3 Arkansas officers involved in violent arrest are identified

[Frank_N_Stein]

If I call for the cavalry, I'm going to want them to ride all the way over the hill to where ever the hell I am. That's because if I'm calling for the cavalry, the excrement has made physical contact with the hydro-electric powered, oscillating, air distribution device. And I want the cavalry to bring all the violence to bear they possibly can... that's because the excrement has made physical contact with the hydro-electric powered, oscillating, air distribution device.

DV is domestic violence, not distinguished visitor. I learned that DV means something completely different to the IMPD than the DoD not long ago.

We can live in a world where Riss v NYC, Warren v DC, Castle Rock v Gonzales, a bunch of Parkland Students v the Coward of Broward County exist; alongside the expectation of the cavalry to come riding over the hill when most needed.

And you know: if I'm in Marion County and I need violence brought on my behalf, I'm requesting you.

What the "cops have no duty to protect" people don't realize is that save for very few instances, cops show up when you call them. And they usually show up ready to fight on behalf of a stranger. But because of one ******** ruling from 1981, people want to pretend the cops don't show up and don't protect the citizens they serve.

 

[hoosierdoc]

What the "cops have no duty to protect" people don't realize is that save for very few instances, cops show up when you call them. And they usually show up ready to fight on behalf of a stranger. But because of one ******** ruling from 1981, people want to pretend the cops don't show up and don't protect the citizens they serve.

Officers prove time and again they are willing to go beyond the minimun requirements of their responsibility.

Most notably in my life was the cop who dove into the lake and recovered those two teens from a car. He was tall, like six inches shorter than you i think

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

Officers prove time and again they are willing to go beyond the minimun requirements of their responsibility.

Most notably in my life was the cop who dove into the lake and recovered those two teens from a car. He was tall, like six inches shorter than you i think

Agreed. But I'm biased. And remember the cop that was off-duty and helped you give CPR to the man that had the heart attack? In Lawrenceburg I believe.

 

[hoosierdoc]

Agreed. But I'm biased. And remember the cop that was off-duty and helped you give CPR to the man that had the heart attack? In Lawrenceburg I believe.

I don't remember that one. I did CPR on a guy in a spartan race down there in 2016. He fell over right in front of me. I went into AFib three days later.

stay out of Lawrenceburg!

Edit: I'm an idiot, yes. I missed the 'you" in your post. Still can't believe he was a cop. Seemed like a superhero or Greek god or something

 

[BehindBlueI's]

So you are saying that mental illness has been a long-standing problem in law enforcement? I've always thought that, too.

Nice jab at Hamer and police, but ultimately uninformed. He did have dementia at the end of his life, but was in no way mentally ill during his working years. He was simply a product of his time and place, although it's popular with liberals and cancel culture to hold everyone everywhere at everytime to their own modern standards of wherever they happen to live.

No, that was simply the mindset of Texas (and others) at the time and was in no way limited to law enforcement. Juries routinely acquitted on Murder charges if the decedent had publicly insulted the accused. It was still an honor society. The generation of his father and grandfather still viewed dueling as completely acceptable and it was still quite legal in most of the south and west. So accepted that less then 50 years before Hamer's birth, "Duelling: The Code of Honor" was published by the former governor of South Carolina was essentially the rule book by which the upper class was expected to duel with pistols. A second edition with rules specifically for the Irish (who couldn't afford dueling pistols) some 20 years later.

"If an oppressed nation has a right to appeal to arms in defense of its liberty and happiness of its people, there can be no argument used in support of such appeal, which will not apply with equal force to individuals…if he be subjected to a tame submission to insult and disgrace…the first law of nature, self-preservation, points out the only remedy for wrongs."

and

"When by education we make character and moral worth a part of ourselves, we guard these possessions with more watchful zeal than life itself, and would go farther for their protection"

They truly believed 'Death before Dishonor' in those times and places. if you were shamed you were nothing. While this may seem alien to you, it's the culture he was raised in.

The same Hamer protected a jailed black man from a lynch mob pre-trial when the local sheriff was overwhelmed and ready to give the prisoner up to save his own skin. This was a common assignment for Rangers at the time. He lived at a very interesting time, basically the tail end of the cowboy days and border skirmishes with Mexico to the beginnings of modernization of investigative and police procedures during the Prohibition era.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

This is not going to be popular here... but that is part of the job that law enforcement signed up for. I'm thankful that there are men and women who are willing to take the hate that is directed at them and still act professionally. Those that cannot need to find another profession and not be judge, jury, and executioner. Find another line of work if you cannot control your emotions.

It doesn't matter what that guy did before, and if they thought he was a deadly threat, they should have pulled out their guns and shot him. They instead threw him a beating. I hope they pay the appropriate price for that. I suspect we will see them crying like little babies when they are sentenced.

So basically you want society to tell criminals, "Hey, you can do literally whatever the heck you want to our law enforcement officers, short of actively trying to kill them; you can beat them up, body slam them head first into concrete, and then resist them putting you into cuffs, and there will be zero physical repercussions, ever. The worst that will happen to you is getting another charge tacked on to whatever else you were being charged with, but if the officers dare lay a finger on you, they'll be punished as if they were the criminals."

No, I don't want that, and most people who want a stable society don't want it either. I want our law enforcement officers to represent the law, which of course means I don't want them getting emotional and handing out beatings to anyone who hurts their feelings, but I also don't want them to be doormats who take a beating from a criminal and then just stand over him asking him nicely to get into handcuffs whenever he feels like doing so. Our law needs to be strong, it needs to be just, and it needs to be respected. None of those things are indicated by the sort of person who lets you violently attack them and then handles you with kid gloves while trying to detain you.

All this aside, nothing that these officers did was even punitive or done purely for revenge. The guy was still not in cuffs, and was still actively resisting going into them. If they'd beaten up on him while he was already handcuffed and safely detained, sure, I can see people having a problem with it. But he still had his hands under him, and could've been reaching for a concealed knife, or other sort of weapon, for all the officers knew. If the accounts I read initially are accurate, he had strongly implied that he did have a knife on him. That being said, I don't see how the officers' attempts to subdue him were in any way out of line, except maybe for the head-bashing part, but if you really think that the only people fit to be officers are those who could keep all that straight in such a high-stress situation, you're not going to have very many officers in this country.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

I agree with this. I don't want to live in a society where the police are punishment squads. If they are taking revenge for what someone did, it feels like they are behaving like a gang. I don't understand why the LEO driving that man's face into the pavement shouldn't face prosecution for it like anyone else would. Also, it seems like the other two should be charged as accessories as well as qualified immunity stripped from all of them.

I don’t have issues with criminals getting their due. My concern is the beat downs handed out to people that didn’t deserve it from bad cops. We do have bad cops out there. FBI anyone?ATF anyone? I’m not confident enough in our legal system to let the police decide how to deter crime on the streets. Now if you can guarantee that no one that doesn’t deserve a beat down won’t get one, then have at it.

just watched a video where an officer used a computer coin flip app to determine if a speeder got a ticket or was arrested with a vehicle impound. Is that the officer we want handing out beat downs?

Both of these comments completely ignore the context of the situation.

You act as if the only two possible positions are either "I don't think police should ever give anyone a beating" or "I think police should be able to beat up on anyone they feel like, anytime, anywhere."

How about just saying: I don't want police beating up on anyone they feel like, but if a guy violently attacks police, head slamming one of them head first into concrete, after threatening to stab people, I'm fine if the police give him a bit of a beating while he's resisting going into cuffs?

Physical violence against police warrants physical violence in response, until the perpetrator is safely and fully detained. Yes, the police should be subject to standards, and if they engage in unwarranted violence, it should be investigated and punished appropriately. But they also shouldn't have to play some silly game where a physically violent person can suddenly gain immunity from any sort of physical response the millisecond he stops assaulting them, regardless of the fact that he could become violent again at any moment until he is fully restrained.

P.S. (Warning, long irrelevant rant ahead; don't read if you don't want to, it's not really relevant to the topic at hand.) - I also saw that video (assuming it's the same one, the one I saw I think was at least several months ago.) The title of the video was a bit misleading, though, as if you watch it the whole way through you'll see that the coin flip app was done more as a joke, and the officer actually ended up not even following the results of the flip. Still, it does expose what I believe is a pretty big flaw in our system, which is the arbitrariness of enforcing many laws. The fact of the matter is that with our law, as currently written, any random person can be driving down the road in a perfectly safe, legal manner, and be pulled over, arrested, and have their vehicle impounded, all on the subjective opinion and say-so of any police officer, and unless they have some means of proving, beyond a doubt, that they were not speeding or driving recklessly, they'll have no recourse whatsoever. I think this issue is actually, in a twist of irony, exacerbated by the fact that >99% of LEO's are highly responsible, reasonable individuals, so the cases of this being abused are so rare that nowhere near enough people care about it to try to change the law. I'd love to see the law change to be a lot more clear for people; I understand that officers need to have some discretion, but having objective standards should be, IMHO, the default, not the exception, and citizens should clearly know when they've crossed the line and when they haven't. The fact that most people break the law on an almost daily basis (I'm thinking of speed limits here, but I'm sure there are other things) but it's never enforced unless you're really, really breaking the law, in the completely subjective opinion of whatever officer happens to see you, just seems like a weakness of the system, if you ask me. But I don't see that subjectivity being translated into situations like the one being discussed in this thread, and for the life of me I don't see why we can't say that we can look objectively at the circumstances surrounding the officers actions and determine whether or not they are justified. Again, saying that these officers' actions were justified in this situation does NOT equate to saying that any officer should be able to subjectively decide that they can hand out a beating whenever they feel like it, which obviously, I do not support.

 

[Shadow01]

Both of these comments completely ignore the context of the situation.

You act as if the only two possible positions are either "I don't think police should ever give anyone a beating" or "I think police should be able to beat up on anyone they feel like, anytime, anywhere."

How about just saying: I don't want police beating up on anyone they feel like, but if a guy violently attacks police, head slamming one of them head first into concrete, after threatening to stab people, I'm fine if the police give him a bit of a beating while he's resisting going into cuffs?

Physical violence against police warrants physical violence in response, until the perpetrator is safely and fully detained. Yes, the police should be subject to standards, and if they engage in unwarranted violence, it should be investigated and punished appropriately. But they also shouldn't have to play some silly game where a physically violent person can suddenly gain immunity from any sort of physical response the millisecond he stops assaulting them, regardless of the fact that he could become violent again at any moment until he is fully restrained.

P.S. (Warning, long irrelevant rant ahead; don't read if you don't want to, it's not really relevant to the topic at hand.) - I also saw that video (assuming it's the same one, the one I saw I think was at least several months ago.) The title of the video was a bit misleading, though, as if you watch it the whole way through you'll see that the coin flip app was done more as a joke, and the officer actually ended up not even following the results of the flip. Still, it does expose what I believe is a pretty big flaw in our system, which is the arbitrariness of enforcing many laws. The fact of the matter is that with our law, as currently written, any random person can be driving down the road in a perfectly safe, legal manner, and be pulled over, arrested, and have their vehicle impounded, all on the subjective opinion and say-so of any police officer, and unless they have some means of proving, beyond a doubt, that they were not speeding or driving recklessly, they'll have no recourse whatsoever. I think this issue is actually, in a twist of irony, exacerbated by the fact that >99% of LEO's are highly responsible, reasonable individuals, so the cases of this being abused are so rare that nowhere near enough people care about it to try to change the law. I'd love to see the law change to be a lot more clear for people; I understand that officers need to have some discretion, but having objective standards should be, IMHO, the default, not the exception, and citizens should clearly know when they've crossed the line and when they haven't. The fact that most people break the law on an almost daily basis (I'm thinking of speed limits here, but I'm sure there are other things) but it's never enforced unless you're really, really breaking the law, in the completely subjective opinion of whatever officer happens to see you, just seems like a weakness of the system, if you ask me. But I don't see that subjectivity being translated into situations like the one being discussed in this thread, and for the life of me I don't see why we can't say that we can look objectively at the circumstances surrounding the officers actions and determine whether or not they are justified. Again, saying that these officers' actions were justified in this situation does NOT equate to saying that any officer should be able to subjectively decide that they can hand out a beating whenever they feel like it, which obviously, I do not support.

As I ask previously. Provide an inclusive list of crimes with the level of beat down warranted, so we and police can see who is acting within the boundaries and who is not. I have no issues with the police protecting themselves and having the ability to control the situation. But is a single head slap into the pavement warranted or is it 3 head slaps? We need a written doc that hands out every action as acceptable. What is the recourse for a cop that has over stepped and the citizen has serious brain damage? Do we say sorry as we hand the victim a check? The cop get a hand slap? The guidelines need to be in place before you allow cops to hand out street justice, but no one is willing to make the guide book beforehand.

 

[Denny347]

Still, it does expose what I believe is a pretty big flaw in our system, which is the arbitrariness of enforcing many laws.

As long as humans are involved that can never be eliminated Nor should it for that matter. Many laws allow the investigating officer discretion on how best to address it. More times than not, that discretion is in the "suspects" favor. For example, MJ laws. In the past, I never really cared about possession in personal amounts. It was 100% illegal in ANY amount. But for me, dumping it in front of me and then going about your day was "justice served". For another officer, an arrest (summons or outright) was "justice served". You cannot legislate discretion. Domestic Battery is, in all practical ways, a "shall arrest" offense. All that is needed for PC for a DB arrest in "complaint of pain". So, we have to arrest when person A tells us that person B (with a domestic connection) touched them in a rude or insolent manner and it caused pain. No visual evidence required. Hands tied, person B is going to jail. No discretion. I'm sure that 100% innocent people have been arrested for this but if we don't and the "victim" complains, we get in HUGE trouble.

The fact of the matter is that with our law, as currently written, any random person can be driving down the road in a perfectly safe, legal manner, and be pulled over, arrested, and have their vehicle impounded, all on the subjective opinion and say-so of any police officer, and unless they have some means of proving, beyond a doubt, that they were not speeding or driving recklessly, they'll have no recourse whatsoever.

Random person driving along 100% legally
1. Pulled over for ?
2. Vehicle towed for ?
3. Driver arrested for ?

While I understand your fear, it is an unfounded fear.
1. Random people don't get pulled over. "Random" defined as ,"made, done, happening, or chosen without method or conscious decision." There will be a violation of law or ordinance that the officer reasonably believes had occurred to support the stop.
2. Towing is only allowed in certain circumstances. Some of those are codified and some are as a result of court decisions. Cars cannot get towed "just because".
3. Driver arrested (summons or outright) requires a CRIMINAL code violation. A simple traffic infraction is a fine and cannot result in the driver being arrested, by itself. Unless you are suggesting that officers are arresting drivers without PC that a crime was committed.

 

[Denny347]

but no one is willing to make the guide book beforehand.

No one wants to memorize a 10,000 page book listing all possibilities

 

[Destro]

I'd love to see the law change to be a lot more clear for people; I understand that officers need to have some discretion, but having objective standards should be, IMHO, the default, not the exception, and citizens should clearly know when they've crossed the line and when they haven't. The fact that most people break the law on an almost daily basis (I'm thinking of speed limits here, but I'm sure there are other things) but it's never enforced unless you're really, really breaking the law, in the completely subjective opinion of whatever officer happens to see you, just seems like a weakness of the system, if you ask me.

So, shall issue tickets for traffic infractions? Interesting.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

As long as humans are involved that can never be eliminated Nor should it for that matter. Many laws allow the investigating officer discretion on how best to address it. More times than not, that discretion is in the "suspects" favor. For example, MJ laws. In the past, I never really cared about possession in personal amounts. It was 100% illegal in ANY amount. But for me, dumping it in front of me and then going about your day was "justice served". For another officer, an arrest (summons or outright) was "justice served". You cannot legislate discretion. Domestic Battery is, in all practical ways, a "shall arrest" offense. All that is needed for PC for a DB arrest in "complaint of pain". So, we have to arrest when person A tells us that person B (with a domestic connection) touched them in a rude or insolent manner and it caused pain. No visual evidence required. Hands tied, person B is going to jail. No discretion. I'm sure that 100% innocent people have been arrested for this but if we don't and the "victim" complains, we get in HUGE trouble.

Random person driving along 100% legally
1. Pulled over for ?
2. Vehicle towed for ?
3. Driver arrested for ?

While I understand your fear, it is an unfounded fear.
1. Random people don't get pulled over. "Random" defined as ,"made, done, happening, or chosen without method or conscious decision." There will be a violation of law or ordinance that the officer reasonably believes had occurred to support the stop.
2. Towing is only allowed in certain circumstances. Some of those are codified and some are as a result of court decisions. Cars cannot get towed "just because".
3. Driver arrested (summons or outright) requires a CRIMINAL code violation. A simple traffic infraction is a fine and cannot result in the driver being arrested, by itself. Unless you are suggesting that officers are arresting drivers without PC that a crime was committed.

So, I'm not anything close to an expert on the law, but my impression was that, depending on the jurisdiction, speeding beyond a certain amount can count as reckless driving, and reckless driving can be a criminal violation that results in arrest; is that correct?

I mean, to lay out the most extreme hypothetical I can think of, suppose officer A is having a really bad day and wants to take it out on someone and go on a power trip. They pull over citizen B and say you were speeding like crazy, reckless driving, I'm arresting you and towing the vehicle. If citizen B goes to court, do they have any real recourse? Can most people realistically prove that they weren't speeding like crazy? Or is there an extra step in the process I'm missing?

I've never heard of any such thing happening, which I'd honestly just assumed was down to the fact that our police forces are, in my limited experience and knowledge (and I'm not being facetious here) some of the most incredibly uncorrupted institutions left, especially when contrasted with the rot we see overtaking almost every other institution in our society. But maybe I've just never learned that there are actual safeguard in the system against this sort of thing?

 

[Expat]

A friend of mine lives a county over and he said that department has always had a reputation.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

So, shall issue tickets for traffic infractions? Interesting.

Yeah, I guess as I think about it more, maybe it's not really a good idea. I don't have a well thought-out position, mostly because this is about the lowest thing on my priority list to worry about in this country right now. It's just always given me a funny feeling every time I drive on the road that myself and hundreds of others I see every day are technically breaking the law on a regular basis, it's just we haven't quite broken it hard enough to draw attention, so we keep doing it. Maybe that's just the way it has to be, I don't know...

 

[Epicenity]

Both of these comments completely ignore the context of the situation.
uld be able to subjectively decide that they can hand out a beating whenever they feel like it, which obviously, I do not support.

I don't think I am understanding your point regarding my post. I don't think it is ever OK for law enforcement to give retaliatory "beatings", and if they do, they should be held accountable. I don't get how that is a controversial statement.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

I don't think I am understanding your point regarding my post. I don't think it is ever OK for law enforcement to give retaliatory "beatings", and if they do, they should be held accountable. I don't get how that is a controversial statement.

Simple. You're ignoring the context of the situation, which is that this was not necessarily a retaliatory beating, but could have been an attempt to get him to comply so that they could restrain him safely, as he had just violently attacked an officer seconds ago.

 

[Epicenity]

[snip for length]

Random person driving along 100% legally
1. Pulled over for ?
2. Vehicle towed for ?
3. Driver arrested for ?

While I understand your fear, it is an unfounded fear.
1. Random people don't get pulled over. "Random" defined as ,"made, done, happening, or chosen without method or conscious decision." There will be a violation of law or ordinance that the officer reasonably believes had occurred to support the stop.
2. Towing is only allowed in certain circumstances. Some of those are codified and some are as a result of court decisions. Cars cannot get towed "just because".
3. Driver arrested (summons or outright) requires a CRIMINAL code violation. A simple traffic infraction is a fine and cannot result in the driver being arrested, by itself. Unless you are suggesting that officers are arresting drivers without PC that a crime was committed.

This is 100% untrue. There are ample documentations of people being pulled over under false pretenses and being ticked/arrested for non existent violations up to and including police planting evidence. It is true that it is not legal to do so.

I don't know you and forgive me if I have misunderstood. If I haven't though, this is the kind of statement that wrecks credibility.

 

[N9Zero]

Yes it does seem a bit excessive, but also I wasn't there.
The video only shows one side of what happened I'm sure they could have gotten cuffs on with 3 guys there so perhaps it's the training along with being over worked? idk
Then again I remember that I have family that are cops what they say is that the younger ones are full of **** and vinegar walking around with a chip on their shoulder.

 

[Epicenity]

Simple. You're ignoring the context of the situation, which is that this was not a retaliatory beating, but an attempt to get him to comply so that they could restrain him safely, as he had just violently attacked an officer seconds ago.

I never said, and I quote "I don't think police should ever give anyone a beating". Sometimes force is surely necessary. I'm talking about the obscene assault delivered by the person slamming someone's face into the pavement in that manner. I'm not taking anything out of context. I don't care what the person did before the video.

 

[Destro]

This is 100% untrue. There are ample documentations of people being pulled over under false pretenses and being ticked/arrested for non existent violations up to and including police planting evidence. It is true that it is not legal to do so.

I don't know you and forgive me if I have misunderstood. If I haven't though, this is the kind of statement that wrecks credibility.

The statement made was that law enforcement can do those things legally.