whoops, my last post was in response to
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.
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.
wring: he resisted arrest, injuring the police officer in the process (albiet apparently fairly minor wound). QED he’s a criminal.
Fenris
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
[nitpick]“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.
[/nitpick]
Zette
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.
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:
- the ‘grabbing my nuts’
- that was happening while he was resisting (the tape shows the kid being slamed, not particularly resistent)
and - 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.
Scylla said
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
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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:
- The cop and the kid
- 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
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.
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.