Shutup + LEO = Ass kickin!!

EMS10EMT

Member
Aug 31, 2010
397
NJ
I think one word can some that up...Yikes!


Just more proof that we have to watch our backs with the cell phone cameras and such now.


I won't comment on the use of force since I'm not an Leo and don't know the situation.
 

Fast LT1

Member
May 24, 2010
2,018
Sedgwick County, KS
If he just told him to shut up, then the officer needs to get his ass chewed! If i did that i would be suspended without pay and would be in deep shit!
 

FreshDave04

Member
Jun 30, 2010
3,000
Elkhart, IN
Fast LT1 said:
If he just told him to shut up, then the officer needs to get his ass chewed! If i did that i would be suspended without pay and would be in deep shit!

I have a feeling that a lot more is going to happen to this officer than just getting "his ass chewed." He won't have a job after this all plays out... Let the lynching begin!
 

cpd1212

Member
May 21, 2010
53
Chicago, IL
I'm curious, what happened in this incident before mr cell phone "I could watch this all day" started recording?


Did the officer ask the intoxicated individual a series of questions that resulted in a determination that he needed to be arrested? Maybe he made a determination that the individual needed to be taken to the ground in order to be taken into custody. Maybe this determination was made due to combatative language, aggressive movements prior to the video starting? Can't see the officer's feet or the offender once he is taken down. Maybe he is holding onto the officers feet? Can't tell, can we? Maybe he tried to bite the officer while he's down there.


People would be complaining if the officer was down on top of him with a knee in his back trying to gain custody. People would complain if he tazered him. For a copper, this a a no win situation in the armchair court of public opinion. New Years Eve too? I'm sure there was just TONS of backup available to call for. Not really, everyone is probably tied up with drunks like this.


That is not a beat down, a beating, or whatever you want to call it. He uses three force options to get the guy into custody. Physical, mechanical, and chemical. He's in custody, and it is game over. Maybe he should have rolled around on the ground with the guy, got cut up, tore his uniform, and maybe have to fight for his sidearm in the process.


That's my opinion from someone who has been there, done that, lost the criminal case, won the civil case, and is still working. I'd be happy to have this guy with me on a call where "hands on" is called for.
 
Jul 14, 2010
1,639
S.W. Ohio USA
He will fry in the court of public opinion, unfortunately. No one will care what happened before. Administrators will crucify him to keep the public happy.


When we went to in-car video, I had to be dragged in kicking and screaming. After I was cleared in a false complaint the first week we had them, I loved it and never looked back. (and word got around quickly when the dirtybutt who made the false complaint went to jail for it)


It is the "video age". I taught all my trainees to always assume they were being filmed, even if it was 4 AM on a country road. Everyone wants to be the next dickhead made famous by putting something juicy on You Tube.
 

ISU_Cyclone

Member
May 21, 2010
1,447
SE Wisconsin, USA
cpd1212 said:
I'm curious, what happened in this incident before mr cell phone "I could watch this all day" started recording?

Did the officer ask the intoxicated individual a series of questions that resulted in a determination that he needed to be arrested? Maybe he made a determination that the individual needed to be taken to the ground in order to be taken into custody. Maybe this determination was made due to combatative language, aggressive movements prior to the video starting? Can't see the officer's feet or the offender once he is taken down. Maybe he is holding onto the officers feet? Can't tell, can we? Maybe he tried to bite the officer while he's down there.


People would be complaining if the officer was down on top of him with a knee in his back trying to gain custody. People would complain if he tazered him. For a copper, this a a no win situation in the armchair court of public opinion. New Years Eve too? I'm sure there was just TONS of backup available to call for. Not really, everyone is probably tied up with drunks like this.


That is not a beat down, a beating, or whatever you want to call it. He uses three force options to get the guy into custody. Physical, mechanical, and chemical. He's in custody, and it is game over. Maybe he should have rolled around on the ground with the guy, got cut up, tore his uniform, and maybe have to fight for his sidearm in the process.


That's my opinion from someone who has been there, done that, lost the criminal case, won the civil case, and is still working. I'd be happy to have this guy with me on a call where "hands on" is called for.

I always give officers the benefit of the doubt on these "controversial" videos, but c'mon....really? Everything you said is quite a stretch. Looks like the result of a frustrating night for the officer.
 

cpd1212

Member
May 21, 2010
53
Chicago, IL
It may be quite a stretch for you to believe, but they are valid concerns. They are also valid defenses during administrative hearings and court cases. Check out some case law and see what you come up with.


Maybe the offender's pals are just standing around because they are the ones who called the police. Maybe he's a bad drunk who's been fighting with them and they're done with him. And people are ALWAYS ready to jump in and help the police, right?


Look at most use of force models and case law. Nowhere does it say police have to be a punching bag before they are allowed to react.


I'm just saying.
 

rwo978

Member
May 21, 2010
5,196
ND, USA
Don't know all the circumstances of the call or what was said, therefore EVERYTHING at this point is speculation. It looks bad, but we don't know all the details. Therefore, I have no opinion.


I think to the Felony warrant we served last night for 'Felon in possession and discharge of a firearm'. Put myself in this situation with the same warrant and if the dudes being all squirrley, evasive, and digging, the force might well be reasonable. But, without audio and details, everything at this point in time is moot.
 
Nov 21, 2010
440
Pelican Rapids, MN
rwo978 said:
Don't know all the circumstances of the call or what was said, therefore EVERYTHING at this point is speculation. It looks bad, but we don't know all the details. Therefore, I have no opinion.

I think to the Felony warrant we served last night for 'Felon in possession and discharge of a firearm'. Put myself in this situation with the same warrant and if the dudes being all squirrley, evasive, and digging, the force might well be reasonable. But, without audio and details, everything at this point in time is moot.

I agree. This is ALL speculation, details are needed.
 

FireEMSPolice

Member
May 21, 2010
3,429
Ohio
crescentstar69 said:
It is the "video age". I taught all my trainees to always assume they were being filmed, even if it was 4 AM on a country road. Everyone wants to be the next dickhead made famous by putting something juicy on You Tube.

I remember when I was standing at a Kroger doing Armed Security. Loss Prevention came running out after this woman. He didnt have any ID on him to prove he was LP. When I finally got it ironed out and we were escorting this combative woman back inside, I had several cell phones in my face recording me during the duration of subduing her and escorting her back in.
 

mjMIff

Member
Jun 2, 2010
296
Mid-Michigan
Another article...


http://www.kspr.com/sns-ap-mo--police-tapedbeating,0,1860426.story

ST. LOUIS (AP) — St. Louis police are investigating after a YouTube video surfaced showing a city officer using his nightstick to beat a man.

Police said in a statement Tuesday that while the circumstances are not yet known, the video is disturbing. Police say they have not yet identified the officer, but he will be placed on administrative duty once identified, until the investigation is complete.


The video was shot early on New Year's Day, at a convenience store, through the window of a car that was not involved.


The convenience store owner, Joel Platke, says the officer was off-duty working security at the store when the young man came in and caused a disturbance. He says what the video doesn't show is the young man grabbing at the officer's ankles. Platke says he believes the officer did nothing wrong.
 

rwo978

Member
May 21, 2010
5,196
ND, USA
mjMIff said:

The convenience store owner, Joel Platke, says the officer was off-duty working security at the store when the young man came in and caused a disturbance. He says what the video doesn't show is the young man grabbing at the officer's ankles. Platke says he believes the officer did nothing wrong.

cpd1212 gets a cookie?

Can't see the officer's feet or the offender once he is taken down. Maybe he is holding onto the officers feet?
 

mcpd2025

Member
May 20, 2010
1,557
Maryland, USA
These types of videos are HORRIBLE for police, because it usually only starts getting recorded to catch the officers reaction, not the initial actions that caused the officer to decide that force was needed. The work of a police officer can be very brutal at times, even when done correctly and according to nationally accepted police practices. I will admit that it looks bad... he's beating another human with a metal weapon, there is no way to make that look nice and appropriate.


I noticed that all the guys standing around did not appear appalled ir upset by the actions of the officer, and I assume that they know more about this story than I do and that the girl shooting the video knows. The officer did not appear to be out of control, the Asp strikes appeared to have been aimed and methodical, not out of control. If this guy is on the ground and thrashing around, it would not be prudent for the officer to go to the ground with him. From a tactical standpoint (since he is alone and apparently outnumbered) it makes much more sense to stay on his feet and able to disengage quickly.


However, IF it is determined that the force was not authorized, the officer should be charged criminally.
 

Station 3

Member
May 21, 2010
3,395
Edinburg Texas
Damn i would not have hit him with the ASP i mean damn he is in deep shit now. I go for my spray first its just better.
 

mcpd2025

Member
May 20, 2010
1,557
Maryland, USA
Station 3 said:
i mean damn he is in deep shit now.
How do you figure?

Station 3 said:
I go for my spray first its just better
Also, you go to your spray first when you are alone, dealing with a subject who is under the influence of something (possibly pcp???) and you don't know if/when you'll have backup? Are you concerned that you might get contaminated and can't see or breath to stay in the fight?


How can you be so certain that you would not have used the baton and that he is in deep shit without knowing what happened, what he was reacting too or any other variable that this officer knew at the time and you don't know?
 

Station 3

Member
May 21, 2010
3,395
Edinburg Texas
First of all Im in Texas trust me if the situation would of called for it i would of discharged my side arm on the suspect. I know that my back up is about 7 miles away and i know how to use my OC enough not to contaminate myself like a frikeen rooook. Its not my first rodeo okay.
 

mcpd2025

Member
May 20, 2010
1,557
Maryland, USA
Well, the reason I posed my questions is that you are crucifying this officer for using force without knowing the reason he used it. You would use your gun if the situation called for it, but not your baton?


I guess my 9 years on the job hasn't taught me the appropriate way to use OC to ensure that I am not contaminated. Its been my experience that spray can be affected by wind (when in a struggle, it can be difficult to judge wind speed and direction), foam can be thrown back at an officer, if the guy gets up and tries to tackle or hit me it can spread the OC. Besides the fact that my experience has shown me that higly intoxicated or impaired people aren't are affected by OC spray. But those are my experiences...


I have no problem if you want to use spray instead of a baton, thats your call that you can make based upon what you see at the scene. I guess I got bent out of shape because you are throwing this officer under the bus without knowing any details at all.
 

Station 3

Member
May 21, 2010
3,395
Edinburg Texas
mcpd2025 said:
Well, the reason I posed my questions is that you are crucifying this officer for using force without knowing the reason he used it. You would use your gun if the situation called for it, but not your baton?

I guess my 9 years on the job hasn't taught me the appropriate way to use OC to ensure that I am not contaminated. Its been my experience that spray can be affected by wind (when in a struggle, it can be difficult to judge wind speed and direction), foam can be thrown back at an officer, if the guy gets up and tries to tackle or hit me it can spread the OC. Besides the fact that my experience has shown me that higly intoxicated or impaired people aren't are affected by OC spray. But those are my experiences...


I have no problem if you want to use spray instead of a baton, thats your call that you can make based upon what you see at the scene. I guess I got bent out of shape because you are throwing this officer under the bus without knowing any details at all.

Yes everything you said about OC is correct and i do understand why you would use the batton. And yes i did not see the complete video to this arrest to really say if it was justified to use such force. But damn why beat him so many times when he is on the floor. I have many questions to this video -- did he have a gun?-- did he have some other weapon we did not see?--- was he fighting back from the floor but we just could not see it? Many many questions that i dont have the answer to but i guess thats how many videos are these days people just dont get the right angle.
 

RolnCode3

Member
May 21, 2010
322
Sacramento, CA
Some of the responses in this thread are almost comical. Watching the video, it's quite clear the officers legs/feet were being held on to (which I realize has already come to light). You can see when he eventually steps away that he does so with difficulty and it's apparent that's when the suspect releases.


If you hit someone with an ASP and the threat continues, you would probably hit them again. "Beat" has a connotation. Strike and hit do not. He struck the subject several times. But where did he hit him? I'll put even money on the officer striking (see the difference!) on the arms and hands. Even then, it couldn't have been that bad if he was able to handcuff the subject and no medical attention was required. Long way from "clearly excessive" or any similar description, IMPO.


And as always, we go by the "reasonable officer standard". Would a reasonable officer respond this way, and were this officer's actions reasonable. Just because YOU might use OC does not mean this officer even needs to contemplate that action. His actions will only be judged by whether what he did was reasonable. Some officers would just stand there and yell at the guy. Doesn't mean that's the only reasonable action.
 

mcpd2025

Member
May 20, 2010
1,557
Maryland, USA
Station 3 said:
I have many questions to this video -- did he have a gun?-- did he have some other weapon we did not see?--- was he fighting back from the floor but we just could not see it? Many many questions that i dont have the answer to but i guess thats how many videos are these days people just dont get the right angle.
And I feel that as a brother officer, we have to extend the benefit of the doubt rather than curb stomp him in public. If you prefer OC, thats your call. I just take major exception to the comment that "damn he is in deep shit now" or "damn why BEAT him so many times when he is on the floor". That implies that you think that he was wrong in his use of force. I would argue that NONE of us can sit here and say for fact that the force was justified or unjustified based upon what we saw in that video. There are many questions, but I consider the totality of the circumstances here. The officer is not swinging blindly and does not appear to be out of control. The multiple people standing there in arms reach did not react as if the officer was out of line. You can't hear the officer, but he swings and it appears as though he either tries to pull his foot away or issue verbal commands, then swings again. That is TEXTBOOK use of force for the baton.


Not sure if you watch UFC or any of the MMA fights, but there are a lot of these types of fighters that actually PREFER to fight on the ground. Just because the suspect was on the ground does NOT mean that the fight is over or that the officer is at the advantage.


Not trying to be rude or disrespectful at all, but what exactly is a Texas peace officer? Is it a full time law enforcment officer, volunteer, part time? From a full time law enforcement officer, I would expect a little more brotherhood and understanding of what this job encompasses and the minutia of using force and counter acting a struggle. If information comes out that this was unjustified, the suspect was trying to surrender, etc... I won't have any problem with criticizing him. If information comes out that it wasn't as clean as I hope it was, I'll quietly stop commenting about it. However, until something like that occurs, I feel as though we should support the officer and hope that everything works out.
 

emtspruitt

Member
May 25, 2010
226
Huntsville, AL
I am not a LEO, but I do understand that if you are threatened that you must stop that threat. It seems to me that the baton strikes do not force the subject to let go of the officers feet but the OC does. Threat ended and subject was cuffed. Seems to me, with the limited information that is given he did what he thought was needed to protect himself.
 

Station 3

Member
May 21, 2010
3,395
Edinburg Texas
mcpd2025 said:
And I feel that as a brother officer, we have to extend the benefit of the doubt rather than curb stomp him in public. If you prefer OC, thats your call. I just take major exception to the comment that "damn he is in deep shit now" or "damn why BEAT him so many times when he is on the floor". That implies that you think that he was wrong in his use of force. I would argue that NONE of us can sit here and say for fact that the force was justified or unjustified based upon what we saw in that video. There are many questions, but I consider the totality of the circumstances here. The officer is not swinging blindly and does not appear to be out of control. The multiple people standing there in arms reach did not react as if the officer was out of line. You can't hear the officer, but he swings and it appears as though he either tries to pull his foot away or issue verbal commands, then swings again. That is TEXTBOOK use of force for the baton.

Not sure if you watch UFC or any of the MMA fights, but there are a lot of these types of fighters that actually PREFER to fight on the ground. Just because the suspect was on the ground does NOT mean that the fight is over or that the officer is at the advantage.


Not trying to be rude or disrespectful at all, but what exactly is a Texas peace officer? Is it a full time law enforcment officer, volunteer, part time? From a full time law enforcement officer, I would expect a little more brotherhood and understanding of what this job encompasses and the minutia of using force and counter acting a struggle. If information comes out that this was unjustified, the suspect was trying to surrender, etc... I won't have any problem with criticizing him. If information comes out that it wasn't as clean as I hope it was, I'll quietly stop commenting about it. However, until something like that occurs, I feel as though we should support the officer and hope that everything works out.


Texas Peace Officer is the Title that i hold from the state as do any other Police Officer,Constable,Sheriff,State Trooper do i myself am a city cop Full time but as we change jobs we still hold the title Texas Peace Officer. And yes you might be correct thats why i changed my attitude towards the video and said okay i see he struck the subject multiple times but i would like to know what the subject was doing to cause such a response from the officer. Now that you have cleared it out i understand and im sure i would of done something of the same to do the job.
 

RolnCode3

Member
May 21, 2010
322
Sacramento, CA
emtspruitt said:
I am not a LEO, but I do understand that if you are threatened that you must stop that threat. It seems to me that the baton strikes do not force the subject to let go of the officers feet but the OC does. Threat ended and subject was cuffed. Seems to me, with the limited information that is given he did what he thought was needed to protect himself.
OC and batons work on the exact same principle. You take away the ability to fight or the will to fight. There is no reason (that I can think of) to believe that OC would have been more effective in this situation. The officer achieves the desired effect with his baton - the subject releases his grasp. If I break your fingers and forearm with a baton I bet I could free myself. Either you'll be in so much pain and don't want it to continue that you'll release (will to fight) or you won't physically be able to grasp (ability to fight).
 

mcpd2025

Member
May 20, 2010
1,557
Maryland, USA
emtspruitt said:
I am not a LEO, but I do understand that if you are threatened that you must stop that threat. It seems to me that the baton strikes do not force the subject to let go of the officers feet but the OC does. Threat ended and subject was cuffed. Seems to me, with the limited information that is given he did what he thought was needed to protect himself.
Yea, everyone and every situation is different. There are some people that aren't affected by OC spray. If you are under the influence or have some type of serious head injuries, OC might not affect you. The big downfall to OC is the potential to be self contaminated. I know how OC affects me, and I have no desire to be contaminated by it. If I can't breath or see, I am no good in a fight and at an even greater risk to be injured or lose my gun. That is why I prefer punches, kicks or baton/maglite strikes... no potential for contamination. I can, however, lose the fight, get my ass kicked and then killed...
 

Forum Statistics

Threads
54,052
Messages
450,127
Members
19,141
Latest member
pcrose

About Us

  • Since 1997, eLightbars has been the premier venue for all things emergency warning equipment. Discussions, classified listings, pictures, videos, chat, & more! Our staff members strive to keep the forums organized and clutter-free. All of our offerings are free-of-charge with all costs offset by banner advertising. Premium offerings are available to improve your experience.

User Menu

Secure Browsing & Transactions

eLightbars.org uses SSL to secure all traffic between our server and your browsing device. All browsing and transactions within are secured by an SSL Certificate with high-strength encryption.