Originally Posted By: Bladecutter
This is the type of court case I wouldn't mind being a member of the jury.
The one piece of video evidence shown in the news story looks pretty cut and dry.
A police vehicle crashes into a person riding a scooter, causing him to violently crash.
The officers then jump out of their vehicle, pick up the (possibly injured) rider, and slam him into a brick wall. They then hit him several times, and then slam him into the ground, where you see the scooter rider immediately curl up into the fetal position, and those two officers start beating on him while he is on the ground.
What I don't see is their initial confrontation with the scooter rider.
They say that the rider slammed one of the officers into a brick wall, and repeatedly elbowed the officer in the head.
If the officers have that on the dash cam of the police car, that changes the entire event, doesn't it?
If, however, all the motorist did was blow through a red light, and this is the officer's first contact with the motorist, someone will need to explain why these two officers have a policy of assaulting motorcyclists with potential deadly force (PIT manuever as seen in the video) as a first contact.
I'm assuming there's more video to be seen, and the officers know they have it on their patrol vehicle's dash cam. I'm curious how this one will play out. If they don't have that type of evidence, I will guess that these two officers will be given plea deals, and stripped of their uniforms.
BC.
Let us assume that the scooter rider robbed an orphanage and stabbed a kitten before trying to make his escape on said scooter and was run down by the officers....
The image I'm trying to create is the assumption that the scooter rider is a bad person.
At the point in which the officers had full control over the suspect, when he's on the ground, why do the officers continue to beat him?
In my mind the scooter rider could be the worst human imaginable, but that does not excuse an officer for continuing to beat him after he's been subdued.
This is the type of court case I wouldn't mind being a member of the jury.
The one piece of video evidence shown in the news story looks pretty cut and dry.
A police vehicle crashes into a person riding a scooter, causing him to violently crash.
The officers then jump out of their vehicle, pick up the (possibly injured) rider, and slam him into a brick wall. They then hit him several times, and then slam him into the ground, where you see the scooter rider immediately curl up into the fetal position, and those two officers start beating on him while he is on the ground.
What I don't see is their initial confrontation with the scooter rider.
They say that the rider slammed one of the officers into a brick wall, and repeatedly elbowed the officer in the head.
If the officers have that on the dash cam of the police car, that changes the entire event, doesn't it?
If, however, all the motorist did was blow through a red light, and this is the officer's first contact with the motorist, someone will need to explain why these two officers have a policy of assaulting motorcyclists with potential deadly force (PIT manuever as seen in the video) as a first contact.
I'm assuming there's more video to be seen, and the officers know they have it on their patrol vehicle's dash cam. I'm curious how this one will play out. If they don't have that type of evidence, I will guess that these two officers will be given plea deals, and stripped of their uniforms.
BC.
Let us assume that the scooter rider robbed an orphanage and stabbed a kitten before trying to make his escape on said scooter and was run down by the officers....
The image I'm trying to create is the assumption that the scooter rider is a bad person.
At the point in which the officers had full control over the suspect, when he's on the ground, why do the officers continue to beat him?
In my mind the scooter rider could be the worst human imaginable, but that does not excuse an officer for continuing to beat him after he's been subdued.