Be careful when yolu videotape cops beating suspects!

[gobear]

In this unsettling follow-up to incident in inglewood , CA, where ciops were taped beating a teenage suspect, CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/07/12/police.beating.crooks/index.html) reports that the man who videotaped the incident, having been arrested yesterday on "unrelated charges" was hospitalized for injuries suffered while in custody.

You know, this is a really good way to blow the good opinion for policemen that was generated last year after 9/11. The police are supposed to be the good guys, arresting suspects, not beating them, still less beating bystanders who caught them in the act.

What's next? "Disappearing" suspects in custody? The old knock on the door in the middle of the night and being whisked away "im Nacht und Nebel"? Oh, right, that's Homeland Security.

[Typo Negative]

I think we're jumping to conclusions here.
Crooks was convicted of the three crimes in March 1999 and sentenced to seven months in jail but failed to report for the sentence, leading to the warrant for his address, the Placer County sheriff's office said.


Masserman said. "He was strapped down," but did not have any visible injuries.

From inside the car, Crooks yelled at the top of his lungs, "Help! Help! Help! Help me!" as the SUV drove away.

It is possible that this man has found a good way to avoid serving his sentence. He violently resists, gets a few bruises, and claims he was battered in retaliation. A good plan, if that's what it was.

I'm not saying that's what happened. Just that we don't know, and shouldn't assume. But the cops should have been extra careful with this guy.....

[The Wrong Girl]

And this transcript of Crooks on a radio show (http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/07/11/police.beating.radio/index.html) is pretty scary, too. He seems pretty paranoid, but I might be the same way in his position.

[tiny ham]

I'm surprised that this is the first thread on this subject since it happened, unless I missed something.

[CRorex]

I think the moral of this story is:

Don't become the focus of the national media with OUTSTANDING WARRENTS!

The police are supposed to be the good guys, arresting suspects, not beating them, still less beating bystanders who caught them in the act.

Yup, the arrested a bad guy who was trying to avoid paying for his crimes. If I were him, I'd sure as hell be screaming about police brutality, it could keep me out of jail. Lets face it, he's already tried once to stay out of jail, him doing so a second time isn't a very large stretch of the imagination.

And I think why there weren't any other posts on this subject is that it's pretty clear he was arrested on outstanding warrents.

[gobear]

I think his arrest on outstanding warrants a few days after he videotaped cops doing something reprehensible is mighty suspicious.

[tiny ham]

I'm saying that I'm surprised there weren't any threads on the cops that were beating a HANDCUFFED SUSPECT.

[rsa]

I don't know whether the guy taken into custody was abused (it would be pretty dumb with the FBI and DOJ already involved in the first case). I did find it pretty stupid to pick the guy up in a big SUV with windows tinted so dark that it was impossible to see inside. I think they should have used one of those black helicopters we keep hearing about instead. :)

[Cheesesteak]

I don't think it's suspicious at all, that he got arrested, he brings attention on himself when he has outstanding warrants for his arrest. He was convicted of the crimes years ago, and skipped out on the sentence. I don't quite know what to think about him being injured, have to get more info on that one.

On the punching of the handcuffed kid, the jury is still kind of out on that one, IMHO. I saw the clip, the kid's hands are cuffed behind him right where the officer was standing. One trick I learned in Judo, is if someone grabs you in a bear hug from behind, trapping your arms, just bring your hands behind your butt, and grab the dude's nuts. Works like a charm, this kid could easily have done something similar because of the relative body positions, which is what the officer's attorney is alleging happened.Meanwhile, the attorney for the police officer suspended in the case said the teen-ager deserved to be punched because he grabbed the officer's midsection.

[Diane]

I think his arrest on outstanding warrants a few days after he videotaped cops doing something reprehensible is mighty suspicious.

It may be that the cops didn't know where he was until he sufaced with the tape. I would have been surprised if the cops DIDN'T arrest him after checking his background.

[The Wrong Girl]

He deserved to be punched in the head with that much force because he grabbed a cop's nuts? I'm sorry, but I don't think using that amount of force with someone you've arrested is ever acceptable. There are lots of different ways of handling a suspect that's being unruly, but I don't think punching them in the head is one of them.

[belladonna]

The video not only showed a punch, Cheesesteak, it also showed an upper-body slam onto the trunk of the car. What did he do to deserve that?

Doesn't it seem a bit ridiculous to say that three (or four?) cops who have a young man in handcuffs, grappled between the lot of them, and two feet from a caged backseat needed to slam and punch him because he was "grabbing"? Toss him in the car, take him downtown, and add assault of an officer to the charges. Once they had the suspect restrained and cuffed they had NO right to assault him.

bella

[Scylla]

He deserved to be punched in the head with that much force because he grabbed a cop's nuts?


To make him let go?


Yes!

If a guy has you by the balls and won't let go, by definition, anything you do at all to make him let go is justified.

[tiny ham]

At some point, the cops have to take the highroad don't you think? At some point the cops have to realize that their job is to take a guy into custody. Yeah, maybe the kid is a total prick, swearing, lunging, taking swings at the cop, and even IF it was necessary to slam his head against a car hood, once five cops have him held down, I think it's sad for a cop to think: AND NOW I'm going to punch him in the face for good measure. That'll learn him.

Why are the cops sinking to hoodlum level?

[Cheesesteak]

I don't particularly like the term "deserved" that was in my quote, but that's how the link presented it. I'm no big fan of the police, nor do I enjoy the idea of them beating on people for no reason. However, I can't say that they should just sit there and allow themselves to be attacked, either. If the kid continued to attack, even while handcuffed, I can't fault them for continuing to use force.

If the officer punched him for "good measure" rather than in direct response to the kid grabbing him, that's just no good, and he deserves appropriate punishment.

[Fenris]

Originally posted by The Wrong Girl
He deserved to be punched in the head with that much force because he grabbed a cop's nuts? I'm sorry, but I don't think using that amount of force with someone you've arrested is ever acceptable. There are lots of different ways of handling a suspect that's being unruly, but I don't think punching them in the head is one of them.

Originally posted by Belladonna
The video not only showed a punch, Cheesesteak, it also showed an upper-body slam onto the trunk of the car. What did he do to deserve that?

Originally posted by JarbabyJ
At some point, the cops have to take the highroad don't you think?

To the Doperbabes above.

I've never said this before, and I hope you won't think less of me, but...regarding the grabbage and the squeezing?

It may be a guy thing: you might not understand.

If someone has me by the family jewels, I'll do whatever it takes to get them to stop. Just as I'll never know how much childbirth apparently hurts, you might not realize the level of body-wide agony that those two little organs can generate.

Regarding any punches after the perp has let go (which isn't the way I heard it)? They're certainly wrong morally, but it's completely understandable.

Unfortunately we're unable to recruit perfect paragons of virtue or machines to be policepeople. Given the amount of pain the cop must have been in, I feel he showed admirable restraint.

Fenris

[elfkin477]

Don't you think that if the kid had grabbed the guy's nuts the cop might have said something to that effect, claiming he did punched the kid to avoid further injury to himself? The cop hasn't, so far as I've heard.

[tiny ham]

And where is your proof that he grabbed him by the nuts? The cops statement? Or do you just want to sincerely believe it.

[CRorex]

Umm yeah I agree with some of the guys here.

If I was a cop and a cuffed suspect grabed my balls, you better believe I'd hit him until he let go.

And if you watched the video the cop didn't haul off and pound the kid in the head as hard as he could... I was a fairly small arm movement at a band angle to generate force.

If the perp never grabbed said balls, then yes hitting him was TOTALLY unjustified. But if he had a double handfull of warm salty cop sack, then I kinda see the cop's side here.

Change the situation slightly, say the kid punched the cop in the kidney, wouldn't the cop have the right to use force to restrain the kid? And compared to kidneys, testicles are a lot easier to damage.

[c_goat]

I see no evidence that Crooks was actually hurt from that CNN story. He had no visible injuries, and was taken to the hospital because he "complained" of injuries. If I was the police, I'd take him to the hospital too, just to prove that he wasn't hurt. Any word on what resulted from the hospital visit?

The arrest so close to the taping was because previously, they didn't know where the guy was. Since they were "minor" offenses, the police weren't actively looking for him. But you can be sure that when someone turns up with outstanding warrants, they get arrested. I would expect no less.

And with a name like "Crooks", what did you expect anyway? :D

As far as grabbing nuts, if that teen actually did grab the officer's boys, he was lucky to get off with a punch in the face and a slam on the car. Plus, when people are resisting with all their might, it's not easy to be gentle with them. Slamming them down on the car is the only way to do it. You can't place them nicely because they're fighting you.

[tiny ham]

As far as I know, a right hook to the face isn't a form of restraint. YMMV

[jjimm]

Speaking as the owner of a fine pair of nuts, if someone grabbed me by them, I wouldn't have the presence of mind to administer a head punch - my hands would automatically go down to my nads to attack the offending hands.

Perhaps it's police training.

[tiny ham]

c_goat, I watched the video, and the sequence of events is this:

1. Head slam to the hood of the car.

2. Cuffing and restraint by at least four cops.

3. THEN a punch to the face.

I'm failing to see where the punch to the face was necessary.

[fallom]

A right hook to the face is a damned good way to get someone to let go of Mr. Happy Sack.

[The Wrong Girl]

I'd like to watch the video again, myself (is CNN.com still charging for video feeds), because IIRC, and that's a big IIRC, the kid's hands werer facing away from the cop who punched him. Isn't he angled a little to the right? And the cop that punched him was on the left. So, maybe the guy grabbed someone else's balls?

This is, of course, assuming that he grabbed anyone's balls at all. And yes, I will concede that I have NO idea how much it would hurt to have your balls grabbed, punched, or messed with, so perhaps I was a little rash in my initial broad statement.

I also can't believe Fenris called me a Doperbabe! :)

[Spavined Gelding]

Gelding's axiom on police:

A cop will lie if he thinks he can get away with it; a cop will kill you if you give him an excuse.

Follw up hypothsis:

Don't give a cop an excuse.

Look people, this has been going on for years and years. It has been tolerated, even condoned, because uncontrolled police behavior is mostly directed toward people that polite society would just as soon fall off the face of the earth. It will continue to happen as long as police officers can see themselves as Horace At The Bridge and as long as police officers are answerable only to them selves.

[pldennison]

The arrest so close to the taping was because previously, they didn't know where the guy was. Since they were "minor" offenses, the police weren't actively looking for him. But you can be sure that when someone turns up with outstanding warrants, they get arrested. I would expect no less.

According to the L.A. Examiner, Crooks' outstanding warrants weren't even in Los Angeles; they were in Placer County, some several hundred miles north of L.A. Sounds to me like, as soon as L.A. authorities got the name of the videotaper, they ran a check to see if the guy had any priors or outstandings so they'd have an excuse to intimidate him.

Spavined: On behalf of my best friend Chris, a police officer in Twinsburg, OH, a hearty, "Eat a great big dog turd."

[Mojo]

I think a more appropriate OP is "If you're trying to become a media whore while you have outstanding warrants, use a pseudonym".

[c_goat]

Here (http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-uscop122782146jul12035632.story?coll=ny%2Dnationalnews%2Dheadlines) is a news story that mentions the testicle grabbing, after he was handcuffed. (At the bottom). If he was close enough, even in handcuffs it could have happened.

I'm only saying that IF the grab happend, the punch is justified from a man's point of view. It's a possibility. If not, then it wasn't.

Anyone have a good link to the video? I only found some still images on CNN site.

[BF]

According to the police report the cop filed before the videotape was made public, he wrote that the perp grabbed his nuts and he punched him in the face to make him let go. This is according to the lawyer representing the cop.

[Coldfire]

Interesting BBC News video (Real Player required) (http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/video/38126000/rm/_38126181_police_bryant22_vi.ram) It shows that the suspect had slightly wounded the officer prior to being handcuffed. It is impossible to tell whether the suspect grabbed the officer by the balls. The same offices was involved in an incident in which a suspect was beaten unconcious - two weeks ago.Make of it what you will, but to me, the kid doesn't look totally innocent, and the cop looks like he has a bit of a history of losing it.

[Spoke]

If the cop's nuts had been grabbed, methinks you would have seen him cringe in agony. I don't remember seeing anything like that on the tape.

That may be a cover story, even if it's in the police report. The cops spotted Crooks filming them, so they knew they had a problem. (Didn't they go door-to-door at his building looking for him?)

[Incubus]

When the cop punched the guy in the face, it was in response to the suspect starting to get up and turning his head off the hood of the car. On MSNBC the police officer's lawyer stated that the suspect refused to follow police instructions. In the video, you can see that the suspects legs were bent and that police had to lift him off the ground and place him on the hood of the car. Hence the slam and the punch.

[Fenris]

Originally posted by jarbabyj
And where is your proof that he grabbed him by the nuts? The cops statement? Or do you just want to sincerely believe it.

Jarbaby: No proof outside of newsreports of the cop's statements. I tend to give cops the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise.

Fenris

[tiny ham]

Even though, as Coldfire noted, this cop has a history of violence and flying off the handle?

[Fenris]

Originally posted by jarbabyj
Even though, as Coldfire noted, this cop has a history of violence and flying off the handle?

Yeah, given that the criminal had resisted arrest, and that the cop filed the "squeezing" report before the media frenzy, I'm still inclined to believe the cop over the criminal.

Fenris

[Tretiak]

Originally posted by Cheesesteak
I'm no big fan of the police,

This is interesting. You think this low of the police in general, most police? I am a fan of the police and I am glad they are around.

[Odesio]

Originally posted by jarbabyj
Even though, as Coldfire noted, this cop has a history of violence and flying off the handle?

Coldfire didn't really provide any evidence that this guy has a history of violence and flying off the handle. All he noted was that this officer was involved in an incident two weeks prior where a suspect was unconcious.

Marc

[Shodan]

Originally posted by jarbabyj

I watched the video, and the sequence of events is this:

1. Head slam to the hood of the car.

2. Cuffing and restraint by at least four cops.

3. THEN a punch to the face.

I'm failing to see where the punch to the face was necessary


The head slam was to hold him down while he was being cuffed.

Cuffing and restraint is SOP - the more, the merrier. I used to teach martial arts, and it is very difficult to restrain a person who wants to hurt you without hurting them. Therefore you need lots of back up.

And the punch to the head to get him to let go of your nuts.


Originally posted by Spavined Gelding
Gelding's axiom on police:

A cop will lie if he thinks he can get away with it; a cop will kill you if you give him an excuse.

Follw up hypothsis:

Don't give a cop an excuse.

Look people, this has been going on for years and years. It has been tolerated, even condoned, because uncontrolled police behavior is mostly directed toward people that polite society would just as soon fall off the face of the earth. It will continue to happen as long as police officers can see themselves as Horace At The Bridge and as long as police officers are answerable only to them selves.
Shodan's axiom on criminals:

A criminal will lie if he thinks he can get away with it; a criminal will kill you if you give him a chance.

Follow up hypothesis:

Don't give a criminal a chance.

Coldfire - Maybe the cop in question has a history of over-reacting. Or maybe he just isn't afraid to make the tough arrests. Has it been determined under what circumstances the previous arrest took place? Or is he to be presumed guilty there as here?

Consider what the cops of the area have to deal with. Even the most casual passer-by, who happens to have a video camera, has outstanding warrants. Even after you cuff the perp, he grabs you by the nuts.

And both of them scream "Police brutality!" Especially the ones who resist arrest.

This is very like the Rodney King arrest in some ways - those involved have criminal histories, and do not cooperate when you say "Pretty please".

And no matter what you do, you're wrong.

Regards,
Shodan

[Cheesesteak]

I think the police often take advantage of their law enforcement position. Usually in small, but irritating ways. Especially when it comes to things like driving violations and other minor offences, laws tend to not apply to them quite as strictly. One officer I knew (parent of friend) used to always have fireworks on July 4th, because he would confiscate them from people (they are illegal in NY) and take them home. Don't even talk to me about the "Blue Wall of Silence", a practice I find infuriating.

They do an important job, and I will support them fully in doing that job, but I don't feel the need to put them on a big pedestal.

[Cheesesteak]

whoops, my last post was in response to

Originally posted by Tretiak


This is interesting. You think this low of the police in general, most police? I am a fan of the police and I am glad they are around.

[Largo62]

Originally posted by jarbabyj
c_goat, I watched the video, and the sequence of events is this:

1. Head slam to the hood of the car.

2. Cuffing and restraint by at least four cops.

3. THEN a punch to the face.

I'm failing to see where the punch to the face was necessary.
I must have seen a different tape, jarbabyj, because I would swear in court that I saw the kid already cuffed when the nice police officer picked him up and slammed his face into the car ("Yes, children, the policeman is your friend."). How do you suppose the cop could have picked him up that way if he were not already cuffed? Was the kid just holding his hands behind his back to make it easy?

As for the ball-grabbing, either the kid has longer arms than mine or the cop was somewhat taller than the kid, or all the kid could have grabbed was the cop's belt buckle. But then, I'm kind of short and round, and have no experience with ball-grabbing. I could be wrong. I just don't believe the cop's story about that. It sounds to me like just an excuse for a cop who is predisposed to overly violent reaction.

Watching that tape (it was on every news broadcast in Southerna California quite a few times) I was seething. How can we expect people to trust the police when they keep seeing examples like this? I don't think most cops are like that, but it's images like that face smashing that people remember. I still haven't forgotten the Rodney King tape. It takes a whole lot of positive actions on the part of police to wipe out images like that.

[wring]

Please explain the references to the kid as a criminal. He was in the process of being arrested for something here, yes. but I've not seen anything relating to him having a prior record.

[Fenris]

wring: he resisted arrest, injuring the police officer in the process (albiet apparently fairly minor wound). QED he's a criminal.

Fenris

[tiny ham]

Geezer, I'm on your side in this. My list was in response to someone saying that the punch to the head was necessary to restrain him when clearly he was being restrained by four people when he was punched.

In a lot of case I'm glad the police are around, but people who waltz merrily through life thinking that there are no bad apple cops are fooling themselves.


j

[BoBettie]

"He had no visible injuries, and was taken to the hospital because he "complained" of injuries."

FYI- the word "complained" is often used (and is always used in the hospital I work at) to mean "present". Sometimes you'll hear someone say "He presented with chest pains and shortness of breath", which can also be said "He complained of chest pains and shortness of breath". It doesn't mean the person was making it up or just whining about it, it means that they came in with that specific problem- "injuries", in this case. Just a clarification- the word "complained" should not imply validity of the problem, just that it was presented.


Zette

[More Cowbell]

Well, he was 16. Do they make minor's arrest records public?

I saw it the way DesertGeezer saw it. He was already cuffed, then he was slammed onto the hood, then he was punched in the face and after that the officer grabbed him by the neck using both hands.

I can't see how, handcuffed and bent over on a hood, this kid could even grab him by the sack of jollies, let alone squeeze with enough force to cause pain. The kid would need to be able to move his hands up and into the cops crotch, through the trousers and underwear, and grab the twins. I don't see it. I've put my arms behind my back and just don't have that much room to move my arms, let alone be able to grab and squeeze something. Not to mention my head wasn't just bounced off a car trunk either.

[wring]

Fenris I know what he was being arrested for. The 'resisting' can only happen incident to an arrest (ie for something else- so, there has to be an underlying charge first in order for them to attempt to arrest you, to which then you'd resist). IIRC, they're charging him w/obstruction of justice' - claiming that he was hindering them from whatever the hell they were doing w/his dad.

However, my point was that you're position seems to be 'believe the cop over the criminal absent other evidence'.

However, in this case, the cops word would have to be taken for:

1. the 'grabbing my nuts'
2. that was happening while he was resisting (the tape shows the kid being slamed, not particularly resistent)
and
3. that he was obstructing/interfering w/ the incident w/his dad.

IOW - the kid's a 'criminal' because the cop who stands accused of beating said kid says he did all these things.

I understand your position of believe cops absent other evidence, however, can't you see that in a case like this, if the cop was a bad 'un, there's no way for the kid to be believed?

If they'd been arresting him for outstanding warrents, suspicion of shoplifting etc. there'd be evidence other than the suspect cops word for the incident.

your stance of believing the cop implies that the suspect has reason to lie. But in this case that same thing is absolutely true of the cop involved as well.

RE: minor's records being sealed, so therefore we'd not know - well, we've learned that he's got learning disabilities, too, which is also not public info. I have no problem believing that if the cops had run ins w/him before it'd be all over the place now.

[samclem]

Scylla said If a guy has you by the balls and won't let go, by definition, anything you do at all to make him let go is justified.

Hyperbole, of course.

Would you justify taking out your 9mm and capping the perp?

[Fenris]

Originally posted by samclem
Scylla said "If a guy has you by the balls and won't let go, by definition, anything you do at all to make him let go is justified."

Hyperbole, of course.

Would you justify taking out your 9mm and capping the perp?

Um. Yes. Wouldn't you?

In defending one's self against assault (hell, you could make a case that it was sexual assualt: it's a crime of violence, not sex, remember) I'm perfectly happy to allow lethal force (the current situation is up in the air as to whether the kid did sexually attack the cop). Were I on a jury, and were I provided conclusive evidence that the assault took place, no way would I convict.

Forget that the victim was a cop for a minute...that seems to be clouding the issue amongst some of the cop haters on the board (Spavained,for example). Imagine if a guy grabbed a woman by the nipples, twisted them hard and wouldn't let go, despite her efforts to free herself. Should she be allowed to use lethal force? I say a resounding "yes!"

I'm of the opinion that morally (though certainly not legally ), if you are being physically attacked, you should have the right to defend yourself by whatever means necessary to get the attacker to stop. And you shouldn't have to work your way up the scale to try to guess what reasonable force is ("Let's see. He's a bodybuilder and I'm out of shape. He's already hit me once and is about to again. Can I use this tire iron? The 2x4? A chair? If I hit him with my fists, he won't even feel it...what to do? What to do?")

I have no problem with the idea of shooting someone who's punched me and intends to do so again. My goal is to make him stop, not to try to second guess what "reasonable force" means or if I have the means to use reasonable force (me vs the bodybuilder example). Again, I'm discussing my beliefs, NOT the law. The law strongly disagrees with me. But it's wrong. ;)

Fenris

[samclem]

Fenris. Assuming you are serious in your beliefs about the use of deadly force to combat non-lethal force, then I am glad that police departments in the US have training courses to help weed out applicants who think that they can be judge, jury and executioner all rolled into one.

So, what you're saying is that , were you a juror, you would judge events according to your emotions and feelings, not by the evidence presented?

While I think that you are typical of the bottom-feeding pool of jurors that seem to be the lot of juries today, I hope that I am not arrested for being in the wrong place at the wrong time and get tried by a jury of my peers? made up of citizens with your prejudices.

[Fenris]

Sam,

I would judge by the evidence. But I'd also ignore stupid laws, as is my right as a juror. One such stupid law is that someone being attacked has to telepathically guess the attacker's intent rather than simply stop their attacker as quickly as possible.

Once in my life, I was attacked in a bar. I assure you I was doing nothing objectionable by any concievable standard. I was killing about 20 minutes and went in for a drink. Some drunk decided "he didn't like my face" and popped me one before I could try to leave or talk my way out of it (he said the one sentence then hit me in the face). His friends grabbed him and dragged him out before he could further attack me. He was probably about 50 pounds heavier and 5 inches taller than I was and I'd never been in a fight before (outside of the pushy-shovey stuff in school).

Had his friends not been there to drag him out and had I a gun, yeah. I'd have had no problem shooting him. How the fuck was I supposed to guess his intentions? He certainly wasn't going to stop with one punch, that much was obvious. I have no desire to be beaten simply to fulfill some idiotic idea of fair play. I'm not interested in engaging in fisticuffs to satisfy your need for a so-"non lethal" response that I'm unable to deliver. If someone physically attacks me, they lose their right to fair play (again, morally not legally).

While I think that you are typical of the ilk who apparently have no compassion or regard for victims of violent crime, I hope that I am not arrested for defending myself in the wrong place at the wrong time and get tried by a jury of my peers? made up of citizens with your prejudices.

Fenris

[jayjay]

Fenris:

Remind me not to unintentionally startle you or anything. I'd hate to die for stepping on your toes in a crowded bar.

As to the original point of the thread, I've heard that when there is an incident of police brutality, the suspect who was victimized is usually charged with "assaulting an officer". Not vouching for the accuracy of this...

jayjay

[gobear]

Fenris, you have me a little disturbed here. I'm all for self-defense, and even the need for lethal force if the situation warrants it, but never as the first resort.

Cops should use sufficent force to subdue a suspect, but putting the boot in when you have him down is wrong. Wrong, hell, it's evil. The cop had no business ounching the kid, period.

And going after the guy who caught them in the act is scary. Sure, the guy had outstanding warrants, but they weren't in Inglewood. It's plainly obvious the cops ran a search to find a pretext to drag the videotaper in and beat and or scare him.

Maybe you guys want to live in a place where the police can beat you with impunity, but I don't.

[Largo62]

The scariest thing about this whole situation is that it may well erupt in more violence of the kind we experienced after the Rodney King decision didn't go the right way (and it didn't). The presence of firebrands like Al Sharpton (I absolutely refuse to call that racist "Reverend") only makes the whole thing more dangerous. As I see it, race had nothing to do with a bad cop's decision to prove his manhood on a sixteen-year-old kid. But race will likely play a big role in whether L. A. burns again. I hope tempers can be kept this time, while the courts do their job, but I'm certainly not confident of that.

[tiny ham]

Just saw a report on Headline News. The officer said the handcuffed kid grabbed his UNIFORM and wouldn't let go.

His uniform, not his balls.

Worthy of a beating Fenris?

[pldennison]

While I think that you are typical of the ilk who apparently have no compassion or regard for victims of violent crime . . .

A cop in the process of apprehending a suspect is not a "victim of violent crime" in any legitimate sense of the phrase. He is an ostensibly trained professional who has an expectation that the people he tries to apprehend may react violently and may cause injury in the process, and he is to respond with the force necessary to safely apprehend the person. No more, no less.

[Fenris]

JayJay: You don't see a difference between getting deliberately punched in the face and having someone step on your toes by mistake? Remind me to never take you out dancing.

Gobear: Forget the cops for a second. Look at the incident I posted above. Take it as a given that if the guy's friends hadn't dragged him out, he would have gone after me again. Given that A) What could I have done? B) Other than the legal consequences, why shouldn't I shoot him? Hitting him wouldn't have worked, the word "beefy" was invented for this guy. Hit 'm with a chair? That might 've worked...that also might have made him madder. Run away? Fine, but he was between me and the door. Lie there, take my beating and hope he gets bored before killing me?

Like I said: I'm not willing to be beaten for some idiotic idea of "fair play". If I'm attacked, I'm (hypothetically) going to end the attack in such a way as to insure my safety.

I'm not particularly paranoid about it since really that was the only time I've ever been attacked. But at the same time, I'm resolved that if I am ever attacked again, I'm going to use the maximum force at my disposal to protect myself, not some silly "minimum" in the hopes that I can guess how to disable someone so they'll stop attacking me but not so much that I'll kill 'em. I'd rather take my chances with a jury than a psycho who's already beating me.

Jarbaby: Of course not. I'm curious: did you hear the cop say it, or was it a reporter saying the cop said it. 'Cause I've only heard the "grabbed his balls" version. If the cop retracted/changed his story, that certainly makes the cop look worse.

Look, there are two issues that are all getting mixed up here:

1) The cop and the kid
2) The use of lethal force by civilians: I started the hijack and this was probably the wrong thread to do so in. In retrospect it was a mistake but it just kinda happened.

To clear things up: Yes, I hold cops to a higher standard on when to use lethal force because cops are trained on how to subude someone without it. No, I don't want cops running around shooting people who struggle even a tiny bit when arrested.

However, if a civilian is the victim of a violent crime, I'm quite comfortable with the civilian using whatever force is at hand to make the attacker stop. Those who say "it's just fists" (so far, no one in this thread) are being naive at minimum.

I apologize for the hijack, and if SamClem took my words the way everyone else has (to be refering to cops, not civilians), I apologize to him too for the "no compassion for victims of violent crimes" bit.

Fenris

[samclem]

Fenris. Thanks for the follow up.

Actually, I was dissing you for saying that a private citizen should be able to use deadly force to stop a non-lethal attack. (But only after dissing Scylla for the same thing). And I truly apreciate that a victim under such an attack might not be able to determine whether the attack is a lethal one or just a bar fight that might cripple them so that they couldn't type posts to the SDMB for a month or two. Sheesh, after reflection, that might be grounds for a summary judgement.;)

We in Ohio, recently, have had to consider allowing every Ya-hoo to carry a gun. And I understand all the arguments that say that "carry laws" in others states haven't led to problems.

But I worry that if my buddy happened to have one too many in a bar one night, and you happened to be bellied-up to the bar next to us, and I didn't recognize you without your "Hey! I'm Fenris from the SDMB T-shirt" and he sucker punched you and, before I could restrain him, you pulled your piece and ended his life, and you were tried at a later date and let off by a jury which was composed of people who had lived in crummy neighborhoods and had numerous incidents of run-ins with low-lifes, were on an Ann Coulter e-mail list, and had no sympathy for my buddy, and let you off because my buddy "deserved whatever he got, " then I guess you were right.

And thanks for bringing us back to the distinguishing threads here.

What a professional should/should not be able to do.

And what an amatuer should/should not be allowed to do.

[gobear]

But at the same time, I'm resolved that if I am ever attacked again, I'm going to use the maximum force at my disposal to protect myself, not some silly "minimum" in the hopes that I can guess how to disable someone so they'll stop attacking me but not so much that I'll kill 'em. I'd rather take my chances with a jury than a psycho who's already beating me.

Iguess our philosophical viewpoints differ. The only way I could justify using lethal force on someone is if I felt my life were in danger. I've gotten in fights, and while I might have wished to kill someone in a blind rage, I could never decide to kill someone in a calm manner. Killing is forever. OTOH, if you just winged the guy enough to stop him, I could go along with that.

[tiny ham]

Fenris, what I heard was this (paraphrased) "The officer in question said that the suspect grabbed his uniform and would not let go."

So take that for what you will. Also, the fact that he apparently has a history of a bit of 'anger' leads me to believe that maybe...just MAYBE...this is one of the asshole cops of the world.

j

[Fenris]

Gobear: I'm going on the assumption that if someone attacks me, my life is in danger!

I will never (and have never) thrown the first punch. I have never fought when I could back down and leave. I'm not saying that I'm just going to blow someone away at the first hint of a confrontation. But if, as in that incident that I mentioned I'm just attacked out of the blue, I'm going to have to assume that their intent is to kill or cripple me.

Besides, I have no idea how to be 100% sure of stopping someone who's attacked me without killing them (I'm a damned good shot, but if I've got a lunatic beating me, I don't think I'll trust my aim beyond a gutshot) and I'm not willing to risk being beaten/crippled/etc. If I didn't have a gun, I'd use a chair, a fireplace poker, whatever it takes. I have no interest in "fighting fair" or "fighting clean" and I have no respect for the life of someone who's attacking me or my loved ones.

There's an (IMO) idiotic idea that if someone comes at you with fists, the issue should be settled with fists. I disagree: the issue should be settled by whatever stops the attacker before he can do more damage.

Fenris

[Spavined Gelding]

, on this one I am afraid there is a streak of vigilantism showing. You seem to be awfully vociferous in the defense of the police officer on the strength of a lot of speculation and self serving press statements.

The facts that the general public knows are pretty well restricted to the video clip its self and a press statement made by the officer's lawyer. Everything else is rumor and third hand rumor at that. There has been talk about the officer having a history of losing control but I don't have anything on that topic that I would be willing to rely on. As far as the lawyer's statement to the effect that the arrestee had provoked the officer by grabbing his privates or trying to grab at his privates, it is pretty obvious that the lawyer is fully into that great old California tradition of poisoning the jury pool. His statement to the press must be taken with a big grain of salt. I have also heard statements to the effect that the arrestee was ankle manacled as well as handcuffed when the balloon went up. The video shows hand cuffs but ankle chains seem unreasonable.

The video, however is bad enough. What we see is three or four big policemen, all of whom look like they have been spending a lot of time in the weight room, and a kid with his hands cuffed behind his back standing next to a police car. Without any apparent move by the kid the officer standing to his right rear grabs the kid, lifts him and drives his face into the hood of the police car. Immediately the officer cocks his right hand and punches the kid in the face. The other two or three officers pull the first officer off the kid.

Now that is damning. What is worse, and you should know this, [B]Fenris, it happens every day all over this country and all over the world without benefit of video cameras. Remember that it was a stock joke on Monty Python ( and, all together boys, assault on a police officer). I will accept that police are subject to daily risks and pressures that ordinary citizens can't imagine. I will not accept that a badge on the chest and a gun on the hip is a license to act out every impulse --and especially the impulse to relieve frustration by savaging a man who is trussed and helpless. Policemen are given great authority to use force and violence, but with that comes great responsibility to use that force and violence with restraint and only when plainly needed. All too often "reasonably necessary force" is a highly subjective concept and translates into "whatever force impulse leads me to use." Police officers do not get to be prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner, but that is precisely what this officer appears to have done.

[Typo Negative]

God, I know I'm gonna catch hell for this, but......

I watched the tape, and I didn't seeth at all.

I've seen worse. I've seen close friends treated worse personally. More about that in a moment.

Let's start with the 'body slam', or head slam, as some people have called it. I've been slammed harded by close friends while play-fighting. And I'm gonna agree with Fenris inasmuchas anyone who grabs someone by the balls is gonna get punched. It's a given.

Maybe the kid didn't grab the jewels, that would make the cop wrong. But if he did, he deserved to get punched. BTW, just the 'cause the cop was involved in another 'incident' 2 weeks prior does not mean he's lying!

Now, I grew up as junkie criminal. As such, I hung around with mostly junkie criminals and thugs. It was commonly accepted among us that, if you are arrested and you put up a fight, and continue to mouth off......you is gonna get hit. It was a given. My friends got hit. And at the time, they were being assholes of the 1st order. They knew they were gonna get hit and seemed to asking for it. All they had to do to not get hit was ....wait for it..........not resist and keep their mouths shut!! I would just shake my head at their stupidity

So, no, I was not shocked. Maybe this cop is a 'loose cannon' like some of y'all say. Then he should be weeded out. But maybe he's not. Maybe he just reacted.

To all of you that say 'Cops have to be better than that', I say that they are people. People who do a very hard job, and who take a lot of shit while doing it. Sometimes even killed while doing it. If some of you want to hold cops to a much higher standard, why don'tcha go down and apply for a job in your local PD? They take men and women alike.

Just my opinion. I could be wrong. YMMV.

[fluiddruid]

Back to the OT - I'm afraid I don't see the wrongdoing. Would you prefer that officers not arrest people on outstanding warrants for people who made them look bad?

[BeatenMan]

Did anyne notice the big gash above the cops ear? In my opinion the cop got the worst of the struggle. That is what a criminal wants, he wants the cop to look like he has been worked over. It wins you friends and prestige at the jail. Showing up at the jail with out signs of a struggle will make you someones bitch.

[Apache]

Originally posted by gobear
FenrisAnd going after the guy who caught them in the act is scary. Sure, the guy had outstanding warrants, but they weren't in Inglewood. It's plainly obvious the cops ran a search to find a pretext to drag the videotaper in and beat and or scare him.

Maybe you guys want to live in a place where the police can beat you with impunity, but I don't.

gobear: Why do you continue to display your sheer ignorance on this subject along with your knee jerk hatred of police?

The warrant for Crooks was issued in May 1999 after he failed to surrender to begin a jail sentence for a conviction on charges of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, hit and run, and petty theft with a prior conviction.
The police did not know he had a warrant until he blew off a grand jury that wanted him to hand over the tape and authenticate it.
So tell us, what is the waiting period for getting arrested on previous warrants after you film a police arrest?
Do you think he should just walk?

[Fenris]

Originally posted by Apache


gobear: Why do you continue to display your sheer ignorance on this subject along with your knee jerk hatred of police?

Apache: Fuck off, you walking rectum.

Really, for the self-proclaimed smartest person on the Board, you display an astonishing degree of stupidity. Given the limited amount of evidence that we have on either side, this is a topic over which reasonable people can disagree.

Which, come to think of it, explains your post.

And Gobear is anti-cop? Bwah-ha-ha!

Thank you for providing an object lesson as to why first cousins shouldn't marry.

Does anyone know when school gets back in session? This crop's dumber than last year's.

Fenris

[Apache]

Originally posted by Fenris


Apache: Fuck off, you walking rectum.

Really, for the self-proclaimed smartest person on the Board, you display an astonishing degree of stupidity. Given the limited amount of evidence that we have on either side, this is a topic over which reasonable people can disagree.

Which, come to think of it, explains your post.

And Gobear is anti-cop? Bwah-ha-ha!

Thank you for providing an object lesson as to why first cousins shouldn't marry.

Does anyone know when school gets back in session? This crop's dumber than last year's.

Fenris [/B]

First off numbnuts, I'm NOT the self-proclaimed smartest person on the Board. You have mixed up your posters. :wally

Second, his argument was that Crooks should not have been arrested. I'm disagreeing. :rolleyes:

Next, gobear was an ass in my post, I'm just returning the favor.

Lastly, gobear's post seemed pretty anti-cop to me.

Oh yeah, and BITE ME.

[Fenris]

Originally posted by Apache
Oh yeah, and BITE ME.

It's too small to bite and too dirty to touch besides.

Maybe if I had tweezers....

[gobear]

Apache, your chutzpah is matched only by your stupidity.

gobear: Why do you continue to display your sheer ignorance on this subject along with your knee jerk hatred of police?

I I didn't argue that Crooks should not have been arrested if he had outstanding warrants; my points were A) the timing of his arrest was awfully suspicious; and B) at the time I posted Crooks had been hospitalized while in police custody.

Next, gobear was an ass in my post, I'm just returning the favor
II I have no idea what you're talking about
[quote]
Lastly, gobear's post seemed pretty anti-cop to me

III As Fenris said, BWAHAHAHAHA! Fuckhead, anybody who has spent much time on this board knows that I am a conservative, flagwaving, pro-military, pro-cop patriot. More important, I am pro-freedom, and I strongly believe that one of the things that separates the US from other nations is the police are the guardians of the civic welfare. If the police use their powers of arrest to serve their own ends and to terrorize whistleblowers, we'll end up like Brazil or Mexico, where the cops are feared more than the criminals. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

[Apache]

Originally posted by Fenris


It's too small to bite and too dirty to touch besides.

Maybe if I had tweezers....

You got the wrong end boy.
Or did I awaken some homoerotic fantasy with you?:eek:

Oh yeah, stop following me. It makes you look weird.

[Mockingbird]

Translation for the clueless:

Original latin: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

English: Who watches the watchmen?

Now Apache might get it.

[Fenris]

Hhhmmm....Looks in thread.

Jeepers everyone! That time machine that KGriffey accused me of? Apache thinks I've got one too!

'cause apparently I'm able to "follow him into a thread" by posting in it before he does.

Looks like you're following me, Chuckles!

And if we're talking about homoerotic fantasies, you're the one who asked me for sado-masochistic oral sex.

Tell ya what, Junior. Go to the dictionary and look up the word "projection" before you continue to make a fool of yourself.

Fenris

[Fenris]

Originally posted by Hastur
Translation for the clueless:

Original latin: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

English: Who watches the watchmen?

Now Apache might get it.


Watch out, Hastur, with Apache's nearly triple-digit IQ, he might say something devastating towards you. I'd be careful!

He might even accuse you of being a (sotto voce)homosexual!! :eek:

[Apache]

Originally posted by gobear

I I didn't argue that Crooks should not have been arrested if he had outstanding warrants; my points were A) the timing of his arrest was awfully suspicious; and B) at the time I posted Crooks had been hospitalized while in police custody.

So what if his arrest looks suspicious. He HAD WARRANTS!
His hospitalization was at HIS request in an attempt to play the "police brutality" card. If I see another picture of him and he looks like we went a few rounds with mike Tyson, I will retract that statement. Even the Central American death squads (that you are vigilantly protecting us from) have enough brains not to misbehave when they know others are watching. I will give the LAPD a little more credit.

III As Fenris said, BWAHAHAHAHA! Fuckhead, anybody who has spent much time on this board knows that I am a conservative, flagwaving, pro-military, pro-cop patriot. More important, I am pro-freedom, and I strongly believe that one of the things that separates the US from other nations is the police are the guardians of the civic welfare. If the police use their powers of arrest to serve their own ends and to terrorize whistleblowers, we'll end up like Brazil or Mexico, where the cops are feared more than the criminals. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Do you REALLY think that we are just one more beating accusation away from turning into a banana republic? What militia branch do you belong to?

[Largo62]

The warrants Crooks was arrested on were misdemeanor warrants that would not likely have been served in Los Angeles County unless the cops were looking for a way to lay their hands on him. I doubt that police agencies check the outstanding warrant lists for other counties unless there's some other reason they want to put their hands on someone. gobear is right. It is suspicious.

I suppose it's remotely possible that some sterling Northern Californian saw the news broadcast and thought to himself, "Hmmm, that guy Crooks looks awfully suspicious. He reminds me of a desperado the cops up here are looking for on a couple of misdemeanors. I better call Inglewood and let them know that this dangerous criminal is about to escape them." Remotely possible.

As for the cop's other complaints, his own chief admitted in a news conference that there had been other beefs against him, although he wouldn't say what they were for. I think we may see a pattern of excessive force here. Stay tuned.

[Apache]

I hear that it was a felony hit and run warrant, but that may not be the case (as I see no mention of that).

Here is a partial cut-and-paste:

Ralph Boyd, who heads the U.S. Justice Department's civil rights division, flew to Los Angeles to meet privately with Inglewood officials and others, and in downtown Los Angeles a parade of witnesses appeared before the county grand jury.

One of those whose testimony was sought by that panel was Mitchell Crooks, 27, the deejay who shot the videotape of the beating that now has aired across the nation. Crooks was under subpoena to attend the grand jury hearing with his tape, but he did not appear as ordered, and instead was confronted by police outside CNN's Los Angeles studios, prosecutors said.

Crooks ran from police, they added, and he said later that he was hurt in the scuffle. He was arrested on warrants for petty theft, driving under the influence and hit-and-run, according to the district attorney's office.

The three charges stem from a sequence of events in February 1999. Sheriff's Capt. Rick Armstrong said Crooks is accused of driving under the influence on Interstate 80 in Roseville, northeast of Sacramento, when he became involved in a wreck. Armstrong said that after the accident, Crooks drove to the nearby town of Rocklin, where police caught him trying to steal two VCRs from his mother's home.

He was convicted of all three crimes in March 1999 and ordered to begin serving a seven-month sentence in Placer County Jail in May of that year. But he never showed up for the jail sentence, and a warrant was issued for his arrest.

In Los Angeles County, prosecutors, who had been looking for him all of this week, responded to several tips regarding Crooks' whereabouts over the last several days, said Sandi Gibbons, spokeswoman for the district attorney's office. Investigators tailed Crooks, but were one step behind him until Thursday.

Chief Deputy Dist. Atty. Curt Livesay said Crooks could have avoided the arrest if he had responded to earlier requests to cooperate with investigators.

"Let's put it this way: Had we been able to secure his presence on the first day, the second day or the third day, we wouldn't have even known about the warrants," he said. "He could have been here and gone and been free today."

KTLA (http://ktla.trb.com/news/local/la-me-inglewood12jul12.story?coll=ktla-home-1)

To me, it sounds like they did not consider looking for him until he blew off the Grand Jury subpoena.

[fluiddruid]

Woah, now.

Those of you who are criticizing the police, I ask again: Would you rather the police ignore it when they have outstanding warrants for arrest and make contact with an individual that they let him go just to appear seemly?

I'm sure in LA County (and, hell, everywhere else) they simply don't have the money or manpower to launch a full-scale manhunt over every warrant. However, it's standard procedure to check people for outstanding warrants -- even people who did not commit a crime and just happen to be there. It's not uncommon, for example, to check all the people in a car who are driving around at night. It's a matter of officer safety and public safety. If you have contact with the police, and you have an outstanding warrant, they damn well should arrest you, whether you're being nice, nasty, or indifferent! The fact that he videotaped the cops matters not at all.

This is not Brazil, gobear. They did not make up these charges just to harass the guy. The warrants were already there and they made the arrest. I'll bet what happened is this: they were taking information from people who were nearby, and the guy decided to give his ID or his name, and they discovered he had a warrant on him. Once that's done -- and it's all computerized and logged -- they have a responsibility as peace officers. I imagine that the officer's sergeant wouldn't appreciate letting people go who have warrants out on them just because he felt like it!

I'll ask one more time: what would you prefer that the officers had done? Should they pick and choose when they have confirmed a warrant for a guy who is standing right next to them because of how it might appear in the media?

[wring]

fluid 'afore you go too far down that road, please try to determine if LA county has it's own outstanding felony warrants to serve. (clue - yeppers)

then ask - how easy is it for another jurisdiction to get any LA County officer (let alone the large ## that went) to serve outstanding warrents there.

then ask - how many officers are normally sent to process routine warrents of any type (doubt that it's the ## that went on this one).

At any given point in time any large jurisdiction has quite a few outstanding warrents of their own to serve (bail jumpers, those who don't appear in court, new arrests, etc etc etc.).

When an officer stops some one, does a check and discovers outstanding warrents from other jurisdictions, yea, folks get picked up. But police sent to serve them?

[gobear]

I'll bet what happened is this: they were taking information from people who were nearby, and the guy decided to give his ID or his name, and they discovered he had a warrant on him. Once that's done -- and it's all computerized and logged -- they have a responsibility as peace officers.

That is an impossibly naive point of view. Police don't "discover" people have warrants--they have to enter the name adn do a search. The cops ran the search to get something on the videotaper, and ding, ding, din, they found something.

You have missed the point,. Obviously, if somebody has an active arrest warrant, the cops should apprehend the guy. But they shouldn't do searches on people just because they pissed them off. Remember, the videotaper was not a suspect in a crime, he had not been arrested for anything, all he did was videotape policemen whaling on a suspect. The police had no reason to run a search on this guy.

[wring]

and as for my preferences (were I a tax payer in that jurisdiction), I'd rather they sent half of the officers to process current outstanding felony warrents from my own damn jurisdictiion, sent routine number of officers to serve warrent for grand jury appearance, and not run the check (there was no reason to do so - it's not a routine thing to run witnesses' names down).

[Brutus]

Originally posted by gobear

That is an impossibly naive point of view. Police don't "discover" people have warrants--they have to enter the name adn do a search. The cops ran the search to get something on the videotaper, and ding, ding, din, they found something.

You have missed the point,. Obviously, if somebody has an active arrest warrant, the cops should apprehend the guy. But they shouldn't do searches on people just because they pissed them off. Remember, the videotaper was not a suspect in a crime, he had not been arrested for anything, all he did was videotape policemen whaling on a suspect. The police had no reason to run a search on this guy.

As a matter of procedure, most PD's run every name that 'officially' comes to them (Mostly through people filing reports). This cameraman filed a report. His name was run through the system. The cameraman then was arrested.

If you go to the police station tomorrow to file a missing bicyle report, they'll most likely run your name though the system. You would not believe how many criminals unwittingly turn themselves in.

[wring]

Brutus - care to support that? how many out of jurisdiction warrents were processed by LA county last year?

[samclem]

As a matter of procedure, most PD's run every name that 'officially' comes to them (Mostly through people filing reports).

You know this....how?

[fluiddruid]

Originally posted by wring
fluid 'afore you go too far down that road, please try to determine if LA county has it's own outstanding felony warrants to serve. (clue - yeppers)
...When an officer stops some one, does a check and discovers outstanding warrents from other jurisdictions, yea, folks get picked up. But police sent to serve them?

Police departments generally work together. It's part of how law enforcement works. This guy made his location and name known. He had outstanding warrants. They aren't just going to ignore warrants that showed that this person could be a danger to the public (OWI? Hit and run? What does the guy need to do for it to be severe enough in your view?).

Law enforcement does not work by always going after the most severe of the severe. In LA County, this would mean there would never be cops available to go to traffic accidents because they would all be hunting down dangerous felony warrants. However, when the police come in contact with an individual and they manage to get a name/DOB or an ID #, they run it to check for warrants. I certainly think they should.

orignally posted by gobear
That is an impossibly naive point of view. Police don't "discover" people have warrants--they have to enter the name adn do a search. The cops ran the search to get something on the videotaper, and ding, ding, din, they found something.

I don't think I'm being naive. I work in law enforcement and I do dozens of these checks every single shift. You don't have to go very far to do these. For us, you do not even specifically check for warrants. Simply searching for a driver's license -- to check for a home address, for example -- will bring up warrants as well.

You have missed the point,. Obviously, if somebody has an active arrest warrant, the cops should apprehend the guy. But they shouldn't do searches on people just because they pissed them off. Remember, the videotaper was not a suspect in a crime, he had not been arrested for anything, all he did was videotape policemen whaling on a suspect. The police had no reason to run a search on this guy.

Police routinely check people for warrants even when they do not commit a crime. I hate to agree with Brutus, but he is correct here. If you give personal information to the police -- even just your name -- chances are, they will check you. They don't do detailed searches, of course, but outstanding warrants come up automatically for the most mundane searches. You don't need to have probable cause or to have a suspect to do this. I just think you're looking way too much into this. I'm sure that it's possible that some of the officers enjoyed arresting him, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't have.

Again, gobear -- what would you rather they have done? Should they ignored the charges? Are you aware that liability would then fall on the officers if this guy got drunk and hit somebody again? That could easily cost somebody their career. I feel it's too much to ask of the officer to break procedure because of the circumstances.

[wring]

fluid - like I said, and you ignored - LA County undoubtedly has scads and scads of unprocessed felony warrants of their own. So, while they're busy sending a half dozen officers to pick up this guy on an outstanding misdemeanor warrent from antoher jurisidiction, they'd have been ignoring untold numbers of felonies from their own jurisidicition. Care to explain how/why that is the best use of resources?

and they process one for another jurisidiction? Were they asked to do so? Why did they run a check on him in the first place?

none of this is standard.

Yes, police co-operate w/each other (to a degree). So, if they trip over a wanted felon (note, felon, not necessarily misdemeanant), while in the process of checking out something else on him, they may (not always) pick him up.

But go out of their way to process it?

nonsense.

The felony absconder recovery guy I worked didn't always get cooperation even when he told them where the person was and that they had outstanding felonies AND that he'd come pick them up.

that's with him contacting them.

[Brutus]

samclem
You know this....how?

I am a reserve police officer. I do this all the time as a matter of departmental SOP.

wring
Brutus - care to support that? how many out of jurisdiction warrents were processed by LA county last year?

See above for the first question.

For the second, what difference does it make? The knew where this guy was. They don't know where all of the other suspects are.

All things being equal, you first go get the warrants whose location is known. Finding people whose location is not know is very difficult and time-consuming, even when operating on your own turf. Just look at the goofy domestic terrorist that is still on the loose out in N.Carolina (or somewhere like that).

[fluiddruid]

Originally posted by wring
fluid - like I said, and you ignored - LA County undoubtedly has scads and scads of unprocessed felony warrants of their own. So, while they're busy sending a half dozen officers to pick up this guy on an outstanding misdemeanor warrent from antoher jurisidiction, they'd have been ignoring untold numbers of felonies from their own jurisidicition. Care to explain how/why that is the best use of resources?

I didn't ignore it. I told you that they had contact with someone and found out he had outstanding warrants. The jurisdiction of the warrant really isn't important as long as the other jurisdiction will arrange transit.

I'm not sure this is the "best" use of resources -- I just don't see anything wrong with arresting a guy on outstanding warrants when you know his location and you've had contact with him. It's very common that this happens.

and they process one for another jurisidiction? Were they asked to do so?

If their local laws are anything like ours, I can guarantee that they made contact with the organization that had the warrant. They'd have to confirm it and confirm how he'd be transferred. If that jurisdiction didn't want him arrested, it would easily haev occurred.

Why did they run a check on him in the first place?

As I have repeatedly said, the police check a lot of people! It's an officer safety issue, for one. If you are out and talking with a group of people, it's nice to know if one of them has an outstanding warrant for robbery or if they're known to assault police officers. It is also a very good way to make arrests on warrants without using a lot of resources -- this is why warrants are computerized (there are limits to how much investigating can be done).

none of this is standard.

May I ask what authority you have to determine that, given that you have made various insinuations that have already been deflected?

Yes, police co-operate w/each other (to a degree). So, if they trip over a wanted felon (note, felon, not necessarily misdemeanant), while in the process of checking out something else on him, they may (not always) pick him up.

No, they MAY not. For minor warrants, sometimes a cop will give the guy a break if he doesn't think he will be a danger to others or a flight risk. For example, if a guy doesn't know he's wanted and it's for something pretty minor, often a cop will let him go with strict instructions to go to the courthouse and get things sorted out. For OWI and a hit and run? Do you think that's really minor and we should just ignore warrants that aren't felonies?

But go out of their way to process it? nonsense.

This is their job, you know.

The felony absconder recovery guy I worked didn't always get cooperation even when he told them where the person was and that they had outstanding felonies AND that he'd come pick them up.

And the experience of some guy you worked with once who told you what happened where he was according to his experience should somehow prove that there was maliciousness and abuse of the system involved with these officers because his experience must be somehow universal and indicative of all law enforcement agencies everywhere?

Uh huh.

[wring]

Out of the estimated 2.5 million (http://republican.assembly.ca.gov/members/63/ltr112299.htm) outstanding warrants in CA, this is the one that got the most priority?

this is the one that needed half dozen police officers in an unmarked SUV w/tinted windows?

this is the only one where they knew where the guy was?

this is the one that was the most dangerous?

LA COunty showed the most outstanding warrents at 940,000. But they had time to pick this guy up for another county on a misdemeanor?

r-iiiiiiiiiiiight.

[mske]

Out of the estimated 2.5 million outstanding warrants in CA, this is the one that got the most priority?

Please sort and prioritize that list and send forward it to all police departments in California - they will appreciate it.

I don't get all the cloak-and-dagger suspicions that everyone has in regards to the arrest of Crooks. The tape is already released - everyone has seen it. What's he going to do now.

Any high-profile arrest would require more resources (i.e multiple officers, ominous SUV). Why risk sending just a single beat cop to go pick him up and risk and angry mob of pro-conspiracy theorists jumping on him, start beating him and chant witty slogans like "How does it feel, pig!"

[wring]

And the award for missing the point, goes to....

Your point about sending so many 'cause of the high profile nature of the arrest begs the question - why, then did they opt for a vehicle w/tinted windows and/or fail to bring witnesses w/them?

And, re: the number of outstanding warrants etc. - it's bordering on incredulous that out of all those thousands of other outstanding warrants, that this is the only one that they had any idea where the guy was.

[mske]

Your point about sending so many 'cause of the high profile nature of the arrest begs the question - why, then did they opt for a vehicle w/tinted windows and/or fail to bring witnesses w/them?
You mean, besides the half-dozen cops, plus all the media that saw it (outside CNN offices).
If you are of the opinion that all cops are dirty, then there really is no way to make you saisfied.

It's ridiculous to think that they needed a van with tinted windows so that no one could see what is going on inside (i.e a thorough beating). What, they really couldn't wait until they got back to the station to put the boots to him in total privacy?

You know, it is not just stupid people who work for the police.

[wring]

Let's try this again. THe issue isn't centering around what happened outside the van but that they took this very high profile guy, who'd just been on the news saying he feared what the cops would do to him if they took him in custody, they load him into a dark, non standard vehicle in full view of lots of cameras, witnesses and newspeople, and whisk him away outside of the view of anyone except police officers and the arrested man.

now, is this a wise move? hmmm?

They drive away with him screaming for help, and this strikes you as a good idea??

Drive him off in a standard cop car, alone in the back seat, driving slowly so the news cameras can keep track of the fact that you're not beating him. Bring a newsreporter along w/a camera as a witness to the fact that not beating him

Nope, these folks take him in full view of everybody, load him up in a vehicle where no one can see in, and the only thing we can know is that he's screaming for help as they drive him away.

Idiotic move.

[keithnmick]

here's the video - you'll have to click a link:

http://ktla.trb.com/news/local/la-me-inglewood12jul12.story?coll=ktla-home-1

I don't think it looks good for the cop - the slam onto the hood of the car is far harder than a play fight, and he really unloads with that punch, given the amount of space he has to cock his fist.

[Diane]

Had the cops not ran a check and Crook went on to kill a family while driving drunk, I am certain that a few of the posters criticizing police actions in this thread would be ranting at about police incompetency.

As someone previously said, if you think it is so easy or you know a much better way for the police to do their jobs, put in your job application. I am sure they will welcome your knowledge of correct police procedure.

Just to wipe out a tiny bit of ignorance, it is "warrant" with an "a" not "warrent".

[wring]

Diane appreciate the job advice, really.

and re: spelling correction - I've got serious vision issues, have mentioned them before, and often get a/e screwed up.

but again, thanks so very much for your concern.

Never said I thought the cops had an easy job. However, once again - in such a fucking high profile, 'abusive police' situation, can you please explain to me, why the wisest course of action was to arrest this man in front of CNN, w/the world's eyes on them, in an SUV w/tinted windows while he's hollering for help, and drive off?

A cop car. With windows. would have allowed any and all interested to drive by and watch that he wasn't being beaten.

I cannot for the life of me fathom why this was the best plan.

and, I stand by my comments re: them picking him up for another county. they certainly have more pressing ones to serve for their own county.

[Diane]

Diane appreciate the job advice, really.

No problem. I just thought that you might be interested in earning a paycheck with your superior knowledge of what police procedure should and should not be.

and re: spelling correction - I've got serious vision issues, have mentioned them before, and often get a/e screwed up.

but again, thanks so very much for your concern.

Interesting that the "a" and "e" were only messed up, every time I might add, in the word "warrant", but whatever, it’s your story.

However, once again - in such a fucking high profile, 'abusive police' situation, can you please explain to me, why the wisest course of action . . . .

No I can’t explain to you because, like you, I don’t have enough inside knowledge of the situation. But hey, if you truly do know a better way, I am sure the department would love to hear from you. Maybe you could set up some training or something, eh?

and, I stand by my comments re: them picking him up for another county. they certainly have more pressing ones to serve for their own county.

I have a police scanner that I listen to often. You would be amazed at how often warrant checks are called in by the police routinely. This guy made himself known to the cops, they ran a check and found something, so what if it wasn’t in their county. What do you suggest they should have done after learning of the warrant?

[wring]

I'm suggesting (and have posted, but apparently you were too busy constructing your 'bon mots' for my behalf), that should have contacted his very public attorneys in order to arrange for the issuing of the subpeona for his grand jury testimony (which, of course, is what the LA DA claims was his only interest), and that if they'd decided to run a check on him, they'd have the common sense to understand that when some one has accused the police of brutality, it's in their own fucking best interest to insure that they have safeguards in place prior to taking him into custody to demonstrate that there was no brutality against him.

this could easily have been done by using a standard cop car. and/or invite one of the thousand or so reporters who were there w/cameras.

Instead, they instigated a fucking idiotic public relations nightmare by driving him off while he's screaming 'help help', in a car w/tinted windows.

And as for my 'background', I've posted many times - 25 years now working w/offenders, have testified for the prosecution, ran a correction center for 14 of those years. So much so, that defense attorneys were reluctant to call on me since I was considered to be 'pro prosecution'.

And - by the way- your veiled 'whatever, it's your claim' if you have a specific charge against my honesty, come out with it. I've posted often about issues regarding my vision, I also have arthitus in my fingers, have been treated for c/t etc. And of course it makes a difference in my typing and posting.

On the other hand, if you merely want the 'points' for making a snide spelling correction, I'm sure we're all the better for that.

[mske]

Note: This is speculation on my part - I only briefly caught the video clip of Crooks being arrested (as opposed to the non-stop tape loop of the original arrest and beating). If I am totally wrong here, I will gladly accept the flames that are coming to me.

Wring - let's figure out the best course of action for the police here. I am going under the assumption that you agree with my point that for a high-profile arrest such as this, you can not send only one or two officers, but would need several to make sure some nut-job does not cause trouble. So now you need, say eight police.

So, what is the best way to get eight officers to the proper place? A half dozen patrol cars - lights flashing and then being accused of "parading" the individual about, or one or two patrol cars and a large transport vehicle?

Tinted windows. Scary. Yet, it appears that all (http://www.code2high.com/lasd_suv.htm) LA County Sheriffs Office SUVs have tinted windows. Are these the designated beating-mobiles? Granted, they used an unmarked one - but tinted windows on a police SUV does not appear to be out of the ordinary.


They drive away with him screaming for help, and this strikes you as a good idea??
The screaming for help is pure theatrics from my point of view. Again, it seems highly unlikely that if the police planned on beating him (why? So they could beat him back to last month and make sure he wouldn't be able to film), they would want to do it right there and then.

Besides, the MO of the police seem to be to beat their suspects outside the vehicles... right?

So the police are in the unenviable position of having to arrest someone in front of all the world, and then listen to all the speculation of sinister deeds. You just can't please everyone. Until proven otherwise - I'll side with the police on this one.

Oh, and;

Out of the estimated 2.5 million outstanding warrants in CA, this is the one that got the most priority?
This of course is not a static list. A can guarantee you that they served other warrants at the same time, and have others added to the list. They make more than one arrest a day, you know...

[Diane]

As I said, maybe you could hire out as a trainer to the department or something.

Not pointing fingers at your honesty (or maybe I am), just making an observation regarding the peculiar way your vision always confused the "a" and the "e" only when typing the word "warrant", not to mention that this confusion happened in the short time span it takes to type the "rr" inbetween. I also find it fascinating that the first "a" seemed to make it there every single time, but that gosh darned second "a" seemed to slide up the keyboard every time.

Like I said, it's your story.

If you merely want the "points" (we get points for this?) for playing the disability card instead of simply acknowledging your mistake when corrected (hell, I didn’t even expect a "thank you"), I'm sure we're all the better for it.

[wring]

Diane you chose to attack me. I'm not playing a 'disability' card, merely giving you an explanation for my typos'. I have quite a few of them. Feel free to go nuts correcting my spelling wherever you wish. I think it's petty, but if it gets you your jollies, then I guess that's what we're here for, eh?

and, once again, mega thanks for the job advice, but really, don't bother - I have a job that I like. Thought I made that clear.

and of course, concentrating on your best wishes for my new careers, my physical problems and my spelling, helps you avoid the point I made. Good call, attacks on the poster vs. the post always work out well.

mske thanks for actually answering the point. But I already suggested what I thought would have been the very best option - I don't care how they all got there. But they certainly would have had access to a basic cop car. Or, if by sheer chance all of the routine patrol cars were unavailable, invite one of the news reporters with you. Or, don't like that option? use your own gd cameras yourselves. anything but driving off w/ the guy screaming in a car where you couldn't see what was going on inside. Very, very stupid.

There- you have three different options. Given that the guy had made repeated claims that he was afraid of retalilation by the cops, I cannot believe that they didn't prepare for that. Idiotic.

For example - if you had a co-worker/employee accuse you of sexual harassment, one of my suggestions would be to never allow yourself to be alone in the same room- always have a witness. And, if nothing at all else, do not ride off w/her w/in minutes of the accusation, in a car w/tinted windows, and no witnesses.

were the screams theatrics? of course, and entirely predictable. that's why I'm furious that they set themselves up in this way.

[mske]

were the screams theatrics? of course, and entirely predictable. that's why I'm furious that they set themselves up in this way.
So you see it. I see it. It is not a terrible leap to say that most other people see it the same way. Anyone who believed it? Too dumb to be able to have any lasting impact on the world.

The police know what they are doing. We are speculating around the electronic water cooler. I don't see any problem in the way they handled it. And if a percentage of the population want to theorize in order to sell newspapers/advertising space, or sound important - I don't have any time for them. And I guarantee I'm not the only one who sees it that way.

[gobear]

Anyone who believed it? Too dumb to be able to have any lasting impact on the world.

Depends on what you mean. While I don't think any aspect of the arrest merited Crooks's behavior, it's not impossible that he could be genuinely phobic of the police. His screams may have been theatrics, or they may have been genuine irrational hysteria. I don't think suggesting that possibility makes me "too dumb."


The police know what they are doing.

In this cae, quite possibly, although I share Wring's incredulity at the obtuseness of the LAPD's method of arrest.

[Diane]

Diane you chose to attack me.

Jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeezus, paranoid much? This is exactly what I said "Just to wipe out a tiny bit of ignorance, it is "warrant" with an "a" not "warrent". You didn’t have to respond, hell I didn’t even mention you by name, but once you posted your explanation on a public forum you opened yourself to commentary. I gave you mine.

Attack? Please, give me a fucking break. :rolleyes: You’re certainly putting forth a good effort at being the victim though.

[mske]

Originally posted by gobear

Depends on what you mean. While I don't think any aspect of the arrest merited Crooks's behavior, it's not impossible that he could be genuinely phobic of the police. His screams may have been theatrics, or they may have been genuine irrational hysteria. I don't think suggesting that possibility makes me "too dumb."

I don't find Crooks to be sincere in his fear of the police. But I have no proof, so I do acknowledge that it might be genuine. And if that was the case, he'd be screaming no matter how you "take him away", police car or not.

But my point was more directed at the people who honestly believed that the cries were due to him being pummeled inside the van at the time. So I would have to say that if someone holds that opinion, they are dumb. Please gobear, tell me you don't share that opinion.

[wring]

have it your way, Diane. Of course you meant no offense to me or anyone else. Must have been some one else quibbling about spelling instead of responding to the argument. and some one else must have typed all those rolleyes in your posts. Gotcha.

By the way, just how did the police run this guy's record if his name was in dispute and they didn't have anything else to go on (like date of birth etc.?) (realized that when I run a record, I need minimally a date of birth and correct spelling of the name, generally, cops when running the record would have a license plate etc) or did they have more than just his name?

[Diane]

. . . and some one else must have typed all those rolleyes in your posts. Gotcha.

Bolding mine.

Why doesn’t it surprise me that someone who interprets " Just to wipe out a tiny bit of ignorance, it is "warrant" with an "a" not "warrent". as "a threat" would also interpret ONE TIME as "all those".

Question - Would you be furious if the cops hadn’t run a search on Crook and three days later he had a few too many, got behind the wheel, and killed a family of 5 in a hit and run? Would you be posting in the Pit about the incompetency of the police for not checking his background?

Do you have inside information as to why the police the police arrested Crook the way they did?

[wring]

Diane no need to get your panties all a-twitter - if you'll check back on page two, I thanked you quite nicely for your ever so kind thoughts about my spelling and career goals. and repeated my thanks for your ever so kind and altuistic thoughts on my behalf on this page. Really, don't you think you've spent enough time on that?

Do I have inside info? nope. Just what's been in the press, and stuff based on my own experience working w/police, dOc etc.

And, once again, you've nicely evaded my challenge - given that this was a very high profile incident, where police brutality had been specified, alleged, claimed and otherwise talked about, and given that there's at least 3 different ways that I came up w/ as to how to get this guy in custody w/o running a risk of further exascerbating the circumstances or allowing the officers involved running the serious risk of being charged/accused of battery, why in fuck did they take this guy away in an unmarked car w/tinted windows with the world looking on?

why wouldn't they want to protect their own officers from being put in the position where they'd be completely unable to prove their actions, given the circumstances? Especially since all they had to do was use one of their many, many marked police cars where the perp is in the back, alone. Eh?

[MaxTheVool]

to hop in here, it's one thing to say that the way they arrested him was stupid. Yes, I agree, it was stupid.

That doesn't mean that it was criminal. That doesn't mean that there was any ulterior motive. That doesn't even necessarily mean that there was a better choice logistically available, although I'd be a bit surprised if there was.

And this is an enormous hijack from the original question of police brutality in the original video.

[gobear]

But my point was more directed at the people who honestly believed that the cries were due to him being pummeled inside the van at the time. So I would have to say that if someone holds that opinion, they are dumb. Please gobear, tell me you don't share that opinion.

Of course, I don't thinkhe was gettign pummeled in the van; my concern was that he was targeted by the cops in revenge for his videotaping them. C'mon, were the cops as eager to arrest Crooks before he videotaped some of them in the act of beating a handcuffed suspect?

To make my position crystsl clear to some of thedenser posters:

I agree (and have from the beginning) that if Crooks had a warrant for his arrest, he should be arrested.

However, it seems to me the cops were less than vigilant about looking for Crooks until he videotaped an act of police brutality; then, all of a sudden, apprehending him became a priority.

While I am a firm supporter of the police, I also don't think we should turn a blind eye when they abuse their authority. We're citiznes of this country, not subjects. And that Brutus is allowed to wear a badge, even on a part-time basis, scares the bejabbers out of me.

[Diane]

However, it seems to me the cops were less than vigilant about looking for Crooks until he videotaped an act of police brutality; then, all of a sudden, apprehending him became a priority.

The brother of a friend of mine had a warrant for not showing up for a court hearing regarding his arrest for disorderly conduct (some road rage thing I don’t know a lot about). He was later a witness to an accident that involved a drunk driver and was asked to give a statement to the police. During the course of the situation, it was discovered that he had a warrant. He was arrested.

I am certain that the police were not actively looking for him but as soon as they ran a check and discovered he had a warrant, he was arrested.

I don’t think the situation with Crook is much different.

[fluiddruid]

Originally posted by gobear


I agree (and have from the beginning) that if Crooks had a warrant for his arrest, he should be arrested.

However, it seems to me the cops were less than vigilant about looking for Crooks until he videotaped an act of police brutality; then, all of a sudden, apprehending him became a priority.


I just don't think it's plausible to assume that the only possibility is abuse of power. There simply isn't any evidence that shows intent to be one way or the other. We have no information about who decided to make the arrests and why, other than that he had an outstanding warant.

If you agree he should be arrested, and was arrested, but you think that the intent of the rightful arrest was bad -- well, I think that's a great strain of the phrase "abuse of power", but that's your call. I think it's best at this point not to assume the worst (nor the best) given the lack of evidence pointing either way. I think it's easily just as likely that the sudden increase in priority (or, in my view, plausibility) in arresting Crooks was there because of new information on his location and not because of some vendetta.