Ok, thanks!
Unfortunately, the article only discusses the suspects’ charges and disposition.
It makes no mention of whether the officer will face legal or departmental actions.
As for me, I agree with this reporter’s assessment. The OP’s video only showed the tail end of the events. I can’t say I have too much sympathy for obnoxious perps.
Chip Johnson isn’t actually a reporter, he writes a column. But that’s a nitpick. I disagree with his opinion.
But, as to the OP, do you think the passenger should be charged with battery on the cop for the cop’s self-inflicted injury? It is obvious that the cop slammed the guy into the window (not “glass wall”). Note that the prosecutor didn’t charge Gibson with anything related to the actual arrest.
It’s not clear what you mean by “self-inflicted injury”, but yes, if the officer is injured in the process of the legal detainment and disarming of a suspect per POST and departmental use-of-force standards, even if the suspect did not directly act to cause the injury, he is still accountable for injuries done to the officer.
I’m afraid it isn’t obvious to me that “the cop slammed the guy into the window.” Indeed, it is pretty clear to me from repeated viewings of the clip that the hand or arm of the suspect had to make contact first, as it is ahead of the suspect prior to the window breaking and the officer clearly pulls him to the side (right before the guy sitting on the bench gets up to exit screen left. From where his feet are positioned, if the cop had forced his head through the window he would have been off balance and falling forward; it’s clear that he was in fact on balance and remained standing after contacting the window. It is also clear from his footwork that he was fighting the officer, which is never a good idea.
Instead of that hacked up CNN.com video linked in the OP, try this complete one, in which it is clear that the man is acting in a threatening manner and struggling with the cop. Yes, this is assault on the part of the suspect, and resulting injury to the officer stemming from resistance, in fact, battery, just as a battered spouse being struggling to get away from her attacker and falling back onto a table is battery.
The post-video commentary (which is critical of the officer) is a perfect example of the kind of Monday morning quarterbacking that people who have little exposure to violent drunks and none at all with police restraint methods like to engage in. “He could have taken him to the ground, he could have grabbed both arms…” is nonsense; in order to take the guy to the ground he would have had to sweep or collapse the leg with a strike, which is generally frowned upon both for legal issues (the potential for serious knee injury) and tactical reasons (the cop would have to follow him down to the ground, and may not be able to maintain control, especially with a 10 lb duty belt snagging on everything). The rear armlock being performed by the officer, while not perfect execution in this case, is a standard, POST-approved technique for control of combative suspects. Bear in mind, too, that the officer appears to be here on his lonesome with no partner standing by to Taser the offender if he breaks lose and comes around swinging that bottle in his left hand. (I’m not clear when he loses it, but the cop may not know, either.) In such a case, the cop’s first duty, after ensuring that the man is not a danger to citizens, is to protect himself with all appropriate force.
Also, if the cop were as out of control as described by some posters, there wouldn’t be any discussion as to whether any kind of brutality occurred, and he wouldn’t have stopped with thrusting his head through the window as claimed; he’d have followed up with a disabling strike to the kidney or neck to prevent the suspect from further fighting back, which he had every opportunity to do. Instead, he maintains positive control over the suspect, turns him away from the window, repositions his hand to get a more positive lock against a struggling suspect, and then turns him around and forcefully but controllably directs the suspect to a kneeling state. This is just not commensurate with an adrenaline-pumped violence jockey. Far from being over the top police brutality, this is an example of an officer who maintained discipline and self-control in the face of a very aggressive suspect and injury. If this were not captured on video and immediately flooded onto Youtube.com, this would be nothing more than a standard arrest report, Occupational Injury Report, and a stern word from the officer’s watch commander to stay clear of the glass next time, "“cause I don’t need officers getting a free vacation from every little scratch!”
Stranger
This video brings up some the points Stranger has mentioned. The reporter’s narration is surprisingly non-sensationalist.
I’d already watched that video. It was right next to the one I linked. The only difference was that it was a lot longer.
In both, Gibson gets on the train and starts actinh up. A passenger asks him to get off the train and Gibson turns toward the door, whether to leave or because he heard the cop I don’t know. At that instant the cop grabs him by the throat and gains immediate control, shoving him out and over to the window and, to me, braces himself and swings Gibson into the glass. Up to now I see nothing I’d call a struggle on the part of Gibson. After the glass comes down the cop does get an obvious arm lock on the passenger. The rest looks like n entirely normal takedown with Gibson very reluctant to go to the concrete, but still not fighting. There’s a “blip” then we see Gibson under the cop’s control.
I definitely think the cop did set his balance then sling Gibson into the window. I doubt he expected it to break. Neither did Gibson when he put out his hand to avoid slamming his face into the glass.
I didn’t see the cop give the passenger a chance to comply with his order to get off the train. I wonder what Gibson had in mind when he turned to the door after the other passenger asked him to leave.
What’s the charge for getting thrown out of a moving vehicle? Jaywalking?
Right. You charge the thrower, not the throwee.
All I can say to this is that you’re clearly seeing what you want to see, and that you don’t appear to have any knowledge of restraint methods or dealing with physically aggressive people.
The officer did not grab the offender “by the throat” but by his lapels, and he very obviously has him in an armlock (if perhaps not a very good one) as they are moving toward the window. Again, look at the suspect’s feet as they are moving toward the window; he tries to go left, then he tries to go right, while swinging his right arm out and forward. If the officer had forced him headfirst though the window, the suspect would very likely have had a gushing head wound (even superficial scalp wounds tend to bleed prolifically). If the officer was bracing himself it was probably to try to force the suspect down rather than through the window.
And again, if the officer is so aggressive and wiling to inflict excessive violence on the suspect, why, after the window is broken, the officer injured, and the suspect is visibly combative, doesn’t he break the guy’s arm, strike him in the kidney, or pull out that huge-ass 1980s-era radio he’s carrying and clock the guy across the head? Instead he changes hand position to improve his arm lock, puts the suspect in a control position on the ground (note the close kneel position with the knee on the ribs which prevents the suspect from rolling over and attacking from a ground position) and proceeds to controllably place the suspect in restraints. This doesn’t look like an officer who isn’t in control of himself; at worst, he allowed himself to be too concerned about controlling the suspect and not enough about his environment. I know I couldn’t do better than that. Heck, I would have just kicked the guy’s leg out from under him and tried to dislocate his shoulder to prevent him from fighting back.
But hey, we’re all friggin’ experts here, right? All those who critique what the officer should have done have great experience in the restraint techniques and spend idle Saturday nights dealing with combative drunks.
Stranger
If you want a hypothetical, then because the cop might have wanted to sneak in a cheap shot by slamming the guy against the glass while arresting him. He didn’t expect the glass to break, but just wanted to inflict some pain. The glass broke, thereby attracting attention to the situation and completely changing the scenario. I’m not saying that’s necessarily what happened, but nobody would’ve heard anything about this if the glass didn’t break.
So if a cop tazes (or shoots) himself, or trips on the kerb and busts his nose while chasing someone, the suspect is accountable?
To me, this is absolutely stunning. So if a cop throws me through a window and gets cut by the glass, I am charged with felony battery? Wow.
Why was it necessary to slam the guy against the wall in the first place? It seemed that he cooperated from the moment the officer approached him. Hell, it wasn’t that long ago that cops didn’t even handcuff everyone they arrested unless the person was acting violent. Nowadays they treat everyone they arrest like John Dillinger.
That was my feeling originally, before I let the side issues get me all carried away with the details. It seems obvious to me that the cop was the cause of the injuries, which is why I used the incident as an example in my question. Now I’m curious about the reason the normally aggressive DAs office all but dropped the charges.
I’m also curious about the “indecent exposure” charge. Although one can be charged with that for forgetting to zip his pants. I know that because a cop in San Jose told me could arrest me when I forgot to do so after having an excellent breakfast at Flames Coffee Shop (yum) down there. Stupid cop.
I’m no expert in law enforcement techniques, but I do agree with stranger. That officer did nothing incorrectly in terms of escalating the conflict. His only mistake was that he failed to account for the glass window being there. Throughout the entire video the officer never took any actions designed to inflict injury on the suspect, but rather he only acted to restrain him.
In my opinion, neither the officer nor the suspect should be held accountable for errors in judgment like that. Instead, they should both get patched up from their injuries, and go back to whatever they were doing before the incident ever occurred.
But no, that isn’t going to happen since we live in America and Americans have become ignorant to the realities of what life is really like. The armchair policework you see like this nowadays is a fine example of how detached the average American really is.