Be careful when yolu videotape cops beating suspects!

The BBQ Pit
101

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.

102

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.

103

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.

104

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.”

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

105

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.

106

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.

107

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?

108

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?

109

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?

110

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.

111

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.

112

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.

113

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.