Another Police Video

[SixofNine]

The Prince George's County (Maryland) police have, shall we say, an interesting reputation in the D.C. area. The department signed an agreement last year with the Justice Department under which the police department agreed to make extensive changes in training and procedures to reduce instances of excessive force. However, the County's previous prosecutor was 0 for 7 in attempts to prosecute 11 officers for misconduct.

Here's the new prosecutor's first strikeout. Officer Brian Addis was acquitted of second-degree assault in his encounter with an armed carjacker. The following is the tape from Officer Addis's car camera of the incident. Unfortunately, the Washington Post uses Real files:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/mmedia/metro/021805-1v.htm

I think I understand why these incidents get so much press and why there is so much handwringing over the police officer's "violence." Look at him! He's kicking that man! Bad officer!

Ummm, that man was armed, had carjacked that vehicle at gunpoint, was not under control yet, and the weapon had not yet been located. The jury also disagreed. By the way, the suspect got seven years for the carjacking.

Here's the Post's story of the acquittal, which the editors decided was front page news:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33391-2005Feb17.html

On a side note, and I don't mean to be flip, but that's a mighty fine camera that the P.G. County police are using in their cars.

Brian

[Coriolis]

Ok, let's assume the man was armed, and if he jacked a car, was probably dangerous. And let's ignore the fact that the perp was rolling on the ground, appearing wounded and/or stunned from crashing the vehical (at least, taht's what it looked like).

So tell me, how is running up to the guy and kicking him several times going to protect the police officer?

If the guy had a gun, how is the cop kicking him going to stop the perp from using it?

Then the repeated blows to the guy while being apprehended... I don't know. Looks like excessive force me, but hey, I wasn' there. ;)

[ethics]

Btw, my initial reaction was that this is another boo-hoo over nothing but if the perp was a car-jacker, no gun was located, how is kicking that guy THAT way get:

1. The suspect under control
2. Minimize safety to the officer?

I admit that I have NOT seen the tape just the still shot from the article.

[ethics]

If the guy had a gun, how is the cop kicking him going to stop the perp from using it?



Bah, you beat me to it.

[SixofNine]

He was armed. Here is my civilian take on incidents such as this one, having seen, as I'm sure most of you have, many of these tapes in our age of video. At the moment of apprehension the police have a very simple desire: they want the suspect flat on the ground with hands visible and no movement. Violation of any of these conditions results in negative reinforcement. Knowledge that the suspect is armed raises the stakes tremendously.

Too bad there's no audio. As a semi-regular viewer of Cops I would guess that "Get on the ground!" and "Let me see your hands!" or something to the effect was being shouted repeatedly.

Brian

[ethics]

I still don't understand the need to kick where the cop was kicking. Perhaps one of the Cops from this forum can give a good reason.

[Steve]

I must've viewed a million episodes of "Cops" where the suspects were yelled at, manhandled, bodily thrown to the grown, and had arms, legs, necks, and torsos stepped on, sat on, pinned down, all to immobilize the suspect and get him into that "safe" position.

Never saw anything wrong with that.

Kicking, I never saw.

[Coriolis]

He was armed. Here is my civilian take on incidents such as this one, having seen, as I'm sure most of you have, many of these tapes in our age of video. At the moment of apprehension the police have a very simple desire: they want the suspect flat on the ground with hands visible and no movement. Violation of any of these conditions results in negative reinforcement. Knowledge that the suspect is armed raises the stakes tremendously.

Too bad there's no audio. As a semi-regular viewer of Cops I would guess that "Get on the ground!" and "Let me see your hands!" or something to the effect was being shouted repeatedly.

Brian

Well, I think the guy was on the ground.

But still, if you see a mean dog and he looks like a threat, do you go over and kick him a couple times to convince him to stand down?

I still can't see the logical (though I do understand the emotional) reason for the cop kicking him. Not sure I'd call that, on it's own, excessive force either -- I'd call it bad judgement, and perhaps very risky to himself and fellow officers. The baton to the head a dozen or so times, though... that's a little different.

[ethics]

I think that's the crux of the issue, Cor, the emotional aspect and the leniency many are willing to give to a Cop in that type of a situation.

As for right or wrong, I don't see this as being right.

[Copzilla]

Not really. Kind of hard to make a case for or against him when we weren't there. It's also kind of hard to be incriminating when I wasn't in his shoes.

Cops shouldn't deliver punitive blows. The article correctly states as much. But neither is a lawman a punching bag, and I'll certainly admit that I've walloped people who were handcuffed. I jacked one guy who was handcuffed who tried to headbutt my partner. I absolutely knocked his block off. I have no doubt that if the handwringers would have seen it, I would have been tried and convicted in the press.

It's a very fine line we have to walk, isn't it? And being human, we do stumble. The penalty when we do seems excessive in comparison to the general populace.

Consequently, cops do seem to get a little extra leeway in instances like this, and rightfully so. Crime fighting isn't pretty work, although there is a segment of society that seems to think you shouldn't return fire unless you're mortally wounded, and even then only with incapacitating rounds. Okay, I'm being facetious, but only barely.

Never did answer your question, did I? I don't know how to answer it.

[Kangaroo]

The perp is lucky. Phoenix PD would have shot him. They don't mess with armed, or suspected to be armed, perps. They just give 'em the warning and then shoot if they don't comply. Now they have tasers, but that's not for gun-wielding bad guys.


I don't use or download Real player spyware, so I can't comment on this particular tape. In general, the instances of alleged brutality I've seen (King et. al.) don't rise to the level of criminal charges let alone censure. I would say that with tasers, it is now easier to subdue combative perps without having to manhandle them. But the cops have to be free to utilize the methods they feel are necessary for their safety and the public's safety.

[RetFireCapt]

I don't use or download Real player spyware, so I can't comment on this particular tape.

I use Real Alternative. http://home.hccnet.nl/h.edskes/mirror.htm

[Sacchiridites]

I watched the vid, read the piece next to the vid. Couldn't access the article.
The television show "Cops" is much more mild than that 'striking' display of lack of anger management. And I dislike watching Cops. It makes me shudder and tense. But I do watch it every once in a while. Seems it would be a great deterrent for those who even think about doing some lawless deed. This display, however seems to make me angry at the injustice of at least 3 men at the scene ganging up on one.

I'd rename the vid "Kick 'Em When He's Down." Perhaps there's no audio for a reason? I suspect what provoked these men to such gang violence would be strong, hateful words.

[ethics]

The perp is lucky. Phoenix PD would have shot him. They don't mess with armed, or suspected to be armed, perps. They just give 'em the warning and then shoot if they don't comply. Now they have tasers, but that's not for gun-wielding bad guys.


Know what? There would not have been an outcry if that happened. Guy has a gun, cops have a reason.