Grosse Pointe Park police investigating video of suspect beating

**Lowell** · January-14-15, 12:18 AM

Yes, legal consequences. Not physical. Once the criminal is in handcuffs, anything you do to physically harm him afterwards is brutality and abuse of authority. Dude could have gone after your whole family, but the only person who has any power in what happens to him when he's caught is the judge.

Needs repeating. No matter what that person allegedly did [innocent until tried and found guilty] or how big of a slimeball he may indeed be proven to be, the law only and nothing or no one else can issue punishment after a suspect is manacled and subdued.

I am picking up a sense of glee of the bad guy getting comeuppance but what if, just what if, that was the wrong guy? That's why we, under our rule of law, arrest, try and convict - and then and only then issue punishment.

And this isn't about law enforcement officers who we all know are in great danger, underpaid, under great stress and under appreciated. I hope there is something we are not seeing that justifies what went on there, for their sake.

The big lesson the world is learning is that everyone has a video camera. One must assume he or she is being videoed in a sensational situation, often from several view points.

**Wesley Mouch** · January-14-15, 12:50 AM

Originally Posted by Lowell

[/COLOR]
Needs repeating. No matter what that person allegedly did [innocent until tried and found guilty] or how big of a slimeball he may indeed be proven to be, the law only and nothing or no one else can issue punishment after a suspect is manacled and subdued.

I am picking up a sense of glee of the bad guy getting comeuppance but what if, just what if, that was the wrong guy? That's why we, under our rule of law, arrest, try and convict - and then and only then issue punishment.

And this isn't about law enforcement officers who we all know are in great danger, underpaid, under great stress and under appreciated. I hope there is something we are not seeing that justifies what went on there, for their sake.

...

The law also allows appropriate force to be use to those who resist arrest. I haven't seen the video, but if some threatens a woman and her child, I don't expect 'would you please set your gun down, sir'.

I am constantly amazed by people who are so critical of every step taken by police, and have little criticism for criminals. Sure, its possible it was the wrong guy. But his actions -- resisting arrest with cops demanding to see a gun -- suggest that he could have avoided all physical confrontation by lying down with his hands out and asking to be frisked.

While I'm at it, I'm amazed too by all the second-guessing of the police in Paris. Seems we're quite eager to ask the cops to stop brutal, religiously-inspired murders. But car-jacking with gun... Lowell says give them a break. Not once in your post did you mention what the suspect was alleged to have done, or that he was resisting arrest. It is not necessary to prove his guilt to expect him to comply with the law during an arrest. And the law demands that you cooperate with police when you are being arrested or stopped for reasonable questioning. The video shows someone resisting arrest, Lowell. The required action by cops is to arrest the suspect -- to protect the public. You are right that its not the cops job to judge. It however is 100% the cops job to stop a suspected criminal with necessary means to protect our vulnerable citizens.

Seeking bad police behavior may be good fun for some, but it is destructive to neighborhood and could seriously harm Detroit. Our neighborhoods deserve good law enforcement. It needs cops that take their job seriously and properly protect. And when they don't, they should be held accountable. But let's not encourage cops to avoid arrests -- or Detroit may stay Bronx 1978 rather than become NYC 2013. [[And it hasn't been near nearly long enough to know the results of DiBlasio's anti-blue rhetoric and neutering of cops. Changes in neighborhood safety take years.)

Pardon the rant... but I can't handle people who seek out police errors with such diligence, while ignoring the impact of criminals and resisting arrest.

**noise** · January-14-15, 11:55 AM

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

I am constantly amazed by people who are so critical of every step taken by police, and have little criticism for criminals.

For the record, this doesn't exist.

Some things don't need to be stated as they take away from the relevant issue. In most of these cases, the issue is police conduct. A criminal doing wrong is obvious and doesn't change the issue or provide the police with a free pass to do wrong, as well, despite objections from some posters here. Criticizing police behavior does not mean condoning criminal behavior.

**aj3647** · January-14-15, 04:17 AM

Originally Posted by Lowell

Needs repeating. No matter what that person allegedly did [innocent until tried and found guilty] or how big of a slimeball he may indeed be proven to be, the law only and nothing or no one else can issue punishment after a suspect is manacled and subdued.

Did you even bother watching the video? He was not "manacled and subdued" as they were punching and kicking him. They were attempting to handcuff him at that point. The physical force was employed as part of that process. Until those cuffs are secured and until that gun is secured, he's a deadly threat. And yes, the police are allowed to use physical force to include body blows to effect an arrest if the subject is employing active resistance, and especially if that subject is carrying a gun. It's hardly a "punishment."

Here's the use of force continuum:

http://i.imgur.com/S1dUFiS.jpg?1

Police officers ARE ALLOWED to both punch and kick a subject if the subject employs active resistance against the officer. That's a legally-acceptable use of force that is taught in every police academy in America. Also look at the special circumstances list too, which incluse "closeless of a weapon" [[like say a handgun tucked into the subject's waistband) and "special knowledge" [[like knowing the guy just stuck a gun in a woman's face and carjacked her).

**Dan Wesson** · January-14-15, 09:01 AM

It weren't much of an ass whupping. I got worse from the Hamtramck Cops back when i was young, dumb and full of...

Alcohol

**Lowell** · January-14-15, 09:13 AM

Originally Posted by aj3647

Did you even bother watching the video? He was not "manacled and subdued" as they were punching and kicking him. They were attempting to handcuff him at that point. The physical force was employed as part of that process. Until those cuffs are secured and until that gun is secured, he's a deadly threat. And yes, the police are allowed to use physical force to include body blows to effect an arrest if the subject is employing active resistance, and especially if that subject is carrying a gun. It's hardly a "punishment."

I did. I watched it several times. I clearly understand that use of physical force employed while securing and cuffing the suspect appears justifiable -- the punches and kicks.

But after that, unless there is some clear act that would endanger a law enforcement officer or indeed anybody, any abuse is not legal. That is when the knee in the back furthering blows, albeit lesser, and the Jesus cursing occurred.

As I also added I truly hope there was justification for what occurred after he was manacled. At the time he is still a suspect. I don't want the police to get in trouble and I don't want videos like this to inflame hatred toward them that would endanger them and and enrich the perp with some legal settlement.

An unrelated mystery is why, since he was reported to be reaching for his gun, he was not disarmed immediately. It is four minutes later when the firearm was discovered. My assumption is that they considered him secured enough but then weighs agains what happened when he was.

**Honky Tonk** · January-14-15, 09:30 AM

Originally Posted by Lowell

I did. I watched it several times. I clearly understand that use of physical force employed while securing and cuffing the suspect appears justifiable -- the punches and kicks.

But after that, unless there is some clear act that would endanger a law enforcement officer or indeed anybody, any abuse is not legal. That is when the knee in the back furthering blows, albeit lesser, and the Jesus cursing occurred.

As I also added I truly hope there was justification for what occurred after he was manacled. At the time he is still a suspect. I don't want the police to get in trouble and I don't want videos like this to inflame hatred toward them that would endanger them and and enrich the perp with some legal settlement.

An unrelated mystery is why, since he was reported to be reaching for his gun, he was not disarmed immediately. It is four minutes later when the firearm was discovered. My assumption is that they considered him secured enough but then weighs agains what happened when he was.

He was a suspect up until the time the Police found a concealed weapon, [[even though it wasn't an automatic, just a .38) and "needles" on him. [[I'll give him the benefit of a doubt that he's a diabetic) Just out of curiosity, what would you have done in their instance?

**jackie5275** · January-14-15, 10:36 AM

Originally Posted by Honky Tonk

"needles" on him. [[I'll give him the benefit of a doubt that he's a diabetic)

HT, I think you're being generous. Out on the street like that, I would consider a needle of any kind just as much of a weapon as a gun.

**iheartthed** · January-14-15, 10:45 AM

Originally Posted by Honky Tonk

He was a suspect up until the time the Police found a concealed weapon, [[even though it wasn't an automatic, just a .38) and "needles" on him. [[I'll give him the benefit of a doubt that he's a diabetic) Just out of curiosity, what would you have done in their instance?

He could have had a CCW permit.

**jackie5275** · January-14-15, 10:48 AM

Originally Posted by iheartthed

He could have had a CCW permit.

Doubtful, but that really doesn't matter. Whether he had it legally or not, the presence of the gun is the threat.

**iheartthed** · January-14-15, 10:55 AM

Originally Posted by jackie5275

Doubtful, but that really doesn't matter. Whether he had it legally or not, the presence of the gun is the threat.

That doesn't make sense. That would mean that cops can beat the shit out of anyone with a CCW who gets pulled over for a traffic stop.

**Honky Tonk** · January-14-15, 12:00 PM

Originally Posted by iheartthed

He could have had a CCW permit.

If he didn't have a "CCW" or a CPL, he'll have a CCW now.

**aj3647** · January-15-15, 02:08 AM

Originally Posted by Lowell

But after that, unless there is some clear act that would endanger a law enforcement officer or indeed anybody, any abuse is not legal. That is when the knee in the back furthering blows, albeit lesser, and the Jesus cursing occurred.

Oh no, the Jesus cursing! How DARE that officer use foul langauge! Fire him immediately and give this carjacker a six figure civil judgement for having his innocent virgin ears inundated with the officer's mean language! If you want to critique the level of force used, fine, but to bitch about the cop "cursing?"

As for the legality, I guess it depends on your definiton of "abuse." Was this man harmed in any way? If a cop puts his knee in your back to keep you on the ground after you carjacked someone at gunpoint and led the officers on a quarter mile foot chase [[which indicates that not only are you a flight risk, but also a threat to the community), is that "abuse?" Do you think Kym Worthy is going to indict? I don't.

**animatedmartian** · January-15-15, 10:22 AM

Originally Posted by aj3647

Oh no, the Jesus cursing! How DARE that officer use foul langauge! Fire him immediately and give this carjacker a six figure civil judgement for having his innocent virgin ears inundated with the officer's mean language! If you want to critique the level of force used, fine, but to bitch about the cop "cursing?"

It was the criminal who was doing the jesus cursing. It's the cop who got upset about it.

**Danny** · January-14-15, 10:42 AM

Cops beat up folks all the time, especially black folks. It's a every day trend in this so-called free country. What you folks going to do? protest! It's not going to work.

Folks when the police stop for something, obey their direct protocol. Don't go out in the streets looking like Trayvon Martin, Eric Brown and Eric Garner.

Don't go out into the streets looking like a criminal. Cops love to hunt them down to keep them busy and earn big bonuses and promotions.

**nain rouge** · January-15-15, 01:40 PM

People rally against police misconduct, but what I think they're really mad about is the drug war, private prisons, and the erosion of our civil liberties. These incidents are just the proverbial smoking gun protesters need to get people fired up.

**rb336** · January-15-15, 05:04 PM

Originally Posted by nain rouge

People rally against police misconduct, but what I think they're really mad about is the drug war, private prisons, and the erosion of our civil liberties. These incidents are just the proverbial smoking gun protesters need to get people fired up.

I think it is more that police misconduct is the visible aspect of the increased militarization of our penal system. Most people who rally against police misconduct probably don't think that much about the for profit jail system, etc.

**jackie5275** · January-14-15, 10:46 AM

Originally Posted by Lowell

[/COLOR]
The big lesson the world is learning is that everyone has a video camera. One must assume he or she is being videoed in a sensational situation, often from several view points.

This is what I thought when I watched the video. Anyone with a phone can video you for anything. Look at YouTube for examples. It's all legal, so everyone best watch their step regardless of what you're doing because things can be twisted in a flash, especially by some bystander who thinks they know the whole story.