Two more cop abuse incidents on video

[GarfieldtheCat]

Sure are a lot of bad apples.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...-of-assaulting-cop-did-police-commit-perjury/

This guy was arrested for assaulting cops.

"I observed Lawrence Faulkenberry push Sergeant Yost with the left side of his body and elbow into a tree causing him to fall and injure his left shin and right knee cap. I observed Lawrence Faulkenberry to forcefully resist Deputies while attempting to lawfully detain him for officer safety. Deputies detained Lawrence Faulkenberry using the least amount of force necessary to gain compliance from Lawrence Faulkenberry."

Oops....video show the cops all lied. Imagine that. I thought our apologists here always tell us that cops don't lie and do these sorts of things? Perhaps they can explain how proper police procedure is to lie on official reports?

Any of our apologists want to bet that they get charged with perjury since they lied on official documents and arrested an innocent man?

And a different incident of a mailman getting arrested for yelling at a cop that was driving dangerously. Apparently to cops, talking back to them at all is a crime and warrants arrest.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/27/nyregion/glen-grays-the-mailman-cuffed-in-brooklyn.html?_r=0

Mr. Grays was descending the steps of his mail truck backward, as postal workers often do to minimize wear and tear on the knees, when out of the corner of his eye he noticed a car making a sharp right turn onto President from Franklin Avenue. Mr. Grays shouted at the driver, climbing back up the steps to avoid getting sideswiped. The black car, in Mr. Grays’s telling, came tearing back his way in reverse. The driver said to him, Mr. Grays recounted, “I have the right of way because I’m law enforcement.” The unmarked car held four plainclothes police officers, according to the Brooklyn borough president’s office, which has taken an interest in the case.

Perhaps our cop apologists can explain why cops think it is legal to arrest someone for daring to talk back to them. Or maybe the apologists can quote the law that saws police cars always have right of way, even when their lights aren't on? Anyone?

I guess we are just supposed to genuflect before all cops and do whatever they say.

Luckily there was video of this incident as well. Anyone of the apologists wanna bet that these cops get any real punishment? Other then a paid vacation?

Of course, since they are NYPD, and the DA's there are in bed with them since they won't even lock up convicted cops that kill people, so the cops will get off and be back to harassing black men real soon I'm sure.

 

[master_shake_]

when you let gangs roam the streets with guns, badges and absolute impunity you can't reel it back in.

 

[KK]

Sure are a lot of bad apples.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...-of-assaulting-cop-did-police-commit-perjury/

This guy was arrested for assaulting cops.




Oops....video show the cops all lied. Imagine that. I thought our apologists here always tell us that cops don't lie and do these sorts of things? Perhaps they can explain how proper police procedure is to lie on official reports?

Any of our apologists want to bet that they get charged with perjury since they lied on official documents and arrested an innocent man?

And a different incident of a mailman getting arrested for yelling at a cop that was driving dangerously. Apparently to cops, talking back to them at all is a crime and warrants arrest.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/27/nyregion/glen-grays-the-mailman-cuffed-in-brooklyn.html?_r=0



Perhaps our cop apologists can explain why cops think it is legal to arrest someone for daring to talk back to them. Or maybe the apologists can quote the law that saws police cars always have right of way, even when their lights aren't on? Anyone?

I guess we are just supposed to genuflect before all cops and do whatever they say.

Luckily there was video of this incident as well. Anyone of the apologists wanna bet that these cops get any real punishment? Other then a paid vacation?

Of course, since they are NYPD, and the DA's there are in bed with them since they won't even lock up convicted cops that kill people, so the cops will get off and be back to harassing black men real soon I'm sure.

I wouldn't lose any sleep if they got shot while on duty.

 

[brycejones]

Su
Any of our apologists want to bet that they get charged with perjury since they lied on official documents and arrested an innocent man?

Perhaps our cop apologists can explain why cops think it is legal to arrest someone for daring to talk back to them. Or maybe the apologists can quote the law that saws police cars always have right of way, even when their lights aren't on? Anyone?

I guess we are just supposed to genuflect before all cops and do whatever they say.

Yeah, you come across as desiring a discussion.

BTW neither of these incidents is acceptable behavior and the officers involved should be handled appropriately.

As for the last line keep beating the shit out of that straw man, because I'm pretty sure no one here has said that ever.

 

[The Merg]

I'll chime in here even though it's been a while...

Reference the first incident, the video kinda says it all. Without sound though, we don't know what the officers were telling him to do and if the subject was complying. If they were telling him to get on the ground and he wasn't, I can understand the move to put him down there. There should have been something articulating that in the report though (which there might be, but it wasn't released as we don't have the full report). The report quoted appears to be from one of the other officers and not the one that put the subject on the ground. So, we are hearing what happened from his point of view. I'd like to see the report from the officer that put the subject on the ground to see what he says happened though.

While videos are great and I whole-heartedly support dash cams and body cams, they don't always show the whole story.

If they did lie, they should be punished for it. As I mentioned before, many (not all) departments have a policy about lying. If you are caught lying, you are generally terminated (as you should be).

With regard to the second video, we don't know exactly what caused the confrontation as the video starts at the time the police confront the postal worker. We don't know what happened, so to assume one thing or another is to rush to judgement. As for the postal worker being told to stop resisting, you can see in the video that when they try to put his hands behind his back and move him that it does not appear that he is complying and pulling away from the officers.

As for being arrested for talking back to a cop, there is no law that supports that. The charge of disorderly conduct is supposed to be used against someone that is doing something that would incite others to fight. The courts have ruled that cops should have a higher level of restraint than the public and rarely uphold the charge of disorderly conduct when the police officer is the victim.

As for your often repeated comments of so many bad apples, let's look at the numbers again... Over 60,000,000 contacts of people with over 750,000 law enforcement officers each year. Less than 2% of all contacts involve force. Yup, there's so much abuse out there. I'm sure that the entire 2% of times that force is used it's completely unjustified.

- Merg

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Oh, look, the cop apologist that always tells us that "Cops don't lie because they can get into a lot of trouble".

LOL, you wanna reconsider that idea? Sure seems that (a) cops lie (and do a lot worse), and (b) get away with it.

Do I really need to repost all the incidents of systemic racism, bigotry and abuse by police nation-wide?

 

[The Merg]

Oh, look, the cop apologist that always tells us that "Cops don't lie because they can get into a lot of trouble".

LOL, you wanna reconsider that idea? Sure seems that (a) cops lie (and do a lot worse), and (b) get away with it.

Do I really need to repost all the incidents of systemic racism, bigotry and abuse by police nation-wide?

Hmmm... Where did I say that cops don't lie? Let's see what I said...

If they did lie, they should be punished for it. As I mentioned before, many (not all) departments have a policy about lying. If you are caught lying, you are generally terminated (as you should be).

I think I said that if they lied about the incident, they should be terminated.

- Merg

 

[Victorian Gray]

Hmmm... Where did I say that cops don't lie? Let's see what I said...



I think I said that if they lied about the incident, they should be terminated.

- Merg

"If they lied"? Can you show us in the video of the incident just where this happened:

"I observed Lawrence Faulkenberry push Sergeant Yost with the left side of his body and elbow into a tree causing him to fall and injure his left shin and right knee cap. I observed Lawrence Faulkenberry to forcefully resist Deputies while attempting to lawfully detain him for officer safety. Deputies detained Lawrence Faulkenberry using the least amount of force necessary to gain compliance from Lawrence Faulkenberry."

 

[The Merg]

As I stated, while videos are great, they don't show you everyone's point of view. There were two officers standing off the right of the subject when the subject is taken to the ground. From that point of view, it could appear that the subject pushed into the Sgt. (as the officer was making the move to put him on the ground).

Once on the ground, if you watch the video, the subject does not comply right away in being handcuffed and is technically resisting at that point.

What I stated was that I would like to see what Sgt. Yost actually stated in his police report. There was also the 3rd officer there that we have not seen what his report says as well.

We also do not know why Sgt. Yost opted to put the subject on the ground. Were they telling him to get on the ground and he wasn't complying? These are all questions that I would like to know the answer to.

- Merg

 

[Victorian Gray]

I don't know why I bothered.

 

[The Merg]

I don't know why I bothered.

So you don't think that different points of view can affect how someone sees a situation? Just because one person sees something from one angle means that everyone else sees that exact same thing from the angle from which they are watching? You don't find it interesting that only one of three narratives has been released and it is not even from the officer that actually did the take-down?

Take a look at this video for example.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rM4kyiHSY2w

In it, it appears that this guy is shot by the cops after putting down the gun like he is told to do. However, if you look closely, you can see that after he is shot, he is holding a gun in a his right hand. While it appeared to the cop in front that he was complying, the cop behind the subject saw that he was actually drawing another firearm.

And while I stated that videos are great, they don't show every little bit of information. From a security camera 100-200' away, do you think that it is going to show every little subtle movement by someone. So, if the subject was tensing up or pulling his hands away from behind his back that you are going to see that? Oh, and Mr. Faulkenberry admits that he did not comply with the orders from the officers to turn around and walk towards them. Instead he told them to come to him and handcuff him there.

Once again, I don't condone lying, but I'm also open to the fact that and realize that a version of events is most likely never going to be identical from everyone at an incident.

- Merg

 

[The Merg]

I just watched the video again, basically frame by frame... At the 24 second mark, Sgt. Yost (I'm assuming it's him as he is the officer trying to put the subject on the ground) attempts to do a leg sweep. It looks like he misses the mark and actually starts to fall to the ground ahead of the subject. At the 25 second mark, the subject, as he is falling over pulls his left hand back and makes what appears to be a swinging motion at Sgt. Yost. Sgt. Yost ends up on the ground in front of the tree and the other two officers tackle the subject to the ground.

If you are standing on the right side of the subject, watching the officer fall to the ground first and seeing the swinging motion from the subject could very well give the impression that the officer was shoved to the ground.

- Merg

 

[mysticjbyrd]

I just watched the video again, basically frame by frame... At the 24 second mark, Sgt. Yost (I'm assuming it's him as he is the officer trying to put the subject on the ground) attempts to do a leg sweep. It looks like he misses the mark and actually starts to fall to the ground ahead of the subject. At the 25 second mark, the subject, as he is falling over pulls his left hand back and makes what appears to be a swinging motion at Sgt. Yost. Sgt. Yost ends up on the ground in front of the tree and the other two officers tackle the subject to the ground.

If you are standing on the right side of the subject, watching the officer fall to the ground first and seeing the swinging motion from the subject could very well give the impression that the officer was shoved to the ground.

- Merg

Pushed with what? His hands were being cuffed by two cops.

The first cop was basically failed to assault the guy being handcuffed, and fell. You could argue that the other cops might have thought he was trying to escape or something.

But that's the issue here, the list of excuses these cops are allowed to use to get away with assault and even murder has grown so long that it's basically impossible to convict them.

Ohh look that guy had a water hose nozzle! That kid had a toy gun in the store! My gun accidentally discharged!
That guy had a knife, and he was 10 feet away, but self defense!

This shit doesn't happen in other countries at this rate... At what point is enough enough? We cannot just keep excusing these actions, and pretend the status quo is fine.

 

[The Merg]

Pushed with what? His hands were being cuffed by two cops.

The first cop was basically failed to assault the guy being handcuffed, and fell.

But, he wasn't cuffed yet as you can see as he falls to the ground. And the statement is not that he pushed the officer with his hands. The officer stated that he used and elbow and the side of his body to push him. Obviously, looking a the video from the front angle, that is not the case. However, to someone on the far side of Mr. Faulkenberry, he sees an officer attempt a leg sweep and the officer goes to the ground. That could easily give the appearance that Faulkenberry caused that to happen.

And putting someone on the ground for not complying is not an assault. Mr. Faulkenberry admitted that he was not complying to their orders to turn around and walk back to them and was yelling and cursing at them. That is going to put the officers guard up as now they have a report that a subject had a gun and was waving it around and now he is not complying with them. If he made any subtle movements or tensed up when they were trying to handcuff him, taking him to the ground would be the correct action.

- Merg

 

[The Merg]

Ohh look that guy had a water hose nozzle! That kid had a toy gun in the store! My gun accidentally discharged!
That guy had a knife, and he was 10 feet away, but self defense!

This shit doesn't happen in other countries at this rate... At what point is enough enough? We cannot just keep excusing these actions, and pretend the status quo is fine.

Report of a guy brandishing a firearm, cops show up and yell for him to get on the ground, instead he pulls what looks like a gun from his waistband. It's a tragic incident, but you can't sit there and wait to see if it is a gun or not. If you do wait, you are most likely dead yourself.

And a guy with a knife at 10 feet can very much be a deadly situation. Take a paint brush with some paint on it and have someone stand 10 feet from you. Take a gun in a holster. Now have that person try to get paint on you before you can draw your gun and fire it at center mass. Even if you already have you gun out, how many times do you get to fire it before you get stabbed? While it would be nice to have some non-lethal uses of force available in those situations, it's not always possible. And even if you do have someone there with a non-lethal force option, you still need someone there with a lethal force option for the case that the non-lethal force option doesn't work. For example, pepper spray doesn't work on about 25% of the population and tasers are not always effective either.

And yes, there are a lot less shootings in other countries, but other countries don't have the prevalance of guns that we do here in the U.S. And while that is not an excuse in its entirety, the fact that there are so many guns here and so many people have them does impact on how officers deal with situations. If you went into a situation knowing that 1 out of 1,000 people that you deal with have a gun, don't you think that you would have a differnet mindset compared to if you went into a situation knowing that 100 out of a 1,000 people have a gun (those numbers are just for representation sake, I don't know the actual numbers).

- Merg

 

[mysticjbyrd]

Germany has 1/4 less guns per capita than we do.

Actually, they do have other options, but they don't use them!

The guns were already drawn, and the dude was completely surrounded! A dude with a knife was no real threat.


Again, you are just making excuses for bad policies. They create these situations, and then act poorly at handling them.

 

[Darwin333]

Once on the ground, if you watch the video, the subject does not comply right away in being handcuffed and is technically resisting at that point.

When a person is violently assaulted, especially seemingly out of nowhere, it's basic human instinct to "resist" being hurt. To call basic human instinct to prevent bodily injury to yourself resisting arrest is going a bit far don't you think?

I'd also like to point out that if an officers skills of observation are so bad that he thinks the assaulter was the man who had his hands up and not once made a threatening move in this situation then he shouldn't be a cop. That kind of mistake can quite literally lead to someone getting wrongfully killed not to mention wrongfully assaulted and arrested. It's not like what he wrote was vague because he didn't have a good vantage, he was very specific and even specifically listed injuries to the officer that he claims resulted in an attack from the guy who not once made any threatening motion or much of any motion at all. At least not until he was violently thrown to the ground and instincts kick in. It's like expecting people to stand still while they are being shot at, the human brain is simply incapable of allowing you to do so 99% of the time without massive amounts of conditioning.

 

[Darwin333]

So you don't think that different points of view can affect how someone sees a situation? Just because one person sees something from one angle means that everyone else sees that exact same thing from the angle from which they are watching? You don't find it interesting that only one of three narratives has been released and it is not even from the officer that actually did the take-down?


- Merg

Actually I do find it quite interesting that the only narrative that has been released is one that if called and even proved bullshit can be explained away exactly as you have proposed. If they released the narrative from the officer that did the actual take-down and that was proved to be bullshit they would have a much harder time saying that he isn't straight up lying.

 

[The Merg]

Germany has 1/4 less guns per capita than we do.

Actually, they do have other options, but they don't use them!

The guns were already drawn, and the dude was completely surrounded! A dude with a knife was no real threat.


Again, you are just making excuses for bad policies. They create these situations, and then act poorly at handling them.

Did I miss something? Are you referring to a specific incident involving a subject with a knife?

- Merg

 

[The Merg]

Actually I do find it quite interesting that the only narrative that has been released is one that if called and even proved bullshit can be explained away exactly as you have proposed. If they released the narrative from the officer that did the actual take-down and that was proved to be bullshit they would have a much harder time saying that he isn't straight up lying.

Actually, looking into it, it is not the police report that was released. Those were just the charging documents from the one deputy. We will probably never actually see the actual incident report that each of those deputies wrote.

- Merg

 

[The Merg]

When a person is violently assaulted, especially seemingly out of nowhere, it's basic human instinct to "resist" being hurt. To call basic human instinct to prevent bodily injury to yourself resisting arrest is going a bit far don't you think?

I don't know if I would call it out of no where. The cops were ordering him to turn around and walk backwards towards them. He admits he didn't comply and told them to come to him. They were told by his son, who had just come running out of the house, that he had a gun. If when they were trying to put handcuffs on him, he made any kind of subtle movement or even just tensed up as if he was trying to prevent them from handcuffing him, the cops are going to escalate things.

I'd also like to point out that if an officers skills of observation are so bad that he thinks the assaulter was the man who had his hands up and not once made a threatening move in this situation then he shouldn't be a cop. That kind of mistake can quite literally lead to someone getting wrongfully killed not to mention wrongfully assaulted and arrested. It's not like what he wrote was vague because he didn't have a good vantage, he was very specific and even specifically listed injuries to the officer that he claims resulted in an attack from the guy who not once made any threatening motion or much of any motion at all. At least not until he was violently thrown to the ground and instincts kick in. It's like expecting people to stand still while they are being shot at, the human brain is simply incapable of allowing you to do so 99% of the time without massive amounts of conditioning.

At the time of the "assault" by the subject, the subject did not have his hands up. The officers were attempting to handcuff him. And just because he "complied" until that point (and complied is in quotes because according to the officer and the subject himself he wasn't) does it mean that he was complying with being handcuffed. If he starts to pull his hands away or tense up, that is an indication that the subject might be attempting to run or fight. The courts have ruled that police officers do not actually have to wait for someone to swing at them in order to use force.

As for the injuries suffered by the police officer, I'm sure he did suffer those injuries. And watching the video you can see he hits the ground pretty hard when his leg sweep doesn't work correctly.

- Merg

 

[Darwin333]

Actually, looking into it, it is not the police report that was released. Those were just the charging documents from the one deputy. We will probably never actually see the actual incident report that each of those deputies wrote.

- Merg

So in the charging document he was accused of violently assaulting a cop, regardless if he was charged with that specific crime I'm sure it will weigh heavily on the judge and his punishment, when in fact he did no such thing? How does that happen without the other cop saying "hey, I just fell"?

 

[The Merg]

So in the charging document he was accused of violently assaulting a cop, regardless if he was charged with that specific crime I'm sure it will weigh heavily on the judge and his punishment, when in fact he did no such thing? How does that happen without the other cop saying "hey, I just fell"?

The one cop goes to the hospital and the other goes to the jail with the guy believing that what he saw is exactly what happened? I can't answer that question. I can only surmise.

It could be the one deputy saw what he believed to be the assault from his point of view and the Sgt. did not correct him from his line of thought. So, the deputy truly believes what he saw is what happened. Would the Sgt. be wrong in doing that? Absolutely, but from the deputy's point of view, that is what happened.

As for the charge weighing heavily on the judge and his punishment, the prosecutor had the charges dropped.

- Merg

 

[master_shake_]

hey!

it's this guy.

i see you're still licking jackboots clean.

 

[The Merg]

hey!

it's this guy.

i see you're still licking jackboots clean.

I see you can still have an articulate discussion.

- Merg