FBI Investigating "Scuffle" In Which Five Fullerton Cops Beat Kelly Thomas Into a Coma

The FBI announced over the weekend that it is investigating the early July beating of homeless man Kelly Thomas. On July 5, five Fullerton cops attempted to search Thomas while responding to a call about burglarized cars. When Thomas, a 135-pound schizophrenic, resisted arrest, the officers tazed him and beat him with their flashlights. Thomas was in a coma for five days, until his family took him off life support. Orange County Supervisor Shawn Nelson sent a letter last week to the DOJ requesting a federal investigation investigation. 

In its story on the community reaction to Thomas' death, NBCLA called the brutal beating a "scuffle." The local news site also covered a community rally for Thomas, who was unrecognizable to his parents when they arrived at the hospital. "The protesters held signs of support," wrote reporter Angie Crouch, "and called for the police to take action against what some in the crowd labeled 'Police Brutality' on posters." Emphasis mine. 

What happens now? The Orange County District Attorney's office is conducting an investigation into whether the officers did something they should not have done. The FBI investigation will focus on whether Thomas' civil rights were violated. The OC Weekly reports that the OC DA's office has already offered the Thomas family $900,000 to head off a civil suit. "A city official reportedly told the parents that they would have offered more money but their son was 'no rocket scientist.'" 

As for the officers? The Orange County Register reported on Friday that four of the five were back on duty: 

One of the officers is now on administrative leave. While the five other officers have since returned to active duty, Fullerton police Chief Michael Sellers on Friday evening temporarily reassigned them away from front-line patrol duties.

"In other words, they are not working the streets," Fullerton police Sgt. Andrew Goodrich said. "The chief said that for the sake of public trust and confidence, and in the best interest of the investigation, he made these reassignments."

No word as to whether the officer on administrative leave is getting paid. OC Councilwoman Sharon Quirk-Silva has asked Sunday that all the officers involved in the incident be put on paid administrative leave. "I not only request, but demand that action be taken to remove all police officers involved with this incident. Every time a siren goes off in Fullerton a wave of concern settles in," Quirk-Silva wrote in an email obtained by the Register, which reports that there were actually six officers involved in Thomas' beating. In addition to the four still working and the one on administrative leave, a sixth officer involved in the incident (to what extent isn't really clear) is on medical leave. 

NBC link via ForbesE.D. Kain

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Paul R.||

    Still waiting for someone to say they appreciate them taking this man off the streets....until then it's murder to me

  • Reason Lynch Mob||

    Getting impatient here.

  • Gibby||

    What happens now?

    Promotions!

  • Restoras||

    "In other words, they are not working the streets," Fullerton police Sgt. Andrew Goodrich said.

    So, are these douchebags just raping prisoners instead? But, you know, outside of their official capacity?

  • ||

    "A city official reportedly told the parents that they would have offered more money but their son was 'no rocket scientist.'"

    Holy shit...

  • Obamacare Death Panel||

    Just the kind of official we are looking for!

  • SIV||

    After 9/11 didn't our tax dollars pay out like $250k for busboys and $10 million for financial managers?

  • Anecdotal ||

    Pretty standard practice in wrongful death claims. Take the persons current earnings and extrapolate from there the persons expected future earnings based on the age of the victim. This constitutes actual cash damages I believe. Of course there's nothing stopping a court from finding punitive damages in the millions regardless of the persons earning potential. If a women getting burned by "hot" coffee is worth a few million, then I'd say a gangland style beating to death of a mentally ill person by trusted officers of the law should be worth at least 25 million.

  • ||

    I love when people can't do 5 minutes of research before repeatedly spouting off false claims like this.. Look it up friend, the "hot coffee" incident not only caused 3rd degree burns on this lady that required multiple skin grafts, the lady was nice enough to settle for $20,000. She went to court because McDonalds counter offer was $800 which wouldn't even cover the initial trip to the ER, not to mention the skin graft surgery. AND to top it off she ultimately received $640,000, WELL below the "millions" people claim. This obvious lie is being repeated all over the place because politicians in the pocket of corporations are using it as an example of why we need "tort reform" ie they want to remove your ability to sue for damages when a corporation causes you harm. Repeating the lie only helps the corporations.

  • James J B ||

    Agreed. Like others have said here - it is like sheep demanding to be sheared and slaughtered by the wolves.

  • Invisible Finger||

    You mean these police officers were rocket scientists that chose to donate their brains to the police department instead?

  • ||

    The Stoopid is strong in this force.

  • steve||

    I would have proceeded to beat that official into a coma right then and there.

  • Lib'Tarian||

    Some people think that libertarians are lovers, not fighters, but I happen to know that we are neither.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    "A city official reportedly told the parents that they would have offered more money but their son was 'no rocket scientist.'"

    While I don't doubt that city officials would think that in calculating appropriate "go away" money, someone stupid enough to say that should be taken out and beaten like a homeless person.

    Anyway, A Beautiful Mind taught us crazy people can be smarter than you or I. That apparently means the dollar value placed on his early departure from this world should be higher.

  • Mitchell||

    This is murder, plain and simple. If police claim they have the sole legitimate use of force, then they must have a HIGHER standard of conduct. They should be tried for murder(without the jury EVER being told they were police officers).

  • fish||

    .....then they must have a HIGHER standard of conduct

    Hahahahahahhhahahahahhhahaahahahahahhhahahahahhhahahahahahahhhahahahahhhahaahahahahahhhahahahahhhahahahahahhhahahahahhhahaahahahahahhhahahahahhhahahahahahahhhahahahahhhahaahahahahahhhahahahahhhaha.....whew! I wet myself.

  • BakedPenguin||

    .comment
    {
    object.style.overflow="hidden"
    }

    Come to think of it, controlling the overflow of force would be a good idea too.

  • fish||

    I like the overflow.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Well, considering the story, I would have understood a scream like that...

  • ||

    there is no such claim. i've seen dozens of uses of force by average joes, store security, etc. and those are all protected by law.

  • ||

    I think he was referring to the significantly more relaxed standards cops are held to in that regard, and that that should entail a higher degree of responsibility.

    Hence, they murdered a man, and deserve to be punished the (literally) absolute MAXIMAL extend of the law -- if that means there's a loophole somewhere allowing capital charges, then the DA should go for it. Use the law AGAINST agents of government for once.

  • ||

    *to the

  • ||

    *extent

    fucking alcohol

  • GILMORE||

    fucking alcohol

    I suggest you try drinking it instead.

  • -||

    Res Publica Americana|8.1.11 @ 5:57PM|#
    "fucking alcohol"

    This explains much.

  • ||

    except it's rubbish. the US is relatively unique in that we recognize rather broad (comparatively speaking) right to self defense vs. many other nations (most) as well as a very robust (at least in some states) RKBA, again unique.

    furthermore, my jurisdiction even places the burden on the state to DISPROVE self-defense.

    so, again i find the claim specious.

  • Trespassers W||

    Come to think of it, I've seen tons of cases where a gang beat someone to death, and the state was "whoa, this is a big burden, maybe some things are best left unsolved."

  • ||

    what some prosecutors refer to as "misdemeanor homicide"

  • jasno||

    Yeah, it'll be interesting to compare this beating death with, say, the beating of Emery Kauanui Jr. in San Diego. At least one of the thugs got 20 to life. Think that'll happen this time?

  • ||

    i have no idea, since i don't know the fact pattern of this case. i don't even know if a crime occurred here

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    For the sake of argument, let's say the witnesses are correct and these 5 cops beat a 135 pound man into a coma with their flashlights while he was subdued on the ground.

    What would be an appropriate sentence, in your view?

    Do you think that the legal system as it currently exists would be likely to impose the same punishment on these 5 cops as it would on 5 civilians if they beat a cop into a coma?

  • gutterpunk||

    The state has the monopoly on the legitimate use of force. Hence your use of the term "protected by the law" - it's the state that decides what is and isn't legitimate use of force. And how is this ultimately enforced? Through state agents granted significantly higher leeway in the use of force. The buck stops at the door of the state and its institutions.

  • CE||

    They might think they have a monopoly, and you might agree with them, but that doesn't make it so.

  • gutterpunk||

    I'm not condoning or critiquing, just stating that this principle is the raison d'etre/political philosophy which encapsulates almost all modern states.

  • gutterpunk||

    For example, the state-legitimate-monopoly-force theory is the reason why, in 99.9% of states today, if a Catholic church were bombed, the investigation and prosecution would be conducted by the local authorities and not by a Papal Security Force.

  • ||

    no, it doesn't. it's much closer to that reality in the UK, but it isn't even remotely close here.

    not under common law, penal codes (some more than others) or constitutional law

  • ||

    Bullshit, the "monopoly on the use of force" is one of the major claims used by statists to force us to support the tax fattened police forces.

  • gutterpunk||

    It's even more abstract/"deeper" than a specific claim made by bureaucrats/statists. The idea of the public state having the sole monopoly on use of force is a long-standing entrenched idea in the Western world. The main theme Aeschylus' Oresteia is that only the state/trial by jury could administer true justice and the previous system of justice-by-individual retribution was immoral. The struggles between the Church and lay nobility in medieval Europe was essentially a struggle over which institution had the better claim to this monopoly, etc etc...

    The whole system of public law enforcement and jurisprudence is underwritten by this concept, and has been for about 2500 years. To claim that the police make "no such claim" is heavily dishonest; especially as a way to try and absolve officers of the higher standards that (should) come with such a responsibility.

  • gutterpunk||

    Hell, when it gets right down to it, that's essentially what a state is: The institution(s) which have the sole monopoly on the use of force. Without this power, the state would basically be reduced to a really complicated system of annoying street canvassers asking you for donations.

  • The Real Thugs||

    Don't forget us. In anarchy, you'll be our bitches. We'll make you squeal.

  • Tony||

    I for one look forward to "strong hand" that you bring.

  • ||

    Yeah.. if 5 "regular joes" were beating one homeless man on the street, there would be no protection by the law.. in. any. circumstance.

  • ||

    That picture is...appalling.

  • ||

    let's hope the investigations proceed fairly and objectively. the public, as well as the family of the deceased have a right to know what really happened, and if criminal charges are warranted, for them to be filed...

  • hmm||

    Ah yes, the joys of beating the mentally ill into a coma. They aren't trained psychologists, what do we expect?

    I'm pretty sure that no one deserves to beaten to death. Criminal findings or not, there's a slightly higher moral issue.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Officer safety is paramount.

  • fish||

    Another shining example of the"New Professionalism"!

  • ||

    ah, the "deserves" canard again...

  • ||

    So you're okay with 5 human beings killing another human being, in public, when that one human being was being of no threat to any other human being initially?

  • ||

    again, i've addressed the deserve canard several times.

  • hmm||

    Repeating that something is a canard isn't exactly addressing it. Actually, it's more akin to skirting the issue than anything else.

  • ||

    hmm, how many times do i need to address it?

    UOF are not punitive. a force analysis does not EVER factor in whether the person "deserved" it. that's a meaningless question. that is, among other things, a results based, not process based analysis of the force, and views it from a punitive angle, which is also largely irrelevant.

    the issue is was the force justified. asking if this guy "deserved" to die treats the force as punishment from a results angle, not as force from a process angle.

    if two kids break into your house and are playing with airsoft guns (look like real guns) in your living room, and you come down and cap one in the head, killing him did the kid "deserve" to die? of course not. was it justified? of course.

  • hmm||

    You seem to be missing a few things. Like the beating was sustained and not instant like a shot and at any point any one of the men could have tried to stop it, and it appears they didn't. Your analogy sucks and isn't even remotely applicable. Plus I'm not a trained agent of the state.

    Through a sustained use of force against another person 5 cops beat a guy to death. I don't care how you want to justify any other analysis of that, the fact is the guy is dead and 5 people participated in that death, the death was caused by repeated blunt trauma. No person, guilty or not should die that way.

    It's kind of scary that you work in this field and are capable of hiding behind the rules of analysis to justify the lack of a moral obligation.

  • ||

    i don't know if you are ignorant or evasive or both. your past history shows both on many occasions, so difficult to tell.

    i've explained to why what he "deserved" is not the issue.

    you either don't understand or don't want to.

    if you can't understand how UOF analysis is done, that's not my fault.

    i did my best to explain it

  • ||

    Holy shit Dunphy that is fucking disingenuous. There is no way in hell you can "justify" the beating death of an unarmed man by 5 men, regardless of their being cops or not.

  • hmm||

    What would happen if two kids broke into my house and 4 friends and I beat them to death?

  • ||

    "What would happen if two kids broke into my house and 4 friends and I beat them to death?"
    Well, clearly dunphy would wait until an impartial investigation was done and remain impartial, despite the fact that the two kids were unarmed and you apparently tortured them over the space of thirty minutes. Oh, wait, the burglars weren't cops?
    OH yeah, you're gonna fry, buddy.

  • ||

    troll-o-meter:.03

  • ||

    And with a waive of his magic wand, he dismisses the entire argument at hand! Get 'em while supplies last!

  • ||

    i've addressed this argument ad nauseum and in EVERY UOF it's brought up. sorry, asked and answered ad nauseum. people keep devolving into the meta, because they don't have the facts in THIS case.

  • ||

    And neither do you, but you say upthread that the guy was CLEARLY "resisting detention", yet you have absolutely no evidence for that.

  • hmm||

    So you actually think there is a human on this planet that deserves to be beaten to death by people representing the state? Jesus Christ on a popsicle stick, I guess you approve of public stoning in Afghanistan and the middle east.

    I'm not too surprised though. I guess, at the least, due process really is a myth in the minds of many law enforcement. Thanks for making that all the more clear.

  • ||

    again, the deserves canard.

  • hmm||

    I see you can't defend your position and are going to resort to repeating something until you hope it comes true. So you do think that a human being, even the most despicable, deserves to be beaten to death by police officers w/o due process?

    Lets try to answer the question this time and not play the 8th grade repetitive game.

  • ||

    i just explained the "deserves" canard (AGAIN) for you upstream.

    it's an irrelevant question as to UOF force analysis.

    iow, whether or not a person deserved the result of force is wholly irrelevant (if even answerable) to whether the UOF was justified.

    it's a moral judgment, completely tangential to the UOF analysis , which is process based

  • ||

    That's why he refers to them as "fucksticks". They aren't human so they don't "deserve" treatment as humans; ie. it's okay for his brothers in blue to murder "it".

    CB

  • ||

    no, i referred to hardcore criminals as fucksticks. not mentally ill homeless people.

  • hmm||

    What's a "hardcore criminal?"

  • ||

    the typical asshole with multiple felony convictions and who thinks nothing of burglarizing, raping, etc. other people or their stuff.

    they are fucksticks

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Good point, dunphy, but the beating in this instance was NOT justified.

    I have a friend in Fullerton. She's about the same size as the victim. I doubt she could take on even ONE of the cops, let alone half a dozen.

    He was no threat, certainly not to the point of having to beat him to eventual death. What the hell happened to set them off like that? What could he have possibly done to warrant such an overreaction?

    Not armed, not big enough or mentally-together enough for that matter... once he was down, THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN THE END OF PHYSICAL FORCE.

    Sorry, had to emphasize.

  • ||

    all well and good and like i said, it certainly appears bad. but i still want to know the facts before drawing a conclusion

  • yeah but||

    Even after we see the city surveillance video, and hear several eyewitness accounts, and read the police reports (reportedly rewritten after being allowed to review the surveillance video) we will never know all the facts. At some point we must draw our conclusions from the available evidence. We can't forever claim we we don't have it all...

  • ||

    Funny, that is how I think of cops. Except I use Dirty Fucksticks.

  • Fat Crack Ho||

    "I'm pretty sure that no one deserves to beaten to death."

    You sure you can't come up with, say, five or so individuals who might deserve exactly that?

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Come on, dunphy. If a guy is too fragile to survive a sustained beating by five men with Maglites, then clearly he was unhealthy and the police can't be held responsible for unhealthy people.

    Getting beaten with a flashlight is just another form of exertion. Or some shit like that.

  • fish||

    Getting beaten with a flashlight is just another form of exertion.

    Yeah....like Zumba! So what you're saying AC is that this was like a public service or benefit provided by these officers.

  • ||

    Rolfing.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Exactly. It's just like a Taser, which never killed anybody. Cops don't kill people, some people just can't handle the exertion of being battered.

  • ||

    actually, it's nothing like the taser.

    in fact, the distinction is quite notable. generally speaking, the taser is far preferable to a baton strike, let alone strikes.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    What? No talk of force continuums?

    I R DISAPPOINT, DUNPHY.

  • hmm||

    He was resisting. They always do when you have to beat them to death.

  • ||

    hmmm...

    1/40,000 arrests have officer caused homicide.

    and a much smaller # of those involve "beating" anybody to death

    always, seems to be a pretty rare occurrence

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Still too many, even at a 1:40,000 ratio.

  • ||

    shockingly low imo

  • Lib'Tarian||

    dunphy|8.1.11 @ 10:10PM|#
    hmmm...1/40,000 arrests have officer caused homicide...and a much smaller # of those involve "beating" anybody to death...always, seems to be a pretty rare occurrence

    You might call it...an isolated incident.

  • hmm||

    Who's stat is that. I don't need a reference I just want to know where it's coming from. I've seen higher cases of death at the hands of the state, but I believe that involved correction officers.

  • hmm||

    That is what agency it comes from, I'll look it up...

  • fish||

    He looked like he was thinking about considering entertaining a thought about back sassing me!

    You are absolved.....go in peace.

  • Montani Sempe Liberi||

    if criminal charges are warranted

    If? Are you serious? They beat a guy into a coma.

  • ||

    The beating led to his death -- it was so severe, they had to take him off of life support. I'm about THIS fucking close to calling it a capital crime.

  • ||

    i am serious. it very well may be criminal charges are warranted. i don't know yet, and i'm agnostic on it until i know the fact pattern

    as i've said before, it LOOKS very bad. if i was a bettin' man, i'd give pretty good odds it was unlawful use of force/criminal.

    but until the facts come in, i draw no conclusions it was

  • Montani Sempe Liberi||

    What possible facts could come out that would justify beating someone to the point that they look like the picture that accompanies this article? I need some help here because I honestly can't think of anything.

  • ||

    all sorts.

    first of all, regardless of how the man LOOKS, that is not how a process analysis works. look at the strikes and if they were or weren't justified.

    i already gave a couple of examples in the other thread.

    had a guy choke out my partner. she had air exchange, so my strikes were directed at his torso, not head.

    a mentally ill naked guy managed to disarm a cop near where i live and execute him (stood over the cop and emptied the gun into his head). clearly, a guy pulling a cops gun from his holster could be hit in the head with flashlights.

    like i said, it LOOKS bad. it very well may be. but i'm waiting for the facts.

  • Montani Semper Liberi||

    He was tazed five or six times according to witnesses. I would have to suspend disbelief in order to imagine a 135 lbs. malnourished, homeless man had enough energy to disarm or choke out a police officer after being tazed multiple times.

  • ||

    and again, that clearly sounds excessive.

    fwiw, as a UOF instructor/firearms instructor, it is my belief that nobody should be tased more than 3 times, absent extraordinary circ's.

    again, it LOOKS excessive and bad. that's a presumption, not a conclusion

  • ||

    Of course dunphy draws no conclusion. Ever. IF the story was, 5 kids beat a homeless man into a coma for trying to break into their car, there would be no "if" about this case. In any state, charges would be flying.

  • ||

    again, with the lies. never fails..

    i often draw conclusions, and i often call for police discipline, and in some cases police prosecution

    this is just typical of the blatant lies you engage in.

  • ||

    I lied where, exactly? You did this same shit with the Jose Guerena case.

  • ||

    "Of course dunphy draws no conclusion. Ever."

    that's a lie. i do. and i also call for cops to be prosecuted. when i see sufficient evidence to do so.

    as for guerana, i said wait for the facts before i made a conclusion. the investigation came ot the conclusion it was justified, and that conclusion was SUPPORTED by the facts. for example, the bullet damage to the rifle held by guerana showed that it was actually pointed at the officers when they fired.

    of course you won't read that in reason. because it doesn;'t cause OUTRAGE.

  • ||

    You missed the entire point on the Guerena case most people were outraged about. Testimony from the neighbors showed that no sirens or no loud noises were heard before they broke into his house, so pretty much a big bullshit call on the "we announced". He was a combat veteran who was protecting his family, so he had every right to be holed up... Also, you conveniently ignore the PD's OWN TESTIMONY that a 'misfire' is what lead to the police firing back.. NOT the man himself. As for the "official investigation", well no shit they're going to find no 'wrong-doing'. No shit, if I had to cross-examine myself do you think I would bring damning evidence against my case?

    If he was pointing his rifle at a door when it opened up, he was doing what he was trained to do, which was fire on INTRUDERS.

    "of course you won't read that in reason"

    No, most of us have a problem with the State murdering people who are defending their families over bogus tip-offs about drugs. But, hey, you're cool with the murdering innocent citizens part.

  • ||

    "Also, you conveniently ignore the PD's OWN TESTIMONY that a 'misfire' is what lead to the police firing back.. NOT the man himself. As for the "official investigation", well no shit they're going to find no 'wrong-doing'. No shit, if I had to cross-examine myself do you think I would bring damning evidence against my case?"

    this is SUCH horseshit. 1) i didn't ignore that he didn't fire at the cops. it was clear from the articles etc. that he didn't
    2) it's total horseshit that OF COURSE in the official investigation they will find no wrongdoing. official investigations find wrongdoing all the fucking time. heck, i can name several in my own COUNTY in the last YEAR.

    heck, there have been 3 cops tried criminally for on duty behavior that i can think of right off th etop of my head. in ALL of them not only did the official (internal) investigation find wrongdoing, but they were also fired and charges were pressed.

    this is another of the reason-lie memes - that official investigations never find wrongdoing by the cops. it's utter horseshit

  • ||

    "this is another of the reason-lie memes - that official investigations never find wrongdoing by the cops. it's utter horseshit"

    What? So, when a police officer murders someone and is found in the wrong, he's given the death sentence or life?

  • ||

    No one is arguing in absolutes here. So stop making a strawman out of it.

    When a cop is in the wrong when he kills someone, how often is he given life in prison, which is par for the course when a regular citizen murders another?

  • Pip||

    Go suck a diseased cock, fuckwad.

  • George W. Bush||

    You are a true Christian, boy!

    I hate niggers too! But I am with you on Salvation!

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Fuck off, troll. The "Bush" schtick you're peddling works better over at DU.

  • hmm||

    Come on, they aren't experts in nonlethal detainment...

    You can only expect so much from these hard working upstanding individuals. They have to deal with the worst humanity has to offer.

    These types of incidents and isolated and do not represent a mentality of our brave police force.

    ...

  • hmm||

    Does anyone know if these officers were playing violent video games prior to working? Maybe they thought he was a prostitute and they were in a GTA world? Cause then we can blame the game and not the people.

  • ||

    "I'm gettin' too old for this shit."

  • Almanian||

    RIIIIGS!! COPKILLERS HOMELESS-GUY KILLERS!!!

    *throws gun flashlight to Riggs*

  • ||

    Homeless Guy: "Go to hell, Riggs." Me: "You first."

  • Art-P.O.G.||

    This situation is tragic and perhaps this isn't the best place for lulz.

    However, you guys made me crack up hard.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Thomas, who was unrecognizable to his parents when they arrived at the hostpial.

    Really?

  • Platypus||

    ahh, jernalizm roolz.

  • ||

    So we are to understand that it took six policemen with tasers, batons and flashlights to subdue a 135 pound man? Let's not forget that the incident was partially captured on camera phone. In a different age, and in a different part of the world, the individual policemen, their wives, children and assorted relatives would have been hacked to death, dismembered, and dragged to a promontory by this man's family, where wolves and vultures would have performed a clean up. What a shame we don't live in that age.

  • Jim||

    He had crazy retard-strength and was hopped up on the goofballs. He literally had the strength of 20 men and felt no pain. Our lives were in constant danger.

    excerpt from police report filed after incident

  • Link to Reputable Site?||

    ?

  • ||

    He was predicting the future release of such a document. But Jim's being far too generous: I think they'll claim lighting was coming out of his ass and that he was chanting "THE POWER OF MEPHISTOPHELES COMPELS YOU!! THE POWER OF MEPHISTOPHELES COMPELS YOU!!", at which point he lifted a truck and threw it at a group of bystanders, but the heroic cops used Superman-esque eye lasers to blow up the car midair, and an epic battle of titans ensued.

  • We Get It||

    Why doesn't anyone take you seriously?

  • ||

    That's actually not a very good trolling comment, because most people DON'T take the individuals on the limited government spectrum of politics seriously.

    Any other wonderful gems, shithead?

  • ||

    Shit, Res, you are cracking me up here. That was freaking classic.

    And Varados: word, man. Word.

  • Jim||

    Yeah man it was a joke. I do sincerely hope someday someone writes up a police report that says that.

  • ||

    our dept. policy forbids us to write reports in such a manner that is designed to provide amusement for the reader... :(

  • ||

    "crazy mentally-challenged strength"

    gotta be PC!

  • George W. Bush||

    I hate niggers! I am LP now!

  • All of us here say||

    Fuck off, asshole.

  • Not So Fast||

    In anarchy, everyone is welcome.

  • Barry O-Bomb-a||

    I know you love me, Georgie, you left me the wars to continue and escalate. I'm a War President now, just like you!

  • Freeper||

    NOO!! Come back to the right! We hate niggers too!!!!

  • liberal||

    We don't hate 'em, we love 'em. We rub their wooley little heads and toss them a few dollars, and they always vote just the way we want. They make fine porters, and they sure can dance, and they have fine singing voices too!

  • hmm||

    I wonder at what point he stopped resisting. Maybe when he was screaming, "Dad! Dad! Dad!"

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ljYNgLnpxM

  • ||

    I, like Dunphy, will withold judgement until the facts come out.

    But, I'm reasonably certain that at the point in time (according to eyewitnesses) he was completely motionless, and they were still banging on him, he had ceased resisting.

    [/sarc]

  • ||

    no sarcasm needed. if that was the case, that was excessive

  • ||

    The appropriate punishment for this would be either:

    a) execution, preferably by firing squad or electric chair, or

    b) piling on all the possible charges you can, from misdemeanors to major felonies, for what the cops did until each of them's got hundreds of years in jail if convicted, so that we can hear something like this:

    "By the power vested in me, I sentence you to 350 years in federal prison for ____, ____, ____, ...", etc.

    Now that would be a wonderful day.

  • ||

    Public hanging would be a good option. Then leave the bodies for the crows with a sign saying "New Professionalism"

  • Paul||

    I would prefer a sign around their necks which reads: "Higher Standards"

  • Hugh Akston||

    "Nothing else happened"

  • Lib'Tarian||

    Why won't anyone take us seriously?

  • We Get It||

    Res Publica Americana|7.20.11 @ 7:45AM|#

    I want my "ideological enemies" to die

  • ||

    This has GOT to be the single worst, shittiest, most unconscionably retarded attempt I've seen in a very long time. Spare everybody the agony and off yourself, I beg you.

  • We Get It||

    Internet comments are forever.

  • ||

    All but one of the killers are back on the street, armed and licensed to initiate force? Really?

    The OC DA is trying to figure out if a crime was committed? Seriously? They may not even take this to a grand jury?

    Does anyone seriously want to argue that there isn't a double standard for cops?

    And, from the Silver Lining Dept., color me shocked that the FBI is getting involved in this at all.

  • ||

    From what I read, not on the street. They had their hands slapped and now they have to do paperwork for a few months. But they do get to see their families. You know, just like Mr. Thomas' family wishes they could do.

  • ||

    I just wish there were a federal prosecutor somewhere with a conscience, principles, and balls -- just one -- that would charge the fuckers with murder and get them convicted.

    We're a nation-state of three-hundred MILLION people, and there isn't ONE government official willing to the right thing?

  • ||

    christ, the ignorance here is astounding.

    how could a FEDERAL prosecutor charge them with MURDER?

    murder is, with rare exceptions, not a federal crime (unless upon a federal worker, or on federal property, etc.)

    the feds would be able to do the violation of civil rights, etc. charge, not murder.

  • ||

    You seem to be under the impression I give a fuck. Charge them with terrorism. And then send them to a secret prison in Somalia. And then hang them.

    I don't care whether it's in county jail, federal prison, or the gurney, but these thugs thoroughly deserve severe punishment.

  • ||

    ok, so you are ignorant of the law AND don't care about facts or due process.

    you just want your pound o' flesh

    thanks for the honesty

  • ||

    Unless they can bring out 3 or 4 of these 5 cops in casts, wheelchairs, morgue pictures, which they can't. Then that picture of the victim is all the due process I need. Mad dogs get put down, no due process needed. These 5 cops are no better than rabid dogs.

  • ||

    points for hyperbole and old west style "justice"

  • Lib'Tarian||

    Ever notice how so many of us are so repelled by violence that we seek violent solutions to perceived injustices? Not that we're emotionally stunted adolescents.

  • -||

    Res Publica Americana|8.1.11 @ 7:56PM|#
    You seem to be under the impression I give a fuck.

    Why else would any sane person spend his whole day posting crackpot comments on the internet?

    Oh.

  • ||

    Civil rights charges are federal crimes dipshit.'

    BTW - Grandfather was an police officer and said things have changed and he's embarrassed by the behaviour of the forces today.

    Is it a coincidence that kids today not longer aspire to be police officers?

  • ||

    1) false that kids no longer aspire to be police officers. do you have evidence to support your false assertion?

    2) again, i explained that. it would NOT be murder. it would be civil rights.

    thanks again for confirming my statement

  • ||

    how could a FEDERAL prosecutor charge them with MURDER?

    I guess we could go with "hate crime". Judging from the photo, somebody sure hated the dude.

  • ||

    Hate Crimes: A Savage Hypocrisy!

  • ||

    Oh, I totally agree. But sauce for the goose...

  • ||

    just an obligatory SP reference

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    how could a FEDERAL prosecutor charge them with MURDER?

    If Kelly Thomas is dead, he can't buy health insurance so the cops have affected interstate commerce. Amiright?

  • fish||

    WINNER!

  • stephen||

    best comment from the night elf

  • Trig||

    +1

  • Dello||

    The king will never punish his soldiers. Every king knows this.

  • ||

    which is countered by actual evidence, to wit the cops that are prosecuted , fired, etc. for unjustified UOF's... a not infrequent occurrence.

    but don't let facts invade yer rhetoric.

    OUTRAGE!!!

  • BakedPenguin||

    In your UoF analysis, when do you stop with the F? I mean, there is a stopping point, isn't there? Even accepting your premises, I can't imagine this guy was putting up a fight, or even "resisting" (e.g., trying to crawl away) for a long time after they kept on beating (and apparently, tazing) him.

  • ||

    and IF that's true, they deserve to be punished.

    again, i just don't know what happened, nor does anybody else here.

    it looks bad, and like i said, that's presumptive, but reasonable to say.

  • ||

    Dunphy, I understand your argument INTELLECTUALLY. I really do. Now, where was THIS poor motherfucker's due process? Where was just one single sane voice in blue saying, "I just don't know what happened, nor does anybody else here. Just because this guy was in the area doesn't mean he was the vandal"?????

    Looks like a metric buttload of presumin' by 5-6 of our finest.

  • ||

    and if their presumin' led to unlawful force, they should be punished.

  • ||

    there is no 'if' about it, bucko. That's mine and several other's problem.

    In every case that receives this much publicity, if there were some type of struggle, violence, or a weapon involved, the police are THE FIRST to release that information in order to keep people from jumping to conclusions. Due to the fact that they did NOT release any such information, it's safe to say this man proved to be not much of a threat.
    They don't have a "justification" for the use of force applied to this one man. The assumption by the state will be that the six police officers who were seen beating him to death are not to be treated as suspects in a murder case, and the dead man is to not be treated as a victim.

    This is a double standard.
    That is my problem.

  • ||

    i appreciate your speculation, but as somebody who has actually conducted investigation involving force, i can tell you that you are simply wrong on facts.

    again, i will say this

    1) it looks BAD
    2) it very well may be criminal
    3) i am not going to draw that CONCLUSION that it was murder w.o sufficient evidence.

    i have a record of calling for prosecution of cops WHEN IT"S JUSTIFIED.

    if and when that is the case here, then i will do so.

  • ||

    I'm sorry, is Thomas dead? He is? Then that is FUCKING MURDER! No matter how you slice it. Now you, or an attorney, may try to argue that it was justifiable homicide (not sure how a 135lb unarmed homeless man could present such a menace as to justify his death, but whatever), but it is still FUCKING MURDER.

  • ||

    They should be punished

    You five....off to your rooms... Dunphy wants you to think about what you've done.

  • ||

    punishment could include everything available under the california penal code

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    As murderers, right?

  • wait||

    So unjustified UOF is a frequent occurence now?

    I thought they were just isolated incidents.

  • .||

    Why the double standard? If these were ordinary citizens accused of this crime, they wouldn't be roaming around free while an investigation took place (unless they made bail.) And if the victim had been a cop, you can bet your ass that ordinary citizens would probably be sitting in the lockup without any bail set. What's more, why aren't these officers' names made public like anyone else accused of a crime? I thought democracies didn't have an aristocracy or nobility class. Equality under the law? Fucking lie.

  • ||

    Why indeed, can anyone get us the names and addresses (or just names, we can get the addresses ourselves) of these murderers. I think there are some people that would like to meet these upstanding members of society.

  • Ha Ha||

    You? An anonymous tough guy? Comical.

  • Too Soon||

    He looks like the biker in Raising Arizona.

  • ||

    It would take more than 5 cops to beat that biker dude into a coma.

  • Fat Crack Ho||

    Pretty sure Randall "Tex" Cobb comes in at a lot more than a buck thirty-five.

  • Irresponsible Hater||

    @Mike Riggs:

    Other reports said it was six cops.
    Five remain on active duty, one on leave for medical reasons, supposedly *not* related to the incident. (Though my money is on the injury being innocent-face-stomping-itis of the foot.) Has that been corrected to five?

    Excellent radio segments with witnesses, the parents, unpersuasive Orange County DA spokesperson, and an anonymous tipster that says the as-yet-unreleased police-camera-video shows the beating and outright murder of an innocent, unconscious victim:

    http://www.kfiam640.com/pages/KellyThomas.html

    (see left hand column for audio archives)

  • ||

    A video would be great, and if it conclusively proves that the cops beat the guy to the condition he was in DIRECTLY, maybe, somehow, somewhere, 1st degree murder could be charged.

    I wonder how many excuses will be made for the cops first, though.

  • ||

    exactly. and if it helps prove the officers innocent that's good too.

    what is needed is a search for the truth. GOOD officers always want video, because it can help exonerate them if they did the right thing. i know of several cases in my agency where video helped exonerate and several cases where it helped bring them to trial

    in both cases, it was a good thing

  • ||

    The problem is that it would take quite a bit to exonerate them in the eyes of the citizens of Fullerton and myself. Yes, they may have had a "legal right" to do what they did to the extent they did, but it won't change the fact that the a portion of their citizenry will no longer trust their PD.

    But, hey, if it turns out the guy had cut off his forearms and grafted machine guns to them, then fine. Maybe they did the right thing, or something.

  • ||

    that's all well and good, but ultimately whether they were legally in the right is the question the inquiries will and need to ask.

    we can both agree that video'ing cops is a very good thing. i'm for it. and us video'ing others, too.

  • ||

    At this point, the "legally right" is not going to matter.. Repeated incidents where the cops may have "legally" did the right thing does not make it "morally" the right thing. The blanket trust among civilians is wearing thin. And, regardless of the outcome of the investigation, people are going to see this as another reason to be scared of their own police.

  • ||

    most people don't feel that way. poll after poll shows that the real world outside the rarefied environs of reason.com doesn't fear the police.

    the case we have here is a schizophrenic male who resisted detention. did his resistance rise to the level that would justify the force used against him? i don't know, but it LOOKS bad.

    considering 1/40,000 arrests result in officer homicide and far fewer of those are even remotely questionable, "people" have more to fear from the drive to the grocery store

  • ||

    "most people don't feel that way. poll after poll shows that the real world outside the rarefied environs of reason.com doesn't fear the police."

    I'll try not to laugh at that. I'll bring it up at another party this weekend and get a random sampling.

  • ||

    Wait a minute.
    "the case we have here is a schizophrenic male who resisted detention."

    And you have proof that he was resisting detention? Was he justified in receiving said detention?

  • ||

    Please, please tell me that you're not "jumping to conclusions", you know, without all "THE FACTS".

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    His supercilious air of objectivity slips away pretty quickly when you look at the statements he's willing to take as facts and the ones he, you know, just isn't sure about.

  • WTF||

    Anyone taking bets on whether the video gets 'lost' or 'damaged'?

  • MWG||

    Any word yet on whether or not he was the suspect police were looking for? Not that it would justify the beating. On the contrary, if it turns out he had nothing to do with the actual crime they were 'investigating', it would make this case all the worse.

  • ||

    Absolutely. "Fullerton Cops Beat Random Man On Street To Death, Receive Promotions" would enrage quite a few people, I imagine.

  • Paul||

    "Fullerton Cops Beat Unarmed Suspected Car Prowler to Death" already enrages me.

  • ||

    The headline I want to read is "Cops in murder of homeless man found dead."

  • Lib'Tarian||

    Nice! In just one sentence you are judge, jury and executioner.

  • ||

    and again, a results not a process analysis

    what would matter is the facts and circumstances known at the time - iow did they have reasonable suspicion to believe he was the violater

    heck, even if he DID turn out to the violater, if they didn't have those facts, it would STILL be an unlawful stop and contrarily, if they did have them and he did turn out to be the one, it would be a justified stop

    again, with the results instead of process analysis

  • ||

    Why don't they ever name the officers involved?

  • hmm||

    They call it professional courtesy. Media probably fears the backlash from tar and feathering brigades.

  • ||

    actually, exactly the opposite. local media here won't mention suspect's names unless they are charged (vs. merely arrested) but have in the past mentioned cops' names as suspects when they are not charged,.

    double standard AGAINST police

    exact opposite as usual of what is claimed

  • ||

    Police police officers acting in official capacity on the public dime is not the same as the rights of a "private citizen". I figured you would have known that.

  • ||

    evasion noted. cops suspected but not charged with crimes - named by the local paper

    non-cops suspected but not charged. not named

    hth

  • ||

    Thank you for noting your own evasion. As nothing was directed at me, I couldn't imagine what I'm evading here. I'd imagine that a free press has the right to know the names of public officials involved in an incident like this. Why would they not have that right, and why would it be wrong for a private citizen to have this right?

  • ||

    this is not about rights, it's about press policy.

    again, in my area, the press will NOT report the names of people accused of crimes unless they are CHARGED.

    the exception: cops...

    they have the right to a double standard, but it clearly is a double standard and it's biased against the police , contrary to the claims

    that's my point

  • ||

    I understand your point, but I hardly see it as a "double standard". IF the cop was off-duty, it would be a double-standard. Or rather, it should be an acceptable double-standard, as they are acting in an official capacity and are public servants. I would have a problem if they said released the name of him if he was on his own time, doing his own thing and being accused of a crime.

    That is my point.

  • ||

    and my point is an arrest is an arrest. it doesn't mean you are guilty of anything, and if they don't have the evidence to CHARGE you, the paper says (if you are not a cop) "we aren't going to release that"

    so why the double standard? why? because at least HERE, the bias works the OTHER way. against cops

  • ||

    Still not seeing a problem with that, as much as I've tried. They release names of military personnel that fuck up in the line of duty all the time, so I guess I don't have much sympathy.

  • hmm||

    Really? Because the news reports on suspects, people of interest, and those charged by name all the time and throughout trials. (see - recent political BS, Anthony trial, etc.) These officers are suspects or at the least people of interest in a crime. There is no standard of privacy for a suspect, unless your a cop.

    It's a courtesy. Nothing more.

  • ||

    i never said it wasn't a courtesy

    i said it's a double standard.

    when the arrested *but not charged* person is not a cop, the local media won't name them

    when the suspected (and.or arrested) *but not charged* person IS a cop, the local media WILL name them

    that is a double standard.

    it's not even arguable.

  • hmm||

    The media names people that are arrested all the fucking time? What planet are you living on? It's public fucking information fucktard. Cops are the ones that get protected through qualified immunity and the other blue wall bullshit.

  • hmm||

    Seriously? What planet do you live on?

  • ||

    not where i live. the seattle times and seattle-pi have a policy ONLY to name people if CHARGED, not when arrested

    EXCEPT cops, where they will name them even if not charged, or even arrested

    double standard

  • ||

    So, your problem is that some other cities and states don't do the same?

  • ||

    no, my POINT is that contrary to the above claim that the media has a double standard that FAVORS the cops, at least where *i* live, the exact opposite is true.

    if you are not a cop, they afford you the privilege of not naming you UNLESS you are charged. that privilege does not apply to cops

    yet another counterexample to another false yet oft repeated reasonoid meme about alleged bias in favor of police

  • ||

    Well, yeah, you live in Washington, right? I'd imagine a lot of ultra-lefties are happy with that as policy. I don't think that's par for the course, though.
    Shit, here in Dallas, it's a blatant bias in favor of the PD. Pretty much a Cory Maye case, but the judge allowed the prosecutors to put the officer's family on the stands to pull at the heart strings of the jury. If that's not skewed to the PD's favor, then I don't know what is.

  • ||

    riiiiiiiiight. because a judge doesn't ever allow a prosecutor to do so when the vic isn't a cop?

    seriously?

  • ||

    "riiiiiiiiight."
    Oh shit, my argument has been undone. Blast!

    "because a judge doesn't ever allow a prosecutor to do so when the vic isn't a cop?"

    And you think I'm okay with that for...what reason, exactly? I'm giving you a specific case that's highly publicized before any charges for the death of the officer, in which the media, courts, and prosecutors poison the well.

  • hmm||

    You don't live in the US? Cause national networks do it all the time.

  • Dello||

    "The FBI confirmed it is reviewing the scuffle between Fullerton police and a 37-year-old Kelly Thomas..."

    I shot the bitch twice, but it was just a love-double-tap.

  • GILMORE||

    "In its story on the community reaction to Thomas' death, NBCLA called the brutal beating a "scuffle."

    'Scuffle' = a person lying on their face being wailed on and repeatedly tased by 6 police officers?

    That strikes me (no pun) as a little bit of journalistic creative-license/re-branding efforts. Are we now to historically refer to the "Rodney King Scuffle"?

    It also sort of suggests that the victim here was an active participant in a violent exchange, when the video shows him lying on the ground crying for mercy.

    Sort of reminds me of the repeated use of "tomahawk" in describing the alleged paper-bag attack by Deacon Turner. That and some other things they used to try and make him seem more 'armed' than, well, a couple of beer cans in a bag. "He used them in a deadly-weapon-type fashion". Cast suspicion on the 'victim' ASAP. Media happily complies.

    Related to that item, BTWm is this =

    http://www.turnto23.com/east_c.....etail.html

    Sheriff: Insulted, Offended By Evidence-Tampering Insinuation

    Family claims they saw the entire shooting on the video, and it was later scrubbed out.

    Note that this particular Officer at no point directly *denies* or states flatly that there was no different version.

    "There are ways to find out if the tapes have been tampered with, and I welcome them to do that," said Youngblood.

    Of course, the department will not actually do it themselves...

    Interesting side-link

    http://www.bakersfield.com/new.....of-the-law

    In reference to Sheriff Youngblood's point about past malfeasance by Bakersfield cops...and their willingness to invest and prosecute said individuals...

    Former Kern County Sheriff's Deputy Jason Hammack pleaded no contest on March 17 to felony grand theft from a person and making an arrest without authority. He was arrested Jan. 6 after it was alleged he was pulling over motorists and stealing money from their wallets.

    Hammack faces a maximum of a year in jail when he's sentenced April 21.

    * Kern County Sheriff's Sgt. Vince Martinez is being investigated by the sheriff's department on allegations he may have compromised a possible elder financial abuse case after becoming involved in a relationship with the suspect's daughter. Martinez is on paid administrative leave pending the outcome of the investigation. He has admitted to the relationship, but said he broke no laws.

    * Former Bakersfield police Officer Albert Smith Jr. resigned in February in connection with an investigation that he allegedly paid for and engaged in sex acts with at least three local prostitutes while both on and off duty. Smith has pleaded not guilty to misdemeanor charges and the next hearing in the case is April 8.

    * Bakersfield police Officer Aaron Stringer has pleaded not guilty to misdemeanor counts of driving under the influence of a sleeping agent and hit and run in a June 26 incident of erratic driving from his Rosedale area home to the downtown police station. A pretrial conference is scheduled for May 6.

    Stringer is working in-house for city animal control pending the court case and internal investigation.

    * Former Bakersfield police Officer Scott Monroe Drewry is scheduled to go to trial April 4 in connection with a Jan. 5, 2010 incident at Moments In Time Scrapbooking at 7400 District Blvd. where cement rocks were thrown at a window. Drewry has been charged with misdemeanor vandalism.

    Neighboring business employees told police they heard a loud noise and glass breaking and then saw a black and white BPD patrol vehicle -- with headlights and taillights off -- quickly leave the parking lot. The owner of the business said she had been involved in a civil dispute with a family member of Drewry, police reported.

    Drewry's employment with the city has been terminated.

    * Kern County Sheriff's Deputy Darrel Blake Lumly had faced three felony counts after a 41-year-old woman reported the off-duty deputy hit her in the face with a television remote and threatened her with a gun in July, but those charges were dismissed in late February.

    Lumly has also been charged with possessing guns in violation of a restraining order in the domestic violence case. His next court date is April 19.

    * Former Kern County Sheriff's Deputy Roger Dixon was sentenced to a year in jail on a drug charge in January. Dixon was arrested Aug. 5 after deputies found methamphetamine and prescription drugs for which he did not have a prescription in his home, according to a sheriff's department news release.

    A 28-year veteran, Dixon retired after his arrest.

    * Kern County Sheriff's Deputy Arthur Blake Rummel was arrested in November on suspicion of two counts of spousal abuse. He has not been charged. Rummel is on paid administrative leave pending the investigation.

    * Former Kern County Sheriff's Detentions Deputy Louise Marie Willis was charged with DUI causing bodily injury following a single-vehicle crash in August at Lerdo Jail. Willis was allegedly under the influence of alcohol while driving two inmates in the jail parking lot, according to the California Highway Patrol.

    The inmates suffered minor injuries, the CHP said. Willis has pleaded not guilty and is scheduled for a pretrial conference on April 8.

    * Former Kern County sheriff's Deputy Joshua David White was arrested in March 2010 in connection with entering the apartment of his former girlfriend and taking items, but all charges of burglary, possession of stolen property and dissuading a witness were dismissed in October.

    Despite the dismissal, White no longer works for the department. Prosecutor James Webster has said the charges were dismissed after defense attorney David Torres provided information about the victim that left the case unable to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

    * Former Kern County Sheriff's Detentions Deputy Anthony Michael Lavis has pleaded not guilty to sex-related crimes against female inmates after he was arrested Feb. 11, 2010.

    Lavis faces charges including assault by an officer, sexual activity with an inmate and holding a person against her will, according to the Kern County Superior Court website. He is scheduled to go to trial May 2.

    * Former Kern County Sheriff's Detentions Deputy Margarita Young took a plea deal in April 2010 to a misdemeanor charge of having sex with an inmate at Lerdo Jail, where she was employed as a detention deputy for 11 years. She entered a no contest plea to the charge and was sentenced to 120 days in jail. The charge had been reduced from a felony.

    Inmate Timothy Titus Rodriguez, now on death row for murdering a 90-year-old woman, told investigators he had sex with Young five times in places such as an attorney visiting booth, a control booth bathroom and a mop bucket closet, according to investigative reports in the court file. She was arrested in January 2010.

    * Former Bakersfield police officer Christopher Kent Bowersox was arrested by the FBI on Feb. 12, 2010 and charged with receipt and distribution of child pornography and possession of child pornography. Bowersox, a seven-year veteran of the BPD, resigned Feb. 10.

    Bowersox has pleaded not guilty. A status conference is scheduled for April 11.

    SOURCES: Californian archives, Bakersfield Police Department, Kern County Sheriff's Department

    He wasn't kidding.

    However, I'm not sure this is the 'evidence' you use to defend the integrity of your department, so much.

    Just those 'few bad apples' again. I think the lesson for the rest of the department was, "Dont get caught"

  • GILMORE||

    Sorry, that was supposed to be "investigate", obviously

  • .||

    WTF they doing - hiring all the guys that couldn't get into the local branch of the Mafia to become cops?

  • ||

    and of course some of this stuff is chickenshit. not even necessarily an ethical violation of any sort, let alone a legal one... like this one...

    Kern County Sheriff's Sgt. Vince Martinez is being investigated by the sheriff's department on allegations he may have compromised a possible elder financial abuse case after becoming involved in a relationship with the suspect's daughter. Martinez is on paid administrative leave pending the outcome of the investigation. He has admitted to the relationship, but said he broke no laws.

    - um, so WHAT?

  • GILMORE||

    dunphy|8.2.11 @ 12:42AM|#
    and of course some of this stuff is chickenshit

    Sure it is. Just like how people who get canned ore suspended from other jobs for minor infractions or ethics violations or whatever.

    The chickenshit things obviously arent the point. The DUIs, robbing drivers, hit&runs;, child porn, sex with inmates, etc. seem a little more 'serious' maybe...?

    You don't even acknowledge the actual serious stuff. Does this sound like 'par for the course' behavior within a department to you? I'm sure you'll resort to the 'few bad apples' line without even bothering to comment upon the fact that the department has apparently had a track record of misbehavior and criminiality within its ranks.

    When considered in the context of the Deacon Turner shooting, this information is just as pertinent info as your citation of Turner's "past run-ins" with the law. It may be worth considering this department has also had numerous 'run-ins with the law'.

    It also provides some context to the current accusation that they may have destroyed/altered evidence of the shooting. What appeared on that videotape did more to reinforce Deacon's son's version of events than it did that of the officers, who didn't even mention having hit the guy in the legs with a baton in their initial version of events...

  • Busted Pension System||

    I'll bet some of these officers are still getting their pensions.

  • ||

    And nothing else happened......

  • Paul||

    The OC Weekly reports that the OC DA's office has already offered the Thomas family $900,000 to head off a civil suit.

    My question, what will the officers offer to head off criminal charges of murder?

  • Almanian||

    What a waste of taxpayer's money!! They haven't even had dunphy's investigation yet!

    We must see that "the investigations proceed fairly and objectively...if criminal charges are warranted", THEN we talk about cuttin' a check.

    I'm no expert - like the cops - but I have that about right, yeah dunphy?

    See, dunphy, this is when I hate you...

  • Paul||

    My opinion has always been:

    When you get an offer for a settlement, it means they're guilty.

    Innocent people don't settle. Especially before anyone has taken them to court.

  • Almanian||

    Exactly...

  • ||

    Innocent people don't settle. Especially before anyone has taken them to court.

    Nope, don't buy this. This is far too close logically to "innocent people don't take plea bargains. Especially before anyone has taken them to court."

  • ||

    police agencies, just like corporations often settle regardless of fault, for any # of reasons.

  • ||

    a civil offering is par for the course.

  • ||

    if you are so childish that you could HATE somebody over an internet discussion regarding investigative/police procedure, then you are an emotional infant.

    that's just ridiculous.i don't know you, you don't know me. it's a frigging discussion. grow up

  • ||

    A discussion.. a scuffle, what ever.

  • ||

    tomaeto tomahto

  • ||

    +1

    CB

  • Lib'tarian||

    dunphy|8.1.11 @ 7:58PM|#
    you are an emotional infant.

    I know you are but what am I?

  • cynical||

    Sorry, but murder is for killings among equals. When a noble kills a serf, the serf's family should be delighted to receive a weregild.

  • Paul||

    OC Councilwoman Sharon Quirk-Silva has asked Sunday that all the officers involved in the incident be put on paid administrative leave.

    All hyperbole aside, this is completely reasonable and warranted. If a cop shoots someone in a completely justified scenario, the cop is put on paid administrative leave during the investigation phase.

    These cops killed this guy- it's just that he took a few days to die and they didn't fire their guns. But it's reasonable to assume that he died from his wounds at the hands of the police officers.

    Justified or not, administrative leave would be perfectly appropriate.

  • Almanian||

    OK, but at least

    NOTHING ELSE HAPPENED™.

    So it's all cool, right?

  • Sarcasm||

    I'm impotent, you know.

  • mobiustrip||

    This is very sad. I only hope that some good can come out of this tragedy. Like, maybe, a capital gains tax cut.

  • ||

    http://www.ocregister.com/arti.....homas.html

    Beatings will continue until morale improves...

  • JMW||

    Goodrich said that the controversy surrounding the incident has affected officers' morale and that they are feeling the pressure and outrage that the community is feeling.

    "Officers are going on calls and are being shouted at, they are being challenged and called names,"

    Goodrich said. "These officers were not involved in the incident so it has affected morale."

    Oh, those poor, poor officers, dealing with public backlash! We all should feel sorry for them!

    Of the six officers involved in the incident, one is on administrative leave and the other five officers have been assigned to non-front line patrol duties, Goodrich said.

    "In other words, they're off the street," Goodrich said. "They are not in police cars responding to calls for service."

    Fullerton citizens feel safer already, I'm sure, knowing all that.

    The Orange County District Attorney's Office and the FBI are looking into what happened that night and police are conducting an internal investigation.

    "We have to continue serving the public. We have to keep doing our jobs," Goodrich said. "We understand the community's concerns, but we ask them to remain patient and wait for the investigation to be completed."

    In other words, we'll wait for the outrage and outcry to die down, then we'll drop this and act like nothing happened. Then it's back to business as usual.

  • ||

    no, iow wait for facts not rumour before getting outraged.

  • JMW||

    Wow you're as dumb as they say you are.

    Are you seriously trying to defend the indefensible by telling us to "wait for facts not rumours" after some guy got his face turned into ground beef by SIX OFFICERS?!

    That we shouldn't be outraged by that?

  • ||

    i am saying that drawing the conclusion that the force was MURDER w/o knowing more facts is a stupid assumption

    it very well may be. but i haven't drawn that conclusion because i don't have sufficient evidence to do so

  • JMW||

    i am saying that drawing the conclusion that the force was MURDER w/o knowing more facts is a stupid assumption

    it very well may be. but i haven't drawn that conclusion because i don't have sufficient evidence to do so

    Defending the indefensible. Got it.

    The evidence is right in front of you. It's posted at the top of this page. It's been filmed by others. There were several witnesses at the scene.

    One of the officers tried to attack a witness who was filming the brutality.

    But it's not murder because we don't have "enough evidence".

    How much more evidence do you need? A man is dead—needlessly—at the hands of a half-dozen officers with multiple witnesses to the crime?

    You just can't accept that a crime was committed here, can you?

  • ||

    lying ... i get it.

    i'm not defending what they did.

    i never have.

    i am saying i do not know enough to know whether what they did qualifies as murder.

    your logick(tm) sucks.

    if you can't grok the distinction

  • JMW||

    You're telling us we can't be outraged at something that clearly deserves outrage because we don't have enough evidence to warrant such outrage. We all should wait first*.

    I can't believe anyone with brain and/or heart can say this.

    Your logic sucks.

    *Do you honestly think anything would be done about this horrific act if people did not get outraged over it? That the officers would be punished if people didn't get outraged? Really?

  • ||

    being outraged is fine. stating w.o qualifier, that this was definitely murder as many have done otoh is stupid.

    calling for the cops to be executed (again, some have) w/o even due process is stupid.

    etc.

    if this was murder iow if there is sufficient evidence thereof of the elements of the crime of murder... charge their asses

  • ||

    "Do you honestly think anything would be done about this horrific act if people did not get outraged over it? That the officers would be punished if people didn't get outraged? Really?"

    of course. and i know of several examples JUST FROM MY AGENCY where officers were charged without the public even KNOWING about the incident until the dept. issued a press release. i know that some cases are based on other officers turning officers in (paul schene case) also.

    i know the facts show that it happens all the fucking time.

    the reasonoid ignorati just ignore it because it runs contrary to their prejudices.

  • Lib'Tarian||

    the reasonoid ignorati just ignore it because it runs contrary to their prejudices

    But we are the Chosen!

  • fish||

    I like you better when you are just Tony. Come out of the posting closet.....come out again.

  • cynical||

    "These officers were not involved in the incident so it has affected morale."

    The police are unionized, are they not? And their union is either directly (or indirectly, through rules it worked to have implemented) protecting these guys. Sorry, but solidarity has consequences.

  • JMW||

    I'd respect those officers more if several of them voluntarily resigned from the force in protest of their fellow officers' actions that night.

    Good luck with that.

  • Montani Semper Liberi||

    Here's video of bystanders who saw what happened talking about the beating immediately after it happened.

  • ||

    What cowards these so called 'officers of the law' are. The guy weighed 135 lbs. What did the 5 brave protectors of Fullerton weigh? Possibly the tazer's batteries went dead, so instead of replacing 'em, we'll just beat 'em with the flash light! I hope that upon conviction they too are beating within inches of death. Yes, the Lord has something for you fellas.

  • ||

    One more thing...So now that the shoe is on the other foot, a white guy beaten (and killed) by a black cop... where are the honorable Al Sharpton or Reverend Jesse Jackson now? I guess ethnicity comes before morality.

  • Obama's DOJ||

    That doesn't count. It's our policy.

  • GOD||

    i 4 i

  • ||

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I think that incident is a year old. I've yet to find any resolution, which I guess is the resolution Loganville Police are fine with.

  • ||

    EVANS, N.Y. — The Town of Evans will start equipping its police officers with Tasers.

    Evans officers still need to be certified in how to use a Taser — which stuns a person momentarily with an electric shock — so it may not be until the end of September by the time they actually wear them, along with their side arm, said Police Chief Ernest P. Masullo.

    "We do have pepper spray," Masullo said, "but this is just another nonlethal tool to calm situations down."

    The use of Tasers by police officers has become somewhat commonplace — and occasionally controversial.

    At least several local police departments routinely use Tasers and rave about their effectiveness in shocking combative suspects without seriously injuring them.

    Evans has considered using Tasers for a couple of years now, Masullo said, particularly after officers have been injured during altercations. Over the last three years, for example, one officer injured a knee, one broke an ankle and another suffered a back injury while trying to subdue suspects, Masullo said.

    "When we lose one person, the overtime goes up, the compensation insurance goes up. It all comes into play," Masullo said.

    The Town Board last week authorized spending up to $6,500 to purchase the Tasers. The Police Department will buy at least five Tasers — which cost about $1,000 a piece — to be shared among the officers.

    There are five officers on patrol per shift, so each officer will have one of the five Tasers, Masullo explained.

    The department is still working out the logistics, such as training and how the officers will carry the Tasers. Officers in other agencies tend to wear the Tasers in a holster on their thigh, on the opposite side of where they carry their firearm.

    "Nationally, a lot of agencies have them. Locally, maybe 30 to 50 percent of the agencies have them," Masullo said. "We're finding that once the word gets out that we're carrying them, the aggressiveness of the people we deal with tends to diminish."

  • ||

    I could imagine dunphy as an Auschwitz guard claiming justification for his actions based upon a "process analysis" that proved the Jews were a direct danger to Society.

    /godwin

    I mean,outside of a navy SEAL or an Israeli commando, I would bet that me and 5 buddies could subdue just about anybody...weaponless...with minimal injuries

    Besides, if me and those 5 buddies did this exact thing (beat someone to death after tasering them a few times, that is) to an asshole that was acting up at a party, do you think we'd get the benefit of a "process analysis?"

    No, we'd rightfully be charged with a crime.

    -----------------------------
    Dunphy, that was more for your boneheaded love of all things RATM, than your boneheaded refusal to see this situation for what it is.

  • ||

    i live in the reality based community. you can wank all you want, but i am certain i would far more likely be fighting the nazis than the average reasonoid. seriously, though. what complete crap.

    when and if there is sufficient evidence to believe murder occurred, i will draw that conclusion.

    heck, it would be nice, since i could say "i told you so"

  • Mash||

    Weren't the police of most occupied countries well known for happily working for the Nazis?

  • ||

    i live in the reality based community

    Yeah, we hear that shit all the time, and the "reality based community' has been fucking shit up royally lately. How about you let the revenge fantasy based community have a shot at things.

    Getting back to the question at hand: you're a fitness guy, trained in non-lethal h2h techniques, a long time leo, and a firearms instructor, could you please elucidate how you and 5 others, similarly trained (or trained by you), could not subdue a 135 lb homeless man without resorting to lethal force.

  • ||

    again, that's not dispositive towards whether the UOF was justified.

    assume arguendo they COULD.

    heck, i COULD tackle a woman threatening me with a knife... wait i did that.

    was i justified in shooting her?

    yes.

    did i?

    no.

    the issue as to whether the UOF was justified has to do with what this 135 lb man did or didn't do to justify or not the level of force that was used against him.

    if they used flashlight strikes to the head, that WAS deadly force.

    so, what DID this man do to justify it or not?

    that's the primary question

    i know a few billy bad-ass 135 lb guys. jeff hougland comes to mind (just one his first UFC fight and he trains a good friend of mine), but generally speaking, that sounds like not that impressive a specimen

  • ||

    See, you hide behind the law and its processes every chance you get.

    I could give a flying fuck if the law says the kill was justified, or warranted, or was self-defense or whatever; I want you to give me a situation where you and 5 other officers could not subdue a 135 lb homeless man, that is not Bruce Lee, without beating the man to death.

    Or maybe you're saying that cops are mindless drones. That perhaps a 5 year old waving around a 3 inch pocket knife could be killed just because theoretically he could kill someone?

    I am so glad to not be a part of the "reality based community." It sounds like an amoral murderous sinkhole of self-justified bureaucracy. Jesus, you can't even render a quick opinion without "process analysis."

    the law says the law can do what the law says the law can do what the...

  • ||

    see, i simply can never come to terms with you because we operate in different universes.

    yes, i "hide behind the law"

    if somebody here were pulled over by the police, and he asked consent to search and the guy said "no, get a warrant" would that be "hiding behind the law?"

    as for my "quick opinion" i told you. i'll say it again. it looks BAD. i repeat. BAD. it's quite possible there were criminally actionable assaults or even murder.

    but i have certainly not concluded that.,

    and like it or not... we analyze force by process analysis, NOT results analysis. that's how it works in a rule of law vs. rule of men

  • ||

    "if somebody here were pulled over by the police, and he asked consent to search and the guy said "no, get a warrant" would that be "hiding behind the law?"

    If he asked for consent to search, he probably had no probable cause to search in the first place, so.. why was he harassing a citizen again?

  • Trooper Jones||

    "...we analyze force by process analysis..."

    Bullshit. You react as you are trained and socialized to react.

    I've seen traumatized 18 year olds minutes after firefights who exercised restraint with prisoners - prisoners who killed and wounded their friends not five minutes before - such that they did not beat them to death. That's because they are well trained and well led.

    You are defending completely unprofessional and incompetent people. And you wonder why people have skeptical attitudes about those who are sworn to "serve and protect".

  • ||

    i'm not defending anybody in this case.

    please cite ONE example of me doing so.

    have i ever said any of the actions were justified?

    no

    i simply said i have not drawn any conclusions about their culpability until i know more of the fact pattern.

    and i have also said it looks BAD and on a probability basis (if i was bettin'), i'd bet there was unjustified force

    yet another person chimes in and lies about my position

    how utterly unshccking

  • Trooper Jones||

    Do you lie as much on the stand as you lie here?

  • Jim||

    I think it's a good question, though (cap's hypothetical about being at a party).

    If he and 4 other dudes beat a dude to death, do you think they'd be left free to walk around without some stupdenous bail?

    No, they'd be arrested first, and most likely have to pay a huge bail.

    Instead, since it's members of the ruling class, they get "reassigned" pending an internal investigation. You can bitch about the double-standards in your hometown media, but that's a much more significant one, right there. If cops kill people (whether justified or not), they are not treated the same way the untermensch are during the months following.

    Scenerio: I do something that superficially looks terrible, but I claim to have had some justification. I then call in my friends and some uncles (some of whom doesn't like me, to make sure it looks legit) to fly down and conduct an internal investigation. They declare to you (the police) that, after thorough research, they have decided that I acted within policy.

    Now, will you, as the officer, simply accept their word, shrug your shoulders, and go on about your business? No? You'd insist on investigating me anyway, despite the assurances of my internal team? Then why do you expect us (civilians) to feel any differently when your folk do this?

  • ||

    One more man has been killed....One more brother kills his own brother (cause we all are creation of God) just as cain did to his brother abel...( Of course Cain had his own excuses and this guys have their own).IS THERE A WAY TO STOP THIS???? Nooooo.... As it happens the same with catholic priest who sexually abuse children...Neither on this matter is a way to stop this....ALL OVER THE WORLD GOBERMENT AND RELIGION HAS THE POWER TO DO TO US, AS THEY WANT, AND THEY PROTECT EACH OTHER....No offense but Bible said that religion is the LOVER of the goverments...What we can do to protec ourselves???? maybe pray???? I have no aidea. Jesus said that the sons of God do good things and the sons OF THE EVIL do the bad staff.... So maybe lately the evil has way too many sons???

  • ||

    Wow now on top of worrying about gangs we have to worry about gangs of officers, for gods sake why were there 6 officers on this call I do not understand. There wasn't any weapon on this man, for the life of me I can't understand the minds of our law enforcement any more, they pic on people walking down the street minding their own business, most of these poor homeless people are just trying to survive, living in parks and eating out of trash cans, I think a flea would have done more harm to these officers, It makes me ill to know that these are the people protecting us.

  • Shot Caller||

    dunphy, i dont give a fuck how self righteous you think you are... you're just another lyin' ass punk little bitch that hides behind a badge... not the law.

  • ||

    To sum up: reasonable, sober-minded, nonviolent libertarians call for restraint as investigation gets underway.

    varados|8.1.11 @ 5:21PM|#
    In a different age, and in a different part of the world, the individual policemen, their wives, children and assorted relatives would have been hacked to death, dismembered, and dragged to a promontory by this man's family, where wolves and vultures would have performed a clean up. What a shame we don't live in that age.

    Cheeseburger|8.1.11 @ 5:55PM|#
    Public hanging would be a good option. Then leave the bodies for the crows with a sign saying "New Professionalism"

    Anon|8.1.11 @ 11:06PM|#
    Can anyone get us the names and addresses (or just names, we can get the addresses ourselves) of these murderers? I think there are some people that would like to meet these upstanding members of society.

    m'Artagnan|8.1.11 @ 8:57PM|#
    I hope that upon conviction they too are beaten within inches of death.

  • honest||

    Yes, we certainly wouldn't want to tar a few bad apple libertarians with the same brush they paint those same tiny tiny handful of cops who beat people to death with!

  • ||

    I calls 'em like I sees 'em. The comments are, of course, "isolated incidents."

    ;-)

  • fish||

    Fuck off Rectal.

  • ||

    Not even close.
    But thanks for playing!

    ;-)

  • Brandon||

    Freedom of speech. There is no freedom of beating people mostly to death for no reason. See the difference, moron?

  • ||

    I see hypocrisy and impotent, adolescent rage.

  • ||

    I haven't indulged in a single solitary revenge fantasy asshole. I posted legitimate arguments and refutations to a couple of dunphy's posts. So please stop being an internet douchebag and trying to equate some revenge fantasies to all libertarians.

  • ||

    Sarcasm|8.2.11 @ 10:09AM|#
    The comments are, of course, "isolated incidents."

    Reading is hard.

  • ||

    Execute these thug pig cops NOW. Any police personnel or politician public servant whom betrays the sacred trust of We The People should be executed on national television with extreme prejudice.

  • ||

    I am so adding that one to my collection.

  • Moe19||

    Good for you. Perhaps you can put it in your diary too.

    Given the picture of this poor guy, I've got no issue with people letting off a little steam, internet steam no less.

    And one more thing...presumption of innocence is for a court of law. People can have any damn opinion they want to have, which comes with it the special "right" to feel like a dumbass if one of your opinions is later found to be counterfactual.

  • Lynch Mob||

    WE'RE ENTITLED TO OUR OPINIONS!1!1!

  • ||

    Its scary that five cops who are trusted abused their authority and beat that guy like that. No one deserves that, ever. As a dad my heart goes out to Mr. Thomas. All 5 cops should go to jail. And that dispicable city offical should lose his job over his "Rocket Scientist" comment. Sickening, what is wrong with people in Fullerton? Whats next sumery executions?

  • ||

    No police officer will ever go to jail in Fullerton and Orange County. They are Untouchable, Invincible, and protect from politicans, friends from District Attorney offices and powerful unions.
    Nothing will ever happen to these cops. Slap on the wirsts like before and business as usual.

  • ||

    Maybe these cops were Libertarians.

    “Cops must be unleashed, and allowed to administer instant punishment … unleash the cops to clear the streets of bums and vagrants. Where will they go? Who cares?”

    ~Murray Rothbard
    American author and economist of the Austrian School who helped define modern Libertarianism

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement