officer nearly choked him to death during a traffic stop. Posted on 07/02/2008 12:10:57 PM PDT by LibWhacker
MOUNT JULIET, Tenn. - A Midstate man said a police officer nearly choked him to death during a traffic stop.
The incident was caught on tape.
The Tennessee Bureau of Investigation is investigating how Mount Juliet Cpl. Bill Cosby interacted with James Anders, Jr.
Cosby stopped the 26-year-old Wilson County man in April.
Cosby suspected Anders hid marijuana in his mouth. The officer used a vascular restraint technique to keep Anders from swallowing.
On the video recorded inside Cosby's patrol car, Cosby said he smelled marijuana and handcuffed Anders and his passenger.
The video also showed the officer putting his hands around Anders' neck. He applied pressure and told Anders to stick out his tongue. This happened for nearly two minutes before Anders lost consciousness.
Photographs released by Anders' attorney showed injuries he sustained when he fell to the pavement.
Cosby didn't find any marijuana in Ander's mouth. Anders passed a drug test the next day.
A small bag of pot was found in his car and Anders was arrested for simple possession and resisting arrest.
After the district attorney saw the video, the charges were dropped.
Anders is expected to file a lawsuit in federal court later this month.
Cosby is still on the job.
After viewing the tape, General Sessions Judge Barry Tatum dismissed all Cosby's cases. He called what Cosby did inexcusable and said Cosby is no longer welcome in his court. In essence, any tickets he writes now are meaningless. The judge will dismiss them.
Anders' attorney said there's no excuse for strangling a man helpless and handcuffed.
"Clearly his constitutional rights were violated. He was choked," said Garry Vandever, Anders' attorney.
Vandever said Anders is fine but he still upset over what happened.
Anders is expected to file a lawsuit in federal court later this month.
Andy Garrett was sworn in as the new police chief Monday night.
"I have viewed the tape. I wasn't on board when this happened," he said. "It is an incident that's been addressed internally through training and discipline with the police officer. Any further investigation that's going to be done by an outside agency will be referred to the city attorney," said Garrett, a 25-year Metro Police Department veteran who recently commanded the force's Central Precinct.
He succeeds former Mount Juliet Police Chief Ted Floyd who retired several months ago.
In a letter sent to the new police chief and obtained by NewsChannel 5, Tatum said he's "dismissing all cases Corporal Cosby has pending" in his court.
Tatum also indicated that he's "dismissing any (future) cases he attempts to bring."
Tatum said Cosby has "cast a permanent cloud over law enforcement and the judicial system."
"We trust that an officer has to have the type of demeanor that when someone is treating them badly, spitting on them, trying to hit them, that that officer will have restraint in his actions toward that person," said Wilson County General Sessions Court Judge Bob Hamilton.
look, i deal with criminals. i have never locked up anyone who didn't deserve it. truth is i really don't care what law-abiding citizens think of me because i usually don't interact with them like i did when i was on straight patrol.
my job is locking up bad guys and girls. show me one post where i used the term "civilians." go ahead, show me. if you do i'll apologize.
In the bod old days, we used to joke about there being three classes of people: cops, @ssholes and dummies. the point is that cops see things as clearly demarked by status. The people they normally deal with are the less desireable members of our society. These are people you rarely encounter. Thre are various derogatory terms for them use by lots of people who are not in the law enforcement business. Dummies are those people who, through their inattention to their surroundings or situation, interface (usually negatively) with the @ssholes. The cops, well, that's the other class.
In the present time, we prefer to refer to folks as "wolves, sheepdogs and sheep'. Same interactions-wolves prey on sheep, sheepdogs have sharp teeth and claws and look to some like wolves, but they protect the sheep from the wolves. Sheep who stray into wolf territory get preyed upon and sheepdogs rush to the rescue, although oftentimes too late. Sheep get mad at sheepdogs because they remind them of wolves.
Libertarian ping! To be added or removed freepmail me or post a message here.
Even if he did smell drugs, so the hell what?
++++++++++++++++
Drugs are illegal. The cop smelled drugs. Drugs were found. There is probable cause to search and it is against the law to resist. Sounds to me like the judge doesn’t like cops and especially cops who make drug arrests. I still say the judge smokes either pot, crack or both.
The fact that a small bag of pot was found in his car doesn't make him a "drug runner". He may have been a weekend smoker for all we know. IMHO, most potheads are worthless losers, but that shouldn't justify police brutality. If he had a significant amount of meth or heroin I might feel differently.
I think that the judge is being honest.
You and I both know that only in the rarest of circumstances is police misconduct proven and punished. Most of the time, there are no witnesses, other cops refuse to testify, victims are overcharged with a bunch of other offenses, just to make them plead guilty to something or be bankrupted by legal fees, etc.
This judge has seen misconduct which goes to the very character of the man. He has decided, probably based on the officer's story of what happened vs. the videotape, that the officer is not truthful.
Once the judge has concluded that the officer is not a truthful man, he can disbelieve all future testimony. The judge has decided that the man can not rehabilitate himself and is a disgrace to the department. He is within his rights to dismiss every charge this man swears to in the future, because of his false testimony in this case. Sort of like a character witness in reverse.
That's unfortunate. I guess video means nothing to you.
No, you deal with individuals "suspected" of a crime under current laws.
i really don't care what law-abiding citizens think of me
...and we should give a rat's-ass about you other than the little tin-badge that's used to attempt to intimidate people?
If he had been fired or prosecuted, the victim would have no claim against the local government agency.
and no. i deal with criminals. people with long rap sheets who would hurt people like you as soon as look at you. only liberals whine about how the rights of criminals are infringed by the big bad cops.
cops have to play the game but unfortunately the bad guys set the rules because they don't care about the laws.
I say good for the judge. If the Police Chief won't fire him, the judge can decide who he is going to believe or not in any case involving a particular cop. If a number of judges do the same, he will be out of a job one way or the other. Doesn't sound like the prosecutor wants to have anything to do with him, either; but he could prosecute the cop and solve all the problems.
That is exactly the kind of judge I'd want in my local courts.
Here is what the article says:
In a letter sent to the new police chief, Tatum said he's "dismissing all cases Corporal Cosby has pending" in his court.
Tatum also indicated that he's "dismissing any (future) cases he attempts to bring."
In other words, he has prejudged the man as guilty w/o a hearing of any type, which is wrong. IM(ns)HO, the judge should have done this:
Sent a letter of reproach to the Chief, copied in the local DA and said the following:
1) It is the view of this court that this officer's testimony is suspect.
2) Any case brought before me, which relies on this officer's testimony is at risk of being dismissed, w/o some other corroborating evidence.
3) In a separate letter to the DA, I am recommending that all cases in which this officer is a key element of the case, be reexamined in view of the behavior of this officer.
4) Recommend that the officer be immediately investigated for possible criminal conduct.
Had he done that he would have accomplished the same thing, while also allowing for prosecution of guilty people who he may otherwise be dismissing charges against.
So you believe then that a man can be presumed guilty w/o a trial?
Hell, even OJ got a trial and he was guilty as the day is long.
frankiep wasn't the only one wondering that. Copsuckers will always show up to defend their idols. The question is never "if", it's "when".
Hell, you created 95% of them by creating a bootleg black market.
Try renting the Woody Harrelson doc dvd "Grass". It's legal. It's just an informative dvd.
Scared? Hate filled? Do a little history work, Know your enemy. Pray for your enemy. He may not actually be an enemy for long.
What if they passed a law making it legal to choke you unconscious? As long as it's "legal".
and where i work, choke-holds are banned by dept policy.
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.