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

They can only take soo much

[Joebert]

Suspect repeatedly yells "I can't breathe ! I can't breathe"

Yeah, I tend to have a hard time breathing when I'm yelling & struggling with the police too.

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.
What did the guy do to get himself into that position ?
I'm willing to bet it wasn't jaywalking.

Re:In Soviet USA, cameras watch authorities!

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Perhaps you're feeling more into alternative forms of government that some people are trying to impose upon you ?

How about islamic government, what the terrorists are demanding ? What 87% of the british muslims are demanding ?
http://www.nakedterror.net/galleries/thumbnails.ph p?album=7

You like it yet ?

Re:A Measured Response to Police Brutality

[b0s0z0ku]

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

That's a tad bit harsh, no? Especially as you don't know what kind of diseases were passed along to said widow by Mr. Blueboy...

-b.

Re:Except it's not the same

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Padilla_(al leged_terrorist)

Hmmm ... okay ... his dad is a convicted terrorist, not the guy himself. My bad.

Still, it has apparently been established, or at least upheld, before a civil court, that :

      1. Padilla was "closely associated with al Qaeda, an international terrorist organization with which the United States is at war";
      2. He had engaged in "war-like acts, including conduct in preparation for acts of international terrorism";
      3. He had intelligence that could assist the United States in warding off future terrorist attacks; and
      4. He was a continuing threat to American security.

He is not an innocent.

The judicial argument is that, IN SPITE of these established facts, his treatment was unlawful. Court concluded it was not. What exactly is wrong ?

He is a terrorist. Do you have any idea what that word means ? It means he'll kill your children and their entire school because your wife shows her face to your neighbor (and this is, sadly, not a joke). He was planning to do just that. He does not deserve your sympathy. He would not give you, nor your children, nor even other muslims the right of habeas corpus.

The guy was resisting arrest

[daiichi]

Even the footage that was shown, the man was not "adequately restrained" as some previous posters think. It appeared that the police were trying to put handcuffs on the guy, and the guy wouldn't let them. Try it sometime with a buddy of yours and film it, putting on handcuffs on a guy who doesn't want them on is a pretty difficult task.

I thought about this some, and I think the sympathetic public is part of the crime problem. As it is now, police are afraid of pulling a gun--and trying to subdue a suspect can lead a policeman into potential litigation (as it is with this video). If you're a smart criminal, you'd quickly realize:

(1) don't carry a weapon
(2) If you are caught in the act of the crime, and the police tell you to stop, run for the nearest populated area.
(3) If the police catch up with you, don't hit them, simply tense up your muscles so they have to roughhandle you. All the while crying "please don't hurt me!"
(4) Then sue the police department afterward.

If you are a policeman, it appears the best course of action if the perpetrator doesn't pull a weapon on you is to yell "stop! police." If they run, let them go.

Somehow I don't think this trend is in the best interest of society.

Re:Where's the context?

[Colin Smith]

Or is it just a tad bit more reasonable that a neighbor started filming with their cameraphone, and captured as much as they could with that device?

It's far more likely that said neighbour or fellow gang member started filming as soon as they saw the violence kick off but then edited it to portray only one side of the situation according to their own personal prejudices. Editing video can be accomplished on virtually any PC these days, or hadn't you noticed?

And my point is you are a rather credulous individual.