Is Michael Crooks in a hospital because:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/07/12/police.beating.crooks/index.html
Being that Crooks is a crook himself it would be hard to believe if he claims that the cops beat him. Seems like there would be too much of a spotlight on them to beat him. I can’t imagine that other inmates would beat him either, since he would be their hero for catching police brutality on tape (black or white inmates would probably be in his corner).
Then again, if you read the official police report filed by one of the officers (a deputy I think, not one of the Inglewood cops) you see no mention at all of the cop (Morse) throwing the kid on the back of the car or punching him in the face. I assume this was written before the news of the video came out.
Makes you wonder who to believe since the video only shows part of the story.
I believe seeing the kid punched while his hands were cuffed behind him.
There is no excuse for that, whatever he did.
Remind me to run when the black tinted SUV full of guys in black golf shirts shows up. 
You’ve gotta wonder.
Supposedly, the cops who were making the original arrest spotted this guy videotaping, and then went door-to-door in the building from which he was videotaping, trying (unsuccessfully) to locate him. Why did they do that, I wonder? (If they did. That was Crooks’s story.)
On the other hand, it sounds like Crooks might be a bit of a publicity hound, and might be trying to manufacture a lawsuit.
Stay tuned, I guess.
What I find interesting is how the media starts showing all these clips of OTHER beating incidents that have also “come to light” as a result of this controversy.
Where did these tapes come from, all of a sudden???
Makes me wonder if the news stations get these clips of police brutality all the time, but chooses not to show them, until one of these cases suddenly becomes a hot topic and the media picks up the ball and runs with it.
My bigger question is:
Since when did the LAPD have the time/inclination to process arrest warrents for other counties on misdemeanor charges
Since when is it SOP for any police agency, let alone the LAPD to go to a place in order to arrest a suspect in an SUV w/tinted windows?
Given the play in the media etc about this case in the first place, what sane cop would choose to arrest this guy and put him in anything but a standard issue police car w/regular windows and an outside witness/ your own video taping going on in the first place?
Nothing ominous, just practical.
Because the Nazis took people to be killed in buses with the windows painted out.
Because honest policemen should travel in identifiable vehicles without tinting to hide themselves or those they arrest.
Because these guys were wearing black shirts instead of uniforms.
what’s my problem w/SUV/tinted window? See my point #3.
YOu’ve got a highly publicized case, with serious allegations of police brutality. Why in the world would the choice be to arrest the man in front of CNN headquarters fercryin’ out loud in a vehicle where no one can see inside? Hell, again - why didn’t they invite one of the 800 camera guys along as a witness. I sure as hell wouldn’t want to have been alone w/the guy.
Because, as we all know, undercover police officers and unmarked cars are corrupt and dishonest.
:rolleyes:
Perhaps if they traveled in police cars instead of tinted SUVS one would have a different opinion.
SUV’s with tinted windows? Good Lord. This story has gone from a Rodney King sequel to just plain bizarre to downright surreal. Let’s get back to the topic at hand:
They don’t. Unless a witness is being uncooperative, in which case it obliges them to search the statewide network for any excuse to force him to come in and testify. Or, to discredit anything he has to say, since he’s a crook. Whichever one applies in this case is anybody’s guess.
And like Jeremy’s Evil Twin, I too wonder where all those extra tapes came from suddenly. Must have been a slow news day.
he wasn’t being uncooperative (the LA DA had to admit that finally)
he hadn’t been served w/a subpeona yet they did that at CNN and arrested him for outstanding warrant.
and, check out the link in the pit thread - LA county had several hundred thousand outstanding warrants of their own at the time.
So, no, he wasn’t being uncooperative. so, no, they had no deep abiding reason to take him into custody, especially since they had several hundred thousand warrants of their own they hadn’t processed yet.
Technically correct but not the whole story. The police attempted to serve him with a subpoena in order to get the tape but could not physically locate him. That was most likely due to the fact that he didn’t want to be found as he had outstanding warrants for his arrest. Crooks was on a radio show in LA when the assistant DA called in and told him that there was a subpoena for him to appear in court on Thursday and to bring the tape. Crooks did not appear so the cops picked him up on his outstanding warrants.
According to the police, the cops only ran his name for outstanding warrants after they tried repeatedly to serve him with a subpoena and couldn’t find him, so it occured to someone that there might be a reason that he didn’t want to be found by the cops. That same person also said that if he had just turned over the tape on day one they would’ve never even run his name through the system.
If you’re going to try and become a publicity whore while you’ve got outstanding warrants, use a pseudonym.
not so fast.
He certainly had attorneys identified. Had LA County attempted to contact him through them? SOP (remember Robert Blake?) is to contact attorney to arrange service in high profile cases.
He had been subpoened and was well aware of the fact. He made efforts to avoid being served and, in fact, hung up immediately after the DA told him exactly when and where to appear. Why should the DA notify his lawyers when they’ve already notified him? You have to directly serve the person being subpoened and cannot serve his lawyers.
“Serve him” on a talk show?
Come on.
Talk about media whores.
The police were looking for Mitchell (not Michael) Crooks in order to get ahold of the tape as it would most likely be the most important piece of evidence in trials involving the officer(s). Crooks was trying to avoid the cops until HE WAS STUPID ENOUGH TO APPEAR ON A CALL-IN SHOW. This was the first time that the police were aware of his whereabouts and immediately took steps to contact him to notify him of the subpoena. Crooks then skips the hearing for which he was subpoened and makes plans to have a CNN interview. Once again he’s avoiding the cops while, at the same time, making his location known because he wants to be on the news. The only time that the cops knew his location is when he was trying to get on TV or radio and he was notified and picked up at those times.
If you’re looking for a media whore, the best place to find him is the whorehouse.
Avoid the cops is something I do with great allacrity at every possible chance.
I’d also like to point out that it’s probably SOP to run an outstanding warrant check on anyone who grabs the full attention of the state police.
It would be ridiculous for the police to refrain from bagging the guy once they found him simply because they don’t usually have the resources to do it. He’s still in violation of the law, and he’s still due for a stint in the pokey for dodging.