An Oklahoma Cop Broke a 71-Year-Old Man's Neck Over a Traffic Dispute

Officer Joseph Gibson now faces felony assault charges.

An Oklahoma City police officer faces felony assault charges for slamming a 71-year-old man to the ground during a dispute over a traffic ticket. The incident, which occurred in October, gave the elderly man severe injuries, including a broken neck, a broken eye socket, and a brain bleed. 

On October 27, Officer Joseph Gibson responded to a minor accident involving 71-year-old Lich Vu. In body camera footage of the incident, the pair began arguing after Gibson told Vu that he was going to "have to write you a ticket for improper U-turn."

"I didn't U-turn," Vu replied.

When Gibson directed Vu to sign a document agreeing to "take care" of the citation, Vu appeared confused and refused to sign.

"We are not arguing about this, OK?" said Gibson. "We argue in court….If you don't sign this, you go to jail, OK? I don't want to take you to jail."

Vu continued to dispute the ticket. Eventually, video shows him growing frustrated, lightly slapping Gibson's chest, and saying "Shut up." Immediately, Gibson grabbed Vu's wrists and slammed him to the ground. Video shows Vu's face striking the pavement and the elderly man lying motionless as Gibson handcuffs him.

The Associated Press reports that Vu was taken to a local hospital, where he is still receiving treatment. 

On Thursday, Gibson was charged with one count of aggravated assault and battery. "The Oklahoma County District Attorney's Office takes all use-of-force incidents very seriously," District Attorney Vicki Behenna commented in a statement. "We evaluate the law and the facts in each individual case, and in this particular case determined the Officer's actions were an unreasonable use-of-force.

The Oklahoma City Fraternal Order of Police is backing Gibson, stating that the officer "handled this call for service with professionalism." The group added: "It is very disappointing to see a police officer face felony charges for actions taken in good faith while serving in the line of duty. Sgt. Gibson followed his de-escalation training and protocol when assaulted."

Comments

[Restoring the Dream]

Yup-- viciously assaulted by an old Asian guy. He's such a hero.
Fuck that ratfucker.

[diver64]

Never put your hands on a police officer. It will not go well.

[MasterThief]

That 3 second clip does look bad for the officer. I want to see the rest of the video with audio for context, but currently have to side with unreasonable use of force.
Seriously though, take your stupid ticket and fight it in court. Arguing and fighting with cops is fucking retarded.

[sarcasmic]

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Joseph+Gibson++Lich+Vu

[NM Dave]

That's definitely true. Cops are a bomb, anxious and willing to explode with the slightest provocation. This foolish old man forgot that cops love to hurt people.

[BillEverman]

You also should never put your hand on a hot stove or a rabid dog, but that doesn't mean that if someone does, we should go around waving "back the stove" or "back the rabid dogs" flags. You can simultaneously recognize that someone got hurt because they did something unwise without canonizing the person or thing that hurt them.

[Whorton]

I have been saying this for some time now. . .

People do not join the police department to help people, the join to legally Intimidate, Bully, Harass and otherwise legally steal from and beat innocent peon class. (the citizens)

How many Youboob videos of police mis-interactions do you HAVE to see before you know it is true.

The police: working assiduously to convert the few remaining adherents into police detractors, every day!

[sarcasmic]

"Sgt. Gibson followed his de-escalation training and protocol when assaulted."

What a load of shit. Police cannot be told their job is on the line if they fail to violently escalate whenever anyone fails to obey, fails to show sufficient respect, makes them feel unsafe, or just pisses them off; and also be trained in de-escalation. Those things are mutually exclusive.

[JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)]

Finally. A cop you can hate again instead of defending for a blind shoot.

[Minadin]

If he was following his de-escalation training, this is definitely one time when no-one should be saying, 'MOAR Training Required!'

And, I'd really like to take a look at that de-escalation training. I've seen MLB baseball umpires act with more aplomb after getting a finger in their chest.

[Vernon Depner]

Yes, often the "training" is the source of the problem.

[Whorton]

Exactly. . they at some point undergo "warrior" training, which essentially tells them "ALL CITIZENS are threats to the police, NONE ARE TRUSED AND NONE ARE WORTHY. . ." and that they alone are the only adults in the room (or world.)

Entirely too many "officers" seem to police, based on ego, they belive that the public must immediantly drop to their knees, kiss their boots and beg to kiss their Butts. . . They really are that contemptous of the public.

[sarcasmic]

They don't get de-escalation training. That's a flat out lie. What they get is escalation training based upon zero tolerance for noncompliance and perceived threats to officer safety. That's why it's protocol to throw a frail, old man headfirst onto the pavement for touching him. Training and protocol say that was a dangerous threat to officer safety, leaving him with no choice but to violently escalate in order to protect his life and the public.

[Minadin]

This might surprise you, but I agree with you. I've seen reports at least on some of the training that a lot of these officers go through. That's why I think that, for people who might be on the fence, or in the camp of, 'well, we WANT the cops to be to be the good guys, but we still need accountability', it might be educational to see what this so-called 'de-escalation training' actually looks like.

[Vernon Depner]

He will be found not guilty at a bench trial. Nothing else will happen.

[edrebber]

He'll probably be fired and find employment at another police department.

[diver64]

No, he will resign before being fired and then will be eligible for another job in law enforcement.

[Whorton]

He will get one HOUR of probation . . . and won't even have to sit in the corner.

Police have moved so far from being public servents of the people. .they feel they are to dominate and beat the peons into submission.

[SRG2]

the officer "handled this call for service with professionalism."

If they mean, "according to the general standards of the profession", why then the FOP are right.

[BillEverman]

I think "handled this call for service with professionalism" means he knows how to work his radio. Beyond that, not so much.

[But SkyNet is a Private Company]

You don’t put your hands on a cop people, I mean, really…

[Vernon Depner]

You're sick.

[Chipper Chunked Chile Con Congress (ex NCW)]

But not wrong in terms of the likely result.

Would it be "sick" to say "Don't punch a grizzly bear" or "Don't go poke a buffalo"? Because -- spoiler alert -- putting hands on a cop is just as likely to get you killed or severely injured.

Worse, even, as if there's a grizzly that kills a person, they'll probably go shoot it. The cop is probably just getting a paid vacation.

[Vernon Depner]

I don't equate cops with animals.

[Whorton]

And if it tries to kill you without provocation? IS one required to submit his life to stroke the "officers" ego?

I think not.

[F. White]

Pig would be a complement for this subhuman. When the union defends him, they tell us what to expect from all their cops. How about we quit hiring cops who got picked on in school (80% of the force)? Maybe some psych tests besides how many times have you smoked pot?

[Rossami]

Decertify the union.

[Vernon Depner]

Decertify all public employee unions.

[Wizzle Bizzle]

Exactly. The teacher's union is harming more humans than the cops could ever dream of. Not such a hot topic at this "libertarian" magazine, though.

[shadydave]

Yeah. Public sector unions are not negotiating with the people that pay them. They're negotiating with co-conspirators to rob the public treasury.

[voluntaryist]

"Water Gate" got Nixon out. Then he confessed, exposed, made public a "deep state" secretly held belief, namely, "when we break the law, it's NOT criminal, i.e., we are above the law." This belief is widespread among LEOs who go beyond the law, beyond morality, and openly justify it as beneficial for THEM. They lie, cheat, steal from us and explain it by telling us they "need" our assets to do their job. What is the broader implication? Where did this superiority complex begin? From the 1790 anti-American coup when the states formed a republic, a federal authority that ruled over the citizens with deadly threat and majority support. The principle of rights was thereby refuted, but the populace did not realize it. They were not politically minded. They let a few decide their future, behind closed doors, in secret. The result was an authoritarian paradigm, the beginning of a tyrannical empire. Like all empires, it is destructive.
With modern tech it can destroy our species. But this remains misunderstood, because the ignorant majority, worldwide, believe in "The Most Dangerous Superstition" (Larken Rose).

[Vernon Depner]

Is that you, Hank?

[Chipper Chunked Chile Con Congress (ex NCW)]

Far, far too coherent.

[AT]

"We are not arguing about this, OK?" said Gibson. "We argue in court."

Seriously. It is beyond frustrating how many "Americans" don't understand their rights and think they're going to litigate the matter right there in the street. Honestly we should force people to sit through a class and take a test on the subject every year in order to keep their driver's licenses active. Or, heck, go a step further and make arguing your ticket on the scene an instant administrative suspension of your license.

You are getting the ticket. You will not talk your way out of it. Stop escalating. Calm down, shut the hell up, and deal with it on your assigned court date.

Now, as for the takedown, this is kinda like zapping the knife-wielding granny to death. Dude, take into account the age and fall risk. Yea, there's the argument that you shouldn't put your hands on the cop (and that this old man was annoying and frustrating as all get out; you can easily tell that this cop is at the end of his rope) - but at the same time, cop should have some situational awareness.

When you watch the video, especially from the store angle, it's an impressive but unbelievably brutal move to pull on an old man. Charges make sense.

[MasterThief]

The only video I saw linked here is of the takedown alone. No more context. Definitely brutal and effective, but I do wonder if the officer meant for him to go to the ground. If Vu doesn't lose his feet then it's just a quick cuffing.

[Wizzle Bizzle]

"The only video I saw linked here is of the takedown alone."

Now ask yourself why. It's almost as if there is an agenda at work...

I don't care if your agenda is sometimes in line with mine or not. If you selectively edit some videos and omit inconvenient facts, you are a propagandist. And stop begging for money, Reason. It's almost as embarrassing as your writing.

[mad.casual]

+1

Again, as indicated, Reason will run the Edward Snowden Brickbat as "Clapper misspeaks before Congress.", conduct many, many other features in a similar fashion and then beg for money.

Fuck 'em.

[AT]

I wouldn't be willing to testify to a jury that Vu lost his feet. Look at the cop's feet. They're planted, then it's a body throw. I'd go under oath that he flipped the dude.

I mean, it's a hell of a move. Judo, by the look of it. But clearly far more than what was called for given the circumstances and instigating action.

[mad.casual]

this is kinda like zapping the knife-wielding granny to death.

False and this belies the inaccuracy of your "situational awareness" idiocy. Anyone wielding a knife is a threat. That's why the police were summoned in the first place. If you arrive at the scene after knives have been pulled, the situation has already escalated. You can quibble about how best to de-escalate it but it's pure luck that someone hasn't fallen, gotten cut, or both by the time you arrive on scene. It's entirely likely/possible that the whole situation is a regulatory/liability trap or blame shift so that the retirement home can pass their culpability off onto the police a la locking people in old folks homes in NYC or 'mental health crises' on the subway or public at large.

I certainly don't disagree with filing charges in either case, but your failure to distinguish what you describe roughly as a 'Judo throw as the result of a fender bender' below from 'tazing someone wielding a knife' suggests the same lack of critical thinking that this Brickbat-style reporting seems tailored to create or engender.

[AT]

I only made the comparison for the age and circumstances point. Gotta be a little more gentle with the geriatrics.

'Judo throw as the result of a fender bender'

Actually, it was "Judo throw as the result of lightly smacking the cop on his vest." Again, not sure that was at all necessary for an old person, and certainly the risks of such a move should have been considered before taking it.

[Whorton]

From what I understand the man weighed a whold 115 pounds soaking wet with rocks in his pockets. . and he had bone cancer. Hardly worthy of the response he got. The "officer" clearly let his emotions overtake whatever little reason he possessed.

[AT]

I already agreed with this point. Don't try and make that ACAB.

[Starchild]

"Litigate the matter" makes it sound like the parties are on a level playing field, which in theory they are and ought to be, but in practice, police officers often feel empowered to do whatever they want, because when they commit abuses they rarely face consequences. They have discretion as to what to enforce and how, and the public knows it. So it makes perfect sense that people try to talk their way out of tickets, because sometimes it *does* work.

Given how many tickets are written for things that have not violated anyone else's rights and never ought to be criminalized in the first place, one only wishes that it worked more often.

A fairer system might be to have police drones at encounters film video recordings in which the officer and the member of the public each say what happened, with that recording later reviewed by a neutral body (preferably a citizen jury) which then decides whether to issue a citation or not.

This would justify the tendency for officers to get emotionally invested in imposing a punishment in order to justify their decision to make a stop in the first place. Let either side supplement their initial reports by uploading further material after they've had a chance to think about it and prepare.

[AT]

So it makes perfect sense that people try to talk their way out of tickets, because sometimes it *does* work.

Not when you become belligerent. It NEVER works when you become belligerent. I guarantee you that fails 100% of the time.

Given how many tickets are written for things that have not violated anyone else's rights and never ought to be criminalized in the first place

Well, that's a valid point - but a separate discussion entirely.

A fairer system might be to have police drones at encounters film video recordings in which the officer and the member of the public each say what happened, with that recording later reviewed by a neutral body (preferably a citizen jury) which then decides whether to issue a citation or not.

First: So, like a grand jury for traffic tickets???

Second: Fairer, arguably (though, Lord, do we really want cops outsourcing to drones for traffic duties?). Far more cumbersome, absolutely.

So, one thing folks might not know is that following the issue of a citation, you can always (at least in my experience across several States and jurisdictions) head on down to the police station and seek to file a written statement with the ticket-writer's supervising officer. You can explain the mistake of fact or the extenuating circumstance, and that statement will be presented at the time of the traffic hearing. This is actually a pretty effective thing to do if you're looking to contest your ticket on genuinely legitimate grounds.

This is a preferable method to trying to do it in the street A) for safety and resource allocation methods; B) it gives the ticketed party a chance to calm down and collect themselves; and C) it illustrates that you genuinely believe that 5-0 was in the wrong, enough to take a pro-active step to defend yourself against their charge.

Most people don't bother though. Either because they don't know they can or it's not worth their time. In either case, *tiny violin*.

This would justify the tendency for officers to get emotionally invested in imposing a punishment in order to justify their decision to make a stop in the first place.

Well, I mean, they've kinda already done that before they even got out and approached your car. They clocked you, or they saw you roll the light, or they noticed your swerving, or whatever. Why does it make a difference whether you speak your peace right then and there, or in a voluntary statement, or at the traffic hearing? Point is you get your say in what happened one way or another. So what does it matter whether it's right then and there arguing with the cop, or recorded and submitted to some kind of traffic grand jury, or testified to in open court? And so long as you don't get belligerent about it (on the street or in court, I've seen both), it'll be genuinely taken into consideration.

Ultimately, I think you miss the ultimate problem: the belligerent citizen. That's the problem at the end of the day. The old man was belligerent. Perhaps borne of confusion and a genuine belief that he did nothing wrong - but it wasn't the time and place for protest, and belligerence helps nothing in the moment.

I get it - it seems unfair. I get it - it seems like you know something they clearly don't. I get it - you're hoping to avoid the whole hassle completely. But the due process system IS in place to give you your say in the matter. But that system doesn't include belligerently arguing the matter on the side of the road. That's not "talking your way out."

That's escalating.

[Whorton]

Part of the problem that was raised was a language barrier. The man was not familure with the concept that when you sign a ticket, it is NOT an admission of guilt but an agreement to either pay the ticket OR show up to court to contest it.

The "officer" had the option to call for an interpreter, but apparently could not be bothered. He joins a rather distinguished list of Sergeants on the OKCPD to go down in history of assulting people.

I certainly don't know what has happened to the department, as they used to be a good department back in the 60's to the 80's, but since then, they seem to have taken many a wrong turn. . .Especially in who they hire.

[AT]

The man was not familure with the concept that when you sign a ticket, it is NOT an admission of guilt but an agreement to either pay the ticket OR show up to court to contest it.

Then how did he even gain citizenship? (And that's being extremely generous - because if he was born here and reached his 70s in this state, what in all the f's.)

It's not the cop's fault if you choose not/refuse to learn English and understand the American legal system. Nor is it the cop's responsibility to give you an impromptu lesson on the subject (outside of reading Miranda).

Heck, I'd even be willing to consider some kind of garbled mushmouth "Iuh wakka my five wights." Y'know what, close enough - at least he shows he learned some basic American knowledge even if he can't meaningfully articulate it.

But for those who don't, and then go belligerent in response to law enforcement? Don't try and make a sympathetic case on that.

The sympathy in this case comes from the brutality of the takedown given the age and frailty of the suspect. Had this been a guy in his 20s-40s, we'd be going full tilt in support of the cop here.

The "officer" had the option to call for an interpreter, but apparently could not be bothered.

And why should he be. What a waste of time and public money. The defendant can hire their own interpreter for the court hearing.

(Oh, and coming soon to an arrest near you - a smartphone can live translate in virtually every language. So, get used to that no longer being an excuse for anything. ngl, I am super looking forward to the hilarity of the racists at the ACLU crying, "But them dumb ignorant minorities can't figure out smart phones, just like they can't get voter ID!)

[edrebber]

The force used by the police officer was not proportional to the perceived threat and was instead retribution for having to take the suspect to jail.

[Vernon Depner]

It was retribution for disobedience.

[Fist of Etiquette]

LEO wives and girlfriends can attest, it's compliance or violence.

[Whorton]

Oh yeah . .recent list of a few:
Dec 2024 Officer Joseph Gibson this incident arrested for Aggrivated Assult
Dec 2024 Sgt Rasaun Gordon arrested for excessive force on a noise complaint
Dec 1, 2024 Officer Shamar Kitchens arrested for Domestic Violence
Jun 2024 Officer Ryan Stark Arrested for Domestic A&B, Kidnapping
Nov 2023 Sergeant Kristopher Gellenback Arreste for Child abuse and Domestic A&B
Oct 2023 Lt. Bryant Holloway arrested for felony purjury and embezzlement
Sept 2023 Msgt, Jurden Brown arrested in prostitution bust
Dec 2020 Sgt Clifford Holman 1st degree murder
Nov 2020 5 officers Bethany Sears, Jared Barton, Corey Adams, John Skuta and Brad Pemberton charged with the manslaughter for shooting a surrenderin 15 year old.
2017 Sgt Christopher Barnes murders deaf Magdiel Sanchez on the porch of his home.

[AT]

Don't be stupid. Why do you always insist on that.

[Starchild]

Either way, a police officer taking retribution is inappropriate and unacceptable. Glad the officer in this case is being held accountable, for a change.

[shadydave]

Administering punishment without due process.

[jimc5499]

I got pulled over for doing 55 mph in a 45 mph zone. When the officer got to the window I had my license, registration and proof of insurance ready for him. That kind of pissed him off. We spent the rest of the stop with him trying to provoke me. It didn't work. I went in front of the magistrate earlier this week. I took a video of the road and a statement from the Department of Transportation that the stretch of road where I was pulled over was a 55 mph zone. A sign was missing. Magistrate threw it out. It was an area that I was familiar with, but, didn't know the Police.

[Public Entelectual]

In the de-escalation protocol, what's the next step after breaking the subject's neck & manacling their hands behind their back?

[Liberty_Belle]

Screaming 'gun' and emptying a clip or two into the still manacled suspect.

Bonus points if you can also have a K9 bite him while yelling 'stop resisting !' .

[Strider]

The old guy just touched the cop on the chest. It wasn't a violent move in any sense. Some people are just too stupid to be cops. I don't know if this cop is, but if the shoe fits.....

[Liberty_Belle]

Never forget that smart people aren't allowed to be cops.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/story?id=95836

Sept. 8, 2000 -- A man whose bid to become a police officer was rejected after he scored too high on an intelligence test has lost an appeal in his federal lawsuit against the city.

Jordan, a 49-year-old college graduate, took the exam in 1996 and scored 33 points, the equivalent of an IQ of 125. But New London police interviewed only candidates who scored 20 to 27, on the theory that those who scored too high could get bored with police work and leave soon after undergoing costly training.

[markm23]

A tap on the chest is not an assault. The FOP official that called it one is a liar, and the tape of the tap and the tape of his statement ought to be played every time he testifies in court as proof that he's a liar. What the cop did _was_ an assault.

[mad.casual]

Reason: UHC CEO gets shot. Public blames insurance, but what about hospital costs?

Also Reason: Man goes to ground with/of police officer after traffic infraction. American lawyers and healthcare business clearly more ethical than law enforcement.

Also, also Reason: Parents show up with dead baby. Hospitals call police, but shaken baby syndrome is junk science.