Cop Kicks Teen Who Had Already Been Pepper-Sprayed
The officer is now under internal investigation. Some want a citizen review panel, but the chief thinks that would be "problematic."

A fight broke out among a group of teens at a Washington state fair over the weekend. When some officers of the Yakima Police Department arrived, the teens quickly scattered. Those who remained in the area got pepper-sprayed by the police. While one 17-year-old boy held his eyes, presumably in response to the pepper spray, Officer Ian Cole kicked him in the back, causing him to stumble to the ground.
The end of the fight and the subsequent police response were captured on video, and the clip went viral after it was posted to Facebook. The video shows Cole kicking the teen to the ground clear as day:
On Monday, Interim Police Chief Gary Jones released a statement saying that his department had been "made aware" of the video and that an investigation would review Cole's use of force. Cole has been placed on desk duty in the meantime.
Attorney Bill Pickett, who is representing the teen in a claim against the city, thinks an independent group should do the investigation. "What they need is a citizen review panel put together in this community and hold these people accountable when there's misconduct instead of the police saying 'We'll investigate it ourselves,'" he tells the Yakima Herald.
Jones disagrees, telling the paper that "third-party oversight of every use of force investigation would be problematic." He does, however, tout a review team "composed of components outside the department."
On Tuesday, the department tweeted this invitation to apply to work for the department:
Highly scrutinized, stressful, appreciated, and at times hated, being a police officer can be difficult. Yet, some days are amazingly rewarding. Honor. Courage. Integrity. Fidelity. If you think you have what it takes, apply for YPD at https://t.co/Ue5nIARIC7 @yakimapolice pic.twitter.com/BH4OOdMLPR
— Yakima P.D. (@yakimapolice) September 25, 2018
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Jones disagrees, telling the paper that "third-party oversight of every use of force investigation would be problematic."
No doubt.
The problem is they don't have a well-tended pool of retired cops, federal agents, and city attorneys sitting around as 'third parties' in order to draw from. Those sorts of things take time to develop.
Actually, the result will be police will cut way down on their response and pursuit of criminals.
If you had some third party with their own agenda watching every single thing you did and second-guessing every decision you make on the job, which could result in you losing your job and going to prison, why put yourself in the position to be judged? Spend your shift at the donut shop then clock out.
Who's going to put himself out there kicking someone in the back if he might be held accountable for it.
"why put yourself in the position to be judged?"
Answer: Paycheck, perks, ego and retirement. Oh, I'm supposed to think there is an altruistic motive for these do gooding saints who will be dissuaded by closer scrutiny and accountability.
Everyone gets judged on the job. If not by your boss, then by your customers. The truly laudable Bobby D said, "We all gotta serve somebody."
"Actually, the result will be police will cut way down on their response and pursuit of criminals."
So, these honorable people will still collect the pay for doing less of what is expected of them because they cannot do more of what is expected of them. Compelling argument.
Such a slowdown would be noticed by budget watchers, and I bet it wouldn't take too many press reports of drops in arrests suggesting corresponding cuts in budgets for said bean counters to start making the noises appropriate to putting cops back on the beat.
https://tinyurl.com/y82ktwpv
Yeah, right.
https://tinyurl.com/y82ktwpv
Yeah, right.
I wouldn't hold up Baltimore as any kind of example. The city has been fucked on so many levels for decades now.
"Everyone gets judged on the job"
Not comparable. If I refuse to submit my TPS reports on time and with a cover sheet, I can get fired. If a cop makes one small mistake, he can go to jail.
Kicking a helpless person in the back is a "mistake"?
Come on.
I can't count the number of times I've been reprimanded by HR for holding up TPS reports to hide my fist.
Well, it sure does help to cut down on the likelihood of going to jail when your work buddies are the ones who decide who gets charged with a crime.
There has to be some middle ground between cops literally doing whatever they want because nobody will hold them accountable, and being so over-scrutinized that they don't do anything at all.
Fire the really bad cops.
The basic cop problem is that there are no good cops; only bad cops (who tamper with evidence and frame people, take bribes, commit perjury, etc) and coverup cops who won't snitch on bad cops but won't be bad themselves. Coverup cops need to start blowing the whistle, but they won't do it until bad cops are removed, pronto, and thrown in jail.
See Serpico-that shows what happens to good cops.
Exactly. Chiefs don't want good cops. They want bad cops, but recognize that not all cops have it in them, and will settle for coverup cops.
Clearly the cop was using his mental powers to command the kid to simultaneously put up his hands, get on his knees, and lay flat on the ground. The kid's failure to obey made the officer fear for his life, and the officer showed great restraint in not using deadly force.
"" He does, however, tout a review team "composed of components outside the department but not outside of departmental control, influence and intimidation." FTFY chief
Nice to see there is 1 brave person providing some push back against the JB thugs. You know, with all the steroids and adrenaline activated. Wait, does that man must have a death wish. It's like going into the lion's den. He must not be a Reason reader. Disappointed it was only 1.
I think at this point we should all be happy a family sitting down to dinner wasn't gunned down by an officer walking into the wrong house because the 9 year old daughter didn't immediately drop the butter knife on command.
A little kick in the ass never hurt anybody.