Cops in Iowa Beat Up Shoplifter After Hearing Her Boyfriend is Community Activist Who Has Worked with Cops on Racial Sensitivity Training

Further grim proof that modern policing is very, very dangerous (to you and me), as a couple of cops in Davenport, Iowa, start whaling away on a woman (in front of her infant daughter) in back room of store where she was caught shoplifting.

Thomas Hawk / Foter / CC BY-NCThomas Hawk / Foter / CC BY-NC

Video--warning, kind of disturbing--can be found at this CBS Local Chicago story. Excerpts:

A Chicago civil rights organization is investigating claims that a mother was unjustly beaten by police officers in Davenport Iowa after she was caught shoplifting....

Brandie Redell admits she was shoplifting at a Von Maur store in Davenport, Iowa, back in February, and putting clothes inside her 1-year-old daughter’s stroller...

While store security has Redell turn over the things she’s taken, two Davenport police officers walk in. Redell calls her boyfriend telling him to pick up their daughter. When one of the officer’s hears Redell’s boyfriend’s name, he tells Redell, “This is going to get ugly, real quick.”

Redell’s boyfriend, James Gibson, is a community activist who had done some sensitivity training with the department when it comes to race and officers dealing with the public.

Redell recoiled in fear as one of the officers starts beating her. A store worker left the room quickly carrying Redell’s one-year-old daughter. The beating lasted for one minute and five seconds.....

What happened to the officers?

 Following an internal affairs investigation, both officers were disciplined and both are still employed and back on the street, as Davenport, Iowa police officers.

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.

  • anon||

    What happened to the officers?

    I knew procedures were followed!

  • fish||

    Another fine example of the system working....well done you brave, brave men!

    /sniffle

  • sarcasmic||

    both officers were disciplined

    Paid vacations.

  • Andrew S.||

    You don't understand what a punishment a paid vacation is, hater. How would you feel if you had to go a whole week without being to exert power over the little people?

  • Andrew S.||

    Er, without being "able to" exert power.

    My Kingdom for an edit button.

  • db||

    As these people's existence centers around the use of power and force, I think you may have got it right the first time.

  • Brian D||

    The thought of the ridicule of lounging at home without the legal authority to pummel nonviolent offenders has upset me to no end. Please, tell me they were at least given a small puppy to shoot!

  • Rasilio||

    No they probably had to settle for virtual depections of violence and spent the whole time playing GTA or COD

  • Archduke Trousersenthusiast||

    most important they got home safe at the end of the shift.

  • feudalserf||

    hey, they have the right to go home safe

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Summary execution. Take the two of them out behind the woodsheds and shoot them.

  • sarcasmic||

    Forget that. Shoot them in the street where everyone can see and applaud.

  • Archduke Trousersenthusiast||

    save the taxpayers the expense of a trial.

  • sarcasmic||

    I'm serious. We need vigilante citizens to go after these fuckers. Not riots or other pointless destruction of property. No, we need citizen death squads to correct these wrongs and make police think twice before beating defenseless women. Fuckers.

  • Gladstone||

    Do you oppose the death penalty?

  • Paul.||

    I don't.

  • sarcasmic||

    Dead people don't commit crimes.

  • Gladstone||

    So is that a yes?

  • Gladstone||

    Er... I mean you don't oppose it?

  • sarcasmic||

    Dead people never get pardoned either.

  • Free Society||

    I oppose the state, so naturally I oppose the state killing people. Especially since their threshold in dealing out death is rather low compared to the rest of us who actually face responsibility for 'wrongly' killing someone.

  • Gladstone||

    So do you oppose Sarcasmic's citizen death squads?

  • anon||

    That's hardly the state killing people, is it?

  • sarcasmic||

    That's hardly the state killing people, is it?

    That's the tree of liberty being refreshed with the blood of tyrants.

  • Gladstone||

    So Death Squads, murderers and lynch mobs are okay as long as they aren't government officials?

  • anon||

    I feel like I'm going to get visited by the FBI pretty soon for this sarcastic conversation.

  • sarcasmic||

    So Death Squads, murderers and lynch mobs are okay as long as they aren't government officials?

    That's not what I said, but thank you for playing.

  • Gladstone||

    No, we need citizen death squads to correct these wrongs

    How is that not support for death squads that aren't government officials?

  • anon||

    But the death squads only target government officials. See how it works now?

  • Gladstone||

    I'm sure they'll make sure to avoid collateral damage and they won't stretch the term "government official" to mean anything they want. I mean isn't a private security guard to a government official really a government official anyway?

  • anon||

    Yeah, pretty much.

  • sarcasmic||

    I'm sure they'll make sure to avoid collateral damage and they won't stretch the term "government official" to mean anything they want.

    That's not what I said, but thank you for playing.

  • Free Society||

    A Common Law court system (to name one) need not rely on a government for enforcement nor as a source of law. One can support the death penalty in general and withhold support for the death penalty when delivered by a government.

  • KPres||

    Shorter Gladstone:

    Externalities! Slippery Slope! Therefore everybody has to submit to whatever they want.

    You sound like Tony.

  • Gladstone||

    Yes because political movements that condemned the government justice system with their high flown rhetoric and also advocated killing their opponents have turned out well.

    Slippery Slope!

    I thought that according to libertarians the slippery slope is real?

  • sarcasmic||

    The slippery slope down to complete tyranny is quite real. The slope to liberty is uphill and indeed quite slippery as well. In fact it's the same slope.

  • Gladstone||

    In fact it's the same slope.

    Well I am reminded of Robespierre. He opposed the death penalty...until he came to power where he became an enthusiastic proponent of it. He also claimed that the Reign of Terror was necessary for liberty:

    The government in a revolution is the despotism of liberty against tyranny

    http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/M.....obespierre

  • sarcasmic||

    despotism of liberty

    derp

  • Libertymike||

    What Robespierre did compared to what the cops do every single day all across America was child's play.

    If you look at the total number of assaults / violations of the NAP perpetrated by LE in the US during the same time period as Robespierre was in charge of the guillotine, it wouldn't even be close.

    Hence, your argument fails. Big. Time.

  • Gladstone||

    What Robespierre did compared to what the cops do every single day all across America was child's play.

    If you look at the total number of assaults / violations of the NAP perpetrated by LE in the US during the same time period as Robespierre was in charge of the guillotine, it wouldn't even be close.

    Hence, your argument fails. Big. Time.

    Er...what? Is that a giant tu quoque?

  • sarcasmic||

    Socialists do not comprehend what liberty means because they confuse government and society.

    So it does not surprise me that you quote a socialist revolutionary in the context of liberty, because you obviously do not comprehend the concept.

  • Gladstone||

    So it does not surprise me that you quote a socialist revolutionary in the context of liberty, because you obviously do not comprehend the concept.

    So because you aren't a socialists all the death squads won't go overboard?

  • anon||

    You're pretty much an idiot; it's a sarcastic conversation.

  • Gladstone||

    You're pretty much an idiot; it's a sarcastic conversation.

    Is it? Hard to tell on an internet. Also I don't think libertymike is being sarcastic. Sarcasmic said he was serious, though that could have been a joke, I don't know.

  • anon||

    Yeah, the people who want to be left alone are going to form citizen death squads from their chairs at their computers on the internet and take down the government, one official at a time.

    If you believe that, there is no hope for you.

  • Calidissident||

    Gladstone has a habit of taking everything anyone says completely literally, and then forming giant strawmen from how he interprets those comments

  • KPres||

    "So because you aren't a socialists all the death squads won't go overboard?"

    I think the point is that socialists have a different definition of "overboard". For instance, wiping out the tsar's family or beheading the aristocracy is all on the up-and-up, because individual rights don't matter to them, only class.

  • KPres||

    I tell you this much, if sarcasmic's hypothetical* death squad hypothetically* hunted down these officers and beat the fuck out them, it would be a VERY happy ending to this story.

    *Disclaimer to FBI snoopers. I am not involved nor do I support in any way any vigilante death squads.

  • Free Society||

  • Free Society||

    Yes because political movements that condemned the government justice system with their high flown rhetoric and also advocated killing their opponents have turned out well.


    Yes because those who have justifiable grievances with a government monopoly of law adjudication could only have such grievances in the first place because they're genocidal maniacs.

    Well I am reminded of Robespierre. He opposed the death penalty...until he came to power where he became an enthusiastic proponent of it. He also claimed that the Reign of Terror was necessary for liberty:

    Oh my goodness, you mean there once existed a person who forfeited his supposed principles for the sake of power? This changes everything!

    The fact that you use Robespierre as a cautionary tale against a free society, tells me how little you've thought about such a thing.

  • Gladstone||

    I didn't say anything about private courts?

    I'm not sure what the problem is with pointing out that Robespierre used "liberty" to justify revolutionary tyranny? Even high flown anti-government sentiments can be used to commit statist tyranny.

  • Render Unto Caesar||

    I was going to suggest applying the rule of law equally to those who enforce it, but citizen death squads has a better ring to it.

  • sarcasmic||

    That will never happen because cops, prosecutors, judges and jailers are all on the same team.

    There needs to be some citizen intervention.

  • Render Unto Caesar||

    Good point.

  • Free Society||

    lets call them "citizen life squads" to make these death dealers more palatable.

  • Juice||

    we need citizen death squads

    Paging Chris Dorner.

  • GILMORE||

    Shoplifter AND Sensitivity Trainer? a bit harsh if you ask me. I think the beating was a good start, but the sensitivity trainer should have been included.

  • ||

    Redell’s boyfriend, James Gibson, is a community activist who had done some sensitivity training with the department when it comes to race and officers dealing with the public.

    And this was reason to physically assault his non-violent girlfriend? What the fuck? Because her boyfriend taught a sensitivity training course?

    Either there's more going on or these cops are complete fucking animals. Unfortunately, it's probably the latter.

  • Paul.||

    Fuck, Episiarch, read the article. They were disciplined... DISCIPLINED!

    Justice: Served.

  • hotsy totsy||

    Sensitivity training? How insensitive were they BEFORE the training?

  • Andrew S.||

    Why on earth do I read comments to these stories? There are a couple of good comments, but the rest are either racist or are of the "she stole, she deserved to get beaten" ilk.

  • anon||

    Hah, it took me a moment to realize you were reading the linked stories comments.

  • Andrew S.||

    No, I'm definitely not referring to here. At least not yet. We'll see if American makes his way into this discussion.

  • Free Society||

    Reason commentors aren't all that bad. And trolls troll for trolling's sake so no biggie there. Pick ANY forum that has a broad demographic of users and I assure no less than 95% of the commentors are head-up-their-ass stupid.

  • anon||

    That is a fact.

  • Protagoronus||

    It is SCIENCE

  • hotsy totsy||

    Kinda like the parents whose two year old was taken from them by CPS bureaucrats and ended up getting beaten to death in foster care. "Their fault for smoking pot."

  • Juice||

    I've read other stories where they asked CPS to come take their kids until they "got their act together."

  • Archduke Trousersenthusiast||

    That'll learn him for thinking about resisting.

  • Dave Krueger||

    Beatings aren't illegal when cops do it.

    America has a 2-party political system: them and us.

  • MasterDarque||

    Good thing we have "heroes" like this to protect us

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Phew. It's a good thing that assault wasn't criminal. That probably would have really hurt.

  • Paul.||

    There's nothing criminal about sending a message. Do you oppose the first amendment? Slaver!

  • SweatingGin||

    "The beating lasted for one minute and five seconds....."

    AND NOTHING ELSE HAPPENED.

  • Hawk Spitui||

    Redell’s boyfriend, James Gibson, is a community activist who had done some sensitivity training with the department when it comes to race and officers dealing with the public.

    Somehow, I'm not finding this story as upsetting as the author probably thinks I should. ; )

  • Zeb||

    Probably because you are a bad person.

  • Outlaw||

    If they had beaten him instead, then got mowed down by a truck driven by a dog seconds later, it would be the perfect story.

  • ||

    Side question: Who DOESN'T hate sensitivity training?

    (Granted, I would reserve the beating for the people who actually do the training.)

  • Paul.||

    I would take a beating if it got me out of sensitivity training.

  • Killazontherun||

    He deserves to be unemployed from that profession, but the parasitic class cops are in no position to be his judge, and certainly not in one to beat his girlfriend or him.

    [Activating Tulpa Signal] Now if the shop keeper had shot her while she was in the commencement of that theft that would have been another question.

    [Deactivating Tulpa Signal] The answer being "no" because the violence of murder in answer to her violence of theft is not commensurate.

    [Whoops! flipped it own again] However, say, could the shop keeper had tazed her? That would depend on the situation. Nothing in the story about her not cooperating once caught, so likely, "no' once more.

  • Aloysious||

    Please do not activate signals of any kind. For the love of god, man, show some mercy.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    The answer being "no" because the violence of murder in answer to her violence of theft is not commensurate.

    What amount, if any, amount of violence do you believe is commensurate with theft?

  • KPres||

    Whatever amount the thief would NOT be willing to undergo in exchange for the item they stole?

    Seems reasonable to me.

  • hotsy totsy||

    Shoplifting? Maybe throw a snowball at her.

  • KPres||

    A nice wintery, fluffy snowball...or one of those half-melted, compacted slushballs? Because those really fucking hurt.

  • db||

    Back in the '90s, I think it was at Juniata College, some assholes were fucking around with a water ballon catapult/slingshot in the middle of winter. They made an iceball and launched it across a quad, hitting someone in the head. The person was in the hospital for some time, I think even.in a coma (details sketchy as it's a long ago memory of a story I heard third hand).

  • anon||

    What amount, if any, amount of violence do you believe is commensurate with theft?

    Indentured servitude, 6 months.

    Get off my lawn!

  • Killazontherun||

    A taze while she is actively engaged in the crime would be just.

  • Libertymike||

    If the storeowner or manager performed the tazing, but not a cop.

  • Killazontherun||

    He's too many minutes away for any serious consideration as an active party.

  • Drake||

    I noticed they were both smiling in the interview - because they just won the lottery.

    Even the "she deserved a beating for stealing" types should be pissed. These 2 thugs just attacked and partially blinded a woman on camera for no reason - which is going to cost your city millions.

  • sarcasmic||

    There was a reason all right. She was a white lady in a relationship with an uppity nigger with the temerity to teach officers to be more sensitive. So they showed her all about sensitivity. They showed her real good.

  • Brian D||

    That'll teach her to have the wrong boyfriend.

  • Ayn Random Variation||

    Oh she was white. That explains why I haven't heard about this anywhere else.

  • hotsy totsy||

    Even the "she deserved a beating for stealing" types should be pissed. These 2 thugs just attacked and partially blinded a woman on camera for no reason - which is going to cost your city millions.

    It should cost the cops who beat her their pensions. Why should Chicago have to pay both the woman AND the cops who beat her? Not to mention the boyfriend who really didn't teach them any sensitivity after all.

  • Drake||

    Davenport Iowa not Chicago.

    The city should get a rebate on the sensitivity training, cashier the cops and use the saving as a down-payment on the inevitable giant payout.

  • Free Society||

    DUNPHY!!!!!! Absolve these brave peace warriors with your rationales, please.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Redell’s boyfriend, James Gibson, is a community activist who had done some sensitivity training with the department when it comes to race and officers dealing with the public.

    The program seems to have been ineffective.

  • KPres||

    Society failed those officers.

  • Paul.||

    The thing that should disturb us all is that cops are doing this in front of witnesses, in front of cameras. They don't care. They know that nothing will happen, they know that they're immune from any consequences. Again, TV, behind the times. On TV, cops hide their illegal behavior. Now they do it in front of everyone. Because what used to be illegal is now proper procedure.

  • sarcasmic||

    My stepson's father is a cop. Once he said to me "My dad's a cop. He can do whatever he wants." I replied "Well he still has to follow the law, doesn't he?" The kid gave me a mumbled response, not sure if it was an affirmative or not. Probably not. I mean, the kid would like to come live with his mom because he doesn't like his father's heavy-handed disciplinary methods, but he fears reprisal from leaving his father worse than he fears the punishment he gets when caught doing something his dad doesn't like. And who's he going to call if his dad goes bullshit? The cops?

  • anon||

    And who's he going to call if his dad goes bullshit?

    Ghostbusters, obviously.

  • Libertymike||

    Does he have the benefit of his stepfather's love of liberty and utter contempt for parasites like his biological daddy?

  • Drake||

    That is amazing to me too - no looking around, no checking for a camera, no asking the witnesses leave. Just a beat-down right in front of whoever cared to watch.

    In a sane world, the fact that these cops are still on the payroll should be the biggest issue in the next Mayoral election in Davenport.

  • Paul.||

    I haven't read all the links. What are the names of the officers?

  • Another David||

    Fuck You and Fuck You.

    I know, what are the odds, right?

  • Paul.||

    I know, I fully expected the other one to be named "That's Why".

  • KPres||

    He was already out on paid leave for shooting a dog.

  • Fluffy||

    Does anyone have a better link to the video?

    At that site all that happens is I see the ad. Then the ad ends, and the video stops. If I hit play again, the ad runs again.

  • Gray Ghost||

    I can't find one on either liveleak or youtube, Fluffy. Sorry. FWIW, I'm able to get the video to run using Chrome w Flashblock and Ghostery.

    The local Davenport TV station has no mention of the case. Shocking, I know.

    The video is surprisingly ugly. The violence starts at around 1:20 on the clip and the cops basically come up to her on the phone and start beating the shit out of her. No preamble, no furtive movement, no struggling of any kind. Just an ass kicking.

    Absolutely no reason why those motherfuckers aren't in jail now. Other than the mythical double standard.

  • jasno||

    If cops were racist, they'd also be stopping asian americans disproportionately frequently...
    --Dunphy
  • Paul.||

    Donchez added that, “the internal affairs investigation revealed no such racial bias.”

    Fuck the racial angle. We need to start talking about the POWER angle!

  • Jgalt1975||

    Yeah, I was going to say that it seems rather bizarre to say that it's completely OK for police to randomly beat suspects so long as there's no racial bias involved. There's nothing on the security video that would seem to justify the attack -- the victim was unarmed and sitting in a chair prior to them lunging at her.

  • KPres||

    The power angle is that the point of the racial angle is to keep certain people in power.

  • Anomalous||

    I didn't see the video. Did she fail to respect their authoritah?

  • mr simple||

    She did cringe as they were starting to beat her.

    FURTIVE MOVEMENT!

  • Mainer2||

    "she has lost 70 percent of her vision in her right eye."

    That is horrifying. I'm functionally blind in one eye due to an injury. So I fully appreciate that damage to the retina is like a spinal cord injury, nerve cells do not heal or grow back. The loss is permanent and profound. Wear an eye patch for a day and you'll realize how the loss of binocular vision affects Everything you do, from pouring coffee to driving a car. No punishment would be too cruel for someone who gratuitously blinds someone.

  • KPres||

    As an aside, I was a plain clothes security guard at a retailer in my 20s. Any guess who who we "profiled" the most for shoplifting? If you say young black males, you'd be way off.

  • Almanian!||

    Depending on the demographics where you live, Ima hazard a guess of "young white wimminz". Maybe??

  • KPres||

    Yep. They're rabid thieves. If you're under 18 and blonde, and you walk into any clothes store, know that you're being watched.

  • anon||

    I have a feeling that most pre-18 year old blonde women will never, ever, visit Reason to heed your advice.

  • Lord Humungus||

    just 40yo men thinking of pre-18yo girls.

  • Almanian!||

    I'm 51 for...um, never mind...

  • MJGreen||

    ...Sounds like a sweet gig.

  • Sudden||

    If you're under 18 and blonde, and you walk into any clothes store, know that you're being watched

    If you're 18 and blond, I'm watching you no matter where you walk.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    If I were under 18 and blonde, I'd be...well, never mind.

    But what I *identified* as under 18 and blonde? Would everyone have to recognize me a such? Would they change the sex, birth date and hair color on my birth certificate?

  • MappRapp||

    Never really thought about it liek tha dude.

    www.Mega-Anon.tk

  • woodNfish||

    I really hope someone blows away those cops.

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