Seattle cop threatens to "beat the ***g ****n ***s" out of a robbery suspect (YouTube)

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

So, then your notion that the police can beat up on some suspects but not others is complete bullshit then, right?

This guy got beat up worse than the guy on the ground.

Edited May 9, 2010 by Col. Lingus

[Danno 1,228]

And now the tearful apology.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrHbNN27ccU&feature=player_embedded

Does anyone else notice, the Woman officer who seriously stomped him.... is hardly a part of the story..... oh that's right, she didn't use bad words.

[Peikko 1,575]

Phrases like, reasonable force, probable cause, due process - they are all inventions of namby pamby librulism aren't they Danno? Police officers, the same as everyone else have to obey the law and when they do not, they are properly disciplined. This is not political correctness, or preventing the police from doing their job, this is ensuring that when an arrest is made the police can go forward and prosecute a case and not have it thrown out because of some legal nicety, by the same token, it also maintains the judicial process, the courts being the proper place to determine guilt or innocence and that suspects are not unduly harassed or beaten.

[Danno 1,228]

Phrases like, reasonable force, probable cause, due process - they are all inventions of namby pamby librulism aren't they Danno? Police officers, the same as everyone else have to obey the law and when they do not, they are properly disciplined. This is not political correctness, or preventing the police from doing their job, this is ensuring that when an arrest is made the police can go forward and prosecute a case and not have it thrown out because of some legal nicety, by the same token, it also maintains the judicial process, the courts being the proper place to determine guilt or innocence and that suspects are not unduly harassed or beaten.

[mawilson 2,133]

That was in the original title, but apparently VJ moderation feels "Mexican" is a curse word like "fu**king".

[Heracles 417]

So, then your notion that the police can beat up on some suspects but not others is complete bullshit then, right?

How about Pike and yourself volunteer your expertise and do some police work?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

How about Pike and yourself volunteer your expertise and do some police work?

Do you think that a police officer kicking someone in the head when they are restrained and on the ground is justifiable?

[VanessaTony 3,567]

If you kick a dude on the floor when he's already restrained, it doesn't really matter what the context is. Nothing is going to mitigate that.

He wasn't restrained actually. He was on the floor yes. But if he WAS restrained he wouldn't have been able to "rub his eye". He reached up suddenly and an officer went to stand on his hand and instead kicked him in the head. You NEVER get down on the floor next to a suspect as you lose your centre of balance and as he WASN'T restrained he could have pulled him down to beat him or something.

As for the thing being racist... they were LOOKING for Mexicans as that was the witnesses description. I doubt that the witnesses would have referred to a white guy as "mexian" or a black guy, therefore it was the police officers DUTY to detain anyone who LOOKED mexican until they could ascertain they were the suspects, or innocent of the crime they were being looked at for.

It's really not that big of a deal. Yeah I feel bad for the guys being in the wrong place at the wrong time, but I'm sure if I was walking somewhere where a "white chick" had robbed people I'D be detained too.

Do you think that a police officer kicking someone in the head when they are restrained and on the ground is justifiable?

HE WASN'T RESTRAINED! He was ONLY on the floor. Watch the video, if he can reach his eye, whilst lying on his stomach and "restrained" he should enter the damn circus as a contortionist.

Edited May 9, 2010 by Vanessa&Tony

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

He wasn't restrained actually. He was on the floor yes. But if he WAS restrained he wouldn't have been able to "rub his eye". He reached up suddenly and an officer went to stand on his hand and instead kicked him in the head. You NEVER get down on the floor next to a suspect as you lose your centre of balance and as he WASN'T restrained he could have pulled him down to beat him or something.

As for the thing being racist... they were LOOKING for Mexicans as that was the witnesses description. I doubt that the witnesses would have referred to a white guy as "mexian" or a black guy, therefore it was the police officers DUTY to detain anyone who LOOKED mexican until they could ascertain they were the suspects, or innocent of the crime they were being looked at for.

It's really not that big of a deal. Yeah I feel bad for the guys being in the wrong place at the wrong time, but I'm sure if I was walking somewhere where a "white chick" had robbed people I'D be detained too.

HE WASN'T RESTRAINED! He was ONLY on the floor. Watch the video, if he can reach his eye, whilst lying on his stomach and "restrained" he should enter the damn circus as a contortionist.

Interesting. Now that you've established that a man lying face down in a prone position with a half dozen cops surrounding him is not "restrained", I guess the head-kicking is perfectly fine.

Marvellous.

[VanessaTony 3,567]

Interesting. Now that you've established that a man lying face down in a prone position with a half dozen cops surrounding him is not "restrained", I guess the head-kicking is perfectly fine.

Marvellous.

Actually, did you watch the video? Not all the cops were aimed in that particular guys direction. Your use of the term "restrained" is completely incorrect. He was surrounded yes, but restrained is a completely different word with a completely different meaning. Had you been the reporter people would have been outraged that whilst handcuffed the guy was beaten in the head. It's people like you who don't know the correct meanings of words that inflame situations unnecessarily with poor reports of incidents.

Have you ever been in a situation to see someone in this guys position getting up to run? He could have been surrounded by a DOZEN cops but a guilty guy will STILL try and get away. Putting his hands up towards his head can be a sign he's about to try and jump up to run.

He didn't INTEND to kick him in the head, it's perfectly clear the dude just misjudged. No it's not okay that it happened, but the guy was told to "lie down".. standard police procedure. He moved. He is SUPPOSED to ask for permission to rub his eye or wait until he is in a position to do so.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Actually, did you watch the video? Not all the cops were aimed in that particular guys direction. Your use of the term "restrained" is completely incorrect. He was surrounded yes, but restrained is a completely different word with a completely different meaning. Had you been the reporter people would have been outraged that whilst handcuffed the guy was beaten in the head. It's people like you who don't know the correct meanings of words that inflame situations unnecessarily with poor reports of incidents.

You are one excitable dude aren't you?

Have you ever been in a situation to see someone in this guys position getting up to run? He could have been surrounded by a DOZEN cops but a guilty guy will STILL try and get away. Putting his hands up towards his head can be a sign he's about to try and jump up to run.

He didn't INTEND to kick him in the head, it's perfectly clear the dude just misjudged. No it's not okay that it happened, but the guy was told to "lie down".. standard police procedure. He moved.

That's your take, it's not mine.

He is SUPPOSED to ask for permission to rub his eye or wait until he is in a position to do so.

Are you effing serious? Piss off...

[VanessaTony 3,567]

You are one excitable dude aren't you?

Chick actually. It's not my fault you weren't given a dictionary as a child.

That's your take, it's not mine.

Indeed it is.

Are you effing serious? Piss off...

Whether you like it or not it's the truth. Had he not been down on the ground in an already highly stressful situation that's another thing (for instance in an interview room etc). But if you're in that position, as you put it "surrounded by 1/2 dozen cops" and innocent, you would NEVER have moved. Only an idiot would do so.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Chick actually. It's not my fault you weren't given a dictionary as a child.

It's your fault that you want to make it an issue of semantics when the semantics are entirely meaningless to the situation.

Whether you like it or not it's the truth. Had he not been down on the ground in an already highly stressful situation that's another thing (for instance in an interview room etc). But if you're in that position, as you put it "surrounded by 1/2 dozen cops" and innocent, you would NEVER have moved. Only an idiot would do so.

Only an idiot would try to find justification in the injustifiable

[VanessaTony 3,567]

It's your fault that you want to make it an issue of semantics when the semantics are entirely meaningless to the situation.

Actually semantics are EXACTLY what the point is here. You're asking people if it's okay to kick a "restrained" person in the head. To which the answer is obviously no. BUT the dude wasn't restrained. So why are you creating a fictional scenario?

The whole point of this strangely enough is the racial slur. You're making it about a fictional "restrained person" being kicked in the head. The person on the floor had his head "grazed" by the boot of an officer whilst said officer was trying to stand on his hand. Should the officer have stood on the guys hand? No he shouldn't have. BUT what would you have preferred? Them pull a gun on the guy to scare him into putting his hand back down?

Dude really shouldn't have moved. And if he really was under arrest he should have been cuffed. The whole thing was handled incorrectly. But, no-one's perfect. Guys gunna pay with his job now, if not just a demotion, not to mention the humiliation.

Edited May 9, 2010 by Vanessa&Tony

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Actually semantics are EXACTLY what the point is here. You're asking people if it's okay to kick a "restrained" person in the head. To which the answer is obviously no. BUT the dude wasn't restrained. So why are you creating a fictional scenario?

The distinction you're going hell for leather to point out is not particularly important. I wonder why you think it is.

The whole point of this strangely enough is the racial slur. You're making it about a fictional "restrained person" being kicked in the head. The person on the floor had his head "grazed" by the boot of an officer whilst said officer was trying to stand on his hand. Should the officer have stood on the guys hand? No he shouldn't have. BUT what would you have preferred? Them pull a gun on the guy to scare him into putting his hand back down?

Dude really shouldn't have moved. And if he really was under arrest he should have been cuffed. The whole thing was handled incorrectly. But, no-one's perfect. Guys gunna pay with his job now, if not just a demotion, not to mention the humiliation.

The story is about the racial slur in combination with the kick.

On the bolded - Good.