I favor the cops in this situation. It is obvious the suspect was quarrelsome with the comment he made to someone out of camera range even as he stood up from the bench seat. The cop with the suspect began to finger print the subject, who was still arguing with someone off camera. When the cop attempting to finger print the subject told him to pay attention, the subject became belligerent, verbally abusive and combative.
If I have any complaint about the cops, it was their ineptness in taking the punk to the ground immediately. Had those three cops been under my supervision, all would have received letters of instruction for their failure to perform. As a retired sergeant with the California Department of Corrections, the very first thing staff are trained to do with such unruly inmates is to get them off their feet, then pile on the squirming test-tube baby, get him in restraint gear and -- if necessary -- body slam the punk into a holding cell.
There is zero evidence to suggest that "[a]ll the first cop had to do (was) treat the guy with a little...respect and the situation would have stayed under control." The subject was argumentative from the git-go and, as evidenced by the recording, just looking for a reason to initiate a physical altercation. Had this punk done that with my team at the prison, the local hospital would have treated him for a lot more than minor injuries.
Bias is powerful and sometimes blinds. Cops and prison guards are bullies that have backup bullies to reinforce their misguided actions leading them to mistakenly believe they are always in the right.
~~~It is obvious the suspect was quarrelsome with the comment he made to someone out of camera range even as he stood up from the bench seat.
Taken out of context, he does appear irritated. We don't know the abuse he received prior to that scene. He may be showing extreme restraint and is trying to control his anger, choosing to respond to the approach from the rear by another officer by engaging him in conversation.
~~~The cop with the suspect began to finger print the subject,
You say that so casually that it seems you are intentionally ignoring the disrespectful manner in which the officer behaves. He does not have to grab. This is more evidence that cops are bullies. And what about the comment, "I can do anything I want to." Hell, that pisses ME off. Fucking bully.
~~~ who was still arguing with someone off camera.
This is exactly why a calmer approach than a hand grab is warranted. When the level on agitation is still verbal, you err when you grab and become physical. Who escalated from verbal to physical. Cops are bullies.
~~~When the cop attempting to finger print the subject told him to pay attention, the subject became belligerent, verbally abusive and combative.
You see what you want to see. "Civilians" are the enemy and cops are the good guys.
~~~If I have any complaint about the cops,
You choose not to see the obvious. The cops moved the situation from verbal to physical. Have you forgetten the grab and the repeated requests to show respect?
~~~it was their ineptness in taking the punk to the ground immediately.
From your perspective, you are correct. Bullies should work closer together when the "punks" resist the abuse. Not only are these uniforms poor police officers but, they are rather sad bullies. It must be quite embarrassing for you to defend such inept officers.
~~~Had those three cops been under my supervision, all would have received letters of instruction for their failure to perform.
I agree. These officers will need more training if they hope to become successful bullies.
~~~As a retired sergeant with the California Department of Corrections, the very first thing staff are trained to do with such unruly inmates is to get them off their feet,
"The very first thing," did you really say that? So, I am curious, do you think the first training might really need to be how to prevent officers from escalating a verbal exchange into a physical altercation? hmmmm By now, I would imagine the bully inside is starting to think I might need a little hands on attention.
~~~then pile on the squirming test-tube baby,
You just made my lack of respect argument. You guys make this too easy.
~~get him in restraint gear and -- if necessary -- body slam the punk into a holding cell.
Restraint gear would clearly be sufficient. The unnecessary body slam is the fun part of the job, I imagine, followed by a group high five.
~~~There is zero evidence to suggest that "[a]ll the first cop had to do (was) treat the guy with a little...respect and the situation would have stayed under control."
Are you serious? It is obvious to all that had the first officer simply apologized for the grabbing and asked for cooperation things might have stayed under control. I wonder how things would have proceeded had the grabbing never occurred. Cops are bullies.
~~~The subject was argumentative from the git-go and, as evidenced by the recording,
Then deal with the argument with reason and patience. Don't escalate the situation to a physical confrontation, duh. Cops are bullies.
~~~just looking for a reason to initiate a physical altercation.
I don't buy it. He asked for respect several times. He could have become physical much earlier and chose not to. He showed patience until the cop got physical. But, a bully won't see or acknowledge this issue.
~~~Had this punk done that with my team at the prison, the local hospital would have treated him for a lot more than minor injuries.
There you go again, showing your true colors. You fucking asshole bully.
Ask yourself this question. Will YOUR attitude change when you are taken down and cop/bullies don't know you used to be one of them.
I despise bullies too and all this talk about "subjects" as if the cops were the kings of England or something pisses me off royally.
In police work, arrested persons are called suspects; but in the prison setting, convicted felons are called "subjects" when referred to on disciplinary reports. After referring to the inmate by name, prison number and housing location, he is subsequently referred to as "subject," as in "the subject of this report...." I do apologize for the confusion. Obviously the subject of the video was not a convicted felon, but simply a suspect.
I dislike bullies, too. I don't like the way they intimidate, hurt and kill innocent citizens. That is one reason why I became a correctional officer. If they wanted to bully someone, then let them try it with me. Although I have bounced my share of inmates off the wall, my usual technique was to "pencil whip" them into compliance. I could write a disciplinary report that would ensure maximum punitive lock-up time for any inmate who violated the Director's Rules and Regulations. In fact, I was legendary for my writing ability at the Correctional Training Facility, the prison where I worked in California.
You and other nicks at this forum may not like cops, but the sad fact is that they are necessary to a civilized society. Without the police and correctional officers, citizens like you would be at the mercy of every thug who saw you as his prey. That is what people like me try to prevent. We're not always successful, true enough. But in order to keep you safe, we do our best to confront society's criminals -- and we do what must be done to get such scum bags off the street and into prisons, where they belong.
1. In police work, arrested persons are called suspects; but in the prison setting, convicted felons are called "subjects" when referred to on disciplinary reports. After referring to the inmate by name, prison number and housing location, he is subsequently referred to as "subject," as in "the subject of this report...." I do apologize for the confusion. Obviously the subject of the video was not a convicted felon, but simply a suspect.
2. I dislike bullies, too. I don't like the way they intimidate, hurt and kill innocent citizens. That is one reason why I became a correctional officer. If they wanted to bully someone, then let them try it with me. Although I have bounced my share of inmates off the wall, my usual technique was to "pencil whip" them into compliance. I could write a disciplinary report that would ensure maximum punitive lock-up time for any inmate who violated the Director's Rules and Regulations. In fact, I was legendary for my writing ability at the Correctional Training Facility, the prison where I worked in California.
3. You and other nicks at this forum may not like cops, but the sad fact is that they are necessary to a civilized society. Without the police and correctional officers, citizens like you would be at the mercy of every thug who saw you as his prey. That is what people like me try to prevent. We're not always successful, true enough. But in order to keep you safe, we do our best to confront society's criminals -- and we do what must be done to get such scum bags off the street and into prisons, where they belong.
4. If you have a better way, I'd like to hear it.
1. "After referring to the inmate by name, prison number and housing location, he is subsequently referred to as "subject," as in "the subject of this report...."
Uh huh. I guess it didn´t dawn on whoever thought all these formalities up that these "subjects" acually had names that their parents gave them when they were born. At least most of the time. But I guess it is easier to just call everyone a "subject" and treat everyone who isn´t a fellow cop/bully as a "suspect." You know that most cops believe it is "us versus them" with cops being "us" while all the rest of us are "them."
2. You¨"dislike bullies" or so you say. That is good, or would be if it applied equally to all bullies, even those who wore the uniform of a prison guard, cop, or state trooper. But I sense that it would be mighty hard for you to see the bully in any of those people when it would be readily apparent to one of "them" (you know, the other people who aren´t wearing those uniforms and who aren´t criminals but all of whom are "suspects").
3. I don´t dislike all cops and recognize that there are some good ones. But there are too many with a Napoleon attitude, scumbags who have been given the power of life and death over others and who should never be put in such a position. I suppose you could make the argument that there aren´t all that many like that but I submit to you that when the people who think of themselves as "brothers in arms" will coverup and refuse to break the "thin blue line" when one of the "brothers" roughs up or kills an innocent person, it makes all of you look bad.
3a. "Without the police and correctional officers, citizens like you would be at the mercy of every thug who saw you as his prey... Now I am sure you won´t believe this but some of us "citizens" are every bit as proficient with weapons and means to protect ourselves from those who would harm us as some cop whose main job is to write the report after the fact. You know that no cop has any duty to protect any individual citizen and the Supreme Court has said so. "Richard Mack, former sheriff of Graham County, Arizona, has observed: “Police do very little to prevent violent crime. We investigate crime after the fact.” "The general rule of law in the United States is that government owes a duty to protect the public in general, but owes no legal duty to protect any particular person from criminal attack. Neither the U.S. Constitution nor the federal civil rights laws require states to protect citizens from crime. As a federal appeals court bluntly put it, ordinary citizens have “no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen.” More at this link: A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.
4. Yes, I have a better way than that shown by the cops in this video. Treat others, to the degree possible, as you would wish to be treated yourselves and don´t look at everyone outside the brotherhood as criminals you just haven´t caught yet. I don´t know what the guy did but the cop who was booking him provoked the response he got or so it appeared to most everyone here but you. While it is certainly true that the majority is not always right perhaps you should do some reassessment of your attitude when people who know none of the parties involved are telling you that the cop antagonized the guy and provoked a physical response when it could have been avoided.
3a. "Without the police and correctional officers, citizens like you would be at the mercy of every thug who saw you as his prey... Now I am sure you won´t believe this but some of us "citizens" are every bit as proficient with weapons and means to protect ourselves from those who would harm us as some cop whose main job is to write the report after the fact. You know that no cop has any duty to protect any individual citizen and the Supreme Court has said so. "Richard Mack, former sheriff of Graham County, Arizona, has observed: “Police do very little to prevent violent crime. We investigate crime after the fact.” "The general rule of law in the United States is that government owes a duty to protect the public in general, but owes no legal duty to protect any particular person from criminal attack. Neither the U.S. Constitution nor the federal civil rights laws require states to protect citizens from crime. As a federal appeals court bluntly put it, ordinary citizens have “no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen.” More at this link: A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.