# Punching the back of the neck is acceptable detainment techniques for LEO's?



## Bob Hubbard (May 12, 2009)

*Police under investigation after Kentucky Derby beating video emerges*

[yt]WPyN4X3NnR8[/yt]







> *By Carlos Miller*
> A Youtube video showing Louisiville Metro police officers subduing a man while punching him repeatedly in the back of the neck has prompted an internal investigation. The incident occurred in the infield of Churchill Downs during the Kentucky Derby earlier this month. It is not clear what crimes the suspect committed because the video only shows police walking up to him as he appears to be kneeling.
> At least four officers have him under control while one of them punches him repeatedly as another officer yells quit fighting, quit fighting.
> However, the man doesnt appear to be fighting.



I'm seeing a KY LEO punch a prone person repeatedly in the back of the neck here. I'm not seeing much if any resistance from the subject.

Anyone know more on the situation, lead in, etc?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 12, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> *Police under investigation after Kentucky Derby beating video emerges*
> 
> I'm seeing a KY LEO punch a prone person repeatedly in the back of the neck here. I'm not seeing much if any resistance from the subject.
> 
> Anyone know more on the situation, lead in, etc?



Just a guess.

Guy was drunk and being an ***.  Cops gave him a chance to leave under his own steam.  Guy walked off and tried to remain on the premises.  Cops saw him.

When he was picked up between the two cops, he may have gotten slightly frisky - the dude in the orange jersey blocked the shot.

The 'quit fighting' punching cop was trying to get Citizen Drunk to stop resisting having the cuffs put on - very common in drunks.  Distracting blows to keep him from concentrating on keeping his arms apart.  The punches didn't look all that hard.

Anyway, just guessing, as I said.  Could have been anything, but I'd take the cops side on this one, unless something horrible comes to light.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 12, 2009)

I can hit pretty hard with a short punch, but I agree with you, those didn't look like power shots to me either.


----------



## Empty Hands (May 12, 2009)

They don't have to be power shots when the back of the neck is involved.  The guy was fully restrained when the hits started coming.  Joint manipulation would have been safer and more appropriate.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 12, 2009)

The grass was soft as was the ground underneath.  You saw the cop kneel on the dude's head - it sank halfway into the turf.

The cop's technique might have left something to be desired, but it did not seem like excessive force to me.  It was overwhelming force, and that's how we do (in my case, did) it.  It's not supposed to be fair.  It's supposed to be fast, safe, and over, and the cops always win, no questions.

I cannot tell you how many handcuffed drunks have challenged me to a fight, if I'd just remove the cuffs to make it 'fair'.  No thanks.  I'm happy to pummel mister kick-and-spit while he still wears the hand-irons.  I'm not into fair.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 12, 2009)

Empty Hands said:


> They don't have to be power shots when the back of the neck is involved.



Looked more like the back side of the neck to me, not the direct back.  A pressure point between neck and shoulder. I could be wrong.



> The guy was fully restrained when the hits started coming.  Joint manipulation would have been safer and more appropriate.



No, he was immobilized, but he was apparently resisting having the hand irons applied.  Pretty common.  Strong guys and drunks can often resist for while.  It gets old quick, and breaking their arms is considered a no-no.


----------



## Archangel M (May 13, 2009)

Looks like the strikes were landing on the low neck/shoulder area and not directly down on the neck... IMO there should be an investigation, but more for training purposes rather than punitive ones. IMO the blows didnt appear to be "brutality" or excessive but I would question the officer as to the necessity for the strikes.

I would ask why Taser wasnt used if he was resisting. Looks like a classic "drive stun" opportunity (which would you rather have taken??).

The "common sense and good judgement" of doing it in broad daylight...while being filmed and in a crowd would be another issue for a supervisor as well. Some things that are fine and legal "play better" in an alley at 3am vs. the Ky Derby in the middle of the day.


----------



## GBlues (May 13, 2009)

I've watched this video now about 5 times. I think some of you need to rewatch it. First the guy doesn't look like he's giving very much resistance on the video, of course that could be because of the angle and the fact that the cops are blocking most of the action with there bodies. However, the cop delivering the neck punches, when he kneeled on the perpetrator, he didn't *just* kneel. He dropped his bodyweight directly on to the neck, with his knee leading the way. *That* is a potentially lethal blow. It doesn't take much weight to break bones, especially the ones in the neck. Second there are three cops, if three grown men can't subdue a person who is not aggressively attacking them, without delivering strikes to potentially life altering targets, they shouldn't be cops. Also you can tell from the cops body language, that when he first lifted his knee to deliver that shot to the neck, he hestitated coming up. Just a twitch, and then he decided, screw it, I'm dropping it, right on his neck. And that's what he did. THis easily could have killed this guy. All 4 of these people got very lucky on this day.


----------



## Sukerkin (May 13, 2009)

Aye, I was watching the clip and thinking very poorly of the way the situation was being handled (I know, I know, different culture so I shouldn't judge but I've just been looking through some of the material on http://carlosmiller.com/) and then the officer on the left jammed his knee in ...

Crikey! Lucky or good? I certainly can't tell from one viewing from this angle why the man being arrested hasn't got a broken neck. I'm certainly not inclined to view it again due to the negative impact it will have on my views of law enforcement in general in the States (can I even _spell_ "tarring every officer with the same brush" ).

I shall await the outcome of the whitewash ... er ... investigation, I meant obviously.

Oh and whilst I'm bandying about underinformed stereotypes, look at the state that field was in! Do you chaps not believe in picking up after yourselves? What a load of chavs .


----------



## arnisador (May 13, 2009)

That does look like it was more than was needed, but it's always hard to tell from a video (esp. without the prelude).


----------



## MJS (May 13, 2009)

I want to know what the guy was doing or had done, that required him to be removed from where he was.  The guy in quesiton looked to me, like he could barely stand on his own, let alone resist.  Now, even if he was resisting, I would think that the LEOs have to adjust their use of force accordingly.  In other words, I highly doubt they'd have been justified in pulling their guns, going on just what we saw.

I'm going to chalk alot of the officers actions to lack of proper training.  Additionally, I would think that they would have resorted to their less lethal options first, ie: OC, as well as the tasers that I saw on a few of them.  I would also bet there were other pain compliance things they could have done, other than punching, that would not have looked as bad as this did, to the bystanders.


----------



## MJS (May 13, 2009)

Empty Hands said:


> They don't have to be power shots when the back of the neck is involved. The guy was fully restrained when the hits started coming. Joint manipulation would have been safer and more appropriate.


 
What is your definition of fully restrained?  Do you mean that the officers had him under control or that he was cuffed, because he was not cuffed when those pnches came.  They were still in the process of doing that.  Actually the first punch came while he was being taken down.

IMO, I would not say he was fully restrained, and it didn't look like the cops had much control over him in the beginning.

I do agree though...joint manipulation would have been a better way to go.


----------



## Empty Hands (May 13, 2009)

MJS said:


> What is your definition of fully restrained?



Right, you are correct to point out that he wasn't in cuffs.  What I meant was he was face down on the ground, with his limbs controlled.  The punching cop even had a hand on his neck, pushing him down into the ground.  The guy could resist of course, but he had no reasonable ability to strike the officers or otherwise cause damage.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 13, 2009)

You have to look closely.

At the moment one cop tries to lift the suspect up from behind, someone cuts in front of the camera's view.  But look closely - it appears that the suspect is trying to escape the officer's grasp, you can hear the chatter from the officers increase, and they put the habeus grabbus on him and spin him down to the ground, face first.  I believe he's wrestling with them or at least resisting as he goes down - but the view is blocked.

You can hear the cops at the end of the tape, one is telling him that he gave the suspect a break and he refused to leave and now he has to go away in handcuffs, isn't that a shame, etc - pure cop talk.  I think that makes it pretty clear there was an earlier incident, not on the video, in which the cops told the drunken suspect to leave the area, and he didn't, which leads us to why the cop was trying to lift the suspect up off the ground in the first seconds of the video.

In the absence of further information, I still see nothing wrong here.


----------



## Nolerama (May 13, 2009)

I think there needs to be an internal investigation. At most, reprimand the punching officer. He didn't do anything wrong and I believe that he wasn't striking the drunk too hard...

But it's a perception thing. The fact that the world can now see this, and have Louisville PD seen in this light should require some form of punishment on those officers involved.

Video recording is everywhere. They make their PD look bad by looking like meat-head thugs.

Concerning the strikes, it doesn't matter in their lethality as much as the open statement to everyone in that public space: "the police will hit you in the back of the neck for being drunk".... instead of a better message: "the police will arrest you for being drunk."

It's a fine line, but with increasing video recording, it's a line not to be toed over, since we're sitting at our desks discussing this hundreds (if not thousands) of miles away.

Situational awareness doesn't just apply to citizens on the street. It applies to law enforcement, since they're supposed to be the ones that preserve the peace and uphold the law.

In terms of this video, regardless of the prelude to the incident, I question the escalation of force.


----------



## Hudson69 (May 13, 2009)

Not trying to defend any other cops here but those strikes did not look all that powerful and, maybe I am really off he could have been working on the brachial plexus tie-in as a nerve strike.  That sounds weak but so were those shots.


----------



## blindsage (May 13, 2009)

I'm confused by what video other people are looking at.  It's pretty clear to me that this guy is resisting.  Now whether or not those blows to the back of the head/neck/shoulder area are abuse or not is difficult to tell because it's hard to tell where, specifically, he's actually hitting.  As for whether their hard shots or not?  You'd need to be on the receiving end to tell, short distance hits can be extremely hard if delivered right.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 13, 2009)

youknow, maybe if the police beat the crap out of more people, and arrested less people, jails wouldnt be so overcrowed and people wouldnt be willing to be such asshats in public....


----------



## GBlues (May 13, 2009)

blindsage said:


> I'm confused by what video other people are looking at. It's pretty clear to me that this guy is resisting. Now whether or not those blows to the back of the head/neck/shoulder area are abuse or not is difficult to tell because it's hard to tell where, specifically, he's actually hitting. As for whether their hard shots or not? You'd need to be on the receiving end to tell, short distance hits can be extremely hard if delivered right.


 
Well, I'll tell ya, that knee drop to the neck wasn't very hard tell where it was going. o----0
^ ^
H N S

H is the head, N is hte neck, and S is the shoulder. So where did that knee fall?

K
o-/--0

^
Right about there. 

The neck on the ground is like a bridge there is nothing to support it between the head and the shoulders. That is a tremendously devastating shot, when the targeting is done spot on. This cop didn't aim for the shoulders, he aimed for the neck! Period. Hate to be the barer of bad news, but this cop was out of line. There is no slide, from the knee striking the shoulders and then sliding to the neck. It hit the neck. Everbody is talking about these punches to the neck. THere isn't a lot of body weight behind those, but that knee even from that short height, can break bones. To say that you can't see where the shots are going, well in a word that's B U L L S H I T! Period. And furthermore, I would think that a resisting perpetrator would have resisted a little bit more before he was on the ground. He did not, looked to me like he was more intent on trying to not spill his beer!


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 13, 2009)

GBlues said:


> And furthermore, I would think that a resisting perpetrator would have resisted a little bit more before he was on the ground. He did not, looked to me like he was more intent on trying to not spill his beer!



Drunks face down on the ground tend not to want to be handcuffed.  I've seen it too many times.  It's like a ritual they have to go through.  Trying to get their hands together in back, palms facing out, can wear you out.  I'm just saying, I've done it too many times.  I am not sure I ever remember a conscious drunk who did NOT resist the hand-irons being applied.


----------



## Thesemindz (May 13, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> youknow, maybe if the police beat the crap out of more people, and arrested less people, jails wouldnt be so overcrowed and people wouldnt be willing to be such asshats in public....


 
That's probably true. It in now way justifies police brutality in general, or the specific actions of these law enforcement officers here, but you are probably right.

Also if the cops summarily executed more speeders there'd be shorter lines at traffic court and everyone would obey the speed limit.


-Rob


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 13, 2009)

Thesemindz said:


> That's probably true. It in now way justifies police brutality in general, or the specific actions of these law enforcement officers here, but you are probably right.
> 
> Also if the cops summarily executed more speeders there'd be shorter lines at traffic court and everyone would obey the speed limit.



And if a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his *** when he hopped.

But seriously, we can take it all the way back.  A few more parents applying the belt with a bit more vigor might fix all these problems.  Just a thought.


----------



## Thesemindz (May 13, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> And if a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his *** when he hopped.
> 
> But seriously, we can take it all the way back. *A few more parents applying the belt with a bit more vigor might fix all these problems*. Just a thought.


 
I completely agree. My parents raised me to comport myself with decorum. Guess what, I've only rarely had encounters with the police, and they have _always_ been in relation to traffic violations. That's not because I fear the state. It's because I mind my business and don't prey upon my fellow citizens.


-Rob


----------



## blindsage (May 13, 2009)

Amazing, my parents achieved the same.....without the use of a belt.


----------



## Thesemindz (May 13, 2009)

blindsage said:


> Amazing, my parents achieved the same.....*without the use of a belt*.


 
My parents didn't need a belt either.


-Rob


----------



## Sukerkin (May 13, 2009)

Ah, one of the good ones :tup:.  

I have a couple of friends who fell into that camp naturally and who did not require anything more than verbal correction of misbehaviour.

I was not one of those.  I've talked about it before in threads on corporal punishment and child discipline so I won't drone on about it again.  The precis is that, without the hefty doses of properly applied and lovingly explained 'good hidings' I had in my youth, I would quite probably be posting this from a prision cell.

However, let's not distract ourselves from the point in question viz the inappropriate use of force by those there, supposedly, to uphold the law.

If what is in that video is okay by you chaps in the Land of the Free, then that is that.  It's not what is acceptable over here - not for such trivial offences as 'drunk and not all that disorderly' at any rate.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 13, 2009)

word




Thesemindz said:


> I completely agree. My parents raised me to comport myself with decorum. Guess what, I've only rarely had encounters with the police, and they have _always_ been in relation to traffic violations. That's not because I fear the state. It's because I mind my business and don't prey upon my fellow citizens.
> 
> 
> -Rob


----------



## Twin Fist (May 13, 2009)

a belt? my mother didnt limit herself to a belt, she used whatever was handy, switches, a hairbrush, wooden spoons, and on one memorable occasion, a 3 foot long piece of garden hose.

When i was 17 and managed to catch her hand as she went to slap me, she promptly kicked me in the junk

and I deserved every single one of the whippins I got too. In fact, i had more comming to me for stuff she never found out about...

maybe YOU didnt need a belt applied to your ***.

I did

many kids do.

this looking down at parents that dont spank thier kids is insulting, arrogant nonsense.

you wanna hate someone hate the parents that REFUSE to spank thier kids when those kids clearly need a good beatin.....  




blindsage said:


> Amazing, my parents achieved the same.....without the use of a belt.


----------



## Thesemindz (May 13, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> If what is in that video is okay by you chaps in the Land of the Free, then that is that. It's not what is acceptable over here - not for such trivial offences as 'drunk and not all that disorderly' at any rate.


 
Oh I don't want to mislead you.

It should come as no surprise that I think their behavior was a gross misapplication of force and an abuse of power. All the arguments about how he was asked to leave, and he was resisting the cuffs, and the strikes weren't _that bad_, and the officers had to resort to overwhelming force in order to subdue the man ASAP, just don't wash with me. The guy was half their size, he could barely stand up even before the assault, and they had him outnumbered and overpowered. My own opinions on state law enforcement aside, they could have held him down, forced the cuffs on, and moved on. I think there are many martial artists on this board who have done much the same to highly trained, _sober, _training partners in class one on one, much less four on one. Even if he was wanted for rape and murder their actions wouldn't have been warranted. If he was being accosted for being drunk and annoying, it's even more unjust.

I expect many of the LEOs here to disagree. But I think the officer doing the striking should be arrested and charged with aggravated assault, and the other officers should be put on disciplinary leave for failing to stop a violent crime that they were witnesses to. At the very least.


-Rob


----------



## Twin Fist (May 13, 2009)

yeah, you are right, i think you are not only wrong, but grossly misinformed about what the average cop can and cannot do.

martial arts take YEARS to learn to do that

cop boot camp is usually 6 months or LESS, and most of that is class room, not hands on.

PLUS, cops have to worry about some idjit grabbing thier gun and shooting THEM.

but i figured you prob think cops shouldnt have the right to touch anyone.....


----------



## Twin Fist (May 13, 2009)

oh, and BTW

attitudes like yours are why people back talk the cops these days.

what is so hard about the concept of 'dont monkey around with the big dudes with the badges and guns or something bad will happen to you" so friggin hard for people to grasp?

NO ONE has the 'right" to break the law, when you break the rules, something bad OUGHT to happen to you




Thesemindz said:


> I expect many of the LEOs here to disagree. But I think the officer doing the striking should be arrested and charged with aggravated assault, and the other officers should be put on disciplinary leave for failing to stop a violent crime that they were witnesses to. At the very least.
> 
> 
> -Rob


----------



## redantstyle (May 13, 2009)

the punches were nada.

but the knee should be dropped from the repertoire.

it was'nt all that hard, but that is a lot of mass coming down.  my style specializes in that type of blow and you can easily cause some serious damage, for obvious reasons.

the saving grace was that the guy was likely drunk and the ground was soft.   people are pretty rubbery to begin with, and the drunken style usually gives you some 'seong'. so there was quite a bit of give.

like i said, i dont think that particular knee was too hard, but it is not easy to gauge the force with a gross motor movement like that.

the stun punches might be civil restraint, but the knee drop is a combat technique. 

as a rule, i consider fighting with the cops to be a class A betarded move, and you deserve what you get.  otoh, it would be shame for some drunk and disorderly to get a permanent injury from a skirmish with police. 

i remember some years back, here in wny, two cops slapped a truncheon choke on a guy and busted his hyoid, and the swelling suffocated him. 

a knee, like a stick, is a force multiplier, compared to the hand strike.  and they both are difficult to meter as well.

regards.

ktk


----------



## Thesemindz (May 13, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> oh, and BTW
> 
> attitudes like yours are why people back talk the cops these days.
> 
> ...


 
If you've been paying attention TF, you'd realize that this is _exactly_ what I believe the foundation of our system of government is. I don't think it's hard to grasp at all.


-Rob


----------



## Thesemindz (May 13, 2009)

redantstyle said:


> the punches were nada.
> 
> but the knee should be dropped from the repertoire.
> 
> ...


 
People keep poo-pooing the punches, but punches to the neck can cause unconsiousness, hemmoraging in the brain, and death. And they don't have to be very hard, they just have to hit the right place. This story would have been reported very differently if what we saw in that video ended up with the drunk dying as the result of those strikes, which _could_ easily have happened.


-Rob


----------



## Thesemindz (May 13, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> oh, and BTW
> 
> attitudes like yours are why people back talk the cops these days.
> 
> ...


 
A. You're just wrong. I don't talk back to the cops. The cops have guns, and I'm not stupid. I might object to them violating my individual liberties, but I'm not dumb enough to do that while they have a gun pointed at me. When they say get on the ground, I'd _get on the ground_.

B. What gives law enforcement officers some special right not to be talked back too? Regardless of your opinion of what has happened in _this_ video, it is clear that _some_ law enforcement officers _sometimes_ violate the law and the rights of citizens. Just having a badge doesn't make them super-citizens, or infallible.

You said it yourself. No one has the *right* to break the law. And when you break the rules, something bad *ought *to happen to you. That includes police.


-Rob


----------



## Twin Fist (May 13, 2009)

well, you make a fair point in that atleast you know better than to be stupid towards cops. Good for you

and as i see it, if we give them the right to SHOOT YOU IN THE FACE, slapping someone around isnt gonna get my panties in a knot.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 13, 2009)

When did we give anyone the right to shoot anyone in the face?


----------



## Twin Fist (May 13, 2009)

police have the right to use deadly force, under certain circumstances in america bob........


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 13, 2009)

I am aware of that. Civilians do as well, under certain circumstances.

I wasn't aware that those circumstances might include when one is face down on the ground and unarmed though. 

No one has a right to use deadly force unless their life is threatened...a sad fact that too many people forget.  Kids on the lawn, being spit on, being insulted, being pissed on, doesn't justify death.


----------



## Thesemindz (May 13, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> police have the right to use deadly force, under certain circumstances in america bob........


 
So do citizens. Police are not super-citizens. 

Maybe if people refused to allow bullies with badges to abuse their rights and their fellow citizens, and used armed action to prevent it, we'd see fewer instances of police brutality.

The people should not fear their government, the government should fear its people.


-Rob


----------



## Twin Fist (May 13, 2009)

heh heh

it's so easy to twist your tail sometimes...LOL

seriously tho, i agree, i just think that since they are trusted to use deadly force, if they feel some skel needs an *** kicking, i tend to believe them


----------



## Twin Fist (May 13, 2009)

Thesemindz said:


> So do citizens. Police are not super-citizens.
> 
> Maybe if people refused to allow bullies with badges to abuse their rights and their fellow citizens, and used armed action to prevent it, we'd see fewer instances of police brutality.
> 
> ...



and no one should be fat or lose their hair.....

here on planet reality, you go on ahead and start shooting at the cops mr "i have rights"

just be kind and call your parents first to say good bye.......


----------



## Archangel M (May 13, 2009)

Spare us the "V for Vendetta" movie lines....

The problem is that almost every person who gets arrested thinks that the "bullies with badges" are railroading and abusing them. Unless the cops are not arresting the person who offended them...then its a whole different set of complaints.

The fact of police work is that you have to use force on people. I think it just goes to show how many "martial artists" have no real clue about what controlling a person who isnt in your MA class is like. IMO most of the "war stories" told around here are either bogus or greatly embellished (and their opinions of what they would be capable of are not based on reality). Its ugly and its difficult and people dont like to see it unless its in the MMA ring. 

Most people seem to want to believe that its all "officer friendly" out there. That all the cop has to do is ask someone to comply nicely and its all over and done with.

Use your hands and you are brutalizing people...use a baton and its assault by an officer...use a Taser to avoid all that ugliness and well that's no good either.

Press hard. Three copies.


----------



## Thesemindz (May 13, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> and no one should be fat or lose their hair.....
> 
> here on planet reality, you go on ahead and start shooting at the cops mr "i have rights"
> 
> just be kind and call your parents first to say good bye.......


 
I don't plan to, nor feel any need to, shoot at cops. I don't think violence is the best or most likely way to fix the problem. 

That being said, if cops continue to seize assets because they have a "reasonable suspicion" that anyone carrying cash is involved in criminal activity, and continue to assault drunks when they have them outnumbered 4 to 1, and continue to detain and search people without PC or a warrant, and continue to take people's property and destroy it without any legal justification, and continue to taze people with the slightest provocation, and continue to stick GPS trackers on people's cars to track their movements, somebody somewhere _is_ going to respond with violence. It's fairly predictable.

Police have become the standing army the founding fathers feared. 


-Rob


----------



## jks9199 (May 13, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> Spare us the "V for Vendetta" movie lines....
> 
> The problem is that almost every person who gets arrested thinks that the "bullies with badges" are railroading and abusing them. Unless the cops are not arresting the person who offended them...then its a whole different set of complaints.
> 
> ...


REAL use of force is never pretty.

Like you, I don't see anything at all problematic in this clip.  I do see things I would have done differently.... but that's pretty normal.   The strikes appear to be to the upper back/shoulder area more than the spinal line or kneck.  Nor are they particularly hard strikes.  Throughout, the officers did an excellent job of vocalizing their goals (give us your hands).  Personally, I would have struck at his upper arm to get it out more than the lower body...  I've just found it to be more reliable at making them release that arm to be cuffed.

The "knee drop" wasn't... the officer did kneel on the arrestee's neck, but he didn't simply drop his weight onto it.  See HERE where this sort of thing was discussed at length.


----------



## Thesemindz (May 14, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> Spare us the "V for Vendetta" movie lines....


 
Do you disagree? Do you think the people _should_ fear their government?



> The problem is that almost every person who gets arrested thinks that the "bullies with badges" are railroading and abusing them. Unless the cops are not arresting the person who offended them...then its a whole different set of complaints.


 
Are you trying to justify _real_ instances of police brutality? Or are you denying that they occur?

I don't have any doubt that everyone cops arrest protest their innocence and claim they are being abused. Are you denying that _sometimes _those people _are _innocent and _are_ being abused?



> The fact of police work is that you have to use force on people. I think it just goes to show how many "martial artists" have no real clue about what controlling a person who isnt in your MA class is like. IMO most of the "war stories" told around here are either bogus or greatly embellished (and their opinions of what they would be capable of are not based on reality). Its ugly and its difficult and people dont like to see it unless its in the MMA ring.


 
I wouldn't dispute any of this. But you should remember that there are _many_ people on this board who have used their skills outside of the dojo, sometimes in defense of their lives. It isn't _all_ mall ninjas here.



> Most people seem to want to believe that its all "officer friendly" out there. That all the cop has to do is ask someone to comply nicely and its all over and done with.
> 
> Use your hands and you are brutalizing people...use a baton and its assault by an officer...use a Taser to avoid all that ugliness and well that's no good either.


 
I don't think that's the case at all. I think that there are many people who want cops dead and are willing to use force to make their dreams a reality. Does _that_ justify police brutality?


-Rob


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (May 14, 2009)

I'm just curious if anyone _listened_ to the video, as well as watched it.  Listen to what the citizens watching said.  

First, they knew exactly who the problem child was, and told him that he messed up.  But, more importantly in regards to the use of force, as they are hauling away the bad guy, the people on camera can be heard saying

1. "Aw, don't do that," in clear reference to the suspect,

2.  "You could have walked away dude, now you're going for a ride,"

3.  "They gave you a break, you should have just walked away,"

They statements made by the citizens clearly reflect that the guy was not only given the opportunity to leave, but refused to comply.  He clearly resisted the efforts of the officers to physically remove him as well, by the citizens own statements.

And I don't know what video you are seeing, but it is plainly obvious that the cop it punching the side of this guys neck.  The knee was a little bit much, but that is a training issue, not one that he needs to be fired over.

And to put some legaleese out there, force is only excessive based on the amount of damage caused in proportion to the amount of resistance.  If this guy wasn't injured, it is going to be hard to prove that the force was excessive.  Just because the force *could* have caused injury does not mean that the force that was actually used was excessive.  It was not because the suspect was not injured (that we know of.)


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (May 14, 2009)

Here is an example of how, even with a Taser, difficult it can be to take someone into custody if they are resisting. 

http://vimeo.com/4273363


----------



## Sukerkin (May 14, 2009)

It is an exageration to say that I am aghast at some of the pro-police-violence and you-don't-know-how-hard-the-job-is posts I've read in this thread.

However, I am made uneasy by the level of acceptance of such force being used by those whose function is only to enforce the law. It does not bode well for the future of your country if you think it is fine for ordinary citizens to be duffed up, trussed up and hauled off out of public view by those entrusted with your safety. Except of course they're not entrusted with that are they?

As I said before, it's not my country (thank the invisible mythical sky gods) so my opinion means even less than those American's who concur that it is not 'okay' for police to behave in such a fashion. But speaking as someone from a nation nominally less 'free' than yours, as a society you really need to think about where such a road leads before you get there.


----------



## MJS (May 14, 2009)

Empty Hands said:


> Right, you are correct to point out that he wasn't in cuffs. What I meant was he was face down on the ground, with his limbs controlled. The punching cop even had a hand on his neck, pushing him down into the ground. The guy could resist of course, but he had no reasonable ability to strike the officers or otherwise cause damage.


 
Ok, thanks for the clarification.  Had he been sober, there could have been more of a chance to resist, but given his state at the time.....

Of course, I wouldn't say that he was fully cooperating either.


----------



## GBlues (May 14, 2009)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> I'm just curious if anyone _listened_ to the video, as well as watched it. Listen to what the citizens watching said.
> 
> First, they knew exactly who the problem child was, and told him that he messed up. But, more importantly in regards to the use of force, as they are hauling away the bad guy, the people on camera can be heard saying
> 
> ...


 
Yeah and you can also here the bystanders saying this also,

1) Aw don't do that-as he's being punched in the neck
2) You guys should know better than that
then you here
3) see you could have just walked away, now you going to jail

So they weren't just commenting on the drunk but on the actions of the officers as well.


----------



## MJS (May 14, 2009)

blindsage said:


> I'm confused by what video other people are looking at. It's pretty clear to me that this guy is resisting. Now whether or not those blows to the back of the head/neck/shoulder area are abuse or not is difficult to tell because it's hard to tell where, specifically, he's actually hitting. As for whether their hard shots or not? You'd need to be on the receiving end to tell, short distance hits can be extremely hard if delivered right.


 
I don't think its so much that they hit him, but where.  Perhaps one of the resident LEOs can chime in on this but IMO, I'd think that striking may not have been so frowned upon in this case, had it been a few knees driven into this guy thigh, it would have given a different view.


----------



## MJS (May 14, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> youknow, maybe if the police beat the crap out of more people, and arrested less people, jails wouldnt be so overcrowed and people wouldnt be willing to be such asshats in public....


 
Oh, I've heard some stories from my Grandfather, when he was a cop.  It was old school back then, so pulling out the ol' blackjack and cracking someone happened more times than not.


----------



## jks9199 (May 14, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> It is an exageration to say that I am aghast at some of the pro-police-violence and you-don't-know-how-hard-the-job-is posts I've read in this thread.
> 
> However, I am made uneasy by the level of acceptance of such force being used by those whose function is only to enforce the law. It does not bode well for the future of your country if you think it is fine for ordinary citizens to be duffed up, trussed up and hauled off out of public view by those entrusted with your safety. Except of course they're not entrusted with that are they?
> 
> As I said before, it's not my country (thank the invisible mythical sky gods) so my opinion means even less than those American's who concur that it is not 'okay' for police to behave in such a fashion. But speaking as someone from a nation nominally less 'free' than yours, as a society you really need to think about where such a road leads before you get there.


Mark,
In this case, it appears that the drunk idiot was causing an ongoing disruption, and refused to comply with lesser approaches.  Even then, all he had to do was comply with the officers's directions and go with the program.  He didn't; he *chose *to resist.  At that point, we get the reality of violence -- and it's ugly.  It doesn't look pretty or nice.

When it comes time to arrest someone, the cop HAS to win.  That's true whether the cop is in the US or in England or in China or Antarctica.  These officers used force which rather clearly did not cause significant injury to the suspect but accomplished the goal; what were they supposed to do?  Stand in a crowd for saying "pretty please" until he sobered up enough to get with the program?  Especially in a crowd situation, even with someone the whole crowd agrees is a problem child, you have to handle it quickly and effectively -- and without inflaming the crowd.  They did so.  Are there things I might have done differently, especially reviewing it from the comfort of home?  Of course.  Hindsight's wonderful that way.  

In the training hall, it is easy to develop an idealized view of violence.  Our "attacker" gives us the proper attack, and we fluidly and gracefully step away, deflect the attack, and take the "attacker" down with a perfectly executed sweep.  He lands nicely, gets up, dusts himself off... and we trade rolls.  Many people don't even throw the initial "attack" in a way that actually is a threat to their partner...  The reality is that it doesn't go that nicely; think of the difference between choreographed drills like one to five step sparring versus free sparring.  Then add a nice adrenaline cocktail on both sides...  The reality of use of force and violence is that it's simply not going to look nice as a general rule.


----------



## Sukerkin (May 14, 2009)

I don't disagree with those characterisations of the _reality_ of violence at all, Jim.

The point I was trying to make is to highlight the acceptance of such a level of violence from 'ordinary' police officers dealing with (what appears to be) a non-threatening problem of public nuisance.  The only time I have seen similar over here has been from riot police during a riot.

Anyhow, about to lose my net connection - I hope to return to this later tonight (but no promises).


----------



## MJS (May 14, 2009)

Thesemindz said:


> Oh I don't want to mislead you.
> 
> It should come as no surprise that I think their behavior was a gross misapplication of force and an abuse of power. All the arguments about how he was asked to leave, and he was resisting the cuffs, and the strikes weren't _that bad_, and the officers had to resort to overwhelming force in order to subdue the man ASAP, just don't wash with me. The guy was half their size, he could barely stand up even before the assault, and they had him outnumbered and overpowered. My own opinions on state law enforcement aside, they could have held him down, forced the cuffs on, and moved on. I think there are many martial artists on this board who have done much the same to highly trained, _sober, _training partners in class one on one, much less four on one. Even if he was wanted for rape and murder their actions wouldn't have been warranted. If he was being accosted for being drunk and annoying, it's even more unjust.
> 
> ...


 


Twin Fist said:


> yeah, you are right, i think you are not only wrong, but grossly misinformed about what the average cop can and cannot do.
> 
> martial arts take YEARS to learn to do that
> 
> ...


 
Hmm....I have to go with Twin Fist on this one.  When I was a CO, I remember the section on hand to hand, as well as handcuffing, leg cuffs, etc.  I was thinking to myself, "OGM...I'm so glad that I have my martial arts training to fall back on, especially when it comes to the locks."  The academy training is intense, but its short.  So much to cover, so little time.  

Despite him being drunk, he was still putting up a struggle, so he wasn't that easy to deal with.  

I think back to the cell extractions that I saw.  First guy in with a shield, who slams into the guy, a guy for each limb.  Excessive?  IMO, no, of course I'm sure others would say yes.  As always, its easy to armchair QB this, especially when odds are, the QBers have never walked in the shoes of a LEO or CO.  

Lets also take into consideration this seemed to have been a party of some sort, with many drinkers.  The show of force is necessary given the situation.  

As I said, the punching in the neck area may have been a bit much, but striking elsewhere, such as the legs, or using OC or a taser would have been my first pick.


----------



## MJS (May 14, 2009)

Thesemindz said:


> So do citizens. Police are not super-citizens.
> 
> Maybe if people refused to allow bullies with badges to abuse their rights and their fellow citizens, and used armed action to prevent it, we'd see fewer instances of police brutality.
> 
> ...


 
On the flip side, if people stopped being A-Holes when dealing with the police, perhaps half their headaches wouldnt happen.  I mean, the cop tells you to turn around and put your hands behind your back, do it!!  There is always time to deal with whether or not you felt they were in the wrong, later on.  

I'm not saying there are not cops that abuse their power.  But, for every cop, there is at least one citizen who thinks he is above the law too.


----------



## GBlues (May 14, 2009)

jks9199 said:


> REAL use of force is never pretty.
> 
> Like you, I don't see anything at all problematic in this clip. I do see things I would have done differently.... but that's pretty normal. The strikes appear to be to the upper back/shoulder area more than the spinal line or kneck. Nor are they particularly hard strikes. Throughout, the officers did an excellent job of vocalizing their goals (give us your hands). Personally, I would have struck at his upper arm to get it out more than the lower body... I've just found it to be more reliable at making them release that arm to be cuffed.
> 
> The "knee drop" wasn't... the officer did kneel on the arrestee's neck, but he didn't simply drop his weight onto it. See HERE where this sort of thing was discussed at length.


 
Well, he sure didn't kneel on the neck. Watch it again, a little bit closer. He absolutely was not striking to the back/shoulder. I don't understand some of the comments on this issue. This is not interpretative. You can plainly see the cop punching the guy in the side of the neck. You can plainly see him drop his knee into the guys neck. There is no debate over that. You can say that he kneeled, but that's not correct. He may not have dropped with all of his bodyweight, but it still had that moving behind it. It is still a potentially life altering or even ending strike. Because yes it was a STRIKE.  Regardless of the drunks resistance, if somebody was punching me in the side of the neck you damn right I'm going to resist. It's only natural. These officers were out of line. I'm not saying that they shouldn't detain someone, but there is a point where you are not detaining someone any longer, and your assaulting them. This man didn't resist. They walked over and they pulled him out of his chair, and threw him on the ground and began to punch him in the neck. One thing that is being overlooked are the things that you can't control. That being pain, and injury. You get punched in the neck, it hurts your hands want to cover that area to stop the attack, nothing that you can do to stop that reaction from happening. Especially when your being struck repeatedly. So they can say that he was resisting and you can say that he was resisting, but I will maintain that he wasn't. Because I don't see that in the video, and his body is reacting to the pain that he is recieving from the excessive punches and the subsequent knee dropped in his neck. 

It seems to be, becoming pretty evident that unless they are arresting small women and children our police forces suck! 4 of them can barely handle one drunk. Come on!


----------



## redantstyle (May 14, 2009)

"poo-pooing punches..."

c'mon,  those hits where on his trapezius, not his neck.

and really, his angle of attack was not going to compress the spine area in any way, and that's how you make damages.

not a knee drop?

sure it was, just a baby one.

and it came at the right angle.

regards.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (May 14, 2009)

GBlues said:


> Well, he sure didn't kneel on the neck. Watch it again, a little bit closer. He absolutely was not striking to the back/shoulder. I don't understand some of the comments on this issue. This is not interpretative. You can plainly see the cop punching the guy in the side of the neck. You can plainly see him drop his knee into the guys neck. There is no debate over that. You can say that he kneeled, but that's not correct. He may not have dropped with all of his bodyweight, but it still had that moving behind it. It is still a potentially life altering or even ending strike. Because yes it was a STRIKE. Regardless of the drunks resistance, if somebody was punching me in the side of the neck you damn right I'm going to resist. It's only natural. These officers were out of line. I'm not saying that they shouldn't detain someone, but there is a point where you are not detaining someone any longer, and your assaulting them. This man didn't resist. They walked over and they pulled him out of his chair, and threw him on the ground and began to punch him in the neck. One thing that is being overlooked are the things that you can't control. That being pain, and injury. You get punched in the neck, it hurts your hands want to cover that area to stop the attack, nothing that you can do to stop that reaction from happening. Especially when your being struck repeatedly. So they can say that he was resisting and you can say that he was resisting, but I will maintain that he wasn't. Because I don't see that in the video, and his body is reacting to the pain that he is recieving from the excessive punches and the subsequent knee dropped in his neck.
> 
> It seems to be, becoming pretty evident that unless they are arresting small women and children our police forces suck! 4 of them can barely handle one drunk. Come on!


 
Your missing some very basic issues here.  

It is not the potential of injury that is at issue when it comes to excessive force.  It is *actual* injury in proportion to the resistance being offered.  If the guy suffered no injuries, how then can you say that it is excessive.  In point of fact, in certain situation, one could say that it wasn't enough force. 

For example, is it excessive force if I hit a guy 15 times in the face, cause not injuries, but still fail to obtain compliance?  Sure, 15 times may seem like a lot, but if it is not accomplishing the task, then by definition it is not excessive.  

You seem to think that because you can't see it in the video, the guy wasn't resisting, ignoring the fact that at the same time as the picked the guy up, a citizen walks right in front of the camera, blocking the view.  You have no idea what actually occured in those few moments, but make a claim of fact that he was not resisting.  

But lets examine the video.  You can see that the officer who initially tried to pick up the suspect was "thrown off".  How did that occur, in your opinion.  You can even hear the crowd tell the guy, "Don't do that," and "that's just dumb," even before the cops start punching him. How do you account for these statements made by the public?  

Another thing is that you make an assumption about his reaction.  This guy, according to reports, was drunk.  The level of pain tolerance that a drunk person has can be significantly higher then that of a sober person.  But even then, do you feel that officers should make an assumption that he is only reaching for his neck after he has been punched due to pain?  I can tell you that I have personally struck people, and the only thing they attempted to reach for was my weapon (baton, fist, etc.) or reach for their own.  

What I am suggesting to you is that you should feel free to question the actions of any law enforcement officer who is doing their job.  That is you right in a free society and I encourage you to do so when you feel it is appropriate.  However, you are making assumptions based on, in my opinion, a lack of expertise on how fights actually occur, how they occur in a law enforcement context, how they occur when someone is intoxicated, and the legal context in which a use of force is judged.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (May 14, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> I don't disagree with those characterisations of the _reality_ of violence at all, Jim.
> 
> The point I was trying to make is to highlight the acceptance of such a level of violence from 'ordinary' police officers dealing with (what appears to be) a non-threatening problem of public nuisance. The only time I have seen similar over here has been from riot police during a riot.
> 
> Anyhow, about to lose my net connection - I hope to return to this later tonight (but no promises).


 
I would suggest to you that if the police need to use force, it is always a "threatening" problem.  Just because he is initially being detained for being a public nuisance, does not mean that he is not dangerous, or even armed.

What I find interesting is that you seem to feel that the police should give a suspect an assumption of compliance.  I can tell you now, from psychological studies on the mind-set of officers who have been killed and assaulted in the line of duty, one of the major issues that comes to light is that those officers typically used force later then most of their counterparts, which has a correlation on them being injured or killed.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 14, 2009)

Regarding the complaints about the overwhelming force...

Consider the public setting.  It may well 'look bad' to have 4 or 5 officers overpower a suspect and hustle him away, but I can guarantee you that if it were 1 or 2 officers, and they proceeded to wrestle with the suspect for an extended period, or try to 'talk him' into letting them handcuff him, they very quickly would have been surrounded by the curious crowd.

At first, the drunken patrons would be curious.  Then they would see something on the part of the police they didn't like.  Then they would start trying to interject themselves into the situation.  Someone would yell "POLICE BRUTALITY!" and more people would come running.  Someone would push one of the cops.  Someone would reach for one of the cop's holstered guns.  And it would be off to the races - but not the horse race they came to see.

For those of you who have never worn the badge - please - my utmost respect for you, but you haven't the first clue what you're talking about.  I am quite aware of the many instances of brutality committed by overworked, stressed-out cops and even by just plain bad cops.  This isn't one of them.  They did what they had to do, quickly, efficiently, and safely.  If you've never faced a slowly-angering crowd who doesn't want you to take Billy Badass away from them, you really don't know what you're talking about and should reconsider your condemnation.

When force is used, it must be overwhelming.  This ain't a dance, people.  For the safety of the suspect and the safety of the cops, they need to cuff him and stuff him, NOW.  They did.  Yay, them.  End of story.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 14, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> It is an exageration to say that I am aghast at some of the pro-police-violence and you-don't-know-how-hard-the-job-is posts I've read in this thread.
> 
> However, I am made uneasy by the level of acceptance of such force being used by those whose function is only to enforce the law. It does not bode well for the future of your country if you think it is fine for ordinary citizens to be duffed up, trussed up and hauled off out of public view by those entrusted with your safety. Except of course they're not entrusted with that are they?
> 
> As I said before, it's not my country (thank the invisible mythical sky gods) so my opinion means even less than those American's who concur that it is not 'okay' for police to behave in such a fashion. But speaking as someone from a nation nominally less 'free' than yours, as a society you really need to think about where such a road leads before you get there.


In a perfect world, citizens would obey lawful orders of the police, and the police would never give unlawful orders. We live in an imperfect world.  You'll hear "cops are human" as the excuse for when they go too far. When they take our their anger and frustrations and get in a sucker punch, or continue past the point of subdue. Cops may be human, but, we want them to be above the petty, to be people we can trust, depend on, believe in.  When you read or watch some of these videos, it destroys that. You'll hear things like "we're going to send them to sensitivity training". I'm sorry, but my 15 yr old nephew knows its not acceptable to shoot someone in the back, shove a lamp, baton, or maglight up their ***, or torture someone. One shouldn't have to be told this, or trained against it, IMO. Yet all of that has happened, done by those entrusted and sworn to "protect and serve".  It's heartbreaking for those who are decent cops to read and see, and for them who took it seriously and who put their lives on the line every day, to see the loss of public trust, and respect as a result of it.  

I don't believe that the police will ever get so powerful that we all live in fear of them. Some parts of the US are doing their best to disarm as many victims as they can, others are solidifying the peoples right to defense. Camera's are everywhere. The cops who executed the man in NY tried to steal all of the cameras, they failed, and not their crime is up on the internet. This will continue, until they pass laws forbidding the recording of law enforcement, which violates the US Constitution, and will be ignored anyway, because we can and it is right, even if it is made illegal.

The ugly side of police action will always be shown in the light.  It's a damn shame, the same attention isn't given to the bright side. There's a hell of a lot more Good cops than Bad cops out there, and they deserve acknowledgment.


----------



## GBlues (May 14, 2009)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Your missing some very basic issues here.
> 
> It is not the potential of injury that is at issue when it comes to excessive force. It is *actual* injury in proportion to the resistance being offered. If the guy suffered no injuries, how then can you say that it is excessive. In point of fact, in certain situation, one could say that it wasn't enough force.
> 
> ...


 
I would go back and rewatch the video as I did not notice those particular instances happening, however I am having a problem with the video at this moment, rest assured I will go back at the first available opportunity where it doesn't say an error has a occured and rewatch it again. I watched several times, and yes, I'm not perfect I could have missed some details. However, my "lack of expertise in how real fights happen", is overshadowed by the ******** that I keep reading.  I do not know how they happen in a law enforcement context, I do know how they occur when some one is intoxicate, and when not intoxicated in a civilian environment. Now that being said, my only issue is with the targets. That was excessive. Unless you plan to knock the guy out, or break his neck, there is no reason for that area to be targeted period. There isn't much a guy can do with his head to fight back, when 4 guys are on top of him. He could bite, but if your stupid enough to put your appendages close enough for him to do that, you need to get bit. He aint gonna head butt, you with his face shoved in the ground for damn sure. I agree with MJS if they had targeted his thighs, or some other pain compliant target, I wouldn't have said anything other than, 'IT doesn't look to me like he's resisting" I wouldn't have said anything about the punches or the knee. Even at that the punches don't really bother me all that much. My concern is the knee. It very easily in an adrenalized situation could have been much, much, worse. THat is all I have been saying. Yet I keep seeing people say, ' Nah, that wasn't the neck, that was his shoulder. He didn't drop that knee he just kneeled on the guys neck." When it doesn't take a freaking expert to see that isn't the case. You can say that, you can believe that, you can also believe that the moon is made out of green cheese, that isn't going to make it true. Just means that's what you believe. WHen the reality is there are LEO's on this thread, standing up for there brothers in blue, and I can't buy there explanations because the video to my view point from what  I can see and gather, does not support there position. THey assume the officers are in the right, because they are police officers. But that doesn't mean they were right. It just means that they are police officers. And I know that they are human like everybody else. However, being officers they have to think about the potential of the things that they do. What if this guy had 2 ruptured disks in his neck? Just because he doesn't appear to be injured doesn't mean  that he isn't. It just means that he didn't appear to be. Adrenaline can keep you going along time without feeling pain, it's afterwards that you feel it. THis man may very well have been injured. We don't know that. Sure as hell wasn't because they didn't try too.


----------



## Sukerkin (May 14, 2009)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> What I find interesting is that you seem to feel that the police should give a suspect an assumption of compliance.


 
I snipped out the parts that I concurred with in the above.

I'm glad the word "seem" was in that :tup:.  I do the same also when trying to show what my reaction to what someone wrote was.

However, all I have been trying to do - not very well it would seem - was get people to take a critical look at what is carried out by their police service and see how it appears in an objective light.  

To help that along, I have also being trying to show how the police in Britain behave in an entirely different fashion - a mirror from across the sea, so to speak.  

We are subjects of the Crown rather than (supposedly) free citizens of a republic and one of us so misused by police officers as the chap in the video appears to be would have a fair amount of recourse in the eyes of the law if we were not violently resisting or in the course of actions likely to present a danger to the public.

To me, the casual acceptance of overt violence as a means of law enforcement brings a sense of forboding as to where a society is heading.  It certainly does not reflect well on the level of violence inherent in said society.

Ah well.  I shall just accept that in this I don't understand how it can be seen as 'normal' and you shall have to accept that you cannot convince me of same.

Wishy-washy Liberal signing off.


----------



## GBlues (May 14, 2009)

So I got it working again and I watched it about another 3-4 times. Couple of things, uhm it is not definitive if he pushed one of the police officers away or not. Again like it was said by 5-0 kenpo a guy does step in the way right at that moment. However, one thing that I did not catch earlier, was why are there soldiers present? And why did one of them look like he was wanting to jump in and do something to the perpetrator, like help out the cops. Again, once this guys hands were grabbed, he was pretty much in the air, and the first strike comes to his head. HE is then taken down to the ground, where the officer on his left arm gains control of it, and that's when the punches come to his neck, with the yell, "Quit Fighting, quit fighting, quit fighting." He is then accosted with a knee to the neck and the words stop fighting, and if you'll notice his left leg, comes up off of the ground. YOu'll notice also that this officer also intentionally turns this persons head to the right, and applies pressure on the back right side of this man's skull, before dropping his knee. However, I will change my position as I am now more awake than I was at 6 o'clock this morning and state that it can be argued that he was attempting to resist to some degree. ALthough, with four men on top of you, one of them punching you and eventually kneeing you, I don't see how there could be too much resistance. THey must have known that this guy was like a super soldier or something.  SO that being said I will concede that this man may have been resisting, I still however maintain, that the knee for me personally was one step too far in this instance. Especially since the mans whole body compressed or sunk into the ground. YOu most definitely can see the weight drop on the individual. I will not say that I was wrong, because I wasn't. I also would like to add, these cops all 8 of them, 4 on top of the individual and 4 more watching plus 2 soldiers standing by in the wings, acted more like a group of thugs than they did professionals. I say this because of the video itself. What I can determine from the video, right off of the bat, I see an individual who sitting in a chair minding his own business, when one cop is approaching with 2 more behind him says, "LEt's go hoss", and a fourth joins in with 2 soldiers dead on there heels. If these officers were not in uniform, from the video alone you would figure they were a gang of thugs going after the little guy for a little bit of fun. That's my take, and you can rip it up all you want. Oh, and once he was on the ground, he may have been fighting to keep his arms from being handcuffed by moving them around, but I do not personally constitute that as fighting. Because for all we know this man may have been innocent of all alligations against him. Innocent until proven guilty right?


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist (May 14, 2009)

The punches look to me are to Trapezius maybe Brachialis which can causes pain allowing for the arm to loosen up as they cuff him.
To me the knee was on the Brachialis resulting on greater presure and inmobility. I don't think it was on the neck.


----------



## Archangel M (May 14, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> If what is in that video is okay by you chaps in the Land of the Free, then that is that.  It's not what is acceptable over here - not for such trivial offences as 'drunk and not all that disorderly' at any rate.



Oh really?

[yt]qgtWXfd7rcQ[/yt]


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 14, 2009)

GBlues said:


> Oh, and once he was on the ground, he may have been fighting to keep his arms from being handcuffed by moving them around, but I do not personally constitute that as fighting.



Resisting arrest is resisting arrest.  You can call it a pancake if you like, but it is still resisting arrest.



> Because for all we know this man may have been innocent of all alligations against him.



Doesn't matter.



> Innocent until proven guilty right?



Presumption of innocence does not equal freedom from arrest.  People get arrested all the time for things they are found not guilty of later on in court.  That does not give them the right to resist arrest.

If it did, anyone who was being arrested would simply state "I'm innocent, therefore I will fight you putting on handcuffs, and you can't do anything about it, because I'm innocent."  Nope, doesn't work like that.

You get arrested, your *** is going to jail.  You can go peacefully or you can go to the hospital to get your face stitched up first, but you're going to jail.  You make bail, you get an attorney, and you get found not guilty, more power to you - but that doesn't make the arrest wrong, and even if I had to twist your head around three times and beat you like Rodney King to get the cuffs on you, too bad, so sad.  Nobody has the right to resist arrest, regardless of their guilt or innocence.

I can't tell you how many times I was confronted by angry citizens saying things like _"I demand to know what you are arresting me for,"_ and then thinking the subject was open to debate.  It isn't.  You don't get a vote, you don't get a say, you can't argue me out of it.  Save it for your lawyer and a judge.  I arrest you, you go to jail - period.  Keep your yap shut and it will probably do you good, because any unwarned spontaneous statement you make WILL get used against you, and NO I do not have to read you your Miranda rights first.

Stupid citizen assumptions:

1) You have to be in agreement that you're being arrested.  You don't.
2) You have to believe you did something wrong.  You don't.
3) You have the right to see the witness, the evidence, etc, against you when you're being arrested.  You don't.
4) I have to read you your rights.  I don't.
5) You get a phone call.  Not now, sunshine, ask the turnkey when you get to jail.
6) I have to tell you what I'm arresting you for.  I don't.
7) You do not have to comply with my orders.  You do - and more importantly, you will.  If I'm breaking the law or infringing on your rights, you can sue me and get my badge, etc - once you get a lawyer and file suit.  Not today, sunshine.
8) You can decide whether or not you're under arrest.  Nope.  If I say tag, you're it.  Come quietly or get mussed up - but you're coming either way.


----------



## Archangel M (May 14, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Presumption of innocence does not equal freedom from arrest.  People get arrested all the time for things they are found not guilty of later on in court.  That does not give them the right to resist arrest.
> 
> If it did, anyone who was being arrested would simply state "I'm innocent, therefore I will fight you putting on handcuffs, and you can't do anything about it, because I'm innocent."  Nope, doesn't work like that.



Exactly.

I find it amazing and disturbing how many people don't understand this. "Innocent until proven guilty" doesn't apply to arrests. If you were "guilty" at arrest all we would have to do would be deposit you at the local prison and determine your sentence.


----------



## jks9199 (May 14, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> I don't disagree with those characterisations of the _reality_ of violence at all, Jim.
> 
> The point I was trying to make is to highlight the acceptance of such a level of violence from 'ordinary' police officers dealing with (what appears to be) a non-threatening problem of public nuisance.  The only time I have seen similar over here has been from riot police during a riot.
> 
> Anyhow, about to lose my net connection - I hope to return to this later tonight (but no promises).


I'm not sure what you mean by "ordinary" police.  Maybe it's a cultural divide -- but that scenario is a pretty typical job for normal cops here.  I don't know what event this was at -- but it seems to have been some sort of big event like a concert or the 4th of July picnics, judging by the crowd.  The cops involved may have been assigned as a detail to the event or not -- and we don't see anything that led up to this scenario.  The comments in video seem to be from bystanders; they seem pretty close to the camera.  

When the suspect didn't comply with directions, the cops made him.  The first time I did that for real was something like my 2nd shift.  Maybe my first.  It goes with the territory, and we're not calling in a riot squad for a single idiot in the crowd.  Hell, my personal "best" was hooking 3 idiots myself.  (Fortunately, they all complied.  My squad car looked like a clown car when I got the jail... but they all stayed with the program.)

And if you think that's scary force... you don't wanna see how we hit a house on a search warrant in my current assignment.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 14, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> Exactly.
> 
> I find it amazing and disturbing how many people don't understand this. "Innocent until proven guilty" doesn't apply to arrests. If you were "guilty" at arrest all we would have to do would be deposit you at the local prison and determine your sentence.



It used to amaze (and infuriate) me how many drunks thought they were allowed to 'discuss things' with me about whether or not they were going to be arrested.  They would be just getting ready to 'explain it all to me' when I put the hand-irons on, then they start getting squirrely and trying not to let their hands go behind their back, all while saying _"Now just hold on a minute, let me explain, see, no wait, let me explain, no, hold on, I'm trying to tell you what happened!"   _Yeah, they all have an interesting story to tell you, which starts with them minding their own business and ends with a bizarre case of mistaken identity which they can fully understand how I could be mistaken, but I am and could I please let them go now?

And citizens will gather around while all this is going on and try to argue with me on the drunk's behalf, and then someone puts their hands on me, and I draw my nightstick and give them five from the sky before they can even think about it, and then the crowd REALLY starts to get ugly, wanting to know what I did that for, and wanting to know - personally, to each of them, in a way they can completely understand WHY I am taking their good old buddy what's his name to jail, and the next thing I know, I've got my back to the wall, a drunk in hand-irons sitting on the ground next to me, and my weapon out, while I call OINOA, code 3 on my handset and hope they find me before the crowd takes me apart.

No.  I tell you you're under arrest, you best be cooperating, sunshine, or I'll stick my Manodnock up your jaxie and make you a perpsicle.  You ARE going to jail, and if you resist, I remove your arms and beat you with them.  NOW.  There will be no discussion, sweetness.  Get those hands behind you before I twist your snarglies off.  You may miss them in years to come.

Wow.  Talk about a flashback!  Glad I don't do that anymore.


----------



## jks9199 (May 14, 2009)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> What I am suggesting to you is that you should feel free to question the actions of any law enforcement officer who is doing their job.  That is you right in a free society and I encourage you to do so when you feel it is appropriate.  However, you are making assumptions based on, in my opinion, a lack of expertise on how fights actually occur, how they occur in a law enforcement context, how they occur when someone is intoxicated, and the legal context in which a use of force is judged.



I absolutely agree with this.

In fact, I've said many times that if you see the police do something and you think it's wrong -- report it to the agency.   They may explain what happened to you, and change your mind.  (I recall one video of an officer slamming a suspect's face into the trunk of his car which drew a lot flack.  Until people learned that the arrestee had been grabbing the cop's privates...)  Or they may end up disciplining the officer.  Most likely, it'll be somewhere in between.

And if you don't feel like the local agency responded to your complaint appropriately, report it up the chain.  Your state police or attorney general may investigate -- or you can even get the FBI involved if you feel that there was a federal violation (usually, read that as civil rights violation).


----------



## jks9199 (May 14, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Presumption of innocence does not equal freedom from arrest.  People get arrested all the time for things they are found not guilty of later on in court.  That does not give them the right to resist arrest.
> 
> If it did, anyone who was being arrested would simply state "I'm innocent, therefore I will fight you putting on handcuffs, and you can't do anything about it, because I'm innocent."  Nope, doesn't work like that.
> 
> You get arrested, your *** is going to jail.  You can go peacefully or you can go to the hospital to get your face stitched up first, but you're going to jail.  You make bail, you get an attorney, and you get found not guilty, more power to you - but that doesn't make the arrest wrong, and even if I had to twist your head around three times and beat you like Rodney King to get the cuffs on you, too bad, so sad.  Nobody has the right to resist arrest, regardless of their guilt or innocence.





Archangel M said:


> Exactly.
> 
> I find it amazing and disturbing how many people don't understand this. "Innocent until proven guilty" doesn't apply to arrests. If you were "guilty" at arrest all we would have to do would be deposit you at the local prison and determine your sentence.



It's very simple.  The cops want to arrest you, go with the program.  If they're wrong, you may be "de-arrested" shortly as they sort that out, or you can seek redress later.  But if you resist, buck, or run away... even if you were right, you're likely to get hurt.

Go with the program, and address it later.  Sue 'em.  Complain on 'em.  Sue and complain on them.


----------



## Empty Hands (May 14, 2009)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> If the guy suffered no injuries, how then can you say that it is excessive.



So if they had tried to shoot him and missed, it wouldn't have been an excessive reaction?


----------



## Twin Fist (May 14, 2009)

no blood, no foul


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 14, 2009)

Empty Hands said:


> So if they had tried to shoot him and missed, it wouldn't have been an excessive reaction?



That officer would need more range time.


----------



## blindsage (May 14, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> No. I tell you you're under arrest, you best be cooperating, sunshine, or I'll stick my Manodnock up your jaxie and make you a perpsicle. You ARE going to jail, and if you resist, I remove your arms and beat you with them. NOW. There will be no discussion, sweetness. Get those hands behind you before I twist your snarglies off. You may miss them in years to come.
> 
> Wow. Talk about a flashback! Glad I don't do that anymore.


I'm glad you don't either. I absolutely accept the need for force usage by LEOs and that resisting, whether you think you're guilty or not, is not only a bad idea but needs to be addressed by force, but their are limits and I'm, personally, a little disturb by the off-handed way some of your comments come across like "I'll stick my Manodnock up your jaxie and make you a perpsicle". I think the level of force necessary for LEOs to do their jobs is generally more than the public is familiar or comfortable with, but comments like this and a couple others you've made, don't help their cause. There are limits. Sticking a baton 'up' anywhere for any reason other than your life being directly threatened is one of them. Because you have the right, duty and obligation to use force to do your job does not make any use of force you decide to use acceptable.


----------



## Archangel M (May 14, 2009)

The level of force for batons, tasers, hand and so on are not for "when our lives are threatened"...thats what the pistols are for.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 14, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> The level of force for batons, tasers, hand and so on are not for "when our lives are threatened"...thats what the pistols are for.



As I recall it was '_that level of force necessary to effect the apprehension_'.  No more, no less.  Absolutely agree that if life is in jeopardy, the boom stick gets to say hello.


----------



## redantstyle (May 14, 2009)

JCA, 

no desire to quibble with you, but i still think the the shin is across the neck.  it looks like he tried to strike the trap with knee and slid down a bit. 

regards.


----------



## blindsage (May 14, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> The level of force for batons, tasers, hand and so on are not for "when our lives are threatened"...thats what the pistols are for.


I didn't say they were.  I said the type and level of force of sticking a baton 'up' anywhere would not be acceptable except under those conditions.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 14, 2009)

blindsage said:


> Because you have the right, duty and obligation to use force to do your job does not make any use of force you decide to use acceptable.



No, it doesn't.  Hyperbole, you know.  When people yell _"Kill the ump"_ at a baseball game, they don't really want someone to kill the umpire, and they'd be horrified if someone did.

I was far from sadistic when I worked in law enforcement, as were most of my compatriots.  But we had a job to do.  If the job is to arrest someone, they're getting arrested.  That can be as simple as spreading 'em out on the hood of my cruiser, patting them down for weapons, and hooking them up - or it can be a tussle.  But the point is that there isn't going to be a discussion, or a debate, and there certainly is not going to be a fair fight.


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist (May 14, 2009)

> JCA,
> 
> no desire to quibble with you, but i still think the the shin is across the neck. it looks like he tried to strike the trap with knee and slid down a bit.
> 
> regards.


 Hey Redantstyle no problem either way it is difficult to tell.

All the best.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 14, 2009)

Empty Hands said:


> So if they had tried to shoot him and missed, it wouldn't have been an excessive reaction?





Bill Mattocks said:


> That officer would need more range time.



Or a candidate for Stormtrooper school? (Sorry, had to.)


----------



## Archangel M (May 14, 2009)

blindsage said:


> I didn't say they were.  I said the type and level of force of sticking a baton 'up' anywhere would not be acceptable except under those conditions.




Oh come on now! If you didn't know that he was being hyperbolic than we have a major communication difference goin here.

When I say I "put a boot up his ***" it doesnt mean I stuck my foot in his rectum.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 14, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> Oh come on now! If you didn't know that he was being hyperbolic than we have a major communication difference goin here.
> 
> When I say I "put a boot up his ***" it doesnt mean I stuck my foot in his rectum.



Which will completely ruin a good pair of corfams.


----------



## MJS (May 14, 2009)

GBlues said:


> Well, he sure didn't kneel on the neck. Watch it again, a little bit closer. He absolutely was not striking to the back/shoulder. I don't understand some of the comments on this issue. This is not interpretative. You can plainly see the cop punching the guy in the side of the neck. You can plainly see him drop his knee into the guys neck. There is no debate over that. You can say that he kneeled, but that's not correct. He may not have dropped with all of his bodyweight, but it still had that moving behind it. It is still a potentially life altering or even ending strike. Because yes it was a STRIKE. Regardless of the drunks resistance, if somebody was punching me in the side of the neck you damn right I'm going to resist. It's only natural. These officers were out of line. I'm not saying that they shouldn't detain someone, but there is a point where you are not detaining someone any longer, and your assaulting them. This man didn't resist. They walked over and they pulled him out of his chair, and threw him on the ground and began to punch him in the neck. One thing that is being overlooked are the things that you can't control. That being pain, and injury. You get punched in the neck, it hurts your hands want to cover that area to stop the attack, nothing that you can do to stop that reaction from happening. Especially when your being struck repeatedly. So they can say that he was resisting and you can say that he was resisting, but I will maintain that he wasn't. Because I don't see that in the video, and his body is reacting to the pain that he is recieving from the excessive punches and the subsequent knee dropped in his neck.


 
It looked to me, like he was resisting as they began to take him down, and that is when the punches started.  



> It seems to be, becoming pretty evident that unless they are arresting small women and children our police forces suck! 4 of them can barely handle one drunk. Come on!


 
Lack of training? Possibly, and it was mentioned in other posts that the training isn't extensive.  He was intoxicated, but apparently he was coheriant (sp) enough to struggle.  As I said, I'd have opted for OC or a taser that a few were carrying over the hits.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (May 14, 2009)

Empty Hands said:


> So if they had tried to shoot him and missed, it wouldn't have been an excessive reaction?


 
In this situation, it would be an excessive *reaction.*  But, also realize that I stated that the amount of force used *in proportion to the amount of resistance. *

Let me put this another way.  If a particular type of weapon is seen as reasonable, then the amount of injury sustained by the suspect based on the continued or lack of continuance of resistance by a suspect is the determiner of whether the force is excessive.

In this case, if personal body weapons (hands, feet, head) are considered an appropriate tool for use in this situation, then the determination of whether the force was excessive is based on two things, whether the suspect was resisting (or continuing to resist) and amount, and the amount of injury sustained by the suspect.  

I will see if I can find the case law which speaks to this.


----------



## MJS (May 14, 2009)

GBlues said:


> So I got it working again and I watched it about another 3-4 times. Couple of things, uhm it is not definitive if he pushed one of the police officers away or not. Again like it was said by 5-0 kenpo a guy does step in the way right at that moment. However, one thing that I did not catch earlier, was why are there soldiers present? And why did one of them look like he was wanting to jump in and do something to the perpetrator, like help out the cops. Again, once this guys hands were grabbed, he was pretty much in the air, and the first strike comes to his head. HE is then taken down to the ground, where the officer on his left arm gains control of it, and that's when the punches come to his neck, with the yell, "Quit Fighting, quit fighting, quit fighting." He is then accosted with a knee to the neck and the words stop fighting, and if you'll notice his left leg, comes up off of the ground. YOu'll notice also that this officer also intentionally turns this persons head to the right, and applies pressure on the back right side of this man's skull, before dropping his knee. However, I will change my position as I am now more awake than I was at 6 o'clock this morning and state that it can be argued that he was attempting to resist to some degree. ALthough, with four men on top of you, one of them punching you and eventually kneeing you, I don't see how there could be too much resistance. THey must have known that this guy was like a super soldier or something. SO that being said I will concede that this man may have been resisting, I still however maintain, that the knee for me personally was one step too far in this instance. Especially since the mans whole body compressed or sunk into the ground. YOu most definitely can see the weight drop on the individual. I will not say that I was wrong, because I wasn't. I also would like to add, these cops all 8 of them, 4 on top of the individual and 4 more watching plus 2 soldiers standing by in the wings, acted more like a group of thugs than they did professionals. I say this because of the video itself. What I can determine from the video, right off of the bat, I see an individual who sitting in a chair minding his own business, when one cop is approaching with 2 more behind him says, "LEt's go hoss", and a fourth joins in with 2 soldiers dead on there heels. If these officers were not in uniform, from the video alone you would figure they were a gang of thugs going after the little guy for a little bit of fun. That's my take, and you can rip it up all you want. Oh, and once he was on the ground, he may have been fighting to keep his arms from being handcuffed by moving them around, but I do not personally constitute that as fighting. Because for all we know this man may have been innocent of all alligations against him. Innocent until proven guilty right?


 
Part of this was blocked by the guy in the red shirt, but it seems to me that is when the resistance started.  What this boils down to is simple....as I said in another post, if people stopped being a-holes and just cooperated initially and sorted it all out later, half their headaches wouldnt exist.  Why resist?  It isn't clear why this guy is being removed, but there must be some reason, and IMO, that reason is key to this thread.  Doing anything other than allowing them to cuff you is resisting.


----------



## GBlues (May 15, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Resisting arrest is resisting arrest. You can call it a pancake if you like, but it is still resisting arrest.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Now let me tell you something sunshine. You absolutely do have to read me my miranda rights, once I've been arrested. Go tell that crap to somebody else. But, hey thanks for the tip, about false arrests. It's cops like you that kill the innocent guys next door because the swat team got the wrong address on the warrant, while the **** bag next door scoots out of town. You tell me I'm arrested and I'd better have done something, cause you'll HAVE to kill me to get me in jail Period. And I love number 8 must be that nobody ever gets away from the cops, there supermen. That's why there aren't any wanted posters anywhere's right. Cause once you say tag you always get your man. What a crock.


----------



## jks9199 (May 15, 2009)

I've been advised that some people are perceiving a "Blue Wall of Silence" going on here.

I'm pretty confident in saying that there's nothing of the sort.  I think it's telling that those who have the professional training and experience are pretty much in agreement that, even if it wasn't handled quite the way they would have, the use of force in question was reasonable and appropriate.  If you search, you can find plenty of cases where we don't all agree on a particular situation, so I think it says something that we do here.  Whether that's something about the training we receive, or policing in the US in general, or how outsiders perceive it, I don't know.  But it says something.  

And it puts me in mind of an event that happened in my area a few years ago.  An officer makes a traffic stop on a car, and arrests the driver for DUI, and a few other charges. The driver, a petite female who happens to be a cupcake baker, resists, and in the struggle, falls to the ground, landing on her face. Her nose is broken, and she goes to the press.

She's interviewed by a TV news crew; she's sitting in a huge, overstuffed chair, wrapped in blankets, and looks tiny. Except for the two huge black eyes that accompanied the broken nose... YIKES. The cops look terrible. 

Except it turns out even her friends that were with her that night are admitting that she was drunk, being worse than obnoxiously rude, and resisted arrest. The FBI is even invited in to review the case -- and finds no misconduct.

Lots of people don't hear about those last details, though.  They didn't get the press coverage... though the girl certainly did fall out of the press coverage pretty quickly.


----------



## Archangel M (May 15, 2009)

GBlues said:


> Now let me tell you something sunshine. You absolutely do have to read me my miranda rights, once I've been arrested.



Tell YOU what "sunshine" that sentence alone tells me that you dont know squat about what you are talking about. That is one of the most misunderstood (by the masses) things about police work out there. I typically hear it from smartass teenagers or clueless "jailhouse lawyers"

Let me guess..you think that if I dont read you Miranda rights then somehow you get to walk away from all charges right? Puaghhahah!

I dont HAVE to do any such thing.

If you are under arrest AND I want to question you (and I want to use what you say) THEN I have to read you Miranda. If you are free to go OR if I dont want to question you then no Miranda is required (hell I've probably only Mirandized 1-5% of any of my arrests).

Every clueless loudmouth that whines "you didnt read me my rights!" Gets the reply..."You have the right to remain silent....NOW USE IT!"

Miranda Rights for Idiots


----------



## jks9199 (May 15, 2009)

GBlues said:


> Now let me tell you something sunshine. You absolutely do have to read me my miranda rights, once I've been arrested. Go tell that crap to somebody else. But, hey thanks for the tip, about false arrests. It's cops like you that kill the innocent guys next door because the swat team got the wrong address on the warrant, while the **** bag next door scoots out of town. You tell me I'm arrested and I'd better have done something, cause you'll HAVE to kill me to get me in jail Period. And I love number 8 must be that nobody ever gets away from the cops, there supermen. That's why there aren't any wanted posters anywhere's right. Cause once you say tag you always get your man. What a crock.


Miranda only applies when two elements are present: custody and interrogation.  If you're arrested, and the officer is not asking you questions about the offense (booking related questions don't count -- stuff like name, DOB, etc.), Miranda rights aren't implicated.

And, yes, it is possible to escape.  Of course, you'd better be absolutely, 100% certain that a judge is going to agree that the officer didn't have probable cause to support the arrest -- because if he did, no matter the eventual outcome of the case, you're wrong.  And, even though the initial charge may fall apart -- escape and assaulting an officer/resisting arrest or whatever it's described as will hold up.  And probable cause is not the same as proof beyond a reasonable doubt.  It ain't even close.

It's really simple; all that's needed for arrest is that the arresting officer have the authority to make the arrest, and has probable cause to support the arrest.  It's a courtesy to explain why you are being arrested -- but all that's really necessary is for the cop to attempt to take you into custody.

While Bill Mattocks's comments are a bit glib, there's a lot of truth to them.


----------



## Archangel M (May 15, 2009)

jks9199 said:


> And, yes, it is possible to escape.  Of course, you'd better be absolutely, 100% certain that a judge is going to agree that the officer didn't have probable cause to support the arrest -- because if he did, no matter the eventual outcome of the case, you're wrong.  And, even though the initial charge may fall apart -- escape and assaulting an officer/resisting arrest or whatever it's described as will hold up.  And probable cause is not the same as proof beyond a reasonable doubt.  It ain't even close.
> 
> It's really simple; all that's needed for arrest is that the arresting officer have the authority to make the arrest, and has probable cause to support the arrest.  It's a courtesy to explain why you are being arrested -- but all that's really necessary is for the cop to attempt to take you into custody.



Yup. And something people have to realize as well is that "probable cause" is not "guilty". I hear the old "innocent until proven guilty" applied to arrest situations FAR too often. Guilt or innocence is determined by a Judge and/or Jury, not police officers. We just need PC.

And if you dont think we hear "Im innocent man" from almost everybody we deal with...well you need to do a few ride-a-longs.

You very well could be innocent, THAT doesn't mean that the Officer doesn't have PC. If you fight thinking that your innocence means that the officer is "unlawfully arresting" you, you could be dead wrong. It would suck to face jail/prison time for resisting an officer when you were indeed innocent of the charge he was trying to arrest you for.

Arrest does not equal guilt.

You dont have to be "guilty" to be convicted of resisting arrest.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 15, 2009)

GBlues said:


> Now let me tell you something sunshine. You absolutely do have to read me my miranda rights, once I've been arrested. Go tell that crap to somebody else. But, hey thanks for the tip, about false arrests. It's cops like you that kill the innocent guys next door because the swat team got the wrong address on the warrant, while the **** bag next door scoots out of town. You tell me I'm arrested and I'd better have done something, cause you'll HAVE to kill me to get me in jail Period. And I love number 8 must be that nobody ever gets away from the cops, there supermen. That's why there aren't any wanted posters anywhere's right. Cause once you say tag you always get your man. What a crock.



It looks like others covered this pretty well.  But no, I don't have to read you your Miranda rights unless I intend to question you.  More often than not, I don't intend to question you, because I already have a good idea of what happened.  I book 'em, I'm not a detective.  Let the DA figure it out.

And all I can say is that nobody I ever tried to arrest got away from me.  If I put my hands on 'em, they came along with me, with or without a scuffle.  That's not to say we didn't sometimes have a nice dance in between, and I certain got a few of my uniforms torn and glasses broken.  And I was no superman - but I have (had) a few things bad guys don't.  Weapons, training, partners, and the radio.  It makes for a good combination.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 15, 2009)

jks9199 said:


> It's a courtesy to explain why you are being arrested -- but all that's really necessary is for the cop to attempt to take you into custody.



I usually informed them after they were in the back seat of my squad.  For some reason, telling people they are under arrest for, say, DUI or PC Intox tends to cause them to fight.  Because they're perfectly innocent, they say.


----------



## Thesemindz (May 15, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> You get arrested, your *** is going to jail. You can go peacefully or you can go to the hospital to get your face stitched up first, but you're going to jail. You make bail, you get an attorney, and you get found not guilty, more power to you - but that doesn't make the arrest wrong, and even if I had to twist your head around three times and beat you like Rodney King to get the cuffs on you, too bad, so sad. Nobody has the right to resist arrest, regardless of their guilt or innocence.


 
You're just wrong Bill.

Citizens _do _have the right to resist unlawful or illegal arrest. That right has been upheld by courts throughout our history, up to and including the supreme court.



> Citizens may resist _unlawful_ arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary. _Plummer v. State_, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: _John Bad Elk v. U.S._, 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.
> 
> An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter. _Housh v. People_, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.
> 
> ...


 
When an officer is acting ouside the boundaries of the law, citizens are not obligated by that law to allow themselves to be manacled and transported to crime scene B.

Now, all that aside, when Officer Bill comes to my door to arrest me, unless I think my life is in imminent danger, I'll be going with him peacefully. Because someone gave him a gun and a badge and limited, insufficient training, and told him to go enforce laws he doesn't fully understand and he's already made it perfectly clear that if I don't abide by his unlawful demands, he'll torture me until I do.


-Rob


----------



## Archangel M (May 15, 2009)

Problem is most people wouldn't know the difference between a lawful and unlawful arrest if they had a guidebook....


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 15, 2009)

Thesemindz said:


> You're just wrong Bill.



No, I'm not.  Your quotes are old, and nearly all states in the USA have since abrogated the right to resist unlawful arrest - one exception being Mississippi.

It was true - common law dating back to the time of the Magna Carta established the right of citizens to resist, with force, unlawful arrests.  And it was true in the USA in most places, although uncodified by law (it was considered 'inherited' by common law).

Over time, courts and legislatures began to reconsider the right of the citizen to resist unlawful arrest.  First, because the weapons involved had become far more deadly.  An officer ordered to arrest a subject must do so.  If the person resists with force, the officer must use MORE force and so on until the person being arrested is dead - or the officer is.  This was not true in days when an officer carried perhaps a truncheon.  The second reason was that in modern times, a person arrested who does not offer resistance is not likely to be killed.  They will have access to the courts, to an attorney, and to bail.  In other words, they have recourse to the law if their arrest was illegal.  Thus, the need to turn an arrest situation into a deadly-force incident just because the subject thinks they are innocent or that the arrest itself is unlawful is no longer necessary.



> Citizens _do _have the right to resist unlawful or illegal arrest. That right has been upheld by courts throughout our history, up to and including the supreme court.



And since abrogated.  Those rights were common law rights, and they no longer exist (except in Mississippi).  38 states have eliminated the right to resist unlawful arrest by legislative action, and the rest (except Mississippi) by court judgment.

Please ask an attorney - any attorney should be able to answer you.  Or the city attorney of your town.  Anyone with a law degree.



> When an officer is acting ouside the boundaries of the law, citizens are not obligated by that law to allow themselves to be manacled and transported to crime scene B.



Yes, they are.  I presume by "crime scene B" you mean the hoosegow.



> Now, all that aside, when Officer Bill comes to my door to arrest me, unless I think my life is in imminent danger, I'll be going with him peacefully.



Thank goodness I'm not in law enforcement anymore, eh?



> Because someone gave him a gun and a badge and limited, insufficient training, and told him to go enforce laws he doesn't fully understand and he's already made it perfectly clear that if I don't abide by his unlawful demands, he'll torture me until I do.



Ah yes.  Arrest = torture.  I see.

I can't claim I know everything about the law.  I'm not an attorney.  And my information is dated, I haven't worked in law enforcement since the late 1980's.  However, I've got two years of criminal law education as an undergrad, and a bit more at the master's level.  That's more than a lot of cops.  I'm not sure what you think officers of the law need - a law degree themselves?

But no, in general, you can't resist an unlawful arrest legally.  In Mississippi, perhaps.


----------



## Sukerkin (May 15, 2009)

As we've moved on from the OP more than a little, I hope people don't mind if I rejoin the discourse with a couple of questions (I'd dropped out as I was simply failing to make my point clearly and was having an adverse affect on the discussion)?

First, what on earth is a 'hoosegow'? I'm guessing from context it means the Police Station?

Second, altho' as someone far away I can see the common sense in not allowing resisting unlawful arrest to be legal, isn't it rather an undermining of the intent of the tone of the Constitution? 

After all, it does seem that it could be very easily abused to quash dissent and facilitate 'visible disappearances' of those who oppose the government of the day. 

Fictional re-enactment  :-

Officer:"He resisted arrest M'lud.
Judge: "Was it a lawful arrest?"
Officer: "No M'lud"
Judge: "Ah well, it wasn't a 'lawful' arrest but the defendant did resist. Off to prision with him. What's that Mr. Reporter? No, he committed no crime. He's not in prison for holding a dissenting opinion (honest, fingers crossed) but for resisting arrest".


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 15, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> First, what on earth is a 'hoosegow'? I'm guessing from context it means the Police Station?



The pokey.

http://www.bartleby.com/62/38/H0753800.html



> Second, altho' as someone far away I can see the common sense in not allowing resisting unlawful arrest to be legal, isn't it rather an undermining of the intent of the tone of the Constitution?



The Constitution (and more specifically, the Bill of Rights) is intended to prohibit, amongst other things, the federal government from unlawful search and seizure, from infringing on due process, and from preventing citizens from seeking peaceful redress under the law.  None of these are threatened by prohibiting citizens from resisting unlawful arrest.



> After all, it does seem that it could be very easily abused to quash dissent and facilitate 'visible disappearances' of those who oppose the government of the day.



To the best of my knowledge, there are no disappearances in our legal system.  A person is arrested, charged, given access to defense, and if convicted, perhaps they are sentenced to a period of confinement.  At all times in this process, they have access to the law and the ability to address the government for redress of grievances.   Many are the convicted person who makes a veritable lifetime of appealing everything and suing all and sundry - sometimes with success.

Dissent is hardly quashed.



> Fictional re-enactment  :-
> 
> Officer:"He resisted arrest M'lud.
> Judge: "Was it a lawful arrest?"
> ...



It is not uncommon for the term 'resisting arrest' to be applied.  Some police officers will levy the charge if a person so much as says "Now just hold on a minute here," when being arrested, while others won't place that charge unless you actively take a poke at them or try to run away.  So if you want to say that it is often used inequitably, I'll give you that.

However, 'resisting' is generally not an offense that gets one sent to durance vile - usually a fine and perhaps at worst a few days in the lockup or doing community service for first offenders.

Common law said that resisting unlawful arrest was legal - and for good reasons at the time.  Resisting in the first place was not likely to get the officer or you killed - now it is.  And there might not be recourse to correct false arrests and bad warrants and just plain stupid cops tricks like there is now.  Citizens can no longer resist even unlawful arrest because they DO have recourse to the law after the fact, which is MUCH SAFER for all concerned.

It does vary from state to state.  But most states say you can't do it. It appears that Mississippi still says you can.  So there you go.


----------



## Sukerkin (May 15, 2009)

I wasn't intending it to be taken and carried in such absolutes, Bill.  You have shown above that you have a pretty high level of education and so do I.  I'm sure both of us can recognise an invitation to explore a hypothetical question.  

What I mean by the term 'visible disappearances' is not that someone is secretly whisked away never to be seen again but rather that the 'loophole' presented by the illegality of resisting arrest can be used to quite openly imprision someone who has actually committed no other crime.  A useful tool for getting people out of circulation if the government were to so wish (assuming that it didn't just disappear them the old fashioned way ).


----------



## Archangel M (May 15, 2009)

Just remember there is a difference between an "unlawful arrest"...the cop knows or should know that the arrest is unlawful and a lawful arrest where the offender may actually be innocent.


----------



## Carol (May 15, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> Just remember there is a difference between an "unlawful arrest"...the cop knows or should know that the arrest is unlawful and a lawful arrest where the offender may actually be innocent.



If its actually a cop that is doing unlawful arrest...

"In most unlawful arrest or imprisonment cases, private security is involved. While the law in California allows for any private person to make a citizens arrest, there are restrictions and limited authority to do so."  

Paul W. Ralph, Esq.   (Tort Attorney, Orange County, CA)


----------



## Archangel M (May 15, 2009)

Carol Kaur said:


> If its actually a cop that is doing unlawful arrest...
> 
> "In most unlawful arrest or imprisonment cases, private security is involved. While the law in California allows for any private person to make a citizens arrest, there are restrictions and limited authority to do so."
> 
> Paul W. Ralph, Esq. (Tort Attorney, Orange County, CA)


 
Very true.


----------



## GBlues (May 15, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> Tell YOU what "sunshine" that sentence alone tells me that you dont know squat about what you are talking about. That is one of the most misunderstood (by the masses) things about police work out there. I typically hear it from smartass teenagers or clueless "jailhouse lawyers"
> 
> Let me guess..you think that if I dont read you Miranda rights then somehow you get to walk away from all charges right? Puaghhahah!
> 
> ...


 
So then your saying that Bill Mattocks doesn't know squat about what he's talking about either right? Since he was the one who first used the "Sunshine" Course I wasn't that disrespectful to him until he started that **** with me.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 15, 2009)

dude, you ae in check, you lost this argument, just let it go, dont get your ego get you into trouble on the boards.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 15, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> Just remember there is a difference between an "unlawful arrest"...the cop knows or should know that the arrest is unlawful and a lawful arrest where the offender may actually be innocent.



Good point.

In addition, one must consider cases where the warrant or other cause to arrest is deficient, but the police do not know that and act in good faith. Felony warrants that remain in NCIC long after they are revoked, for example.  An officer is going to make an arrest if a subject comes back with a code 5 frank hit.  However, if that later turns out to be incorrect info, the subject arrested could well have recourse to civil remedy.

They still have to submit to arrest - if they resist (in most states), they get 'resisting arrest' added to the charges, and that could stick even if the want turns out to be incorrect.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 15, 2009)

GBlues said:


> So then your saying that Bill Mattocks doesn't know squat about what he's talking about either right? Since he was the one who first used the "Sunshine" Course I wasn't that disrespectful to him until he started that **** with me.



Actually, when I used the term 'sunshine', I was speaking as if to an imaginary subject I was arresting, I did not mean you.  If you felt I did mean it personally, I apologize.


----------



## redantstyle (May 15, 2009)

hmmm....the internets. 

the advantage, i feel, is that you can speak your mind with what amounts to absolute strangers, and get a candid response.

free and clear of the emotional context.

which is nice.


----------



## jks9199 (May 15, 2009)

Thesemindz said:


> You're just wrong Bill.
> 
> Citizens _do _have the right to resist unlawful or illegal arrest. That right has been upheld by courts throughout our history, up to and including the supreme court.
> 
> ...


Yes, you may resist an unlawful arrest.  It's an affirmative defense against a charge of resisting arrest...  

But the odds are very good that you'll still end up in jail for the night, and be hurt, too.  And you'd better be damn sure that you are right, and that the arrest really is unlawful.  Because, even if it turns out that the cop was wrong, the charge of resisting arrest can still be valid.  And you can still be convicted of it.  As has been said several times, the standard for arrest is probable cause, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Or you can simply accept the circumstances, and deal with the problem later.  It may not even be much later; I have to take anyone I arrest before a magistrate without undue delay.  The magistrate's job is to independently assess my probable cause for the arrest -- and he'll cut you loose if I don't have it.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 16, 2009)

jks9199 said:


> Yes, you may resist an unlawful arrest.  It's an affirmative defense against a charge of resisting arrest...



I'd be careful with that one.  Having an 'affirmative defense' does not mean that the behavior is legal - it means that one may prevail in court on that basis.  The person would still be arrested, charged, and possibly end up in court, with lawyer, etc - expending a great deal of time and energy to argue that the arrest was unlawful, and that therefore their resistance was an 'affirmative defense'.

It appears you're in Virginia, so I did some poking around.  It would appear that in VA, the law regarding 'resisting arrest' does indeed say 'lawful arrest':





> § 18.2-479.1. Resisting lawful arrest; penalty.
> 
> A. Any person who intentionally prevents or attempts to prevent a law-enforcement officer from lawfully arresting him, with or without a warrant, is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.
> 
> ...


However, it appears that there is a similarly-worded crime that does not require the arrest to be 'lawful':



> § 28.2-905. Resistance to officer or authorized person, etc.; penalty.
> 
> Any person found guilty of resisting or impeding an officer or other *person authorized to make arrests*, seizures, examinations or other performances of duties under this subtitle, shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.
> 
> (Code 1950, § 28-215; 1962, c. 406, § 28.1-191; 1992, c. 836.)


So it would seem the charge could be amended to "Resistance to Officer" as opposed to "Resisting Arrest" and it would stick, lawful arrest or not.

I could not find any Virginia court rulings on the issue.  It apparently has been asserted as a defense in a number of cases, but in each case, the issue was decided on other basis, and the court never actually addressed the common-law right of the defendant to resist an unlawful arrest.

If there is case law on it, I'd be interested in seeing it.  I'm not saying there isn't, I am just fascinated.

One might also note that this is for Virginia - other states do indeed have laws specifically forbidding resisting arrest, period - there is no affirmative defense for resisting an unlawful arrest.



> But the odds are very good that you'll still end up in jail for the night, and be hurt, too.  And you'd better be damn sure that you are right, and that the arrest really is unlawful.  Because, even if it turns out that the cop was wrong, the charge of resisting arrest can still be valid.  And you can still be convicted of it.  As has been said several times, the standard for arrest is probable cause, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt.


Agreed.



> Or you can simply accept the circumstances, and deal with the problem later.  It may not even be much later; I have to take anyone I arrest before a magistrate without undue delay.  The magistrate's job is to independently assess my probable cause for the arrest -- and he'll cut you loose if I don't have it.


Accepting unlawful arrest not only protects your body and peace of mind, it can also set a person up for a nice little lawsuit that will compensate them for the damage done.  There is recourse to unlawful arrest - but the more the arrestee makes a horse's *** of themselves at arrest time, the less clear-cut their civil case is likely to be later on - IMHO.


----------



## Carol (May 16, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Accepting unlawful arrest not only protects your body and peace of mind, it can also set a person up for a nice little lawsuit that will compensate them for the damage done.  There is recourse to unlawful arrest - but the more the arrestee makes a horse's *** of themselves at arrest time, the less clear-cut their civil case is likely to be later on - IMHO.



This makes sense to me.   In my business networking group, whenever someone presents an issue at work that seems illegal or borderline, the response from the group is always "Document, document, document".

If a bad situation is documented by the person who feels they've been wronged, that person can get far more mileage by documenting the issue and then following up through administrative channels than they will if they lose their cool.


----------



## MJS (May 16, 2009)

Thesemindz said:


> You're just wrong Bill.
> 
> Citizens _do _have the right to resist unlawful or illegal arrest. That right has been upheld by courts throughout our history, up to and including the supreme court.
> 
> ...


 
If we apply the above to the thread here, we really don't know what led up to the cops being called in the first place.  However, it seems the person in question needed to be removed, for reasons we don't know, and he resisted.  Badge, gun and crooked cops aside, this guy was being an ***, plain and simple.  I will repeat though, that I personally feel that the cops should have used the other options they had available to them, ie: OC and taser.


----------



## Thesemindz (May 16, 2009)

The first part of your post all assumes that somehow states or lower court rulings could over rule a supreme court decision. You say you have some education in law. Can you describe to me a process by which state legislatures and lower courts can abrogate a Supreme Court ruling?

All that aside, it's simply pointless. Regardless of the legality of the situation, if police continue to violate the rights of citizens, whether under color of law or not, there will be a violent response. It will happen. You may feel that you have the _authority_ to arrest people and beat them mercilessly if they don't comply. That attitude *will* get police shot.



> Yes, they are. I presume by "crime scene B" you mean the hoosegow.


 
No actually. That isn't what I mean. Since my entire point related to _unlawful_ arrest, there is no telling what crime scene B will be. It _could _be jail. It could be a cabin in the woods where you are tortured and raped. But I suppose if a police officer grabs a woman at gun point and tells her to put the cuffs on and get in the car so he can go torture and rape her, she doesn't have any right to resist. After all, she can file a complaint later.



> Ah yes. Arrest = torture. I see.


 
Obviously you don't. Arrest doesn't necessarily equal torture, but these things might.



> I'll stick my Manodnock up your jaxie and make you a perpsicle.





> even if I had to twist your head around three times and beat you like Rodney King to get the cuffs on you, too bad, so sad.





> if you resist, I remove your arms and beat you with them





> Get those hands behind you before I twist your snarglies off.


 
Feel free to dismiss all your previous comments as mere "hyperbole." They still reflect a willingness to resort to incredible violence, especially in the context of an _unlawful_ arrest, which was what I was referencing.



> I can't claim I know everything about the law. I'm not an attorney. And my information is dated, I haven't worked in law enforcement since the late 1980's. However, I've got two years of criminal law education as an undergrad, and a bit more at the master's level. That's more than a lot of cops. I'm not sure what you think officers of the law need - a law degree themselves?


 
I think if you are going to pick up a lethal weapon and point it at another human being in order to enforce the law, you better damn sure be right. Because *you* bear the responsibility of your decisions. If you aren't comfortable with that responsibility, then don't pick up a gun in defense of the law.


-Rob


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 16, 2009)

Thesemindz said:


> I think if you are going to pick up a lethal weapon and point it at another human being in order to enforce the law, you better damn sure be right. Because *you* bear the responsibility of your decisions. If you aren't comfortable with that responsibility, then don't pick up a gun in defense of the law.



I am not the person you think I am.  I can see you have some issues here, and you're not going to change your opinion.  That's fine, but I think we have nothing more to discuss on this subject.


----------



## Thesemindz (May 16, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I am not the person you think I am. I can see you have some issues here, and you're not going to change your opinion. That's fine, but I think we have nothing more to discuss on this subject.


 
Ok.


-Rob


----------

