cops kicks guy in face

[GM.Chief]

I do agree, now that I've cooled abit, that the cop should not have kicked the guy in the head. I will, however, add one thing. Next time the BG has a cop pull in behind him and flip on his lights, maybe he'll think twice and just pull over like he should have in the first place.

 

[40Arpent]

The desire to kick him would be extreme after the chase however to do so makes you no better then him, my opinion.

If this is a general statement covering all types of criminals, then I totally disagree. If, for example, the criminal in this story happens to also be a murderer or child molestor, to say that the offending officer is no better than him is ludicrous.

 

[AR15Vern]

Kicking him in the head was the wrong thing to do.

 

[GM.Chief]

+1

 

[Big country]

Very easy to Monday morning quarterback when its not YOUR life on the line chasing criminals.​

I dont judge what soldiers do in a war zone because I am not there...I dont judge what prison guards do to keep order because I am not locked on the inside with hardened felons. those that haven't walked in an officer's shoes should be slow to judge.
Cops make bad decisions too...but their career should be judged on their body of work, not what they did in the heat of battle for one second, on ONE occasion.​

Re: My earlier post...

I was making a broad statement about judging police, not saying this guy was right or wrong. I don't know the specifics of this case, or what the suspect was saying that couldn't be heard.....or any other number of variables. Therefore, I will withhold judgement.

I agree with both of these statements. I was not there so I Will not pass judgement. However the officer's covered the view after the kick and I saw no "blows to the kidneys". I might have missed something but I didn't see that. I think it is a bad practice to start the nit picking after a video clip, hind sight is 20/20. On the other hand txinvestigator is right in the sense that we cannot let LE carryout punishment street side, that is what courtrooms are for.

 

[DCortez]

The kickers high five says a lot.


Don't complain when the America you love is gone...

 

[M. Sage]

Yeah, That's goona probably cost him his job. It should.

Along with a large chunk of money and his freedom. That was crossing the line.

Probably will, but you know what? The punk deserved it. I was watching that chase go on on live TV (in the L.A. area right now) yesterday, and that got nearly cost the lives of several police officers and civilians during the 45 minute chase. It was a bad call on the officers part...atleast to do it in public....he should've waited till he got to the station IMO. The punk ass deserved alot more than that.

But it's not the cop's place to decide that. It's up to a jury to decide that, not a LEO. It doesn't matter what he did, he still has the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. He has the right to be tried in front of a jury of his fellow citizens.

Yep, he deserves what he gets after that point, but there is a reason these things are enshrined in our Constitution.

Did he deserve it? Yes

Is this still America? Who knows...

Definitely not America. Not allowing this stuff separates us from places like China.

In my unit they caught an iraqi planting IED's along the road. Prior to that week an IED had taken the life of a soldier & severly maimed another on that same road. When they caught him it was it was something ugly. I'll say no more.

Difference: Soldiers in a war zone meeting an enemy combatant. I don't care what you do with him, TBH. The other side took the gloves off first in this one by targeting civilians and executing prisoners. Things like that have consequences, as they're hopefully learning.

The big difference is that this is not a war zone, these are not soldiers, and this person is not an enemy combatant.

Very easy to Monday morning quarterback when its not YOUR life on the line chasing criminals.
I dont judge what soldiers do in a war zone because I am not there...I dont judge what prison guards do to keep order because I am not locked on the inside with hardened felons. those that haven't walked in an officer's shoes should be slow to judge.
Cops make bad decisions too...but their career should be judged on their body of work, not what they did in the heat of battle for one second, on ONE occasion.
​

Sorry, but you can judge based on one occasion in a case like this. We, the people, hire police to uphold the law. Breaking the law, for whatever reason, is not upholding it. If someone cannot keep their cool, law enforcement is not the right field. It's not like it takes years on the job to realize this, either. It's a very well-known fact that you work in a very high-stress field.

I agree to a point about the Monday morning QB thing, but only to a point: the police (and others) work for the people. Are you saying that the people you work for have no right to criticize? No right to question? No right to second-guess? It's up to the people to analyze what goes on in every aspect of our government, or we run the risk of that government becoming tyrannical.

Essentially, you've argued that the people you work for should cede our decision-making powers because "we weren't there" so we "have no right" to look at what happened and judge it. I have to say it: you're wrong.

Do not take this as "I hate cops, they suck blah blah blah". It isn't. I'm related to cops. I'm friends with cops. Most cops are great people doing a tough job and I honestly see that it's a minority of them who do things like you see in this video.

Am I the only one who thinks that the use of the word "battle" is a bit over the top? You're not a soldier. You're not on a battlefield. The people you deal with on a daily basis, even the criminals, are not "the enemy" in a military sense of the word. "In the heat of battle..."? In the heat of the moment, yes, but it's not a war.

 

[Texan2]

"Am I the only one who thinks that the use of the word "battle" is a bit over the top? You're not a soldier. You're not on a battlefield. The people you deal with on a daily basis, even the criminals, are not "the enemy" in a military sense of the word. "In the heat of battle..."? In the heat of the moment, yes, but it's not a war." M. Sage-

"Essentially, you've argued that the people you work for should cede our decision-making powers because "we weren't there" so we "have no right" to look at what happened and judge it. I have to say it: you're wrong" M. Sage-

Cede your decision making powers? where did I say that? you are reading WAY to much into my statement.

I dont know if you are the ONLY one who thinks it is "a bit over the top" to call what cops do "a war". If you think it is not a battlefield that why dont you go ride with officers who work in some of our "nicer" neighborhoods. See places where every other guy with a baggy jersey is hiding a weapon and/or selling dope. the murder rate in some major cities is higher than in Iraq and Afghanistan. So is it a "battlefield" in your traditional definition? with tanks and mortars and carpet bombing? no. but there are battles going on there everyday. they are for YOUR benefit, to keep some type of justice and/or containment of those that have zero sense of any law or order.
If you re-read my post, nowhere did I say you have no right to criticize....I said that I would not pass judgement as I was not there and I do not know all of the details, and as I am assuming that you were not their either, you do not know all of the details. I could provide thousands of video clips to you that, when edited to a few seconds, and without any background knowledge, may look as if someones rights were violated. but given the WHOLE picture, it becomes clear that they were not.
You state that the perp is innocent until proven guilty, correct? So aren't the officers afforded that same benefit? or since you saw a guy get hit by a cop, the cop must have broken SOME law and is automatically guilty before any trail by a jury of his peers? seems that the officer is not getting the same benefit that the perp is getting.
I will repeat again, I am not saying hat what was done was right....I am saying that I with hold judgement until I know the entire story. and if all any of us have is this video clip....none of us know the entire story.

 

[M. Sage]

On a personal level, as a fellow citizen; of course a police officer has the same rights as everybody else.

The thing is, on a professional level, nobody has these rights. At least nobody in the private sector.

This cop is pretty safe, though. You should see how powerful the laws in CA are when it comes to protecting public servants from any kind of accountability.

For what I saw on the video, I have a lot of trouble imagining justification to kick someone in the teeth in a situation like that.

 

[Texan2]

On a personal level, as a fellow citizen; of course a police officer has the same rights as everybody else.

The thing is, on a professional level, nobody has these rights. At least nobody in the private sector.

This cop is pretty safe, though. You should see how powerful the laws in CA are when it comes to protecting public servants from any kind of accountability.

For what I saw on the video, I have a lot of trouble imagining justification to kick someone in the teeth in a situation like that.

My ONLY point was that, regardless of what a 10 time loser, criminal, child molesting, bank robbing, felon does, I always hear about due process and how he is nnocent until proven guilty.....he can commit a crime on tape, confess on tape, but still he is inoocent until proven guilty. now on the other hand, if a cop does ANYTHING that remotely looks out of line, he gets hung out to dry by the press and the public.
In our society, criminals have more rights than cops (or law abiding citizens for that matter). Cops SHOULD have some protections....they are asked to do things average citizens are not asked to do which exposes them to risks that most people never face. I am STILL not defending what ths officer did, but I again say that you have to consider the totality of the circumstances, not a short video clip.

 

[DCortez]

For better or for worse, we are a nation of laws. Rule of Law > Mob Rule


I'm not anti-LE, although I may have given some here that impression. I'm all for everyone following the rules.


Hell, if I strangled everyone that deserved it...

 

[Texan2]

For better or for worse, we are a nation of laws. Rule of Law > Mob Rule


I'm not anti-LE, although I may have given some here that impression. I'm all for everyone following the rules.


Hell, if I strangled everyone that deserved it...

I completely agree. And in no way am I pro vigilate/renegade cop. I just keep pushing to let the officer have access to due process in the way we let criminals. It scares me anytime I see judgement passed on anyone...before all of the facts are known.

 

[oldguy]

I spoke with many friends and family who are in law enforcement for a number of years, no doubt throughout that time training has changed a great deal, however I stick with my original post that once an officer loses control after a chase he becomes what he/she was pursuing. The effects this has on him and his personal life, marriage, children is profound, simply loss of self control does no one good.

As a side note the high fives and calling other officers "bro" belong on a teen foot ball field not with professionals over the age of 30. I did that at 17 (many years ago) but grew up.

I support "any" action an officer does in order to protect his or anyone's life but not the hitting or kicking of someone down or cuffed, common sense guys.

 

[Big country]

The thing is, the officer should not have done that. I can not think of any scenario were that is acceptable, I'm all for the officer's due process tho. Like D said the BG probably deserved it, but it is not the officers place to deliver it. I do think that when you wake up in the morning (or whenever) and you pin that badge on no mater the badge weather it is law enforcement, fire fighter or a security officer, you have a responsibility to act professionally and responsibly, the officer in question did not do that. He should get some kind of fair punishment. But what we as a general public tend to forget (and I've been guilty of this to) is that cops are people to and just like the rest of us they make mistakes. And if anyone would like to tell me they have not made a mistake I'll call bull shit before you finish talking.

 

[Texan2]

The thing is, the officer should not have done that. I can not think of any scenario were that is acceptable, I'm all for the officer's due process tho. Like D said the BG probably deserved it, but it is not the officers place to deliver it. I do think that when you wake up in the morning (or whenever) and you pin that badge on no mater the badge weather it is law enforcement, fire fighter or a security officer, you have a responsibility to act professionally and responsibly, the officer in question did not do that. He should get some kind of fair punishment. But what we as a general public tend to forget (and I've been guilty of this to) is that cops are people to and just like the rest of us they make mistakes. And if anyone would like to tell me they have not made a mistake I'll call bull shit before you finish talking.

More than likely you are right that he should not have done that.....that having been said <sigh> why are we passing judgement based on a short video clip, without knowing all the surrounding facts. Based on the guy running from him, we can assume he is guilty of evading arrest....but he is NOT guilty until a court says so.
My point was not that the cop should kick him in the face, or that he shouldn't be riding a desk until his case is heard, but that the cop should get the same due process as the criminal....
these posts keep stating that cops have to keep their cool, and they are all correct. my point is something entirely different....
Example: The ACLU often crows about "innocent until proven guilty!!!".....and in the same breath will state how the cop used excessive force and needs to be fired....it seems as though when you put on the badge, your case is heard by the court of public opinion, not a court of law.
So my question once again is this...if the criminal is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law...isn't the officer too???

 

[40Arpent]

So my question once again is this...if the criminal is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law...isn't the officer too???

Absolutely.

 

[Big country]

More than likely you are right that he should not have done that.....that having been said <sigh> why are we passing judgement based on a short video clip, without knowing all the surrounding facts. Based on the guy running from him, we can assume he is guilty of evading arrest....but he is NOT guilty until a court says so.
My point was not that the cop should kick him in the face, or that he shouldn't be riding a desk until his case is heard, but that the cop should get the same due process as the criminal....
these posts keep stating that cops have to keep their cool, and they are all correct. my point is something entirely different....
Example: The ACLU often crows about "innocent until proven guilty!!!".....and in the same breath will state how the cop used excessive force and needs to be fired....it seems as though when you put on the badge, your case is heard by the court of public opinion, not a court of law.
So my question once again is this...if the criminal is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law...isn't the officer too???

I thought I made it clear in my post that I agree with you. I do think he should be on desk duty until there is a hearing. Read the last part of my post and you will see that I do hold the opinion that until the officer in question is given his day in court he is not guilty. I understand what you are saying. You are saying that the officer is innocent until his day in court, until the court says he is guilty he is not guilty. I get that. In my personal opinion he should be put on PIAD leave pending investigation. Only after the investigation can a verdict be reached. Or in this case his superior officer will or will not pass punishment. Who knows the home owner could have just watered the yard, and the officer really did slip. I understand that there are variables that you just can't see on that clip.

 

[Texan2]

I thought I made it clear in my post that I agree with you. I do think he should be on desk duty until there is a hearing. Read the last part of my post and you will see that I do hold the opinion that until the officer in question is given his day in court he is not guilty. I understand what you are saying. You are saying that the officer is innocent until his day in court, until the court says he is guilty he is not guilty. I get that. In my personal opinion he should be put on PIAD leave pending investigation. Only after the investigation can a verdict be reached. Or in this case his superior officer will or will not pass punishment. Who knows the home owner could have just watered the yard, and the officer really did slip. I understand that there are variables that you just can't see on that clip.

None of my posts have been directed at any individual and I think that by and large most on here are very supportive of police (and I know that I and other officers are appreciative of those that back us and our actions)....please dont take my opinions as anything other than thought provoking babbling...atriot:

 

[Hoji]

Very easy to Monday morning quarterback when its not YOUR life on the line chasing criminals.

I dont judge what soldiers do in a war zone because I am not there...I dont judge what prison guards do to keep order because I am not locked on the inside with hardened felons. those that haven't walked in an officer's shoes should be slow to judge.
Cops make bad decisions too...but their career should be judged on their body of work, not what they did in the heat of battle for one second, on ONE occasion.​

Oh really. What about the BART officer in San Francisco that shot the guy that was {IIRC} in handcuffs?

You as LE have a much higher standard and if you can not live up to it, do something else. Don't make excuses for shitbirds that wear badges. You sound like the thug parents that always say their gangbanger kid was a "good boy"

 

[M. Sage]

My point was not that the cop should kick him in the face, or that he shouldn't be riding a desk until his case is heard, but that the cop should get the same due process as the criminal....
these posts keep stating that cops have to keep their cool, and they are all correct. my point is something entirely different....
Example: The ACLU often crows about "innocent until proven guilty!!!".....and in the same breath will state how the cop used excessive force and needs to be fired....it seems as though when you put on the badge, your case is heard by the court of public opinion, not a court of law.
So my question once again is this...if the criminal is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law...isn't the officer too???

The cop gets the same due process, but due process isn't a factor in someone's employment is the point I'm trying to make. I can do something at work that's legally right, but morally bankrupt and lose my job. How is it any different for a police officer? Many (I'd bet most) of us don't get a review board at work to determine if we'll be disciplined if we screw up, or what that discipline will be.

Point being: you don't need to be proven guilty in a court of law to be stripped of your badge. At least, you shouldn't have to be. Unfortunately, that's about what it takes in CA. Texas is a lot more reasonable about dealing with things like this IMO. I'm not really even talking about the criminal charges that this guy is going to have to face... yet. But IMO he really shouldn't be a cop anymore.