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
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.
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.
You are about to give someone a piece of your mind, something which you can ill afford...
If the subject is adequately restrained, it doesn't really matter what was happening up until that point.
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.
One officer has his knee on the guys neck, they both have his arms. While the officer on the left is calling it in, the officer on the right begins punching the guy while he is saying he can't breathe, It does not look to me like the guy is continuing to struggle at that point. They should be completing the handcuffing, but instead the other officer punches him several times in the face. I think you are just trolling. Go look at it again if you aren't.
Is there heaven? Is there Hell? Is that a Tuna Melt I smell?-Primus
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.
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.
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.
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?
> The judicial argument is that, IN SPITE of these established facts, his treatment was unlawful.
> Court concluded it was not. What exactly is wrong ?
Nothing wrong at all. Those countries quoted earlier have similar laws making detention and torture without being charged perfectly legal too.
> He is a terrorist.
Until he is tried and convicted in a court of law no he isn't. Having one law for yourself and another for *terrorists* makes you no better then the terrorists or states quoted earlier.
> Do you have any idea what that word means ?
I have lived in Ireland and England during the worst times of the troubles between the two countries. Do I know what it means? Yes I do. For me and family/friends I know it means having to be taken out school in England for fear of being beaten by children/adults every time the IRA set off a bomb. It means being segregated every time you took a flight or a boat. It means being treated like a criminal every time you entered a pub in England. It means having a rifle pointed point blank range at your face while customs check your car or being detained for over an hour being asked endless stupid questions and then getting an armed police escort to a plane yet.
For others it means being picked up off the street and thrown into a camp where you are tortured for months on end because you may have a similar sounding name as a terrorist or just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time or due to a clerical error on the pickup warrant. It means not being able to get work because people denote your race/religion to mean terrorist.
All that did was escalate terrorism in Ireland/England.
So I know full well what the word means. Do I agree with terrorism? Fuck no. However throwing laws out the windows or implementing laws of torture and denying rights to people to protect yourself is folly in the extreme and will only bite yous in the ass years from now.
And unless your willing to experience such laws enacted on yourself you have no right to claim that they are good or bad.
Here is more reading material for you.
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/intern/index.html