Off-duty Orlando cops beat man

[GarfieldtheCat]

Yup, another beating by cops. Black man sitting on the sidewalk, and the cops hauls off and kicks him repeatedly.

Police chief sees no reason to suspend them.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/10/us/orlando-police-kick-man-video/index.html

"I decided to deliver foot strikes using the top of my foot, in order to maintain distance and in hopes Carter would comply. I stood up and began delivering several kicks with my right foot to Carter's right arm in between his elbow and shoulder while telling him, `Stop resisting,' " Cruz alleged.

Doesn't look like he resisted from the video, not the first time a cop totally lied and made up a fake report to justify police brutality.

 

[JackBurton]

Keep crying wolf.

 

[cabri]

Off-duty Orlando cops beat man

Where these cops off duty or not?

The excessive kicking is unjustified.
The video records the tail end; what was done in the beginning.
Lets get that information out before the lynching.

 

[TheSlamma]

Well those tax payers will end up paying for that lawsuit.

 

[Blanky]

Given how dishonest CNN was with the Texas cop recently I am looking at these vids with more skepticism. What happened before the kicking?

You also need to be consistent Garfield. In the other thread in post 249 you defer to the police chief's view of the situation as the final word. Why aren't you doing that here?

 

[Genx87]

Given how dishonest CNN was with the Texas cop recently I am looking at these vids with more skepticism. What happened before the kicking?

You also need to be consistent Garfield. In the other thread in post 249 you defer to the police chief's view of the situation as the final word. Why aren't you doing that here?

There are more than one angle in the CNN video. While I will say he was resisting the officers commands. The other videos show him not being combative. His hands are always in the air as cops try to take him down. The last video imo was out of line. He is sitting down and the cop is kicking him.

And isnt it obvious why Garfield would defers to the chief of police? If the chief of police comes out and blasts the conduct of an officer. Then it is pretty clear the conduct of an officer is wrong.

 

[JockoJohnson]

Given how dishonest CNN was with the Texas cop recently I am looking at these vids with more skepticism. What happened before the kicking?

You also need to be consistent Garfield. In the other thread in post 249 you defer to the police chief's view of the situation as the final word. Why aren't you doing that here?

He is being consistent...with his agenda. These news outlets need to be held liable if they are just going to release a video without investigating the details first.

It seems pretty simple:

If it is not a full video covering the entire incident from beginning to end, the journalists need to do their fucking jobs and research it before dumping this shit on the public. Look at the Ferguson issue for example number 1.
Get both sides of the story not just report to benefit the ongoing national media agenda of "Cops are bad blarrgggggghhhh"

There are definitely too many incidents of cops doing things that they shouldn't be doing. Each and every one of the incidents should be looked into. I understand that there is an issue that cops seem to get away with everything and something needs to be done to address it. But the "hit and run" media doesn't help when they just dump shit on the public without investigating it first.

 

[dank69]

He is being consistent...with his agenda. These news outlets need to be held liable if they are just going to release a video without investigating the details first.

It seems pretty simple:

If it is not a full video covering the entire incident from beginning to end, the journalists need to do their fucking jobs and research it before dumping this shit on the public. Look at the Ferguson issue for example number 1.
Get both sides of the story not just report to benefit the ongoing national media agenda of "Cops are bad blarrgggggghhhh"

There are definitely too many incidents of cops doing things that they shouldn't be doing. Each and every one of the incidents should be looked into. I understand that there is an issue that cops seem to get away with everything and something needs to be done to address it. But the "hit and run" media doesn't help when they just dump shit on the public without investigating it first.

The actual article is pretty long and seems to have a lot of the details of the entire incident.

 

[Subyman]

Well, doesn't look great, but the video is tiny. I don't think the officer was trying to put distance between him and the guy. He stood and kicked him 3 times while the man sat on the ground. Hard to really tell when the actual media is involved. I'd rather have a full video of the incident.

 

[JockoJohnson]

The actual article is pretty long and seems to have a lot of the details of the entire incident.

Agreed. I read the article. There was a good bit of detail in there mixed in with a slight sprinkling of statements and descriptions by witnesses. And I especially love the hyperlinks inserted between paragraphs linking to other CNN articles of alleged police abuse.

 

[xBiffx]

Well those tax payers will end up paying for that lawsuit.

Not if they were off duty.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

A cop hauled off and kicked a man 4-5 times for no reason on the video.

Anyone trolling this thread care to comment on the actual video? I mean, the man was sitting, not moving, not attacking anyone, and the cop kicks him 4-5 times until he collapse back onto the ground.

To me, that's assault, but I'm not an internet troll like you all.

So again, give a justification for a cop kicking someone that isn't doing anything. Or man up and admit the cop broke the law and needs to be punished.

It is either legal (so provide your justification why) or illegal.

 

[JockoJohnson]

A cop hauled off and kicked a man 4-5 times for no reason on the video.

Anyone trolling this thread care to comment on the actual video? I mean, the man was sitting, not moving, not attacking anyone, and the cop kicks him 4-5 times until he collapse back onto the ground.

To me, that's assault, but I'm not an internet troll like you all.

So again, give a justification for a cop kicking someone that isn't doing anything. Or man up and admit the cop broke the law and needs to be punished.

It is either legal (so provide your justification why) or illegal.

Using the video as my only frame of reference, I would say the cop was wrong.

However, it appears that CNN did their job this time and gathered more details about the story that aren't shown in just the video. This situation should be investigated -- hopefully by an independent investigator so that there is no appearance of bias when the results, whatever they may be, are released.

 

[Blanky]

A cop hauled off and kicked a man 4-5 times for no reason on the video.

Anyone trolling this thread care to comment on the actual video? I mean, the man was sitting, not moving, not attacking anyone, and the cop kicks him 4-5 times until he collapse back onto the ground.

To me, that's assault, but I'm not an internet troll like you all.

So again, give a justification for a cop kicking someone that isn't doing anything. Or man up and admit the cop broke the law and needs to be punished.

It is either legal (so provide your justification why) or illegal.

Of course it is illegal or legal, but this video is super fucking suspicious don't you think? After the tricks played in other videos recently I am not so quick to judge. It looks like the cop lost his shit and kicked a guy without good cause but cutting only to that part makes it hard to believe this alone is the only pertinent detail. For example let's say the guy had a gun and was telling the cop he is going to shoot him. Cop reacts by kicking him in the head instead of legally shooting him. Changes the outlook doesn't it. Or maybe they tried freaking everything they could and the guy just refused to be arrested.


Probably the cop was wrong.

 

[cabri]

]Or maybe they tried freaking everything they could and the guy just refused to be arrested.

Ignoring the video; based on witness statements; such seems to be the case.

The need to and/or amount of kicking though is not justified once the guy was sitting down.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Well those tax payers will end up paying for that lawsuit.

Not if they were off duty.

Agreed. How is the police responsible for what their officers do in their off-time? Imagine OJ Simpson was a cop and killed while off-duty. How does it make sense to be able to sue his employer?

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

A cop hauled off and kicked a man 4-5 times for no reason on the video.

Anyone trolling this thread care to comment on the actual video? I mean, the man was sitting, not moving, not attacking anyone, and the cop kicks him 4-5 times until he collapse back onto the ground.

To me, that's assault, but I'm not an internet troll like you all.

So again, give a justification for a cop kicking someone that isn't doing anything. Or man up and admit the cop broke the law and needs to be punished.

It is either legal (so provide your justification why) or illegal.

That would actually be battery. But nice try broceritops.

Either way, you can't call out a CLEARLY one-sided story. Videos that start recording mid-way is no different than news storys that cut out sentences to make it appeal to their audience.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Of course it is illegal or legal, but this video is super fucking suspicious don't you think? After the tricks played in other videos recently I am not so quick to judge. It looks like the cop lost his shit and kicked a guy without good cause but cutting only to that part makes it hard to believe this alone is the only pertinent detail. For example let's say the guy had a gun and was telling the cop he is going to shoot him. Cop reacts by kicking him in the head instead of legally shooting him. Changes the outlook doesn't it. Or maybe they tried freaking everything they could and the guy just refused to be arrested.


Probably the cop was wrong.

The video is suspicious? You mean it was photoshopped like Obamas birth certificate? What do you mean by that?

Guy didn't have a weapon, wasn't moving, wasn't doing anything at that point. The cop hauled off and kicked him several times.

I'd say it was clear cut. Not sure how people disagree about that.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

That would actually be battery. But nice try broceritops.

Either way, you can't call out a CLEARLY one-sided story. Videos that start recording mid-way is no different than news storys that cut out sentences to make it appeal to their audience.

Can you dispute the video?

Please provide a legal reason or a police department regulation that says it is OK and appropriate to kick someone 4-5 times that is not a threat and not moving.

Also please explain how the officer in his report clearly lied, saying the man was resisting when he had to kick him. Video shows he wasn't moving at all.

So the video shows the cop lied.

Do you have any evidence to suggest this is incorrect, or is this more internet tough guy defending cops again?

 

[cabri]

The video is suspicious? You mean it was photoshopped like Obamas birth certificate? What do you mean by that?

Guy didn't have a weapon, wasn't moving, wasn't doing anything at that point. The cop hauled off and kicked him several times.

I'd say it was clear cut. Not sure how people disagree about that.

Not that the video was photo shopped; just clipped/abbreviated and not showing all of what other videos of the incident are also showing.

No one is defending the kicking; but the video is disingenuous in that it is the only thing that is being shown if the situation is to be based upon it alone.

While the person shooting that video may have only seen the kicking incident; there are others that the news story could have also provided that would generate a clearer picture of the overall incident.

Your statements imply a condemnation of the complete situation

 

[master_shake_]

The video is suspicious? You mean it was photoshopped like Obamas birth certificate? What do you mean by that?

Guy didn't have a weapon, wasn't moving, wasn't doing anything at that point. The cop hauled off and kicked him several times.

I'd say it was clear cut. Not sure how people disagree about that.

do you know where you are?

:biggrin:

they could have shot him 116 times and been in the right according to some people here.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Not that the video was photo shopped; just clipped/abbreviated and not showing all of what other videos of the incident are also showing.

No one is defending the kicking; but the video is disingenuous in that it is the only thing that is being shown if the situation is to be based upon it alone.

While the person shooting that video may have only seen the kicking incident; there are others that the news story could have also provided that would generate a clearer picture of the overall incident.

Your statements imply a condemnation of the complete situation

Your statements show you don't understand the law. It doesn't matter what happened before.

He theoretically could have been in a fight before, but theoretically could have run away. But he stopped and didn't do anything. Cops don't get a "once you resist arrest, we still get 5 minutes to beat the shit out of you even after you stop resisting" pass on the law.

Unless you know of police dept regs that say they get at least 5 minutes to beat people no matter what.

So what happened before doesn't matter. That you bring it up is just trying to blame the victim and deflect from the cop.

The only thing that matters is that he wasn't doing anything at that time, was not a threat, and the cop hauled off and kicked him multiple times. Period. Anything else is just trying to defend the cop for his crime. Just like "slut shaming" rape victims. Good job.

And you are still ignoring the cop lied on his report/explanation on what happened. How do you explain that too?

 

[cabri]

You are asking me to defend the actions of the officer in that video snippet.

I will not.

I will condemn the "victim" for his actions that led to the incident.
Manhandling/attacking another person.
Failing to respond to a police officers commands
Running away from a police officer.
Attacking a police officer.

 

[Subyman]

Not if they were off duty.

That is actually a complicated question:

http://www.aele.org/law/2007LRSEP/2007-09MLJ101.pdf

In some cases the department is held liable while in others the individual is held liable. It depends on the state and the department policy. If the off-duty officer was acting "under the color of the law" then it makes it more likely that they can be tied back to the department especially if they identify themselves as an officer. The case law is all over the place though.

 

[Blanky]

The video is suspicious? You mean it was photoshopped like Obamas birth certificate? What do you mean by that?

Guy didn't have a weapon, wasn't moving, wasn't doing anything at that point. The cop hauled off and kicked him several times.

I'd say it was clear cut. Not sure how people disagree about that.

Suspicious because it doesn't show anything prior to the kicking. Why is that? Camera man late to it or was it immaterial or was it relevant?

As far as resisting, resisting arrest means exactly that; sitting down not moving after you're being told you're under arrest I imagine qualifies (not sure); I doubt it only means you are actively physically fighting with a cop. Again I will say it absolutely appears on its face that the cop lost his shit and if the video is a fair approximation of that then the cop should at the least be fired if not charged. But that won't happen not should it without checking first to see what else--if anything--is relevant to this.