Police Beating Civil Rights Trial (UPDATE)

[Mach]

Some of you will remember this from Birmingham Al., 2009.... well, they were found Not Guilty of violating his Civil Rights.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGyOZMpINgY



http://www.myfoxal.com/Global/story.asp?S=13861369


Former officers found not guilty in civil rights trial

By Melanie Posey

BIRMINGHAM, AL (WBRC) - A federal jury found two former Birmingham police officers not guilty of violating the civil rights of a man beaten after a police chase.

The jury returned the verdict Tuesday morning after resuming deliberations earlier in the day. Jurors began deliberations in the case Friday afternoon after closing arguments. After the verdict was read, David Doran and Barrett Dewitt could be seen crying and hugging family members.

The lawyers for the two officers spoke on their behalf since the men still face a civil trial.

"One of the most important things throughout this trial was trying to show beyond the video...that our client was doing his job over an individual out on the street acting like a thug," said Dewitt's attorney Emory Anthony.

"The jury needed to understand from him what he was experiencing, the fear he anticipated from the suspect. I think it was critically important to put him on the stand," said Doran's attorney Anthony Joseph.

Thomas Crow, an investigator with the administrative division of the Birmingham Police Department responded to the verdict by saying, "We are elated, of course, ecstatic about it. Until you have walked in the shoes of a police officer...I would ask that they think about that judgement they're making."

But federal prosecutors stand by their claims that the officers lost control that day and beat Warren to punish him, not subdue him.

"We believe it was certainly appropriate to charge these two defendants, to let a jury decide," said U.S. prosecutor Robert Posey. "I hope it sends the message that if law enforcement engages in this conduct they will be brought to court and have to face a jury," Posey continued.

Federal prosecutors had charged David Doran and Barrett Dewitt with violating the civil rights of Anthony Warren. Warren was beaten by officers after a lengthy chase through Birmingham and Hoover in January 2008. The chase ended in Hoover shortly after a Hoover police officer was struck and injured by Warren's car.

Video of the 22-minute chase, captured by police car cameras, shows suspect Anthony Warren hitting one police officer and nearly running over a few others during a high speed chase that ended when he was thrown out of his van as it flipped on an interstate on-ramp. What happens next is the most memorable image, showing Birmingham Police officers swarming Warren and beating him with their hands and at least one club. The aftermath of that chase ended five officers' careers with the city, launched a civil lawsuit and put Dewitt and Doran on trial for allegedly violating Warren's civil rights.

Doran and Dewitt each faced one federal charge of using unreasonable force.

Warren is also suing the city of Birmingham and several current and former officers in civil court. That lawsuit has been delayed until after this criminal trial.

[__27__]

This is what you will ALWAYS have so long as you give thugs a monopoly on force, no matter how minimal you want to claim it to be.

That 'department' would go out of business the second this happened and the people involved would never again work in protective services.....if we had a free market in protective services.

[TonySutton]

This is so sad. How a jury can find it ok to beat an unconscious person defies logic.

[olehounddog]

The country's largest and most violent streetgang. Makes me sick.

[presence]

http://gifs.gifbin.com/112009/1258398254_police-brutality.gif

http://gifs.gifbin.com/112009/125839...-brutality.gif (http://gifs.gifbin.com/112009/1258398254_police-brutality.gif)


CNN version:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIgCMyLi6-Q

additional info:
http://brownwatch.squarespace.com/po...ideotaped.html (http://brownwatch.squarespace.com/police-brutality-watch/2011/3/30/birmingham-police-defend-their-conduct-in-vicious-videotaped.html)
http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2009/05/...ting_vide.html (http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2009/05/birmingham_police_beating_vide.html)

The five officers -- David Doran, Barrett G. Dewitt, Heath Boackle, Thomas Cleveland and Kenneth Prevo -- were fired in 2009 after the incident came to light.

A federal grand jury indicted Doran and Dewitt, who in January 2011 were found not guilty of using unreasonable force and violating the civil rights of Anthony Warren. Warren is serving 20 years for the attempted murder of a Hoover police officer whom Warren struck during the 2008 chase.

Theother three officers were never criminally charged or indicted.




Keywords: January 23 2008 police brutality Anthony Warren

[Neil Desmond]

Aright, now let's take a look at a more revealing video clip:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0bwjlCqq9M

He not only struck that police officer, but it also appears as though he was making an effort to try to run him down! Police officers are human beings, too (in case you might be overlooking this little "factoid"). I can't blame the others for taking action the way they did to subdue him. I also can't imagine that they knew he was just lying there unconscious (maybe they even knocked him unconscious while pounding on him), it appears to me that they pounced on him too quickly to be able to make the assessment that he was unconscious at that time. They're clubbing and pounding on him for about 5 - 10 seconds, and stopped when they apparently noticed that he was not reacting or appeared to be unconscious.

I myself am not in law enforcement, but I would imagine that if I was one of these guys chasing him and saw his body come out the vehicle, I'd probably be thinking to myself that this person hopped out and is trying to flee on foot to continue to be a havoc-wreaking menace at large; then my immediate thought from seeing him lying there face down would likely be that I don't know if he's about to deploy a weapon he's concealing underneath himself. I know police brutality exists, but I don't see that being the situation in this case. Look at it this way; he's lucky they didn't draw their weapons and pump him full of lead. It's easy to sit there and watch a video clip over and over, and find countless flaws and problems - just like 20/20 hindsight.

[kcchiefs6465]

Aright, now let's take a look at a more revealing video clip:
He not only struck that police officer, but it also appears as though he was making an effort to try to run him down! Police officers are human beings, too (in case you might be overlooking this little "factoid"). I can't blame the others for taking action the way they did to subdue him. I also can't imagine that they knew he was just lying there unconscious (maybe they even knocked him unconscious while pounding on him), it appears to me that they pounced on him too quickly to be able to make the assessment that he was unconscious at that time. They're clubbing and pounding on him for about 5 - 10 seconds, and stopped when they apparently noticed that he was not reacting or appeared to be unconscious.

I myself am not in law enforcement, but I would imagine that if I was one of these guys chasing him and saw his body come out the vehicle, I'd probably be thinking to myself that this person hopped out and is trying to flee on foot to continue to be a havoc-wreaking menace at large; then my immediate thought from seeing him lying there face down would likely be that I don't know if he's about to deploy a weapon he's concealing underneath himself. I know police brutality exists, but I don't see that being the situation in this case. Look at it this way; he's lucky they didn't draw their weapons and pump him full of lead. It's easy to sit there and watch a video clip over and over, and find countless flaws and problems - just like 20/20 hindsight.
You cannot possibly be serious. The man's car flipped, he comes out of the window, he's laying there limp. Fill him full of lead? I've seen some cop apologists in my days as a member here but goddamn, you've got to be messing with me. The first officer ran full speed with his baton and cracked the guy as hard as he could. They then pummeled him with fists. I'll type a more detailed response to the ludicrousy of your post/rationale once I'm certain you are not an AZXD reincarnate/troll. I'm really at a loss for words anyways.

[tod evans]

A sad state of affairs when a jury accepts this type of behavior from cops.....

The three cops "not indicted" are the fault of the prosecutor, and obviously he deserves public scrutiny, hopefully from different folks than those who sat on the jury.

[Wolverine302]

I second the motion that the guy deserved it. Justified.
I'm all in the bandwagon of denouncing the police state, but not here.

[tod evans]

I just watched this clip....The driver got 20 years because some cop stepped in front of his vehicle traveling at breakneck speed...

Sorry dude but I fail to see "justice" served here..........The "Just-Us" system fucked this guy and is letting the cops off the hook...

Penalizing some guy fleeing from the cops for the stupid behavior of cops is wrong....The guy should be penalized for reckless driving and resisting arrest but certainly NOT attempted murder..




Aright, now let's take a look at a more revealing video clip:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0bwjlCqq9M

He not only struck that police officer, but it also appears as though he was making an effort to try to run him down! Police officers are human beings, too (in case you might be overlooking this little "factoid"). I can't blame the others for taking action the way they did to subdue him. I also can't imagine that they knew he was just lying there unconscious (maybe they even knocked him unconscious while pounding on him), it appears to me that they pounced on him too quickly to be able to make the assessment that he was unconscious at that time. They're clubbing and pounding on him for about 5 - 10 seconds, and stopped when they apparently noticed that he was not reacting or appeared to be unconscious.

I myself am not in law enforcement, but I would imagine that if I was one of these guys chasing him and saw his body come out the vehicle, I'd probably be thinking to myself that this person hopped out and is trying to flee on foot to continue to be a havoc-wreaking menace at large; then my immediate thought from seeing him lying there face down would likely be that I don't know if he's about to deploy a weapon he's concealing underneath himself. I know police brutality exists, but I don't see that being the situation in this case. Look at it this way; he's lucky they didn't draw their weapons and pump him full of lead. It's easy to sit there and watch a video clip over and over, and find countless flaws and problems - just like 20/20 hindsight.

[JK/SEA]

They look like a bunch of ignorant baboons fighting over a carcass. They don't even look human. These 'peace' officers need to be put away. Seriously.

[aGameOfThrones]

You cannot possibly be serious. The man's car flipped, he comes out of the window, he's laying there limp. Fill him full of lead? I've seen some cop apologists in my days as a member here but goddamn, you've got to be messing with me. The first officer ran full speed with his baton and cracked the guy as hard as he could. They then pummeled him with fists. I'll type a more detailed response to the ludicrousy of your post/rationale once I'm certain you are not an AZXD reincarnate/troll. I'm really at a loss for words anyways.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Z7a04tffD0s/UKaQKeCe3xI/AAAAAAAAKcM/J01deJwUtsE/s1600/quick-and-easy-guide-to-apologetics.jpg

[presence]

I can't blame the others for taking action the way they did to subdue him.

Subdue? He wasn't moving.


I second the motion that the guy deserved it. Justified.
I'm all in the bandwagon of denouncing the police state, but not here.

-rep x2

The role of police is to apprehend, not double fist punish. There is absolutely no reason 5 grown men with a gun on hip could not have surrounded this man until medical arrived. It doesn't matter what your "crime" is, rape, murder, battery... once you are in custody police have a legal and moral obligation to PROTECT you.




Once a person is arrested or is taken into protective custody, a police officer has a legal duty to protect the safety of his/her prisoner.
http://firelawblog.com/2011/05/diminished-capacity-protective-custody-and-refusing-aid/

this was a clear instance of police brutality via:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_brutality

'alley court' — the wanton vicious beating of a person in custody

[Neil Desmond]

You cannot possibly be serious. The man's car flipped, he comes out of the window, he's laying there limp. Fill him full of lead? I've seen some cop apologists in my days as a member here but goddamn, you've got to be messing with me. The first officer ran full speed with his baton and cracked the guy as hard as he could. They then pummeled him with fists. I'll type a more detailed response to the ludicrousy of your post/rationale once I'm certain you are not an AZXD reincarnate/troll. I'm really at a loss for words anyways.
Alright, you can disagree with my assessment, say that I'm foolish & wrong, and that I don't know what I'm talking about, etc. if you want; that would be fine with me. But no, I am indeed being serious here and am not going to yield to loaded arguments, ad hominem attack subterfuge, or other logical flaws & aberrance. So go right ahead and believe that I'm a this or that troll or whatever; I'm going to put zero effort into trying to persuade you of anything about myself. I am not going to go along with being made to feel compelled to prove myself; and as far as I'm concerned, I'm not obligated to do so, either. I'm also not familiar with the categorizations of "trolls" as you seem to be, nor do I care that much. The reason is because I try to put more effort into making good arguments and articulation of my positions, rather than trying to get my way with the forum audience by using cheap attempts to impress these individuals.

I believe that my argument was clear enough, but I'll go ahead and try again with a slightly different approach anyways: they're chasing someone who is not only refusing to pull over, but is also trying to flee from them and is driving like a maniac. It doesn't end there; it gets worse - it appears as though he's intentionally aiming right at that police officer and even gunning his vehicle while at it.

I myself have some philosophical issues and reservations about the way we're in essence forced to "delegate" law enforcement to a "corporation" on "our behalf," but not only are they still human beings, but they are also a layer of defense against troublemakers to society. If I see someone trying to run down that layer of defense like this perpetrator did when he tried to run over that cop, I'd probably be inclined to hop out of my own vehicle and pummel him myself, just like all those other cops did. Have you ever seen those police dash cam videos where a cop has someone pulled over, traffic's flowing by them, then someone comes along and slams right into their back? I've seen some where the other vehicles in traffic will chase after that vehicle and box it in so the perp can be brought to justice. There's even a video showing a prisoner attacking a guard, and dozens of other prisoners follow - not to attack the guard along with that first prisoner, but to protect the guard! We might be living in a figurative "prison" in a sense, but that goes to show you that even in an actual prison, the prisoners have enough sense to do the right thing. These things are the same kind of situation. Look, I prefer being a pacifist; but once someone draws blood or fires the first shot, they're fair game & all bets are off for that deal.

I imagine that if these police officers were in the wrong, a cop apologists might say something like, "well they meant well," "let's cut them some slack, because it's tough doing what they do." I'm not inclined to be a cop apologists, and in this case I don't think there's anything to apologize for on their behalf. Why don't you tell me why I shouldn't think that you are the one being some form of troll or apologist for perpetrators, here? Rather than whining about being at a loss of words, I suggest you look for the right ones to make & defend your own position. I will listen to & take seriously any well-structured argument or an attempt at it, and I have no problem with being shown that I'm mistaken about something.

[Neil Desmond]

Subdue? He wasn't moving.
This isn't basketball, and he was in fact moving such as when he was tearing and plowing through traffic.


The role of police is to apprehend, not double fist punish. There is absolutely no reason 5 grown men with a gun on hip could not have surrounded this man until medical arrived. It doesn't matter what your "crime" is, rape, murder, battery... once you are in custody police have a legal and moral obligation to PROTECT you.
You seem to be assuming that they had plenty of time to reflect, ponder, and assess that medical attention was necessary. Maybe a medical doctor can make an instantaneous diagnosis, but police officers generally don't have years of medical training; my understanding is that a police officer's job & training is to apprehend.[/QUOTE]

[Neil Desmond]

I just watched this clip....The driver got 20 years because some cop stepped in front of his vehicle traveling at breakneck speed...

Sorry dude but I fail to see "justice" served here..........The "Just-Us" system fucked this guy and is letting the cops off the hook...

Penalizing some guy fleeing from the cops for the stupid behavior of cops is wrong....The guy should be penalized for reckless driving and resisting arrest but certainly NOT attempted murder..
I agree; attempted manslaughter seems more appropriate. The definition probably differs, though, depending on the laws of that state.

[phill4paul]

Alright, you can disagree with my assessment, say that I'm foolish & wrong, and that I don't know what I'm talking about, etc. if you want; that would be fine with me. But no, I am indeed being serious here and am not going to yield to loaded arguments, ad hominem attack subterfuge, or other logical flaws & aberrance. So go right ahead and believe that I'm a this or that troll or whatever; I'm going to put zero effort into trying to persuade you of anything about myself. I am not going to go along with being made to feel compelled to prove myself; and as far as I'm concerned, I'm not obligated to do so, either. I'm also not familiar with the categorizations of "trolls" as you seem to be, nor do I care that much. The reason is because I try to put more effort into making good arguments and articulation of my positions, rather than trying to get my way with the forum audience by using cheap attempts to impress these individuals.

I believe that my argument was clear enough, but I'll go ahead and try again with a slightly different approach anyways: they're chasing someone who is not only refusing to pull over, but is also trying to flee from them and is driving like a maniac. It doesn't end there; it gets worse - it appears as though he's intentionally aiming right at that police officer and even gunning his vehicle while at it.

I myself have some philosophical issues and reservations about the way we're in essence forced to "delegate" law enforcement to a "corporation" on "our behalf," but not only are they still human beings, but they are also a layer of defense against troublemakers to society. If I see someone trying to run down that layer of defense like this perpetrator did when he tried to run over that cop, I'd probably be inclined to hop out of my own vehicle and pummel him myself, just like all those other cops did. Have you ever seen those police dash cam videos where a cop has someone pulled over, traffic's flowing by them, then someone comes along and slams right into their back? I've seen some where the other vehicles in traffic will chase after that vehicle and box it in so the perp can be brought to justice. There's even a video showing a prisoner attacking a guard, and dozens of other prisoners follow - not to attack the guard along with that first prisoner, but to protect the guard! We might be living in a figurative "prison" in a sense, but that goes to show you that even in an actual prison, the prisoners have enough sense to do the right thing. These things are the same kind of situation. Look, I prefer being a pacifist; but once someone draws blood or fires the first shot, they're fair game & all bets are off for that deal.

I imagine that if these police officers were in the wrong, a cop apologists might say something like, "well they meant well," "let's cut them some slack, because it's tough doing what they do." I'm not inclined to be a cop apologists, and in this case I don't think there's anything to apologize for on their behalf. Why don't you tell me why I shouldn't think that you are the one being some form of troll or apologist for perpetrators, here? Rather than whining about being at a loss of words, I suggest you look for the right ones to make & defend your own position. I will listen to & take seriously any well-structured argument or an attempt at it, and I have no problem with being shown that I'm mistaken about something.

Regardless, or in spite of, his previous actions I see a thug scrum against an unconscious individual. What exactly is it you see?

[tod evans]

I agree; attempted manslaughter seems more appropriate. The definition probably differs, though, depending on the laws of that state.

I didn't see attempted manslaughter either, what I saw was a cop purposely putting himself in front of a vehicle traveling at breakneck speed....

Once again; "Penalizing some guy fleeing from the cops for the stupid behavior of cops is wrong....The guy should be penalized for reckless driving and resisting arrest but certainly NOT attempted murder.." or for that matter attempted manslaughter.

I saw no overt action on the part of the driver to do anything but evade arrest...And that in my book, isn't a 20 year beef..


[edit] Maybe you can point out exactly where the driver tried to attempt murder or manslaughter instead of trying to escape arrest...I've looked but I don't see it?

[thoughtomator]

If those were private citizens responding to a clear and present danger I'd be more inclined to cut them slack. It was pretty obvious though from the way they leaped on him seconds after he was thrown from the vehicle that the intent was not to enforce the law but to beat the crap out of the guy.

Intent is everything in cases like this, and the intent is unmistakable. The cops sought to be judge jury and executioner, and as such, unlawfully overstepped their bounds.

[JK/SEA]

rabid baboons. A good punishment for these cops?..put em in a baboon cage without any weapons and see how tough these pussy cops are then.

And Neil my sweet little honey bunch...you have no argument. Period.

[Neil Desmond]

Regardless, or in spite of, his previous actions I see a thug scrum against an unconscious individual. What exactly is it you see?
I see cops pursuing a maniac and capturing him; to them I say good job with succeeding. And, like I basically brought up before, I see a tiny handful of individuals who are apparently not in law enforcement and who have the luxury, comfort, time, and leisure to sit behind the safety of their computer, tryng to dissect a video and criticizing the cops for how they responded as though they themselves are perfect and know everything.

[JK/SEA]

I see cops pursuing a maniac and capturing him; to them I say good job with succeeding. And, like I basically brought up before, I see a tiny handful of individuals who are apparently not in law enforcement and who have the luxury, comfort, time, and leisure to sit behind the safety of their computer, tryng to dissect a video and criticizing the cops for how they responded as though they themselves are perfect and know everything.

FUBAR, but thanks for your extremely biased bullshit.

[Neil Desmond]

I didn't see attempted manslaughter either, what I saw was a cop purposely putting himself in front of a vehicle traveling at breakneck speed....

Once again; "Penalizing some guy fleeing from the cops for the stupid behavior of cops is wrong....The guy should be penalized for reckless driving and resisting arrest but certainly NOT attempted murder.." or for that matter attempted manslaughter.

I saw no overt action on the part of the driver to do anything but evade arrest...And that in my book, isn't a 20 year beef..


[edit] Maybe you can point out exactly where the driver tried to attempt murder or manslaughter instead of trying to escape arrest...I've looked but I don't see it?
Between 0:06 and 0:09 in the video clip I posted, titled "Police Chase Beating - New York Post", as the perp is approaching where the cop who is trying to deploy that tire puncturing device (or whatever it is) and is pulling right up against that dark car from its right, it looks like the perp dashes in front of that dark car and cuts it off in what appears like a deliberate attempt to steer into that cop while increasing speed.

[tod evans]

Between 0:06 and 0:09 in the video clip I posted, titled "Police Chase Beating - New York Post", as the perp is approaching where the cop who is trying to deploy that tire puncturing device (or whatever it is) and is pulling right up against that dark car from its right, it looks like the perp dashes in front of that dark car and cuts it off in what appears like a deliberate attempt to steer into that cop while increasing speed.

Funny how you see the "Perps" actions as an attack and I see them as an attempt to flee being attacked.

Either way officer friendly did try to place his body in front of a careening vehicle and it was the action of officer friendly that caused the "Perp" to be charged with attempted murder...

[Neil Desmond]

If those were private citizens responding to a clear and present danger I'd be more inclined to cut them slack. It was pretty obvious though from the way they leaped on him seconds after he was thrown from the vehicle that the intent was not to enforce the law but to beat the crap out of the guy.
Sometimes enforcing the law means having to leap on top of a person and pummel them; am I wrong? How can the law be "enforced" if "force" can't be used when needed?


Intent is everything in cases like this, and the intent is unmistakable. The cops sought to be judge jury and executioner, and as such, unlawfully overstepped their bounds.
Maybe you're right and I'm wrong; I'm not convinced, though.

[Neil Desmond]

rabid baboons. A good punishment for these cops?..put em in a baboon cage without any weapons and see how tough these pussy cops are then.
This is just a lust for violence against people who as far as I'm concerned did nothing wrong and go out there to sacrifice their life every day.


And Neil my sweet little honey bunch...you have no argument. Period.
This isn't an argument, this is just a silly claim; do you have an argument to make?

[Neil Desmond]

FUBAR, but thanks for your extremely biased bullshit.
Ah, another claim - nice.

[JK/SEA]

Between 0:06 and 0:09 in the video clip I posted, titled "Police Chase Beating - New York Post", as the perp is approaching where the cop who is trying to deploy that tire puncturing device (or whatever it is) and is pulling right up against that dark car from its right, it looks like the perp dashes in front of that dark car and cuts it off in what appears like a deliberate attempt to steer into that cop while increasing speed.


wtf...hey dude, this entire thread is ACTUALLY about these baboons in clown suits jumping on and attacking someone who just got thrown out of his vehicle, and the vehicle is still rocking back and forth when clown 'A' comes running in and [performs a 15 yard penalty for a personal foul. The perp may be dead, he at the very least is not feeling very well from internal injuries, a brain injury, or any number of things. These fucking cops SAW this vehicle roll, ejecting the driver. Wtf do you suppose a 'normal' person would be thinking seeing this action right in front of them?....my understanding is steroids can fuck up your brain, so i'll give these cops a break because they are doped up and can't think straight anymore. hth.

gtfo.

[phill4paul]

I see cops pursuing a maniac and capturing him; to them I say good job with succeeding. And, like I basically brought up before, I see a tiny handful of individuals who are apparently not in law enforcement and who have the luxury, comfort, time, and leisure to sit behind the safety of their computer, tryng to dissect a video and criticizing the cops for how they responded as though they themselves are perfect and know everything.

So, you view a cadre of officers beating an unconscious individual as "capturing" them. Interest viewpoint.

As to the rest of your post it is about the same drivel most apologists spew. Boo-fucking-hoo. If they can't control their roid rage then they need to find another line of work. It is WE the citizens that are responsible for keeping THEM, the bad cops, in line.

[Neil Desmond]

Funny how you see the "Perps" actions as an attack and I see them as an attempt to flee being attacked.

Either way officer friendly did try to place his body in front of a careening vehicle and it was the action of officer friendly that caused the "Perp" to be charged with attempted murder...
The way that police officer is standing in the road he appears to be back far enough to keep clear of the dark car's path, and the perp looks like he's veering so sharp to the left that the police officer has to try to quickly dive out of the way of that. Sorry if I see things differently or don't see what you want me to see; I'm just trying to be an objective & unbiased observer.

[JK/SEA]

This is just a lust for violence against people who as far as I'm concerned did nothing wrong and go out there to sacrifice their life every day.


This isn't an argument, this is just a silly claim; do you have an argument to make?

the vid IS my argument. Its light years ahead of yours.

[tod evans]

The way that police officer is standing in the road he appears to be back far enough to keep clear of the dark car's path, and the perp looks like he's veering so sharp to the left that the police officer has to try to quickly dive out of the way of that. Sorry if I see things differently or don't see what you want me to see; I'm just trying to be an objective & unbiased observer.

As am I..........Were it you trying to avoid an ass-kickin' at the hands of Alabamas finest wouldn't you try your damnedest to get on down the road?

Fight or flight.........This guy was doing his best to flee....Assault is really part of the fight mentality.

[liberty2897]

I see cops pursuing a maniac and capturing him; to them I say good job with succeeding. And, like I basically brought up before, I see a tiny handful of individuals who are apparently not in law enforcement and who have the luxury, comfort, time, and leisure to sit behind the safety of their computer, tryng to dissect a video and criticizing the cops for how they responded as though they themselves are perfect and know everything.


Tiny - Minimize those who would speak up against an unconscious man being beaten by a pack of cops.
Individuals - Not part of the collective
Not in Law Enforcement - Mundanes
Luxury, comfort, time, and leisure to sit behind the safety of their computer - Not currently being tortured, beaten, humiliated, or killed by cops.

[JK/SEA]

ol' Neil here is a Police Guild Union Rep. Its his job to give murdering/abusive cops a free pass, instead of taking the high road to true professionalism, we just take the low brow, ignorant blood thirsty route, because, hey...they can, and screw all you mundane low lifes...right Neil sweet heart?

[Neil Desmond]

wtf...hey dude, this entire thread is ACTUALLY about these baboons in clown suits jumping on and attacking someone who just got thrown out of his vehicle,
That's the thing, it's very easy for us to replay and analyze this video and see that it is indeed the case that he was ejected from his vehicle; I'm not disputing that. What I'm trying to argue is could these cops have noticed that at the time? If you drive, you might notice that you're more focused on keeping the vehicle on the road than on peripheral activity. What if they thought he jumped out of the vehicle then decided to lay face down to conceal a weapon or something to that effect; they don't know what he's up to - that's the point.


and the vehicle is still rocking back and forth when clown 'A' comes running in and [performs a 15 yard penalty for a personal foul. The perp may be dead,
I agree, he could've been dead and the cops could've pondered that possibility, but they could've also been pondering the fact that this guy seems to be willing to kill cops and didn't want to take chances - which is the point I'm trying to make.


he at the very least is not feeling very well from internal injuries, a brain injury, or any number of things. These fucking cops SAW this vehicle roll, ejecting the driver. Wtf do you suppose a 'normal' person would be thinking seeing this action right in front of them?
I don't know, but if I'm ever in that situation I'll try to describe to you how it felt.


....my understanding is steroids can fuck up your brain, so i'll give these cops a break because they are doped up and can't think straight anymore. hth.
Maybe you're right; I don't know.


gtfo.
nah

[Neil Desmond]

As am I..........Where it you trying to avoid an ass-kickin' at the hands of Alabamas finest wouldn't you try your damnedest to get on down the road?

Fight or flight.........This guy was doing his best to flee....Assault is really part of the fight mentality.
But it doesn't make it right and it doesn't mean it is unjustifiable for them to take the action they did to try to neutralize a threat from a person who has demonstrated that they are capable and willing to attack them.

[phill4paul]

I see cops pursuing a maniac and capturing him; to them I say good job with succeeding. And, like I basically brought up before, I see a tiny handful of individuals who are apparently not in law enforcement and who have the luxury, comfort, time, and leisure to sit behind the safety of their computer, tryng to dissect a video and criticizing the cops for how they responded as though they themselves are perfect and know everything.

So, mundanes (citizens), who are not a cop, nor ever have been, are not experienced enough to rule in a police matter? Does this go for trials also? Should cops only be judged by a "jury of THEIR peers ?"

[tod evans]

But it doesn't make it right and it doesn't mean it is unjustifiable for them to take the action they did to try to neutralize a threat from a person who has demonstrated that they are capable and willing to attack them.

You keep holding onto your belief that "he attacked them".......

I disagree wholeheartedly, it appears to me as if the dude was running for his life...

[Henry Rogue]

So it's OK to be judge, jury and executioner? Bullsh!t and they put their lives on the line (<that's debatable) for who? The state? Themselves? certainly not for me or any other mundane.

[Neil Desmond]

ol' Neil here is a Police Guild Union Rep. Its his job to give murdering/abusive cops a free pass, instead of taking the high road to true professionalism, we just take the low brow, ignorant blood thirsty route, because, hey...they can, and screw all you mundane low lifes...right Neil sweet heart?
I have a computer science degree, am working on an electrical engineering degree, and work in the IT department of a hospital. I've never been in law enforcement nor am I interested in it. I personally think that police departments should not exist, only sheriffs, posses, and armed private citizens.

[PaulConventionWV]

This isn't basketball, and he was in fact moving such as when he was tearing and plowing through traffic.


You seem to be assuming that they had plenty of time to reflect, ponder, and assess that medical attention was necessary. Maybe a medical doctor can make an instantaneous diagnosis, but police officers generally don't have years of medical training; my understanding is that a police officer's job & training is to apprehend.[/QUOTE]

You can't subdue someone who is clearly lying motionless on the ground. What happened to proper procedure? Point your gun at the guy and call for him to get his hands up. Then wait for a response. You don't just go pummelling on the guy. There's also no freaking way they didn't know he was injured. He freaking flew out of a car that was literally doing somersaults down the drainage ditch. When you go to subdue someone who is clearly lying motionless. If you just rush up there, there is more danger than if you approach with caution with your gun drawn. Of course they didn't have time to think with the way they were acting. They didn't give themselves time to think.

They were pummelling him, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM, for at least 10 seconds before they realized that he wasn't doing anything, not to mention the fact that the first guy had at least 5 seconds to figure out that he wasn't moving, then the other guys come and beat him even while they see that the guy is clearly beating on a motionless body. They don't hesitate, they just join the fun.

What's more, this chase probably wouldn't have ended this way if they weren't chasing him for some petty crime. There probably wouldn't have been a chase. Don't you find it a bit ironic that the police will chase someone for dangerous driving, only to have it end in a fiery crash?

Long story short, you disgust me.

[Neil Desmond]

Tiny - Minimize those who would speak up against an unconscious man being beaten by a pack of cops.
Individuals - Not part of the collective
Not in Law Enforcement - Mundanes
Luxury, comfort, time, and leisure to sit behind the safety of their computer - Not currently being tortured, beaten, humiliated, or killed by cops.
Actually, individuals make up the collective.

[PaulConventionWV]

I agree; attempted manslaughter seems more appropriate. The definition probably differs, though, depending on the laws of that state.

Attempted manslaughter? You clearly don't even know what manslaughter is because if it he was attempting to kill the guy, that's attempted murder. Manslaughter is unintentional. There is no such thing as attempted manslaughter.

[phill4paul]

But it doesn't make it right and it doesn't mean it is unjustifiable for them to take the action they did to try to neutralize a threat from a person who has demonstrated that they are capable and willing to attack them.

Neutralize the threat of an unconscious individual by pummeling him into further unconsciousness. Interesting viewpoint.

[Neil Desmond]

You can't subdue someone who is clearly lying motionless on the ground. What happened to proper procedure? Point your gun at the guy and call for him to get his hands up. Then wait for a response. You don't just go pummelling on the guy. There's also no freaking way they didn't know he was injured. He freaking flew out of a car that was literally doing somersaults down the drainage ditch. When you go to subdue someone who is clearly lying motionless. If you just rush up there, there is more danger than if you approach with caution with your gun drawn. Of course they didn't have time to think with the way they were acting. They didn't give themselves time to think.

They were pummelling him, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM, for at least 10 seconds before they realized that he wasn't doing anything, not to mention the fact that the first guy had at least 5 seconds to figure out that he wasn't moving, then the other guys come and beat him even while they see that the guy is clearly beating on a motionless body. They don't hesitate, they just join the fun.

What's more, this chase probably wouldn't have ended this way if they weren't chasing him for some petty crime. There probably wouldn't have been a chase. Don't you find it a bit ironic that the police will chase someone for dangerous driving, only to have it end in a fiery crash?

Long story short, you disgust me.
I don't know law enforcement procedures; maybe you're right - I don't know.

[JK/SEA]

OK Neil, lets take this a little deeper shall we?...a CIVIL suit will be brought up. Lets say the 'victim' wins a few million bucks over this. What do you suppose the taxpayers might think or feel over this? Just from a fiscal standpoint, it seems to me cops and their Unions are not doing taxpayers, or themselves, any favors by being violent monkey's with guns and a badge and defending and blowing off crap like this.

[Cleaner44]

Police officers beating an unconscious man is 100% unprofessional regardless of Neil's attempts to justify them. They were fired because of their unprofessional conduct, which tells me that their department agrees with me and not Neil.

[Neil Desmond]

Attempted manslaughter? You clearly don't even know what manslaughter is because if it he was attempting to kill the guy, that's attempted murder. Manslaughter is unintentional. There is no such thing as attempted manslaughter.
Ok fine; in that case it looks like attempted murder, of a police officer.

[PaulConventionWV]

I see cops pursuing a maniac and capturing him; to them I say good job with succeeding. And, like I basically brought up before, I see a tiny handful of individuals who are apparently not in law enforcement and who have the luxury, comfort, time, and leisure to sit behind the safety of their computer, tryng to dissect a video and criticizing the cops for how they responded as though they themselves are perfect and know everything.

Nobody is claiming to be perfect. That said, this is simple stuff. You don't go rushing up to a motionless body and beat on it. The police policy is a more cautious approach, so why not do that? It doesn't take a know-it-all to see the irrationality of beating on someone like that seconds after being thrown from a car doing somersaults.

[Neil Desmond]

Neutralize the threat of an unconscious individual by pummeling him into further unconsciousness. Interesting viewpoint.
In my several posts on this thread, including the first, I tried to point out that maybe they didn't know he was unconscious, and that they stopped once they became aware of this after only 5 - 10 seconds.

[PaulConventionWV]

Sometimes enforcing the law means having to leap on top of a person and pummel them; am I wrong? How can the law be "enforced" if "force" can't be used when needed?

Force was not needed. Any 5 year old can see that.


Maybe you're right and I'm wrong; I'm not convinced, though.

Then you're full of shit.

[satchelmcqueen]

after seeing this i can at least understand why they "lost it" on him. watch the van when he swerves towards the cop. it looks like he ran over the cops leg and broke it at the knee.

not justifying abuse, but that was attempted murder.

[phill4paul]

In my several posts on this thread, including the first, I tried to point out that maybe they didn't know he was unconscious, and that they stopped once they became aware of this after only 5 - 10 seconds.


The man was thrown from his tumbling vehicle. He was immobile. He was immobile AS the first cop battered him. Then the thug scrum came on.

[Neil Desmond]

OK Neil, lets take this a little deeper shall we?...a CIVIL suit will be brought up. Lets say the 'victim' wins a few million bucks over this. What do you suppose the taxpayers might think or feel over this? Just from a fiscal standpoint, it seems to me cops and their Unions are not doing taxpayers, or themselves, any favors by being violent monkey's with guns and a badge and defending and blowing off crap like this.
Ok, so we're talking about jurors from that same pool of taxpayers/citizens/whatever awarding a few million over this?

Let's suppose (hypothetically) that I do concede that what these cops did was wrong; first they did get fired (but I don't know what the motivation was for that - could be that the department made a professional decision, or it could be PR from pressure as a result of emotional reaction from people), so there is or may be that. Second, it means that the would need to change some policy, procedure, or maybe even a law. What would you propose?

[liberty2897]

Actually, individuals make up the collective.

Agreed. I should have written "Individual: Not part of the collective mentality." I was attempting to highlight your apparent lack of respect for those that would speak out against police brutality.

btw, is that an inflatable auto-pilot for your avatar?

[Neil Desmond]

Nobody is claiming to be perfect. That said, this is simple stuff. You don't go rushing up to a motionless body and beat on it. The police policy is a more cautious approach, so why not do that? It doesn't take a know-it-all to see the irrationality of beating on someone like that seconds after being thrown from a car doing somersaults.
Well, I'm not sure, but I don't think standing around him and pointing guns at him and barking orders might have been the wise thing to do. It's one thing to have procedures for people who are basically being compliant; this guy was not only not being compliant and ignoring orders to pull over, but he was shown trying to run down a cop as I have stated countless times.

[tod evans]

after seeing this i can at least understand why they "lost it" on him. watch the van when he swerves towards the cop. it looks like he ran over the cops leg and broke it at the knee.

not justifying abuse, but that was attempted murder.

Look to the right of the fleeing van, I still hold the dude was trying to get away from the cops and it's entirely possible he wasn't even looking to his left when he swerved.. There was an SUV to his right and a cop bearing down at a high rate of speed...

Without proof that the driver was aggressive and not actually fleeing for his life I can't justify attempted murder.

[Neil Desmond]

Agreed. I should have written "Individual: Not part of the collective mentality." I was attempting to highlight your apparent lack of respect for those that would speak out against police brutality.
Maybe it is police brutality; I'm not an expert on determining this. I guess what I'm trying to say is what other option did these cops have for someone as chaotic as this perp? Notice that all of these police officers reacted the same way; that tells you something, doesn't it?


btw, is that an inflatable auto-pilot for your avatar?
Yes, it's Otto from the movie [i]Airplane![i]: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1290293/ Like it?

[phill4paul]

Well, I'm not sure, but I don't think standing around him and pointing guns at him and barking orders might have been the wise thing to do. It's one thing to have procedures for people who are basically being compliant; this guy was not only not being compliant and ignoring orders to pull over, but he was shown trying to run down a cop as I have stated countless times.

Unconscious is about as compliant as one can get.

[PaulConventionWV]

That's the thing, it's very easy for us to replay and analyze this video and see that it is indeed the case that he was ejected from his vehicle; I'm not disputing that. What I'm trying to argue is could these cops have noticed that at the time? If you drive, you might notice that you're more focused on keeping the vehicle on the road than on peripheral activity. What if they thought he jumped out of the vehicle then decided to lay face down to conceal a weapon or something to that effect; they don't know what he's up to - that's the point.

Let's be reasonable. This crash happened right in front of them. The car was lying on its roof with him face down in the ditch. What conclusion were they supposed to draw from that? Also, it's extremely easy to look away from the road. If a crash happens right in front of you, you're going to notice it, make no mistake. Driving isn't so hard that they have to have their eyes glued to the road 2 feet in front of them not to notice the minivan doing somersaults 10 feet to the right of their direction line of vision. I honestly can't believe the arguments you're making. I'm suffering from denial just reading this because I can't believe the lengths you are going to to defend the actions of these cops.


I agree, he could've been dead and the cops could've pondered that possibility, but they could've also been pondering the fact that this guy seems to be willing to kill cops and didn't want to take chances - which is the point I'm trying to make.

Doesn't matter. There is simply no way they didn't notice he was incapacitated from doing them any harm. It's just not possible. Also, it's not police policy. Approach carefully with guns drawn and slap handcuffs on 'em. You don't go charging like a maniac at a guy who might pull a gun on you, even and especially if the chances of that happening are virtually nil as in this case.


I don't know, but if I'm ever in that situation I'll try to describe to you how it felt.

Like I said, let's be reasonable. There's no way the guy was just getting up and walking away from that. It's common knowledge, you don't have direct experience in order to understand that the guy is clearly injured.

[phill4paul]

Maybe it is police brutality; I'm not an expert on determining this. I guess what I'm trying to say is what other option did these cops have for someone as chaotic as this perp? Notice that all of these police officers reacted the same way; that tells you something, doesn't it?

Yes, it tells me that they are all trained in CFC and that any action on their part is seen as justified by their fellows and those that support them.

[Neil Desmond]

Force was not needed. Any 5 year old can see that.
Now we're back to talking about people who have time to analyze and pick apart that video; did these cops who were under threat have this luxury? Please tell me that they did; I dare you. lol


Then you're full of shit.
Well I said "maybe" and that I'm not convinced.

[PaulConventionWV]

Actually, individuals make up the collective.

But they are not the collective.

[PaulConventionWV]

In my several posts on this thread, including the first, I tried to point out that maybe they didn't know he was unconscious, and that they stopped once they became aware of this after only 5 - 10 seconds.

That's plenty of time to notice, especially considering the circumstances.

[tod evans]

cops who were under threat
.

Threat of a fleeing motorist?

No matter how often you repeat this mantra I'm not seeing evidence in your video........Do you have any?

[phill4paul]

Now we're back to talking about people who have time to analyze and pick apart that video; did these cops who were under threat have this luxury? Please tell me that they did; I dare you. lol


Again, using this logic no civilian jury would be able to stand in judgement in a police trial. We have in front of us video evidence and eyes to see. Yet, "we weren't there." "How could we know what they were thinking." "We are not law enforcement we have no idea." ad nauseum
There was NO threat after the accident.

[Neil Desmond]

We're all just going in circles; are you guys going to keep doing this forever? If so, you win - at going in circles, that is. Congrats, but all you guys have done is give me more time to think about this and to want to lean more towards believing that there is no police brutality in this situation. If you want to insist that it is police brutality, please come back with an argument for that claim that's a little bit stronger; otherwise, let's not trivialize what it means for something to be police brutality, or even worse problems such as purely abusive behavior from cops, police corruption, etc. These things do concern me and I do want to bring them to a complete end.

Anyways, have fun; but I've simply run out of time playing these games.

[PaulConventionWV]

Well, I'm not sure, but I don't think standing around him and pointing guns at him and barking orders might have been the wise thing to do. It's one thing to have procedures for people who are basically being compliant; this guy was not only not being compliant and ignoring orders to pull over, but he was shown trying to run down a cop as I have stated countless times.

If they did that, things would have gone much smoother. Standing there barking orders probably would have taken them about the same amount of time as it took to beat on him if they are REALLY wanting to be careful. And that's MINUS the actual beating. Don't you think that would have been a little more sensible?

Whether he did or did not try to run down a cop is immaterial. The guy may or may not be a criminal. Police policy is the same for all subjects being arrested. Unfortunately, it seems that policy only exists to appease the masses. In reality, they have almost completely immunity to consequences for their actions. They can and usually do exercise arbitrary force and give arbitrary orders to people they have no right to be ordering around or harrassing.

[phill4paul]

We're all just going in circles; are you guys going to keep doing this forever? If so, you win - at going in circles, that is. Congrats, but all you guys have done is give me more time to think about this and to want to lean more towards believing that there is no police brutality in this situation. If you want to insist that it is police brutality, please come back with an argument for that claim that's a little bit stronger; otherwise, let's not trivialize what it means for something to be police brutality, or even worse problems such as purely abusive behavior from cops, police corruption, etc. These things do concern me and I do want to bring them to a complete end.

Anyways, have fun; but I've simply run out of time playing these games.


http://newkidonthehallway.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/04/29/boyhandsoverears.jpg

[PaulConventionWV]

Now we're back to talking about people who have time to analyze and pick apart that video; did these cops who were under threat have this luxury? Please tell me that they did; I dare you. lol

It doesn't take any luxury to use common sense. That's all they needed to employ. You're making this way more complicated than it actually is.


Well I said "maybe" and that I'm not convinced.

You're convinced, alright. You're just convinced of your own biased point of view. And don't pretend you're not biased, the way you are arguing is completely irrational so you're either very stupid or you're avoiding the obvious.

[PaulConventionWV]

We're all just going in circles; are you guys going to keep doing this forever? If so, you win - at going in circles, that is. Congrats, but all you guys have done is give me more time to think about this and to want to lean more towards believing that there is no police brutality in this situation. If you want to insist that it is police brutality, please come back with an argument for that claim that's a little bit stronger; otherwise, let's not trivialize what it means for something to be police brutality, or even worse problems such as purely abusive behavior from cops, police corruption, etc. These things do concern me and I do want to bring them to a complete end.

Anyways, have fun; but I've simply run out of time playing these games.

And you're the one operating the carousel. Congratulations. You are the master of circular logic.

[JK/SEA]

obviously has family members in law enforcement.

[liberty2897]

Maybe it is police brutality; I'm not an expert on determining this. I guess what I'm trying to say is what other option did these cops have for someone as chaotic as this perp? Notice that all of these police officers reacted the same way; that tells you something, doesn't it?


Yes, it's Otto from the movie [i]Airplane![i]: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1290293/ Like it?

Maybe it is police brutality; I'm not an expert on determining this.
It is obvious police brutality. 5 cops beating on an unconscious man? Live up to your signature and *think* about it.

I guess what I'm trying to say is what other option did these cops have for someone as chaotic as this perp?
Don't beat on him? Call an ambulance? What is the official procedure for dealing with a limp body? Beat, Tase, Kick, Shoot?

Notice that all of these police officers reacted the same way; that tells you something, doesn't it?
Yes it most certainly does. They acted like pack animals when the adrenaline rush kicked in. I'll bet the only reason they got caught is because they were circulating the video among peers and friends to get a laugh out of it.

Yes, it's Otto from the movie [i]Airplane![i]: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1290293/ Like it?
Not sure I would say I like it. A plastic, inflatable doll that serves as an auto-pilot... I don't think you should change it or anything.

[Cleaner44]

Well, I'm not sure, but I don't think standing around him and pointing guns at him and barking orders might have been the wise thing to do. It's one thing to have procedures for people who are basically being compliant; this guy was not only not being compliant and ignoring orders to pull over, but he was shown trying to run down a cop as I have stated countless times.

Imagine that the unconscious man on the ground that was thrown from a moving vehicle had a broken neck... do you not see any more professional way for these peace officers to handle the situation?

[kcchiefs6465]

Maybe it is police brutality; I'm not an expert on determining this. I guess what I'm trying to say is what other option did these cops have for someone as chaotic as this perp? Notice that all of these police officers reacted the same way; that tells you something, doesn't it?

Yes, as a matter a fact that does tell me something. (The sick mentality of the police state) It seems to be telling you something else. This post further tells me something about how conditioned Americans are becoming to these types of videos. All of your previous arguements have been effectively answered so I'll just leave it at this, it isn't for the cop to dole out whatever punishment he sees fit.. which you clearly don't feel is an issue. We do have laws in place you know? I can agree that swerving towards the officer was attempted murder - or at the very least aggravated vehicular assault. That does not mean cops get a free pass to kick and hit him after he is so clearly seriously injured and subdued.

[aGameOfThrones]

http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j47/gorman_2006/whack_a_mime.gif

Maybe it is police brutality; I'm not an expert on determining this.

http://gifs.gifbin.com/052010/1273487123_police-brutality.gif

Maybe it is police brutality; I'm not an expert on determining this.

[kcchiefs6465]

Now we're back to talking about people who have time to analyze and pick apart that video; did these cops who were under threat have this luxury? Please tell me that they did; I dare you. lol

Well I said "maybe" and that I'm not convinced.
They had enough time to watch a man fly out of the side window of the van they pushed off the road and that he was seriously injured.

[kcchiefs6465]

Maybe it is police brutality; I'm not an expert on determining this.
FWIW, the top gif is from a tv show. The bottom gif is real however.

[aGameOfThrones]

FWIW, the top gif is from a tv show. The bottom gif is real however.

Yeah, but since that shit happens in real life I decided to post it.

[Wolverine302]

Guy tries to run over a cop, you're gonna get your ass beat. Correction, you NEED your ass beat for putting the officers that were chasing, putting the spike strip, and the bystanders lives at risk. What's his offense that he decided to run from to begin with again?

[JK/SEA]

Guy tries to run over a cop, you're gonna get your ass beat. Correction, you NEED your ass beat for putting the officers that were chasing, putting the spike strip, and the bystanders lives at risk. What's his offense that he decided to run from to begin with again?

so what do we need courts and judges for then...?..good idea actually. Instant justice. Save taxpayers some money...right?,,,wait...after emergency medical treatment from the beatings, then that means the taxpayers have to pay anyway, so its probably a wash ....

[kcchiefs6465]

Guy tries to run over a cop, you're gonna get your ass beat. Correction, you NEED your ass beat for putting the officers that were chasing, putting the spike strip, and the bystanders lives at risk. What's his offense that he decided to run from to begin with again?
What he needs is a day in court. I don't believe "getting his ass beat" is a consequence the courts could give? Since you obviously have a very interesting point of view about the Rule of Law, what do you feel the role of the courts is? To judge him after he's been judged? I could come to an agreement that swerving towards an officer very well should have resulted in a very strong aggravated vehicular assault charge or a very weak attempted murder charge. This does not in any way excuse a police officer to play judge and jury to decide what his consequences should have been. So I reiterate my point as this, since you are compelled to argue the case that maybe he "needed his ass beat," what do you suppose the role of courts ought to be? To settle the disagreements of whether or not his ass was beat enough or too much? Besides the fact that if you want to argue for an attempted murder charge (which is what he received) you damn well better be ready to argue the same for the men beating an unconscious victim. (at said point he became both a perpetrator and a victim) I find it somewhat disturbing that many supposed liberty minded folk advocate mob violence against a man who was clearly seriously injured. (Even if he was the 'asshole' in this case)

[aGameOfThrones]

What he needs is a day in court. I don't believe "getting his ass beat" is a consequence the courts could give? Since you obviously have a very interesting point of view about the Rule of Law, what do you feel the role of the courts is? To judge him after he's been judged? I could come to an agreement that swerving towards an officer very well should have resulted in a very strong aggravated vehicular assault charge or a very weak attempted murder charge. This does not in any way excuse a police officer to play judge and jury to decide what his consequences should have been. So I reiterate my point as this, since you are compelled to argue the case that maybe he "needed his ass beat," what do you suppose the role of courts ought to be? To settle the disagreements of whether or not his ass was beat enough or too much? Besides the fact that if you want to argue for an attempted murder charge (which is what he received) you damn well better be ready to argue the same for the men beating an unconscious victim. (at said point he became both a perpetrator and a victim) I find it somewhat disturbing that many supposed liberty minded folk advocate mob violence against a man who was clearly seriously injured. (Even if he was the 'asshole' in this case)

That's why I think we should take a strong look at the "JUDGE DREDD" model.

[Wolverine302]

They all got their day in court, isn't that what you wanted? Please tell me what the outcome was, I must be missing it.

[kcchiefs6465]

They all got their day in court, isn't that what you wanted? Please tell me what the outcome was, I must be missing it.
At least you understand that you are 'missing' it. That is in my book, a step above the rest.

[kcchiefs6465]

That's why I think we should take a strong look at the "JUDGE DREDD" model.
A self-serving judge doling out punishments he sees fit? How would you propose one applies for such a role?

[tod evans]

Guy tries to run over a cop,NO,no,no! Guy flees for his life! you're gonna get your ass beat. Correction, you NEED your ass beat for putting the officers that were chasing, putting the spike strip, and the bystanders lives at risk. What's his offense that he decided to run from to begin with again?

So according to your worldly wisdom any of us who are approached by law enforcement should immediately lay down belly-up...

This guy ran, running away isn't an act of aggression....Think of fight or flight...

Humans are not built to "lay down" and surrender.......At least none that I know.

So given the fight or flight scenario you have decreed that this guy not only deserved an unconscious ass-whuppin' but also 20years in the hoosegow for running away...

God help us if this mentality is considered a lover of freedom and liberty!

[Wolverine302]

This is NOT the form of civil disobedience that the liberty movement wants. When you are lit up, you pull over, period. You took a test that says that you understand this when you got your license, so don't give me this lard that it was fight or flight. Your life is not in danger when you get a citation. You don't go running red lights and put at risk everyone on the road because a cop made you wet your pants. It doesn't have to be an act of violence for a cop to approach you, CLEARLY. Is running light an act of violence? Foes that mean I don't have to pull over when a cop lights me up?

He got twent years for almost running a LEO over, why don't you stop drinking the anarchy kool-aid and acknowledge this?

[tod evans]

He got twent years for almost running a LEO over, why don't you stop drinking the anarchy kool-aid and acknowledge this?

I'm about as far from an anarchist as one can get, why don't you stop supporting ridiculous charges that have no evidence to support them?

This is exactly the kind of BS that "The Newz" supports, sensationalizing stuff to make it appear to be what it's not.

This guy ran, period! Charge him accordingly.....

[presence]

This is NOT the form of civil disobedience that the liberty movement wants.

I'm confused... Are you talking about the double fisting skull pummelling cop that wipes his hands off on his pants when he's done beating the unconscious?

or the suspect that inadvertently ran into someone when fleeing?

[phill4paul]

They all got their day in court, isn't that what you wanted? Please tell me what the outcome was, I must be missing it.

5 police officers were fired. Someone must have thought they overstepped their bounds.

[presence]

Please tell me what the outcome was, I must be missing it.

Suspect Black

5 Pummelling Cops White

Birmingham, AL

???

[phill4paul]

Suspect Black

5 Pummelling Cops White

Birmingham, AL

???

Yeah. Birmingham seems to have a problem with their "training procedures."


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xD0XK9hMFP8

[Wolverine302]

I'm about as far from an anarchist as one can get, why don't you stop supporting ridiculous charges that have no evidence to support them?

This is exactly the kind of BS that "The Newz" supports, sensationalizing stuff to make it appear to be what it's not.

This guy ran, period! Charge him accordingly.....

I've asked for clarification on why he ran, none have yet to reply. You can clearly see he struck an officer putting out spike strips, there's no misinformation being spewed here. You don't get 20 years for felony evasion. You get that for nearly killing a person a law enforcer. Now please tell me what misinformation I've been stating, I've watched the same clip you have.

[Wolverine302]

I'm confused... Are you talking about the double fisting skull pummelling cop that wipes his hands off on his pants when he's done beating the unconscious?

or the suspect that inadvertently ran into someone when fleeing?



You don't accidentally do anything while you are committing a felony. My god.

[phill4paul]

I've asked for clarification on why he ran, none have yet to reply. You can clearly see he struck an officer putting out spike strips, there's no misinformation being spewed here. You don't get 20 years for felony evasion. You get that for nearly killing a person a law enforcer. Now please tell me what misinformation I've been stating, I've watched the same clip you have.

He ran because they were questioning him about possible drug activity. A black man in Birmingham Al. might feel threatened by this activity. Regardless, proper procedure obviously wasn't followed as the city decided to dismiss the officers.

ETA: Interestingly my google-fu fails to bring up any charges against Anthony warren for "drug activity."

[presence]

//

[Wolverine302]

No matter what he was suspected with, it is never a good idea to compound his situation by committing a felony. I am not pardoning the police actions, I understand they too have committed an offense. I would have suspended them without pay but not have fired them. Does this make sense*, perhaps not. But if a husband watches his wife be rapped, and kills the perp when he had the ability to just detain him, his actions to me are justified, but he still killed the guy.

[tod evans]

I've asked for clarification on why he ran, none have yet to reply. You can clearly see he struck an officer putting out spike strips, there's no misinformation being spewed here. You don't get 20 years for felony evasion. You get that for nearly killing a person a law enforcer. Now please tell me what misinformation I've been stating, I've watched the same clip you have.

I'll go dime to a dollar that;

A) Public "defender".
B) Plea "bargain".

In order to avoid even more ludicrous charges...

But I only "assume" this...

[JK/SEA]

i think the guy ran because 'they' shot his dog and he thought he was next. There...hope that helps.

[Wolverine302]

Hahaha, i'm glad you edited your post before i could quote it because it was full of brilliance. Lul.


lets play a game here, i'll call it drivers ed 101 pop quiz.
if you see emergency lights in your rear view mirror, what. do. you. do.
is it
a) pull over
b) speed up
c) get in their way
d) none of the above

/
A felony requires mens rea; ill intent.

The van made contact with the black car, lost control, swerved to the left, when driver became aware of the officer did he, with ill intent, swerve towards him or away?

Away. If he wanted to run the cop over over he damn well could have.

He didn't though.

The contact was inadvertent. No ill intent.

Watch it again:

Contact with black car. Loss of control. Swerve AWAY from the officer on foot. Incidental contact.

Bahahahahahahahahahaha

[presence]

i think the guy ran because 'they' shot his dog and he thought he was next. There...hope that helps.

*confused*

cite?

[tod evans]

Once again a severe oversimplification that in no way justifies either beating an unconscious man or sentencing him to 20 years..

I don't think you'll get any argument that the guy's a dumbass..

Nor do I notice anyone arguing that he shouldn't have fled...

"Send him to jail 'cause he's an idiot" could apply to lots of folks....




lets play a game here, i'll call it drivers ed 101 pop quiz.
if you see emergency lights in your rear view mirror, what. do. you. do.
is it
a) pull over
b) speed up
c) get in their way
d) none of the above

[Wolverine302]

You had people saying that the police should have let the courts do their job, no beating was necessary. Then you have me saying, well I think he needed to get his ass beat, conscious or unconscious, the courts agreed as well; they (the court system) did not punish the officers. Then you have people saying omg the courts are full of inept peoplezzz."
You can't win.

Simply put, under no circumstances is it in your best interest to run from the law. Yes, I agree with you that the law is unjust, but this isn't the way of dealing with it. What does he gain from running from the law by putting: himself, by-standards, and officers at risk by being RECKLESS on the road? Nothing. What does he lose by doing said action? Everything. We agree on that, good. What we disagree on, should the fuzz have beaten him like the guy owed them money? Welll, i wouldn't say should, but I can understand it, especially when he almost killed their brother in arms.

[phill4paul]

Um-hmmm.


You had people saying that the police should have let the courts do their job, no beating was necessary. Then you have me saying, well I think he needed to get his ass beat, conscious or unconscious, the courts agreed as well; they (the court system) did not punish the officers. Then you have people saying omg the courts are full of inept peoplezzz."
You can't win.

Simply put, under no circumstances is it in your best interest to run from the law. Yes, I agree with you that the law is unjust, but this isn't the way of dealing with it. What does he gain from running from the law by putting: himself, by-standards, and officers at risk by being RECKLESS on the road? Nothing. What does he lose by doing said action? Everything. We agree on that, good. What we disagree on, should the fuzz have beaten him like the guy owed them money? Welll, i wouldn't say should, but I can understand it, especially when he almost killed their brother in arms.

That's the mentality. US vs. THEM. Perhaps that is why Anthony Warren fled. Perhaps, he felt he was about to get railroaded over possible drug activity. Perhaps, he was facing Alabama's Habitual Offender Law. Three strikes your out. Over a roach. I've yet to see any report actually charging him with possible "drug activity."

[aGameOfThrones]

This is NOT the form of civil disobedience that the liberty movement wants. When you are lit up, you pull over, period. You took a test that says that you understand this when you got your license, so don't give me this lard that it was fight or flight. Your life is not in danger when you get a citation. You don't go running red lights and put at risk everyone on the road because a cop made you wet your pants. It doesn't have to be an act of violence for a cop to approach you, CLEARLY. Is running light an act of violence? Foes that mean I don't have to pull over when a cop lights me up?

He got twent years for almost running a LEO over, why don't you stop drinking the anarchy kool-aid and acknowledge this?

Patricia Cook wasn't even getting a citation.

[Wolverine302]

Patricia Cook wasn't even getting a citation.
Fallacy much?

[Wolverine302]

Um-hmmm.



That's the mentality. US vs. THEM. Perhaps that is why Anthony Warren fled. Perhaps, he felt he was about to get railroaded over possible drug activity. Perhaps, he was facing Alabama's Habitual Offender Law. Three strikes your out. Over a roach. I've yet to see any report actually charging him with possible "drug activity."
Justify his actions all you want. Your post clearly shows why he shouldn't have run.

[aGameOfThrones]

You had people saying that the police should have let the courts do their job, no beating was necessary. Then you have me saying, well I think he needed to get his ass beat, conscious or unconscious, the courts agreed as well; they (the court system) did not punish the officers. Then you have people saying omg the courts are full of inept peoplezzz."
You can't win.

Simply put, under no circumstances is it in your best interest to run from the law. Yes, I agree with you that the law is unjust, but this isn't the way of dealing with it. What does he gain from running from the law by putting: himself, by-standards, and officers at risk by being RECKLESS on the road? Nothing. What does he lose by doing said action? Everything. We agree on that, good. What we disagree on, should the fuzz have beaten him like the guy owed them money? Welll, i wouldn't say should, but I can understand it, especially when he almost killed their brother in arms.

John T. Williams(Alaska Woodcaver) was minding his own business before the law killed him.

[FSP-Rebel]

Being respectful and clean cut usually goes a long way in cops' minds.

[Wolverine302]

Will the majority of people here just flat out state that it is in your best interest to flee the authorities?
Anyone?

[presence]

Simply put, under no circumstances is it in your best interest to run from the law.




How about this one...


Simply put, under no circumstances is it in your best interest to
bludgeon someone who already well pummelled and limp; face down in the dirt.


I mean seriously, if we weren't having this discussion about this specific situation, you would agree right??

[Wolverine302]

They're human. It's not an excuse, just fact. Their brotherhood for better or worse was their primary emotional response. Likewise, that same sentence, my sentence, you would in general agree right?

[phill4paul]

They're human. It's not an excuse, just fact. Their brotherhood for better or worse was their primary emotional response. Likewise, that same sentence, my sentence, you would in general agree right?

Like the primary emotional response of fight or flight?

[Wolverine302]

How many people have a fight or flight response to getting pulled iver? Get real. His best option was to pull over and not say a GD thing. It appears he would not have been charged with anything and would have his liberty for the next 20 years.

[phill4paul]

How many people have a fight or flight response to getting pulled iver? Get real. His best option was to pull over and not say a GD thing. It appears he would not have been charged with anything and would have his liberty for the next 20 years.

Appearance can be deceiving. A black man in Alabama busted on a drug charge, whether real or manufactured, doesn't fair well. You need to get real. I, myself, do not automatically pull over when there are bubbles in the rear view. I apply my emergency flashers, maintain the speed limit and exit into a well trafficked public area.

[osan]

...I would imagine that if I was one of these guys chasing him and saw his body come out the vehicle, I'd probably be thinking to myself that this person hopped out and is trying to flee on foot to continue to be a havoc-wreaking menace at large;

Your threat- and situation assessment skills apparently leave much to be desired.

[LibForestPaul]

I second the motion that the guy deserved it. Justified.
I'm all in the bandwagon of denouncing the police state, but not here.
If you or I did this, would we be let go?
If bouncers chase a man in a club and he falls and goes unconscious, what do you think would happen to the bouncers if the were caught on tape beating him.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.

Get a rope!

[Neil Desmond]

Ok, let's try this: let's first establish one thing at a time.

Question # 1: How do you know he was unconscious? What's your reasoning or what evidence do you have of this? Yes, to me when I watch the video clip he does seem to be unconscious, but appearances can be misleading or deceiving.

Once we establish that he was indeed unconscious, then we can move on to...

Question # 2: How were these police officers supposed to have known that he was in fact "medically" unconscious & how were they supposed to have made aware of this assessment, and did they have time to make it?

To me part of being a defender of liberty is presumption of innocence until proven otherwise - of everyone, including police officers. Look who's being judge/jury/executioner...in the mirror.

[kcchiefs6465]

Ok, let's try this: let's first establish one thing at a time.

Question # 1: How do you know he was unconscious? What's your reasoning or what evidence do you have of this? Yes, to me when I watch the video clip he does seem to be unconscious, but appearances can be misleading or deceiving.

Once we establish that he was indeed unconscious, then we can move on to...

Question # 2: How were these police officers supposed to have known that he was in fact "medically" unconscious & how were they supposed to have made aware of this assessment, and did they have time to make it?

To me part of being a defender of liberty is presumption of innocence until proven otherwise - of everyone, including police officers. Look who's being judge/jury/executioner...in the mirror.
I'd say I determined he was unconscious and seriously injured the moment I saw his body thrown out of a flipping vehicle like a rag doll. As to question two, what the hell difference does it make if he is 'medically unconscious' or laying there motionless giving no additional signs of resistance? I guess they didn't have time to make an assessment because instead of following protocol and ordering commands they ran full speed to dish out their punishment. And as to the third part of your post I made a judgement based on the video. I'm laughing at your judge and jury comment as you can see what the judge and jury actually did in this case. Now, look in the mirror and see if you see a troll.

[JK/SEA]

have you ever been ejected out a window of an SUV as it was rolling?....yeah, it looked like the guy was ready to come up ninja style and start breaking necks...he had what 2 seconds before monkey 'a' came grunting in with his knee...then runs off, all in the span of 5 seconds of perps ejection...

wtf....dude...seriously? he didn't have to be unconscious. He was most likely, at the very least in some form of shock that he was still alive...

[kcchiefs6465]

They're human. It's not an excuse, just fact. Their brotherhood for better or worse was their primary emotional response. Likewise, that same sentence, my sentence, you would in general agree right?
That is an issue.

[presence]

Ok, let's try this: let's first establish one thing at a time.

Question # 1: How do you know he was unconscious? What's your reasoning or what evidence do you have of this? Yes, to me when I watch the video clip he does seem to be unconscious, but appearances can be misleading or deceiving.

1) He was lying on the ground prone, not trying to get up, not moving, not attempting to flee, not attempting to look around, no reaction whatsoever.
2) He was not resisting before or after the first strike, nor did he react in any way to being hit.
3) He did not resist any of the subsequent double fisted 5 man bludgeoning, seek to protect himself, or react in any way to any of the blows.
4) He was ejected from a rolling vehicle moving at high speed and he hit the ground hard, and bounced.
5) He didn't look to be in a comfortable, self-aware position, just basically flopped and lifeless from the moment he hit the ground.






Once we establish that he was indeed unconscious, then we can move on to...

We don't even need to establish that. He was no longer fleeing and certainly not "resisting".



Question # 2: How were these police officers supposed to have known that he was in fact "medically" unconscious & how were they supposed to have made aware of this assessment, and did they have time to make it?

Between the time they decided they were going to beat his ass and the time they started beating his ass?
At any point they could have slowed down and approached cautiously with gun drawn.

After they started beating his ass for no reason?
I'm sure if any one of them stopped punching at any given point the limp body would have given the same story.




To me part of being a defender of liberty is presumption of innocence until proven otherwise - of everyone, including police officers. Look who's being judge/jury/executioner...in the mirror.

To me part of being a defender of liberty is holding trained tax payer funded police to a higher standard, not a lower one.

[Wolverine302]

Appearance can be deceiving. A black man in Alabama busted on a drug charge, whether real or manufactured, doesn't fair well. You need to get real. I, myself, do not automatically pull over when there are bubbles in the rear view. I apply my emergency flashers, maintain the speed limit and exit into a well trafficked public area.

you want to argume semantics thats fine. you eventually stop. i'm not exactly saying all cops should beat people into a bloody pulp if they run from the cops, but i understand it when he nearly made road kill of one of the officers. this forum wants to excuse him running all over like a maniac and threatening the well being (read: LIFE) of other people who had nothing to do with him, yet you all are going awol over me understanding the police on why the beat his ass. lets be real about one thing, the cops got fired because of public relations, to save face. if that happened in LA, the cops would be declared heroes.

i'm done with this topic, people use illogical arguments and hypocritical emotional appeals. good day.

[tod evans]

people use illogical arguments and hypocritical emotional appeals.

Yes they certainly do.

Contempt of cop is no excuse to beat an unconscious man, and it is certainly no excuse to force that man to accept a plea-bargain for "attempted murder".

The idiot who was fleeing should have been arrested and charged for the predicate offence and resisting arrest.

The idiot cop who put himself in the trajectory of the fleeing vehicle should have at least been reprimanded formally and put behind a desk.

The idiot cops who beat an unconscious man were fired and brought to trial.

So all I see is a bunch of idiots doing stupid shit and some forum posters trying to excuse one group of idiots...

[JK/SEA]

good day.

somehow the term 'drool donkey' comes to mind. good day.

[phill4paul]

you want to argume semantics thats fine. you eventually stop. i'm not exactly saying all cops should beat people into a bloody pulp if they run from the cops, but i understand it when he nearly made road kill of one of the officers. this forum wants to excuse him running all over like a maniac and threatening the well being (read: LIFE) of other people who had nothing to do with him, yet you all are going awol over me understanding the police on why the beat his ass. lets be real about one thing, the cops got fired because of public relations, to save face. if that happened in LA, the cops would be declared heroes.

i'm done with this topic, people use illogical arguments and hypocritical emotional appeals. good day.

http://newkidonthehallway.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/04/29/boyhandsoverears.jpg

[Neil Desmond]

So all I see is a bunch of idiots doing stupid shit and some forum posters trying to excuse one group of idiots...
You can call me an idiot if you wish (I don't care); but to clarify I'm not trying to excuse anything (again, if I was, I'd be saying things like "well, let's cut them some slack," etc.). What I'm doing is looking for someone to persuade me that what any of these cops did was wrong. As far as I can surmise, I can't see why anything they did wasn't the best and most appropriate action to take. No one has even attempted to at least point out department rules, policies, procedures, or training that were violated or ignored as far as I'm aware (if you did I apologize for overlooking it). Practically all I see in this thread is a bunch of name calling, assessments about what can be seen in the video clip that I don't agree with (such as the claim that the cop deploying the spikes deliberately jumped in the perp's path rather than that the perp deliberately swerved into the cop), and other emotional bickering rather than logical reasoning. Once we establish that at least one cop did at least one thing wrong, then we can talk about coming up with excuses for them, on a case-by-case basis.

So now, let's go to my question # 3:

Even if the cops did something like say "yeah, we were all fairly sure the perp was unconscious as soon as he flew out the window," did they have the liberty to proceed with pummeling the perp, or should they have refrained?

And here's question # 4:

Let's suppose they should have refrained; then what? Should they all have been fired, or should they have each been reprimanded at different levels depending on what they did or didn't do, on a case-by-case basis? Wouldn't suspension for a few days for some or all of them been adequate punishment?

[tod evans]

Please re-read, the idiots of which I spoke were all involved in the video you posted..

I'll answer your question #4 with my opinion;

The group of idiots that beat an unconscious man were fired (some of them) and tried criminally.

The civil trial still needs to take place.

No, I don't think suspension would have been sufficient punishment.

[Neil Desmond]

Please re-read, the idiots of which I spoke were all involved in the video you posted..
Okay, fair enough. I suppose I had misread it or something to be prompted to respond like that; but it doesn't really make any difference to what I said when I responded (you can still call me an idiot and it won't matter to me :p ).

[kcchiefs6465]

So now, let's go to my question # 3:

Even if the cops did something like say "yeah, we were all fairly sure the perp was unconscious as soon as he flew out the window," did they have the liberty to proceed with pummeling the perp, or should they have refrained?And here's question # 4:

Let's suppose they should have refrained; then what? Should they all have been fired, or should they have each been reprimanded at different levels depending on what they did or didn't do, on a case-by-case basis? Wouldn't suspension for a few days for some or all of them been adequate punishment?
Wow. Another epic post. Question #1 for me is, what is your definition of liberty? Once we get that out of the way we can move on to Question #2 which is, why did you ask Question #3? Once we have that answered we can finally move on to my Question #3. Did you really think I would answer Question #4 after reading the ludicrousy of Question #3? And finally my Question #4 would be, are you the reincarnate of AZXD?

[LibForestPaul]

Ok, let's try this: let's first establish one thing at a time.

Question # 1: How do you know he was unconscious? What's your reasoning or what evidence do you have of this? Yes, to me when I watch the video clip he does seem to be unconscious, but appearances can be misleading or deceiving.

Once we establish that he was indeed unconscious, then we can move on to...

Question # 2: How were these police officers supposed to have known that he was in fact "medically" unconscious & how were they supposed to have made aware of this assessment, and did they have time to make it?

To me part of being a defender of liberty is presumption of innocence until proven otherwise - of everyone, including police officers. Look who's being judge/jury/executioner...in the mirror.


Red Herring, try a little better. Uncousiness is not the ONLY reason officers are not allowed to kick you in the head. Any more sophist arguments?

[Neil Desmond]

Wow. Another epic post. Question #1 for me is, what is your definition of liberty?
In this context, the entitlement/option/choice; in other words, is there a principle that says they are/were wrong to do this?


Once we get that out of the way we can move on to Question #2 which is, why did you ask Question #3?
I'm not quite sure I get the point (if there is one) of asking me why I'm asking a question; why does anyone ever ask any question? I don't know how answer such questions. I'll attempt to respond to your question with the assumption that there is some point to it: I'm asking all these questions to try to see if I can somehow help you guys persuade me to see things your way, if it can be done. Can you just answer my questions without asking me why I ask questions?


Once we have that answered we can finally move on to my Question #3 Did you really think I would answer Question #4 after reading the ludicrousy of Question #3?
I don't care if you want to answer it or not; it's on you if you choose to not answer it, not me.


And finally my Question #4 would be, are you the reincarnate of AZXD?
I don't know what that is or means, or what the relevance even is to this thread. Can someone please translate this for me? I have bad news for you, the world doesn't revolve around you (other than to you).

There you go, I've answered your silly questions (except the 1st one - that one's not silly). The only reason I bothered to answer them is because the 1st one was a legitimate/reasonable question to ask. Now, are you going to answer my questions? From now on, I'm only going to answer legitimate/reasonable questions from you and everyone else & when I have time or feel like it.

[Neil Desmond]

Red Herring, try a little better. Uncousiness is not the ONLY reason officers are not allowed to kick you in the head. Any more sophist arguments?
I don't get it; is this supposed to somehow be persuasive? It's the status quo for me if I don't have adequate answers; I'm trying to help you guys out by proposing questions that might lead me to be persuaded to see things your way. The reason I'm doing this is because I'm not being persuaded by people's retorts. You guys are the ones who have to try a little better, not me.

[PaulConventionWV]

http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j47/gorman_2006/whack_a_mime.gif

Maybe it is police brutality; I'm not an expert on determining this.

http://gifs.gifbin.com/052010/1273487123_police-brutality.gif

Maybe it is police brutality; I'm not an expert on determining this.

Nope, no police brutality there. That is obvious.

[PaulConventionWV]

What he needs is a day in court. I don't believe "getting his ass beat" is a consequence the courts could give? Since you obviously have a very interesting point of view about the Rule of Law, what do you feel the role of the courts is? To judge him after he's been judged?

You might as well judge someone after they've already served a sentence, a sentence given by a police officer.

[PaulConventionWV]

You can call me an idiot if you wish (I don't care); but to clarify I'm not trying to excuse anything (again, if I was, I'd be saying things like "well, let's cut them some slack," etc.). What I'm doing is looking for someone to persuade me that what any of these cops did was wrong. As far as I can surmise, I can't see why anything they did wasn't the best and most appropriate action to take. No one has even attempted to at least point out department rules, policies, procedures, or training that were violated or ignored as far as I'm aware (if you did I apologize for overlooking it). Practically all I see in this thread is a bunch of name calling, assessments about what can be seen in the video clip that I don't agree with (such as the claim that the cop deploying the spikes deliberately jumped in the perp's path rather than that the perp deliberately swerved into the cop), and other emotional bickering rather than logical reasoning. Once we establish that at least one cop did at least one thing wrong, then we can talk about coming up with excuses for them, on a case-by-case basis.

So now, let's go to my question # 3:

Even if the cops did something like say "yeah, we were all fairly sure the perp was unconscious as soon as he flew out the window," did they have the liberty to proceed with pummeling the perp, or should they have refrained?

And here's question # 4:

Let's suppose they should have refrained; then what? Should they all have been fired, or should they have each been reprimanded at different levels depending on what they did or didn't do, on a case-by-case basis? Wouldn't suspension for a few days for some or all of them been adequate punishment?

If we wanted to throw department rules and laws at you, I'm sure we all could. But you shouldn't need that. It's so obvious it's laughable. You just can't defend something like this when you saw it with your own eyes.

[PaulConventionWV]

I don't get it; is this supposed to somehow be persuasive? It's the status quo for me if I don't have adequate answers; I'm trying to help you guys out by proposing questions that might lead me to be persuaded to see things your way. The reason I'm doing this is because I'm not being persuaded by people's retorts. You guys are the ones who have to try a little better, not me.

Oh, so you're doing this just to help us all out with our debating skills. How nice of you.

I don't believe that for a second. This is just too obvious. You can't seriously be asking us to provide you with evidence that they shouldn't have kicked and beaten an unconscious man who got thrown out of a flipping car.

You should know what he said in that post anyway. Unconsciousness is not the only reason cops shouldn't kick people in the head. You have to understand that the status quo is NOT kicking someone in the head. The burden of proof is on you to prove that it was justified. The burden of proof is not on us to prove that kicking someone in the head was not okay.

Believe it or not, the presumption of innocence applies to this man, too, until he has been tried in court.

[Neil Desmond]

If we wanted to throw department rules and laws at you, I'm sure we all could. But you shouldn't need that. It's so obvious it's laughable. You just can't defend something like this when you saw it with your own eyes.
The point is that a single rule, policy, law enforcement training procedure might be all that's necessary to make me change my mind. If you guys are so passionate and adamant about being wronged by law enforcement, are you guys familiar enough with department rules, etc? Why don't you point them out? Is it because you actually can't even if you wanted to?

I think it's obvious what my position is regarding what I can see with my own eyes. Ok, here's another video; what do you see with your own eyes?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7At5RyV_yo

Seems appalling, doesn't it? What you can see in this video, though, may be misleading. I myself thought, "WTF!!! Those thugs with badges just gunned down a harmless person!" when I saw it. Well, later on because of something else I changed my mind and determined that it appears that he brought it on himself.

[paulbot24]

You have to understand that the status quo is NOT kicking someone in the head. The burden of proof is on you to prove that it was justified. The burden of proof is not on us to prove that kicking someone in the head was not okay.

Bingo. Somebody's been watching CSI! That was a joke, I hate those shows but THIS is a very good point you made.

[Neil Desmond]

Oh, so you're doing this just to help us all out with our debating skills. How nice of you.

I don't believe that for a second. This is just too obvious. You can't seriously be asking us to provide you with evidence that they shouldn't have kicked and beaten an unconscious man who got thrown out of a flipping car.

You should know what he said in that post anyway. Unconsciousness is not the only reason cops shouldn't kick people in the head. You have to understand that the status quo is NOT kicking someone in the head. The burden of proof is on you to prove that it was justified. The burden of proof is not on us to prove that kicking someone in the head was not okay.

Believe it or not, the presumption of innocence applies to this man, too, until he has been tried in court.
Well, you don't have to believe anything that you don't want to; I don't require it. All you need to know is that I am not very convinced yet (mind you), that there is police brutality, and am trying to get people to take into consideration the possibility that at least some of these police officers aren't actually doing anything wrong, or anything that's as bad as "real" police brutality. Maybe they did use excessive force, maybe they did over react; well let's at least take it on an individual case-by-case and "blow-by-blow" basis to determine who did what wrong and what they deserve as a consequence or punishment as a reserve (EDIT: sorry - I don't remember what I meant to write instead of "reserve", might have been "result"). This rush to judgement and apparent collective punishment doesn't seem to fly too well with me, and there are plenty of ways to deal with what they did wrong, why they apparently did wrong, and what needs to be done to change, correct, or improve things. If you (meaning "you" in the collective sense) want to deal with this problem, please do so, but do so in a level-headed mature way, not with emotional outbursts of verbal rage.

I also didn't see the perp driving the car get kicked in the head (and if he did, maybe that's why he got knocked unconscious); is that referring to the other video (appears to be aerial view from a helicopter) where a man in a white shirt and gray shorts is facing down on the grass, appears to be complying and submissive, and the police officer goes up to him with his weapon drawn and kicks him in the head, is shown? Yes, that does appear to be excessive force and police brutality to me. That's a different incident.

I don't know why these claims or assertions that (a) "he was unconscious," (b) "the cops should've assumed or known at the time that he was unconscious," and (c) "cops should not pummel someone who is unconscous" persist without support for those claims. Asserting that 2 + 2 = 5 doesn't make it so. Even asserting 5 * 5 = 25 isn't what makes it so either. These things have to be backed with proof. Where's the evidence or reason to support a, b, and c? This video can seem to reveal some things, but that's not adequate.

[PaulConventionWV]

The point is that a single rule, policy, law enforcement training procedure might be all that's necessary to make me change my mind. If you guys are so passionate and adamant about being wronged by law enforcement, are you guys familiar enough with department rules, etc? Why don't you point them out? Is it because you actually can't even if you wanted to?

I think it's obvious what my position is regarding what I can see with my own eyes. Ok, here's another video; what do you see with your own eyes?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7At5RyV_yo

Seems appalling, doesn't it? What you can see in this video, though, may be misleading. I myself thought, "WTF!!! Those thugs with badges just gunned down a harmless person!" when I saw it. Well, later on because of something else I changed my mind and determined that it appears that he brought it on himself.

You don't need department rules. The police beat an unconscious man. That's not something they should do. Period. Trust me, though, there are rules against that. Even if there weren't, what would it prove? That the police department is okay with meaningless violence, that's what. Can't you think outside the box a little bit? I know you're going to say you are, but you're not because you won't even use your own brain to determined what happened here. Instead you want to be spoon fed the info. It's really just sickening. You disgust me. And not because of your obvious defense mechanisms when it comes to police violence. It's because of your inability to apply critical thinking to the situation.

[PaulConventionWV]

Well, you don't have to believe anything that you don't want to; I don't require it. All you need to know is that I am not very convinced yet (mind you), that there is police brutality, and am trying to get people to take into consideration the possibility that at least some of these police officers aren't actually doing anything wrong, or anything that's as bad as "real" police brutality. Maybe they did use excessive force, maybe they did over react; well let's at least take it on an individual case-by-case and "blow-by-blow" basis to determine who did what wrong and what they deserve as a consequence or punishment as a reserve (EDIT: sorry - I don't remember what I meant to write instead of "reserve", might have been "result"). This rush to judgement and apparent collective punishment doesn't seem to fly too well with me, and there are plenty of ways to deal with what they did wrong, why they apparently did wrong, and what needs to be done to change, correct, or improve things. If you (meaning "you" in the collective sense) want to deal with this problem, please do so, but do so in a level-headed mature way, not with emotional outbursts of verbal rage.

I also didn't see the perp driving the car get kicked in the head (and if he did, maybe that's why he got knocked unconscious); is that referring to the other video (appears to be aerial view from a helicopter) where a man in a white shirt and gray shorts is facing down on the grass, appears to be complying and submissive, and the police officer goes up to him with his weapon drawn and kicks him in the head, is shown? Yes, that does appear to be excessive force and police brutality to me. That's a different incident.

I don't know why these claims or assertions that (a) "he was unconscious," (b) "the cops should've assumed or known at the time that he was unconscious," and (c) "cops should not pummel someone who is unconscous" persist without support for those claims. Asserting that 2 + 2 = 5 doesn't make it so. Even asserting 5 * 5 = 25 isn't what makes it so either. These things have to be backed with proof. Where's the evidence or reason to support a, b, and c? This video can seem to reveal some things, but that's not adequate.

Here's a rule of thumb. When trying to decide if it's police brutality, assume it is. That's the only liberty-minded position to take. Being critical of your government is a good thing.

You seriously need evidence that he's unconscious? He's lying on the ground after being thrown from a flipped car. What more evidence do you need? How do you even get by in the world if you question things to such a degree? He said he was unconscious, and the police acknowledge that he was unconscious. He was taken to the hospital. What more freaking evidence do you need? What more evidence is there to be had? Do you want divine judgment?

Also, how is this different from the incident you just mentioned? Did the perp not appear to be submissive? Was he not lying on the ground like you JUST mentioned? Did the officers not suddenly and without provocation come and start beating him in some manner? YES to all of the above.

[osan]

Question #1 for me is, what is your definition of liberty?


In this context, the entitlement/option/choice; in other words, is there a principle that says they are/were wrong to do this?

Entitlement? Are you serious? If so, then anyone would be entitled to take an iron bar and beat the living snot out of you any time you do anything to annoy them. Given the context, that is the logic of your position. If that is what you are arguing for, my demand that you demonstrate this in principle is going to set before you a monumentally difficult task, the product of which any nominally smart sixth grader would then be able to demolish without breaking a sweat. But if you would like to go through the exercise, please and by all means proceed. Just let me know so I can go dig up a sixth grader.

Is there a principle? Really? Are you an advocate of liberty? If so, you should know the answer to the question. If so and you do not know the answer, then you are in need of some significant schooling and should be holding your tongue until such time as your basic schooling is complete.

But to answer your question, the principle after which you ask is commonly referred to as the "Non-Aggression Principle". The name is for me something of a misnomer and I prefer what I call the Non-Trespass Principle. That nit aside, the Non-Agression Principle provides the clear and unequivocal answer to your question.

While not perfect, try the following short essay as your initial relevant lesson proper human relations:

http://freedomisobvious.blogspot.com/2010/12/common-principles-of-free-living.html

It needs some revision, particularly the walk away from the NAP to the NTP, but it is basically sound and you would do well to read it, digest it, understand it, and accept it. But as always, do as you will.

[osan]

Oops... dup.

[Neil Desmond]

Here's a rule of thumb. When trying to decide if it's police brutality, assume it is. That's the only liberty-minded position to take.
Sorry, but totally I disagree; the presumption of innocence until proven otherwise, as all-inclusive - meaning that it even applies to cops - is the only liberty-minded position to take.


Being critical of your government is a good thing.
Absolutely - you're preaching to the choir here.


You seriously need evidence that he's unconscious? He's lying on the ground after being thrown from a flipped car. What more evidence do you need? How do you even get by in the world if you question things to such a degree? He said he was unconscious, and the police acknowledge that he was unconscious. He was taken to the hospital. What more freaking evidence do you need? What more evidence is there to be had? Do you want divine judgment?

Also, how is this different from the incident you just mentioned? Did the perp not appear to be submissive? Was he not lying on the ground like you JUST mentioned? Did the officers not suddenly and without provocation come and start beating him in some manner? YES to all of the above.
You're just circling around yet again here, I've already submitted my rebuttal to all of this, and I'm not going to repeat myself.

[Neil Desmond]

Entitlement? Are you serious? If so, then anyone would be entitled to take an iron bar and beat the living snot out of you any time you do anything to annoy them. Given the context, that is the logic of your position. If that is what you are arguing for, my demand that you demonstrate this in principle is going to set before you a monumentally difficult task, the product of which any nominally smart sixth grader would then be able to demolish without breaking a sweat. But if you would like to go through the exercise, please and by all means proceed. Just let me know so I can go dig up a sixth grader.

Is there a principle? Really? Are you an advocate of liberty? If so, you should know the answer to the question. If so and you do not know the answer, then you are in need of some significant schooling and should be holding your tongue until such time as your basic schooling is complete.

But to answer your question, the principle after which you ask is commonly referred to as the "Non-Aggression Principle". The name is for me something of a misnomer and I prefer what I call the Non-Trespass Principle. That nit aside, the Non-Agression Principle provides the clear and unequivocal answer to your question.

While not perfect, try the following short essay as your initial relevant lesson proper human relations:

http://freedomisobvious.blogspot.com/2010/12/common-principles-of-free-living.html

It needs some revision, particularly the walk away from the NAP to the NTP, but it is basically sound and you would do well to read it, digest it, understand it, and accept it. But as always, do as you will.
I favor the non-aggression principle (NAP), and am a libertarian (not an anarchist). When you have someone not only refusing to pull over, but also driving like a maniac through traffic and even trying to run down a public servant, the NAP argument does not apply. Either you are making assumptions or you don't understand NAP.

[osan]

I favor the non-aggression principle (NAP), and am a libertarian (not an anarchist). When you have someone not only refusing to pull over, but also driving like a maniac through traffic and even trying to run down a public servant, the NAP argument does not apply. Either you are making assumptions or you don't understand NAP.

Your response suggests that either you are the one lacking in understanding or you are a troll.

To be clear: the original question at hand was whether the cops were justified in beating a likely unconscious man who, just seconds before, had been thrown clear from a rolling vehicle. The man in question gave no indication of being conscious, yet the cops ran to him and immediately began beating him viciously.

Your assertion, in writing immediately above, is that the NAP does not apply. It most certainly does apply, particularly given the public trust with which police are vested. Their duty was to APPREHEND the driver. Beating was not required in order for them to discharge their duty. The fact that they were angry enough to act as they did is sufficient reason not only to charge them criminally, but to fire them on the spot because hey failed in their duty in gross measure. They almost certainly had NO idea why the driver was running. There could have been many reasons - some of them unlikely, but still possible. What if the driver were having a life-threatening allergic reaction and was in a blind panic trying to get to a hospital? Perhaps his child had just been hit by a car. The bottom line is they most likely had no idea what the cause was, assumed, and tossed their self-control and professionalism to the curb in fits of blind anger.

Their responsibility was to approach the apparently unconscious driver, ascertain his condition, and get him to a hospital. They could affect formal arrest afterward. The beating was in no way justified, even if the driver attempted to run one of them over.

The law in all 50 states is clear on this, as far as I know. One may respond with violent and possibly deadly force to an immediate threat. That man posed no clear immediate threat. Had you or I arrived at that scene seconds prior to the cops and had run up to that still body and begun beating it as they do in the video, we would have faced felony charges. No reason for us acting in such manner would have been acceptable to a prosecutor, so why was it acceptable when those goons did it? The NAP most certainly does not​ apply in this case as the officers were not under any overt and immediate threat.

I also note you failed to address the points I made. I call troll. I call concession. I call logic FAIL. :)

[tod evans]

I'm glad that I don't portend to subscribe to any such principals...

Personally I tend to hold people paid by tax-dollars to different standards than those who pay them, only when they're "on-duty" though.

This idea that public servants are somehow above citizens in the social hierarchy is absurd and it's my opinion that people who advocate for any such distinction must be publicly called out for their beliefs.

It's good enough for me that I believe the behaviors of the cops exhibited in the video were wrong, the cop who chose to step into the path of a fleeing motorist and the cops who beat an obviously incapacitated man are to be held accountable for their behavior just as the fleeing motorist should be held accountable for his actual behavior....

[presence]

I favor the non-aggression principle (NAP), and am a libertarian (not an anarchist). When you have someone not only refusing to pull over, but also driving like a maniac through traffic and even trying to run down a public servant, the NAP argument does not apply. Either you are making assumptions or you don't understand NAP.

I think you don't understand the distinction between suspect and perpetrator: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Difference_between_Suspect_and_Perpetrator)


The perpetrator (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perpetrate)drove like a maniac; injured people, flipped his vehicle.
After perpetrator hit the ground, bounced, and was done committing his crime; non-aggressively limp and lifeless,

the cops then perpetrated an aggressive beating

on the innocent-until-proven-guilty suspect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence), (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence)


...which leaves them suspect as well.

[Neil Desmond]

Your response suggests that either you are the one lacking in understanding or you are a troll.

To be clear: the original question at hand was whether the cops were justified in beating a likely unconscious man who, just seconds before, had been thrown clear from a rolling vehicle. The man in question gave no indication of being conscious, yet the cops ran to him and immediately began beating him viciously.
If it's possible to prove a negative, please show me how; otherwise, I don't care that he gave no indication of being conscious - that's meaningless. I want proof that he was unconscious, for one thing.


Your assertion, in writing immediately above, is that the NAP does not apply. It most certainly does apply, particularly given the public trust with which police are vested.
Perhaps that wasn't clear; I'll try again -
under NAP, not being aggressive only applies when there is no threat of violence; so much as the mere threat of violence in a situation makes NAP irrelevant, in that situation. The perp was being violent, so it's perfectly acceptable for the cops to be aggressive.


Their duty was to APPREHEND the driver.
And they did.


Beating was not required in order for them to discharge their duty.
I don't agree. He driving like a maniac and deliberately aiming his vehicle at the very individuals doing their job of trying to apprehend (as you just pointed out) him.


The fact that they were angry enough to act as they did is sufficient reason not only to charge them criminally, but to fire them on the spot because hey failed in their duty in gross measure. They almost certainly had NO idea why the driver was running.
What's wrong (necessarily) with being angry? It's whether their actions were wrong regardless of whether they were angry or not. How can you be so sure they had no idea why the driver was running? What difference does it make whether or not they had any idea why he was running? What matters is what they did know, which is that he's refusing to stop, he's driving like a maniac, he's trying to aim at and run over cops, etc. The allegation (to as a matter of fact circle around to yet one more time) as to whether they failed in their duty in gross measure is what I want to see get supported by evidence or good reason to make such a claim.



There could have been many reasons - some of them unlikely, but still possible. What if the driver were having a life-threatening allergic reaction and was in a blind panic trying to get to a hospital? Perhaps his child had just been hit by a car.
If it was a mitigating situation, we still get back to the question (which I ask again), is there anything in their policies, procedures, training, etc. for dealing with that? If so, then we can say they did wrong; if not, we ought to look into how to change this for law enforcement. I'm not seeing an attempt to address any of this, only anti law enforcement outbursts and rhetoric. Why don't you guys address this? I don't understand why you guys refuse to do so.

I work at a hospital; the buildings I work in are directly across the street from the emergency room & main hospital. I have to cross that street every time I go to the main hospital building, which is typically more than once a day, and I have never seen anyone driving like a maniac. There are 10 MPH signs & people drive rather slow on that road, except (ironically) many cops. As someone who works in the healthcare industry, I'm aware that the best thing to do is call 911 in case such an emergency. I myself have actually called 911 while on hospital property for something that happened, because that's the procedure we are instructed to follow (for that particular case). Personally, I think it's better to call 911 than to try kill yourself, or your children, by driving like a maniac that way; even if this guy doesn't agree, that's not good enough to say that the cops were wrong anymore than it is not good enough to say that you shouldn't shoot someone who breaks into your home and attacks you, because they might be having some sort of allergic reaction causing them to do that.


The bottom line is they most likely had no idea what the cause was, assumed, and tossed their self-control and professionalism to the curb in fits of blind anger.
Like I expressed before, I don't think so; what they did given that situation seemed like the appropriate reaction.


Their responsibility was to approach the apparently unconscious driver, ascertain his condition, and get him to a hospital. They could affect formal arrest afterward. The beating was in no way justified, even if the driver attempted to run one of them over.
Nonsense; their responsibility is safety first - and it seems they took necessary & appropriate action to confront and apprehend someone who was very violent, dangerous, and for all they knew at the time had just killed at least one other.


The law in all 50 states is clear on this, as far as I know. One may respond with violent and possibly deadly force to an immediate threat. That man posed no clear immediate threat. Had you or I arrived at that scene seconds prior to the cops and had run up to that still body and begun beating it as they do in the video, we would have faced felony charges. No reason for us acting in such manner would have been acceptable to a prosecutor, so why was it acceptable when those goons did it? The NAP most certainly does not​ apply in this case as the officers were not under any overt and immediate threat.
They apparently thought there was an overt and immediate threat, regardless. What evidence is there that shows malicious intent on the part of these police officers?



I also note you failed to address the points I made. I call troll. I call concession. I call logic FAIL. :)
What points (and more) aren't covered by me stating that I favor NAP, I am a libertarian, and I am not an anarchist?

[Neil Desmond]

I think you don't understand the distinction between suspect and perpetrator: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Difference_between_Suspect_and_Perpetrator)


The perpetrator (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perpetrate)drove like a maniac; injured people, flipped his vehicle.
After perpetrator hit the ground, bounced, and was done committing his crime; non-aggressively limp and lifeless,

the cops then perpetrated an aggressive beating

on the innocent-until-proven-guilty suspect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence), (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence)


...which leaves them suspect as well.
This semantics "jibber jabber" doesn't really matter, because all I'm looking for is an explanation for why what these cops had done was wrong.

[tod evans]

This semantics "jibber jabber" doesn't really matter, because all I'm looking for is an explanation for why what these cops had done was wrong.

Good grief Neil, 152 posts going back and forth about two issues...

1) Cops beating an unconscious man.

2) A citizen being charged/convicted for attempted murder

It's very apparent to me that you believe the government and it's agents were in the right in this case....Unfortunately a rather large segment of society would agree with you.

I'm betting that just like me, you've never listened to what the "convicted felon" had to say prior to accepting the governments plea bargain, have you?

For that matter I've never heard anything from the cops other than approved propaganda, have you?

Interesting thing to me is that both you and I have been presented another viewpoint of the incident.....I would be very interested in reading the statements of everybody involved............Would you?

[presence]

This semantics "jibber jabber" doesn't really matter, because all I'm looking for is an explanation for why what these cops had done was wrong.


Neil, I can no longer help you when you consider definitive, unambiguous, juridical, legal parlance to be "jibber jabber". Click the links... get an education... write back when we're speaking the same language.

[Neil Desmond]

Good grief Neil, 152 posts going back and forth about two issues...

1) Cops beating an unconscious man.

2) A citizen being charged/convicted for attempted murder

It's very apparent to me that you believe the government and it's agents were in the right in this case....Unfortunately a rather large segment of society would agree with you.

I'm betting that just like me, you've never listened to what the "convicted felon" had to say prior to accepting the governments plea bargain, have you?

For that matter I've never heard anything from the cops other than approved propaganda, have you?

Interesting thing to me is that both you and I have been presented another viewpoint of the incident.....I would be very interested in reading the statements of everybody involved............Would you?
Yes.

[Neil Desmond]

Neil, I can no longer help you when you consider definitive, unambiguous, juridical, legal parlance to be "jibber jabber". Click the links... get an education... write back when we're speaking the same language.
When did I ask for such help? Right now I'm just trying to get an adequate explanation regarding the claim of police brutality; and that doesn't really require any definitions of words, only citation of a rule, policy, training or some explanation that convinces me that there was police brutality, use of excessive force, or whatever can tell me they did wrong (not that they did or didn't).

[Neil Desmond]

Here's the thread (per request on a different thread).

[JK/SEA]

Thanks for bumping this.

Just re-enforces the Police State Tyranny we are under....DEFCON 2.

[Neil Desmond]

Thanks for bumping this.

Just re-enforces the Police State Tyranny we are under....DEFCON 2.
You're welcome. Overall in a way, perhaps you're right that it shows we're under a police state tyranny.

[kcchiefs6465]

Another disgusting thread. Smdh.

[phill4paul]

UPDATE:


Alabama man gets $1,000 in police settlement, his lawyers get $459,000

An Alabama man who sued over being hit and kicked by police after leading them on a high-speed chase will get $1,000 in a settlement with the city of Birmingham, while his attorneys will take in $459,000, officials said Wednesday.

The incident gained public attention with the release of a 2008 video of police officers punching and kicking Anthony Warren as he lay on the ground after leading them on a roughly 20-minute high-speed chase.

Warren is serving a 20-year sentence for attempted murder stemming from his running over a police officer during the chase, in which he also hit a school bus and a patrol car before crashing and being ejected from his vehicle.

Under the terms of the settlement of Warren's 2009 federal suit, in which he accused five Birmingham police officers of excessive force, his attorneys will receive $100,000 for expenses and $359,000 in fees, said Michael Choy, an attorney representing the officers on behalf of the city.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/23/us-usa-alabama-police-idUSKCN0IC05720141023

[tod evans]

"Just-Us" :mad: