While I’m not a big fan of cops in general, I personally find a few of them to be real assholes, and while there may be more than what I have seen to this particular story, for now, I do think they are getting a raw deal here.
An attorney for the black man beaten by cops in CA said his client’s civil rights were violated, and that they will be seeking a seven digit settlement. One news agency reported that the policeman hit the man in the face after the black man in cuffs grabbed his private area. Don’t blame him one bit if this is the case. Even if this isn’t the case, is it worth another seven digit settlement that the taxpayers will be forced to pay out? This policeman was hit in the face too, while the video doesn’t show it, but there is blood on his face to account for it, as well as many who seen this. Chances are the city will pay out the seven digit settlement to avoid anything similar to the LA riots that occurred. After he wins his settlement, wouldn’t this be a good time for the policeman to counter sue this man for assaulting him, and violating his rights? It doesn’t work like that though, does it?
You know if this is all it takes to win these seven digit settlements; then, I would be more than happy to take an ass-whupin’ by any policeman. But all this guy got was being slammed down hard on the trunk of the car, and he gets hit once in the face. And the latter was possibly the result of the man grabbing the policeman’s private area.
A) All media reports I’ve read on the incident, and testimony by the father, emphasize that is son was punched numerous times by the police, both before and after he was handcuffed. If you have different information, please post it here.
B) As I recall from my viewing of the video, a Sheriff’s deputy was holding the kid down when a city cop moved in from behind the deputy, reached in and struck the boy. This officer was not within “grabbing” distance of the boy until he moved in to strike him. How could he have been “grabbed in the privates”, unless it happened before the kid was in custody? Once the boy was restrained, what right did the cop have to punch him, no matter what may have happened before?
C) The persons involved in the incident have the legal right to pursue civil action, and can request whatever monetary reward they feel is justified. The fact that they may seek a seven-figure settlement does not automatically mean they will get the full amount, or anything at all. Please recall the trial of the cops involved in the King beating, when a jury was somehow convinced that a man lying helplessly on the ground and twitching under a rain of baton blows was somehow “in control” of his beating.
The father and son involved in the incident can legally file suit if they feel they have been wronged, so why shouldn’t they, especially if, as it seems, they are unlikely to obtain redress as a result of the PD’s internal investigation?
A) All media reports I’ve read on the incident, and testimony by the father, emphasize that is son was punched numerous times by the police, both before and after he was handcuffed. If you have different information, please post it here.
Is there any video of that? Or only testimony? Hell, they also got testimony showing the black man was hitting the officer. The only video that has been continually showed in my area, showed the one punch in the face from the white police officer, and the black man being slammed hard onto the trunk of the car. If you have info, you can post it here as well. I would think if there were more graphic video to show they would have done so.
*B) As I recall from my viewing of the video, a Sheriff’s deputy was holding the kid down when a city cop moved in from behind the deputy, reached in and struck the boy. This officer was not within “grabbing” distance of the boy until he moved in to strike him. How could he have been “grabbed in the privates”, unless it happened before the kid was in custody? Once the boy was restrained, what right did the cop have to punch him, no matter what may have happened before? *
The black man was handcuffed with his hands behind him, and was in a perfect position to do just that while the white police officer was standing right there. Not sure how you can say he was not within “grabbing” distance. The father and son involved in the incident can legally file suit if they feel they have been wronged, so why shouldn’t they, especially if, as it seems, they are unlikely to obtain redress as a result of the PD’s internal investigation?
Well, I can assure you if somebody was to grab my private area, I’m going to knock them into the next county. There had better be a hell of a lot more went on that what I have seen, because if I was on the jury he wouldn‘t get a nickel.
Actually, the police stated that “he lunged at an officer and become combative” (ref: July 10 AP report). This is not the same as saying that he had hit an officer.
If we are going to argue that only what was seen on the videotape can be considered in this debate (and that seems a bit silly), then there is no taped evidence other than the officer slamming the boy own and then striking him. There is likewise no taped evidence of the supposed “grabbing of privates”. In any event, this was only put forward as an explanation for the officer’s behavior days after the incident, and while I’m not a lawyer, I find it hard to believe that an officer is legally permitted to beat a suspect who is not at that moment presenting a danger to anyone.
The “grabbing of privates” explanation sounds like a CYA situation to me.
And why is that, exactly, especially if no particular damage has been done? Also, would you wait until the person in question is handcuffed and held down by other persons before doing so, which is what is indicated in the tape?
I can tell you from first hand experience that it is not EASY to “Grab someone’s nuts” while your hands are locked behind your back in handcuffs. It is a fairly uncomfortable position to be in, and you usually aren’t thinking about grabbing peoples nuts. In fact, it is fairly painful just slightly moving your hands, let alone grabbing various things while handcuffed.
Been in handcuffs a few times myself. Never tried to grab the officers nuts, but if he is directly behind me as in the video, it doesn’t seem like it would be that difficult.
Oh please, you people are so naive its not even funny. Actually its not funny, as an African-American male, it just ticks me off that White America has yet to remove the metaphorical blindfold from their eyes.
Donavon Jackson is a developmentally disabled 16 year old black kid. His father pulled into a gas station, pumped gas, and a police car pulled up behind them as he was filling his tank. The police officers “noticed” an expired tag on his car and then saw that the driver’s lisence was suspended. I suppose July 12th is Mobil’s “Invite Police Officers to our pumps and check their tags” Day.
The opposition cracks me up. It is apparent in any section of the tape and photos that Officer Jeremy Morse was insane at the time; his hate-filled face was a twisted mask of rage and anger that beared ** no ** semblance of humanity at all. Mr. Jeremy Morse is not an officer he is a monster.
The testicle thing is a ridiculous coverup and by saying that he has simply thrown his badge away. To quote to gardening diva herself, “It’s a good thing.” If he gets ** that ** angry over someone touching his private area then he shouldn’t have been a police officer in the first place. Being a police officer requires you to be in contact with all sorts of people whether they be gay or straight. Jeremy Morse’s response seems to indicate that woul beat up on homosexuals or perhaps heterosexual women who might have had touched him in an erotic fashion.
Even then, I would question why someone would punch not once, but twice, someone who is handcuffed and pressed on the side of a police car. It doesn’t matter because the OP is correct. The state of Inglewood won’t have to worry about sponsering Mobil’s “Check our customer’s tag” Day because they’ll be paying for Donovan and Chavis Jackson tags for a very long time.
This whole thing reminds me something a group of close friends passed around at work. In fact, here is the link to it:
I’ll leave you to your normally scheduled programming.
Peace,
As a person who once had expired tags for quite a while, my experience was that plenty of police officers noticed them. I was pulled over about 10 times in a 30 day period. And every time they did, they checked the status of my license. Cops look for them all the time. For the record, I am white.
You want to debate the actions of the police? Fine, but why did you put the word “noticed” in quotes? What evidence do you care to share that this wasn’t just a routine stop?
That out of the way, I am not comfortable with the action of this officer. You are paid to be a professional. Once a suspect is in handcuffs, he is subdued. If you can’t remain professional, you have no business doing this job. Regardless of what happened before, if he was so upset, he should have let another officer handle the arrest until he calmed down.
And as far as the testicle thing, the cop should not have been standing in such a way that left him vulnerable to this. I highly doubt that (if this kid even did that) he is the first person in cuffs to think of this. You would think there would be appropriate training. I mean, how much of a difference would there be from grabbing testicles to pulling a gun out of the holster. If the kid grabbed his nuts, it was because the cop was an idiot for putting himself in that position. And it still does not excuse punching the suspect in the face.
You act like the white police officer had some nerve to pull in the gas station after he “noticed” an expired tag on the black man’s car. Police officers often have others pull well to the side of the road or go into some parking lot or even follow you to convenience store’s. I’ve had the same done to me after I didn’t come to a complete stop at a stop sign. When do you recommend the officer pull him over without taking it personally? Immediately? Would that make you feel better to have him pull him over in the middle of the road to where they both risk getting run over? or should he never do so? What is improper about following him into a gas station after noticing the tags were expired?
The opposition cracks me up. It is apparent in any section of the tape and photos that Officer Jeremy Morse was insane at the time; his hate-filled face was a twisted mask of rage and anger that beared no semblance of humanity at all.
You’ve stated that the black man that was pulled over was a mental case as well. If he was that mental, that’s not going to stop an officer from being combative with him if he‘s attacked. If the black man became that upset over expired car tags, then I question if he should be out in public too. Did his dad know he was like this? Did he warn the P.O.? He was with him, right?
*The testicle thing is a ridiculous coverup… *
It’s certainly possible, but you don’t know that for certain, any more than I do. It’s worth a look to have both of their histories checked into. I would take a good look at the policeman’s past history, and see what kind of record he has. And I would compare it to the history of Donavan Jackson, and see what his past might bring up. You mention that Jackson is a “developmentally disabled” 16 year old? Is that your subtle way of saying he has a history of using violence himself, and has a long criminal record?
*If he gets that angry over someone touching his private area then he shouldn’t have been a police officer in the first place. Being a police officer requires you to be in contact with all sorts of people whether they be gay or straight. Jeremy Morse’s response seems to indicate that woul beat up on homosexuals or perhaps heterosexual women who might have had touched him in an erotic fashion. *
In this instance, it’s not a gay thing though, so no need to bring out the gay card too. It’s a question of whether he was merely touched or grabbed in his private areas. If the man had a good enough grip on his testicles, it seems the P.O. reacted instinctively to get the man to let go. You mention the P.O. hit him twice. You may be seeing a longer version than the one I saw. The brief clip in my area showed one punch to the face, which was when the P.O. made the allegation he did. If the man only touched him and didn‘t have a death grip on his testicles, I would agree with you, that it was uncalled for. They also showed blood on the officers face where others said the man hit or lunged at him, but the film wasn‘t rolling then. I’ve also heard from another news account which states that the man only was grabbing at his shirt. So, I don’t think there is much certainty of what went on here yet, although you seem quite confident that you do.
It doesn’t matter because the OP is correct. The state of Inglewood won’t have to worry about sponsering Mobil’s “Check our customer’s tag” Day because they’ll be paying for Donovan and Chavis Jackson tags for a very long time.
And that’s really what this is all about, isn’t it? It’s about money. It’s about hitting the lottery, and all of the Rodney King wannabe’s can’t wait to find some way to piss off a white cop so much that they hopefully will get their ass kicked on film by one.
And that brings me to the OP and from what most know about the case thus far, if the P.O. is guilty, how much in monetary damages should Donovan Jackson receive, if any? Hopefully the judge will “equally weigh” into account Mr. Jackson’s actions too, not just the P.O.‘s.
Any time anyone is arrested, the officer has to remain in close contact with the person in custody, otherwise he is completely off balance and that poses even more problems, especially if the person is being combative. He’s also capable of receiving head-butts, even after having the subject is handcuffed. Some subjects are also capable of putting their legs through the inside of their locked arms to where the cuffs which were once behind them are now in front. Training may make one aware of many situations, but it’s not going to still prevent many mishaps from happening to them, even on well trained cops.
Fair enough, obviously you can’t train for every situation. My point is just that the groin is probably your most vulnerable area. If I’m the cop, I would thing that I am going to do everything I can to make sure I am aware of my vulnerabilities and try to protect them. It’s not like this officer was trying to subdue the person on his own, like a traffic stop on a rural road in the middle of nowhere. There were plenty of officers present to assist in controlling the situation, like the other cop that stopped this officer from hitting the suspect a second time in the face.
Chavis Jackson claims that these police officers came, harassed them, and started to violently assault them. Such could have been avoided if they had decided not to play “Let’s follow the evil expirees instead of flashing our lights!”
No, I said he is developmentally disabled.
Far as I know Donavon Jackson dosen’t have any previous criminal records. Don’t take that as the gospel of course, I just haven’t read anything of it.
You’re correct.
Many police officers who have done this end up getting scratched, cut, and brusied. I figure if you’re flailing a blunt object (fist, nightstick, nuclear warhead, et al) with malicious intent to “subdue” a helpless person (handcuffed, on the ground, severely beaten, etc) then there is a chance that you might scratch or bruise yourself.
I seriously doubt this sixteen year old kid said “LOLOLOL!!! WATCH DAD I AM GOING TO BEAT UP SIX POLICE OFFICERS!!! LOLOLLOL”
Yep. Nothing gets past you.
My hunch is that Chavis Jackson made a deal with Mitchell Crooks and the six police officers. With a cleverly drawn plan, the agenda for the officers was to beat up his developmentally disabled kid while Crooks taped the assault. After suing, Jackson would split the money seven ways and they’d live happily ever after.
Heh.
You make it seem that there are blacks lining the streets giving passing police cars raspberries. Nevermind that.
It does seem a pretty lucrative endeavor. I mean robbing a liqour store nets a good $500 and you get a good ten years if caught. On the other hand, if you’re rich, you can steal 1.2 million dollars from the government for your own selfish motives and only get 30 months in prison.
Wow! The difference betwee white-collar and blue-collared crimes are astounding! No wonder all of the black people are the ones pulling police officers begging them to give em a good beatin’.
Peace,
I’d say it’s because the stereotyping of them is recent. While any ethnic group has been slandered since the start of time(thus giving ample time for the stereotypes to wear off), I believe that the real image of cops as redneck brutes is more recent, and hence hasn’t had time to go away. Plus, several people resent the fact that of all the people in the world who drive the wrong way on a one-way street, they were the ones who were ticketed.
Excuse me? Given the broad generalizations, especially “White America,” you’re the one giving off the ignorant viewpoint here. You accuse people of being niave, just because they don’t agree with your viewpoint that all cops have nothing better to do than beat-up black people? (When they’re not swilling moonshine and covering up for one another, that is.)
People have already responded to this… But you seem to think here that police only care about the expired tags when they’re on the cars of black people. Jeepers, I think you’ve watched the Rodney King video too many times. If you’re going to make such sweeping generalizations, how about trying to back 'em up?
I don’t suppose there’s any chance you hold a little bias in this subject, is there? :rolleyes:
Uh. If someone grabs a man’s testicle and starts pulling, it’s not an issue of being offended. It’s an issue of pain. Do you expect the officer to just stand there reading the Miranda during this? The response isn’t self-defense, it was trying to make Jackson stop his attack.
Really, are you just mad because you were pulled over for speeding too many times? There’s a difference between sexual contact and having your most sensitive area harmed.
Wow, an Onion article. We all know what bastians of truth those are.
His dad’s word is good enough? That’s all that does if for you? What about the other testimonies and what they said? So a P.O. wants to give them a ticket for expired tags, and Chavis wants to call this or some other aspect of it harassment for not flashing their lights? If not this, then what? Does he want to try the race card here? It’s starting to sound like his son isn’t the only one who is developmentally disabled. I’m not following you here by saying it all could have been avoided if they hadn’t followed them, but instead flashed their lights. And you’re equally convinced of this too? If you were the one pulled over here instead of Jackson, would this be your defense?
No, I said he is developmentally disabled.
Could you elaborate on what you mean by developmentally disabled then? Is he retarded? This could mean many things.
Far as I know Donavon Jackson dosen’t have any previous criminal records. Don’t take that as the gospel of course, I just haven’t read anything of it.
I think a CNN segment said Jackson had quite a few run ins with the law, but I could be mistaken as well. Somebody else will have to enlighten us both here.
*I seriously doubt this sixteen year old kid said “LOLOLOL!!! WATCH DAD I AM GOING TO BEAT UP SIX POLICE OFFICERS!!! LOLOLLOL” *
What was he thinking then? He obviously wasn’t in his right mind-- or as you say, he was a “developmentally disabled“ young man. Not just anybody in their right mind generally goes lunging after the police officer as another man is said to have witnessed. Yep. Nothing gets past you.
Let’s assume the P.O. was definitely guilty as hell, and repeated assaulted Jackson, and for no reason. Should the city of Inglewood be responsible, or should they concentrate on just suing the P.O.? From what I’ve read in the papers, Inglewood has a very exemplary record with its police force. If they did the necessary screening and background checks, and no officer involved showed any prior history; then, why do lawyers make the group with the most money the guilty one? Why not just sue the police officer?
I know you’re being cynical here, but there are groups that are doing something similar. One group spends many hours rolling film on cops, waiting for any kind of misconduct. Dateline did a show on this some years back.
Wow! The difference betwee white-collar and blue-collared crimes are astounding! No wonder all of the black people are the ones pulling police officers begging them to give em a good beatin’.
Only if they have film. More than likely, if some had the proper upbringing to begin with, they wouldn’t be continually finding themselves in situations like these.
As if the OP wasn’t playing the race card for all it’s worth. Every single mention of the victim was preceded by the word “black”. Yep, them darkies is gettin’ out of line, thank god you have such fine upstanding police to protect you…
What are you, in junior high? That comment was, like, so retarded.
I dunno, I just saw a child beaten down by a bad cop. I saw the difference in size between the victim and the attacker as being more significant than the race of the victim.
On a different note I find it highly unlikely that anyone wants to be like Rodney King. I think there may be many who want there to never be another Rodney King, but there is a big difference. To claim that anyone set out to be beaten, hoping that it would be videotaped so they could sue is, to use your phrase “developmentally disabled”.
More than likely, if some had the proper upbringing to begin with, they wouldn’t be continually finding themselves in situations like these.