I don't know all the details of this incident, but based solely on what I just saw it looked like excessive force.

heh, in texas cops kill you. In texas the civilians may kill you for being a criminal.

Sometimes the things that happen are just stupid, just another incident in happyville.

I'm from Texas too, I do not condone brutality. Excessive force, in situations that do not need excessive force, accident or not this was uncalled for and negligent.

>> ^yonderboy:
2) If cops saw me smoking weed and then I slipped it into my pocket... guess what... they have the right to search my pockets. WITHOUT ME BEING CHARGED WITH A CRIME. If I shove that joint up my ass... guess what else they have a right to do.

I'm not qualified to discuss the legality of strip searches, since I know very little of American laws, and lately the US legislation has changed to allow a lot of invasive procedures in the interest of "national security". What I hold is the personal belief that it's absurd to strip search someone without a proper accusation. A police officer shouldn't be able to do it just because he feels like it. Your example hinges on the whole "war on drugs" issue, which I also think is very damaging from a civil liberties standpoint.

3) Did you just say that being immobilized is automatically excessive force? Can you REALLY not think of a single situation where cops would legitimately need to immobilize someone? C'mon... you can't possibly be that stupid/naive

Being immobilized without being charged with a crime is (to me) excessive force.

I think your example about weed shows we have a deeper disagreement about civil liberties. I believe that getting immobilized by the police is a REALLY BIG DEAL. A police officer shouldn't have the right to hold someone against his or her will without making a formal accusation which he would later have to follow through with legal procedures. Otherwise they can just go around intimidating people and charging them with "resisting arrest".

2) The search might have been fully warranted.
Why? She was a victim. She shouldn't have been strip searched or arrested. *It's absurd to strip search someone who hasn't been charged with a crime.
**It's called possible/probable cause. By "might have been fully warranted" he means you don't know the reason they did it. If cops saw me smoking weed and then I slipped it into my pocket... guess what... they have the right to search my pockets. WITHOUT ME BEING CHARGED WITH A CRIME. If I shove that joint up my ass... guess what else they have a right to do.

3) I didn't see any excessive force. Yes, she was being held down and the "pretzel position" is simply a technique that allows one officer to control her legs. That doesn't mean she was in pain from that.
*She was taken down and immobilized. That by itself is excessive force.
**Did you just say that being immobilized is automatically excessive force? Can you *REALLY* not think of a single situation where cops would legitimately need to immobilize someone? C'mon... you can't possibly be that stupid/naive

Ugh. None of you, including myself, know enough about this situation to cast any calls on whether or not this was justified (the search)
@flavioriberio: immobilizing someone is NOT excessive force. For all we know, the officers had plenty good reason to suspect that this woman had a razor blade somewhere on her body, yet was unwilling to cooperate with the police.
"Everyone playing along" Again, it might have been fully warranted. Like someone said, even the female officers seemed to think that it was perfectly justified.

Just because she called 911, she is not automatically the victim.

Do you people really think that there's no way in the world that she was indeed attacking someone with a razor blade, and then called 911 on them? It could quite possibly be that who ever attacked her told the police that she had cut them with a blade, and had the cuts to prove it, and that the arresting officer couldn't find it. Therefore, she gets taken to jail where they search her clothes for a blade and fail to find one. They ask her if she has one or not, and she replies with a "Fuck you." They are then forced to perform a strip search to find the blade.

The video seems so traumatic because she is screaming bloody murder, and for all we know, the officers had every right to be doing that strip search. Should there have been males in there? No. Should she have been left naked? No. But none of you can tell me that she didn't deserve a strip search. For all you know, she was kicking any officer that tried to approach her, and that's why they were forced to restrain her. I'll reiterate: restraining someone is NOT excessive force. If they had a knee in her lower back and one on her neck, that would have been.

@Spoco: " Sorry, but a woman being forcibly stripped while in handcuffs should be screaming bloody murder... Just not on."


No, a completely innocent woman being forcibly stripped while in handcuffs should be screaming bloody murder. We don't know that this woman is completely innocent.

@Xax: "
I'm not sure what your point is. You fault her for screaming? Would the video be less disturbing if she were not?"

No, I don't fault her. I was merely stating that the video would have been less traumatic is she wasn't screaming.

@toast: "
Why didn't they reply to her when she asked what they were doing? No one in that room said a word.
And I think I heard one of the men snicker as he closed her door."

They might have already told her every reason why they were doing it. Maybe they just got sick of answering the same question 300 times.

"OF COURSE YOU WOULD SCREAM. You have no feelings."

Don't fucking tell me I have no feelings. I'm being objective. And no, I would scream IF I were indeed being treated badly. We don't know that she is.

@EDD: We don't know if it was a false arrest.

<cruise control>
THERE AREN'T ENOUGH FACTS IN THESE VIDEOS TO PRESENT A STRONG ARGUMENT FOR EITHER SIDE.

every department of government is to force citizens to do as they want

> 3) I didn't see any excessive force.
> 5) This video would have seemed a LOT less dramatic had she not been screaming bloody murder the whole time.

She was already traumatised from being attacked. She needs someone to talk calmly to her, not strip her down. He held her arms behind her back, which could have been painful and if you were in a room surrounded by people you thought you could trust who are doing such humiliating things to you, OF COURSE YOU WOULD SCREAM. You have no feelings.

Why didn't they reply to her when she asked what they were doing? No one in that room said a word.
And I think I heard one of the men snicker as he closed her door.

>> ^MarineGunrock:
2) The search might have been fully warranted.
Why? She was a victim. She shouldn't have been strip searched or arrested. It's absurd to strip search someone who hasn't been charged with a crime.

3) I didn't see any excessive force. Yes, she was being held down and the "pretzel position" is simply a technique that allows one officer to control her legs. That doesn't mean she was in pain from that.
She was taken down and immobilized. That by itself is excessive force.

5) This video would have seemed a LOT less dramatic had she not been screaming bloody murder the whole time.
She should've been screaming bloody murder.

This episode brings out the "Fuck the Police" side in me. In these scenarios all it takes is ONE person to point out the evil and stop the others, but everyone decided to play along.

I also wonder why this is on tape. I'm glad though, because otherwise she wouldn't have a case.

1) There should have been no men in that room.
2) The search might have been fully warranted.
3) I didn't see any excessive force. Yes, she was being held down and the "pretzel position" is simply a technique that allows one officer to control her legs. That doesn't mean she was in pain from that.
4) It's bullshit that she was int there nude for six hours. There is absolutely no way they can justify that.
5) This video would have seemed a LOT less dramatic had she not been screaming bloody murder the whole time.
6) Why the fuck were they videotaping it anyway?


Again, a prime example of a few officers fucking it up for the rest of the honest ones out there.

I live in the same city as this guy. An amusing part of the story is that this guy Quanell X a member of the black panthers in Houston, Texas turned it into some racial controversy. He organized a protest at Joe Horn's house, and he was met by neighbourhood people protesting the protest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quanell_X#Joe_Horn_Protest

Personally, while I feel Joe Horn used excessive force, I don't have any sympathy for burglars getting shot while they're robbing someone's home. Those are the risks you take when you rob houses. I also think Quanell X can find some better black guys to help out and protest for. What does he want? All black people to be able to rob people in safety?

1. 9mm is crap, I'm glad they're running out.

2. Crime in Milwaukee and Indianapolis? I'm shocked! Such nice places to raise a family!

3. What do the liberals do about this? They cry when police use "excessive" force (ie shoot a criminal), but they also need someone to call when their house gets robbed. Quite the conundrum...

As the local Fox affialate reports (http://www.fox16.com/mediacenter/local.aspx?videoId=47825),
Officer Williams has been "cleared," i.e., restored to duty but must attend counseling on how to handle apprehended subjects. Call me crazy, but I don't think that retraining this guy is going to help mitigate his clear disposition to violence. He does not belong on the street.

As noted by Internal Affairs, one of the worst things this cop did was to leave a cuffed suspect unattended to go running after another questionably criminal actor (that he never apprehends!). That may sound silly, but it is an incredible breach of safety protocol. Short of preventing a fleeing suspect from obviously and imminently injuring or killing many people, an officer with an actor in custody never leaves the actor unattended until transferred to another officer's custody.

Beyond that, though, I am really surprised IA did not find that Williams used excessive force. It's worth noting, according to the quoted AP report, that IA recommended no changes to the department's rules of non-deadly engagement. One wonders if a desire to leave certain language in said rules was a motivating factor in the decision.

It is clear that Williams grabs a teenage girl by the throat when she walks away from him after being told she was under arrest for violating city ordinance. It is certain that when a cop tells you to stop where you are and/or that you are under arrest, walking away from him is the Wrong Thing to do. So we might surmise that Williams is justified in going after her, except that he again(!) leaves an already apprehended suspect unattended. At this point, we also see a second (bicycle?) officer who is engaged with another apprehended actor.

As Williams is dragging the girl back towards the other officer, the third (fourth?) actor gets in the fray by jumping in front of Williams and screaming at him. While I can understand this kid's outrage, he could not possibly have picked a worse course of action. This cop was clearly torqued up about as tight as he could be wound and to antagonize him at that point invites an (arguably legal) attack. Don't mistake that statement for any kind of justification for Williams outrageous reaction. But even though we may euthanize bears that attack people, it's hard to have sympathy for someone that pokes a bear with sticks.

Williams was clearly out of control in his attempt to perform his duties. He failed to remember some of the basic instructions he (hopefully) learned as a police cadet (assuming he was one). He further allowed himself to be emotionally overwhelmed (by children!) while attempting to carry out his duties. While the kids displayed a contempt for rules and authority (which is to be expected of teenagers), the adults in the situation displayed an even greater lack of wisdom.

I would recommend Officer Williams be permanently removed from field duty, and that the bicycle officer be temporarily relieved pending retraining for not restraining his colleague.

"The cop was totally overreacting."

Yes he was - the fat fuck. Those kids did nothing wrong - I've skated for 20 years (and dealt with more shit-head cops then you can imagine) and if I was in that situation the cop would have been unconscious before he finished putting the first kid in cuffs. My front truck up the side of his head would have guaranteed that. Now that's excessive force.

To quote reservoir dogs:
Mr. Pink: You kill anybody?
Mr. White: A few cops.
Mr. Pink: No real people?
Mr. White: Just cops.

BGW, the only reason George Washington is blue is because sad sacks like you throw his name around in some kind of I-ride-the-short-bus attempt at patriotism. You better think twice before you start calling people here traitors, because most folks around here are more informed than you, more literate than you, and care a hell of a lot more about the USA than you.

Anyone that parrots semi-retarded, oversimplified talking points about immigration is no patriot or fan of the Constitution (or whatever the last hate buzz-words is - islamofascist, gay marriage, etc.)

Look, immigration has always been what makes this country great. If it wasn't for H1-B, student Visa, illegal workers... this country would not have had a dot-com boom. There are more companies than you can imagine started by immigrants and people you hate. In fact, the US is the only major first world country with positive population growth, which can be attributed to ... guest what? You like your Social Security? Guess what is paying for it when you retire? Illegals who pay in and never collect. Guess what makes your WalMart profitable and running smooth? Guess why your stock portfolio goes up? Guess who picks your fruits and vegetables?

What I initally addressed is the LAPD violation of the Constitution. You would willingly give over your Rights in order to spew some "illegal immigrant" hatred. First of all, the Constitution should strive to protect all humans, anywhere. Secondly, go read some constitutional law. (Obviously other than rights to taxpayer funded programs, protection from deportation, and voting..)

Immigration proceedings are matters of administrative law, not criminal law. (Until Ashcroft and Abu-Gonzales created Gitmo detention centers)

http://www.slate.com/id/1008367/
http://www.nlg.org/resources/kyr/kyr_english.htm

the Bill of Rights applies to everyone, even illegal immigrants. So an immigrant, legal or illegal, prosecuted under the criminal code has the right to due process, a speedy and public trial, and other rights protected by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.

(US v. Verdugo-Urquidez) Implies the Fourth Amend search and seizures does not apply to non-residents (in the case of border issues)

(Martinez-Aguero v. Gonzales) "aliens stopped at the border have a constitutional right to be free from false imprisonment and the use of excessive force by law enforcement personnel."


(Plyer v. Doe) No State shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

U.S. CONST. amend XIV, § 1. (No State shall…deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law[.])

I'm not sure where half-breeds like you learned how to read the Bill of Rights and see where it says "citizens" have the following rights, but I still maintain, this country (and George Washington's memory) would be better off if you choke on a taco.

Not a fan of cops in general, I still sympathize with their daily impossible lose/lose situation.

In a grapple like that, a suspect could easily produce a knife the officer would never even see before being fatally wounded. Did the officer already have a chance to frisk for weapons?

Had he Tasered her, he'd still be blamed for using excessive force.

And the ever-flowing cries of racism, par for the course. The media needs that angle to sell it, even if it ruins a good person's career.

"I can't be held responsible for being a drunken idiot who assaults a cop, since I'm _____."

The cop should sue her.

Excessive force for sure. The guy lost it, there were 4 people with him obviously it's not like she was going to go all Matrix on them.