interesting yet we know that Police are taught what to say in order to be able to get away with such behavior.......and the one that comes to mind and probably the most used is -- I was in fear of my life....that is an automatic I am innocent of all brutality or of killing this person....lolol
Now come on! The officer did fear for his life, that's why, when they realized they were being recorded, they adjusted their attack...they knew the camera would save them and they felt safer
/s
No sympathy for the pregnant yowler.
no cops were once upon a time heroes...Cops are all heroes
Did he have drugs or not? Also the officer most likely had no idea it was a pregnant woman, he was too busy punching the guy in the face. She shouldnt have approached them the way she did.
Yeah, well the pregnant yowler was watching the man she loved being held down by multiple officers while being pummeled in the face. If they were doing that to one of my loved ones I can't say for sure I wouldn't try to stop their behavior. Having said that, they did what was needed by taking her down and that I have no problem with.
The neighbor kid threw the ball into my yard so I stood my ground and shot him in the face.I was in fear of my life
Because that's even possible?
They respond to threats with force. You do not stop them, they stop you. She was aggressive with them and they did a simple take down. They'd do it to anyone, anytime, anywhere.
Now maybe the method of tripping her is wrong, due to possible injury, but they use tasers to worse effect all the time. Throwing her to the ground seems mild compared to that, and tasers are standard practice. How do you win a complaint re how they handled her?
As for the punching of a subdued man... that should be illegal and charges brought against the lot of them. Is it not their duty to restrain the criminal assailant? All of them failed there.
My take on this...
1. The punching is excessive. The guy is trying to swallow a WHOLE sock with dope in it. Get him handcuffed and then hold onto the sock to keep him from swallowing it. Once he is cuffed, you can even try holding open his mouth at that point. If he starts to choke, due to the sock, you should be able to pull it out. There are also pressue point tactics that can be used to get him to open his mouth.--agreed!
2. I don't see an issue with the takedown of the female. She came up behind the cop and is standing over his back while yelling at him. He grabs her leg and pulls it out from under her causing her to fall. Once he sees that she is no longer a threat, which is basically immediately, he disengages from her.-agreed!
3. Deleting the video is absolutely inexcusable.--agreed!
4. I don't agree with the reporter at the end where they say that the police can't take the phone/tablet without a search warrant. In this case, if the police followed procedure and the citizen did not want to give up the video voluntarily, they would take the tablet as evidence, put it in Airplane Mode, and turn it off. This is to prevent ANYONE from altering or changing the video and keeping it in its entirety. A search warrant would be written and the video extracted from the tablet. The tablet could then be returned. I'm glad that the citizen in this case had everything automatically sync with a cloud service. -- sorry you are talking as if you yourself is a police officer.....read up on this subject..especially what the Supreme Court has said...
BTW, I found it interesting that both failed to show up for their first court appearance.
- Merg
--actually they cannot confiscate your cell phone or tablet and then get a search warrant! They cannot confiscate your recording device "claiming" it is evidence!they say that the police can't take the phone/tablet without a search warrant.
--actually they cannot confiscate your cell phone or tablet and then get a search warrant! They cannot confiscate your recording device "claiming" it is evidence!
You should know better than to say that!! Considering those TV reporters most likely checked with the legal department before giving that advice!!
I am sorry you are totally 100% wrong! They always need a search warrant first...they cannot confiscate the recording device first and then get a search warrant! it does not work the way you think!Yes, they can. When there is probable cause (the term "probably cause" is just another fancy phrase they use to justify walking on your rights!) believe an item contains evidence of a crime, the police can seize/secure it. This is to prevent the possible destruction of evidence. The police cannot search the item though without a search warrant. The one exception to this is a vehicle, which under the Carroll Doctrine, the police can search without a warrant as long as they have probable cause.
Taking the cell phone seizure to the view most in favor of the citizen, the police would be able to hold the person there with the cell phone and not let them use it while they have a search warrant written. Once the search warrant is written and signed, they would take the phone.
Yes, they can. When there is probable cause to believe an item contains evidence of a crime, the police can seize/secure it. This is to prevent the possible destruction of evidence. The police cannot search the item though without a search warrant. The one exception to this is a vehicle, which under the Carroll Doctrine, the police can search without a warrant as long as they have probable cause.
Taking the cell phone seizure to the view most in favor of the citizen, the police would be able to hold the person there with the cell phone and not let them use it while they have a search warrant written. Once the search warrant is written and signed, they would take the phone.
- Merg
Yes, they can. When there is probable cause to believe an item contains evidence of a crime, the police can seize/secure it. This is to prevent the possible destruction of evidence.
Defendants claim that the potential imminent destruction of evidence—i.e., the video Mr. King was recording—created an exigent circumstance justifying the seizure of the iPhone. Taking the facts most favorable to Mr. King, it is not clear that the destruction of evidence was imminent, nor that the seizure was motivated by a need for the evidence. The Court is not convinced that a reasonable officer would feel, first, that the evidence was necessary and, second, that there was a compelling need to act and no time to obtain a warrant for the evidence.