Attorney for the Fullerton Six: "Public perception of officer's trying to control a combative, resistive suspect rarely conforms...to reality"

The six Fullerton police officers involved in the brutal beating of Kelly Thomas now have an attorney. Right out of the gate, his strategy seems to be to accuse bystanders of lying and the public of getting worked up over nothing: 

Michael D. Schwartz said Kelly Thomas was combative with officers. And contrary to the statements of at least one witness, the officers did not use a flashlight as a weapon, he said.

Schwartz also said there was “no excessive use" by the officer of a Taser on Thomas -- rebuffing claims made by several witnesses.

Schwartz, whose law firm represents the officers, said he could not discuss specifics because of the ongoing criminal and administrative investigation.

“Unfortunately, public perception of officer's trying to control a combative, resistive suspect rarely conforms to those officers' training, experience, what those officers were experiencing at the time or reality,” he said. “This seems to be a case in point.”

Schwartz's bio is here

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.

  • Jack the Reaper||

    I hope they get to show Thomas' picture to the jury.

  • Fullerton Police||

    [straight face]: Hey, that picture doesn't look that bad.

  • Michael D. Schwartz, Esq.||

    Your Honor, I would like my client's comments stricken from the record.

  • WTF||

    Has anyone heard that Michael D. Schwartz, Esq., may or may not fuck sheep?

  • Nittany Cat||

    I seem to recall reading somewhere that there are some who claim that Michael D. Schwartz, Esq. may have fucked a sheep or two in his younger, halcyon days.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Comments closing in 3... 2... 1...

  • Lib'Tarian||

    "Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic."

    "Invite," not demand. A loophole! Yay anarchy!

  • Mr Whipple||

    He gives sheep fuckers a bad name.

  • Jon Bon Jovi||

    [::starts scribbling, frantically::]

  • ||

    lol!

  • Art-P.O.G.||

    +lol

  • Michael D. Schwartz, Esq.||

    Ewe are correct, sir. I may or may not. Depends on if she has just been sheared or not.

  • RACIST LIBERTARIAN||

    Figures they would hire some jew lawyer.

  • Alfonso Muhammed Gore-X||

    YEAH!

  • MiNGe||

    JOOS!

  • GILMORE||

    Jack the Reaper|8.3.11 @ 3:26PM|#
    I hope they get to show Thomas' picture to the jury.

    Ahh, but public perception of photos rarely conform to reality.

    You see, the man already looked like shit *before* they beat him to death.

  • Jack the Reaper||

    Meth...not even once.

  • Yawn||

    He's the new Lobster Girl.

  • ||

    CAN'T SHOW THE PICTURE TO THE JURY, IT MAY BE PREJUDICIAL AND SEND THE WRONG MESSAGE TO THE JURY. TRUTH IS THE COPS STOMPED THE POOR BASTARD TO DEATH..TO DEATH. DID YOU GET THAT PART--TO DEATH.WHAT SHOULD THE MESSAGE BE?????

  • Achtung Coma Baby||

    https://twitter.com/#!/Lawrence

    O'Donnell thinks Reason does criticize police...Reason just doesn't want police to be fired for things "beyond their control" like teachers.

  • NoVAHockey||

    He's just revising and extending his remarks.

  • Tman||

    fired for things "beyond their control"

    "Your honor, it was beyond my control to stop curb stomping this defenseless unconscious homeless man. I have a tic that causes me to curb stomp during random citizen beatings."

  • BakedPenguin||

    No, he was talking about teachers being fired due to "budget cuts".

    ...while administrators give themselves large bonuses, new computers, etc., and ancient, tenured teachers, who don't give a flying fuck about the chillun, pull down close to six figures.

  • WTF||

    Reason just doesn't want police to be fired for things "beyond their control" like teachers.

    What the fuck is that even supposed to refer to?

  • ||

    Teachers have the amazing ability to believe that any failure on their part is out of their control and any success is due solely to their skill and determination. Therefore, they can not be judged on their failures, only their successes.

  • T||

    Oh, so they all attended the Goldman Sachs lecture series on how to milk the .gov?

  • fish||

    Therefore, they can not be judged on their failures, only their successes.

    Being Paul Krugman means never having to say you're sorry.

  • nicole||

    Therefore, they can not be judged on their failures, only their successes.

    And many of them don't want to be judged on their successes, either (e.g., merit pay).

  • WTF||

    Reason just doesn't want police to be fired for things "beyond their control" like teachers.

    What the fuck is that even supposed to refer to?

  • WTF||

    Fucking squirrels!

  • ||

    Teachers should not be fired just becuase your children are stupid or graduate without basic writing or 'rithmitic skills or anything else relating to education.

    Pay my pension bitches!

  • Joe Biden||

    You need some help?

  • Virginia||

    Does beyond their control include having no money to pay their pensions?

  • omg||

    LOD may have just invented the warp drive....for goalposts.

  • Trespassers W||

    lulz

  • SIV||

    Your twitter links lead nowhere.

  • Sudden||

    Criminals are entitled to a legal defense before being summarily beaten to death. Kinda wish the defendents had had that training.

  • Bingo||

    So does this mean that it's department policy to beat people until they stop moving and then continue beating them?

    I mean, if that's the case, then the cops are off the hook. If it was in accordance with policy that proves their actions were just.

  • Hey||

    If you kick him around, some part of the body will move unconscious or not.

  • Nittany Cat||

    Burn in hell, Michael D. Schwartz. Burn in hell.

  • ||

    amazing.

  • Pip||

    "Michael D. Schwartz said Kelly Thomas was combative with officers. And contrary to the statements of at least one witness, the officers did not use a flashlight as a weapon, he said.

    Schwartz also said there was “no excessive use" by the officer of a Taser on Thomas -- rebuffing claims made by several witnesses.

    Schwartz, whose law firm represents the officers, said he could not discuss specifics because of the ongoing criminal and administrative investigation."

    amazing.

    BTW, eat shit, Dunphy.

  • ||

    and there's this pesky little thing called forensic evidence. it shouldn't be that difficult between video, blood etc. to determine if they did or didn't use their flashlights.

    if this lawyer is willing to state they didn;'t use their flashlights, there's a good chance they didn't. generally speaking, he'd be stupid to make that claim otherwise

  • ||

    oh btw, smooches pip!

  • Pip||

    Against my will is against the law, assfuck.

  • ||

    smooches. and no thanks. too tired for anal. how about a little kiss instead of going stampeding towards the anus? tia

  • Nittany Cat||

    The homoerotic lust is strong in this one.

  • ||

    hey, we weren't represented in the village people w.o good reason, man

  • T||

    No, he's willing to bet no one can prove they used their flashlights. Big difference. And don't underestimate the stupidity of lawyers.

  • ||

    well, i can agree with you about the stupidity thang.

    however, ime when lawyers make claims like that (which are strictly factual vs. opinion based) they usually don't do it without a substantial belief.

    i made this same point in the duke case when the lawyer said that his clients dna would not be found in the "victim"./ he was tellin da truth

    i remain agnostic

  • WTF||

    Do you suppose the flashlights were immediately confiscated and impounded to preserve forensic evidence? Or did the 'Fullerton Six' maintain possession, allowing the opportunity to clean, dispose, replace, etc? Do you suppose there is a chain of custody that's been maintained on the objects they may have used that night?

  • ||

    i would hope they were seized. and IF witnesses came forward to the police (vs,.just talking on a bus) and made the flashlight allegations, they would be seized.

    heck, their UNIFORMS were probably seized if there was blood etc. on it. ime, detectives are extremely thorough in this type of stuff , at least in my dept.

  • WTF||

    I would hope you're right, but I have my doubts. And as far as witnesses coming to the police immediately (instead of talking on a bus), I am not sure they would want to go to the cops when they just saw them beat a man to death.

  • ||

    that very well may be true.

    like i said, i can speak from my experience in death investigations...

    if the investigators had any reasonable cause to believe flashlights were used as impact weapons, they would seize them.

    heck, in some agencies, they just take the entire fucking gunbelt and everything on it and issue the officer replacement on the scene, just to cover all bases.

    if the investigators asked the cops what weapons were used, and the cops DID use a flashlight and lied, that would be instant fireable offense (dishonesty) as well as imo possibly being admissable in court as indication of cognizance of guilt (arguable but possible).

  • Patrolmen's Union||

    There ARE no fireable offenses.

  • ||

    my union has supported several officer firings, so this is a nice snark, but not supported by fact. of course unions tend to side with officers, but when the offense is obvious enough, ime they definitely support termination

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    ...but when the offense is obvious enough, ime they definitely support termination

    Like a dead man with his face swollen shut?

  • skr||

    that makes them actually eter thana teachers union lol

  • ||

    ime, yes. i've seen our union come out and say "this guy should not be a cop" and stuff like that after misconduct was revealed.

    mebbe teacher's unions have done that, but not that i have seen

  • ||

    talk about "damning by faint praise"

  • skr||

    I would think it would be extremely difficult to thoroughly clean a maglight well enough to dispose of all the evidence.

  • ||

    probably. nooks and crannies n shit

  • MrDamage||

    Simple enough to substitute a 'clean' maglite for the one used on the night if the article was not immediately seized.

  • CaptainSmartass||

    "if this lawyer is willing to state they didn;'t use their flashlights, there's a good chance they didn't. generally speaking, he'd be stupid to make that claim otherwise"

    That, or he thinks he can get that evidence thrown out somehow.

  • Platypus||

    What evidence, your honor?
    *sniff*

  • Nit Pick||

    if this lawyer is willing to state they didn't use their flashlights, there's a good chance they didn't...

    Actually, he claimed they didn't use their flashlights "as a weapon". Perhaps they were just trying to get the light to work, by hitting it on something, or testing the suspect's reflexes.

  • ||

    The officers DIDN'T use their flashlights to strike Thomas. FPD issues plastic flashlights instead of Maglights, which are wholly inadequate for skull bashing. These guys used the butts of their tazers to deliver the blows. These particular tazers happen to include an integrated light.

  • ||

    good info thx

  • Pip||

    I mean really, dumb ass. Just read what the fucker said.

    "Kelly Thomas was combative with officers"

    "contrary to the statements of at least one witness, the officers did not use a flashlight as a weapon"

    "there was “no excessive use" by the officer of a Taser on Thomas -- rebuffing claims made by several witnesses."

    "(Schwartz) could not discuss specifics because of the ongoing criminal and administrative investigation"

    amazing.

  • Richard Head||

    Geez, don't you know how this game is played? He meant specifics that make the occifers look bad should not be discussed, the specifics that make Kelly Thomas look bad are okay to discuss.

  • ||

    well, duh. it is not the job of a defense attorney to present a dispassionate overview of case facts. it's his job to advocate for his clients.

    duh

  • A Serious Man||

    So you concede that he's probably full of shit? I mean I agree, his job is to spin for the media and the jury that beating a mentally deficient man to death isn't as heinous as it sounds.

  • ||

    no, i concede that it's his job not to present both sides, but only to present the side favorable to his clients.

    i am not saying he is lying. there is a difference.

    could he be full of shit? sure. ANYBODY COULD BE. including any or all of the witnesses.

    but i have no reason to conclude he is

  • ||

    You're adding a lot to the thread, dunphy. Thanks!

  • ||

    OK, agreed. Lots of hyperbole flying, per SOP.

    But you have to agree the "public perception" angle is just a bit mendacious.

  • ||

    yea, but i had to look up mendacious first. i'm just a dumb flatfoot. need a better edumacation

  • ||

    He's their lawyer, this is exactly what he should say.

  • Lib'Tarian||

    Fucking justice system, how does it work?

  • mikey||

    "Justice system"? It's a legal system - not the same thing.

  • ||

    It's irrelevant that the suspect, Kelly Thomas was "combative."

    There is nothing in California public law that authorizes police to beat a man to death. Nor does any law exist which authorizes police to inflict harm to any suspects head.

    Subduing does not authorize murder or knocking unconscious any suspect. No law exists to support such false claims.

    Contrary to the pro-police fools who frequent reason.com, coppers cannot engage in action in anyway they want, anywhere, anytime, in California.

    Even if Kelly Thomas were belligerent, boisterous, and uncooperative, coppers cannot strike suspects in the head.

  • ||

    to clarify, they can only intentionally deliver blows to the head with an impact weapon if deadly force is authorized

  • ||

    A cop would only use deadly force if authorized so deadly force had to have been authorized because they killed him.

    being agnostic on the subject i have to say case closed the cops are innocent.

    Derpy derp derp

  • ||

    lol. weeeak trolling attempt as well as false misrepresentation

    .000001

  • ||

    Doowah, doowah.

  • ||

    doowop shimmy shimmy...

    and to think, i used to like these guys!

  • ||

    I just don't think people understand the effect of crack cocaine and meth on people. They just go nuts and are almost uncontrolable. That's why I think police officers should not be allowed to use those drugs while on duty.

  • Patrick||

    +1

  • CE||

    Or steroids.

  • Mr Whipple||

    Roid Rage

  • Restoras||

    _v_n_ f_rn_c_t_r

    Anyone want to buy some vowels?

  • o i e o i a o||

    What are you driving at?

  • Restoras||

    Didn't see that - excellent work!

  • Pip||

    something fornicator?

  • Restoras||

    Getting warmer!

  • Pip||

    No Vanna, no play.

  • Mr Whipple||

    SHEEP FUCKER!

  • ||

    Warning! Threadjack:

    This is too good to pass over -

    http://www.grist.org/climate-s.....ate-change

  • Jack the Reaper||

    RACIST!!!

  • Reformed Republican||

    Yes, because we all know that Al Gore is as black as the ace of spades.

  • Alfonso Muhammed Gore-X||

    YOU, FOO. I GOTTA DICK THE SIZE OF A JUMBO JET.

    I RHYME SCHEMES THAT'LL MAKE YO PUSSY SWEAT.

    IS IT HOT IN? IT'S JUST GLOBAL WARMIN'.

    GIVE ME A LECTERN, POWERPOINT, AND A CAMERA AND I'LL ISSUE A GLOBAL WARNIN'.

    PEACE

  • fish||

    Hey...that doesn't rhyme.

  • Alfonso Muhammed Gore-X||

    FUCKIN' WHITEY. FUCK YOU, BEFORE I SMOKE YOU OUT!

  • Pip||

    They're called false rhymes. Springsteen used them extensively

    Born to Run:

    http://www.elyrics.net/read/b/.....yrics.html

  • Bingo||

    summary:

    Global warming is happening! Anyone who denies it is wrong and here's why:

    1) They're stupid
    2) I hate them
    3) White male oppressors

    I, for one, am completely convinced.

  • heh||

    Have these faggots read the study in Remote Sensing published a week or two ago? The models that Al Gore and the UN use are based on false premises, the NASA satellite has furnished data from the past 10 years that dispel their dooms-day predictions.

  • GLOBAL WARMING ACOLYTES||

    HATE FACT HATE FACT HATE FACT HATE FACT
    HATE FACT HATE FACT HATE FACT HATE FACT
    HATE FACT HATE FACT HATE FACT HATE FACT
    HATE FACT HATE FACT HATE FACT HATE FACT
    HATE FACT HATE FACT HATE FACT HATE FACT
    HATE FACT HATE FACT HATE FACT HATE FACT
    HATE FACT HATE FACT HATE FACT HATE FACT

  • ||

    okay, I agree with your premise, but if you're going to use intellect in your responses, no need to use invective. When you're disputing popular opinion, give them nothing to use against you (such as your use of the word "faggot").

    Not to say that I'm personally offended by the word, or that there's anything wrong with saying it. All I'm saying is that someone who can't win an argument will find anything about your statement to complain about.

    Cheers.

  • ||

    if you're going to use intellect in your responses, no need to use invective

    Fuck you! Haw haw haw!

  • NoVAHockey||

    Since when is the "stuff white people like" crowd synonymous with conservative men?

  • cynical||

    Stop oppressing him with your patriarchal, racist "facts", oppressor.

  • fish||

    Since when is the "stuff white people like" crowd synonymous with conservative men?

    When the argument requires it! We refer to it as "The Tony Approach".

  • ||

    my favorite quote from the 'article':

    "It helps explain why the CWM who know the most about climate science are the most likely to reject it; they learn about it in order to reject it."

  • Upgrayyed||

    Comptons Most Wanted in the house son. Fuck yeah aint no global warmin shit been hot. HOLLA

  • ||

    There's a lot of CWM's out there:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/201.....-69-say-it’s-likely-scientists-have-falsified-global-warming-research/#more-44541

  • Ska||

    Warning: comments are extremely hazardous to your health, and should be offset with the devil's sandwich and condiments of your choice.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    Devil's sandwich? Chicago style pizza? Don't get that started again.

  • Bill||

    "Such folk are leery of climate change solutions premised on fairness or egalitarianism".

    I thought it was supposed to be based on science?

    "Conservatives dislike change and uncertainty and attempt to simplify complexity".

    Many of those who doubt the extreme version of catastrophic global warming say just the opposite: it's too complex to model and make predictions. And many skeptics are engineers, computer programmers or chemists (like myself).

  • BakedPenguin||

    "Conservatives dislike change and uncertainty and attempt to simplify complexity".

    Yeah, "progressives" embrace complexity. That explains why they completely understand market mechanisms, and don't advocate policies that undermine them.

  • ||

    Shh, you know that you can't model a macroeconomics by analyzing microeconomics! That's not the entire basis of scientific reasoning!

    Noooo, what you do is just throw your hands up and beg the state to watch over a self-monitoring system.

  • skr||

    I have actually thought that the first point may have some validity, though not in the way it was stated there. I think there may be a serious correlation between where you fall on the AGW spectrum and risk aversion. It would explain why environmentalists that are AGW fanatics and love to mock people with their scientific literacy, reject science in the face of GMOs. They actually have no love of science they justuse it as a bludgeon. The fear any risk. If there's a risk of AGW and some science for fearmongering tha science it is. If there is a risk from GMOs, then they are aginst that too regardless of the fact that their position is unsupported by science because the science is obviously corrupted by the evil corporations.

  • skr||

    damn stiff keyboard

  • jesus christ !||

    shouldn't they be pleading insanity ?

  • Warty||

    The apostrophe typo is more painful than the picture. Ugh.

  • Jack the Reaper||

    Sorry. I got excited that I was the first to comment.

    Normally I am a punctuation nazi myself.

  • BakedPenguin||

    I think he meant this from the article: “Unfortunately, public perception of officer's trying to control...

  • WTF||

    Mr. Roberts, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent screed were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

  • WTF||

    @ Oso Politico|8.3.11 @ 3:37PM

  • not Jesse Ventura||

    You probably confused the planet Venus for police beating a homeless man into a fatal coma. Could you please look at this device for a second?

  • hmm||

    The cops deserve a defense. Even if they didn't afford one to the person they killed.

  • ||

    first rational comment. and btw, as i have stated before, the job of a defense attorney is not to seek justice. it is to get his clients off, and if that's not possible, get them the minimum punishment. that's their JOB

  • hmm||

    rational != something you agree with

    I know, confusing isn't it.

  • ||

    in this case, it does

  • ||

    So your premise is that you are the only person who has a true grasp of reason, and therefore have the authority to decree what is or isn't rational?

    All that power must a heady tonic make.

  • ||

    my shoulders hurt,. it's such a heavy burden to carry around.

    feel my pain

  • cynical||

    "the job of a defense attorney is not to seek justice. it is to get his clients off"

    No, you're thinking of a whore, not a defense attorney. Although I suppose the confusion is easy enough in some cases.

  • cynical||

    "the job of a defense attorney is not to seek justice. it is to get his clients off"

    No, you're thinking of a whore, not a defense attorney. Although I suppose the confusion is easy enough in some cases.

  • ||

    lol. chili dog, corn dog

  • Mr Whipple||

    Now that's funny.

  • ||

    Yes, and attacking Schwartz is pointless. He is doing his job trying to defend the indefensible. The complaint here is that the cops were judge, jury and executioner, affording kelly no defense. Lets not be guilty of the very thing we accuse them of.

  • cynical||

    Ok, we won't beat them to death. Yet.

  • Pip||

    Right to defense =/= right to lying, scumbag lawyer.

  • ||

    lol... dumbest comment ever.
    (btw, i have spoken to dershowitz a few times. great guy imo )

  • WTF||

    Why did "lying, scumbag lawyer" make you think of Dershowitz?

  • ||

    any mention of defense attorneys in general, their role, etc. makes me think of him because

    1) he's one of the most famous and imo one of the leading experts in the country
    2) i personally have met him , so i kind of apply him vs. say kunstler (who is dead, but was a total idiot - although reasonably effective)
    etc.

    i was riffing on pip's assumption that this guy is a lying scumbag. which i do not have any reason to suspect.

  • Mr Whipple||

    I generally think of Gerry Spence, first.

  • Mr Whipple||

    As a defense attorney, not as a "lying scumbag"

  • ||

    i like the obligatory sports coat with elbow patches and the specially prewrinkled suit by the commie pinko dry cleaner a la pj orourke

  • ||

    This makes no sense. They have the right to pick whatever defense they want, shoddy as their choice may be.

    Actually, shouldn't you applaud their choice? You seem to believe they are guilty (as do I), if so wouldn't you want them to have a crappy lawyer?

  • WTF||

    Although 'lying scumbag' doesn't necessarily mean 'crappy'.

  • H man||

    Second Theodoric of York quote of the day.

    Theodoric of York: Wait a minute – perhaps she’s right. Maybe the King doesn’t have a monopoly on the truth. Maybe he should be judged by his peers. Oh! A jury! A jury of his peers. Of six good men! No wait! Eight good men! No!! Ten good men!! No, that’s not enough… 18 good men!! No, that’s TOO MANY. Let’s see… 11 good men! Wait! 13 good men! No… 11, 13, 11, 13… it doesn’t matter. Okay. But everyone should be tried by a jury of their peers and be equal before the law. And perhaps, every person should be free from cruel and unusual punishment.

    [ Theodoric takes a brief pause. ]

    Theodoric of York: Nah!!

  • ||

    From the lawyer's bio:
    He helped develop the office’s Brady policies and
    reviews peace officer Brady issues as they arise.

    Anyone know what this means?

  • ||

    yes

  • WTF||

    Would enlighten us, please?

  • mobiustrip||

    In a criminal case, the government is supposed to turn over "exculpatory evidence" to the defendant on request. It's called a Brady request, named after a Supreme Court case that established the right as a matter of constitutional law.

  • WTF||

    So then why do you need a policy, and review, if you are required to turn it over?

  • Pip||

    To ensure the evidence doesn't get "lost".

  • mobiustrip||

    So you can figure out exactly how much the Scalia Court lets you get away with in sabotaging the rule (a lot, as it turns out).

  • BakedPenguin||

    You won't find any arguments that the SC has been fucking over the 4th amendment here.

  • BakedPenguin||

    My bad, that case was a result of the 14th Amendment.

  • WTF||

    Well, pretty much the only Amendment they haven't fucked over so far is the 3rd.

  • Mensan||

    mobiustrip, doesn't Brady require that exculpatory evidence is turned over regardless of whether or not it is requested?

  • hmm||

    I think so, they are required to send anything and everything that may help the defense the defenses way.

    I'm not an attorney, but I believe I've heard that from credible sources.

  • Mensan||

    "peace officer Brady issues" refers to cases where police have withheld exculpatory evidence. Basically, the lawyer is saying that he specializes in defending lying dirty cops.

  • CE||

    He helped develop the office’s Brady policies and reviews peace officer Brady issues as they arise. Anyone know what this means?

    Either something to do with excessive gun control laws, or when they wear questionable 70's outfits and haircuts and break into cheesy song and dance numbers.

  • ||

  • Brandon||

    Schwartz's contact info is below. His firm specializes in representing cops.

    http://www.shslaborlaw.com/contact
    mschwartz@shslaborlaw.com
    (310) 393-1486

  • BakedPenguin||

    His firm specializes in representing cops.

    So many isolated incidents, so little time...

  • Patrick||

    Damn, beat me to it.

  • ||

    You would be surprised how easy it is to get into a lawsuit when the municipality is seen as deep pockets. Whether you are at fault or not.

  • BakedPenguin||

    I'm sure that's true. It's also irrelevant here, since he is a criminal defense lawyer.

  • Rock Action ||

    What pops out immediately is that they're labor law attorneys, which just adds fuel to the other thread about process.

  • Irresponsible Hater||

    "STOP RESISTING!!11ONE!"

  • ||

    I've gotten beaten up pretty bad before, and I've seen a number of my friends who'd been beaten up pretty badly.

    I know getting your nose busted can make your face look really bad--but in that photo, he looks like he was beaten mercilessly.

    I don't need the testimony of bystanders--that photo is worth more than a thousand words.

    Regardless of whether the cops are guilty on this, there should at least be a trial.

    Even if the testimony were exaggerated--there should at least be a trial. There should at least be a grand jury...

    If I beat somebody into a coma on the job, prosecutors wouldn't wait until my company conducted an internal investigation to determine whether a crime had been committed.

    Why should it be any different with the cops? Even if they aren't guilty of anything--they should have been indicted already. ...that photo should be more than enough to convince a grand jury that there should at least be a trial...

    I understand they arrest people for spousal abuse with a lot less evidence than I see in that photo.

  • ||

    spousal abuse, BY STATUTE, requires (REQUIRES) a summary arrest given PC.

    i have argued numerous times why this is a bad idea, but it;'s a side effect of VAWA, which had federalism issues all its own

    also, it is the ONLY crime i can arrest for in WA where i have good faith immunity for false arrest.

    the ONLY one.

    iow, they encourage arrest even when the "facts are not entirely clear" and offer officers good faith immunity IF they arrest, but NOT if they don't arrest.

  • ||

    also, i've argued several times that the war on domestic violence is more injurious to the average joe, especially the average actual innocent joe than the war on drugs

  • Professional Critic||

    But not to the average libertarian, who is single and a pot head (myself included).

  • ||

    hey, all you need is a girfriend or a roommate (or former gf or roommate for you for it to apply to)

    or a brother or sister...
    or father or...

    get my point?

  • Cliché Bandit||

    at the risk of commenting in this thread, I must say Libertarians dont have to worry about DV not becuase they are single but because their spouses are usually armed and well practiced...at least mine is...the cops would only get called to clean up the mess.

  • ||

    lol.nice.

    but the point is a vindictive "partner" or even roommate can seriously fuck over an innocent person's life with ease, and even if suspected of lying, prosecutors will amost never prosecute false DV complaints because it's politically correct

    the law is stacked such that all you need is a civil DV order, and you also completely lose your RKBA

    if i respond to some bullshit mutual combat fight that is NOT dv, i will never arrest.

    if i respond to a DV involving some sort of physical struggle, i almost always HAVE to under the law determine a "primary aggressor" even if it's 51%/49% and MUST arrest

  • ||

    In most states, any peace officer can make an arrest based on exactly the same criteria (PC and a complaint) for any felony. The only difference with regards to DV legislation is that only the complaint is required, because by statute the complaint alone is sufficient to establish PC.

  • ||

    I wasn't trying to change the subject.

    ...only wanted to suggest that if people can be arrested and hauled off to jail pending a trial for leaving a mark on somebody--despite protests that it was self-defense, what have you?

    Then photographic evidence showing that six police officers beat somebody as bad as this guy was beaten should be more than enough to get an indictment.

  • ||

    and my point was that our state MANDATES DV arrests, but not even arrests for rape or murder (as long as they aren't DV related)

    furthermore, the law SPECIFICALLY gives good faith immunity against false arrest IF you make a DV arrest, but specifically leaves you open to significant liability if you don't

    if you can't understand how this cooks the books, so to speak, i don't know what to say

    i have HAD to make arrests many times on cases i strongly suspected were bullshit in DV cases where i would not have to if it was NOT (and I would NOT)

    the best we can do is question the "victim" intelligently to see if the victim's story has enough holes to vitiate PC.

    if not, it's going ot be an arrest, even if the evidence is weak as fuck

  • ||

    the point is that in many jurisdictions, arrests are REQUIRED, unlike other laws.

  • Grand Jury||

    After reviewing the facts surrounding this incident we have decided that the officers in question should all be required to go to bed without their suppers!

  • ||

    If the jury doesn't think there's enough evidence for a trial, then that's the way it goes on the criminal side...

    But I can't imagine a grand jury not thinking there was enough evidence for a trail--at least. ...just from what little I've seen!

  • ||

    Grand juries are only fed what the prosecutor wants them to see. Grand juries need to recover their power to do investigations on their own.

  • Kelly Thomas ||

    I'm good.

  • Greer||

    merely a flesh wound.

  • ||

    “Unfortunately, public perception of officer's trying to control a combative, resistive suspect rarely conforms to those officers' training, experience, what those officers were experiencing at the time or reality,” he said. “This seems to be a case in point.”

    Well, that settles it. He deserved it.

  • ||

    whee, the "deserves canard"

    in every discussion with liberals on right to carry, the penis canard and the need canard will appear almost instantly.

    when it comes to reasonoids and UOF, it's the deserve canard

  • fish||

    So what language would you prefer?

    He "merited"a savage and ultimately fatal beating. Wait...the individual "earned" the wrath of six supposed peace officers...who are supposed to be trained to bring these matters to a reasonable and peaceful conclusion. Perhaps better still the officers "administered" a calming procedure to de-escalate the situation. They "assisted" in the suspects compliance when they very professionally lowered the suspect to the pavement 30 times. How about... "the individual was given the opportunity to experience the latest in police procedures"

    Nahh....in Fullerton he "deserved" killing...probably cause he didn't show the proper reverence for the gang colors!

  • ||

    it;'s an irrelevant question

    it's like in a RKBA thread, asking a person "why do you need a gun?" it's irrelevant. as i keep explaining

    in many lawful UOF's clearly the person didn't "deserve" to die, and in some UNLAWFUL ones, he arguably did.

    UOF is not judged on a moral calculus involving results analysis of whether the subject "deserved"anything. it's based on other factors TOTALLY tangential to that

    it's a canard, and it will continue to be a stupid one

  • ||

    The question isn't "did the citizen have a sufficiently poor moral character that he deserved to be beaten to death."

    The question is "Did the officers follow department policy and procedure when they beat the citizen to death."

  • ||

    yes, and also the law and constitutional safeguards... although theoretically dept policy and procedure is not violative of either and 99% of the time is more strict anyway (since it can't be less strict and still be legal)

    i don't think there's ANY doubt the death here was a tragedy. that's not the question

  • ||

    that's not the question

    There is no question. 6 cops murdered a man. I guess you could ask if department procedure allows cops to Murder poeple...but no one cares.

    You may as well be asking if the commander of Auschwitz had the proper zoning permits to operate a death camp.

  • ||

    there is a question as to whether they murdered him. there is no question as to whether it's a homicide.

  • ||

    Yes, it is the question, asshole.

    It's the question for the simple reason that any "department policy and procedure" that permits police to beat a guy into a coma is utter bullshit regardless of what the law technically allows. There is no set of circumstances that can possibly justify that level of brutality as a matter of department policy, period, full stop.

    Anybody who dares to defend this sort of behavior on procedural grounds is a contemtible, cretinous cunt of the first order.

  • ||

    it is the question. denying it repeatedly don't change that fact

  • ||

    Western civilization properly dispensed with the idea that following orders/procedure excused the commission of moral atrocities sixty years ago. Some things are simply wrong, and cannot be excused.

    Six cops beating an unarmed suspect into a coma is one of those things.

    But by all means, continue to insist that the only salient question is whether the UOF conformed to departmental policy. It's handy to have the moral cripples among us self-identify.

  • ||

    if they followed UOF guidelines, then it is neither a crime nor a dept. actionable incident.

    that doesn't speak to its morality.

  • ||

    If UOF guidelines fail to punish morally blameworthy conduct by cops, then what fucking good are they?

  • Apogee||

    They're good for discharging the accountability of government workers.

  • cynical||

    You're misinterpreting "deserved" as a general judgment on someone's character when it was obvious from the comment that it was meant (sarcastically) as a judgment on his actions immediately prior to his murder.

  • ||

    either way, it's a canard

    lemme give an example

    ofc. johnson is walking down an alley.

    unbeknownst to him, johnny and jimmie are playing with their airsoft guns . these guns look substantially like a real gun.

    As he approaches a side alleyway, he hears a voice yell "i'm going to fucking shoot you!" and the ofc. draws his gun in obvious apprehension. just as he does, Johnny comes running around the corner and points his gun towards the ofc, having heard the footsteps, he think it's going to be jimmy and wants to get a shot off.

    the officer fires and kills johnny

    was this legally justified? of course

    did johnny deserve to die? of course not

  • ||

    was this legally justified? of course

    If it were not "legally justified" we would be better off. Better for the cop to be thrown in jail then to go free. Incentives matter and if cops have the incentive to not shoot innocent poeple then less innocent poeple die.

    Also if a civilian shot a person with a fake gun they would be thrown in jail. So at least on this point you are condoning a double standard that cops have more rights then everyone else.

    Anyway it is good of you to point out your hypocrisy that all you want to really do is carve out a legal safe zone for cops that exempts them from the law.

    Just another thug statist.

  • ||

    this is the most absurd argument i have seen here in a long time

    i thank god i live in a nation under a rule of law and not under a rule of thugs like you

  • ||

    Your hypothetical is not even in the same moral universe as the situation here. Try to keep up.

  • ||

    the hypothetical demonstrates a point. it is not meant to be a direct analogy. it is meant to be an extreme example- EXTREMELY TRAGIC (iow not deserved)but unquestionably justified.

  • ||

    It demonstrates precisely nothing other than that you're good at coming up with irrelevant bullshit. The fact that, in some other, completely different situation, a cop might be morally blameless although his actions resulted in tragedy implies absolutely nothing about this situation.

    As I stated above: there is no conceivable set of circumstances that can possibly justify, as a matter of department policy and procedure, six cops beating a suspect into a coma. None. Zero. Nada. Zilch. I do not give a moist shit what the law technically allows: any department policy or procedure that even contemplates that kind of brutality is a moral disgrace that no decent, self-respecting individual should dare to hide behind.

    You are free to disagree, though in so doing you will self-identify as a worthless piece of human garbage who actually does deserve to have six people beat him into a coma.

  • ||

    oh well since your razor sharp logick(tm) clearly demonstrates how there is NO CONCEIVABLE SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES that could possibly justify a 135 lb apparently unarmed man ending up in a coma due to use of force by 6 cops, then i won't dare upset the cosmos by disagreeing with you since it will self-identify me as a worthless piece of human garbage... god know i wouldn't want that! (rolls eyes)

  • ||

    Yawn. That's the best you've got? Sarcasm and the passive voice?

    Run along back to the precinct, dunphy. I'm sure there's plenty of ass waiting to be licked.

  • ||

    Dunphy, you do realize that you are arguing with intellectual adolescents. Right?

  • ||

    yes. it's kind of like that old saw about dressing up a pig.

    however, i guess i'm just an optimist. if i can shine a little light into their dim little world, it's all worth it.

    or something

  • ||

    Because, obviously, flatly condemning the spectacle of six cops beating an unarmed suspect into a coma is a hallmark of intellectual adolescence, whereas trying to excuse it by reference to departmental policy is the sign of a deep thinker.

  • ||

    No, no, no! Don't you see what Dumpy is saying. I have the right to carry a gun. I do so because I want to. Mr. Thomas didn't deserve or not deserve being gang raped to death. He was murdered because the cops WANTED to kill him.

  • ||

    troll-o-meter: .03

  • ||

    Truth =/= Troll

  • ||

    troll= troll

  • ||

    toll=toll
    roll=roll

  • T||

    I'm certain nobody deserves to be beaten to death on the street by cops. Apparently you have doubts about the issue.

  • ||

    We just can't possibly know what happened. We just don't know. A miasmic cloud of corrosive skepticism settles over every case of police brutality. I mean "beating"? Do we even know that that word means, really? And Kelly Thomas is dead? What separates "living" and "dead," anyway? Aren't they just arbitrary points on a continuum of existence? How can we ever know anything?

  • mobiustrip||

    Weird. You sound a lot funnier when we're on the same side.

  • ||

    he sounds like a typical postmodernist discussing morality in social text

  • ||

    When you parody someone equivocating, it tends to come out that way.

  • ||

    yea, and if it was a remotely accurate representation of anybody here , it might have value

  • skr||

    he sounds like a PoMo discussing anything, lol.

  • mobiustrip||

    "Public perception" is always/mostly wrong? Something's gotta give. I think police behavior should conform to public expectations, rather than the other way around.

  • ||

    public perception on UOF is informed by tj hooker, etc. where cops can just do an instant wristie twistie and down a suspect w/o injury

    even justified UOF's are almost always ugly and unpleasant to look at is his point. one i've often made

    that doesn't mean THIS UOF was justified. far from it

  • NoVAHockey||

    UOF?

  • ||

    Use of Force

  • Pip||

    Unbelievably Offensive Fuckheads?

  • ||

    Use Of Force, a handy euphemism for "beating someone to death with a flashlight."

  • WTF||

    As in "I UOF'd that motherfucker until his freakin' head exploded!"

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    This whole time I thought it was a dyslexic weather balloon.

  • ||

    whee! hyperbole alert!

  • mobiustrip||

    This couldn't possibly be the same guy -- "Jack Dunphy" -- who wrote pseudonymous claptrap over at National Review...

  • cynical||

    No, it's an Irish name. Irish... cop... get it?

  • ||

    it's an homage

  • Warty||

    Hyperbole? Where?

    Maybe you would prefer "Beating a man into a permanent vegetative state"?

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Unidentified Officer Fellator.

  • The Theoretician||

    Unidentified Officer Fellator

    If there was a cash award you would clearly be the winner.

  • ||

    that doesn't mean THIS UOF was justified. far from it

    So have we moved on from "crime (if any)" to a recognition that a crime was, in fact, committed here?

  • ||

    no, for the 100th time.

    i have said i do not know if the UOF was justified, but based on what i have seen it LOOKS bad.

  • ||

    So you can imagine a scenario where 6 officers beating a man into a coma is justified?

    Because I can't.

  • Pip||

    This is why I can't stand Dunphy. He acttually can imagine such a scenario.

  • Pip||

    And the latest Federal Register has indicated that acttually must now be spelled with two t's.

  • Jack the Reaper||

    ^^THIS^^

  • Joe M||

    TJ Hooker? That show's been off the air for nearly thirty years. I doubt it influences anyone's perception of anything these days.

  • mobiustrip||

    Actually, the police fisticuffs on TV and in the movies is about as fierce as in real life. The difference is, in the movies, the perps are steroid-bloated professional assassins armed with katanas, not underweight homeless schizoids.

  • ||

    utter rubbish. although it's gotten better (largely because of cops imo)

    i still see any # of cop shows, for example ones that have 112 lb soaking wet female cops instantly wristie twistie a 220 lb street thug into submission

    it's about as realistic as when a guy gets shot and flies backwards five feet.

    my other favorite is when the cop draws his gun and racks the slide. lol

    or when the slide locks back, he presses the trigger and it goes click

    it has about as much resemblance to reality as movies where a guy fireas a revolver in an airplane and blows a hole in it sucking 1/2 the occupants of the plane out

  • T||

    my other favorite is when the cop draws his gun and racks the slide. lol

    Most departments now carry DA semis, right? So they're carried with a round in the chamber and safety on? Or no safety, for Glock departments.

    I'm a 1911 guy, so I have to imagine what the right answer is here.

  • ||

    glock is theoretically "safe action" not double or single action, but that's a semantic wank. it has no external safety (unless you count the trigger one (that small lever)) and of course every agency carries it with a round in a chamber

    MANY agencies around my parts carry 1911's. we carry them "cocked and locked". hammer back, round in chamber, safety on.

  • ||

    I've wrestled with this very issue as a CCW holder. When I've carried a 1911-type gun, I go condition 3 (empty chamber, loaded magazine). I just can't get comfortable with that hammer back over a chambered round, although I know its plenty safe.

    Plus, for concealed carry, a hammer back is a snag waiting to happen.

  • T||

    My issue with Glocks is I've seen too many holes in stuff that didn't need holes because of the fabulous safe action. I deeply distrust the Glock. Plus, they feel like I'm holding a board.

    Condition 1, RC. The snagging is overrated, IMHO.

  • ||

    i haven;'t seen that. considering how many PD's carry glocks,it would be interesting to see if "unintentional discharges" increased vs. other guns. i would suspect "no" but i don't know

  • ||

    yes, i would not carry cocked and locked concealed.

    before tacoma pd adopted cocked and locked 1911's there was much hemming and hawing over how it would "look" to have officers carrying cocked and locked.

    noncops didn't care. they got ZERO complaints or even inquiries about it.

  • ||

    Well then maybe you need to quit using force unless you are actually in danger. No more of this "We had to gain compliance and control of the situation for officer safety" bullshit.

  • ||

    it would be literally impossible to make arrests w/.o using force. even placing handcuffs on a person requires force

    if a cop says "stop, you are under arrest" and you run away, how does he arrest you w/o using force? chase you until you give up?

    what if you don't?

    you can't use force. you are not in danger.

    this is horseshit illogic, even for YOU

  • The Theoretician||

    if a cop says "stop, you are under arrest" and you run away, how does he arrest you w/o using force? chase you until you give up?

    what if you don't?

    Flashlights?

  • ||

    Mob lawyer/Cop lawyer, same thing. Instead of:

    "Nobody (who's still alive) saw my client do it"

    "It wasn't my client. It was Joey Four Fingers"

    "What, my client, guilty? Youse gotta be joking, he was in Paramus. His cousin Mikey had a thing at his body shawp. Ask anybody who was dere, they'll say dats where he was at."

    Its:

    "Nobody can judge my client unless they were there wearing a badge and a gun"

    "My client was simply following policies of his employer, and acted in accordance with his training and his perception of events"

  • Joe M||

    He's just laying the groundwork for his bullshit "cops are so misunderstood" defense. As far as I'm concerned, this only needs to make it to a criminal trial. Any jury seeing that photo, the videos, and hearing witness testimony will have an easy decision.

  • ||

    Joe, the court will probably exclude the photo on the grounds that it would unduly prejudice the jury by invoking sympathy for the victim. As courts have done in many many similar cases. This practice is simply one more proof point in my assertion that because the system provides for no justice, that victims (or their friends/family) need to seek extrajudicial justice. Primitive? Yes. The entire concept of a police state vesting a few elites with the power of life and death (and immunity for wrongdoing), is in itself primitive. Primitive people use primitive systems, that's how the world works.

  • ||

    points for police state hyperbole as well as the falsehood that only cops have the power of life and death, as TONS of justified UOF's by noncops to include no arrest or prosecution fatal shootings refutes

  • ||

    Non-cop vs non-cop, yes
    Cop vs non-cop, yes
    Cop vs cop, yes
    Non-cop vs cop, no.

    That's why cops get a bad wrap, sometimes justified. You can't lawfully defend yourself against an cop harming you unlawfully. You must defer to the actions of the cop, and maybe it gets sorted out at trial, but the odds are against you.

  • ||

    that's a good point.

  • ||

    You can't lawfully defend yourself against an cop

    The incentive is then to defend yourself unlawfully.

    If you have no legal means to defend yourself from harm then only moral choice is to defend yourself from harm unlawfully.

  • Pudgeboy||

    Exactly. And that's goes for every situation between a cop and non-cop, not just if you are being assaulted. Your only recourse is after the incident, once the 'fact pattern' has been created to justify whatever action the cop took.

  • ||

    except that fact patterns are frequently seen that do not establish same, which result in dismissal of cases, successful lawsuits, etc. etc.

  • Inigo Montoya||

    "Frequently." You keep saying that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

  • ||

    exactly how it's used here.

  • ||

    "Your honor, the photo is inflammatory and prejudicial toward my brave clients."

  • ||

    "Schwartz also said there was “no excessive use" by the officer of a Taser on Thomas -- rebuffing claims made by several witnesses."

    Weren't safe and hygenic Tasers supposed to make violent and bloody beat-downs unnecessary?

  • Joe M||

    Yeah, I thought it was a substitute, not a condiment.

  • Fullerton Cops||

    Weren't safe and hygenic Tasers supposed to make violent and bloody beat-downs unnecessary?

    Hey fucker...how am I supposed to break a sweat on company time if all I get to do is taser people.

  • ||

    no, they were supposed to make it less likely.

    and nobody has opresented evidence despite all the taser haters , that agencies that adopt tasers show force results contrary to that. iow, show me where agencies that adopt tasers result in MORE officer and suspect injuries/deaths

    bring it

  • T||

    I dunno about more, but the whole Taser thing sure didn't work out well for Oscar Grant.

  • ||

    word

  • Mensan||

    Hey dunphy, can you at least admit that tasers are a deadly weapon when used for pistol-whipping somebody repeatedly in the back of the head?

  • ||

    of course. any hard object applied with force to the head is a deadly weapon as used (vs. per se)

  • ||

    ""show me where agencies that adopt tasers result in MORE officer and suspect injuries/deaths"'

    Does being shocked with 30 to 50 thousand volts count as an injury? I'm pretty sure if I tried to use a tazer on a cop, he would claim that I was trying to harm him.

    IMO the problem with tazers is that they are becoming a tool to invoke compliance. Since they are in a non-lethal catagory, cops tend to use them in creative ways. In some cases, just to make the job easier, which may have adverse results such as the cops here in NYC that tazed a man standing on an awning. The guy fell to his death, and one of the cops committed suicide. That didn't work well for either party.

  • ||

    again, if tasers are as bad as claimed, SOMEBODY should be able to provide evidence for what i have asked for.

    all i have gotten is crickets.

    and btw, i have been tased twice. the only injury susitained was a tiny little hole in my skin (imagine getting your blood drawn) and a little bit of redness.

    again, IF tasers are increasing injury/death rate to suspects or cops, etls see the EVIDENCE.

    bring it!

    and i agree with you that some cops overuse tasers. that's bad. some UOF policies were too lenient about when tasers can be used. that's bad too. i have never denied that.

  • ||

    ""the only injury susitained was a tiny little hole in my skin ""

    That is an admission that they do cause injury.

    ""the only injury susitained was a tiny little hole in my skin ""

    I'm not sure if anyone has done a study that would convince you. The problem, which I'm sure you would point out, is that in any situation, how do you determine that the injury would not have happened in the absence of a tazer. So we would have to set some ground work before I would even look for evidence, else I would be wasting my time.

  • ||

    i am talking about injury OTHER than that. similarly, pepper spray causes redness and irritation for about 30 minutes that could also count as "injury"

    my point is that other than the expected tiny little holes and redness, has injury/death rates gone up or down when agencies adopt tasers.

    all the evidence I have seen says down

    but since the taser haters are fighting the status quo, let's see a study that supports the opposite

    let's see it

  • Jim||

    The issue I have isn't the lethality factor (I've been tazed once, and would rather have that happen than a gunshot any day of the week), it's the increased use in situations where no force would have been used previously.

    For example, they should be a substitute for using deadly force (when possible), not used on people who aren't being properly deferential. We've all seen the "don't taze me bro!" video numerous times. You're telling me that if they had backed off and merely threatened to use them, the guy wouldn't have complied? As soon as he started struggling, instead of backing off and threatening to call the police (IIRC they were security guards, or am I mistaken?), or pointing the tazers at him and telling him if he struggles again he will receive a shock, they just went at it. No need for it whatsoever. It's used to subdue people in general for a wide variety of reasons which they previously would not have been subdued for, not as a replacement for gun violence, which is how they were sold originally.

  • ||

    i don;'t want to get into a long wank about that case. we could go pages on it. been there.

    regardless, i agree with your point that many ofc's HAVE overused tasers, and that they should be logically placed in the UOF continuum.

    i'd still love one of the taser haters to actually provide evidence to support their assertions, but i SUSPECT there is none, since their assertions are false.

  • Mensan||

    In conclusion, although considered by some a safer alternative to firearms, Taser deployment was associated with a substantial increase in in-custody sudden deaths in the early deployment period, with no decrease in firearm deaths or serious OIs.

    Lee, B.; Vittinghoff, E; et al (2009). "Relation of Taser (Electrical Stun Gun) Deployment to Increase in In-Custody Sudden Deaths". The American Journal of Cardiology 103 (6): 877

  • ||

    thanks. ACTUAL evidence.

    you rock

  • Phlogistan||

    I've looked at the UN's WHO reports on world wide taser use statistics. Then poked around sales reports on the models sold to various security forces.

    Tasers appear to follow the automotive "dont buy the first model year" rule. New user also falls into the teenage driver kind of category. There seems to be a very marginal uptick when any security force first adopts tasers. There is also a very small uptick when experianced users get a different model. I could not determine the combined new user plus new model injury/death results. I'm not that good working with the limited info available to me.

    All I'm able to determine on my own is that tasers do not make encounters with police any safer, or more dangerous. It's just another tool available to be used or abused.

    Now if officers are issued machette's, dont plan on vacationing there.

  • ||

    Yeah, its like the trial where the police defendants were claiming that flash-bang grenades were perfectly harmless, right up until the defense attorney offered to light one off in the courtroom.

  • ||

    flash bang grenades are NOT perfectly harmless. that's just stupid

  • ||

    Yet it didn't prevent them from making that claim in open court.

  • ||

    nothing prevents people from making stupid claims in court.

  • hmm||

    Says a professional witness, since all cops are professional witnesses...

  • ||

    Truer words were never spoken.

  • ||

    That was actually for Dunphy

  • ||

    i caught it . thx.

    i have heard some phenomenally stupid shit in court - from judges, defense attorneys, prosecutors, witnesses, cops, etc.

  • cynical||

    That only works if you don't beat people with the taser.

  • ||

    Am I the only one who thinks that the defense attorney managed to completely undermine his case with that remark?

    I read it to mean that this case is a good example of how this case (of police beating a man to death) is completely at odds with any conceivable training or positive public image that police might have.

  • Wilfred||

    “Unfortunately, public perception of officer's trying to control a combative, resistive suspect rarely conforms to those officers' training, experience, what those officers were experiencing at the time or reality,” he said. “This seems to be a case in point.”

    So the defense attorney is arguing that this particularly savage beating of an unarmed, out-numbered, mentally-ill dude is justifiable given the officers training and experience.

    I imagine they'll want to frame this and hang it in a prominent location at the training academy.

  • ||

    this particularly savage beating of an unarmed, out-numbered, mentally-ill dude

    You forgot to mention that he was only 130 lbs

  • Polevaulter Donkeyman||

    So Riggs,

    What is your angle here? That the defendants do not deserve a zealous defence?

  • Cliché Bandit||

    I believe Riggs is a journolist. Which means he is reporting facts. The simple fact that you are asking what his motivation is displays his lack of agenda in the post.

  • ||

    lol. facts. like his portrayal of the evul tasershotgun (tm) or his vigorous reporting on an OMG anonymous phone call to a radio talk show as a great revelation into this case.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    Did you guys hear something?
    ...
    ...
    Must be my imagination.

  • ||

    Cliché Bandit|8.3.11 @ 4:28PM|#
    I believe Riggs is a journolist

    Yeah, if copy-and-pasting LA Times stories and providing a link to the source makes one a "journolist."

  • ||

    Fecking lawyers. No soul.

  • ||

    And let me just say, again, that few things piss me off more than lawyers talking to reporters about pending cases. Especially when they make flat out assertions of fact, like "contrary to the statements of at least one witness, the officers did not use a flashlight as a weapon".

    Make your arguments to the court, bozo. And try to do better than the garbled mish-mash of a statement you gave to the press.

  • ||

    strongly disagree. and i think defense attorneys should have a lot more leeway on this than the prosecution. the defense attorney's JOB is to get his client's off, or minimize damage, and absent a gag order (often unconstitutional), any legal means should be within their power.

    i reference the duke case where i strongly supported both the duke defendants, and the right of their lawyer to publically make such proclamations (like he did predictively with DNA evidence)

  • fish||

    i reference the duke case where i strongly supported both the duke defendants, and the right of their lawyer to publically make such proclamations (like he did predictively with DNA evidence)

    Don't make me start to like you.

  • ||

    sorry. i've always supported vigorous, zealous defense attorney work. i actually like defense attorneys (generally speaking), and actually could do that job no problem. i think it would be a lot of fun. i would also have no problem working as a civilian investigator for a defense attorney

    i believe in the adversarial system

    i just concede that the defense's job is NOT to seek "justice". it's to vigorously defend their client(s)

  • ||

    Well said. Due process is not just a catchphrase, it's actually in the Constitution. I believe this incident was far from justified as well, but that doesn't mean they don't get their day in court. As much as I hate it when people I arrest get to defend themselves, everyone has the right to due process. You don't just the throw the system out the window when the defendants are people you don't like.

  • ||

    If a non-cop was believed to have done this to a person they would be sitting in jail right now, waiting for their trial to begin in a few months. Not on administrative leave.

    Don't insult my intelligence by implying that we're looking for worse treatment for these cops than an ordinary person would get.

  • ||

    again, you concentrate on the short term. i am concentrating on the entire process and specifically on justice for the dead man, not on the temporary masturbatory pleasure that hmm, robc et al would receive from knowing that cops had handcuffs on their wrists.

  • hmm||

    I masturbate to chicken porn, not cop porn...

  • ||

    filing away for future reference, thx

  • ||

    You really should look into the duck scene.

  • ||

    Its a matter of opinion, I know, although there are also some legal ethics issues involved.

    What bothers me, though, is lawyers making flat-out assertions of fact about issues which are actually in controversy. They just don't know - they weren't there, after all. If they prefaced it with "My client maintains . . . ", I wouldn't be so pissy.

    And jabbering to the press doesn't contribute to their client getting off, unless they actually manage to contaminate the jury pool by doing so (which is an ethical violation). Its mostly about preening egos, not acting as an officer of the court.

  • ||

    it's an ethical violation to knowingly or intend to taint the pool. hey, if it just happens cause i was talking to the press... (cmon, let's be in the real world here... defense attorneys do it all the time)

    jabbering to the press can help contribute to their client getting off, or for the press to uncover exculpatory evidence for their defense, etc.

    regardless, i believe in open govt. open trials, etc. etc. and i support the right of a defense attorney (with rare exception) to advocate their case in public, generally speaking

  • ||

    It comes down to me being old-fashioned about my profession, dunphy, and holding my fellows to a very high standard.

    Call it the "old professionalism". Seems preferable to that "new professionalism" I hear so much about.

  • ||

    i don't think it's unprofessional to spout publically about a case ESPECIALLY when your clients have suffered the slings and arrows of negative press reports, public opinion, etc.

    heck, the defense attorney is the only one who CAN do it, practically speaking

    good for him

    he is, and should be, an advocate in more ways than one

  • ||

    The justice system has an interest in making sure guilty people get convicted, too. We shouldn't have everything slanted in favor of the defense.

    Contaminating the jury pool is not a legitimate function of a defense attorney.

  • ||

    actually, the argument of most defense attorneys is that most things are slanted for the prosecution, with the exception of burden of proof.

    i've seen balko make that claim, too. and justify it by prosecution success statistics.

    of course that's silly because prosecutors specifically only choose to go to court with the most winnable cases, but i digress

  • Wilfred||

    Incompetence or desparation?

  • ||

    "contrary to the statements of at least one witness, the officers did not use a flashlight as a weapon".

    That's a non-denial denial too, isn't it?

    The question isn't whether they beat him with a flashlight or beat him with a baton. The question is whether they beat him.

    That statement doesn't even deny that they beat him! The most pertinent facts don't really seem to be in question.

  • ||

    actually, in many agencies, that IS a question.

  • T||

    Yeah, I think it's LAPD which has a written policy about not using the MagLite for the beatdown and disciplined a guy over it a few years back. This always seemed kind of silly to me, given that cops usually carry a 24 or 36 inch baton. Is a maglite gonna fuck somebody up that much more than the baton?

    Also, I can't imagine that after beating somebody with a maglite it'll work as a flashlight. MagLites have always been a little finicky about impact in my experience.

  • Wilfred||

    Batteries is heavy -- lots o' mass means lots o' damage.

  • BigBob||

    ^This. Especially those 5 or 6 cell MagLites.

  • ||

    many agencies moveds to issuing soft flashlights (rubber) for this reason..,

    imo, also it is stupid. if baton strikes are justified, so should flashlight strikes. probably it's a training/CYA thang, since they'd have to offer additional flashlight strike training, liability studies, etc.

    it's stupid, though

  • ¢||

    So then why do you need a policy, and review, if you are required to turn it over?

    The idea was that courts would make "review of Brady policy and training procedures" the remedy for all Brady violations, however willful and severe.

    And the idea was correct.

  • ||

    So, the remedy is "review of policy and procedure", not actual, you know, compliance with Constitutional due process.

    Got it.

  • Joe M||

    When I was a kid, my brother and I played with Legos a ton. We used to use the little antennas as batons for police, but we called them "beat sticks". Even then, we had an intuitive understanding of how the world works.

  • ||

    Would someone please remind me what Kelly Thomas was charged for?

    Oh, that's right. They had nothing on him. He just took off when they approached him.

    Please remind me never to jog while wearing headphones if I'm anywhere near a cop. It could be the last steps I take.

  • ||

    I carry, and so should you. Oh, that's right -- carrying a gun is a sign of DISRESPECT. Beware.

  • ||

    they had RS for a terry stop. even some of the witnesses stated that when the police tried to stop him , he resisted.

  • ||

    Reasonable suspicion of what?

  • ||

    that he was the suspect in a reported burglary.

    read the original article. they cover that

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    Not having a badge.

  • Mensan||

    I paranoid schizophrenic tried to run away from a percieved threat? I find that very unlikely.

  • ||

    What kind of resistance could an unarmed 135 lb guy offer to five cops that justifies that level of force?

  • ||

    very few. assuming we are certain about WHAT force was used against him exactly, which we aren't. we know he's dead and looks like shit in the photo.

    i'd like to see the autopsy report, etc.

  • Inigo Montoya||

    assuming we are certain about WHAT force was used against him exactly, which we aren't.

    Really? Maybe he 'fell'? You really aren't certain what kind of force was used, in spite of the video, witnesses, hospital photo, etc? What do you imagine it could possibly be, other than a beatdown?

  • ||

    what video? the video of people TALKING about it?

  • NoVAHockey||

    I'd love to see a copy of the responding paramedics' report. somebody with a lot of skill intubated Mr. Thomas.

  • ||

    Absolutely. These cops deserve a defense and a fair trial, and if the trial they (or, at least, HE, the one-eyed man) get is fair and the defense is reasonable, they'll either have a noose around their necks by Christmas, or poison running through their veins by New Year.

    Aggravated murder. Call it what it is.

  • ||

    I worked 6 years in the police department of one of the largest mental hospitals in the country. The freakin thing was its own zip code, fire and police etc etc.
    Over a four hundred severely mentally ill adults and nearly a hundred adolescents guaranteed combat every day....multiple times. We were not allowed any weaponry or to strike or hit any clients. You learn how to talk to them, how to handle them, how to keep them from hurting you, and how to keep from hurting them. In all that time, after hundreds of instances of having to use force, not one patient was injured. Not one drop of blood. Not one broken bone.
    What these guys did was cold blooded murder. Their defense is bullshit. Six armed men on one schizo huh? We never had six...usually two and unarmed.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    C'mon, we can't expect them to be experts in the use of force can we?

  • ||

    i call complete bullshit. if you can have "hundreds" of incidents of force to restrain people and NONE of them suffered ANY injury, that's a fucking lie. i'll call it right out.

    i went to grad school for psych, and i spent some time in a psych ward, and your claim is laughable- no strains, ligament tears, sprains, etc? out of HUNDREDS of restraints? bullshit

  • Spock||

    Grip firmly at the base of the neck near the left upper trapezius......

  • ||

    ...and go straight to jail. Not only could we not use any weapons, but we could not use techniques intended to inflict injury or even pain.

  • ||

    Ok, it wasnt hundreds. Probably close to 1000ish. By no injury I am omitting bruises and scrapes on the patients, minor stuff. I am not saying no one got their feelings hurt, but I dont recall any of them ever needing medical attention. We had many investigations, but no wrong doing by our staff. The unit staff on the other hand.....lots of problems there.
    And, there were lots of injuries, to us. Everyone had bad knees, backs, elbows etc. and the usual black eyes and swollen lips. I got a cracked rib once. I said no broken bones and no blood.
    Bullshit huh? A fucking lie? Gosh Dunphy I am starting to see why you are so popular.

  • ||

    ok, fine ... THAT i can believe

    the no injuries thing was bullshit

    if you had said "only minor injuries" i would agree that's possible

  • ||

    It is not only possible, but true. Injuring a patient in a mental hospital usually results in state and federal investigations, civil suits, criminal charges and jail time. Our staff took great care not to hurt patients and to only suffer the occasional 'minor injury' as you put it, themselves which we considered not worth mentioning. In addition to that, most officers had a great deal of empathy for the patients as they were already suffering more than anything we could inflict on them.
    We were highly accountable for any use of force we had to employ. Thus 'no injuries'.
    Cops on the street are held to a much lower standard of accountability for lots of reasons, some good and some not good. Thus Mr. Kelly is dead.
    Most of the whining I hear coming from cops about why they shouldnt be held accountable sound like queafs to me.

  • ||

    ""i went to grad school for psych, and i spent some time in a psych ward, and your claim is laughable- no strains, ligament tears, sprains, etc? out of HUNDREDS of restraints? bullshit""

    I agree. And how many of them resulted in injuries like we see in that picture?

    I have to agree with RC Dean, there was no reason for that guy to get beaten to that level. Period.

  • ||

    None.
    Thats what I am trying to say. Use of force can be administered prudently and with care. We didnt have clubs or guns or any weapons of any kind. We used the soft restraints alot, cuffs never, even though we were issued them. No patient ever received any injury requiring medical attention.
    Granted, the controlled conditions of a mental hospital are very different than those on the street, I will give the cops that. But nothing justifies what they did to Mr. Kelly.

  • hmm||

    Attacking the lawyer is not the way to proceed...

    "The law, in all vicissitudes of government, fluctuations of the passions, or flights of enthusiasm, will preserve a steady undeviating course; it will not bend to the uncertain wishes, imaginations, and wanton tempers of men. To use the words of a great and worthy man, a patriot, and an hero, and enlightned friend of mankind, and a martyr to liberty; I mean Algernon Sindney,who from his earliest infancy sought a tranquil retirement under the shadow of the tree of liberty, with his tongue, his pen, and his sword, "The law, (says he,) no passion can disturb. Tis void of desire and fear, lust and anger. 'Tis mens sine affectu; written reason; retaining some measure of the divine perfection. It does not enjoin that which pleases a weak, frail man, but without any regard to persons, commands that which is good, and punishes evil in all, whether rich, or poor, high or low,'Tis deaf, inexorable, inflexible. On the one hand it is inexorable to the cries and lamentations of the prisoners; on the other it is deaf, deaf as an adder to the clamours of the populace."

  • ||

    ^this

  • ||

    Once again I can only wish you a fiery death, prefaced with the death by fire of all you love and hold dear. Perhaps after a gang-rape perpetrated by the Mongols(TM) or some other 1% club.

  • ||

    smooches hand banana!

  • ||

    I am so adding that one to my collection.

  • Warty||

    Yeah, I don't get it either. Sleazy defense lawyers are a good thing.

  • hmm||

    Not necessary a good thing, but maybe a necessary thing and I wouldn't call Adams sleazy.

  • hmm||

    On a person to person level as a juror would have a hard time convicting the father of the dead man of murder for delivering a round to each officers cranium.

    While the law may do a poor job of delineation in such matters a group of peers may not.

  • John Adams||

    And I stand by that, as long as you don't make fun of how fat I am and you're not French.

  • stephen||

    I wonder how the situation would have panned out had the people decided to protect a fellow citizen? Does anyone know of a case where citizens engaged authorities when the authorities were clearly acting illegally in cases similar to this one?

  • Warty||

    There was a town somewhere in the South in the 50s where the townsfolk rose up against the cops, if I remember right. Don't remember the town's name now, so that's not terribly helpful.

  • Applederry||

  • ||

    I'm gonna take up a bunch of space here, but this should be read:

    The primary election was held on August 1. To intimidate voters, Mansfield brought in some 200 armed "deputies." GI poll-watchers were beaten almost at once. At about 3 p.m., Tom Gillespie, an African- American voter was told by a sheriff's deputy that he could not vote. Despite being beaten, Gillespie persisted. The enraged deputy shot him. The gunshot drew a crowd. Rumors spread that Gillespie had been shot in the back; he later recovered.[4]
    Other deputies detained ex-GI poll-watchers in a polling place, as that made the ballot counting "public." A crowd gathered. Sheriff Mansfield told his deputies to disperse the crowd. When the two ex-GIs smashed a big window and escaped, the crowd surged forward. The deputies, with guns drawn, formed a tight half-circle around the front of the polling place. One deputy, "his gun raised high...shouted: 'If you sons of bitches cross this street I'll kill you!'"[5]
    Mansfield took the ballot boxes to the jail for counting. The deputies seemed to fear immediate attack by the "people who had just liberated Europe and the South Pacific from two of the most powerful war machines in human history."[6]
    Short of firearms and ammunition, the GIs scoured the county to find them. By borrowing keys to the National Guard and State Guard armories, they got three M1 rifles, five M1911 pistols and 24 M1917 rifles. The armories were nearly empty after the war's end. By 8 p.m. a group of GIs and "local boys" headed for the jail but left the back door unguarded to give the jail's defenders an easy way out.
    Three GIs were fired on from the jail. Two were wounded while other GIs returned fire. Firing subsided after 30 minutes; ammunition ran low and night had fallen. Thick brick walls shielded those inside the jail. Absent radios, the GIs' rifle fire was uncoordinated. "From the hillside fire rose and fell in disorganized cascades. More than anything else, people were simply shooting at the jail."[7]
    Several who ventured into the street in front of the jail were wounded. One man inside the jail was badly hurt; he recovered. Most sheriff's deputies wanted to hunker down and await rescue. Governor McCord mobilized the State Guard, perhaps to scare the GIs into withdrawing. The State Guard never went to Athens. McCord may have feared that Guard units filled with ex-GIs might not fire on other ex-GIs.
    At about 2 a.m. on August 2, the GIs forced the issue. Men from Meigs County threw dynamite sticks and damaged the jail's porch. The panicked deputies surrendered. GIs quickly secured the building. Paul Cantrell faded into the night, having almost been shot by a GI who knew him, but whose pistol had jammed. Mansfield's deputies were kept overnight in jail for their own safety. Calm soon returned. The GIs posted guards. The rifles borrowed from the armory were cleaned and returned before sunup.
  • Warty||

    That's the one.

  • ||

    V for Vendetta.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    It would result in a terrible movie? I'm not for that. I'm not for that at all.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    Michael Bay LOOMS!

  • NoVAHockey||

    Homer: You know, one day honest citizens are going to stand up to you crooked cops.

    Chief Wiggum: They are!? Oh no! Have they set a date?

  • stephen||

    haha. There's not a single life situation that can't be further enhanced by a Simpsons' reference.

  • T||

    Try "can't sleep, clowns will eat me" when having sex. It works wonders!

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Lisa: I mean, if you're the police, who will police the police?

    Homer: I dunno. Coast Guard?

  • NoVAHockey||

    And bringing it full circle, the chalkboard gag in "Homer the Vigilante" read: "I am not authorized to fire substitute teachers"

  • fish||

    There's not a single life situation that can't be further enhanced by a Simpsons' reference.

    No situation? That's unpossible!

  • Jack the Reaper||

    It was them Duke boys!

  • fish||

    Mike Nifong or Roscoe P. Coltrane?

  • ||

    is there any difference?

  • fish||

    I found Roscoe mildly entertaining....Nifong not so much.

  • MWG||

    This is probably the closest you're gonna get.

    http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/904367/

  • Jack the Reaper||

    That...was...awesome...

  • ||

    I give dunphy a hard time, and don't generally agree with him, but he does a good job of bringing a viewpoint, in some detail, to these threads that we wouldn't otherwise see.

    So, in all seriousness, props for that.

  • ||

    thx man. feeling the love

  • -||

    You're like, the tallest midget!

  • ||

    to quote khan referencing lucifer - better to rule among sinners than serve amongst saints

  • brec||

    It would be fine with me if H&R would stop publishing this picture every day.

  • GILMORE||

    "Kelly Thomas was combative with officers"

    I notice that media and police representatives seem to frequently use adjectives instead of verbs when talking about an accused perp's alleged actions.

    I mean, did he hit a cop? Did he attack anyone? They're not saying he did shit = they're saying *his manner* was perceived as being ...what... *potentially* threatening? Is generic 'less-than-complete-compliance' cause for immediate group ass-whooping? Soon, "giving lip" will be characterized as "terroristic threatenings".

    Someone can have a 'combative attitude'... lawyers are 'combative' in their cross examination of witnesses... 'combative' is not against the law; its a qualifying adjective that means nothing. His yelling "stop kicking me in the face" was done in a challenging and combative manner?

    Whereas = fucking attacking people, hitting them, smashing their heads against the concrete, electrocuting them, etc. ... that's more like "actual violence" that is considered cause for self-defense so they don't like, you know... accidentally or intentionally *kill you*.

  • CE||

    Schwartz also said there was “no excessive use" by the officer of a Taser on Thomas

    Depends on what your definition of "excessive" is. As is evident from multiple previous cases, the "excessive" threshold from the policeman's perspective is significantly higher than that of the general public.

    “Unfortunately, public perception of officer's trying to control a combative, resistive suspect rarely conforms to those officers' training, experience, what those officers were experiencing at the time or reality,”

    Some of us were under the mistaken impression that a half dozen highly-trained police officers with above average human strength should be able to subdue one 135-pound, unarmed, uncooperative suspect without beating him to death.

  • ||

    actually, i've stated repeatedly that absent extraordinary circ's, a person should NOT be tased more than 3 times

    period

  • ||

    I'd think you'd already have to be well into the world of extraordinary circumstances to tase them twice. Maybe even once.

  • ||

    ridiculous. taser is designed and per UOFCOntinuums, as well as common sense, doesn't and shouldn't require extraordinary circs.

    and again, if ONE taser hater can present evidence that agencies that adopt tasers show increased injuries/deaths, i'd like to see it.

    it's assumed by most here, w/o evidence

    which is typical

  • Coeus||


    and again, if ONE taser hater can present evidence that agencies that adopt tasers show increased injuries/deaths, i'd like to see it.

    it's assumed by most here, w/o evidence

    I'm wondering where you've ever actually seen someone claim that. You tried to attribute it to me the other day.

  • ||

    if tasers kill people (who wouldn't otherwise die) as extensively claimed, then rate of suspect deaths SHOULD be going up in agencies that adopt tasers.

    that is one (but not all) of the reasons why this is important

  • Coeus||

    if tasers kill people (who wouldn't otherwise die) as extensively claimed, then rate of suspect deaths SHOULD be going up in agencies that adopt tasers.

    That absolutely does not follow. No one said that they did it every time. The claim, as you just stated was that tasers can kill people who wouldn't otherwise die. Unless you honestly believe that cops only use tasers when they would have used a gun, there is no contradiction there.

    You don't really believe that, do you?

  • ||

    no, again... if tasers kill then the rate of suspect deaths should be going up when agencies adopt them

    we have always had incustody deaths and incustody injuries.

    all other shit aside, if agencies adopt tasers and both of those go DOWN, then all the hype aobut tasers is bullshit

    you are really grasping at straws btw

  • Coeus||

    you are really grasping at straws btw

    Ok, this is ridiculous. You really don't see the logic fail you're making here? I'll try one more time, and if you persist, I'll know you're being dishonest.

    When people get tased, it's not always because they were going to be shot instead, correct?

    Some people die from getting shocked by a taser (excited delirium, electrocution, that's a whole other argument) correct?

    So that's an increase in deaths, but it can easily be offset by the criminals who get taken into custody by use of a taser and would have been shot instead.

    So you see? Total deaths down has no bearing on the fact that people die who wouldn't otherwise die. If a guy mouths off at a traffic stop, his likelyhood of getting tased by the cop is much higher than his likelyhood of being shot by the cop. If he dies after being tased, his is a death which would otherwise not have happened.

    Rephrasing it yet a third time, even if deaths go down overall, the only thing you've accomplished is to trade violent criminals lives for lives of those guilty only of contempt of cop.

    If you still don't get it, go back to the thread we were talking on yesterday and re-read the other comment I posted when you tried to move the goalposts with this after I refuted another of your unfounded claims. Here's the link, it's about a fourth of the way down:

    http://reason.com/blog/2011/08.....c#comments

    If you don't get it after all of that, then I fear there's not much hope. I could try to demonstrate it with logic symbols, but it's a lot of work for me to write a proof (haven't done it in a long time, and I'm rusty), and I honestly think you're just fucking with me now.

  • ||

    i get that point. but it's still fairly easy to control for that factor - for example, people who die in custody deaths where there is no authorization for deadly force.

    either way, the point remains. imo, IF the data existed to prove the points of the anti-taserites, they'd be spouting it from the rooftops... yet i have yet to see it ANYWHERE

    this is exactly analogous to the anti-RKBA folks who claimed there would be carnage in the streets when shall issue was passed, and it never happened.

  • Coeus||

    IF the data existed to prove the points of the anti-taserites, they'd be spouting it from the rooftops...

    Yes but it takes an FOIA request to get it and they still aren't often forthcomming. But here you go.

    Fifty cities provided predeployment and postdeployment data on in-custody sudden death, 21 cities reported firearm deaths, and 4 cities reported OIs. The rate of in-custody sudden death increased 6.4-fold (95% confidence interval 3.2-12.8, p = 0.006) and the rate of firearm death increased 2.3-fold (95% confidence interval 1.3–4.0, p = 0.003) in the in the first full year after Taser deployment compared with the average rate in the 5 years before deployment.

    http://www.ajconline.org/article/S0002-9149(08)02113-9/abstract

    I know you thought you stumbled onto a great argument, and when I showed you wrong, you moved the goalposts yet again. I'm getting tired of this. Here's your study, now cut that shit out.

  • Stretchy||

    This begs a question. If you're a citizen and you witness the police beating a man to death who do you call? Should you call 911 and report it so more cops show up? Do you try to intervene directly?

  • ||

    I know it seems counter-intuitive, but yes call 911. For one you will have a record of you calling and describing what is going on. Also when Fire and EMS show up there's even more witnesses.

  • ||

    There was a story in DC a couple of years ago where a cop nearly hit a pedestrian in a crosswalk, stopped his car, got out and started beating the shit out of the pedestrian he almost hit. Bystanders called 911 and the dispatchers didn't know what to do. They eventually dispatched more police but by that point it was too late.

    I'll have to dig through the archives and find the blog post on it. Not sure what keywords to use.

  • ||

    Hmm, the closest I can find is this story, which isn't the one I'm looking for, but does involve people getting hit by govt vehicles and Media Matters criticizing Reason for reporting on it.

  • ||

    Should you call 911 and report it so more cops show up?

    Seems counterproductive. Gasoline, meet fire.

    Do you try to intervene directly?

    Its hard to see how anything less is morally and ethically sufficient, but (a) it seems unlikely to affect the outcome and (b) is likely to get you hurt as well.

    Probably the best thing you can do is start taping them, and hope you get away with it.

  • ||

    More "War on Cameras" hyperbole? A couple of incidents a month out of the millions of police interactions hardly seems like a war.

  • ||

    You mean couple of incidents where the "civilians" don't immediately comply with orders to put the cameras away. And we really only should include police interactions where there is the potential for filming in the denominator.

  • ||

    except again - selection bias (a constantly repeating point here), you don't hear about the hundreds of thousands of times people video and cops don't give them an order to put them away and there is no incident.

    i was videotaped (that i know of) twice in two days this past week.

    big fucking deal.

    no report was made, nothing happened, so you'll never hear about it.

    consider those. and the scores of thousands of other times it happens and NOTHING ELSE HAPPENED as cliched as that has become

    you won't read about. but it still happened

  • ||

    The point is you also don't hear about the incidents where someone is about to film an encounter but sheepishly puts the cam away after the cops tell them to.

    The proper comparison is between incidents where citizens are coerced or threatened when they attempt to film and incidents where citizens record without interference from the police. Both are relatively small numbers. It's dirty pool to compare the former number with every single police encounter.

  • ||

    Citizens record without police interference all the time. The evidence is all over YouTube. Those videos don't get quite as many hits though. There is no "War on Cameras". Yes, there have been incidents, but they are the exception. If police really didn't want you to see it, then why is there always video evidence of these encounters?

  • ||

    yes. and i readily in some areas, some thugs have been bad about obstructing people filming and imo they should be punished for doing so.

    but those are still swimmingly rare.

    as a riot cop during WTO, btw - fucking cameras were EVERYWHERE. and yet, despite the massive criminal riotous assmunchery, violence, destruction etc. by criminal (most anarchist) fuckheads, the amount of police misconduct even under those extreme stressful circ's (i had bottles thrown at me, molotov's etc.) is tiny.

  • ||

    the latter is NOT relatively small #'s. it happens all the fucking time. like i said, just that i KNOW OF, it happened twice to ME last week.

    your #'s are skewed by selection bias

  • ||

    As I pointed out in an earlier thread. It happened just 6 days after Kelly got curb stomped...in Fullerton.

    Traffic stop, citizen was less than deferential, got belly/back suplexed and put in a rear-naked choke hold for his trouble. Bystander recording it said "that's excessive", and got a little baton music of his own, cuffed and stuffed. All caught on tape, on youtube.

    Kicker? People standing 50 feet away on the sidewalk were told to "go home, or get arrested".

    Maybe you have a point on a national level, but this particular den of vipers needs aa can of gasoline and a match.

  • ||

    i 100% agree. people are free and should be free to stand and watch andor film as long as they don't get so close as to interfere or incite something or do some stupid shit like that.

    sunlight = best disinfectant

  • ||

    Hey, seriously. Can anyone help me? I want to check in on the Matt Damon thread, but I can't load comments in either IE or Chrome.

  • Byron||

    Same here + Firefox

  • ||

    I am afraid that if I lived in Fullerton, I would be very close to my Inciting threshold right now.

    I spent 2 hours after reading the original Kelly thread running scenarios in my head. How could a citizen stop the beating (I would imagine it would have to be at gunpoint by getting the drop on them), effect a citizen's arrest, maintain some semblance of order (i.e. not get bum-rushed by the 6, or have the crowd turn on the disarmed 6), and turn them over to some sane legal authority without ending up either dead or in jail himself?

    I always got as far as the first arriving unit on the scene after I called 911 on the assailants.

  • Jack the Reaper||

    @ steeliv - would you feel 100% confident in filming an event such as this? Please explain your answer.

  • ||

    I imagine it was filmed by dash cam. Yes I would feel comfortable because I wouldn't stand 3 feet away like most of these amateur photographers think they have a right to do. I wasn't aware that cameras no longer came with a zoom feature.

  • ||

    Yes I would feel comfortable because I wouldn't stand 3 feet away like most of these amateur photographers think they have a right to do.

    If its on a public street, they do have that right.

  • ||

    within 3 feet of an arrest, terry in progress?

    um, no

    and fwiw, no real journalist would do this, and i've dealt with them scores of times.

    you can get the story w/o being obstructive to law enforcement.

    3 ft would be (usually) obstructive

    and unncessary. see focal length

  • Concerned American||

    I don't know the details of this story, but did he have a weapon on him?

    If not, we need to start teaching our officers jiu jitsu. Did you ever here of a thing called a "submission"? 6 police officers involved in this?

    There is no reason, NO REASON... this man's life should have ended considering the circumstances.

  • Restoras||

    I hope these cops end up in a prison populated with the worst violent dregs of our society, and we never hear from them again.

  • -||

    You don't want them to be raped and killed?

    You're making progress. Congrats!

  • Nancy Grace||

    Castrate them!

  • ||

    When the FBI moves in and confiscates evidence, presummably for the good of society (gag, puke, cough)then we all know that truth will be known. Just like the huge amounts of put options bought PRIOR to 9/11/2001 in Morgan Stanley (occupied the top 22 floors of the WTC), American Airlines, and United Airlines. And, the secuity tapes seized by the FBI for the sake of national security in the gas station near the Pentagon about 30 minutes after the whatever hit the building. I trust the feds. We all should.

  • Kolohe||

    "Schwartz's bio is here"

    like some have said above, I'm really uninterested in going after defense attorneys. It's not good when the idiot wing of the Right does it when going after people defending accused Al Qaeda et al members, and it's not the right thing to do here either.

  • ||

    it's not good when the left does it either. as they do in DV cases, rape cases, etc.

  • ||

    It's NEVER good. And it's always been so.

    Don't forget John Adams took a bunch of shit from the community for acting as defense for the Boston Massacre soldiers.

  • ||

    yup. everybody deserves the right to a vigorous defense.

    does it mean guilty people sometimes get off? of course

    the price we pay

    again, since justice is seen as process, not results oriented, in our system

  • ||

    While I think the officers should be jailed for a long time, I don't have any problem with the lawyer. His job is to present the defendants position as well as he can even if he doesn't believe it himself. Still, it would suck to be a lawyer having to say things like that.

  • ||

    you assume he doesn't believe it himself. i personally don't know

  • ||

    I personally can't tell either. But, he wouldn't be a very good lawyer if he can't make the jury think he believes it.

  • ||

    yes. THIS. ^

    trials are ultimately theater, with a strict rule set.

    but theater nonetheless.

    personally, i LOVE testifying in court, thus putting me in a tiny percentage of LEO's.

    almost all hate it

  • DK||

    Who the fuck cares if the witness misidentified the instrument that pummeled this guys face - something obviously did.  Unless they're going to argue that it was self-inflicted.  I'd laugh at any lawyer who tried to attack the credibility of a witness with this.

  • ||

    it's a bloody glove thang. if a witness misidentifies an alleged object used, it calls into question their basis of knowledge, vision, etc.

    see: my cousin vinny for a deep explanation

  • ||

    Are you suuuuuuuure?

  • ||

    IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIdentical!

    seriously, though - my cousin vinny AND legally blonde are teh awesome.

    MENS REA!

  • ||

    To sum up:

    1) Libertarians still don't know how the American justice system works, prefer vigilante rule.

    2) Dunphy still doesn't understand that he is arguing with intellectual and emotional cripples.

    3) Curbs! Flashlights!

  • ||

    And they wonder why we rejoice every time some stupid cop gets clipped in the line of duty.

    www.anon-web.us.tc

  • Grumpy Old Bastard||

    Hello, officer.

  • ||

    Maybe these cops were Libertarians defending private property.

    “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

  • Liberated in Germany||

    The title of this article is interesting, ""Public perception of officer's trying to control a combative, resistive suspect rarely conforms...to reality"

    I think that, based on hundreds of thousands of recently documented incidents and court cases against police, the "reality" referred to here is the fabrication of misinformation created by the police to cover-up for their violently aggressive assault on citizens. This is a phenomena that seems to be increasing in frequency in this nation's police culture. It's disgusting. We need to reform how we train, recruit, and monitor the performance of police officers.

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