Brickbat: Don't Be Shocked


The state of Nevada and the city of Henderson have agreed to pay a total of $292,500 to Adam Greene and his wife to settle a lawsuit the couple brought after police officers and state troopers beat him during a traffic stop. Officers pulled Greene over when they saw him weaving. They thought he was drunk, but he was actually suffering a diabetic shock. Dashboard cameras taped the officers as they repeatedly kicked and dropped knees onto the unresponsive Greene while shouting at him to stop resisting them.

Brickbat Archive

NEXT: A.M. Links: Newt Gingrich Prepares to be a Romney Surrogate, The Federal Reserve Clears Itself of Allegations, U.S. Troops on Psychotropics

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. That poor man had a better shot at the lottery than with a court.

  2. And the career prospects of the cops involved? Unimpaired, one presumes?

    1. medals and commendations.

      1. The articles that I enjoy reading the most: “cop shot and not expected to live”.

      2. and paid vacations.

    2. FTFA: “Henderson police said a sergeant involved was disciplined. The sergeant remains employed with the department.

      Greene’s lawyers were planning to hold a news conference today about the incident.

      Greene’s case, while shocking, is not unique.”

      1. I have a question on this. If one is an insulin dependent diabetic or an epileptic, AFAIK, DMV requires an endorsement on the driver’s license stating as such.

        If the officer’s ran a plate check, assuming they adhered to SOP, and it was Greene’s car, wouldn’t the DPS sheet show very quickly the medical endorsement of “Fruit or Candy Must Be Within Reach of Driver” on the license.

        Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t cases like this one, the driver in sugar shock (DKA), the point of medical endorsements on driver’s licenses?

        1. According to the ADA the laws vary by state, and in Nevada a diabetic has the option to have a colored border around their photo to show that he has a medical condition.

          1. I wonder if Greene’s license had such an endorsement, since volunteering this information is optional. Personally, I would opt in, if my personal medical condition necessitated it.

            Also, was Greene wearing a Medic-Alert bracelet? From what I understand, cops have this unique level of awareness enabling them to find a 2 year old roach under the backseat. Surely such attention to detail would enable spotting a Medic-Alert bracelet or necklace immediately.

    3. A thorough internal investigation concluded that procedures were followed and the officers involved have been restored to active duty after a period of paid leave.

      1. Fuck the internal investigation. Did the DA do an external investigation?

        If the city was willing to settle, it seems there is at least enough evidence to take it to a grand jury.

        1. Did the DA do an external investigation?

          DA: “Did he have it coming?”
          Cop: “Yep.”
          DA: “That concludes our investigation. No charges will be filed.”

          1. ^^This^^ opinion is overwhelmingly supported by the so-far results of the poll on cops on this blog.

            Take a minute to answer as well, people. It’s a pretty fairly worded question and can be used for future reference against Seattle Supercop when he comes on here and spouts bullshit about how “people everywhere believe cops are held to higher standards.

            1. Did someone say Robocop?

    4. On the job. The new DA has now said twice that he won’t be pressing charges against the Henderson cop who did the kicking.…..71325.html

      1. Is that the one who got in on the action late and was clearly doing it just for fun?

        1. Pretty much. The old DA went to go work with a (the?) police officer’s union.

      2. He and his lawyers determined none of the officers’ conduct rose to a criminal level that could be proven in court.

        I think that’s the key point. From that article I got the impression that the DA would have liked to prosecute him, but didn’t think he had a case. He clearly thought the use of force was unnecessary, because he was trying to get the department to change their policies.

        1. Wait a minute, isn’t it on video? What more is there to prove?

          1. To prove it, prosecutors would have to show the officers had malicious intent, Wolfson detailed in the decision.

            But when reviewing Henderson police policies and training, he found Seekatz was taught that he could use kicks when trying to arrest someone.

            “When he was specifically trained that he could use kicks to effectuate arrest and a detention, how is that malice?” Wolfson said after the decision was released. “Not everyone is going to agree with that, OK. But as a lawyer, I have to think, can I prove evil intent when he was trained to be able to use a kick? And that’s kind of what it all comes down to.”

        2. Most Americans aren’t libertarians. Most Americans- not only prosecutors- support bully-cops beating-up a helpless person. The U.S.A. is the modern-day Nazi Germany.

  3. Henderson police said a sergeant involved was disciplined. The sergeant remains employed with the department.

    By disciplined I’m sure that means a paid vacation and “strong verbal warning” (for getting caught on camera embarrassing the department).

  4. He hit the officer on the hand with his eye then viciously slammed the other officer in the knee with his stomach.

    1. And then, while on the ground, used Jedi mind tricks to ensnare the officer’s foot in his torso multiple times.

  5. Here’s a little test:

    “Do not move! Do not move! Hey, come over here. Do not move!”

    There’s a shouting asshole-wielded pistol pointed point-blank at your head. What do you do?

    1. Well, which is it, young feller? You want I should freeze or get down on the ground? Mean to say, if’n I freeze, I can’t rightly drop. And if’n I drop, I’m a-gonna be in motion. You see…

    2. Put your hands behind your head and turn your back.

      It’ll be hard for the fucker to explain shooting you from behind in self-defense.

      1. It’ll be hard for the fucker to explain shooting you from behind in self-defense.

        Isn’t that what that cop in Culpeper, VA has claimed? And many others have used it too because the suspect took an “aggressive stance” or some other such bullshit.

      2. It’ll be hard for the fucker to explain shooting you from behind in self-defense.

        Why? Seriously. All he has to do is consult the DA to come up with a good lie, and stick to it.

        If a cop can get away with shooting a grandfather in the face while he’s holding his infant grandson (for that cop it was the seventh person he’d murdered while on the job in ten years, all found to be justified), they can get away with anything.

        1. I said “hard”, not “impossible”.

          “Your Worship, the perpertrator (now, thankfully, deceased) assumed a position from which he could execute multiple backflips to reach my location, undoubtedly finishing up with Shadowless Kick to my head, likely inflicting fatal injuries. As a matter of department policy, whenever a perpetrator turns his back on us, we open fire.”

          1. Simple lies work best.

            “I thought he was going for a weapon” seems to be the standard these days.

            1. “I thought he was going for a weapon”

              That’s a mouthful, though. These days, for brevity’s sake, it’s usually abbreviated to “furtive movements.”

              1. Still too wordy.

                I suspect “He moved” will suffice in most jurisdictions to establish the “officer safety” defense.

  6. Well, they did follow the “stop resisting” protocol.

    1. Do they teach that at Academy or does it just spread by word of mouth?

      1. It’s actually engraved on their flashlights and batons.

  7. Where’s Dunphy to tell us that the dirty diabetic had it coming. That this was a justified use of force and that everyone loves the popo?

    1. Do you really think dunphy will come on here and discuss this? Nope. He’ll wait until there’s an article where there’s a marginal chance the cop will be treated fairly and will proceed to trot out his single story where a cop (possibly) got treated harshly in sentencing when he threw a woman out a window.
      Either that, or he’ll come on and say a cop deserves to get fired in a case so egregious, the guy’s chief has already called for his resignation, thus keeping his libertarian street cred in place with the more gullible or forgiving of the posters here.

      1. All that, plus he’ll regale us of an instance where he administered insulin to a driver experiencing diabetic shock (even though his procedures would’ve allowed him to taze the guy) and rescued the man’s kitten from a tree (even though his procedures would’ve allowed him to euthanize it).

        1. If he administered insulin to someone in shock, it’d be a murder charge that he got to not be punished for.

          1. If he administered insulin to someone in shock, it’d be a murder charge that he got to not be punished for.

            Damn autocorrect. Everytime I try to write ‘Twix bar’, it changes it to ‘insulin’.

            1. Hmm… Twix bar…

        2. Of course. And it’s odd how his anecdotal evidence is all he can generally offer to counter the overwhelming tide of stories where cops are given preferential treatment. Yet he expects us to accept it while he discounts ours as “anti-cop bigorati.”

          I swear, I still cannot see how anyone who posts on here regularly can view him as “one of the god cops” out there.

          1. god cops

            See, this is how you do an RC’z Law.

                1. Related: has barfman registered yet?

  8. And of course taxpayers on the hook financially for this horrible abuse of civil rights.

  9. If you want to ask dunphy about something, ask him about the fairness in this:

    “Flawed” raid end in death of a child.

    And the trial information. Notice the DA didn’t bring the indictment, but a grand jury did? And the DA looks like he doesn’t even want to try the case. He didn’t even ask for another judge when the current one disclosed that she’s married…to a cop!

    1. The fucker shot through a door into a house where he knew kids were. That’s after he told the TV crew he loves to kick doors down and generally acted like a fool. Yet, somehow, he only gets hit with involuntary manslaughter. Hell, he’ll probably get pardoned and reinstated even if he is found guilty.

      1. FTA: Fishman said his client will vigorously fight the charges.

        “He knows didn’t do anything wrong. He knows he was acting as a police officer on a dangerous mission,” Fishman said.

        His gun went off and an innocent 7-year old child is dead because of it. And he doesn’t see where anything wrong was done?

        Quick question, reasonoids. Have any of you ever heard of a gun going of, on its own, even though the person possessing it did everything right?

        1. No.

          With modern firearms, if the gun goes off in your hand, its because you loaded it, you turned the safety off,* and you pulled the trigger.

          *May not apply to some semi-auto pistols.

          He knows he was acting as a police officer on a dangerous mission

          Sadly, this is exactly how too many cops do, in fact, act.

          1. Soldiers go on “missions.” Cops go on “duty.” There should always be a huge distinction between the two.

            And that should never be an excuse for murdering a child.

          2. *May not apply to some semi-auto pistols.

            Even semi-autos without active safeties still have passive safeties. Glocks, for example, won’t let the firing pin touch the primer unless your finger is pulling the trigger.

            Sure, it -could- happen. I think the chances are about as good as winning the lottery though.

            Ironic, since for this particular cop I can imagine him feeling like he won the lottery.

        2. The correct term is “negligent discharge” and the proximate cause is operator error.

          1. The actual shooting is intentional. Where the shooter pointed the gun is where the “negligent” come in.

        3. No, guns don’t go off on their own. If the gun fires “accidentally”, the person carrying it either meant to fire and wants to cover it up or he was being an incompetent idiot and had his finger on the trigger the whole time.

        4. Have any of you ever heard of a gun going of, on its own …

          I actually have, although in the particular case I’m thinking of a cop was ultimately at fault. High magnetic fields can cause a gun to spontaneously fire.

          I heard about an instance where a cop brought his gun into an MRI room. The gun flew across the room and stuck to the MR machine, and then fired while stuck to the machine without anyone near it, and with the safety on.

    2. Not disagreeing with the rest, but grand juries return an indictment after the the DA presents the case to them. The alternate method is for the DA to file an information but that usually requires a preliminary hearing where the defense has the right to hear and challenge evidence. No such right in a grand jury presentation.

      1. This ultimately had to go to a grand jury of 1 person to get an indictment. Police interference and suppression of evidence tainted every effort for a fair grand jury hearing.

        And notice only one person faces perjury charges. And that person was from A&E, not the DPD.

        1. Grand juries, frankly, aren’t fair. They’re a creature of the DA who gets to decide what cases and evidence are presented. In practice there isn’t much difference between getting an indictment through a grand jury or by filing an information (as below).

          Even when a grand jury returns a no true bill, all the players can still go on with the trial.

          That particular case was truly fucked up: the original charges, “overlooking” that he wasn’t indicted the first time, bypassing double jeopardy the second time, and then dismissal of the civil suit on the usual prosecutorial immunity bullshit and denial of reality.

      2. Speaking of grand juries, it appears the special prosecutor in the Martin/Zimmerman case will not be taking the case to one. That said, the article does go onto mention:

        [Special Prosecutor] Corey said her decision to skip the grand jury shouldn’t be considered a factor in determining whether charges will be filed against George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watch volunteer who has admitted to fatally shooting the unarmed Martin.

        The announcement means the decision on charges now rests solely with Corey, who had a reputation for not presenting cases before grand juries if it wasn’t required. Under Florida law, only first-degree murder cases require the use of grand juries.

    3. Poorly written (original) passive voice bullshit version:

      Aiyana was fatally shot early Sunday morning during a raid targeting a homicide suspect, when police say an officer’s gun discharged and struck the sleeping girl in the neck.

      Better (my) version:
      An officer fatally shot Aiyana in the neck while she slept on Sunday morning.

  10. We offer a wide selection of pots and urns to hold the remains of your dearly departed. Special discount for wrong door raid victims.

  11. I’m starting to think that the origin of religion is the abuse of power.

    Since we know that these cops will never face any consequences for their routine abuses of the very people that they are sworn to serve and protect, those who they abuse invent the concept of a “higher power” and “judgement” to keep themselves from becoming libertarians.

    1. Nah. I’m proof that one can do both.

      Unless by “higher power,” you mean the state. Because these happen in statist Team Blue country a lot more often than religious Team Red country, by my recollection.

    2. No. No law will discourage people from doing things for which they do not themselves feel is wrong to do. That is why you need religion.

      1. No society can exist unless the laws are respected to a certain degree. The safest way to make laws respected is to make them respectable. When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law. These two evils are of equal consequence, and it would be difficult for a person to choose between them.

        While many turn to religion for morality, it is not the only source.

        Take the non-aggression principle for example.

        1. Sure it is not the only source. But it is the most effective source and the only source that has an enforcement mechanism.

          You like your morality. That is great. But I think it stinks and have no plans to follow it. My morality is to do what makes me happy and whatever I can get away with. So you and your morality and your “laws” don’t mean a whole hell of a lot to me. And that answer is what most people will give when you take religion out of the equation.

          1. My morality is to do what makes me happy and whatever I can get away with.

            You’re a liberal?

            1. LOL. You see my point.

              1. If your point is that without religion people would all be liberals, I see it but I don’t agree with it.
                Liberalism is itself a religion.
                It is secular humanism.
                We are government, and government is god, so we are gods.

                1. It is not that they would all be liberals. It would be that they would be whatever they wanted to be and you would have no standing to say that something was good or bad.

                  1. What standing does anyone have right now?

                    You tell me that something is right or wrong because an invisible friend told you so and I’m going to make a gesture that involves a finger spinning around an ear.

                    1. You are telling me that something is right or wrong because some voice in your head called your “mind” and your “reason” has determined it so. Well, my voice has determined otherwise.

                      Why is your voice any better than mine? Who are you to say anything is right or wrong? Faith in some invisible friend you call “reason” is the only thing I can see.

                    2. That voice called “reason” doesn’t sit in the back of my head demanding that I do good or else after I die I’ll be sent to a pit of fire. I can’t speak for sarcasmic though.

                  2. So you see sarcasmic, this is why religion is the only way to define good and bad. Thankfully, all religions, including all the different denominations of Christianity, have one set of moral rules that clearly define what is good and what is bad.

                    1. So John, you’re telling me that you want “right and wrong” to be decided by a democratic majority, is that correct?

                      You’re pulling the same shit that liberals pull – “More people agree with me than you, so nanny nanny nanny nanny boo boo boo!”

                    2. I am telling you sarcasmic there is no right and wrong. You tell me how we know any such thing exists much less that we know what it is without resorting to some kind of faith based solution.

                    3. You tell me how we know any such thing exists

                      I have. Natural rights, and the principles that follow from them.

                      Does that require faith? I don’t think so. Because I have none.
                      Yet I believe in those principles and the concept of right and wrong that logically follow from them.

                      There is a quote that I put out there about two political philosophies: those who want to control others and those with no such desire.

                      Those who want to control others (liberals who want to control economic activity and socons who want to control personal activity) will never be convinced of Natural Rights, because it gives them no excuse.

                    4. I am telling you sarcasmic there is no right and wrong.

                      Wrong. There are billions of definitions of right and wrong, every person has their own. What’s right is what benefits me, what’s wrong is what harms me. Your argument is that the only way to get everyone to agree to not do any harm is to have religion (aka faith). My argument is that people can decide for themselves how to mutually benefit while causing the absolute minimum (preferrably zero) harm without needing the common belief of an all powerful being that will punish them for eternity if they do cause harm.

      2. That is why you need religion.

        Ugh. Seriously? Is my sarcasmometer broken this time?

        1. Not sure. I was trying to figure that out myself. I know plenty of religious people with broken moral compasses and plenty of non-religious people with strong morals.

          The two have little to do with each other.

        2. If you have no religion, it is very difficult to sell any sort of common morality to people. Sure you can find your own morality. But there is no reason to think it will be the same as the next person. The most effective way to have a common morality and to get people to buy into the idea that it is wrong to steal and cheat and victimize other people, even if you can get away with it, is to have a common religion or a set of religion with somewhat common values.

          Atheists like to pretend that the world would be one big rainbow puppy island if only people embraced the void. Sadly, it doesn’t work that way.

          1. If you have no religion, it is very difficult to sell any sort of common morality to people.

            No, it’s difficult to sell them a common code of laws. And there’s a big difference in a code of laws and morality. Just ask Stalin.

            1. But if the people don’t have a common code of morality, they will never respect the common code of laws. The closer the laws match the morality of the people, the more effective the laws are. And if there is no common set of morals, it is damned near impossible to have effective laws beyond just brute force and deterrence.

              1. The people don’t need a common code of morality. They simply need a common respect for the rights of others. Morality becomes irrelevant then, because society is driven by respect rather than forced acceptance of a moral code.

                Can I also assume you support direct democracy?

                1. They simply need a common respect for the rights of others.

                  Which is another way of saying they need a common morality. Why should I respect your rights if I can violate them without fear of mine being violated?

              2. You realize this argument applies to religion too, right? Religious law reflects common morality just as secular law does. This is how you get splits like those between Catholicism/Orthodox/Protestant and the major differences between proper codes of conduct for followers, even though they are from the same foundation.

                1. Those splits were almost entirely doctrinal. It is not like the Protestants decided stealing was okay or the ten commandments no longer applied.

      3. I don’t need any religion, thanks.

        1. Good for you Kristen. I am sure you are a wonderful, moral person. But the rest of the world is a bit more hard nosed.

          And truthfully, if your opinion is that we will all die and face the abyss, then why the hell are you bothering with morality beyond what works for you? If you get away with it and your actions don’t result in you ending up in prison or some other bad end, what difference does it make if they are “moral” in some larger sense? We all end up in the ground anyway.

          Maybe being a do gooder makes you happy. And to that I say more power to you. But what if stealing and cheating make you happy? Why not? Why do I have to worry about yours or anyone else morality?

          1. Some of us can care about the difference between right and wrong as a matter of principle, without the specter of an invisible boogeyman.

            1. Yes, it reflects much better on you if you treat people well out of a personal principle than if you do so because of the threat of eternal hellfire, I woudl say.
              But sadly, many people do seem to see things that way and would do bad things otherwise. So religion is probably a utilitarian good at least.

              1. What scares Christians about that is they think they know the rules for good behavior for other Christians. Your personal principles, however, could be just about anything. Therefore, they’ll take the eternal hellfire every time.

            2. Some of us can care about the difference between right and wrong as a matter of principle, without the specter of an invisible boogeyman.

              LOL. What principle other than the one you made up in your head? I have principles too. If you want to pretend there is some compelling reason why I should care about what yours are much less follow them, feel free. But don’t kid yourself into thinking that is any less of an act of faith and self deception than believing in God and hell fire.

              1. IOW, if you believe that other people might do good things just for the sake of doing good then you might as well just believe in God. Only people who believe in God are honest about why they do good things.

                1. Sparky,

                  How do they even know they are doing “good things” until they decide what is good? Sure, people do things that make them happy. Sometimes they tell themselves those things are “doing good”.

          2. That’s a silly argument, John. I’m Catholic, but do you mean to tell me that the pedophile priests are more moral than an atheist who devotes his/her life to spreading the NAP?

            The “in some larger sense” is deeply personal to many of us. Using it in a larger sense encompasses all of the bad done in the name of God as well. And since I had no part in that, I should not bear the stigma of it. Just as I share none of the credit for the good the church has done.

            1. I can only tell you that the priest is worse than the atheist if I have some standard by which to judge them. And that standard is morality. And by one morality the priest is worse. By other sets of morality the atheist is worse. You think the priest is pretty bad. So do I. But so what. Who says we have a corner on morality?

              1. A set of morality that says someone who doesn’t believe in God is, by definition, worse than a child rapist who does believe in God is so full of shit as not to be worthy of discussion beyond saying how full of shit it is.

            1. No. I see them just as faith based as the most ardent believer. They just put their faith in different things.

              1. What a giant load of shit. You’re entitled to your beliefs, of course, even if they are completely ridiculous.

                1. You have a set of morality right sparky? What makes you think your morality is any better than mine? Where do you get the idea that there even is such a thing as a universal morality much less the idea that you can figure out what it is?

                  That is sounds pretty faith based to me. You are just not calling it God.

                  1. I define a good act as something that is pleasing to me while causing no harm to anyone else. I didn’t realize that I had to get the approval of others to make sure that is indeed what is considered good. You seem to be equating faith with belief in God. I believe that if I do a good act that benefits someone else they might at some point in the future return the favor. My belief doesn’t require that they return the favor, and doesn’t condemn them to eternal flame if they don’t.

                    1. That is wonderful Sparky. But lots of other people don’t view it that way. You believe whatever you like. But don’t pretend it is anything other than something you made up to make yourself happy.

                    2. That is wonderful Sparky. But lots of other people don’t view it that way. You believe whatever you like. But don’t pretend it is anything other than something you made up to make yourself happy.

                      Just like God. Tell you what, I’ll promise to keep my beliefs to myself if you promise to do the same and we’ll do the best we can to treat each other fairly.

                    3. That is right Sparky. So I guess you better stop looking down your nose at theists.

                    4. That is right Sparky. So I guess you better stop looking down your nose at theists.

                      I don’t look down my nose at theists. I have no grudge with believers until they try to use their beliefs to force me to behave in a way I wouldn’t normally behave.

                    5. Like this hasn’t been hashed out at length by smarter people than everyone here. None of you ninnies ever had to read Kant, did you?

                      Kant’s categorical imperative and the responses to it are this discussion ad nauseam.

                    6. Like this hasn’t been hashed out at length by smarter people than everyone here.

                      And what makes you think Kant is smarter than everyone here, hmmm? Could it be…Satan?

                      /church lady

                    7. Well, I’m just relying on Anton LaVey’s word for all this, so yeah, probably Satan.

                    8. But don’t pretend it is anything other than something you made up to make yourself happy.

                      OK. No problem. I made it up for my own purposes, with my own reasoning.

                      That is the only validation I need for my morality.

    3. Religion predates civilization and arose in hunter-gatherer societies lacking heirarchy or power structures.

      1. All human societies have a hierarchy, and thus a power structure.

        We’re pack animals. Its innate.

      2. Lack of civilization is not the same as lack of hierarchies or power structures. Even animals have those things.

      3. That’s true in a way, but I don’t think religion really became the source of law and morality that it is today before it became useful as a tool of power. Even Christianity, which started out as an anti-autoritarian movement of poor people, very quickly became another tool for the powerful to use to subjugate people.

        1. Religion has always been a source of morality and thus always a useful tool for power. Most civilizations had one state religion for a reason.

          1. The State has a State Religion for one reason…control. Since faith requires no facts it is easier to manipulate for control of a populous. I would like to point out that “religion” is about the least moral thing there is but “spirituality” is rather benign. The reason for this is simply that religion requires the forced interpretation of certain things, and as pointed out a method of control by the state to enforce that interpretation. Spirituality can provide a moral system (so can objective epistemological study) without the requirement of external control. I may believe in God but that does not require a participation in religion. I could even argue that religion is the very antithesis of what God stands for.

            1. State religion was created to implement Gambol Lockdown, duh. Where have you been the past 4 months?

              1. I have been barely observing the Gambol Lockdown, but thanks to SF’s summary links I am up to date on the Gamboler herself…fascinating stuff.

  12. They should just rename this feature “The Daily Nut-punch”.

  13. Is it any wonder “fucking pigs” has become an American colloquialism.

    1. They certainly live up to their name.

  14. Henderson Police allow and even train in the use of kicking to restrain suspects, which would have made prosecution even more difficult, Wolfson says.

    Internal policies outrank the law.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.