Police Abuse

Florida Cop Caught on Video Assaulting Homeless Man Who Was Trying to Go to the Bathroom, Internal Investigation Leads to Paid Suspension

And nothing else will happen?

|

screencap

Ft. Lauderdale police officer Victor Ramirez did not appear interested in letting Bruce Laclair, a homeless man, peacefully go to the bathroom before leaving a downtown bus terminal. Ramirez is seen on cellphone video pushing him to the ground and the slapping him violently while he's still on the ground.

"Don't fucking touch me," the cop says, although it doesn't appear the homeless man did. An onlooker yelsl to the cop that he would report him.

Watch the video below:

Laclair was arrested on trespassing charges and released from jail Monday. No charges have been filed against Ramirez, although someone did report him. The Ft. Lauderdale police department says it launched an internal investigation during the course of which Ramirez was given a paid vacation relieved of duty with pay.

h/t Stanton Smith

NEXT: Judge Won't Let Gov. Christie Abandon His Own Pension Reforms

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. He probably looked menacing.

    1. The observers and the video capture one perception of reality, but Officer Ramirez certainly acted appropriately in light of his perception of reality.

      Officer Ramirez has the more accurate perception of reality, and that is that, as an officer of the state, he can do whatever he wants. FYTW.

    2. Urination is a human right, or something like that.

  2. The onlooker really should have made Ramirez fear for his safety.

    1. I eagerly await the day when a crowd of angry onlookers finally snaps and beats a cop to death with his own weapons.

      1. they will all go to jail forever/death.

        1. Not if they disperse before the cavalry arrives.

          1. when a cop dies, his body explodes onto everyone in the area and that residue is traceable from space.

      2. I’d settle for a few onlookers taking the SOB to the ground and cuffing him.

  3. Thank God the vagrant didn’t have a dog.

    1. he probably did- but no one cares about a dead dog.

  4. Respect my authoritah!

    1. that cop wishes he had bear mace.

  5. Cops here have been busy lately. Also in the headlines, a cop at the courthouse decided he didn’t want to wait for a woman to finish crying so he dragged her through the court hallways by her feet.

    1. Funny that. Under “normal” circumstances, I’d forgive the cop for that, at least give him the benefit of the doubt. She supposedly refused to walk, so he dragged her. She supposedly kept yelling that she was mentally ill, which sounds more like grandstanding and has nothing to do with refusing to walk.

      But cops are power hungry control freaks, and they have proven themselves incompetent at dealing with the public in so many much worse instances that they have no credibility left. When they get away with illegal chokeholds and calling their union rep before 9-1-1, sorry, heroes in blue, you’ve lost it.

  6. It looked like a place that was open to the public. I don’t get why the guy was charged with trespassing.

    1. For the same reason that guy in St. Paul, Minnesota (was it there?) was beaten and arrested for sitting in a public hallway last year. It’s in the criminal code. Section F, Subsection Y, Paragraph T, Line W.

  7. He was probably urinating with an assault penis. Nobody needs more than 7 inches.

    1. That made my day. Thank you.

    2. He was pointing his gun at me. No, not his rifle.

  8. So Florida cops are actively trying to discourage homeless people from using public toilets?

    1. You know rest areas are homosexual hangouts. Highway rest areas, they’re the bath houses of the 90’s for many, many, many, many gay men.

    2. Without public urination charges, how can you meet your quota?

  9. If a lawyer fails to pay child support or a CPA files their personal tax return late, they lose their license and have to go through a lengthy and somewhat costly process to get reinstated. If a cop abuses his authority and assaults someone, he gets a paid vacation while his friends pretend to conduct an investigation.

    I think it’s time we start applying a higher standard to law enforcement.

    1. A higher standard? I’d settle for any standard.

    2. So the question is: why haven’t lawyers and accountants gotten on this gravy train? Aren’t they largely self policing? Shouldn’t there be a “thin bottom line” that accountants just don’t cross?

  10. “Don’t fucking touch me,”

    I should try that one with the people who pay my salary sometime.

  11. I see cops as a necessary evil at best. Over the weekend there was a targeted shooting of a cop in MN (I think). A burglary call in the wee hours…and while they were there to investigate, someone Chris Kyle’d Officer Friendly.

    I don’t support it but I do understand the sentiment. As long as they continue to treat us like the enemy, I think we may see more of that behavior. Maybe if a couple of them get whacked they’ll wake up and pay attention. Nahhh.

  12. GET HOME SAFE AT THE END OF YOUR SHIFT!!!

  13. “I think it’s time we start applying a higher standard to law enforcement.”

    This attitude of “if we only had the right people would things be better, and we need folks in fancy suits to run things…because we need government” is what keeps the violent state and the totalitarian police force in existence.

    If folks want a service where their rights are violated, to include folks coming in and ransacking their homes, shooting their dog, hassling them for made up law that is detrimental to liberty, or have someone beat the shit out of them for not obeying, all with no way of refusing to engage in further business with the company, or else that company would imprison them and take their stuff…….(takes a deep breath)….. Then do so on your own!

    The private production of security and defense are best left to consenting individuals in a free market. Why must there be a violent coercive monopoly that is forced upon individuals through the barrel of a gun?

    If you can’t do it through voluntary interactions and transactions, it should not exist. The “want” of something that requires the enslavement of others is BS. And bullshit is what folks do to themselves on a daily basis with their RoADZ!! DeFenSE!! and We NeeD MiNi SLavErIE!! (limited gov’t that never limits itself) arguments.

    1. The private production of security and defense are best left to consenting individuals in a free market.

      How do you resolve competition among security and defense companies? For example lets say the two of us pay different companies, and I decide to rob you. What happens next? Do our security companies go to war? After all, I pay mine to protect me, not to protect you. Serious question.

      1. There should be competition through security and defense unless folks freely choose one company based upon their good performance o none at all if they wish.

        Just as good economic actors are rewarded by individuals, so too would defense/security agencies. Prices and services would be marked to market. Whether it be shipping companies, where if they arm their own ships, there would be incentives by said insurance company, or said insurance company would provide ships for the company to protect against piracy and so on. The same can be with local security services. Armed homeowners may receive a discounted rate based upon their ability to defend themselves, or may even opt out of security all together.

        Warfare is expensive. When companies don’t have the benefit of a printing press, subsidies, and actually have to cater to their customers, and are subject to their regulation in the market and subsequent loss of business….they will behave differently. That being just like any other business. Why doesn’t Smith and Wesson, Glock, and Baretta team up to take over the U.S.? Why aren’t they covertly running guns and trying to blame the “guns being in the wrong hands” against their competitors? Because they still need to be good economic actors where individuals have a voice and choice in the market they do business in.

      2. In the 1800’s in cities like NYC, Boston, and Philadelphia it was common for competing fire companies to have battles over who was going to put out a fire on the border between their territories. It was common for the fire captain to carry a pistol as part of their fire-fighting equipment.

        Many of the fire companies were more like street gangs operating as protection rackets, so property owners had to pay them money to avoid fires.

  14. my friend’s aunt makes $62 an hour on the computer . She has been laid off for five months but last month her pay was $14934 just working on the computer for a few hours. Visit this site………
    ????? http://www.work-mill.com

  15. Continued……

    Their company would receive bad press and likely go out of business. When the govt runs guns and tries to blame the citizens and prevent them from being armed, they aren’t out of business, and keep running rough shod over liberties with no consequences.

    Why aren’t lobster fisherman constantly warring over territory and traps? The government doesn’t regulate their territories, yet there isn’t chaos to be found. You should try robbing some of their traps. You would face consequenses, which could be a shotgun or one of them running over your boat in defense of their property…..

    If four lobster fisherman are warring, others will pick up the lost business, while the four others go broke through protracted conflict. Free individuals wouldn’t fund such warring companies, and would fund the competitor that actually is providing the best lobsters. The warring companies don’t have a printing press, can not print gold, and would face consequenses trying to even war with others.

    If you’re worried about organizations warring with one another, look no further than any govt, who’s horrid record of violence and warfare trump any free society, or market based companies.

  16. In a free society, you would face conseuences for your attempt to rob me. How do you know you would even make it a few feet passed the fence let alone the door without suffering a broken arm, leg, or crushed rub cage? You might face the dog. My neighbor might have an AK that is a force equalizer comparded to you, or your security agency.

    You and your security team would be deterred from engaging in expensive warfare, and instead the company would try and earn my business, and it would be beneficial for you to trade with me, instead of war with me.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.