Quoted: Quoted: Still nope, mace him if that doesn't take then pop him but I would still not just shoot the guy.  The mind set of just shooting someone, whether cop or not, if you don't want to be bubba's fresh meat, you better make sure that shooting was your only alternative.  I think most situations can be resolved with the proper application of OC.  Also, in this situation the reporter was being an antagonist, he was told not to be there or film and he didn't listen just like the guy getting the beat down.  When a cop tells you to do something like leave, whether he is right or wrong, you should do it.  If you do get a beat down, you will be in the wrong and the law is on their side. something about that statement really bothers and saddens me as an American. +100

Yall should read the SCOTUS ruling regarding police excessive force  Graham v. Connor

heres an excerpt:

Determining whether the force used to effect a particular seizure is "reasonable" under the Fourth Amendment requires a careful balancing of "`the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interests'" against the countervailing governmental interests at stake. Id., at 8, quoting United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 703 (1983). Our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence has long recognized that the right to make an arrest or investigatory stop necessarily carries with it the right to use some degree of physical coercion or threat thereof to effect it. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S., at 22 -27. Because "[t]he test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is not capable of precise definition or mechanical application," Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 559 (1979), however, its proper application requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case, including the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight. See Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S., at 8 -9 (the question is "whether the totality of the circumstances justifie a particular sort of . . . seizure").

The "reasonableness" of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight. See Terry v. Ohio, supra, at 20-22. The Fourth Amendment is not violated by an arrest based on probable cause, even though the wrong person is arrested, Hill v. California, 401 U.S. 797 (1971), nor by the mistaken execution of a valid search warrant on the wrong premises, Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U.S. 79 (1987). With respect to a claim of excessive force, the same standard of reasonableness at the moment applies: "Not every push or shove, even if it may later seem unnecessary in the peace of a judge's chambers," Johnson v. Glick, 481 F.2d, at 1033, violates the Fourth Amendment. The calculus of reasonableness must embody [490 U.S. 386, 397]   allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments - in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving - about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.

As in other Fourth Amendment contexts, however, the "reasonableness" inquiry in an excessive force case is an objective one: the question is whether the officers' actions are "objectively reasonable" in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation. See Scott v. United States, 436 U.S. 128, 137 -139 (1978); see also Terry v. Ohio, supra, at 21 (in analyzing the reasonableness of a particular search or seizure, "it is imperative that the facts be judged against an objective standard"). An officer's evil intentions will not make a Fourth Amendment violation out of an objectively reasonable use of force; nor will an officer's good intentions make an objectively unreasonable use of force constitutional. See Scott v. United States, supra, at 138, citing United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (1973).

Anyone watching that tape and thinking a "reasonable" amount of force was used to work that guy over needs to be kept as far away from any kind of law enforcement duties as possible.

Quoted: Anyone watching that tape and thinking a "reasonable" amount of force was used to work that oldguy over needs to be kept as far away from any kind of law enforcement duties as possible.

sorry, added a little.

Quoted: Quoted: The first punches were not emptyhanded. Punching someone in the head to achieve compliance is a BAD idea. What was in his hand then??? I agree about it being a bad idea, it looks bad....but if that is the only target you have you gotta use it. It still does not amount to excessive force or "shock the concious".

Perhaps if he had suffered a serious head injury you would disagree.

Serious head injury?

Quoted: I really, REALLY hope these thugs do time.

Answer is right there in the story.  The victim is in jail with a bruised up face while the criminals were released and asked to show up when it's convenient for them.

Me, I'd rather have an intoxicated 64 year old walking the streets than 3 cops that would beat a 64 year old man down and try to cover it up.  But that's just me.

Quoted: Serious head injury?

Yeah, that looks like the correct use of force escalation.  Jesus.

just watched that film, thank goodness they also charged him for "battery of a police officer".

This is what the cops do to grandpa if has a few too many cocktails in N.O.    Fucking bastards.

I just don't get it.  I've seen the film seveal times now.  I did not see anything that deserved gettng beat like that.

He could not even block any blows with his hands cuffed behind his back.

Maybe he didn't turn around fast enough for the first cop.  Maybe he had the audacity to ask, what did I do, officer?

I still don't get it.

If he had been somehow fighting with the officers, why was the mounted patrolman blocking the view of the camera?  Why not let everyone see the guy "resisting arrest"?

But I do know that NO cops are famous for this sort of thing (in and out of uniform), and that was long before "pressure" from Katrina.  If I have a bad day and lose it, I will go to jail for assault.  Does not matter I was "under pressure".

I just wish the LEO's on this board would stop apologizing for what is probably the worst PD in the entire country.  

It's that blue wall that pisses us "citizens" off.  Why do you side with NOPD and let those a$$holes drag you down?  

The head strikes are not warranted, no question, but damnit, quit saying he was cuffed. The old drunk was still resisting and refusing to put his hands behind his back when each blow was delivered.

Watch the fucking tape for crying out loud.

Watch right before the horse gets in the way. His hands are behind his back already. The guy isn't resisting at all.

Quoted: Big fucking deal. The punches to the head for passive resistance, nah. But he was resisting and continued to do so. Clearing a person trying to "interview" officers during an arrest, no problem. Get the fuck outta the scene news fag. You can get the story AFTER, not DURING, ass bag. Anyone who comes up onto a scene like that needs to be cleared from it. Some of you guys are too, too much.

Did you see the beginning of the video?  The guy was up against the wall, and the cop was punching him repeatedly in the back of the head, bouncing the guys face off of the brick wall.  

And the TV guys were just video recording it.  

Holy shit, please watch the video and tell me if you still feel this way.

TXL

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Still nope, mace him if that doesn't take then pop him but I would still not just shoot the guy.  The mind set of just shooting someone, whether cop or not, if you don't want to be bubba's fresh meat, you better make sure that shooting was your only alternative.  I think most situations can be resolved with the proper application of OC.  Also, in this situation the reporter was being an antagonist, he was told not to be there or film and he didn't listen just like the guy getting the beat down.  When a cop tells you to do something like leave, whether he is right or wrong, you should do it.  If you do get a beat down, you will be in the wrong and the law is on their side. something about that statement really bothers and saddens me as an American. I was referring to the cop telling him to get away from him and he stayed there.  I was not endorsing the JBThuggery.  In short if a Cop tells you to move on, MOVE ON.  That is not an endorsement for PoPo abuse though. that's cool. I don't agree with the "move on" stuff at all. I'll take my rights to court if need be I suppose. that badge doesn't mean "above the law", just like that cop in the video is about to find out. OK, I must not understand what you are saying.  Are you saying that if there was a disturbance and you were watching it, if a cop told you "move on" you would stand there and argue with him about your rights?

If I was videotaping an apparent assault on a 64 yo man, by 4 cops, then by all means, I would be sticking around.  

TXL

I never saw "the old drunk's" hands raised.  Never saw anything that could be construed as striking the officers.  Did you?

So he was drunk.  The city of New Orleans is BEGGING people to come on down to the French Quarter and party hardy.  That's all there is along that street, bars.  That's what people do there.

Even if he was resisting being cuffed, I still don't get it.  Not like he was waving a gun.  Who was he going to hurt?

you will respect mah authoritay!!!!!!!

TXL

Quoted: Watch right before the horse gets in the way. His hands are behind his back already. The guy isn't resisting at all.

Uh, no, they are not.

Watch as he is getting hit. His left hand is in front of him.

Watch as he goes down. Neither hand is behind him.

Watch as he comes up. Now his right arm is in front.

The guy has "locked up" and is resisting having his hands placed behind him the entire time. Very common. Try cuffing a non compliant subject. Few of the tricks work. It is a matter of force and strength vs force and strength.

Again, head strikes are not warranted but you clowns saying he was cuffed/not resisting/had his hands behind his back and so forth are seeing what you want to see AS USUAL.

Quoted: Quoted: Watch right before the horse gets in the way. His hands are behind his back already. The guy isn't resisting at all. Uh, no, they are not. Watch as he is getting hit. His left hand is in front of him. Watch as he goes down. Neither hand is behind him. Watch as he comes up. Now his right arm is in front. The guy has "locked up" and is resisting having his hands placed behind him the entire time. Very common. Try cuffing a non compliant subject. Few of the tricks work. It is a matter of force and strength vs force and strength. Again, head strikes are not warranted but you clowns saying he was cuffed/not resisting/had his hands behind his back and so forth are seeing what you want to see AS USUAL.

As he is getting hit he is trying to get his hands up to prevent from having his skull caved in. Before they start hitting him, he's not doing much of anything. He takes a shot just as the horse moves in the way. When you see him next, they are knocking the fuck out of him, his arms are still down, and they are trying to get a choke on him while dropping him.

If they are charging him with "battery of an officer" it musta been because they bruised thier fucking knuckles on his skull.

OK, he was not cuffed. I stand corrected.  

Was he trying to fend off blows?  I never saw him move his arms in a way as to strike the officers.

It would be a natural thing, automatic, to try to cover your head and protect yourself from being struck.  Just as if you had someone kneeling on your chest and you could not breath, you would struggle for breath.  This would not be "resisting".

I still wonder what started that whole thing.

Quoted: Quoted: Watch right before the horse gets in the way. His hands are behind his back already. The guy isn't resisting at all. Uh, no, they are not. Watch as he is getting hit. His left hand is in front of him. Watch as he goes down. Neither hand is behind him. Watch as he comes up. Now his right arm is in front. The guy has "locked up" and is resisting having his hands placed behind him the entire time. Very common. Try cuffing a non compliant subject. Few of the tricks work. It is a matter of force and strength vs force and strength. Again, head strikes are not warranted but you clowns saying he was cuffed/not resisting/had his hands behind his back and so forth are seeing what you want to see AS USUAL.

Agreed - He wasnt cuffed - No need for the force they used

Like i posted earlier - My step father was in law enforcement - I know first hand how bad things can get - how you sometimes have to use blows to subdue someone -
But fisted blows to the head (over and over) - Alittle unwarranted - And then the fucktard grabbing the reporter . . . thats a big problem waiting to happen

Quoted: It would be a natural thing, automatic, to try to cover your head and protect yourself from being struck.

That is how I see it. If I was getting clocked from behind with my brain housing group bouncing off the bricks in front of me, I'd probably want that to stop.

If the cops weren't doing anything wrong, then why was the horse being used to block the action and Sado Masochist Smith's assault of the producer didn't make 'em look any more lilly white.

Quoted: Quoted: It would be a natural thing, automatic, to try to cover your head and protect yourself from being struck.   That is how I see it. If I was getting clocked from behind with my brain housing group bouncing off the bricks in front of me, I'd probably want that to stop. If the cops weren't doing anything wrong, then why was the horse being used to block the action and Sado Masochist Smith's assault of the producer didn't make 'em look any more lilly white.

FiveO:

I assume you are a LEO? Yes? If so, then I have to conclude that in a an arrest you feel it's ok for you and three of your "brothers" to pummel the ever loving shit out of the back of my head?

The "subject" was never a threat to the point that the officers needed to do what they did. He wasn't being combative, wasn't reaching for guns, wasn't a threat to himself. Probably was drunk enough to have a problem complying with verbal commands though.

You know, I have a problem with what the officer had to say to the reporter when he had him over the car. EVERYBODY in NOLA had it hard. Can you blame the old dude for going out and getting shitfaced after having been through Katrina? At least the cop had the ability to defend himself and the "right" to be armed. Self centered asshole..

Dave

Quoted: I find it hard to believe that they didnt have mace ? or a tazer ? Thats why they have those devices - so that dont resort to throwing blows . . . 69 or 70 year old guy isnt really any match for 3 or 4 under 30 officers who probably work out - I have no prolem with police force . . if someone is resisting arrest - taze or mace em . . . My step father was a police officer - And he lost his job over something on a MUCH LESSER scale than this . . . A punk kid spit in his face - Put him in a pressure hold - Took him to the ground and his nose hit the ground and broke it - He was fired . . . . I certainly think the same rules should apply for those officers . . . .

I'm not about to OC somebody at a range of 6 inches.  Why?  Because I'm going to get the OC in my eyes as well as the other officers eyes.  Nice big shit sandwich isn't it?

Taser?  Let's see, each officer is trying to control an arm/leg/head who's gonna let go, unholster their Taser, remove the cartridge and then contact tase the guy?

At that point the best route is overwhelming force/strength to subdue the suspect.

If everybody in NO is drunk half the time then why was this guy singled out?  Something happened before the video rolled to attract the attention of the officers.

Brian

Quoted: ...I have to conclude that in a an arrest you feel it's ok for you and three of your "brothers" to pummel the ever loving shit out of the back of my head? The "subject" was never a threat to the point that the officers needed to do what they did. He wasn't being combative, wasn't reaching for guns, wasn't a threat to himself. Probably was drunk enough to have a problem complying with verbal commands though. You know, I have a problem with what the officer had to say to the reporter when he had him over the car. EVERYBODY in NOLA had it hard. Can you blame the old dude for going out and getting shitfaced after having been through Katrina? At least the cop had the ability to defend himself and the "right" to be armed. Self centered asshole..

Good post.

Quoted: FiveO: I assume you are a LEO? Yes? If so, then I have to conclude that in a an arrest you feel it's ok for you and three of your "brothers" to pummel the ever loving shit out of the back of my head? The "subject" was never a threat to the point that the officers needed to do what they did. He wasn't being combative, wasn't reaching for guns, wasn't a threat to himself. Probably was drunk enough to have a problem complying with verbal commands though. You know, I have a problem with what the officer had to say to the reporter when he had him over the car. EVERYBODY in NOLA had it hard. Can you blame the old dude for going out and getting shitfaced after having been through Katrina? At least the cop had the ability to defend himself and the "right" to be armed. Self centered asshole.. Dave

Dave. Try reading AND comprehending. That rare combination of skills would easily tell you I do not feel that that pummelling the guy was OK.

The reporter thing... Eh, the cop lost his temper but the fucker should have kept his distance.

Thanks for proving the assumption cliche...  

Its looking like the guy may not have been drunk, and according to some wittnesses he did not resist untill he was being hit in the head. If im ever assaulted by an officer like that, they better not let me outa jail...

Officers where arrested and suspended without pay pending outcome.

news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051010/ap_on_re_us/new_orleans_taped_beating

Tag to watch the take-down demonstration

fuck the producer - hes a bloodsucker and loves nothing more than than to see bad things happen - and probably loved every second of being roughed up - because it was caught on camera - he just earned himself a promotion.  he'll use that tape at every job interview from this day forward.

oh and the drunk old bastard...fuck him too.  people that resist arrest violently hurt cops, and civilians.  fuck em.

Quoted: fuck the producer - hes a bloodsucker and loves nothing more than than to see bad things happen - and probably loved every second of being roughed up - because it was caught on camera - he just earned himself a promotion.  he'll use that tape at every job interview from this day forward. oh and the drunk old bastard...fuck him too.  people that resist arrest violently hurt cops, and civilians.  fuck em.

are you a cop?

If a cop has a bad day and decides he's going to start punching you, it's all over.  Once the punches start flying, anything up to and including heavy breathing will be considered 'resisting arrest.'

"He was still moving."

"He didn't put his hands behind his back."

Well what the fuck?  You're getting the shit beat out out of you protected and served and you are supposed to ignore the punches that are landing on your head and move your hands behind your back?  You go to throw a punch at me and I'm going to try to block it, every time.  Instinct (as well as training).

I saw more than one horse's ass in that video.

From a news article:

During the arrest, another officer, identified as Smith, ordered APTN producer Rich Matthews and a cameraman to stop recording. When Matthews held up his credentials, the officer grabbed the producer, leaned him backward over a car, jabbed him in the stomach and unleashed a profanity-laced tirade. Police said Davis was booked on public intoxication, resisting arrest, battery on a police officer and public intimidation. The head of the New Orleans police union said the officers told him they had acted appropriately. "They feel they were justified in their actions and they were using the amount of force necessary to overcome the situation," Lt. David Benelli told WDSU in New Orleans.

White is black. Black is white. Up is down. Down is up. Unfriggenbelievable.

Quoted: Dave. Try reading AND comprehending. That rare combination of skills would easily tell you I do not feel that that pummelling the guy was OK. The reporter thing... Eh, the cop lost his temper but the fucker should have kept his distance. Thanks for proving the assumption cliche...

I guess I'm a little incredulous that you feel the way you do, and equally shocked that someone with your views on police interaction with the public could serve as an officer.

The relevant part of the video to me started when I saw three uniformed officers position a person (doesn't have to be an old man) against a wall. Then without evidence of any kind of serious struggle or threat to their safety, the subject was given four massive blows to the head while his face hit that brick wall.

This was done while all three officers were standing relatively calmly the only arms I saw flailing were that of the officer beating the subject. None were worried for their personal safety, or they would have had weapons drawn. Given that three officers could have easily taken this man to the ground in his standing (i.e. no attempt to flee) state, I have to conclude that these officers didn't exhaust all of their options before exerting physical force on the subject.

When the officer did apply that force, he chose a method that could have brain damaged or killed the man on the first blow, and just about guaranteed to seriously fuck up a guy with four. Should he have complied in the two-tenths of a second between the first and second blow? maybe the third time would have done the trick?

That officer needs to do hard time.

By my ASSuming, did I ASSume incorrectly? Are you NOT a police officer? Do you just play one on ARFCOM? Can we ASSume that you believe it's ok to punch subjects in the back of the head when they don't comply quickly enough-you never did answer the question.

Quoted: Quoted: Dave. Try reading AND comprehending. That rare combination of skills would easily tell you I do not feel that that pummelling the guy was OK. The reporter thing... Eh, the cop lost his temper but the fucker should have kept his distance. Thanks for proving the assumption cliche...   I guess I'm a little incredulous that you feel the way you do, and equally shocked that someone with your views on police interaction with the public could serve as an officer. The relevant part of the video to me started when I saw three uniformed officers position a person (doesn't have to be an old man) against a wall. Then without evidence of any kind of serious struggle or threat to their safety, the subject was given four massive blows to the head while his face hit that brick wall. This was done while all three officers were standing relatively calmly the only arms I saw flailing were that of the officer beating the subject. None were worried for their personal safety, or they would have had weapons drawn. Given that three officers could have easily taken this man to the ground in his standing (i.e. no attempt to flee) state, I have to conclude that these officers didn't exhaust all of their options before exerting physical force on the subject. When the officer did apply that force, he chose a method that could have brain damaged or killed the man on the first blow, and just about guaranteed to seriously fuck up a guy with four. Should he have complied in the two-tenths of a second between the first and second blow? maybe the third time would have done the trick? That officer needs to do hard time. By my ASSuming, did I ASSume incorrectly? Are you NOT a police officer? Do you just play one on ARFCOM? Can we ASSume that you believe it's ok to punch subjects in the back of the head when they don't comply quickly enough-you never did answer the question.

Bruno said his client suffered fractures to his cheek and eye socket, and scrapes and bruises, but was expected to recover.

He added that his client was a recovering narcotics abuser who hadn't had a drink or taken drugs in "years and years. He was not taking anything


I wonder if the guy demanded a blood test, if they did and it comes back clean I hope they hang these cops in the square president Bust gave his speech from.

Quoted: Its looking like the guy may not have been drunk, and according to some wittnesses he did not resist untill he was being hit in the head. If im ever assaulted by an officer like that, they better not let me outa jail... Officers where arrested and suspended without pay pending outcome. news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051010/ap_on_re_us/new_orleans_taped_beating

Not only that, but a retired elementary school teacher. www.comcast.net/news/index.jsp?cat=GENERAL&fn=/2005/10/11/239224.html

Also, check out his mug shot pick. Far from being "huge" as one assbat poster described him... he's only 5' 6".



Check out the Aftermath video...

www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/10/10/taped.beatings/

Some sick fuckers hiding behind badges there...

Quoted: I wonder if the guy demanded a blood test, if they did and it comes back clean I hope they hang these cops in the square president Bust gave his speech from.

From one of the AP's stories, he did demand the cops do a blood test and they declined to do so. I wasn't aware they could do so. 25 years is a long time clean.

www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/09/national/main927919.shtml

Quoted: Quoted: I wonder if the guy demanded a blood test, if they did and it comes back clean I hope they hang these cops in the square president Bust gave his speech from. From one of the AP's stories, he did demand the cops do a blood test and they declined to do so. I wasn't aware they could do so. 25 years is a long time clean. www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/09/national/main927919.shtml

somehow that doesn't suprise me.

"crooked cops,I am beginning to wonder if there is any other kind.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I wonder if the guy demanded a blood test, if they did and it comes back clean I hope they hang these cops in the square president Bust gave his speech from. From one of the AP's stories, he did demand the cops do a blood test and they declined to do so. I wasn't aware they could do so. 25 years is a long time clean. www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/09/national/main927919.shtml somehow that doesn't suprise me. "crooked cops,I am beginning to wonder if there is any other kind.

I'm sure there are... somewhere...

It's just that in a barrel like NOLA all the bad ones seem to be floating to the top. Of course, the ones trying to erect that Big Blue Wall on this thread are kinda pushing their credulity to the limit.

"Stress"

The cops should be fired, arrested and locked away.

They can not handle "stress".  Millions of other people have had a handle on their stress since Katrina.

Quoted: would the producer have been justified in shooting that cop? ETA: not that the other cops would probably kill him, But would he have been justified to shoot?

Shooting him?

Good God, your judgment is nill.

The cop pushed him while lamenting how he has been trying to stay alive for the past 6 weeks.

Of course he was wrong in what he did and will pay the price, but shooting a cop that pushes somebody...that's just nuts.

I would think that what that LEO did to the producer is an "assault". (Under color of law, while armed.)

Mind if I do that to you while in you are in uniform to get my point across on a bad day?

Quoted: Quoted: fuck the producer - hes a bloodsucker and loves nothing more than than to see bad things happen - and probably loved every second of being roughed up - because it was caught on camera - he just earned himself a promotion.  he'll use that tape at every job interview from this day forward. oh and the drunk old bastard...fuck him too.  people that resist arrest violently hurt cops, and civilians.  fuck em. are you a cop?

No.  Are you?

After reading this thread I understand why the APD is reluctant to recruit any active officers from the south to fill its vacancies...

Quoted: Quoted: would the producer have been justified in shooting that cop? ETA: not that the other cops would probably kill him, But would he have been justified to shoot? Shooting him? Good God, your judgment is nill. The cop pushed him while lamenting how he has been trying to stay alive for the past 6 weeks. Of course he was wrong in what he did and will pay the price, but shooting a cop that pushes somebody...that's just nuts.

Had that been anyone but a cop, I think I'd have been justified thanks.

3 times my size, gun on his side and attacking me, shoving me into a cornered possition with no way to escape..

YMMV, but I would have shot him.

Why should it matter that he was a cop?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: fuck the producer - hes a bloodsucker and loves nothing more than than to see bad things happen - and probably loved every second of being roughed up - because it was caught on camera - he just earned himself a promotion.  he'll use that tape at every job interview from this day forward. oh and the drunk old bastard...fuck him too.  people that resist arrest violently hurt cops, and civilians.  fuck em. are you a cop? No.  Are you?

No, I was just curious after your post.

thanks for answering honestly.

Quoted: Quoted: Dave. Try reading AND comprehending. That rare combination of skills would easily tell you I do not feel that that pummelling the guy was OK. The reporter thing... Eh, the cop lost his temper but the fucker should have kept his distance. Thanks for proving the assumption cliche...   I guess I'm a little incredulous that you feel the way you do, and equally shocked that someone with your views on police interaction with the public could serve as an officer. By my ASSuming, did I ASSume incorrectly? Are you NOT a police officer? Do you just play one on ARFCOM? Can we ASSume that you believe it's ok to punch subjects in the back of the head when they don't comply quickly enough-you never did answer the question.

Jesus Christ, are you a fucking moron?!

You ASSumed that I agreed with the head blows and continue to make that ASSertation despite the fact that in each post I made I state clearly that the head blows are not warranted. Can you fucking read?



And no, I am not a cop, I am a Deputy Sheriff, Investigator/Sergeant, actually.

Quoted: Big fucking deal. The punches to the head for passive resistance, nah. But he was resisting and continued to do so. Clearing a person trying to "interview" officers during an arrest, no problem. Get the fuck outta the scene news fag. You can get the story AFTER, not DURING, ass bag. Anyone who comes up onto a scene like that needs to be cleared from it. Some of you guys are too, too much.

So the above wasn't you? You claim passive resistance it wouldn't have been warrented, but that he WAS resisting so bopping his noggin' was just dandy.

What a fuck-tard...