Author Topic: Anybody seen the lovely new LA police video? (Read 4973 times)

Maverick · « **Reply #225 on:** July 12, 2002, 08:11:31 PM »

Couple things that struck me in the last page of this rather interesting and strangely civil thread.

Sandman, The mental capability of the individual in the last scandal is really irrelevent. It's rather hard to do an IQ test in the middle of a situation. It will of course make more sensationalism in the whole circus. I heard Sharpton is already on the case. I wonder why it's taken so long for jj to show up. PS mentally challenged individuals are often among the most dangerous to be around. Pesky folks don't play by the rules ya know... Not that I am rendering an excuse for the officers involved. I don't have all the facts and likely neither of us ever will due to the media frenzy. Now that the circus has started it will be spin doctoring all over the place... on both sides.

The video supplier. He did have 3 year old DUI warrants and also for Hit and Run. Not the average homicide thing that gets to the top burner. You'd be totally amazed how many wanted folks are in the comunities you all live in. The Police get to them as they are found. In this case the dweeb advertized himself on TV. You think it's going to be ignored?!?!?

The video shooter also seems to have skipped out on the grand jury. (According to the morning news) Another warrantable arrest offence. It seems he has also refused to supply the prosecutors the ORIGINAL video. This development could be kinda interesting. Why is he so shy about it? Has it possibly been edited or just sold. If sold, so much for his "civic spirit". His first responsibility was to render it for criminal prosecution, not financial gain.

Last item about this guy. This mornings news commentator said he has a history of negative contact with Police and has been very outspoken before. I'm not sure what it really means, but it kinda explains his histrionics as he was driven away, on camera. Want to bet he tries to play the "vengeance ticket" to get out of his own legal problems???

I just "love" these circus's.

Leslie · « **Reply #226 on:** July 12, 2002, 11:49:46 PM »

Just read in today's paper that the "kid" had managed to get his hands on the policeman's balls after being cuffed. Certainly explains the policeman's actions, which seem mild, all things considered. The policeman defended himself with a great deal of restraint, imo.

I'm not a cop, but I believe police training here in Mobile involves placing choke holds on subjects resisting arrest. There was a case here a couple years ago, where a 25 year old man was running around the streets downtown naked and under the influence of PCP. He sucessfully fought off five officers for awhile even after being cuffed (this guy was in good shape), and managed to kick one officer in the head, breaking his jaw. Police finally subdued him with a choke hold, but unfortunately, the man would not give up his struggles until he died on the spot.

My point here is someone wearing handcuffs could still be very dangerous and capable of inflicting injury. This kid who grabbed balls made that decision of his own accord, and imo, received relatively lightweight treatment by being face slammed on the hood of a car ( which ain't like being slammed on concrete...the car hood has a lot of "give"), and punched in the face. It may not have been professional of the police to react this way, but probably was a darn sight more humane than using a choke hold, which is professional and could have resulted in the kid's death, especially if he was on something like PCP.

Les

Gunthr · « **Reply #227 on:** July 13, 2002, 10:41:11 AM »

Quote

I'm not a cop, but I believe police training here in Mobile involves placing choke holds on subjects resisting arrest.

Leslie, I doubt that the choke hold is taught in Mobile.
Choke holds or making somebody do the "funky chicken", are no longer taught in most police jurisdictions for regular street fighting, defense tactics or take downs. Has to do with a death in California about ten years ago, I think. Of course, if lethal force is justified, anything goes...

loser · « **Reply #228 on:** July 13, 2002, 12:26:11 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gunthr

Leslie, I doubt that the choke hold is taught in Mobile.
Choke holds or making somebody do the "funky chicken", are no longer taught in most police jurisdictions for regular street fighting, defense tactics or take downs. Has to do with a death in California about ten years ago, I think. Of course, if lethal force is justified, anything goes...

are you sure about that gunthr? i am sure and have seen police training tactics. The chokehold is still taught as a method of "less lethal force." Right up there with stun guns, rubber mallet launchers and glue guns.

Though it is a less than ideal tactic because the officer wants to keep his distance from the person he/she is dealing with. Think boom and zoom. The further away the officer is from his/her target the more options he/she has.

Lateral neck restraints are a last resort when the subject gets too close to you. And if it gets that close and the cop isnt in control he/she has to have one hand on the subject and one hand keeping his/her side arm from being unholstered. (even with the new funky "two hands to pull" holsters.)

Sandman · « **Reply #229 on:** July 13, 2002, 12:35:53 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Maverick
Sandman, The mental capability of the individual in the last scandal is really irrelevent.

It's somewhat relevant. Observation of people is something that police are trained to do. Certainly, some are better than others, but police are expected to make a judgement to the mental state of the people they encounter. There's a reason why you feel creepy talking to a cop. You're being scrutinized.

FWIW, I'm not a cop. My little brother is. We've discussed this sort of thing.

Gunthr · « **Reply #230 on:** July 13, 2002, 01:58:36 PM »

Yeah, Loser, I'm sure, and I refer to the USA. You may be confusing the choke hold with a head lock, or some such.

The choke hold, where you apply pressure to both carotids from behind until the subject loses consciousness, has been the cause of high figure awards in law suits.

Incidently, I am not commenting at all on "the video", or implying that the choke hold was used.

Thrawn · « **Reply #231 on:** July 13, 2002, 02:46:56 PM »

Cops in Canada are trained to pull the perps shirt over his head, in order to incapacitate him.

Eagler · « **Reply #232 on:** July 13, 2002, 04:00:54 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
. There's a reason why you feel creepy talking to a cop. You're being scrutinized.

And a few of you are wondering if they can smell that lefty you just put out

Cobra · « **Reply #233 on:** July 13, 2002, 04:03:57 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Thrawn
Cops in Canada are trained to pull the perps shirt over his head, in order to incapacitate him.

And then give them the Moe eye-gouge, followed quickly by the Larry hair pull.

Unless, of course, the perp puts his hand in front of his nose to stop the eye-gouge, then the Mounties are to wave one hand in front of the perp shaking it up and down, then make a fist and hold it front of the perp, taunting him to hit it, which he will of course....he's canadian, there-by causing the fist to windmill and land smack on top of the perps head.

This then disorientates the perp enough to begin again with the eye-gouge and so on.....

Unless the perp is from Quebec, then the cops are trained to speak only English to them, which will whip the perp into such a frenzy, he will fall to the ground and turn in a rapid circle barking with a French accent.

Cobra

Cobra · « **Reply #234 on:** July 13, 2002, 04:09:29 PM »

Hehe...also Thrawn not only is that move taught in Canadian Police Academy's, but in any and all Hockey Camps.

midnight Target · « **Reply #235 on:** July 13, 2002, 05:15:52 PM »

Quote

I suppose it would go something like this, the not-guilty verdict in trial #1 would constitute sufficcient evidence in trial #2 to aquit the defendant. This because in trial #2, the plaintiff would not be allowed to use any evidence from trial #1, since the defendant already has been declared not guilty there. The different burdens of proof in a criminal and a private case really has got nothing to do with that.

As Oldman so eloquently pointed out. The burden of proof required in civil and criminal cases makes a great deal of difference. The civil case with it's "lesser" burden could easily have a different verdict than a criminal case. If the cases were reversed in chronological order there indeed would be no need for the criminal procedings. (All trout are fish, but not all fish are trout) There might even be a greater lattitude in evidence allowed by the plaintif, but you lawyer types will have to clarify that one.

Hortlund · « **Reply #236 on:** July 13, 2002, 05:32:16 PM »

In Sweden if you have a damages claim that is related to a criminal act, you have to make that claim in the criminal-trial. If the damages claim is very complicated, it can be broken out of the criminal trial to be handled in a separate trial after guilt has been established. But if the criminal trial ends with a not-guilty verdict, the damages claim is dropped for res judicata. If the criminal trial ends with a guilty verdict, the damages trial is held. But in that trial, it has already been decided that the defendant is obligated to pay damages, all that is left is decide how much.

Maverick · « **Reply #237 on:** July 13, 2002, 07:08:51 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM

It's somewhat relevant. Observation of people is something that police are trained to do. Certainly, some are better than others, but police are expected to make a judgement to the mental state of the people they encounter. There's a reason why you feel creepy talking to a cop. You're being scrutinized.

FWIW, I'm not a cop. My little brother is. We've discussed this sort of thing.

I was pretty confident you were not a Police Officer. The idea that you are going to make a determination of mental capacity quickly in a fluid circumstance is at best, naive. It is true that observation is a key skill of Police, but tell me, just what characteristic is it that you look for to determine within a couple seconds that a subject is mentally challenged. Not all mentally retarded folks are mongoloid with easily distinguishing characteristics. Not all folks identified as mentally challenged have that much of a difference between low IQ from the "normal range" of IQ. Remember normal is anything between 80 and 110 in some education circles. The mentally challenged card now being played has a definate range of interpretation. Of course we can expect it to be played to the max now as an influence on any jury. It's already been successful in the trial by media.

If you feel creepy talking to a cop, it's your problem, not the cops. I have never had that feeling.

Maverick · « **Reply #238 on:** July 13, 2002, 07:10:58 PM »

Hortlund,

You make a very convincing argument for the simplicity of the legal system in your country. I didn't know about it, but it is certainly a refreshing change from the situation in the states.

koala · « **Reply #239 on:** July 13, 2002, 08:28:44 PM »

Quote

I see that we are approaching the different philosophies in our legal systems here. You say no one expects to be served coffee that will cause permanent injury if spilled. I say everyone knows that coffee is served hot.

Like I said Hortlund, don't expect much common sense from your average American these days. The lawsuit is what the average lazy American pursues these days, kind of like the lottery. Ooh, there's some easy money to be made! Let's sue! Then they stand behind some pretense of righteousness, when in the end it's greed pure and simple. If it was about righteousness then the scummy litigators wouldn't go just after the deep pockets now would they?

Oh and Midnight Target, what do you think would have happened if the coffee had been served by some small-time cappucino stand that didn't have more than a few thousand to their name. Do you think granny would have gotten the same lawyer to argue her case?