Detroit cop sucker punches drunk at Casino.....suelarity ensues

So when will this type of behavior simply be eliminated? Where's the federal monitor at?

Robert Snell/ The Detroit News
Detroit— A Livonia man is suing the city and two Detroit Police officers in federal court, claiming he was sucker-punched while being escorted out of the MGM Grand Casino — an incident captured on surveillance camera.
The lawsuit is the second case in recent months filed against the city involving assault allegations and surveillance tape. In June, Police Chief Ralph L. Godbee placed an officer on restricted duty after The Detroit News publicized a civil rights lawsuit filed by a man who claims he was assaulted outside a Detroit gas station.
The casino incident happened after officers responded in late July to a report that Patrick Poisson had inappropriately touched a "Grandette" waitress inside the casino in downtown Detroit. The waitress told police that a drunken man touched her butt with his right hand.
The video contradicts the police version of events, the man's lawyer Wolfgang Mueller told The Detroit News on Monday.
"When you look at the video and read the police report, it's describing two different incidents," Mueller said.
The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages for violating Mueller's constitutional rights, assault and battery, malicious prosecution, gross negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
There was no immediate comment from a police spokeswoman.
Poisson sued the city and Officers Arthur Dudal and Jose Ortiz on Friday in U.S. District Court in Detroit.
The incident happened July 30. MGM security called Detroit Police after a report that Poisson inappropriately touched a waitress's butt and would not leave the U Me Drink bar.
Dudal and a second officer, Hassan Chehab, approached Poisson, according to the lawsuit. Dudal told Poisson to leave immediately.
Poisson started leaving the bar, and then turned to Dudal.
The men stood face to face.
"Suddenly, and without warning, Dudal threw a roundhouse right hand punch, striking [[Poisson) squarely on the nose, fracturing it," Mueller wrote in the lawsuit. "[[Poisson) was driven to the ground, temporarily knocked out. However, before [[Poisson) hit the ground, Dudal followed with a left hook to the head, driving Plaintiff to the floor."
Dudal also punched Poisson on his right side, breaking two ribs, according to the lawsuit.
On Aug. 1, Ortiz filed a warrant request to charge Poisson with assault and battery, and 4th degree criminal sexual conduct for touching the MGM waitress.
In the request, Ortiz wrote that Poisson "turned around and charged at Officer Dudal. The defendant attempted to strike Officer Dudal with his right fist but missed," according to the lawsuit. "The defendant charged at Officer Dudal a second time. Officer Dudal, in an attempt to defend himself, struck the defendant's face with his left fist. The defendant fell to the ground and was still fighting with Officer Dudal."
The officer's report failed to mention the waitress told him she didn't want to press charges, according to the lawsuit.
Mueller's client denies inappropriately touching the waitress.
The Wayne County Prosecutor's Office signed the warrant, based on Ortiz' report. The criminal sexual conduct charge was dismissed on Aug. 15 when the waitress appeared in court and said she didn't want to press charges.
On Sept. 12, the prosecutor's office dismissed the remaining charges after watching the surveillance tape, according to the lawsuit.
Mueller wants Dudal fired and charged with assault and battery.
rsnell@detnews.com
[[313) 222-2028


From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/20110926/...#ixzz1Z6FpKab1

Without audio on the video, I suspect the drunk guy was saying what drunk people usually say. But I don't see anything that called for the cop to punch the guy. The police defense story is an outright lie and causes more problems than it tries to cover up. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

When you read the officer's statement and realize what a bold faced lie it is, the only way this plays out is with a pay out. Simply put, no matter what that drunk said, he never lunged at the officer, not once [[or twice, as his report stated). The cop had a clean, clear, wide open shot to that guys face with a right hand, and that guy was on his way to the ground before Officer Dudal got the 2nd punch in. To say anything else is unbelievable.
Detroit officers get so much crap heaped upon them, and there are so many eyes watching, it is sad and pathetic that this is still allowed. I suppose able bodies willing to put on the uniform aren't lining up on the border to come into the city, but come on. This guy seriously doesn't belong in a police uniform anywhere. His credibility is shot if he is ever going to be called to testify in any future criminal case. What's the use of keeping him on the force?

Here is the quote from the Detroit Free Press article about the incident:
"In his request, Ortiz wrote that “The defendant turned around and charged at Officer Dudal. The defendant attempted to strike Officer Dudal with his right fist but missed. Officer Dudal defended himself by striking the defendant in the face with his right fist. The defendant charged at Officer Dudal a second time. Officer Dudal, in an attempt to defend himself, struck the defendant’s face with his left fist. The defendant fell to the ground and was still fighting with Officer Dudal. Officer Dudal and his partner …. Handcuffed the defendant as he resisted arrest.”
- http://www.freep.com/article/2011092...text|FRONTPAGE

Does *anything* happen to cops who pull this stuff other than "restricted duty" or a couple of weeks off? A month ago a couple of cops in California tasered a sick homeless man until he had a heart attack. He wasn't even fighting with the cops, he just wasn't doing what they told him because he was extremely ill. Desk duty for a week and the cops are back on the job. Jesus. The rule should be simple - you pull something blatantly against the rules, the lawsuit payout comes out of your paycheck, AND pension.

that guy won the lawsuit jackpot that night.......

The video in the above link does not show what happened in the seconds before the officer threw a punch. The video has either been selectively edited, or for some reason the cameras were not able to pick up what was happening [[And I find that highly doubtful considering how many cameras are in a casino).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johnnny5

The video in the above link does not show what happened in the seconds before the officer threw a punch. The video has either been selectively edited, or for some reason the cameras were not able to pick up what was happening [[And I find that highly doubtful considering how many cameras are in a casino).

---

You know what, I would say that you are a conspiracy theorist but I took a second look at the video and you are right. Just before the cop punched the guy the video skips as if something was cut out. Not saying the guy actually swung at the cop but something is messed up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by p1acebo

You know what, I would say that you are a conspiracy theorist but I took a second look at the video and you are right. Just before the cop punched the guy the video skips as if something was cut out. Not saying the guy actually swung at the cop but something is messed up.

---

Here's a video from Freep.com that shows the entire episode.


http://www.freep.com/article/2011092...text|FRONTPAGE

My favorite quote from this article is this:

Maria Miller, a spokesperson for the Wayne County Prosecutor’s office, said that the sexual conduct and resisting arrest charges were both dropped.

“The female victim appeared at the preliminary examination and was placed under oath. She informed the judge … that she did not want to prosecute the case,” Miller said. “The case was adjourned for the prosecution to review the videotape of the incident. After a review of the tape it was determined that we did not have sufficient evidence to proceed and the case was dismissed.”

Officers need to be held accountable for their actions

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johnnny5

Here's a video from Freep.com that shows the entire episode.


http://www.freep.com/article/2011092...text|FRONTPAGE

---

Just noticed the cop sort of clipped his buddy too. Daaaayum. What a hit.

yeah, that second version of the video pretty much shows that the guy did nothing, im sure he was spouting off at the mouth... but that could have been handled differently....

It really is scary how a cop can be this stupid. He knows there are cameras covering every inch of the casino and yet he can't wait until he gets off the premises. Makes you wonder how he would use his head in a critical situation.

This crap pi$$es me off too. I would never put myself in that position in the first place but wouldn't want a cop on an ego trip clockin me like that. They are paid professionals that are to subdue not retaliate. Especially with all the other help around. I don't care what that guy might have said about his mother. Fired and financially burdened. And don't mind if they drag his buddy down too since he helped fudge the report too.
Now what's that old rap song...?

Seriously. Why can't people just do what they're supposed to do and not do what they're not supposed to do. It's like this whole region has this cloud of emotional dysfunction over it and stupid schitt happens because people don't have the maturity to take ownership and act like leaders.

I've watched this video, over and over, and am really baffled by the responses I've read thus far. I'm going to break this incident down, piece by piece from the beginning, then offer an alternate scenario.

First, this guy committed 4th degree criminal sexual conduct, no denying that. The waitress stated such, the security attempted to remove the guy because of it, and surely, if the cameras are everywhere in the casino, it too was captured on tape.

After this drunk refused to leave, DPD was called. Initially, it seems the guy agreed to leave. Yet while walking out, he then turns on the officers, gets in their face, and points a finger in the one officers face. What happens next is what justifies the use of force. Unless you guys are watching a different video, it seems the guy from Livonia is holding a clinched right fist in the air.

As officers, we don't have to be shot before we can use deadly force to stop a threat. Nor do we have to wait for a drunk with a clinched fist in our face to strike us before we can strike them. Is the concensus here that officers are to be subjected to violence and injury PRIOR to being able to use force on somebody who committed a crime?

After being struck, the guy fell to the ground, knocked out according to his lawyer. I find this funny, considering the guy continues to squirm upon hitting the ground, and then begins resisting the officer, trying to prevent him from handcuffing him. Thus, the officer delivers a couple strikes to him, in an effort to get him cuffed. Is the concensus here that the officer should have continued to struggle with the guy on the ground, risking injury to the officer and his partner, and even possibly allowing the suspect the opportunity to get away?

After the guy is finally cuffed, that's it, he gets escorted away and is off to jail. Yet as is all too common in the city, the victim decides not to press charges. I ask, why not? For all we know, maybe this guy is a high roller at the casino, and maybe somebody convinced her NOT to press charges. Either way, those charges were dropped, as were the other charges, even though the guy is visibly trying to get his right arm free to prevent him from being handcuffed.

Nothing these officers did falls out of line with what is allowed. The guy was drunk, uncooperative, and then turned on the officers, and appears to have raised a fist. This guy now thinks he won the lotto.

Now, let's reverse the roll here. Instead of Detroit, let's move this to Livonia. Instead of a white guy, we'll make him a black guy. Now, this guy gets drunk and decides to play grab ass with the waitress serving him drinks. The bouncers get involved, and he tells them "Fuck off, I'm not leaving" or something to that effect. How do you think Livonia PD would handle a guy that turns on them, raises a fist, and then continues to struggle with them on the ground? If not the exact same outcome, the alternative is the guy getting tazered multiple times. Also, even without the victim, this case could have, and should have been prosecuted. There is undoubtedly video of the offense taking place, and just because the victim doesn't wish to testify doesn't mean there wouldn't be enough proof to possibly convict.

Why do Detroiters tolerate this? Some guy can come into Detroit, get drunk, commit sexual conduct on a person, refuse to leave, confront the officers, raise a fist, and then the outcome gets him a day in court to try and get a payout? As an officer and a citizen of Detroit, I am sickened by this.

The casino should have banned this guy for life. By not doing so, it shows that their patrons are allowed to fondle waitresses without consequences. The chief should release a statement, reviewing the video, and stand behind these officers, explaining why the outcome was justified.This guy wants their jobs? Is he serious? He does realize that he got off scott free for the crime he committed, right?

This is a fine example of so many things. For one, it is one more example of why we should have tazers. This guy would have been dropped, cuffed, and there would be no discussion. Secondly, depending upon the outcome, this could prove to be another fine example of why there are disgruntled officers on the job, moral overall tends to be low, and why this department continues to lose officers to suburban departments and the federal government. We lost our first classmate a few months ago to border patrol, and as it stands, we look to loose several more to federal positions in the coming months and years. Why? Because people realize that it just isn't worth the headaches. By 10 years, I figure over 1/2-3/4 of my classmates will have gone on to MUCH greener pastures.

Now I ask, how would you have dealt with this situation? If you have a better way, then by all means, head on down to 17825 Sherwood and sign up. People are always quick to be critical, but almost always unwilling to step up, put their lives on the line in an attempt to do a better job.

Quote:

---

After this drunk refused to leave, DPD was called. Initially, it seems the guy
agreed to leave. Yet while walking out, he then turns on the officers, gets in
their face, and points a finger in the one officers face. What happens next is
what justifies the use of force. Unless you guys are watching a different video,
it seems the guy from Livonia is holding a clinched right fist in the air.

---

I would be willing to bet that there are witnesses to this "with context" that would put this story to rest. As well as what the officer wrote in his report? The guy may be a drunken perv, but I bet he'll win big for this. Just saying.

He won't win. In Detroit fashion, they will simply pay out a settlement instead. This guy should be headed to jail, and instead, will get a nice settlement. Par for the course, and much of the reason why the city is broke.

The guy got what was coming to him. Get DPD some tazers.

Yet while walking out, he then turns on the officers, gets in their face, and points a finger in the one officers face.

Tough. Get over it like an adult instead of acting like a schoolyard bully. Maybe they shoulda shot him 54 times like the NYPD thugs did to the wedding goer.

The way Detroit handles things, this guy will be the new Chief in a few weeks.

Supersport, if his actions were appropriate why did he feel the need to lie numerous times in his report? This officer either forgot or doesn't know that there are cameras in a casino.

"He drew back his closed right fist and attempted to strike ... I sidestepped his punch and in order to defend myself I struck [[Poisson) in the facial area with a closed right fist ... And with a closed left fist I struck subject in the facial area who was still coming at me," Dudal wrote in his July 31 arrest report.

You'll also notice that the 2nd officer at no time feels that this guy is a threat to harm either of the two of them as he just casually stands there with his hands down by his side.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meddle

Tough. Get over it like an adult instead of acting like a schoolyard bully. Maybe they shoulda shot him 54 times like the NYPD thugs did to the wedding goer.

---

You're referring to the Sean Bell incident, and couldn't be more wrong with your version of events.

The "wedding goer" was a career criminal in a known drug hotspot and overheard on wiretap as going for his "piece" located in his car.

Once the officers approached Sean Bell in his car, he drove the car directly at the approaching officers, sparking the multiple rounds of gunfire.

Re. this incident at MGM, I think there's possibly some room for debate, though whatever this drunkard said does not excuse a sucker punch. There are more reasonable restraints. And there's no excuse whatsover for the lying.

How can that be a 'sucker punch' when he was facing the cop in a threatening manner? A sucker punch is a surprise attack from behind

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Supersport

I've watched this video, over and over, and am really baffled by the responses I've read thus far. I'm going to break this incident down, piece by piece from the beginning, then offer an alternate scenario.

First, this guy committed 4th degree criminal sexual conduct, no denying that. The waitress stated such, the security attempted to remove the guy because of it, and surely, if the cameras are everywhere in the casino, it too was captured on tape.

After this drunk refused to leave, DPD was called. Initially, it seems the guy agreed to leave. Yet while walking out, he then turns on the officers, gets in their face, and points a finger in the one officers face. What happens next is what justifies the use of force. Unless you guys are watching a different video, it seems the guy from Livonia is holding a clinched right fist in the air.

As officers, we don't have to be shot before we can use deadly force to stop a threat. Nor do we have to wait for a drunk with a clinched fist in our face to strike us before we can strike them. Is the concensus here that officers are to be subjected to violence and injury PRIOR to being able to use force on somebody who committed a crime?

After being struck, the guy fell to the ground, knocked out according to his lawyer. I find this funny, considering the guy continues to squirm upon hitting the ground, and then begins resisting the officer, trying to prevent him from handcuffing him. Thus, the officer delivers a couple strikes to him, in an effort to get him cuffed. Is the concensus here that the officer should have continued to struggle with the guy on the ground, risking injury to the officer and his partner, and even possibly allowing the suspect the opportunity to get away?

After the guy is finally cuffed, that's it, he gets escorted away and is off to jail. Yet as is all too common in the city, the victim decides not to press charges. I ask, why not? For all we know, maybe this guy is a high roller at the casino, and maybe somebody convinced her NOT to press charges. Either way, those charges were dropped, as were the other charges, even though the guy is visibly trying to get his right arm free to prevent him from being handcuffed.

Nothing these officers did falls out of line with what is allowed. The guy was drunk, uncooperative, and then turned on the officers, and appears to have raised a fist. This guy now thinks he won the lotto.

Now, let's reverse the roll here. Instead of Detroit, let's move this to Livonia. Instead of a white guy, we'll make him a black guy. Now, this guy gets drunk and decides to play grab ass with the waitress serving him drinks. The bouncers get involved, and he tells them "Fuck off, I'm not leaving" or something to that effect. How do you think Livonia PD would handle a guy that turns on them, raises a fist, and then continues to struggle with them on the ground? If not the exact same outcome, the alternative is the guy getting tazered multiple times. Also, even without the victim, this case could have, and should have been prosecuted. There is undoubtedly video of the offense taking place, and just because the victim doesn't wish to testify doesn't mean there wouldn't be enough proof to possibly convict.

Why do Detroiters tolerate this? Some guy can come into Detroit, get drunk, commit sexual conduct on a person, refuse to leave, confront the officers, raise a fist, and then the outcome gets him a day in court to try and get a payout? As an officer and a citizen of Detroit, I am sickened by this.

The casino should have banned this guy for life. By not doing so, it shows that their patrons are allowed to fondle waitresses without consequences. The chief should release a statement, reviewing the video, and stand behind these officers, explaining why the outcome was justified.This guy wants their jobs? Is he serious? He does realize that he got off scott free for the crime he committed, right?

This is a fine example of so many things. For one, it is one more example of why we should have tazers. This guy would have been dropped, cuffed, and there would be no discussion. Secondly, depending upon the outcome, this could prove to be another fine example of why there are disgruntled officers on the job, moral overall tends to be low, and why this department continues to lose officers to suburban departments and the federal government. We lost our first classmate a few months ago to border patrol, and as it stands, we look to loose several more to federal positions in the coming months and years. Why? Because people realize that it just isn't worth the headaches. By 10 years, I figure over 1/2-3/4 of my classmates will have gone on to MUCH greener pastures.

Now I ask, how would you have dealt with this situation? If you have a better way, then by all means, head on down to 17825 Sherwood and sign up. People are always quick to be critical, but almost always unwilling to step up, put their lives on the line in an attempt to do a better job.

---

Supersport, would you agree, that with all the intense scrutiny that Detroit cops get lately, that thick skin and restraint should be essential? This man was in no way an actual threat to 2 rather well built police officers who should be well trained and disciplined in quick, efficient nullification of suspects. Hell, you can clearly see when Officer Dudal throws that first right hand, his follow through actually hits the 2nd police officer and he merely shrugs it off. And from what the video shows, clearly that first punch put that guys lights out. He was falling like a felled tree. I'd say with a good deal of certainty that the first punch put that guy out. The 2nd punch, and the fall to the floor, put that guy in a daze. I can understand the guy struggling with the officers afterwards, because it is safe to assume the guy had no idea what just happened, and it's a natural reaction to struggle while experiencing intense pain, disorientation, and having the feeling of being piled on by 2 large bodies on top.
I disagree with the statement that tazers should be an absolute. Too many times have we seen the tazer be the first choice, and the fatal choice. Police officers are trained in the art of properly restraining someone without knocking them out of their socks, are they not? If they aren't, then perhaps they should be. Especially when there are two officers present, with one drunk idiot in a crowd full of witnesses and cameras.
Look, this asshat drunk did a criminal act, there is no disputing that. But unfortunately, that act does not justify the officer's actions against him. And ultimately, the officer's actions carry more weight now than the drunk's. Especially considering the false police report submitted that blatantly misrepresented the actual events.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Supersport

I've watched this video, over and over, and am really baffled by the responses I've read thus far. I'm going to break this incident down, piece by piece from the beginning, then offer an alternate scenario.

First, this guy committed 4th degree criminal sexual conduct, no denying that. The waitress stated such, the security attempted to remove the guy because of it, and surely, if the cameras are everywhere in the casino, it too was captured on tape.

After this drunk refused to leave, DPD was called. Initially, it seems the guy agreed to leave. Yet while walking out, he then turns on the officers, gets in their face, and points a finger in the one officers face. What happens next is what justifies the use of force. Unless you guys are watching a different video, it seems the guy from Livonia is holding a clinched right fist in the air.

As officers, we don't have to be shot before we can use deadly force to stop a threat. Nor do we have to wait for a drunk with a clinched fist in our face to strike us before we can strike them. Is the concensus here that officers are to be subjected to violence and injury PRIOR to being able to use force on somebody who committed a crime?

After being struck, the guy fell to the ground, knocked out according to his lawyer. I find this funny, considering the guy continues to squirm upon hitting the ground, and then begins resisting the officer, trying to prevent him from handcuffing him. Thus, the officer delivers a couple strikes to him, in an effort to get him cuffed. Is the concensus here that the officer should have continued to struggle with the guy on the ground, risking injury to the officer and his partner, and even possibly allowing the suspect the opportunity to get away?

After the guy is finally cuffed, that's it, he gets escorted away and is off to jail. Yet as is all too common in the city, the victim decides not to press charges. I ask, why not? For all we know, maybe this guy is a high roller at the casino, and maybe somebody convinced her NOT to press charges. Either way, those charges were dropped, as were the other charges, even though the guy is visibly trying to get his right arm free to prevent him from being handcuffed.

Nothing these officers did falls out of line with what is allowed. The guy was drunk, uncooperative, and then turned on the officers, and appears to have raised a fist. This guy now thinks he won the lotto.

Now, let's reverse the roll here. Instead of Detroit, let's move this to Livonia. Instead of a white guy, we'll make him a black guy. Now, this guy gets drunk and decides to play grab ass with the waitress serving him drinks. The bouncers get involved, and he tells them "Fuck off, I'm not leaving" or something to that effect. How do you think Livonia PD would handle a guy that turns on them, raises a fist, and then continues to struggle with them on the ground? If not the exact same outcome, the alternative is the guy getting tazered multiple times. Also, even without the victim, this case could have, and should have been prosecuted. There is undoubtedly video of the offense taking place, and just because the victim doesn't wish to testify doesn't mean there wouldn't be enough proof to possibly convict.

Why do Detroiters tolerate this? Some guy can come into Detroit, get drunk, commit sexual conduct on a person, refuse to leave, confront the officers, raise a fist, and then the outcome gets him a day in court to try and get a payout? As an officer and a citizen of Detroit, I am sickened by this.

The casino should have banned this guy for life. By not doing so, it shows that their patrons are allowed to fondle waitresses without consequences. The chief should release a statement, reviewing the video, and stand behind these officers, explaining why the outcome was justified.This guy wants their jobs? Is he serious? He does realize that he got off scott free for the crime he committed, right?

This is a fine example of so many things. For one, it is one more example of why we should have tazers. This guy would have been dropped, cuffed, and there would be no discussion. Secondly, depending upon the outcome, this could prove to be another fine example of why there are disgruntled officers on the job, moral overall tends to be low, and why this department continues to lose officers to suburban departments and the federal government. We lost our first classmate a few months ago to border patrol, and as it stands, we look to loose several more to federal positions in the coming months and years. Why? Because people realize that it just isn't worth the headaches. By 10 years, I figure over 1/2-3/4 of my classmates will have gone on to MUCH greener pastures.

Now I ask, how would you have dealt with this situation? If you have a better way, then by all means, head on down to 17825 Sherwood and sign up. People are always quick to be critical, but almost always unwilling to step up, put their lives on the line in an attempt to do a better job.

---

Do the City of Detroit a favor, if you are indeed a cop, quit. It's officers that think the way you are thinking that has us dealing with Consent Decrees and hundreds of millions in lawsuit settlements as it is. And then you'll complain about the lack of equipment that the department has due to financial woes. As it stands, that officers idiotic decision has already cost he and his partner disciplinary action. But let's look at what else it will probably cost. It will wind up being a six figure settlement, which is the cost of about two or three scout cars, four or five guns, ammunition for the guns, several vests, etc.

And yet you're argument is that it should be okay to treat a white guy unfairly in Detroit because they would treat a black guy unfairly in Livonia. The best weapon that a police officer has is his or her brain. Obviously, any officer that would pull a stunt like this in the most video surveilled place around, and then completely lie about it, is unarmed in that regard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kraig

Do the City of Detroit a favor, if you are indeed a cop, quit. It's officers that think the way you are thinking that has us dealing with Consent Decrees and hundreds of millions in lawsuit settlements as it is. And then you'll complain about the lack of equipment that the department has due to financial woes. As it stands, that officers idiotic decision has already cost he and his partner disciplinary action. But let's look at what else it will probably cost. It will wind up being a six figure settlement, which is the cost of about two or three scout cars, four or five guns, ammunition for the guns, several vests, etc.

And yet you're argument is that it should be okay to treat a white guy unfairly in Detroit because they would treat a black guy unfairly in Livonia. The best weapon that a police officer has is his or her brain. Obviously, any officer that would pull a stunt like this in the most video surveilled place around, and then completely lie about it, is unarmed in that regard.

---

To Supersport I'd say the only difference between the white guy/Detroit, black guy/Livonia comparison is that instead of a statement from Mr. Mueller, we'd be watching a "Geoff Fieger Press Conference" had this been the latter.

A lot left unsaid here. For example, which side asked for a trial in Federal Court? Usually not the plaintiff - in my experience the City tries to move the complaint to Federal Court because The level of proof is a lot higher there than in a Michigan court.
Why is the drunk's attorney trying this in the court of public opinion [[certainly the City did not run around and have a press conference and release the tape)? Who gains from this except the lawyer who is maybe pretty hungry for a big settlement?
Finally, why ask the police to come in and intervene in a little brawl with security if not wanting to press charges? Are the DPD just bouncers for the casino?

In my opinion, there is a lot more here than meets the eye- as is often the case.

When this guy was being escorted out, I assume he was already being placed under arest. At that point, the discussion is over, there is no explaining left to do. Instead of going peacefully, he turned on the officers. As for the report, I can't speak for what the officer said in his own words. Consider this though, these cameras are not Hollywood quality. More than one person above has mentioned choppiness, leading them to believe the tape may have been edited. More likely, its simply the cameras, and everything on camera may not happen as quickly as real life due to the frame rate. Him turning on the officers could have been more of a quick spin at them. The finger pointing could have happened at a speed where it was mistaken for an attempted punch. I can't say for sure. What I can say, is when this guy was struck, he was still in the officer's face with what appears to be a clinched right fist, raised and ready to throw. Then, once on the ground, it is again obvious that the guy is not knocked out, but in fact moving around, and even visibly pulling away from the officer in an attempt to prevent from being handcuffed. So why did his attorney lie and say his client was knocked out?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kraig

Do the City of Detroit a favor, if you are indeed a cop, quit. It's officers that think the way you are thinking that has us dealing with Consent Decrees and hundreds of millions in lawsuit settlements as it is. And then you'll complain about the lack of equipment that the department has due to financial woes. As it stands, that officers idiotic decision has already cost he and his partner disciplinary action. But let's look at what else it will probably cost. It will wind up being a six figure settlement, which is the cost of about two or three scout cars, four or five guns, ammunition for the guns, several vests, etc.

And yet you're argument is that it should be okay to treat a white guy unfairly in Detroit because they would treat a black guy unfairly in Livonia. The best weapon that a police officer has is his or her brain. Obviously, any officer that would pull a stunt like this in the most video surveilled place around, and then completely lie about it, is unarmed in that regard.

---

Kraig and I have intensely disagreed in the past, but in this instance we're in complete agreement.

The office was completely out of line. The subject, while he is a scumbag groping pervert, did nothing to the cop to warrant that level of force.

While I do like seeing scumbags punched in the face, I don't like seeing them get rich, and that's exactly what's going to happen here. If the cop did his job properly, this scumbag would be in jail on sexual assault charges instead of negotiating with Detroit over how much money he'll get.

I understand that being a cop is a hard job. You deal with a lot of scumbags. You also deal with a lot of good people too. However, simply can't slip, even if it's a pervert scumbag, you can't slip. You have to follow the rules. And you especially can't slip in a casino where your actions are more than likely recorded by at bare minimum two different angles.

And yes, we are missing the audio context of the event, but there's nothing he could have said to warrant that level of physical force.

We appreciate our police officers, but they simply cannot use excessive force.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Supersport

When this guy was being escorted out, I assume he was already being placed under arest. At that point, the discussion is over, there is no explaining left to do. Instead of going peacefully, he turned on the officers. As for the report, I can't speak for what the officer said in his own words. Consider this though, these cameras are not Hollywood quality. More than one person above has mentioned choppiness, leading them to believe the tape may have been edited. More likely, its simply the cameras, and everything on camera may not happen as quickly as real life due to the frame rate. Him turning on the officers could have been more of a quick spin at them. The finger pointing could have happened at a speed where it was mistaken for an attempted punch. I can't say for sure. What I can say, is when this guy was struck, he was still in the officer's face with what appears to be a clinched right fist, raised and ready to throw. Then, once on the ground, it is again obvious that the guy is not knocked out, but in fact moving around, and even visibly pulling away from the officer in an attempt to prevent from being handcuffed. So why did his attorney lie and say his client was knocked out?

---

As a cop you must know that attorneys don't lie. They merely re-make the truth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Supersport

When this guy was being escorted out, I assume he was already being placed under arest. At that point, the discussion is over, there is no explaining left to do. Instead of going peacefully, he turned on the officers. As for the report, I can't speak for what the officer said in his own words. Consider this though, these cameras are not Hollywood quality. More than one person above has mentioned choppiness, leading them to believe the tape may have been edited. More likely, its simply the cameras, and everything on camera may not happen as quickly as real life due to the frame rate. Him turning on the officers could have been more of a quick spin at them. The finger pointing could have happened at a speed where it was mistaken for an attempted punch. I can't say for sure. What I can say, is when this guy was struck, he was still in the officer's face with what appears to be a clinched right fist, raised and ready to throw. Then, once on the ground, it is again obvious that the guy is not knocked out, but in fact moving around, and even visibly pulling away from the officer in an attempt to prevent from being handcuffed. So why did his attorney lie and say his client was knocked out?

---

Stop, just stop. Please tell me you're not a detective. I'll be able to sleep much better at night knowing that. Because as a witness, you are a criminal defense or civil lawsuit lawyer's wet dream.

By the way, if he was already under arrest. Shouldn't he have already been in handcuffs?

Supersport, you're a DYes HOF poster, but man, that's one scary ride-off-the-rails post you've made in this thread.

Most of us know that as a cop you are forced to interact daily and constantly with the biggest assholes around like Mr. Poisson, the plaintiff here. It's an awful part of your job and it is certainly understandable how that can wear on you. It's also perfectly ok to adopt a code of brotherhood/sisterhood with your fellow sworn officers, and as a part of that support each other in difficult times and situations.

But the stretch you have to make in this case to support Officer Dudal is so misguided that it really is scary. You're actually seeing things that are not there. Mr. Poisson at most stuck his chest out while he was no doubt delivering several f-bombs in Officer Dudal's direction. The video reveals nothing physically threatening enough to justify the punches that were thrown. Mr. Poisson was in the middle of a crowded casino floor surrounded by two cops and another casino security officer. He was not some murder suspect who just been apprehended in a dark alley. If punches were justified here, there is almost no circumstance where a verbally aggressive citizen within arm's reach of an officer can't be justifiably dropped.

The video is unequivocal. Officer Dudal simply decided to teach a drunk a lesson. He took advantage of his badge and sullied it permanently.

Supersport, if you think that Officer Dudal's actions were justified because Mr. Poisson merely stiffened his body in the officer's general direction, then you as well are certainly going to find yourself on the receiving end of plenty of citizen complaints. Hopefully, you won't get involved in an encounter that mistakenly or wrongfully changes lives permanently.

Nobody here seems to be denying the guy had his right hand raised, clenched, and able to strike. Does the majority here feel that the officer needed to wait to be punched? If punched, possibly injured, would the action taken by the officer then be viewed as ok? There is nothing that says we have to wait to be punched before using force. This guy exhibited non-compliance from the beginning, then turned around and became confrontational, and then showed a raised clenched fist. Until you've been on the ground, fighting for your life, waiting for backup, you can't relate to how quickly a situation can turn dangerous. Drunks, as well as people on narcotics and folks with mental problems are the most dangerous encounters. It seems the majority would rather see one less officer on the street, off due to injury, and possibly even allowing the you to escape, as opposed to the outcome that took place. Yes, the DOJ is here, but that does not mean taking second guesses prior to taking action because of their presence. An officer is killed on average every 2 days in this country, and a good majority can be attributed to an officer don't taking proper action to stop a threat, for fear of discipline or causing injury to the person. I've said all I've got to say, though will continue to follow the thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Supersport

Nobody here seems to be denying the guy had his right hand raised, clenched, and able to strike. Does the majority here feel that the officer needed to wait to be punched? If punched, possibly injured, would the action taken by the officer then be viewed as ok? There is nothing that says we have to wait to be punched before using force. This guy exhibited non-compliance from the beginning, then turned around and became confrontational, and then showed a raised clenched fist. Until you've been on the ground, fighting for your life, waiting for backup, you can't relate to how quickly a situation can turn dangerous. Drunks, as well as people on narcotics and folks with mental problems are the most dangerous encounters. It seems the majority would rather see one less officer on the street, off due to injury, and possibly even allowing the you to escape, as opposed to the outcome that took place. Yes, the DOJ is here, but that does not mean taking second guesses prior to taking action because of their presence. An officer is killed on average every 2 days in this country, and a good majority can be attributed to an officer don't taking proper action to stop a threat, for fear of discipline or causing injury to the person. I've said all I've got to say, though will continue to follow the thread.

---

Supersport, again as an officer yourself, you keep stating that "There is nothing that says we have to wait to be punched before using force." You are right, there is nothing that says that, but there are lot of unwritten rules of this world, so please stop using that one as an excuse for this incident. Police officers are highly trained, both in physical tactics as well as psychological ones. His right hand was raised up, this is true. In that video, just before the officer punches him, the drunk's body posture [[shoulders forward, chest parallel to the officer) appears to show that if that guy managed to get a punch in with that right hand, he wouldn't have alot of spacing to add any power to that punch, and there is the other officer there at the ready to assist. So 2 good sized officers in close range, with alleged training, tools, and experience in these situations can't address this in the proper way? They are to serve and protect. They are expected to protect this man, even from himself. Is there not a way to use a pressure point, or method of restraint to put this man into a position of compliance? Other than an admirable right hand to the drunks jaw? I refuse to believe that.
We have 20 years of COPS episodes that showcase better use of police tactics to restrain people for us normal citizens.
The officer completely overreacted. He's human. But he refused accountability, allowed a false police report to be submitted by the assisting officer, and now the City of Detroit is on the hook for this officer's gross misconduct.
I understand being a City of Detroit police officer is a thankless and stress filled job. But that's the job. It should be able to wash out those who can't take it, yet it seems to be the opposite: those who can't take it are retained and protected. One needs to look no further than to Officer Nevin Hughes, who beat up that college student at the gas station in 2009.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UpTown

In that video, just before the officer punches him, the drunk's body posture [[shoulders forward, chest parallel to the officer) appears to show that if that guy managed to get a punch in with that right hand, he wouldn't have alot of spacing to add any power to that punch,

---

Stole what I was going to say. At about 6:34, the drunk guy's arm is up, his hand right next to his head. If you are going to punch someone, this is the worst possible way to start, next to starting with your arm fully extended. Now look at the cop's right arm - cocked and ready to go.

As for the video frame rate - if anything it looks slightly sped up, meaning events were happening more slowly than what you see. The cop lost his cool, plain and simple.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UpTown

The officer completely overreacted. He's human. But he refused accountability, allowed a false police report to be submitted by the assisting officer, and now the City of Detroit is on the hook for this officer's gross misconduct. .

---

That, Supersport is what everyone is reacting to. The officer made up, embellished and outright lied about the situation. He dropped the guy in the middle of casino... apparently oblivious to the fact that there are few places on earth with fewer video cameras than a casino gaming floor. So, the question now is...how many times did he do something similar when there were no cameras around to witness it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bailey

That, Supersport is what everyone is reacting to. The officer made up, embellished and outright lied about the situation. He dropped the guy in the middle of casino... apparently oblivious to the fact that there are few places on earth with fewer video cameras than a casino gaming floor. So, the question now is...how many times did he do something similar when there were no cameras around to witness it?

---

yup, it wasn't the punch.... it was the lie about the punch...

I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.

enough said

It just got that much harder to seat a jury in this town ...

I'm a Dyes HOFer? Sniff, sniff...I would like to thank my mom and dad, Sprint, and formerly Comcast, for providing me with internet access. I would also like to thank Detroit, as well as her cast of charactors for providing me the needed material to be HOF, I couldn't have done it without you!

So any way, how bout them Lions? 3-0 baby!

Irony here in that the plaintiff's attorney is a member of the Michigan Unarmed Combat commission. I wonder if the PO had used a karate move to take the obnoxious drunk down things would have gone better for the cop:

Attorney Wolfgang Mueller was elected Vice Chair of the Michigan Unarmed Combat Commission. Mueller was previously appointed by Gov. Jennifer Granholm to the Commission. The U.C.C., formerly the Michigan Boxing Commission, will help promote all unarmed combat sports, including boxing and the rising sport of mixed martial arts.

Al Low, U.C.C. Commissioner, said "We are very pleased to have Wolfgang on the Commission. His legal background and concern for the athletes will provide a needed voice on the Commission." Mr. Mueller is a former competitive bodybuilder and has represented many professional boxers and other athletes.

SPort do what you do. Simply becuase I live in the city and SEE FIRST HAND what people do [[suprisingly its alot of people who come in from out the city), and then when they get their asses handed to them THEN it becomes "Well the cops should be helld accountbale for their actions". Well what about those who resist or make a cops job harder for them when they are simply doing their job? Given what a cop goes through on a daily basis when you take an incident like this and times it sereval times over any given week IF the cop acted unjustly then I could understand why when you are simply dong your job and have to have a whole lot of restraint to keep from putting someone in the dirt for not following the orders of a person wearing a badge.

Hmm, maybe its only me having grown up with plenty of drunk uncles, but it didn't look like the drunk had his right hand up in a fist to strike - it looked like he was doing that pointing/talking thing that drunks do! They put their hands up high and point right above their shoulders, very emphatically, like they're so sure of what they're saying.

That's what it looked like to ME. A planned punch looks nothing like that. At any rate, if the cop was so certain he was right, there was no need to lie. All of the lies in the written report speak volumes about his character and credibility.

To some DPD uniforms, a person in cuffs is known as a target. Outside LaChambre' on Telegraph one night, I personally saw a plainclothes officer assault someone already in cuffs and being escorted by a 7-0 to his unit for transportation. The PC came up to the detainee from behind and jumped the guy for no reason at all.

And NO, 54 rounds from 3 officers is NEVER justified unless you're taking active fire.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meddle

To some DPD uniforms, a person in cuffs is known as a target. Outside LaChambre' on Telegraph one night, I personally saw a plainclothes officer assault someone already in cuffs and being escorted by a 7-0 to his unit for transportation. The PC came up to the detainee from behind and jumped the guy for no reason at all.

And NO, 54 rounds from 3 officers is NEVER justified unless you're taking active fire.

---

That is completely different to one who is uncuffed, and resisting...

So why did she call the cops? Good luck next time she or any of her cohorts get groped .

Just what Detroit needs, another lawsuit.

How much will the City pay out in a case like this...usually? $400K? $700K?

I saw the video, and this guy is going to get a nice pay off when the time comes.

If the guy didn't have any broken bones, I would say the pay off might be like $50,000.

It is clear that the troublemaker did raise his hand at the police. He should had kept walking. The policeman responded not knowing if that fist was a gesture or coming at him. The police was well in his right. Many people in Detroit complain about the violence in the city and the lack of police protection. Some of the same people complain when the police uses necessary force to handle troublemakers in the community. You can't have it both ways. This character had sexually assaulted a worker and was unruly. I am surprised that the worker didn't press charges against this person. A message has to be sent. DONT DISRESPECT THE BADGE.

Agreed. Had this been a citizens involvement 'arrest' style beat-down applied by a fellow bar person or what not the litigation could be at the private level... now its another hit to the city when we need it most. Great...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 48091

....While I do like seeing scumbags punched in the face, I don't like seeing them get rich, and that's exactly what's going to happen here. If the cop did his job properly, this scumbag would be in jail on sexual assault charges instead of negotiating with Detroit over how much money he'll get.

---

Somewhere in the range. The city has the deep pockets... Yeah.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patrick

How much will the City pay out in a case like this...usually? $400K? $700K?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johnnny5

Here's a video from Freep.com that shows the entire episode.


http://www.freep.com/article/2011092...text|FRONTPAGE

---

Drunk is a big guy. Looks to me that he had his left hand with fist in officers face. Seems normal reaction for officer in this situation would be to push fast away or defend oneself by stricking back at the drunk.
I don't see anywhere that officer lost control of himself. It may look like it was over reaction because most people don't get threatened on their jobs freqently. The lengthly video after the drunk was in custody [[escort to jail) tells it all. No retaliations, calm cool behavior).
As far as the report goes....The guy had his fist in his face and was saying something. Seems to me with that gesture, his words were probably threatening. How would you write it up.
Does the officer have to wait to he hit before he defends himself?
The whole thing was a bad situation but it looks like everyone is to quick to judge. The first vedeo was clearly edited...and most people including myself felt the offiocer was wrong. Thanks for posting the second one. I now believe the officer was right.
The waitress ought to be talked to for declining to prosecute. Her fellow working ought to be pissed...I guess she is saying it is ok to get drunk and touch the waitresses?

The city usually settles for less than $10,000 in most police cases [[every aggrieved person wants to sue you know & most meritless but would take up time & money so the City tries to settle) and the lawyer gets a third. I continue puzzled. What constitutional issues here to merit a trial in Federal Court? The plaintiff will have to have some big proofs.

you people trying to defend the police action by saying he raised his hand to the cop are missing the point....

IF THIS WERE THE CASE, AND THE OFFICER WAS THREATENED BY IT, WHY DIDN'T THE REPORT JUST SIMPLY SAY SO... if the report matched what happened then you could defend the officers actions somewhat, although the arm raise to me didn't seem threatening at all.... THEY BEEFED UP THE REPORT TO SAY THE GUY LUNGED AT THE COP MULTIPLE TIMES...

the report so bogusly misrepresents what actually happened that its is all but clear they are covering up a beatdown.... to me, they may as well have planted a knife in the guys hand and put that in the report too, thats how mismatched the report vs. what happened are

and sure thiings can get confused in the heat of the moment, but from the looks of the video, the partner wasn't frantic and really only became involved after the guy was on the ground and being cuffed, it wasn't a scuffle where fists were being thrown, it was a cold-cock knock out with an additional punch thrown after the guy is going down.... then while they are cuffing him, the guy gets a few more kidney jabs in....

this was a drunk beligerant fool who should have been either cuffed at the table and arrested if he was a threat.... too bad there wasn't audio with the tape, im sure the drunk is yelling every derogatory four letter word at the cop, but thats no excuse.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goose

yup, it wasn't the punch.... it was the lie about the punch...

---

I agree with that too. I think the punch was justified. The lying by the officer is the only thing I have an issue with. The cop also has a gun and being so close there's also an issue that the suspect could have reached for it and jeapordized the safety of the patrons of the casino. Just google "suspect grabs officer's gun holster". It's a real concern.

But, why blatantly lie about the punch? It's obvious that the scene would be recorded in a casino. If the officer said, we asked the suspect to leave the premises with us peacefully. He initially complied. While escorting the suspect outside, the suspect turned around and got right up in my face in a threatening manner and became verbally abusive. The suspect raised his hand in a threatening manner. The officer was concerned that the suspect in his confrontational state and proximity may reach for the officer's gun holster while being distracted by the raised hand and his verbal abuse. The officer swung at the suspect to avoid an unsafe situation for the officer and the casino patrons.

The think an explanation like that would be reasonable for the force that was used.

Instead, the officer lied and should be reprimanded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Supersport

When this guy was being escorted out, I assume he was already being placed under arest. At that point, the discussion is over, there is no explaining left to do. Instead of going peacefully, he turned on the officers. As for the report, I can't speak for what the officer said in his own words. Consider this though, these cameras are not Hollywood quality. More than one person above has mentioned choppiness, leading them to believe the tape may have been edited. More likely, its simply the cameras, and everything on camera may not happen as quickly as real life due to the frame rate. Him turning on the officers could have been more of a quick spin at them. The finger pointing could have happened at a speed where it was mistaken for an attempted punch. I can't say for sure. What I can say, is when this guy was struck, he was still in the officer's face with what appears to be a clinched right fist, raised and ready to throw. Then, once on the ground, it is again obvious that the guy is not knocked out, but in fact moving around, and even visibly pulling away from the officer in an attempt to prevent from being handcuffed. So why did his attorney lie and say his client was knocked out?

---

Well that didn't take you long Sport to become a typical cop who will "defend" his own. Walk in line right?

You know as well as I do that this is pure bullshit. The cop is wrong regardless of what the guy said, how he behaved with or without a clenched fist. The fact remains that he didn't try to physically assault the officer.

A judge will laugh this out of court as did your brother-in-blue's own prosecutor.

Imo, this is just another cop taking atters into his own hands. If he can't take teh job then fucking quit! I'm so fucking tireds of hearing how cops have it so rough. Yes they do! But the question why if it is so tough and horrible then why do it? Every cop knows what they are getting into when they are hired, so why the big surprise??

So I'll say it again. If they can't hack the criminal element, the loud-mouths, the punks, then quit and find another line of work. This man's rights were violated and the cop, the city should be penalized for it.

Well, they put Officer Dudal on restricted duty, and the other officer, Officer Ortiz looks to be in some real hot water over his overactive imagination:

From today's Freep:

A Detroit police officer accused of assaulting a man at the MGM Grand Detroit casino has been placed on restricted duty as the department investigates, Police Chief Ralph Godbee Jr. announced Tuesday.

The department also will submit its findings to the Wayne County Prosecutor's Office for review.

Livonia resident Patrick Poisson filed a federal lawsuit against the city Monday, claiming he was punched in the face, head and ribs by Officer Arthur Dudal at the MGM casino on July 30. Court records show the casino's security called police when Poisson, accused of inappropriately touching a waitress, refused to leave.

Godbee said all use of force by officers is required to be investigated to determine whether it was justified and in accordance with department policy.

"I have ordered that the involved officer be placed on administrative restricted duty, no-gun status pending the outcome of the investigation," Godbee said in his statement. "Appropriate department action will be taken at the conclusion of the investigation."

Dudal could not be reached for comment Tuesday.

The lawsuit also names Officer Jose Ortiz, who is accused of misrepresenting events when he filed a request seeking charges against Poisson. The charges against Poisson were dropped.

On Tuesday, Ortiz was named in another lawsuit in Wayne County Circuit Court -- this one accusing him of submitting a warrant request to the Wayne County Prosecutor's Office that contained "false and fabricated information" in seeking rape charges against William Horton.

According to the lawsuit, the Prosecutor's Office issued a criminal complaint charging Horton with rape and kidnapping, and he was jailed in January. Two months later, DNA evidence proved he was innocent, the lawsuit says.

Efforts to reach Ortiz were unsuccessful.

http://www.freep.com/article/2011092...text|FRONTPAGE

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patrick

How much will the City pay out in a case like this...usually? $400K? $700K?

---

Remove a zero and cut the number in half.

1.
There is a difference between assault and battery.
Battery involves touching that causes harm or offense.
Assault is causing the victim to fear a touching.

2.
The drunk established himself as someone likely to commit battery.
The drunk committed battery against the woman by touching her in a way that was likely to offend.

3.
The police were aware of the drunk's likelihood to commit battery.
To prevent future acts of battery they attempted to remove him from the casino.

4.
The drunk then committed assault against the police officer.
The assault was causing the officer to fear a touching by the drunk raising his hand to the officer's face. The fear was especially justified because the person has just committed battery.

5.
The police force was justified.
A bystanding officer is justified in using non-deadly force when he sees a citizen or another officer being assaulted. An officer is justified in using non-deadly force to end an assault against him.
The drunk was committing assault against the officer and the officer was justified in using non-deadly force to protect himself.

6.
The intentional falsification of police documents by police should be addressed.
The falsification however is a separate issue from determining whether the police used unjustifiable force against the drunk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by majohnson

1.
There is a difference between assault and battery.
Battery involves touching that causes harm or offense.
Assault is causing the victim to fear a touching.

2.
The drunk established himself as someone likely to commit battery.
The drunk committed battery against the woman by touching her in a way that was likely to offend.

3.
The police were aware of the drunk's likelihood to commit battery.
To prevent future acts of battery they attempted to remove him from the casino.

4.
The drunk then committed assault against the police officer.
The assault was causing the officer to fear a touching by the drunk raising his hand to the officer's face. The fear was especially justified because the person has just committed battery.

5.
The police force was justified.
A bystanding officer is justified in using non-deadly force when he sees a citizen or another officer being assaulted. An officer is justified in using non-deadly force to end an assault against him.
The drunk was committing assault against the officer and the officer was justified in using non-deadly force to protect himself.

6.
The intentional falsification of police documents by police should be addressed.
The falsification however is a separate issue from determining whether the police used unjustifiable force against the drunk.

---

do you understand the lies in the report? something legitimate didn't happen, that why they HAD TO LIE IN THE REPORT....

trying to justify it after the evident lies in the report is naive

according to you, something completly justified and legitimate happened, and then at the last minute, for some reason, despite having justification, they just decided to lie in the report... all other actions were warranted, but they felt compelled somehow to make crap up to put in the report....

please......

In the old days this guy would have got beaten up by the cops and we wouldn't even know about it. Of course, the streets were safer back then. Now its open season on cocktail waitresses at the casinos.

I agree ,maybe the cop shouldn't have punched him,But if I was on the jury,that scum-bag wouldn't get a penny.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by majohnson

1.
There is a difference between assault and battery.
Battery involves touching that causes harm or offense.
Assault is causing the victim to fear a touching.

2.
The drunk established himself as someone likely to commit battery.
The drunk committed battery against the woman by touching her in a way that was likely to offend.

3.
The police were aware of the drunk's likelihood to commit battery.
To prevent future acts of battery they attempted to remove him from the casino.

4.
The drunk then committed assault against the police officer.
The assault was causing the officer to fear a touching by the drunk raising his hand to the officer's face. The fear was especially justified because the person has just committed battery.

5.
The police force was justified.
A bystanding officer is justified in using non-deadly force when he sees a citizen or another officer being assaulted. An officer is justified in using non-deadly force to end an assault against him.
The drunk was committing assault against the officer and the officer was justified in using non-deadly force to protect himself.

6.
The intentional falsification of police documents by police should be addressed.
The falsification however is a separate issue from determining whether the police used unjustifiable force against the drunk.

---

A couple of things I can't help but respond on here.

1) The "battery" by Poisson on the waitress is unfounded. It was reported that he touched her inappropriately, but by reports there was no evidence to this fact.

2) Assault is an imminent apprehension of a harmful or offensive contact. We are talking about a trained officer, larger in size, and surely in a better state of mind. It is extremely hard to prove that in the same situation, a reasonable person in the officers position would be in any imminent danger of a harmful or offensive contact, let alone actually subjectively be in fear of a harmful or offensive contact. The "assault" justification here to me has no merit.

3) Police officers should use force only to the extent that the perp. of a potential crime is subdued. The video tape provides evidence that there was no threatening motion by Poisson, and even if there was it would not justify a haymaker to the fact. The officer then continued to throw fists into his ribs and side when he was clearly unable to move or resist.

The video in the Freep starts with the supposed drunk patting the offending officer on his shoulder. Agreeable. Friendly. The other officer says "let's go." There are obviously words between the two, but at all times the officer could have eased up the energy of this encounter. He chose to escalate it, because that is his training. Response is designed to subdue whenever any form of resistance is perceived.

That is the core of the problem. When looking for a fight, any action is seen as a challenge. Add adrenaline...all bets are off. I remember asking the Bloomfield Hills cops after a high-speed chase I led a few years ago how they kept from beating up everyone who runs from them.

The mistake is the training. It assumes an officer's good humor is intact, but that gets whittled away with each day on the street. Witness our Sport here. I'm not sure his humor has survived these past couple of years.

I'm sure Officer Dudal needs some help with his, too. Their resiliency is deficient, and that eventually costs the city money.

Need some cheers here...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Downriviera

In the old days this guy would have got beaten up by the cops and we wouldn't even know about it. Of course, the streets were safer back then. Now its open season on cocktail waitresses at the casinos.

---

My advice to the pervert:
Life hands you a few bloody noses. Get over it, fat boy. Some people have actually been victims of police brutality. That's not what I would call that.

I dated a girl who was a waitress in the city; worked late hours. I always worried for her safety.

So here is the formula:
Get drunk, molest a waitress, provoke the police, get subdued, instant $$$$$$$$$

No wonder criminals in this country are so brazen and have nothing to fear.

What evidence is there that Mr. Poisson was drunk? What evidence is there that Mr. Poisson touched an employee of the casino inappropriately? The employee declined to testify. That charge against Mr. Poisson could be part of the same fabrication as the cop's statement about being attacked by Mr. Poisson.

Well, one piece in the chain is that Casino security called the cops and pointed Poisson out and asked to have him formally removed because he would not leave. Back one link: someone called casino Security and pointed Poisson out.

There is no evidence he was drunk. His defenders on this Board believe he was drunk and so his movements weren't very threatening. They made the assumption that he wasn't cold sober and refusing a request to leave private property.

After watching Officer Dudal's quick trigger on the sucker punch in this encounter, it seems almost certain that he has beaten the shit out of plenty other civilians/perps who lip off to him. It probably won't take long for his complaint history to come out, nor for emboldened additional plaintiffs.

When a cop tells you to leave the scene, leave the scene
































When asked to leave private property, leave. If you choose to have a confrontation with officers first, expect unpleasant circumstances.
Did the cop over react? Possible, but if the guy had simply gone away when asked, there would be no story or impending court procedures.
He should have just left, and certainly should not have waved his hand in the officer's face.
I learned at a young age that one should not piss off a cop!

i looked up this case. Poisson is alledging a violation of the American Civil Right Act. trust me, this will go nowhere. he is no Rosa Parks. The city may negotiate with his lawyer and give him the standard settlement prize - which used to be about $7000 - not sure what it is now. Everyone will sign off. The city will not be found guilty and neither will he. The officers can't be sued personally.

Swingline - every cop doing his job makes enemies. Lots of people feel aggrieved just about their lives and thay take it out on medical personel, cops, etc. Twenty complaints that went nowhere would not sway my opinion. You shouldn't jump to so many conclusions. Maybe the cop had the mixed martial arts training that Poisson's lawyer has and advocates. Maybe he's been in a fight or two in his life. So what? Poisson would not leave private property. He put up a fuss. Maybe they hit him in leiu of arresting him so there would be more room in the jail that night for the real criminals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SWMAP

i looked up this case. Poisson is alledging a violation of the American Civil Right Act. trust me, this will go nowhere. he is no Rosa Parks. The city may negotiate with his lawyer and give him the standard settlement prize - which used to be about $7000 - not sure what it is now. Everyone will sign off. The city will not be found guilty and neither will he. The officers can't be sued personally.

Swingline - every cop doing his job makes enemies. Lots of people feel aggrieved just about their lives and thay take it out on medical personel, cops, etc. Twenty complaints that went nowhere would not sway my opinion. You shouldn't jump to so many conclusions. Maybe the cop had the mixed martial arts training that Poisson's lawyer has and advocates. Maybe he's been in a fight or two in his life. So what? Poisson would not leave private property. He put up a fuss. Maybe they hit him in leiu of arresting him so there would be more room in the jail that night for the real criminals.

---

It will be more than $7,000. It is an uncapped exposure and this lawyer will make the focus of the case the cops and not his client [[the "greater good" approach). The video alone presents questions of fact so this case should make it to a jury. There are minimal damages, however, unless this guy lost his job or something else we don't know because of it.

The case will settle for $50-100K and Mueller is benefitting from the publicity. My arguably-educated guess on it, anyway.

we'll never know the amount of the settlement, of course. But I still hold that they will settle and never go to trial. And it won't overall be worth his time. He wouldn't leave, he made trouble, a cop slugged him and he got hurt. What violation of his civil rights occured? And remember that the lawyer is trying this in the media. That's a giveawy to a pretty weak case or a venal lawyer.

Just makes me so bloomin' glad to be long retired and away from that stuff. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

I do find it curious that the DPD apparently has police officers assigned to the casinos on the inside. Every joint in Las Vegas uses a security staff who would handle all such incidents. The bad guys are taken to a security office and the local PD is then called to take over the matter. But NO police officers in Las Vegas are assigned inside casinos [[except during special events, when their salaries are paid by the casinos.....WWF and stuff like that.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ray1936

Just makes me so bloomin' glad to be long retired and away from that stuff. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

I do find it curious that the DPD apparently has police officers assigned to the casinos on the inside. Every joint in Las Vegas uses a security staff who would handle all such incidents. The bad guys are taken to a security office and the local PD is then called to take over the matter. But NO police officers in Las Vegas are assigned inside casinos [[except during special events, when their salaries are paid by the casinos.....WWF and stuff like that.)

---

Ray, if I'm not mistakened, DPD are allowed to moonlight, in uniform, after their shift or before. I wonder if these two were doing just that? However, I think the security in the casino called the DPD and these two officers were dispatched to the scene.

Ray, I was thinking the same....What they are saying is that MGM security couldn't escort the guy out? There are plenty of Security and Bouncers at the Clubs at the Casinos. I find it odd, that they couldn't do anything.

I'm sure every weekend there is a drunk getting escorted out of a Casino, Bar, Restaurant that we don't hear about that includes brute strength [[possibly punches)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SWMAP

we'll never know the amount of the settlement, of course. But I still hold that they will settle and never go to trial. And it won't overall be worth his time. He wouldn't leave, he made trouble, a cop slugged him and he got hurt. What violation of his civil rights occured? And remember that the lawyer is trying this in the media. That's a giveawy to a pretty weak case or a venal lawyer.

---

SW, you make it sound as if the Michigan Penal Code does not apply to members of law enforcement. Well, it does apply. Officer Dudal committed a crime and he can be held civilly liable for it regardless of any criminal charge. Just because he's a cop doesn't mean he can punch out people and ask questions later. He's got no special status.

Mr. Poisson is a huge asshole, no disputing that, but one doesn't lose protection of Michigan and federal civil and criminal law just because they're an asshole. The video does not show Mr. Poisson physically threatening Officer Dudal or anyone else. And even the fabricated incident reports fail to include any kind of allegation that Mr. Poisson verbally threatened either of the officers. Accordingly, the officer had no legal right to strike Mr. Poisson.

It seems that plenty of folks think that Mr. Poisson "deserved" to get clocked because he is an asshole. Well, our judicial system is going to overlook his character flaw and will very likely conclude that he "deserves" to be compensated because he was the victim of what the lawyers call a constitutional or civil tort.

This thread's title needs a hyphen. It reads like a drunk got punched by a cop sucker. :D

swingline, I looked up the filing, as I said. The plaintiff is not claiming that his constitutional rights were violated. He is making a claim under the Civil Liberties Act of 1964 - which is pretty much dedicated to eliminating racial discrimination and discrimination against women. I don't see this as a constitutional tort action:

This about torts:

"The Constitution ordinarily places only negative restrictions on government and does not require affirmative acts to assist individuals. The statutory vehicle for most constitutional tort litigation, 42 U.S.C. section 1983, echoes this constitutional principle. It extends liability to "[e]very person who ... [under color of state law] subjects, or causes to be subjected, any ... person" to the deprivation of federal rights, and makes no provision for a duty on governmental defendants to stop others from harming the plaintiff."

I just can't see which of his federal rights were violated here. he was asked to leave and he would not. They threw him out and fractured his nose [[he says) when he wouldn't cooperate. What is the constitutional argument?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stasu1213

DONT DISRESPECT THE BADGE.

---

Especially when you're wearing it.

Ut, oh. That video is going viral. Just saw it on my local 12:00 noon news here in Las Vegas.

[[Footnote: I nearly choked when our local anchor bimbo, after showing the clip, said "I didn't know they had any casinos in Detroit." But I forgive her, she's a looker.......) :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SWMAP

swingline, I looked up the filing, as I said. The plaintiff is not claiming that his constitutional rights were violated. He is making a claim under the Civil Liberties Act of 1964 - which is pretty much dedicated to eliminating racial discrimination and discrimination against women. I don't see this as a constitutional tort action:

This about torts:

"The Constitution ordinarily places only negative restrictions on government and does not require affirmative acts to assist individuals. The statutory vehicle for most constitutional tort litigation, 42 U.S.C. section 1983, echoes this constitutional principle. It extends liability to "[e]very person who ... [under color of state law] subjects, or causes to be subjected, any ... person" to the deprivation of federal rights, and makes no provision for a duty on governmental defendants to stop others from harming the plaintiff."

I just can't see which of his federal rights were violated here. he was asked to leave and he would not. They threw him out and fractured his nose [[he says) when he wouldn't cooperate. What is the constitutional argument?

---

SW, the constitutional argument is made in almost all police misconduct cases. As we all used to learn in high school, the 4th amendment to the US Constitution protects all of us from unreasonable searches and seizures conducted by the government. The law treats a police officer's sucker punch delivered to an unthreatening civilian as an unreasonable seizure. Section 1983 transforms Officer Dudal's effort to teach Mr. Poisson how to show some respect to the badge into a violation of federal law.

And the cases keep coming. http://www.detnews.com/article/20110...M-Grand-Casino The Feiger firm is on this one. We'll get the video pretty soon. If it's as bad as the last one . . . well, then, no problem really. The taxpayers can just keep writing checks while the police officer/public servants continue teaching lessons to our citizens. Respect the badge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by swingline

And the cases keep coming. http://www.detnews.com/article/20110...M-Grand-Casino The Feiger firm is on this one. We'll get the video pretty soon. If it's as bad as the last one . . . well, then, no problem really. The taxpayers can just keep writing checks while the police officer/public servants continue teaching lessons to our citizens. Respect the badge.

---

If they release the video from this incident, and it's close to this description....woo boy.
From the Detroit News article:

"The Moncrief case involves an incident Jan 29 at the casino, which also was captured by a surveillance camera.
Moncrief, 34, who had rented a room at the casino hotel with his girlfriend, was waiting in the hotel lobby for a cab.
The officers approached them and ordered him to go back to his room, according to the lawsuit.
They told him to go outside and use another entrance to get to his room. Moncrief wanted to use the lobby entrance instead because it was cold, but the officers pushed him outside, according to the lawsuit.
"As DaJuan was speaking to the Defendants, one of the Defendants crept behind him and put him in a choke hold," Marko wrote. "At no time did DaJuan pose a threat to anyone, let alone Defendants; his hands were up held up in plain view in a non-threatening and open manner.
"DaJuan was smashed to the ground by Defendants, who were still choking him," the lawyer continued. "While DaJuan was being choked out, defendant police officers viciously and maliciously beat DaJuan with a billy club, breaking his ribs and causing severe injuries."
Moncrief was taken to jail. He complained of breathing problems but did not receive medical attention, according to the lawsuit.
Following the incident, Moncrief was charged with four separate crimes, according to the lawsuit. The charges were later dropped.
Besides the broken ribs, Moncrief suffered nerve damage, vision problems, including a busted blood vessel and blurry vision, neck problems, scarring and persistent headaches, according to the lawsuit."


From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/20110929/...#ixzz1ZM0ouFu0

"suelarity ensues"

This still makes me laugh each time I see it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Supersport

I've watched this video, over and over, and am really baffled by the responses I've read thus far. I'm going to break this incident down, piece by piece from the beginning, then offer an alternate scenario.

First, this guy committed 4th degree criminal sexual conduct, no denying that. The waitress stated such, the security attempted to remove the guy because of it, and surely, if the cameras are everywhere in the casino, it too was captured on tape.

After this drunk refused to leave, DPD was called. Initially, it seems the guy agreed to leave. Yet while walking out, he then turns on the officers, gets in their face, and points a finger in the one officers face. What happens next is what justifies the use of force. Unless you guys are watching a different video, it seems the guy from Livonia is holding a clinched right fist in the air.

As officers, we don't have to be shot before we can use deadly force to stop a threat. Nor do we have to wait for a drunk with a clinched fist in our face to strike us before we can strike them. Is the concensus here that officers are to be subjected to violence and injury PRIOR to being able to use force on somebody who committed a crime?

After being struck, the guy fell to the ground, knocked out according to his lawyer. I find this funny, considering the guy continues to squirm upon hitting the ground, and then begins resisting the officer, trying to prevent him from handcuffing him. Thus, the officer delivers a couple strikes to him, in an effort to get him cuffed. Is the concensus here that the officer should have continued to struggle with the guy on the ground, risking injury to the officer and his partner, and even possibly allowing the suspect the opportunity to get away?

After the guy is finally cuffed, that's it, he gets escorted away and is off to jail. Yet as is all too common in the city, the victim decides not to press charges. I ask, why not? For all we know, maybe this guy is a high roller at the casino, and maybe somebody convinced her NOT to press charges. Either way, those charges were dropped, as were the other charges, even though the guy is visibly trying to get his right arm free to prevent him from being handcuffed.

Nothing these officers did falls out of line with what is allowed. The guy was drunk, uncooperative, and then turned on the officers, and appears to have raised a fist. This guy now thinks he won the lotto.

Now, let's reverse the roll here. Instead of Detroit, let's move this to Livonia. Instead of a white guy, we'll make him a black guy. Now, this guy gets drunk and decides to play grab ass with the waitress serving him drinks. The bouncers get involved, and he tells them "Fuck off, I'm not leaving" or something to that effect. How do you think Livonia PD would handle a guy that turns on them, raises a fist, and then continues to struggle with them on the ground? If not the exact same outcome, the alternative is the guy getting tazered multiple times. Also, even without the victim, this case could have, and should have been prosecuted. There is undoubtedly video of the offense taking place, and just because the victim doesn't wish to testify doesn't mean there wouldn't be enough proof to possibly convict.

Why do Detroiters tolerate this? Some guy can come into Detroit, get drunk, commit sexual conduct on a person, refuse to leave, confront the officers, raise a fist, and then the outcome gets him a day in court to try and get a payout? As an officer and a citizen of Detroit, I am sickened by this.

The casino should have banned this guy for life. By not doing so, it shows that their patrons are allowed to fondle waitresses without consequences. The chief should release a statement, reviewing the video, and stand behind these officers, explaining why the outcome was justified.This guy wants their jobs? Is he serious? He does realize that he got off scott free for the crime he committed, right?

This is a fine example of so many things. For one, it is one more example of why we should have tazers. This guy would have been dropped, cuffed, and there would be no discussion. Secondly, depending upon the outcome, this could prove to be another fine example of why there are disgruntled officers on the job, moral overall tends to be low, and why this department continues to lose officers to suburban departments and the federal government. We lost our first classmate a few months ago to border patrol, and as it stands, we look to loose several more to federal positions in the coming months and years. Why? Because people realize that it just isn't worth the headaches. By 10 years, I figure over 1/2-3/4 of my classmates will have gone on to MUCH greener pastures.

Now I ask, how would you have dealt with this situation? If you have a better way, then by all means, head on down to 17825 Sherwood and sign up. People are always quick to be critical, but almost always unwilling to step up, put their lives on the line in an attempt to do a better job.

---

I'm sorry, were you drafted to be a police officer? No one forced YOU to take the job - in fact, its been my experience that most of the morons who carry a badge and a gun should not be doing so. Based on your comments, I think you belong in that category as well.
YOU chose to do what you do for a lving. If you have a problem with it, find another job.

Either way, you don't get to arbitrarily strike someone....and people wonder why some [[including me) have absolutely no respect for cops.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ferntruth

in fact, its been my experience that most of the morons who carry a badge and a gun should not be doing so..

---

Nice generalization and slamming of a noble profession. A few bad apples don't spoil the whole bushel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by swingline

The taxpayers can just keep writing checks while ...

---

Instead of buying or fixing fire trucks and buses or repairing roads and streetlights.

Folks, there is nothing wrong with Supersport. It's just his opinion. From what I understand, he's a very noble guy.

Stromberg2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Detroitej72

Nice generalization and slamming of a noble profession. A few bad apples don't spoil the whole bushel.

---

Agreed. My experience with DPD has been very good. Maybe I've always lived in good parts of town or been lucky, but I have no complaints. When I was 16, I came home and the alarm at the house was going off. I called the police, they were there within 10 minutes, and they walked through entire house with me to make sure it was safe. This was on Outer Drive in the early 1990s.

Then there was the whole fiasco with LAX. So the two times I've ever had any real interaction with DPD, they've been very good. Obviously, this isn't a representative sample, but let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Now, keeping that in mind, and with full respect to Superstar, I have a hard time justifying the amount of force used to subdue this guy. My buddy is on the border patrol, and another one is an ICE agent. They both agree. It was excessive.

I'm smart enough to know that I don't know everything. There were events that led up to that video that deserve to be known. I know for me, I thought the whole McDonald's "spill coffee in my lap, make me a millionaire" thing was preposterous...until I learned that the coffee was so hot that it burned through her pants, her skin, and all the way to the bone. And that there were multiple documented warnings given to this franchise about their hot beverage safety. Kinda changes things a little, right?

I think the force was excessive. And I think the cops involve have a right to a full, un-tampered investigation. And I think that no matter what these guys did, it should have no relevance to how we look at DPD or police as a whole. We've already got the feds overseeing the complaints from the early 2000s, and -- although the pace has been unacceptable -- they are doing the things necessary to improve compliance.

How about we reserve judgment and see how this all plays out before jumping to conclusions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ferntruth

I'm sorry, were you drafted to be a police officer? No one forced YOU to take the job - in fact, its been my experience that most of the morons who carry a badge and a gun should not be doing so. Based on your comments, I think you belong in that category as well.
YOU chose to do what you do for a lving. If you have a problem with it, find another job.

Either way, you don't get to arbitrarily strike someone....and people wonder why some [[including me) have absolutely no respect for cops.

---

Fern... not one of your better posts [[of which there are many)...

Even I [[who detest border patrol folks at the tunnel/bridge) don't label everyone in one profession with the same disdain... there are good and bad...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gistok

Fern... not one of your better posts [[of which there are many)...

Even I [[who detest border patrol folks at the tunnel/bridge) don't label everyone in one profession with the same disdain... there are good and bad...

---

I'm shaking my fist in anger.... oh... nevermind.