropped. So what I'm saying here is that cops require no special modicum of trust outside of that which we afford them in their commission as an officer of the law.
Re:They can only take soo much (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
He obviously was not adequately restrained because they couldn't get the cuffs on him. And despite his claims that he "could not breathe" the fact that he had enough breath to speak proves him a liar.
I see no brutality here. I see two cops in a difficult
Re: (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.
You don't think your balls being crushed is harm? (Score:3, Informative)
How would you interpret such an act from someone you've just had a fight with and who you're still holding down? Would you wait and see what he was doing with his hand?
btw, if you answered yes to that last question, you're a walking victim, it's just a matter of time before something nasty happen
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.)
Re:They can only take soo much (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The video is propaganda. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2)
The video IS propaganda. (Score:2)
How could he speak if he couldn't breathe? Watch the video. He's both breathing and speaking. 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.
There are a number of "vital points" on the human body which will end a fight damned near instantly. The big three are eyes, throat and groin, if you l
Re: (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: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The video is propaganda. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You're saying that there are no bad apples among cops. I know some cops. Most of them are decent folk at least when off the job. There are, however, a few power hungry bastards who ruin the image of cops in everyone's eyes and for the sake of respect for the law would be better off being taken out back and shot.
-b.
Re: (Score:3, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
Keep in mind that proof, or even a strong indication that an officer committed any of the first 3 will get him fired and off the streets.
Re:They can only take soo much (Score:4, Informative)
1. Offender is a known "Gordon Street" gang banger in Los Angeles.
2. Offender had a warrant out for his arrest for accepting stolen goods.
3. Offender was running from the police officers before they had tackled them.
4. In the video, you can see the offender grabbing the officer's inner thigh before the officer started to punch the offender.
In my opinion, although this offender did get what he deserve regarding the first set of punches, I believe the officer went a little overboard on the second set of punches (first set is to let go of his inner thigh, the second set was to get him to submit to a roll-over for handcuffing).
Thats just my thoughts, please excersize your independant thinking!
Re: (Score:2)
If anyone was kneeling on my neck I'd probably grab an inner thigh or whatever I could so that I could start breathing again too.
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
1. Offender is a known "Gordon Street" gang banger in Los Angeles.
2. Offender had a warrant out for his arrest for accepting stolen goods.
3. Offender was running from the police officers before they had tackled them.
So
1. He belongs to a gang like his father, and brother, and sister, and probably everyone else in his family and neighbourhood.
2. He has a history of engaging in property
There wasn't much pressure on his neck (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:They can only take soo much (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
He wrote about how Darrel Gates (former LAPD chief) misdirected funding for the nearly secret, but windowless version of the LAPDs own CIA. The LAPD had NO business amassing an CIA-type quality to it, where they tapped phones in LAX, spied on Mother Theresa, Michael Jackson, and numerous celebrities who used pay phones in th
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: (Score:3)
When you're dealing with scum like that, force is part of the detainment process. I see why no reason why they should use the absolute minimum force.
You don't? Seriously? Ever considered that you might be arrested someday? Perhaps even without doing anything wrong?
When dealing with someone violently resisting arrest, you use the maximum force possible.
The maximum force possible is lethal force. You really think the cops should kill anyone who resists arrest? You obviously didn't really mean "ma
Re: (Score:2)
Not necessarily. The cameraman may have not considered the incident worth filming until the cops stepped over the line. And, if the video was done in video mode of a digital still camera, some cameras (Canon S410 IIRC does) limit their footage for a single clip to about 30 sec. even if the flash card can hold more of it.
-b.