PDA

View Full Version : Cops subdue 12 year old but plainclothes officer gives a few hard punches anyway


rotornut
19th Dec 2014, 17:25
Plainclothes NYPD officer hits teen subdued by other cops (VIDEO) ? RT USA (http://rt.com/usa/216099-nypd-cop-subdued-teen/)

rgbrock1
19th Dec 2014, 17:33
rotornut:

Although the undercover cop's actions were questionable and highly unprofessional do keep in mind that the suspects in this arrest were being apprehended after beating and robbing a 83 year old woman who was walking down the street. They even beat her with her own cane.

With this in mind, the punches the undercover cop leveled on one of the culprits, although questionable, is the least of what the scum bag deserved.

Boudreaux Bob
19th Dec 2014, 17:42
Sorry....but I see it a bit differently.

The "Child" was resisting and the Officers were not having much success in getting him cuffed. Nothing unusual about that in it is physically difficult to accomplish that just by wrestling with a person who is resisting.

The plain clothes officer seeing the situation joined in and use some "Strikes" to the Suspect's arm(s) in order to facilitate the cuffing.

It was not excessive force. It was limited....it was done with a fist and not a weapon. As soon as the Suspect began to comply he ceased his Strikes.

The Use of Force is authorized to the extent it is reasonable and necessary to effect the Arrest.

That is what I saw here.

If you will notice on the right side of the video there is a second arrest taking place that also used force. No one is talking about that one and it probably was the more aggressive of the two arrests not withstanding the one officer punching the first Suspect on the arms.

Think what you want but the Police will use force to subdue someone who is resisting arrest and do so quite legally and properly.

You don't want your Butt kicked by the Cops....when told you are under arrest....comply.

If you do not....then you will get roughed up in the process.

Notice how the guy in the Red Hoodie is being treated and how he is conducting himself.



Welcome to Realville.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
19th Dec 2014, 17:59
More US 'violence' from 'Russia Today'..

Don't see why they had to change the name from 'Soviet Union Today'. The content's the same.

Also in 'Russia Today'

http://rt.com/business/215979-usmanov-deoffshorization-assets-russia/
Russia’s richest man first to bring foreign assets back home
sounds so much better than "only man to bring Russian money back home"

con-pilot
19th Dec 2014, 18:29
Dang, thatís the biggest 12 year old Iíve ever seen. Besides that, is there any other proof that he is 12 years old other than what the woman yelled?

Still, seems a bit of abuse for the plainclothes officer to hit the kid with three other cops wrestling with the kid.

But, I wasnít there to see everything that happened. After all, the video starts with the uninformed officers trying to handcuff the kid and the plainclothes officer jumps in at 13 seconds into the video. But cannot see any reason for his actions.

Iím sure heíll be given some time off without pay, or worse.

rh200
19th Dec 2014, 20:22
Of note how the media like to use age for the description as it projects a certain victim, a dainty little innocent thing.

Perhaps if a few more of them got a bit of a seeing to not by coppers, but by locals their would be so many delinquents, beating, raping, robbing weak and defenseless people.

Can't see video for various reasons, but imagine what ever he got was nowhere near what he should have got.

skydiver69
19th Dec 2014, 20:36
I can imagine that a fair few of the arrests I have made could be made to look violent if viewed on edited mobile phone footage but a) members of the public can't see what is going on at close quarters and b) they don't understand that something which looks like a punch is being used as a distraction strike to get compliance/release a grip/stop fighting. I like to have help and support around if I'm making an arrest of a violent person because I want to minimise injury to me and my colleagues, to the suspect and members of the public. As a result I can imagine what was going through the heads of the US cops in the video.

As for the comments that the suspect was 12, well I have been caught out by people who at first sight appear innocuous so I would try to be as aware of a 12 year old as I would with a 32 year old.

Bronx
20th Dec 2014, 07:46
As for the comments that the suspect was 12It turns out the suspect, who was not prosecuted, was 16.
Whether that makes any difference is a matter of opinion.

The cop who assaulted the suspect has been suspended.

NYPD suspends cop caught punching teen during arrest | New York Post (http://nypost.com/2014/12/19/nypd-suspends-cop-caught-punching-teen-during-arrest/)

“An individual ended up hospitalized as a result of a beating that he may have received at the hands of three or four young men and during the effort to arrest one of the men thought to be involved in the incident an individual that we have identified as one of our plain clothed officers runs up and appears to strike the (teen) with a closed fist twice in the side of the body,” Bratton said.

The two 16-year-old men were charged with gang assault, obstruction of justice, resisting arrest and weapon possession. The 17-year-old was charged with gang assault.
The Manhattan District Attorney’s Office declined to prosecute and a spokeswoman declined to say why. However, the decision was made days before the video became public and had nothing to do with the officer’s actions, sources said.

Bratton confirmed Friday that the officer was suspended and is under investigation by the NYPD’s Internal Affairs Bureau.

Boudreaux Bob
20th Dec 2014, 11:59
So we have an innocent person assaulted by three thugs and incurs injuries that require treatment in Hospital.

Two of the three Thugs resist arrest and all three are charged for crimes they committed during the Assault and Arrest.

The Prosecutor refuses to prosecute the Three Thugs so they get a free walk for the Crimes.

One of the Cops is suspended by the NYPD and faces administrative/criminal charges.

How much you want to bet the Prosecutor will not drop any prosecution of the Officer should the NYPD Internal Affairs decide to file charges of Simple Assault against the Officer despite there being no injuries to the Thug quite unlike what resulted from the Thug committing a serious Assault against an innocent Victim?

I would love to see a video of the three Thugs attacking the innocent Victim and compare it to the video of the Officers arresting the three Thugs.....it would be interesting to see the difference in behavior.

Any doubt why we have a problem with Gang Violence in the United States?

Instead of taking a Zero Tolerance on it...the Lawyers turn a blind eye to it.

Flying Lawyer
20th Dec 2014, 13:48
I would love to see a video of the three Thugs attacking the innocent Victim
What evidence is there that those three suspects assaulted an innocent victim?

the Lawyers turn a blind eye to it.
When deciding whether to prosecute, lawyers tend to ask questions like 'What's the evidence against him/them?'

Boudreaux Bob
20th Dec 2014, 14:42
On this thread....none.

That is why I said I would like to see one if it existed although we know it probably does not. Who bothers to video ordinary street crime anymore?

Let a Cop try to make an arrest every Tom, Dick, and Harry pulls out a Camera of some sort and start filming.

Flying Lawyer
20th Dec 2014, 15:51
Bob On this thread....none.

How do you get from: So we have an innocent person assaulted by three thugs and incurs injuries that require treatment in Hospital. to Two of the three Thugs resist arrest

Boudreaux Bob
20th Dec 2014, 16:17
As the Police operate under the concept of Reasonable Cause and they made three arrests then I would have to assume it "reasonable" to make the assumptions I did.

Unless the Cops just picked these three by pure random and did not arrest the "Innocent Victim"....and does not "Victim" in this context not connote "Innocence'? Why am I wrong to describe the three arrested as being the Assailants?

They were accused of that by the Police but were not proven Guilty as the Prosecutor for un-explained reasons declined prosecution. Without knowing the reasons it would be hard to know exactly why he did not prosecute them.

Boudreaux Bob
20th Dec 2014, 16:19
Oh, Sorry.....All of the Suspects resisted arrest.

Flying Lawyer
20th Dec 2014, 18:54
Bob

I have no reason to believe that the victim of the earlier assault wasn't innocent.
Nor do I have any reason to believe that "the Cops just picked these three by pure random."
Why am I wrong to describe the three arrested as being the Assailants?Because we don't know whether they were.
Because not all suspects are guilty.

I too assume the police thought, rightly or wrongly, that there was sufficient evidence to arrest and charge them. ie That the police were doing their jobs competently and properly. However, the DA declined to prosecute. I have no reason to believe that the DA wasn't doing his/her job competently and properly. Different jobs, different expertise.They were accused of that by the Police but were not proven Guilty as the Prosecutor for un-explained reasons declined prosecution. Why do you assume they would have been proven Guilty if they had been prosecuted?

Without knowing the reasons it would be hard to know exactly why he did not prosecute them.I agree.
Yet, without knowing the reasons for their decisions, you are content to assume that the police acted reasonably, competently and properly.

FL

Boudreaux Bob
20th Dec 2014, 19:22
I have no reason to believe otherwise.

As you assume all Suspects to be Innocent...barring a finding in Court, then I assume all Cops act reasonably until a finding by some Administrative or Criminal Finding proves otherwise.

There is a huge difference between being found "Not Guilty" than a Prosecutor merely declining to prosecute.

A Prosecutor can decline to prosecute for any number of reasons that have nothing to do with whether the Defendant is actually culpable in the crimes he was charged with. A Defendant's Culpability and a "Guilty" finding in a Court Proceeding are two very different situations as you well know.

As the Charges were dropped by the Prosecutor prior to a Trial we shall never know if the two Suspects arrested by the Police are in fact "Guilty" per the Law. The People were denied that by the Prosecutor's Decision.

If the two had in fact committed the offenses they were charged with then it would seem a shame that after all is said and done they got away with them thus the Streets are a bit less safe than they were before the arrests following their arrest.

The Police did their part but the Court System did not in removing Violent Thugs from the Streets.

Sadly the next Victim might not be so lucky and hopefully neither will the two Hoodlums.

bingofuel
20th Dec 2014, 19:40
Have you considered that the decision to not prosecute might be due to a lack of evidence to substantiate a charge. People can be detained, sometimes arrested because at that moment it is thought there is evidence but subsequently, sometimes soon after it turns out things are not as they first appeared

Flying Lawyer
20th Dec 2014, 20:35
Bob As you assume all Suspects to be Innocent.
I don't. Nor do I assume they are all guilty just because the police think they are.
I have no idea whether these suspects were innocent or not.
I believe in the principle 'presumed innocent until proved guilty' as a matter of law which our two countries (and all other civilised countries) share, but that's a different matter.

I assume all Cops act reasonably until a finding by some Administrative or Criminal Finding proves otherwise.I wouldn't go as far as that but I don't disagree with it as a general approach.
However, I also assume prosecutors act reasonably until proved otherwise.

A Prosecutor can decline to prosecute for any number of reasons that have nothing to do with whether the Defendant is actually culpable in the crimes he was charged with.
Correct.
And the first of those considerations: Is there enough evidence to prove culpability?
NB: Not to virtually 'guarantee' a conviction, but enough to take the matter to court.

There have been several occasions over the decades when I have wholeheartedly shared police suspicion that suspects were guilty but had to advise that there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute. The bright officers understood when the fatal flaws/weaknesses in the evidence were pointed out to them; I have no doubt that others left the meeting thinking I was an idiot.

As the Charges were dropped by the Prosecutor prior to a Trial we shall never know if the two Suspects arrested by the Police are in fact "Guilty" per the Law. The People were denied that by the Prosecutor's Decision.True.
However, I don't believe everyone arrested should be prosecuted just because the police think they should be. The Police did their part but the Court System did not in removing Violent Thugs from the Streets.There you go again.
What evidence is there that these suspects, whatever they may or may not have done in the past, were the violent thugs who assaulted the innocent victim?

bingofuel
That is not uncommon.
There are also occasions when people are arrested on the strength of what 'eye-witnesses' have told police but they then decline to make a formal statement because they don't want to get involved/go to court as a witness. Or, remain content to be a witness but, on closer examination, it turns out that what they say is unusable in court because, for example, it is clearly unreliable or because crucial elements are not what they actually saw themselves but heard from others who cannot be traced.



FL

con-pilot
20th Dec 2014, 20:49
There is another possible reason no charges were filed, that happens all too often in these areas.

The victim refuses to press charges in fear of retaliation and no witnesses come forward for the same reason.


This happens all the time, even in London.

Even in Oklahoma City.

Flying Lawyer
20th Dec 2014, 21:09
I agree.

In particular, it's a very well-known problem in domestic violence circumstances when the only witness is the victim.

Sometimes the victim refuses to make a formal statement out of fear.
Sometimes the victim refuses because the parties have made up again within hours and the cycle continues - often for years.

bingofuel
20th Dec 2014, 21:30
Indeed it does, but the Courts can only work with the evidence that is produced, or perhaps more accurately, the evidence that is allowed to be produced in accordance with the legislative rules. As a prosecution has to be proven beyond all reasonable doubt ( in the UK anyway) it takes strong evidence to convince a jury or magistrate to that level.

Unfortunately courts are very busy, time consuming, and expensive so someone has to decide which cases are most likely to result in proven verdict and let other weaker cases go.

The system is not perfect, far from it, but it is the best we have with the resources we have, and generally ensures the innocent stay free, but sometimes the guilty remain unconvicted.

However there is the old saying, " they will come again"

Flying Lawyer
20th Dec 2014, 22:29
Unfortunately courts are very busy, time consuming, and expensive so someone has to decide which cases are most likely to result in proven verdict and let other weaker cases go.

A qualification many people would add relates to minor motoring offences which could have been adequately resolved with a warning at the scene rather than taking up court time and public money by prosecuting.

That applies only to the lower courts ('Magistrates Courts' in England) but they too have a busy workload.

Boudreaux Bob
20th Dec 2014, 22:50
What if you simply quit enforcing Traffic Laws altogether and just let the Insurance Companies pay the claims and back charge their policy holders. The Government could transfer the cost of the Enforcement and Courts to the Insurance Companies as an offset to cost and the government could be shed of a lot of expense in the form of Salaries, Benefits, Retirement, and associated operational costs.

Is that an option as the case load of the Court system would disappear altogether.

If you are found to have no Insurance the Plod calls a Tow Truck and a Taxi....your car is impounded and you find yourself afoot.