Cop stomps kids teeth out

Status
Not open for further replies.
I bet the City of Phoenix taxpayers end up paying a hefty sum for reconstructive dental surgery and pain and suffering.

They should be able to sue the former officer in Civil court too.
 
Originally Posted By: 6starprez
Deja vu...like the cops in San Bernardino that beat the man after falling off the horse. He gave himself up after running just like this kid and look what happened to both of them. Face down and kicked in the head.

He deserved to get fired. You're the police, you don't attack someone who has surrendered. My goodness, just put the freaking handcuffs on and take'em away.


Thats too easy and correct, instead macho man had to show off. IMO The only perp in this case is that punk and i don't mean the poor guy getting his teeth knocked out.
What i want to know is where are the justice brothers now?
 
You should be able to get in a cops face and quote law at him and have him stand there and take it. This is what separates civilized societies from banana republics.

Instead, you get busted for "disorderly conduct", or worse.

Cops are supposed to have quick reflexes, if you can manage to get on the ground in a submissive position, they should figure that out within a second. After all, they can shoot you within a second for drawing a shiny black cellphone.
 
Originally Posted By: antiqueshell


No criminal charges because the officer did nothing
unlawful or illegal with the stop or arrest. The perp RAN after receiving a lawful order to surrender.

Quote:

I never put myself in a position where I would have had to run from the police.


Of course not, because you learned the proper way to behave when lawfully instructed to do something by the
LEOs.







Did you even read the article or are you just making things up as you go?

No "lawful order" was given... (you really like to use that phrase, don't you?)

Quote:
The incident, in late December of last year, began when McGowan stopped D’Labik, who was walking near 38th Street and McDowell Rd.

McGowan wanted to ask D’Labik if he had any information about a homicide suspect.

D’Labik, who feared the officer would discover the marijuana in his pocket, ran.



Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
I will say that not knowing the entire series of events I personally would NOT have used that method to push the perp to the floor. But again we don't know what the perp was saying to the officer, or what happened just prior, for all we know the perp threatened the officer, I bet he did.



Making some pretty wild assumptions again... But then again, I suppose it helps support your outlandish stance that all cops are infallible and anyone that encounters a cop should automatically and arbitrarily surrender and accept whatever punishment the officer (or officers) sees fit, before being hauled off to jail to stand trial to determine their guilt or innocence.

I find it rather ironic that you so heavily defend these jackboot tactics, but lash out of our government for their many abuses. Not too far in the past, our country was formed to escape such things as these....
 
Originally Posted By: eljefino
You should be able to get in a cops face and quote law at him and have him stand there and take it. This is what separates civilized societies from banana republics.
.


You should DEFINITELY be able to discuss written law with any police officer, and indeed if you source law that prevents an officer from acting on a certain item, he should follow that legal direction.
Aggressively getting in the face of an officer, nope, if you want the officer to act as a peace officer then you need to behave with mutual respect.
 
Until recently, we did not have these Cams everywhere.
Stuff like this would go unreported.

Worse, the victim of the abuse would appear in court bruised, with teeth missing a with the allegation the he resisted arrest.

Which might infer guilt in the eyes of the court.
 
I can only hope that I get to sit on a jury in one of these cop abuse trials where I can voice my thoughts and make a difference. These tattooed thugs need to be on a very short leash.

I refuse to address one of them as 'officer', 'Sir', and certainly never 'Peace Officer'. As a former military Officer I would never include these immoral thugs in my peer group.

It is embarassing the direction that these organizations have been allowed to travel.
 
Originally Posted By: Ed_Flecko
I'm not qualified to say whether it was or was not a justified use of force, but I am qualified to say that this punk put himself in this situation because, as the reporter said - he didn't want the cop to find the weed he was carrying on his person!

Maybe this moron will think about that. Don't break the law and you probably won't find yourself in this type of situation. It's just that simple.

Ed


I don't agree we can't judge excessive force was used here. The kick came when the young man( he is not a kid to all the folks in this thread calling him that - 18 is an adult )was down on his knees and starting to try and lay on his stomach( which it is safe to assume the cop told him to do so as it is SOP for all LEO's in that situation ).

It is clear to anyone who sees that video, who can look at it without a pro or con view of the Police, that the young man was not resisting and was fully complying with the officer at that point. He was not armed( or at least was not brandishing a weapon )and again was complying with the officer.

To me this was clearly a case of pay back for running away earlier. The officer was [censored] off and took a cheap shot. Excessive force was absolutely used in this case. Just common sense. Excessive Force is the use of force greater than that which is reasonable and prudent for a law enforcement officer to exercise under the circumstances to apprehend the criminal. A kick to the face of a young man as he is trying to surrender and lay flat on the floor is excessive.

Now with all of that said I do agree, 100%, with you that the young man put himself into the situation through his own stupidity however. He was carrying pot( still a crime in most states and it appears it still is in his )and he ran away from the officer( always a crime ). If you don't want to tick off an LEO and get your teeth kicked out then don't break the law and run from the LEO's. That is just ASKING for trouble.

I have little sympathy for the young man because he put himself into this situation. Sort of like the drunk who drives and gets hurt when he crashes his car. Well, that will( or should )teach you not to drink and drive. This will( or should )teach this young man don't use pot and don't run from the Cops.

The officer deserves not only a reprimand but charges brought against him IMO. Just no reason for such an act. I don't think the young man deserves one red cent in a law suit either though. This is a case where both parties involved are at fault and need to deal with their individual consequences.
 
Originally Posted By: FowVay
I can only hope that I get to sit on a jury in one of these cop abuse trials where I can voice my thoughts and make a difference. These tattooed thugs need to be on a very short leash.

I refuse to address one of them as 'officer', 'Sir', and certainly never 'Peace Officer'. As a former military Officer I would never include these immoral thugs in my peer group.

It is embarassing the direction that these organizations have been allowed to travel.


You would never make a jury unless you lie about being able to be unbiased and rule/vote strictly on the facts of the case and on the law. If you answer the voir dire questions honestly you would be excused immediately. You are clearly bias against the Police and you should NOT sit on a jury if an LEO is on trial.

I am not being a tool here but it is clear you would go into the trial with a bias against the Officer and want to punish him/her for the wrongs you feel Police commit on the whole. That is not a good juror and you should not be one in such a case.
 
Originally Posted By: NHHEMI


The officer deserves not only a reprimand but charges brought against him IMO. Just no reason for such an act. I don't think the young man deserves one red cent in a law suit either though. This is a case where both parties involved are at fault and need to deal with their individual consequences.



You're right- two wrongs don't make a right, but I certainly feel this young man is entitled to a settlement. After all he will need some dental work done and shouldn't have to be personally liable for the bill. One could argue that he can get it jail, but I really doubt he'll be there for long and he should definitely have the freedom to seek the best dentist or orthodontist in the field.
 
Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
If you don't want to tick off an LEO and get your teeth kicked out then don't break the law and run from the LEO's. That is just ASKING for trouble.


You can't excuse away the cops behavior that easy. I don't expect a criminal to act professionally, but I DO expect a cop to refrain from kicking someones teeth out WHEN THE GUY IS SURRENDERING.

Inexcusable.
 
Originally Posted By: jcwit
Originally Posted By: Trav
Watch the video, its a kid for [censored] sake with his hands up. There was no need for that.


He's 18, Not a "kid" IMO. For crying out loud, one can join the military at 17.

Might be something this "kid" need's to look into.


There were always a lot of 18 year olds and younger in the military but legally 21 was the age to be considered an adult.
You still cant drink until 21 in any state AFAIK so it seems the Americans make the age 18-21 a gray area.
The age of adulthood is a movable goal post in the US, they will charge a 12 year old as an adult if it suits the prosecutor.

It doesn't matter if this kid was a 50 year old the cop wasn't just wrong, he is a criminal. Personally i hope he is sued penniless.
 
Originally Posted By: Trav
Originally Posted By: jcwit
Originally Posted By: Trav
Watch the video, its a kid for [censored] sake with his hands up. There was no need for that.


He's 18, Not a "kid" IMO. For crying out loud, one can join the military at 17.

Might be something this "kid" need's to look into.


There were always a lot of 18 year olds and younger in the military but legally 21 was the age to be considered an adult.
You still cant drink until 21 in any state AFAIK so it seems the Americans make the age 18-21 a gray area.
The age of adulthood is a movable goal post in the US, they will charge a 12 year old as an adult if it suits the prosecutor.

It doesn't matter if this kid was a 50 year old the cop wasn't just wrong, he is a criminal. Personally i hope he is sued penniless.


Age of consent is 18, kid or not. Playmates are 18 or older, kid or not.

At age 18 you are no longer a "kid".

Male or female.
 
Then why cant they go into a bar and order a beer? Just what is it you don't understand? It doesn't matter if its a kid, young adult, a 50 yr old or an old geezer.
Playmates at your age? LOL
 
The cop should be publicly vivisected over a period of a year. The executioner should be paid (by the hour and the decibel) based on his screams.
 
Originally Posted By: Cristobal
We have a horrible problem with police violence in this country. It is beyond sick.

In many ways, the cops are nothing but a gang.


Most dangerous street gang in the world, little different from MS13.
 
Thank video for ridding the world of another POS cop.

It also teaches EVERY police officer in the USA maybe I am being taped and watched and consequences abound. My guess the majority of them act as if being watched and have morals and control, this guy does not.

I find it astonishing how many video's are surfacing but I guess cheap/instant tech helps.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top