Cop stomps kids teeth out

[Trav]

No cop is judge, jury and executioner. Period end of story, this cop is a criminal and deserves to be imprisoned and the the kid should get a good sum of money.
It doesn't matter what the kid did or didn't do, he was giving up peaceably. Even enemy combatants that might just have had an drag out battle but when they surrender they have a right to be treated humanly not beaten.

There are rules of warfare and rules of law that soldiers and police must follow, this cop didn't and should be punished for what he did.
The kid, young man whatever you want to call him will face justice on his crime, these are two different cases that do not intertwine.

You can type all you want it doesn't make it right, two wrongs don't make a right which is exactly the argument you put forth.

 

[demarpaint]

Both parties were wrong, however that still doesn't warrant the kid getting his teeth stomped out.

 

[NHHEMI]

Originally Posted By: BRZED
You are representing and defending a moralistic viewpoint while such cases must be viewed from an ethical viewpoint. What you as an individual believe a person deserves is irrelevant, it is about what our society's conventions, our laws, say. Imagine the mayhem if our laws were based on every individual's morals. Also, you point out the facts and equal them with the truth, in this case guilt. This is actually a very incorrect conclusion, because the facts often indicate the opposite of the truth. Again, this is exactly why we employ judicial ethics instead of having the law of the fist/lawlessness.


Actually, the only moral argument I am making is about whether or not the young man deserves a settlement award for getting kicked by the Officer. I do not feel he does because he is at least in part to blame for what happened to him. I think a good attorney representing the city/state could make that argument to a reasonable jury and win as well.

My points on what the Officer and the young man did however are actually accurate according to our laws. The excessive force/assault is a crime by our laws as is the illegal drug possession and running from the Police. Both of them committed crimes. legal crimes not moralistic ones. If the DA does not prosecute them both, and a jury does not find them both guilty, then THEY are the ones going by their morale compass and not the law. Not me.

I do not understand how you can say the facts of this case, in other words what the Officer and the young man did as far as crimes, are not a clear indication of the truth and their guilt? The Officer is on video and the young man admitted what he did? What more do you need?

I think you are arguing just to argue.

 

[Nate1979]

Let the [censored] sue the cop but our tax money better not go to pay any settlement to this thug for a cop breaking the law. Why should the taxpayer be responsible?

 

[NHHEMI]

Originally Posted By: Trav
No cop is judge, jury and executioner. Period end of story, this cop is a criminal and deserves to be imprisoned


I agree with you( and everyone else who keeps saying it )on this point and have said as much multiple times including my 1st post in the thread. No need to throw it at me/out there yet again. I have agreed with this point so many times it is not funny. It is a waste of time for people to keep saying this again and again. I AGREE with it. We ALL agree with it. If we all agree why does it need to keep beings aid in a way that implies I/others don't agree? Why argue a point the person you are disagreeing with actually agrees with you on?

Originally Posted By: Trav

and the the kid should get a good sum of money...


Sorry but I can't disagree with you more on this. he deserves nothing. he is not an innocent victim. At most fix his teeth but that is where it should end. Criminals should not benefit from criminal actions.

Originally Posted By: Trav
It doesn't matter what the kid did or didn't do, he was giving up peaceably. Even enemy combatants that might just have had an drag out battle but when they surrender they have a right to be treated humanly not beaten.


I actually agree with you. The young man was giving up peacefully and did not deserve to be kicked in the face. 100% agreed.

Originally Posted By: Trav

The kid, young man whatever you want to call him will face justice on his crime, these are two different cases that do not intertwine.


I hope this young man does face the consequences of his crime and that they are serious and fitting for what he did. He should not get a walk or get off easy because of what happened AFTER he committed said crimes. I disagree 100% however that the two cases don't intertwine. Of course they do. The Officer never would have stomped the young man if he hadn't run earlier. The young man's earlier actions directly lead, at least in part, to what happened.

Originally Posted By: Trav

You can type all you want it doesn't make it right, two wrongs don't make a right which is exactly the argument you put forth.


You and others can type all you want with your views and it doesn't make you right either. I have no clue what you are talking about with your 2 wrongs don't make it right comment though? I blame both sides for their own actions and hold them each accountable for what they did. Neither side is right so I don't see how it applies?

 

[NHHEMI]

Originally Posted By: Nate1979
Let the [censored] sue the cop but our tax money better not go to pay any settlement to this thug for a cop breaking the law. Why should the taxpayer be responsible?


Agreed and that has sort of been my view on it. While I don't feel the young man deserves any kind of monetary settlement( he shares blame in what happened so he shouldn't profit from it ). "IF" he is going to get one it should come from the Officer himself and not the state/city. Let the criminals that were involved deal with the consequences of their actions on that day; not the rest of us( so to speak ).

 

[NHHEMI]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Both parties were wrong, however that still doesn't warrant the kid getting his teeth stomped out.


You are correct, it doesn't. You can't get more wrong than that Officer was. What people seem to miss is I agree with your point.

The actual area of disagreement is actually about whether or not the young man deserves a settlement. For some reason the posts keep coming across as if people think I am defending the Officer when I am not. I just don't think the young man deserves any money because he shares in the blame for what happened so why let him benefit from it.

 

[dishdude]

NHHEMI - can ya give it a rest already? How many times can you say the same thing in one thread?

 

[expat]

Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
I just don't think the young man deserves any money because he shares in the blame for what happened so why let him benefit from it.


Again, it is not the job of the cops to be a judge, jury etc.
The cop did not know 'at the time' exactly what the kid had or his motives.
He was a suspect and it was his duty to apprehend him. With the least amount of force necessary.

The kid had surrendered to the authorities, and should have expected reasonable treatment, when he did so.

The kicking does not go hand in hand with the crime that he may (at the time it was un-proven) have committed or as an acceptable result for running from the police before he surrenders.

 

[NHHEMI]

Originally Posted By: dishdude
NHHEMI - can ya give it a rest already? How many times can you say the same thing in one thread?


As many times as needed to respond to people who post to me and/or as many times as I feel it is appropriate when responding to someone else. Why must I be the only one to give it a rest? I am simply discussing the topic. How about asking others to give it a rest too. I am hardly the only one going over the same thing again and again.

 

[NHHEMI]

Originally Posted By: expat
Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
I just don't think the young man deserves any money because he shares in the blame for what happened so why let him benefit from it.


Again, it is not the job of the cops to be a judge, jury etc.
The cop did not know 'at the time' exactly what the kid had or his motives.
He was a suspect and it was his duty to apprehend him. With the least amount of force necessary.

The kid had surrendered to the authorities, and should have expected reasonable treatment, when he did so.

The kicking does not go hand in hand with the crime that he may (at the time it was un-proven) have committed or as an acceptable result for running from the police before he surrenders.



1 - For about the millionth time no one is defending the Officer or saying what he did was right. These continued comments from you and others about him "not being judge and jury" or the continued attempt to repeat the obvious about what the Officer did being wrong seem to imply I somehow defend his actions. LISTEN CAREFULLY...the Officer was WRONG and he should NOT have stomped the young man. I do not dispute that at all and have not at any point in the thread. You don't have to tell me the Officer was wrong. I AGREE with you.

2 - The young man was not a "suspect" at any time in the entire thing. Not pre assault and not when it happened. Prior to the assault the Officer approached him to ask a question about a crime he may have known something about. He was approached as a witness, or maybe an informant, not a person of interest or a "suspect" in that crime. Once he ran at the Officer's approach, and failed to stop when told to, he became a criminal. He was never a suspect. He went from witness to criminal and completely bypassed "suspect".

Originally Posted By: ABC15News
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.


3 - I realize the Officer didn't know he had drugs on him initially. I didn't say he did. I have said right along that the Officer kicked him as payback for running. The drugs were discovered later. However, they were why the young man ran from the Officer when he was approached. I bring up the drugs in my posts simply to point out why he ran( it is important to me to point out he was running because HE was guilty of something even if the Officer didn't know it and not because he was threatened or anything ) and that it was yet another bad choice, and criminal act, he committed that day that he needs to pay for.

4 - you refer to the drug possession as the crime and the running as just running. I don't get that? Running from the Police is a crime. He was chased because he ran and ultimately he was stomped for running. The illegal drugs were only discovered once he was in custody. The illegal drugs only come into play as far as the charges the young man should face. They do not play into the stomping at all. If it seemed I was saying they did then that is my mistake for poor wording. Again, they only apply to the charges he should face and also they do relate a bit though because they are why he ran to begin with.

 

[NHHEMI]

Come on people.

Do we not all agree that the Officer was wrong, had no justification for stomping the young man, and should face charges? I believe we do so why do so many keep bringing that part up as if I don't agree? I know it is part of the whole story so it comes into the discussion but I agree 100% that what he did was wrong. I do not dispute that at all so there is no need to keep trying to make me see it that way. There is no need to keep talking about judge and jury and pointing out the wrong done by the Officer. I agree so why keep at that point? It is arguing with yourself for goodness sake.

The other area we SHOULD all agree on, but I am not so sure some do, is that the young man committed 2 crimes himself on the day in question. This is fact and not something in doubt. He did run from the Police and once arrested he was found to be in possession of illegal drugs. Comments about presumption of innocence, things being "unknown" or "unproven", etc... just make no sense to me. I don't understand why some seem to want to ignore or excuse the young man's criminal actions? What the Officer did should not negate the young man's crimes.

We know what the young man did for sure. Running from the Police is a crime and so was the drug possession so can we leave out comments implying there are doubts or gray areas. There are not. He did both and we know it for sure just as we know for sure what the Officer did.

I will gladly discuss the settlement part of this( i.e. does he deserve any or not ), and I will discuss whether or not you think the young man deserves to face any charges or not as well, but I fail to see how the other 2 areas need further discussion? There is no gray area with either and it is what it is. I guess I am out if all people want to do is keep going over those.

 

[The_Eric]

In my opinion:

Both should face charges for their respective crimes. The kid should be made whole for injuries sustained during arrest. He was "whole" before he surrendered himself and he would have been "whole" after had the cop not freaked out on him. The cop is/was a "professional", he should have acted the part.

 

[expat]

Originally Posted By: The_Eric
In my opinion:

Both should face charges for their respective crimes. The kid should be made whole for injuries sustained during arrest. He was "whole" before he surrendered himself and he would have been "whole" after had the cop not freaked out on him. The cop is/was a "professional", he should have acted the part.


Agree.
What the kid did warranted Arrest and a court date.

What the Cop did after the kid surrendered is a separate issue. And should be delt with as a separate issue.
Not an expected consequence of any crimes that may have been broken.

Regardless of what crime is committed, the cop ONLY arrests, No 'Payback' no 'Punishment' by the hands of the police.

Running from a cop is against the law and in itself, warrants arrest. A court decides if it was a crime, and acts accordingly.
Sorry if that seems to be splitting hairs. But it is an important point, and THAT'S where 'presumption of innocence' and 'not being judge and jury' come in.

 

[ottotheclown]

I love the line heard Sat. "The secret service is the only police dept. that gets in trouble if a black man dies"

 

[NHHEMI]

Originally Posted By: expat
Originally Posted By: The_Eric
In my opinion:

Both should face charges for their respective crimes. The kid should be made whole for injuries sustained during arrest. He was "whole" before he surrendered himself and he would have been "whole" after had the cop not freaked out on him. The cop is/was a "professional", he should have acted the part.


Agree.
What the kid did warranted Arrest and a court date.

What the Cop did after the kid surrendered is a separate issue. And should be delt with as a separate issue.
Not an expected consequence of any crimes that may have been broken.

Regardless of what crime is committed, the cop ONLY arrests, No 'Payback' no 'Punishment' by the hands of the police.

Running from a cop is against the law and in itself, warrants arrest. A court decides if it was a crime, and acts accordingly.
Sorry if that seems to be splitting hairs. But it is an important point, and THAT'S where 'presumption of innocence' and 'not being judge and jury' come in.


expat;

The thing is the Officer wasn't acting as judge and jury. He was acting like a thug. It was personal for him. The Officer is a d-nozzle and was wrong for what he did. That was a personal act on his part and not an act as an Officer.He just happened to be on duty and in uniform at the time. To me when you say an Officer was acting as judge and jury I think of someone accused of say rape or something being beaten and/or killed during the arrest. I don't see it here. I just see a bully Officer acting out because the young man ran earlier.

I guess I just don't get the whole presumption of innocence argument either in this case. As a general principle I certainly do and agree we all have a presumption of innocence. We all know what the young man did here though and he is not innocent. He has even admitted to the illegal acts he committed. The only way the young man isn't convicted, if he is actually charged and it goes to trial, is if the jury refuses to find him guilty because of what the Officer did( i.e. jury nullification ). Under the law he is guilty. No if's and's or but's about it. To take it to trial would be with the hopes of nullification and not because there is even a whiff of reasonable doubt or "innocence" about the young man. It is what it is.

I sort of see where you are going with this but I just don't see it applying in this case. We just know too much about it to have any doubts as to what happened. The Officer is on video doing what he did and the young man is on record admitting to running from the Officer and to the illegal drug possession. Neither of them has a legal leg to stand on.

 

[eljefino]

The officer is doing a disservice to his fellow officers. (Alleged) criminals should have confidence that if they yield, hands up, before, during, or after a chase, they'll be "taken down" with dignity and without pain. Cops are supposed to have razor reflexes and should respond as quickly to someone de-escalating (kneeling submissively) as they would to someone reaching for a weapon, etc.

 

[rockydee]

Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
Neither of them has a legal leg to stand on.


I'm no lawyer but I think the young gentleman has grounds for a great lawsuit against the cop, police force, and anyone else he can muster in. Big money. Maybe a bob's member attorney can toss in his

and let me know.

 

[fredfactory]

Originally Posted By: ottotheclown
I love the line heard Sat. "The secret service is the only police dept. that gets in trouble if a black man dies"


You do know this victim was white? If he was black, this would have made the national news, not just local news.

 

[NHHEMI]

Originally Posted By: rockydee
Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
Neither of them has a legal leg to stand on.


I'm no lawyer but I think the young gentleman has grounds for a great lawsuit against the cop, police force, and anyone else he can muster in. Big money. Maybe a bob's member attorney can toss in his

and let me know.


I was replying to a point made by the other member. Please read what I posted. I was not talking about the young man having a civil case. I was saying neither the Officer nor the young man have a legal leg to stand on in regards to defending themselves against the the crimes they committed. One is on video committing a crime and the other is on the record admitting to what he did. Hard to go to court and plead not guilty when you are caught on camera and have admitted wrong doing already. THAT is my point.