Each officer has to justify each strike and they are justified/excessive independently. Sort of like Rodney King. They were justified until the last few strikes, then they were not. However, what was the context surrounding the use of force? What did the officers know, were told, or observed, prior to the use of force? It appears that the suspect was face down with his hands under him. That is a tough spot to hands from if they don't comply. I know we teach knee strikes to the torso, strikes to the upper back, ect, in those situations. In reality, there are arm leverage techniques to handle this but most academies don't have enough time to teach officers to perform these at any competent level. So I have no issue with striking a person who is refusing to give up their hands that they are laying on. As far as the "slamming" of the head, I saw punches to the top/side of the head. Those were during the same time frame that he was laying on his hands. Again, what is their training in regards to that? They very well could be following it? A strike to the head in this instance is not automatic excessive force. Now, just as I stood there and exclaimed that watching this video ALONE isn't enough to condemn these officers actions, it is not enough to SUPPORT them as well. I am just giving you some insight as to why it COULD be justified. A more thorough investigation might conclude they were excessive, time will tell.I consider you a reasonable man and a stand up guy and professional. But under what circumstances would this be acceptable behavior for the officers? At what point is stomping on them and slamming their head into the pavement repeatedly acceptable behavior?
Im honestly interested in how that would be justified and under what circumstances. No trolling or disrespect intended. I honestly want to know how this would be justified?
As a civilian, I see 3 men who need to be shown the door at least. Maybe more.
For the head slam, about 15 seconds or a bit more into the video below. Guy looks like he's on his side and the officer pulls his head up with both hands by the hair and slams it back down on what appears to be the curb.Each officer has to justify each strike and they are justified/excessive independently. Sort of like Rodney King. They were justified until the last few strikes, then they were not. However, what was the context surrounding the use of force? What did the officers know, were told, or observed, prior to the use of force? It appears that the suspect was face down with his hands under him. That is a tough spot to hands from if they don't comply. I know we teach knee strikes to the torso, strikes to the upper back, ect, in those situations. In reality, there are arm leverage techniques to handle this but most academies don't have enough time to teach officers to perform these at any competent level. So I have no issue with striking a person who is refusing to give up their hands that they are laying on. As far as the "slamming" of the head, I saw punches to the top/side of the head. Those were during the same time frame that he was laying on his hands. Again, what is their training in regards to that? They very well could be following it? A strike to the head in this instance is not automatic excessive force. Now, just as I stood there and exclaimed that watching this video ALONE isn't enough to condemn these officers actions, it is not enough to SUPPORT them as well. I am just giving you some insight as to why it COULD be justified. A more thorough investigation might conclude they were excessive, time will tell.
Final thought and quote I like to use in these instances, "Ineffective force looks identical to excessive force to the untrained eye." Those strikes were mostly ineffective as he refused to give up his hands for most of time. However, in the days where these tactics are taught in a 40-50 hr timeframe, this is what you get. Easy to teach but woefully ineffective techniques.
They were probably exhausted from all that protecting and serving in such a short amount of time.Notice how they chilled when they discovered they were being recorded.
Ok, I missed it the 1st 2 times I watched it. Everything BUT that could be justified. We shall see.For the head slam, about 15 seconds or a bit more into the video below. Guy looks like he's on his side and the officer pulls his head up with both hands by the hair and slams it back down on what appears to be the curb.
Everyone records everything anymore. I'm surprised when NOONE is standing by and recording. Justified or not, I have no doubts these officers were doing what they thought they should. In my other post I just made, I brought up training. Small, poorly paid, southern departments are likely some of the worst trained officers in the US. Whether that plays into this situation, I do not know.Notice how they chilled when they discovered they were being recorded.
Yeah, I missed it the first time or two myself.Ok, I missed it the 1st 2 times I watched it. Everything BUT that could be justified. We shall see.
IIRC and sorry I can't find the links, they are deciding whether or not to release the body cam video. Again IIRC he threatened to cut the store clerk, was cooperative with the police until he wasn't and knocked down and hit one of them in the back of the head.Everyone records everything anymore. I'm surprised when NOONE is standing by and recording. Justified or not, I have no doubts these officers were doing what they thought they should. In my other post I just made, I brought up training. Small, poorly paid, southern departments are likely some of the worst trained officers in the US. Whether that plays into this situation, I do not know.
You make good points, and I really like the quote " Ineffective force looks identical to excessive force to the untrained eye." That's absolutely spot on.Each officer has to justify each strike and they are justified/excessive independently. Sort of like Rodney King. They were justified until the last few strikes, then they were not. However, what was the context surrounding the use of force? What did the officers know, were told, or observed, prior to the use of force? It appears that the suspect was face down with his hands under him. That is a tough spot to hands from if they don't comply. I know we teach knee strikes to the torso, strikes to the upper back, ect, in those situations. In reality, there are arm leverage techniques to handle this but most academies don't have enough time to teach officers to perform these at any competent level. So I have no issue with striking a person who is refusing to give up their hands that they are laying on. As far as the "slamming" of the head, I saw punches to the top/side of the head. Those were during the same time frame that he was laying on his hands. Again, what is their training in regards to that? They very well could be following it? A strike to the head in this instance is not automatic excessive force. Now, just as I stood there and exclaimed that watching this video ALONE isn't enough to condemn these officers actions, it is not enough to SUPPORT them as well. I am just giving you some insight as to why it COULD be justified. A more thorough investigation might conclude they were excessive, time will tell.
Final thought and quote I like to use in these instances, "Ineffective force looks identical to excessive force to the untrained eye." Those strikes were mostly ineffective as he refused to give up his hands for most of time. However, in the days where these tactics are taught in a 40-50 hr timeframe, this is what you get. Easy to teach but woefully ineffective techniques.
Of course you canI can defend that.
Exactly.Of course you can
Everyone is entitled to a defense
It's all about how you can articulate it and how you make it make sense to others. Seen some brilliant arguments justifying actions and say some that left me wondering wtf kind of defense was that.Exactly.
To some extent you're probably right. But there's always a fine line between right and wrong.Y’all do realize, that if we have any shot at straightening out this ridiculous assed world, bustin heads is what it’s going to take, right?
I have zero issue with a dumbass getting the beat down he’s probably been begging for for a long time, too bad those cops will probably take the fall for that idiots retarded choices his entire life.
I get the sentiment....but there's this whole "due process" thing about having a determination based upon the law before handing out punishment. It goes both ways. No one should be convicted and punished based upon a bunch of things we don't know. The guy on the ground, and the police.Y’all do realize, that if we have any shot at straightening out this ridiculous assed world, bustin heads is what it’s going to take, right?
I have zero issue with a dumbass getting the beat down he’s probably been begging for for a long time, too bad those cops will probably take the fall for that idiots retarded choices his entire life.