Police Abuse

Another Police Beating Caught on Dash Cam, Ruled A-OK. It's Just Police Work

|

booking photo
booking photo

What kind of restraint should cops have to exercise when trying to induce compliance in a target? Judging from how often the use of force by cops is ruled not excessive, not much restraint is necessary. More cases of alleged police brutality may be videotaped, by passersby or by cops' various cameras, but cops can often still expect to be exonerated. It took fellow cops at the Red Bank Police Department in Tennessee about a month to rule that the use of force by their colleagues in the video below, including multiple punches while the suspect was already restrained, was not excessive:

Typical police work?

Lawyers for the man in the video say they may sue, so the police department says it can't discuss the matter further. 

Advertisement

NEXT: Unlike Obama, Clintons Don't Call Tax Inversion 'Unpatriotic'

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.

  1. STOP RESISTING!

  2. Typical police work?

    Unfortunately.

    1. Exactly. We are now in a situation where external standards of decency and criminality are not applied to cops. Instead, its purely internal (policies were followed, etc.), to the point where the [union-negotiated] internal process for insulating cops from accountability substitutes for the criminal law.

      Everyone on Team State loves it this way: Cops, prosecutors and judges can all stay on the same side. Elected officials are spared the embarrassment of dealing with cops convicted of violent crimes, etc.

      Everyone (who matters) wins!

      1. Rule of Law Man.

          1. Sheriff Lobo begged to differ…

      2. This is the logical progression of government. Use the “law” to enshrine warlord rights over time, thereby making the warlords “legitimate”. That way people don’t just go lynch bad cops, because what they did was “legal”.

        And it will just get worse.

        1. Therefore when Tao is lost, there is goodness.
          When goodness is lost, there is kindness.
          When kindness is lost, there is justice.
          When justice is lost, there is ritual.
          Now ritual is the husk of faith and loyalty, the beginning of confusion.

        2. That’s why the US’s Middle East fuckups are so entertaining. MidEasterners know the logical progression of government better than anyone, yet the world’s least experienced country thinks they can teach them a lesson.

  3. It’s good to see pro sports finally getting serious about domestic violence with their players.

    Solo is charged with two misdemeanor counts of fourth-degree domestic violence assault in Washington state stemming from a June 21 altercation with her sister-in-law and 17-year-old nephew at a family gathering.

    http://www.komonews.com/news/l…..63651.html

    1. Fohtooh ma Solo kaychahlah.

      1. Apparently, Solo shot first!

        Boom, I’m here all fall.

  4. I heard heavy breathing. Fat fuck cop was worn out putting on handcuffs. Give him a medal and medical leave.

  5. Progressives pissed off the True Detective actors are white guys.

    I noticed this from a link on that page:

    Justin Lin will direct the first two episodes

    Those racist sons of bitches! Justin Lin is directing? Clearly the producers must hate non-white people, which is why they hired a fucking cracker like Justin Lin.

    1. Are people who consider race in every fucking thing they see racists? Because progressives and SJWs sure seem like complete fucking racists to me.

      1. Way to be hyper racist by noticing their racism.

    2. The eternally aggrieved will never be satisfied. There is nothing you can do that will not inspire their protest.

    3. I hate to say it, but I don’t think a show where a young teen age boy calls Tyne Daley up to ask her to come over and fuck him in the ass will have the same drawing power as it did with Woody

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvXNLFBn2xM (Probably NSFW)

  6. Yeah, I’m sure this guy would fund a security company that did this to him…. Private security actually outnumbers law enforcement. Even the TSA’s own study showed private security to be more effective than them at airport security, and continually finding more prohibited items than the TSA who’s record was horrid.

    It’s not, “what would security be like in a free market?”. Individuals employ private security already. Even though the market is not free, thankfully individuals are able to voluntarily hire security. If individuals were free, their money wouldn’t be diverted (and extorted) to pay for gov’t security, but could go to reward good economic actors for the security services provided.

    This notion by minarchists that security can only be provided by socialized government services is unfounded and nonsensical. Such services are incapable of protecting individuals and are inefficient just like any other socialized service. Plus such services require threats of or the use of violence against individuals for it to exist. That violates the NAP and liberty.

    1. This is spot on. A+

    2. It really does make it hard for someone like me, who intellectually knows anarchism is purely logical but who has felt the need to compromise for minarchism (as if even that will be allowed to fly), when you see the increasing abuse to lawless law enforcers.

      1. Your “compromise” for minarchism would enslave others. Just because one might feel the need to be threatened with violence in order to fund some inefficient socialized service, doesn’t mean other individuals are to be forced to participate in such a horrid system against their will.

  7. No case. Legitimate use of force.

    1. DIU (3:11-12, staggering, the driver)
    2. Driving without a license
    3. Resisting arrest (8:27)
    4. The guy who got the “beating”, was resisting arrest too. At 9:04he is told “Put your hands behind your back” and proceeds to resist arrest. The video doesn’t show at what point he is hit in the or how much was as result of having hit the pavement.
    5. At 10:50 (to 10:53) one policeman starts hitting him because he is still NOT restrained?the other policeman is struggling to put the handcuffs on. The police has the right to do whatever is necessary to restrain an aggressive individual. Anytime a suspect resists arrest is a potential deadly situation for a policeman, many of which have been killed or seriously wounded with their own guns, or hidden knives; not to mention blood contamination.

    “..while the suspect was already restrained” is a relative matter and “not much restraint is necessary” is also a relative matter. Every case is different and real life is not a manual.

    They should all be this simple, provided the suspect doesn’t resist arrest, which is a crime in this country. Maybe they should teach all cops Salsa.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUVEgWgmcCE

    1. “Maybe they should teach all cops Salsa.”

      Nah, just teach them to not assault people who are already handcuffed. Might be too simple for people with IQ’s in the dumpster tho.

  8. I was in the bar business for ten years. I’ve dealt with two guys drunker than that, more ornery than those two, and done it by myself with zero trouble. At the time I weighed in at less than 140, and most of the guys in my bars were loggers, some of whom would have outweighed me by 100 pounds.

    These 4 guys are cowards and incompetent. They didn’t even need to cuff the guys. They could have walked them to a car and had them sit in the back – no problem.

    Plus, I’m not sure what the friend did. He wasn’t driving. He was drunk, but he had done nothing. Or, did I miss something?

    1. Yes, you did. He resisted arrest. It is illegal to resist arrest. It is also unsafe for police officers. Look at the video again to see how wrong you are in saying “They could have walked them to a car and had them sit in the back – no problem.”

      No one can predict what a drunk will do.

      1. A drunk will pass out. There. I just made a prediction.

      2. “No one can predict what a drunk will do.”

        Then don’t, moron.

  9. my neighbor’s step-mother makes $75 /hour on the internet . She has been out of work for 7 months but last month her pay check was $14524 just working on the internet for a few hours. more information….

    ???????? http://www.netjob70.com

  10. I see the ignorant bigorati are at it again. I watched 14 minutes into the video and What i saw was entirely garden variety justified use of force.
    Yet another excellent example of why we need more videotapes from dashcams, body cameras and witnesses.
    In this case the video makes it clear that the force was reasonable at least as far as I can see.
    I hate seeing fat cops, but sadly between unions and cop-o-crats fighting physical fitness standards, im not optimistic thats a problem that will be resolved soon.
    I don’t know enough about caselaw and const law in this jurisdiction etc to know if they were justified in detaining the passenger, nor do I know the facts and circumstances that went on to make that decision, however assuming arguendo they were justified in detaining the passenger, the force was reasonable in overcoming resistance.

  11. My 1st reaction was that there was no reason for the cops to detain the passenger in the car. However, it appears that TN has a dumb ass law called ‘DUI by consent’. This apparently gave them PC to detain a cooperating passenger. I don’t agree with the law but it does in fact give them the right to detain the passenger.
    When looking into it further, the police report reads that the passenger attempted to exit the vehicle when his friend was being arrested. However, when you see the video, you can hear the young reserve officer orders him out of the vehicle.
    It’s pretty obvious that both the driver and passenger speak little or no English. It’s difficult to follow orders when you don’t know what they are. By the absolute letter of the law, this use of force MAYBE was justified. However, it’s a pretty bad example of police work!!! And, if the attorney’s can prove the cops falsified their reports, I wouldn’t cry if they were charged. Just my opinion…..

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.