Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
Qualitas edurus commercium, nullus penitus net rimor, nullus deus beneficium
In Egypt, a muslim country, police brutality is government policy, not some idiot running out of line, like it is in the US.
x ual-assault-in-downtown-cairo.html
i _Arabia
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-se
Read how the police responds in a reasonably muslim country :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saud
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
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.
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.
If the subject is adequately restrained, it doesn't really matter what was happening up until that point.
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.
Deleted
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.
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.
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?
When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
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.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
He was unable to prevent being punched in the face, that is a pretty clear sign that he was well restrained.
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.
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.
You're right - between the foot massage/grape option and the 'repeatedly punching subdued suspect in the face' option, there is no middle ground.
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.)
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.
When you have to find the worst possible to compare yourselt to, in order to seem good?
FRA: STFU GTFO
"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..."
... 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.
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
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'. --Dan Kaminsky
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.
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?
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.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
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.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.