Posted on 07/11/2002 4:37:33 PM PDT by socal_parrot
Although your right and I agree, Firemen, Police, Military, Coast Guard etc etc in general are hero's. It's just to bad they have to deal with this attitude from time to time. (except of course when it's PC and convenient to praise them only during a time of need, 911, desert shield/storm, etc)
But again, no matter what your "Freeper FReshness date" may say... Welcome.
I was expecting this. Criticize a cop, no matter how justified, and you're anti-police.
You must have just gotten to the "party" -- late I might add. There has been three to five severely irrational posters blatantly rationalizing on each of the several threads that have been started since the story first broke on Monday. It's difficult to identify their agenda but process of elimination clearly rules out honesty and objectivity.
It's a rite of passage.
Don't expect he can survive in the age of the camcorder.
Probability of statistics would seem to indicate that this incident will cause an increase in people taking camcorders with them when they leave the house.
I get what you mean, really, but still you have to admit it's one thing to see someone smacked down in a debate for a moronic opinion and disregarded, but to have a (new)freepers opinion dismissed due to a sign up date does not exactly make someones arguement seem as strong. Yep, it's a right of passage, but if the FReeper doesn't seem like a disruptor, some of us like to welcome them the proper way. 
So we must see how the justice system plays this out before we start rioting in the streets.
So you and your friends may riot in the streets. Or by your use of "we" did you mean a "collectivist we".
He needs to authenticate that the tape is exactly as he made it, that it hasn't been doctored... In this day and age, it is very important.
Or that there are no copies thus indicating that the only tape can be doctored. In this day and age, it is very important. Very important to think not just critically, but from all perspectives think critically.
Black, White, Yellow, whatever, if you resist arrest you deserve whatever you get.
"Put your hands behind your back."
"No."
"click", "BANG!"
I suggest you seek competent, professional help.
Now it's not just police brutality, it's also sexual assault. Gives whole new meaning to the term.
I heard it reported on the news (ABC, CBS or NBC) that the kid was unconscious. Which would explain why he appeared as dead weight when they picked him up and slammed him onto the car 242
Firstly this "kid" was not unconcious. If you view the tape you will see the "kid" speaking to or saying something to the MOS after being struck in the face.
I have watched the tape several times. Apparently you have limited reading comprehension "skill". I wrote about what happened prior to the kid punched in the face, not after -- which you failed to discern.
Secondly, Handcuffs do not stop backward motion, their purpose is to restrain physical attack by an agressor by restraining the ability to use both hands in a coordinated manner. If you have even been handcuffed you would realize that you would be able to reach backwards for a significant distance while cuffed.
Apparently you've just gone delusional. The only thing I wrote about in post 242 (see above) was the report of him being unconscious and I added that from point A (lying on the ground) to point B (when he was slammed on the car) he appeared limp like dead weight. Check your meds. ;^)
From the video it appears that the brother struck the perp for no reason, however appearances can be decieving. I have been grabbed by perps from time to time and depending on what they are holding onto, one is trained to step into the perp to get them to release.
Ummmm, thanks for your insights. Not that it has anything to do with the possibility that the kid was unconscious from point A to point B.
BTW, welcome aboard.
LiberALtarians=cop haters. Period. They're liberals and use the race card. Boring. And, quite whiney as well.
I'm not a Libertarian and every Libertarian that I have encountered on this forum has said or implied that they stand by the non-initiation of force principle -- do whatever you want so long as you don't initiate force, threat of force or fraud against anyone. Thus, whether they hate something or love something is irrelevant for they won't initiate force on anyone. They're actions are harmless to others. Nor have I encountered a Libertarian playing the race card.
Frankly, IMO, what you said is your mind-spun fabrication.
"After his hands were cuffed, Jackson was able to reach out and grab my client's testicles," he said. "And on that occasion the punch was seen in order to make that activity cease."
Actually, they may have a good case..
I just watched the video about 12 times in a row, focusing carefully on different portions of the action each time to make sure I caught all details.
Jackson's legs *were* clearly limp. The cop first picked Jackson up off the ground (since it's hard to get up off the ground with your hands handcuffed behind your back), and set him on his feet. Instead of keeping his legs under tension, ready to have them take his weight as he's set down, Jackson lets his legs be completely limp -- they clearly swing and sway like a rag doll's.
The cop stands Jackson up vertical and begins walking forward with him.
Only 2-3 steps later (the cop's steps -- Jackson appears to still be letting his legs dangle as the cop half guides him, half carries him forward), Jackson drops about six inches. What he's doing with his legs can't be discerned now because they've just passed behind the rear of the car and the video can't see Jackson's legs.
Only then, after Jackson drops, does the cop yank Jackson upwards (like you would throw your strength into holding up something heavy that was falling, jerking it up to halt its drop), and swing Jackson over onto the car trunk.
Jackson hits moderately hard, but *not* as hard as if he had been intentionally slammed onto the trunk with full force by the cop. It's about as hard as you'd expect for having been dropped face first onto the trunk under your own weight without using your hands to break your fall, give or take.
The "trunk drop" *is* consistent with the cop's story. So is being tossed there out of spite, too, but at least the "he was falling, I dropped him on the trunk so he wouldn't go face first into the pavement" story is not out of the question. It looks plausible. The cop may have even tripped over Jackson's dangling feet and plopped him down on the trunk to regain his own balance so they both wouldn't go down.
What's really interesting is that at this point the cop looks a bit annoyed, and very definitely *not* angry. Nor was he looking angry when he picked up Jackson in the first place and turned him around to head him to the police car. He looked pretty bored, actually. Nor did he yank Jackson off the ground, or swing him around roughly.
And as soon as Jackson bonked down onto the trunk, the cop did nothing else aggressive. He just seemed to be holding Jackson to keep him from sliding down off the car, and says something to Jackson with an irritated but not angry expression. (Maybe "now cut that out" or somesuch).
Even Jackson didn't seem all that upset.
The black cop, who was facing away when the trunk incident occurred, turned back (when he heard the noise, apparently), and walked up to the first cop to talk to him. He appears to ask a "WTF?" question, and the first cop responds with something, then the black cop seems satisfied and walks around them both to the back of the car as if he considers it settled.
What happens next is a little hard to tell because the camera guy zooms in close enough that we can no longer see the cop's face.
About 40 seconds after the drop to the trunk, during which Jackson is conscious and active (contrary to some earlier posts), raising his head and turning it from left to right, and during which the cop is not abusing Jackson but instead is moving slowly and deliberately, we see Jackson's right arm lift up a few inches. But his hands are obscured by his body, so we can't tell quite where they are.
They are somewhere in the vicinity of the cop's groin, however, because the cop is standing close behind Jackson and leaning over him slightly, presumably to hold him and keep him from sliding off the trunk (or standing and running, perhaps).
About 2 seconds after Jackson's right arm lifts a few inches, the cop grabs the back of Jackson's neck with his left hand, and then after another 2 seconds he punches Jackson once.
*NOW* he looks pissed off all of a sudden. It doesn't seem to be a "boiling over of rage" at all, it looks like something just happened to suddenly enrage him towards Jackson. He yells at Jackson for a few seconds, then the incident is over and they pack Jackson into the car.
To me this seems very consistent with the lawyer's claims.
And the punch, especially, doesn't seem to be something that the cop had had any intention of doing up to that point. It wasn't like he was acting upset and had been on the verge of violence the whole time. It appeared to be triggered by something.
The testimony of the other cops will be crucial, because although they don't appear to have been able to see the cause for either the trunk drop or the punch, in both cases the cop in question appears to explain his actions to them.
Since they didn't know they were on video, he'd have had no reason to whip up a quick "for the press" excuse. He just thought he was telling his fellow officers what was happening. Even if the reason was "I don't like him", he'd probably have honestly just said so.
If he told them the "limp legs" and "he grabbed my crotch" stories at that time, that's most likely what happened. And I think a jury would acquit in that case.
Nor do I think the fellow officers would lie to cover up what happened if he had told them something different -- they are in no way involved in the altercation (unlike the other Rodney King officers), and would probably be more likely to flush away a bad cop than put their own necks on the line for a cop who's already nationally vilified as a violent racist.
Their necks aren't on the line -- in fact they have more to lose if they back him. So if they do back his story, it's because it's what really happened.
If the cop plea-bargains, however, it's because his story is bogus and his fellow officers are refusing to cover for him.
We'll have to wait and see.
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.