Legally he was considered innocent. In reality, he was anything but.
Rizzo’s been out for a while. From what I understand (there’s been plenty o’ coverage of this) the current mayor actually gets high marks for cleaning up. Maybe Esprix knows more details?
Based on my current understanding, I have a hard time being on the side of the beaten here. Once shots are fired at cops, all bets are off…
Unfortunately you can’t decide that. The cops can’t decide that. Only a jury can. You do not know his motivation. Also the comment was on roughing people up in general, not on this particular case.
Well then, I guess the real question is, why didn’t they cuff the guy sooner? A suspect does not become subdued at the moment the cuffs are placed on him. He’s subdued when he is no longer resisting. My point was that, instead of cuffing him, the cops beat him.
And yes, I’m jumping to conclusions. In my own defense, (1) I can’t think of any rational interpretation of 20 cops standing around the guy and beating him other than they were BEATING him. I mean, some of the cops were pushing their way through the throng to get their licks in. I really doubt they knew or much cared about whether the suspect was no longer resisting. (2) Even if they were honestly subduing the guy, they weren’t doing it right. There are procedures a cop must follow, and if they don’t follow them, they are commiting a crime. (3) I lived a long time in Philly. I know these cops and their culture. Trust me, they were kicking this guy’s ass, period.
Sua
picmr where did I say the Philly police were definitely justified? Just because I find the assertion that the man acted in “self defense” ridiculous does not mean I condone the actions of the cops in this incident; however, I think it’s pure folly to sit half a world away and pronounce judgement on the 20 “brave chaps” based on a piece of videotape. There were a couple dozen cops involved because of the chase, which involved the theft of a police vehicle by an armed and dangerous suspect. Would you really expect a lesser response?
I’m fairly sure that there was gratuitous violence employed by the Philly cops, but I’m not ready to condemn them based on one videotape taken at the end of a chase and exchange of gunfire. I know the tape showed something brutal and disturbing; I also know the PPD were charged with protecting the citizens of Philadelphia from the actions of this man, and many of them put themselves in harm’s way to do so.
Why didn’t they cuff him sooner? I don’t know. Neither does anyone who’s posted to this thread.
While I think the scumbag deserved it, it is very disconcerting that the police would convict and punish someone prior to arresting him. If I am not mistaken, Kicking a criminal is not allowed even after a conviction.
I think that his case and others like it are a perfect example of why individuals should retain the right to bear arms. If we are relying on these cops to protect us…man, we are allin big trouble.
The government cannot be trusted for exactly this reason. Those with power will, and do tend to abuse it. Citizens must have teh means to keep this power in balance.
The police were not able to cuff the guy sooner. The whole reason the beating (arrest) took place was because the man continued to resist arrest even after he had been caught and surrounded. This guy stole a police car, got involved in a shootout with the police, actually shot one of them, and puts up a fight when he’s caught, and its the police who are supposed to be in trouble? This situation is completely unlike the Rodney King case. Rodney King was pulled over for some stupid traffic violation, speeding, failure to indicate, whaterver…this guy shot a cop.
According to the newspaper, this guy grabbed at their weapons after he was caught (but hadn’t been cuffed/subdued yet), and his fighting led to the beating (arrest). It isn’t like the police were unprovoked.
It is true that the police go overboard alot, but this case is not one of them.
I can understand why the police would overreact the way they did; a cop was shot, the guy stole a cop car and escaped, etc. Nevertheless, they were wrong to continue to beat him once he was subdued–it certainly didn’t look like he was doing much besides huddle on the ground (he was apparently shot five times before he stole the cop car). I expect those whose job it is to take suspects into custody to refrain from excessive force when doing so.
Here’s some links: http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20000714/ts/crime_police_dc.html
Review video coverage here: http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/07/14/police.beating.02/index.html
Sua, The Rizzo crack was uncalled for, but I’ll let it slide.
Could you quote me a cite on that? My understanding is that we most certainly have, particularly when Ed was in charge.
I hope you weren’t asking me - I was here when it happened.
Obviously you haven’t seen the tape. There is a link to it here, although it’s not the best. I just re-watched it more closely myself.
The guy, Thomas Jones, runs, gets shot, steals the police car, gets chased, and then gets stopped (sorry, didn’t crash it like I thought he had). As soon as it crashes, about 8 police swarm the vehicle, and attempt to get him out of the driver’s seat. Now, keep in mind, this guy has shot a police officer and is armed. He is pulled from the car, and from the looks of it he is immediately put down on the ground. But get this - he’s still fighting tooth and nail. As I said, he bit a cop. And remember, he’s armed. So in their zeal to subdue him, yes, he was punched and kicked (it looks like there were about 14 cops that ended up on the immediate scene), as Mojo said, for about 30 seconds, but there is, IMHO, a point where they all stop, and after that he is hauled to his feet, which seems to be when they actually got the cuffs on him and had him subdued.
Frankly, it’s a miracle he didn’t get shot and killed - we have a fleeing armed suspect who exchanges gunfire with police. They were fully justified in opening fire as soon as that car came toa stop. Instead, they risked their lives to try and extricate him, an armed suspect, from the car and take him into custody.
As the President of the FOP said, “You shoot one cop, you shot them all.” And frankly, he has a point that I don’t entirely disagree with.
greatsatan, your suggestion is quite appalling. At least these cops were doing their job in public, not doing their dirty work in some jail cell where there would be no inquiry. These guys might have been overzealous, but at least they’re going to have to face some kind of reckoning in the form of 3 independent investigations into the incident, including the Justice Department.
The Philadelphia police department has had its problems (notably under Rizzo’s mob rule and Goode’s lax rule), but IMHO those problems ended 12 years ago when Ed Rendell took this city firmly in hand. I only pray that Mayor Street doesn’t fuck it all up, and only 6 months in office no less.
Esprix
Wow, first we agree on abortion. Then I defend you against those who call you a bigot, and now this.
I COMPLETELY agree with you Mr.Zambezi.
Imagine what the cops would get away with if they knew citizens didn’t have guns.
This is getting scary, oldscratch. I guess that while reasonable minds can differ, they can also agree.
If you feel like keeping a healthy balance between the two, join us in the current health care debate. I am sure we have plenty to disagree about there.
So are you getting more conservative, or am I getiing ::groan:: more liberal?
Okay, I’m not following your/Zambezi’s line of reasoning on this one. IYO, this incident illustrates that citizens should be armed because he opened fire on the cops and got beat up for 30 seconds? IMO, if he hadn’t been armed he wouldn’t have gotten such a beat down.
I don’t think this event illustrates anything to do with the second amendment but everything to do with why you shouldn’t steal cars and lead cops on high speed chases.
mojo said
**
If you have had the misfortune to follow the many gun control debates, you would have heard an pro gun opinion that goes like this: “the right to bear arms was established to protect the people from a tyrannical government and the abuse of power of the military and paramilitary officers”
To which the Libs reply, “there is no threat of the gov’t misusing its power in this enlightened era with all of these pure hearted, pacifist cops and military officers. Furthermore, if you are in danger, you can call 911 and the police will save you.”
Of the incidents where the police abuse thier power and violate the rights of citizens, a minority are caught on tape. It is fair to expect that incidents similar to this and Rampart occur pretty frequently.
So, if the police abuse their powers , it is proof that these paramilitary people are indeed somewhat of a threat. It is proof that those in power can and do abuse it, even in this “enlightened” time. Historically, the police and military tend to be a greater danger to citizens than criminals.
Ergo, it is necesary for citizens to have arms to protect themselves from the blue arm of the government. I am not saying that it would have helped this guy. What I am saying is that we as a society can’t trust the cops nor the military and that we shouldn’t make ourselves helpless in the misguided hope that these jackbooted thugs always put our rights first.
Again Mr.Z has said it quite well. I think a very good example of why citizens should have the right to bear arms is the Black Panther Party for Self Defense. The CA legislature passed gun control laws specificly because they were scared of a radical Black movement. There are far too many cases of the police abusing their power over citizens. In fact the police atract the kind of person who likes to abuse power. I’ve met quite a few cops in my life. They Love to swing their dicks around.
Mr.Zambezi (to Mojo):
Y’know, I’m a supporter of the 2nd, and a proponent of responsible gun ownership, but I just can’t resist slappin’ down on this type of baseless assertion. In my admittedly limited experience (41 years of generally law abiding existence as a US citizen) I’ve neither read nor heard of an incident involving abuse of power that could’ve been solved through use of a firearm. Would you care to cite any such incidents and offer arguments showing where private gun ownership would’ve either prevented or ameliorated the abuse?
And would you care to support your statement that “Historically, the police … tend to be a greater danger to citizens than criminals”? —Please limit your examples, of course, to those cases where the police have presented such a comparitively higher danger. (We can all cite examples of military coups, and while I disagree that private gun ownership is any type of deterrent there, that’s not relevant to this thread.)
oldscratch:
All of 'em, 'scratch? Most of 'em? Or is it most young adult males who like to do that? In my (again, possibly limited) experience, most cops genuinely want to make the world better and take care of “the bad guys.” Would you be willing to do their job, or to have nobody do their job?
Well, I admit that what I suggested isn’t very good policy - it sets up an atmosphere where cops feel they can play judge, jury, and executioner. Yes, the angel on my right shoulder says, the cops should be professional and not harm any (non-resisting) suspect, no matter what the circumstances are, because once that line is erased, who’s to say how far down it should be re-drawn? But the little red guy on my right shoulder still sez: kick the MFer.
Yes Zambezi!! Let’s give the Give the guns to the Crips, the Bloods, the Klansmen, and every last single hoodlum and creep and crazy person around, and let them fight the powers that be. Amen brother!! And if you believe that, I’m really sorry for you.
Subdued??? This guy managed to shoot, drive and bite with 5 bullets in him!! Hardly the definition of “subdued”.
He was lucky they didn’t shoot him.
and:
Who says the cops used “excessive force”? Up to the moment the perp was taken into custody, the cops had not used “sufficient force”.
Anyone who shoots at cops multiple times deserves to be executed on the spot. The fucker got off lucky.
Did I just hear the news correctly, that since they’ve had this guy in custody, they are unable to find the gun, and are now speculating that the cop may have been hit by “friendly fire” from another officer? Does this mean he may be less guilty than originally thought?
I am a very conservative chick, and had little sympathy for this guy, King, or anybody else who purposely pisses off cops. But this really disturbs my deeply-buried inner liberal.
By the way, memo to the cops- even if he did shoot one of your own, and this was “justified”, congratulations- if a jury sees this video, it could muddy the water just enough for him to get off (juries can be quirky that way).
PS Sua, I have to ask about your user name- Ranger? My brother was 2/75.