More LEOs behaving badly

Oh, I don't think the beating was appropriate to the crime. (I didn't say that, now did i?) But I don't find your victim to be entirely blameless, either.
I've seen idiots die in traffic, because they cut through stopped traffic, without realizing the opposing traffic was not stopped. Or they ran through traffic to catch a bus on the other side, though they were 20' from a crosswalk, or a legal crossing.
From what I see in the video, he is nowhere near a legal crossing, and had no business in the street there at all. It was just the direct route, and the cop was in his way.
No matter what the cop was doing there, he did not have to move. He is EXEMPT from traffic laws on duty, and can even order you to drive the wrong way on a one way road, as needed.
Your victim CLAIMS he was polite
Was he? We don't know. He claims he used profanity at a cop and flipped him off. (Verbal assault) it may have gone beyond foul language, we don't know.
We DO KNOW he had no business where he was. We DO KNOW he got verbally abusive, with a cop on duty and in uniform. We DO KNOW it escalated, from pepper spray, to less leathal, to brutal, in order, we just don't know why, yet.
It would be consistent with refusing to follow an officer's orders, while being placed under arrest.
Weather or not you agree with the charge, doesn't matter. Weather or not you agree with my assessment, doesn't matter. If you choose to, you have an ignore button, and you can choose to deafen yourself, if your ears are too delicate to hear an opinion that differs from yourown.
But if you wish me to be silent because you have spoken, then (I fart in your general direction)
I will not rush to judgment without the full story. I will not condemn, without more proof, and I will offer alternative possibilities that fit the facts that ARE known.
Railroading from the sidelines is easy. Repairing the damage done, if you happen to be wrong....is not.

 

AMAZING...Two people that don't see the police state...

 

Some folks need special sun-glasses, others need a piano...or billy club to fall on their heads

 

What exactly is verbal abuse? Is it the use of profanity? I hear profanity everyday & some people are real colorful and creative in their use of words. IMO the F word is used more frequently then the word please. Profanity is accepted in everyday speech. When you see commercials that say, "shut the front door", we all really know what they are really saying. It is promoting the use of profanity. You are saying since someone is in a uniform we need to automatically give them total respect. An outfit demands blind respect and obedience?

Really? The guy lived nearby and was trying to bring his groceries home. How do we know the police had business being there? What was the officer doing? Why did he have to block traffic? If his car was impeding pedestrians there is a huge probability that he was also causing traffic issues. Is it a case of he can do what he wants, when he wants, where he wants because he has on a uniform that demands blind respect and obedience?

 

From all appearance, @Motomom34 he was crossing in the middle of the block, because it was the shorter route. (Jay-walking) and it has been illegal just about every city, for a long time. It is nothing new, and he CHOSE to break a law for his convience.
The officer CHOSE to ignore the lawbreaking, until the perp got abusive. At which point, he enforced the law, at his discretion.
It matters not AT ALL what the cop was doing there, he was on duty, and will answer for his actions (good or bad) if he was in any way, out of line.
He does not ever answer to some jackanapes, ordering him to move his cruiser. He CAN on duty, block fire hydrants, crosswalks, intersections, or even drive across your lawn, while enforcing the law. And you ARE REQUIRED to obey a law enforcents officer's orders, weather or not you agree with them. Unless he is violating your Rights, in which case, get his supervisor on the line, or call 911 if needed.
Laws vary by location, so check your local laws, but what I saw, could also have been an @$$hole, refusing to be arrested for a "bull$h1t" charge, where in fact he DID BREAK THE LAW.
Once the cuffs come out, COMPLY. Call your lawyer, your family, you are going to jail. Resisting is breaking another law, and is reason for an @$$kicking. It is clearly reason to escalate the force needed to detain and arrest the lawbreaker.
He did not have a partner to assist, and had an irate perp to subdue. Would you prefer he simply shot him? He could have pulled his gun and held him for the backup to arrive, but that could also have become fatal, if something went wrong like a fight for the weapon.
Once an arrest starts, COMPLY. You will only make it worse by fighting it. Take it to court.

 

From the video (which starts pretty late in the incident), it is hard to say where the officer's car is...but late in the video, one sees a cruiser that doesn't appear to be one that arrived during the video parked in the cross street at the corner. This vehicle is in what is actually an "unmarked crosswalk" that is the extension of an imaginary line at the edges of the sidewalk when it reaches a cross street. Painted lines are a convenience, but not required for a route to be considered a crosswalk.

While the video does not start until after the event had escalated, what is there is disturbing...especially with the "history" quoted in the article that accompanies the video. The fact that the officer had numerous prior incidents (including a successful lawsuit for excessive force) would tend (in a reasonable world) to cast doubt on his credibility and lead one to believe that he should not be in a position of authority. At least he was apparently promoted to detective, which will mean he has less opportunity for "street policing" in the future.

Numerous California departments (from the state Highway Patrol down), including the Sacramento police...though I note this is actually the Sheriff's Department as opposed to city police...have a reputation for this kind of activity. I must admit that I tend to think that anyone foolish enough to live in such a community or state is pretty foolish to seemingly purposely incite the anger of the local jackboots...or even live there.

 

Sorry @PaxMentis either you cross on one of these:


Or you are a criminal and take a risk of getting your head bashed in. So if you need to cross the street and don't see one of these Then keep walking till you do.

Actually @PaxMentis I like your post above.

 

You are right in many things. We do NOT see the beginning. We do NOT know what really started it. We do NOT know why it escalated. And we do NOT know why he parked where he did. (He might have responded to an armed robbery, or a cat stuck in a tree, but neither matters, he can park anywhere he sees fit, while on official business. (Whatever that business is)).
He can not be ordered to move by a civilian while on police business, period. The citizen does not have a RIGHT to cross at that location, he only has RIGHT OF WAY, should he do so. (Over moving traffic, not law enforcement).
As for being brutally effective, LA cops have good reason to keep control of a situation, with force. I spent 5years there, and they always have vacancies in the thin blue line, due to the mortality rate of cops there. (It is rumored, that the new uniforms come printed with concentric circles on the back.) LA was the most violent town I have ever lived in, and gained the most practice for my martial arts training from daily life there. I am not one to look for trouble, but I did learn to keep my head on swivel, and my hands ready. LA is not a beach paradise when you live there. Between the competing gangs, the thieves, the traffic, it is a stressful place to live even with the beach and sun.
We also do not know what was said between them as this progressed. Since this WAS an arrest, I would expect the victim to have been ordered to put his hands behind his back to be cuffed. I did not see any attempt to comply with that order. This leads me to believe force was necessary to get compliance. And not equal force, because that prolongs a fight, but overwhelming force, to end it.
I will withhold judgement until all the facts are known. (Does anyone know if the cop had a body cam? I remember reading they were to become standard issue, but I do not know if they have become so yet or not.) It would be instructive to hear and see what DID happen from the start.

 

Agreed. And until the "victim" got mouthy with a cop, he was being accomadated.

 

I apologize for the sarcasm above. But it is an incident of jaywalking that went bad. I am sure 98% of the people on this site have jaywalked. Is it a crime- yes. Is it a crime that should end in people being beaten- no. Should people curse at each other- no but they do. All the incident shows me is that there is an illness in this country. IMO people are uptight. People are willing to abandon common courtesy, do unto others, when they feel they are right. Allegedly the victim politely asked the cop to move. Allegedly the cop has prior violent incidents. What is the truth, I don’t know.

When I am at a crosswalk and a car stops while crossing, I always wave and mouth, “thank you”, I don’t have to do that. Legally they have to stop, I don’t have to thank them but I do. I know it is goofy and stupid but many smile and wave back. Kindness 101- pass it on!

 

Surprisingly (or not) L.A. is not one of the top rank when it comes to incidents of alleged brutality statewide. Possibly is is a result of the city police so frequently being under observation by potentially hostile crowds and possibly it has something to do with past incidents that have led to some "training adjustments".

I grew up in the beach communities of the South Bay and (even more now than 45 years ago) I would much rather interact with LAPD than the CHP. These days I carry a federal retired badge that (whether justified or not, I won't argue that on either side) gets me a certain amount of "professional courtesy"....but those boys and girls are buttheads to everyone, even active officers of their own agency.

Unless laws have changed drastically since I learned them (which has been many years, so I recognize that possibility) or unless your state is different than the norm to which I am accustomed, try driving through any intersection where a pedestrian is in that area that I quoted in front of a patrol officer and see what he/she says about that subject. If what you say were true in my state currently, one would be completely unable to cross a street in my little city, since a crosswalk marked in the way you specify does not (in my experience) exist anywhere within the city. If, in fact, the pedestrian in the instant case was walking across where he lies when the video starts, he was in fact jaywalking...if he was walking across at the corner where the cruiser to which I referred was parked, he was in what passes currently as a crosswalk where I live. Our local police department has actually been doing "stings" the past few years in "unmarked crosswalks" where a pedestrian (actually an officer in civilian clothing) will step off the curb at an intersection with a vehicle approaching. Any vehicle not stopping receives a fairly hefty ticket.

This is not to say the the pedestrian has a legal right to demand that an in-service police cruiser move out of that area, but it would protect said pedestrian from a jaywalking charge (which would be much less serious than the Interfering charge that is most likely what this arrest was for).

 

Here is another jaywalker. I don't know what he did to resist. He looked scared.
Teen Boy Beaten With Baton, Swarmed by Nine Cops … for Jaywalking | Filming Cops
*** F word used in video

 

Again, it would be good to see what happened before the video because I suspect there was at least a poor judgement call by the officer in that time frame, but if one assumes the actions up to the start of the video justify an attempt to immobilize the subject, I see nothing that I would consider either excessive force or assault in the video itself. The video starts with the officer attempting to immobilize the "kid" and the kid resisting. When he grabs the baton, the officer is about as restrained as he could be...there was no swinging of the baton into the subject's head as characterized in the article...only two blows with hands wrapped around the baton to the sides of the face...apparently without sufficient force to break the fingers or hands. I'm sure it hurt, but I would bet the "kid" was not seriously injured...as he would have been had the officer pulled the baton away and let swing...which would STILL have been legally justified at that point.

Once again, with the subject refusing to cooperate, an overwhelming and irresistible number of officers taking him to the ground is about the safest (for all concerned) way to cuff the kid. Maybe painful, but not likely to actually injure. Was the arrest justified? A good idea? Who knows? Was the "kid" resisting arrest? Yes. Was excessive force used based on what we can see in the video? No.

Sorry, can't buy this one based on the sneak preview.

 

Report said that before the video started, he was told to sit down. That means he is being detained, while they check something out, or deal with something else. Clearly he did not do as he was told. He fought with the officer, and did not get on the ground as instructed. He WAS resisting and not cooperating. He was NOT swarmed by nine cops as the headlines reads, most of them never even touched him. I saw two, possibility three, jerking him off his feet to hand cuff him. (Standard procedure with a resisting suspect) and the rest of the cops formed a breastwork against the possibility of attack. (Again, normal behavior in an agitated crowd.)
The irritating woman, hollering "he's just a kid" and "it's just Jay-walking" did absolutely nothing useful, and was trying to work up the crowd. "inciting a riot" is also a crime.
My guess (without more background it is ALL guess work) is the large crowd was interfering with traffic, and the cops were called to deal with the congestion. Jay-walking is a crime, and is enforced when it effects traffic safety. The kid would have been processed for a Jay-walking ticket, mist likely, one of many from the sounds of the crowd, but instead he headed for the bus. (He was being detained, so that is not an option) that would qualify as "fleeing" and at that point it turns into an arrest, not just a ticket.
The baton might have been overboard, but the rest was not.