Police Abuse

Cops Choke Man, Hit Him on the Head 16 Times, Tased Him 3 Times, After He Allegedly Rolled Through a Stop Sign

Incident was caught on video so a judge dropped charges of fleeing police and resisting arrest that were filed against the man.

|

Cops in Inkster, Michigan, were trawling an area believed by them to host drug activity when they say they saw Floyd Dent fail to make a full stop at a stop sign. That's when they sprung into action, pulling him over and eventually pulling the man out of his car and pummeling him before charging him with fleeing police, resisting arrest, and possession of cocaine.

The incident was caught on tape, leading a judge to dismiss the fleeing police and resisting arrest charges. Watch it below, via Local 4:

video platformvideo managementvideo solutionsvideo player

The 57-year-old Dent has no prior criminal record and rejected a deal that would see him serve no jail time and have his record expunged in six months because he says he wasn't in the possession of any drugs when he was arrested. Up to 10 police officers were involved in Dent's arrest. At least one was previously charged with planting evidence and falsifying reports. He beat the rap and got to stay in law enforcement, because why would police departments try to accurately gauge the risk of hiring a new employee based on their work history when it's the city's taxpayers, not the departments themselves, that end up liable for anything that happens?

NEXT: New Playground Safety Requirements Are Absurd

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. I don’t know if I have the fortitude to watch the video; I’m so concerned about the welfare of those poor officers defending themselves from this violent drug-crazed Negro gangbanger.

    1. The guy administering the headlock and punches may have skinned his knuckles.

  2. American civilian policing is completely out of control. How to get a firm boot on the neck of these people may be impossible.

    You will trust today’s “leo” at your peril.

    And no, I am not part of that “sovereign” lunacy, so shove that notion.

  3. Ok, I know that correcting the spelling of something on the internet is a mugs’ game. But, for the record, it’s “beat the rap” not “beat the wrap”.

    1. Sure it’s not “beet the rap”? 😉

      Out until Reason chases away today’s squirrels.

    2. This is one lion you better toe

      1. Tow, the blue lion

  4. He has worked for Ford for 37 years and drives a Cadillac? Ouch.

  5. why isn’t the union liable?

    1. UAW vs the Police Union in a best 2 out of 3 falls for the title!

  6. activity when they ssay they

    lisp?

    1. Management is too cheap to provide their writers with a spell-checker.

  7. He beat the wrap

    cellophane?

  8. So will the new Ford that enforces the speed limit be equipped to beat and taze drivers who run stop signs?

  9. These cops were too stupid to even place a throw-away gun on the floor mat of the guy’s car.

  10. Traffic Laws Matter

  11. IN Russia, insurance fraud is so common pretty much everyone has a dash cam. The widespread practice produces some fabulous crash and road rage videos on youtube. At this point, it is probably a good idea to have one in the US (two actually, one pointing to the front and the other filming the drivers’ side), especially if you are black. The most disturbing thing about these sorts of cases is the thought of how many times the cops did this and got away with it because there wasn’t any video. How many innocent people are in or have been to jail and now have drug convictions because they ran into the wrong cops on the wrong day?

    No way did they just decide to do this. This guy isn’t that unlucky. They almost certainly treated this guy exactly how they treated everyone else. And they most certainly planted drugs on him because that is what they did if they didn’t find any in the car. This case, like so many, is terrifying.

    1. Meanwhile, in Russia…

      1. I honestly don’t know how the cops behave in Russia. I cannot imagine it being any worse than this.

        1. It’s not unheard of for plain clothes officers to kidnap dissenters on the street in front of your family, and to not be heard from for extended periods of time. Sometimes they just shoot you and chalk it up to gang violence, and they might not necessarily be lying since the Russian mafia and the police work in tandem with one another. So there is that….

          1. It is not unheard of for people in the US to be arrested on false charges and spend weeks or months in jail before they are cleared.

            Sure, Russia is worse but we are not nearly as far above them as we like to tell ourselves.

            1. I’m not defending US cops in any way. You said you honestly don’t know how cops behave in Russia, and I told you.

              There’s no doubt that the Russian justice system is worse than the US. There’s also no doubt that the American justice system is degenerating at alarming rate while Republicans and Democrats applaud and call it an improvement.

            2. It’s not unheard of for people in the US to be arrested on false charges, framed, and spend years in prison.

              1. Being framed and charged is a luxury when compared to being disappeared altogether.

    2. That bit about Russia is absolutely true, and one of the benefits is that those dashcams often catch cool things like fireballs in the sky.

      1. And some of the worst driving in the history of womankind.

    3. Don’t you just love the irony? We now have to spy on ourselves in order to protect ourselves against police overreach. My head is literally going to explode.

  12. Shit like this scares me more than any fine or traffic school.

    “Drive safe, citizen! Because if your habits don’t kill you, then we will.”

  13. He beat the wrap and got to stay in law enforcement, because why would police departments try to accurately gauge the risk of hiring a new employee based on their work history when it’s the city’s taxpayers, not the departments themselves, that end up liable for anything that happens?

    It is better than that. Cops and cop unions are very adept at using privacy laws to shield their work histories. In many places a cop can get in trouble for lying or planting evidence but since his work records are protected from disclosure, no judge jury or defense attorney will ever know about his history. Any cop found to have planted evidence should be forever unemployable since they are useless to testify in court and their record will sabotage any case they are involved with. They only remain employable because cops go to great lengths to keep their employment records private.

  14. A couple things:
    1.WTF is Inkster thinking hiring a guy that was previously charged by the US Attorney.
    2. Rocky Balboa cop should be fired immediately. Unfortunately, I’m sure he’s a member of a Union and they will argue how his actions were justified; maybe even give him a medal.
    3. No doubt, Floyd is a crack head. Again, no doubt. Before you yell and scream, I’m not justifying officer’s response; however, that dope was his.

    1. Here is the problem, even if he was no one is ever going to believe it because one of the cops on the scene had a previous history of planting evidence. So, as far as I am concerned, that guy is not a crackhead and that evidence was planted. If I were a judge or juror, I would never convict him of possession in this case. If he is in fact guilty, the police have only themselves to blame for hiring someone with a history of planting evidence.

      Sorry, but evidence is only as trustworthy as the person presenting it. And in this case the police have chosen to be completely untrustworthy.

      1. IINAL, but i doubt a judge will allow the jury to hear anything about the past charges against the cop.

        1. Yes a judge would. Since it was not a conviction, you could not introduce extrinsic evidence. You could however ask in cross examination about specific instances of conduct to attack the witness’ character for truthfulness under FRE 608B. So on cross examination, a defense attorney would be allowed to ask the cop “isn’t it true that you planted evidence on such and such occasion and were charged by the US attorney with such”.

          The tricky part is that the government would likely not call the dirty cop as a witness. So, the defense would have to call him and have the judge certify him as a hostile witness such that they could cross examine him with the 608B evidence. I can’t see any reason why a judge would not allow that.

        2. Yeah, this is impeachment of a witness. The rules are broader when you introduce evidence for that purpose.

      2. John….I don’t disagree with that. No way does he get convicted in a court of law. In fact, that cop should never be allowed to testify in court. He’s an embarrassment. I’m just speaking from experience. It took him 40 seconds to stop and he was coming from a house that was under surveillance. The truth and what comes out in court are 2 separate things; i.e., Rocky Balboa cop being found ‘not guilty’ in his corruption trial.

        1. He wasn’t coming from a house under surveillance. He was “driving through an area known to have drug activity”, according to the article.

        2. “No way does he get convicted in a court of law. In fact, that cop should never be allowed to testify in court. He’s an embarrassment.” I agree with your analysis here, C&L.

          “I’m just speaking from experience. It took him 40 seconds to stop and he was coming from a house that was under surveillance.”

          I wanted to highlight what you’ve already mentioned, which is (according to the video and article) the house was “believed by [the police] to host drug activity.” They were operating on suspicion, not evidence.

          Why Mr. Dent chose to continue driving for so long is unclear. He stated that he continued because he thought the police couldn’t be pulling him over, yet I think most reasonable individuals would conclude they were the object of the police much sooner.

    2. It looks like there’s video evidence that the crack cocaine was planted in the guy’s car.

      http://www.clickondetroit.com/…..e/32014270

      1. NO. DOUBT.

        The “cop” has spoken, idiot!

    3. The guy tested negative for drugs and has no criminal record yet you know it was his. Cop and Libertarian my ass. Also, see link posted below by Andrew. It looks like the drugs were planted and it was caught on video.

    4. 3. No doubt, Floyd is a crack head. Again, no doubt. Before you yell and scream, I’m not justifying officer’s response; however, that dope was his.

      Why no doubt?

      1. He was arrested, wasn’t he?

        1. Sadly we’re not too far off from a system where baseless accusation and hostile police officers is all that a is required to get a conviction.

  15. Disgusting.

  16. Cops are out of control

  17. I read an article about this yesterday that said he went straight to the hospital after getting released, and took a drug test that came up clean. I’ll have to try to find the link…

  18. Aha! They found video of the cop planting a baggie. So tasty.

  19. Hey Ed (if you’re reading)…

    I’m curious how you confirmed this item: “At least one was previously charged with planting evidence and falsifying reports.”

    Is there a database or other tool you know of that shares such information on police IA (or other) records? Just curious.

    1. SOP used to be that you searched for every name involved in an article you were writing. You never know when someone will turn out to have something juicy and relevant in their background.

      No idea what kids these days do.

  20. How were they allowed to search his vehicle? A simple traffic stop is not enough to reasonably suspect he has contraband. They arrested him for no reason what-so-ever, beat the shit out of him, and allegedly retrieved drugs from his vehicle. If the arrest was unjustified, why isn’t the ‘evidence’ tossed out?

    Because if you allow that to remain evidence, then any time a cop stops someone and decides to arrest them right away without any justifiable cause, they would automatically assume the right to search the vehicle. Even if the charges don’t stick but they “find” contraband, then that person would have to stand trial for evidence conducted after an unjustifiable (illegal) arrest and search.

    1. You’re catching on.

      To quote Ayn Rand, it’s not who is going to allow them, it’s whose going to stop them.

    1. Dammit I meant to post this to links. WTH happened

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.