Tape Shows Officers Restraining Suspect With Force: Excessive Force Or Justified Restraint?

MyCFNow ^

[HarryDunne]

Watch the video

[HarryDunne]

This should take you directly to the video

[ChicagoRepublican]

Police responded to the scene after receiving a tip from Brian Bates, who calls himself the Video Vigilante. Bates called police after he saw a man named Donald Pete get into a truck with a woman Bates believed was a prostitute.

This is the part of the story that really pissed me off. WTF is this Video Vigilante.

[TheOtherOne]

What does that video show? It looks like nothing to me. Certainly not anything like the clear police assault that took place in Inglewood, CA.

[OXENinFLA]

How many times did the cop say "GET ON THE GROUND".

[Dales]

The Inglewood video is more cut and dried.

[LurkingSince'98]

He's probably a guy tired of prossies doing tricks in his neighborhood. Wouldn't you?

Regards, Lurking'

[HarryDunne]

The cop does say numerous times "get on the ground". Does that justify the cop's actions? While he had the man on the ground, he kicked him in the head at least twice, he hit him repeatedly with the baton and he sprayed him with what looks like pepper spray.

[lelio]

It looks like they asked him to get on the ground and he did. Then the officer said get up and he did. Then said to get down. Its like some bizarre version of musical chairs.
I couldn't see the guy resisting, just asking what was going on. Cop kept on yelling "spit it out!" for some reason and then starts hitting him with something (looks like whipping motions, but hard to tell). Knees him in the back a couple of times.
What could the guy have done to cooperate more? He was just lying there on the ground like the cop said.

[phasma proeliator]

Okay - first of all the initial responding officer is not only extremely lucky - but one dumb sob.

it is clearly obvious that this man was far superior in strength that the officer - a fact that could have lead to sever injury and/or death for the officer had Mr. Pete decided to do so. maintaining contact with Mr. Pete is his grevious error - backing away and waiting for back-up is the "I like my life" decision here. - not the "i'm a stud decision that was made"....
As for the use of force - I don't see that it was necessary - no officer was in immediate harm - Mr. Pete never once made a threatening move (that I saw) - he simply rufused to comply - which isn't enough to justify the use of a baton. Waiting for backup and overpowering Mr. Pete is the sensible, correct decision.

Give me damn break - like I said - if this guy would have wanted to - he could have had cop for lunch.

[Mo1]

This is the part of the story that really pissed me off. WTF is this Video Vigilante.

Did you see the part where the video guy drops the camera to give the police officer his stick

[Jagdgewehr]

The kid in Inglewood was slammed against the car and punched while his hands were cuffed behind his back.

The man in this video is resisting and is not cuffed.

I think as long as you are a legitimate threat to the officer or you are resisting arrest, you're going to get rough up in response.

Seems pretty simple to me.

[Mixer]

The cop does say numerous times "get on the ground". Does that justify the cop's actions?

To me it clearly states that the guy put police officers at risk because at that point they were unsure of his intentions. Force must be used in cases where normal restraint is not possible. This includes when a person refuses to get down or put their hands behind their backs. I do not agree with brutality of any kind but cops must work on instinct more then the average person.

[Mo1]

What could the guy have done to cooperate more?

I agree this cop went WAY over board but at the same time the man was resisting arrest .. you can see when he is on the ground that he is fighting to keep is hands in front

My next question is .. what alerted the police office to order the man to the ground

My next question would be .. this cop didn't realize someone was taping him ????

[SarahW]

"Get on the ground", meant lie down on your stomach and quit trying to get up; and in context, it was clear that the so-called victim understood what conduct was desired.

He didn't want to be cuffed, and didn't want to obey. The officer is not safe until the guy is cuffed...

THis is nothing like the kid from the other day, who was suffed an floppy, getting slammed and punched in the face.

This guy needed to be cuffed, and they were right to spray and whack him until he complied.

[lelio]

According to this courttv.com the Video Vigilante Brian Bates is a person that films prostitution activity in the Oklahoma City area as to either show it to the cops or mail it to the wives of the husbands involved.

[Nov3]

There is wrong on both sides of this.

[TC Rider]

Did you see the part where the video guy drops the camera to give the police officer his stick

I caught that too. Mr. Video will be lucky if he's not named in the civil suit for aiding and abetting the cop.

[lelio]

I don't see him as resisting arrest, he had his arms out from his body. Based on the size difference the cop couldn't of pulled his arms behind his back; plus based on his size I doubt if he could have gotten his arms back there.
Poster phasma had it right: the person was posing no threat and the cop should of called for backup before engaging. There's an obvious size disadvantage which you shouldn't try and overcome by beating him with a baton. Its just common sense.

[Seeking the truth]

Thats what I saw too. He did not want to be cuffed and was resisting the attempts to be cuffed.