Cop kicks gangbanger
 

I'm pretty sure you have all heard the story of the El <Monte officer who kicked the gang banger in the head yesterday after a high speed chase. I normally do not have the Tv on, but happened to yesterday and watched the entire chase with my heart up in my throat at every intersection they went through. I honestly expected any minute to see a major crash, because all regard to red lights was dismissed by these three guys in the car, or I should say the driver. I was actually relieved when I saw the driver exit his vehicle and take off running.
I also am fairly sure I am of the same state of mind as the majority of people who witnessed the kick to the head. Sure it was wrong, and should not have happened, but I also think the cop is only human and although they are trained extensively not to do just this sort of thing, it would be( in my estimation) almost impossible not to do something such as this. It really surprised me that the cop seemed to be unaware of the helicopters in the sky right above him. Someone said he must have thought they were police helicopters??
The thing that bothers me the most is the law suit that will come from this with the slime bag gang banger most likely getting a very large amount of money, when Los Angeles is already working way in the red.
I just wanted your opinions on the whole matter.

A mixed reaction to a use of force - Los Angeles Times

Where exactly do we draw the line on the extent to which an officer of the law can violate the rights of others and chalk it up to being caught in the moment? However wound up the officer may have been, even a criminal has rights and what's wrong is still wrong.

..

Completely disagree :)

If you start violating the rights & safety of others, you can expect your own rights to be dinged while you are set straight.

The cop is not a jury, nor a judge. He does not have the authority to suspend rights beyond his legal duty to uphold the law. This kick to the head is not permissible under that.

The cop should be punished to the full extent of the law, as should the perpetrator for what he has done.

Otherwise? A lot of L.A. cops might start going around kicking people in the head. What next? Waterboarding?

I wonder if innocent bystanders whose lives were threatened by that scumbag's (the gang banger person) hugely dangerous antics could sue him for "life threatening endangerment" and take away any gains he might get from suing LA police?

completely disagree. It is not up to the police to "set straight" the actions of anyone. It is up to the court system. Judges are appointed for this very thing and if we continually allow the police to act as if they are the final word of the law, these types of incidents will increase not only in number but in force. What if the cop was "caught up in the moment" and shot the guy? Would that be setting the gangbanger straight? I can understand if the guy was fighting the cops and putting them into a situation where force was necessary, but raising your arms in surrender and falling to your face does not give any sort of justification for this cops actions.

Exactly. The cop decided to exact some punishment on top of whatever the justice system decided. The term "judge, jury and executioner" to describe someone is negative for a reason.

The kick was superfluous. The cop needs to be reprimanded at an absolute minimum. I don't know that I'd want him charged with anything since that could have repercussions greater than I think is warranted (jail time, job loss, loss of pension, etc.) unless there's a pattern of behavior by this particular officer that I'm not aware of.

I would be ok with the cop being suspended without pay and having to retake some training courses before he's back on the force. Cops need to learn that they are merely servants of the public and not the final word on the law.

I'm actually OK with it. I agree with ourcrazymodern?. Being wound up in the moment can be intense most especially if you have a douchebag like that driver around. Look how much I care for his rights when that motherfucker was driving around like a maniac and "gangbangin'" his wayt through crime university.

Not everything leads to the worst possible scenario. Simply kicking this guy won't one day lead to shoot first ask for pen knife later!!

here's the problem though. we're putting the cops on the same level as the gangbanger who was breaking the law. Police are trained to act professional and only use force when it is necessary. For a cop to kick a man who has fully surrendered while he is down, does nothing but put the cop on the same level as the criminal. How many stories of police brutality and trigger happy cops does it take before the public understands that police are not the final word on the law and that they quite often abuse any power they do have? I don't care if the guy was driving stupidly, it's not up to any cop to take force to a surrendered suspect. It's up to the judge and jury to decide the mans fate.

Add the fact that another cops comes in and starts hitting the guy in the side for no reason and then the high five at the end and it's clearly an abuse of power. Here's a tip for cops, if a guy is surrendered, and another cop is on top of him getting the cuffs on him, it's a bit difficult for the man to put his other arm behind him.. so instead of punching him in the ribs, grab his arm and tell the other pig to move.


here's the video in case nobody has seen it. Now if someone can give a really good argument as to why the kick was administered I'll listen; but after watching it several times, I cannot see any reason why it was necessary.

Now that I see it, I am actually less bothered by it.

To me it seems sort of like a light smack a parent might give to a child who has been seriously misbehaving and continuously ignoring any verbal orders/instructions, so the parent can get the kid's attention and make a point...without really causing any serious damage. I am opposed to harsh corporal punishment, but a light smack once in a blue moon to regain the culprit's attention is sometimes appropriate IMO. This does not automatically make the next step the killing or crippling of a suspect or child.

However, I would reprimand the police officer, take him off active duty for a while (30 days? 90 days?) and send him to an appropriate class to learn proper police response.

You've got to be kidding. That kick could have killed anyone. Are you saying parents should do this to their children?

After seeing it, I'm disgusted. The perpetrator was prostrate and unprepared to receive anything besides a pair of handcuffs.

This is assault, and the officer should receive whatever such a charge in this situation would bring him.

Yep.

the "heat of the moment" arguments bring up an interesting sidebar. I certainly wouldn't get away with beating someone who pissed me off because it was the "heat of the moment." I am expected to be a mature adult who can control his actions sufficiently so as not to beat people who make me angry. Those advancing the "heat of the moment" defense are really saying that cops should not be expected to have the same level of maturity and restraint as the rest of us are expected to have. That means either that the badge should give you a free pass to break the law whenever you feel like it, or that cops in general are less mature and less able to control themselves than the rest of us. I tend to reject both interpretations.

honestly, I don't know how anyone could watch that and think it was acceptable or even liken it to a parent reprimanding a child. There is no justification for the cop doing that. If he doesn't get charged, I hope he gets suspended without pay.

I'm starting to wonder why we hear about this more in the L.A. area more than anywhere else. Could it just be that the media saturation is higher there than in other areas?

Is it ok to shoot your wife and her lover if you surprise them in bed? No, not in modern society. How is this any difference except by degree?

I stand by my earlier statement that I don't think the cop needs to be charged with assault. I think that he needs to be punished (suspension, retraining, etc.), but charges mean that he's fired, loses his pension, etc., all for one mistake that doesn't warrant that sort of reaction.

He was wrong. Period. The suspect surrendered and was not posing a threat. Force was not needed. He abused his position to deliver what amounts to street justice. It is wrong every single time.

I disagree. He would cheerfully charge me with assault if I ran up to a guy lying prone and booted him in the head, and rightfully so. A badge should not be a ticket to break the law. If anything, cops should be more strictly held to the law than the rest of us, because if the law enforcers don't follow the law, why should we?

I haven't watched the video, and I don't intend to unless I'm somewhere with hi-speed internet, but I still have something to say that has yet to be brought up. As someone with a background in martial arts, let me tell you: just because someone is on the lying prone on the ground, does NOT mean they are not a threat. I can imagine this being especially true if you are dealing with a suspect that has already endangered the lives of others, and if armed, would be willing to harm you.

I too have a rather extensive background in martial arts, holding rank in 4 systems including black in one of them. A guy who was too tired from running to make it over a fence, lying motionless and spread eagle on the ground face down with nothing in or near his hands, who has two armored and armed men bearing down on him is not much of a threat. In order to effect a strike he'd have to at minimum roll over and pull his arm in. That would be plenty of warning for the cop, who ran in from the side and kicked his head. I could maybe see the cop running in from the side and dropping his knee on the guy's back, or even pressing his knee against the guy's head (because as I'm sure you know once you hold the head to the ground it's very hard for them to do anything to you), but this guy looked like he was kickin' a field goal.

Felix,

while that's a good point, in this case it was clearly not a threat. Guns were drawn on the suspect and was doing what was told to do (I'm assuming this by posture of the suspect). If there was still a thought that a threat was present, then the cop should have waited 5 seconds for the other cops to show up and then proceed to handle it the way it should have been handled.

Jazz,

so what if he's fired and loses his pension? If I go out and assault someone or worse would you be saying the same thing if I lost my job? Just because someone makes a mistake doesn't mean they are automatically let off the hook because of their position or their title. It's even worse when that person has been trained to handle situations such as these in an appropriate manner. I can see where you're coming from, but there is simply no excuse for this behavior, especially from a public servant. I would also be willing to bet this isn't the first time he's done it, just the first time it's been on tape.

It wasn't a mistake. It wasn't an accident. If I did the same thing, I'd be charged, and with the video as evidence, I'd surely be convicted. He should get exactly the same justice I would get for making the same "mistake". A fucking sensitivity class won't cut it, and neither will suspension. He should lose his job! He shouldn't be allowed to be a such a position of authority anymore. He lost that privilege when he decided to kick a man on the ground in the face.

On top of all that, most cops that I've met wear steel toed boots. I'd be willing to wager that nobody in their right mind would reprimand their kids with a steel toed boot to the face.

Ya it was a bad thing to do. The police should be above that. After All that's what professional training is supposed to provide. An arm's length approach.

---------- Post added at 12:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:51 PM ----------


the really good argument is: He deserved it. Was it necessary? Nope. But damn, he deserved it.

I'm not saying the guy doesn't need to be punished. We're ALL working from assumptions here, some of which are becoming obvious.

I'm NOT assuming he has a history of similar incidents.
I'm NOT assuming he was wearing steel-toed shoes.
I AM assuming that everyone here is aggitating for a felony assault charge.

If those assumptions are wrong, then I'll change my opinion. Felony assault, if found guilty, would mean a few months in jail (as opposed to prison and is an important distinction). We don't know anything about this officer, so I'm not automatically assuming that he's a bad guy. If he is, and he's gotten lots of complaints about excessive force or has been reprimanded for it before, etc. I'll be the first to advocate getting him off the force and getting him in jail.

So, before you continue fire off replies at me, go get some facts and let's see how that matches up with what everyone is assuming.

Really? who decides what a suspect deserves? cops or judges? Because by that logic, I'm going to sign up for the force because I can think of a whole lot of people that deserve at least a kick in the face.




Jazz,

I've never said Felony assault. Simple assault maybe, but if he is charged then fuck it.. he will get what he deserves in a court of law. I don't think he should be above anything..whether it's a misdemeanor or felony charge.

Note to self: if this comes to pass, stay the fuck out of North Carolina.

Outside of the assumption that I would be tried and convicted, this pretty much seems like fact to me, but I'll throw this in anyway: "in my opinion" (it belongs up ^^^ there somewhere).

I'm not the one throwing around the word "gangbanger". I never made any assumption as to the quality of character of anyone involved. The steel toe thing, yeah, total assumption, but an assumption based on the FACT that every cop I've come in contact with has worn steel toes. Maybe this cop was wearing Nikes and the suspect is lucky.

That's all I really wanted to say anyway.

Despite agreeing with you, I must mention that your analogy is inaccurate. In some states, this is still legal.

EDIT: An example:

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...n.363ab55.html

States where catching a wife engaging in adultery was "justifiable homicide":
Georgia
Texas
Utah
New Mexico

A cop who looses his/her cool under stress should reconsider his/her career choice.

looks like this guy got a few nice shots to the ribs after he was kicked in the face. but it's hard to tell from the distance the camera's at--maybe the cop who comes into frame second just has a strange twitch that makes it appear as though he his punching a guy down on the ground spread eagled who had already been kicked in the face...

i'm astonished that anyone approves of this. maybe the word "gangbanger" is enough to trigger it; maybe it is a little legacy of shows like "cops" which never seem to show much in the way of civil rights abuse by the police--so you can watch shit like that and get an expanded sense of what normal looks like. which was an effect of and perhaps a rationale for that kind of show. help you expand your mind in the direction of consenting to anything done by those fine boys in blue. anything at all. unless it happens to you, of course. then civil rights matter. but when you're watching someone else get kicked in the face and you've read the word "gangbanger"---well, he deserved it.

criminy.

Well, this part of your statement defeats anything you have said or will say about this in the future.

how's that?

calling someone a pig when they act like a pig automatically disqualifies points I've made?



so be it. to each their own.

/me goes to put on some good 'ol NWA.

Oh the poor gangbanger, attacked by the mean cop.
Sorry, I have no sympathy for this POS. He got off light as far as I'm concerned.

Me either. Immaterial. His past record and the construction of his footwear should have no bearing on whether or not he broke the law in /this/ incident.

If the DA had you on video kicking me in the head as I lay in the grass, what would you be charged with? That's what he should be charged with. Easy as that.

It doesn't matter whether or not he's a bad guy, or whether or not he's done this before. The cops aren't gonna look at you and say "well gee Jazz isn't a bad guy and he's never done this before, so it's totally fine that he booted shakran in the skull." You can have perfectly clean criminal record, and you'll still get charged with an assault if you kick me.

My question for you is, why should a police officer not be held to the same laws and consequences for breaking those laws, that he holds everyone else to?

Yes, because it means you have no interest in the truth, regardless of any facts that were to come out. The same way that anyone who would say that the "dirty spic" deserved what he got, would also negate their arguments.

I'm not defending either side in the assault, I'm just saying that bigotry is bigotry and should be pointed out as such.

wrong. I would be the first retracting my statements if something came out that showed the man did indeed deserve a kick to the head or that another pig punching him in the side while cuffing him was necessary. However, judging by what I see I cannot fathom any possible "fact" that could come out and justify these actions.

dirty spic has a racial tone to it, and afaik, pig doesn't. Unless you're republican and then it's sexist. ;)

so call bigotry all you want, there is no bigotry present other than calling something what it is, and that cop is certainly a pig. Just a simple reference to London's Bow Street Runners.

Ah, but you see, it DOES matter, especially when it comes time for the District Attorney to bring charges. What other cops do or don't think is completely immaterial - the DA is the one who decides who is going to be charged with what. The DA gets to make the decision of whether or not to charge a felony or misdemenor and how agressively to pursue things in court. There is felony and misedemenor assault, one of which means that the cop is automatically fired and one that doesn't. If I were in the DA's office and the assumptions that I've already admitted I'm working from were true (no past history of excessive force, no steel-toed shoes), I'd argue for misdemenor. If either or both of those are not true, I'd reconsider, especially depending on what the actual injuries to the suspect are.

Absolutely they should. That's why I'm making the argument that I am.

One look at the picture in the article and you know he's a gangbanger. I'm not one to profile, but this dude clearly is or was a gangmember.

Seems you and I are making a similar argument from 2 different sides. I don't know the law in California very well. If I did this to someone there, I don't know if I'd be charged with a felony or a misdemeanor. If I would be charged with a misdemeanor, then I'm fine with the cop getting the same charge.

I do know that where I live, if I pulled that, I'd be up on felony charges.

I think it's reasonable for the law to hold its enforcement officers to the same standard as the rest of us. I would hope that they hold themselves to the same or higher standards because of their position of authority. Assault other than in self defense is not justifiable.

Go for it. who decides? Well, in this case the cop did. Plus all of us who think these drains on society should be doing positive constructive things, rather than self centred irresponsible assinine things. meh. So he got a good case of whoop-ass (in the face). I'm hardly sympathetic. But ya, the cop has to face the music for his actions too. As would you or I if we should decide to administer kicks to 'a whole lot of people'.

karma keeps on swinging like a pendulum.

I'm totally in agreement that gangbangers and people who do nothing but cause problems are a waste. I'm just arguing that even though someone deserves something, often times it's best to let the people who are supposed to give out the punishment do it. Other wise we have PR nightmares and issues like this.