Police Chase. Brutality?

[The Recycling Guy]

They should have hit him a few more times..... BTW, Telling a cop that you are giving up is not enough. You need to get the hell on the ground.... Face down. Hands out. In the Mud.

They stopped when he was in the proper position.

Also, when you are handcuffed and the cop tells you to walk.....walk.

TRG

[Detroit_uke]

I think it was brutal the way he crashed into the pickup...three people were sent to the hospital. How else was the officer supposed to stop/slow this guy down???

[daddeeo]

Lawyers may step back when they see the accident scene.
That couple will sue and there might not be any left for said attorney.
I doubt any jury is going to convict that cop for the beat down after seeing the chase and crash.
Even residents on the scene said they would have done the same thing.

[bartock]

Lawyers may step back when they see the accident scene.
That couple will sue and there might not be any left for said attorney.
I doubt any jury is going to convict that cop for the beat down after seeing the chase and crash.
Even residents on the scene said they would have done the same thing.

Based on that video, there is no doubt in my mind a lawyer will take the perp's case.

The family will sue, but being a no-fault state, and guessing that if this guy doesn't think the law applies to him he's probably not paying insurance, their medical bills/no fault benefits will be paid for out of a quasi-state general fund. If they have uninsured/underinsured coverage on their insurance [[most don't), their "pain and suffering"/third-party claim will be against their own insurance carrier. I'm sure the state police will be named as defendants also, so any money in that civil suit will come from the State.

Thus, because of this criminal, taxpayers and those who pay car insurance will foot the bill for the poor family's medical bills and almost certainly for any civil suit.

Moreover, the cost of defending against the perp's civil suit against DPD will fall on taxpayers.

[Retroit]

Is it any wonder that Detroit is a Hell Hole when those who protect us are judged guilty and those who victimize us are judged innocent.

[agirlintheD]

Retroit, I couldn't agree with you more.

[kahnman]

Amen, Retroit! Like the Recycling Guy said, the most obvious move the suspect failed to do was drop on the ground IMMEDIATELY. You don't stand there milling around while a cop is coming at you with a baton out and ready for action [[...and probably issuing a stream of forceful commands). The detainment move straddling the guy's shoulders on the ground looked like SOP to me. Neutralize the threat.

[Meddle]

Post 25, those are the kind of people that need NOT carry a badge.

Post 26, False. Once the person no longer poses a threat, force is not authorized or warranted.

[mikeinmotown]

I don't think the cop did anything wrong. He should of beat the crap out of him. This idiot ran from the cops, hit another car and then took off running. WTF. Should the cop offered him a lolly pop if he stopped running. Did the cop know he didn't have a gun. Maybe the cop told him to get down on the ground and he didn't. Stop blaming the cops and start blaming the assholes who are ruining my city.

[kraig]

I don't think the cop did anything wrong. He should of beat the crap out of him. This idiot ran from the cops, hit another car and then took off running. WTF. Should the cop offered him a lolly pop if he stopped running. Did the cop know he didn't have a gun. Maybe the cop told him to get down on the ground and he didn't. Stop blaming the cops and start blaming the assholes who are ruining my city.

Over a short period of time, the Detroit police amassed over $300 million dollars in lawsuits from actions like the one yesterday. Which is equal to the City's deficit. It's not about doing the job brutally. It's about doing the job right. The whole point to training law enforcement is to avoid doing things that the average person on the street would do in a high adrenaline situation.

The majority of the police officers on the force wuld have apprehended the suspect without balling up a fist and punching him in the face while he was down on the ground. Beating the hell out of the guy doesn't change any of the things he did. It simply provides the "asshole" that just slammed his Ford Bronco into a family the chance to make a buck off of the arresting officer.

Sit in on a Police Commission meeting or a City Council meeting on Tuesday when the lawsuit settlements are being approved. You'll see situations like the one yesterday, with the exception being that there's another person walking through the alley, getting passed up by the Perp, being mistaken for the Perp and having the dog shit beat out of him as if he were the Perp. Boom, lawsuit. It happens constantly in Detroit.

[stasu1213]

Good for him. He had better be glad that he wasn't shot. Send a message to the rest of the hooligans in the city that this would happen we you disobey the law.

[Lowell]

I saw the footage too and it does not look good for the officer. We saw a person standing motionless as police officers ran up to him. He was struck several times with a baton by the first officer as he was being thrust face down in the snow. There was no appearance of resistance by the suspect who appeared to be quickly cuffed. He was then struck several times more even though he was motionless on the ground. The force of the blows did not appear to be great -- the officer was not reaching back and hitting with full force. They were short, almost like shoves, yet very firm blows.

The problem is that the suspect was struck several times when there was no appearance of resistance. Hopefully for the officer it was justified by some action that we couldn't see. If not the city could be on the hook for a very expensive lawsuit.

Now it is very easy and maybe a bit understandable to express joy over a suspect of a crime like that getting a beating but administering punishment is not the duty of a police officer, it is the duty of a judge after the suspect had been convicted. Why? How do we know the person beaten was the perpetrator?

In the tape we see the wreck, a person fleeing and then we lose sight of the person. The above described scene is what we see next. What if the suspect managed to flee and the person who was beaten was someone who happened to walk out of his house to see what the commotion was about and was mistaken for the suspect and told to freeze? Oops, a few million from the city's dearly needed funds down the drain. That's why we have investigations, issuance of warrants, arraignments and trials -- to make sure the right person is convicted and a real criminal doesn't get away.

[sumas]

Where is the recourse for the family that got hit. The truck they were driving looked older so probably PLPD. The perp doesn't have insurance to cover the loss of their truck. Does the family have medical insurance? These are the things I wonder about.

I really have mixed thoughts about high speed chases. If they are forbidden, criminals will just flee but so many of these chases result in injury, fatality and property damage to regular citizens.

[gnome]

I find it interesting that folks see what they want to see in this video. It seems to be kind of Rorshock Test on police brutality. If you have ever gotten thumped or know someone who has, you see the cops brutalizing a compliant man. If you've been a crime victim you see the cops acting to restrain a violent madman.

I see a tree with no leaves.

[GOAT]

Really, piss off with your liberal guilt. The fucker shouldn't have run. He was lucky he didnt' get his ass whooped worse.
I am no fan of the police but for cripes sake open your damn eyes!

[dookie joe]

There are certainly times when officers cross the line, but I don't think this is one of those cases.

The perp [[you know, the guy who actually broke the law) led police on a high-speed chase, rammed his car into a truckload of innocent people, and then took off on foot. Once the officer caught up with him, he didn't surrender; instead he started walking toward the cop in a threatening manner. So the cop cold-cocked him. Good for that officer.

Had the man immediately fell to the ground and surrendered it would be one thing. But the guy didn't do that, so the officers brought him down and made sure he stayed down, because he'd already shown a propensity for acting irrationally. What were they supposed to do? Gently put him in cuffs? Come on.

I think abuses of police authority should be swiftly dealt with. And I also think police officers should be held to a higher standard than the average Joe because of the power they wield.

But, like the Boy who Cried Wolf, if we label every violent interaction involving a cop "police brutality," it will only water down the cases where brutality actually does take place.

I'm a lover of justice, don't get me wrong. I know first-hand that police abuse happens. There are bad cops just like there are bad lawyers, bad judges and bad convenience store clerks.

However in this particular instance, the police officers did what they deemed necessary to ensure they would go home to their families. If I ever run into those officers I'll buy them a beer.

[dookie joe]

I saw the footage too and it does not look good for the officer. We saw a person standing motionless as police officers ran up to him.

The key word is "standing." We've all watched enough TV to know that in instances like this the officers ALWAYS tell the perp to get down on the ground.

I'd bet my next 5 paychecks that the cops told this guy to get down and he didn't comply. Of course, there's no way for any of us to know for sure unless someone had an audio device taping the incident.

But all things being equal, with the lack of any other evidence except the video, if I have to lean one way or another I'm going to side with the police over the criminal.

Sure, there are bad/overaggressive cops, and maybe these officers fit that bill. And maybe the citizen had a valid reason for running. It's always possible.

But I strongly suspect the percentage of bad cops is a hellova a lot lower than the ratio of good people who run from the police.

And, with that in mind, if the police did indeed order this man to "get down" and he didn't, then the officers were well within their rights to ensure that this irrational and potentially dangerous man "got down" and "stayed down."

That's my humble opinion, anyway. That and a quarter still won't get you a Spider-Man comic!

[Meddle]

The key word is "standing." We've all watched enough TV to know that in instances like this the officers ALWAYS tell the perp to get down on the ground.

I'd bet my next 5 paychecks that the cops told this guy to get down and he didn't comply.

And, with that in mind, if the police did indeed order this man to "get down" and he didn't, then the officers were well within their rights to ensure that this irrational and potentially dangerous man "got down" and "stayed down."

Irrelevant. If you're standing there with your hands in plain sight, you're not a threat and the officer has no right to be abusive or order you to the ground.

Period.

[Retroit]

A police officer has a duty to prevent a person, who has proven to endanger the lives of others by fleeing, from continued flight. If inflicting a bit of corporal pain is deemed advisable by the officer, then the community should stand behind him/her.

Exclamation Point.

[dookie joe]

Irrelevant. If you're standing there with your hands in plain sight, you're not a threat and the officer has no right to be abusive or order you to the ground.

Period.

I disagree totally. It's not "irrelevant." What should this cop have done? Gently asked the guy to put his hands behind his back? If the cop did indeed tell the man to get down [[as they usually do in these situations), and he didn't comply, then the cop should expect that the man is going to resist.

So, again, in this instance, assuming the man didn't comply with an order to lie down on the ground, what should the cop have done? Appealed to his sense of reason?

I don't care if the suspect's hands were in plain sight. Had the cop gotten into a struggle with this guy, rather than hitting him with the nightstick, there's a chance the bad guy could've gotten the officer's gun.

The officer didn't shoot this guy. He merely knocked the shit out of him with his nightstick. Then, once the man was down, the rest of the officers jumped on him and made sure he stayed down.

There's a reason officers are issued nightsticks: Sometimes, they actually ...um... need to use them.

Again, I'm well aware that officers sometimes cross the line. But sometimes they're also in the right.

And with the lack of conclusive proof, I tend to side with the people who haven't broken the law and acted like irrational idiots. I guess I'm just funny that way.


EDIT: I just re-read your post. You're saying the officer didn't even have a right to order the guy to the ground? Wow.

[Danny]

Don't punish me with brutality.

Thank goodness its not a Malice Green problem.

[dookie joe]

Don't punish me with brutality.

Thank goodness its not a Malice Green problem.

I think there's a huge difference. The cops in the Malice Green situation stood there and beat a man bloody for an extended period of time, all because he refused to open his hand. I think those cops went way too far.

What happened the other day was, the suspect led cops on a high-speed chase, caused an accident before trying to escape on foot, and when the cops caught him they hit him with their nightsticks for less than a minute before cuffing him.

The two situations are completely different.

[Retroit]

If he had been as strung up on drugs as Malice Green was, it could have been similar. People can have super-human strength when under the influence of certain drugs. They require a beating to subdue.

[Motor City Sam]

It didn't look like police brutality to me. The cops arrested a guy who had already proven to be violent and have little regard for human life. Yes, they put him down hard, but I would rather have a dangerous criminal [[who just missed killing three people moments before) get a few bruises than have the cops put themselves at risk by not being forceful enough.

People have to realize that in this situation, the cops don't know much about the guy they're chasing. They don't know if he's a good guy who has been pushed over the edge, or a convicted repeat offender who has decided he'll kill before he goes back to jail. All they knew about him was that he was willing to risk the lives of others to avoid capture. They didn't know if he was armed, if he was on PCP, etc. It's easy to look at this tape hours later and complain about the actions of a cop who had put himself at risk to stop a dangerous criminal.

[Michigan]

I amazed by how the same people who say that they love Detroit and want Detroit to improve are the same people who criticize law enforcement for protecting them and other innocent people. This dichotomy is the crux of what has destroyed Detroit and continues to hold it back. Detroit is a very violent and lawless place for the most part. Complaining about it but without being willing to make an effort to improve it just relegates Detroit to state of languish.