Article

2008-08-04 -Lurid Crime Tales-

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by gorb 2008-08-04 04:28|| || Front Page|| [11133 views ] Top

#1 why not just axe the hooligans along with their benefits and pensions and be done with it?

Because police always stand together. It doesn't matter if they're criminals with badges, as long as they have a badge, they get full support.

Posted by gromky 2008-08-04 06:43|| 2008-08-04 06:43|| Front Page Top

#2 Gorb,

I read an awful lot about the takedown of the Critical Mass guy and watched that video in slow motion four or five times. What I saw, which coincided with what other people noted as well, was that the police officers must have been trying to apprehend this particular guy. If all the cops had wanted to do was whack some character on a bike, lots of them were closer and easier to hit than the guy they stopped. It appears that the bicyclist did something that wasn't shown in the video and the police had been directed to specifically get him.

He looked like he was expecting it, too; he made no effort to stop for the officer, as a reasonable person would have, but tried to barrel his way through with brute force. That showed up clearly on the video as well.

This episode reminded me a lot of the Rodney King video. There are 30 to 45 seconds of that video showing King getting his butt beat by several cops. What is never shown is the whole 45 minute video, which shows the LA police trying everything to stop this guy except beating him. When he refuses to obey orders and continues attacking them, they had no choice but to either use the sticks or shoot him.

If I'd been one of those cops in LA Rodney King would be pushing up daisies right now because I sure as hell wouldn't have taken on a drug-crazed guy his size with just a nightstick. I'd have put three in center mass before he ever got close enough to grapple.

Remember: the people who took that video in NY were looking to have the cops appear brutal. If you take it at face value, they've succeeded. That said, we need to remember the axiom that a country which wars on its police better make peace with its criminals. We forget that at our peril.

Posted by Hupiling the Galactic Hero1106 2008-08-04 07:14|| 2008-08-04 07:14|| Front Page Top

#3 Yeah, Go after the Mike Nifongs who abuse their power but let the ones with badges alone?

I don't know the facts of this case, but I do know there are some bad cops along with plenty of good cops. While the good cops may not be champing at the bit to turn in the bad ones, I doubt they are too mightily disappointed when someone else does.

Let's give these guys a chance at the administrative justice process and see what the facts show.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2008-08-04 07:32|| 2008-08-04 07:32|| Front Page Top

#4 I don't know the facts of this case, but I do know there are some bad cops along with plenty of good cops.

Let's remember the latter point. Each time the bad is shown we get the Abu Ghrab of the men in blue. Every petty or imagined slight or less than professional act by someone is magnified to broad brush the entire body of police.

Because police always stand together.

Any different than Marines? ie those who recently refused to testify against their mates in the civilian trial?

Yes, there are bad cops. They need to be weeded out because of the level of responsibility we assign them. We also need to hammer DAs who routinely plea bargain assault charges down to misdemeanor resisting charges building frustration among the force. If video is good to hammer these police miscreants it should be all the evidence that a judge needs to take out of society the low lifes that the police have to deal with daily. The right to trial doesn't mean you get to drag out the process and clog the court system if all that is needed is to play a vid. What's good for the vilification and conviction of the cop is just as good for the vilification and conviction of anyone.

Posted by Procopius2k 2008-08-04 09:10|| 2008-08-04 09:10|| Front Page Top

#5 I always used to carry around a small tape recorder on me when out in public as a civilian police employee. It cost me maybe $50, but it sure saved me a ton of aggravation when I got the inevitable complaint for daring to give someone a parking ticket for taking a handicapped space they weren't entitled to, telling someone to stay on the curb and obey the "walk/don't walk" sign when a semi was coming their way, etc.

And yes....I encourage anyone to have a little tape recorder any time they deal with a cop. It doesn't matter if it is just a parking ticket or a "get moving" lecture. The good cops know that pretty much anything they say can (and will) be ready for broadcast on the evening news and will be professional while doing their jobs. The bad ones? Well, it's nice to have a little bit of insurance on your side just in case.

(Note....call up your local PD nonemergency line first to see if you live in a state where you have to notify the other party that they are being recorded, just to make sure that they can't come back on you later for not telling Officer Unfriendly about your leetle friend.)

Posted by Swamp Blondie in the Cornfields 2008-08-04 09:49|| 2008-08-04 09:49|| Front Page Top

#6 I try to support the police, I know they are underpaid and frequently overworked. I know some of these videos are biased in what they fail to show.

I still have to ask, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Posted by DLR 2008-08-04 12:03|| http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html]">[http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html] 2008-08-04 12:03|| Front Page Top

#7 As a former police officer, albeit in the 70's in a small town, ALL police personell know (or should know) there are ALWAYS going to be people who go out of their way to set up and antagonize them. Just sayin'...

Posted by WolfDog 2008-08-04 12:10|| 2008-08-04 12:10|| Front Page Top

#8 Yes, I'm sure this was all planned out in advance with the camera positions, most probably locations of police personnel, the unobstructed views, etc.

And yes I (and a zillion others) looked at the video, too. The police ran straight for the same excuse they always do. There was no visual signaling effort whatsoever to get the guy to stop. Whatever he allegedly "did" was not worth risking slamming the guy's skull on the ground. The cop just sauntered near his path and suddenly ambushed him. He's probably one of those cops who can't tell the difference between right and wrong. There are a lot of them out there, and their willful denial of this doesn't wish it away. And yes, the guy did try to avoid running into the cop. Bicycles don't turn on a dime, especially if you expecting the cop to refrain from being un-"reasonable" like that one was. Oh, and by the way, anyone else notice that nobody in the crowd was paying particular attention to the guy before he got nailed by the cop? Except for the other cop, who probably got warned about what was about to happen. That cop didn't seem too thrilled about the whole thing, by the way.

And King has nothing to do with this other than he was beaten unnecessarily, too. I'm sure a dozen cops with a combined body mass of over a ton could have put their clubs down long enough to hogtie a 300 pound guy. And if all that particular cameraman wanted to do was make the police look bad, then why did he shoot 45 minutes of video? Did he copyright the other 44 minutes or something? That kind of accusation shows bias.

The best the cops can hope for here is an extreme lack of judgment bolstered by expectations of getting away with it. Had the guy or a bystander been injured I'm sure the defense "we nailed him because he was rude to another cop or pedestrian" or "he wasn't wearing a helmet" would sound hollow. The net effect here is negative. Unless, of course, it turns out he had just assaulted a pedestrian, in which case it shouldn't take more than about a day for the deeply offended party to step forward. Or maybe someone else can step forward and say they heard the cop warn the guy to stop. Judging by the crowd's lack of anticipation of the event, I'd say there's a slim (read: NO) chance of that happening.

And all the arguments I hear in favor of the cops are conjecture. That tape is a pretty damning witness and a thousand times more credible than anything the cops have called in their defense. And remember, all this happens in real time. The cops and the bicyclists had to make their decisions in real time, not in fantasy time with a pause button to allow thought for perfect decision-making.

I'll go to bat for and give privilges and leeway to police whose decisions were made to benefit the society they help shepherd, but those privileges come with correspondingly higher expectations of good judgment and standards ethical behavior. And correspondingly higher consequences.

Posted by gorb 2008-08-04 16:13|| 2008-08-04 16:13|| Front Page Top

#9 Here's the incident from the exact opposite angle. Looks like cops were after those who ran through the traffic light when it was red.

Posted by gorb 2008-08-04 16:34|| 2008-08-04 16:34|| Front Page Top

#10 "That kind of accusation shows bias."

No, Gorb, it doesn't. It shows that I actually watched the ENTIRE Rodney King incident video. I was lucky enough to have an opportunity to see the entire Rodney King film and could make a proper assessment. Please also note that there was a JURY of people in Simi Valley--people who also saw the WHOLE video--that came to the same conclusions I did. A JURY, gorb. In Simi Valley, CA, a place that isn't exactly Selma, AL circa 1960.

The fact that two policemen went to jail via double jeopardy for beating Rodney King after they were already tried once and exonerated of any wrongdoing is one of the more egregious recent blots on American justice.

As for this cyclist, go back and watch that video again, closely. Watch his FEET. They show he was trying to power his way by that cop. Plus, when he got hit he was leaning INTO the officer, not away, as in trying to avoid the collision. This WASN'T just some rogue cop trying to smackdown some CM jerk. Again, if they had wanted to do that there were easier and smaller targets. Hell, seconds earlier one of them almost hit the cop who stopped the cyclist.

I wrote a letter to the Governor of Utah and the head of the Utah DPS concerning the jerk who tasered that poor schmo in front of his pregnant wife and kids. I have no sympathy or support for cops who exceed their brief or use excessive violence.

That said, because of the King case I'm very well aware of how people on the left try to manipulate the media to make their case (and yes, Critical Mass is DEFINITELY watermelon) against the authorities. I consequently no longer take such things at face value.

I suggest checking your own bias level first before you accuse others of it.

Posted by Hupiling the Galactic Hero1106 2008-08-04 18:40|| 2008-08-04 18:40|| Front Page Top

#11 Wow. A JURY. like the one that acquitted Simpson?

And what if King was diabetic and was acting like he was due to low blood sugar? The cops could have easily subdued him and ended the whole thing right then. No need for the protracted beating. They should have put away the clubs and cuffed him. I don't care what the almighty PROCEDURE says to do.

I do agree that the double-jeopardy thing should not have happened, though.

I did see the cyclist's feet. I did see him hunch into the linebacker cop. The way I read it was that he was just trying to be polite and avoid a close call by getting around him. I've done it before when people aren't paying attention or are not considering my reaction to getting too close to my path. If he'd turned left he would have ended up on the curb, so I can see why he did it.

Yes, I know why the cop did it. He ran a red light. But the cop overreacted simply because he could. He should have just blown it off and come back better prepared logistically next year, and not risked the man's health. Maybe the cop was right. But was he acting responsibly? Would he have been within procedural limits to whip out his baton and crack the guy across the teeth? What if the guy landed face first on the curb? Same result.

Did you notice the other team of two cops in the second video? They played it much smarter. The one cop was in front telling the biker to pull over while simply tugging at him, and then he let go. The cop's partner was about 15 feet behind him about where the overenthusiastic biker was able to stop his bike. The cop even helped him dismount if I remember right. That's the way to do it. Not like the big cop with the chip on his shoulder.

That's what I'm talking about. You don't shoot a guy for spitting on the sidewalk. And the big cop shouldn't have wiped out the biker for what he did. It's too much risk for the infraction he committed, especially considering the mitigating circumstances. Cops should not inject greater risk into situations than are already there.

And you can think what you want.

And so can everyone watching the video.

And when you add up the numbers, the cops lost on this one any way you cut it.

Posted by gorb 2008-08-04 23:55|| 2008-08-04 23:55|| Front Page Top

23:56 OldSpook
23:55 gorb
23:43 OldSpook
23:37 OldSpook
23:35 gromky
23:21 gromky
23:16 phxrav
23:05 bigjim-ky
22:57 bigjim-ky
22:43 AzCat
22:42 ed
22:41 JosephMendiola
22:41 AzCat
22:39 Pappy
22:38 ed
22:34 AzCat
22:31 AzCat
22:29 Pappy
22:26 JosephMendiola
22:23 ed
22:22 JosephMendiola
22:17 OldSpook
22:05 Zhang Fei
22:04 Keystone