Melbourne Police Kick, Punch, and Taser a 66-Year-Old Man With Dementia

A 66-year-old Melbourne man with dementia spent a month in the hospital after he was violently arrested in October 2011 by officers from the Melbourne Police Department in Melbourne, Florida. The officers who arrested Albert Flowers charged him with battery on a police officer, but a dash-cam video obtained this weekend by WFTV Channel 9 News in Central Florida shows that Flowers did not assault either officer before being kicked in the stomach, punched repeatedly, choked, and Tasered.

According to WFTV's report, Officer Derek Middendorf of the Melbourne Police Department was responding to a report that Flowers threatened another man with a knife. Middendorf’s arrest report claims that “Flowers walked towards him in an aggressive manner” and that he "refused to stop at a safe distance." This record of the arrest held water in part because Middendorf turned off his dash cam before getting out of his cruiser. But the Melbourne Police Department was since able to retrieve the video from the dash cam hard drive. And that video tells a different story. 

In the raw video (it's not embeddable, so you'll have to click through), Flowers walks at a leisurely pace toward Middendorf. His hands are down at his side as he approaches Middendorf in the street, and he does not appear to be carrying anything. When Flowers is a few feet from Middendorf, the officer kicks him in the stomach, causing Flowers to fall down. Middendorf then jumps on top of Flowers, and punches him repeatedly in the head and chest. Flowers appears to raise his hands to shield himself, but does not appear to fight back. After Middendorf forces Flowers onto his chest, he lies on top of him and tries to gain control of Flowers' right hand. When he fails to do so, Middendorf punches Flowers first in the face, then the ribs, and puts Flowers in a chokehold, at which point another officer approaches the two men, bends down, and Tasers Flowers in the face.

The video shows Flowers’ nephew, Garrick, approaching the officers to explain that his uncle has dementia and recently underwent a triple bypass. (Garrick told WFTV that he was worried the officers were “killing him.”)

Moments later, two more officers show up to help Middendorf restrain Flowers. Paramedics are then called to treat Flowers, who is seen in the video sitting on the ground without restraints. 

Middendorf, who was named Melbourne PD’s officer of the year in 2008, is currently on leave due to an injury unrelated to his arrest of Flowers. A hearing will be held on Wednesday.

Watch the the video of Flowers’ arrest here, courtesy of WFTV.

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.

  • rather||

    onetime I was doing my taxes, but it took a real long time because my calculator was a TV remote instead.

  • Apatheist||

    Another bunch of pussies in our police departments. Takes real courage to beat up a 66 year old man. Takes even more courage to taser that man in the face when he's already restrained. What heroes.

  • ||

    Hey now, I know a 110 pound woman that knows karate, or something! That "old" man could of had a bomb or something or some matrix-y kung fu skills.

    I think the officer showed much courage confronting this dangerous individual and not a little bit of restraint in subduing the criminal perpetrator.

    Besides we shouldn't draw any conclusions until the investigation is complete.

  • Father Jack||

    Feck these worthless gobshites. When do we get to start beating down these arsebiscuits? Drink! Girls!

  • ||

    When I saw the headline, my first thought was "Oh, shit! The Aussies are doing it too?"

  • Mike M.||

    My initial thought was "Mel Gibson must have home and lost it again."

  • ||

    You have to keep order when you're having the Australian Open, dude.

  • ||

    Actually the Aussies have been doing it for quite awhile. Standard treatment of youthful offenders in Tasmania in the 50s and 60s was to take them to some isolated spot and beat the crap out of them. I'm sure it's changed some since.

    Also, Victoria's Office of Police Integrity, an independent body responsible directly to the State Parliament, was set up in response to long time police abuses in the state. Although most of the abuses apparently had to do with organized crime connections there were some notorious shootings by police in Australia after state police forces started carrying weapons. The worst were in Melbourne.

  • ||

    As I have noted elsewhere, cops the world over tend to be dicks. The only variation is of degree, not nature. :)

  • Amakudari||

    Japanese cops tend to be nice. The most common thing I see them doing is giving directions.

    I think not having a utility belt full of weapons, being required to wear adorable uniforms, and having them spend most of the day walking a beat in their neighborhood and returning to a small, publicly visible police booth takes the us-vs-them-tuff-guy out of them. And the women are even less intimidating.

  • ||

    But, of course, not every conceivable thing is a crime over there.

  • Amakudari||

    There are a lot of things that are crimes but almost never enforced, like public drunkenness, trespassing on public property, jaywalking and prostitution. The only citations I've ever seen a cop give, ever, was for traffic tickets.

    Plus, they're not the ones pushing for the criminalization of everything, unlike the US. Cops can complain they're enforcing laws the legislature passed in the US, but I'll be damned if they weren't lobbying for it.

  • Kevin||

    People who mess with Japanese cops regret it. They have a lot more authority than US cops. Every citizen has a police dossier and the police make "home visits" twice a year to every house in their beat to update records, find out what kind of work they do, who lives there, etc.

    Oh, and it's illegal to beat confessions out of prisoners. However its not uncommon, the confession is still admissible and cops are virtually never charged. The cops are only allowed to hold you for (iirc) 30 days without charging you, they then have to release you. Of course they can then immediately arrest you and hold you for 30 days, then they have to release ...

    But it works for Japan. They have an extremely low crime rate and (non-criminal) people are generally happy with the police.

  • ||

    When I was a kid growing up in Sydney, it was accepted practise that if the coppers caught you doing something wrong they would give you a kick up the arse. They would then take you home to your parents where the punishment meted out by the pigs would pale in comparison compared to what your dad would do. I think it saved many from embarking on a life of crime. It certainly convinced me of the value of work over crime.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Seriously, Riggs. If it's not the Melbourne that everyone expects it to be, then you should say Melbourne, Florida in your first use. That's Journalism 101.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    No. Fuck those places.

  • BelowTheRim||

    Me Too Aresen. We were duped on that one...at lease we know that Australia's police haven't stooped to our level yet.

  • Isaac Bartram||

    See my comment above.

  • Isaac Bartram||

  • Bill||

    Clearly a case of resisting arrest. He threw his face repeatedly into that poor officer's fist.

  • ||

    clearyly

  • ||

    looks to me like the officer deserves to be charged and prosecuted.

  • jacob||

    Holy Shiite! Can someone record this? Dunphy actually admitting the police did something wrong?

    Quick, somebody notify sloopyinca.

  • Apatheist||

    In fairness to dunphy he says that often. Just not often enough.

  • ||

    i say it when the facts warrant it.

    which is EXACTLY as often as it is deserved

    hth

  • ||

    No, you say it when the facts warrant it under the contracts and different thresholds of what constitute crime are applied.

    And it's not as often as it's deserved, because assault in the name of the state is still assault to a normal, civilized human being. To you, it's totally different. Go and fuck yourself.

  • Less equal than others||

    Well, it's not that there isn't a bar, it's just that he holds it so much lower for members of his own gang than for the public at large.

    At least now we know dunphy's standard for when he'll give lip-service to arrest. That he'd never actually do the arresting if he saw this on the scene is a separate issue.

  • ||

    Ding! Ding! Ding!

    Every other officer on scene needs to be arrested and tried for aiding and abetting. It's no different than if they witnessed a "civilian" raping someone and stoood there with their hands on their hips.

    Fuck all of these scumbags. I hope the vaction they ultimately get is unpaid, because I'd be willing to bet that's as strict a punishment as they dole out to one of their own.

  • BigT||

    Right, if they actually witnessed this happen. From the video it is possible (likely?) they arrived a few minutes later. In that case they are just taking their brother cop's word that this guy needed beating.

  • ||

    They ALWAYS have it coming...

  • ||

    You can say that again.

  • ||

    They ALWAYS have it coming...

  • Dave||

    looks to me like the officer deserves to be charged and persecuted.

    unlike some of the other commenters, Dunphy, I actually kinda like you, and I hope you manage to stay safe in coming days, because I'm getting the feeling that your line of work is getting more dangerous thanks to bozos like this guy. Be careful out there.

  • ||

    lolwut?

  • ||

    How many times has this pig done shit like this when the camera wasn't recording?

  • Scruffy the Janitor||

    He appears to have a habit of turning off his dash cam before altercations...

  • ||

    Yeah, that sure stinks of premeditation. And you don't premeditate an assault like this only once.

  • ||

    there's always a first time. but realistically speaking, it is probably not the first time

    similar to DUI.

    there was a stat in one of our DUI classes, saying the average DUI arrestee, drives under the influence about 60 times a year

    iow, they usually do it, they just rarely get caught.

    it's remotely possible this is the first time he's pulled this shit

    it's just swimmingly unlikely

  • Fluffy||

    If that's true, then driving under the influence must not actually be that dangerous.

  • ||

    Considering the ridiculously low threshold for dui you're probably right.

  • ||

    Is it even a whole 12-ounce beer anymore?

  • ||

    ""there was a stat in one of our DUI classes, saying the average DUI arrestee, drives under the influence about 60 times a year""

    I would believe that. Drunk driving is more sucessful than not.

  • jasno||

    WTF is the point of a dash cam if an officer can turn it off? Shouldn't disabling the camera be a crime(destruction of evidence.. or obstruction of justice..)?

  • Fluffy||

    That's my view.

    I think we need a federal law making it federal obstruction of justice if a police officer attempts to impede the recording of his behavior during his official duties, whether it's a dash cam or a bystander's camera.

    Blah blah blah how is that constitutional? The 14th Amendment allows the government to act against states and localities to insure the equal protection of the laws. Obstruction of the kind we're discussing here can impede the ability of the feds to do that.

  • ||

    +100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

  • ||

    Has Riggs taken on Balko's job of delivering the Monday Nut Punch?

  • ||

    I am a 27 year cop and libertarian. This may or may not be okay. Where is the footage before this happened?

  • ||

    Where is barfman?

  • ||

    Why on earth does that matter at all?

  • ||

    I am a 27 year cop and libertarian.

    Given the current state of play in the US, I think at some point you have to choose.

  • Apatheist||

    Why is your age relevant to your equivocating?

    Is there any situation where it is acceptable to beat a man half to death? Even if the officer was telling the truth this behavior wouldn't be unacceptable.

  • Apatheist||

    double negative editing fail

  • Less equal than others||

    dunphy has a twin!

  • Fluffy||

    Adding more footage before this footage won't change the fact that the police report is a tissue of lies.

  • ||

    "I am a 27 year cop and libertarian"

    Okay, that's plausible.

    "This may or may not be okay."

    Nevermind, no it's not.

  • ||

    [face-palm]

  • ||

    Its ok to turn off your dash cam, kick, punch and taser a man in the face then lie about it in your police report? What are they teaching you people at the police academy?

  • rather||

  • Sevo||

    Ya know, I'm not about to click on one of your links, since they always seem to lead to your pathetic blog.
    If you *ever* turn into something other that a blog-pimp, I'm sure I'll read about it.

  • rather||

    Sevo, I love you too

  • rather||

    Sevo, I love you too

  • CultOfPersonality||

    "This may or may not be okay".

    Are you out of your fucking mind?

  • ||

    Didn't you read the part where he said he is a cop and a libertarian?

  • CultOfPersonality||

    Yeah, I owe him an apology now.

  • rather||

  • Sevo||

    Ya know, I'm not about to click on one of your links, since they always seem to lead to your pathetic blog.
    If you *ever* turn into something other that a blog-pimp, I'm sure I'll read about it.

  • rather||

    Sevo, I love you too

  • The Other Kevin||

    Is there any audio? Because maybe the officer was being VERBALLY assaulted.

  • Apatheist||

    Yes, I'm sure he was microagressed and othered.

  • ||

    The PD was able to extract the video but not the audio.

  • ||

    I often find myself in arguments with law enforcement friends regarding things like this. They would say that the citizen (or "asshole" as they tend to label everyone) needs to always obey the commands given immediately. If he doesn't, the officer's first duty is to protect himself. In the case of the kid shot dead at school, lethal force is the only remedy.
    When I ask, "But don't you think there can be another way to stop someone?", the response is always "no". Modern, militarized law enforcement has no interest in another solution. From their perspective, the problem is solved. A very "Flat Earth" mindset.

  • ||

    They would say that the citizen (or "asshole" as they tend to label everyone) needs to always obey the commands given immediately.

    See, also, dunphy.

    When I ask, "But don't you think there can be another way to stop someone?",

    Sure. Kick 'em in the gut, beat the crap out of them, and taser them to the face. Its called "New Professionalism", yo.

  • ||

    he DOES need to obey the command to stop. that is not even remotely questionable

    the problem is the takedown AS PERFORMED is not justified.
    the officer undeniably would have been reasonable in taking the guy down, pepper spraying him upon his approach if desired, etc.

    that's not remotely questionable

    the issue is HOW he took the guy down, the repeated strikes, etc

    that is what appears grossly unjustified

  • ||

    So, if you're walking down the street, and a cop tells you to stop, and you don't, for whatever reason, the cop can assault you?*

    Period, full stop, regardless of the fact that you pose no threat to anyone, and may not have even heard him or realized he was talking to you?

    *Within limits of course, but I'm having a hard time drawing a distinction between being pepper sprayed to the face, being tased (which strikes me as being the equivalent of pepper spray), and being tackled.

    Is that really how free citizens with civil rights are supposed to be treated?

  • ||

    RC, the cop is there to investigate an alleged threats/assault case.

    he absolutely has the authority to maintain reactive distance, and it's not remotely questionable that he is within his authority to tell the guy to stop (which would be a seizure) and ESPECIALLY to tell the guy to stop if the guy is advancing on him

    you can wank all you want, but that's simply not questionable within use of force continuum etc. that cops operate under.

    what is NOT acceptable is the way this guy was struck and taken down

    assuming the cop told him to stop (hopefully repeatedly), he could CERTAINLY pepper spray the guy and/or take him down

    sorry if you don't like that, but if the cops arrive at a scene and you keep approaching the cop as he repeatedly tells you to stop, you will be taken down.

    i can't recall the last time i had to do that, because 99% of the time, they WILL stop instead of advancing on you

    this is a free citizen with civil rights. those rights do not include disobeying a lawful order such as "stop" when you are advancing on a cop who is responding to this sort of case.

    period.

    the take down APPEARS grossly unjustified in the manner done, and considering the strikes, etc. and imo he should be charged

    but he CERTAINLY had the right to take the guy down

  • shorter dunphy||

    Cops are pussies.

  • jasno||

    If the federal government is good for anything, it should be standardizing procedures for police encounters and educating the public as to their responsibilities when interacting with law enforcement.

    The line is very thin - razor sharp - and both LE and the public really should know what is expected during an encounter. What is acceptable behavior and what is grounds for physical violence should be known to every citizen.

  • Dave||

    If the government ever explained to citizens what its agents are allowed to do to them, there would be revulsion and revolution. Therefore, the government has no interest in informing the public before the fact.

  • Chatroom Crank||

    Can I as a citizen take down a cop who keeps approaching, jeopardizing my safety, if he ignores my repeated commands to stop and back up? NO? Then the cop does not have that authority either. We are supposed to live under a system of delegated powers. If a citizen does not have a right, then a government employees does not have a right.

  • Fluffy||

    Since the police report is full of lies, any statement the officer gives about his state of mind has to be assumed to also be a lie.

  • ||

    ""you can wank all you want, but that's simply not questionable within use of force continuum etc. that cops operate under.""

    It's the "that cops operate under" that bugs me. If I did the same thing to someone, I would be in prison. Cops should be held to the same deadly force rules as everyone else. The ONLY time they should be allowed to use deadly force is when they are being attacked. You know, actual self-defense.

  • Copernicus||

    "remotely questionable"

    I do not think it means what you think it means.

  • ||

    "this is a free citizen with civil rights. those rights do not include disobeying a lawful order such as "stop" when you are advancing on a cop who is responding to this sort of case."

    Sounds to me like you are assuming that all citizens are of sound mind--you know, capable of understanding the difference between stop and go.

  • BC||

    Fearless prediction: dunphy's response will be along lines of, "Yes, that's what the law is. You don't have an option to refuse to obey a cop. Your option, if he mistreats you or violates your rights, is to sue him later."

    And, you know, he's right. That is the law, by and large.

    But you know what else? The law is fucking retarded. Not only should it be legal to ignore cops and violently resist them if they violate your rights; local, state, and federal authorities should sponsor celebratory parades and cash rewards every time one of these worthless cuntpickles gets reduced to room temperature by a resisting citizen.

  • Chatroom Crank||

    Truth Truth Truth!

  • jasno||

    Nah - I prefer a market-based solution to the problem. If a cop detains, harasses, abuses, intimidates, or otherwise assaults you illegally you get to take a portion of their pension.

    Oh and badgecams for all cops, on whenever they're on duty, wirelessly off-loading the video(no fudgenut, you can't just destroy the badge). It's always on - even in the bathroom. Increase officer compensation(yeah, I said it), while automatically doubling the sentence for crimes committed under color of authority.

    After that, maybe we can work on reforming the penal system.

  • Dave||

    +1

    I have long said that we need higher pay to attract higher quality cops, and a serious reduction in numbers in all but the smallest jurisdictions (i.e., those places where they only have one cop on duty at a time).

  • ||

    Or we could finally get fed up with it and kill their families while they are out beating and tasing dementia patients. One for one swap for each SWAT team member who shoots a guy armed with a golf club or shoots a gradeschooler in the head. Not as if cops ever see justice for their misdeeds. Maybe it is time to hit them where it hurts and they can't always be. Might cool their bloodlust to bury a wife after the latest unspeakable beating.

  • Dave||

    Now, now. Considering how frequently officers beat or kill their own family members, you'd just be doing their work for them.

    We'll have to find something better.

  • Apatheist||

    that's not remotely questionable

    That right there is why people give you shit. No one can possibly disagree with my entirely subjective and biased opinion on the use of force!

  • ||

    again, they can disagree all they want. but it's a normative argument

    i am telling you under UOF doctrine, etc. any cop DOES have that authoritah, and you could be taken down and arrested for violating same, especially considerin the nature of the call

    period

    you can argue it should not be that way, but it IS that way

  • ||

    I understand, dunphy, that a cop has the authority to enforce his commands with violence based solely on his subjective perception (or what he is willing to testify was his subjective perception) of the situation.

    I'm just saying that doesn't square well with my idea of what it means to be a free citizen with civil rights in a nation of laws.

  • ||

    Your normative arguments are microagressive and othering to our brave men and women in blue.

  • The Heresiarch||

    If I recall correctly, under the common law a citizen had the right to refuse an unlawful arrest with force, even deadly force. That doctrine died in the 20th century. Unfortunately, I should add.

  • ||

    I had this "pig" laden response to dunphster upthread. But he's right. There is not doubt a pig can point you out and say, "hey, stop." A lot like being a private in the army.

    The issue is indeed normative. I think that crowd in South Carolina GOP Debate would have no issue granting this quantum of authoritah. Obviously, most of us would.

  • RedDragon6009||

    "he DOES need to obey the command to stop. that is not even remotely questionable"

    What if he can't hear the command? Or, as in this case, what if he didn't understand what was going on because of his dementia?

    Seems pretty questionable to me.

  • ||

    that doesn't dispute what i said

    for the record, we deal with deaf people all the time. GENERALLY speaking, first of all, deaf people are attuned to looking for facial expressions, cues etc. and /or reading lips and we are trained to say "stop" not "freeze" btw, which is easier to read, and more universal for non english speakers

    and of course if he has dementia, it would mean the case wouldn't be chargeable quite possibly.

    great

    but when the cop is issuing the demand, he has the authoritah to act based on the refusal to obey the command and the guy refusing or failing to stop approaching him.

    if, ONCE the cop gets the guy restrained, he can reasonably conclude that the dementia precluded the guy unerstanding, etc. he could decide ot unarrest, or just issue a cite and let the courts sort it out vs. a custodial arrest, etc

    but a cop is not required to be omniscient, nor is he required to act perfectly, with perfect knowledge, or with the considering of every possible scenario

    he is required to act REASONABLY

    and under UOF doctrine, etc. it is REASONABLE to restrain somebody if they refuse your (especially if loud and repeated) commands to stop advancing on you

    i've probably had to issue such commands, what... HUNDREDS if not thousands of times when people run/walk towards me (sometimes crime victims all excited because they have just been robbed, or whatever).

    and ONCE they cede, then i can investigate, and like i said, i can't remember the last time i had to take somebody down for refusing such an order

    but i do have that authoritah and the person does have the responsibility to obey it

    and as for dementia, mental illness, etc. those don't preclude somebody from being assaultive, or even deadly.

    my partner was punched in the head by a kid we were invol'ing (i mentioned this a few months ago).

    we decided not to charge him, since he was being committed to a mental hosptial anyway, for a 6 month term, it just seemed like piling on and unnecessary

    but the fact that the kid had mental issues didn't mean we didn't take him down in a REASONABLE manner once he struck my partner

  • ||

    for the record, we deal with deaf people all the time.

    What about people rocking their earbuds?

  • ||

    Or deaf people not looking at the cop. It's not like they would turn their head when a cop yells stop/

  • TOWM||

    Dementia
    Dementia is a loss of brain function that occurs with certain diseases. It affects memory, thinking, language, judgment, and behavior.

  • ||

    imo, the cop deserves charging and prosecution

    that being said, assuming the fact pattern as presented, and the cop telling the guy to stop etc. the cop certainly had the right to take the guy down. pepper spray also would have been warranted

    it is not the fact that he takes the guy down that is the problem.

    it is the method of doing so.

    he has no duty to retreat of course, and the guy approaches the cop, and he apparently is telling the guy to stop

    but the method of takedown is grossly disproportional to what i sreasonable and necessary

    that's the problem

  • BigT||

    Why can't the cop back off a little and warn that he will use force before simply kicking this guy (or taking him down legally)? MUST the cop hold his ground for some crazy reason?

  • ||

    Middendorf punches Flowers first in the face, then the ribs, and puts Flowers in a chokehold, at which point another officer approaches the two men, bends down, and Tasers Flowers in the face.

    Sounds like the other officer needs to be investigated, etc., as well. He witnessed the whole thing (it sounds like), and his contribution was to Taser the guy in the face.

  • ||

    and just for the record, you don't taser people in the face. UNLESS it is a deadly force situation, there is no way that could be justified.

    period. full stop

  • Metarob||

    Forgive me; I've lost the ability to act surprised anymore.

  • ||

    oh, and of course the turning of the video thing STINKS of premeditation. after all, the call was for a guy that was involved in threats with a knife, etc.

    any REASONABLE officer would LOVE to have the video ON. in case he was threatened with the knife, etc. the video could go to help prove he was justified in a deadly force situation

    the fact that he turned the video camera off (i am assuming purposefully) is incredibly damning to me

  • Apatheist||

    New RP description: coot! Also: newsletters! And: dyspeptic, curdled expression!

    http://www.nationalreview.com/.....-long?pg=1

    In other news, I heard from a reliable source that this is the expression that Rob Long gives to seal the deal after propositioning a sheep:
    http://www.nationalreview.com/.....uare_0.jpg

    Why he would choose that as his profile picture, we'll never know.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    I hear him on KCRW. I never had a face to go with the voice. Now I want to give him a fist to go with his face.

  • The Mossy Spaniard||

    Come on, Apatheist. We can't be just tossing around damning accusations about Rob Long, such as the (wholly specious) claim that Rob Long owns and operates a massive ranch in Wyoming solely for the purpose of satisfying his own zoophilia.

  • RedDragon6009||

    When I saw the headline I hoped that it was a reference to Melbourne, Australia. I am ashamed and more than a little frightened to call Florida my home state with so many reports like this.

    "This record of the arrest held water in part because Middendorf turned off his dash cam before getting out of his cruiser. But the Melbourne Police Department was since able to retrieve the video from the dash cam hard drive. And that video tells a different story."

    The post first seems to say that there is no recording because the dash-cam was turned off, then immediately seems to imply that the video was erased because they were able to "retrieve" it from the hard drive. Some clarification on this would be helpful. I am also curious to know what prompted to Melbourne PD to even make the effort of trying to retrieve the video.

  • ||

    Also, the turning off of the dashcam should arouse suspicion not dispel it.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Yeah, the dashcam wasn't turned off. The cam was on and recording, and then the record was erased. You can't retrieve a recording that was never made.

  • X||

    sounds like evidence tampering which is evidence of a guilty mind.

  • The Angry RPh||

  • The Angry RPh||

    Damn. Linky no worky. It's here if anybody gives a rat's:
    http://www.heraldtribune.com/a...../111209980

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    Now it's with the DA. We'll find out how the system works in Melbourne.

  • o∞||

    No DA, state attorney.

    nothing will happen

  • jasno||

    Kinda old, but I don't think this made it to reason yet:

    http://www.sandiegoreader.com/.....lm-ranger/

    So now I'm not even safe in the desert, or does this only happen to trannies?

  • ||

    Is no one surprised its only a written reprimand for turning off the A/V recorder? Why do officers even have that ability? Doesn't it negate the whole purpose of the dashcam in the first place?

  • Joe M||

    Well, after three written reprimands, he gets rapped on the knuckles with a ruler.

  • ||

    Middendorf, who was named Melbourne PD’s officer of the year in 2008

    That is one noble American.

  • BigT||

    This implies that many officers are not as good as this guy. Any wonder why police are held in such low regard around here?

  • Joe M||

    Middendorf, who was named Melbourne PD’s officer of the year in 2008,

    MotherFUCK. Seriously, I'm at the point that any officer who has won an award is likely to be the worst of the worst.

  • robc||

    I have found this to be true of teachers also.

  • ||

    IIRC, we've been told about dunphy's many awards on here. From Cop Of The Year to his induction in the Big Wave Surfing Hall of Fame to his Olympic Gold medals. I'm not sure if his coronation can be counted as an award, but according to him, there have been many.

    Can we assume from his self-congratulatory posts that he's also the worst of the worst? Perhaps. He certainly has no problem with abuse of authority, based on his comments last night and threads prior.

  • ||

    Its odd, isn't it, that it would have been perfectly legal for the cop to tase/pepperspray this guy, and follow that up with a more direct physical assault up until the point that this perfectly innocent, nonthreatening citizen was completely subdued.

    Apparently, any legal violation here occurred solely because a little too much force was used. This scenario, I gather, would have been legal:

    (1) Cop issues order to stop. Citizen doesn't.

    (2) Cop peppersprays citizen. Citizen, now shocked and in pain, tries to run.

    (3) Cop tackles citizen onto concrete, causing miscellaneous abrasions and contusions. Citizen neglects to go limp.

    (4) Cop tries to kneel on citizen, citizen still neglects to go limp. Cop applies more force (punches? submission holds, which can be damaging/painful?), until full compliance is achieved.

    The citizen winds up looking an awful lot like our Mr. Flowers, but it was all done by the book, I suppose, so its all OK.

  • MJ||

    "This scenario, I gather, would have been legal:..."

    Please explain where in your scenario the cop did something illegal and why.

    It has to more than a police officer never has a justification to use violence in the line of duty. The fact that the citizen ended up injured is not enough to make the cop's actions criminal.

  • Bradley||

    I think RC Dean's point was that everything the cop does in his hypothetical scenario was indeed legal, despite being excessive.

    And maybe there's like, a problem with that.

  • ||

    That's my point. With only a small variation on what actually happened, you get to the same result with no illegality.

    Basically, if the cop had initiated force with pepper spray rather than a kick to the gut, its all good. Legally.

    That should bother you.

  • ||

    he DOES need to obey the command to stop. that is not even remotely questionable

    You cannot allow those fucking pissant civilians to ever think they are your equal, right Fearless?

  • X||

    DOES the cop need to OBEY his superiors legal COMMAND to leave the dash cam on? I'm assuming his superior is a higher ranking COP. I guess DORF has no room to complain if his captain shoots him in the forehead with a TAZER.

  • MrDamage||

    STOP RESISTING!

  • ||

    imo, the cop deserves charging and prosecution

    The cop deserves a bullet in the neck.

  • ||

    Or his family laid out on slabs.

  • Alex Rodriguez||

    Police have far to much power and authority, this is nonsense, instead of protecting us they are abusing us.

  • shamalamadingdong||

    "This record of the arrest held water in part because Middendorf turned off his dash cam before getting out of his cruiser. But the Melbourne Police Department was since able to retrieve the video from the dash cam hard drive. And that video tells a different story. "

    If he turned off the dash cam, how did the video get onto the hard drive?

  • Matt||

    This makes no sense. If the camera was turned off it means the video was never recorded. It would make much more sense if the officer later tampered with the video in an attempt to remove it, and that it was recovered later (as deleting things on a hard drive does not actually remove said things from the drive.

    The more I think about it the more I think that that was what actually happened, and that maybe some PR flak is trying to spin the story a certain way to the media?

  • Apogee||

    That's exactly right - it was erased, and then later recovered - which is absolute evidence of guilt of tampering on the part of the officer.

    The problem will be that the eventual settlement will not be deducted from the PD budget and payroll. If it did, we'd have a much higher incidence of self-policing.

  • ||

    Both of those cops should be summarily fired and face criminal prosecution. Absolutely inexcusable!

  • Lowdog||

    Sweet, my neck of the woods. I've only met a couple of deputy sheriffs from around here playing ice hockey, so I can't say what interacting with cops who are on duty is like, but wtf?

  • Butch||

    I once heard Melbourne referred to as 'the asshole of the country'.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    Note the bald head and sunglasses.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    Why do these assholes have any control whatsoever whether the camera is on or off? Shit should be on whenever the car is in use, whether the cop cunt is on duty or off duty.

  • ||

    And they wonder why we rejoice everytime some stupid cop gets clipped in the line of duty!

    www.anon-vpn.tk

  • ||

    the cop punches like a girl, so it's not really as bad as it looks.

  • ||

    Hard to square the freedom cops have to beat, maim and kill us with the complete lack of freedom we have to defend ourselves when we are being attacked.

    In my opinion, this cop should be charged and prosecuted for aggravated assault and obstruction of justice (probably perjury too, because I have no doubt that he made false sworn statements somewhere along the way). Moreover, the fact he did these crimes under color of law should be an aggravating circumstance, not a mitigating circumstance.

  • Mike||

    And the officer's punishment? Camera retraining, so he'd be sure the dash cam was off next time. Isn't it supposed to be mandatory to have that on though?

  • Lord Flashheart||

    Stories like this remind me of on of my favorite lines from Reservoir Dogs(IIRC):

    "Just Cops. No Real People."

  • ||

    I watched the news report itself--instead of just the video of the beating. The reporter clearly says that the officer turned off his camera and video before the encounter however, the police department was able to extract the video off the hard drive but not the audio. One has to wonder why the officer would turn it off to begin with. Bet the officer made his statement thinking that it become a matter of his word, and his partner's, against the man's word. Without the audio, a jury will base their decision off the video alone and judging from what I saw, coupled with the fact that the officer(s) turned off the dash cam, lied in their police report, used a taser to the face, both officers appear to be guilty of brutality. I hope they get the max punishment. My condolences to the family.

  • Itchy Puss||

    They should send this to Justice Scalia. He's always bragging how American Police have a certain professionalism about them and incidents like these are mere isolated incidents.

  • Nevadawatchdog||

    Nevada Highway Patrol corruption, dash cam tampering retaliation - The Mike Weston story http://youtu.be/cFX8bjPCWlo TIME STAMP IRREGULARITIES DISPLAYED ON ORIGINAL TAPE Hour 5 Minute 11 Incident begins Minute 10 Minute 09 Does not display Minute 08 Minute 07 75 seconds Minute 06 55 seconds Minute 05 15 seconds Minute 04 68 seconds Minute 03 45 seconds Minute 02 25 seconds Minute 01 55 seconds Hour 4 Minute 59 40 seconds Minute 58 15 seconds Minute 59 Displays again / 40 seconds / Different content Minute 57 85 seconds Minute 56 70 seconds Minute 55 25 seconds Minute 54 55 seconds Minute 53 23 seconds Minute 52 95 seconds Minute 51 Does not display Minute 50 80 seconds Minute 49 40 seconds Minute 48 40 seconds Minute 47 55 seconds Minute 46 40 seconds Minute 45 Does not display Minute 46 25 seconds Minute 45 Does not display Minute 44 25 seconds Minute 43 55 seconds Minute 42 25 seconds Minute 41 Incident ends

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement