• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Cops beat unarmed man who was just talking on the phone

Holy shit! That dude with the big arms hit waylayed the fuck out of him and continued to waylay him even after he was obviously out cold, poor guy couldn't even get his hands up to defend himself although that would have been viewed as an "aggressive maneuver". Then WTF was the need to smash his face into the elevator door and throw him down again? Did he have the nerve to ask why he just got beat down, while not being a visible threat to the 4 cops that were initially crowding around him or something?
 
"In response to the incident, the police department has reportedly revised its use-of-force policy to note that officers can only strike someone in the head or face if the person becomes physically violent first."

One would think this would be obvious, but apparently it takes bad publicity to make these kinds of changes.
 
"Chief Batista says he also changed the department’s policy so that officers cannot hit a suspect in the face or head unless they’re fighting with them. Before the change, the policy apparently could be interpreted that it is OK to hit suspects before any fight starts."

Which means the officers are going to get away with it, scott free, after pummeling this poor bastard for no reason at all. Hell even if the chief wanted to fire one or all of them their union would get them reinstated with back pay.

We live in a fucked up world when cops can bring that level of violence to a man who wasn't a threat, wasn't acting threatening, not even involved in the crime the cops were called for, just standing and looking at his phone and they can do it with impunity.
 
SMH...

Holy crud... While I see him resist at first when they grab on to him, holy cow... With that number of officers and a multitude of ways to subdue someone, I would never think a punch-down like that would be used. The boxing method that officer used is definitely not something that is taught in the academy. I'll watch it again, but I don't see much of an issue from the other officers except the one with the white hair that also tried the boxing method. Sheesh...

- Merg
 
Darwin333 said:
"Chief Batista says he also changed the department’s policy so that officers cannot hit a suspect in the face or head unless they’re fighting with them. Before the change, the policy apparently could be interpreted that it is OK to hit suspects before any fight starts."

Which means the officers are going to get away with it, scott free, after pummeling this poor bastard for no reason at all. Hell even if the chief wanted to fire one or all of them their union would get them reinstated with back pay.

We live in a fucked up world when cops can bring that level of violence to a man who wasn't a threat, wasn't acting threatening, not even involved in the crime the cops were called for, just standing and looking at his phone and they can do it with impunity.
Click to expand...

Just on the point of the union, you do realize that it is not the union that makes the department rehire officers, right? The union is doing what they are paid for by the officers to do - defend them and advocate for them. If the officers have a contract with the city/town/state/etc., it is the contract that determines where disputes over the hiring and firing of officers are debated. The union does not force the department to re-hire someone. It is whoever is determined to arbitrate the issue, be it a panel or arbitrator.

- Merg
 
The Merg said:
Just on the point of the union, you do realize that it is not the union that makes the department rehire officers, right? The union is doing what they are paid for by the officers to do - defend them and advocate for them. If the officers have a contract with the city/town/state/etc., it is the contract that determines where disputes over the hiring and firing of officers are debated. The union does not force the department to re-hire someone. It is whoever is determined to arbitrate the issue, be it a panel or arbitrator.

- Merg
Click to expand...

Did you see my response to you in the other thread? If so I'd love a response to that post.

The unions negotiate the contract that demands arbitration be used. The unions provide the lawyers that represent the piece of shit cops that are fired. So yeah, it is the contract, the one that is negotiated by the very powerful police union and they are almost universally very pro-cop and very anti-oversight. They go so far as to sue to prevent Department of Justice recommendations (or mandates?) from being implemented.

If the union didn't demand this kind of bullshit it wouldn't exist but they do. Why you try to pretend otherwise is beyond me.
 
The Merg said:
SMH...

Holy crud... While I see him resist at first when they grab on to him, holy cow... With that number of officers and a multitude of ways to subdue someone, I would never think a punch-down like that would be used. The boxing method that officer used is definitely not something that is taught in the academy. I'll watch it again, but I don't see much of an issue from the other officers except the one with the white hair that also tried the boxing method. Sheesh...

- Merg
Click to expand...

Looks to me like he dodged a blow from the cop. Is it really resisting to move out of the way of an incoming knee or fist? For the entire "boxing match" the dude couldn't even raise his hands. I don't care if the officer was just slapping him after the first punch, that shit is so far over the line it's crazy. In boxing the ref would have jumped in between them after the first punch but while this guy is getting pummeled how many officers stand by and watch or even worse assist?

And it took a week for the chief to even hear about it so none of the "good cops" that watched that shit were concerned with the bad cops actions enough to bring it to him.
 
Darwin333 said:
Did you see my response to you in the other thread? If so I'd love a response to that post.

The unions negotiate the contract that demands arbitration be used. The unions provide the lawyers that represent the piece of shit cops that are fired. So yeah, it is the contract, the one that is negotiated by the very powerful police union and they are almost universally very pro-cop and very anti-oversight. They go so far as to sue to prevent Department of Justice recommendations (or mandates?) from being implemented.

If the union didn't demand this kind of bullshit it wouldn't exist but they do. Why you try to pretend otherwise is beyond me.
Click to expand...

I did see it, but didn't have a chance to respond there before I replied here...

So, if you hired a lawyer, would you not want that lawyer to do whatever they could to defend you? How is that different than the lawyer that an officer uses as part of their union? I would think that a police union would use a lawyer that is very pro-cop. While you keep talking about these powerful unions, and yes, there are some out there, that is not the case everywhere. Here in VA, officers do not work under a contract and cannot collective bargain. The one department near me has chapters for 3 different unions (FOP, PBA, SPB) that some officers each belong to, but is not required. If an officer is terminated they can appeal the decision to the Chief or to an advisory panel. If they fail at that level, they can opt to take it to court.

As for the unions making the demands and that's it, that's BS as well. It takes two for the contract to be signed. If the city doesn't like the contract, they don't have to go along with it. The same is true for any other outfit that uses a union, such as teachers, steel workers, etc. One difference though, when was the last time you saw police officers go on strike when they didn't have a contract?

- Merg
 
Darwin333 said:
Looks to me like he dodged a blow from the cop. Is it really resisting to move out of the way of an incoming knee or fist? For the entire "boxing match" the dude couldn't even raise his hands. I don't care if the officer was just slapping him after the first punch, that shit is so far over the line it's crazy. In boxing the ref would have jumped in between them after the first punch but while this guy is getting pummeled how many officers stand by and watch or even worse assist?

And it took a week for the chief to even hear about it so none of the "good cops" that watched that shit were concerned with the bad cops actions enough to bring it to him.
Click to expand...

You can see him trying to pull away as soon as the first officer grabs onto him. That is resisting. Like I said though, the boxing aspect was over the top. And even though it was really the one cop that did all the damage, the Chief has suspended 4 of the officers because of their "involvement".

- Merg
 
The Merg said:
You can see him trying to pull away as soon as the first officer grabs onto him. That is resisting. Like I said though, the boxing aspect was over the top. And even though it was really the one cop that did all the damage, the Chief has suspended 4 of the officers because of their "involvement".

- Merg
Click to expand...

Paid administrative leave.

And "involvement" in quotes, lol....
 
ch33zw1z said:
Paid administrative leave.

And "involvement" in quotes, lol....
Click to expand...

Involvement in quotes as they were not the ones that were punching the subject like the main officer, but watched it or let it happen.

And I've spoke to the paid administrative leave thing before. Police work is the only job where force is a required aspect of their job. If every time someone complained about excessive force it meant that the officer was suspended without pay, there is no way that officers would be willing to do this job. You are punishing them before any kind of investigation is performed to determine if there was any wrongdoing. If the investigation determines wrongdoing, absolutely institute suspension without pay, demotion, termination, whatever...

- Merg
 
The Merg said:
Involvement in quotes as they were not the ones that were punching the subject like the main officer.

And I've spoke to the paid administrative leave thing before. Police work is the only job where force is a required aspect of their job. If every time someone complained about excessive force it meant that the officer was suspended without pay, there is no way that officers would be willing to do this job. You are punishing them before any kind of investigation is performed to determine if there was any wrongdoing. If the investigation determines wrongdoing, absolutely institute suspension without pay, demotion, termination, whatever...

- Merg
Click to expand...
Guilt by association, guess it's only for the plebes.
 
ch33zw1z said:
Guilt by association, guess it's only for the plebes.
Click to expand...

Or in this case, the officers that watched it happen and did nothing...

In this case the Chief put 3 other officers on administrative leave when it was the one officer that did the beating.

- Merg
 
The Merg said:
Or in this case, the officers that watched it happen and did nothing...

In this case the Chief put 3 other officers on administrative leave when it was the one officer that did the beating.

- Merg
Click to expand...
Maybe they should stop him next time, it's called association for a reason. Same team bro.
 
Darwin333 said:
Did you see my response to you in the other thread? If so I'd love a response to that post.

The unions negotiate the contract that demands arbitration be used. The unions provide the lawyers that represent the piece of shit cops that are fired. So yeah, it is the contract, the one that is negotiated by the very powerful police union and they are almost universally very pro-cop and very anti-oversight. They go so far as to sue to prevent Department of Justice recommendations (or mandates?) from being implemented.

If the union didn't demand this kind of bullshit it wouldn't exist but they do. Why you try to pretend otherwise is beyond me.
Click to expand...

Please. This kind of stuff is at its worst in small depts that aren't union. The stereotype of the small town sheriff exists for a reason.

Having said that the Union has a legal responsibility to represent members to the best of their ability. I doubt they can do much of anything to change the disposition of this incident. The officers were clearly over the line.
 
The Merg said:
Or in this case, the officers that watched it happen and did nothing...

In this case the Chief put 3 other officers on administrative leave when it was the one officer that did the beating.

- Merg
Click to expand...

Yeah, I call that failing to do their job at upholding the law. A fireable offense in the real world but if you are suspended for it you damn sure don't get paid during your suspension.
 
ch33zw1z said:
Maybe they should stop him next time, it's called association for a reason. Same team bro.
Click to expand...

Ironically if the man was doing that to the cop they would have shot his ass and would have been found justified for it. Given the level of brutality, I would have said good shoot too.
 
Darwin333 said:
Yeah, I call that failing to do their job at upholding the law. A fireable offense in the real world but if you are suspended for it you damn sure don't get paid during your suspension.
Click to expand...

And it very well could be a fireable offense, but there has to be some sort of investigation. The issue is that they have to do their investigation first before determining discipline (and it's very possible the investigation timeframe might be very short), however until then, they will be on paid leave. While videos are great and show a lot of what happened, you still need to look to see if there is other video out there and have to interview the involved parties.

- Merg
 
The Merg said:
And it very well could be a fireable offense, but there has to be some sort of investigation. The issue is that they have to do their investigation first before determining discipline (and it's very possible the investigation timeframe might be very short), however until then, they will be on paid leave. While videos are great and show a lot of what happened, you still need to look to see if there is other video out there and have to interview the involved parties.

- Merg
Click to expand...

The mans hands were at his side because he was likely knocked the fuck out for at least 3 additional haymaker blows. Furthermore, I don't think anyone can come up with an argument that first haymaker was warranted. Hell the cops didn't even charge him with resisting arrest FFS. Inexcusable action is inexcusable, I don't care how much investigating you do but until then he gets a nice taxpayer paid vacation while his knuckles heal, how nice for him. And as I stated above, it evidently wasn't against policy so technically he didn't do anything wrong in the eyes of the Union lawyers that will be representing him.

I mean if you can get away with molesting a teenage girl in your patrol car while on duty and get your job back, with back pay, then surely this guy has nothing to worry about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top