posted 02-05-2011 06:20 AM                  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chD_4wRlpwo

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=7412033

Add your input below. Justified? Horrible? Racial? Deterrent? Too much crime? Bush's fault?

posted 02-05-2011 06:40 AM                  

Excessive use of force. Totally unjustified. The officers should be charged with assault.

posted 02-05-2011 10:55 AM                  

I do understand that in some circumstances some force is required to subdue a suspect, but only to the point that it takes to get the job done.
Two officers at the most could have probably handled this situation without incident.

It would be my guess that the individuals involved were unaware of the camera's and may have thought it would be the victim's word against theirs. I would guess that had they know absolutely that they were being taped, this situation would have been handled much differently.

While I feel that people guilty of selling drugs deserve no respect, they are still human beings and as much as I don't like it have their rights.
What ever happened to innocent until PROVEN guilty? It seems that these days we are automatically guilty, then it is our job to prove ourselves innocent.

I would like to believe that all Police officers hold themselves to a higher standard and are always above board and honest to a fault, but we all know this is not the case.

It is a shame these things happen. I think we need to be made aware but, the media does not need to sensationalize and drag out these things. Just report the incident happened, provide the facts without commentary, then report the outcome and no speculation in between.

posted 02-05-2011 11:58 PM                  

From what I understand, this video lead to 4 officers being charged criminally, 7 being fired and 12 being disciplined. Only one was reinstated.

That is why all of our patrol cars have digital video and audio systems that upload automatically and cannot be deleted from the cars. It protects our deputies and the public when there is any complaint, plus we use the video in our criminal cases. In all the years we have had the systems, we have never had to use the video against a deputy for an abuse allegation.

We have several Houston Police Officers that are Prowler Owners and post on this site, and many who are family members on here. Just like any profession, Doctors, Teachers, Athletes, etc, you will have bad apples that tarnish the name of them all. I know a lot of HPD Officers and know hard hard it is for them to overcome the stigma caused by the actions of these few. HPD has far more great, dedicated and honest officers than these that don't share our values.

For every 100 applicants, we may interview only 3 or 4, the quality of people wanting to do this job is far more limited nowdays. We had one jailer applicant who recently showed that she had 2 years prison experience. You guessed it, she was an inmate serving a sentence and wanted to file a complaint against us for rejecting her application! She said we were not specific enough on what type of experience was required for the job and that her 2 years in a "correctional setting" was adequate experience for the position.

posted 02-06-2011 07:24 AM                  

Here is a Toronto Cop, one minute rescuing a guy from a flood and the next minute working the G20 protest.

posted 02-06-2011 04:33 PM                  

most cops are professional, but there are just way too many who feel they can do whatever they want and have no compunction in using too much force simply because they think they can.

common misconception is that you have to do whatever a copy tells you to. while you do have to obey any lawfull order, the courts have been very tough on cops who use force for failure to follow an unlawfull order. its a fact sensitive situation, but cops do not have unilateral authority in a typical traffic stop situation.

the cops in this first video should do time...

posted 02-07-2011 06:26 AM                  

quote:

---

Originally posted by ALLEY CAT:
quote: [B]"cops do not have unilateral authority in a typical traffic stop situation"

Ed,,can you explain further about this?[/B]

---

as i said, it is a fact sensitive situation but consider a normal traffic stop.

driver exits the vehicle to get his wallet out. the cop orders him to get back in the car. the driver says he is only trying to get his wallet out of his back pocket and feels safer standing outside the vehicle. the cop screams and orders him back in the vehicle. the driver says he will stand wherever the cop wants him to but is more comfortable outside the vehicle.

the cop arrest him for disorderly conduct.

the case was thrown out as the order to sit in the car was not deemed lawfull under those circumstances. the court held that in a typical traffic stop, a driver who is not under arrest may stand by his vehicle if he chooses to.

as i said though...it is fact sensitive. if the driver were to make some sort of threatening gesture...the whole situation would be different. also different states may have adopted different standards.

in this case, the drivers 7 year old was buckled up in a car seat and witnessed her father thrown on the hood of the car and arrested. the case is now being pursued in a civil action against the cop individually and the police department who apparantly condoned such actions.

i had a case once in which the driver was arrested for disorderly conduct because he told the cop it was none of his business as to where he was going. that arrest was similarly thrown out.

once again though...each case is fact sensitive. in general, you must obey any lawfull order of a cop in most any situation... and this is not legal advice...each state may have different standards accepted by the courts that may make something legal in one state to be illegal in another...

my only point was that cops do have the authority to control the situation, but absent any furtive gesture or threatening conduct, drivers also have some rights that cannot be over-ridden by a pissed off cop.

posted 02-07-2011 08:09 PM                  

MA: "Fidgeting" can be furtive movement for RS
The trial court’s finding of furtive movement supporting reasonable suspicion was not clearly erroneous. Commonwealth v. Rivera, 76 Mass. App. Ct. 304, 921 N.E.2d 1008 (2010)*:

The defendant quarrels only with the judge's determination that his gestures were furtive, asserting that these movements were mere "fidgeting." "The phrase 'furtive gesture' appears in many decisions where the issue is whether a patfrisk or a search of a vehicle is justified. The gestures are interpreted by the police (and by the courts) as demonstrating the hiding of contraband or as threatening the officers' safety."

posted 02-08-2011 10:17 AM                  

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tom Santella:
It sure looks like the officers went way to far with this guy,but I am of the position that these dirtbags loose some of their rights when they brutaly and dangerously put people in direct danger, with inexcusable violence or disregard for the publics saftey. High speed car chases and the like. Maybe that doesn't fit this particular case, but it does sometimes. I know that " loosing some of their rights" stuff is not PC to say , but , it's the way I feel sometimes .

---

Tom, are speaking of the suspects or the cops in this case/ Just kidding.

I don't think we want any individual in any case at any time with the authority to decide which of our rights we are entitled to.