Youtube Video Prompts FBI Probe of LAPD

PachecoJ writes "The AP has a story of a Youtube video showing police brutality that has sparked an FBI probe of the LAPD. A group called 'Cop Watch LA' placed the video online to draw attention to the actions by officers. The officers pictured in the video are now being defended by police defense attorney John Barnett, who defended the officers in the 'Rodney King' trial of 1991." From the article: "A search on YouTube for the terms 'police brutality' found more than 500 videos, including ones that claim to show police violence in the U.S. and as far away as Egypt and Hungary. A search of Google's video site also yielded hundreds of videos. In response to the surge in amateur videos, some law enforcement agencies have installed cameras in squad cars to protect officers against false allegations."

Comments

Are we all really that suprised?

[Anonymous Coward]

We are all human, and there are days where people get out of control. This is a tough job, with a lot of high stress. I'm not surprised at all that there are hundreds of instances where an officer may have overstepped justified force. But, again, I would also easily believe that there are lots of cases where it was justified. We are not just robots that can 'reset' ourselves after a highly dangerous situation, so some people might overreact when in another siutation so soon after a stressful one.

Anyway, that's my two cents :)

Re:Are we all really that suprised?

[Anonymous Coward]

So it's ok if I start beating the shit out of people because they annoy me? Because they insult me? Because I'm stressed out? I don't see the logic here. Cops have many ways to incapacitate someone, there is no need to bash there heads in after that.

Some people flip burgers, some people fix computers, and some people enforce our laws. They are all just jobs and if both cops and civilians would begin treating them like normal human beings doing a job life would probably be better for the majority of us out there. Just because someone is wearing a uniform does not mean you should respect them, fear them, or treat them any different then anyone else.

Re:Are we all really that suprised?

[ShaneThePain]

""""Some people flip burgers, some people fix computers, and some people enforce our laws. They are all just jobs and if both cops and civilians would begin treating them like normal human beings doing a job life would probably be better for the majority of us out there. Just because someone is wearing a uniform does not mean you should respect them, fear them, or treat them any different then anyone else.""""

Wrong.
Police, military, and other authority figures are not just your average joe. They are higher, and must be treated as such. Just be glad we have social mobility so anyone can be an authority figure.

Re:Are we all really that suprised?

[b0s0z0ku]

Police, military, and other authority figures are not just your average joe. They are higher, and must be treated as such. Just be glad we have social mobility so anyone can be an authority figure.

Nah, the point is that they are your average Joes and Janes doing a job. Just because they're doing a particularly tough job shouldn't mean that they aren't held accountable for their breaches of the law. In fact, they should be held *more* accountable, since if cops are seen as brutal without accountability, citizens will lose their respect for the law, so examples must be made.

-b.

Re:Are we all really that suprised?

[BakaHoushi]

A uniform does not means you should respect someone. It's the actions of the person in the uniform that need respect, or sometimes, a lack thereof. Cops can be corrupt and bad people, too. Soldiers can be sadistic assholes who are for the most part, worthless except for their ability to kill.

This, however, does not mean all cops and soldiers are like that. But by no means are they all saints. Stressed out or not, you don't have the right to beat someone when it's not a necessity. I can certainly understand the desire to (I currently am a student part time and work retail part time. I deal with more morons per day than I care to calculate, but the people cops must deal with... I don't envy them.) But that's still no better a justification than "she was asking for it" as a defense for rape.

There are good cops and soldiers out there, and while I don't always agree with what they do (moreso for the soldiers), I respect their patience, and their dedication for helping people. But that doesn't mean anyone in a uniform deserves jack shit from you. Some of them are still assholes. As the saying goes, a turds a turd, no matter how you dress it up or polish it off.

Re:Are we all really that suprised?

[chazwurth]

"What I am more referring to is the small town cop which has nothing to do but wrongfully arrest and harass innocent people so that he can keep his job..."

Do you really think that's all a small-town cop has to do? Small towns, like large ones, have domestic violence, mentally unstable people with weapons, robberies, rape, assault, dishonest businesses, unauthorized dumping of hazardous chemicals, racial discrimination, problems with crack and meth and alcoholism ... and the list goes on. In some ways life is harder on a small-town cop: everyone knows them, and they can make enemies in a tight-knit community just by doing their jobs -- and moving to another job may mean leaving a community they've been tied to for their whole lives.

Re:Are we all really that suprised?

[ScentCone]

But that doesn't mean anyone in a uniform deserves jack shit from you.

The only way that sentiment makes any sense is if most police officers and soldiers were crazy, sadistic, power-abusing jerks. That isn't the case, and it's really quite the opposite. The uniform can be abused by the rare few, just like the liberties and responsibilities of being a citizen are abused by, well, rather a lot of people.

But these people don't get to wear a law enforcement or military uniform just by asking, and they operate under a lot more scrutiny than most of would tolerate at our own jobs. You do owe people in uniform respect, as a default position. You owe people who abuse that respect nothing - but unless you start out with the premise that all who serve are like that, which is crap, your position is just plain insulting. To a lot of people. If you assume you owe all of those people nothing, then do you also expect nothing from them? You can't have it both ways, even if it is easy to sit at your keyboard spewing nonsense. When your car is in a ditch and it's a state trooper that finds your ass in the middle of the night, be sure to start out by saying you don't respect him, OK? And if it's your ass that's being helicoptered off a rooftop in New Orleans by Coast Guard personnel that risk their lifes to save idiots every day, make sure the first thing you tell them as they pull you aboard is that you don't owe them any respect.

Grow up.

Re:Are we all really that suprised?

[BakaHoushi]

Good God, stop putting words in my mouth. All I said was that a uniform != respect. I said nothing about automatically hating/disrespecting a man in a uniform. I was trying to also point out that man != uniform. Some people are fucking sick. Some people are just corrput. Some are good people. Some are saints. The uniform doesn't cause that or fix that.

And sadly, my family has a long history of involvement in the military as well as emergency aid and fire fighting, and even the police. And straight from their mouths come more examples of assholes with badges and people who shouldn't be wearing said uniform. (Sometimes, it's even that relative). So, pardon me if I offend, but I don't believe that the enlistment process for certain jobs (such as being a soldier or a cop), do the best job of getting rid of some of the douchebags. It's certainly better than nothing, but...

Look, all it boils down to is that I will not automatically respect someone because they're in a uniform. Not a soldier, cop, or firefighter. I will, however, respect them for doing a good job. If I were stuck in a ditch, do you seriously think I'd think poorly of a cop who pulled over to help me? If so, well, you're just plain wrong. That would be a cop, you know, doing his job, and quite well, might I add. I do see examples of these people, and I respect them for the work they do. Just as I respect the teachers I have and have had who did their jobs well, but not the ones who clearly were clueless jerks.

At the end of the day, a uniform is nothing but a pile of cloth. The people within remain. No one, in any job, immediately deserves respect or disrespect until their actions are observed. Not you, not me, not the garbage man, not a cop, and not anyone else.

Re:Are we all really that suprised?

[chazwurth]

I'm not saying that there aren't corrupt cops. I'm not saying that there aren't a LOT of corrupt cops. I have plenty of my own anecdotes about experiences I've had with bad cops, lazy cops, cops who busy themselves harassing law-abiding citizens who look different, etc.

But I've also known a lot of good cops, and I've gained a certain amount of respect for people who are willing to put their lives on the line to protect their fellow citizens. I've known cops who do serve as officers as a day job and spend most of their time off work as volunteer firefighters or medics; people with an admirable ethic of public service, who are cops because they want to devote their lives to the people around them.

I believe that corrupt cops ought to be punished very severely. Corruption in the police should not be tolerated. There is an inherent danger in having a police force, and one of several ways to deal with that danger is to be on the lookout for bad behavior and come down hard when it's found. But I'm very defensive about the 'all cops are evil scum' reaction that comes up every time a police brutality incident comes to light. It isn't true and it isn't fair. Your post suggested that the job of being a cop is equivalent to "...pissing people off and harassing them, assaulting teenagers for the heinous crime of loitering, ignoring rape victims while using deadly force to deal with noise complaints..." and that when someone applies for the job, that's what they're signing up for. There are many ethical and upright people who don't deserve to be painted with that assumption.

Re:Are we all really that suprised?

[The_Wilschon]

Chill out, hothead.

There are good cops and soldiers out there, and while I don't always agree with what they do (moreso for the soldiers), I respect their patience, and their dedication for helping people. But that doesn't mean anyone in a uniform deserves jack shit from you.

GP didn't say that people in uniforms deserved no respect, he said that the fact that there are good cops in existence does not imply that all cops therefore deserve respect automatically. In fact, he says he does respect them! You turned around and said "No you're wrong! They deserve respect because they are under more scrutiny!", which in no way contradicts, nor is contradicted by, what the GP said. Geez. Think before you post.

...it is easy to sit at your keyboard spewing nonsense.

And thank you for such a clever demonstration of this fact.

Is it that bad?

[cptgrudge]

In response to the surge in amateur videos, some law enforcement agencies have installed cameras in squad cars to protect officers against false allegations.

Why exactly would amateur videos help create the false allegations? Are people doing a little post-production work on them before they go up online to show a closed fist hitting not once, but twice? If anything, I'd think that video in squad cars would reduce the possibility of police brutality, since the cops know that they are being recorded on video, and an allegedly beaten person can get that video.

Re:Is it that bad?

[krbvroc1]

And sometimes when things are going to get 'rough' they turn off the cameras or put other squad cars in the camera field of vision to defeat the recording.

Re:Is it that bad?

[green1]

>> Are people doing a little post-production work on them

not so much changing the video, as possibly chopping the start or end off... imagine watching a cop shoot someone, without seeing the part where that person drew a gun and threatened the cop. it is so easy to get the wrong impression just by cutting in to an incident part way through.

having cruiser-cams is a good thing for everyone, it helps reduce the likelyhood of a cop doing something wrong in a routine stop, but it also does a good job of countering unsupported allegations and partial truths.

Re:Is it that bad?

[Sycraft-fu]

Well the problem with an armature video is that you will see the parts of it the camera operator wants you to see. Like say someone goes and tries to stab a cop with a knife, cop knocks it away, guy rushes cop, cop smacks him around with baton until he stop attacking. Cop is justified here. However what if someone shoots video of this, but only shows the cop beating up the guy? You might well think it's a case of police brutality. Especially if the video was cut such that it shows the cop talking to the guy, cuts out the guy attacking the cop, and goes straight to the cop beating the guy up.

We know there are plenty of people out there that hate the cops, such a thing is not so far fetched.

So video cameras in cars are just good all around. As you noted they help reduce events of police brutality, and provide the method to go after cops that do, but they also protect the cops from false allegations. I think it's a wonderful idea, the police are public servants with a lot of power, what they do while on the job should be recorded.

Re:Is it that bad?

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

"Why exactly would amateur videos help create the false allegations? Are people doing a little post-production work on them before they go up online to show a closed fist hitting not once, but twice?"

No.

a.) The cameras are usually far away, so we cannot see the whole picture. If the suspect is standing behind a car, for example, a threatening gesture may not be seen.

b.) The 'ameteur' video may not have started recording to see the entire event take place. There could be an important bit of context missed.

c.) The media can grab a clip of the video and give the PD a hard time.

There's no need to go as far as 'post-production' to grab a vid used for false allegations. They say the camera never lies. That's utter bullshit. You can make a camera send any message you want. That's why the evidence collected by cameras needs verification.

Except it's not the same

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

In Egypt, a muslim country, police brutality is government policy, not some idiot running out of line, like it is in the US.

And Egypt is the second most moderate muslim country there is.

Read how the police responds in a moderate muslim country :
http://forsoothsayer.blogspot.com/2006/10/mass-sex ual-assault-in-downtown-cairo.html

Read how the police responds in a reasonably muslim country :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saudi _Arabia

Do I really need to provide a link to what happens in a really muslim country, like palestine or afghanistan or pakistan ? Do you want to see ?

Why does this happen ? Here's one opinion :
http://www.faithfreedom.org/challenge.htm

Re:Except it's not the same

[unixbugs]

You have a good point, the rest of the world is very fucked up. But that doesn't make it RIGHT. The whole argument about how bad Mogadishu is and how bad that guy get his head pounded is only solidifies a single point in the end: that here in the U.S., "good enough" is having to face this kind of thing every day anyway.

What the hell happened to progress?

Just because other countries have a shitty way of life, you are saying we should sit down and take this kind of crap because we have it "the best"?

This kind of thinking is wrong, completely and utterly retroactive (or is it proactive?) to everything that has made this country what it is today: a nation of beer swilling SUV driving ass kicking meat eating gun toting nut bags that can do whatever the hell they want. To that effect the only way to move forward is to raise the bar, not accept the norm, if you get my drift.

Re:Except it's not the same

[forgotten_my_nick]

No in the US they just declare you a terrorist and then its all legal and behind closed doors.

Re:Except it's not the same

[forgotten_my_nick]

What country are you living in?

All you need is be declared an enemy combatant, in which case you loose US citizenship (if you were an American) and they can make you disappear without having to bother with a trial or ever charging you of anything. Add to that they can torture you as much as they like as long as its not life threatening.

All nice and legal. Don't believe? Do some research. There is even a lot of examples for you.

Re:Except it's not the same

[forgotten_my_nick]

José Padilla. US Citizen declared as Enemy combatant and held for three years without ever being charged of any crime. During that time he was tortured.

A lawyer of the family demanded Haebus Corpus but was initially refused for bullshit reasons which were later shot down. After that he was able to formally charged and a judge has ruled he is given a fair trial.

Bush has since passed a law (with his torture bill) that now automatically denies the right of Haebus Corpus for anyone deemed as a terrorist. Its backdated too so the government can't be done for whats happened so far. So they won't make that mistake again.

Here's something to get you started.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Padilla_(al leged_terrorist)

Re:Except it's not the same

[TheRaven64]

And the bible has similar passages (including some choice passages about who you are allowed to keep as slaves and when you should rape your enemies women and when you should kill them). This doesn't mean that there aren't moderate Christians, it just means that the moderates are the ones who don't take a 1300-year-old book entirely literally, and there are a lot of them. Some extremists will brand these as 'not real Muslims' just as some hard-core Christians brand the those who are pro-choice or pro-contraception as 'not real Christians.'

Re:Except it's not the same

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Read how the police responds in a moderate muslim country :
http://forsoothsayer.blogspot.com/2006/10/mass-sex ual-assault-in-downtown-cairo.html

And then read the comment, on that same page, from the author of that blog about YOU Christophe Devriese and others just like you:

THIS IS NOT ABOUT ISLAM. the problem with writing a criticism about anything regarding the middle east is a person gets a lot of ignorant people from dhimmiwatch and sandmonkey fans who are incapable of critical thought and just search frantically for confirmation of the pearls of wisdom that drop from the mouth of that imbecile, george bush.

now, i don't actually think that egypt has sharia law in place regarding the rules of evidence (i'll check on that in a few minutes though). few islamic countries do, just like israel has not codified the startlingly misogynistic laws of the Torah. this is because they do not accord with modern thought. as for western countries, it is only lately, very lately, that they have lifted their own outstandingly sexist laws regarding the prosecution of sexual assault. egypt isn't a developing country for nothing.

i'd like to also point out that when i was studying sexual assault in canada, perpetrators of the worst offences were often white. but what do you care? apparently arabs and muslims have now replaced blacks as dangers to women. these things happen everywhere...the only difference is that in other places where the rule of law means anything these things are prosecuted. but i'm sure the effects of poverty, a stagnant political and legal system, a patriarchal culture don't matter to the likes of you enlightened commenters and watchers of Fox news, am i right?
elle was right. read her comment with a modicum of attention.

i'd also like to stress, for the numerous illiterates who commented, that i simply translated malek's account. that whole bit about veiled versus unveiled women was not authored by me. that said, if you would (say) read, you would note that i think he meant that he was astonished that the masses, known for making this odious distinction, did not do so, not that he himself held that view. i've met the guy, and he's not like that, even if so many arab guys (and western guys) think that clothing is a defence for sexual assault. i could go on at length about the widespread nature of myths surrounding consent, but this doesn't seem like an educated crowd so i won't bother. Go on hating a religion you know nothing about and places you've never been to. searching for reasons only wastes time better spent in bombing innocent arab civilians.

pretty good here

[thejrwr]

We have it pretty good in the USA, you should see the other places in the world

Re:pretty good here

[WhiplashII]

BS - I lost the use of my legs for several years, was unable to get out of bed, and was turned down by our government's welfare system (oh, and my family was overseas, my father was in the military) - but I still paid my own way. If you want a job and are willing to do anything to get one, you can get one. You can also live on an astonishingly small amount of money (I used to buy 10-20 hamburgers at McDonalds on 10 cent Tuesdays, and I'd have enough to eat for a week on $2). I am now in nearly constant pain when I walk, but I walk anyway, and it is slowly getting better. I have a job, I create startups - and because I stuck to it, I'm now pretty good at it. (And for the record, I live in Illinois.)

That, and government welfare systems do not work - they decide who needs help based on politics (in this case, I believe racism was involved), not need. (Why does more than 1/3 of my income go to welfare again?)

Re:They can only take soo much

[teh kurisu]

Doesn't matter what he did. I saw the video, and punching the guy several times in the face went far beyond reasonably force, especially as he was already adequately restrained, and in any case it is not the job of the police to hand out punishment.

Re:They can only take soo much

[krbvroc1]

Come on, I think cops are a pain in the ass as much as the next guy, but they don't just beat you for no reason.

Yeah, sometimes the suspect is black. Sometimes they dont have the 'right attitude'. Sometimes you get a cop who had a bad day and abused their power to feel better about themselves. And sometimes you deserve it.

Obedience now, asthma meds later

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop resisting arrest and I bet he'd stop punching you in the face. Roll over and get cuffed like he wants, he's not interested in your asthma, he's worried about you pulling a concealed weapon.

Re:They can only take soo much

[fredklein]

1. Offender is a known "Gordon Street" gang banger in Los Angeles.

Correction: The cops SAY he is a gang member.

3. Offender was running from the police officers before they had tackled them.

Um, if THIS is what they do to people, is it any wonder people run from them??

4. In the video, you can see the offender grabbing the officer's inner thigh before the officer started to punch the offender.

You forgot to mention the cop was KNEELING ON THE GUYS NECK.

Re:They can only take soo much

[starwed]

If the subject is adequately restrained, it doesn't really matter what was happening up until that point.

Where's the context?

[Colin Smith]

Some points...

1: The guy clearly was breathing. It can be seen and heard.
2: Scum will lie through their teeth in order to gain an advantage. You can't believe a word they utter. e.g. "Got the time mate", "Excuse me miss I'm lost could you help", "Do what I say and you won't get hurt".
3: Where's the rest of the video? Why was it cut off? Could it be that the suspect wouldn't be seen in quite the same light? Not an innocent victim but a violent attacker?

I'm not a big fan of the police but this is a bullshit video. It's propaganda designed to manipulate me. Show me the whole video and let me make my own decision.

Re:A Measured Response to Police Brutality

[Lord Kano]

He might have just shot a little girl, spit in the cop's face, or jay walked. We have no idea what the context was, so it's hard to pass judgement.

I don't care what he did. The policed are not tasked with punishing the bad guys. He had two big cops sitting on him. He wasn't going anywhere. These cops were big guys. They could have forced his arms together long enough to get the cuffs on him.

Besides, I'm a rarity, a nerd who parties and gets involved with shady people. THeir probably aren't very many people on /. who have ever dealt with the police for more than a speeding ticket.

Fuck that. I'm a geek and I've spent time at parties with of ALL kinds of unsavory characters. From high level drug dealers to Klansmen. I've also had federal agents knocking on my door at 10:00 AM. Those guys were the ultimate professionals. They spoke to me civilly and recieved courtesy from me in return.

Local cops are usually dicks.

I think most people who don't deal with the police very much have a negative view towards them (as brutal or power tripping or whatever) and that is messed up because you are the people the police are protecting.

Who protects us from them? I'm from Pittsburgh, a local radio personality was mistreated in an encounter he had with a police officer. He went on to give the cops badge number and police department over the air. He faced all kinds of threats from police over it. They're a gang. They control their turf and retaliate against anyone who they think have wronged them.

Sooo, support the boys in blue!

I'll volunteer to console their widows when someone blows their faces off.

LK

Re:A Measured Response to Police Brutality

[GNT]

No. I reject your post in its entirety. I do not support jack-boot thugs regardless of their uniform. My people's delegation of authority to the police to use force is horribly misused here.

It is not ok just because he "wasn't hitting the dude with his mag-light.". He shouldn't have been hitting him in the face at all.

It is not ok because he was resisting arrest. You can hear the panic in his voice that he was being suffocated. That's why he was still struggling, rightfully so.

It is not ok because cops are specifically not allowed to put a knee to the kneck like that. If that windpipe collapsed, the coroner would have to rule "Suspected homicide secondary to blunt force trauma or compressive force."

It is not ok because you can see one cop trying to restrain the other and prevent further hits.

The punching cop should be immediately suspended without pay pending an immediate hearing for his permanent removal from the force. It should then be followed by a punitive civil suit to both the cop and the department.

We are rapidly approaching a country in which I do not care to live. I would rather live in a socialist nation with lower levels of violence from people and institutions (eg New Zealand, far Northern Europe) than here. I will have defacto more freedom.

Re:They can only take soo much

[donscarletti]

I'm sure the guy deserved it, that's not the point. The point is that if he deserved it he should have been arrested in a professional manner, given a fair trial and THEN punished. The courts are there to hand out punishment, not the police, the police are for grabbing suspects, gathering evidence and using force only to control current, dangerous situations, not as agents of retribution. What's the point of having fair courts if your punished before your put before them?

Re:not in Massachusetts

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Governments do not have rights; people do. Governments have privileges, which may be revoked by the people at any time. Never let them forget this.

A cop at home, or in civilian clothes walking down the street, has the same rights as anyone else, including the right to privacy. A cop in uniform, on duty, is acting as an arm of the State, and has temporarily surrendered many of the rights of a private citizen, privacy definitely among them.

This doesn't apply just to cops, of course; also to politicians, soldiers, and anyone else acting in a governmental capacity, whether local, state, or federal. We always have the right to know what they are doing in our name, and every time we surrender this right, whether in the name of "privacy" or "national security" or "efficiency" or any other excuse, we surrender a vital piece of our freedom.

Re:The video is propaganda.

[MadEE]

He was unable to prevent being punched in the face, that is a pretty clear sign that he was well restrained.

Re:They can only take soo much

[teh kurisu]

He obviously was not adequately restrained because they couldn't get the cuffs on him.

He was in no position to inflict any harm on either of the police officers, defend himself or escape. That is adequate restraint. The penalty for resisting arrest is not a punch in the face and a police officer has no right to deal out that punishment either.

Re:Resisting Arrest Is A Crime In This Country

[kakofb]

I think that that's completely irrelevant. I don't care if the person being arrested had just burnt a little girl to death, shot a police officer and resisted arrest with any kinds of weapons blaring.

It's simply not up to police to deal out punishment in a way they think fit. It is their place to detain the person in question, using the absolute minimum amount of force necessary to get them tied up and in a car and off to proper judgement.

A skill a good police officer needs to have is the ability to stay clear and focused and not absolutely batshit crazy no matter what the situation. It's the kind of people they are arresting who aren't able to do this and kill their step-child when they realise the child is not theirs.

Obviously the person in the video probably didn't commit the aforementioned crimes but even if they had the way the police officers behaved was completely unreasonable.

Re:They can only take soo much

[Tim Browse]

What do you think they should have done, got off him and asked him pretty please to put his hands behind his back? Gave him a foot massage while feeding him grapes?

You're right - between the foot massage/grape option and the 'repeatedly punching subdued suspect in the face' option, there is no middle ground.

When two cops are sitting on you and are repeatedly saying "put your arms down" you do NOT fight them. You do as you are told.

I think you're underestimating the survival reflex here. As an asthmatic, I know (like thousands of other asthmatics) the terror of not being able to breath, and the panic it causes. If the suspect genuinely was unable to breath, it may have been all he could manage to do to just wave his arms around and croak "I can't breathe" now and then, rather than trying to punch the officers and struggle like hell. When you can't breathe, I'm guessing a lot of people would fight like hell until they can. If I was in his situation, and actually unable to breathe, I'm not sure I'd be able to put my arms calmly by my side and wait for the officer to stop suffocating me.

And the point that if he can't breathe, then he can't say that he can't breathe is just stupid. Believe me, someone fighting for breath will vocalise their distress if they think it will help.

I'm not trying to patronise you re: being in the position of not being able to breathe easily, but I think you're underestimating (or just not remembering) the panic it can cause.

(btw, I offer no opinion as to whether the suspect involved is a scumbag or not.)

I agree with the other guys...

[Jawood]

They're professionals. They have, by law, the right to use force, including deadly force. They should be held at a much higher standard than everyone else. If they can't take the job without going nuts, then they should find other employment because, with actions like those cops (I saw on CBS this morning), the public will lose confidence in law enforcement. I can only imagine what the consquences would be.

But, again, I would also easily believe that there are lots of cases where it was justified.

Sorry, it is never justified when the police do it.

Re:I agree with the other guys...

[brother bloat]

Sorry, it is never justified when the police do it.

Please mod parent up! This is exactly right. While on the job, upholders of the law must be held accountable for breaking laws they are working to enforce. Government by hypocrisy is immoral.

Re:I agree with the other guys...

[krotkruton]

But, again, I would also easily believe that there are lots of cases where it was justified.

Sorry, it is never justified when the police do it.

I'm not the author, but if you take that into context with his previous sentence: I'm not surprised at all that there are hundreds of instances where an officer may have overstepped justified force., I think what he meant to say is that a lot of those cases were actually justified but appeared to be overstepping the bounds because people don't get to see the whole picture or something along those lines. That's just how I read it.

Re:[OT] On dangerous terminology

[Anonymous Coward]

YOU can't be more or less muslim, but a country can, in describing the number of muslim residents it has and the extent to which conditions within it are influenced by that number.

Re:The video IS propaganda.

[fredklein]

How could he speak if he couldn't breathe? Watch the video. He's both breathing and speaking.

Answered elsewhere, by myself and others.

Not only that, before the officer punches him he tries to get a grip on the officers upper thigh or groin with his right hand. Watch the video. 15 seconds in. Given the proximity to the officer's groin I'm not surprised he got hit.

You left out the fact that the officer WAS KNEELING ON THE GUYS NECK. I'd be 'trying to get a grip' on the leg that was kneeling on my neck, too.

What does it tell you about you own country..

[The Creator]

When you have to find the worst possible to compare yourselt to, in order to seem good?

Re:A Measured Response to Police Brutality

[singularity]

We also have no idea what that guy did before the video starts. He might have just shot a little girl, spit in the cop's face, or jay walked. We have no idea what the context was, so it's hard to pass judgement.

No, it makes no difference what happened before the video started. For one thing, everyone is assumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Every single person arrested is assured that right.

Second, every police officer should be expected to treat every single suspect with the same rights. Saying "it is alright for the police to beat someone up because the suspect just shot a little girl" is simply inexcusable. It does not matter the crime, the police are not around to dole out punishments. We have an entire branch of the government set aside to determine guilt or innocence, and then to give appropriate punishment for crimes.

Re:They can only take soo much

[Typhon100]

What's so unreasonable about that? Sometimes people need a good punch in the face (or three), and who better than the police to do it? It helps to stop people from being whiny, cowardly worms.

I weep for our future. We are a nation of laws. I don't care what this guy did, for all I know he deserves life. But that is for a judge and jury to decide, not a pissed off cop.

Re:They can only take soo much

[MadEE]

4. In the video, you can see the offender grabbing the officer's inner thigh before the officer started to punch the offender.

One could say that clutching or grabbing is a natural reaction to airway obstruction. Regardless why he would deem it warranted to punch him in the face repetitively rather then removing the hand and continue to punch him after the hand left his thigh I can only guess. It sounds more like an excuse then a reason to me.

Also...

5. LAPD have a long history of brutality.
"There is a significant number of officers in the LAPD who repetitively use excessive force against the public and persistently ignore the written guidelines of the department regarding force" -- Christopher Commission report, p. iii and p. 31.

Just my two...

[drei22]

Being a Black man who as a youth(16 yrs. old)was taken into custody and brutalized by police for the simple fact that I looked like the criminal they were after. It's hard for me to justify using this type of force. For those of us who have take any type of basic self defense course we know that there are way too many ways to subdue a person without punching them in the face. Especially if there are two of you doing the subduing. (I think that's a word LOL). Peace, DREi2Deuce

Re:No more videogames for you!

[green1]

camcorders don't always show everything either... it was one example, maybe you simply can't see something due to camera angle, but the basic principle is that you can't come in half way through any incident and know everything that is going on. this is why it is a good thing to have the cameras on the cruisers, it allows investigators to see the context surrounding an incident. which may not be available on the tape provided by someone with an axe to grind.

Re:A Measured Response to Police Brutality

[rhizome]

Either way, that wasn't all that brutal, at least he wasn't hitting the dude with his mag-light.

I'm sure choosing the nickname "Sergeat Slaughter" has nothing to do with your authoritarian attitude toward law enforcement.

Exactly

[Mark_MF-WN]

Exactly. Ask ANYONE who does customer service how hard it is to not punch the occasional customer's face in, let alone not yell at people or tell them to fuck off (in all fairness, I've heard that this is just a Canadian thing. Other cultures frown much more strongly on casual, friendly usage of the phrase "fuck off". What can I say, we love our casual profanity).

Do they ever do it? Almost never, and if they did they would lose their job as the absolutely best-case scenario. More likely, they get fired, get sued, never work again, and have to spend the rest of their life giving handjobs to support their crack addiction. What makes cops think they're above that? Firing cops who abuse their power is the very least that should happen to them.

It's arguably closer to treason, since they're abusing a sacred trust that has been placed in them. The power to use violence is a very serious one, and it is not casually that we've waived the right to claim our own justice with vigilanteism and lynch-mobs. The whole point is for police officers to be better than vigilantes and mobs -- otherwise, how are they worth the tremedous price? Why entrusting them with anything if we can't actually trust them?

Re:Exactly

[Anonymous Coward]

So you still haven't figured out why you're still working at a computer surplus store, huh?

Re:Exactly

[alexo]

Ask ANYONE who does customer service how hard it is to not punch the occasional customer's face in, let alone not yell at people or tell them to fuck off (in all fairness, I've heard that this is just a Canadian thing. Other cultures frown much more strongly on casual, friendly usage of the phrase "fuck off". What can I say, we love our casual profanity).

Do they ever do it? Almost never, and if they did they would lose their job as the absolutely best-case scenario. More likely, they get fired, get sued, never work again, and have to spend the rest of their life giving handjobs to support their crack addiction. What makes cops think they're above that? Firing cops who abuse their power is the very least that should happen to them.

The difference is that policemen are a part of a system that protects itself.

Cops know that. They know that if they behave like dicks on a power trip, most of the time it's your word against theirs and judges will take a cop's word over yours any day of the week (if it ever gets to a judge, that is). They know that even if there's some evidence against them, their buddies will lie to protect them or the prosecutors will recommend to close the case. And in the worst case, if they are proven to be guilty, the "punishment" will be laughable.

If I put some guy in traction because he was "disrespectful" to me, I can expect to spend a lot of my free time in a small isolated cell and have a criminal record for the rest of my life. If a cop does the same, probably the worst they can expect is having a "note in their record".

So yes, a lot of people will become little dick-tators in this kind of situation.

Politicians are the same. If I made you a promise that if you nominate me to the "best neighbour" award, I'd mow your lawn and then reneged on it, you could sue me for breach of contract -- especially if this promise was made to a lot of people and publicized in the media. Unfortunately, political campaign promises are exempt.

Why?

Because people know which side the of bread is buttered.

My solution: Any breach of the law that was made while abusing a position of authority (a) must be prosecuted, and (b) upon conviction, double the maximum penalty prescribed in the law must be applied.

Unfortunately, no one would pass such a law.

Re:A Measured Response to Police Brutality

[Graymalkin]

You want less violence, life in the United States is just too rough for you, leave.

If someone has a dissenting opinion they should not have to leave the country. What that statement suggests is they you do not believe in the system of government this country was founded on. You're accepting violence as a way of life and shutting down any possibilities for civil discourse which the founders of this country would likely endorse. I doubt you really believe those things but that's what your statement suggests. If the US is too violent that is something that needs to be corrected, not run away from.

Re:A Measured Response to Police Brutality

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the point here is that, at least in this case, context is absolutely irrelevant. I agree that force is required sometimes depending on the context. But even if the perpetrator was resisting arrest before he's certaintly not fighting now, he's on the ground, is pinned by two officers, and is in shock. There is no reason to repeatedly hit him in the face. Face punching is not even a legitimate restraining tactic. I agree that /. is generally too liberal on these subjects with an unrealistic understanding of what police officers go through, but this is a pretty cut-and-dried case of police brutality.

Oh, so surprising.

[Grendel Drago]

Wait, wait, I can tell you how this is going to go down.

The LAPD is discovered to be corrupt. Officers from Rampart Division are dipping into the dope stash in the evidence room, or some officers are engaging in "monkey slapping time". There's an outcry. Something Must Be Done. The Christopher Commission or its like is convened. Anti-corruption measures are proposed. Memory fades, and they never really get implemented. Lather, rinse, repeat.

You can go back to 1902 with this shit.

Re:Cops

[chazwurth]

Until then, they're subhuman.

That's what a Human life is worth to the police...

There is no such thing as 'the police'. There is only a wide range of people. Your choice to condemn every person in the world who choses that career as subhuman is almost in the same species of hatred as racism. It's blindly irrational, and it's deeply wrong. Speaking it in public is an unethical act akin to claiming that all Gypsies are thieves or that all Jews hoard money. The only difference is that the group you're condemning is made up of people who can leave the group. And the statement that every member of the group is subhuman until every member of the group is ethical, is so far beyond rationality as to have strayed into the absurd.

I can understand where that kind of hatred comes from. But I hope you can understand that even though you have reasons to feel that way, your reasons don't justify the broad scope of your hatred, or the assertion that every person in the world who wears a uniform is subhuman. The world isn't really made up of such convenient black and white, all-or-nothing distinctions. The world is actually a complicated place. If there's anything constant, it is that offering simple answers to complex problems, or giving simple descriptions of complex systems, is folly -- though admittedly, such folly is emotionally comforting and intellectually satisfying.

If every man and woman in uniform threw in the towel tomorrow, most of them would be acting unethically and abdicating responsibility, and many people would suffer and die for that abdication. That, if nothing else, really ought to give you pause.