Minnesota Police Officers

[Butters 0]

Are running around beating citizens like pinatas and reenacting Training Day ...

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[Skyrad 0]

Guess he should have stayed in the car.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Kennedy 0]

In the first one, well, stay in the car and don't assault officers, and you won't get a beat down.

As for the second, I'll wait for the investigation to finish. If they were trying to reenact Rampart CRASH, throw them in a deep dark hole and let them stay there until the rot. If they are cleared, then clear them and let them find an agency that trusts officers ore than scumbags.

In both cases, that tv news station is just this side of Amnesty International in its dislike of officers and inability to get a story right on the facts. Watching the first video was painful. I just went to youtube to watch the raw video without the inane and uninformed commentary by the reporter.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[RonD1120 62]

It always makes me wonder, how could the perp/victim let this happen? I grew up in the south and learned very early on, don't give shit to a cop. While in the Air Force I was arrested in New Orleans during Mardi Gras. This was in the days prior to invention of the prosecutor baton and the NOPD carried what looked like small baseball bats with a lanyard to wrap around the wrist. There was some incident at Pat O'Brien's and the police wanted the crowd dispersed along Bourbon St., so they started arresting people. I was one of the selectees. They had several paddy wagons standing by and they filled them completely with folks sitting on the floor. In my vehicle, I was the only one not bleeding profusely from a head wound.

If a cop tells you to jump, your best bet is to ask how high on the way up.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[Kennedy 0]

While I don't go as far as Ron in my advice, he's got the right idea.

People should remember two simple things to make interactions with the police simple and pain-free.

(1) Polite and cooperative goes a long way. P+C can turn felonies into misdemeanor tickets, and misdemeanors into verbal warnings. I'm not saying you have to be P+C, but it makes your life easier and the officer's day a little nicer.

(2) When given an order you disagree with, do not argue the point. DO IT. You cannot win arguing with the police on the street. All you are likely to do is drive the officer into using force against you to gain compliance. Complying may be unpleasant, but being forced to comply tends to HURT.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Butters 0]

Quote

(2) When given an order you disagree with, do not argue the point. DO IT. You cannot win arguing with the police on the street. All you are likely to do is drive the officer into using force against you to gain compliance. Complying may be unpleasant, but being forced to comply tends to HURT.

Since when did the Police go from protecting and serving the citizens to acting like the Borg ... resistance is futile.

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[nanook 1]

Quote

Since when did the Police go from protecting and serving the citizens to acting like the Borg ... resistance is futile.

What do you want from them? A glass of water?

If they are after you they are protecting and serving the citizens from you.

1) Its hyprocritical to expect the Police to serve and protect you and then turn around and call them names when they serve and protect the citizens from you being stupid.

2) If you act up, why should cops give up their right to protect themselves from someone who may be dangerous? They can't take a chance and wait to see if you are really going to try to hurt them or if you are just a shit talker.

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[Butters 0]

Quote

2) If you act up, why should cops give up their right to protect themselves from someone who may be dangerous? They can't take a chance and wait to see if you are really going to try to hurt them or if you are just a shit talker.

The initial cops on the scene may have been protecting themselves ... the cops that arrived on the scene when the man was already restrained and began assaulting him (kicking and punching) were not protecting themselves.

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[nanook 1]

http://kstp.com/article/stories/s1087418.shtml?v=1

this is the video I am looking at. I see the kicking and the punching, but I also see someone that is still actively resisting, not fully restrained, not permitting himself to be cuffed and the kicking and punching being advantageous to decrease his resistance.

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[Butters 0]

Quote

http://kstp.com/article/stories/s1087418.shtml?v=1

this is the video I am looking at. I see the kicking and the punching, but I also see someone that is still actively resisting, not fully restrained, not permitting himself to be cuffed and the kicking and punching being advantageous to decrease his resistance.

Honestly, you see someone actively resisting? I see a man laying beneath an officer, not moving, who than attempts to protect himself when other officers begin assaulting him ...

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[Kennedy 0]

Did the man comply with established laws?
No, he gave the officer a reason to stop him.

Did the man stay in the car when told to do so by the officer?
No, he came out of the vehicle, despite lawful orders.

Did the man get back in his seat and stay in the car when the officer placed one hand on the man and repeated his instruction to do so?
No, he began to forcibly resist by attempting to exit the vehicle.

At this point the officer has all the justification he needs to force the man to the ground. This could include a bodily tackle, arm locks and joint manipulation, pain compliance, pepper spray, and in many jurisdictions a Taser.

The man clearly continues to resist attempted by the officer to force the man's right arm behind his back (arm sticking up in the air, around the 2 minute mark). THe officer manages to ground the man, but the man continues to resist. The officers gives clear instructions "roll over on your stomach." The man resists by staying on his back and blocking the officer from rolling him over.

The officer pin s the man to the ground but does not have him handcuffed, and the man has clearly not submitted to the arresting authority. (an arrest is not complete until the suspect has submitted to authority or is so restrained as to prevent resistance, and handcuffing doesn't restrain enough to meet that standard)

Additional officers arrive and see the primary officer has been injured, the suspect is not cuffed and is still resisting, and the suspect is a large male. Strikes that are designed to cause pain but not serious injury are not unreasonable in that situation (courts decision, not mine but I happen to agree).

Quote

Honestly, you see someone actively resisting? I see a man laying beneath an officer, not moving, who than attempts to protect himself when other officers begin assaulting him ...

What I see in you, and don't understand, is someone who is willing to give the benefit of the doubt to someone whose poor decisions led to officers being injured and having to use force. If the suspect had just made one single good decision, none of these problems would have happened.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[futuredivot 0]

Well put.

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[pirana 0]

Quote

It always makes me wonder, how could the perp/victim let this happen? I grew up in the south and learned very early on, don't give shit to a cop. While in the Air Force I was arrested in New Orleans during Mardi Gras. This was in the days prior to invention of the prosecutor baton and the NOPD carried what looked like small baseball bats with a lanyard to wrap around the wrist. There was some incident at Pat O'Brien's and the police wanted the crowd dispersed along Bourbon St., so they started arresting people. I was one of the selectees. They had several paddy wagons standing by and they filled them completely with folks sitting on the floor. In my vehicle, I was the only one not bleeding profusely from a head wound.

If a cop tells you to jump, your best bet is to ask how high on the way up.

Saw very similar thing first hand. Do not fuck with NO police. A guy was peeing in a doorway only a block off Bourbon. Cop came up and instead of doing the smart thing and apologizing profusely, he mouths off.

Cops smacked him a few times with these little batons and threw him in the wagon.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[Butters 0]

Quote

What I see in you, and don't understand, is someone who is willing to give the benefit of the doubt to someone whose poor decisions led to officers being injured and having to use force. If the suspect had just made one single good decision, none of these problems would have happened.

The decisions of the officer led to the officer being injured. After all, the man never used force against the officer. I guess resistance is futile and we should all submit to anything an officer desires including being assaulted ...

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Quote

What I see in you, and don't understand, is someone who is willing to give the benefit of the doubt to someone whose poor decisions led to officers being injured and having to use force. If the suspect had just made one single good decision, none of these problems would have happened.

The decisions of the officer led to the officer being injured. After all, the man never used force against the officer. I guess resistance is futile and we should all submit to anything an officer desires including being assaulted ...

The officer was doing his job. The suspect exited the vehicle - the officer's job is to stop the suspect. Verbal commands were ineffective - the suspect wouldn't listen. The suspect cannot be allowed to flee or to assault the officer - the officer has to escalte to force to stop the suspect. The suspect then continued to resist. Force was used to overcome the resistance and effect a custodial arrest.

How is this the officer's fault? The suspect is the one who could have prevented all of this, or stopped it at anytime. What, would you rather all officers just left people run away (or attack)?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Butters 0]

Quote

Force was used to overcome the resistance and effect a custodial arrest.

Read the article. I already stated (like the article) that the first officer used appropriate force. However, the later officers used excessive force. You appear to believe that all force is appropriate force ...

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

Did the man comply with established laws?
No, he gave the officer a reason to stop him.

Did the man stay in the car when told to do so by the officer?
No, he came out of the vehicle, despite lawful orders.

Did the man get back in his seat and stay in the car when the officer placed one hand on the man and repeated his instruction to do so?
No, he began to forcibly resist by attempting to exit the vehicle.

At this point the officer has all the justification he needs to force the man to the ground. This could include a bodily tackle, arm locks and joint manipulation, pain compliance, pepper spray, and in many jurisdictions a Taser.

The man clearly continues to resist attempted by the officer to force the man's right arm behind his back (arm sticking up in the air, around the 2 minute mark). THe officer manages to ground the man, but the man continues to resist. The officers gives clear instructions "roll over on your stomach." The man resists by staying on his back and blocking the officer from rolling him over.

The officer pin s the man to the ground but does not have him handcuffed, and the man has clearly not submitted to the arresting authority. (an arrest is not complete until the suspect has submitted to authority or is so restrained as to prevent resistance, and handcuffing doesn't restrain enough to meet that standard)

Additional officers arrive and see the primary officer has been injured, the suspect is not cuffed and is still resisting, and the suspect is a large male. Strikes that are designed to cause pain but not serious injury are not unreasonable in that situation (courts decision, not mine but I happen to agree).

Quote

Honestly, you see someone actively resisting? I see a man laying beneath an officer, not moving, who than attempts to protect himself when other officers begin assaulting him ...

What I see in you, and don't understand, is someone who is willing to give the benefit of the doubt to someone whose poor decisions led to officers being injured and having to use force. If the suspect had just made one single good decision, none of these problems would have happened.

Wonderful. Your explanations sound like a screenplay for a movie.

After watching the original video (more than 8 minutes), even for a one-eyed man it's easy to see that this "dangerous suspect" (oh well, he's a "large male" and black, that explains all) did NOT MOVE for minutes, beeing kicked and beaten by many other "large males"

Funny thing is, after those "law enforcement officers" finished the scrap, obviously they didn't know what to do now - or how would you explain their walking around from left to right and right to left for more than 2 minutes?

Gloss it over as long as you like, those police officers just bashed a man. How many of them were involved? 4, 5, 6?

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[futuredivot 0]

Quote

(oh well, he's a "large male" and black, that explains all)

Why do you have to bring race in to it? What was the indication that race had anything to do with it. Was an officer shouting nigger nigger? People scream 'racism' hoping that anyone that disagrees won't speak up for fear of being branded a bigot. Too often it works.

Quote

How many of them were involved? 4, 5, 6?

To paraphrase Ron White, you don't have to know how many it will take to whip your ass if you know how many they're gonna use. I just hope that the cops get a fair investigation and aren't sacrificed to political expediency.

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[Kennedy 0]

No, the first officer used force to prevent escape and protect himself. He never overcame the resistance. The additional officers arrived on scene and used the force necessary to make the arrest. The officers will be cleared by the investigation, but you won't hear about it because the news will be sensationalizing the next use of force incident and (wrongly) implying all sorts of maliciousness.

All you people who complain that it took four or five officers to make the arrest, have you ever tried holding down a dog at the vet, or a five year old who doesn't want to get his shots? It's not easy. Now make it a grown man who outweighs you. Of course the officers could have stopped him nearly instantly if they were not worried about injuring him. It's not that difficult to break bones and cause injuries that incapacitate a person. Stopping them without hurting them, or hurting htem as little as possible, that's the trick, and it tends to look very ugly.

And let's not forget, if the suspect had simply complied and stopped resisting, everything else would have been unnecessary.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

....
All you people who complain that it took four or five officers to make the arrest, have you ever tried holding down a dog at the vet, or a five year old who doesn't want to get his shots? It's not easy. Now make it a grown man who outweighs you. Of course the officers could have stopped him nearly instantly if they were not worried about injuring him. It's not that difficult to break bones and cause injuries that incapacitate a person. Stopping them without hurting them, or hurting htem as little as possible, that's the trick, and it tends to look very ugly.

And let's not forget, if the suspect had simply complied and stopped resisting, everything else would have been unnecessary.

Quote

Of course the officers could have stopped him nearly instantly if they were not worried about injuring him. It's not that difficult to break .....

... but it's much easier to spurn someone repeatedly, kick him repeatedly even that overweight guy is not moving any more since a while

Don't tell stories. My eyes still are good enough to see reality.

From my own experience 4 weeks ago: I was foolish enough to use my cell phone while driving, did not even realize that police car behind me - an expensive experience (€ 75). The female officer kindly asked me to show my papers while standing beside my open door. While she checked all, I left my car as it was hot, very hot. Standing there, nobody jumped on me, trying to knock me down while I was looking for shadow under a nearby tree. I do not think I took a risk for life and limb while leaving my car

Perhaps it's like that, as an overwhelming majority of our population is not armed? But that's food for another thread.

For me there is no doubt: Those upright officers were knocking down that guy, they simply "over-reacted", to use a gentle word.

Put lipstick on the pig all day long. They simply knocked him down.

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[wmw999 2,590]

Quote

Strikes that are designed to cause pain but not serious injury are not unreasonable in that situation (courts decision, not mine but I happen to agree).

Why are strikes that are designed to cause pain but not serious injury superior to simply using the larger number of people to physically restrain non-compliant but seemingly non-violent offender? I'm asking, not judging. It's not my world. That's what the film appears to show. And I have held both children and dogs
The single officer was unable to get him completely under control (although might might could have pantsed him ), but the guy didn't seem to be fighting back aggressively. That's my perception. I completely agree that the first officer and the one nearest the camera in the melee seem to have been models of restraint in trying to get their jobs done.

The biggest thing is that the system appears to be taking its course -- the film exists, it's being evaluated, and the situation is not being covered up. That makes this a story about the system working.

Someone is going to end up unhappy, such is life. That's usually the case when a police officer stops someone on the road anyway.

And yeah, he sure should have stayed in the car.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[nanook 1]

Quote

Why are strikes that are designed to cause pain but not serious injury superior to simply using the larger number of people to physically restrain non-compliant but seemingly non-violent offender? I'm asking, not judging.

A well placed strike can subdue someone easier than 4 or more people can any time of the day by themselves. Try this:

Get four guys to wrestle with you. Ball up your body on the floor and bring your arms around one leg then lock your fingers together. INstruct them try to flatten you out on your belly with your hands restrained your back. Here's the trick. Stuff something down your pants that will represent a weapon. If anyone ever gives you the chance pull it out and "use it" on one of them.

Now, have three try to straighten you out for a minute, then have the fourth come up and tickle you or wet-willy you or something like that(this is their "strike"). You are going to squirm a little differently and may give them an advantage to better restrain you and eventually find that "weapon" after they finally get the ability to frisk you.

What I am trying to demonstrate was that:

1) no frisking is able to be performed effectively without being positively controlled and restrained. Who knows what he could have carried.

2) wrestling with a lot of people of the opposite sex is fun

That guy was non-compliant. That means he's unpredictable. The chances of non-compliance leading to violence is too great to take any chances.

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[wmw999 2,590]

Thanks for the explanation. Yeah, it still looks excessive to me, but I know more now, and understand more, and have a better idea of how little I know.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Kennedy 0]

I saw nanook answered up, but I thought I'd throw an additional point of view into the ring.

Strikes are not necessarily superior, but they are another tool in the toolbox. Put simply, it is very difficult to force a persons arms behind their back when the arms are helf in front of the chest across the torso, or straighten out legs when they are curled. Trying to overpower that pose is very difficult. However, there are a number of things you can do to distract a person. Pressure points, bending joints the wrong way, pepper spray to the face, and poking brachial or femoral arteries are just a few. Strikes are another distractor. If a person focuses on pain, or another part of their body, it is easier to overcome large muscle groups.

I agree I did not see any violence directed at the officer. The suspect was not assaulting the officer, as far as I could see on the video. However, the suspect doesn't have to punch before officers can use strikes, just like the suspect doesn't have to shoot before officers resort to firearms.

The thing to remember here is that the officers are tasked with bringing the suspect into custody. The officers are not required to use the least amount of force to effect an arrest. They are required to use reasonable force, which this case falls under according to every use of force case decided by upper courts since Tennessee v Garner. (Supreme Court US, 1985)

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Quote

(2) When given an order you disagree with, do not argue the point. DO IT. You cannot win arguing with the police on the street. All you are likely to do is drive the officer into using force against you to gain compliance. Complying may be unpleasant, but being forced to comply tends to HURT.

Since when did the Police go from protecting and serving the citizens to acting like the Borg ... resistance is futile.

I haven't seen a force do more than react to crime in a long while. Our neighborhood hires an off-duty officer with a take-home car to patrol and park at th entrance for a few hours a day. But if he wasnt on the HOA payroll, we wouldn't have that much even.
I don't know if they teach protect and serve in academies anymore, but it's not externally visible.

--
Rob