Police Officer: "Move So I Can F*ck You Up!"

[Mad Scientist]

This was reported back in November of last year but I've just now found out.

This is why the Police don't want you filming them:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=9-DcYbbep6o#"]Cop On Steroids? 17-Year-Old Learns Why You Should Never Resist Arrest - YouTube[/ame]!

 

[Politico]

Yo yo bro I knows you gettin' ya neck broke. But I gotsa get my You Tube on feel me?

 

[George Costanza]

Unfortunately, this is typical - not the exception.

 

[George Costanza]

We don't have any cops here, do we? At "another forum" where I posted for five or six years before coming here, we had two or three cops who posted daily. Without exception, they were all total jerks - authoritarian bullies who were the Internet posting equivalent of the piece of shit in this video.

 

[Wry Catcher]

We don't have any cops here, do we? At "another forum" where I posted for five or six years before coming here, we had two or three cops who posted daily. Without exception, they were all total jerks - authoritarian bullies who were the Internet posting equivalent of the piece of shit in this video.

That video is not typical but it happens. As one who was responsible for IA investigations it is my opinion that each and every person who witnessed this apparent abuse of power is interviewed twice before a decision is made regarding discipline, up to termination.

Officers are trained when engaged in 'ground fighting' to survive. I'd like to know the full event before rendering judgment.

 

[George Costanza]

We don't have any cops here, do we? At "another forum" where I posted for five or six years before coming here, we had two or three cops who posted daily. Without exception, they were all total jerks - authoritarian bullies who were the Internet posting equivalent of the piece of shit in this video.

That video is not typical but it happens. As one who was responsible for IA investigations it is my opinion that each and every person who witnessed this apparent abuse of power is interviewed twice before a decision is made regarding discipline, up to termination.

Officers are trained when engaged in 'ground fighting' to survive. I'd like to know the full event before rendering judgment.

I deal with cops on a daily basis. I have cross examined thousands of them over the years in preliminary hearings and trials. I know just about every cop on our local police force personally. I have listened to thousands of defendants talk about what they sustained at the hands of cops. I have photographed their injuries and subpoena'd their medical records.

The video is typical.

Now, having said that, no - of course police officers don't act like this with everyone they arrest or come into contact with. Most of the time, it isn't necessary, because the suspect cooperates. But if the suspect does not cooperate, things change in a big hurry and this is what I am talking about. This video is quite typical when we are talking about a non-cooperating suspect.

And, in fairness to the police, they are trained to be highly aggressive in the face of even the slightest lack of cooperation or resistance from a suspect. After all, their lives are on the line all too often.

The problem area is where an officer overreacts, i.e., becomes highly aggressive when it really is not necessary to do so. Looks like this video is one of those cases.

 

[whitehall]

Geez, you sissies expect the Police to enforce the law and now you are worried about vulgar language? They say that all the time on police TV shows. What's the big deal?

 

[Wry Catcher]

We don't have any cops here, do we? At "another forum" where I posted for five or six years before coming here, we had two or three cops who posted daily. Without exception, they were all total jerks - authoritarian bullies who were the Internet posting equivalent of the piece of shit in this video.

That video is not typical but it happens. As one who was responsible for IA investigations it is my opinion that each and every person who witnessed this apparent abuse of power is interviewed twice before a decision is made regarding discipline, up to termination.

Officers are trained when engaged in 'ground fighting' to survive. I'd like to know the full event before rendering judgment.

I deal with cops on a daily basis. I have cross examined thousands of them over the years in preliminary hearings and trials. I know just about every cop on our local police force personally. I have listened to thousands of defendants talk about what they sustained at the hands of cops. I have photographed their injuries and subpoena'd their medical records.

The video is typical.

Now, having said that, no - of course police officers don't act like this with everyone they arrest or come into contact with. Most of the time, it isn't necessary, because the suspect cooperates. But if the suspect does not cooperate, things change in a big hurry and this is what I am talking about. This video is quite typical when we are talking about a non-cooperating suspect.

And, in fairness to the police, they are trained to be highly aggressive in the face of even the slightest lack of cooperation or resistance from a suspect. After all, their lives are on the line all too often.

The problem area is where an officer overreacts, i.e., becomes highly aggressive when it really is not necessary to do so. Looks like this video is one of those cases.

I agree. The second officer was out of control. The first officer, actually engaged, was not. What I would do is interview everyone, twice, read the reports and review dispatch records and get as much detail as possible from each participant/witness on what they saw and heard before, during and after the video. My gut response - and I have no evidence to support a feeling - is officer #2 saw, or thought he saw, the subject attempt to take the gun from officer #1.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

We don't have any cops here, do we? At "another forum" where I posted for five or six years before coming here, we had two or three cops who posted daily. Without exception, they were all total jerks - authoritarian bullies who were the Internet posting equivalent of the piece of shit in this video.

That video is not typical but it happens. As one who was responsible for IA investigations it is my opinion that each and every person who witnessed this apparent abuse of power is interviewed twice before a decision is made regarding discipline, up to termination.

Officers are trained when engaged in 'ground fighting' to survive. I'd like to know the full event before rendering judgment.

What fucking evidence do you have that this video is not typical? Police routinely use force in situations that do not require it because they are trained to hit before they think.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Geez, you sissies expect the Police to enforce the law and now you are worried about vulgar language? They say that all the time on police TV shows. What's the big deal?

No, we expect them to obey the law, not break it. I guess we could go back to the days where they could beat the crap out of you for giving them lip, but I prefer to evolve.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That video is not typical but it happens. As one who was responsible for IA investigations it is my opinion that each and every person who witnessed this apparent abuse of power is interviewed twice before a decision is made regarding discipline, up to termination.

Officers are trained when engaged in 'ground fighting' to survive. I'd like to know the full event before rendering judgment.

I deal with cops on a daily basis. I have cross examined thousands of them over the years in preliminary hearings and trials. I know just about every cop on our local police force personally. I have listened to thousands of defendants talk about what they sustained at the hands of cops. I have photographed their injuries and subpoena'd their medical records.

The video is typical.

Now, having said that, no - of course police officers don't act like this with everyone they arrest or come into contact with. Most of the time, it isn't necessary, because the suspect cooperates. But if the suspect does not cooperate, things change in a big hurry and this is what I am talking about. This video is quite typical when we are talking about a non-cooperating suspect.

And, in fairness to the police, they are trained to be highly aggressive in the face of even the slightest lack of cooperation or resistance from a suspect. After all, their lives are on the line all too often.

The problem area is where an officer overreacts, i.e., becomes highly aggressive when it really is not necessary to do so. Looks like this video is one of those cases.

I agree. The second officer was out of control. The first officer, actually engaged, was not. What I would do is interview everyone, twice, read the reports and review dispatch records and get as much detail as possible from each participant/witness on what they saw and heard before, during and after the video. My gut response - and I have no evidence to support a feeling - is officer #2 saw, or thought he saw, the subject attempt to take the gun from officer #1.

My gut response is officer number 2 needs to find a new job as a janitor.

 

[Wry Catcher]

We don't have any cops here, do we? At "another forum" where I posted for five or six years before coming here, we had two or three cops who posted daily. Without exception, they were all total jerks - authoritarian bullies who were the Internet posting equivalent of the piece of shit in this video.

That video is not typical but it happens. As one who was responsible for IA investigations it is my opinion that each and every person who witnessed this apparent abuse of power is interviewed twice before a decision is made regarding discipline, up to termination.

Officers are trained when engaged in 'ground fighting' to survive. I'd like to know the full event before rendering judgment.

What fucking evidence do you have that this video is not typical? Police routinely use force in situations that do not require it because they are trained to hit before they think.

Well, I was the training manager for five years in a LE Agency and never once put on such a training. I'm pretty sure you speak from personal experience, and, given how you treat those who disagree with you on this forum, call me not surprised.

BTW, I also terminated probationary employees for engaging in such behavior and recommended non probationary employees be terminated by the hiring authority.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That video is not typical but it happens. As one who was responsible for IA investigations it is my opinion that each and every person who witnessed this apparent abuse of power is interviewed twice before a decision is made regarding discipline, up to termination.

Officers are trained when engaged in 'ground fighting' to survive. I'd like to know the full event before rendering judgment.

What fucking evidence do you have that this video is not typical? Police routinely use force in situations that do not require it because they are trained to hit before they think.

Well, I was the training manager for five years in a LE Agency and never once put on such a training. I'm pretty sure you speak from personal experience, and, given how you treat those who disagree with you on this forum, call me not surprised.

BTW, I also terminated probationary employees for engaging in such behavior and recommended non probationary employees be terminated by the hiring authority.

You know what, I am willing to flat out call you a liar on that one without having the benefit of your curriculum, The reason for that is quite simple, the only thing that matters to the cop is "Make it Home for Dinner." That is why the second cop in this video came in assuming the situation was out of control, and you assumed he "saw" the guy that was obviously under control was trying to take the first officers gun.

In fact, I can demonstrate that you yourself demonstrated the "hit before thinking" mentality in your defense of the second cop. The first officer clearly threw his radio to the side at one point, which meant that dispatch would have been unable to contact him to ask for more details. ?This would have been reported by the dispatcher, and the second officer would have know that the first guy was out of contact before he even got out of the car. This caused him to approach aggressively and overreact to the actual situation on the ground. He never thought he saw anything, and you know it, you just have to defend him because of the First Rule of Policing takes precedent over the law. If you did not have the think before hitting mentality yourself you would have explained the semi logical reason for the second officer's attitude instead of inventing a justification for his actions.

 

[freedombecki]

My police kid was off six months last year due to a 7.5' suspect's wildly swinging haymakers and inflicting a back injury.

Desk duty was not an option for the first two months.

Some suspects are high on crack. Cops can't tell by looking who is and who isn't crack crazy.

Phone recordings neither tell the whole truth nor nothing but the truth, although they may look convincing. An uncooperative suspect can be someone capable of inflicting a bruise, a broken spine, or death to a cop or the cop's partner.

Dealing with non-cooperators is risky business, and I'm not surprised there are a few over-reactions out there when faced with this problem.

I saw the non-cooperation in that video. Controlling non-cooperators is just not pretty.

As a mother, an injury to a beloved person dedicated to keeping the peace is a horror I'd rather not know. It can take an inch or two off anyone's height.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I did not assume " he "saw" the guy that was obviously under control was trying to take the first officers gun." Stating I did makes you a liar, for you did not post my entire comment:

"I agree. The second officer was out of control. The first officer, actually engaged, was not. What I would do is interview everyone, twice, read the reports and review dispatch records and get as much detail as possible from each participant/witness on what they saw and heard before, during and after the video. My gut response - and I have no evidence to support a feeling - is officer #2 saw, or thought he saw, the subject attempt to take the gun from officer #1."

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

We don't know what happened in the beginning since the first officer already had the guy restrained when the video started. I suppose if the kid had assaulted the first officer before the tape began then I could see the second officer reacting the way he did. It's hard to know since none of us were there.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I did not assume " he "saw" the guy that was obviously under control was trying to take the first officers gun." Stating I did makes you a liar, for you did not post my entire comment:

"I agree. The second officer was out of control. The first officer, actually engaged, was not. What I would do is interview everyone, twice, read the reports and review dispatch records and get as much detail as possible from each participant/witness on what they saw and heard before, during and after the video. My gut response - and I have no evidence to support a feeling - is officer #2 saw, or thought he saw, the subject attempt to take the gun from officer #1."

Yes, your gut, your inclination, your personal preference, is to support the officer that hits before he thinks despite clear video evidence that points to another conclusion.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I did not assume " he "saw" the guy that was obviously under control was trying to take the first officers gun." Stating I did makes you a liar, for you did not post my entire comment:

"I agree. The second officer was out of control. The first officer, actually engaged, was not. What I would do is interview everyone, twice, read the reports and review dispatch records and get as much detail as possible from each participant/witness on what they saw and heard before, during and after the video. My gut response - and I have no evidence to support a feeling - is officer #2 saw, or thought he saw, the subject attempt to take the gun from officer #1."

Yes, your gut, your inclination, your personal preference, is to support the officer that hits before he thinks despite clear video evidence that points to another conclusion.

No, wrong again. See the letters in red, see what they spell out. I might also have speculated that officer #2 was using PCP, was finishing a graveyard shift or had serious family problems. None of which would have been my preference, the honest truth whenever I recieve a report or video of such an event, my gut reaction was, "Oh shit". 'Cause what I needed to do was drop everything and begin an investigation.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I did not assume " he "saw" the guy that was obviously under control was trying to take the first officers gun." Stating I did makes you a liar, for you did not post my entire comment:

"I agree. The second officer was out of control. The first officer, actually engaged, was not. What I would do is interview everyone, twice, read the reports and review dispatch records and get as much detail as possible from each participant/witness on what they saw and heard before, during and after the video. My gut response - and I have no evidence to support a feeling - is officer #2 saw, or thought he saw, the subject attempt to take the gun from officer #1."

Yes, your gut, your inclination, your personal preference, is to support the officer that hits before he thinks despite clear video evidence that points to another conclusion.

No, wrong again. See the letters in red, see what they spell out. I might also have speculated that officer #2 was using PCP, was finishing a graveyard shift or had serious family problems. None of which would have been my preference, the honest truth whenever I recieve a report or video of such an event, my gut reaction was, "Oh shit". 'Cause what I needed to do was drop everything and begin an investigation.

Exactly how does me saying that your gut response is to defend the cop contradict your statement that your gut response is that the cop thought he saw something? Care to explain how pointing that out makes me wrong? Is it that you don't like having your bias held up for public scrutiny and ridicule? If so, I suggest you stop being biased.

 

[whitehall]

Geez, you sissies expect the Police to enforce the law and now you are worried about vulgar language? They say that all the time on police TV shows. What's the big deal?

No, we expect them to obey the law, not break it. I guess we could go back to the days where they could beat the crap out of you for giving them lip, but I prefer to evolve.

Where's the part where the Officer broke the law? You sissies better lay off the Starbucks, your imagination is starting to get the best of you.