I think you’ve kind of undercut your own argument there.
Either the police pile on because it’s SOP to disable the guy (as it’s kind of hard to fight or run with a full-grown man hanging from each limb) or it’s not.
All the other cops seemed to think it was SOP, and I was kind of under that impression myself over the years. The rest of them weren’t beating on him.
If it’s not SOP, then why weren’t they all beating him?
Personally, I think that the guy was one of those kinds of cops, and, unfortunately for the LAPD (and LA too, most likely) he was on the scene of something being taped by a news crew.
Real cops know that if you want to beat someone, you do it a) away from the news crew (or LA county), and b) put a phone book between your baton and the perp’s head. It doesn’t leave a mark, and still hurts like hell. Kind of like soap in a sock, but that leaves a mark if you hit hard enough.
I’m not getting this. I’m not saying running away is not a bad thing, because it is bad. But it is not an act of violence. If you are close enough to a fleeing suspect to beat them repeatedly, then you are close enough to restrain them. You are not suppose to do whatever is humanly possible just to catch somebody, anybody, everybody. If that was the case, a cop would be allowed to shoot anyone just for running a red light and not stopping for a ticket.
Well, let’s not talk about hypotheticals. Let’s talk about what’s in the tape.
Fucking running away has fuck-all to do with violence. How many kids run away from their parents when they are about to be spanked? Does this mean the kids are violent animal thugs? No. (But what about the parents, hmmm?)
And yet, the risk to bystanders is elevated regardless. This is a red herring anway, because it doesn’t justify beating a subdued suspect. It may explain why the cops are hopped up on adrenaline, but that doesn’t mean that it is okay for them to let the adrenaline do the thinking for them.
Exactly. But the Police might have some interesting extra details for us, like the perp had a knife which the video didn’t show, or that he hit a cop with his car early on in the chase or something. So HAS the LAPD isssued a statement?
Running away may have nothing to do with violence. But how many people run just because? Never did I say cops could shoot you in the head for running a redlight, that is nonsensical. I said he’s running, stop him. Not shoot him. Try this, walk up to a cop, and then just take off running for no reason when he sees you. Guess why he chases you. It’s because youre acting suspicious. He might tackle you when he catches you. It doesn’t give him the right to beat you. I didn’t say that cop was right. However, you imply that all cops chasing bad guys is dangerous and shouldn’t be done, according to your rhetoric. I realize that it is unsafe. Guess why cop cars have SIRENS. To warn people. Bad guys don’t honk their horns to tell people to get out of the way. Last time I checked, I could hear the police LONG before they got to me. Deaf people are probably the most at danger, but this is getting a little ridiculous.
Forget whether the police knew he was violent or not, forget that the suspect engaged in a chase. They could’ve been chasing Osama bin Laden, and they would still have the responsibility to not use excessive force. There will never be an excuse good enough.
I watched local news last night at 11pm, and listened to Warren Ulney’s excellent “Which Way LA” radio program last night, and there are still one thing I’ve noticed missing from the many astute discussions of this event:
Where is the arrestee? What kinds of wounds does he have? I think that if he was beaten with a MagLight, he’d show some welts on the places he was beaten.
Also, if he was resisting being handcuffed, it’s quite possible the officer was striking him on the arms and shoulders in an attempt to make him stop resisting. From the two video camera angles I’ve seen, I wouldn’t rule this out.
And a guest on Which Way LA last night offered a very objective analysis of what could have happened (assuming the beating was to the head):
The fugitive was attempting to reach into a pocket or take a gun from one of the officers. In other words, he was presenting a clear threat to the safety of the police. In that case, they would have been justified to shoot him right there. But none of the other officers were acting like there was a threat. Just the dude with the flashlight.
The adrenalin factor. The cop was so worked up from the chase that he administered a curbside beating. This is called “chase rage” in the Christopher Commission report. And it is most certainly not allowed. But also, none of the other officers were behaving as if their companion was doing anything out of the ordinary. (Not that that proves anything… they could just as easily be inured to excessive violence, as they could have not been witnessing any.)
Number 1 is defensible, and appropriate. Number 2 is not acceptable under any circumstances. But it happens, just not usually in front of a video camera.
And I propose a number 3 – the guy wasn’t getting beaten on the head. As I suggested, it could have been a “compliance technique” to get the guy into a cuffable position.
I think that, if the media hype and public outrage doesn’t distort the outcome, we’ll find that the truth lies somewhere between numbers 2 and 3.
Again, a medical report on the guy’s injuries as a result of arrest will go a long way into clearing this up. Why haven’t we heard one?
I saw the tape six times, today. [on different news channels] In my opinion the cop with the flashlight [? baton?] and the cop who kicked the man, were two different people.
On our news it’s said the man was ‘slightly wounded’. Which surprised me, because I saw him staggering when he was pulled to his feet. He was held upright by a cop. In my opinion the man had collapsed if that hadn’t happen.
I couldn’t see where he was hit - shoulders, neck or head, but I could see it was totally un-necessary. The man was down, for crying out loud.
I also saw the mayor of L.A. offering his apologies. I hope that was a comfort to the man.
