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.

I completely agree. Am I devastated that the gangmember got hurt? No. Do I think he deserved it? Maybe. But that has nothing to do with whether the cop acted illegally and shelled out "punishment" instead of letting a judge do that. The cop needs to face the law just like the "alleged" gangbanger will.
Using unnecessary violence is just dumb. It could get you fired, your picture all over the news, and in the end the original "bad guys" could be (and often are) awarded money.
I hate to think about how many cops choose to use unnecessary force without it being taped or recorded somehow, and can going on living their lives as normal.
(Disclaimer, I'm not saying the cop in OP has a history of violence.)

what exactly do you folk mean by "a waste" when you refer to the "gangbanger" who got his head kicked after the chase(s)?
"a drain on society" as over against what? perfectly respectable looking hedge-fund managers? as over against, say, bernie madoff?

just curious.

RB,

when I say it, it means exactly how it reads. It has nothing to do with appearance but rather with actions. If someone is continually living the life of a career criminal it serves no purpose towards the betterment of society and therefore they are a waste in that regard. If they shape up and act responsibly so my kids have no reason to fear them or their actions then they are cool with me.

I would call Madoff a decided waste. Moreso than the gangbanger, even, since his actions most likely affected a lot more people than this little punk did.

It has nothing to do with what they look like, but what they do.

You guys are totally profiling, there is no way in hell this innocent man is a gang member!! Just look at his baby blue eyes!!!

Anyone with a mustache-like tattoo *should* be kicked in the head.. repeatedly.

seriously wtf

I'm fairly indifferent to it. It was a fairly light kick and it's not like he was doing it repeatedly. The criminal just risked the lives of a bunch of innocent people to get away from the LEOs. Then he suddenly stops. Personally I would think something fishy might be up. And you don't need a lot of power to stab someone with a concealed knife.

These LEOs are risking their lives to keep us safe for a measly ~50k a year. If we take away their leeway to do their job as safely as possible we are going to run out of LEOs and then where will you sheep be?

As the wife of a retired career NYPD officer. Married 17 years. One child.

The general public sees police officers as superheroes. They are not supposed to have emotion, they are not supposed to have an independant thought. They are just supposed to perform to the specifications of the public and all their rules, every second of every day.

That is not the reality. Your police officers are REAL human beings.

The "suspect" or perp, does NOT care who they mow down, run over, maim, dismember, or just kill. To them, it is just a game, story, badge of honor or simply something to do. Regardless of their reason, they have no feeling nor sympathy for the victims or their families.

There is a reason we give Police Officers weapons. They are not always in the form of a gun.

We need order.

We need protection.

We need to be protected from those who will find joy in doing us harm.

We need Police Officers. Do you risk your life everyday when you go to work?

The Officer did the unsavory, but correct human reacion. Get over it.

Law and Order is not a TV show, it's real life, on the streets of America.

Thank who ever you deem, that this didn't happen in your town, to you're family, to you're friends.

If it did, you might feel different.

The logical extension to this argument is that they should be allowed to shoot all suspects because one of them might have a gun. It's much safer for the cop if the suspect is dead, and so "as safely as possible" requires that the police murder everyone they come into contact with.

The cops signed on to do a dangerous job, yes, and that's why they're given tools like guns and bulletproof vests and massive backup from fellow officers, helicopters, SWAT teams, tanks, and when necessary, the National Guard. A man lying face down, spread eagled, with empty hands, is not holding a knife, and even if he was, would have to turn over in order to use it effectively. If they thought he might have a knife, they should have stopped about 10-12 feet away, with their guns drawn, and gotten plenty of backup to handle the situation safely. It is frankly insane to suggest that this officer only kicked the suspect in the head because the cop thought he was about to get stabbed. That isn't what happened, and everyone in here knows it.

Furthermore I rather resent the implication that I am a sheep and the valliant Men In Blue are my shepherds. I am not a sheep, to be ordered around without grounds, hit, and sometimes raped by the rancher. Just because they work for me and the rest of my fellow citizens does not mean they have carte blanche to do anything they feel like doing at any time they feel like doing it.

If we allow police officers to think it's OK to beat unarmed defenseless people because we "sheep" are afraid that Officer Wonderful won't be around to protect us, then we are exchanging our rights and liberties for a misplaced sense of safety; misplaced especially in light of the fact that you are advocating allowing the cops to beat on us whenever they want. Franklin had it right. Those who do that deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Personally, I think Halanna offered a really important perspective on this topic given the above discussion. From my own experiences I can genuinely say that I've known some admirable people pursue a career as an officer for the right reasons; that is to help protect society. Further, this was a really unique and dramatic situation overall. This wasn't just some cop beating someone down for smoking a reefer. This involved an intense chase where some loser could have easily killed any number of innocent people solely because he was scum. I don't know but for some reason this sort of situation really bothers me. As well, I think it's crazy to expect a cop to not be emotionally revved up after having to engage in such a chase.

Without a doubt, yes, what he did was completely and totally wrong; both the kick and the high-five. And yea he should definitely be harshly reprimanded for this. But NO the situation is not just like you kicking someone laying face down in the head.... unless you can perhaps show undeniable evidence that this person has just jeopardized the lives of others and yourself. And without a doubt I think the appropriate course of punishment should reflect what type of record this guys had with the force.

I would just like to give an "AMEN" to this. Spot on.

as far as cops go, sure there are good cops. sure I appreciate what they do on a daily basis, however, just because someone is a cop doesn't grant them immediate respect. respect is still something that has to be earned and the sooner the public and the cops figure this out, the sooner things will be better. Respect is a two way street, not a badge only street. I don't care if people think they are supposed to be superheroes. They are trained rigorously to keep their emotions in check and to serve the public.

So really, the whole "police protect us" argument doesn't really apply here in this specific incident. I don't care if the guy was a "gangbanger" and had broken the law, the simple fact remains that it is NOT up to the police to administer any type of punishment for actions with the exception of taking that person to jail, so that the true powers that exist can decide a fate. So basically, this cop should be fired or suspended as he doesn't have the capacity to be one of the "men in blue" that deserve respect; or, apparently, the ability to control his anger in tough situations.

I'm absolutely bloody disgusted by that.

Yes...the police often times need to get physical with a suspect to protect themselves and any innocent bystanders.

But a police officer should not get away with actions like that. Hell, in my opinion, an officer should be held to a higher standard of conduct that the "average person".

This person is in a position of trust, and he completely violated that trust by kicking a defenseless person in the head. I mean, I won't even argue that some gangbanger asshat probably deserved a good swift kick to the head for endangering the lives of so many people during the chase. But just because he might deserve it, doesn't mean the officer has any right to deliver it.

This was wrong, plain and simple, and the cop involved should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Sammy

the ugly part of this whole rant is that some of these officers carry this behavior over to their interactions with normal law abiding citizens who are just peacably going about their own private business. They get away with that awful behavior as well. It's why you'll see more cops being killed or beaten over the next decade.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,520379,00.html

yeah, people wonder why I hate the police.

ha a distraction blow. funny.

Nobody is arguing that cops aren't human beings.We're just arguing that if people are going to take on the responsibility of legally having a gun, and being able to use it when necessary, or any other form of force, then that very need is going to be very closely scrutinized by the people.
Do you know why? Cops, in their career choice, have the tools and power to end your life, or make it miserable.
To all the cops who hold this responsibility with humility, careful judgment, and who know where their responsibilities and rights end, our gratitude is eternal.

"the correct human reaction" isn't in the job description, anywhere. It's the enforcement and carrying out of what the law says. If we let them always react the way their gut feeling tells them to, instead of keeping a cool head and following protocol, why not just let mob justice take care of criminals? We can just let their immediate judgment handle the arrest and the punishment.

Yes, we do need protection, but only within the limits of the law.

Reprimand in this case should be a note in the cop's file. I'm not going to waste any tears on the gangsta. No boohoo for you, dipshit.

To me here is what it boils down to. I will never be in a situation like this with the cops because I follow the law, and I do my best to help further society. Yes I think kicking someone lying on the ground in the head is a little extreme, but in all reality I have no sympathy for the man because of what he was doing. Would everyone here be more happy if it ended in a crash with someones family in it?

I think that peoples rights should be abolished when they act in this manner (the man who was recklessly endangering civilians).

I think that if people are so worried about getting on the wrong side of cops then perhaps they should start following the law.

---------- Post added at 10:34 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:34 AM ----------

Too True, I happen to agree with you.

Call me a cop-lover, but I thought the same thing when I saw the video. "Distraction blow" indeed, because often when someone lies prone it is to HIDE drugs or weapons. I've seen way too many COPS episodes where people stopped their car, waited until the police officer got out, and then drove off, too many perps who put up their hands in the air, wait for the officer to approach, then pull a gun out of their waistband, who turn around as if to prostrate themselves, in reality dropping their baggie(s) on the ground. If I;ve been chasing a known gang member for ten, thirty minutes, who may or may not be armed, I'm sure as hell not going to simply walk up to him to secure the arrest without backup or a "distraction blow." If he'd tased him we'd all be "oh, ok", but kick him in the head and it's a big bruhaha..

Take, for example, a criminal who decides to open fire on officers attempting to give him medical assistance after a crash..

Jinn,

the whole point here is that the perp was on the ground prone yes, but when you watch the video, the supporting officers were what 2 seconds behind? He could have simply waited for 2 fucking seconds and then properly made the arrest. Instead, this guy pulls out a "distraction blow" for no apparent reason. I don't know how many people could pull a weapon out when their face is in the dirt and arms are stretched out in front of them. This is still in my view an unwarranted act of force and the cop should be at the very least suspended.

Sure cops have to take precaution, but going all gung-ho without any support is hardly a precaution.

I don't have anything to add to this thread beyond what I've already said but I will say that allowing COPS to inform your assessment of the matter at hand is like consulting an issue of Maxim to understand women.

Halanna: While I certainly sympathize with what you're saying, and do not sympathize with the suspect in any fashion (indeed feel disgusted by his character), I disagree with your claim that the police officer made 'the unsavory, but correct human reacion[sic]'. While it may certainly be a natural human response to the incident, one that many of the public might share, it is certainly not the correct one. The police are held accountable to the same laws we are. This does not reduce our gratitude for their service.

Unless you are making the 'distraction blow' argument, which is an entire separate animal. That really has to be dealt with subjectively, and as such I will not weigh in.

fixed that for ya.

I suppose I should have qualified it as 'should be'. Nominally so, they are, but as we both know, in practice this could be slightly farther from the truth than one might like.

This must have been a distraction blow as well?

Birmingham police beating video Video - al.com

What wonderful evidence, a show that glorifies abuse of power and officers with "I'm the law, fuck you" attitude. They boil down months of filming into half an hour or an hour of TV and people see what happens in a tiny minority of arrests and they deem TV-worthy, and we still get to see cops roughing up drunk drivers and acting like they're making society safer by busting a guy with an eighth of weed.

I previously posted in this thread that I didn't think the policeman's precautionary handling of this known, dangerous criminal was "excessive" (they knew who he was before they actually captured him). I wonder if it would have caused less criticism if the police would have used a taser or stun gun on this guy?...though the effect would have been about the same or possibly worse for the perp. Again, I would support the police decision to use such means on this dangerous criminal who had already stated his intent to harm the police and has shown complete disregard for the life and safety of innocent bystanders, as well as clearly behaving in a "death wish" manner regarding his own well being so he was apparently capable of any action even though it risks his own life.

Now I watch COPS occasionally and what tends to stick with me is the officers tend to know the people they are arresting AGAIN and they are called back to the same neighborhoods and homes so they already know the criminals. Isn't it a damn shame when the cops have to arrest the same people over and over again? The criminals know not to carry guns all the time because adding that will often send them to the federal pen. But that doesn't mean they don't have access to guns at a later time when you are not paying attention. The neighbors call the cops on the local gang members, they get busted for some minor crime, and 5 other guys show up at your door several nights later.

So MSD, maybe you should watch the show from that perspective.

This guy apparently required quite a few distraction blows.

Apparently a beat down is good for the economy.

its totally unethical!

wow. Those cops in Birmingham are crazy. I wouldn't be surprised if criminal and civil action was taken. They would have a hard time winning either case I would imagine.

I agree. I found the two videos pretty meaningless. In both cases you had suspects who were not lying prone, face down, with their arms spread wide and nothing in their hands. Instead you had suspects who had not surrendered, who were standing, or sitting, and therefore were automatically more ready to attack the officer than the guy this thread is about was. It would have been just as relevant to post a video of a grizzly bear attack and then claim "See? They needed to kick the suspect because a bear might attack and you don't want to have to face both at once."

This guy should never have been kicked in the face. They should have taken him out into the country, kicked him repeatedly, then shot him.

His rap sheet includes rape. We punish rape like the victim asked for it. Rape can be a death sentence to the victim. Or at least inflicting a life long disease.

I undertand how the emotional response from seeing his pic can be immature and rattling. Richard Rodriguez is his name and he's done far worse to other people. Would you want him kicked in the head if you found him breaking in to your home, molesting your daughter?

Sorry, knee jerk reaction called for there. Let's all take a calm reaction to this event. He should never have been kicked. He should have been shot while fleeing.

yeah---i'm confused about how the question of basic civil rights got diverted onto the question of whether spectators do or do not like the guy on the ground, whether they would themselves have kicked him in the face. it doesn't matter what you think of the guy. it really doesn't. what the cops did is illegal and they should be prosecuted for it. just as the guy on the ground will be prosecuted for his actions.

so you're advocating a crime because a crime was committed?

rape sucks and yes, if I caught someone in my house trying to molest my children there's no telling what I would do; however, this certainly isn't the circumstances of this tape is it? He's going to be prosecuted and more than likely spend a long time in the pen this time and saying he should have been murdered by the cops does nothing but make the justice system more of a joke than it already is. The cops are not the law or the enforcers of the law, they are public servants who are supposed to keep the peace and put people in confinement until a magistrate decides they should spend time in jail and wait for a trial. They do not exist to decide what punishment people should receive. If they wanted to do that they should be in a robe.

Hrm. Rule of law. What's that? America should have built itself on mob rule, apparently.

But wait...isn't that how this "gangbanger" operated?

I hardly ever consider myself on the side of police. In fact, one of my suspicions about most police forces is that they wanted to make sure to get all males registered "in the system" in some way, and this was far ahead of Law and Order's quip to get males "in the system".

I guess the proper response would have been to have this guy already in prison (he just got out when he committed his crime) forever. Unlike your standard weekend fuckup, this guy is rotten and shows no remorse.

Crowded prisons (full of folks who smoked a doobie three times) disallow violent criminals from being put away for life. We end the freedom of drug offenders so quickly while turning rapists out on the street because they don't pose a "systematic threat to the fabric of society" -Newt Gingrich.

I guess living in a gang-ridden metro and having to see the daily reminders of tertiary degredation caused by them makes me feel less forgiving.

This thread is circling down the drain.

The most glaringly obvious point is that it doesn't matter if Richard Rodriguez was Dahmer incarnate of the CEO of a Fortune 500 company, he still has rights and just because many of you may be willing enough to live in a world in which the police have the right to assault an individual simply because they "had it comin'" or because you're too much of an upstanding citizen to ever be on the wrong side of the law doesn't negate the fact that the law exists to protect all of us - even the scumbags.

I don't feel any sympathy towards Rich and I sure as hell won't be writing letters to the judge on his behalf but the idea that the law exists only to protect those on a certain side of it is absurd.

On the record, I would really have liked to kick Madoff in the head. Again, a person who has done something so absurdly wrong that I find it ridiculous that a person going away for ecstacy or pot will serve much longer that he ever will.

As Office Space said, I hope Madoff will at least serve some time in a federal "pound me in the ass prison", but I know that's not going to happen. He'll get decent bread and meat, carouse with other rich criminals, and when he gets out, there will be at least one or two friends with a couple mille to lend him while he gets on his feet.

Trump emerged from bankrupcty because he's good trash TV. Martha Stewart got out of prison with a poncho and a going away cake from Meg Scott Phipps. Oh, and a new contract.

Speaking of Office Space, and beating dead horses...

http://3alleypub.files.wordpress.com...dead_horse.jpg

Recidivism rates are high, but that's for another discussion. No matter how many times someone is arrested or convicted (and it seems that the distinction is blurred in a lot of peoples' minds,) individuals have the same rights and should be treated accordingly. The show throws out presumption of innocence and dehumanizes alleged criminals with no due process while officers show off their authority and flaunt their power for the camera.

They would want me on the jury. I don't like the police as much as the next guy, but I have no problem with harsh punishment for stupid criminals. If our judicial system isn't going to do it (except for the anal rape in prison (if that happens)), well I have no problem with a little 'physical force' during the arrest.

But the people here would probably want these people to get off because the police improperly arrested them.

actually, I don't think anyone is arguing that the perps in these cases shouldn't be put away. Most people are just arguing that cops need to quit acting like the enforcers and final say so of the law. Again, it's not up to cops to place judgement on anyone..that's up to the court system and a jury of their peers.

to say that you know what you're going to do on a jury before any real case is presented, is just one reason why the judicial system is fucked up. You don't have a problem with what these cops did because you don't think it's wrong for them to beat a perp when he's unconscious? seriously? What right does a cop have to do that? Please explain that one to me.

I think that most people are getting hung up on the fact that these people had prior convictions, are gangbangers etc etc etc, instead of looking at the real picture here. Cops are abusing their power and most people don't care because they are too blind to see the whole picture or they are scared of the cops because the cops have done a good job of making people believe that they *are* the law.

It should be pointed out that cops don't just violate the civil rights of gangbangers. They routinely arrest journalists, illegally, (as in, federal crime) because they don't want us there. In other words, some cops truly believe that the badge makes them the law, rather than just the enforcer of it. They get the idea that whatever they think should happen, now legally Must happen, or it's a crime.

Allowing them to get away with that thinking, whether it be arresting journalists (while not arresting anyone in the crowd who doesn't have a TV camera) or kicking defenseless suspects in the head, will only encourage more of that thinking.

I've read alot of fucked up things from people on this board before, but unless you didn't actually watch that video and read the article, you take the cake. Do you realize that that particular Alabama driver was unconcious after being thrown from the vehicle when those 5 jack booted thugs jumped and beat on him? what if he'd been critically injured from the crash and all those blows caused paralysis or death? would a death sentence have been warranted by you? The support these JBTs receive from the likes of you are why they can and do get away with the brutality they execute. It's completely sickening.