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

[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.