NationStates Jolt Archive

Judge acquits New Orleans cop in videotaped beating

NEW ORLEANS, Louisiana (AP) --
Robert Evangelist, 37, had been charged with beating Robert Davis, 66, during an arrest videotaped by an Associated Press Television News crew the night of October 8, 2005, about six weeks after Katrina.
...
A third officer, Stuart Smith, was accused of a misdemeanor charge of simple battery against Associated Press producer Richard Matthews. Marullo threw out that charge because prosecutors improperly used a statement he made to police, said Smith's attorney, Eric Hessler.
...
The officers said Davis, who had returned to New Orleans to check his property, started a confrontation after they stopped him on suspicion of being drunk. Davis, who was booked with public intoxication but never charged, said he hadn't been drinking.

Davis testified Tuesday that he was headed to buy cigarettes in the French Quarter when he asked a police officer what time a curfew took effect that night. Before the officer could answer, a different officer cut him off, Davis said.

"Those were ignorant, unprofessional and rude officers," Davis recalled saying as he walked away from the policemen.

Moments later, an officer grabbed him from behind, threw him against a wall and punched his face, Davis testified. His assailant uttered a racial epithet during the attack, he said.

"I don't remember very much after that point," Davis said.

Franz Zibilich, one of Evangelist's attorneys, said his client "acted appropriately and well within police standards."

Dr. Frances Smith, who treated Davis at an emergency room, testified that he suffered facial fractures. Davis said he still feels lingering physical effects from the attack.

Sources CNN/AP/Yahoo/OccNEWS
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/07/24/nola.beating.ap/index.html
I ve seen the Video, I dont see how can I agree with the stupid Judge.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=QCyN7RDSxjg

I ve seen the Video, I dont see how can I agree with the stupid Judge.

gee, I notice you left out a specific part:

Marullo watched videotapes of the beating and its aftermath and he noted that Davis could be seen struggling on the tape for several minutes.

"This event could have ended at any time if the man had put his hands behind his back," the judge said.


Gee, resisting arrest? Yeah, that will get you punched in the face. Strange how you left that out, isn't it?

Well, judging by the video, I have to agree with you. :eek:

Really though, unless the facts aren't what they seem, or some standard of evidence wasn't met in court, it does seem that the NO police stepped over the line.

Gee, resisting arrest? Yeah, that will get you punched in the face. Strange how you left that out, isn't it?

Hm. Good point. The cable news networks had a short version of the video that just showed the beating - no resistance at all. Maybe there's more to it.

gee, I notice you left out a specific part:



Gee, resisting arrest? Yeah, that will get you punched in the face. Strange how you left that out, isn't it?

He doesn't actually seem to be struggling though, it just seems like the Police officer ganged up on him and beat him up while another officer tried to block the view of the camera with his horse.

Hm. Good point. The cable news networks had a short version of the video that just showed the beating - no resistance at all. Maybe there's more to it.If there was a longer video version, it would be on Youtube.

Well, judging by the video, I have to agree with you. :eek:

Really though, unless the facts aren't what they seem, or some standard of evidence wasn't met in court, it does seem that the NO police stepped over the line.

Given that the judge said he was seen struggling for SEVERAL minutes, and that this particular video is only one minute long, I'd say that the facts are not entirely what they they seem.

In fact it would appear that there was a great deal of selective editing to turn a "several minute" video into only a minute long. Fortunatly judges are bound by REAL evidence, not the heavily edited things that end up on youtube.

He doesn't actually seem to be struggling though, it

And once again, according to the article the video was several minutes of struggling that preceded this. We in the youtube video only see the last minute. The whole claim was he was resisting arrest, and that entire section is just removed.

The whole claim was he was resisting arrest...they -cops- always seem to claim that.

And once again, according to the article the video was several minutes of struggling that preceded this. We in the youtube video only see the last minute. The whole claim was he was resisting arrest, and that entire section is just removed.

I can understand using more than one men to take down someone who's resisting arrest, but to punch him in the face repeatedly, how do you explain that? I've seen several officers take down a punk before, but this is the only time I've seen them actually hit a guy in the face.

they -cops- always seem to claim that.

and this time it seems they were correct.

I dunno. looking at the video...

you first see two officers trying to cuff his hands behind his back. The person looks calm and cooperative.

he looks at the camera.

then the horse gets in the way, yet we get a glimpse of the person's arms now infront of him and the officer hitting his head/shoulders.

so how did it end up that way... unless davis tried to violently break free.

Then a cut. and now we have 4 officers wrestling the man to the ground. one arm cuffed and they're trying to turn him over.

Too much missing. no judgment rendered by this poster.

Sorry to ask a stupid question, but was a physical arrest neccessary under the circumstances? And does resisting arrest after being verbally harrassed by the police officers in question mean you deserve to be punched and have your face fractured?

Given that verbal abuse -from- a police officer is met with walking away... Why is a physical arrest justified from a verbal comment about inappropriate police behaviour? Surely if one form of freedom of speech is allowed, the other is too? Or do we have a dual standard there as well? One for those who have authority and one for the common peasant?

I agree that resisting arrest was not a good way of dealing with the situation, but my question is whether the police acted appropriately in the first place...

I dunno. looking at the video...

you first see two officers trying to cuff his hands behind his back. The person looks calm and cooperative.

he looks at the camera.

then the horse gets in the way, yet we get a glimpse of the person's arms now infront of him and the officer hitting his head/shoulders.

so how did it end up that way?
...Yeah I see the same.
as far as I can see, at the beginning of the video, The person -indeed- looks calm and cooperative.
.. later on he started struggling, after his face was being brutally hit against the wall (probably thats where the Facial fractures come from).. one theory could be that he got scared-to-death and thats why he started struggling

Another theory could be that he killed JFK.

Get a grip Occean. Without presenting us with more evidence than an edited clip, I'm sorry...but I'm not jumping on your bandwagon, no matter how much I hate the cops.

Without presenting us with more evidence than an edited clip,You really expect me to scramble and go search the Internet for a -supposed- longer version of this video?

really?

Get a grip Occean. are you going to take me for a Motorcycle ride?


I'm sorry...dont be sorry baby, not in front of me.


but I'm not jumping on your bandwagon...my car is full anyways ;)


Another theory could be that he killed JFK.you are so sweet tigresita. :fluffle:

Gee, resisting arrest? Yeah, that will get you punched in the face.We are obligated to surrender to the police precisely to the extent that they are officers of the law.

But they are not acting in a legitimate official capacity simply because they wear a uniform or they are getting paid at the time.

When a cop attacks a person, unprovoked, he is not an officer of the law. He is an attacker. His deep betrayal of the social contract, indeed his reversal of the very order upon which it stands, returns the world in that moment to the state of nature.

And in that state, you hit back.

Why? Why do you have to hit back? Can't you see that everything will be better if you just give in to the police?

No, you can't. The officer's unprovoked aggression threw all of your assumptions out of order. Thirty seconds ago, you never would have believed that a uniformed officer would attack you--but he did. He is the one acting irrationally--and how are you to predict, rationally, what he intends? Perhaps he means to kill you. Indeed, in the state of nature your only reasonable choice is to assume that he does, until proven otherwise.

You are blaming the victim here. If it were me, I would have struggled, too.

Yeah I see the same.
as far as I can see, at the beginning of the video, The person -indeed- looks calm and cooperative.
.. later on he started struggling, after his face was being brutally hit against the wall (probably thats where the Facial fractures come from).. one theory could be that he got scared-to-death and thats why he started struggling

could be. or it could be that he saw the camera crew and decided to pull a 'Rodney King' and try to get some money suing the police.

but it's all speculation. after all, wasn't New Orleans cops voted the most corrupt before Katrina hit?

Erk... :eek:
When a cop attacks a person, unprovoked, he is not an officer of the law. He is an attacker. His deep betrayal of the social contract, indeed his reversal of the very order upon which it stands, returns the world in that moment to the state of nature. wrong. that person is still a cop. it's when that person takes their BADGE off then that person is no longer an officer of the law.

And in that state, you hit back.and as long as that officer is 'on duty' and you hit back, you will be guilty of 'striking an officer". and you will give just cause for other officers to join in.

You are blaming the victim here. If it were me, I would have struggled, too.and the same thing would happen to you.

Well, I don't know about you guys, but if I were a group of police officers, I know I'd feel threatened by a 66 year old man.

*nods*

could be. or it could be that he saw the camera crew and decided to pull a 'Rodney King' and try to get some money suing the police.these people got money from the Police?

More disturbing than the video is that the music in the background is Journey.

That hurt my head.

Given that the judge said he was seen struggling for SEVERAL minutes, and that this particular video is only one minute long, I'd say that the facts are not entirely what they they seem.

In fact it would appear that there was a great deal of selective editing to turn a "several minute" video into only a minute long. Fortunatly judges are bound by REAL evidence, not the heavily edited things that end up on youtube.

From the youtube we can see that he was not stuggling but was being beaten (at that particular moment). It doesn't matter if the victim was being an asshat 2 minutes earlier, anless the officers need to protect themselves then and there it is not right to beat him. If he was resisting arrest the use force needed to arrest him is all that is needed. The repetative punching was excessive, he was not a threat once he had been punched 3-4 times in the face. Later they can charge him with resisting arrest but once he was helpless (he had enough officers on him) they had no business hurting him like that.

I don't doubt this video was edited to make police officers look bad. Quite a few people out there hate police officers for one reason or another--most of the time for ridiculous reasons related to the police officer doing their bloody job--and as such I'm not accepting this video on face value.

On the same token, I frankly feel the police officers were a bit overzealous. Yes, restrain the man who is resisting arrest, but you don't need to hit him that hard.

and as long as that officer is 'on duty' and you hit back, you will be guilty of 'striking an officer". and you will give just cause for other officers to join in.


So a cop who grabs you, takes you into the woods, empties a couple of rounds into your head and blows up your corpse with military grade explosives is justified if you resist arrest?

Taking an example of what happened around here. Of course murder was what they had in mind, but the example applies.

The best part? They're drawn from the police as part of the elite bodyguard for a certain high ranking executive level politician here.

these people got money from the Police?

I meant a video taping of cops beating a colored person.

Tho I think he (Rodney King) did successfully sue for damages. might be wrong tho.

wrong. that person is still a cop.In a positive sense, yes he is. He still wears a badge.

But that doesn't give him the right to hit me unprovoked.

it's when that person takes their BADGE off then that person is no longer an officer of the law.Well, that's true. But it's also true that simply wearing the badge does not confer legitimacy on his actions. If a police officer shits on my lawn, it doesn't matter that he was wearing a badge and it doesn't matter that he was on duty. The powers conferred on him as a police officer do not include shitting on my lawn. Or smashing my head against a wall.

and as long as that officer is 'on duty' and you hit back, you will be guilty of 'striking an officer".If you're making predictions about the disposition of my case, you're probably right. I will almost certainly be indicted and there is a strong chance that I will be convicted, regardless of the evidence, because there are too many people in the world like you who assume that a cop can do no wrong.

But as to whether I should be convicted, as to whether the officer's attack excuses or legitimates my retaliation? That is another question entirely.

and you will give just cause for other officers to join in.Well, close. Again, in terms of making predictions you may be right: other officers, in solidarity with their comrade or because it just looks like fun, are likely to join in on the beating. I only disagree as to whether the cause they perceive is, in fact, "just."

and the same thing would happen to you.Again, you are an expert prognosticator.

The question is not whether I would be beaten severely. The question is whether I should have behaved any differently. And my argument is that you have no grounds to criticize my behavior, because I had no good reason to believe that relenting would not make things worse.

So a cop who grabs you, takes you into the woods, empties a couple of rounds into your head and blows up your corpse with military grade explosives is justified if you resist arrest?


Of course not, but you're being ridiculous. These officers were overzealous, but they were not trying to brutalize the man. This video is not complete by any means and is not a true representation of the events.

In fact it would appear that there was a great deal of selective editing to turn a "several minute" video into only a minute long.Conspiracy?

who is behind this conspiracy?
and why?

Of course not, but you're being ridiculous.


No. I'm just taking Junii's "If you resist arrest they are justified in beating you" viewpoint to its logical extreme. There is force, and there is excessive force.


These officers were overzealous, but they were not trying to brutalize the man.

I wouldn't say that. We do not know their intent. Maybe they were looking for someone to brutalize, and this one happened to be in the area. Maybe they were subduing a person who resisted arrest.

Either way, there is insufficient evidence to me to make a judgment.

I find it odd that the "black" male is so dangerous that it takes a number of white people and extreme force to handcuff and restrain them yet America has yet to subdue Iraq.

The clip is mess. However we do see a relatively calm and inoffensive looking person with their face and body rammed into a wall being punched repeatedly in the back of the head. As somebody who has worked in "security", I might point out that if you wanted to "ground" someone in that position, a foot in the back of the knee would be a good start. Also, though it would not seem warranted in this instance, taking a baton to the thighs. However it would appear that the desire to cause damage was paramount in the cops mind at the time, rather than restraining the suspect or putting him on the ground to be cuffed.

I found the section at the end, where a rather rotund cop grabs somebody appearing to be holding some ID card up and rams them over the bonnet of a car to be rather telling of the context and atttitude.
Truly, walking the streets, constantly facing the danger of the "black" male, must take its toll on these men, who seem to face odds of at least 3 to 1 in their favour every time a camera notices their struggles.

No. I'm just taking Junii's "If you resist arrest they are justified in beating you" viewpoint to its logical extreme. There is force, and there is excessive force.

There definitely is, so don't think I disagree with you there.


I wouldn't say that. We do not know their intent. Maybe they were looking for someone to brutalize, and this one happened to be in the area. Maybe they were subduing a person who resisted arrest.

Either way, there is insufficient evidence to me to make a judgment.

Well, you've got a point there. I just don't want anyone to try and take this video alone at face value. As the judge mentioned, there was several minutes of actual footage. If only we could see that footage...I suspect that would settle this.

Still, it's academic. They were ruled innocent, and so as far as I am concerned, they are innocent. Innocent until proven guilty is a big part of my philosophy on life. And its not as if any judgement we make will have any bearing. I wish people would remember that, because often times they seem to forget that fact.

In a positive sense, yes he is. He still wears a badge.

But that doesn't give him the right to hit me unprovoked.no it doesn't. but hitting back will only justify his next actions.

Well, that's true. But it's also true that simply wearing the badge does not confer legitimacy on his actions. If a police officer shits on my lawn, it doesn't matter that he was wearing a badge and it doesn't matter that he was on duty. The powers conferred on him as a police officer do not include shitting on my lawn. Or smashing my head against a wall.and fighting back is not the way to go.

If you're making predictions about the disposition of my case, you're probably right. I will almost certainly be indicted and there is a strong chance that I will be convicted, regardless of the evidence, because there are too many people in the world like you who assume that a cop can do no wrong.did not say that, go ahead and show where I said the Cops were innocent.

"innocent till proven guilty" works both ways. If you have the Evidence, then by all means use the system. but fighting back will (physcially) hurt you more than him.

But as to whether I should be convicted, as to whether the officer's attack excuses or legitimates my retaliation? That is another question entirely.Two different points. your fighting back and hitting the officer will fall under "Resisting Arrest", "Assaulting an Officer". and you will have to then prove that it was in self-defense. However, not fighting back and not resisting arrest would then have the officer explaining the damages you have and him justifying his actions.

Well, close. Again, in terms of making predictions you may be right: other officers, in solidarity with their comrade or because it just looks like fun, are likely to join in on the beating. I only disagree as to whether the cause they perceive is, in fact, "just."I've read other forums where Law Enforcement Officers stated that if the civilian is fighting with an officer, no matter what the reason, they will assist the officer. but if the civilian was NOT fighting with the officer, and the officer was beating down on the civilian, they would step in to the civilian's aid. Their advice, if you see an officer doing something illegal. Record it, Report it, but don't interferre. physically meddling will muddle up the evidence and you will be in a world of hurt.

Again, you are an expert prognosticator.

The question is not whether I would be beaten severely. The question is whether I should have behaved any differently. And my argument is that you have no grounds to criticize my behavior, because I had no good reason to believe that relenting would not make things worse.
You are blaming the victim here. If it were me, I would have struggled, too.
Without seeing how the struggled started, you are assuming Davis did nothing wrong and the fault lies solely with the officers. You only have Davis's account. The Judge heard all the facts and reveiwed the tape. So unless you're going to now accuse the cops of editing the tape, accuse the Judge of being wrong in his judgement, or produce evidence that was NOT presented at the trial we never attended....

All things being equal, with just YOU being there instead of Davis, The officers would still react the way they did on the video, the Judge would probably still rule the same way. thus "and the same thing would happen to you." because as you said "If it were me, I would have struggled, too." without knowing all the details.

I found the section at the end, where a rather rotund cop grabs somebody appearing to be holding some ID card up and rams them over the bonnet of a car to be rather telling of the context and atttitude.The "rotund" Cop is Stuart Smith.. He is threatening the any men with cameras.. The ID man is AP Press producer Richard Matthews, he is showing his "press ID Card" because the press ID is usually a shield against police brutality.

This Judge threw out the battery charges against Stuart Smith because prosecutors "improperly" used a statement he made to police.

So a cop who grabs you, takes you into the woods, empties a couple of rounds into your head and blows up your corpse with military grade explosives is justified if you resist arrest?depends on how I was resisting arrest. struggling? no. grabing his gun and going on a shooting spree with no reguard to my life or anyone around me? probably. with you cheering the cops on no doubt.

Taking an example of what happened around here. Of course murder was what they had in mind, but the example applies.

The best part? They're drawn from the police as part of the elite bodyguard for a certain high ranking executive level politician here. please provide link to this "example that happened around" there?

No. I'm just taking Junii's "If you resist arrest they are justified in beating you" viewpoint to its logical extreme. There is force, and there is excessive force.yep and guess what. it's not for US to decide if the Force used was Excessive. but the Judge. and those reviewing should an Appeal be filed. not us.

I wouldn't say that. We do not know their intent. Maybe they were looking for someone to brutalize, and this one happened to be in the area. Maybe they were subduing a person who resisted arrest.

Either way, there is insufficient evidence to me to make a judgment. and as I said in my first post. I dunno. looking at the video...

you first see two officers trying to cuff his hands behind his back. The person looks calm and cooperative.

he looks at the camera.

then the horse gets in the way, yet we get a glimpse of the person's arms now infront of him and the officer hitting his head/shoulders.

so how did it end up that way... unless davis tried to violently break free.

Then a cut. and now we have 4 officers wrestling the man to the ground. one arm cuffed and they're trying to turn him over.

Too much missing. no judgment rendered by this poster. yet you seem to think that I'm justifying the Officer's innocence while ignoring others saying the officers were guilty.

depends on how I was resisting arrest. struggling? no. grabing his gun and going on a shooting spree with no reguard to my life or anyone around me? probably. with you cheering the cops on no doubt.

Actually, no. Shooting to stop you, yes. Taking you out into the woods after you've been arrested and executing you? No.


please provide link to this "example that happened around" there?


http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/IG12Ae01.html
http://asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=559&Itemid=31

Not everything newsworthy happens in the US, Europe or Middle East.


yep and guess what. it's not for US to decide if the Force used was Excessive. but the Judge. and those reviewing should an Appeal be filed. not us.


I didn't make any judgment on this particular set of officers now did I? I was referring to your statements of police force use and its logical extreme.


and as I said in my first post. yet you seem to think that I'm justifying the Officer's innocence while ignoring others saying the officers were guilty.

Since where? I haven't mentioned them at all. It's your stance I'm talking about.

no it doesn't. but hitting back will only justify his next actions.Perhaps, from his point of view. But the real question is whether you can criticize my actions from my point of view. What reason did I have to do anything else? What reason do I have to believe that when I stop, the cops will stop, too?

Let me put it another way.

Suppose, figuring that if I submit they will stop, I comply. But they keep kicking and hitting me. How long should I wait before I attempt once again to impede their efforts? Should I measure it in kicks, or seconds?

Am I excused for retaliating after the first time I think, "My god, they're going to beat me to death"?

and fighting back is not the way to go.Hindsight is 20/20. The question is whether, while in the process of being assaulted by another human being, I should not be excused for fighting back.

If I cannot understand why I am being assaulted, why should I assume that things will turn out well if I comply with my attackers?

"innocent till proven guilty" works both ways. If you have the Evidence, then by all means use the system.The system isn't much used to me while I'm being beaten to death.

but fighting back will (physcially) hurt you more than him.No doubt. But you're still evading the point: if someone attacks me and I retaliate, it's self-defense. It doesn't matter who attacks me, what they are wearing, or who signs their checks.

If I had committed some crime and the police arrested me, I would be obliged to comply and my resistance would be met with justified coercive force. Indeed, as long as the behavior of the police reflects the mandate of their office, I am obliged to obey their commands.

But if I believe that a person wearing a badge and carrying a gun is behaving irrationally, then I should not be blamed for resisting his attempts to harm me.

Two different points. your fighting back and hitting the officer will fall under "Resisting Arrest", "Assaulting an Officer". and you will have to then prove that it was in self-defense.That's right.

You are so hung up on the risks of resisting. If I resist, I risk serious charges. I risk being convicted on those charges.

But you forget the risks of not resisting. From my point of view, if a police officer appears to be acting irrationally, why should I believe he will stop when he gets cuffs on me? Why should he suddenly start following procedure? Why should I assume that if I just wait things out, the courts will put things together and take my side? The fact of the matter is that it is not unreasonable to believe that one's life may be in danger in complying with the police.

This does not mean it's a necessary conclusion. Just that it is not an unreasonable conclusion, meaning a reasonable person could be justified in believing it under similar circumstances.

And when one believes one's life is in danger, it is excusable to do otherwise unjustifiable things in an attempt to save yourself. Who can be expected willingly to face his own death on the grounds that it is wrong to resist the police?

However, not fighting back and not resisting arrest would then have the officer explaining the damages you have and him justifying his actions.Yes. But from my point of view that's not very useful, since the "damages" resulting from serious head trauma (for instance) could include serious scarring, maiming, disability, or death.

Their advice, if you see an officer doing something illegal. Record it, Report it, but don't interferre. physically meddling will muddle up the evidence and you will be in a world of hurt.That's fine advice. But as a spectator, if I believed a civilian's life were in danger due to illegal police behavior, I would step in to save the victim--evidence be damned. I'd rather do my time and/or let the bastard cops get off than put them away with the knowledge that their victim could still be alive.

Even more strongly, I know that I'd rather live than see justice against my attackers.

Without seeing how the struggled started, you are assuming Davis did nothing wrong and the fault lies solely with the officers.I'm not really talking about Davis. I haven't even watched the video. I was responding to comments expressing the general view that if you resist arrest you deserve what's coming to you: both the physical abuse and the likely criminal conviction.

Actually, no. Shooting to stop you, yes. Taking you out into the woods after you've been arrested and executing you? No.Being killed after arrest is wrong. I never said otherwise.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/IG12Ae01.html
http://asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=559&Itemid=31

Not everything newsworthy happens in the US, Europe or Middle East.never said it did. I didn't know where your "here" was nor the example you were alluding to. so thanks for the links.

sad. tragic really.

But those are officers in Malaysia and this is at New Orleans. so are you saying that All police are corrupt because Malaysia's officers are corrupt?

I didn't make any judgment on this particular set of officers now did I? I was referring to your statements of police force use and its logical extreme.using force when a person is resisting arrest is FAR DIFFERENT than taking an arrested person to the woods and shooting them then blowing them up. Far from a "Logical Extreme".

Since where? I haven't mentioned them at all. It's your stance I'm talking about.
exactly. my stance is that there isn't enough evidence to say whether the judge was wrong or not in his ruling. yet you think I'm supporting ghestapo death squads while saying you have the same viewpoint I have. Pleases show where I said the use of deadly force was ok when a suspece resists arrest.

meanwhile are you supporting your "Either way, there is insufficient evidence to me to make a judgment" statement by also refuting those saying the NO cops were wrong?

no, you attack one who is doing that, thus showing that you already did make a judgement. That the NO cops used excesseive force, equating their actions in line with useing C4 (as the logical extreme citing an example from another country no less.)

If you truely believe that there is insufficient evidence to render judgement, then you should be defending the officer(s) who were found innocent by a judge who was presented more than one article and one edited video to render his judgement.

Being killed after arrest is wrong. I never said otherwise.

Well, you didn't specify that caveat when responding to my question.


sad. tragic really.


Outrageous is more like it, but there isn't much that can be done that isn't just as bad or worse.


But those are officers in Malaysia and this is at New Orleans. so are you saying that All police are corrupt because Malaysia's officers are corrupt?


Hardly. What I am saying however, is that being of the police does not make you immune to corruption or power abuse.


using force when a person is resisting arrest is FAR DIFFERENT than taking an arrested person to the woods and shooting them then blowing them up. Far from a "Logical Extreme".

No. I suppose not. A logical extreme would be shooting to kill unarmed people in submission holds for resisting arrest.


exactly. my stance is that there isn't enough evidence to say whether the judge was wrong or not in his ruling. yet you think I'm supporting ghestapo death squads while saying you have the same viewpoint I have. Pleases show where I said the use of deadly force was ok when a suspece resists arrest.


Logical extremes is the use of a position taken to its fullest extent. The level you mentioned was at assault and battery levels, but the same reasoning can be applied to lethal levels.

So the question is this. What is your level of acceptable force, and when is it acceptable?


meanwhile are you supporting your "Either way, there is insufficient evidence to me to make a judgment" statement by also refuting those saying the NO cops were wrong?

??? I cannot make a logical connection here. Please elaborate. I have not refuted any statements regarding this particular batch of officers.

I am specifically highlighting your stance of acceptable force levels alone.

I'm not really talking about Davis. I haven't even watched the video. I was responding to comments expressing the general view that if you resist arrest you deserve what's coming to you: both the physical abuse and the likely criminal conviction.then watch the video. this explains how you jumped to Death Squads, Rabid Cops roaming the streets beating on innocent people without cause... You really don't know what you're arguing for or against. I was wondering how you are equating random beatings of civilians with what happened and the ruling made.

Generally I don't assume you didn't watch the video or read the article. but it's nice that you admit you don't know what this thread is about. :rolleyes:

Well, you didn't specify that caveat when responding to my question.and I never said the officers could use Excessive force when someone's resisting arrest in any of my posts. That was an assumption YOU made.

Outrageous is more like it, but there isn't much that can be done that isn't just as bad or worse. I really wish them luck cleaning up their legal system.

Hardly. What I am saying however, is that being of the police does not make you immune to corruption or power abuse.and I never said it did. yet you went from someone fight back an officer to that extreme...

No. I suppose not. A logical extreme would be shooting to kill unarmed people in submission holds for resisting arrest.... no... can't see it.

now if they thought the person was armed with a WMD that could be triggered any moment... maybe. but I won't say they are excused from their actions. Which here, would be an IA investigation.

Logical extremes is the use of a position taken to its fullest extent. The level you mentioned was at assault and battery levels, but the same reasoning can be applied to lethal levels. execution style shooting and the use of C4 is not the logical extreme for what happened in that video, heck, it's not the logical Extreme for AnarchyeL's valiant fight against the cops. it's not even the logical extreme for what happened to that poor woman in Malaysa.

So the question is this. What is your level of acceptable force, and when is it acceptable?as a non Police Officer. Force used to subdue the person and to render that person incapable of harming anyone... including themselves.

Four officers restraining a struggling man, yes. a couple of blows to a person who is actively fighting back... yes. Mace to a person who is VIOLENTLY fighting back... yes.

Mace to a person who is just struggling... iffy.

Shooting a person who is just struggling... nope. excessive force.

so please prove that the video shows unacceptable force being used.

I am specifically highlighting your stance of acceptable force levels alone.which you assumed and launched an attack baised off of that assumption.

Please quote where I said the Use of Deadly force can be used for anyone resisting arrest.

the line you quoted was this.
and as long as that officer is 'on duty' and you hit back, you will be guilty of 'striking an officer". and you will give just cause for other officers to join in.

I did imply that someone resisting arrest will escalate the officers response. the more violent the resistance, the higher the excalation. you immediately jumped to an arrested (already cuffed and compliant) person being shot and the remains disposed of with C4 and called it a Logical Extreme (for Punching an officer... I still can't see how C4 would be the Logical Extreme for striking an officer. :p ) but for some reason you think that's what I was implying. your Assumption.

and I never said the officers could use Excessive force when someone's resisting arrest in any of my posts. That was an assumption YOU made.

Was the way you worded it. My bad if that wasn't your intention. The rest of the debate is moot if it wasn't anyway.


I really wish them luck cleaning up their legal system.


Not likely to happen. Short of a revolution...which would put something worse in place.

Was the way you worded it. My bad if that wasn't your intention. The rest of the debate is moot if it wasn't anyway. what!!! you kept me up past midnight... at work... with this stimulating and very interesting debate and it was a misinterpretation!!! :headbang:


humph... gonna search for porn now and see what makes it past our firewall... :p :D

Night all.

Am I the only one who read the title and thought the thread would be about a fundamentalist preacher becoming a crime-fighting vigilante (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GU8QuLruWtQ)? I find the reality to be disappointing.

How did NWA put it? Fuck tha Police!

Gee, resisting arrest? Yeah, that will get you punched in the face. Strange how you left that out, isn't it?
Are you on the "police brutality makes me hot" bandwagon with DK? Repeated punches to the face is not a legitimate act to subdue a person.

what!!! you kept me up past midnight... at work... with this stimulating and very interesting debate and it was a misinterpretation!!! :headbang:

A spiral into a shouting match, that's where it was going, is an interesting and stimulating debate? You've got strange tastes.


humph... gonna search for porn now and see what makes it past our firewall... :p :D


And a penchant for getting into trouble with management. :p

How did NWA put it? Fuck tha Police!

Life aint nothin but bitches and money?

but it's all speculation. after all, wasn't New Orleans cops voted the most corrupt before Katrina hit?

Yeah, the NOPD was in shambles before Katrina, and after Katrina, well...it was hardly an effective police force. They were notoriously unprofessional and violent, with discipline problems throughout.

gee, I notice you left out a specific part:

Gee, resisting arrest? Yeah, that will get you punched in the face. Strange how you left that out, isn't it?

Funny how so few people on this forum can grasp that concept.

What the hell was up with that cop pushing that bystander up against the car? I keep replaying it, but I can't understand the dialogue between them. Also, what was it that he was holding?

then watch the video.I don't need to. The consensus opinion seems to be that we don't have enough information for a sound judgment in this case, and I'm willing to accept that. But I don't care about this particular case. My original response was to this statement:Gee, resisting arrest? Yeah, that will get you punched in the face.The tone of this post suggested to me a general attitude that anyone resisting arrest deserves what he gets. I disagree.

Funny how so few people on this forum can grasp that concept.See, this is the attitude that concerns me, regardless of the facts of this particular case...

... which, for that matter, seems suspicious enough. Having now watched the video to satisfy everyone that I "know what the thread is about," I conclude that even if there is reasonable doubt (given only this evidence), on a civil standard a ruling against the police should be easy.

I don't need to. The consensus opinion seems to be that we don't have enough information for a sound judgment in this case, and I'm willing to accept that. But I don't care about this particular case. My original response was to this statement:The tone of this post suggested to me a general attitude that anyone resisting arrest deserves what he gets. I disagree.

Sorry, that's the law in the US.

You can be pepper sprayed or tasered for mere noncompliance with a lawful order.

There are occasional exceptions - there's a case where a man was told to clear a path off the sidewalk by police - and he refused, and was subdued by police.

A later ruling said that the subduing of the man was unconstitutional, but that was a state case, not Federal.

However, in the majority of cases, the police have a right to enforce the law, and to that end, prevent any noncompliance if they are acting lawfully.

You and others may see this as totalitarian, and you might feel it's a police state mentality. However, from the police and government point of view, if you never have to comply with the orders of a policeman (let's say, "stay in the car" or "show me your driver's license" or "get out of the car") then it becomes impossible to enforce the law.

It's a much better idea to comply with their orders, and then take the matter up in court later. You don't get hurt, and you have a chance at winning. If you resist, you get hurt and the judge will probably think you're a fucking idiot.

Sorry, that's the law in the US.Yet again, you miss the point. :rolleyes:

You are so satisfied at what "is" the law that you refuse to question the justice of that law.

You can be pepper sprayed or tasered for mere noncompliance with a lawful order.No argument, except to point out that even non-compliance with a lawful order does not justify the most extreme measures employed by police. It depends on the order, it depends on the circumstance.

But my complaint really has little to do with what we consider appropriate police measures. We can sort these out in court later, and hopefully we can implement standards that improve police-civilian relations.

My concern, rather, is with the individual who resists. I argue that in many cases he should be shown leniency and understanding, because from his point of view he may have been facing a life-or-death struggle, and there's no room for reason in that world. I argue that whether the police action was justified or not, we should be more restrained in our accusations of "resisting arrest" or "assaulting an officer."

There are occasional exceptions - there's a case where a man was told to clear a path off the sidewalk by police - and he refused, and was subdued by police.

A later ruling said that the subduing of the man was unconstitutional, but that was a state case, not Federal.First, at least you admit that the police do not always act with pure justifications. Second, I'm just curious why you think it matters that it was a state and not a federal case? Aren't most similar cases also state case? I've been "subdued" by my fair share of officers (well, they tried anyway), but I have yet to meet a federal officer.

However, in the majority of cases, the police have a right to enforce the law, and to that end, prevent any noncompliance if they are acting lawfully.Yes, but:

a) they have no such right when they are NOT enforcing the law, and I am under no obligation to assume that they are acting lawfully when all available evidence (e.g. the fact that I am getting punched in the face without cause) points to the opposite.

b) whether they are enforcing the law or not, excessive force is NOT lawful, so that excessive force should become an excuse for resisting.

If a cop gives me appropriate warnings and explains why I'm being arrested before employing the minimum force needed to subdue me (regardless of whether I committed any crime), then I am guilty of resisting arrest if I struggle.

If a cop gives me inadequate warnings or fails to explain what is going on, I have no reason to regard him as any different than a common criminal.

Indeed, in recent years we have often enough seen cases of individuals illegally obtaining police uniforms to harass or attack innocent people. I'll repeat it, because it bears repeating: I have no reason to trust a person simply because he is wearing a badge. If his manner and behavior are also consistent with a respectable authority, I will comply. If his manner and behavior are consistent, instead, with criminality... then it's every man for himself.

You and others may see this as totalitarian, and you might feel it's a police state mentality. However, from the police and government point of view, if you never have to comply with the orders of a policeman (let's say, "stay in the car" or "show me your driver's license" or "get out of the car") then it becomes impossible to enforce the law.Nice straw man. I didn't say you "never" have to comply with police orders. I said that you should be excused for defending yourself against unprovoked or excessive attacks by the police.

It's a much better idea to comply with their orders, and then take the matter up in court later.It seems that way to someone who assumes that there's no way he'll be seriously hurt if he goes along with their orders. But:

a) it's not the case that everyone who complies does not get hurt; there are sadistic bastards out there, including on the police force, and I should be excused for defending myself against them; and

b) from the point of view of the person being attacked, saving his own life may be more important than seeing justice done.

You don't get hurt, and you have a chance at winning.That's your fundamental assumption. But again, how do you know that?

After you've decided to comply and the police are still kicking you, how long do you wait? You never answered that question. How long? How long do you lie there taking it before you are excused for attempting something, ANYTHING to defend yourself?

If you resist, you get hurt and the judge will probably think you're a fucking idiot.Well, the judge is a fucking idiot if he can't see that from the perspective of the alleged perpetrator of violence against the police he may have been engaged in a life-or-death struggle. And no one should be punished for attempting to save his own life, however foolish his actions look to an outside observer.

Yet again, you miss the point. :rolleyes:

You are so satisfied at what "is" the law that you refuse to question the justice of that law.

Sorry, you will note that I never said that I was satisfied. Linky.

No argument, except to point out that even non-compliance with a lawful order does not justify the most extreme measures employed by police. It depends on the order, it depends on the circumstance.

Here in Virginia, if you're in your car, and they want to get your driver's license, and you say, "Fuck off", they can pepper spray you immediately with no warning to ensure compliance.

My concern, rather, is with the individual who resists. I argue that in many cases he should be shown leniency and understanding, because from his point of view he may have been facing a life-or-death struggle, and there's no room for reason in that world. I argue that whether the police action was justified or not, we should be more restrained in our accusations of "resisting arrest" or "assaulting an officer."

First, at least you admit that the police do not always act with pure justifications. Second, I'm just curious why you think it matters that it was a state and not a federal case? Aren't most similar cases also state case? I've been "subdued" by my fair share of officers (well, they tried anyway), but I have yet to meet a federal officer.

Federal rulings trump state law. That's why I mentioned it. Major civil rights cases and decisions on the Federal level can be binding on every stats.

Yes, but:

a) they have no such right when they are NOT enforcing the law, and I am under no obligation to assume that they are acting lawfully when all available evidence (e.g. the fact that I am getting punched in the face without cause) points to the opposite.

b) whether they are enforcing the law or not, excessive force is NOT lawful, so that excessive force should become an excuse for resisting.


All police have a published policy on the continuum of force. If you're not familiar with it, that's your fault. Whether or not the force is excessive is not a judgment that you can make on your own.

If a cop gives me appropriate warnings and explains why I'm being arrested before employing the minimum force needed to subdue me (regardless of whether I committed any crime), then I am guilty of resisting arrest if I struggle.

Like I said, you have a warped view of law enforcement in the US. In most jurisdictions, they don't have to be arresting you to employ lower levels on the force continuum.

If a cop gives me inadequate warnings or fails to explain what is going on, I have no reason to regard him as any different than a common criminal.

Police are not required to explain in advance, for instance, why they are shooting you. If they are lawfully serving a no-knock warrant on your house, and you come out with a gun in your hand, do you expect them to say, "hey, we're here for your pot plants - don't mind us"?

Indeed, in recent years we have often enough seen cases of individuals illegally obtaining police uniforms to harass or attack innocent people. I'll repeat it, because it bears repeating: I have no reason to trust a person simply because he is wearing a badge. If his manner and behavior are also consistent with a respectable authority, I will comply. If his manner and behavior are consistent, instead, with criminality... then it's every man for himself.

You'll end up on the losing end of things then.

It seems that way to someone who assumes that there's no way he'll be seriously hurt if he goes along with their orders. But:

a) it's not the case that everyone who complies does not get hurt; there are sadistic bastards out there, including on the police force, and I should be excused for defending myself against them; and

b) from the point of view of the person being attacked, saving his own life may be more important than seeing justice done.

Sorry, the law will not back you up. If you live through the experience, you'll be imprisoned.

That's your fundamental assumption. But again, how do you know that?

After you've decided to comply and the police are still kicking you, how long do you wait? You never answered that question. How long? How long do you lie there taking it before you are excused for attempting something, ANYTHING to defend yourself?

I've never had the experience you claim to have with police. Considering that I see police every day, have many police as friends, and teach them how to shoot as a private instructor, I've never been beaten or abused at their hands at all.

Well, the judge is a fucking idiot if he can't see that from the perspective of the alleged perpetrator of violence against the police he may have been engaged in a life-or-death struggle. And no one should be punished for attempting to save his own life, however foolish his actions look to an outside observer.

The judge will want to know only one thing really. Was the officer acting within the confines of the official police policy on the continuum of force, in accordance with local laws and precedence? If so, it doesn't matter at all that he caved in your kneecap.

If you don't like the police policies, or how they act, you can vote, or join a citizen's commission on police - anything else is either futile or bound to get you in trouble.

What the hell was up with that cop pushing that bystander up against the car? I keep replaying it, but I can't understand the dialogue between them. Also, what was it that he was holding?The fat Cop is Stuart Smith.. apparently he is going berserk because he just figured some suicidal person is pointing a camera(maybe he tough it was tourists).. The ID man is AP Press producer Richard Matthews, he is showing his "press ID Card" because the press ID is usually a shield against police brutality.

This Judge threw out the battery charges against Stuart Smith because prosecutors "improperly" used a statement he made to police.
I found the section at the end, where a rather rotund cop grabs somebody appearing to be holding some ID card up and rams them over the bonnet of a car to be rather telling of the context and atttitude.

Sorry, you will note that I never said that I was satisfied. Linky.First of all, your argument has come down to "the law's the law" the entire time. In what way are you NOT satisfied with this argument? Second, what linky?

Here in Virginia, if you're in your car, and they want to get your driver's license, and you say, "Fuck off", they can pepper spray you immediately with no warning to ensure compliance.And you think that's a GOOD thing?

Federal rulings trump state law. That's why I mentioned it. Major civil rights cases and decisions on the Federal level can be binding on every stats.Ah, I thought you meant only that the case arose at the state level, not that it was decided by a state court. Misunderstanding.

All police have a published policy on the continuum of force. If you're not familiar with it, that's your fault. Whether or not the force is excessive is not a judgment that you can make on your own.No, it's not. No one can be a judge in his own case. That's what the courts are for.

But you're still missing the point. You're still refusing to get inside the head of a person who has just been punched by a police officer without understanding why. That person should not be punished for resisting, because it is not unreasonable for him to believe that he is being attacked, not merely "subdued."

Like I said, you have a warped view of law enforcement in the US. In most jurisdictions, they don't have to be arresting you to employ lower levels on the force continuum.No, I understand perfectly well what the law IS.

I am making an argument about what it SHOULD BE.

Are you really so dense?

You'll end up on the losing end of things then.Again, you seem to think that it is an argument against my point that I am likely to "lose," given the current state of affairs.

But my argument is about changing how we think about these things. Constantly restating, "it's the law" and "you'll lose" does nothing to justify WHY it is the law, or WHY I should lose.

The judge will want to know only one thing really.I know. My point is that he SHOULD want to know more.

The status quo does not justify itself.

If you don't like the police policies, or how they act, you can vote, or join a citizen's commission on police - anything else is either futile or bound to get you in trouble.That may be.

But I'm telling you that if I believe my life is in danger if I comply with the order of a person wearing a uniform, I will not comply. If he is not ACTING like an officer of the law, then I will not ASSUME that he is. He may have stolen the outfit. He may just be an asshole who thinks he can get away with murder because he's a cop.

I'm not going to lie down and think, "Well, I'm sure the courts will work it out."

And I don't think any but the most brainwashed people will.

And you think that's a GOOD thing?It is, for some... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_Wing_Authoritarianism)

The police isn't tasked with meeting out punishment. Anything above the minimum required force to accomplish their task is excessive. There's no difference between a copper and me punching a guy in the face.

People aren't forced to be coppers. Inability to control one's temper is not an excuse for becoming a violent criminal with a badge. On the contrary, our collective disinclination to hold coppers responsible for their behaviour makes it paramount thugs don't become coppers. Otherwise we just end up with vengeance missions against coppers, and an environment in which coppers have a damn hard time performing their jobs.

I don't need to. The consensus opinion seems to be that we don't have enough information for a sound judgment in this case, and I'm willing to accept that. But I don't care about this particular case. My original response was to this statement:The tone of this post suggested to me a general attitude that anyone resisting arrest deserves what he gets. I disagree.

ah, up to a point, they do. excessive force is never excusable, but one has to realize this most forgotten fact.

Police officers are ARMED. not with just a baton, but with pepperspray, and even a pistol. if a person resists, there is a risk that the person resisting can get their hands on those weapons and that is the LAST thing a police officer wants.

That is why you see them taking people who do resist down HARD (hard being tackled, forced down to the ground, even put in holds, not use of excessive force) and other officers run to assist. because if that person gets his hands on the officer's gun...

and for an officer to have a death caused by his registered firearm...

hence, a person struggling can get punched in the face a couple times (it stuns them, disorients and focuses their (the resistor) attention away from any attempt to grab the officers weapon. granted most people won't think of reaching for the officers weapon, but all you need is ONE to make the attempt and succeed.

That's why if you watch any of those "Real TV" shows that show police taking down people, it looks brutal, but if you watch, they are controlled and they move with one purpose. to RESTRAIN the person.

If that person resists, the officers up their efforts, yet it never gets overly excessive in reguards to the resistance met.

So in a way, yes, being punched in the head a couple of times while actively resisting is acceptable, but it's not a call saying "Resist Arrest okays excessive force."

Funny how so few people on this forum can grasp that concept.

We all know how you like police brutality and fascism so you don't need to comment here.

hence, a person struggling can get punched in the face a couple times (it stuns them, disorients and focuses their (the resistor) attention away from any attempt to grab the officers weapon. granted most people won't think of reaching for the officers weapon, but all you need is ONE to make the attempt and succeed.
So three able-bodied policemen can't subdue an allegedly drunk man without beating this shit out of him? If he was resisting before they punched him, he was doing a shitty job because I couldn't tell.

Oh noes! An out of shape 66 year old man RESISTING ARREST! We must beat him about the face and slam his head into a wall to get him to comply. There are 4 of us cops, surely we can injure him to the point where he puts his hands behind his back rather than in front of his face to block the shots.

EDIT: Tasers and pepper spray? Whats that? Sure this guy never proved to be a danger to anyone. Sure we couldn't get him for public intoxication. But he didnt wanna be arrested for nothign and that means beat the fuck out of him despite him not having attacked us.

Indeed, in recent years we have often enough seen cases of individuals illegally obtaining police uniforms to harass or attack innocent people. I'll repeat it, because it bears repeating: I have no reason to trust a person simply because he is wearing a badge. If his manner and behavior are also consistent with a respectable authority, I will comply. If his manner and behavior are consistent, instead, with criminality... then it's every man for himself.

Not wanting to get between you and RO, there is one thing I do want to point out.

Impersonating a police officer carries a HARSH penalty (in relation to the fact that you are basically playing dressup.) Most states consider that a Felony... and that's not including any crimes committed while impersonating an officer.

Not wanting to get between you and RO, there is one thing I do want to point out.

Impersonating a police officer carries a HARSH penalty (in relation to the fact that you are basically playing dressup.) Most states consider that a Felony... and that's not including any crimes committed while impersonating an officer.
I doubt that is what he was getting at.

RO might keep in mind the only state easy to police is a police state.

So three able-bodied policemen can't subdue an allegedly drunk man without beating this shit out of him? If he was resisting before they punched him, he was doing a shitty job because I couldn't tell.
not with that edited video.

and watch again. the punching happened before there were three officers on him.

after the third and forth officer join in, there is NO punching or other use of force, only restraining.

thus, as the judge ruled, not excessive.

I doubt that is what he was getting at.

Maybe, but the police, in general, does not take kindly to those who abuse the public's trust.

Maybe, but the police, in general, does not take kindly to those who abuse the public's trust.

What does that even mean?

Also, how, in your mind, did an out of shape old man resisting arrest deserve to be beaten in such a fashion (the police never claimed that he was attacking them back) rather than tasered or pepper sprayed?

not with that edited video.

and watch again. the punching happened before there were three officers on him.
He was being punched while restrained by the officer not punching him. Two officers were visibly on him and then the mounted officer tried to obscure the fucking camera. They blatantly knew this was wrong. Also, it was highly possible the third was already there.

So with two officers, one has to punch him in the face so that two police officers can subdue an allegedly drunk man twice their age?

thus, as the judge ruled, not excessive.
The judge is a stupid jackass siding with the police because they are police.

What does that even mean?

Also, how, in your mind, did an out of shape old man resisting arrest deserve to be beaten in such a fashion (the police never claimed that he was attacking them back) rather than tasered or pepper sprayed?

ever experienced Pepper spray?

I have.

What happened? some woman took her pepper spray back to the store saying it didn't work.

the ASSHOLE of an employee tested it by spraying it into a trashcan IN THE FUCKING STORE.

Everyone in the area was affected by it. I was at the register several feet away and I was blinded.

Now watch the video. you start with TWO officers already on the person and you want them to use Pepperspray or a Taser?

and please give a "blow by blow" account of the beating the man took as shown in the video.

I only counted two... maybe three punches in the WHOLE thing. yep... what a beating he took.

He was being punched while restrained by the officer not punching him. Two officers were visibly on him and then the mounted officer tried to obscure the fucking camera. They blatantly knew this was wrong. Also, it was highly possible the third was already there.

So with two officers, one has to punch him in the face so that two police officers can subdue an allegedly drunk man twice their age?


The judge is a stupid jackass siding with the police because they are police.

yep... you could see nothing but the horse for the whole video... no wait... at one short instance, the mounted officer is off to the left side of the video, not in the shot. so that blows your theory that the mounted officer was there to only obscure the fucking camera.

watch the video. before the horse gets in the way... you see Davis standing there with his arms being held behind his back. he 'looks right at the camera' then the horse gets in the way, and at the point you see the officer hitting Davis, you see davis's hands in front of him as he's being pressed against the wall. so are you saying that the officers let davis's arms go so they could punch him? or could it be that Davis broke loose and the officers responded by pressing him against the wall and hit him two or three times.

then there is the nice cut (obvious by the fact that two more officers appeared) and you never see another punch thrown. Davis has one arm cuffed (the officer towards the camera is holding the cuff that is attached to his arm, thus the officer's arm is following the motion of Davis's arm) and you see them trying to turn Davis onto his stomach. the Forth officer is standing there ready to assist but not beating Davis up. so where is the beating that you INSIST is happening? I don't see it. maybe it's in the cut out portion of the video... or maybe it didn't happen in this case.

Sorry TPH, you may not agree with the judge, but right now, the Judge seen and heard more than you about this case, so forgive me if I don't care what you think about the judge.

ah, up to a point, they do. excessive force is never excusable, but one has to realize this most forgotten fact.

Police officers are ARMED. not with just a baton, but with pepperspray, and even a pistol. if a person resists, there is a risk that the person resisting can get their hands on those weapons and that is the LAST thing a police officer wants.I agree.

I'm not arguing that officers should not often be excused for what seems to be excessive force.

I AM arguing that citizens SHOULD often be excused for resisting that force.

The failure to understand this position derives from an assumption that in order for someone to be right, someone else has to be wrong.

But that's nonsense. The question is not whether the officer was, on a careful judgment, justified or excused for his behavior. The question is whether the citizen can be excused for his... and this may be the case even when the officer's behavior is not condemnable.

watch the video. before the horse gets in the way... you see Davis standing there with his arms being held behind his back. he 'looks right at the camera' then the horse gets in the way, and at the point you see the officer hitting Davis, you see davis's hands in front of him as he's being pressed against the wall. so are you saying that the officers let davis's arms go so they could punch him? or could it be that Davis broke loose and the officers responded by pressing him against the wall and hit him two or three times.
There are two officers. Obviously two officers. Are you saying two officers could not restrain an allegedly drunk man twice their age without repeatedly hitting him in the face?

then there is the nice cut (obvious by the fact that two more officers appeared) and you never see another punch thrown. Davis has one arm cuffed (the officer towards the camera is holding the cuff that is attached to his arm, thus the officer's arm is following the motion of Davis's arm) and you see them trying to turn Davis onto his stomach. the Forth officer is standing there ready to assist but not beating Davis up. so where is the beating that you INSIST is happening? I don't see it. maybe it's in the cut out portion of the video... or maybe it didn't happen in this case.
You must be as fucking blind as the judge.

Impersonating a police officer carries a HARSH penalty (in relation to the fact that you are basically playing dressup.) Most states consider that a Felony... and that's not including any crimes committed while impersonating an officer.That's true, and it's certainly helpful to all of us that there are measures taken to minimize the number of false police.

Nevertheless, that doesn't do a damn thing to help me when I'm in a position to suspect that the "officer" approaching me is either illegitimate, or acting illegitimately. In either case, I may have cause to fear mortal harm, and there is no legal theory that can adequately justify punishing someone for responding so as to defend himself from mortal harm.

As long as the police compose themselves according to appropriate standards, they should have no fear that I will attack them or resist any of their efforts.

But the second they cross the line, all bets are off. They change the situation from "authority figure vs. subject" to "man to man" as soon as they fail to live up to the standards of "authority."

ever experienced Pepper spray?

I have.

What happened? some woman took her pepper spray back to the store saying it didn't work.

the ASSHOLE of an employee tested it by spraying it into a trashcan IN THE FUCKING STORE.

Everyone in the area was affected by it. I was at the register several feet away and I was blinded.

Now watch the video. you start with TWO officers already on the person and you want them to use Pepperspray or a Taser?

and please give a "blow by blow" account of the beating the man took as shown in the video.

I only counted two... maybe three punches in the WHOLE thing. yep... what a beating he took.

I have rubbed my eyes after chopping chilis which blinded me for a rather long and painful night.

I'll take a 4 hour blinding pepper spray ordeal before I'd take a beating to the head which slams my face into a wall and causes facial fractures causing problems for the rest of my life.

You'd take the latter? So are you still having eye irritation from the pepper spray to this day or what?


Blow by blow account. One officer holding frail old man behind his back as he faces wall, while another officer punches him in the back of the head several times which in turn slams his face into a wall. I easily counted 4 blows to the back of the head at LEAST. (two maybe three? pfffffff)

Two officers on a old man. So what if they step back to use the taser or pepeprspray? Wheres the old man going to go? Is he going to use a grappling hook and fly out of sight before the officers can react? What can this old guy with coordination problems (I'm guessing if they thought he was intoxicated but couldnt charge him with that) do to get away from so many cops on teh ground and one on a horse? What danger was this old man to anybody even if he could get away. I really need you to give me a CONVINCING scenario where this beating was necessary to subdue this guy.

Do you have cops in the family or something. This isn't the first time I;ve seen you make excuses for the police doing rather heinous stuff.

This was police brutality plain and simple. They used excessive force on a non-threat. He wasn't fighting back he was resisting arrest.

Look, in legal theory there are two arguments usually offered to explain the right of self-defense as an excuse for otherwise criminal behavior:

1) The point of legal sanctions is to deter people from engaging in prohibited behavior. But when a person faces mortal danger, no deterrent in the world can be expected to prevent him from defending himself. The situation simply undermines the rules according to which law makes sense. No matter what penalty you threaten for resisting arrest, if I am in a position to believe that I may suffer mortal harm at the hands of uniformed officers, it would be irrational for me to take their abuse rather than face punishment.

2) Self-defense derives from "gut" instincts, reactions so deeply ingrained and immediate that a person cannot reasonably be expected to refrain from them. If someone assaults me, my instinct is to get away, resist, react. If someone punches me in the face, I cannot be blamed for punching back. Nothing about this changes if the person who punches me happens to be wearing a uniform.

Both of these arguments recommend leniency for individuals who "assault" officers as a response to police violence, no matter how justified that violence may be.

It doesn't matter if the officer was justified in punching me. I cannot be blamed for punching back.

I can be blamed, of course, for anything and everything I do prior to being assaulted... and any subsequent attacks I make cannot be justified if I actually swung first.

But if a cop strikes the first blow, I should be excused (note: not necessarily justified) for striking back.

I agree.

I'm not arguing that officers should not often be excused for what seems to be excessive force.

I AM arguing that citizens SHOULD often be excused for resisting that force.

... that's iffy.

to me, it depends on HOW one resists.

Physically? never.
withholding information? sure. you don't have to give your name/id. but should the officer then take you in. Don't resist. you can always get your/a lawyer.
Passively... iffy. while you are not being violent. it can lead to the officer using force to get you moving. like... say... tasering you...

The Circumstances can and should be taken into account, but that's for the court and lawyers to hash out. at the scene, at the point of the physical alterations, the officers will have the upper hand unless the citizens out number the police by LOTS to FEW. and then you run the risk of the officers calling for backup and using what ever force they deem necessary at the time.

... that's iffy.

to me, it depends on HOW one resists.

Physically? never.Why?

If I believe/sense/fear that I face mortal harm, what difference should it make that my attacker is wearing a uniform? I want an answer. So far, the best I've gotten is, "You'll be better off if you don't resist." Well, that may be true in most cases, but I don't know that when I'm being attacked.

but should the officer then take you in. Don't resist. you can always get your/a lawyer.To reiterate something I've said a thousand times, if an officer appears to be following procedure, if he appears to be acting strictly as an agent of the law, then you're right. I would never resist. It's pointless at best, counter-productive at worst.

My concern is with the situation in which an officer seems to "lose it," or when he seems to be more vindictive than lawful; when he takes it upon himself to mete out "punishment" upon me rather than leaving that to the courts.

When an officer is acting within the law, it is reasonable to believe that he will continue to do so. It is reasonable to believe that he will not kill me or seriously hurt me unless I give him no other choice. It is reasonable to believe that our dispute will be handled (hopefully fairly) by the courts.

But all of these assumptions depend on his behavior. If he is NOT behaving as an officer SHOULD, then all of my assurances fly out the window. If he is willing to hit me once for no reason, why shouldn't he be willing to do it again? If he is currently hitting me while I lie motionless on the ground, why should I believe he will stop after the next kick... or the one after that? What assurance do I have that he will not kill me?

The answer: none. He is acting like a common criminal, and it is reasonable (but not necessary) to treat him like one.

at the scene, at the point of the physical alterations, the officers will have the upper hand unless the citizens out number the police by LOTS to FEW.That's probably true. They do have the upper hand.

Then again, I'm in a real catch-22: if they're acting like criminals, obeying their commands may result in serious harm to me; of course, refusing their commands may result in the same thing.

There is no clear, obvious, "good" response. The point is that, from my point of view, resisting is not necessarily a "bad" one. It is not irrational, and it may be the ONLY thing that makes sense: when someone attacks you, resist.

At the very least, you'll make things difficult for them; you'll buy time; you'll cause a commotion and attract attention that they may not want--attention, for that matter, that may save your life.

Look, in legal theory there are two arguments usually offered to explain the right of self-defense as an excuse for otherwise criminal behavior:

1) The point of legal sanctions is to deter people from engaging in prohibited behavior. But when a person faces mortal danger, no deterrent in the world can be expected to prevent him from defending himself. The situation simply undermines the rules according to which law makes sense. No matter what penalty you threaten for resisting arrest, if I am in a position to believe that I may suffer mortal harm at the hands of uniformed officers, it would be irrational for me to take their abuse rather than face punishment.

2) Self-defense derives from "gut" instincts, reactions so deeply ingrained and immediate that a person cannot reasonably be expected to refrain from them. If someone assaults me, my instinct is to get away, resist, react. If someone punches me in the face, I cannot be blamed for punching back. Nothing about this changes if the person who punches me happens to be wearing a uniform.

Both of these arguments recommend leniency for individuals who "assault" officers as a response to police violence, no matter how justified that violence may be.

It doesn't matter if the officer was justified in punching me. I cannot be blamed for punching back.

I can be blamed, of course, for anything and everything I do prior to being assaulted... and any subsequent attacks I make cannot be justified if I actually swung first.

But if a cop strikes the first blow, I should be excused (note: not necessarily justified) for striking back. this sounds like a "He started it" argument. you know... the ones children use.

but as I said, Go ahead and do what you feel is right. I hope it never comes to pass that you or I put our ideas on how to handle Police officers to the test. everyone has their own ways of dealing with the cops. I rather be cooperative and not give them any excuse to ligitamize any action. you seem to feel your right to self defence superseeds the officers duty.

what it really boils down to is the training and the attitudes of the officers. of which I am glad the ones here seem more understanding and personable.

this sounds like a "He started it" argument. you know... the ones children use.Not a good argument... for children. Because children rarely face mortal danger in their disputes with one another.

I only raise this defense when a person has reasonable cause to believe he faces mortal danger. At that point, all bets are off.

you seem to feel your right to self defence superseeds the officers duty.No, and I'll appreciate it greatly if you kindly refrain from putting words in my mouth.

Not a good argument... for children. Because children rarely face mortal danger in their disputes with one another.
Still doesn't make it a good argument for anyone.

basically, it's the "but he did it" argument.

"President Bush can spy citizens without warrents because Roosevelt did." is still a stupid argument for adult. (Just an example, not baised on any facts.)

"I hit the officer because he hit me first." see the similarities?

I only raise this defense when a person has reasonable cause to believe he faces mortal danger. At that point, all bets are off. you can try to argue that in court.

No, and I'll appreciate it greatly if you kindly refrain from putting words in my mouth.But if a cop strikes the first blow, I should be excused (note: not necessarily justified) for striking back.

I'm not, you implied that your right to self defense should excuse your striking an officer. yet by fighting back you are escallating the violence level. thus also giving due reason for the officer to escallate his attempts at restraining you. which will cause you to fight back harder, leading the officer to take steps that would normally not be taken, leading you to think you have the right to escallate higher... etc... etc...

when will it stop? when the officer breaks your arm or is forced to use a baton/pepperspray/taser/gun? won't that lead you to think that your life is in "mortal Peril" giving you a valid reason (in your mind) to find a weapon yourself? Other officers seeing this will only see YOU, a civilian, Fighting an Officer. They won't know the series of events nor will they know what's going on in both minds.

but again, as I said, how you handle the cops is your method. How I handle the cops is mine. I only pray that we both don't end up in the posistion to see which is the better method.

Still doesn't make it a good argument for anyone.

basically, it's the "but he did it" argument.No, it's not.

The "but he did it" argument is about assigning blame. It suggests that though two people have both done wrong, only the initiator should be blamed. It applies when we are both in trouble because we both did something wrong, as when you slash my tires and I slash yours in retaliation.

We both agree that the crime defined by "resisting arrest" should be punished, and punished severely. Indeed, I think it is one of the worst crimes a citizen can commit, because it is quite literally a rebellion against the social contract which requires that we all submit our cases to judgment before legitimate, neutral authorities.

However, we disagree about the definition of "arrest." You believe that if someone wearing a police uniform wants to restrain me or take me somewhere against my will, he is by definition "arresting" me. Thus, any resistance on my part is, by definition, "resisting arrest."

I believe, however, that a police officer only acts in an official capacity in some of the things he does. I believe, moreover, that there are procedures, modes of address, and other signs that he can use to "take on" his official capacity. If my cop friend and I meet for lunch while he's on duty and he tells me "go to the dentist" because my tooth hurts, I know that he is not giving me a legal order that I am obliged to obey. Similarly, I know that if a police officer picks a fight with me, he's not treating me as an officer of the law: he's just picking a fight, and under certain circumstances I should be excused if I fight back.

So I'm saying that because "he did it first," I'm excused? No. If an officer shoves me onto the ground and laughs at me, I am not excused for responding in kind. But then again, if any moron on the street shoved me onto the ground and laughed at me, I would not be excused in fighting back. He's a jerk, I can seek a legal remedy. It has nothing to do with what he's wearing.

If, on the other hand, some jerk and his friends knock me to the ground and begin beating me severely, who can blame me for fighting back? If some jerk grabs my head and slams it violently against a wall several times, who can blame me for fighting back?

I am NOT justified or excused simply by the fact that he did it first. I am, however, excused by the fact that I wasn't in a position to countenance legal remedies. I was in mortal danger. I am to be excused for responding.

"President Bush can spy citizens without warrents because Roosevelt did." is still a stupid argument for adult.That's a different kind of "he started it" argument, and it's even more of a straw man. You should be ashamed of this argument.

"I hit the officer because he hit me first." see the similarities?I see the similarity between that statement and the one about Bush and Roosevelt above, yes. What I don't see is the similarity between that statement and anything I've suggested.

The actual response is, "I hit the officer because I feared for my life."

I'm not, you implied that your right to self defense should excuse your striking an officer.It should, but that doesn't mean it trumps the officer's duty to the public. The two are not mutually exclusive. The officer can be excused for assaulting me, provided it was not excessive, so long as he did so in his capacity as an officer of the law. Likewise I may be excused for retaliating, provided I did not provoke the assault, so long as I do so only when the attack poses a mortal threat.

yet by fighting back you are escallating the violence level.Not necessarily. From my point of view, if the police are being excessive or they are planning further violence, struggling may draw attention that they'd rather avoid--e.g. people with video cameras. I may also prolong the fight, allowing time for help to arrive--or, perhaps, for my attackers to think better about how far they were willing to go. Maybe they were expecting a helpless victim, and a few solid punches will bring them back to their senses. Who knows? The point is that if I fear for my life, fighting is at worst no less reasonable than not fighting. If I don't fight, I fear death. If I fight, I fear death.

That's the kind of existential choice over which no law can hold judgment.

Other officers seeing this will only see YOU, a civilian, Fighting an Officer.Alas, it's true. Justice never accounts for human prejudice.

They won't know the series of events nor will they know what's going on in both minds.No, they won't. To be fair, let us simply assume that they make the clearest judgment they can, for surely it is not impossible that some of them overcome their prejudice enough to recognize police brutality when they see it.

there is no legal theory that can adequately justify punishing someone for responding so as to defend himself from mortal harm.

well, there probably are a few, but none that we would recognize as filling our sense of justice

well, there probably are a few, but none that we would recognize as filling our sense of justiceThat's precisely what I meant by "adequate." ;)

I have rubbed my eyes after chopping chilis which blinded me for a rather long and painful night.

I'll take a 4 hour blinding pepper spray ordeal before I'd take a beating to the head which slams my face into a wall and causes facial fractures causing problems for the rest of my life.

You'd take the latter? So are you still having eye irritation from the pepper spray to this day or what? I agree
taser or pepper spray cannot cause brain damage.

I agree
taser or pepper spray cannot cause brain damage.

The risk of death from a taser is less than the risk of death from pepper spray - and both are orders of magnitude safer (in terms of risk of death) than a single whack from a baton.

No, it's not.

The "but he did it" argument is about assigning blame. It suggests that though two people have both done wrong, only the initiator should be blamed. It applies when we are both in trouble because we both did something wrong, as when you slash my tires and I slash yours in retaliation. it's not about assigning blame, it's about who broke the law. at the point of arrest, it doesn't matter who started it, all it matters is who participated. so yes, we would both be arrested for property damage.

the officer won't care who started it. you can give your reasons to the judge and jury and they can decide. but at the scene, at the point of arrest, reasons won't matter.

However, we disagree about the definition of "arrest." You believe that if someone wearing a police uniform wants to restrain me or take me somewhere against my will, he is by definition "arresting" me. Thus, any resistance on my part is, by definition, "resisting arrest." What other reason, outside of arrest, would he want you to go somewhere you don't want to.

leaving the premisis? by refusing you could be arrested for tresspassing.
Preventing you from entering the premises? depending on the situation, the charge may be interferring with an investigation to endangering yourself and others.

The definition of arrest is simple. When the officer has to "Take you in."

I believe, however, that a police officer only acts in an official capacity in some of the things he does. I believe, moreover, that there are procedures, modes of address, and other signs that he can use to "take on" his official capacity. If my cop friend and I meet for lunch while he's on duty and he tells me "go to the dentist" because my tooth hurts, I know that he is not giving me a legal order that I am obliged to obey. Similarly, I know that if a police officer picks a fight with me, he's not treating me as an officer of the law: he's just picking a fight, and under certain circumstances I should be excused if I fight back. soo wrong on so many levels. yes, no one can 'force you to go to the dentist' you can even disobey a doctors advice to see a dentist.

Now if the officer is just 'Picking a fight' and you fight back, at that time, right there, it will come down to a his word vs mine. however, if you don't fight back, the physical evidence (should the officer strike you) will work against him. You engage (doesn't matter who starts what) in a physical altercation with the officer. you will be arrested and charged with striking an officer. and whatever else they may add (disturbing the peace, resisting arrest, etc.) and your screaming "He started it" (just paraphrasing) won't mean a lick until processing at the earliest and trial at the latest.

So I'm saying that because "he did it first," I'm excused? No. If an officer shoves me onto the ground and laughs at me, I am not excused for responding in kind. But then again, if any moron on the street shoved me onto the ground and laughed at me, I would not be excused in fighting back. He's a jerk, I can seek a legal remedy. It has nothing to do with what he's wearing. big difference between a civilian and an officer. yes, if the officer is wearing a uniform, you fight back, you go back to my above statement. you can seek legal remedy. I never said you couldn't. but you fight back and it makes it harder to prove what really happened.

If, on the other hand, some jerk and his friends knock me to the ground and begin beating me severely, who can blame me for fighting back? If some jerk grabs my head and slams it violently against a wall several times, who can blame me for fighting back? you fight back, and the police come by, both of you will be arrested and processed (depending on the severity of the fight. I've seen officers issue a KIO [Knock it off] for altercations not resulting in fisticufs) and both of you will get a chance to say what happened. The officers won't care who started it at the time/point of arrest.

I am NOT justified or excused simply by the fact that he did it first. I am, however, excused by the fact that I wasn't in a position to countenance legal remedies. I was in mortal danger. I am to be excused for responding. and that would be self defense. can you show me examples where the officer does not take in the defending person to have their statements taken and evidence (injuries and such) processed soley on the claim that one was defending one's self? (this is in a one on one situation. granted multiple witnesses supporting your claim of self defense would be different.)

That's a different kind of "he started it" argument, and it's even more of a straw man. You should be ashamed of this argument. Good, so I won't hear you saying the same thing should anyone present a "but [someone] did this before and no one complained thus it's pardonable/excused/legal." I.E. Bush's Actions.

I see the similarity between that statement and the one about Bush and Roosevelt above, yes. What I don't see is the similarity between that statement and anything I've suggested. in the eyes of the law, all are supposed to be equal. no one is above it. thus everyone is held accountable for their actions.

The actual response is, "I hit the officer because I feared for my life." which doesn't justify hitting back. after all, you can disengage, you can stop whatever you're doing that led to the assault, you can surrender. the MAJORITY of officers won't strike you unless you give them reason to (less paperwork on their part... and speaking from what the officers I work with say... Paperwork is hell.) does that mean there are not assholes with a badge? no.

It should, but that doesn't mean it trumps the officer's duty to the public. The two are not mutually exclusive. The officer can be excused for assaulting me, provided it was not excessive, so long as he did so in his capacity as an officer of the law. Likewise I may be excused for retaliating, provided I did not provoke the assault, so long as I do so only when the attack poses a mortal threat. and at the time of the arrest, that won't be taken into consideration (all points.) it's at the trial/processing that those details (excessive force/Self defense) will be brought up and examined. however, the physical evidence will be recorded and preserved. take the Canada thread. one video actually supports the claims of misuse of pepper spray (if going by the video alone) and what makes it damaging is the fact that while the person was being arrested, he was calm, not fighting back and neither was the crowd around the officers. they were yelling (because they won a game) but they were generally NOT hostile to the officers. After liberal amounts of pepperspray was used, you don't see anyone assulting the officers "in self defense" which would make the investigation into the assult easier to see that the officers over reacted.

Not necessarily. From my point of view, if the police are being excessive or they are planning further violence, struggling may draw attention that they'd rather avoid--e.g. people with video cameras. I may also prolong the fight, allowing time for help to arrive--or, perhaps, for my attackers to think better about how far they were willing to go. Maybe they were expecting a helpless victim, and a few solid punches will bring them back to their senses. Who knows? The point is that if I fear for my life, fighting is at worst no less reasonable than not fighting. If I don't fight, I fear death. If I fight, I fear death.

That's the kind of existential choice over which no law can hold judgment. and it may be excused in court. but not at the scene of the arrest. and at the scene of the arrest, it's not your point of view that the offiers act upon, but theirs.

Alas, it's true. Justice never accounts for human prejudice. and Prejudice is alive and well in every level of society... including yours and mine. like how you automatically believe the civilian's claim over the officers without knowing what else happened or hearing all the evidence. just like me wanting to give the officers the benefit of the doubt can be considered Prejudice to some. ;)

No, they won't. To be fair, let us simply assume that they make the clearest judgment they can, for surely it is not impossible that some of them overcome their prejudice enough to recognize police brutality when they see it.and that is difficult to do at the time of the arrest. after reviewing the evidence and all accounts, but not at the time of the arrest.

If you see two people struggling over a gun, and Person A is screaming for assistance, who would you help? Person A or Person B?

same situation except person B is your friend/someone you know, who would you help?

Same situation except Person A is your friend/someone you know, who would you help?

or would you stand there and ask around first what happened?

you know nothing more of the situation, you don't know who started it or what happened leading to this point. That's the kind of situations and decisions officers have to make at that time.