Brickbat: Fast Casual Police Abuse

The Kenosha, Wisconsin, police department said it is investigating an incident in which officers were caught on video apparently striking a man inside a local Applebee's. The officers believed the man was one of three people involved in a hit-and-run crash. He was not. They later found the actual suspects in the Applebee's restroom. The man faces charges of resisting arrest, disorderly conduct, and obstructing an officer; a woman who was with him faces the same charges plus possession of marijuana.

Comments

[Jerryskids]

How did they later find the actual suspects in the bathroom? It seems to me that once they arrested the first couple they would have assumed "case solved" and given up looking for what they had already found. Unless they had a pretty damn good idea that they had arrested the wrong people.

[Adans smith]

I’d also like to know why the employee thought 2 people with a baby having dinner was 'suspicious’?

[Minadin]

After 11pm on a weeknight?

[Olivahunter]

I'm making $90 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning 16,000 US dollars a month by working on the connection, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply. Everybody must try this job now by just using this website... http://www.Payathome7.com

[mad.casual]

I blame Will Smith for causing the whole thing.

[mad.casual]

They probably weren't wearing masks.

[mad.casual]

Wait, so if the officers were slightly less intelligent, competent, or both, stuck with the initial suspect all the way through sentencing, and letting the, presumably, actual perpetrators go, that would be a preferable outcome to you?

[Agammamon]

One of the cops needed to take a leak and popped in there to piss before going back on patrol?

[mad.casual]

They were looking for three suspects and, having only two suspects in custody, continued searching for the third.

Look, I know police officers are dirt stupid immoral idiots who can't make a decision in the heat of the moment without shooting a dog first, but you guys are all working with 20/20 hindsight over the internet here and I'll be damned if you aren't making the cops look more like .500 hitters than zeroes.

Did I miss a memo? Is it play retarded anti-cop activist to undermine police reform and make the cops look better than they should day?

[Adans smith]

A man holding a baby? That's some suspicious activity right there.

[Carey Allison]

Using their whoopin’ stick was at least reasonable if not clearly necessary. He clearly did not genuflect to his betters properly or quickly enough. I’d say he ought to walk away counting his blessings that they didn’t taze or shoot him, which if done, is always found to have been either appropriate and necessary or an action that the police could not reasonably know violated his rights. (Ain’t qualified immunity wonderful?)

[Minadin]

It wasn't clear above, but the man arrested was the one who was originally falsely forcefully detained. From the non-messed-up linked story:

"The man, according to police, was not responsible for the hit-and-run. However, police said he has been charged with disorderly conduct, resisting, and obstructing an officer."

It's nice that the local community agitators are trying to play this up as a racist incident, instead of asking why *anyone* would be charged with the above during a false arrest. He's being charged with resisting an arrest that shouldn't have happened.

P.S. Nice of the Applebee's employee to narc out the innocent ones while the perps hid in the bathroom. No one saw them? Hard to miss 3 people bust into your restaurant at 11pm and head straight to the bathrooms.

P.P.S. Police apparently can't count to 3.

[Its_Not_Inevitable]

A man, a woman and a baby. Could've been notorious gangster "Babyface" Nelson.

[mad.casual]

P.P.S. Police apparently can’t count to 3.

I don't mean talk up the brilliance of police officers or anything, but have you seriously never heard the phrase "Let's split up."?

Old Joke:
Suspect: Why are you singling me out? I wasn't the only one doing anything illegal.
Officer: Have you ever been fishing?
Suspect: Yeah.
Officer: You ever catch every fish in the pond?

[Davy C]

Actual innocence doesn't make something a false arrest.

An employee at the restaurant said some "suspicious people" were inside the restaurant and they believed may be "involved," according to police. The employee then directed officers to two people, including the man seen being arrested in the video, who is Black and holding a baby.

The police were directed towards these people; they didn't pick them at random. No idea why the employee decided to point the finger at innocent people.

[mad.casual]

Along the same lines, I’m sitting in a restaurant and the waitress, the owner, a random stranger, or the cops come over and ask me to put down my baby and step outside or come with them or answer a few questions or whatever, I’m taking the fair warning and putting the baby down. Especially if the mother/girlfriend/babymama/female-friend is right there and *doubly-especially* if I intend to do harm to defend myself or them. Further, were the roles reversed, I would regard anyone who didn’t as a piece of shit trying to use a baby as a human shield.

The waitress didn’t lead the cops to the baby, she led the cops to him. "Fuck you I don’t have to show you any ID or tell you a goddamned thing." gets some play when you’re walking by yourself to work or standing on the side of the highway. When a witness leads you to someplace where you are responsible for or taking care of children, no, your belligerence does not absolve you of the responsibility for those children whether you're innocent or not.

[Agammamon]

In other words - submit peasants.

[mad.casual]

In other words, you would knowingly use your own children, or any children, as human shields against what you acknowledge to be a threat.

-“If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace; and this single reflection, well applied, is sufficient to awaken every man to duty.”

-“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

-“Every father should remember that one day his son will follow his example, not his advice.”

[Agammamon]

Actually, it does.

An arrest is predicated on probable cause or the officer actually witnessing a crime – something that they can’t have if you haven’t committed a crime.

Cops don’t get to put innocent people in handcuffs freely – you are *not* required to submit to the state while the cops sort things out.

The closest you get to that is a Terry Stop – even then that’s a short-term detainment (not arrest) for investigative purposes.

Someone just pointing at you isn't probable cause and a Terry Stop doesn't require you to 'go outside' or even produce ID - no where in the country except when operating a motor vehicle on public roads are you even required to have one.

[mad.casual]

An arrest is predicated on probable cause or the officer actually witnessing a crime – something that they can’t have if you haven’t committed a crime.

Maybe visit a dictionary and learn what the word "probable" means because you seem to think it means something other than what the dictionary, or several of them, across multiple subject domains, say.

no where in the country except when operating a motor vehicle on public roads are you even required to have one.

Right. Which, suspects fleeing the scene of a hit-and-run accident would be required, by law, to have and which, per your own assertions, the police could/would/should rightly request.

Do you think you're convincing anyone you've past the bar here? Because I'm wondering if you past 10th grade English or took any HS debate classes. I'm no lawyer but you seem a pretty poor match for a cop-friendly DA or a Union-appointed lawyer. I mean, I'm sure you could probably still win these people some of the taxpayer's money, but I thought we were libertarians concerned with justice/law and order here.

[Davy C]

Which, suspects fleeing the scene of a hit-and-run accident would be required, by law, to have and which, per your own assertions, the police could/would/should rightly request.

I don't think that logic quite works. Only the driver would be required to have ID, and they know at least one person they're looking for isn't there - that person could be the driver. Plus it kind of begs the question; the officers don't yet know that these are the one who fled (and indeed, they turned out not to be) and so even if one person was on the gas, one on the brake, and one at the wheel so three people were driving, they *still* don't know that the people they're currently talking to are required to have ID. They are, of course, free to ask.

[Davy C]

I'm pretty sure the officers here *were* doing a Terry stop. Or are at least claiming such.

Police said, "The male was being detained as the crash was being investigated. The male attempted to leave against officers orders and was restrained. He resisted and the incident that was caught on camera unfolded from there."

[Nameless But Highly Opinionated]

Does Wisconsin give its police that power?

[Stuck in California]

So, don't big chain restaurants bring communities together?

[Fist of Etiquette]

The man faces charges of resisting arrest, disorderly conduct, and obstructing an officer...

See? They were right about him after all.

[Jerry B.]

Looks like idiots all 'round.

[mad.casual]

Honestly, the most surprising degree of stupidity is from the commentators.

All the other idiocy, whether I agree with the outcome or not, at least makes sense internally, even if the agents participating in the situation are hapless victims or utter morons. But between BLM, abusive policing, Soros-backed DAs, and Reason and the media's frequently slanted presentation, Reason commentor*s* effectively saying, "Why'd they only arrest 2 suspects instead of 3 (unless they knew they had the wrong guy)?" is like ketchup on a fucking hot dog.