Cop stomps kids teeth out

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle


I'm at then point where I wonder if there are ANY honest cops left...


You honestly believe the mass media blather without question.
You do realize that "they" are carrying out an agenda being ordered by influential elites at the top, don't you?
 
Police are highly trained, have an instinct for crime fighting, and are sworn to uphold the law. They also know when something doesn't look right and will immediately investigate it.

So how does the one bad apple in the barrel get away with it when he is surrounded by so many good apples?
 
Its a brotherhood. Like any gang, fraternity, or crime family they protect their own first, rats are dealt with. LOL.
In other word bad actions by good people to keep their jobs and keep on the good side of their co workers who they might just have to depend on to save their hide.
 
I just want to point out, some of these... "excrements" masquerading as human beings only understand kicks to the face/nuts/whatever. That's the only "language" they speak, no matter how hard the bleeding-hearts say they can be rehabilitated.

Doesn't make it right for a police officer to do it, but sugar-coating it doesn't make it right either.


In Canada, Omar Kadhr (remember THAT guy?) is about to be released on parole. He's done his sentence, but he doesn't show a smidgen of remorse and has actively said he will continue his jihad.


Our free country's rules dictate the man served his (rather long) sentence, he is free to go as he doesn't fit the criteria of a "dangerous offender".

The reality, like above, is he will likely abuse that privilege, because he doesn't understand the concept of freedom and not hurting others... Leaving us in a conundrum, "what do we do?"
 
Originally Posted By: firemachine69
I just want to point out, some of these... "excrements" masquerading as human beings only understand kicks to the face/nuts/whatever. That's the only "language" they speak, no matter how hard the bleeding-hearts say they can be rehabilitated.

Doesn't make it right for a police officer to do it, but sugar-coating it doesn't make it right either.


In Canada, Omar Kadhr (remember THAT guy?) is about to be released on parole. He's done his sentence, but he doesn't show a smidgen of remorse and has actively said he will continue his jihad.


Our free country's rules dictate the man served his (rather long) sentence, he is free to go as he doesn't fit the criteria of a "dangerous offender".

The reality, like above, is he will likely abuse that privilege, because he doesn't understand the concept of freedom and not hurting others... Leaving us in a conundrum, "what do we do?"

Way OT, but of all the people involved in his case, Omar was the only one who had very little control of his situation. He didn't choose his father and at 15, it was a wasted chance to reform him by sticking him into Guantanamo for all those years.
I am very impressed with our judicial system though, not letting the federal government override it for their political purposes.
 
Originally Posted By: gfh77665
Originally Posted By: NHHEMI

Now, do you still feel he "just had a little weed on him" and that his 2 criminal acts were no big deal? ....negates the criminal acts the young man committed


I never said or implied ANY of this. I did say the guy "should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law". (on page 4)

Did you just miss that, or is there reading comprehension issues?



Excuse me but where does it say YOU said that? Where do YOU come into that post anywhere specifically? It is a response to my own BITOG username, I do not address you specifically by your username, nor does my post contain a quote of yours that I am responding too.

The post you took that quote from was a general post to everyone in this thread who seem to be ignoring the crimes the young man committed and/or who tell me I am making no sense. You are making a big assumptions here thinking that was directed to you personally. So who has the comprehension issues here? You or me?

When I address someone I do so directly either by name or with the appropriate quote I am talking about.

WOW!
 
Originally Posted By: rockydee

Holy Cow! Readin this thread you'd think the fullest extent of the law to some people means stomping the kids teeth out. Sad what this world is comin to.


What is sad is that people can't grasp something as simple as 2 separate points being made about the same story. People apparently can only group responses into 1 side or the other( like for and against ). It appears the concept of both parties involved in the story being wrong is too complex for people here. Why? I have no clue. There is also a big issues here with attributing things said to people that were not said.

I have not seen a single person in this thread defend the Officer kicking the young man in the face. Maybe someone did but I don't remember it. I sure didn't.

I have repeatedly said the Officer was wrong and should face charges for what he did. I couldn't have been more clear about it. Never defended him in the slightest.

By the same token the young man who got kicked is not an innocent victim as so many are trying to portray him as. He had illegal drugs in possession and he ran from the Police. He made bad choices that day that ultimately put him in a position where an unstable Officer lost control and used excessive force. Did he deserve a boot to the face? Absolutely not. Is he still a criminal who deserved to be arrested and charged with a couple serious crimes? Absolutely yes.

Both of them were wrong as all get out and both should face charges and go to jail. How that in anyway means I somehow feel that "the fullest extent of the law to some people means stomping the kids teeth out" is beyond me?

Note - I can only assume you were referring to me at least in part as you quoted me.
 
Originally Posted By: ThorpeyD
Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
1) - The Officer deserves to be charged and go to jail for the assault/excessive force. Also, he should never again be allowed to be an LEO anywhere. He shouldn't even be allowed to be a Security Guard at a playdough factory.

2) - The young man also broke the law however and the excessive force does not excuse that nor negate it. He should face charges and go to jail for drug possession and for running from the Police.

3) - It is my "opinion" as well that the young man should receive nothing in the way of a monetary reward/settlement in any kind of law suit. IF he hadn't been breaking the law he wouldn't have got stomped. So as said lesson learned and end of story.


Your point 3 contradicts what you say in points 1 & 2. If he didn't deserve to be stomped, then he needs to be made whole for the damage. You don't lose all your rights when you break the law.

Say you get stopped for a driving offence and they tow your vehicle and it's then destroyed in an accident. The insurance companies of the people responsible can't claim that they don't need to pay out because nothing would have happened if you hadn't broken a law in the first place.


Sorry I do not agree with you. While he may not have deserved to get stomped he put himself into that position by his own bad choices. Had he not had illegal drugs on his person and thus run from the Police( who only wanted to ask him questions about something else )he never would have got his teeth kicked out in the end.

I am tired of criminals getting monetary settlements out of cities for their own stupidity and actions. He shares the responsibility for what happened. Learn from it, don't do it again, and move on. No way he deserves one red cent. If he was just some innocent JQP walking down the street and this Officer did this out of the blue( maybe mistaken identity or something? )that is different. That is not the case here. This young man is a criminal and a moron and hopefully this smartens him up.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: DoubleWasp
So is it police procedure that a person who " puts themselves in a position" automatically has their human right revoked, and is subject to any brand of death or abuse?

I keep seeing this argument a lot. Is that policy, ,or just personal opinion?


You are misinterpreting what is being said( at least by me if you include me in your comments about the arguments you have seen).

At no time have I defended the Officer for what he did. He was wrong and should face charges himself and go to jail. He also should not be allowed to work in the Law Enforcement field ever again. End of story. No, running from the Police is not a legal or moral defense for getting stomped once caught( if surrendering peacefully as the young man was ).

However, with that said, I can't just excuse the young man and what he did. He contributed to what happened by his own STUPID choices. My comments, that people have said mean "I blame him", are inaccurate. I say what I do because I do not feel he is really a victim. He is a dumb-arse criminal who made bad choices which lead to him getting roughed up when he finally got caught. The only thing he is owed is that the Officer face charges and serve time. He doesn't deserve a monetary settlement IMO.

So in short the Officer should be charged and go to jail for the excessive force/assault. The young man should face charges and go to jail for illegal drug possession and running from the Police. To me that is where it should end. The young man shouldn't be awarded damages in court. He shares responsibility for what happened and he shouldn't profit from it.
 
Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
So in short the Officer should be charged and go to jail for the excessive force/assault. The young man should face charges and go to jail for illegal drug possession and running from the Police. To me that is where it should end. The young man shouldn't be awarded damages in court. He shares responsibility for what happened and he shouldn't profit from it.

Do you remember Rodney King beaten by LA Police in early '90's ? Everything Rodney King did before he stopped was wrong, normally he would be charged with several counts if he wasn't beaten.

In the end he didn't face any charge, he got several millions from LA city, some police officers went to jail on Federal trial after state trail found them not guilty.

There are two time periods, before the assault and during assault. You should not combine the 2 period into 1, whatever the kid did before he was stomped on the face had nothing to do with the officer assault him while he complied with officer's order.

The kid will not face any charge, DA office do not want to look bad charging a victim of an officer assault, and chance to win any conviction is slim at best.

Police officer may face charge for assaulting a person for no reason while he complied with the order.
 
Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
So in short the Officer should be charged and go to jail for the excessive force/assault. The young man should face charges and go to jail for illegal drug possession and running from the Police. To me that is where it should end. The young man shouldn't be awarded damages in court. He shares responsibility for what happened and he shouldn't profit from it.

Do you remember Rodney King beaten by LA Police in early '90's ? Everything Rodney King did before he stopped was wrong, normally he would be charged with several counts if he wasn't beaten.

In the end he didn't face any charge, he got several millions from LA city, some police officers went to jail on Federal trial after state trail found them not guilty.

There are two time periods, before the assault and during assault. You should not combine the 2 period into 1, whatever the kid did before he was stomped on the face had nothing to do with the officer assault him while he complied with officer's order.

The kid will not face any charge, DA office do not want to look bad charging a victim of an officer assault, and chance to win any conviction is slim at best.

Police officer may face charge for assaulting a person for no reason while he complied with the order.


+ at the end of the day, we the taxpayers get the bill.
 
Originally Posted By: NHHEMI


However, with that said, I can't just excuse the young man and what he did. He contributed to what happened by his own STUPID choices. My comments, that people have said mean "I blame him", are inaccurate. I say what I do because I do not feel he is really a victim. He is a dumb-arse criminal who made bad choices which lead to him getting roughed up when he finally got caught. The only thing he is owed is that the Officer face charges and serve time. He doesn't deserve a monetary settlement IMO.

So in short the Officer should be charged and go to jail for the excessive force/assault. The young man should face charges and go to jail for illegal drug possession and running from the Police. To me that is where it should end. The young man shouldn't be awarded damages in court. He shares responsibility for what happened and he shouldn't profit from it.


I would agree if the Kids injury resulted from a fall or tackle while being chased.
What happened was a result of VERY improper behavior from the police officer.

No, the kid should NOT profit from the ASSAULT (he was assaulted) but he should not be out of pocket for the dental work (in addition to the Drug, evading arrest charges he may face**) either.
I'm sure no matter what the Dental work costs, I'm sure the kid would rather have just kept his own teeth.

I do not abide with the notion; If you don't do what a Police officer says, stuff like this might happen to you.
As if that is OK.

It's the officers job to apprehend the suspect with the MINIMUM force required.

What happened here was deliberate and un-provocked

**Please remember the presumption of innocence.
 
Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
So in short the Officer should be charged and go to jail for the excessive force/assault. The young man should face charges and go to jail for illegal drug possession and running from the Police. To me that is where it should end. The young man shouldn't be awarded damages in court. He shares responsibility for what happened and he shouldn't profit from it.

Do you remember Rodney King beaten by LA Police in early '90's ? Everything Rodney King did before he stopped was wrong, normally he would be charged with several counts if he wasn't beaten.

In the end he didn't face any charge, he got several millions from LA city, some police officers went to jail on Federal trial after state trail found them not guilty.

There are two time periods, before the assault and during assault. You should not combine the 2 period into 1, whatever the kid did before he was stomped on the face had nothing to do with the officer assault him while he complied with officer's order.

The kid will not face any charge, DA office do not want to look bad charging a victim of an officer assault, and chance to win any conviction is slim at best.

Police officer may face charge for assaulting a person for no reason while he complied with the order.


Yes I remember RK and the fiasco that was. Other than technical excessive force I see little comparison between these two stories?

This Case:
The young man ran away on foot from one officer and when finally tracked down surrendered peacefully. The Officer kicked him once in the face as pay back for running( one can assume anyway ). The end.

The RK Case:
RK lead multiple officers on a very dangerous high speed motor vehicle chase. When he was finally surrounded the group of Officers that had been chasing him had a beat down party with their nightsticks. RK also repeatedly tried to get up during the beating( FWIW ).

I think your comparison is tenuous at best. Other than a few technical similarities they are different. Certainly the severity of the excessive force is not even close.

To stay on topic I will not comment on the RK case more than what I have here above.

I do agree that in the case this thread is about there is before the assault and then the actual assault. 2 different tings and I have said that right along. I am not the one who has been grouping them.

I have simply said the Officer should face the consequences of his actions( the assault )and so should the young man( before the assault = illegal drug possession and running from the Police ). The Officers excessive force should not negate the young man's criminal actions. The DA would not be upholding the law or performing his duties if he does not charge the young man!

I will say this again, the young man got stomped IN PART because of his own dumb choices. I completely disagree that his stomping has nothing to do with the "pre-assault period". It has a lot to do with it. If he hadn't run because he had drugs in his possession he wouldn't have ultimately got stomped. He wasn't just some guy walking down the street who got bum-rushed by the Officer. HIS actions ultimately lead to the stomping IN PART.

He should not get rewarded for that. Fine fix his teeth( I disagree with this too frankly ). No way in hades he deserves one red cent however. It is time we stop rewarding criminals in this country for bad behavior.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: expat
Originally Posted By: NHHEMI


However, with that said, I can't just excuse the young man and what he did. He contributed to what happened by his own STUPID choices. My comments, that people have said mean "I blame him", are inaccurate. I say what I do because I do not feel he is really a victim. He is a dumb-arse criminal who made bad choices which lead to him getting roughed up when he finally got caught. The only thing he is owed is that the Officer face charges and serve time. He doesn't deserve a monetary settlement IMO.

So in short the Officer should be charged and go to jail for the excessive force/assault. The young man should face charges and go to jail for illegal drug possession and running from the Police. To me that is where it should end. The young man shouldn't be awarded damages in court. He shares responsibility for what happened and he shouldn't profit from it.


I would agree if the Kids injury resulted from a fall or tackle while being chased.
What happened was a result of VERY improper behavior from the police officer.

No, the kid should NOT profit from the ASSAULT (he was assaulted) but he should not be out of pocket for the dental work (in addition to the Drug, evading arrest charges he may face**) either.
I'm sure no matter what the Dental work costs, I'm sure the kid would rather have just kept his own teeth.

I do not abide with the notion; If you don't do what a Police officer says, stuff like this might happen to you.
As if that is OK.

It's the officers job to apprehend the suspect with the MINIMUM force required.

What happened here was deliberate and un-provocked

**Please remember the presumption of innocence.


The young man is not innocent however and we know that. We know for a fact he had illegal drugs and we know for a fact that he ran from the Police Officer who stomped him earlier that day. What the heck does presumption of innocence have to do with this case? This case/story/situation is pretty clearly defined for us so we know what happened. Presumption of innocence is for a case where we don't know what really happened such as with the Cosby allegations. Don't get it???

Yes, the Officer stomping the young man in the face was deliberate. No argument from me hence my many comments that he deserves to face charges and jail time. However, you can hardly call it "unprovoked". Uncalled for is more accurate IMO. Unprovoked though? You can't be serious.

Saying what happened was unprovoked is excusing the young man's actions earlier in the day. The truth is he actually DID provoke the Officer by running rom him. That is why I do not feel he deserves any kind of settlement and why he should answer fully for his own crimes that day. Don't poke the bear and then complain when you get mauled.

This young man is not a victim and he shouldn't be called that nor treated as such. He is a dumb criminal.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
He is a dumb criminal.


Well there's alot of truth. I guess dumb criminal meets a stupid cop on a power trip = A bad day for the dumb criminal.
wink.gif


I still think he's the victim of a stupid cop tho.
 
Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
Originally Posted By: expat
Originally Posted By: NHHEMI


However, with that said, I can't just excuse the young man and what he did. He contributed to what happened by his own STUPID choices. My comments, that people have said mean "I blame him", are inaccurate. I say what I do because I do not feel he is really a victim. He is a dumb-arse criminal who made bad choices which lead to him getting roughed up when he finally got caught. The only thing he is owed is that the Officer face charges and serve time. He doesn't deserve a monetary settlement IMO.

So in short the Officer should be charged and go to jail for the excessive force/assault. The young man should face charges and go to jail for illegal drug possession and running from the Police. To me that is where it should end. The young man shouldn't be awarded damages in court. He shares responsibility for what happened and he shouldn't profit from it.


I would agree if the Kids injury resulted from a fall or tackle while being chased.
What happened was a result of VERY improper behavior from the police officer.

No, the kid should NOT profit from the ASSAULT (he was assaulted) but he should not be out of pocket for the dental work (in addition to the Drug, evading arrest charges he may face**) either.
I'm sure no matter what the Dental work costs, I'm sure the kid would rather have just kept his own teeth.

I do not abide with the notion; If you don't do what a Police officer says, stuff like this might happen to you.
As if that is OK.

It's the officers job to apprehend the suspect with the MINIMUM force required.

What happened here was deliberate and un-provocked

**Please remember the presumption of innocence.


The young man is not innocent however and we know that. We know for a fact he had illegal drugs and we know for a fact that he ran from the Police Officer who stomped him earlier that day. What the heck does presumption of innocence have to do with this case? This case/story/situation is pretty clearly defined for us so we know what happened. Presumption of innocence is for a case where we don't know what really happened such as with the Cosby allegations. Don't get it???

Yes, the Officer stomping the young man in the face was deliberate. No argument from me hence my many comments that he deserves to face charges and jail time. However, you can hardly call it "unprovoked". Uncalled for is more accurate IMO. Unprovoked though? You can't be serious.

Saying what happened was unprovoked is excusing the young man's actions earlier in the day. The truth is he actually DID provoke the Officer by running rom him. That is why I do not feel he deserves any kind of settlement and why he should answer fully for his own crimes that day. Don't poke the bear and then complain when you get mauled.

This young man is not a victim and he shouldn't be called that nor treated as such. He is a dumb criminal.


https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/presumption_of_innocence

Basically, it has EVERYTHING to do with it.
A cop is not a judge, Jury and does not punish!

To me ,there are two separate incidents here. A Dumb kid that 'seemingly' commits crime and runs.
A cop that (according to what we see in the video) uses violence on a citizen offering no resistance.

The kid lost some teeth, but what if his neck were broken? Would that change things?
 
Originally Posted By: rockydee
Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
He is a dumb criminal.


Well there's alot of truth. I guess dumb criminal meets a stupid cop on a power trip = A bad day for the dumb criminal.
wink.gif


I still think he's the victim of a stupid cop tho.


That is exactly it. Well put.

I just can't call someone a victim who put themselves into the bad situation to begin with.
 
Originally Posted By: expat
Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
Originally Posted By: expat
Originally Posted By: NHHEMI


However, with that said, I can't just excuse the young man and what he did. He contributed to what happened by his own STUPID choices. My comments, that people have said mean "I blame him", are inaccurate. I say what I do because I do not feel he is really a victim. He is a dumb-arse criminal who made bad choices which lead to him getting roughed up when he finally got caught. The only thing he is owed is that the Officer face charges and serve time. He doesn't deserve a monetary settlement IMO.

So in short the Officer should be charged and go to jail for the excessive force/assault. The young man should face charges and go to jail for illegal drug possession and running from the Police. To me that is where it should end. The young man shouldn't be awarded damages in court. He shares responsibility for what happened and he shouldn't profit from it.


I would agree if the Kids injury resulted from a fall or tackle while being chased.
What happened was a result of VERY improper behavior from the police officer.

No, the kid should NOT profit from the ASSAULT (he was assaulted) but he should not be out of pocket for the dental work (in addition to the Drug, evading arrest charges he may face**) either.
I'm sure no matter what the Dental work costs, I'm sure the kid would rather have just kept his own teeth.

I do not abide with the notion; If you don't do what a Police officer says, stuff like this might happen to you.
As if that is OK.

It's the officers job to apprehend the suspect with the MINIMUM force required.

What happened here was deliberate and un-provocked

**Please remember the presumption of innocence.


The young man is not innocent however and we know that. We know for a fact he had illegal drugs and we know for a fact that he ran from the Police Officer who stomped him earlier that day. What the heck does presumption of innocence have to do with this case? This case/story/situation is pretty clearly defined for us so we know what happened. Presumption of innocence is for a case where we don't know what really happened such as with the Cosby allegations. Don't get it???

Yes, the Officer stomping the young man in the face was deliberate. No argument from me hence my many comments that he deserves to face charges and jail time. However, you can hardly call it "unprovoked". Uncalled for is more accurate IMO. Unprovoked though? You can't be serious.

Saying what happened was unprovoked is excusing the young man's actions earlier in the day. The truth is he actually DID provoke the Officer by running rom him. That is why I do not feel he deserves any kind of settlement and why he should answer fully for his own crimes that day. Don't poke the bear and then complain when you get mauled.

This young man is not a victim and he shouldn't be called that nor treated as such. He is a dumb criminal.


https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/presumption_of_innocence

Basically, it has EVERYTHING to do with it.
A cop is not a judge, Jury and does not punish!

To me ,there are two separate incidents here. A Dumb kid that 'seemingly' commits crime and runs.
A cop that (according to what we see in the video) uses violence on a citizen offering no resistance.

The kid lost some teeth, but what if his neck were broken? Would that change things?


I assume your "it has EVERYTHING to do with it" comment is about presumption of innocence? You do not explain what "it" is so I have to assume here. I can't think of what else you would be talking of in response to my comments to you but for that though. Therefore I will proceed as such...

I am sorry but presumption of innocence has absolutely no bearing on this situation. The young man did the things he did and the Officer did what he did. There is no doubt or question about what each of them did. Matter of record at this point. There is nothing "seemingly about it" as you put it re: the young man. He did have illegal drugs in his possession which is a crime and running from the Police is a crime as well. he committed crimes and 2 big ones to boot. Nothing seemingly about it.

Why would I presume the young man is innocent of illegal drug possession and running from the Police when it is established he actually had illegal drugs on him and he did in fact run from the Police? He even admitted it. He was caught in the store calling his Dad for help because he had illegal drugs on his person and he had run from the Police earlier because of them. I see nothing that is unclear here? I certainly wouldn't presume the Officer is innocent of excessive force either as we have video evidence of what he did.

So, presumption of innocence wouldn't apply to either of the individuals involved for our discussion purposes on this site. Now, if you mean the Officer should have applied it to the young man I have to say it doesn't apply there either. The young man ran away from him. Again, there is no question or gray area as far as the facts go for what each of these two individuals did.

Presumption of innocence, or innocent until proven guilty, always applies initially. However, at some point when the facts are known and the person clearly committed criminal acts it no longer applies. In this case neither of them has any presumption of innocence about them because we know what they each did with certainty. Both are clearly as guilty of their crimes as it gets. Presumption of innocence applies when you don't know. In this case we do know.

I agree with you that the Officer is not the judge and jury. I have never defended his actions. Why must you and others keep throwing what he did at me as if I am defending it. I am not. He was wrong and deserves to go to jail for it. We ALL agree the Officer was wrong so there is no need to keep hammering me about how what he did is wrong. Where the disagreement is seems to come down to were the young man's actions crimes deserving of charges and/or jail time and whether or not he deserves a settlement for being kicked in the face by the Officer. No one is defending the Officer or his actions.

We have a situation where 2 people tied together in a situation BOTH committed crimes. I say let them both pay for what they did. While the young man did not deserve the boot to the face he shouldn't have had illegal rugs and he shouldn't have run. Therefore, he shares in the responsibility for what happened to him. Now ay he should be rewarded for that and get off on his crimes or even worse receive money from the city.

As I said earlier all the young man deserves for what happened to him is having the Officer charged with assault and hopefully he goes to jail. The young man does not deserve money nor should his crimes be negated by what the Officer did. he should face charges and jail time as well. he is not a victim he is a criminal and he should not benefit from that. If he didn't have illegal rugs and he hadn't run from the Police the Officer wouldn't have lost control and stomped him. Period and end of story for me.
 
You are representing and defending a moralistic viewpoint while such cases must be viewed from an ethical viewpoint. What you as an individual believe a person deserves is irrelevant, it is about what our society's conventions, our laws, say. Imagine the mayhem if our laws were based on every individual's morals. Also, you point out the facts and equal them with the truth, in this case guilt. This is actually a very incorrect conclusion, because the facts often indicate the opposite of the truth. Again, this is exactly why we employ judicial ethics instead of having the law of the fist/lawlessness.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top