Police Brutality - Plain and Simple

[GalvestonDuck]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

If congress can't make any law denying the freedom of the press, then enforcers of the law can in no way deny the freedom of the press. While it happens in the name of security and dignity, it is nevertheless unconstitutional and if people don't like it when the press records these things, and they dare to attack a person recording these things : they can find another country with another constitution.

Does that include protecting the paparazzi?

[Skywatch_NC]

Man Beaten By New Orleans Police Pleads Not Guilty

POSTED: 10:59 am EDT October 12, 2005
UPDATED: 11:50 am EDT October 12, 2005

NEW ORLEANS -- A man whose beating by New Orleans police was caught on videotape this weekend has pleaded not guilty to charges of public intoxication, resisting arrest, battery on a police officer and public intimidation.

The plea came during a court appearance this morning by 64-year-old Robert Davis. He's been released on bond, and his trial is set for Jan. 18.

That's one week after the scheduled start of the trial for the officers accused of beating him. The two officers, and a third who's accused of grabbing and shoving an Associated Press TV producer, have pleaded not guilty to battery charges.

Davis said he was in the French Quarter to buy a pack of cigarettes Saturday night, when police hit him and threw him to the pavement. The retired schoolteacher also insists he wasn't drunk. He said he hasn't had a drink in 25 years.

Davis and his lawyer also said he wasn't tested for drunkenness after his arrest. His lawyer says he plans to file a civil suit against the city.

Davis’ beating was caught on video tape that has since aired repeatedly on national television. The tape showed Davis being beaten by two officers.

The U.S. Justice Department opened a civil rights investigation.

Volunteers Witnessed Beating

Two hurricane relief workers from Manatee County, Fla., said they witnessed Davis’ beating.

And they said one of them was manhandled as well.

Calvin Briles, a consultant for the Volunteer Center of Manatee County, said when law enforcement officers tried to get him and other passers-by out of the area, Briles said that he would tell somebody about what was going on.

Briles said that's when a man in a U.S. Customs vest grabbed him and threw him against a car, pressed his head against the hood and told Briles it was none of his business.

Briles told the Bradenton Herald, in Florida, that he was pushed by at least two officers and they wouldn't let him say anything.

With Briles was another Manatee County volunteer, Mike Monaghan, of Bradenton, who also witnessed the scuffle.

Both Briles and Monaghan said they were handcuffed. Monaghan said he was nudged by a police horse and then accused of hitting the horse, which he denied. Briles said he was pushed face-down onto the pavement while officers checked his name for warrants.

The men said they reported the incident to the FBI and U.S. Customs.

http://www.wral.com/news/5088871/detail.html

[cajungal]

That man did not deserve to be beaten like that. He did not look like a threat at all. 64 years old! He is probably somebody's grandfather! And he was a retired school teacher. If they felt he was doing something wrong, arrest him but don't beat him! I felt bad for that old man. I thought it was cruel.

[Skywatch_NC]

Reminds one of the beating of Rodney King and the ensuing LA riots.

Eric

[j]

now don't you all take this the wrong way, I wouldn't want that....BUT, do you think that just maybe, these police officers (in general) are under incredible stress down there? I'm not talking about the one's caught on tape helping themselves to goods at WalMart. I'm talking about the good honest cops trying to help people, and in doing so, have sacrificed more than we will ever know. How many times do you think some of these officers have been cussed at, had things thrown at them, maybe shot at in the wake of Katrina. I wonder how many of "us" ordinary citizens, put in the dangerous position that N.O. cops are put into, day in and day out, would always perform to the degree of perfection that is expected.

The poor old reformed alchoholic soft spoken black man, may very well be innocent, but something triggered this, and you can argue all day long what justifies the reaction. For every force, there is an opposing force. It's a Law of Nature.

For every "victim" caught on tape, there are millions of potential "victims" that never make that tape because they make the right decision. It's really not that difficult to stay out of trouble. We are all supposed to feel sorry for this guy and believe his story. You know what? He's admitted his previous alchoholism and narcotics addiction. This is a red flag as far as I'm concerned.

[j]

That man did not deserve to be beaten like that. He did not look like a threat at all. 64 years old! He is probably somebody's grandfather! And he was a retired school teacher. If they felt he was doing something wrong, arrest him but don't beat him! I felt bad for that old man. I thought it was cruel.

Do you think that the police involved knew that:

#1 - this man was 64 years old
#2 - this man was a retired school teacher
#3 - this man was an AA member and had been off alchohol and narcotics for 85 years.

If they had known all this, do you think they would have walked by and said, "let's not beat up this old black guy, let's go find us a young, strung out one, it will make us feel better".

btw...I'm 46 and I'm somebody's grandfather. I hope the cops think about that next time I provoke one of them.

[sunny]

Lawyer: Officers used 'reasonable' force

11:45 AM CDT on Wednesday, October 12, 2005

WWLTV.com

The lawyer for three police officers arrested and suspended from the force after a taped incident on Bourbon Street says the men have been ‘tried and convicted’ by the media and that the facts will show that ‘reasonable’ force was used. He said ‘politics’ was the reason that Mayor Nagin and other city officials had quickly condemned the actions.

Lance Schilling and Robert Evangelist were charged in connection with the taped encounter with 64-year-old Robert Davis and officer S.M. Smith was charged in connection with a physical confrontation with an Associated Press producer.

The tape appears to show several blows being delivered to Davis that caused his head to slam against a wall. He is then brought to the ground, while apparently resisting, and additional blows were delivered.

Attorney Frank DeSalvo said the bloody mess that was on the ground and the blood streaming from Davis’ face came as a result of his face hitting the ground as a federal agent wrestled him to the floor.

According to DeSalvo, Davis was stumbling on Bourbon Street and fell into a police horse when officers came to his aid. They arrested him for public intoxication, though admit no breath or blood test was given. Davis contends he hasn’t had alcohol in 25 years.

DeSalvo said tests to prove inebriation are rarely given in cases of public drunkenness.

DeSalvo added that nothing out of the ordinary would have occurred if Davis had not resisted. He said that one of Davis’ hands were cuffed but that the attempt to cuff the other necessitated the blows seen on the video. He contends that none of the blows struck Mr. Davis in the head.

None of the officers present were allowed to answer questions, though PANO Chief David Benelli said he was upset that the officers had been “tried and convicted” in public prior to a complete investigation.

[kevin]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

If congress can't make any law denying the freedom of the press, then enforcers of the law can in no way deny the freedom of the press. While it happens in the name of security and dignity, it is nevertheless unconstitutional and if people don't like it when the press records these things, and they dare to attack a person recording these things : they can find another country with another constitution.

Does that include protecting the paparazzi?

People can of course hide from other people, and people can decide whether or not to let people on their property, but in the public domain the freedom of the press is assured.

While I don't view the paparazzi as journalists, and while the ammendment was used with the intent of protecting people uncovering governmental ills, even the paparazzi have a constitutional right not to be beaten and made to turn off their cameras in the public domain.

Really I'm not sure why you asked the question.

[george_r_1961]

Lets wait for an investigation before we jump to conclusions. Seems like every drunk that gets thrown in jail "hasnt had a drink". Could it be that he WAS drunk and failed to comply with the officers orders to either put his hands behind his back or on the wall etc.? So what if he was 64 years old? A person that age in good shape could put up a fight. Only a thourough investigation will reveal the truth.

[GalvestonDuck]

Does that include protecting the paparazzi?

People can of course hide from other people, and people can decide whether or not to let people on their property, but in the public domain the freedom of the press is assured.

While I don't view the paparazzi as journalists, and while the ammendment was used with the intent of protecting people uncovering governmental ills, even the paparazzi have a constitutional right not to be beaten and made to turn off their cameras in the public domain.

Really I'm not sure why you asked the question.

Because now there are laws being passed protecting citizens from being harassed and chased by the paparazzi. Of course, the paparazzi might try to claim that their Constitutional rights are being taken away. However, I believe that there are limits to "freedom of the press." No one wants to stop journalists from providing us with the news. However sometimes, it's not news they're after. It's the almighty dollar.

[Terrell]

Sorry but it's gonna take a bit more than a public drunkeness charge, in my opinion, to justify even an arrest. Unless you can prove he was doing something criminal (something objectively criminal and directly harmful to someone else. Public intimidation is WAY too subjective) the cops should have left this man alone. As to stress that those officers are under what about all the other officers who are under stress that don't beat the tar out of citizens for no good reason.

Stress issues can be handled at the officer's sentencing hearings, it doesn't make them any less guilty. (In my mind the videotape is proof beyond a reasonable doubt of guilt, regardless of what transpired before)

[kevin]

Does that include protecting the paparazzi?

People can of course hide from other people, and people can decide whether or not to let people on their property, but in the public domain the freedom of the press is assured.

While I don't view the paparazzi as journalists, and while the ammendment was used with the intent of protecting people uncovering governmental ills, even the paparazzi have a constitutional right not to be beaten and made to turn off their cameras in the public domain.

Really I'm not sure why you asked the question.

Because now there are laws being passed protecting citizens from being harassed and chased by the paparazzi. Of course, the paparazzi might try to claim that their Constitutional rights are being taken away. However, I believe that there are limits to "freedom of the press." No one wants to stop journalists from providing us with the news. However sometimes, it's not news they're after. It's the almighty dollar.

I think there is a difference between passive recording of events, and stalking. To me that's the difference between journalism and the cult of the celebrity.

[abajan]

Lets wait for an investigation before we jump to conclusions. Seems like every drunk that gets thrown in jail "hasnt had a drink". Could it be that he WAS drunk and failed to comply with the officers orders to either put his hands behind his back or on the wall etc.? So what if he was 64 years old? A person that age in good shape could put up a fight. Only a thourough investigation will reveal the truth.

Look, I'm all for letting justice take its course (fair trial, right to appeal etc.). That said, can you think of anything that would justify someone's head being repeatedly punched and pounded into a solid wall? Even after the guy was bound in cuffs on the ground and bleeding profusely, one officer seemed unsatisfied with his handywork. My God, I couldn't do what they did, to even the most despicable creature I can think of.

Let's not split hairs. It was ugly, disgusting and unjustifiable.

After those severe blows to his head, the man will be lucky not to suffer from epilepsy or some other serious ill effects in the future. He could easily have been killed - and for what? Public drunkeness? Failing to comply with instructions? Give me a break!

I hope he sues those "officers" for all they're worth.

[j]

In my mind the videotape is proof beyond a reasonable doubt of guilt, regardless of what transpired before

You couldn't possibly have meant what you said here.

[Terrell]

In my mind the videotape is proof beyond a reasonable doubt of guilt, regardless of what transpired before

You couldn't possibly have meant what you said here.

Actually I can, Beating and punching the man were totally uncalled for, unacceptable, and unjustified regardless of what he said or did before, the Police are supposed to use the minimum force necessary to accomplish a task. There is no justification for the police to have struck this man even once, if they wanted to arrest him they can grab his arms or whatever, but beating him is unnecessary. I also think the initial reason for the arrest is VERY shaky, to begin with.

[j]

In my mind the videotape is proof beyond a reasonable doubt of guilt, regardless of what transpired before

You couldn't possibly have meant what you said here.

Actually I can, Beating and punching the man were totally uncalled for, unacceptable, and unjustified regardless of what he said or did before, the Police are supposed to use the minimum force necessary to accomplish a task. There is no justification for the police to have struck this man even once, if they wanted to arrest him they can grab his arms or whatever, but beating him is unnecessary. I also think the initial reason for the arrest is VERY shaky, to begin with.

I can see I have to be nearly absurd for you to retract.

Let's say a man is apparently drunk...staggers down the sidewalk cussing and making lewd comments. Innocent little 7 year old Sally walks by and Drunkerd grabs her behind, whistles and laughs outloud at his sick behavior. He then unzips his pants, and exposes himself in public. He then urinates on the sidewalk and aims at a passing dog just for good measure. Upon being approached by police he tells them to" **** off...this is America, I can do as I please." Police approach and the man reaches uder his shirt. You have a split second to decide if the slob is scratching some crud off his stomache or reaching for a gun. You grab him and subdue him with whatever means it takes.

Extreme? Yes...but sometimes the situation does not warrant kindness and consideration.

You do NOT know what proceeded the arrest, or attempt to arrest. I just don't understand why you are so quick to hang the cops? It is perfectly legal for a police officer to use reasonable force to subdue a suspect. Perhaps more reasonable force in this instance would have been a stun gun. Perhaps the officer didn't feel he had time and had to use a more primitive method to get the suspect to comply. I've been punched in the face a few times in my life. You know what? You live through it. If the police officer wrestles the man to the ground that probably would have been ok, but maybe the shear agressive behavior of throwing him to the ground was actually worse than a few punches to the face.

Time and time again Police officers order suspects to lay down, put their hands behind their backs, or whatever. If you don't do as asked, what are the police officers supposed to do? Say "Pretty please with sugar on top?", while said suspect reaches for a weapon that could end your life?

What happens prior to the attempt to arrest absolutely matters.

[sunny]

Good post, j. And you are 100% correct, what happens prior to the attempt to arrest absolutely matters.

[Terrell]

In my mind the videotape is proof beyond a reasonable doubt of guilt, regardless of what transpired before

You couldn't possibly have meant what you said here.

Actually I can, Beating and punching the man were totally uncalled for, unacceptable, and unjustified regardless of what he said or did before, the Police are supposed to use the minimum force necessary to accomplish a task. There is no justification for the police to have struck this man even once, if they wanted to arrest him they can grab his arms or whatever, but beating him is unnecessary. I also think the initial reason for the arrest is VERY shaky, to begin with.

I can see I have to be nearly absurd for you to retract.

Let's say a man is apparently drunk...staggers down the sidewalk cussing and making lewd comments. Innocent little 7 year old Sally walks by and Drunkerd grabs her behind, whistles and laughs outloud at his sick behavior. He then unzips his pants, and exposes himself in public. He then urinates on the sidewalk and aims at a passing dog just for good measure. Upon being approached by police he tells them to" **** off...this is America, I can do as I please." Police approach and the man reaches uder his shirt. You have a split second to decide if the slob is scratching some crud off his stomache or reaching for a gun. You grab him and subdue him with whatever means it takes.

Extreme? Yes...but sometimes the situation does not warrant kindness and consideration.

You do NOT know what proceeded the arrest, or attempt to arrest. I just don't understand why you are so quick to hang the cops? It is perfectly legal for a police officer to use reasonable force to subdue a suspect. Perhaps more reasonable force in this instance would have been a stun gun. Perhaps the officer didn't feel he had time and had to use a more primitive method to get the suspect to comply. I've been punched in the face a few times in my life. You know what? You live through it. If the police officer wrestles the man to the ground that probably would have been ok, but maybe the shear agressive behavior of throwing him to the ground was actually worse than a few punches to the face.

Time and time again Police officers order suspects to lay down, put their hands behind their backs, or whatever. If you don't do as asked, what are the police officers supposed to do? Say "Pretty please with sugar on top?", while said suspect reaches for a weapon that could end your life?

What happens prior to the attempt to arrest absolutely matters.

No, their job is to arrest him, not to beat the living crap out of him, the punches are still unjustified. Punishment is meted out by the courts, not by the police regardless, the police are to use the minimum amount of force necessary to secure an arrest.

As to whether or not he was reaching into his waistband, I don't believe the cops are telling the truth. If someone is really potentially reaching for a weapon it makes more sense to draw their own weapons if the man is not within reach. If he is within reach then grab his arms and pull them away from any potential weapon at least that would be more effective in disarming him than punching him. I believe that these cops were caught on videotape abusing this man, and they are coming up with whatever lies they think will give them sympathy. It sounds a little too convinent to me to survive my analysis.

The Police must be held accountable when they do wrong. If anything they should be held to a higher standard, given their role in society, and the power in their hands.

[streetsoldier]

"If anything they should be held to a higher standard, given their role in society, and the power in their hands..."

True, in theory; but that places the officer at a severe disadvantage when dealing with thugs who HAVE no scruples or rules. Take, FI, the weapons an officer may carry. In my day, it was either a .38 Special or a .357 Magnum revolver, plus the 12-gauge in the car.

The "gutless wonders" we were after had NO restrictions, and at any time I could (and did) face perps with .45 ACP (1911-A1 slabside) pistols, full-or-semi-auto 9MM, 30.06, .303 rifles...even bows and arrows once!

And, note...they never shouted out a warning as we had to do, didn't give a #@*^ about our rights, and usually fired from behind us, or from cover to the side...never a "straight-up", "Wild West" encounter.

From a Missouri State Supreme Court statement, made from the bench...

"The police officer is most miserable of public servants, as the state dictates that he must serve and protect it's citizens, yet so hampers him with restrictions on his authority as to render his expected duties futile and meaningless".

I was one of the officers present at that session, and this magistrate's words haunt me even today...how very true they were, and still are.

[Terrell]

"If anything they should be held to a higher standard, given their role in society, and the power in their hands..."

True, in theory; but that places the officer at a severe disadvantage when dealing with thugs who HAVE no scruples or rules. Take, FI, the weapons an officer may carry. In my day, it was either a .38 Special or a .357 Magnum revolver, plus the 12-gauge in the car.

The "gutless wonders" we were after had NO restrictions, and at any time I could (and did) face perps with .45 ACP (1911-A1 slabside) pistols, full-or-semi-auto 9MM, 30.06, .303 rifles...even bows and arrows once!

And, note...they never shouted out a warning as we had to do, didn't give a #@*^ about our rights, and usually fired from behind us, or from cover to the side...never a "straight-up", "Wild West" encounter.

From a Missouri State Supreme Court statement, made from the bench...

"The police officer is most miserable of public servants, as the state dictates that he must serve and protect it's citizens, yet so hampers him with restrictions on his authority as to render his expected duties futile and meaningless".

I was one of the officers present at that session, and this magistrate's words haunt me even today...how very true they were, and still are.

I don't oppose equipping you with better weapons and equipment, to me that makes perfect sense and is a good use of taxdollars. There are times when I do think use of deadly force is apropriate, this just wasn't one of them (had they not thrown punches, they might not be in trouble). I just think that police who screw up have to be held accountable, and I resent those who (at least to me) seem to say they shouldn't.