Video of arrest sparks investigations

[klar]

I do not know about anyone else but I have had suspects resist big time while in cuffs. I have fought to get a person under control and into a wagon for transport and even into the back of a caged car when they did not want to go in there. I have fought suspects all the way down the hall into the holding cells. While I have never had a suspect grab my jewels I have had them grab at anything that they thought could give them an advantage. I think if one had grabbed me there I would have reacted the same way and clocked him across the head too. Heck I would have probally clocked him more than once. But that is just my opinion on this. As we do not know what really happened we can only guess.

Klar

[HNDLC3]

Originally posted by FLLawdog:
I know to an already inflammed community that answer won't hold up because the officer has already been tried, convicted and sentenced in the media.

FLLawdog,

You really got your finger on the pulse of the "community" out here. That is one thing that really frustrates me about living here. I love the weather, most of the people are great, the scenery is spectacular, and there is always something to do. But I hate the fact there there are so many people out here that are so quick to jump on any public safety folks whenever someone feels slighted. Not only that, but do they gotta be so LOUD about it, too? Just an FYI to all you guys not from this area, we all aren't that way. Most of us actually appreciate the job you do. Please don't lump me in with those guys.

My feeling has always been, if you are going to make a stink about a cop using force on a suspect, then you better make a stink if the roles are reversed. I want to see these "community leaders" express their anger when a member of their community injures any member of the public safety community. I want to see them calling for this person to be put away for a long time AND to be fired from their job right away, even before all the evidence is in. That is what they are asking for in this case.

[Moonpie]

Typical cop double standard....

"You weren't there and haven't been there to know that someone can be actively resisting without using their upper body. Per one of the posts above, the suspect was grabbing the officer's family jewels when he was leaning over the trunk. Given that fact, a strike would be perfectly appropriate to force him to let go IMMEDIATELY. "

In the same breath say that you can't know what happened if you werent there, then justify it by saying he grabbed his gonads, as if that is a fact.

Thanks for not dissapointing me with the typical police double standard.

[FLLawdog]

Thanks for not dissapointing me with the typical police double standard.

Thanks for not disappointing US with the typical anti cop babble .

If you had of read the entire post, you would have seen where I posted that a reputable department called the department head of the agency involved and found this out. It wasn't specualtion and it wasn't advertised as fact, either.

What you DID see was personal accounts that a handcuffed suspect CAN resist. What you also read was that no one in condoned the striking of suspect, once handcuffed unless there was a damn good reason. Right now there hasn't been direct evidence of that damn good reason, but if the 'nad squeezin' is true, then that should help the officer out. Of course, by now the general public won't accept anything but the officer's head because he's already tried, convicted and sentenced.

[Sparky]

Well Moonpie, I'd like for you to share your enlightened and well informed opinioin with an officer I once served with...

But you can't.

She was killed by a handcuffed prisoner.

Maybe you could tell her kids. Perhaps they will share your opinions about how a handcuffed prisoner can't be dangerous.

[Bill R]

Originally posted by Moonpie:
Typical cop double standard....

In the same breath say that you can't know what happened if you werent there, then justify it by saying he grabbed his gonads, as if that is a fact.

Thanks for not dissapointing me with the typical police double standard.

Moonpie, I haven't seen where anyone said the 'nad thing was fact. I have seen and agree that IF the guy was squeezing the officer's nads that would be a pretty darned good reason to punch him. You seem to have a pretty negative view of law enforcement. What's your problem?

[Moonpie]

You haven't? This is a quote from the moderator. Flawdog.

"One of our local Sheriff's called into a radio station this morning. Yesterday he called the Inglewood PD to get some additional info. It turns out that this poor, oppressed, racially profiled ute got 'hold of the officers "jewels" as he was being put against the trunk of the car.

That's something you won't see from the angle shown by the amateur cameraman."

Not to mention the previous quote I already stated where "Given that fact" was stated by ateamer.

I just find it odd how certain 'people' say that we don't know what happened, yet want to use this "grabbin' the nads" as a justifcation, as if that is now a fact.

Those quotes I used (where you say you don't see where anyone said it as fact) came from this very thread.

That's quite a double standard. But of course us "civies" don't know anything as another person here implied.

Ateamer, further goes on to say...

"When the suspect was grabbing the officer's 'nads, a strike to the face is reasonable and appropriate force."

I see no 'if' in that statement, but a when.

"Of course, by now the general public won't accept anything but the officer's head because he's already tried, convicted and sentenced."

And of course flawdog doesn't see his own double standard in his statement, by what that "poor racially profiled ute" did. And of course the moderator, believes that there HAD to be some mitigating circumstance.

Although I admit the majority seem to want to wait for more 'facts', others here have already made up thier minds what did happen.

That's called hypocrisy.

[ 07-11-2002: Message edited by: Moonpie ]

[Sparky]

Moonpie,

All of us officers here have had to restrain people who did not want to be restrained.

We've all had people continue to assault us after they were placed in handcuffs.

I even pointed out to you one case that I know of personally of an officer who was killed by handcuffed prisoner.

Please share with us what personal experiences you have in regards to restraining and transporting combative individuals.

[FLLawdog]

Oh, moonpie, knock it off. Please. Look at every single post in this. As a matter of fact, look at my reply to you. I did NOT say that this was fact, as I could not verify it. However, it DID come from a reliable source.

The rest of the comment, about the camera angle, is fact. If you look at the video, there is no f'ing way you can see what the kid is doing behind his back.

I just find it odd how certain 'people' say that we don't know what happened, yet want to use this "grabbin' the nads" as a justifcation, as if that is now a fact.

I never offered it as justification, but now that you mention it...say YOU were arresting someone, and they grabbed your jewels and wouldn't let go. What would YOU do? Once again, I'm not offering it as justification because there is no way you can justify a sucker punch. However, if that's what gets the kid to release his grip, that's what I'd do, too.

Once again, look at the entire thread and read each and every post. What you'll see is us saying that IF this happened, or THAT could have been going on. The overwhelming sentiment is that on the surface, the punch was uncalled for.

[Frank Booth]

.

[FLLawdog]

From Lawdog:
I'm not saying that they were right and wrong because I'm an entire continent away from the action. However, a guy in the safety of a hotel room armed with a video camera has only a slightly better view of things.

Like I said, I'm reserving judgement unlike our friends in the paper have done.

From Jarhead:
From what I've seen (which is the same thing that everyone else has seen) it looks bad for the officer. I have no idea what happened before the tape started rolling (or was conveintly edited) so I'm not going to say that he should have criminal charges or anything like that but he was definately in the wrong.

From Frank Booth:
He punched a guy while the guy was in handcuffs AND being restrained by another cop. On a public street, in broad daylight. Looks to me like a misdemeanor charge of assault and a 30 day suspension is in order. I don't think he should be fired unless he does this kind of stuff often. We have a lot more credibility defending cops who are unjustly accused if we deal quickly with the ones who are justly accused.

From Bill R:
I agree with Frank. Unless there is something hidden by the camera angle that would justify hitting the restrained prisoner the officer was wrong.

From Froggy:
The only thing I saw that the officer did wrong was the punch. I can understand the frustration there, but he really needed to step back at that point and let the others take over the scene and go compose himself before throwing a punch in anger.

Here's ateamer's comment. This was based on my post that it was reported BY THE INVOLVED AGENCY TO ANOTHER AGENCY HEAD that the suspect was grabbing the jewels...

From ateamer:
You weren't there and haven't been there to know that someone can be actively resisting without using their upper body. Per one of the posts above, the suspect was grabbing the officer's family jewels when he was leaning over the trunk. Given that fact, a strike would be perfectly appropriate to force him to let go IMMEDIATELY. I recommend reading the book "Official Negligence" by Lou Cannon, about the Rodney King video, trials and riots. It details very clearly, and without bias, what the video really showed and why the officers reacted as they did (in that case it was training and department leadership).

From ateamer:
The officers' actions are perfectly appropriate. Beginning with the suspect being shoved against the trunk lid, refer to "The Tactical Edge" from Calibre Press or any non-Koga defensive tactics training. The move is a stun technique to stop resistance. Resistance comes from more than hands. If the suspect is trying to get up when prone, squirming, pushing with his legs, he is actively resisting.
When the suspect was grabbing the officer's 'nads, a strike to the face is reasonable and appropriate force. It is critical that the suspect release his grip IMMEDIATELY. Striking his arm or hand could make him grip harder, with obvious consequences for the officer. A single strike to the face would not only distract the assaulter, but could also reasonably be expected to make him loosen his grip.

From moonpie:
And of course flawdog doesn't see his own double standard in his statement, by what that "poor racially profiled ute" did. And of course the moderator, believes that there HAD to be some mitigating circumstance.

You're right. I see no double standard. I based my opinion of variables. If some s***head is grabbing me while I'm arresting, no matter where he's grabbing me, I'm gonna do what I've gotta do to get his grubby d*** skinners off of me. End of point. I'm going home at the end of 12.

Sure, I'm basing my opinions, as is ateamer, on the fact that the officer was getting his crotch grabbed. If that's not the case, then fine, the officer was in the wrong. I'm just not falling for the lawyers' diatribes about racial profiling and abusive white cops. I also think it's pretty crappy for the mayor to take the biased stand he's taking.

[PC Instructor]

Here is a copy of the police report.

[Dinosaur]

I think most LEOs are inclined to grant the benefit of the doubt to a fellow officer. If presented with solid evidence contrary to that doubt, we're also inclined to accept the facts. The facts of this case are as yet unclear.

To suggest that this inclination is indicative of a double standard is itself a form of bias. There is an assumption of guilt inherent in that opinion. The presumption of innocence is not a biased view from a better prespective, it's the law.

I think it only fair to grant us the same basic rights we're sworn to uphold for others.

[Frank Booth]

.

[ateamer]

He had warrants out for petty theft and DUI.