Police Brutality - Plain and Simple

[O Town]

That was an excellent post J. I don't think Terrell gets the point, and don't think he ever will. We don't know what happened prior to the arrest, and probably never will know the whole truth.

I don't see how the officers pulling out their own gun in response to him reaching in his waistban makes any sense. Then what? The drunk starts shooting aimlessly and innocent bystanders may be hurt or killed. IF this was the case the officers did the right thing, by getting him subdued, so he can not do nothing stupid. If told to do something by a police officer, weather you think he is wrong or not, you should do it!!!!!!!! Plain and simple!!!! If it comes to find out the officers where wrong then at least you will not have had the pulp beat out of you. Just do what the hell you are suppost to do, very simple!!!!! Drunk or not.

[Terrell]

It's simple, if I pull out a gun and you punch me when I stagger backward I raise my weapon and shoot you.

If you are close enough to grab the gun out of my hand why not grab my wrist, the gun itself, or my arm rather than punching me, what I'm saying is that grabbing the man's arms makes more sense if you're within reach of him and trying to disarm him than punching him. Maybe because we're talking about police that some are unwilling to see how punching an armed man really doesn't help disarm him, unless you can guarantee that you will knock him out cold with 1 punch, everytime without fail.

The idea of disarming someone by pounding them doesn't make sense, It's pretty obvious, if you look at the situation without looking at the badges. Imagine 1 civilian trying to disarm another, now how does punching another person in the face disarm them (unless you knock them out cold he's drawing his gun while you're hitting him, maybe he drops it, maybe he shoots you but that's all to chance)? If you as a civilian were trying to disarm another civilian and you're close enough to grab the arm he's reaching for the gun with isn't the most sensible thing to do is grab the arm he's reaching for the weapon with? At least if you are fairly strong, you have a realistic chance of preventing him from raising the weapon by grabbing his arm, punching him doesn't necessarily afford this opportunity.

[streetsoldier]

It's simple, if I pull out a gun and you punch me when I stagger backward I raise my weapon and shoot you.

If you are close enough to grab the gun out of my hand why not grab my wrist, the gun itself, or my arm rather than punching me, what I'm saying is that grabbing the man's arms makes more sense if you're within reach of him and trying to disarm him than punching him. Maybe because we're talking about police that some are unwilling to see how punching an armed man really doesn't help disarm him, unless you can guarantee that you will knock him out cold with 1 punch, everytime without fail.

The idea of disarming someone by pounding them doesn't make sense, It's pretty obvious, if you look at the situation without looking at the badges. Imagine 1 civilian trying to disarm another, now how does punching another person in the face disarm them (unless you knock them out cold he's drawing his gun while you're hitting him, maybe he drops it, maybe he shoots you but that's all to chance)? If you as a civilian were trying to disarm another civilian and you're close enough to grab the arm he's reaching for the gun with isn't the most sensible thing to do is grab the arm he's reaching for the weapon with? At least if you are fairly strong, you have a realistic chance of preventing him from raising the weapon by grabbing his arm, punching him doesn't necessarily afford this opportunity.

Terrell,

Do you have any idea how difficult it is to disarm a gun-wielding person? I had quite a bit of "muscle-memory" training in doing just that, YET...99% of the time, the officer cannot take the risk of a single round being fired while in process of attempting to disarm a suspect.

If ONE ROUND goes off, there's no way to anticipate where it will go, or who may be injured/killed....perhaps blocks away (this is why police NEVER "fire a warning shot"!). An officer simply CAN'T TAKE THAT CHANCE, so if a weapon is displayed, or a suspect appears to be reaching for one, police weapons will be drawn, takedowns will be made, suspects will be subdued. Period.

I'm NOT excusing what the NOLAPD officers did, or may have done...that's up to the court and a jury to decide. What I am attempting herein is to "put you in (my) shoes", giving examples, and asking you to ask yourself what YOU'D do in extremis under conditions I am too familiar with.

[Terrell]

It's simple, if I pull out a gun and you punch me when I stagger backward I raise my weapon and shoot you.

If you are close enough to grab the gun out of my hand why not grab my wrist, the gun itself, or my arm rather than punching me, what I'm saying is that grabbing the man's arms makes more sense if you're within reach of him and trying to disarm him than punching him. Maybe because we're talking about police that some are unwilling to see how punching an armed man really doesn't help disarm him, unless you can guarantee that you will knock him out cold with 1 punch, everytime without fail.

The idea of disarming someone by pounding them doesn't make sense, It's pretty obvious, if you look at the situation without looking at the badges. Imagine 1 civilian trying to disarm another, now how does punching another person in the face disarm them (unless you knock them out cold he's drawing his gun while you're hitting him, maybe he drops it, maybe he shoots you but that's all to chance)? If you as a civilian were trying to disarm another civilian and you're close enough to grab the arm he's reaching for the gun with isn't the most sensible thing to do is grab the arm he's reaching for the weapon with? At least if you are fairly strong, you have a realistic chance of preventing him from raising the weapon by grabbing his arm, punching him doesn't necessarily afford this opportunity.

Terrell,

Do you have any idea how difficult it is to disarm a gun-wielding person? I had quite a bit of "muscle-memory" training in doing just that, YET...99% of the time, the officer cannot take the risk of a single round being fired while in process of attempting to disarm a suspect.

If ONE ROUND goes off, there's no way to anticipate where it will go, or who may be injured/killed....perhaps blocks away (this is why police NEVER "fire a warning shot"!). An officer simply CAN'T TAKE THAT CHANCE, so if a weapon is displayed, or a suspect appears to be reaching for one, police weapons will be drawn, takedowns will be made, suspects will be subdued. Period.

I'm NOT excusing what the NOLAPD officers did, or may have done...that's up to the court and a jury to decide. What I am attempting herein is to "put you in (my) shoes", giving examples, and asking you to ask yourself what YOU'D do in extremis under conditions I am too familiar with.

I fully understand how a single round can kill someone, that's why I argue that it makes sense to grab the arm that's reaching for the weapon before the arm gets to the weapon than to throw a punch (if you're close enough to do so in time). Either action takes time to accomplish.

I also don't have a problem with police drawing their weapons should it look like a suspect is drawing one (in fact I mentioned that would have made more sense than punching him) I said nothing about firing a warning shot and did not mean to imply that "warning shots" should be fired.

What I'm saying is that the officers' actions don't, in my opinion, make sense given their story of someone reaching for a weapon. I'm unwilling to give the benefit of the doubt to them, just because they're officers, if their story doesn't make sense.

Maybe if his weapon was a knife punching him might be a bit more effective but if it's a gun he's gonna get a round off if his hand gets control of the gun before you get control of him, that's why grabbing his arms (to prevent him from getting control of the gun) makes more sense than hitting him.

[streetsoldier]

"Maybe if his weapon was a knife punching him might be a bit more effective but if it's a gun he's gonna get a round off if his hand gets control of the gun before you get control of him, that's why grabbing his arms (to prevent him from getting control of the gun) makes more sense than hitting him...."

Apparently, you are unaware of the "Force Plus One" tenet; whatever force (fists, bat, knife, gun) a suspect has, reaches for or employs MUST be met with one-step-greater force, however the officer(s) react.

In all cases when a suspect uses, or tries to use any weapon, the officer MUST use his firearm (now, of course, they have Tasers...something we didn't "way back when"). FI, let's say I have a perp who is punching at me, or others...in the scuffle, he gets my nightstick away from me. The moment he does that, I go for my Smith & Wesson, because he is now in possession of a "dangerous and deadly weapon" (I suppose, today's officer would hit him with his Taser).

Point is, no officer will "take the chance"...nor should he (or they).

[Terrell]

Even with "force + 1" how does that explain punches against the threat of a gun? Drawing their weapons makes sense, I don't disagree there, but punches are less force than a firearm.

[Lindaloo]

Even with "force + 1" how does that explain punches against the threat of a gun? Drawing their weapons makes sense, I don't disagree there, but punches are less force than a firearm.

It is either kill or be killed when you are in a position like theirs. Until you walk a mile in their shoes, then do not pass judgement. IMO, you are just arguing for the sake of arguing.

[Stephanie]

I don't think that the reaction time would be quick enough for the officers to be able to grab a suspect's arm to control the weapon before it is even fired. Also, what would they do if the suspect is ten yards from them - run towards them to disarm them and get shot?? THAT doesn't make any sense.

The police officer's job is difficult and dangerous enough. THEY need to take control of the situation before it gets out of hand and they are trained to do this. I think that Lindaloo is right. I believe you're arguing this just for the sake of arguing.

[GalvestonDuck]

Even with "force + 1" how does that explain punches against the threat of a gun? Drawing their weapons makes sense, I don't disagree there, but punches are less force than a firearm.

It is either kill or be killed when you are in a position like theirs. Until you walk a mile in their shoes, then do not pass judgement. IMO, you are just arguing for the sake of arguing.

I agree. No need for the endless flow of rebuttals.

As lawyers sometimes say during repetitive questioning of their witnesses, "Asked and answered."

[Terrell]

The longer versions of the tapes doesn't change my mind on this issue, I will continue to believe that the police crossed the line here. I cannot be converted into thinking otherwise without some very compelling evidence to the contrary, so until then we'll have to agree to disagree.

[Stephanie]

The longer versions of the tapes doesn't change my mind on this issue, I will continue to believe that the police crossed the line here. I cannot be converted into thinking otherwise without some very compelling evidence to the contrary, so until then we'll have to agree to disagree.

That's cool.

[chadtm80]

The longer versions of the tapes doesn't change my mind on this issue, I will continue to believe that the police crossed the line here. I cannot be converted into thinking otherwise without some very compelling evidence to the contrary, so until then we'll have to agree to disagree.

You already said you dont care what happend "before" it dosent justify it.. So there obviously could be no compelling evidence in your eyes

[abajan]

...If told to do something by a police officer, weather you think he is wrong or not, you should do it!!!!!!!! Plain and simple!!!! If it comes to find out the officers where wrong then at least you will not have had the pulp beat out of you. Just do what the hell you are suppost to do, very simple!!!!! Drunk or not.

If a police officer told you to jump off of a 400 foot cliff, would you do it just because it was an officer that told you to? Do you know how many times "I was ordered to do it" was used as an excuse for atrocities committed during times of war?

There was more than one questionable incident involving those officers that night. IMO, they were set on creating mischief and Mr. Davis just happened to be unfortunate enough to be in their path. Why would one of them be saying, "Turn that camera off, turn that camera off!" (as heard in the extended version of the tape). If they were following correct procedures, why would the presence of cameras bother them? Quite to the contrary, if they were doing things "by the book", they should have been proud to have cameras there.

No one disputes the fact that LOPD officers are operating under very distressing circumstances and I'd be the last to trade places with them. That doesn't excuse their behavior.

I'd say one thing, though. They have a very good lawyer! (He kinda reminds me of Saddam Hussein's PR man during the early days after the "Shock and Awe" offensive. He was the consumate spin doctor.)

[sunny]

Thank goodness they have a good lawyer. The court of public opinion has already convicted the cops. Let's hope that the powers that be wait to get all of the information before they do.

[O Town]

All I am saying is if an officer told me to turn around and put my hands on the wall, no questions or fight, I would do it. I highly doubt they are gonna ask me to jump off a cliff. Just like these people who get shot and killed and then the families say the officers should not have shot. Well why do you run when you are told to stop? I feel the pain of this families but it really bothers me, that they are told to stop and don't, so consequently they get shot. If you are inocent then why not just do what you are told to do. If you run or don't do what you are asked to do then it would seem you have something to hide or run from, so then assumed guilty. Ya know I don't really want to fight about this. All I am saying is if the gentleman would have not resisted then maybe things would have been different, I know they would have. Maybe we should take this as a lesson, and not be so quick to defend the man that was not obeying a police officer. This is my final thought on this, I will say no more. This is how I feel and you have the right to feel the way you do. We all look at things in different ways, that is what makes us human.......... Have a good night everyone.

[abajan]

...That's the thing, Windy. There is SO much more than meets the eye with what is going on down here. I'm afraid that if I say too much, this will get out of hand. But just trust me on that one, there is more going on down here, and the media will only show you what they WANT to show you. I could tell you stories that would make your skin crawl. Not just stories heard through the grape-vine. Stories from the horses mouth(s).

EUREEKA! Why not ask the horse what happened?
(I know it's not a laughing matter but perhaps a little humor is in order at this point.)

[sunny]

...That's the thing, Windy. There is SO much more than meets the eye with what is going on down here. I'm afraid that if I say too much, this will get out of hand. But just trust me on that one, there is more going on down here, and the media will only show you what they WANT to show you. I could tell you stories that would make your skin crawl. Not just stories heard through the grape-vine. Stories from the horses mouth(s).

EUREEKA! Why not ask the horse what happened?
(I know it's not a laughing matter but perhaps a little humor is in order at this point.)

Sorry, not funny. The situation down here is volatile - nothing to laugh at.

[j]

The longer versions of the tapes doesn't change my mind on this issue, I will continue to believe that the police crossed the line here. I cannot be converted into thinking otherwise without some very compelling evidence to the contrary, so until then we'll have to agree to disagree.

You already said you dont care what happend "before" it dosent justify it.. So there obviously could be no compelling evidence in your eyes

You hit the proverbial nail right on the head Chad...hence my comment back to Terrell, "You couldn't possibly have meant what you said"..

Oh well....