PDA

View Full Version : El Monte PD


biglou
05-14-2009, 9:40 AM
They keep showing the news video of the El Monte Officer booting a gangbanger in the head. These news clips never tell the whole story. I know you can't just turn off the adreniline like a switch. Like I said we don't know the details, but there are news copters/cameras everywhere. Or is it a combo of adrenaline/tunnel vision ?

stormy_clothing
05-14-2009, 9:46 AM
from the urban dictionary

gangbanger 313 up, 129 down
a person belonging to a gang. usually not able to "man up" and stand on his own, therefore has to rely on others for support. sometimes referred to as a *****.

BONECUTTER
05-14-2009, 9:48 AM
I would guess he was telling the guy to look away concerned he could still be planning something. The guy didn't and got booted. Not the best choice of moves.....the high five didn't help either. Though I'm sure the high 5 was move of a "yes, we caught him" it will be portrayed as "Hey, nice kick".

I think anyone who runs should get tazered on nation TV after the news crews show up. It would cut down on runners because no one wants to scream like a little girl and wet themselves on TV for their homies to see.

Ron-Solo
05-14-2009, 10:05 AM
Just watched the video. I can't see how the 1st officer is going to be able to say anything that could justify the boot to the face other than just being stupid. By the time the 2nd office got there, the guy pulled his arm under his body, which might justify his blows with fists/baton.

The high fives with the K9 handler are just plain idiotic.

There is no way to chase someone in the LA area for more than a couple of minutes without getting a squadron of news choppers overhead, adn every cop knows (or should know) that fact. You're gonna be live on multiple channels, it's part of the LA media culture. They drop all programming to show a pursuit, just praying to catch us doing something stupid.

At least El Monte's chief isn't blindly throwing them to the wolves. He's already opened an internal investigation. They've got a pretty good department in my opinion. I worked with them a lot when I worked a neighboring station years back.

Rough road ahead for them.......

Meanwhile, Johnny No-Good the banger just hit the lotto. He got jumped a lot harder when he got into EMF. One kick to the face will probably get him some $$$. The lawyers are already lining up.

gotgunz
05-14-2009, 11:18 AM
Link to video?

ke6guj
05-14-2009, 11:29 AM
Link to video?

kLE0CMGz4m4

glockman19
05-14-2009, 11:41 AM
What I saw was a guy who gave up. Laying prone. palms down.
IMHO, no reason to kick the guy in the face, he was submitting.

Lucky for him he wasn't holding a cell phone.

Erik S. Klein
05-14-2009, 11:55 AM
What I saw was a guy who gave up. Laying prone. palms down.
IMHO, no reason to kick the guy in the face, he was submitting.


Agreed.

The cop was 100% unjustified and was just being a *****.

Hopefully he'll soon be an unemployed *****.

Sadly, since he's a cop, he won't be a felony assault convicted *****, even though that's what he deserves (the rest of the cops there should be charged with accessory to felony assault and failure to do their duty in arresting a felon.)

yzernie
05-14-2009, 12:12 PM
Agreed.

The cop was 100% unjustified and was just being a *****.

Hopefully he'll soon be an unemployed *****.

Sadly, since he's a cop, he won't be a felony assault convicted *****, even though that's what he deserves (the rest of the cops there should be charged with accessory to felony assault and failure to do their duty in arresting a felon.)
Opinion are like buttholes...everyone has one. I'll side with the Chief on this one and reserve judgement until all of the facts are known. Unfortunately, the only folks who will know ALL of the facts is the Internal Affairs Division of the police dept.

DLaw
05-14-2009, 12:29 PM
Although it was dumb to boot the guy in the face, I have no sympathy for gangbangers...

bluestaterebel
05-14-2009, 1:54 PM
Opinion are like buttholes...everyone has one. I'll side with the Chief on this one and reserve judgement until all of the facts are known. Unfortunately, the only folks who will know ALL of the facts is the Internal Affairs Division of the police dept.

+1 :thumbsup:

kalguns
05-14-2009, 2:20 PM
I think if you run from the cops (like a coward) they should have the right to kick your *****. It should be a law.
If you get away great. More powere to you.
But if you run you should know if I get caught you are getting a beating.
I think less people would run.
Less people would be put in danger also.

bluestaterebel
05-14-2009, 2:41 PM
I think if you run from the cops (like a coward) they should have the right to kick your *****. It should be a law.
If you get away great. More powere to you.
But if you run you should know if I get caught you are getting a beating.
I think less people would run.
Less people would be put in danger also.

The public couldnt handle it, obviously

RANDO
05-14-2009, 2:51 PM
**** the guy hes a gangbanger its karma.

Jonathan Doe
05-14-2009, 3:06 PM
Yes, the news media shows what they want to show. They create a public outrage or form the opinion for them. They should let the department conduct an investigation and go from there. There are too many cases where public doesn't know the details of a case and try the officers and find them guilty already.

scr83jp
05-14-2009, 3:30 PM
Although it was dumb to boot the guy in the face, I have no sympathy for gangbangers... Too many spies in the sky!

Dirtbiker
05-14-2009, 3:31 PM
Well I'm not a leo (anymore) but the officer in question is going to have quite a bit of articulation to do. (cops will understand why I used that word)

True, gbangers are scum but save that stuff for when it's dark.

The arrestee is going to get it even worse in the jail.

CaliTheKid
05-14-2009, 3:40 PM
Distraction Blow!! Case solved.

BigDogatPlay
05-14-2009, 7:40 PM
Well I'm not a leo (anymore) but the officer in question is going to have quite a bit of articulation to do.

Understatement of the week nominee... :thumbsup:

The chief has to with hold judgement. That's understandable. We can speculate about adreneline or plain old stupidity (could be partly both). But whether the chief wants to take a position or not, that officer got some serious 'splainin' to do.

And if it's desired to make a public example out of him I could see a felony charge. If Joe Citizen put shoeleather to some guy's dome while he was down, I think most any of us would hook him up in a heartbeat. I'd wager that the IA guys will be doing exactly that at some point.

yzernie
05-15-2009, 7:53 AM
The cop was 100% unjustified and was just being a *****.

Hopefully he'll soon be an unemployed *****.
The very same thing was said about Ivory Webb, the deputy who shot the drunken soldier 3 times. He went to trial and was ultimately aquitted by a jury. Things may not always be as they appear.

masameet
05-15-2009, 11:07 AM
That was a 30-minute police chase that began over a minor traffic infraction. Here's the mug shot of the guy:
http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa184/masameet/richard_rodriguez__ap__crop380w.jpg

A twist to this incident is the cop who did the 2-pointer punt owns a clothing line that caters to the thuggy lifestyle:
The Torcido Clothing company “features some of the hardest authentic jail house threads for the streets. Straight from East L.A., Califas …” according to its Web site.
San Gabriel Valley Tribune (http://www.sgvtribune.com/ci_12373174)

Wonder if Torcido sales will go up ....

ilbob
05-15-2009, 11:29 AM
Although it was dumb to boot the guy in the face, I have no sympathy for gangbangers...

I don't have any sympathy for them either.

that does not mean recreational face kicking of gangbangers by police is acceptable.

since I can't view the video at work, I don't have much of an opinion on this particular case right this second.

biglou
05-15-2009, 11:29 AM
I read the SGV Tribune story. If all this is true than it opens up another can of worms. Sadly after this EMF punk gets out for his violations he'll settle for some ca$h, smoke it all, and leave the taxpayers the bill. He should tattoo a dollar sign where he got booted.

mecam
05-15-2009, 11:50 AM
The ACLU wants the cop jailed. :rolleyes:

RANDO
05-15-2009, 12:05 PM
the ACLU needs a boot in the face, wow look at that guys face......:owned:

Jwood562
05-15-2009, 8:24 PM
the cop does not own a clothing line that "caters" to the thug lifestyle.

I hate how the news says this is new evidence in the "booting" case that he owns a clothing line with shirts that have things like 186.22 PC logo on the front. How does this and his previous civil law suit with his PD have anything to do with the investigation on the use of force.

the loser was a PAL (parolee at large) and put multiple lives at risk. officer chased him into a backyard where the suspect layed down. now the kick was questionable but I was not there so I cannot promote or condem what took place. who knows what was said by the gangbanger or the officer.

the whole thing is about public preception and we all know how the public views police actions.

I bet the gangbanger does not even care about getting kicked in the head. they know its a big game in the streets and when you get caught you get your a** kicked and other times you get away..... its a game of cat and mouse those who work the rougher areas know this.

let he IA people do their job and nothing good is going to come of the situation. if he is fired the public will be happy but a hard charing officer is off the streets, if no action is taken against the officer the the public will riot and be up in arms. sooo stand by to stand by

bluestaterebel
05-15-2009, 9:07 PM
I bet the gangbanger does not even care about getting kicked in the head. they know its a big game in the streets and when you get caught you get your a** kicked and other times you get away..... its a game of cat and mouse those who work the rougher areas know this.

Amen:TFH:

ty.
05-18-2009, 1:04 PM
Originally Posted by Jwood562
I bet the gangbanger does not even care about getting kicked in the head. they know its a big game in the streets and when you get caught you get your a** kicked and other times you get away..... its a game of cat and mouse those who work the rougher areas know this.

Here is something to think about; 1. after this idiot gets out yes he will get paid with our tax dollars and we have to sit there and deal with it. 2. How long will it be before he does something else stupid and makes the news like Rodney King did. Think about it after Rodney King got his millions he was broke because he was having a good time with Drugs and Drinking and later if I remember correctly Pomona PD and Pasadena PD both nailed him for drugs and DUI again.

I know what the El Monte Officer did was not right(at least in the Publics View) but think how many times did that gangbanger commit a robbery, a assault, a theft or any other crime and never got caught. Think about how many people did he make victims. I am so sick of the garbage constantly just following through the system and never really paying the price that they should for the crimes they have done.

eta34
05-18-2009, 1:44 PM
the cop does not own a clothing line that "caters" to the thug lifestyle.

I hate how the news says this is new evidence in the "booting" case that he owns a clothing line with shirts that have things like 186.22 PC logo on the front. How does this and his previous civil law suit with his PD have anything to do with the investigation on the use of force.

the loser was a PAL (parolee at large) and put multiple lives at risk. officer chased him into a backyard where the suspect layed down. now the kick was questionable but I was not there so I cannot promote or condem what took place. who knows what was said by the gangbanger or the officer.

the whole thing is about public preception and we all know how the public views police actions.

I bet the gangbanger does not even care about getting kicked in the head. they know its a big game in the streets and when you get caught you get your a** kicked and other times you get away..... its a game of cat and mouse those who work the rougher areas know this.

let he IA people do their job and nothing good is going to come of the situation. if he is fired the public will be happy but a hard charing officer is off the streets, if no action is taken against the officer the the public will riot and be up in arms. sooo stand by to stand by

No, his clothing line was marketed to mainstream America. Absolutely. :rolleyes:

Here is a quote DIRECTLY from his website. "The Torcido Clothing Brand is known as an original line bringing you authentic jailhouse street wear and now you can sport Torcido Clothing items as we are proud to offer our products to you online!"

Shirts bearing the Mexican Mafia hand are not marketed to the gang culture at all. Nope. Just another innocent cop getting a bad rap.

Jwood562
05-18-2009, 5:59 PM
No, his clothing line was marketed to mainstream America. Absolutely. :rolleyes:

Here is a quote DIRECTLY from his website. "The Torcido Clothing Brand is known as an original line bringing you authentic jailhouse street wear and now you can sport Torcido Clothing items as we are proud to offer our products to you online!"

Shirts bearing the Mexican Mafia hand are not marketed to the gang culture at all. Nope. Just another innocent cop getting a bad rap.

well honestly do you ever see gang members wearing clothes that state they are gang members? if theydid it would be alot easier. a gang member would never ever wear a shirt with the black hand on it and especially the 186.22 PC logo.

I would bet 10,000:1 you will see a white suburban kid wearing one of those shirts before a real gang member

Fire in the Hole
05-18-2009, 6:30 PM
Lord forgive me, but I just can not resist this post:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMp6j06cr9w

masameet
05-19-2009, 2:24 PM
A "distraction blow" sounds pretty legitimate to me.

lol
EL MONTE, CA Ė An El Monte police officer was legally justified in kicking a car chase suspect in the head as he was lying on the ground at the end of a televised high-speed pursuit because it was a ďdistraction blow,Ē a police union attorney said Friday.

Dieter Dammier, attorney for the El Monte Police Officers Assn., said the officer acted within his training and department policy when he delivered the kick.

ďUnfortunately these things never look good on video. Sometimes officers have to use force when dealing with bad guys,Ē Dammier said. ďThe officer initially came upon the suspect alone. The suspect hadnít been searched and was a parolee and a gang member.Ē

ďThe individual officer saw some movement. He feared the parolee might have a weapon or be about to get up. So the officer did what is known as a distraction blow. It wasnít designed to hurt the man, just distract him.Ē

El Monte officers, he said, ďare trained to deliver a distraction blow to stop a [suspect] doing what they are planning on doing.Ē
LA Times (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/05/the-kick-deliver-by-an-el-monte-police-officer-to-the-head-of-a-car-chase-suspect-laying-on-the-ground-at-the-ending-of-a-tel.html)

Ron-Solo
05-19-2009, 2:41 PM
The ACLU wants the cop jailed. :rolleyes:

I say we jail the ACLU instead. :43:

Ron-Solo
05-19-2009, 2:43 PM
No, his clothing line was marketed to mainstream America. Absolutely. :rolleyes:

Here is a quote DIRECTLY from his website. "The Torcido Clothing Brand is known as an original line bringing you authentic jailhouse street wear and now you can sport Torcido Clothing items as we are proud to offer our products to you online!"

Shirts bearing the Mexican Mafia hand are not marketed to the gang culture at all. Nope. Just another innocent cop getting a bad rap.

The only place I've ever seen it was at a law enforcement equipment store.

Gio
05-19-2009, 2:46 PM
Wow a distraction blow? Never heard that one before, I hope the Officer gets fired, tossed in jail and his busines gets pwn3d as well by the Gang Banger. He is still a Human Being Regardless of how you feel about him, and the Police are supposed to uphold the law not make up their own rules and regulations. Specially since that officers owns a street cred clothes company, he should know better.

That is your job to keep people save and arrest those that break the law. Not to kick them in the face, the second oficer is somewhat okay for popping him with the flashilght, but the first guy is just wrong!

-Gio

SVT-40
05-19-2009, 6:50 PM
Wow a distraction blow? Never heard that one before, I hope the Officer gets fired, tossed in jail and his busines gets pwn3d as well by the Gang Banger. He is still a Human Being Regardless of how you feel about him, and the Police are supposed to uphold the law not make up their own rules and regulations. Specially since that officers owns a street cred clothes company, he should know better.

That is your job to keep people save and arrest those that break the law. Not to kick them in the face, the second oficer is somewhat okay for popping him with the flashilght, but the first guy is just wrong!

-Gio

Most of you posting here are condemning the Ofc. for his kick even though you have NO IDEA about the training and experience this officer has.

The standard for what is lawful or not is "What would a reasonable OFFICER" do in the situation. Thank god it's not what every untrained amateur would do.

Now lets really look at the video. You see the suspect run into a back yard and then stop near a wall. He raises his hands over his head. It appears he is following the commands of the officer as he lays down and places his arms above his head. At that exact second the suspects is facing away from the officer because the officer is ordering him to do so. ( common training) Just a second later you see the suspect turn his head toward the officer. This would be in direct disobedience to the officers commands. It appears the officer was alone at that time and the suspect may have been attempting to locate him so he could begin a ground attack .

As the officer was already committed to approaching the suspect he used a distraction kick to keep the suspect off guard. It worked and the suspect turned his head away and the officer engaged the suspects left arm. At that time the suspect places his right are under his body, why? to reach for a weapon? At that time neither officer knew if the suspect was armed or not.

The second officer arrives and seeing the suspect with his right arm under his body delivers a distraction blow to the suspects torso, then grabs the suspects right arm and forces it behind his back. Handcuffs are applied and the confrontation is over.

What most all you non LEO types are ignorant of is the FACT that prison inmates train constantly to disarm officers and practice many type attacks including attacks on officers from the prone position. The main need for the suspect to initiate a attack is to accurately locate the officers legs.

That is why during all confrontations where you "prone out a suspect" you ALWAYS have them face away from you.

This suspect did at first face away from the officer, however just before the officer engaged him the suspect turned his head toward the officer. Why did he do this??

He is obviously a hard corps gang member and parolee. So he may have intended to try and use a tripping technique on the officer who at the time of the kick was alone.

As far as I can see the officer was absolutely justified in delivering ONE kick to the suspect. The kick resulted in the suspect turning away from the officer, and confused the suspect allowing the officer to SAFELY engage the suspect. The second officer was also justified in the ONE blow he delivered, as the suspect had moved his right hand under his body near his waistband (the most common area to hide a weapon).

Don't jump to conclusions when you have no idea how officers are trained and the threats which they are faced with. These Parolees are animals and have no compunction in harming or killing you or an officer if it means them staying out of custody.

Judge this suspects level of violence based on his driving. He had no concern for anyone on the street.

pummel
05-19-2009, 7:10 PM
Most of you posting here are condemning the Ofc. for his kick even though you have NO IDEA about the training and experience this officer has.

The standard for what is lawful or not is "What would a reasonable OFFICER" do in the situation. Thank god it's not what every untrained amateur would do.

Now lets really look at the video. You see the suspect run into a back yard and then stop near a wall. He raises his hands over his head. It appears he is following the commands of the officer as he lays down and places his arms above his head. At that exact second the suspects is facing away from the officer because the officer is ordering him to do so. ( common training) Just a second later you see the suspect turn his head toward the officer. This would be in direct disobedience to the officers commands. It appears the officer was alone at that time and the suspect may have been attempting to locate him so he could begin a ground attack .

As the officer was already committed to approaching the suspect he used a distraction kick to keep the suspect off guard. It worked and the suspect turned his head away and the officer engaged the suspects left arm. At that time the suspect places his right are under his body, why? to reach for a weapon? At that time neither officer knew if the suspect was armed or not.

The second officer arrives and seeing the suspect with his right arm under his body delivers a distraction blow to the suspects torso, then grabs the suspects right arm and forces it behind his back. Handcuffs are applied and the confrontation is over.

What most all you non LEO types are ignorant of is the FACT that prison inmates train constantly to disarm officers and practice many type attacks including attacks on officers from the prone position. The main need for the suspect to initiate a attack is to accurately locate the officers legs.

That is why during all confrontations where you "prone out a suspect" you ALWAYS have them face away from you.

This suspect did at first face away from the officer, however just before the officer engaged him the suspect turned his head toward the officer. Why did he do this??

He is obviously a hard corps gang member and parolee. So he may have intended to try and use a tripping technique on the officer who at the time of the kick was alone.

As far as I can see the officer was absolutely justified in delivering ONE kick to the suspect. The kick resulted in the suspect turning away from the officer, and confused the suspect allowing the officer to SAFELY engage the suspect. The second officer was also justified in the ONE blow he delivered, as the suspect had moved his right hand under his body near his waistband (the most common area to hide a weapon).

Don't jump to conclusions when you have no idea how officers are trained and the threats which they are faced with. These Parolees are animals and have no compunction in harming or killing you or an officer if it means them staying out of custody.

Judge this suspects level of violence based on his driving. He had no concern for anyone on the street.

Well put. I agree 100%:thumbsup:

l_Z_l
05-19-2009, 7:49 PM
wow...that sheds a lot of light on the situation...

i'm assuming that's sop for 1 on 1 parolee arrests?

Erik S. Klein
05-19-2009, 7:57 PM
Unfortunately, the only folks who will know ALL of the facts is the Internal Affairs Division of the police dept.

And they'll lie through their teeth to protect their fellow officers.

Erik S. Klein
05-19-2009, 7:58 PM
I say we jail the ACLU instead. :43:

I say jail 'em both.

Together.

Erik S. Klein
05-19-2009, 8:01 PM
Most of you posting here are condemning the Ofc. for his kick even though you have NO IDEA about the training and experience this officer has.

The standard for what is lawful or not is "What would a reasonable OFFICER" do in the situation. Thank god it's not what every untrained amateur would do.

On point one, I don't care what training and experience the officer has. The end result was the same - he kicked a defenseless person who was submitting.

I don't care how much of a scumbag that person was, the cop does not have the right to pass summary judgment like that.

As for the second part, I am not of the mind that the police are somehow "special" and above the law.

If I kicked someone like that I'd be arrested for assault.

The same should happen to a cop.

masameet
05-19-2009, 8:17 PM
Well, part of the problem with the video is there's no audio from the ground level. We can see only from the perspective of the helo cameraman and thus our speculation and emotions can run unabated but our true understanding of the incident is nevertheless hindered. We have no idea what the officer or the suspect said to each other. Or whether the officer knew that the suspect was a parolee. He probably noted the tats on the guy's neck and face and surmised he was a gang banger prison convict. Since the officer's judgment seemed to be swift in booting the suspect in the head, I'd give the benefit of the doubt to him. The kick, though unusual from a civilian perspective, did not seem vicious or malicious; just matter-of-factly performed. Subdue the suspect and get him to cooperate seem to be what most LEOs desire in handling suspects who run and lead cops on long chases. And the high five might have been more for catching the jerk after such a long chase and not killing him or getting an officer injured.

gen1manual
05-19-2009, 8:19 PM
Thank god the field goal kicking El Monte officer isn't white. :biggrinjester:

Erik S. Klein
05-19-2009, 8:21 PM
The kick, though unusual from a civilian perspective, did not seem vicious or malicious; just matter-of-factly performed.

When the police can "matter-of-factly" abuse civilians for no apparent reason then we've already crossed over into the fascist police state.

That's not something I'm willing to accept.

Our public servants are here to serve, not abuse us.

masameet
05-19-2009, 8:33 PM
Believe me, I have witnessed police abuse in action, and that kick pales in comparison.

Erik S. Klein
05-19-2009, 8:37 PM
Believe me, I have witnessed police abuse in action, and that kick pales in comparison.

Agreed.

But the kick was still abuse regardless of how much we want the guy eating boot to be abused.

The police can't be allowed to treat the public like that and the department can't be allowed to make lame-*** excuses for miscreant cops.

All that does is erode the public trust without which the police can't be effective.

SVT-40
05-19-2009, 9:37 PM
Some of you judge so quickly. It would be interesting to see you do the job. Once again it's easy to sit back behind your computer and Play judge. Try and get out there and do the job.

Maybe then you would learn just how quickly your life can end if you do not quickly take command of a deadly situation such as this was.

It's really just pathetic for you to pass judgment with out any expertise or law enforcement experience.

Thank god the judgment will be based on what a "reasonable officer would do" when confronted with the situation with very little time to decide what is "right".

The parolee was not "abused" he received one kick, after obviously disobeying the officers commands. End of story.

CaliTheKid
05-19-2009, 9:40 PM
If I kicked someone like that I'd be arrested for assault.



No you wouldn't. :43:

fairfaxjim
05-19-2009, 10:33 PM
I long for the day, that every non-LEO citizen truly understands the evil that gangsters are, and either take care of the problem themselves and/or demand the government do what really needs to be done.


And when they do, you damn well better pray that some cop on the street doesn't judge/jury/executioner you or someone in your family as a "gangster" (black, mexican, drug dealer, gun owner, or any other politically incorrect person for that day) There is a reason that we have separate enforcement and judgement systems in this country.

If I kicked someone like that I'd be arrested for assault.

No you wouldn't. :43:

Ok, can I kick YOU like that?

CaliTheKid
05-19-2009, 10:37 PM
Blah blah blah. You missed the point completely.

MP301
05-20-2009, 1:57 AM
And when they do, you damn well better pray that some cop on the street doesn't judge/jury/executioner you or someone in your family as a "gangster" (black, mexican, drug dealer, gun owner, or any other politically incorrect person for that day) There is a reason that we have separate enforcement and judgement systems in this country.



Ok, can I kick YOU like that?

You can kick me like that. But you will only do it once....then.....


But anyway...


There are obviously two sides to this coin. On the one hand, we have rules that have to work for everbody across the board. Someones status or race or whatever should not apply. We obviously cant have different rules for different groups and where would you draw the line?
So, how you need to deal with someone is not by who or what he is, but by what he does.

Does the BG get his a** handed to him because he is guilty of contempt of cop by making you chase him? No

But what I see here from the available information is a dangerous situation where after a high speed chase and a lot of adrenaline, a BG's failure to follow a lawfull order which could result in injury to the lone officer.

SVT-40's post is accurate and well written. It makes far more sense then the idea that this officer just kicked him for punishment. If the BG was laying on the ground with his head turned way and did not move, then the abuse claim might be in order. If the officer had kicked him more then once, then the abuse claim might fly. If the assisting officer had hit the BG after his hand was pulled from underneath him, then crying abuse is a possibility too. But as you can see from the video, none of that applies here.

What was said about parolee's training to defeat LE's while being taken in custody is very accurate. I saw a video taken by prison guards while I was in the academy that showed these mullets in a practice session doing just that. Half a dozen were standing around playing students, two were playing the cop role and one was showing the others how to push off the wall (the old method of searching and cuffing BG's ), slash both cops with a knife and take off at a dead run before they reacted.

Nothing is ever clear, cut and dried.

geeknow
05-20-2009, 4:42 AM
Most of you posting here are condemning the Ofc. for his kick even though you have NO IDEA about the training and experience this officer has.

The standard for what is lawful or not is "What would a reasonable OFFICER" do in the situation. Thank god it's not what every untrained amateur would do.

Now lets really look at the video. You see the suspect run into a back yard and then stop near a wall. He raises his hands over his head. It appears he is following the commands of the officer as he lays down and places his arms above his head. At that exact second the suspects is facing away from the officer because the officer is ordering him to do so. ( common training) Just a second later you see the suspect turn his head toward the officer. This would be in direct disobedience to the officers commands. It appears the officer was alone at that time and the suspect may have been attempting to locate him so he could begin a ground attack .

As the officer was already committed to approaching the suspect he used a distraction kick to keep the suspect off guard. It worked and the suspect turned his head away and the officer engaged the suspects left arm. At that time the suspect places his right are under his body, why? to reach for a weapon? At that time neither officer knew if the suspect was armed or not.

The second officer arrives and seeing the suspect with his right arm under his body delivers a distraction blow to the suspects torso, then grabs the suspects right arm and forces it behind his back. Handcuffs are applied and the confrontation is over.

What most all you non LEO types are ignorant of is the FACT that prison inmates train constantly to disarm officers and practice many type attacks including attacks on officers from the prone position. The main need for the suspect to initiate a attack is to accurately locate the officers legs.

That is why during all confrontations where you "prone out a suspect" you ALWAYS have them face away from you.

This suspect did at first face away from the officer, however just before the officer engaged him the suspect turned his head toward the officer. Why did he do this??

He is obviously a hard corps gang member and parolee. So he may have intended to try and use a tripping technique on the officer who at the time of the kick was alone.

As far as I can see the officer was absolutely justified in delivering ONE kick to the suspect. The kick resulted in the suspect turning away from the officer, and confused the suspect allowing the officer to SAFELY engage the suspect. The second officer was also justified in the ONE blow he delivered, as the suspect had moved his right hand under his body near his waistband (the most common area to hide a weapon).

Don't jump to conclusions when you have no idea how officers are trained and the threats which they are faced with. These Parolees are animals and have no compunction in harming or killing you or an officer if it means them staying out of custody.

Judge this suspects level of violence based on his driving. He had no concern for anyone on the street.


I disagree with you 100%. How can you simply justify the actions of this officer without the benefit of any of the "facts" while simultaneously chiding those critical of this officer of the same?

Could it be that you really believe that LEO's are somehow better than those they choose to serve? Cant say for sure, but it sure sounds like it...

Regardless of what led up to the bad guy (yes, he is a bad guy I believe) going prone, once he was there the need to kick him in the head left, plain and simple.

To state that being kicked in the head savagely like that was justified by nothing more than turning his head...? wtf? that is human nature dude. would you seriously have any of us believe that it is anything other than natural to look at the person you are running from given the circumstances?

No, you will not convince me of that....

This, to me (you know, a citizen and a voter...) shows yet another example of a police department running roughshod over the same laws and principles that they swore to uphold. Shameful...

My prediction is this.....

Nothing will come of this. Never does. The slick lawyers, spokes-holes, and the like will spin this away like they do everything else.

But dont pretend the problem doesnt exist...It does.

If you want to believe that kicking a guy in the head today because of what he did yesterday makes things right, then go on with your bad self...

You have to live with yourself, not me...

As I type this, know that I live across the street from a member of that same department.

Know also, that I, my family, and everyone else on our street avoids him like the plague....

He has shown himself to each of us to be crooked, a liar, armed with a badge and a gun, and someone to be feared, not trusted...

That, sir, is the reputation that the El Monte PD has earned for itself in the community THEY serve.

Ron-Solo
05-20-2009, 7:01 AM
And they'll lie through their teeth to protect their fellow officers.

Another common misconception by the un-informed, who have obtained the majority of their law enforcement expertise from watching Hawaii Five-O to Law & Order to CSI.

Ron-Solo
05-20-2009, 7:13 AM
A "distraction blow" sounds pretty legitimate to me.

lol

[/url]

I doubt there are many Departments that teach this technique. He's gonna need to be able to back it up. It wouldn't fly with LASD. Any headstrike requires an IAB roll-out and you pretty much have to be able to justify deadly force before you can use an impact weapon (or boot) to the head.

Don't know what El Monte's policy is on this matter or what academy the officer went to. If he went to LASD's academy, it will be harder to sell, since it isn't taught there. If he went to Rio Hondo, who knows?

ilbob
05-20-2009, 7:14 AM
And they'll lie through their teeth to protect their fellow officers.
I suspect any lies will not come from IA, but to them.

There might be less interest in investigating certain aspects of the case, but direct lying by IA is not as likely as you might think.

My guess is everyone involved has had plenty of time to get their stories straight before IA does much of anything.

It might even turn out it was not a recreational thing but a legitimate response to something the guy laying on the ground did.

No one here will ever know for sure though. Just the way these things play out.

masameet
05-20-2009, 8:40 AM
I doubt there are many Departments that teach this technique. He's gonna need to be able to back it up. It wouldn't fly with LASD. Any headstrike requires an IAB roll-out and you pretty much have to be able to justify deadly force before you can use an impact weapon (or boot) to the head.

Don't know what El Monte's policy is on this matter or what academy the officer went to. If he went to LASD's academy, it will be harder to sell, since it isn't taught there. If he went to Rio Hondo, who knows?

I guess I should have put in "pretty legitimate" instead of "lol," so as not to give the impression that the kick IMO was good or legit. (Still you have to admit that the POA lawyer came up with a very creative justification. lol)

Was the kick necessary?

From the video I would have to agree that no, it wasn't. (And looking at the arresting mug shot, the BG has two raspberries -- one to the left side of his forehead and the other on the right side of his jaw. When I watched the kick being given, my initial reaction was: That's a good way to break somebody's jaw.)

And as to the stuff printed by the San Gabriel Valley Times, esp. about the officer's alleged problems within the EPMD, I'd say the kicking officer has at least one less friend in the EMPD.

chaseman
05-20-2009, 10:28 AM
This has turned into a pretty hot debate. I'm not going to go getting into the it was right it was wrong, justified unjustified for a few reasons. 1) I am not a LEO and I have not been trained to know what to do in a situation like that so its hard for me to say which leads me to the second reason

2) I wasnt there so I dont know what his level of compliance was? Up until the point where he laid on the ground it hadn't been very high.

With all that said, I do know this, I was always taught that police officers have a very dangerous job so when approached dont ever give them a reason to think you are the bad guy. For example, pull over timely, roll down your window keep your hands where they can be seen etc etc.

This guy did not do that he ran, running is an act of desperation. Desperate people = Dangerous people. So there has to be a certain amount of benefit of the doubt to the officer. Are there bad apples, of course. But we gave this guy a badge we made him jump through all the hoops of getting hired (background checks, psychs,physicals etc.) and then trained the hell out of him so he can make these decisions. Am I saying not to question of course not but some of you have already fired this guy and convicted him. That isnt right, innocent until proven guilty especially with our leos and millitary because they are held to a higher standard.

This officer was running on the assumption that this was one bad dude, he has to. This idiot risked all their lives and hundreds of innocent bystanders. He must be pretty desperate. anyways i drove that one into the ground.

All I know is I dont want a gun stuck in my face and i dont want to be tackled, so Im gonna do what you ask.

All I could think was ooooh, you shouldve listened, idiot.

one last thing sorry for the mispelllings and lack of punctuation I wrote that whole thing from my phone...while driving haha




jk bout the driving

SVT-40
05-20-2009, 10:54 AM
geeknow "I disagree with you 100%. How can you simply justify the actions of this officer without the benefit of any of the "facts" while simultaneously chiding those critical of this officer of the same?"

Define "facts", plus you seem to be able to say the officer was wrong without ANY facts. The reason I can chide those critical of the officer is those people have never been t in the situation the officer was in. They are ignorant to such situations. Besides I'm not justifying anything. I'm stating my opinion. I have 29 years experience in So Calif law enforcement experience. I've been in similar situations and every one is different. Becaise of my experience I can have a more informed opinion than one who has never been in similar situations.

geeknow "Could it be that you really believe that LEO's are somehow better than those they choose to serve? Cant say for sure, but it sure sounds like it..."

No, Cops are not as you say "better" than those they serve. This statement alone gives away your own personal dislike for LEO's in general.

geeknow"Regardless of what led up to the bad guy (yes, he is a bad guy I believe) going prone, once he was there the need to kick him in the head left, plain and simple."

Again you are just wrong. ALL gang members know when being proned out by a LEO after any kind of incident they need to follow the instructions of the LEO EXACTLY!!

geeknow "To state that being kicked in the head savagely like that was justified by nothing more than turning his head...? wtf? that is human nature dude. would you seriously have any of us believe that it is anything other than natural to look at the person you are running from given the circumstances?"

From my training and experience I know during these contacts the officer will always tell the suspect to look away. You can see the suspect in the video at first look away, then turn his head back and look at the officer. The officer has no way to tell why the suspect turns his head back toward him. Was the suspect trying to locate him to attempt to grab his legs, or some other type of grappling move?The officer has no idea. So he kicks the suspect to keep him off guard. Not a "savage" kick as you state just a kick.

So you say it's "natural " for a person to look at "person" you are running from.

Not if the "person" you are running from is a uniformed LEO who is issuing you commands.



geeknow "No, you will not convince me of that....

"This, to me (you know, a citizen and a voter...) shows yet another example of a police department running roughshod over the same laws and principles that they swore to uphold. Shameful..."

This statement again shows your prejudice against LEO's and law enforcement in general.

geeknow "My prediction is this.....

Nothing will come of this. Never does. The slick lawyers, spokes-holes, and the like will spin this away like they do everything else."

My prediction is the officer will not be found guilty of any wrong doing. because the standard of conduct is as I have said before is. What would a reasonable officer do given the TOTALITY of what the officer in THIS incident was confronted with.


geeknow "But dont pretend the problem doesnt exist...It does. "

I don't pretend anything. But each incident must be judged on it's own merits without prejudice.

geeknow "If you want to believe that kicking a guy in the head today because of what he did yesterday makes things right, then go on with your bad self..."

The fellow who received the kick was kicked because of his actions at the time. Not actions the day before or even minutes before.

geeknow "You have to live with yourself, not me..."

Thank god, because you seem to be able to justify the actions of a street thug, and not be able to reasonably view the actions of the officer from his standpoint. A very myopic and narrow viewpoint.

geeknow "As I type this, know that I live across the street from a member of that same department.

Know also, that I, my family, and everyone else on our street avoids him like the plague....

He has shown himself to each of us to be crooked, a liar, armed with a badge and a gun, and someone to be feared, not trusted...

That, sir, is the reputation that the El Monte PD has earned for itself in the community THEY serve."


You state your neighbor is "crooked". What crime has he allegedly committed and been convicted of. Or what corrupt act has he been found guilty of?

It's easy to make accusations but hard to follow them up with FACTS!!

Again you lump ALL El Monte cops into the same bunch. This shows your own prejudice.


My standard of judgment is related to what I actually know. Unlike you, who seem to have the supernatural ability to presume all of a particular group as bad or evil. Are there "bad" El Monte cops? Maybe. But to group all of them together as "bad", taints your opinion and makes any of your statements rendered about this particular incident meaningless.

Above all remember the officer was presented with a difficult situation and was alone with a dangerous felony suspect. he had a fraction of a second to make his decisions. As in all similar situations you are trained to win, and try to use the minimal force to accomplish the arrest. Could the office have done something else, maybe I don't know I was not there under those conditions.

What is a fact is the officers were not hurt, and the suspect was captured without serious injury. A win for all.

The use of force in most situations looks "bad" because the viewer is not privy to all the influences at the time of the force is used. Pictures or video alone do not tell the whole tale.

Erik S. Klein
05-20-2009, 10:59 AM
Another common misconception by the un-informed, who have obtained the majority of their law enforcement expertise from watching Hawaii Five-O to Law & Order to CSI.

Or working with the police and seeing them in action in the real world. . .

Erik S. Klein
05-20-2009, 11:01 AM
It might even turn out it was not a recreational thing but a legitimate response to something the guy laying on the ground did.

Regarless of what really happened the above is the way it will turn out. . . even if the truth has to be bent a bit to get there.

rkt88edmo
05-20-2009, 11:25 AM
Based on the video the boot to the head looks unecessary. That being said this guy put a lot of people at risk + property damage by fleeing and I don't feel it was undeserved.



bad joke ahead -


El Monte chief has just announced a revision to their training programs and Tae Kwon Leap is being dropped from the curiculum.

Ron-Solo
05-20-2009, 1:12 PM
Regarless of what really happened the above is the way it will turn out. . . even if the truth has to be bent a bit to get there.

What is your queston for a law enforcement officer?

Now that you've repeatedly displayed your anti-law enforcement viewpoints, please go hang out in a non-law enforcement forum.

You have already made up your mind and you firmly believe that all cops are liars and thugs, so nothing we can say or do will open your mind.

Remember, this is a Law Enforcement Forum, not a forum to air your opinion on law enforcement. If you want to do that, please start your own forum and we'll stay out.

Calguns LEOs LEOs; chat, kibitz and relax. Non-LEOs; have a questions for a cop? Ask it here, in a CIVIL manner.

yzernie
05-20-2009, 2:28 PM
Regarless of what really happened the above is the way it will turn out. . . even if the truth has to be bent a bit to get there.
Glad your crystal ball is telling you what will be happening in the future. :rolleyes: Could you please tell me if I'm going to win the Lotto this weekend?

gn3hz3ku1*
05-20-2009, 3:32 PM
i would have kicked him too.. but back at the station right into the phonebook he is holding :)

Erik S. Klein
05-20-2009, 3:46 PM
Now that you've repeatedly displayed your anti-law enforcement viewpoints, please go hang out in a non-law enforcement forum.

It's actually not anti-law enforcement. Quite the opposite. I want the police to behave properly so that they are safer and more effective.

When the police treat the public like this and when it becomes clear to the public that the police are above the law then the police will lose the support of that public.

That cannot benefit either side.

United we stand and all that. . .

You have already made up your mind and you firmly believe that all cops are liars and thugs, so nothing we can say or do will open your mind.

Not all, but certainly the collective.

Remember, this is a Law Enforcement Forum, not a forum to air your opinion on law enforcement. If you want to do that, please start your own forum and we'll stay out.

It's not my opinion when it's backed by fact and history.

Erik S. Klein
05-20-2009, 3:46 PM
Glad your crystal ball is telling you what will be happening in the future. :rolleyes: Could you please tell me if I'm going to win the Lotto this weekend?

Nope, you aren't going to.

I used the same crystal ball to reach both conclusions: logic and knowledge of the past.

MP301
05-20-2009, 5:46 PM
It's actually not anti-law enforcement. Quite the opposite. I want the police to behave properly so that they are safer and more effective.
When the police treat the public like this and when it becomes clear to the public that the police are above the law then the police will lose the support of that public.

That cannot benefit either side.

United we stand and all that. . .



Not all, but certainly the collective.



It's not my opinion when it's backed by fact and history.

Thats great Erik, but first you really need to know what "bahaving properly" is under those conditions. My previous post still stands and it looks like SVT addressed your reply prior to me getting the chance. Its accurate as well.

The first thing you must rememeber is unless you have first hand experience in this type of work, had training with this type of work, you are basing your opinions on flawed information, based on what YOU believe. Sure, some of the abuse cases are obvious to all - like cops repeated hitting an unarmed and handcuffed BG for 20 minutes. That's a no brainer. But situations like this are a lot more complicated.

Did you know that the officer is not breaking the law if he acted on his beliefs, based on the information he had at the time? Thats why when a cop shoots someone who has a toy gun, he is within his rights going on what he believed at the time, based on available infomation at the time.

When I first saw the video I had the same reaction as you did. On its face, it didnt look right. Then you look at it again and start paying attention to the details and you see it a whole new story.

Example, Anyone who thinks that the BART cop, maliciously and purposefullyshot the handcuffed guy in the back in front of all those witnesses is a complete idiot or very ignorant. That was either bad training or an unintential brain fart - or both. But not murder.

Food for thought...

l_Z_l
05-20-2009, 6:16 PM
this kinda reminds of that one time where an officer slammed a handcuffed guy onto a patrol car because the dude grabbed the officer's balls or something?? but all u saw was a video of the officer slamming him onto the patrol car...i think i'm remembering that right...correct me if i'm wrong here...

beemaze
05-20-2009, 6:39 PM
I'm being cynical here to all of those involved in this incident. America is a free country. You can do whatever you want, but you're going to have to pay for it in the end.

masameet
05-20-2009, 6:44 PM
Esp. if somebody or something is videotaping you.

Erik S. Klein
05-20-2009, 7:45 PM
Thats great Erik, but first you really need to know what "bahaving properly" is under those conditions.

I do, and it's no different for police than it is for civilians.

My previous post still stands and it looks like SVT addressed your reply prior to me getting the chance. Its accurate as well.

I disagree.

The first thing you must rememeber is unless you have first hand experience in this type of work, had training with this type of work, you are basing your opinions on flawed information, based on what YOU believe.

Nonsense.

I can tell if a brick wall is built like crap and I can call out the bricklayer for being incompetent.

The same is true of a bad firefighter, bad teacher, bad plumber or whatever.

I don't have to do any of those jobs to recognize when they are being done poorly.

Police work isn't magic. That isn't to say that there aren't special skills, etc. but that whole "if you aren't in the trenches" argument is bunk.

Sure, some of the abuse cases are obvious to all - like cops repeated hitting an unarmed and handcuffed BG for 20 minutes. That's a no brainer. But situations like this are a lot more complicated.

I'll agree that there are degrees of abuse and that this was very low on the scale, but it was still uncalled for and, as such, abuse.

Did you know that the officer is not breaking the law if he acted on his beliefs, based on the information he had at the time?

That depends. The problem is that those beliefs often develop after the fact and with the help of police council, etc.

Thats why when a cop shoots someone who has a toy gun, he is within his rights going on what he believed at the time, based on available infomation at the time.

True, if it makes sense. Sometimes the toy gun argument doesn't work. If a teenager in a hoodie on a dark night appears to be threatening a cop with the toy gun that's one thing. If a six year old is waving a bright orange one around on his front lawn while yelling "bang bang" that's quite another.

When I first saw the video I had the same reaction as you did. On its face, it didnt look right. Then you look at it again and start paying attention to the details and you see it a whole new story.

I have and still didn't see anything to justify the kick. I understand what's been written about the perp's potential to make a move on the cop, etc. but the fact remains that he did not make a threatening move.

That's like shooting someone who has a gun in their holster because they had the potential to draw and fire.

In reality until there is an aggressive act the reaction to it is uncalled for.

Example, Anyone who thinks that the BART cop, maliciously and purposefullyshot the handcuffed guy in the back in front of all those witnesses is a complete idiot or very ignorant. That was either bad training or an unintential brain fart - or both. But not murder.

Murder in the second degree, for sure.

First degree (malicious and purposeful) - Not likely, but possible.

I'd argue that the guy became guilty of first degree when he strapped on his sidearm that morning. He had to have known how utterly stupid and incompetent he was, after all.

Food for thought...

Agreed.

I'm not against giving cops the benefit of the doubt. Many times I'm more than willing. I've seen/read about the police involved in bad shoots that were, in fact, justified by the circumstances.

Then there are the many, many examples of them simply screwing up (like the BART situation) and the rest of the gang jump in line to defend the bad cops.

The Cau Thi Bich Tran incident is another example, as is the Elio Carrion incident.

Every time a cop does this and gets away with it (the BART shooter will, I'm sure - either way he wasn't arrested on the spot) the public's trust in the police is justifiably eroded.

Why would you trust the police if they might shoot, kick, pistol whip, club or otherwise abuse you for no apparent reason and when you have no recourse? Even with video they're almost certain to get away with it and it's all but assured that you'll be harassed for just pursuing the matter.

Why would you cooperate with a force like that?

Why call 911 when you know you're taking that kind of a chance?

CALTAC
05-20-2009, 8:01 PM
I'm being cynical here to all of those involved in this incident. America is a free country. You can do whatever you want, but you're going to have to pay for it in the end.


100% agree. Afterall freedom is not free if you know what I mean!!:thumbsup:

SVT-40
05-20-2009, 8:18 PM
Erik, for all your good intentions you still miss the most important issue.

The officer, dealing with the situation he was confronted with at the time decided to issue one kick to the suspect. Nothing else. He will be judged like any other officer who uses force. The question will revolve around only one issue. that question is.

Did he act "reasonably" considering ALL the factors related to the incident including what he was thinking at the time of the kick. That's it.

"Reasonably" means would an officer given the same situation thinking the way this officer was thinking act in a similar way. If the answer is yes, then the force was reasonable. If the force is judged unreasonable he will be disciplined.

You can rant and rave about anything else including your own personal issues but they are not germane to this one incident.

You are not qualified to judge the officer. You can have an opinion. But to actually judge someones actions you must have some knowledge of the job he does and the situation he was involved with.

You have neither. So stick to your opinion. If you think the officer was wrong, no problem, just end it there. Keep the rest to your self.

Besides even police officers have rights. We too are considered innocent until PROVEN guilty.

So show the officer the same respect you would demand if you were accused of wrongdoing.

SVT-40
05-20-2009, 8:25 PM
Oh, one other thing the Bart cop. He definitely messed up in the heat of the incident he confused the taser with his duty pistol. But murder?? no way, you need to educate yourself. There was no malice no intent.

I'm sure at some point in the future he will plead guilty to voluntary manslaughter. He will do some time and fade away.

A shame for all involved. A life lost and a career ruined.

SVT-40
05-20-2009, 8:28 PM
Based on the video the boot to the head looks unecessary. That being said this guy put a lot of people at risk + property damage by fleeing and I don't feel it was undeserved.



bad joke ahead -


El Monte chief has just announced a revision to their training programs and Tae Kwon Leap is being dropped from the curiculum.

Another bad joke :

Maybe the office could be sent back to third grade and be taught proper kick ball etiquette.

Sam1
05-20-2009, 8:29 PM
what more details do we need to know? there's a video! :smilielol5:

good thing he got a kick in the face but he surrendered peacefully and didn't deserve it like that

MP301
05-21-2009, 2:36 AM
Ill try again...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by MP301
Thats great Erik, but first you really need to know what "bahaving properly" is under those conditions.
I do, and it's no different for police than it is for civilians.

No. You dont know. Civilians are usually not in danger of being killed, (running on pure adrenaline) if they dont act/react properly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MP301
My previous post still stands and it looks like SVT addressed your reply prior to me getting the chance. Its accurate as well.

I disagree.

You have that right

Quote:
Originally Posted by MP301
The first thing you must rememeber is unless you have first hand experience in this type of work, had training with this type of work, you are basing your opinions on flawed information, based on what YOU believe.

Nonsense.

No. Its not

I can tell if a brick wall is built like crap and I can call out the bricklayer for being incompetent.

Cay you? What if it wasnt incompetence and there is some other reason for the poor quality (materials, etc.)? You would need to be experienced in that field to know the difference.

The same is true of a bad firefighter, bad teacher, bad plumber or whatever.

See above

I don't have to do any of those jobs to recognize when they are being done poorly.

Police work isn't magic. That isn't to say that there aren't special skills, etc. but that whole "if you aren't in the trenches" argument is bunk.

Again, without first hand knowledge and training in those fields, you may guess right on the circumstances some of the time, but you could not know and should not pretend to know all of the possibilities. And police work isnt magic, but it IS a specialized skill that you need training for and then need to work with a training officer before you make your own decisions

Quote:
Originally Posted by MP301
Sure, some of the abuse cases are obvious to all - like cops repeated hitting an unarmed and handcuffed BG for 20 minutes. That's a no brainer. But situations like this are a lot more complicated.

I'll agree that there are degrees of abuse and that this was very low on the scale, but it was still uncalled for and, as such, abuse.

That is your opinion and your making that opinion based on what you believe...and again, your not basing that belief on training, experience or first hand knowledge. Sure, there are different degrees of abuse, but there are also different degrees in taking action to protect yourself that are not abuse

Quote:
Originally Posted by MP301
Did you know that the officer is not breaking the law if he acted on his beliefs, based on the information he had at the time?
That depends. The problem is that those beliefs often develop after the fact and with the help of police council, etc.

Yes, that is possible and im sure it happens. It doesnt automatically make it so, just because its a possibility, now does it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MP301
Thats why when a cop shoots someone who has a toy gun, he is within his rights going on what he believed at the time, based on available infomation at the time.

True, if it makes sense. Sometimes the toy gun argument doesn't work. If a teenager in a hoodie on a dark night appears to be threatening a cop with the toy gun that's one thing. If a six year old is waving a bright orange one around on his front lawn while yelling "bang bang" that's quite another.

Your stating the obvious. I was making a general statement, not trying to blanket the ok to shoot people with obviously fake guns. I have never heard of a police shooting where the toy gun was obviously not a gun.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MP301
When I first saw the video I had the same reaction as you did. On its face, it didnt look right. Then you look at it again and start paying attention to the details and you see it a whole new story.
I have and still didn't see anything to justify the kick. I understand what's been written about the perp's potential to make a move on the cop, etc. but the fact remains that he did not make a threatening move.

Of course you dont or we would not be in this debate. Doesnt mean its not true.

That's like shooting someone who has a gun in their holster because they had the potential to draw and fire.

No its not. You make the false assumption that a cop should wait until the guy actually points the gun. The reality is that the BG gets shot when he reaches for the gun.

In reality until there is an aggressive act the reaction to it is uncalled for.

No. Thats not the reality. If the guy had not turned his head back toward the officer, then I might agree. But cops are trained to react at the first sign of trouble, not after its too late. If the cop would have shot the guy for turning his head, then I would agree with you. But it appears to me he did the only thing he was able to do to stop a potential (and stupid) move on the part of the BG. He was by himself, just finished a dead run and could not take his gun off the suspect. Whats left?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MP301
Example, Anyone who thinks that the BART cop, maliciously and purposefullyshot the handcuffed guy in the back in front of all those witnesses is a complete idiot or very ignorant. That was either bad training or an unintential brain fart - or both. But not murder.
Murder in the second degree, for sure.

No its not. That takes intent. Again, in front of all those witnesses, you believe that he had intent?

First degree (malicious and purposeful) - Not likely, but possible.

An even further stretch. You actually think that incident was premeditated?

I'd argue that the guy became guilty of first degree when he strapped on his sidearm that morning. He had to have known how utterly stupid and incompetent he was, after all.

No again. First off, maybe you dont know this, but incompetent people dont actually know they incompetent! And we know he wasnt incompetent because he most likely wouldnt have been hired in the first place and at the very least he would have never passed probation. It is a big mistake, IMHO, to give officers weapons that are too similar to thier firearm, because under stress, it is possible (this isnt the first time this has happened) to momentarily confuse the two while multitasking - like taking sojmeone into custody while watching your back with a couple dozen people taunting you! And you sure dont wear the thing on the same side as your gun either!

Quote:
Originally Posted by MP301
Food for thought...
Agreed.

I'm not against giving cops the benefit of the doubt. Many times I'm more than willing. I've seen/read about the police involved in bad shoots that were, in fact, justified by the circumstances.

You are obviously against giving them the benefit of the doubt - otherwise, you wouldnt be so convinced that this cop is guilty of abuse until all the facts were in.

Then there are the many, many examples of them simply screwing up (like the BART situation) and the rest of the gang jump in line to defend the bad cops.

No. for reasons previously stated, the BART incident is a bad example. Furthermore, what your saying is that since some were guilty of abuse, they are all automatically guilty in your eyes.

The Cau Thi Bich made Tran incident is another example, as is the Elio Carrion incident.

Not familiar and its irrelavant to this discussion

Every time a cop does this and gets away with it (the BART shooter will, I'm sure - either way he wasn't arrested on the spot) the public's trust in the police is justifiably eroded.

Yeah, assuming all the cops are guilty sure will screw up trust. Hey, lets go riot and break things and steal things!

Why would you trust the police if they might shoot, kick, pistol whip, club or otherwise abuse you for no apparent reason and when you have no recourse? Even with video they're almost certain to get away with it and it's all but assured that you'll be harassed for just pursuing the matter.

I can see that you had your mind made up before the incident happened. Predisposed is the term.

Why would you cooperate with a force like that?

Predisposed. There are bad cops, but its a small percetage. Your saying because of this, the whole dept is bad.

Why call 911 when you know you're taking that kind of a chance?

I dont think the guy on the video called anyone.

Your mind is made up and its obvious you will view law enforcement in a negative light...always think guilty until proven innocent...if even then.

Im done. Ive wasted too much time debating this already. Im sorry that you feel the way you do. I dunno, maybe you had a bad experience and thats causing you to blanket all cops with that view.

yzernie
05-21-2009, 5:03 AM
I'm afraid we can talk, explain and justify to Erik S. Klein until time stops and nothing will change his opinion on the matter. He is focused on his opinion and nothing we could say will change his mind. I say we stop feeding the troll in this forum and he will go away.

Erik S. Klein
05-21-2009, 5:29 AM
The officer, dealing with the situation he was confronted with at the time decided to issue one kick to the suspect. Nothing else. He will be judged like any other officer who uses force. The question will revolve around only one issue. that question is.

Did he act "reasonably" considering ALL the factors related to the incident including what he was thinking at the time of the kick. That's it.

"Reasonably" means would an officer given the same situation thinking the way this officer was thinking act in a similar way. If the answer is yes, then the force was reasonable. If the force is judged unreasonable he will be disciplined.

And the only problem I have with that is the use of "officer" where "person" should be used.

The police are not "special" and do not have, nor do they deserve, special rules.

You are not qualified to judge the officer. You can have an opinion. But to actually judge someones actions you must have some knowledge of the job he does and the situation he was involved with.

Incorrect. I can have an opinion and judge the officer without actually being a cop myself.

Sorry, that's just reality.

Keep the rest to your self.
I am under no obligation to do so.

Besides even police officers have rights. We too are considered innocent until PROVEN guilty.

Absolutely. The same rights as everyone else. No more, no less.

So show the officer the same respect you would demand if you were accused of wrongdoing.

I am.

Of course there is a video. It's hard to make that say something other than what it says.

Oh, one other thing the Bart cop. He definitely messed up in the heat of the incident he confused the taser with his duty pistol. But murder?? no way, you need to educate yourself. There was no malice no intent.

There was absolutely malice and intent sufficient for 2nd degree murder under CA law: "a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life."

There was no reason to draw either a taser or firearm more or less fire one. That fits both qualifiers above - dangerous conduct and a lack of concern for human life.

And if you really think that the moron confused his taser with his duty weapon then I'm back on first degree murder - strapping on a sidearm when you're that stupid is premeditated murder.

I'm sure at some point in the future he will plead guilty to voluntary manslaughter. He will do some time and fade away.

And I'm sure that the plea will be offered in such a way that he gets far more lenient treatment than any civilian ever would.

A shame for all involved. A life lost and a career ruined.

A man is shot and killed by an idiot cop and it's "a shame?"

Dr. Peter Venkman
05-21-2009, 5:47 AM
He is still a Human Being Regardless of how you feel about him

What is so special about human beings? The gangbanger is a dirtbag and the kick to the head is the most punishment that guy has seen in his "career" gangbanger life.

Erik S. Klein
05-21-2009, 5:52 AM
No. You dont know. Civilians are usually not in danger of being killed, (running on pure adrenaline) if they dont act/react properly.

That's not the point. The point is that a civilian in the same exact situation - one who could be considered in the same danger - wouldn't have the same options.

Cay you? What if it wasnt incompetence and there is some other reason for the poor quality (materials, etc.)? You would need to be experienced in that field to know the difference.

I'd need some experience with the field, but I wouldn't need to be a master bricklayer to figure it out.

Again, without first hand knowledge and training in those fields, you may guess right on the circumstances some of the time, but you could not know and should not pretend to know all of the possibilities. And police work isnt magic, but it IS a specialized skill that you need training for and then need to work with a training officer before you make your own decisions

I agree, mostly, but it's all a matter of degree.

I may not be able to determine that the mortar used in a brick wall is deficient and may fail in 20 years instead of 30 but if the wall is bowed and the bricks poorly aligned I'll notice quickly.

This particular incident isn't as subtle as you are making it out to be. It's a clearly crappy brick wall and, like smacking an unconscious man with a billy-club or draping a paraplegic over a wall to frisk him, no excuse can be made.

That is your opinion and your making that opinion based on what you believe...and again, your not basing that belief on training, experience or first hand knowledge. Sure, there are different degrees of abuse, but there are also different degrees in taking action to protect yourself that are not abuse

No argument.

This cop should have stood off at a safe distance with his weapon drawn until his backup arrived.

The kick was not necessary and, therefore, constitutes abuse.

Yes, that is possible and im sure it happens. It doesnt automatically make it so, just because its a possibility, now does it?


Correct.

In this case my conclusion is drawn from copious evidence collected over years and years of observation.

It's not a given, but it sure is likely.

Your stating the obvious. I was making a general statement, not trying to blanket the ok to shoot people with obviously fake guns. I have never heard of a police shooting where the toy gun was obviously not a gun.

See above. . . ;)

No its not. You make the false assumption that a cop should wait until the guy actually points the gun. The reality is that the BG gets shot when he reaches for the gun.

No, my assumption is the same. The act of attempting to draw is sufficient. Standing there with your hands up (or lying prone) is not an attempt to draw and can never be confused with it.


No. Thats not the reality. If the guy had not turned his head back toward the officer, then I might agree. But cops are trained to react at the first sign of trouble, not after its too late. If the cop would have shot the guy for turning his head, then I would agree with you. But it appears to me he did the only thing he was able to do to stop a potential (and stupid) move on the part of the BG. He was by himself, just finished a dead run and could not take his gun off the suspect. Whats left?

I already stated what was left. Stand off at a safe distance until backup arrives.

The act of looking at someone is not inherently aggressive and it's certainly not a threat no matter how much BS you apply to justify it.

Again, I understand your claim, I just disagree.

No its not. That takes intent. Again, in front of all those witnesses, you believe that he had intent?
Not quite. See my post above.

No again. First off, maybe you dont know this, but incompetent people dont actually know they incompetent! And we know he wasnt incompetent because he most likely wouldnt have been hired in the first place and at the very least he would have never passed probation. It is a big mistake, IMHO, to give officers weapons that are too similar to thier firearm, because under stress, it is possible (this isnt the first time this has happened) to momentarily confuse the two while multitasking - like taking sojmeone into custody while watching your back with a couple dozen people taunting you! And you sure dont wear the thing on the same side as your gun either!
Yes I know that. . . this particular line of argument is hyperbole on my part. I'm just stressing the fact that this cop was a complete and utter idiot which sort-of negates your belief that the department doesn't hire those types. . . ;)
You are obviously against giving them the benefit of the doubt - otherwise, you wouldnt be so convinced that this cop is guilty of abuse until all the facts were in.

All of the facts are in.
No. for reasons previously stated, the BART incident is a bad example. Furthermore, what your saying is that since some were guilty of abuse, they are all automatically guilty in your eyes.

That is not at all what I said.

Yeah, assuming all the cops are guilty sure will screw up trust. Hey, lets go riot and break things and steal things!

Again, that's not what I said.

I can see that you had your mind made up before the incident happened. Predisposed is the term.

(Deliberately) Wrong again.

Predisposed. There are bad cops, but its a small percetage. Your saying because of this, the whole dept is bad.

I am saying that the fact that the department doesn't address the small percentage they both encourage that number to get larger and erode the trust of the public.

I dont think the guy on the video called anyone.

True that. ;)

Your mind is made up and its obvious you will view law enforcement in a negative light...always think guilty until proven innocent...if even then.

Incorrect again; but feel free to continue misrepresenting my arguments if you think it bolsters yours.

Meanwhile you're making my point. Cops will, by nature, always give other cops the benefit of the doubt - to the point of making up stupid options like "distraction kicks" for them.

biglou
05-21-2009, 8:08 AM
When I started this thread it was in the form of a question to LEO's. They (FoxNews) had just aired the video for the second time. It was never my intent for anti LE to come on here and make unqualified statements and accusations. Be that as it may, this is what this tread had turned into. I really believe, after read Erik's post that he has some serious mental issues. I am not a Doctor of Mental Health. This is only my opinion based on this comment by Erik: "I'd argue that the guy became guilty of first degree when he strapped on his sidearm that morning. He had to have known how utterly stupid and incompetent he was, after all." This is one of the most outlandish comments I have read in reference to LE. If you are not mental than you are just on this Specialty Forum making stupid comments to get replies from LE for some type of gratification or cheap thrill. SVT-40 gave a good breakdown of the video along with his professional opinion. Mods need to lock this thread.

CaliTheKid
05-21-2009, 8:34 AM
Taken down.

biglou
05-21-2009, 8:40 AM
Figures. UC liberal.

masameet
05-21-2009, 8:54 AM
Judge for yourself if he's qualified.

link removed

In other online forums posting a member's personal information would be in violation of the Terms of Service.

But Calguns seems not to have a TOS so the revelation 'tis moot.

Still what current and retired LEO would stand to have his or her personal information posted on an online forum?

CaliTheKid
05-21-2009, 8:57 AM
First of all, I wouldn't put my personal information up on the internet for everyone to see nor would I use my real name on public forums. It's called common sense which he has shown very little of to begin with in his posts. It's not like he has tried to have the least bit of an expectation of privacy -- he's made it public.

But I'll take it down if it brushes up against some implied TOS.

Erik S. Klein
05-21-2009, 9:14 AM
When I started this thread it was in the form of a question to LEO's. They (FoxNews) had just aired the video for the second time. It was never my intent for anti LE to come on here and make unqualified statements and accusations. Be that as it may, this is what this tread had turned into. I really believe, after read Erik's post that he has some serious mental issues. I am not a Doctor of Mental Health. This is only my opinion based on this comment by Erik: "I'd argue that the guy became guilty of first degree when he strapped on his sidearm that morning. He had to have known how utterly stupid and incompetent he was, after all." This is one of the most outlandish comments I have read in reference to LE. If you are not mental than you are just on this Specialty Forum making stupid comments to get replies from LE for some type of gratification or cheap thrill. SVT-40 gave a good breakdown of the video along with his professional opinion. Mods need to lock this thread.

As I stated above that part was intentional hyperbole - just my way of saying that that particular cop was clearly a moron. . . a point which would be hard to argue.

The rest of your ad hominem, well, same back at ya. ;)

masameet
05-21-2009, 9:15 AM
First of all, I wouldn't put my personal information up on the internet for everyone to see nor would I use my real name on public forums. It's called common sense which he has shown very little of to begin with in his posts. It's not like he has tried to have the least bit of an expectation of privacy -- he's made it public.

But I'll take it down if it brushes up against some implied TOS.

:thumbsup:

I know a few LEOs who have posted their names on the internet. They made that choice for themselves.

Erik S. Klein
05-21-2009, 9:16 AM
First of all, I wouldn't put my personal information up on the internet for everyone to see nor would I use my real name on public forums. It's called common sense which he has shown very little of to begin with in his posts. It's not like he has tried to have the least bit of an expectation of privacy -- he's made it public.

But I'll take it down if it brushes up against some implied TOS.

True, that. Using my real name (as opposed to being a coward and hiding behind a handle) and posting my real opinions should be a risk, right?

But you're right. Trusting y'all wasn't very sensible.

Erik S. Klein
05-21-2009, 9:17 AM
Figures. UC liberal.

Not even close. . .

masameet
05-21-2009, 9:21 AM
When I started this thread it was in the form of a question to LEO's. They (FoxNews) had just aired the video for the second time. It was never my intent for anti LE to come on here and make unqualified statements and accusations. Be that as it may, this is what this tread had turned into. I really believe, after read Erik's post that he has some serious mental issues. I am not a Doctor of Mental Health. This is only my opinion based on this comment by Erik: "I'd argue that the guy became guilty of first degree when he strapped on his sidearm that morning. He had to have known how utterly stupid and incompetent he was, after all." This is one of the most outlandish comments I have read in reference to LE. If you are not mental than you are just on this Specialty Forum making stupid comments to get replies from LE for some type of gratification or cheap thrill. SVT-40 gave a good breakdown of the video along with his professional opinion. Mods need to lock this thread.

Ugh. Why do people insist on psychobabbleanalyzing other people they have never met and probably never will?

I think Erik was using hyperbole and speaking as someone who is outraged at injustices, small and large. If LEOs were to poll a broad spectrum of citizens, the consensus regarding this videoed kick would probably fall along the lines of Erik's thinking. Is that unusual? I would say, no, it is not. Is such thinking truly LEO bashing? No, I would say it is not. We Americans are taught from the cradle to love freedom and justice and to speak out against perceived injustices. The American Revolution, the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and various SCOTUS rulings and legislations are our birthright and the foundation on which we stand and enjoy our lives.

If such thinking offends LEOs, then what can you guys expect? One of yours is found to be performing an extra-legal and extra-training action for all to see forever and that even some LEOs on this forum expressed was wrong. Put it up to scrutiny, have some naysayers, and y'all say "Back off!"

I pretty much glanced through Erik's replies and they did not seem to be near as flaming as other posters. He offered arguments that were just as sound and reasonable as any LEOs as to why that El Monte cop needed or didn't need to kick a downed suspect while he held a cocked semi-automatic pistol on him.

Still being argumentative in the forum is counterproductive. It adds no insight.

Fire in the Hole
05-21-2009, 9:57 AM
Here's a thought: We pass a law and make it a policy, that if you flee from the police, either on foot on by vehicle, the pursuing officer gets one free hit. It must be limited the the single officer, so no free for alls. No shooting, just a single strike or kick. Dealere's choice. Publish this so that all BG's know it. Now we've eliminated all the arguments.

biglou
05-21-2009, 12:24 PM
Call it what you will. Erik still made outlandish comments that have no busines in this forum. To make the assumption that an Officer is guilty of murder when he puts on his duty gun is the stupidest thing I have read here. I don't care what Officer he is referring to. No one knows what's instore for them on any particular day. Maybe we should just figure that all of Erik's posts are hyperbole. I won't comment any further. No reason to give this knucklehead any further credence.

masameet
05-21-2009, 1:10 PM
... No one knows what's instore for them on any particular day ....

So true. Stay safe and come home at the end of the day. :thumbsup:

stormy_clothing
05-21-2009, 1:33 PM
Some of you judge so quickly. It would be interesting to see you do the job. Once again it's easy to sit back behind your computer and Play judge. Try and get out there and do the job.

Maybe then you would learn just how quickly your life can end if you do not quickly take command of a deadly situation such as this was.

It's really just pathetic for you to pass judgment with out any expertise or law enforcement experience.

Thank god the judgment will be based on what a "reasonable officer would do" when confronted with the situation with very little time to decide what is "right".

The parolee was not "abused" he received one kick, after obviously disobeying the officers commands. End of story.

being a police officer is not the same as being a poster on cal guns there is no discipline or training for posting on a web board.

as far as I'm concerned the cop should be fired for promoting crime based clothing to begin with.

There was a time in this country when officers were required to aspire to a level of professionalism and respectability now I see them with shabby dress and Loc sunglasses on riding around low in there seats like thugs.

They would not tolerate that stuff while in the academy and I think mannerisms like that should be terminable while on the job so that the true pillars of society can fill those positions.

there is absolutely no question he kicked a man was down and that it wrong no matter where you look in the world that is wrong.

If he had been at least smart enough to do it behind the scenes to send a message like my grandpa would do as a cop in chicago than at least there would be some sign of self control, there wasn't. Imagine that same person holding a gun.

And what did it do for anyone, the kid probably brags about it, a cop will face punishment and the public loses more faith.

to be honest I think it would have been better to shoot the suspect while he was fleeing instead of this.

Jonathan Doe
05-21-2009, 1:53 PM
Speculation on a very short video clip is not a good thing whether the officer is wrong or not. People should wait until the investigation was over.

SVT-40
05-21-2009, 5:22 PM
Eric, we have all read what you have written. Since you fail or are unable to understand some of the points made by myself and others please just post elsewhere. I think we all know how you feel.

solanoshooter
05-21-2009, 5:23 PM
Originally Posted by SVT-40
The officer, dealing with the situation he was confronted with at the time decided to issue one kick to the suspect. Nothing else. He will be judged like any other officer who uses force. The question will revolve around only one issue. that question is.

Did he act "reasonably" considering ALL the factors related to the incident including what he was thinking at the time of the kick. That's it.

"Reasonably" means would an officer given the same situation thinking the way this officer was thinking act in a similar way. If the answer is yes, then the force was reasonable. If the force is judged unreasonable he will be disciplined.



And the only problem I have with that is the use of "officer" where "person" should be used.

The police are not "special" and do not have, nor do they deserve, special rules.



This is just one glaring example of how little you do not know or understand.

The law and the courts do believe that peace officers are "special" as you put it. And as such, the law says that when judging whether what an officer has done is reasonable, it MUST be compared to what other OFFICERS would do in similar situations. Not persons.

This is because peace officers do have specialized training and experience that the "average person" does not.

And we do have special rules and laws that apply just to us.

Erik S. Klein
05-21-2009, 6:56 PM
This is just one glaring example of how little you do not know or understand.

The law and the courts do believe that peace officers are "special" as you put it. And as such, the law says that when judging whether what an officer has done is reasonable, it MUST be compared to what other OFFICERS would do in similar situations. Not persons.

This is because peace officers do have specialized training and experience that the "average person" does not.

And we do have special rules and laws that apply just to us.

And that, in a nutshell, is the problem.

Set yourselves apart from the people and guess what, you're apart from the people. . .

yzernie
05-21-2009, 8:01 PM
Speculation on a very short video clip is not a good thing whether the officer is wrong or not. People should wait until the investigation was over.
And there you have it, well said TG7.

As I posted earlier in this thread, people of every walk of life, including some in law enforcement, were calling for ex-deputy sheriff Ivory Webb to be hanged at noon in the public square for the shooting of the drunken soldier. He was ultimately aquitted of felony charges by a jury not of his peers but by a jury of 'citizens'. So, I say again, I will withhold public judgement of the El Monte officer until all of the facts are known. IMO, some people who have posted in this thread are simply ignorant to the facts that 'innocent until proven guilty' and due process also pertain to a law enforcement officer.

cryptkeeper
05-21-2009, 8:29 PM
You guys know this is his clothing line right?

http://www.torcidoclothing.com/

CnCFunFactory
05-21-2009, 10:26 PM
Distraction Blow!! Case solved.

Creative articulation is where it's at, almost anything can be rationalized and explained :thumbsup:

Fire in the Hole
05-22-2009, 6:50 PM
And that, in a nutshell, is the problem.

Set yourselves apart from the people and guess what, you're apart from the people. . .


This special status is not something that LE actually affirmatively wished to be brought upon them. Society at large, ie. the Courts, DA's, and Jon Q. Citizen expects and demands that LE behave at a more professional and mature level over the average citizen. This is one reason that when an LEO does screws up and is prosecuted for a crime, they get hammered harder. The judge will even tell them at sentencing that he is holding them to a higher standard of conduct that that of the average citizen.

As far as being apart from the people, LE is required to dress differently than the rest of society, typically have shaved faces, short haircuts, no exposed tattoos, speak articulately, not fly off at the handle, reserve personal opinions to themselvs, etc. I guess this necessarily sets LE apart in many ways.

John Q. Public has a right to openly affiliate with whatever organization he wants to. And as long as he is not breaking the law, may do so. LE are not allowed to openly belong to the KKK, Black Panthers, Hells Angels, Nortenoz, etc. even on their own time and dime.

And BTW the Gov. said at Peace Officer Memorial Day that LE were all in a "Special Class." So that should settle that.

Glad I could help you out with this.

compsoftstation
05-22-2009, 11:59 PM
I take my stand with the LE. Innocent people could of died in that chase. If that garbage killed a love one or someone you know, I think you'd do more than kicking him in the face.

ilbob
05-23-2009, 9:58 AM
Another common misconception by the un-informed, who have obtained the majority of their law enforcement expertise from watching Hawaii Five-O to Law & Order to CSI.

Its not normally necessary to lie. A properly formed report can be completely truthful while not especially illuminating as to what actually happened.

We sometimes forget that cops on TV are near perfect while cops in real life are mostly imperfect human beings who are subject to the same misjudgements that all us of are.

I don't see the high-5 as a problem. They might well have done that afterwards, kick or not.

Not sure I see the flashlight as an issue either. At that point the situation is such a mess that its hard for me to question what that officer did.

The kick is another thing. The guy is on the ground. His hands are away from his body. At that point the pursuit is over. The claim that the proned out guy moving his head gives the cop justification for kicking him in the head is going to be an interesting argument that the PD may well accept. PDs almost always side with their officers, and its not just about the blue line.

A civil court may see it differently.

In fact, it may be that there was some misconduct but it was not criminal in nature.

Erik S. Klein
05-23-2009, 12:43 PM
As I posted earlier in this thread, people of every walk of life, including some in law enforcement, were calling for ex-deputy sheriff Ivory Webb to be hanged at noon in the public square for the shooting of the drunken soldier. He was ultimately aquitted of felony charges by a jury not of his peers but by a jury of 'citizens'.

Webb is proof that "the system" is biased heavily in favor of the police.

The department supplied lawyers, expert witnesses and bogus testimony to convince a jury that a clearly guilty man was somehow innocent.

A cop can literally get away with murder or, in Webb's case, attempted murder.

Anyone who thinks that Webb was innocent probably believes that OJ was too. . .

masameet
05-23-2009, 12:47 PM
And that, in a nutshell, is the problem.

Set yourselves apart from the people and guess what, you're apart from the people. . .

Not too long ago, I used to think like you. Saw some police brutality, even photographed some of it while in college and sold some photos to an attorney working on behalf of a client who got a baton bashed into her face just because she was mouthing off (by a lieutenant in a tactical squad. Odd how he was the only one to leave the police line and attack somebody that night).

But in the past couple of years, through my love of photography and motorcycles, I met and got to know some cops. I think for the most part cops don't mean to set themselves up apart from the people they're meant to help. It's just their training and then working the streets and dealing with people daily teaches them we civilians see them a certain way. The "Us versus Them" mentality works both ways. How many times, here on Calguns and on other forums, do guys complain bitterly about getting ticketed by some a*****e cop? (The "Why can't they go after 'real' criminals?" thinking truly cracks me up!) And what other profession in the U.S. makes a man or woman a target for every angry hater with a gun or rifle just because of the uniform and badge he or she wears?

Recently when I was stopped by a cop, he was very generous about answering my questions. I mentioned to him that I'd heard on the local radio a former police chief say a cop needs to be able to engage in brawls. Also asked the cop about the local officer who'd been 405(a)'ed. He said being attacked physically is a constant probability. (In one on-duty fight he had a shoulder separated.) So cops not only have to deal with the possibility of being shot to death on the job, but also having to be able to physically engage in combat on a moment's notice.

So physically and mentally cops are different from the average U.S. citizen. They also know the laws that they enforce and are constantly being trained, re-trained, educated and reviewed. The few cops I've come to know seem to have really high altruistic motives, are plenty smart, and are incredibly positive, upbeat and enthusiastic. Most of them also seem to have great senses of humor.

Now if we could say the same goes for the typical American civilian, I think the U.S. would come close to being an ideal utopia instead of the disorganized mess it is today.

Erik S. Klein
05-23-2009, 12:51 PM
This special status is not something that LE actually affirmatively wished to be brought upon them.

Perhaps not, but they sure do revel in it.

Society at large, ie. the Courts, DA's, and Jon Q. Citizen expects and demands that LE behave at a more professional and mature level over the average citizen.

That's different.

This is one reason that when an LEO does screws up and is prosecuted for a crime, they get hammered harder. The judge will even tell them at sentencing that he is holding them to a higher standard of conduct that that of the average citizen.

I've seen few instances of that ever occurring.

As far as being apart from the people, LE is required to dress differently than the rest of society, typically have shaved faces, short haircuts, no exposed tattoos, speak articulately, not fly off at the handle, reserve personal opinions to themselvs, etc. I guess this necessarily sets LE apart in many ways.

True, and the same is true of folks that work for IBM or EDS or dozens of other private firms.

None of which has anything to do with what I said.

John Q. Public has a right to openly affiliate with whatever organization he wants to. And as long as he is not breaking the law, may do so. LE are not allowed to openly belong to the KKK, Black Panthers, Hells Angels, Nortenoz, etc. even on their own time and dime.

And that's bad why?


And BTW the Gov. said at Peace Officer Memorial Day that LE were all in a "Special Class." So that should settle that.

No argument. As I've said the police are a separate class. What I've also said is that they shouldn't be.

I don't have a qualm with dress codes/uniforms, behavior standards, training, etc.

What I do have a problem with is that they are treated differently in the eyes of the law.

Many laws simply don't apply to them. Many others apply differently.

Their testimony is, for instance, considered golden in court even though it has been shown that they are no more honest than the general public and that they have no better recall of events. In fact, in many cases, their recall is tainted by their profession.

That said, there are some situations where the law should, in fact, be implemented differently for the police, but those instances should be far fewer than they are now.

Glad I could help you out with this.

Thanks. ;)

Erik S. Klein
05-23-2009, 12:57 PM
But in the past couple of years, through my love of photography and motorcycles, I met and got to know some cops. I think for the most part cops don't mean to set themselves up apart from the people they're meant to help. It's just their training and then working the streets and dealing with people daily teaches them we civilians see them a certain way. [...]

That's called a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Meanwhile, I've met and gotten to know any number of LEOs. Many (most) are how you describe. A few are quite the opposite.

All, however, would give people like officers Webb and Mehserle (mentioned earlier) a benefit of the doubt that they clearly don't deserve.

It's one thing to say "they screwed up" and quite another to say that they did nothing wrong.

It's that latter attitude which causes the "education" you mentioned.

Erik S. Klein
05-23-2009, 1:17 PM
hey i found a pic of you

Ears are too small and the skintone is a bit off, but yer close.

Of course, as per usual, you have nothing to say about the facts posted. All you can offer is an ad hominem.

Yay you.

Erik S. Klein
05-23-2009, 1:24 PM
i'm not the computer nerd

Clearly not.

your the same guy who bashes cops and then calls them for help ....

Can you prove either assertion?

Didn't think so.

you seem to be all college and no action

As if you'd know.

Erik S. Klein
05-23-2009, 1:35 PM
when have you ever put it on the line, who have you ever saved on a weekly basis or monthly basis

So that's the only acceptable qualification for questioning the police, is it?

for you, all i've seen is you fix old computers,

And you've never even actually seen that. . .

have ever put your life on the line every day or any day!!!!!!!
YA YOU!!!!!

That depends. . . I do drive in CA, after all. . .

how many years have you been a firefighter or police officer
how many combat tours do you have
lets hear all the experience you have, i'm waiting back your SH*T up

I back my "SH*T" up with reason and research. If you need something different, that's your deal, not mine.

You should, however, try understanding what I'm saying. It might help.

Or you can keep slinging mindless insults. I could care less.

Erik S. Klein
05-23-2009, 1:52 PM
and doing nothing when it counts is your deal.... all i have seen is that your a Hero by far

You have absolutely no idea what I do or don't do; what I know or don't know.

All you've been able to add is nonsense, sarge.

Erik S. Klein
05-23-2009, 2:06 PM
i'm done with you bye !!

Absolutely your best option. . .

pcesar
05-23-2009, 2:18 PM
Erik, what do you do as a career? I'm curious because you have so much to say and so many opinions to give, but you have not revealed what you do. I am a sales man and I can tell you that I cannot do the same job as a Police officer. I have my specialty, you have yours and police officers have theirs.

I can tell you that I appreciate the job that Police Officers do and everything they have to go through on a daily basis. I cannot see myself arresting a parolee who does not want to go back to jail. I cannot see myself dealing with a person high on drugs. There are so many things that they have to do that I would rather not deal with. Iím sure that they can say the same thing about my job.

As a citizen of this country, I can tell you that the video that shows this gang banger getting kicked in the head was funny as hell. Have you ever been victimized by gang banger. Have you been hanging out at a park with your kids when a group of gang bangers want to take over it? I have and I can tell you that they have no sympathy for you or your children. They will want to start a fight with you just because you look at them and they think you are disrespecting them.

Police officer should get tough on criminals and fight violent with more violent. Isnít that what we do as a country? If someone attacks the country, donít we attack back? When criminals commit crimes, you need to teach them that what they are doing is not okay. Criminals donít understand the criminal justice system, but they will understand a little *** whooping. Once Police Officer start beating citizens for absolutely no reason, then we have something to worry about. As long as you follow the law and donít run from the police and put innocent lives at risk you have nothing to worry about.

Are Police officers special? Yes they are. Do we hold them at a higher standard than everyone else? Yes we do. Should they be treated differently from everyone else? Yes they should.

Erik S. Klein
05-23-2009, 2:35 PM
Erik, what do you do as a career? I'm curious because you have so much to say and so many opinions to give, but you have not revealed what you do.

I can't see how my chosen career is relevant to the discussion at all.

Meanwhile, one of our uncouth members was nice enough to expose that earlier anyway: I am in software development in Sillycon Valley.

I am a sales man and I can tell you that I cannot do the same job as a Police officer. I have my specialty, you have yours and police officers have theirs.

No argument there. While I might be able to, I have absolutely no desire to go into law enforcement.

I can tell you that I appreciate the job that Police Officers do and everything they have to go through on a daily basis.

Again, no argument.

I cannot see myself arresting a parolee who does not want to go back to jail. I cannot see myself dealing with a person high on drugs. There are so many things that they have to do that I would rather not deal with. Iím sure that they can say the same thing about my job.

Still in agreement. . .

As a citizen of this country, I can tell you that the video that shows this gang banger getting kicked in the head was funny as hell. Have you ever been victimized by gang banger. Have you been hanging out at a park with your kids when a group of gang bangers want to take over it? I have and I can tell you that they have no sympathy for you or your children. They will want to start a fight with you just because you look at them and they think you are disrespecting them.

Still no argument, but what if the person on the receiving end of that kick was your wife, mother or child?

Police officer should get tough on criminals and fight violent with more violent.

The courts should get tough on criminals. The police should only fight violence if it is forced on them. Kicking a defenseless person, even a scumbag like this one, is not appropriate.

Arrest him in a professional and appropriate manner and let the courts and his fellow inmates deal with him.

(And yes, I realize that our court and prison systems are deficient. . .)

Isnít that what we do as a country? If someone attacks the country, donít we attack back? When criminals commit crimes, you need to teach them that what they are doing is not okay. Criminals donít understand the criminal justice system, but they will understand a little *** whooping.

On the whole, but the meting out of justice must be partitioned. We can't have Judge Dredd running around. That's not conducive to a free country.

Once Police Officer start beating citizens for absolutely no reason, then we have something to worry about.

Well, then we have something to worry about since that's exactly what happened here.

As long as you follow the law and donít run from the police and put innocent lives at risk you have nothing to worry about.

I'm not so sure that's true.

Are Police officers special? Yes they are. Do we hold them at a higher standard than everyone else? Yes we do. Should they be treated differently from everyone else? Yes they should.

Disagree x3.

pcesar
05-23-2009, 3:05 PM
What if this man had just raped your wife? Would you still be arguing that this man has right? If this man had crashed into your familyís vehicle as he was running from the Police would you expect Officer to arrest him in a professional manner?

So this guy is a "scumbag" yet an ordinary citizen too?

If anyone of my family members ran from the police and got kicked for doing it, they got what they deserve. There are no excuses from running from the police.

masameet
05-23-2009, 3:08 PM
Webb is proof that "the system" is biased heavily in favor of the police.

The department supplied lawyers, expert witnesses and bogus testimony to convince a jury that a clearly guilty man was somehow innocent.

A cop can literally get away with murder or, in Webb's case, attempted murder.

Anyone who thinks that Webb was innocent probably believes that OJ was too. . .

Dang. Should've read this post of yours. (As I certainly looked at your successive posts.)

I'd say you crossed the line from someone with an opinion to someone who cannot STFU in the Calguns LEO forum.

But then again I wouldn't be surprised if some people say the same thing about me. :43:

ifishinxs
05-23-2009, 3:09 PM
The problem I see here is that we keep refering to Parolees, Gang members..etc as PUBLIC...These type of people are NOT your general public member. These type of people have ZERO respect for anyone including themselves. Anyone who refers to Gang members in the same breath as the general public is extremely naive.

Police have been and always will be held to a higher standard. ON or OFF duty. If you believe it or not its true.

It's a job that very few people can do. But there are always the monday night quarterbacks who have it all figured out. With or without all the facts.

Some of you might think about doing a ride along on a Fri or Sat night. Or spend sometime at a booking desk at your local jail or get a tour at one of the prisons. You might be surprised at what you learn.

Josh3239
05-23-2009, 3:24 PM
The courts should get tough on criminals. The police should only fight violence if it is forced on them. Kicking a defenseless person, even a scumbag like this one, is not appropriate.

This man drove on the wrong side of the road and on the side walk. I wonder if you'd be saying the same thing if he killed people?

So criminals who put others lives at risk and/or kill should have the luxury of giving up no questions asked with no immediate repurcussions when they realize that their dangerous actions have reached its end? I am not suggesting having LE executing a gunman who only stopped killing civilians and LE because he ran out of ammo, but getting your panties in a twist for kicking him is stupid.

Jonathan Doe
05-23-2009, 3:32 PM
Some of the arguments on this thread make me laugh. There are good cops and very few bad cops. I, just like vast majority of cops, just do my job while not looking for any particular recognition and ready to retire in a few years.

yzernie
05-23-2009, 3:34 PM
Webb is proof that "the system" is biased heavily in favor of the police.

The department supplied lawyers, expert witnesses and bogus testimony to convince a jury that a clearly guilty man was somehow innocent.

A cop can literally get away with murder or, in Webb's case, attempted murder.

Anyone who thinks that Webb was innocent probably believes that OJ was too. . .
Webb and I worked for the same department. I'm still here and he is...well, I don't know or care where he is. He was terminated for his actions that night and he will never be a cop anywhere in California or any other state. The department took an action and despite appeals has stood by and has fought to support the resultant termination. I have not or will ever condone his actions of that night.

I can tell you with 100% certainty, our department had absolutely no input into his defense while he was preparing for or during his trial. Our investigators were called as witnesses by the prosecution and testified only to the facts of the incident. There was no bias in favor of the former employee because the tesimony by the investigating Detectives actually hurt his defense.

Although you have said some pretty foolish things lately, for you to say that our department supported him through the criminal trial is the most assinine comment you could possibly have made. Until you get yourself properly educated and informed about the circumstances surrounding the Ivory Webb incident (from start to finish) the flapping your pie hole with ill informed spew is a perfect example of what you don't know.

Erik S. Klein
05-23-2009, 3:41 PM
What if this man had just raped your wife? Would you still be arguing that this man has right? If this man had crashed into your familyís vehicle as he was running from the Police would you expect Officer to arrest him in a professional manner?

So this guy is a "scumbag" yet an ordinary citizen too?

If anyone of my family members ran from the police and got kicked for doing it, they got what they deserve. There are no excuses from running from the police.

The first part is an irrelevant straw man but as compared to the last part it kind-of presents a dilemma.

The cops should be allowed to kick the crap out of anyone that "crosses" them but there's no excuse for running from them?

Trakker
05-23-2009, 3:42 PM
steel toes?

Erik S. Klein
05-23-2009, 3:47 PM
The problem I see here is that we keep refering to Parolees, Gang members..etc as PUBLIC...These type of people are NOT your general public member. These type of people have ZERO respect for anyone including themselves. Anyone who refers to Gang members in the same breath as the general public is extremely naive.

Yeah, this specific guy was a scumbag. I know that and said it before.

The problem is that the police don't always know if the guy they just nabbed is a gang banger or whatever.

So, if they start to mistreat suspects how far will it go?

Some of you might think about doing a ride along on a Fri or Sat night. Or spend sometime at a booking desk at your local jail or get a tour at one of the prisons. You might be surprised at what you learn.

Been there, done that (visited prisons - not the ride-alongs) and yeah, the folks there are usually (but not always) dirt.

But what percentage of the public does that represent? What percentage of the daily interactions for a typical LEO?

Should the cops really treat everyone as a criminal just because some of the folks they meet might be?

Erik S. Klein
05-23-2009, 3:49 PM
This man drove on the wrong side of the road and on the side walk. I wonder if you'd be saying the same thing if he killed people?

I would. I'd be calling for the death penalty, but not from the cops.

So criminals who put others lives at risk and/or kill should have the luxury of giving up no questions asked with no immediate repurcussions when they realize that their dangerous actions have reached its end? I am not suggesting having LE executing a gunman who only stopped killing civilians and LE because he ran out of ammo, but getting your panties in a twist for kicking him is stupid.

It may be stupid in this instance but generalize it and you'll see that it's not so stupid after all. . .

The police should not mete out punishment, period. It's not their job and if they take on that job they are robbing us - all of us - of our rights.

Let the courts sort it out after the cops make a safe, professional arrest.

Erik S. Klein
05-23-2009, 4:16 PM
Although you have said some pretty foolish things lately, for you to say that our department supported him through the criminal trial is the most assinine comment you could possibly have made. Until you get yourself properly educated and informed about the circumstances surrounding the Ivory Webb incident (from start to finish) the flapping your pie hole with ill informed spew is a perfect example of what you don't know.

Whatever. You're right that I shouldn't have typed "department" but otherwise my statement stands.

Who paid for Michael Schwartz? Who brought in Kent Ferrin and the other expert witnesses speaking to Webb's mental state, training and so on?

Yes, the various responding officers testified to the well-rehearsed "facts" about the shooting and little more. I'm sure their opinions of Webb, like yours, weren't complimentary; especially after viewing the video.

But still, in the end a cut-and-dried case (a cop tells a suspect to get up and then shoots him for moving) turns into a judicial travesty.

Of course the department sh*tcanned Webb. The man screwed up virtually every aspect of that incident. He couldn't even call in the location of the stop he was so lost.

He walked for one reason and one reason only: he had a badge on at the time of the shooting.

I guarantee you that if a civilian was videotaped holding someone at gunpoint, told them to get up and then shot them for doing so that civilian would be jailed. None of the other circumstances would matter at all.

SVT-40
05-23-2009, 6:00 PM
No argument. As I've said the police are a separate class. What I've also said is that they shouldn't be.

I don't have a qualm with dress codes/uniforms, behavior standards, training, etc.

What I do have a problem with is that they are treated differently in the eyes of the law.

Many laws simply don't apply to them. Many others apply differently.


So using your logic you believe our soldiers, sailors, air men and Marines should be subject to the same laws as other citizens???

Since everyone must be treated the same in Erik land this would also be the case wouldn't it?? Or are soldiers "special" because of their profession? after all soldiers are also citizens....

Erik, some of your ideas are very Marxist in nature. Everyone is the same. No differences. No exceptions. Well comrade I think that has been tried before, and was a terribly flawed experiment.

yzernie
05-23-2009, 6:06 PM
Who paid for Michael Schwartz? Who brought in Kent Ferrin and the other expert witnesses speaking to Webb's mental state, training and so on?
Webb retained the services of those folks. The department AND the department labor association washed their hand of the man...as they should have.

Yes, the various responding officers testified to the well-rehearsed "facts" about the shooting and little more. I'm sure their opinions of Webb, like yours, weren't complimentary; especially after viewing the video.
Why do you insist on casting doubt about their testimony. I personally know those guys and they would not depart from the truth, even if ordered to, which they would not be.

But still, in the end a cut-and-dried case (a cop tells a suspect to get up and then shoots him for moving) turns into a judicial travesty.
Cut and dried case, yes. Judicial travesty???...Isn't this the very thing the justice system stands for???...to be tried by a jury of your peers??

Of course the department sh*tcanned Webb. The man screwed up virtually every aspect of that incident. He couldn't even call in the location of the stop he was so lost.
As much as I don't want to, I have to agree with you on this one!!

He walked for one reason and one reason only: he had a badge on at the time of the shooting.
He walked because the jury aquitted him. Like it or not that is the fact-of-the-matter.

I guarantee you that if a civilian was videotaped holding someone at gunpoint, told them to get up and then shot them for doing so that civilian would be jailed. None of the other circumstances would matter at all.
Each circumstance has its own merits. To blanketly state the above paragraph is a fantastic example of your lack of compassion to your fellow man.

Let me end by saying this. IMO Ivory Webb was justly terminated for employment as an LEO. He was aquitted by a jury and in compliance with the law of the land. While you may not agree with his aquittal, it happened and there is nothing we can do about it now. What I will ask of you is this: Before you sound off about things you know nothing about while degrading and belittling the people involved, also that you know nothing about, stop, think and speak facts. Spouting off with speculation and inuendo is simply assinine and makes one look...at best...foolish.

Jonathan Doe
05-23-2009, 9:55 PM
It seems to me that some people are talking to the wall.

bill104
05-24-2009, 2:10 AM
Its vary clear to me, that cop sliped on wet grass and accidently kicked that poor scumbag, LOL as for me if I was the guy driving like a moron and putting all those peoples lifes in danger including the cops, I would hope the cop would kick me a few times to hopefully put some since in my head.

sadly the last dozen pages or so seems to be all about bickering between members, maybe its time to lock this one.

yzernie
05-24-2009, 6:42 AM
It seems to me that some people are talking to the wall.
Erik S. Klein = has been put on ignore list

Erik S. Klein
05-24-2009, 9:29 AM
So using your logic you believe our soldiers, sailors, air men and Marines should be subject to the same laws as other citizens???

In the US, yes, with some exception for wartime.

Since everyone must be treated the same in Erik land this would also be the case wouldn't it?? Or are soldiers "special" because of their profession? after all soldiers are also citizens....

Everyone must be treated the same under the law. There is a difference.

Erik, some of your ideas are very Marxist in nature. Everyone is the same. No differences. No exceptions. Well comrade I think that has been tried before, and was a terribly flawed experiment.

Not at all. The ideas are libertarian, per the founders of this great nation. "All men are created equal." That isn't a statement on the physical equality, but represents the fact that the nation - it's rules, it's laws - treat everyone the same.

That doesn't have anything to do with the marxist credo of "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."

You can play that silly straw-man game but it's not credible.

Bottom line: Why should the police (or the military when stationed domestically) be subject to different laws? As I mentioned before there are some examples of valid differences (such as limits on liability for the police, etc.) but beyond that?

Erik S. Klein
05-24-2009, 9:45 AM
Webb retained the services of those folks. The department AND the department labor association washed their hand of the man...as they should have.

I agree that they should have but I was not/am not aware that Webb paid for his own legal services.

I'm pretty sure I got that impression from somewhere but I'll be damned if I can find it now.

Why do you insist on casting doubt about their testimony. I personally know those guys and they would not depart from the truth, even if ordered to, which they would not be.

I didn't say they departed from the truth.

But there are many, many ways to tell the truth. Some representations can be far more damning than others.

Cut and dried case, yes. Judicial travesty???...Isn't this the very thing the justice system stands for???...to be tried by a jury of your peers??

Ayup, but sometimes it goes horribly awry. The OJ case is one high-profile example. This one is, to me, virtually the same.

As much as I don't want to, I have to agree with you on this one!!

Good. I'm glad we've got some common ground. I was starting to get worried. ;)

He walked because the jury aquitted him. Like it or not that is the fact-of-the-matter.

And the jury aquitted him because he was a cop. You know as well as I do that if he wasn't he wouldn't have walked. And no, I don't like it.

Each circumstance has its own merits. To blanketly state the above paragraph is a fantastic example of your lack of compassion to your fellow man.

It's not a lack of compassion, it's a generalization with perspective.

Yes circumstances would clearly dictate the severity of the infraction but there is no doubt that the infraction existed regardless.

You can't shoot someone for following your orders. "Get up, get up" bang, bang, bang is simply never right.

That's tantamount to the old movie line "you just spit on my hand. Wipe it off!"

Sure, if he just raped your wife or killed your kid you might get a bunch more sympathy than if he wandered drunk onto your lawn but shooting him is still wrong. The only thing that changes is the severity of the punishment.

Let me end by saying this. IMO Ivory Webb was justly terminated for employment as an LEO.

Agreed.

He was aquitted by a jury and in compliance with the law of the land.[quote]

Agreed.

[QUOTE=yzernie;2524430]While you may not agree with his aquittal, it happened and there is nothing we can do about it now.

Agreed. There was nothing I could do about it then, either. ;)

What I will ask of you is this: Before you sound off about things you know nothing about while degrading and belittling the people involved, also that you know nothing about, stop, think and speak facts. Spouting off with speculation and inuendo is simply assinine and makes one look...at best...foolish.

The only "fact" I may have wrong is who paid for Webb's defense, and I'm not convinced I'm wrong - yet. Otherwise there was nothing about anything I said that represents "spouting off," speculation or innuendo.

Erik S. Klein = has been put on ignore list

Good for you.

Meanwhile, you and I both agree that Webb screwed up massively in this situation. The difference is that I think that he was also wrong in shooting, you imply that he was not.

That level of support, cop for cop, is what I'm talking about, in general, here.

When the police give unfailing support for the actions of even the worst of their members (and you must agree that Webb falls into that category) you build a wall between the public and the police.

How does that help either side?

solanoshooter
05-24-2009, 3:45 PM
Agencies don't pay for employees' or former employees' defense when tried for an on duty criminal act. Many if not most peace officers in California pay into a legal defense fund, usually through their union. It is this fund that pays for the defense of on duty incidents.

GoingPro
05-24-2009, 4:35 PM
he got what he deserved, he was driving like an animal putting innocent people at risk.

Erik S. Klein
05-24-2009, 4:37 PM
Agencies don't pay for employees' or former employees' defense when tried for an on duty criminal act. Many if not most peace officers in California pay into a legal defense fund, usually through their union. It is this fund that pays for the defense of on duty incidents.

Gotcha.

Thanks.

Erik S. Klein
05-24-2009, 4:38 PM
he got what he deserved, he was driving like an animal putting innocent people at risk.

Really?

Did you know that he was the passenger?

paladin4415
05-24-2009, 5:15 PM
Really?

Did you know that he was the passenger?

Please check the video again. About 1:15 in "The second passenger gave up almost immediately".
It was the driver that ran and got kicked.

Erik S. Klein
05-24-2009, 5:35 PM
Please check the video again. About 1:15 in "The second passenger gave up almost immediately".
It was the driver that ran and got kicked.

Oh, sorry. . . I was still on the Ivory Webb tangent.

D'oh!

Yeah, the guy who got kicked was the driver.

Still doesn't give the police the right to deliver roadside justice, but it was the driver.

pcesar
05-24-2009, 5:42 PM
Oh, sorry. . . I was still on the Ivory Webb tangent.

D'oh!

Yeah, the guy who got kicked was the driver.

Still doesn't give the police the right to deliver roadside justice, but it was the driver.


I, as a regular citizen that would be able to sit on as a jury member and hear a case like this, I say that the police do have the right to kick that guy in the head.

GoingPro
05-24-2009, 5:47 PM
I, as a regular citizen that would be able to sit on as a jury member and hear a case like this, I say that the police do have the right to kick that guy in the head.

yeah same here. he could have crashed and injured people really bad! i feel no sympathy for that idiot.

drdanno84
05-24-2009, 5:56 PM
The cop was "out of control" plain and simple. Adrenaline pumping and pissed-off because the suspect ran. We have seen it time and time again, if the suspect runs, he or she can expect to get their asses kicked. Is it right? off course not, if there is not a threat to the officer, he or she needs to maintain their composure and exercise good judgement and professionalism. Otherwise they are no better than a "street thug' administering 'street justice'
I personally can share countless stories of people I know who have been beaten and abused by the police when it was uncalled for. The bottom line is the cops need to be accountable and exercise restraint, otherwise they have no business being in a position of authority that demands respect and accountability from the public.

Jonathan Doe
05-24-2009, 6:01 PM
Nobody should be above the law, but no matter what the verdict was rendered at a trial, we should accept it, because that is the rule. But, in recent years, I see people do not agree with the verdict and get upset,,sometimes result in riots. If that is the case, why do we have a jury trial? Maybe we should just have a court trial.

I always think about consequences of my action and try to stay cool. So far, I never had to fight any bad guys yet. I just talked them out of fight, and I guess I was lucky.

ilbob
05-24-2009, 6:17 PM
Agreed.
All that does is erode the public trust without which the police can't be effective.

You seem to be implying there is general public trust in police and that they are effective. Sadly, I am pretty sure that is not the case in a lot of areas.

ilbob
05-24-2009, 6:25 PM
Example, Anyone who thinks that the BART cop, maliciously and purposefullyshot the handcuffed guy in the back in front of all those witnesses is a complete idiot or very ignorant. That was either bad training or an unintential brain fart - or both. But not murder.

Food for thought...

Wonder what happened in that case?

ilbob
05-24-2009, 6:35 PM
You are not qualified to judge the officer. You can have an opinion. But to actually judge someones actions you must have some knowledge of the job he does and the situation he was involved with.


That attitude is a big part of the problem. Citizens are tasked to judge each other all the time on juries, and for the most part they do it pretty well.

With just the facts that are publically available its tough to make a call right now.

What I see is a violent thug who after a dangerous chase through crowded city streets finally gives up.

The slight movement of his head in the video might indeed have been a well trained convict trying to locate a cops legs for a takedown as others have suggested. Or it might have a guy laying on the ground who naturally looked in the direction of a voice that was making demands of him.

The cop will claim he reasonably feared the guy on the ground was out to get him, and what really happened is not going to matter much, even if it is the truth.

Erik S. Klein
05-24-2009, 6:41 PM
I, as a regular citizen that would be able to sit on as a jury member and hear a case like this, I say that the police do have the right to kick that guy in the head.

Very short-sighted and misguided of you.

818gtiguy
05-24-2009, 7:14 PM
I am taking the officer`s side on this one....Maybe if the person he kicked was an average Joe Blow I would be mad,but it was some LOW LIFE criminal, GANGBANGER who put innocent peoples lives in jeopardy.. and the cop even knew the guys face and that he was a gangbanger .He probably caused a lot of problems in his Agency's area and I am glad to have that trash off our streets...HIGH FIVE from me, El Monte Police Officer!

Jonathan Doe
05-24-2009, 7:22 PM
"Citizens are tasked to judge each other all the time on juries, and for the most part they do it pretty well."

They serve the jury and make a decision on evidence presented. All you have in this case is a short video clip. That is when the judging is premature. Also, you should sit in a trial to see what type of people are sitting in the jury box to make a statement you made.

pcesar
05-24-2009, 7:23 PM
Very short-sighted and misguided of you.

When you get chosen to serve on a jury you can vote however you want. When I serve on the jury I vote like I want. The good thing about our justice system is that jury members come from all walks of life and have different beliefs no matter what the courts say. If you really believe something even if there is proof in front of you, you will vote based on your beliefs.

The law says you cannot purchase high capacity magazines and you donít agree with it. Is it right because the law says so?

Erik S. Klein
05-24-2009, 7:31 PM
When you get chosen to serve on a jury you can vote however you want. When I serve on the jury I vote like I want.

That's not quite how it works. . .

The good thing about our justice system is that jury members come from all walks of life and have different beliefs no matter what the courts say. If you really believe something even if there is proof in front of you, you will vote based on your beliefs.

Again, not quite how it works. . .

The law says you cannot purchase high capacity magazines and you donít agree with it. Is it right because the law says so?

Actually the high-cap "law" is unconstitutional and an informed juror (http://www.truthinjustice.org/informed.htm) should find as such at trial.

In this case, however well deserved the kick was, the officer delivering the blow was violating the perp's rights by administering roadside justice.

Sure there are few here who would defend this particular scumbag, but in reality we cannot afford to cede this power to the police. They will use it against the wrong people as well as the "right" ones. In fact, in numerous cases, they have.

pcesar
05-24-2009, 7:54 PM
That's not quite how it works. . .



Again, not quite how it works. . .



Actually the high-cap "law" is unconstitutional and an informed juror (http://www.truthinjustice.org/informed.htm) should find as such at trial.

In this case, however well deserved the kick was, the officer delivering the blow was violating the perp's rights by administering roadside justice.

Sure there are few here who would defend this particular scumbag, but in reality we cannot afford to cede this power to the police. They will use it against the wrong people as well as the "right" ones. In fact, in numerous cases, they have.


That is not how it works or is it how itís not supposed to be?

If the high capacity magazine law is unconstitutional then you say that a jury member should realize that it's unconstitutional and decide against it even if the law says so? So if I see a Police Officer kick a thug gang member I'm suppose to say its wrong because its not accepted by most?

glockwise2000
05-24-2009, 8:23 PM
Although it was dumb to boot the guy in the face, I have no sympathy for gangbangers...


I don't have any sympathy for both. Gangbanger needs to go to jail for felony or whatever reason they were after him. Cop needs to go to jail for acting like a gangbanger hitman. SH*T.

Erik S. Klein
05-24-2009, 8:56 PM
That is not how it works or is it how itís not supposed to be?

A bit of both.

Sure you can vote however you want on a jury but you really do need to bring reason and the rule of law into the debate.

If the high capacity magazine law is unconstitutional then you say that a jury member should realize that it's unconstitutional and decide against it even if the law says so?

Correct. Even if the judge tells the jury to ignore The Constitution in their deliberations.

So if I see a Police Officer kick a thug gang member I'm suppose to say its wrong because its not accepted by most?

No, because it's illegal for anyone to assault another like that. Self defense is one thing but that was not the case in this instance.

Again, I don't like gang members, don't particularly care if this gang banger or any other lives or dies and so on.

I just know that it's unlawful for someone to attack a defenseless person. In fact, it's a gross abuse of authority for a cop to do it to a detainee without provocation.

pcesar
05-25-2009, 11:07 PM
Running from the police in a manner that puts peopleís lives at risk is provocation enough for me. You basically said that people need to ignore a Judgeís orders because itís unconstitutional. Well I say that a so called assault can be ignored because this gang banger deserves it. You have you beliefs and I have mine. When that jury member vote comes, you vote how you want and I'll vote how I want.

g23forme
05-26-2009, 4:24 AM
look everyone, clearly the opinion of Erik S. Klein should be negated in light of the fact that this is a man who's judgment includes posting very personal info about himself online such that anyone with knowledge of Google and 2 minutes to spare can find out more about him than they probably care.

geeknow
05-26-2009, 4:58 AM
look everyone, clearly the opinion of Erik S. Klein should be negated in light of the fact that this is a man who's judgment includes posting very personal info about himself online such that anyone with knowledge of Google and 2 minutes to spare can find out more about him than they probably care.

Welcome to calguns, guy...

I, for one, have enjoyed reading this interaction. It has represented two starkly different views (neither of which i totally share, but both are fascinating), discussed the situation in a civil manner, and has not resorted to off-topic, mud-slinging comments until.....well....yours.

Please stay on topic.

Thank you.

Erik S. Klein
05-26-2009, 6:18 AM
Running from the police in a manner that puts peopleís lives at risk is provocation enough for me. You basically said that people need to ignore a Judgeís orders because itís unconstitutional. Well I say that a so called assault can be ignored because this gang banger deserves it. You have you beliefs and I have mine. When that jury member vote comes, you vote how you want and I'll vote how I want.

Fair enough.

The difference, of course, is that one option is rational - i.e. fact based.

The other is reactive - i.e. emotion based.

But like I said you can do what you want.

jafount
05-26-2009, 8:52 AM
Until you're put in the life threatening situation of a person running from you...a person of whom you have little or no knowledge other than the fact they are running and putting COUNTLESS lives in jeopardy, you cannot judge this officer by this move. It was on blow to keep this obviously deranged person from formulating and executing a plan to disarm and kill this officer and possibly others.

Any felony arrest situation that calls for a suspect to be proned looking AWAY. This keeps the suspect unaware of your location so you can effect a safe arrest. When you go hands on, this is the single most dangerous time, especially when you are dealing with an unreasonable person. This guy laid himself down, then looked back toward the officer at the last moment. What's to say he wasn't armed and waiting for the right time to strike? This blow kept him reeling so the arrest could be executed and that officer could go home to his family.

The officer didn't create the situation, the suspect did. Keep this in mind. There are many tactics one develops over the course of their career that aren't covered in a text book at the academy. I see this distraction blow as nothing different than if the officer jumped into the guys kidneys with his knees.

Had the officer delivered more than one blow, you have brutality. This was designed to bring a dangerous situation to conclusion with no loss of life.

ilbob
05-26-2009, 10:09 AM
So using your logic you believe our soldiers, sailors, air men and Marines should be subject to the same laws as other citizens???

In the US, yes, with some exception for wartime.
I would point out that the military is subject to the UCMJ, which mostly covers things they might do in the connection with their duties. So in connection with those duties, they are not entirely subject to the same laws the rest of us are, although they are often subject to both.

This is explicitly constitutional, being a power granted to congress.

masameet
12-30-2009, 10:35 AM
The LAC DA will not be prosecuting the two El Monte PD officers in this incident.

Excerpted from the San Gabriel Valley Tribune (http://www.sgvtribune.com/ci_14089995):
D.A. declines to file charges against El Monte cop in kicking case
By Brian Charles, Staff Writer
Posted: 12/29/2009 11:39:30 PM PST

County prosecutors won't file charges against an El Monte police officer caught on tape kicking a gang member in the head after a pursuit that ended in Pico Rivera, officials said Tuesday.

Neither El Monte police Officer George Fierro nor Officer James Singleterry face charges in the May 13 incident, which was shown on live television.

In his report declining to file charges, Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney Jason P. Lustig wrote that Fierro may have been provoked into using a distraction blow when he kicked Richard Rodriguez.

"The physical evidence of Rodriguez's injuries are significantly more consistent with a blow intended to stun or temporarily distract him than with a kick done out of anger or vindictiveness," Lustig wrote in the report, which was released Tuesday.

Singleterry can be seen on video striking Rodriguez with a flashlight. Lustig's report said Singleterry's actions were justified because Rodriguez, a known member of the El Monte Flores street gang, could have been reaching for a weapon.

Lustig described the exchange of a high five by officers after Rodriguez was arrested as a "commonplace" gesture "to signify that no one was injured and that the suspect was captured."

Fierro, who had been assigned to a desk job, will return to patrol. Singleterry was never taken off duty, El Monte police Chief Thomas Armstrong said.

Rodriguez has filed a claim for $5 million in damages from the city.

bRiT636
12-30-2009, 10:43 AM
I cant believe he has a leg to stand on. Once you run you should lose your right to politeness..

SVT-40
12-30-2009, 11:19 AM
A good decision by the DA based on the TOTALITY of the situation.

nick
12-30-2009, 11:06 PM
Meanwhile, Johnny No-Good the banger just hit the lotto. He got jumped a lot harder when he got into EMF. One kick to the face will probably get him some $$$. The lawyers are already lining up.

Yeah, sad, that.

nick
12-30-2009, 11:09 PM
Yes, the news media shows what they want to show. They create a public outrage or form the opinion for them. They should let the department conduct an investigation and go from there. There are too many cases where public doesn't know the details of a case and try the officers and find them guilty already.

Now that would make too much sense, wouldn't it? Are you implying that the media is there to inform, not to opine? Blasphemy!

Notorious
12-30-2009, 11:14 PM
DA declined to prosecute, as it should be.

fullrearview
12-31-2009, 12:32 AM
Good decision. Like the chief stated....A video doesnt show all the facts!

Notorious
12-31-2009, 1:12 PM
Knucklehead deserved it. He's lucky that's all he got.

billdoodoo
12-31-2009, 2:20 PM
The LAC DA will not be prosecuting the two El Monte PD officers in this incident.

Excerpted from the San Gabriel Valley Tribune (http://www.sgvtribune.com/ci_14089995)

That's a relief. I have come across these 2 officers personally since I am an El Monte/Temple City local and I work in a local business in the area. Both officers are genuinely mild-mannered and nice, and I can't definitely judge them or their actions because of what happened since the EMF bangers are just straight up scums in the area. If I was in their shoes, I'm pretty sure I could have done worse.

Ron-Solo
01-01-2010, 12:03 PM
Glad to hear it.

Saym14
01-01-2010, 2:31 PM
wierd thing is that the one LEO sells a gang related clothing line.

Ron-Solo
01-01-2010, 5:33 PM
wierd thing is that the one LEO sells a gang related clothing line.

You've got the wrong intrepretation of the clothing line. It is sold in LE stores directed at LE who deal with gansters, not directed for sale to gang members.

The stuff I've seen is kinda like an inside joke. I didn't buy any of it because for tactical reasons I don't advertise my law enforcement association

:cool:

yzernie
01-01-2010, 7:17 PM
Totality of the circumstances...something the naysayers never even consider because they are blinded by the trust they place in the media. I'm pleased to see the officers have been exonerated in this incident.