Posted on 04/23/2011 3:02:32 PM PDT by DariusBane
When Mitchell Crooks checked out of the county jail last month and checked into a Las Vegas hospital, the 36-year-old videographer knew he had a fight on his hands.
His face was bloodied and bruised. His $3,500 camera had been impounded by police, and he faced criminal charges for battery on a police officer.
One month later, things have changed for Crooks.
The Clark County district attorney's More..office has dropped all charges, and Crooks has retained an attorney of his own. The Metropolitan Police Department has opened an internal investigation into the Las Vegas police officer, Derek Colling, who Crooks says falsely arrested and beat him for filming police.
And his camera -- which captured the entire March 20 altercation between Crooks and Colling -- has been returned.
The words are friendly enough, but the tone is tense:
"Can I help you, sir?" Colling asks from his patrol car after parking it in front of Crooks' driveway and shining the spotlight on Crooks.
"Nope. Just observing," Crooks responds, fixing his camera on the officer.
Crooks had for an hour been recording the scene across the street from his home in the 1700 block of Commanche Circle, near East Desert Inn Road and South Maryland Parkway, where officers had several young burglary suspects handcuffed and sitting on the curb.
As Las Vegas crimes go, the activity was fairly boring. Crooks wanted to use his new camera, and he figured his neighbors would like to see the suspects' faces.
When Colling loaded suspects into the back of his car and drove in a circle through the cul-de-sac, Crooks said he thought police were leaving. Then the officer stopped his car.
"Do you live here?" Colling asks.
"Nope," Crooks says.
Colling steps out of his patrol car.
Crooks said he now regrets not telling the officer that he was in fact standing in his own driveway. He realizes his response seemed cheeky, but he said the officer made him nervous. Colling walks toward Crooks, left hand raised.
"Turn that off for me," Colling orders.
"Why do I have to turn it off?'' Crooks responds. "I'm perfectly within my legal rights to be able to do this."
The officer repeats the command several times; each time Crooks reiterates his right to film.
"You don't live here," Colling says, now close to Crooks.
"I do live here!"
"You don't live here, dude."
"I just said I live here!"
As Crooks backs away, Colling grabs him by the shoulder and throws him down. On the ground, Crooks grabs the camera and turns it toward his face.
Colling's leg then enters the video frame. Crooks says he believes that was the kick that broke his nose.
The camera records the sound of Crooks screaming. He said that's when Colling was punching his face.
"Shut up!" Colling yells. "Stop resisting!"
YOU'RE IN A WORLD OF HURT,' OFFICER SAYS
In his arrest report Colling wrote that Crooks grabbed his shoulders "and attempted to take me to the ground. I in turn took him to the ground."
At Clark County Detention Center, Crooks was booked for battery on a police officer and obstruction of justice. He was released from jail the next day. On March 26, the Review-Journal reported on his case. Four days later all charges were dropped.
Chief Deputy District Attorney Christopher Laurent said he dismissed the charges because the police report was vague.
"I asked for a more definite description of the battery because battery requires a violent touching," Laurent said. Police never provided that information.
Crooks said he always believed he'd be vindicated, but after police returned his camera he knew he had proof.
"I was confident I was doing the right thing, but I was excited they (the DA's office) weren't wasting any time, and that somebody was smart enough to know I was acting within the law," he said.
Crooks said the incident looks worse on tape than he remembered.
What bothered him the most, he said, was Colling's attitude after he was placed in handcuffs.
"Why did you do that? I live here," Crooks is heard pleading on the tape.
"You just told me you didn't live here," Colling says. "You live right here, in this house?"
Crooks asks for paramedics. Colling tells him to shut up and follow orders.
"If you fight again, dude Hey, if you (expletive) fight again, dude, you're in a world of hurt. You hear me?
"You're not in charge here, buddy. You hear me?"
Colling mocks Crooks' labored breathing.
"Oh yeah, buddy. Hey, when you don't do what I ask you to do, then you're in a world of hurt. Then you're in a world of hurt. Aren't ya? Huh?"
Crooks was later diagnosed with a deviated septum and a chest wall injury. Crooks believes his ribs were broken, but never got X-rays that could prove it.
ACLU LAWYERS SAY OFFICER WAS WRONG
Allen Lichtenstein, an American Civil Liberties Union attorney, reviewed Crooks' video and said Colling was clearly in the wrong. Officers are trained to avoid escalating situations, but Colling initiated the incident and created a physical confrontation without provocation, he said.
"It raises serious questions about whether the officer used good judgment and whether he was properly trained," Lichtenstein said. "Those questions require answers."
Police have no expectation of privacy, and it's perfectly legal to film officers as long as it does not interfere in their investigation, he said. Colling erred in claiming that Crooks was trespassing. By law, only a property owner or resident can make a trespassing complaint, Lichtenstein said.
"Even if the officer didn't think he lived there, that doesn't mean he didn't have permission to be there,'' Lichtenstein said. "In the video I heard, that question was never asked."
Crooks' attorney, David Otto, on Thursday sent police a statement from Crooks, along with a demand for $500,000 to cover Crooks' medial care, pain and suffering.
Colling had no legitimate reason to approach Crooks that night, Otto wrote.
"Officer Colling was aggravated that a citizen should have the audacity to video tape, him -- a Las Vegas Metropolitan Patrol Officer,'' Otto wrote. "Officer Colling decided to use the fear and terror of his physical ability to beat Mr. Crooks into submission -- to teach Mr. Crooks and, by example, all citizens and residents of the Las Vegas Valley."
Clark County Sheriff Doug Gillespie declined comment, saying the internal investigation remains open. Colling remains on duty, and Crooks has declined requests to be interviewed by detectives.
The suspects in Colling's patrol car may have witnessed the event and given statements to detectives, but their names have not been released. Police said they were not arrested or booked, so their names are not public record.
Crooks said he doesn't want to talk to detectives.
You don’t get out much, do you?
This video tape proves EXACTLY why the cops do not want to be video taped...
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that, those you are responding to probably have no clue what you mean when you say this incident did not occur in a vacuum...
Its the only reason I can think of why so many here move to defend the undefendable.
Do any of you people want explain to Pshyco_Bunny the level of rancor that normally accompanies these threads?
I will give my personal experiance:
I have been likened to Charles Mansen for wanting to enforce the 4th Amendment.
2. I have been accused of being a convicted Felon.
3. I have been physically threatened by self described law enforcement officers for various stands I have taken. Yes, on the threads.
4. I have had the “F” bomb dropped on me for opposition to red light cameras, cell phone laws, seat belt laws etc.
Anybody else care to tell their stories?
I hope the city settles rather than go to court because if I was on the jury I would add a couple of "0"s just to send a message
You might be right, I am trying to provide context.
We’re usually just called “cop haters” for the act of posting the news story itself absent any comments.
I don’t quite get how posting a news story is cop hating, and the ones who employ that response has not been able to explain it...
Very true, and that is why Crookes answer to the question of whether not he lived there is moot.
More and more agencies are going to individual video cameras that officers are mandated to wear and record every officer/citizen encounter. They are expensive but in ten years they will be widespread.
You ask lots of questions but seems you didn't read the story or view the video. The charges were dropped.
I would assume the charges being completely dropped would give you an indication of the credibility of the charges against the victim and behavior of the officer.
"Law and Order" is the wrong term. Unquestionable Authority is more like it. Constitutional = Law. One law for everyone is the key with the people charged with law enforcement being no less subject to and restricted by the law than anyone else.
I think it unacceptable that we have two different measures for justifiable shootings based upon who the shooter is.
These cops should be fired AND charged with assault. Additionally, every state should have laws criminalizing the abuse of authority (and enforce them).
.
Ok true.
I don’t know how to frame it I guess.
I have to admit though...
I do kind of miss Trailerparkbadass and TheFactor on these threads... They were a hoot!
Three more and he will be an ace.
That was for someone who was "salvagable". IMO the cop should get fifty lashes and never be allowed to serve again.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.