One more step closer... *sigh*

And we see again why cops don't like cameras.z

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Vaccarezza was interfering with the police's arrest of Walker.  She even admits to it.  I hope you are not saying that Nelson is not supposed to protect another police officer.  These were violent anti-war (irrelevant) protesters.  Walker tried to take away the rookie's baton.  Nelson acted immediately to prevent the situation from spiralling out of control.  Yes, he's a complete moron for lying, but I won't fault him for taking care of his own.  Nelson was responsible for the rookie. She saw another protester she didn't know, later identified as Ian Walker, get hit in the head and the back by police, she said. Nelson's report said he hit Walker with his baton three times because Walker was holding onto the baton of the recruit Nelson was responsible for as his field training officer. Nelson was standing close to her, Vaccarezza later testified, and she said to him, "Is this what you do? ... You're hitting him in the head.'' She reached out to pull Walker out of harm's way, she said, and just then, Nelson hit her arm with an overhead strike, causing her to fall to the ground as she felt "hot, searing excruciating pain." Vaccarezza was Nelson's 16th known baton strike victim. Did you even watch the clip?  Walker at NO time grabs the officers baton.  Nelson and the officer next to him both used their batons on Walker as he was moving backwards and continued to stike him after he struck Vaccarezza, as they moved forward.  They were in no way trying to arrest Walker Nelson said that Walker grabbed the rookie's baton.   I wasn't standing where Nelson was standing so I couldn't see what Walker was doing.  The reason I couldn't see was because Vaccarezza's anti-war (irrelevant) poster was in the way the whole time. Are you trying to tell me that you saw through Vaccarezza's poster?  I didn't think so.

Again, if you watch the clip, you will notice that the officer next to Nelson (who he said was the rookie he was training) has full control of his baton the entire time and never seems to be trying to get it awy from someone.  Walkers hands never appear to get raised, even to block the baton blows

the commission ruled in August that Nelson had not used unnecessary force

Yeah right what's next?

.

Quoted: Again, if you watch the clip, you will notice that the officer next to Nelson (who he said was the rookie he was training) has full control of his baton the entire time and never seems to be trying to get it awy from someone.  Walkers hands never appear to get raised, even to block the baton blows

mcantu,

I'm honestly not trying to bust your balls.  I watched the video several times again and it does not contradict Nelson's statement that Walker grabbed the rookie's baton.  You are absolutely correct that the rookie maintained control of the baton and it never left his hand.  Vaccarezza's poster blocks the camera view of Walker and it is completely plausible that Nelson saw what he says he saw.

Vaccarezza's had 835,000 reasons to lie.  I'm going to take the Nelson's word over hers.

Quoted: Quoted: Again, if you watch the clip, you will notice that the officer next to Nelson (who he said was the rookie he was training) has full control of his baton the entire time and never seems to be trying to get it awy from someone.  Walkers hands never appear to get raised, even to block the baton blows mcantu, I'm honestly not trying to bust your balls.  I watched the video several times again and it does not contradict Nelson's statement that Walker grabbed the rookie's baton.  You are absolutely correct that the rookie maintained control of the baton and it never left his hand.  Vaccarezza's poster blocks the camera view of Walker and it is completely plausible that Nelson saw what he says he saw. Vaccarezza's had 835,000 reasons to lie.  I'm going to take the Nelson's word over hers.

Right.  She's not credible because she has 835,000 reasons to lie, but the cop is even though he's already been proven to have lied about this very incident to cover his ass.  And if he were actually prosecuted for doing what she said he did, he'd be looking not only at the loss of his job, but also a hefty fine and a year in jail.  But he must be telling the truth, because he has no reason to lie.

Quoted: The line of officers was moving the demonstrators back, and she made the choice that put her in that situation.

+1

What is with the nmentality that the Police tell you to move back and you stand there and talk shit and jeer and refuse to move.

Next time I hope she gets hit in the head.

As for the cop, his Lt. gave the "Move them back order", nuff said.




And next time you smelly stinky anti American hippie libtards decide to tear up my city to the tune of $10M, I hope this guy, and 900 just like him are there to spank that ass.

Smashing kommie kali hippies arms with clubs.............I like it. It has a backbeat you masterbate too.

I am so envious of this officer having all the fun.  

From reading many replies to this thread, I think the reason many of the folks on ARFCOM stand up for the 2nd amendment solely because they happen to like guns.

If they didn't happen to like guns (ie - weren't motivated by positive FEELINGS) they would be neutral at best.  And if they happened to dislike guns, they would be on Handgun Control's side.

Okay.  So you don't like liberal war protesters. Me either.

But I sure do like freedom of speech.

And I sure do hate police brutality.

Or any abuse of authority for that matter.

With ARFCOM members thinking (or rather not thinking, but being led about by their feelings) this way, no wonder the country is in the shape it is in.

Quoted: Quoted: Again, if you watch the clip, you will notice that the officer next to Nelson (who he said was the rookie he was training) has full control of his baton the entire time and never seems to be trying to get it awy from someone.  Walkers hands never appear to get raised, even to block the baton blows mcantu, I'm honestly not trying to bust your balls.  I watched the video several times again and it does not contradict Nelson's statement that Walker grabbed the rookie's baton.  You are absolutely correct that the rookie maintained control of the baton and it never left his hand.  Vaccarezza's poster blocks the camera view of Walker and it is completely plausible that Nelson saw what he says he saw. Vaccarezza's had 835,000 reasons to lie.  I'm going to take the Nelson's word over hers.

So let me get this straight....you're taking the word of an admited liar. A proven, shamed, and fired for this very reason, liar?! Yeh, that's intelligent.

Quoted: LESS HIPPIES MORE STICK TIME

Quoted: Quoted: War protestor? I'll give him a pass on this Yea, they should fall in line with the rest of us. img.photobucket.com/albums/v130/triuneself/sheeple.jpg

Quoted: But I sure do like freedom of speech. And I sure do hate police brutality. Or any abuse of authority for that matter. With ARFCOM members thinking (or rather not thinking, but being led about by their feelings) this way, no wonder the country is in the shape it is in.

So you think when the Police are in a civil disobedience situation, and they have told you to disperse, and are in formation in front of you, that you still have the right to beat your chest, taunt them, talk shit and call them names, and not expect you deserve to get your ass whipped???



I see where the liberal disease has infected our own.




1) When the Police tell you to back tfu, you should btfu. If they are wrong, sort it out later. They do have bosses.

2) If you stand there despite warnings, both visual, verbal, and common sensical, take your ass whippin and stfu.

3) Dont sue we the people because you dont understand a Police warning to back up.

4) Stop electing idiots that pay maroons like this.

That woman's arm was broken to that degree by a hit from an ASP?  Must have some brittle bones

Quoted: Quoted: But I sure do like freedom of speech. And I sure do hate police brutality. Or any abuse of authority for that matter. With ARFCOM members thinking (or rather not thinking, but being led about by their feelings) this way, no wonder the country is in the shape it is in. So you think when the Police are in a civil disobedience situation, and they have told you to disperse, and are in formation in front of you, that you still have the right to beat your chest, taunt them, talk shit and call them names, and not expect you deserve to get your ass whipped??? I see where the liberal disease has infected our own. 1) When the Police tell you to back tfu, you should btfu. If they are wrong, sort it out later. They do have bosses. 2) If you stand there despite warnings, both visual, verbal, and common sensical, take your ass whippin and stfu. 3) Dont sue we the people because you dont understand a Police warning to back up. 4) Stop electing idiots that pay maroons like this.

Talking shit to the cops means you should get your ass beat?
Man...

Quoted: Talking shit to the cops means you should get your ass beat? Man...

Did you watch the video?

1) It was a riot type situation.

2) The officers were told to back them up, and they were ordered to back up.

3) They stood their ground and kept talking shit instead of obeying a lawful order.

4) They got what they dared them to do.



If you have a problem with a police officer, and you dont want your arm broken, I suggest recording the name mentally, and complying as much as possible, in this case backing up. If the officer was out of his legal authority, you do have legal recourse, without taking an ass whippin, or worse yet a bullet.

[badass] I sure stood up to that pig.

[smart guy] Too bad badass got killed for fuckin with the police.

[Testing testing]
COC says supporting illegal activities is not tolerated.
Beating hippes not legal.
Police brutality not legal.
Support of such= Blue-Line-defense=support of illegal activities
[/Testing testing]

Quoted: So, he broke some freakin Marin county hippies arm. Promote him to Major, make him an astronaut, and give him his own Jeannie.

I hate JBTs and police brutality... but I hate hippies and anti-war pacifist pinkos far more

If anything, he should have been reprimanded for wasting time and effort taking a swing at her arm instead of swinging for the bleachers on her forehead.

Quoted: COC says supporting illegal activities is not tolerated.

Agreed.

EDITED:

Actually it says;

Posting comments or links in support of illegal activities including, but not limited to, threats against the life of any living person, doing harm to a state or federal official, or advocating the overthrow of the government.

Hitting her arm is not a threat to her life, the refusal to move when ordered to is indeed an "illegal activity". Dont support hippies it.

Beating hippes not legal. Police brutality not legal.

When Police are ordered to remove people from escalating demonstrations, intimidating and threatening crowds, it matters not the political implications, its not brutality, its acting in an official capacity.

I am a law and order type, or used to be. I learned here exactly what goes on in the minds of some Police officers, and now my faith in them has slipped, a lot. That said, when protesting, and they tell you to back up, you need to back that ass up. Its really a simple concept. Wanton civil disobedience will rarely be tolerated.

Unless you are burning downtown Seattle, and are a protected hippy class.

So, would some of you guys change your tune if it was, say, a pro-second amendment rally?  

Quoted: So, would some of you guys change your tune if it was, say, a pro-second amendment rally?

Once more for all those who hate cops, if the Police tell me to back up, I will. If I feel he has overstepped his bounds, I will be talking to the Chief my Lawyer in the morning.

Quoted: Quoted: COC says supporting illegal activities is not tolerated. Agreed. EDITED: Actually it says; Posting comments or links in support of illegal activities including, but not limited to, threats against the life of any living person, doing harm to a state or federal official, or advocating the overthrow of the government. Hitting her arm is not a threat to her life, the refusal to move when ordered to is indeed an "illegal activity". Dont support hippies it. Beating hippes not legal. Police brutality not legal. When Police are ordered to remove people from escalating demonstrations, intimidating and threatening crowds, it matters not the political implications, its not brutality, its acting in an official capacity. I am a law and order type, or used to be. I learned here exactly what goes on in the minds of some Police officers, and now my faith in them has slipped, a lot. That said, when protesting, and they tell you to back up, you need to back that ass up. Its really a simple concept. Wanton civil disobedience will rarely be tolerated. Unless you are burning downtown Seattle, and are a protected hippy class.

Dude, it is fairly clear that you hold a grudge against hippies because of the shit in Seattle.

It was crap, and it shouldn't have been allowed to occur.

But if you think the answer is to adopt a normative rule where MERE NONCOMPLIANCE at a demonstration justifies physical beatings, you need to take a long hard look because that's a pretty fucking creepy mindset.   Seriously.

Like I said, cuff em and stuff em, but on that video there was no justification for the level of force used.  None.

That is why the COP LIED about what happened, because he knew the true facts would not justify his actions.

Too many folks in this tread seem to be missing something from high school civics.

Those folks are unlawfully assembled?   They are not following lawful orders?  Fine.   Book em, and ship em, and let the law sort them out.  They are entitled under the constituion I venerate to have their guilt proven in a court of law and to be judged by their peers.  

Police officers are put in the position of having weapons and force so that they can protect themselves when getting the lawbreakers into the system.   They do not have that force at their disposal to extract their own conception of "justice" on the lawbreakers.   COPS are NOT there to PUNISH the lawbreakers.  They are there to apprehend them or, as in this case, to contain them.   I've read dozens of use of force guidelines, and the officer's conduct here would not cut it under any of them.  

Again, if the perp is violent, harming you or another, fine:  Put a stop to that.   But there is NO legitimate argument on that video that the level of beatdown there was appropriate.   And by continuing to say that "listen to the cops or they get to beat your ass" is the controlling standard, you simply perpetuation negative stereotypes about LEOs.

Quoted: Quoted: So, would some of you guys change your tune if it was, say, a pro-second amendment rally?   Once more for all those who hate cops, if the Police tell me to back up, I will. If I feel he has overstepped his bounds, I will be talking to the Chief my Lawyer in the morning.

You are pretty quick to surrender your autonomy to the police, my friend.

What if the cop decides  that you are not backing up fast enough and in his sole and absolute discretion figures it will speed the process if you take a crack or two of his baton?   What if you slip and fall as you're backing up?    What if you and your wife are in the area for a reason completely unrelated to the protests (happened to a friend of mine in Lower Downtown Denver),  and she's asthmatic and overcome by tear gas and you're trying to attend to her when you get that order to "back up?"   What if she's been told to move her ass but is so overcome by the gas that she can't move?

Under your standard, the cops have carte blanche to start beating your asses.   After all, they fucking told you to move, so you need to respect that authoritahhh.    

You can always call their boss in the morning, right?  Maybe right after you get out of the hospital.  

Quoted: Awesome! Dirty hippie gets beaten! I really don't see any positive players in this situation, a self rightous JBT, or a anti-war douche.

Like watching newsreel footage of Stalingrad....who to root for?  
....CoC forbids any further comment.

Quoted: So, he broke some freakin Marin county hippies arm.

She is from Sonoma County, is a court reporter and was in SF on her way to a hearing/job.  I don't recall seeing too many tie-dyed wearing patchulli oil smelling hippies in court rooms or taking depositions.....

Brian

I can't believe anyone is getting this upset...about protestors getting beaten!

Why Sheriff Bull Connors' boys used to break arms all the time in Selma, I hear.

Damnable Freedom Riders!

Who the Hell they think they were, anyway?

Eric The(SicTheDogsOn'Em,Next)Hun

What's really sad is that Linda Vaccarezza took $835,000 from city coffers that could have paid for enforcement of the SF Gun Ban, or could have paid for sex change operations for 8 city employees.  Instead, that money is going to pay for her new BMW, her much needed and long overdue round of liposuction and facial contouring, and donations to her favorite cat charities.

Note to SFPD:  Club the camera BEFORE you club the vegan psyco.

Quoted: I can't believe anyone is getting this upset...about protestors getting beaten! Why Sheriff Bull Connors' boys used to break arms all the time in Selma, I hear. Damnable Freedom Riders! Who the Hell they think they were, anyway? Eric The(SicTheDogsOn'Em,Next)Hun

I hate hippies....

AND

I hate liers...

Guy deserved to be canned.

Should be brought up on criminal charges IMHO...

Quoted: Quoted: So, he broke some freakin Marin county hippies arm. She is from Sonoma County, is a court reporter and was in SF on her way to a hearing/job.and decided to join a filthy, hippy, anti AMERICA war protest on the way to that job.  I don't recall seeing too many tie-dyed wearing patchulli oil smelling hippies in court rooms or taking depositions..... she's a collaborator and got her just desserts

Quoted: Quoted: I can't believe anyone is getting this upset...about protestors getting beaten! Why Sheriff Bull Connors' boys used to break arms all the time in Selma, I hear. Damnable Freedom Riders! Who the Hell they think they were, anyway? Eric The(SicTheDogsOn'Em,Next)Hun I hate hippies.... AND I hate liers... Guy deserved to be canned. Should be brought up on criminal charges IMHO...

I believe the esteemable Mr. The Hun agrees with you, as his post represents sarcasm of the most exquisite kind.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: So, he broke some freakin Marin county hippies arm. She is from Sonoma County, is a court reporter and was in SF on her way to a hearing/job.and decided to join a filthy, hippy, anti AMERICA war protest on the way to that job.  I don't recall seeing too many tie-dyed wearing patchulli oil smelling hippies in court rooms or taking depositions..... she's a collaborator and got her just desserts

Freedom sure sucks, don’t it…… Or in your case, selective freedom......

Role models for rookies: Police training officers
Some S.F. officers advance despite incidents of force
- Susan Sward, Bill Wallace and Elizabeth Fernandez
Tuesday, February 7, 2006

Late one night at San Francisco's Bayview Police Station, a sergeant designated to teach rookie officers announced that it was "training time."

A fellow officer watched with concern as the lesson unfolded in the station's booking area.

A subsequent lawsuit says that Sgt. Damon Keeve proceeded to teach two rookies how to deal with a prisoner -- by beating a young black man who had been arrested for resisting arrest after a traffic stop.

The suit said Keeve started by punching the man from behind in both elbows, stating, "The elbows are always acceptable," then punched the man in the lower back, stating, "The back is the breaking point."

He kneed him in the tailbone and, finally, head-butted the man, causing him to strike his head against a glass wall, the suit said. A memo by the fellow officer who watched the incident also mentioned the head-butting.

That night, Keeve filed no use-of-force report -- something the department requires of officers when they use force on suspects.

In an interview, Keeve denied the allegations. "I did not harm the guy,'' he said, adding the suspect "was never injured, never complained of injuries, never had a mark on him."

But the lawsuit, bolstered by the watching officer's memo, resulted in a $75,000 settlement paid by the city. The city attorney's office said at the time that the settlement reflected the city's "estimation of the potential liability." Keeve's lawyer, Jim Collins, said the settlement "is no indication that Sgt. Keeve has done anything wrong."

That Feb. 9, 2002, incident in Bayview Station reflects on the Police Department's training program for new recruits: The Chronicle found that the department often picks officers with problematic incidents to train its rookies.

San Francisco established the field training program in 1976. It required that rookies just out of the Police Academy go through a course, now 17 weeks long, in which they are graded daily by their field trainers.

Field training officers, who must be with their trainees on every shift and file daily and weekly reports on their progress, receive an additional $1,100 monthly. Sergeants overseeing trainers and recruits get an extra $800 monthly.

The program has a long history of assigning problem officers to be trainers.

In 1988, two training officers received 25-day suspensions for kicking a motorist without provocation after a high-speed chase. One of them had received a 90-day suspension four years earlier for burglarizing a store.

In 1996, The Chronicle reported that the department's almost 300 trainers included an officer who had smashed his girlfriend's face repeatedly against a car window, another who beat his stepdaughter, and a third who shot at a motorist's car after a traffic accident involving him and the motorist.

Since 1996, at least 29 trainers have been involved in lawsuits that cost the city $1.2 million.

Department regulations say officers "whose histories indicate they would not be appropriate role models for probationary officers will not be selected" as field training officers or sergeants.

The use of force can be necessary in police work, and the fact that an officer has reported using force several times does not automatically mean that he uses it inappropriately or excessively.

Experts in police practices, however, say that frequent use by an officer is an indicator of possible problems, and the department recognizes this by keeping a watch list of officers who employ force three or more times in a calendar year quarter. Supervisors are supposed to review the records of those officers and counsel them when appropriate.

Capt. Charles Keohane, head of the risk management unit, said the department reviews officers' records before selecting them as trainers.

"In and of itself, use of force may or may not be a disqualifier,'' he said, adding that during the selection process, "all categories of complaints, not just use of force, are looked at.''

The department does not require a check to determine whether an officer being considered for a training position has appeared on its quarterly list of force users, though; it says any misuse of force would be discovered elsewhere in its background check.

About three-quarters of officers in any given year report no use of force at all. Over nine years, just 78 officers reported using force so often that they made a quarterly watch list. But The Chronicle found that in 2003 and 2004, 27 training officers -- out of 178 -- had made the watch list at some point in their careers.

Nine of those training officers made the list more than once in the years 1996 to 2004, and four -- Anthony Nelson, Eric Batchelder, Michael Wolf and Stephen Benzinger -- made it five times.

The Chronicle shared its findings on trainers' use of force with Samuel Walker, a University of Nebraska at Omaha criminal justice professor who has consulted for the U.S. Justice Department on police discipline issues. He said he found San Francisco's use of violence-prone officers to train rookies "shocking."

"That is one of the key ways in which a bad police culture is perpetuated,'' Walker said.

Police Chief Heather Fong said that when officers' names appear on a use-of-force log, it "is simply a recording of the fact they used force. It does not imply misconduct and is not a disciplinary record.''

She added that any officer selected as a trainer is given additional training on subjects including "the area of arrest and control tactics'' so they can better teach recruits on the streets.

14-year-old bystander hurt, suit says

When Stephen Benzinger was selected to be a field training officer in 2002, he had been in the department since October 1998. He had logged 14 incidents in which he used force and had twice made the watch list.

In a high-profile case on the Hunters Point hill in the summer of 2003, the 28-year-old Benzinger responded when two officers got into a fight with a young man they were trying to arrest.

When Benzinger jumped out of his patrol car, a 14-year-old honor student, Marcus Law, was standing on the sidewalk nearby.

According to a lawsuit filed on behalf of Law, Benzinger ran toward the youth and ordered him to "stand back.'' Benzinger then "viciously and with no just cause'' used his baton to twice strike Law, who was 5 feet 6 inches and weighed 110 pounds, on his right arm and right ribs, causing "a deep bone bruise'' and contusion to the right elbow, the suit stated.

Law's mother, Monica Autry, said her son ran to find her and tell her of being struck by the officer. She rushed to the scene and tried to talk to the police, but they drove off laughing, she said.

"I was treated like I didn't matter, like 'I can hit your child and get away with it,' " she said. "We live here in the projects because we are poor, but we're not stupid. I am going to do everything to see these officers are held accountable."

Benzinger never filed a use-of-force report in connection with the incident involving Law, according to department records.

Benzinger said he was "comfortable that I will be vindicated'' in the lawsuit, which is still pending. He said he did not know how many complaints had been filed against him but said none had been sustained.

Trainers who often use force

Anthony Nelson and Eric Batchelder were partners at the beginning of their careers with the Police Department. Both joined the department in 2000 and soon established themselves as frequent users of force.

Nelson, who was in his late 20s when he transferred from the Pacifica Police Department, was made a San Francisco training officer after only 14 months on the streets -- despite having reported using force 11 times and appearing on the watch list once.

Nelson was fired in October for filing a false report about breaking a war protester's arm with his baton in March 2003 while training a recruit. By the time he was fired, he had reported using force at least 35 times.

In testimony at his disciplinary hearing, Nelson explained that as a training officer, "you are literally molding the future of the department."

Batchelder reported 31 incidents in which he used force through the year 2004. The 30-year-old officer reported using his baton 16 times.

When Batchelder was selected as a trainer in 2004, he had reported using force 24 times and had appeared on the watch list four times.

Michael Wolf, 30, who joined the department in 2000, was selected to be a trainer last year. In the years before, he made the watch list five times.

He reported using force 17 times in his first two years in the department. By the end of 2003, he had reported using force on suspects a total of 24 times. The next year, he would resort to force five more times.

Nelson, Wolf and Batchelder, who is on extended sick leave after a motorcycle accident in which he lost a leg, all failed to respond to requests for comment.

Department officials would not discuss the specific record of any officer, citing state privacy laws.

The conduct of field training officers is a major concern to experts on police practices.

"If the FTO is a brutal officer, then the young cop being trained is going to learn to be a brutal officer," said D.P. Van Blaricom, a retired police chief of Bellevue, Wash., who has been an expert witness for and against the police in more than 1,000 cases involving police conduct.

Merrick Bobb, director of the nonprofit Police Assessment Resource Center in Los Angeles, which advises departments nationwide, said: "The ultimate question for management is whether the officer being considered for an FTO post has demonstrated a record of poor judgment that has not been remediated.

"That officer should never become an FTO."

'I have thumped a couple of them'

Damon Keeve, the field training sergeant whose "training time" exercise at Bayview Station in February 2002 resulted in a $75,000 lawsuit settlement, was not one of those who frequently reported using force.

From 1996 through the time he got the trainer job in July 2001, Keeve had reported using force only four times, including once when he shot at a suspect after a car chase in 2000.

But he had come to the attention of the department in a negative way.

Keeve joined the department in 1994 after teaching public school English and physical education.

As the football coach at Washington High School and a member of the 1992 and 1996 U.S. Olympics judo teams, the 6-foot-2-inch, 225-pound Keeve was the subject of feature stories in The Chronicle.

In 1996, while assigned to the Police Academy to teach cadets such subjects as weapons retention and pain compliance, he was quoted as saying: "I'm kind of a nut out there, so I think they more or less sent me here to keep me out of trouble."

Keeve said in a recent interview that, if he ever said that, he meant it as a joke.

In 2000, as Washington High football coach, Keeve gave another interview to The Chronicle. This time he was quoted as saying many of his players came from housing projects in the Fillmore, the neighborhood where he had worked as a police officer.

"I have thumped a couple of them," he was quoted as saying, "and I have certainly thumped a couple of their mothers, fathers, sisters and brothers."

Keeve, who is white, was quoted as saying, "Being a cop makes you a racist. It kind of jades you. Coaching inner-city kids kind of balances me."

Keeve, 45, said the department counseled him about his remarks in that article, and he told his superiors he had been quoted inaccurately. He was told "not to talk to the press again,'' he said.

Keeve said he is not racist in any way, adding that he has devoted much of his life to helping inner-city children from minority families, mainly as a coach for more than 20 years at Galileo and Washington high schools.

He provided a resume to The Chronicle that stated he has worked with emotionally challenged, blind and disabled children and "has taken hundreds of San Francisco inner-city students to camps and cultural exchanges."

In 2001, the department picked Keeve to be a field training officer.

The night in 2002 when Keeve was accused of conducting his "training time" on a suspect, he was working as a field training sergeant.

Van Blaricom, the ex-Bellevue police chief, talked about the importance of both roles Keeve was playing that night.

"The two most critical positions in a department are the FTOs and the sergeants," he said.

"The FTOs are molding new officers, and the sergeants are the ones who really know what is going on on the street. If the FTOs train properly and the sergeants supervise and prohibit excessive force, the problem is solved.''

Officer tells of violence at booking

The training that occurred in the Bayview Station the night of Feb. 9, 2002, troubled Officer William Whitfield.

He says he stewed about a month after watching Keeve give a lesson to two rookie officers, head-butting a young black man.

Then Whitfield, 31, who is also black, wrote an account of what he said he had witnessed. He was moved to do so, he said, partly because of something that happened to him in late 1993, as he was about to enter the academy.

Police mistook him and his brother for robbers who had been focusing on the Coronet Theater on Geary Boulevard, Whitfield said, and pursued their vehicle. After stopping their car, he said, officers beat and kicked them.

Later, his brother asked if Whitfield still wanted to be a police officer. Whitfield said he told him: "Yes, so this kind of thing doesn't happen to someone else."

Once Whitfield wrote the memo, he said, he didn't want to give it to anyone in the department because he feared the incident would be covered up and retaliation against him would be immediate. Instead, he made sure the memo got to a lawyer for the beaten man, he said.

In the memo, a copy of which The Chronicle obtained, Whitfield said he had heard on the police scanner that a suspect was being brought to the station. About five to 10 minutes later, he heard Keeve say, "It's training time.''

Whitfield then watched on a closed-circuit surveillance monitor that he said gave him a clear view of the station's booking area.

First he saw one officer move a handcuffed prisoner out of the area. Then he saw the officer responsible for the booking area take what Whitfield said was the unusual step of leaving the area.

This left only a tall, 135-pound black male who had just been brought in on a charge of resisting arrest, Whitfield wrote. The suspect was "seated and handcuffed on the bench."

Whitfield wrote of watching as Keeve took the handcuffs off the prisoner, walked him over to the booking counter, and "was lunging his upper body and his head at the rear" of the prisoner's head.

Though the prisoner was not resisting in any way, Whitfield stated, Keeve kicked his feet apart and appeared to be yelling at him.

After handcuffing the man again, Keeve "pressed the front of his body against the back" of the prisoner's body and head-butted him twice, pushing him beyond the range of the surveillance camera, Whitfield stated.

Keeve said in an interview that he never harmed the suspect. He said he agreed to search the man, whom he described as a "passive resister," for the two rookie officers who had brought him in, telling them it was a good training opportunity.

The prisoner was 25-year-old Anthony Bell, whose family ran a dry cleaning business on Third Street. Two officers had arrested him after stopping him for driving a car with a broken taillight, according to the police report.

Bell later filled out a draft complaint -- which included an account very similar to his lawsuit and described his reaction to what happened to him that night -- but he never filed it with the Office of Citizen Complaints.

In that complaint, Bell stated that Keeve had the two rookie officers watch as he took off Bell's handcuffs and "then told me to take a swing at him."

"I was afraid. I did nothing and said nothing in response to his statement."

Then, Bell said, Keeve ordered him to put his hands behind him and proceeded to beat and head-butt him.

He felt Keeve had used him as a "crash dummy," Bell told his lawyer, Michael Cardoza.

Bell did not respond to requests for an interview. Court records show that a resisting arrest charge filed against him was dismissed.

Bell never filed a complaint with the Office of Citizen Complaints because his lawyer thought the agency was unlikely to do much about it and he believed a complaint might jeopardize Bell's civil lawsuit.

"I did nothing wrong to deserve this kind of treatment,'' Bell stated in the draft of the complaint. "I am afraid of possible retaliation but I did not deserve this, and Sgt. Keeve should be held accountable."

Keeve said Bell "was never injured, never complained of injuries, never had a mark on him."

He dismissed Whitfield's account of what happened that night as the false claim of "a disgruntled employee."

Keeve said two officers were standing between him and the camera hooked up to the video monitor so there was no way Whitfield could have seen what he said he did.

Neither of the officers who arrested Bell, Robert Greiner and Peter Shields, responded to The Chronicle's request for comment on what happened that night.

Scowls from officers for speaking up

Three months after Bell's encounter with Keeve, the department informed Keeve he was no longer in the field training program because of a disciplinary investigation into an unrelated case.

Keeve was accused of offering a bribe to a Brisbane police officer in an effort to get rid of a traffic ticket issued to a friend who had been driving Keeve's truck.

The accusation said he promised to give the Brisbane officer "SWAT team tee shirts, tickets to girlie shows and alcohol" if he would withdraw the citation.

In April 2004, the Police Commission suspended Keeve for 45 days for this misconduct.

After he served his suspension, Keeve said in a lawsuit he filed in federal court, he was demoted from the rank of sergeant. Keeve's suit says the demotion was made on the false claim that he had been serving in the post only temporarily.

Keeve admitted in an interview that "there were some judgment errors" in the Brisbane episode.

Today, Keeve works in the tactical unit, which responds to high-risk situations, does crowd control work, and helps district stations with targeted enforcement actions.

He says that there has never been a citizen complaint sustained against him and that three department investigations -- two of the Bell arrest and one of his shooting at a suspect -- cleared him of wrongdoing.

The department would not respond to Keeve's description of his record or to questions about Bell's allegations.

Whitfield, who now works at a desk job at the Hall of Justice, said he was interviewed two years ago about the Bayview incident by an officer from the Police Department's special investigations division and a deputy district attorney, but he said he knew of nothing coming from it.

Now and again, while walking the corridors at the Hall of Justice, Whitfield says he gets scowls from officers "who think I did the wrong thing when I told what I saw."

But he says he had to speak up.

"My dad is a minister," Whitfield said, "and we were raised in the church to know right from wrong. I have been having a tough time with this, but he told me he was praying for me and I'd done the right thing."

www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/02/07/MNUFTRAINING.DTL&type=printable

Quoted: This was brougth up today.. basically shows that of the 2,200 or so officers in SF, only about 100 of them account for most of the use of force situations. The report, however, is completely blind to where in SF the officers are patrolling (and some of SF makes Oakland look bad) and is as such, misleading.

They should do a report on officers that NEVER use force. Then do another report on officers that NEVER make arrests.

Often times when force is used, some officers go toward the trouble, and others don't. Excessive force by officers, and officers that never use force are both trouble.

When Stephen Benzinger was selected to be a field training officer in 2002, he had been in the department since October 1998. He had logged 14 incidents in which he used force and had twice made the watch list.

Let's see 6 years, 14 uses of froce. That's 2.33 per year. One every 5 months or so. For that he made the watch list 2 times.

Yeah those are crazy numbers.

Unless the system looks at "force" as being higher than complaince holds, which are common, or OC...................... 14 uses of force in 6 years doesn't seem very noteworthy.

Quoted: When Stephen Benzinger was selected to be a field training officer in 2002, he had been in the department since October 1998. He had logged 14 incidents in which he used force and had twice made the watch list. Let's see 6 years, 14 uses of froce. That's 2.33 per year. One every 5 months or so. For that he made the watch list 2 times. Yeah those are crazy numbers. Unless the system looks at "force" as being higher than complaince holds, which are common, or OC...................... 14 uses of force in 6 years doesn't seem very noteworthy.

Were you recently employed in SF?

Oh, I forgot . . . you are . . . yeah . . . right.  

Quoted: Quoted: When Stephen Benzinger was selected to be a field training officer in 2002, he had been in the department since October 1998. He had logged 14 incidents in which he used force and had twice made the watch list. Let's see 6 years, 14 uses of froce. That's 2.33 per year. One every 5 months or so. For that he made the watch list 2 times. Yeah those are crazy numbers. Unless the system looks at "force" as being higher than complaince holds, which are common, or OC...................... 14 uses of force in 6 years doesn't seem very noteworthy. Were you recently employed in SF? Oh, I forgot . . . you are . . . yeah . . . right.

I know, you just PLAY a really dumb guy on the internet.................................

Use of force, force being anytime physical or other force is used by an officer,

Wrassling with a drunk = force
"tackle" during a foot pursuit = force
OC spray = force
Using a wrist lock = force

Using force once every 5 months in a major city hardly seems to be much of an indicator of anything to me. Especially if the person is on a night shift, or in a high call area.