NYPD assaults a judge, intimidates witnesses, lies to DA.

[TheFeniX]

Apparently physical fitness isn't important in that agency.

Well, everything is bigger in Texas.

Anyway, the guy wasn't handcuffed. If you listen to the video you can hear them yelling at him to place his hands behind is back. Physical strikes to extremities, especially the extremity offering the most resistance, is pretty basic use of force and is regarded as reasonable as long as you don't end up breaking bones. Strikes to the body and head aren't okay in that situation because they have control of his body and he isn't able to inflict injury on the officers. Though keep in mind in active situations it is possible to miss your intended target, especially when it is an extremity.

You are right about the handcuffs, but I don't see any situation that could apply where some hambeast comes up and just gets in a few kicks to the head/chest because he figured he might as well contribute something.

You can always file a report with your local FBI office if you don't trust the DA office or the local cops to conduct a fair investigation.

There's options in these situations, no one is arguing otherwise. It's just that the options are shitty.

Furthermore, if the department can show that the officer acted outside policy and law then that will place the civil liability onto the individual officer who then would have to show that the department failed to train them adequately - which does happen quite a bit. So, you're mistaken when you say the administration has zero incentive to pursue claims of corruption.

Why would cops and their union want that training then? If it's a free pass to say "no one trained me to know that kicking someone in the head repeatably isn't the proper way to subdue them," who in their right mind would fight for more training?

That's a shitty excuse to hide behind and one only law enforcement seems to be able to pull. We're not talking about cops not knowing you don't have to show ID if you aren't driving. Although, the ass covering after the fact by the DA was hilarious. And we're not talking about a 1 on 1 fight that could easily turn deadly, so the officer has to resort to attacks that could potentially disable/kill a person. No one is posting videos of 1 cop kicking 1 suspect in the head because he was about to get back up and continue fighting.

We're talking about situations where, if the attacker wasn't wearing a badge, proving assault (sometimes even deadly force) wouldn't be difficult.

If you're so fucking stupid you need to sit in a class to know that kicking someone in the head while they are prone is excessive use of force when you have 2 buddies sitting on the guy, then you should not be in the business of police work. But that's not how it goes down, the officer just knows he can get away with it because union contracts push so hard for indemnification for the officers and the taxpayer will pick up any collateral damage.

They have a great deal of incentive because it protects the department from being sued if it is found the officer acted outside of policy and law.

The department doesn't get sued, the State, County, or City gets sued. You can list "X Police Department" in the lawsuit all you want, but they just don't take that money away from the cops. Government budgets don't work that way. Instead, when a city/whatever gets hammered by lawsuits, they just take money away from "less important" things like education, parks/wildlife, and other emergency services.

Those services don't have the same bargaining power that police unions do.

[JLTucker]

From a professional perspective I think with the number of officers present they could have easily physically restrained him by going for his upper body while he was facing a different direction. Eventually this is what they did and it worked after a bit of a struggle.

"eventually" is the key word here. They did that eventually after the cop who beat the suspect was fearing for his safety because of some kicks. It makes me wonder why they didn't do that to begin with. Do you have an explanation why the suspect was still being beaten after his legs were still, recovering from the taser?

[NettiWelho]

So what's exactly the incentive for the department again if 100% of the bills are going to end up paid by the taxpayer in a case of a successful suit?

That money comes out of the city budget and therefore effects the police department budget administrators like to have a budget so they can fund operations and equipment. If that money is taken in a lawsuit then they can't fund those operations and may even have to lay off employees. That being said I don't believe it is a good method of handling instance of police abuse/corruption.

Except thats not real incentive because there is still no personal liability(someone ELSE is going get laid off in case of "no monies").. the ones actually breaking the law are still being left off the hook... the police actually needs to be held to a higher standard than anyone else and not to be allowed to hide behind 'lack of training' or any other bullshit, because noone else gets a get free out of jail card either for breaking the law, except the banks.

2:03 an officer bends down to grab him and he tries to kick the officer in the head. Another officer moves in and grabs his leg. You're right though when confronted with people beating you for no reason you don't turn your back on them. Unfortunately for him, the police had a reason.

There is a loud crack audible in 1:59 for which the guy on the ground reacts with agonizing scream and what looks like grabbing his leg with both arms.

Now, I dont know about anyone else but in the immediate aftermath of being the target of intentionally caused excruciating pain my immediate reaction would NOT be to roll over and expose myself further(which is appearantly what the officers want), the automatic reaction would be to kick the head of someone inflicting me pain if hes stupid enough to get in range, which I would actually count as legimate self-defense.

As you can see police are allowed to use force to effect arrests. The level of force is determined mostly by the level of resistance. In a very basic nutshell passive resistance will result in the application of pain to obtain compliance. Active resistance or resistance from a person that has demonstrated he is violent will result in the application of a broader range of force such as the taser, hand strikes, or baton.

It is irrelevant what the guy did previously when we are already at the point that he is lying on the ground defenseless and unable to escape, beating him and telling him to roll over is just plain torture because its not actually part of an arrest if youre not actually trying to take him into custody, regardless what the law codifies it as.(that is, standing around, beating and tazering him)

I mean, you wouldn't shoot someone either and claim it as self defense with the excuse that the guy was previously in possession of a firearm, the measures must be applicable to the current situation at hand.

To me it still looks like theyre beating the guy for fun, because there is nothing to be gained by continuing with the batons, they are already practically in complete control of the situation.

I'd say that douche bag in the video is the problem. He could have not started a fight with two people. He could have complied with police instructions. The entire incident is his fault. He started it and someone else finished it.

No, if he had been tasered, overpowered by the group, forcibly rolled over and hogtied then the entire incident wouldve remained his fault but instead they just stand around and torture him.

I mean, around here in Finland the police ARE allowed to use force to effect an arrest, with the condition that any use of force must actually be part of an attempted arrest. Appearently american police can do whatever they want as long as they say 'we are here to arrest you'. Around here what the officers did in the video would've been a crime because no such use of force coulve possibly been justified as required to bring the situation into a closure, regardless what took place earlier.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Well, everything is bigger in Texas.

Maybe...if this picture below is also from Texas then I believe the myth is confirmed.

http://www.kulfoto.com/funny-pictures/3 ... run-for-it

I'm pretty sure the cop in this picture above is about to die.

You are right about the handcuffs, but I don't see any situation that could apply where some hambeast comes up and just gets in a few kicks to the head/chest because he figured he might as well contribute something.

Neither can I.

You can always file a report with your local FBI office if you don't trust the DA office or the local cops to conduct a fair investigation.

There's options in these situations, no one is arguing otherwise. It's just that the options are shitty.

Why would cops and their union want that training then? If it's a free pass to say "no one trained me to know that kicking someone in the head repeatably isn't the proper way to subdue them," who in their right mind would fight for more training?

Want? I think you have police unions confused with other unions. The unions have zero say in what training the department will put on. The department schedules a specific training and officers are issued direct orders to attend. Failure to attend will result in discipline. You also have to meet training requirements every year to maintain your peace officer certification. If that expires then you lose your job, at least until you can re-certify.

Furthermore, I'm not talking about training for common sense issues like kicking someone in the head. All I was saying is that when a department finds the officer out of policy and out of law then the department can not be sued by the victim. The victim can sue the officer and the department can wash its hands of him. The only recourse the officer has is to claim that he wasn't provided proper training but as you can see that would be difficult to do when it's a common sense issue such as not kicking someone in the head. Understand?

That's a shitty excuse to hide behind and one only law enforcement seems to be able to pull. We're not talking about cops not knowing you don't have to show ID if you aren't driving. Although, the ass covering after the fact by the DA was hilarious. And we're not talking about a 1 on 1 fight that could easily turn deadly, so the officer has to resort to attacks that could potentially disable/kill a person. No one is posting videos of 1 cop kicking 1 suspect in the head because he was about to get back up and continue fighting.

We're talking about situations where, if the attacker wasn't wearing a badge, proving assault (sometimes even deadly force) wouldn't be difficult.

If you're so fucking stupid you need to sit in a class to know that kicking someone in the head while they are prone is excessive use of force when you have 2 buddies sitting on the guy, then you should not be in the business of police work. But that's not how it goes down, the officer just knows he can get away with it because union contracts push so hard for indemnification for the officers and the taxpayer will pick up any collateral damage.

Hopefully we're on the same page. You just took off with that statement and went into crazy town. The officer claiming a failure to train situation must show it was a situation in which training is necessary to prepare one for such a situation. Like, say, emergency vehicle operations.

The department doesn't get sued, the State, County, or City gets sued. You can list "X Police Department" in the lawsuit all you want, but they just don't take that money away from the cops. Government budgets don't work that way. Instead, when a city/whatever gets hammered by lawsuits, they just take money away from "less important" things like education, parks/wildlife, and other emergency services.

Maybe that happens where you live. Not here.

Those services don't have the same bargaining power that police unions do.

Yeah. My union has so much bargaining power that when the city told the union they were cutting our wages, increasing our insurance, and suspending our cost of living increases the union was powerless to stop it.

Though I'm sure things are just different here.

[Kamakazie Sith]

"eventually" is the key word here. They did that eventually after the cop who beat the suspect was fearing for his safety because of some kicks. It makes me wonder why they didn't do that to begin with. Do you have an explanation why the suspect was still being beaten after his legs were still, recovering from the taser?

Probably because he had yet to comply with instructions to turn onto his stomach and put his hands behind his back and was holding his legs in a defensive position.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Except thats not real incentive because there is still no personal liability(someone ELSE is going get laid off in case of "no monies").. the ones actually breaking the law are still being left off the hook... the police actually needs to be held to a higher standard than anyone else and not to be allowed to hide behind 'lack of training' or any other bullshit, because noone else gets a get free out of jail card either for breaking the law, except the banks.

Failure to train doesn't protect officers from crimes. It protects them from civil liability for issues that training is required to prepare someone for such as emergency vehicle operations. In the context that I was explaining if an officer is found to be out of policy and law then their only recourse to transfer that civil liability is to hope they can sustain a complaint of failure to train against the department but they must be able to demonstrate it. Simply claiming it is not enough.

There is a loud crack audible in 1:59 for which the guy on the ground reacts with agonizing scream and what looks like grabbing his leg with both arms.

That was a new taser cartridge being deployed.

Now, I dont know about anyone else but in the immediate aftermath of being the target of intentionally caused excruciating pain my immediate reaction would NOT be to roll over and expose myself further(which is appearantly what the officers want), the automatic reaction would be to kick the head of someone inflicting me pain if hes stupid enough to get in range, which I would actually count as legimate self-defense.

Which only will lengthen the amount of time force is used against you. Very smart.

It is irrelevant what the guy did previously when we are already at the point that he is lying on the ground defenseless and unable to escape, beating him and telling him to roll over is just plain torture because its not actually part of an arrest if youre not actually trying to take him into custody, regardless what the law codifies it as.(that is, standing around, beating and tazering him)

He isn't defenseless. Did you miss the part where his legs are being used in a defensive manner?

I mean, you wouldn't shoot someone either and claim it as self defense with the excuse that the guy was previously in possession of a firearm, the measures must be applicable to the current situation at hand.

Depends. If someone had just committed a violent crime with a firearm and they failed to comply with instructions and made a quick movement towards their waistband then court precedence would likely rule the shooting justified even if they were found to be unarmed.

To me it still looks like theyre beating the guy for fun, because there is nothing to be gained by continuing with the batons, they are already practically in complete control of the situation.

Complete control to me means the handcuffs are on and the person isn't in a defensive position on his back. I counted six baton strikes with the last being at the 20 second mark. Several taser uses follow after that.

No, if he had been tasered, overpowered by the group, forcibly rolled over and hogtied then the entire incident wouldve remained his fault but instead they just stand around and torture him.

I agree. As soon as he fell they should have rushed him and gained physical control.

I mean, around here in Finland the police ARE allowed to use force to effect an arrest, with the condition that any use of force must actually be part of an attempted arrest.

Appearently american police can do whatever they want as long as they say 'we are here to arrest you'. Around here what the officers did in the video would've been a crime because no such use of force coulve possibly been justified as required to bring the situation into a closure, regardless what took place earlier.

They can't do whatever but the subjects actions do play a significant role when the powers that be decide if force was excessive or not. In this case I do view their force as excessive because most of them were just standing around not taking advantage of the baton strikes and taser uses.

[NettiWelho]

It is irrelevant what the guy did previously when we are already at the point that he is lying on the ground defenseless and unable to escape, beating him and telling him to roll over is just plain torture because its not actually part of an arrest if youre not actually trying to take him into custody, regardless what the law codifies it as.(that is, standing around, beating and tazering him)

He isn't defenseless. Did you miss the part where his legs are being used in a defensive manner?

21st century superpower vs. pre-industrial civilization in combat:

You can vaporize every single individual of the other culture without a single of your men being risked a casualty if you drop a nuke on them.

You can kill as many as you want of them from the air and from inside armor they cannot penetrate without risking a single casualty.

But if you stand from one couple a meters away, turn around and willingly expose your neck and get killed, that doesnt make them capable of defending themselves in my honest opinion.

That is the difference in power in the confrontation in the video between the guy on the ground and the police. It doesnt actually make him any more powerful if you forfeit every advantage you have, it makes you stupid and vulnerable if you place your head in the very narrow zone he has capability in projecting physical power in.

[Kamakazie Sith]

It is irrelevant what the guy did previously when we are already at the point that he is lying on the ground defenseless and unable to escape, beating him and telling him to roll over is just plain torture because its not actually part of an arrest if youre not actually trying to take him into custody, regardless what the law codifies it as.(that is, standing around, beating and tazering him)

He isn't defenseless. Did you miss the part where his legs are being used in a defensive manner?

21st century superpower vs. pre-industrial civilization in combat:

You can vaporize every single individual of the other culture without a single of your men being risked a casualty if you drop a nuke on them.

You can kill as many as you want of them from the air and from inside armor they cannot penetrate without risking a single casualty.

But if you stand from one couple a meters away, turn around and willingly expose your neck and get killed, that doesnt make them capable of defending themselves in my honest opinion.

That is the difference in power in the confrontation in the video between the guy on the ground and the police. It doesnt actually make him any more powerful if you forfeit every advantage you have, it makes you stupid and vulnerable if you place your head in the very narrow zone he has capability in projecting physical power in.

How do you suppose they arrest him? They need to enter his area of influence in order to arrest him.

[NettiWelho]

How do you suppose they arrest him? They need to enter his area of influence in order to arrest him.

Just drop on him before he regains muscle control after tasing, like they shouldve done in the first place.

[Kamakazie Sith]

How do you suppose they arrest him? They need to enter his area of influence in order to arrest him.

Just drop on him before he regains muscle control after tasing, like they shouldve done in the first place.

The fact they have to use the taser to accomplish this means he isn't defenseless.

Overall though I agree that tasing someone without trying to physically gain control is completely useless and repeating such useless action over and over is excessive force.

[Zwinmar]

I have had some training in the use of a baton/nightstick and can tell you that they can and will easily break bones. The training indicates not to hit in the skull or chest area as there is a possibility of death. That is if you use them correctly, the cop in that video was not.

There is no point in hitting someone on the ground, he had no weapons.

I never understood why it is ok for cops to pull shit like that while at the same time we supposedly have the right to self defense.

[Jub]

@Kamakazie Sith:

To what point is self defense allowed against police who are swinging batons at you? Where does that end and noncompliance and resisting arrest begin?

[Kamakazie Sith]

@Kamakazie Sith:

To what point is self defense allowed against police who are swinging batons at you? Where does that end and noncompliance and resisting arrest begin?

It varies from state to state. Some states allow you to defend yourself against excessive force and/or illegal arrests. Others only allow it if the force being used against you is capable of inflicting serious bodily injury or death. Some don't allow it at all and hold the position that this is what the courts are for.

I would say if you're being compliant and the police are beating you then it is reasonable for you exercise your right to self defense but not necessarily smart. You would have to weigh the factors at the present time. Do you have witnesses or evidence to back you up in court. If these cops are beating you while you're following commands how far are they actually willing to go? Are they going to beat you to death if you do nothing or will your action cause them to use deadly force?

Now in the case of the guy in the video under discussion who got hit with the baton and then tased. He would not have that option because he never fulled complied and was aggressive and assaulted officers and citizens at the start. The other thing is not all excessive force incidents are on the same level. They range from clearly unreasonable to failure to adapt in a reasonable amount of time(the situation in the video)

In this case it was excessive force because they failed to coordinate and take advantage of the strikes which required more strikes and/or taser deployments which would be unnecessary had they coordinated a proper take down.

Here is an example of the use of force continuum that is used as the basic model for US police use of force;
http://www.streetsensesafety.ca/attachm ... te=generic

The resistance of the man in the video falls under active resister with physical control and intermediate weapons (baton, taser) being within the range of acceptable use of force.

Here is the Supreme Court ruling on how police force is determined to be justified or not;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_v._Connor
The Fourth Amendment "reasonableness" inquiry is whether the officers' actions are "objectively reasonable" in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation. The "reasonableness" of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, and its calculus must embody an allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second decisions about the amount of force necessary in a particular situation. Pp. 490 U. S. 396-397.