Good. He deserves it.

You haven't been keeping up with all the testiculars of this case, have you?  

Hmmm, wondering if we were watching the same video.

Kid on the ground, face down, hand cuffed behind the back, a cop twice his size picks him up completely off the ground and slams him into the trunk of the car.

I don't care what happened before that. Those actions were uncalled for. Sure he had reason to be pissed off, but if you can't control your temper, you shouldn't be a cop on the street.

Did the kid grab the guy's balls? Don't know, maybe he did, maybe he didn't. Guess the jury will decide that.

Not true for me. Most of the customers that I have that are cops, are actually very good people. Always love to talk firearms with me and mostly have the same way of thinking of the 2nd Amendment as I do. A couple are ATF and think the '94 Crime Bill is stupid.

I've only actually ran into one that I didn't really care for.

Wave, I was thinking maybe he should just make up his mind to never, never, ever call a cop for any reason whatsoever.  Obey all laws, all the time, and never call 911 even if bleeding in the street.  That way he need have no contact with LEO's, and can live happily ever after.  

Right off hand, I can think of two instances, where I did not add any more punches after the guy went down. ...and one of those I could have probably justified killing the bastard...in my own mind anyway.

You do not strike or otherwise abuse a manacled suspect.  Period.  End of line.

That should be so basic.

I don't care what he does.  Unless he has a weapon, it's hand's off.

If you let his hands get close to your testicles after he has been restrained- then you just don't know how to secure a suspect.

If they weren't so busy slamming his full torso weight on the hood of the car because he was "being a smartass," (which, btw, is legally a battery) they wouldn't be leaning over the guy in such a fashion to be vulnerable to that attack.

That's even assuming this "testicular attack" happened.  Possible, yes, but it's certainly not obvious from the video.  (I tend not to doubt it, because- believe you me- the only difference with some officer who did that to me would be that I'd still be holding one of his testicles in my clawed hand when he backed away).  Of course, I'd never misbehave in such a fashion to warrant a body slam on a car hood.

In the US a suspect is entitled to resist what he or she believes to be an unlawful arrest with such force as is proportional to that used by the arresting officer.  Slamming that kid on the hood of a cop car- well, what else is a manacled suspect going to do to defend himself?

Please.  Talk about a one sided battle.  That kid might not be so bright, but I don't spend my time beating up on hogtied cats- even if they can scratch back if I'm not careful.

I also want to point something else out.  The vendetta fashion in which the individual who made the tape was pursued- that's just silly.

I'm a believer in police.  I just had a personal incident that was perhaps the best LE encounter I have ever had.  I LIKE law enforcement- but the continuing maneuvers to prevent police from being the subject of civilian scrutiny (charging people who video or audiotape police encounters with illegal surveillance, police taking and breaking cameras which they are photographed with) really makes the LE community look bad.

What is it exactly you LEs have to hide?

What is the message you're trying to send by cracking down on an (admittedly legitimately arrestable) police brutality whistleblower?

I really think it would be better if all encounters with police were video and audiotaped.  I also think its time for a law to be passed requiring all police to be wired for sound and provided with dash cams when on duty.  If nothing else it will protect LE from false accusations.  If another camera at another angle had caught the "testicular attack" and the audio was available we wouldn't be having this discussion- would we?

There is a group in San Fran called "Cop Watch."  They routinely do nothing but videotape encounters between police and citizens.  They don't intervene.  They don't comment.  They just videotape.  There have been something like 70 Cop Watch people arrested on crap charges.

What's that all about?

You want to clock a manacled suspect?  Be prepared to defend yourself in court- no matter what he/she did.  That's battery.  Period.

You don't strike a manacled suspect in the manner I saw.  Particularly not in retribution.  Both officer's testicles were free in the wind when officer #2 clocked that suspect.  Just look at the step he takes back before delivering the blow.  I understand that a certain subset (note: I said subset) of the LE community believes that they are above scrutiny on this issue.  That's half the problem.



While we're at it, were you there?  There are general principles.  You don't clock a manacled suspect.  Period.  If you start making exceptions, where does it end.  Clock him if he spits?  Clock him if he says he's going to kill you?  (That is assault, after all).  The guy is defenseless.  If an officer weren't so busy slamming the guy on the hood, if he were controlling the suspect properly without dispensing "street justice" he wouldn't be vulnerable.  Period.



That's up to the courts to decide- not the officer.  It's the officer's job to detain and deliver the suspect to the courts, not to meat out retribution.



False.  By that minimum of force required to effect compliance, not by "the means necessary" and certainly not "by any means necessary."  And again, look at that tape.  The blow was a retribution.  Neither officers testicles were being touched at that point.  It's 100% "Oh yeah, SO THERE!" "Now who's in charge, eh you little punk?"

Look, this guy is no angel, but either U.S. LE are barbarians, or they are not.  Either they can turn the other cheek, or not.  The U.S. doesn't hack off the hands of thieves either.

Oh, I see.  The officer was generous was he?  Next time maybe some blows from the night stick while the suspect writhes on the ground would be a better idea perhaps?  Perhaps a prostate exam with a broomstick back at the station?

I think your attitude unfortunate.



The blithering rhetoric you dismiss was so enshrined in American revolutionary culture that it was often used as a justification for acts against the British prior to independence.  Here's some more blithering rhetoric, most of which comes from principles established by the founding fathers of the the flag you and I honor at the ball game:



Poor Jefferson.  Blithering rhetoric-laden old fool.  *sigh*

Sure, but you can't bash him in the head because you aren't savvy enough to control him in a better way- or because you had a bad day.



Please.  No one cared about this guy before this incident.  His file was sitting in a dusty "aged" cabinet somewhere until he committed the deadly sin of exposing some brutality.  Think the U.S. Marshals were hunting him or something?  Next thing you know, the guy is going to do all the time there is do to for his offense.  I'm fine with the fact that he's arrested, but really.  Tell me someone wasn't looking for a little payback there.  Please, try to tell me that.



You'll see, as you re-read my passage above, that I'm referring to others, not just this individual.  There have been three or four cases out east of otherwise law abiding citizens going up on anti-surveillance charges because of videotaping police out on the street.  Check it out yourself.  I notice you deleted my discussion of "Cop Watch."  How convenient.  What are the police hiding if all their force is always justified?  What's the problem with transparancy?




From subdued and manacled suspects with 5 officers present.  Oh dear.  Quick, get the riot gun!



That's just naive in my view.  Sorry.
 


My my, isn't that a provincial attitude.  I thought I was suppose to be the snob on the board!

Sorry, I have to disagree.

So far as I know the Supreme Court case that holds here, John Bad Elk v. United States (177 US 529) is still good law and was cited as recently as 1980 (Payton v. New York 445 U.S. 573) and in April of 2001 (Gail Atwater v. City of Lago Vista).

Consider also this bit of the Texas Penal Code:



In fact, one of the california bar flash cards I just snatched from my brother's library lists this as the law in Cali:



I'd be happy to see citations that refute my position, however.

None of this changes the fact that it's just a bad move (and cowardly) to be smashing manacled suspects in the face.

Wow.

What baffles me is that the recent bar materials for Cali show different and Texas appears to have BOTH laws currently on the books, that you can, and cannot resist an unlawful or excessive force arrest.

Ouch.

I don't believe someone who is handcuffed can't cause you harm, especially if they have their hands in front of them.

However, in this case, there was no reason for the LEO to slam the kid into the trunk of the car the way he did.

I think tatjana made a good point about getting your jewels too close to the hands. If the kid did put the squeeze on them, I bet a bunch of LEO's will learn a lesson from this and be sure to keep them well out of reach!

I was going to say this LEO won't let it happen again, but I doubt he'll be working in LE much longer.