Police Brutality??

[bribrius]

What is it that you think they are going to 'lose'? The case against this kid? 50/50. A lawsuit? Not a snowball's chance in hell does this even go to a court for review. By no stretch of even the most hungry trial lawyers imagination would this ever go to a civil suit. Oh, there'll be barking in that direction, but there's not a jury that would declare it objectively unreasonable. It's silly.

They won't lose anything......likely not even the charges they have against this guy. Something obviously happened before 'filming' otherwise the bouncers wouldn't have called about a disturbance. At it's face this is obvious. The police just didn't show up and start hassling college students.

It's very simple, actually.

Drunken idiot is denied entry. Starts hassling the bouncers. This is a private establishment.

Bouncers call police to have idiot removed.

Idiot is talking with the police when idiots friend starts trying to interfere with a police investigation, actively, not just by standing by and minding his own business filming.

Arrest is made and peace is restored.

There's nothing complicated or nuanced about what happened, and the facts aren't even in dispute.



The police were lawfully investigating a disturbance. He should have stayed out of it. Nothing more.

The redherring here is that he was arrested for 'filming'. That is most obviously not what he was arrested for. As i've said on this forum before on the matter, 'simply filming' is standing at a distance and keeping your mouth shut, and not actively trying to interfer or intercede........filming is a passive act, interference is an active act, and a crime.



When a subject is being detained, quite lawfully as drunken clown A here most definitely was. Actively inserting yourself in to the situation, thereby making it more difficult to deal with clown A, most definitely falls under the heading of 'hinders' and 'obstructs'.



The moral of the story is if you're a drunken college student, make your little cellphone film, stand across the room, think how you're going to make these cops look bad on youtube, but keep your mouth shut and don't get arrested for active interference.

guess we will see.

Here is one for you. Someone i know once was in a chase. He on a motorcycle, cop in cruiser. He stops. cop gets out and walks up to the him. He spits in the cops face and takes off on the bike again. They catch him a few days later.

Few months after that he is a passenger in my car and i am driving somewhere. The same officer follows us to another town (on duty and in a cruiser) and pulls me over. Walks up to the passenger side and pulls this guy out and puts him up against my car. Tells him if he ever does anything again like that then he will run him over with the car (the cruiser). Then he lets him go and we drive off again. Later on this guy goes to the police station and files a complaint against the officer, of course me stuck as a witness. I never had to do anything though it never went to that level. i would have though, just because i was pissed he pulled me over in a whole different district for the sake of who my passenger was just because he was pissed off at him.

Was the officer wrong? HELL YEAH. But as i tried to tell the guy i know. "Dude, if you spit in my face you dont think i would be pissed? You spit in his face and made him look like a moron taking off. what did you think his reaction would be??" I had to feel bad for the cop. Not sure what came out of it but think it was settle as well. I have a cousin, brother in law that are cops. In many ways i am happy to not be one. But it is a fine line, if you hear me....between protecting and going beyond. Between being Professional and being as dumb as the people you are arresting....

 

[jks9199]

guess we will see.

Here is one for you. Someone i know once was in a chase. He on a motorcycle, cop in cruiser. He stops. cop gets out and walks up to the him. He spits in the cops face and takes off on the bike again. They catch him a few days later.

Few months after that he is a passenger in my car and i am driving somewhere. The same officer follows us to another town (on duty and in a cruiser) and pulls me over. Walks up to the passenger side and pulls this guy out and puts him up against my car. Tells him if he ever does anything again like that then he will run him over with the car (the cruiser). Then he lets him go and we drive off again. Later on this guy goes to the police station and files a complaint against the officer, of course me stuck as a witness. I never had to do anything though it never went to that level. i would have though, just because i was pissed he pulled me over in a whole different district for the sake of who my passenger was just because he was pissed off at him.

Was the officer wrong? HELL YEAH. But as i tried to tell the guy i know. "Dude, if you spit in my face you dont think i would be pissed? You spit in his face and made him look like a moron taking off. what did you think his reaction would be??" I had to feel bad for the cop. Not sure what came out of it but think it was settle as well. I have a cousin, brother in law that are cops. In many ways i am happy to not be one. But it is a fine line, if you hear me....between protecting and going beyond. Between being Professional and being as dumb as the people you are arresting....

And, now, we go down the whole anecdote of police misconduct route... almost on schedule.

Guess what? The conduct you describe your friend doing would have led to him being arrested for eluding (a felony), and assault on a law enforcement officer (another felony) in my state. If I've got a good enough read on who he is to identify him in an unidentified 3rd party's car -- I can get the warrant. So, I'm kind of skeptical of your account. He filed a complaint that didn't go anywhere... and you, a witness, were never interviewed...

That said -- I've never claimed all cops were perfect or behave perfectly all the time. Hell, I've made mistakes and even done a few things of questionable professionalism over my career. I'm a human being, after all. It just might be that your buddy was advised that he can be quite thankful that he's not in custody, and allowed the opportunity to be satisfied with the sergeant warning the officer about his conduct.

 

[sgtmac_46]

guess we will see.

Here is one for you. Someone i know once was in a chase. He on a motorcycle, cop in cruiser. He stops. cop gets out and walks up to the him. He spits in the cops face and takes off on the bike again. They catch him a few days later.

Few months after that he is a passenger in my car and i am driving somewhere. The same officer follows us to another town (on duty and in a cruiser) and pulls me over. Walks up to the passenger side and pulls this guy out and puts him up against my car. Tells him if he ever does anything again like that then he will run him over with the car (the cruiser). Then he lets him go and we drive off again. Later on this guy goes to the police station and files a complaint against the officer, of course me stuck as a witness. I never had to do anything though it never went to that level. i would have though, just because i was pissed he pulled me over in a whole different district for the sake of who my passenger was just because he was pissed off at him.

Was the officer wrong? HELL YEAH. But as i tried to tell the guy i know. "Dude, if you spit in my face you dont think i would be pissed? You spit in his face and made him look like a moron taking off. what did you think his reaction would be??" I had to feel bad for the cop. Not sure what came out of it but think it was settle as well. I have a cousin, brother in law that are cops. In many ways i am happy to not be one. But it is a fine line, if you hear me....between protecting and going beyond. Between being Professional and being as dumb as the people you are arresting....

I can't really deal with anecdotes with an opinion, because I wasn't there........though I get them all the time from friends and relatives.

99 times out of 1, though, the anecdote I get told is a very biased and distorted version of what actually happened. I've gotten very good at reading between the lines as to what actually occurred, but I won't attempt that here as I don't know you, and that would be unfair.

 

[bribrius]

And, now, we go down the whole anecdote of police misconduct route... almost on schedule.

Guess what? The conduct you describe your friend doing would have led to him being arrested for eluding (a felony), and assault on a law enforcement officer (another felony) in my state. If I've got a good enough read on who he is to identify him in an unidentified 3rd party's car -- I can get the warrant. So, I'm kind of skeptical of your account. He filed a complaint that didn't go anywhere... and you, a witness, were never interviewed...

That said -- I've never claimed all cops were perfect or behave perfectly all the time. Hell, I've made mistakes and even done a few things of questionable professionalism over my career. I'm a human being, after all. It just might be that your buddy was advised that he can be quite thankful that he's not in custody, and allowed the opportunity to be satisfied with the sergeant warning the officer about his conduct.

i said "they catch up with him a few days later". He was arrested for that perhaps i should have been more specific. They picked him up a few days later at someones house, the bike stashed behind it in the woods.

Then i said "a few months later" speaking of when he was a passenger in my vehicle.

The officer pulled me over with him in the passenger seat after the chase and him being arrested and released again. I Never had to do anything as far as testifying. That is why i said it "never went to that level". I never had to testify, heard nothing after that. Not sure what happend after that. I did end up down at the station myself over it. Just as a witness that didnt have to testify.

so what do you find skeptical?

BTW. HE WAS NOT AND IS NOT a friend or a "buddy". Acquaintance.

I just put this up because i thought it was a good example of crossing that line. And yeah, i was pissed. I had no idea what was going on. It wasn't until the officer let him get back in the car and we were on the road again that i put 2 and 2 together. I had thought it had been all resolved.

you have my curiousity though, what mistakes have you made or done unprofessional?

but back on topic. If the officers in this case let them both go they would have been wrong if the subjects did something else that night. But they would have avoided the problem. Maybe just a simple "it is a private establishment they dont have to let you in" would have solved the problem. The officers followed the bouncers lead on moving along and putting away the cellphone. This i am curious about because in the article i posted it says the the bars are picking up a large portion of the tab for the police patrol there.
so maybe they are listening a little to well to these particuliar night club owners since they are picking up much of the tab. For example how quick the officer follows the bouncers lead. I wonder also if this will be part of any potential court case as it seems a conflict of interest having the night clubs kick in for a public police force to act like a private security force, though i know it happens elsewhere i wonder of the legality of it and how the finances are worked for that in this case.

You can't have officers listening particuliarly well to club owners based on them paying more or directing certain officers and funds to particuliar establishments without a potential conflict. sounds like a court case waiting to happen.

i like sgt.mac's synopsis but i am not so sure that is how the court would see it, or if the govt. would take the risk of letting it go that far with lots of college kids filling out witness statements against the officers.. They may prefer a quick payout and sweep it under the rug.

It is a very simple case really, but with the press and all those college kids and the special team to police this particuliar district that is paying additional money i wonder if it will become more complex. And yeah, the kid was annoying. Just not sure if i see any lawbreaking there. ON TO THE COURTS TO DECIDE!!!!!

 

[bribrius]

I can't really deal with anecdotes with an opinion, because I wasn't there........though I get them all the time from friends and relatives.

99 times out of 1, though, the anecdote I get told is a very biased and distorted version of what actually happened. I've gotten very good at reading between the lines as to what actually occurred, but I won't attempt that here as I don't know you, and that would be unfair.

fair enough. But we are commenting on the two kids in the bar in the article but we weren't there either.

Far as what i wrote above, i wish i wasn't there. I considered it **** luck. He just happend to be in my car at the time, i just happend to drive by the officer, the officer just happend to still have a grudge against him. **** luck.

 

[jks9199]

In the case at hand -- we have relatively factual accounts. We have the one kid's video. It's pretty clear that the officers were trying to work through the situation, and that the idiot with the camera was ignoring their requests, then their orders... and even LIED outright about not recording it (ironically, captured in his own recording). He ignored several orders to leave; he got hooked. His buddy? Don't know. The video doesn't show, but it may just have been that he was drunk, and not listening. Or maybe his dumb buddy with the camera put the cops in a situation where they felt boxed into arresting him...

But nothing I say will convince you. I've been down this road before. Have fun.

(And I'll air my mistakes when you air yours. EVERYONE makes mistakes as they learn.)

 

[bribrius]

In the case at hand -- we have relatively factual accounts. We have the one kid's video. It's pretty clear that the officers were trying to work through the situation, and that the idiot with the camera was ignoring their requests, then their orders... and even LIED outright about not recording it (ironically, captured in his own recording). He ignored several orders to leave; he got hooked. His buddy? Don't know. The video doesn't show, but it may just have been that he was drunk, and not listening. Or maybe his dumb buddy with the camera put the cops in a situation where they felt boxed into arresting him...

But nothing I say will convince you. I've been down this road before. Have fun.

(And I'll air my mistakes when you air yours. EVERYONE makes mistakes as they learn.)

you dont have to convince me of anything. We are just having a friendly discussion. This is for the d.a. to decide to proceed, court to decide to judge and sentence, police commissioner to decide to reprimand, and the town this took place in to decide to bring it all the way to court in the civil case or settle it out of court. I really dont know. I am not a judge, d.a., or lawyer, or run the pd, mayor or manager of the place this took place in. It is interesting to think about just wondering the outcome....

really like sgtmac46's responses as well. You can tell he is right by the book and knows his ****. I tend to agree with him, just not sure if everyone else in that chain would.

 

[bribrius]

I generally try to ignore this sort of commentary. It's ill-informed.

I don't work for "the people." I work for the government of the municipality/county/state that employs me. My role is that of POLICE:

1. Also called police force. an organized civil force for maintaining order, preventing and detecting crime, and enforcing the laws.
2. ( used with a plural verb

) members of such a force: Several police are patrolling the neighborhood.

3. the regulation and control of a community, esp. for the maintenance of public order, safety, health, morals, etc.

4. the department of the government concerned with this, esp. with the maintenance of order.

5. any body of people officially maintained or employed to keep order, enforce regulations, etc.
​

My job is more than merely "ensuring peace." And I don't "serve", though I do my best to "protect." Service implies that I'm at the bidding of the public when the simple truth is that, quite often, my job is to do anything but what someone wants. I'm doing what needs to be done to maximize EVERYONE's freedom and safety.

The sooner people understand and accept that the crap foisted by the Officer Friendlies and bend-over-backward-because-I-lack-a-spine administrators is not accurate, the sooner we'll all get along. Role confusion, in any activity, leads to problems, whether it's parents trying to run the dojo or people trying to understand why the cops are threatening to arrest them when they "didn't do anything wrong".

http://www.2ampd.net/Articles/Tremoglie/police_and_public_opinion.htm

i hear what you are saying. Technically you are correct. But there is nothing wrong with "to serve and protect". I actually thought it was quite honorable. The military is a service as well. Nothing wrong with that. Many municpalitys have "to serve and protect" on their equipment and on the cruisers. More once did, then the policing training changed, something happend and it started gong away. Now it seems to be coming back again. The military serves its country, the police serve its community. I think police and community relations are a key thing. It is far different than the military in which as police you are dealing with the community daily. It isn't like your fighting a war away from home. You are in your community, visible, and a part of it.

Far as who police work for, it becomes apparent all too quickly when public opinion turns the tide against them. i don't know what happend but it seems the older generation of sheriffs got along much better than some of the newer cops. And i am not sure what happend with the new philosophy in policing. I would think the officer friendly approach would go over much better since it is always easier having the community you are policing support you instead of filing complaints against you. And this is the same community that elects the people that control how many cops are on the payroll and what is received for a budget. Some departments are researching and concentrating on community ties just to rebuild that connection, and are smart enough to go back to "serving the community" realizing without community support they were out on the street in the cold.

interesting vid and the comments are worth reading.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...arass-citizens-who-record-them-102826639.html

 

[Cryozombie]

I don't work for "the people." I work for the government of the municipality/county/state that employs me.

IMO That's part of the attitude that is wrecking the nation. The Government of the municipality/county/state works for the people. Even if they don't wish to acknowledge it anymore. So I'd say If you are an employee of the government of the municipality/county/state, then yes... you work for the people. They may not be your direct employers; but you certainly work for them. When they stop paying for you to be there, you certainly won't be, just ask any officer in Muskegon Heights, Michigan.

Wait... you can't. Muskegon Heights no longer has any cops. :angel:

 

[MJS]

Wow, New Haven seems to be infested with people who act like jerks and then claim the cops were the bad guys.

http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2010/10/03/news/doc4ca80b7e64ba3342354946.txt

"NEW HAVEN — Yale University students caught in a raid Saturday of a private dance party at a nightclub on Crown Street are upset over the way they were treated by police.

But Police Chief Frank Limon defended the raid, saying the club was over capacity, creating a dangerous situation. Limon said that according to the fire marshal, the capacity is 150 people and the compliance check revealed 256 people in the club."

"Police said while they were checking the ages of the clubs occupants at Elevate, two customers, later identified as Zachary Fuhrer and Jordan Jefferson refused to comply with officers verbal commands and were arrested for interfering with police. As officers were attempting to place Jefferson in custody, he struck an officer and had to be “tased” to be brought under control, police said."

So, these 2 jerks refused to comply, then one of them hit a cop, and now people are complaining? Funny how the cops are always to blame...what about these 2 punks?

 

[Carol]

Other than the areas surrounding the colleges, is there a part of New Haven that's "good"? That is one nasty, run down, economically depressed city. Last time I went through there was last Thanksgiving on my way to my folks. I stopped in for a coffee at a Dunkins right off I-95 and someone tried to rob me on the way out the door. At 6am!!

 

[bribrius]

Wow, New Haven seems to be infested with people who act like jerks and then claim the cops were the bad guys.

http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2010/10/03/news/doc4ca80b7e64ba3342354946.txt

"NEW HAVEN — Yale University students caught in a raid Saturday of a private dance party at a nightclub on Crown Street are upset over the way they were treated by police.

But Police Chief Frank Limon defended the raid, saying the club was over capacity, creating a dangerous situation. Limon said that according to the fire marshal, the capacity is 150 people and the compliance check revealed 256 people in the club."

"Police said while they were checking the ages of the clubs occupants at Elevate, two customers, later identified as Zachary Fuhrer and Jordan Jefferson refused to comply with officers verbal commands and were arrested for interfering with police. As officers were attempting to place Jefferson in custody, he struck an officer and had to be “tased” to be brought under control, police said."

So, these 2 jerks refused to comply, then one of them hit a cop, and now people are complaining? Funny how the cops are always to blame...what about these 2 punks?

read the comments. wth is a police department doing sending in swat to a college semiformal for underage drinkers. And only one person was underage. Saying it is above capacity but instead of going to the club manager and doing it properly they have everyone lay on the floor instead of evacuating the club.

seriously. They should have just emptied it and id'd at the door. i agree with the comments. Lying on the floor to check id's? automatics? if this is true i would say nh needs to lay the smack down on its pd for out right, blatantly being morons. Tax payers money at work............
another lawsuit.....

 

[jks9199]

It's called college students who haven't been held to be responsible for anything in their lives.

Somewhere over the last 50 years or so, we've shifted from college being a place populated by adults to college is 4 more years of high school shenanigans -- but the record is for real now. Whether it's the insistence on getting an A for simply meeting the course requirements, or outrage that disorderly behavior leads to arrests and conviction... college students today seem intent on setting new records for doing stupid crap.

 

[sgtmac_46]

i like sgt.mac's synopsis but i am not so sure that is how the court would see it, or if the govt. would take the risk of letting it go that far with lots of college kids filling out witness statements against the officers.. They may prefer a quick payout and sweep it under the rug.

Actually, the first thing those college students will be warned when filling out a statement, is that they better be 100% true.......or they WILL face criminal prosecution for filling a false police report and perjury.

These guys are going to sue anyone.........anyone who sues me or my department would have to survive the 3 hour deposition mine and the cities attorneys would put them through.

It is a very simple case really, but with the press and all those college kids and the special team to police this particuliar district that is paying additional money i wonder if it will become more complex. And yeah, the kid was annoying. Just not sure if i see any lawbreaking there. ON TO THE COURTS TO DECIDE!!!!!

The press and the college kids don't decide these things. And the courts almost always find in favor of the officers in cases like this. Courts actually require things like evidence and proof, not the innuendo and false statements allowed in the media.

This won't go to a law suit, and this WILL result in a conviction for interference for this kid.

 

[sgtmac_46]

fair enough. But we are commenting on the two kids in the bar in the article but we weren't there either.

The video is pretty clear, though. It clearly demonstrates active interference.

Judges tend to have little tolerance for the kind of behavior demonstrated on video on the part of these kids. In fact, try that in a courtroom, and you'll spend the next 30 days in jail on a contempt of court charge. Judges, of all people, understand the need to maintain order while attempting to conduct business.

Court is a very structured and organized process, and the prosecutor and defense attorney are required to follow certain procedures in presenting their case. The process won't be good for those attempting to argue that 'maybe this wasn't justified'. As the questions will be straight forward.

In a criminal trial against the suspect these will be the basic questions.

1) Were the officers conducting a lawful investigation.
2) Is there a law against interferring with a lawful investigation.
3) Did the officers have probable cause to believe that the suspect was interferring with a lawful investigation.
4) Has the state met the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the suspect intentionally and knowingly interferred with a lawful investigation.

It appears clear that the answer to all four questions will be 'yes'.

In a civil trial against the officers the defendant here would have to prove.

1) That the officers had no lawful authority to conduct an investigation.
2) That the officers willfully and knowingly violated his rights by arresting him.
3) That the officers were not acting in good faith in doing so.

They clearly won't be able to prove any of the three.

 

[sgtmac_46]

IMO That's part of the attitude that is wrecking the nation. The Government of the municipality/county/state works for the people. Even if they don't wish to acknowledge it anymore. So I'd say If you are an employee of the government of the municipality/county/state, then yes... you work for the people. They may not be your direct employers; but you certainly work for them. When they stop paying for you to be there, you certainly won't be, just ask any officer in Muskegon Heights, Michigan.

Wait... you can't. Muskegon Heights no longer has any cops. :angel:

Burglary opportunities if anyone is looking for a career change!

 

[bribrius]

It's called college students who haven't been held to be responsible for anything in their lives.

Somewhere over the last 50 years or so, we've shifted from college being a place populated by adults to college is 4 more years of high school shenanigans -- but the record is for real now. Whether it's the insistence on getting an A for simply meeting the course requirements, or outrage that disorderly behavior leads to arrests and conviction... college students today seem intent on setting new records for doing stupid crap.

forget the college kids, you dont see anything wrong with this raid of the club? Sounds like you have a vandetta against college kids. The college kids are the next generation of the country. Personally i think they have more sense than the baby boomers who ran the country into the ******* and by the looks of this we are on the slippery slope going toward a "police state". They sure have more sense than whoever decided to raid that club. what a mastermind of strategy that was.

All these college kids in that club the pd just proved them correct. In doing that raid they just created a hundred more liberals and a couple will probably end up working for the aclu suing police deparments. It did NO GOOD.


i could see doing a drug raid that way, happens all the time, it should be that way. college kids and id checks for underage drinkers in this way is a tad excessive. I am sure they could have found a much more intelligent, prudent way to go about this than raiding it and jacking up college kids with swat gear. This kind of thing is meant for dictatorship countrys. Not this one. If you can't see that i am not sure what to tell you.

Around here they tend to have a little more sense. They work with the club owners, warn them if need be, and make sure bouncers and owners are checking id's and not violating codes. They dont raid clubs and jack everyone up and tell them to lay on the floor. And if swat is called out it is because of a gun man or a drug raid. Not college kids.
what a wast of friggn money just to make the department look like fruitcakes. And it doesn't matter if it were college kids or older people. YOu think older people would be impressed if you walked into and jacked up their blues club and told everyone to lay on the friggn floor your checking id's? I can't picture that going over well.

 

[MJS]

Other than the areas surrounding the colleges, is there a part of New Haven that's "good"? That is one nasty, run down, economically depressed city. Last time I went through there was last Thanksgiving on my way to my folks. I stopped in for a coffee at a Dunkins right off I-95 and someone tried to rob me on the way out the door. At 6am!!

Is there a part of NH thats good? In a nutshell...no. LOL. I hate the thought of walking back to the parking garage at night, when I get back from NY. Always seems the less desireables come out at dark. LOL.

 

[bribrius]

Burglary opportunities if anyone is looking for a career change!

wouldnt' matter. Police officers dont stop most crimes last i knew. They can act as a semi-deterrent, but most often than not they show up after the crime was committed. Good lighting, private security cameras, a dog, there are many things that would probably have better results than the after the fact police call.

 

[MJS]

forget the college kids, you dont see anything wrong with this raid of the club? Sounds like you have a vandetta against college kids. The college kids are the next generation of the country. Personally i think they have more sense than the baby boomers who ran the country into the ******* and by the looks of this we are on the slippery slope going toward a "police state". They sure have more sense than whoever decided to raid that club. what a mastermind of strategy that was.

All these college kids in that club the pd just proved them correct. In doing that raid they just created a hundred more liberals and a couple will probably end up working for the aclu suing police deparments. It did NO GOOD.


i could see doing a drug raid that way, happens all the time, it should be that way. college kids and id checks for underage drinkers in this way is a tad excessive. I am sure they could have found a much more intelligent, prudent way to go about this than raiding it and jacking up college kids with swat gear. This kind of thing is meant for dictatorship countrys. Not this one. If you can't see that i am not sure what to tell you.

Around here they tend to have a little more sense. They work with the club owners, warn them if need be, and make sure bouncers and owners are checking id's and not violating codes. They dont raid clubs and jack everyone up and tell them to lay on the floor. And if swat is called out it is because of a gun man or a drug raid. Not college kids.
what a wast of friggn money just to make the department look like fruitcakes. And it doesn't matter if it were college kids or older people. YOu think older people would be impressed if you walked into and jacked up their blues club and told everyone to lay on the friggn floor your checking id's? I can't picture that going over well.

You're kidding me right? Its clear these kids were *******s. As I've said a thousand times....99.9% of the time, people bring the issues on themselves. Why did these kids resist? If you feel like you're being wrongly done, file the complaint later, but being a dick at the time, isn't helping. The raid....well, IMO, nobody did anything wrong. The FM was there checking on the capacity of the building. As for the comments and the article....if you read the article, you'll see that there was a shooting not long ago. Recently there has been alot of gun activity in NH, so perhaps the NHPD is taking a stronger stance on things in the area.

I doubt anyone here was there, and unless we know the rules/regs. for the NHPD, and any other details that were not included in the article, we can speculate at best. I say this, because I take what I read in the papers with a grain of salt.

People tend to throw the lawsuit garbage around, as an attempt at grabbing straws. I'm gonna sue because...because....because.....because I was an *******, and made you use more force than you really had to. See, thats the main issue here...people can't admit when they're wrong, so they pass the blame to someone else.