Photography is Not a Crime

234 responses so far ↓

• 1 sickntired // May 13, 2009 at 8:08 PM

  We all know the LAPD will claim he was fighting them and they had to, I love the part with the dog, cop getting the dog to bite him. these fat LAPD cops need to arrest and held in gen pop for a while..

  I hope this guy sue the hell out of them

• 2 sickntired // May 13, 2009 at 8:10 PM

  this is why cops hate cameras and video cameras,

• 3 Jay // May 13, 2009 at 8:25 PM

  This is cut and dried: These cops MUST be fired and charged with a crime.

• 4 Jay // May 13, 2009 at 8:29 PM

  It wasn’t an LAPD officer. It was an El Monte PD officer.
  http://tinyurl.com/q2rakr

• 5 Carlos Miller // May 13, 2009 at 8:33 PM

  Thanks, Jay. Just corrected it.

• 6 Simon Jester // May 13, 2009 at 8:47 PM

  Isn’t it obvious? He was obviously resisting, reaching for a weapon and failing to comply with a lawful order. The perp obviously deserved a boot to the head.

• 7 Andrew DeFilippis // May 13, 2009 at 9:02 PM

  Wow… What an idiot for running from the cops… But for that one cop to come up and kick him full on in his head… It looked like he knocked the guy out for a moment. That was insanely stupid.

• 8 Jason // May 13, 2009 at 9:26 PM

  A sudden and unexpected blow is necessary to stun a violent suspect like this before cuffing. This is standard procedure. There’s nothing wrong here.

• 9 Eric Ogunbase // May 13, 2009 at 9:46 PM

  Jason, I really hope you’re being sarcastic. The guy RAN from the police. He willingly surrendered, spread out completely, and got kicked in the head?

  Like sickntired said, it’s exactly why cops hate cameras. Because now, the report can’t say something like, “Suspect was uncoopertive and resisted, so we used force”. But, these cops will get a slap on the wrist.

• 10 Mister DNA // May 13, 2009 at 9:50 PM

  The comments at the link Jay provided are frightening.

  If another fire breaks out in California tonight, it might be due to all the straw men in the comments over there.

• 11 LEO // May 13, 2009 at 10:09 PM

  It’s called “playing dead” folks. Jason is 100% correct. It may appear to an untrained civilian that this man surrendered, but he can easily turn on the officers. Every officer knows this and many have personally witnessed “surrendered” suspects who turn out to have done anything but. This was a clean bust and what the officer did was both right and necessary.

  This isn’t Snow White here the officers captured. This is a vicious criminal who already demonstrated his callous disregard for human life in his dangerous pursuit. That told the officers this man is highly dangerous.

• 12 Carlos Miller // May 13, 2009 at 10:47 PM

  LEO,

  While I can understand the adrenaline rush the officer must have been feeling as well as the urge to kick this guy’s head in, I do not believe you can justify this as standard police procedure.

  The officer knew back up was coming. All he had to do was train his gun on the suspect until the others arrived.

  This way, the suspect could have played dead all we wanted but he still would have been shot if he made the wrong move.

  I do agree that the suspect had absolutely no regard for human life and I think the cops did a good job tailing him without going completely overboard.

  But that one cop got a little too carried away and that is what separates the professionals from the amateurs.

• 13 10-8 // May 13, 2009 at 10:57 PM

  This is a terrific example of civilians who don’t understand lawful, necessary police tactics commenting on something they don’t understand.

  Once the suspect was cuffed, he walked to the police cruiser on his own two feet. He has no head injuries. Picture proof here, with three closeup shots of the suspect:

  http://preview.tinyurl.com/r7spaf

  A dangerous suspect must be subdued as soon as possible. You don’t wait around to make things all warm and cuddly for violent felons. You move as fast as you can, just like if you found a cobra in your baby’s crib. LEO is absolutely right.

  The kick was completely justified.

• 14 Jay // May 13, 2009 at 10:59 PM

  Playing dead is an obvious tactic, and this guy is a scumbag – no doubt. But sorry LEO, the “untrained civilian” excuse is so tired. Yes, there are many people out there who don’t have any idea about police procedure, but to constantly use it as “cover” for behavior like this doesn’t fly.

  What Carlos said in the previous post hits the nail on the head. All the first cop needed to do was train a weapon on him…or since LE is so fond of them these days, tase him.

  I know LE has a very dangerous job, but to justify and apologize for behavior like this due to their “stress” level is a false excuse. It’s not like they signed up to be a cashier at Kroger.

  BTW, police ARE civilian law enforcement vs. the military.

• 15 10-8 // May 13, 2009 at 11:07 PM

  “What Carlos said in the previous post hits the nail on the head.”

  It demonstrated he doesn’t have a clue what he’s talking about, and the same holds for you. Look at the pictures linked in my earlier comment. The suspect walked away.

  None of the police officers commenting on this story said anything about stress, including me. None of the police officers apologized either. So why are you even mentioning that? All it demonstrates is your lack of reading comprehension, in addition to your lack of understanding about necessary police tactics.

• 16 Mister DNA // May 13, 2009 at 11:16 PM

  I don’t understand why those who seem to be sympathetic to Law Enforcement feel the need to go through such mental gymnastics. To claim that kicking someone in the head is “completely justified” requires some serious disconnect from reality.

  I support the police. I’m not some filthy hippie who thinks people should go around “sticking it to the pigs”. That’s why I get angry when I see videos like this. After the scumbag (the guy who got kicked in the head) gets out of jail, he’s going to file a lawsuit against the city and the city will settle out of court (so that they won’t have to admit any wrongdoing and subsequently change their policy). The cop who kicked the guy in the head will remain on the force (he didn’t do anything wrong, remember?) and the taxpayers will pay the settlement.

  Tax dollars that could have bought more Kevlar vests, dashboard cameras – things that actually keep cops safer – instead get funneled to criminals because an officer thought it would be a good idea to kick someone in the head.

  I guess with monikers like “10-8″ and “LEO”, we’re supposed to assume these people support law enforcement, but their rhetoric shows otherwise.

• 17 Carlos Miller // May 13, 2009 at 11:24 PM

  10-8,

  I added one of the photos you provided to the above post. Guy looks like a real winner.

• 18 Jay // May 13, 2009 at 11:42 PM

  10-8,

  I stand by what I said, although I do admit I did get a bit off point of this discussion with my other comments.

  I understand the need to subdue a suspect, but how do you justify a kick to the head in this scenario? It doesn’t matter if he walked away or not. It’s not appropriate for what the suspect was doing at the time — kicking a prone suspect in the HEAD, in this case doesn’t strike me as appropriate force. I agree with Mister DNA’s assessment as well.

  What if this was the same scenario, but the suspect wasn’t a scumbag gangbanger?

• 19 Christopher Martin // May 14, 2009 at 12:09 AM

  “What if this was the same scenario, but the suspect wasn’t a scumbag gangbanger?”

  Or if he didn’t walk away?

  I don’t believe a kick in the head is EVER necessary. A LEO has weapons to keep himself safe.

• 20 Kol. Klink // May 14, 2009 at 12:13 AM

  As LEO says, head kicks are SOP for anybody resisting or playing dead.

  In fact, LEO is vigilant even of corpses.

  He’ll tell you he trains for tactical head kicks everyday too. Because he’s a high-five hero.

  Does Ridley Scott write the script for these guys?

• 21 Rob // May 14, 2009 at 12:13 AM

  He certainly deserved a kick to the head and quite a bit more for running from the cops and endangering people’s lives, but that doesn’t make this okay. Absolutely despicable that a police officer would act in that manner when a suspect stopped resisting arrest.

• 22 Spaghetti eddie // May 14, 2009 at 12:44 AM

  The police officer in this incident obviously deserves a bonus and/or raise/promotion for his foot placement in this case. You squeemish defenders or human refuse deserve a good kick as well!

• 23 Datech // May 14, 2009 at 12:53 AM

  I would have to say that about 90% of all police chase videos I have ever watched have ended in a similar manner.

  From YouTube to COPS to Most Shocking! to the local news, every police chase video that is caught on tape ended with the subject being arrested. The majority of those videos show the subject willingly giving up after he knows he is caught and laying down prone before any officer reaches him. The majority of those same videos then show all of the officers using extensive force on the suspect well after he has peacefully given up.

  I understand pursuits are no laughing matter. I understand most of these guys are violent criminals or repeat offenders. I understand taking necessary precautions for anyone playing possum.

  I don’t understand someone being kicked, punched, tasered, night sticked, and otherwise treated extremely unfairly while no longer resisting arrest and subsequently complying with a lawful order.

• 24 sickntired // May 14, 2009 at 1:15 AM

  to all those who think it was ok for the fat white cop to kick this guy in the head, I want you to know people have die from blow to the head many hours later. If you think it ok to be kick in the damn head please allow me to kick you in the head while you are on the ground.. Let see how it feels..

  the cop was out of line for kicking him in the head,

• 25 sickntired // May 14, 2009 at 1:18 AM

  also right at this minute the guy who got kicked in the head could have bleeding in the brain.. which untreated will lead to DEATH…

• 26 Suspect Richard Rodriguez // May 14, 2009 at 2:02 AM

  I just want to say one thing “Ooooooooooouch”. I knew I shouldn’t have turned my head. I thought the new procedure was that the first officer on scene was not allowed to be the first to make contact with the suspect. WTF!

• 27 Juan // May 14, 2009 at 2:05 AM

  I think thats just fine, the cop hit this guy in the head, there low lifes, what can you do, who know how many people he’s cut, beaten up or dissed, it good justice that the cop kicked him.

• 28 Christopher Martin // May 14, 2009 at 2:09 AM

  You only think it’s fine until the fascists do it to you….and get away with it.

• 29 Jackholez // May 14, 2009 at 6:50 AM

  Every Good Homie knows u suppost to call ur homeboys and ambush the cops when they chase u!

• 30 Chuck // May 14, 2009 at 7:41 AM

  What a piece of vermin Richard Rodriguez is. If cops kicked more garbage like him, our cities would be safer. You cop haters should send your sisters and daughters on conjugal visits with Rodriguez if you think he’s so wonderful.

  We need more cops kicking heads, not less. That’s why crime is rampant because people don’t fear cops any longer.

• 31 Jimmy // May 14, 2009 at 8:45 AM

  @Chuck

  Read, dumbass. Everybody thinks Rodriguez is scum. That doesn’t justify cops sinking to that level.

• 32 Carlos Miller // May 14, 2009 at 8:51 AM

  I’m sure Rodriguez deserved the kicking because he would probably do the same to us if he had the chance.

  But when we see a police officer being so blatant about kicking a suspect in the head, we know that officer would also do the same to us if he had the chance.

  So what makes that officer so different than Rodriguez?

• 33 torgeaux // May 14, 2009 at 9:22 AM

  For those claiming “standard procedure” to kick a surrendered suspect on the chance he is faking, well, they’re wrong. Police use of force is limited to necessity, not a chance that it may be necessary. Had the officer pinned the suspect with his knee (as the later officer who illegally struck the suspect with his baton did) no one would yell assault, because the force was necessary. Control the suspect is legal, assault the suspect in these circumstances is not. It may be routine, but it isn’t legal.

• 34 Sheepdog // May 14, 2009 at 9:23 AM

  we know that officer would also do the same to us if he had the chance

  That’s just plain stupid. Treated unfairly? Get serious. He just put hundreds of people’s lives in extreme danger. He’s the one treating people unfairly. Boo hoo, it was “unfair” for him after he could have killed innocent civilians like YOU. Let’s hear you talk about “unfair” when you’re crippled for life because of a scumbag like Rodriguez.

  We don’t know if a suspect like this clown is another Lovelle Mixon. That’s why we over compensate, we don’t under compensate with violent offenders like this. We also adjust tactics to the situation. We boot violent suspects in the head, we break a few arms as needed. It happens. Tough shit. It’s what’s needed to sweep the street and keep you safe. This level of force is NOT used for non-violent offenders.

  I’m sure Rodriguez deserved the kicking because he would probably do the same to us if he had the chance.

  Then why are you complaining?

  we know that officer would also do the same to us if he had the chance

  No you don’t know that. Your “argument” is based on some kind of psychic mind reading of a cop you don’t even know.

  So what makes that officer so different than Rodriguez?

  He helped put a violent criminal behind bars, that’s the difference. He protected your ass.

  You don’t want to get booted in the head like this? Then don’t lead the police on a chase through city streets, crash the car, and run.

  You shot yourself in the foot posting this video on your little blog here. It shows a violent perp brought down in a clean bust. He wasn’t harmed. The streets have been swept and you’re safer because of it. You can go out and snap your pretty little pictures.

  But instead of thanking the officers for a job well done, you spit in their face. Don’t worry, we’ll still be out protecting the sorry likes of you again today. We do it because it’s right, not because of you clueless sheep who don’t understand the dangers in your world.

• 35 Sheepdog // May 14, 2009 at 9:32 AM

  Police use of force is limited to necessity

  Kicking him was necessary to control him. Bullshit he surrendered. He hasn’t surrendered until he’s in restraint. I’ve had dozens of “surrendered” suspects like this turn on me & try to grab my weapon.

• 36 Sheepdog // May 14, 2009 at 9:35 AM

  The first part of my comment #34 above was in response to comment #23. I clipped the wrong part. The rest of it is in response to comment #23.

• 37 Sheepdog // May 14, 2009 at 9:35 AM

  The first part of my comment #34 above was in response to comment #23. I clipped the wrong part. The rest of it is in response to comment #32.

• 38 Rob Molecule // May 14, 2009 at 9:41 AM

  When will people understand that the job of the police is not to deliver justice? They’re to arrest people, and let judges and juries decide on the punishment. If you say it’s the police officer’s call to decide if someone deserves a kick in the head, it only leads to further assault victims, not all of whom are scumbags like the guy mentioned here.

• 39 Carlos Miller // May 14, 2009 at 9:43 AM

  Sheepdog,

  How did I shoot myself in the foot? All I posted was the truth.

  Yes, the suspect was a criminal and I’ve never made him out to be Joe Citizen.

  But the cop is not a judge either. His job is to arrest the suspect, not dole out punishment.

  And no, I’m not a psychic, but I’ve experienced police brutality. When I was arrested for taking pictures of cops, they made sure to bash my head into the street even though I was not resisting, showed no inclination of violence and did not run from police.

  So I’m not your typical naive police apologist who believes cops are only out to get the bad guys. I know many of them are bullying assholes.

  You see, no matter how often you tell yourself I am your little sheep, I am not. And you are not my sheepdog.

  I’m a grown man so I deserve respect. And if you respect me, I’ll respect you.

  But once you come along with that condescending sheepdog mentality, I’m going to put you in the same category as the jailhouse bully.

• 40 torgeaux // May 14, 2009 at 9:53 AM

  Sheepdog (#34): No, I’m afraid you’re just wrong on the law. In order to be “necessary to control him” he’d have to be out of control. And you’re also wrong logically: by your standards, no suspect could ever surrender, as the police could and would assault them anyway. This would lead to all suspects resisting with force every time, as there’s no downside.

  A suspect not using force to resist and presenting no immediate threat cannot be kicked in the head. Physically controlled, i.e. held, knelt on, handcuffed? Sure. Punched in the face? No. Kicked in the head? No. It’s really not a close question.

• 41 VA Master Trooper // May 14, 2009 at 10:02 AM

  This is a non-issue people. It’s obvious to a trained law enforcement officer what happened here. The officer commanded the suspect to turn his head away from him, as we’re trained to do, so he could be cuffed. The suspect did not comply. The kick was necessary to make him turn his head. The pictures demonstrate he was not harmed.

  You people aren’t trained police officers so you really have no place commenting on an officer’s training. It’s as silly as commenting on a brain surgeon’s procedures. You don’t know what it takes to subdue violent felons. The offender was not harmed so there’s nothing to complain about here.

• 42 jones // May 14, 2009 at 10:06 AM

  Carlos – And no, I’m not a psychic, but I’ve experienced police brutality. When I was arrested for taking pictures of cops, they made sure to bash my head into the street…………..

  Carlos, you should post the pictures you took of your head after the cops bashed it on the cement

• 43 Rob Molecule // May 14, 2009 at 10:11 AM

  I have every right to question the training of the police, if this is SOP. I want to know that if for some reason I get arrested, that I will not get kicked in the head while I’m lying down. Are you really that ignorant to think that just because someone was able to walk, that all is well?

• 44 Carlos Miller // May 14, 2009 at 10:11 AM

  Jones,

  It’s in the mugshot which is public record.

• 45 torgeaux // May 14, 2009 at 10:12 AM

  VA Master Trooper: And, you’re not trained to observe. Watch the video, from the time the suspect turns his head towards the officer to the time he’s kicked as the officer runs up. Your interesting theory is both factually and legally incorrect.

  Look, i’m no police basher. This was clearly adrenaline that caused this, as with the two other officers who broke the rules (baton guy and K-9 gets dog to bite guy). It’s going to happen after extended chases. they should get the normal administrative admonitions in their files, and it should be treated appropriately in context with their whole history.

  But to claim it’s ok to kick a suspect in the head as here is incorrect as a matter of law.

• 46 Amazed // May 14, 2009 at 10:15 AM

  Good lord you people are idiots. A violent criminal goes 80 in a 30 mph zone while flashing gang signs out the window then crashes into cars and you’re worried about a little love tap to the head. Good God are you ever a bunch of idiots with the wrong priorities.

  I think these cops deserve medals and a bonus! They are heroes!

• 47 City Cop // May 14, 2009 at 10:15 AM

  This is standard procedure. The officer needed to kick the suspect in the head to ensure he could handcuff him.

  It is a safe but dependable technique we learned in the police academy that allows us to handcuff a suspect without him resisting.

• 48 jones // May 14, 2009 at 10:18 AM

  Carlos, I didn’t mean the mugshot I meant the pictures you took yourself.

• 49 torgeaux // May 14, 2009 at 10:21 AM

  Jesus, the “cops” posting here are either exaggerating, misstating their lessons, or are the world’s worst students (or, cops get taught really, really bad stuff).

  “allows us to handcuff as suspect without him resisting.” Sure. Shooting him would do that too, right? A suspect who is not resisting, even one who fled, is not a free target for violence. My sympathy for the officers in acting without thinking is lowered by the purported police who post here and claim it was a premeditated, necessary and legal act.

• 50 Another Cop // May 14, 2009 at 10:28 AM

  Torgeaux since you hold yourself out as such an expert on police training, what are your qualifications?

  I agree with the other officers here. Nothing wrong with this bust.

• 51 Carlos Miller // May 14, 2009 at 10:33 AM

  Jones,

  The asshole cops had cracked the lens filter in my 24-70 lens where it got stuck, leaving me unable to take photos until I got it professionally removed about a week later.

  My other lens at the time was a telephoto, which would have been impossible for me to take photos of myself.

  But police even acknowledged that my mugshot showed bruises on my face in their internal affairs report.

  http://anonymouse.org/cgi-bin/anon-www.cgi/http://carlosmiller.com/2008/04/16/internal-affairs-clears-cops-who-arrested-me-trial-date-finally-set/

• 52 Andrew DeFilippis // May 14, 2009 at 10:35 AM

  Until you kick him too hard and kill him… There is no lawful reason to kick a guy in the head, felon or not. YOU HAVE A GUN. Place your sights on him and stay back until your backup has arrived. IF HE IS THAT DANGEROUS OF A PERSON…

  (It’s a way to confuse and disorient him.)

  He was already on the ground spread out, all they had to do is have 2 cops come up to subdue the guy while the first had his gun trained on him, then pointed to a safe spot so as not to shoot the arresting officers.

  But some of you on here are egotistical deputies, officers and security guards that seem to think that violence is the answer to everything.

  The cop had no reason to touch the guy until backup arrived!

  I think the guy should get a kick in the head IMO. But that doesn’t mean we should. It just shows that we would drop to the level of using the same amount of violence that criminals use.

  It may be SOP, but that doesn’t mean its lawful. Think before you do.

• 53 jones // May 14, 2009 at 10:43 AM

  Seriously Carlos, you, a professional photographer, didn’t take a picture of your injuries because you didn’t have a camera?

  This just in, Peyton Manning can’t play this year because he doesn’t have a football.

• 54 Rob Molecule // May 14, 2009 at 10:48 AM

  Commissioner Anabell Brumford: Ladies and gentlemen, I would now like to introduce a most special American. Tonight, he is being honoured for his 1000th drug-dealer killed.
  Lt. Frank Drebin: [to applause] Thank you. But, in all honesty, the last three I backed over with my car. Luckily, they turned out to be drug-dealers.

• 55 torgeaux // May 14, 2009 at 10:49 AM

  Another Cop: 20+ years as a criminal law attorney. Two years training prosecutors. 7 years prosecution. 8 years or so criminal defense work. J.D., two LL.Ms, plus extensive work with police and criminal investigators during that time.

• 56 Andrew DeFilippis // May 14, 2009 at 10:49 AM

  jones // May 14, 2009 at 10:43 AM

  Seriously Carlos, you, a professional photographer, didn’t take a picture of your injuries because you didn’t have a camera?

  This just in, Peyton Manning can’t play this year because he doesn’t have a football.

  ———————————————

  WTF are you smoking jones? What, if anything, is that last comment supposed to mean.

• 57 Andrew DeFilippis // May 14, 2009 at 10:52 AM

  torgeaux

  Tell me how close I am to being correct in post 52.

• 58 jones // May 14, 2009 at 10:54 AM

  It means Carlos saying he didn’t have a camera is as ridiculous as Peyton Manning claiming he can’t play because he doesn’t have a football.

  If you don’t know who Manning is he is an NFL QB, and in case you don’t know NFL stands for National Football League and QB stands for quarterback.

  I hate to over explain but maybe you need me to.

• 59 Andrew DeFilippis // May 14, 2009 at 10:57 AM

  He had a camera. Do you need reading lessons jones, do I just need to come over there and read it out loud for you?

  Post 51.

  The asshole cops had cracked the lens filter in my 24-70 lens where it got stuck, leaving me unable to take photos until I got it professionally removed about a week later.

  My other lens at the time was a telephoto, which would have been impossible for me to take photos of myself.

• 60 Andrew DeFilippis // May 14, 2009 at 11:01 AM

  And for your analogy to be correct, it would have to be “deflated football,” FYI.

• 61 Carlos Miller // May 14, 2009 at 11:01 AM

  Jones,

  If Peyton Manning’s throwing arm was injured he couldn’t play football.

  If my camera was out of commission because of the cops’ aggressiveness, I couldn’t take pictures.

  The injuries were confirmed in the IA report as well as during the trial.

  Nobody has ever questioned the injuries to my face.

  The only thing is, during the trial, the prosecutor tried to tell the jurors that I ended up with the injuries after resisting.

  So what is your point?

• 62 Carlos Miller // May 14, 2009 at 11:04 AM

  Jones,

  I also have medical records from the urgent care clinic after my release from jail.

  The doctor was so concerned about my injuries she ordered a CAT scan to ensure there were no internal injuries.

  Those reports were turned into IA.

• 63 torgeaux // May 14, 2009 at 11:04 AM

  Andrew:

  It’s not as cut and dried as the “cops” make out, nor is it “never touch the guy” either. Kicking is normal and routine as it can keep a cop away from trouble, and isn’t lethal. Suspect’s hands are too close to the body, kick them clear. Forcefully kneeing the guy to the ground (even if it could be as damaging as the kick) is normal, as a control measure for the first cop on the guy. The problem is, given the time frame here, there’s nothing to suggest necessity (which is, contrary to the “cops” writing here, required).

  If a suspect isn’t resisting, even after he’s fled, and there’s no suggestion he otherwise represents a threat, one has to be judicious in the use of force. The most important reason being that you WANT suspects to surrender. It’s ideal.

  Absent the heat of the moment, these particular officers likely wouldn’t describe this as what should be done. It’s the “cops are never wrong” guys (just as bad as the “cops are always wrong” guys) that make a pretty straight-forward excess force (pretty minor really) case and make it a big deal by saying it isn’t excessive to kick a guy in the head who is not only surrendering, but doing it right, on the ground, spread eagled.

• 64 Not Fooled // May 14, 2009 at 11:04 AM

  I call bullshit on “attorney” torgeaux.

  Two LLMs? That’s absurd. No such critter.

  It’s clear from his usage in previous posts he’s no attorney. He doesn’t even use English correctly. He doesn’t even spell out a number when he begins a sentence. A well educated attorney would not do that.

• 65 jones // May 14, 2009 at 11:05 AM

  Sorry Andrew, What I meant to say is he didn’t have a camera capable of taking a picture of his injuries.

  For the record, I’m not a photographer and I have 2 digital cameras capable of taking a picture of my head and if those happen to break I think everybody I know has a camera I can borrow.

  Sorry I misspoke again, I have 3 cameras, I forgot about my phone.

• 66 jones // May 14, 2009 at 11:09 AM

  Carlos, The doctor was so concerned about my injuries she ordered a CAT scan to ensure there were no internal injuries.

  If you tell a doctor your head was bashed into the cement of course he/she is going to do a CAT scan. Did they find any internal injuries?

  I’m just surprised that the only picture of your injuries is the mugshot. I can’t believe you didn’t take one yourself, I can’t believe you trusted the police not to alter or lose the only picture of your injuries.

• 67 Carlos Miller // May 14, 2009 at 11:09 AM

  Jones,

  The injuries were already documented in the mugshot.

  I had other things to tend to after my arrest.

• 68 Carlos Miller // May 14, 2009 at 11:12 AM

  No, luckily they did not find any internal injuries but that still does not excuse the cops’ behavior.

  And Jones, as far as you not believing me, why should I be surprised?

  You don’t believe anything I write, so why should this be any different?

• 69 jones // May 14, 2009 at 11:13 AM

  Carlos – So what is your point?

  My point is I think using the word “Bashed” is an exaggeration

• 70 Tom // May 14, 2009 at 11:14 AM

  Just because some idiots in the upper ranks decide that kicking someone in the head in this situation should be and is SOP and trains police officers this way doesn’t mean it is right and should be legal. What a perfect excuse a police officers has, “but your honor, I shouldn’t be guilty for killing this person, I only kicked him because it’s SOP and that is how we get trained”.

  I do believe that the suspect deserved to be kicked and punched and hurt for what he did, but that still doesn’t make it right. And if it’s SOP that will just allow police officers to do it whenever to whomever for whatever reason and latter claim SOP.

  If you fear for your life and safety put a gun to his hand and pull the trigger if he moves, otherwise wait for backup.

• 71 jones // May 14, 2009 at 11:14 AM

  Carlos – You don’t believe anything I write, so why should this be any different?

  That’s not true Carlos, for the most part I think your pretty honest, I just have different views then you.

• 72 HA! // May 14, 2009 at 11:16 AM

  Yeah, I believe Torgeaux is an attorney. With the experience he claims, he’d be pulling down at least $500 an hour. Sure, he’d be reading blogs in the middle of a business day, posting comments, rather than spending time in court or drafting briefs, earning his $500 an hour. Right, sure, I believe that. You betcha.

  I belive in the Tooth Fairy and Santa Clause too.

  Psst, Torgeaux, attorneys never speak in absolutes about the law like you did nor offer unsolicited legal advice on an open forum like you did. It’s a blatant violation of professional ethics.

• 73 jones // May 14, 2009 at 11:20 AM

  Carlos, be honest, you saying you didn’t take a picture because you didn’t have a camera is funny, even if it is the 100% truth you can at least see why one would question that.

• 74 Carlos Miller // May 14, 2009 at 11:21 AM

  HA!,

  Actually, a lot of lawyers spend their time on blogs, many on their own blogs.

  Just look under “Attorney Blogs” in the left sidebar on this blog.

  And Torgeaux is not offering unsolicited advice. He is stating his opinion on an incident as we all are.

• 75 Andrew DeFilippis // May 14, 2009 at 11:21 AM

  I wonder how many different names on here are associated with the same IP…

• 76 torgeaux // May 14, 2009 at 11:24 AM

  First, I don’t care if anyone believes I’m an attorney or not. Second, I’ve not offered legal advice. Third, I read many such blogs as this, and comment on a few, as they concern my field of law, and I find them interesting.

  What attorneys who do prosecution make 500 per hour? I’m very interested in the position. Criminal defense CAN make that much, but not very often, there just aren’t that many OJs. I’ve never done any private practice, though, so maybe there are lots of such jobs.

  Oh, and for the “pro-kick” guys, here’s an interesting, if not particularly well written, article describing civilians reviewing such incidents. http://www.aele.org/law/2007-04MLJ501.pdf

• 77 Carlos Miller // May 14, 2009 at 11:24 AM

  Jones,

  One can question it all they want but once they see the mugshot, those questions end.

  I don’t have a digital copy of the mugshot or else I would post it. All I have is a printout which was included in the court files.

• 78 Amanda // May 14, 2009 at 11:39 AM

  I think this is a no brainer. Maybe the officer used a little more force than necessary but I’m glad this violent criminal is no longer terrorizing innocent civilians. I’d rather officers err on the side of too much force than not enough with people like this. To penalize the officer for what he did here is to reward violent criminals. No thanks.

• 79 Rob Molecule // May 14, 2009 at 12:03 PM

  Policeone.com posted the AP article on this. No comments yet, but I’m always interested in what gets said on there.

  http://www.policeone.com/legal/articles/1832834-Calif-pursuit-ends-with-officer-kicking-suspect/

  And at least we’ll know these are actual cops commenting. I’m starting to wonder if some of the “LEOs” posting on here claiming SOP are just bored trolls.

• 80 Voice of Reason // May 14, 2009 at 12:09 PM

  Note to Mister DNA: You said, I don’t understand why those who seem to be sympathetic to Law Enforcement feel the need to go through such mental gymnastics. To claim that kicking someone in the head is “completely justified” requires some serious disconnect from reality.

  This is a neurological issue. It’s not related specifically to the defense of LEO actions, though LEO issues are a major trigger.

  Everybody does this. Keep that in mind. In particular, both conservatives and liberals do this. I’ll talk about that division because it’s the most important division, by far, and because kneejerk LEO supporters tend to be conservatives.

  Over decades, I’ve observed that conservatives (including kneejerk LEO supporters) go about three times as deep as liberals in this regard. There’s something fundamentally different about conservative brains. I believe that experiments tend to support this assertion.

  Conservatives are closer to animals. This has nothing to do with intelligence. There are many brilliant and potentially useful conservatives. However, if certain reactions are triggered, they’re simply and literally unable to perceive reality. Seeing isn’t believing. You can show conservatives video clips, and if they don’t like the clips, they’ll never comprehend what they’re seeing except in a dim and fuzzy way.

  If you yourself believe that you’re a conservative, I assure you that I mean no offense. I grew up with people of this type, and I care about them. You won’t be surprised to hear that they don’t care much for me. However, facts are facts. Conservatives can see reality perfectly well at times. There are perceptive conservatives on this site. Conservatives have more “triggers” than liberals do, though. If the “triggers” are set off, conservatives are more vindictive, more physically violent, and much less able to perceive reality, even reality that’s demonstrated on video.

  The crucial point is that it isn’t about people who defend LEOs per se. The thing I’ve talked about is related to an evolutionary mechanism that might be referred to as “tribalism”. Conservatism has its roots in tribalism. So does the LEO Code of Silence. The Aryan philosophy of sixty-five years ago was probably connected to this as well. Ariel seems to be be familiar with these issues. If I’m not available, he can tell you about them.

• 81 Ariel // May 14, 2009 at 12:31 PM

  Not Fooled and Ha!,

  Google 2 LLM and get back to me. Jesus, guys, use the internet. And learn to read, torgeaux is stating an opinion, firmly yes, but not giving legal advice.

• 82 Ariel // May 14, 2009 at 12:32 PM

  LEOs 0 Torgeaux 1
  Choke holds used to be standard procedure also, but I’ve noticed they’ve been dropped for the safer, and very painful, arm and wrist locks. Why? Because choke holds improperly applied, kill, and can kill even if properly applied. Perhaps this is another standard procedure that needs to go away? That was a violent kick to the head, with the tip of the shoe as far as I can tell, misjudging force and impact point can kill.

  I’ve seen gratuitous police violence used on a 100% compliant, respectful, and restrained friend, already handcuffed. The LEO just felt it necessary to slam, and I do mean slam, his forehead into the hard shoulder of a road because he could. That removed any naive belief I had in all LEOs being good guys. You guys can be your own worst enemies.

  With videotaping of police actions becoming more and more common, with their posting on the web becoming more and more common, all of you and your “standard procedures” will come under more and more scrutiny. When the naive become informed, when instead of 75% its only 50%, you’ll find neither your unions nor your departments able to protect you when you commit egregious acts of gratuitous violence. Be professional, use good judgment, and you have nothing to worry about. Use bad judgment, like Meherle,

  I don’t consider what happened in this video to be criminal, I agree with Torgeaux that this was likely adrenaline flowing and deserving of a permanent-file reprimand, but I do think the LEOS that have commented here have some serious judgment impairment in justifying it. And yes we have a right to comment on your SOP.

  It only takes one criminal act to make you a criminal, as the rest of us “civilians” know too well. Hey, you guys do realize you’re civilians too? You’re not military, you shouldn’t even be paramilitary, and thinking you’re either makes you dangerous to the rest of us. You’re civilian law enforcement, get that through your heads.

• 83 Mark Jackson // May 14, 2009 at 12:45 PM

  torgeaux,

  That link quite simply seems like more rhetoric from police trying to justify abuse.

  No one is saying that the suspect wasn’t the bad guy. We had just hoped that the cop wasn’t the bad guy, as well.

  I find it curious why the cops are running in to defend the first officer’s kick, but not the second baton wielding bully or the dog handler, who let the dog bite the suspect.

  Ultimately, what police do not understand is that it is civilians who set the standard for law enforcement. We decide how we want the law enforced. It is time to break up police unions and demand mandatory sentencing on public officials.

  If the argument is that this is SOP, then both the criminal and the trainer of the criminal (yes, the one in the blue clown outfit) should be held liable.

• 84 Voice of Reason // May 14, 2009 at 12:50 PM

  Note to Ariel: I’ve responded to one of your posts on an older thread. The link is here. I’ve also acknowledged that you were correct about the “absolutism” issue elsewhere.

  By the way, I hope that the injuries you’ve written about are in the past, or mostly in the past. If I didn’t make this clear previously, I have some familiarity with issues of this type myself, and the past week has been entertaining.

• 85 Ariel // May 14, 2009 at 12:58 PM

  VOR,

  The problem with false dichotomies is that they create false realities. There aren’t two groups, conservative and liberal, it’s a spectrum. Which makes these studies, especially the Berkeley one, specious on their face. The political spectrum is better viewed as anarchist (entirely free association) to totalitarian, where most of us fall in between.

  I’m a classical liberal, which makes me “conservative” by many standards today. I even use that label to avoid boring explanations. I actually believe in the arguments in the Federalist papers, in the essays of Jefferson, Franklin, or Adams, hell, I even believe in H. D. Thoreau’s arguments. All to understand the foundation for a nation of liberty not a police state.

  Unprofessional LEOs threaten that foundation, professional ones do not.

• 86 Mark Jackson // May 14, 2009 at 1:03 PM

  Ariel,

  Hate to be a stick in the mud, but do you mean the Anti-Federalist Papers? The Federalist papers were written by Madison and Hamilton and their ilk.

• 87 the lone white boy // May 14, 2009 at 1:09 PM

  I’m reading all these comments made by these supposed cops that have suddenly flocked to this story here. And have to assume that they are probably made by the same person (or same couple of people).

  This kind of story is a fantastic trolling opportunity. ANd that is what I am forced to believe it is. Especially with all the absurd comments in support of a police officer KICKING a prone non-resisting suspect ….IN THE HEAD!

• 88 genewitch // May 14, 2009 at 1:10 PM

  I sincerely doubt carlos would mention IP similarities unless there was an egregious session of trolling and flaming.

  Breaking anonymity isn’t something that is part of Carlos’ SOP – it sorta defeats the purpose of having a blog about first amendment rights.

  Mark Jackson: “Ultimately, what police do not understand is that it is civilians who set the standard for law enforcement. We decide how we want the law enforced. It is time to break up police unions and demand mandatory sentencing on public officials.”

  that is apt and succinct. Bravo for this comment!

  jones: why are you hassling Carlos about injuries sustained during his arrest? Not everyone thinks “man i need to document this because the district attorney is going to assrape me in court”

  I beat you a thousand dollars if Carlos or anyone here who gets arrested and bruised/beaten (like the AZ guy) that they will be sure to document it from every angle with different lenses and everything.

• 89 LR // May 14, 2009 at 1:41 PM

  Some of you people are so blinded by your cop hatred that you’re bending over backwards to support this dangerous gangbanger criminal. You second guess the police every chance you can but you’d wet yourself if you were in this officer’s shoes. I hope someone like Richard Rodriguez moves in right next door to you so you can enjoy the fruits of your idiocy.

• 90 Voice of Reason // May 14, 2009 at 1:51 PM

  Note to Ariel: You said, The problem with false dichotomies is that they create false realities. There aren’t two groups, conservative and liberal, it’s a spectrum.

  I’m aware of this. You’ve got no reason to believe me, but I’ve paid a personal price in RL because of “false dichotomies”.

  In fact, the whole thing is more complicated than you said. It’s not a spectrum; i.e., a linear or 1D range. It’s not the 2D X-Y plane that’s shown on some libertarian sites. I don’t believe that it’s even a well-defined N-space.

  I understand this perfectly well. I’m not being “absolutist”. I’ve spoken the way I have because it’s a close enough approximation for the purpose of dealing with ordinary people. I’m intentionally avoiding things such as bell curves and standard deviations (or N-spaces where the position along each axis is based on a bell curve). If I spoke that rigorously, you’d be able to follow me. However, would anybody else here be able to understand me? Possibly a few people. If Mr. Chamness is being trained in a wide range of subjects at his university, he might be interested in this kind of thing.

  I’ve been trying to speak in terms that the majority of people might understand. The approach I’ve used might be reasonable, because there are legitimate yes-no dichotomies, specifically, dichotomies based on reactions to specific issues. There are people who will always back LEOs up, no matter what the LEOs do (up to and including sodomy with objects). Am I mistaken about this, Ariel?

  I could name several issues that some people have kneejerk reactions to. I could define a “conservative” specifically as somebody who has a kneejerk reaction reaction to each of the issues on my list. If I did this, you’d probably be forced to agree with most of my previous post. “Conservatives”, defined (for example) as kneejerk LEO supporters, kneejerk Bush supporters, and kneejerk death penalty supporters, are unambiguously less compassionate, more vindictive, more physically violent, and less able to perceive physical reality than non-”conservatives” (again, defined using the presence or absense of kneejerk reactions related to a fixed set of issues).

  If you’ve disagreed with me because you’ve noticed the lack of mathematical rigor in my remarks, I assure you that I could proceed with considerable rigor. This is my territory, Ariel. There’s still one or two things about me that you may not have figured out.

  If you’d like me to demonstrate that there really is a group of people who could legitimately be called “conservatives”, and who really are little more than simple beasts of the field, I might be able to accommodate you.

  It might take several months. Additionally, and more importantly from your perspective, I might need your assistance. I’d need to sure about what was understandable, and what wasn’t. However, maybe it is time for me to put the whole thing together with a degree of rigor.

  Incidentally, I appreciated your interest and I’ve enjoyed reading every single one of your posts.

• 91 Ariel // May 14, 2009 at 1:53 PM

  On my comment #82 after Meherle, add “you go before a judge as a defendant.”

  Mark Jackson, “Ultimately, what police do not understand is that it is civilians who set the standard for law enforcement. ” I wholeheartedly agree, but I also agree with much in the pdf from torgeaux as to the hazards and reasonable responses. I differ in the silly Hollywood angle, which was condescending at best. My children understand the errors in most of what he claimed other civilians think, although that’s because I teach them otherwise. The “why didn’t the cop shoot him in the leg” makes me want to scream.

  I’d point out that “Monday Morning Quarterbacking” is exactly what a prosecutor does when deciding whether to prosecute, or not, a homeowner that has used deadly force on a home invader. The question is always what was reasonable at the time, which others judge later.

  Plessy v. Ferguson was also a landmark SCOTUS decision, and look where that got us.

• 92 Voice of Reason // May 14, 2009 at 2:00 PM

  LR is an example of the kind of simple beast of the field that I’ve written about on this thread. I’d like to call everybody’s attention to his remark about “cop hatred”. This is a classic example of “working backwards”.

  Where is LR’s evidence that the majority of the people that he’s addressing have “cop hatred” ? The answer is that he made it up out of thin air, because in his head, LEOs must be right, so people who criticize the actions of any LEO, even an individual officer, must have a motive that renders their arguments superfluous.

  Ariel, take heed. Whether or not you believe that I’ve used “false dichotomies”, there are people among us who are not able to perceive reality. It doesn’t matter who’s “right” and who’s “wrong” with respect to this particular case. That’s not the point. It’s the arguments that are used. If you see somebody use terms such as “clowns” (which has popped up in other threads) or “cop hatred”, you’re not dealing with a rational human being.

• 93 Ariel // May 14, 2009 at 2:13 PM

  Mark Jackson,

  You can be a stick-in-the mud all you want. I left out the Anti-Federalists and knew, on hindsight, I’d get whacked for that. I think Hamilton, Madison, and Jay were correct in that the Federal Government needed to be stronger vs. what the Articles of Confederation created, which was doomed to fail. The Anti-Federalists offered the counterbalance, and IIRC are responsible for our Bill of Rights. Including the 9th and 10th, which are so often ignored today. You just can’t create penumbras with them so they are no fun for jurists.

  Jefferson came to be considered an anti-federalist and established a political party based on it. Where oh where did that party go…

• 94 jones // May 14, 2009 at 2:55 PM

  Aerial – I don’t consider what happened in this video to be criminal, I agree with Torgeaux that this was likely adrenaline flowing and deserving of a permanent-file reprimand

  I would say this statement best sums up this incident.

  Gene – I beat you a thousand dollars if Carlos or anyone here who gets arrested and bruised/beaten (like the AZ guy) that they will be sure to document it from every angle with different lenses and everything.

  I know he would, that is my point. In a way your agreeing with me, you to don’t believe the reason he didn’t take any pictures is because he didn’t have a camera and was too busy. Mark it down, on 5/14/09 Gene and Jones actually agreed on something.

  BTW Gene you spelled bet wrong. You spelled it beat when it’s bet, unless of course you were trying to be funny.

• 95 Voice of Reason // May 14, 2009 at 3:12 PM

  Note to “jones”: You’re not exactly a perfect speller or grammar expert yourself:  

  1. In the same post where you pointed out somebody’s spelling error, you wrote “your agreeing” when you meant to say “you’re agreeing”.

  2. You also wrote “you to” when you apparently meant to say “you too” or “you two”.

  3. Additionally, you wrote Aerial when you meant to say Ariel.

  That said, your logic seems to be improving. Additionally, I gather that you’re no longer running away when you meet people who bite back.

• 96 jones // May 14, 2009 at 3:13 PM

  VoR – I had an Aunt who spelled it that way, so I guess it was a force of habit.

• 97 Voice of Reason // May 14, 2009 at 3:24 PM

  Note to “jones”: I’m not criticizing your spelling. If I did so, I’d be leaving myself open to that kind of criticism. I’m just saying that people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.

• 98 Ariel // May 14, 2009 at 3:25 PM

  Ah, the problems of language and perspectives. Yep, even linear algebra can’t fully describe people and their political/social beliefs. But terms such as “conservative” and “liberal” fail miserably, as does “left” and “right” (damn the French Revolution for that). I see them as more epithets of abuse now given how they’re used as bludgeons. I’ve read a comment where both “the Republican Party is the party of the rich” and “all Republicans are uneducated and stupid”. Same stupid dichotomy, where Republican stood for Conservative, mindlessly parroted. Frankly, I’m tired of it from both sides.

  I also don’t care for people like LR, or anyone who sees criticism as “hate”. There are quite a few self-described liberals or leftists who do just that regarding their sacred cows too. They are just as “kneejerk” or “reactionary”.

  I use the spectrum as a better approximation than left-right or liberal-conservative. Not perfect, admittedly.

  As for animals, I grew up on the poor side of the tracks (no, I’m not black even though I used a Jim Crow metaphor), and went to two of the tougher schools in the San Gabriel Valley, so I’ve seen animals. They come in all stripes.

  Both of us need to stop being so long-winded. I’m sure Carlos would appreciate it.

• 99 Chuck // May 14, 2009 at 3:31 PM

  KTLA just ran new cell footage showing Rodriguez driving on a sidewalk when he nearly ran down about two dozen women waiting at a bus stop who had to dash into moving traffic and an intersection to keep from being killed. KNX did a radio survey this morning where 85 percent of the callers were supporting the police officers who subdued Rodriguez. Thankfully most people have sense and realize the police need to take serious action to stop violent animals.

  I hear you can get $49 flights to Mexico. All you cop bashers should get yourself a ticket and fly down there ASAP. You’ll experience first hand what a society with weak police and strong gangs gets you, you want it so badly.

• 100 torgeaux // May 14, 2009 at 3:38 PM

  Chuck: First, public polling isn’t relevant to whether this was or wasn’t excessive force. Second, there aren’t many “cop bashers” in this particular thread. Third, if you think the kick to the head was a “serious action to stop violent animals” well, that’s at least pertinent to this discussion, although I think you’re clearly wrong.

  The straw men you’ve set up are interesting in what they show about you, but have nothing to do with my discussions of this incident.

  Oh, and the “drove on the sidewalk” bit was known early, and in early reports. I think the video may even mention it.

• 101 Voice of Reason // May 14, 2009 at 3:42 PM

  Regarding Chuck’s post: He’s used the term “cop bashers”. Sigh. Another beast of the field. See my remarks in post 92. They apply to Chuck as well as to LR.

  Chuck, LR, and their friends are assigning motives without evidence. They’re “working backwards”. LEOs can’t be wrong, so people who criticize LEOs, no matter what the LEOs do, must be wrong. They must be “clowns”, “cop haters”, or “cop bashers”.

  It’s not about who’s right or wrong in this particular case. It’s about the simple ability to reason forwards as opposed to backwards.

• 102 Ariel // May 14, 2009 at 3:51 PM

  #98 was addressed to VOR. Damn I’m getting sloppy.

  Jones, this is a mark down too because we actually agree. I do believe that so-called SOP of a head kick needs to go, though. There was a total of 10 seconds from prone position to backup, 7 seconds from head kick to backup, and zero seconds from dead if the LEO had kicked that scumbag in the temple. And reasonable force would have evaporated.

• 103 Ariel // May 14, 2009 at 4:11 PM

  Chuck,

  You need to ask a Guatemalan about what they think regarding Mexico’s “weak police”, especially the Federales. You’re mistaking corruption for weak. IIRC the Bloods and the Crips gave LA metro cops a tough time too. Money is power and the cartels have way too much of both.

  I’ve had my car searched by Federales outside of Hermosillo. They use automatic weapons and point them with purpose. I’m glad that the lead Federale was a good guy. Teasing and rather funny in a threatening way.

  I have LEOs in my family. I don’t hate cops. But I see a need for some change, an end to bad practices.

• 104 Voice of Reason // May 14, 2009 at 4:33 PM

  Note to Ariel:

  You said, Yep, even linear algebra can’t fully describe people and their political/social beliefs. But terms such as “conservative” and “liberal” fail miserably, as does “left” and “right”… I see them as more epithets of abuse now given how they’re used as bludgeons.

  You’re definitely not a fan of these terms. I understand that. I’ll try to keep this in mind, but it’ll depend on what I’m writing about. The “spectrum” doesn’t work for my purposes. I’ve offered some thoughts on the matter a few paragraphs further down.

  You also said, There are quite a few self-described liberals or leftists who do just that regarding their sacred cows too. They are just as “kneejerk” or “reactionary”.

  Yes, this is absolutely correct. In fact, brain scans have confirmed (or at least tended to confirm) that the brain literally stops reasoning when the triggers I’ve referred to previously go off. This applies to “partisan” brains on both “sides”. I haven’t pulled the things that I’ve said out of thin air.

  The possibly controversial point that I brought up earlier is that people who fall into a loosely-defined group that might be referred to as “conservatives” have a greater tendency to do this. In fact, depending on exactly what you’re measuring, the ratio is about four to one.

  You added, I use the spectrum as a better approximation than left-right or liberal-conservative. Not perfect, admittedly.

  The problem is that the spectrum doesn’t work. There’s individuals on this site who are clearly “conservative” (as the general population understands the term) in some respects and “liberal” in others. It’s not a range, and (as I pointed out earlier) it’s not the 2D plane used by libertarians either.

  The best way to go might be to focus on specific triggers. There are irrational “cop bashers”. LR and Chuck used similar terms carelessly, and I criticized them for it. However, “cop bashers” do exist. There’s irrational “LEO apologists” too. Irrational gun lovers and gun haters. Irrational Bush lovers and Bush haters. Is anybody going to contradict these simple facts?

  Incidentally, I hate Bush, but I’m not a “Bush hater”, because I’ve researched the man. I know what he’s done. I’ve reached my conclusions rationally. “Bush lovers” and “Bush haters” don’t think rationally. They work backwards. That’s one of the points that I’ve been trying to make since I’ve arrived at this site. It’s not about Bush per se. It’s that people work backwards.

  You said, I’ve seen animals. They come in all stripes.

  I’ve used the terms animals and beasts of the field to describe the reasoning power that people sometimes display. People are superior to animals, but they’re not that superior.

  If somebody can’t reason forward, I don’t believe that their life is totally worthless, but they certainly aren’t much more significant than a cow or a dog. Any number of people would agree with me about the latter point. A good dog is worth a lot more than a mediocre person.

  You closed with, Both of us need to stop being so long-winded. I’m sure Carlos would appreciate it.

  Why? If I may speak bluntly, this is good sh**. Did you see what Mr. Chamness said about my posts earlier today on an old thread? I won’t repeat it, because he’s exaggerating. However, we might be doing some good here.

  As far as Mr. Miller goes, he’s apparently O.K. with “War and Peace”-length posts. He’d like to see posts that are polite and coherent. He also likes proper formatting; i.e., paragraph breaks. I’ve met all of those criteria at times, though I certainly haven’t met them all of the time.  

  In my opinion, it comes down to time and energy constraints. I couldn’t post much this week due to illness. I’m able to post today, so I’ve had some fun with it. If I’ve entertained anybody, that’s good too. If you’re tired yourself, don’t respond. I probably won’t write anything else until tomorrow anyway.

  And if you believe that I’ve written long posts, well, you might be surprised to learn what I consider to be “long” works.

• 105 xdamousex // May 14, 2009 at 4:50 PM

  C’mon people, you just can’t run up and kick someone in the head when they’re lying spread eagle on the ground. That argument that he’s simply taking away the element of surprise has to be the most moronic trollish argument I’ve ever heard. Just ignore people who say that because they’re just seeking attention.

  It’s easy to say “punk got what he deserved” when it’s some thug gang member no one gives a damn about, but the problem is that attitude is a disease that permeates the police force and spills over into their interactions with regular people. It creates a bully mentality that is not healthy.

• 106 Simon Jester // May 14, 2009 at 4:56 PM

  If he “got what he deserved”, does that mean they aren’t going to arrest him? I mean, if the cops can punish him, then further punishment is illegal.

  I must have missed the memo where cops are allowed to decide what the punishment is to be.

• 107 Karl Mansoor // May 14, 2009 at 5:22 PM

  Seeing some of the statements here alleging that a kick to the head, even under the totality of the circumstances visible in the video, is considered SOP by any LE agency is not reflective at all of the reasonableness standard derived from Graham v. Connor.
  http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=490&invol=386

  That is the standard under which police use of force actions are judged.

  Reading Graham v. Connor provides a good example of what happens when officers fail to act reasonably, and in that particular case especially when mistaking an innocent person for a possible criminal suspect.

  If LEOs are allowed to stray away from being reasonable in their force, even with someone as detestable as Richard Rodriguez, the result will be undeserving people severely injured.

  Rodriquez may be deserving of some punishment but it is not up to the police to deliver it. Their job is to bring a suspect and evidence to a court of law and to use the minimum amount of force necessary to do so. Any force more than what is necessary to accomplish a lawful purpose is unreasonable.

  There is no valid tactical argument for the kick to the head being legitimate in this particular incident (nor the kidney blows and what looks like a dog bite).

  There was no resistance from Rodriquez at the time officers arrived. He became compliant, probably because he knew what police could legimitately do if he did actively resist.

  Rodriguez tapped out and evidently some don’t want the fight to end with a tap out.

• 108 Chuck // May 14, 2009 at 5:25 PM

  If you oppose what this cop did, you’re supporting the gangbanger. It’s that simple. You’d rather have the gangbanger win than the police. You’d rather the cop didn’t kick the gangbanger and the gangbanger injure the cop.

  Your people’s hatred of police is obvious on this blog. Not just in this thread but in all of them.

• 109 Ariel // May 14, 2009 at 5:39 PM

  No, Chuck, it isn’t that simple. No, I don’t want the cop hurt and I don’t want to see the gangbanger kicked in the head either. No, I don’t want to see the gangbanger win, I want him arrested and in jail. And a cop doesn’t “win” by using excessive force, it’s a long slow slide until he ends up suspended, fired, or a defendant. I don’t want to see that for the cop either.

  Get a grip.

• 110 Ariel // May 14, 2009 at 5:49 PM

  VOR,

  The problem with long-windedness on blogs is that we are in danger of becoming scroll over country, especially if we go too far OT.

  Yeah, the spectrum only works when applied to pure political thoughts and actions. Tends to breakdown otherwise. Making it a 2D improves it, but it still breaks down. Too many variables. Triggers are good, but the set would be unmanageable with time as one of the dimensions.

• 111 Mister DNA // May 14, 2009 at 5:52 PM

  Chuck,

  Nothing could be further than the truth.

  Most of us here want to see criminals prosecuted and put behind bars. In 99.999% cases, this can be done without kicking people in the head.

  When the suspect in this case was kicked in the head, it probably made him 6 figures richer.

  I don’t like to see taxpayer dollars being put in the hands of criminals, yet according to you, I’m the one who is supporting this gangbanger?

• 112 Zack S // May 14, 2009 at 6:30 PM

  What the Law Enforcement Officers and their supporters in this post are either failing to realize, from either stupidity or ignorance, or are flat out refusing to acknowledge is that excessive force and police brutality needs to stop. It needs to stop even with the most horrible of criminals. If it doesn’t, the abuse will eventually be against innocent people. Police need to be held accountable for their actions, just like everyone else. That isn’t what they want though. That’s why photographers are often harrassed by LE, even SGs. Accountability.

  Good police officers need to separate themselves from those who are corrupt, dishonest etc. It is that simple.

  I’d like to hear jones, Chuck, or RL’s explanation for the jab to the ribs, or the possible dog bite. SOP?

• 113 Anonymous // May 14, 2009 at 7:29 PM

  “I guess with monikers like “10-8″ and “LEO”, we’re supposed to assume these people support law enforcement, but their rhetoric shows otherwise.”

  If nothing else their rhetoric proves to me they are cops. It’s stereotypical cop think: “That’s why crime is rampant because people don’t fear cops any longer” Notice how he says “people” instead of criminals and how he thinks the solution is installing fear. Criminals don’t fear cops and good people don’t need them to control their behavior.

  “So I’m not your typical naive police apologist who believes cops are only out to get the bad guys. I know many of them are bullying assholes.You see, no matter how often you tell yourself I am your little sheep, I am not. And you are not my sheepdog. I’m a grown man so I deserve respect. And if you respect me, I’ll respect you. But once you come along with that condescending sheepdog mentality, I’m going to put you in the same category as the jailhouse bully”

  I’m with you on this one. But you won’t have to put them in that category, they do a fine job of putting themselves in it. http://www.bullyoffline.org/workbully/serial.htm Typical cops.

  This condescending attitude from cops is not only offensive but ironic when you consider how many of them end up in jail for serious crimes!

  I think # 105 sums it up the best as to why we should care what the cops do to some gang banger.

  “It’s easy to say “punk got what he deserved” when it’s some thug gang member no one gives a damn about, but the problem is that attitude is a disease that permeates the police force and spills over into their interactions with regular people. It creates a bully mentality that is not healthy”

  Not only regular citizens, but these pigs bring the violence home with them and terrorize their own wives and children. http://www.behindthebluewall.blogspot.com

• 114 Tom // May 14, 2009 at 7:36 PM

  There is just not point of reasoning with “Chuck” and some others here. I deal with people and police officers with his point of view all the time. You will never change their views until something like this happens to one of their innocent relative.
  The officer in the video could have shutt Richard R. in the back after he was handcuffed and called it SOP and some people and most officers would probably agree with him….
  A close friend of mine, a police officer for over 10 years, has the same character and views. Kick the suspect, hit the suspect, crack his head open on the curb, and asks questions later. As he himself put it many times, “Show him who is BOSS”. In his eyes everyone is guilty and needs to be punished. Maybe being a police officer in Baltimore City for so many years went to his head……………………. Unfortunately, I know many police officers with the same attitude and very few who know where to draw the line..
  It is funny how their attitude and aggression spills out into their civilian lives, too. I play sports with many police officers and see exactly the same aggression and bullying on the field.

• 115 Carlos Miller // May 14, 2009 at 7:36 PM

  If you oppose what this cop did, you’re supporting the gangbanger. It’s that simple. You’d rather have the gangbanger win than the police. You’d rather the cop didn’t kick the gangbanger and the gangbanger injure the cop.

  This whole “if you’re not with us, you’re against us” mentality is so passe.

• 116 Carlos Miller // May 14, 2009 at 7:37 PM

  I hear you can get $49 flights to Mexico. All you cop bashers should get yourself a ticket and fly down there ASAP. You’ll experience first hand what a society with weak police and strong gangs gets you, you want it so badly.

  In other words, “America, love it or leave it.”

  Chuck, you’re becoming a stereotype of cliches.

• 117 Tom // May 14, 2009 at 7:46 PM

  One more thing.
  I would be happy is this guy is beaten every day for the rest of his live once he is found guilty and sent. by the judge and thrown into some max. security prison. However, not be a police officer on the street. They should be leading by example and as their training and experience should help them stay calm and in control in a situation like this. If people will continue to see videos like these, they will eventually have no respect for police officers and will never trust them….

• 118 Anonymous // May 14, 2009 at 8:14 PM

  Tom, the problem is this IS their training–they are trained to “one up” people. Add to this the fact that the profession attracts the worst (braindead bullies, egomaniacs, and sadists) and the unconditional support of police culture and you have a recipe for disaster. Besides videos like this, the attitude, aggression and paranoid behavior we see from average cops makes people hate them.

  Interesting that they can’t even control themselves during a game.

• 119 Ariel // May 14, 2009 at 8:16 PM

  A stereotype of cliches… LOL.

  Carlos,
  You do have a way of cutting through the crap to get to the gist.

• 120 Anonymous // May 14, 2009 at 8:36 PM

  “I hear you can get $49 flights to Mexico. All you cop bashers should get yourself a ticket and fly down there ASAP”
  Underneath the “love it or leave it” i.e. “it’s my way or the highway” mentality is the assertion that YOU DON’T HAVE THE RIGHT TO COMPLAIN.

  Lol now I’m gonna go book my $49 flight to Mexico.

• 121 Someone Who Knows // May 14, 2009 at 9:33 PM

  It is quite laughable that Karl Mansoor is coming here to hold himself out as an expert on police tactics.

  After only a little over three years with the Albemarle County Police Department at a lowly rank, Karl Mansoor couldn’t hack it and had to take an extended medical leave because of a condition his own doctor diagnosed as a “panic disorder.” When Mansoor briefly returned to the force, the Chief of Police maintained doubts about Mansoor’s fitness for duty. Mansoor was subsequently relieved of duty and placed on administrative leave because of what the Chief described as Mansoor’s “impaired judgment” amongst other complaints. The Albemarle County Police Department later well documented Mansoor’s insubordination and disruptive behavior amongst other complaints.

  This is, of course, all a matter of public record.

  Given a less than stellar and quite short career for a man diagnosed by his own doctor as prone to “panic attacks” with “profuse sweating” and “shortness of breath,” you’re left to wonder how well he would perform in the field under any circumstances let alone set himself up as an expert to lecture others on proper tactics.

• 122 Mister DNA // May 14, 2009 at 9:51 PM

  Someone Who Knows,

  Since you’re engaging in fallacious ad hominem and appeals to authority, I’m wondering….

  Could you direct us to a Law Enforcement Authority who claims that kicking a prone suspect in the head is proper procedure?

  You’ve successfully attacked Mr. Mansoor, but that does nothing to destroy his argument that kicking a suspect in the head is improper procedure.

• 123 Ariel // May 14, 2009 at 9:55 PM

  Someone Who Knows,

  Sorry but google is a useful tool, Mansoor v. Trank, et al. Says something similar yet somehow different, how can that be? Perhaps more background than you supplied?

  You forgot that he started in Norfolk and transferred to Albemarle. Details, details.

• 124 Karl Mansoor // May 14, 2009 at 10:22 PM

  Hi there Someone Who Knows – post #121,

  I am not sure what it is you claim to know, but it is not difficult to determine what you don’t know.

  It does not take an expert in police tactics to easily see that the level of force displayed in the video was unnecessary. Because of it, an otherwise effective police pursuit and initial apprehension will now be clouded by significant and legitimate claims of excessive force.

  I also do not claim to be an “expert.” I do claim however, during my time as a police officer, VADCJS State instructor certifications in police defensive tactics and firearms. I also still maintain VADCJS certifications for a variety of instructor topics.

  As far as my police career and it’s quality, well, I’m not too worried about your fantasy. Perhaps you are one of the corrupt officers from that department or one that had to leave in shame.

  …or maybe just a wannabe.

  If you want to spout off nonsense about me, instead of cluttering up Carlos’ site and getting off track why not come by my place? Maybe I can help you out.

• 125 Duane Kerzic // May 14, 2009 at 10:55 PM

  The suspect is a creep, complete with creepy tattoos he uses as a sign to tell you he’s a creep before he even opens his mouth. So he’s violated the jones creep law.

  If the officer kicked him in the head while he was driving the car I’d have no problem with it.

  As has been pointed out a kick to the head can and has caused death. The post pursuit discipline is clearly wanting in this case. We used to have a saying in the the Navy, “no John Wayne’s” when doing team work exercises. This guys backup and a K-9 unit where close by. There was air support. It’s not like the guy was going to get away and there was absolutely no need to hit this guy in any way.

  I don’t know if it’s a crime or not but they cops do need to be officially disciplined in some manner. I’d certainly support a week off without pay and some retraining at their own expense. Cops want to be considered professionals they have to be responsible for their own actions, just like doctors, engineers and lawyers.

  Most cops what the benefits of being a professional but they don’t what the liabilities that come along with being a professional. Being personally responsible for ones actions is only one part of it. Professionals don’t get overtime. Professionals aren’t paid to get dressed to go to work. Professionals don’t belong to unions. Professionals don’t file work grievances. Those are the actions of the rank and file. So if you want to be considered a professional it’s time to start acting like one.

• 126 Anonymous // May 14, 2009 at 11:45 PM

  It is laughable that cops call themselves professionals. They confuse having authority with status and respectability. It would be a major accomplishment for most of them just to act like an adult, much less a professional. Case in point: the childish smear campaign directed at Karl. Hiding behind your computer and posting petty insults, kicking someone in the head who’s surrendered, these are the actions of COWARDS.

• 127 Someone Who Knows // May 15, 2009 at 12:01 AM

  Failed former officers who can’t cut it are a sad case after they’re eased out of the force because of “panic disorders” and other such shortcomings.

  They go from bad to worse once they leave the force. They set themselves up as “expert witnesses” and become guns for hire, working with sleazebag lawyers to destroy the careers of brave police officers who selflessly put their lives on the line.

  These “experts” are all such a sorry lot, often grossly overweight, wheezing and sweating in the witness box as they stammer about tactics and procedures they rarely used themselves, if at all. They are without exception bad actors.

  They can’t get real work, of course. No police department will hire them because their record of failure follows them everywhere. These human wrecks often only have a few years on the job or a history of transferring from one department to another, always in search of the cushy assignments, the easy overtime working at the shopping mall. They are chronic whiners or complainers who, by some strange fluke, usually because of some personal political connection, managed to get themselves hired as police officers in the first place, but not for long of course.

  How sad they are, so desperate for money after utterly failing themselves that they will stoop to anything. They set up little websites and blogs offering their “expertise” to any scumball lawyer looking to rob the taxpayers by suing police departments.

  Of course, juries are usually not fooled by this chicanery. A pathetic failure is easy to spot. That’s why, fortunately, an overwhelming majority of lawsuits against police officers are unsuccessful.

  I saw one of these pitiful wrecks in person recently. The “expert” was testifying on behalf of a violent felon in a money-grab lawsuit against the city, defaming the bravery of a police officer who died in the line of duty in the process. Of course, the felon lost the case, but the sadsack “expert” took home his thirty pieces of silver all the same.

• 128 JoyLeaf // May 15, 2009 at 12:02 AM

  This afternoon, Lt. Ken Alva of the El Monte Police Department said the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department will conduct an independent review to determine whether excessive force was used. He said the sheriff’s report will be submitted to the District Attorney’s Office, which will determine whether any action will be taken against the officer who initially kicked the suspect.

  Meantime, the officer has been placed on non-patrol duty, he said.

  El Monte police will conduct a separate investigation, Alva said.
  Seems it might not be so SOP to kick suspects in the head.

• 129 HH // May 15, 2009 at 12:16 AM

  This is America Joy. That an investigation has been launched does not say anything. We have a presumption of innocence in this country. Let’s hold to that same standard for cops too. We can’t complain about how we’re treated if we don’t afford cops the same legal standards.

• 130 Ariel // May 15, 2009 at 12:26 AM

  #127 Too good links for you: How You Think and Where You’re Stuck. There are no spelling errors in this comment.

  #128 JoyLeaf: Or they know how their SOP looks when videotaped, but your last sentence is likely correct.

• 131 Rob Molecule // May 15, 2009 at 1:42 AM

  Here are the comments from policeone.com. Sure are a hell of a lot more rational than the supposed LEOs posting here.

  Posted by Arod77th on Thursday, May 14, 2009 05:35 PM Pacific Report Abuse
  The saddest part about the incident is the settlement the knucklehead will receive as a result of something that was, on initial observations, not handled well. I would bet my life that the suspect has taken a more serious beating from his fellow gang members. Unfortunately, the actions of an addrenalin influenced officer will cost the City of El Monte a good amount of money. It sucks, but it will happen. Post pursuit discipline needs to be discussed more often than it is. I don’t wish ill will upon the officer, but I do wish he hadn’t kicked the suspect. Another question; why didn’t he just wait for back up officers before making an approach? I understand why the officer did what he did, but I just can’t condone it. Absent some mitigating factors, I don’t think it was justified given what is presented in the video. And yes, I know the video doesn’t always tell the whole story….but if there is something there that we aren’t seeing, it better be good.
  Posted by wmccarty on Thursday, May 14, 2009 12:13 AM Pacific Report Abuse
  Cell phone cameras, people with hand-held camcorders, etc etc….People always watching what we say and do…Have to be cognizant of that at all times.
  Posted by Philyboy13 on Thursday, May 14, 2009 11:43 AM Pacific Report Abuse
  Seriously? You have to be cognizant of the fact that a pursuit, especially in the LA area, and especially one that lasts for so long, is going to garner live TV coverage. Those helicopters aren’t just ours…

  I am very interested to see what the justification was for that. I don’t want to jump to conclusions because I want to back the officers, but from the air it appeared the first shot was unnecessary. Not sure what was being said or what the officer felt at the time. We’ll have to wait and see…

• 132 Anonymous // May 15, 2009 at 1:42 AM

  “No police department will hire them” “They are chronic whiners or complainers…..because of some personal political connection, managed to get themselves hired as police officers in the first place, but not for long”

  This is bull—police departments will hire anything with a pulse. The anxiety ridden are the least of their problems. “A Warrant to Kill” by Kathryn Casey is a page turning MUST READ about a gypsy cop who bounced from dept. to dept. while doing stuff like: calling an elderly women at Denny’s the N word, carrying around pictures of dead bodies, and assault. He finally murdered a woman who had made a complaint against him.

  “I saw one of these pitiful wrecks in person recently. The “expert” was testifying on behalf of a violent felon in a money-grab lawsuit against the city, defaming the bravery of a police officer who died”

  Name names. Give us the names of the felon and dead cop so we can read about the case ourselves. Otherwise I’ll just take your comment as a bold faced lie designed to support an insult.

• 133 Pinandpuller // May 15, 2009 at 1:56 AM

  SWK’s

  How does one fail at law enforcement exactly? Unable to kick a head-sized object at two feet? I made sure I spelled “two” out in case someone thinks I might be a lawyer.

• 134 Rizzin // May 15, 2009 at 2:34 AM

  Bad guys are going to decide that if they are going to get the beating weather they surrender or go down fighting then more of them are going to go down fighting and more cops are going to get injured and or killed. And right now I am ignoring what the cops might do to non criminals who don’t jump to quickly enough for them if this is an acceptable level of force to use on non-resisting personal.

  I would have had no problem with a kick to the head while he was racing through the streets, he was an active threat. I would have had no problem to that kick to the head while he was running, he had to be stopped. But if this is SOP for suspects (no conviction yet, not there is any doubt of guilt on Rodriguez’s part) who are no longer resisting or attempting to flee then SOP needs to be looked at again for EVERYBODY’S safety.

• 135 Anonymous // May 15, 2009 at 2:36 AM

  Lol at #133. Here’s a good one from Karls site.
  http://bluemustbetrue.com/2009/05/05/is-that-any-way-for-a-law-enforcement-officer-to-talk.aspx#comment-2051435

• 136 JoyLeaf // May 15, 2009 at 4:38 AM

  My point is that while any arrest where force is used may get an independent review and/or an investigation, if the kick to the head was SOP it is unlikely that the officer would be placed on desk duty. They are also reviewing and investigating the officer who used his flashlight and kneed the suspect, but he has not had his duty changed at this point.

  They might both be cleared, or one or more officers may get a reprimand and more training or they may face charges.

  I think the first possibility is the most likely and the third one very unlikely, not to mention how unlikely a convection would be, but time will tell.

• 137 Sly // May 15, 2009 at 10:31 AM

  Once again the hug-a-thug hypocrisy here on this blog is astounding. All those commenters who incessantly wail about how the police violate their constitutional rights are so quick to discard those same constitutional rights when a cop is accused of anything.

  JoyLeaf is a typical example. The officer is on desk duty therefore this is not standard procedure. Well, if you speak first without thinking and have no idea what you’re talking about, you’d reach such a simple minded and wrong conclusion. I guess it never entered your tiny little brain that the cop was injured during the arrest and is on desk duty because of that injury.

• 138 Carlos Miller // May 15, 2009 at 10:53 AM

  I guess it never entered your tiny little brain that the cop was injured during the arrest and is on desk duty because of that injury.

  Yes, JoyLeaf, can’t you see the cop stubbed his toe while kicking the suspect in the head?

• 139 Karl Mansoor // May 15, 2009 at 11:35 AM

  Carlos, will you please stop that! You are making me laugh too much and I can’t get any work done.

  To Mr. Sly and a few others, to get back to the serious nature of the incident, from my perspective, as I think others here have also attempted to say, this issue is not about having a preference of suspected criminals over law enforcement officers. It is about law enforcement officers adhering to lawfully acceptable and reasonable tactics to effectively get their job done.

  Officer George Fierro could just as easily, and more safely for himself from a tactical point of view, have approached the suspect from behind or at least an angle towards the suspects lower body and midsection. Any excuses that the officer wanted the suspect to look away evaporate once you see officer Fierro move towards the side of the suspects gaze after he kicked him.

  It is not that the police don’t have the right or need to use tactics to keep themselves safe. They absolutely do and must. The kick to the head, and quite possibly some of the other actions however, were beyond officer safety and fall into the realm of unnecessary, given the suspect’s obvious submission.

  Do the officers still need to use caution once the suspect appears to have submitted?

  Absolutely! They need to always remain cautious against the unpredictable nature of many criminals and anybody else for that matter.

  There is a fine line however between legitimate force and excessive force. Once someone is compliant, force must de-escalate. That is the law and law enforcement officers should adhere to it.

  If they don’t, people get injured unnecessarily, including law enforcement officers , and significant legal liability ensues.

  Imagine if officer Fierro had not kicked Rodriguez in the head and instead either held him at gun point or Taser point until his back up arrived within seconds, or if he chose to begin securing the suspect immediately by initiating a legitimate control technique securing the suspects hands which is where the potential danger is.

  None of this discussion would be occurring and Fierro and his partners could continue their high-fiving all day long with the likely blessing of the entire community. And Rodriguez would not be entertaining the possibility of a civil rights lawsuit.

  Doesn’t that make more sense?

• 140 AC // May 15, 2009 at 11:37 AM

  The great unmentioned irony here is that the kicking cop filed suit last year against the El Monte Police Department because he claimed he was passed over for promotions because he reported suspected criminal behavior by fellow officers. The case is still working its way through the courts.

  He’s exactly the kind of cop you people lionize in this blog and now you’re demonizing him.

• 141 In Chitown // May 15, 2009 at 11:59 AM

  No one can judge whether this was or wasn’t legitimate force based on a television newscast. Audio review is needed plus a full scene recreation as well as extensive witness interviews. That’s why IA sometimes takes weeks or months analyzing a case because a cursory review of edited footage shown on TV presents a sketchy and often incomplete picture at best.

• 142 Karl Mansoor // May 15, 2009 at 12:07 PM

  Hi AC – post 140,

  If administrators in the El Monte police department acknowledge the misapplication of force and take steps to correct it through better and/or more training, that should go a long way towards addressing future incidents and it may even help in the current one.

  Not only is there a fine line in balancing an officer’s use of force, there is also a fine line in administrators supporting officers, which they should, but at the same time acknowledging when mistakes are made and then taking transparent corrective action, which does not always occur.

  There is another interesting irony in that evidently, officer George Fierro has a website which sells and promotes gang-style clothing.

  I posted on it at my blog but here is the direct link to the article which also has links to Fierro’s online store.

  http://www.sgvtribune.com/news/ci_12373174

• 143 Anonymous // May 15, 2009 at 1:42 PM

  “Audio review is needed plus a full scene recreation as well as extensive witness interviews. That’s why IA sometimes takes weeks or months analyzing a case”

  “extensive witness interviews” Lol you’ve got to be kidding me. Only some dumb cop would have the nerve to tell you “you don’t know what you just saw with your own two eyes, your perceptions are completely wrong, only police brass can determine what happened.” Anyone with a brain can see that this excessive force was retaliation for this degenerate’s actions. Ignore And Disregard will take their time in order to see how much they can sweep under the rug.

• 144 Lt. J. Kelley // May 15, 2009 at 1:45 PM

  Mr. Mansoor you’re not making any sense here. The officer appears to have delivered a distraction blow to an uncuffed perp who still posed a serious threat to officer safety. Distraction blows like this are upheld all the time as legitimate force. Like Chitown says this cannot be judged just on helicopter footage alone. The officer involved has the right to a thorough review by qualified investigators examining all the evidence.

• 145 Duane Kerzic // May 15, 2009 at 2:16 PM

  Lt. Kelley,

  Of course we need to interview everyone. I like how we have come up with a new term to justify all kinds of abuse, ‘distraction blow’. If a ‘distraction blow’ was needed it could have been a peroneal strike in which case I probably wouldn’t have much of problem with it. The likelihood of a single peroneal strike being fatal is very remote which is not the case of a kick to the head. Of course the bite by the K-9 doesn’t deserve any attention either. Police dogs need to have the taste of handcuffed suspect blood to satisfy them that the chase is over.

  Next we are going to have ‘distraction shootings’ where the cops discharge their firearms into suspects heads.

  Of course edited footage can show only what one side what’s to show, like when we don’t get to see suspects fighting with officers before 6 officers start taking shots at a guy on the ground with their batons. However in this case we have the totality of the footage, the only part missing is the original stop.

• 146 Karl Mansoor // May 15, 2009 at 2:30 PM

  Lt Kelley -post#144,

  Of course the officer has a right to a thorough review but that does not diminish from the plainly visible.

  A distraction technique is called for when a suspect is actively resisting and an officer is hands on or immediately about to go hands on.

  I’ll even agree that some distraction techniques can be legitimately applied with a passive resister.

  But a kick to the head of a suspect prone on the ground and submitting to officers is not even close to an acceptable distraction technique.

  Officers should know that distraction is different than knocking out, or potentially knocking out.

  With your rational by stating, “The officer appears to have delivered a distraction blow to an uncuffed perp who still posed a serious threat to officer safety,” officers could deliver such kicks and blows to anybody who is complying with officer’s directives.

  The “uncuffed” suspect was prone and submitting. The next step is to get hand/wrist control and apply cuffs, not kick to the head.

• 147 Mark Jackson // May 15, 2009 at 3:09 PM

  The things that happen when an officer’s actions are in question happen nowhere else with the same circumstances. When an officer is found driving drunk or anything else, the other officers suddenly forget how to investigate a crime scene. People immediately start talking about possible defenses. All the officer has to do is to say, “uhmm yeah, that’s what I did.”

  In the unlikely event that an officer is close to being charged, (although in this case it is a possibility, because he ratted on other officers) he resigns from the force – removing the heat. If he is put on administrative leave, great, union steps in, back pay is recouped, all is well.

  I guess I have a question for all of the supporters of law enforcement.

  1) Do you believe there is a double standard for officers?
  2) Do you think that there is ever a legitimate case were an officer commits a crime?
  3) Do you think the current system would allow any possible crimes to be handled correctly and that they would get sufficient punished?
  4) Would you feel the same way if this was your child?

  I think that there are two types of cops: Those who don’t care that it is their family being arrested; the only people in their lives that matter are the people who wear the funny little uniforms, like themselves. The second are those who seek to pull favors for their loved ones in order to avoid the same scrutiny that everyone else would face. Usually they have to pull these favors a lot, because the people in their families have adopted the same chickenshit life view that the officers have.

  Someone up top posted about how those of us who oppose police abuse are the first ones to come crying to the police when we are in danger. That’s exactly what they would have you believe. I don’t call a cop for a thing unless I want to document another cop via the 911 system. I usually tell them to come get the trash out of my presence (Oh, they love when you call them on one of their own). I have never called a cop and had him be even vaguely useful. I’m guessing that if the person who made that comment even had clue 1 about where some of us come from, he would piss his pants.

  Where I grew up, in southwest Detroit, I watched cops involved in drug deals, watched them beat and shoot people, watched them extort money. In my precinct alone, the FBI came in and indicted something like 18 officers. I was married to law enforcement. I know the corruption first hand and I have never seen a group that is more cowardly, manipulative and deceitful in my life. It’s just a legalized gang.

  I have stood on drug dealer’s porches and told them that their activities were going to stop. I knew old women who had far more courage than any officer than I have ever seen. I have seen them fight off these assholes with brooms and pic axes, because the cops would not come.

  For most communities, we should leave our policing up to the citizens. I think that we could form models that would be far more beneficial than anything currently in place. It would take some time, but it can be done.

• 148 Lt. J. Kelley // May 15, 2009 at 9:45 PM

  I like how we have come up with a new term to justify all kinds of abuse, ‘distraction blow’

  I repeat, you’re not making any sense Mr. Mansoor. The distraction blow is approved by many urban departments’ policy and training, including El Monte. The attorney for the El Monte Police Officers Association explained this in a press conference today. Distraction blows like this are approved in many SoCal departments, including El Monte. More details here:

  http://preview.tinyurl.com/o7wjak

  What is not acceptable in one department commonly is often allowed and acceptable in another department. That’s why saying something is not legitimate force, without reviewing the department’s specific policy first plus the state’s law, is without merit.

• 149 Duane Kerzic // May 15, 2009 at 10:13 PM

  LT. Kelley,

  Why are you giving Officer Mansoor credit for something I said?

  So the El Monte Police Officers Associations Apologist, ehh, I mean Lawyer says this is a valid action means it is? Hardly. How about the other items that hit the LA Times today, http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/05/el-monte-officers-actions-and-tactics-questioned.html where not one but all of the commenter’s think this is a horrible excessive use of force.

  It’s the ELMPOA’s Lawyer’s job to advocate for the El Monte Police Officers now matter how egregious their behaviour. Would you expect their advocate to come out and say this was wrong? Like I said if he’d used a peroneal strike my feelings would be very different. But this Officer did something that could have killed the person. That is not the job of the police when the suspect is surrendering.

  We will see how this one ends up in a couple of weeks. It will be interesting is all I can say.

• 150 Jason // May 15, 2009 at 11:22 PM

  Duane Kerzic, an El Monte police officer follows El Monte Police Department Policy, which mandates distraction blows for uncuffed suspects who still pose a threat. What some professor in Nebraska believes has no bearing on the officer’s actions. The officer followed his department’s training. He was not trained by the professor in Nebraska, who is not a cop and isn’t on the El Monte force. He was not trained by the Los Angeles Times either.

  I’m a police officer in an Arizona department that also mandates distraction blows in exactly the situation that occurred in El Monte where an uncuffed suspect like this who still poses a threat. I follow my department policy and my department training. I take my orders from my sergeant and my chain of command, I don’t take my orders from newspapers or professors.

  I agree with Lt. Kelley and Chitown that you cannot tell from a two dimensional aerial videotape alone if the suspect still poses a threat. I want to know what that suspect said to the officer and whether he disobeyed the officer’s command to turn away his face. That has a direct bearing on the officer’s actions. That’s why these things can never be Monday morning quarterbacked from TV video alone.

• 151 Carlos Miller // May 15, 2009 at 11:28 PM

  Jason,

  Departmental policy is one thing.

  There is also something called the law.

  Regardless what the El Monte PD thinks, this thug can still hire a lawyer and file a civil suit.

  And a good lawyer can win that suit.

  Why screw-up an otherwise lawful and necessary arrest by conducting unnecessary and excessive violence?

• 152 Voice of Reason // May 15, 2009 at 11:54 PM

  Note to Ariel: You said, The problem with long-windedness on blogs is that we are in danger of becoming scroll over country, especially if we go too far OT.

  1. The term “scroll over country” isn’t clear. Do you mean that readers will miss short posts while they’re scrolling past long posts that they don’t like?

  If so, that’s no reason to say that the length of posts should be limited. If a reader is careless, they’re going to miss things. What’s next? Do we offer free ice cream cones to readers who can prove that they’re careful, and that they read every post?

  2. If you’re referring specifically to my posts, I haven’t gone off-topic on this thread. I’ve reviewed my posts, and in my opinion, they’re relevant and useful. I haven’t talked about who’s right and who’s wrong in the current case. However, there’s more to it than that. This thread does involve animal-level triggers. In this context, posters such as Chuck and LR are animals in a literal sense. You won’t be able to reason with them. My posts, in short, have been about the discussion itself.

  3. This post is going to discuss things from a mathematical perspective. This might appear to be off-topic, but that isn’t entirely the case. It’s for your benefit, and for the benefit of anybody else who believes that I’ve been fuzzy in discussions of this type.

  Regarding the latter issue, you said, Yeah, the spectrum only works when applied to pure political thoughts and actions. Tends to breakdown otherwise. Making it a 2D improves it, but it still breaks down. Too many variables. Triggers are good, but the set would be unmanageable with time as one of the dimensions.

  You don’t like the words “conservative” and “liberal”. I won’t stop using these words, but you’ve made it clear that I’ll need to back them up. So that’s what I’m going to do, right now.

  You’ll probably agree that we can model some or all of the people here as finite sets consisting of a fixed number of trinary (not binary) values, where each value corresponds to yes, no, or other with respect to a position on a trigger issue. I could address the time axis that you mentioned, but I gather that you don’t want me to do so.

  The model is something real. I could write a program, input one of Mr. Miller’s posts and somebody’s handle, and get back a simulated post from the latter person. Therefore, it’s a reasonable way to think about people. Note: Obviously, for this to work, I’d need to make a table that listed the trigger values associated with each handle.

  I’m going to start visualizing certain people here as living sets floating about the landscape. Mr. Miller’s posts appear periodically, and the sets battle over each post. Mr. Miller’s posts correspond to food items or similar resources.

  It might be fun to render 3D images of some of the discussions that take place here. Imagine that the trinary values are mapped to the colors red, green, and blue. Naturally, red would correspond to yes for triggers that control representative Red Staters and blue would correspond to yes for triggers that control representative Blue Staters. You’d see mostly-red sets fighting with mostly-blue sets, but you’d also see some interesting anomalies.

  In a more sophisticated version of the model, you’d use brighter or darker colors to represent the extent to which somebody is controlled by his or her triggers. Brighter would correspond to higher values, or more controlled. A slightly different scheme would be used to represent the underlying values, in this case.

  Given your feelings about the words “conservative” and “liberal”, and the fact that you’re essentially correct, I’ll state for the record that if I use the word “conservative” in the future, it might be a reference to somebody who’s controlled by most or all of the triggers in a well-defined “conservative” set. Similarly for the word “liberal”.

  Of course, I’ll need to be careful when I decide which triggers go with which set: “conservative”, “liberal”, First Amendment supporter, etc.

  On a final note, it’ll be interesting to draw Venn diagrams related to some of the intersections involved. For example, depending on the triggers used to define the sets, one of the site’s most important posters is a “conservative”, and a First Amendment supporter as well. That’s not surprising, but it’s likely to lead to odd intersections.

• 153 Duane Kerzic // May 16, 2009 at 12:26 AM

  Jason, please explain to us mortals specifically what articulable threat Rodriguez poses while he was laying on the ground spread eagle? It must have been that knife he was hiding under his body.

  Don’t get confused about what I’m saying at all. I think Rodriguez is a bad guy. I think he belongs in jail for a long time. I think if he was given a single peroneal strike it would have been OK.

  Jason, your department teaches you to kick suspects in the head and you think that’s a good idea?

  What I find interesting is that cops are standing up for this crap as being a good idea in light of the current political enviroment. I get the feeling that cops just don’t read the paper and are totally uninformed about current events. Look at all the attention that torture of suspected international terrorists is getting. When people start to look at how cops are treating people in this country do you think strikes to the head are going to be supported? Or do you think they are going to be seen as torture?

  The El Monte Police took what was a properly and professionally conducted high speed pursuit and messed it up in the last moment. Now Rodriguez can and will sue the city and he will win. All they had to do was not kick the guy in the head, kind of simple.

• 154 Voice of Reason // May 16, 2009 at 1:06 AM

  To people on this site this evening:

  I worked on my previous “War and Peace” post (#152) for a while after posting it. The last version is more useful than the first version. If you read the post in question earlier, reload the page to see the last version.

• 155 Pinandpuller // May 16, 2009 at 3:36 AM

  Wow, its nice to know that distraction blows aren’t merely optional. I wonder what kind of trouble that officer would be in if he hadn’t used the technique?

  Gang bangers: Be sure to keep a vial of Ritalin in one of your gold teeth. You will thank me later.

• 156 Sheepdog // May 16, 2009 at 7:48 AM

  “Now Rodriguez can and will sue the city and he will win.”

  Ah yes. The fortune teller rationale. “I can see the future therefore I am correct.”

  You people are not sitting on a board of review. No cop has to explain himself to you here. We don’t answer to you. We are not your employees or your servants. You’re uninformed sheep who don’t understand police tactics and procedure. We’re telling you how the system works. This is not a menu. You don’t get to choose what tactics we use as long as our departments approve them.

  When election time comes, 9 times out of 10 the “tough on crime” candidate wins. Those elected officials back us up all the way. That’s the way the system works. So what some idiot liberal reporter says about Gitmo means jack shit to us.

  Now have a lovely day.

• 157 Ariel // May 16, 2009 at 12:06 PM

  Hey, sheepdog, thanks. Say that loud and often please. In, fact, why don’t you get that into your local paper, with your name on it. Do it often so you can tell the sheep how you are their lord and master.

  You haven’t the guts.

  You are a good example of the banana-republic paramilitary mindset at work.

• 158 Carlos Miller // May 16, 2009 at 12:11 PM

  Sheepdog,

  When you have time, take a look at the stories on this link. I say when you have time because almost every day, a cop is being convicted or terminated for some wrongdoing.

  http://twitter.com/InjusticeNews

• 159 Karl Mansoor // May 16, 2009 at 2:50 PM

  Lt. Kelley – post#148,

  I’m sorry my comments did not make sense to you. The only other thing I can think of to help you understand a concept of using only reasonable force is to suggest you go back and re-read some of the well spoken comments from a few others explaining why the kick to the head, in this specific circumstance, was excessive. Torgeaux, in particular, provided some clear and concise information.

  In response to your statement of, “What is not acceptable in one department commonly is often allowed and acceptable in another department. That’s why saying something is not legitimate force, without reviewing the department’s specific policy first plus the state’s law, is without merit.” I would say that some agencies across the United States may have nuanced and occasionally noteworthy variations within their policies but ultimately use of force is governed by what is reasonable stemming from case law.

  I personally haven’t seen anything about the kick to the head which was reasonable.

  Evidently we disagree on what is reasonable.

  I guess we’ll just have to wait and see how everything turns out in the end.

• 160 Ariel // May 16, 2009 at 3:14 PM

  Mr. Mansoor,

  Lt. Kelley is forgetting that what is “reasonable” by his departmental standards may fail to be so in a court of law. These standards of “legitimate force” within a department continue until someone challenges and wins in court, their own internal investigation being irrelevant, we the taxpayers pay, and the PD then change the practice. I noticed that the LAPD and Sheriff’s Department do not consider this a legitimate use of force.

  By the way, this one has made it around the world. The US press reports are portraying it as brutality as are the UK and European.

• 161 John // May 16, 2009 at 3:23 PM

  Mr. Miller, there are more than 800,000 sworn law enforcement officers in the United States. The percentage rate of successful prosecutions against sworn officers, based on the most recent Department of Justice statistics, is less than one tenth of one percent compared to the successful prosecution rate for the population at large. That means someone who is not an officer is a thousand times more likely to be convicted of criminal activity than a sworn officer.

  While amateur sites like the “Injustice News Feed” might seem impressive to those unfamiliar with law enforcement practice and policy as well as statistical compilation, they are not an accurate reflection of reality. “Almost every day” someone is killed in an automobile accident; however, if you Twittered each of those deaths in linear order, it would present the impression that driving is extremely dangerous, when in reality most people drive every day and live to tell about it. Similarly, an airplane crashes “almost every day” but thousands do not.

• 162 Ariel // May 16, 2009 at 4:05 PM

  John,

  You’re ignoring that most abusive acts by police do not make it to court. You need to also look at the number of civil cases won. You also need to look at the near free pass that Police get when committing perjury. You and I will go to jail for that, they seldom do. The perjury has to be so egregious that it can’t be ignored. They are held to a lesser standard, not a higher one. They think they are held to a higher standard, but the facts differ. Of course, they think they are in the most dangerous profession too, not knowing they don’t even make the top ten.

  John, how many celebrities have been prosecuted for assaulting a paparazzi? A LEO normally gets a reprimand for the same act. Nearly every case here of a LEO interfering with a photographer would have put you and I in front of a judge, but not the LEO. LEOs protect other LEOs in DV cases, its documented just google. LEOs protect other LEOs when suspected of DUI (police alcoholism is quite high). Juries often need a higher level of proof to convict LEOs, because of mindset, than to convict a member of the general population.

  LEOs are allowed to get away with things that you and I cannot. If you detain someone, you’re charged with kidnapping. If a LEO knowingly falsely detains someone, he gets a reprimand, unless somehow it goes to court and he actually gets convicted of kidnapping. Doesn’t happen.

  I would hope that LEOs commit fewer crimes than the general population, but your statistics do not represent the real truth. I’m sure it’s still lower but not by a 1000:1.

  Right now the Police Union up in Seattle has gotten 7 officers reinstated who filed false police reports. You and I would not get that second chance, unless you belong to a corrupt Union. Don’t forget those false police reports mean someone was falsely accused. Do you want to be that person?

• 163 Carlos Miller // May 16, 2009 at 4:14 PM

  “Almost every day” someone is killed in an automobile accident; however, if you Twittered each of those deaths in linear order, it would present the impression that driving is extremely dangerous, when in reality most people drive every day and live to tell about it.

  And this is why there is constant legislation to improve automobile safety, including banning the use of cell phones while driving or as they did in Florida, allowing police to pull people over who are not wearing their seatbelts.

  What legislation has been passed recently to improve police standards?

• 164 Ariel // May 16, 2009 at 4:15 PM

  #163 Carlos, dead on.

• 165 Anonymous // May 16, 2009 at 4:39 PM

  “The percentage rate of successful prosecutions against sworn officers, based on the most recent Department of Justice statistics, is less than one tenth of one percent” “That means someone who is not an officer is a thousand times more likely to be convicted of criminal activity than a sworn officer”

  #1 Because they were treated with kid gloves and got a plea deal? How many were not even arrested in the first place because one of their “brothers” looked the other way? #2 If you read the site he referenced you would see that when it comes to cops we’re not talking normal crimes here. We’re talking pure criminal behavior; not the kind of stuff good people get in trouble for.

  “While amateur sites like the “Injustice News Feed” might seem impressive to those unfamiliar with law enforcement practice and policy as well as statistical compilation, they are not an accurate reflection of reality”

  Why don’t you tell us what reality is then? I’m sure it was “real” enough for the victims. Lol and what on earth do “practice and policy” have to do with police criminality? Since you can probably justify and debate excessive force and unnecessary shootings until your “blue” in the face, let’s focus solely on the sex offenders in law enforcement. One case would be bad enough but we’re talking thousands.

  New Jersy State Police officer arrested on charges of kidnapping and sexually assaulting woman in his unmarked car http://tinyurl.com/cfhs3o

  Moreno Valley CA officer’s trial underway on charges that he used his position to sexually assault five women: http://tinyurl.com/c3ug8u

• 166 Anonymous // May 16, 2009 at 4:52 PM

  Bell CA cop to face second trial on charges he forced woman to perform oral sex at gunpoint after traffic stop: http://tinyurl.com/d59zez

  Blaine WA High-ranking border patrol official pleads guilty to sex with 14-yr old girl on 24 different occasions: http://tinyurl.com/ca2uxt

  These four examples are what I was able to pull up in less then 2 minutes. Don’t forget, these stories are just what made it to the reporters desk How how many more of these cases go unreported?

• 167 blue gang // May 16, 2009 at 5:59 PM

  1. cop kicks head
  2 cop hits in kidney
  3 k9 cop has dog bite suspect
  4 blue gang at it again just gang on gang violance.
  all should go to prison.
  f the blue gang..

• 168 Duane Kerzic // May 16, 2009 at 7:33 PM

  First of all driving a car is a very dangerous activity, one of the riskiest things most people do in their lifetimes. If a car was an industrial tool it would have been outlawed long ago. There are about 7,500 deaths per year and over 45,000 serious injuries in the USA because of motor vehicles. It’s so dangerous we have dedicated vast public resources to the patrolling of the activity in the form of traffic divisions of police departments. Yet even in the face of these statistics showing how dangerous it is people think it’s a relatively SAFE activity because they do it on a regular basis and don’t get hurt.

  As Carlos pointed out driving a car is so dangerous we have a huge body of regulations governing that activity and it’s constantly being updated.

  So the impression given if you twittered each of those incidents in linear order would be correct, that driving is an extremely dangerous activity. Just as the impression given when you twitter each of those incidents of police misconduct is correct.

• 169 What if officer injured? // May 16, 2009 at 7:35 PM

  Everyone still have an opinion if the news read ” Officer fatally wounded after attempting to handcuff gang member.” Nope, I guarantee half of you wouldn’t lift a finger to comment

• 170 Duane Kerzic // May 16, 2009 at 7:57 PM

  Another chance for people to complain,

  I’m really sorry to read you feel that way. I’m sure if an officer was hurt people would be very upset, even more so than about the unarmed guy getting kicked in the head.

  But that officer acted like ‘John Wayne’. Police departments don’t need any ‘John Wayne’s’. They endanger themselves and others by their actions when they act alone. He had backup seconds away. All he had to do was cover the suspect and wait 10 seconds for his partners to arrive at which time the handcuffing could be accomplished without assulting the suspect.

• 171 Lurker // May 16, 2009 at 8:00 PM

  Excellent point @169. This is National Police Week, when all the brave police officers killed, wounded, and injured in the line of duty during the past year were honored with ceremonies in Washinton and cities throughout the country. Many of these officers died or were wounded at the hands of violent criminals. Not a peep here at this website about National Police Week or the brave sacrifice of these dedicated men and women who work to keep their cities and communities safe.

• 172 Voice of Reason // May 16, 2009 at 8:14 PM

  Note to Ariel: You said, “I would hope that LEOs commit fewer crimes than the general population.”

  This is the only error that I was able to find in your excellent post 162. And it’s not even an error, because you stated it as a feeling.

  It’s my belief that LEOs commit more crimes per individual than the general population. It’s a consequence of a simple fact: There’s less incentive for LEOs not to commit crimes. Certainly, LEOs are prosecuted for major offenses, though it’s rare for them to be prosecuted for major offenses committed “in the line of duty”. However, in some cases, charges aren’t pursued whether or not it’s an “in the line of duty” issue.

  You mentioned that LEOs “don’t even make the top ten” on dangerous-profession lists. If that’s true, I’m surprised to hear it. However, for the benefit of LEO apologists and other people who are disinclined to do research, I’ll note that dentists are, or have been, ranked higher on these lists.

  Incidentally, I don’t blame you for ignoring my post 152, given your concerns about posts that you believe to be off-topic. There’s also the “War and Peace” length issue. You’re apparently worried that you’re going to encourage me to write long posts that most people won’t bother to read. The thread might run out of pixels! Whatever shall we do?  

  However, I’ll ask you to bookmark post 152 for possible future reference. If I use the words “conservative” and “liberal” at a later date, I may (or may not, depending on the circumstances) be referring to well-defined sets of the type described in post 152, as opposed to the fuzzy concepts that you’ve taken exception to in the past.

  In closing, I’ll repeat a point that I recall raising with you before. You’ve got considerable life experience and you’re a high-quality reasoner. Why aren’t you running your own weblog? If you start a weblog, you’ll accomplish more, and your posts will circulate more widely. Your current posts, and mine, won’t be remembered, and they won’t affect things much outside the context of the forum.

• 173 Voice of Reason // May 16, 2009 at 8:56 PM

  “What if officer injured?” said, Everyone still have an opinion if the news read ”Officer fatally wounded after attempting to handcuff gang member.” Nope, I guarantee half of you wouldn’t lift a finger to comment.

  Lurker added, Excellent point @169. This is National Police Week, when all the brave police officers killed, wounded, and injured in the line of duty during the past year were honored with ceremonies in Washinton and cities throughout the country.

  “What if officer injured?” hasn’t made an “Excellent point”. In fact, the arguments used above are rubbish.

  I don’t believe it’s worth the trouble to dissect these arguments. I’m not going to bother to point out that dentists work in a more dangerous profession than police officers do. I’m not even going to mention the fact that LEOs are no more or less brave than ordinary people, and that LEOs sometimes kill innocent people, men, women, and children precisely because they aren’t brave.

  Instead, I’ll focus on the important part. I’ll note that LEO apologists always conflate things that don’t go together.

  Additionally, I’ll ask LEO apologists, in general as well as the apologists commenting on this case, to stop using arguments similar to: you’re just cop bashers, you’re just cop haters, you’re just liberals, police are brave, police are heroes, it’s a thin blue line that needs our support, you never talk about the good cops, what about the cops who die in shootouts, it’s just a few bad apples, the victim was “asking for it”, the victim was “looking for trouble”, the victim didn’t show respect, the victim had a “tramp stamp” so she was just white trash, etc.

  Actually, you’re free to use any of these arguments, including generalizations. However, you must be able to show that the arguments make sense and that they’re relevant. If you can’t do that, you’re nothing more than a programmed automaton. Biological in nature, yes, but an automaton nonetheless. You’re no more significant than the cow that went into my last hamburger. Interchangeable with thousands of others.

• 174 Ariel // May 16, 2009 at 9:40 PM

  Lurker,

  Not one LEO mentioned National Police Week here. Not one. So by your logic they don’t care either. Frankly nearly every week has a designation these days and most of us have no idea from week to week which group is seeking attention.

  I’m glad they have ceremonies to commemorate the officers that have lost their lives in the line of duty.

  #169 Just another horseshit bit of fallacious logic. This blog isn’t about those who have lost their lives in the line of duty. I have family that are LEOs you cretin. I want living good cops enforcing and following the law and not making crap up as they go along. I don’t want the bad cops dead, I want them off the force, alive and employed elsewhere.

  The El Monte PD need to rethink the kick in the head distraction move. LAPD and the Sheriff’s department do not use that technique because they consider it an illegitimate use of force. Guess they hate cops too, huh? What a moron.

  And as for the scumbag that started this all, if he had struggled with the cops and had to die to protect the life of a cop, so be it. You either/or types are so brain dead it makes me nauseated.

• 175 almost wet myself laughing // May 16, 2009 at 11:00 PM

  It’s because of people like “Voice of Reason” that this blog now has a wide reputation as being a haven for whack-job cop haters.

  His claim that dentistry is a more dangerous job than law enforcement has to be the most deranged statement ever posted here. And you people wonder why cops come here to taunt you. Even the most batshit street person with a tinfoil hat couldn’t come up with that kind of mindbender.

  Keep it coming people. The comments here, particularly when 95% of them are the same 12 cop-haters, ensure that this blog will always be seen as a fringe loonybin.

  And now it’s about time for The Voice of Reason’s partner-in-crime, the spelling-impaired Duane Kerzic, master of slightly-out-of-focus-and-crooked photography to chime in with some pearls of wisdom. His “expertise” on the law and police tactics are always enlightening, particularly since the guy looks like he wouldn’t last more than 10 minutes at a police academy without having a heart attack due to being grossly out of shape. Enlighten us oh Dwayne about how we can be better officers, oh ye of Google search mastery.

• 176 Pinandpuller // May 16, 2009 at 11:13 PM

  What if?

  This site is primarily about photography with a minor in police abuses. This posting would not likely be here if your scenario played out.

  Lurker

  I wonder if LE sites commemorate all the photographers that have been killed over the years?

  I feel bad for all of the families of leo’s lost in the line of duty but last time I checked there isn’t a draft.

  It seems like teachers and leo’s are always complaining about pay and working conditions. Nobody is forcing y0u to stay.

  Then there are idiots like Sheepdog that don’t realize that sheepdogs are bonded with a herd shortly after weaning. They actually think that they are a sheep and the sheep aren’t there to nip at anytime they are having a bad day.

• 177 Duane Kerzic // May 16, 2009 at 11:19 PM

  almost wet myself laughing,

  Thanks for showing us just what a difference we are making and how main stream we are.

• 178 Anonymous // May 16, 2009 at 11:37 PM

  Between the “we’re above you” attitude of sheepdog and the “we’re all good” beliefs of John there’s not much reason to trust the police or believe them capable of policing their own.

  Many Americans are fortunate enough not to have to live in this gang member’s neighborhood. If we’re unlucky enough to have a run in with him we can defend ourselves, run, etc. Not so with the criminal or jerk with a badge. Who’s protecting us from them? Not their fellow officers, that’s for sure.

  This criminal cop who was “lucky to be assigned to a station where the sergeant protects him” was assigned to the sex crimes unit despite complaints by both citizens and a fellow officer.

  http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/03D0545P.pdf

  Nothing, and I mean nothing, was off limits for this fine officer of the law who actually went to visit a pregnant woman in the hospital and…..well you’ll have to read this unbelievable story for yourself.

  You would think someone could and should’ve stopped him. After all, they are paid and took an oath to “protect and serve” the community. Well, it turns out the high ups had their own “issues”.

  http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/04D0183P.pdf

• 179 Voice of Reason // May 16, 2009 at 11:59 PM

  Note to “almost wet myself laughing”:

  You said, And now it’s about time for The Voice of Reason’s partner-in-crime, the spelling-impaired Duane Kerzic … to chime in with some pearls of wisdom.

  My “partner-in-crime” ? “wet myself”, you haven’t finished reading the archives. You’re not up to speed on the dramatis personæ. I respect Mr. Kerzic. If I ever make it to his area again, I’d like to share a beer with him. However, for the time being, I’ve blocked his posts. He reminds me too much of something.

  Obviously, you mean that we’re saying similar things. If that’s the case, it’s because we’ve reached similar conclusions independently. It’s certainly not a coordinated attack. I don’t even know what’s being said.

  You informed us, It’s because of people like “Voice of Reason” that this blog now has a wide reputation as being a haven for whack-job cop haters.

  It’s my impression that very few people are reading my posts. I’ve had four people say positive things, but that’s about it. Therefore, I suspect that other posters have had more of an effect.

  Regardless, if the blog has acquired a “wide reputation”, and if this is due partly to the robust nature of its forums, this is likely to please Mr. Miller. Are you able to point us to new sites that are talking about Mr. Miller’s site? If so, I’m sure he’d be pleased to link to them.

  You added, His claim that dentistry is a more dangerous job than law enforcement has to be the most deranged statement ever posted here.

  Actually, no. If you go out on a limb and say something like “ever posted here”, you’re setting the bar fairly high.

  You also said, And you people wonder why cops come here to taunt you.

  I’d need to check to be sure, but isn’t it mostly LEO apologists who are doing the taunting, as opposed to LEOs ? The cast of characters may include a few LEOs with loose screws, but aren’t the serious bashers and trolls largely ordinary citizens? I visualize them as couch-potato types, people who fantasize about becoming LEOs.

  Additionally, you said, Enlighten us oh Dwayne about how we can be better officers, oh ye of Google search mastery.

  Well, yes, Mr. Kerzic does tend to copy and paste things that he finds on Google and Wikipedia. Everybody does that, including me, but I encourage him to spend more time comparing multiple versions and reconciling contradictions before he reuses material.

  I’m more interested in the fact that you’re obviously claiming to be a LEO. Whether or not you are a LEO, you’re more colorful and interesting than some of the genuine LEOs here, and I encourage you to stick around.

  The handle “almost wet myself laughing” is pretty good, by the way. People will remember it.

  You solemnly pronounced, 95% of them are the same 12 cop-haters.

  “wets myself”, may I ask you two serious questions? Is Mr. Mansoor (a former LEO) a “cop-hater” ? Are other LEOs who stop by this site and express reservations about the Code of Silence “cop-haters” ? You come across as somebody who might be willing to answer these questions honestly.

• 180 Anonymous // May 17, 2009 at 12:03 AM

  Have no fear though. According to John this is the “less than one tenth of one percent” of bad apples. What a concidence, they just happened to be concentrated in the same organization. Worry more about your {jaywalking? photo taking? alcohol drinker in a dry county? pot smoking? speeding?) neighbor who is “a thousand times more likely to be convicted of criminal activity” then one of those highly ethical, trustworthy, shining examples for society, a sworn officer of the law.

• 181 Carlos Miller // May 17, 2009 at 12:04 AM

  VoR,

  How did you block Duane’s posts?

• 182 d zent // May 17, 2009 at 12:12 AM

  I’ve heard “wet myself” is aptly named. He looks pretty damned funny in those P.D. -issued Depends, too.

  What an asshole. Let’s hit these guys where it hurts – in court, in the money belt. Hard.

• 183 d zent // May 17, 2009 at 12:16 AM

  And to VoR – the majority of the nation are cop-haters. Most people I know will be nice to a cop out of fear, and no other reason. They earned every ounce of disrespect and trouble coming their way. especially the cowards who won’t turn in the rottenest apples.

  Thanks for an awesome sight, Carlos, and long may you raise the red flag against these cretins with badges.

• 184 Voice of Reason // May 17, 2009 at 12:21 AM

  Note to Carlos Miller and “d zent”: I’ll respond to both of you and anybody else who posts here in one to two hours.

• 185 Anonymous // May 17, 2009 at 1:19 AM

  Voice of Reason. I look forward to reading your posts. I have a question for you about a comment you made in # 90.

  “Conservatives…are unambiguously less compassionate, more vindictive, more physically violent, and less able to perceive physical reality than non-conservatives ”

  Why do you think this is? I’d be interested in reading your explanation. I can understand having strong feelings on an issue, right or wrong “black and white” thinking, but why the aggression? You would think having a (supposed) strong moral code would bring some restraint, but no—it’s just the opposite.

• 186 Voice of Reason // May 17, 2009 at 2:21 AM

  Note to Carlos Miller: You said, “How did you block Duane’s posts?”

  I discussed this issue previously in two different posts. If the matter is of interest, you may wish to review the older posts before proceeding:

  In post 95 on the Party Affiliation thread, I indicated that I was planning to institute a block, and I explained my decision. The link is here.

  In post 101 on the same thread, I wrote about the Free Speech issues involved in my decision. The link is here.

  If you have any concerns related to Free Speech issues, read the second post before commenting.

  You’re apparently asking about the technical issues involved. I use a client-side Greasemonkey script that I wrote for this purpose. Operation is simple: Install Greasemonkey. Make sure the little monkey on the browser taskbar is turned on. Plug the script in. Snap your fingers. Aggravation and stress disappears.  

  There’s no effect on anything but the client. As I said in the second of the two posts listed above, It’s not much different than skipping the sports section of a newspaper to get to the business section, which might be of greater interest and relevance.

  The Greasemonkey script consists essentially of a small block of Javascript code. The code in question supports standard Photography is Not a Crime pages. It steps through list elements on the current page, looks for comments, and removes comments that match specified patterns.

  This kind of script can be used to deal with intractable spam, sockpuppets, and similar nuisances. I discussed a hypothetical example in the second of the two posts listed above.

  Incidentally, I use similar addons and scripts to address problems of numerous types. Whenever I try an unprotected web browser, I’m amazed to see what people are willing to put up with. Readers who’ve tried Adblock Plus and then turned it off accidentally will understand what I’m talking about.

• 187 Voice of Reason // May 17, 2009 at 2:35 AM

  Note to “d zent”: You said, the majority of the nation are cop-haters. Most people I know will be nice to a cop out of fear, and no other reason.

  The first statement is incorrect. The second statement is correct, but it’s too general:

  You should allow for people who’ve gotten to know LEOs in personal contexts and who understand that LEOs are human beings. As a group, these people are more relaxed around the police.

  Additionally, people with dark skin are more cautious around the police than people with light skin. I don’t know if you should call this fear, but they’re certainly more aware of the way things work.

  Finally, people ranked upper-middle class or above are much less nervous around the police. They don’t expect to be knocked down or beaten up for “contempt of cop”. When it happens, they’re usually surprised.

  These are general statements related to groups. Individuals are random and unpredictable.

  You also said, especially the cowards who won’t turn in the rottenest apples.

  This is the key issue. You’re talking about the Code of Silence. If anybody has been reading my posts, they may have figured something out. I’m less than enthusiastic about the Code of Silence, and I’m not a big fan of the officers who support it.

  In a separate post, you said I’ve heard “wet myself” is aptly named.

  “d zent”, sites like this one might eventually contribute to genuine change. One approach is dramatic and, more importantly, effective. People create and distribute photographs, videos, and other records that are embarrassing to the powers that be. If enough people survive the process of creating and distributing records of this type, change is going to occur.

  There’s another approach that’s probably pointless. It involves talking to people. This approach doesn’t work, because people are animals. They’re controlled by triggers, and the triggers can’t be disabled. Not easily, anyway. All the same, I’d like to encourage “almost wet myself laughing” and his friends to stay and talk. The intelligent and sincere ones. I’ve gotten too old to care about engaging bashers and trolls.

• 188 Voice of Reason // May 17, 2009 at 3:13 AM

  Note to Anonymous at #185: You said, “Voice of Reason. I look forward to reading your posts.”

  Thanks. You may be referring to the posts that I promised Mr. Miller and “d zent”, or you may be referring to my posts in general. If it’s the first case, see posts 186 and 187 on this thread. If it’s the second case, I’d be happy to link to posts about subjects of interest.

  I know relatively little about photography, but I’ve written a few posts about other issues that might be useful. Some posts have been off-topic (Bush, elections, my favorite Cat Stevens songs, etc.) and some posts have been on-topic (Jeff Pataky, Code of Silence, Free Speech, probable cause, etc.).

  I’ve also cleaned up the Mariel boatlift page at Wikipedia. That’s an off-topic issue, but it’s Mr. Miller’s off-topic issue. As a side note to Mr. Miller, I’m pleased to report that most of the associated changes have survived (including the link to his article on the subject).

  Before I proceed, I’d like to offer a suggestion. It’s up to you, but it would be easier for everybody if you’d use a handle in the future. If you pick a handle, we’ll be able to think of you as an individual. I like some of the handles that people have selected: ALL BE DAMNED, Ariel, Mister DNA, Pinandpuller, Rob Molecule, genewitch, etc. “almost wet myself laughing” is a bit long, but memorable. However, the handle doesn’t need to be clever. Almost anything would be better than “Anonymous”.

  You referred to some assertions that I’d made about one group of people. You asked me, Why do you think this is? I’d be interested in reading your explanation. I can understand having strong feelings on an issue, right or wrong “black and white” thinking, but why the aggression? You would think having a (supposed) strong moral code would bring some restraint, but no — it’s just the opposite.

  As a starting point, I’d like to direct you to two books. These books aren’t the basis for my thoughts, but there are some useful parallels:

  The Lucifer Principle, by Howard Bloom. Subtitle: A Scientific Expedition into the Forces of History. This book is Bloom’s attempt to address some of the questions that you’ve asked. The book isn’t hard science. Bloom goes too far in places simply because he wants to do so. However, the book is quite interesting. You can get it from Amazon.

  The Lucifer Effect, by Philip Zimbardo. Subtitle: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil. I haven’t read this book yet, but it appears to be about a practical demonstration of the Lucifer Principle. This book is also available from Amazon.

  As far as my own thoughts go, the short version of the answer is that it’s related to evolution, groups (or tribes), bonding, social standing (i.e., pecking order), and territory.

  I’m working on a longer version of the answer. I’ve learned things the hard way over decades. I’ve been trying to decide the best way to explain what I’ve learned. Presently, I’m leaning towards a formal model. Read post 152 on this thread, and you’ll get the general idea. The link is here.

• 189 Pinandpuller // May 17, 2009 at 3:30 AM

  Almost

  I’d rather be judged by 12 cop haters than carried to a patrol car by six of you distracting blow thugs any day.

• 190 jax // May 17, 2009 at 4:27 PM

  it all goes back to one thing: if the wetback wouldn’t have run, he wouldn’t have a headache.

• 191 Vidiot // May 17, 2009 at 4:55 PM

  Interestingly enough, this LEO doesn’t think the cop should’ve kicked Rodriguez.

  The people who peddle the “cop-haters” line here are constructing a straw man. No one’s defending Rodriguez. And none of the people who are doing the name-calling and the typical strawman arguing (“cop haters”, bringing in liberal vs. conservative stuff, et cetera ad nauseam) are actually listening to anyone but themselves. They’re not interested in a debate; they’re interested in shutting debate down and proclaiming their authority. Sound familiar?

  Look: We need good cops. And most of them are. It’s in everyone’s interest: liberal, conservative, all income levels, black, white, et cetera, to have good cops who follow the law in enforcing it, and who do a good and professional job. But I don’t understand the herd mentality — the “Code of Silence” as one commenter here puts it — that leads otherwise good cops to defend bad ones.

• 192 Ariel // May 17, 2009 at 7:13 PM

  Vidiot,

  A number of LEOs consider this distraction technique to be a bad one, as do forces such as the LAPD and the Sheriff’s Dept. By the mentality of some here, those LEOs and Departments must be cop-haters and for the scumbag. They can’t have it both ways.

  It’s a bad technique in terms of public perception also. Some of the LEOs commenting here are more interested in their authority over the rest of us than doing what is right, a not too uncommon failing, and maintaining public confidence. These videos are going to increase and cause more public outrage as to police methods. The PDs need to be proactive, rather than the usual reactive “we did nothing wrong, you don’t understand, you can’t comment, you hate us, etc.”. Oddly, I think the shooting of dogs and the attacking of photographers will probably increase public outrage more than most incidents of brutality on scumbag gangbangers, forgetting that the same technique may be applied to otherwise good citizens.

  The herd mentality is the insular and tribal “us v. them” mentality that too many LEOs have. All their friends are LEOs too and their world becomes very small.

• 193 Voice of Reason // May 17, 2009 at 7:15 PM

  Note to Vidiot: You said, none of the people who are doing the name-calling and the typical strawman arguing (”cop haters”, bringing in liberal vs. conservative stuff, et cetera …) are actually listening to anyone but themselves. They’re not interested in a debate; they’re interested in shutting debate down and proclaiming their authority.

  You’re being polite, but the problem with being polite in this case is that you’re being vague.

  It doesn’t appear that you’re referring to me. I’ve brought in “liberal vs. conservative stuff”, but I’m not “interested in shutting debate down”. However, if there’s any question about this, I am interested in determining if debate is, or is not, even possible. This thread has triggered low-level responses in people, and I’ve certainly written about that.

  You also said, But I don’t understand the herd mentality — the “Code of Silence” as one commenter here puts it — that leads otherwise good cops to defend bad ones.

  People need to focus on this problem. It’s a fundamental issue. That’s why I’ve talked about things that some people believe are off-topic. Take a look at the books that I mentioned in post 188 on this thread. They’re just a starting point, but you might find them interesting. On a related note, you’re more correct about the “herd mentality” part than you may realize.

  Incidentally, the U.S. Department of Justice uses the term “Code of Silence” as well. If you’d like to read a Department of Justice study about the subject, the link is here. It’s a PDF file.

  I’ve got a related question for the LEO apologists on this thread. Are the people at the Department of Justice “cop haters” ? They talk about the Code of Silence. Therefore, by the working-backwards approaches to reasoning that LEO apologists often use, the Department of Justice must be “batshit street persons” with “tinfoil hats”, “clueless sheep”, “cop bashers”, “cop haters”, “idiots”, “idiot liberals”, “hug-a-thugs”, “deranged” people, and “fringe loonybin” characters. They ought to clean house and put good, solid Americans in there. The kind of Americans who know their place.

  LEOs are also familiar with the term “Code of Silence”, though I believe some of them refer to it simply as the “code”. Karl Mansoor (a former LEO) has written about the Code of Silence both here and on his own site.

• 194 Carlos Miller // May 17, 2009 at 9:07 PM

  When I get accused of being a cop-hater on this site, it reminds me of my trial when the prosecutor and the judge both accused me of being biased against cops.

  But that is irrelevant. Whether we hate cops or not has no bearing on how they act. We don’t control them. And neither do our views.

  Those accusations are the real “distraction blows” because they take the spotlight away from themselves and shine it on us, leaving us to defend ourselves on whether we hate cops or not.

  And they know that. The only reason they even resort to that is because they have nothing else. The prosecutor and the judge in my trial knew they couldn’t prove I was standing in the street, so they resorted to telling the jury that I was biased against cops.

  Whatever. We’ll see how the appeal judges rule on that.

  http://carlosmiller.com/2009/03/30/the-moment-of-judgment-has-arrived/

  Vidiot,

  That link you provided depicts the best explanation and it’s refreshing it came from cop.

  http://pepperspray.me/2009/05/aint-that-a-kick-in-the-head

  Yes. He absolutely deserved a beat down. But the cop was absolutely wrong for doing it. It’s not up to us–the police–to administer physical punishment.

  In any use of force, there are windows of opportunity that open and close. Cops must be disciplined enough to strike when those windows are open, and stop when they close.

  If the suspect had continued to flee–or fight–the window would have been open. As it turned out, the knucklehead gave up. When he proned himself out, the window of opportunity closed.

  Here’s the unfortunate aftermath: as we speak, opportunistic lawyers are making their play. The suspect will sue and become a millionaire. The cop in question will probably lose his job. And that’s a real kick in the head.

• 195 Ariel // May 17, 2009 at 9:17 PM

  Carlos,

  It’s no different than the abuse of the terms racist or homophobe for example. It’s used to put you on the defensive so that they don’t have to deal with your arguments, don’t have to justify theirs. Sidney Hook called such terms “epithets of abuse”, he is a great read and I recommend him.

  Ah yes. The fortune teller rationale. “I can see the future therefore I am correct.” That’s from Sheepdog, #156. Guess there are a few LEOs that disagree with his authoritarian pronouncements. When he retires he’ll find out what it is to be a sheep when he runs into a cop just like him. I’m sure he’ll bleat quite loudly. They just don’t get it.

• 196 Pinandpuller // May 18, 2009 at 1:18 AM

  Wow, how did six post disappear?

  So what’s more likely-getting hit by lightning or a cop?

  Which one is brighter?

  One is an act of God; one acts like a god.

  I may only be amusing myself tonight but after midnight that’s all that counts.

  If you got beaten by a cop today-thank an inadequate penis!

• 197 Pinandpuller // May 18, 2009 at 1:23 AM

  Hey-they came back! Thanks Sheepdog-you hearded them posts right good! You showed them who’s boss.

• 198 Voice of Reason // May 18, 2009 at 2:37 AM

  Note to Pinandpuller: You said, Wow, how did six posts disappear? So what’s more likely — getting hit by lightning or a cop? Which one is brighter? One is an act of God; one acts like a god. I may only be amusing myself tonight but after midnight that’s all that counts. If you got beaten by a cop today — thank an inadequate penis! Hey — they came back! Thanks Sheepdog — you herded them posts right good! You showed them who’s boss.

  If you’re trying to make up for lost time, it’s O.K. to pace yourself. Or is this just a warm-up exercise? If so, I’m looking forward to future posts.  

  Are you a Steve Aylett fan? I believe that you’d enjoy his books:

  The truth is easiest to disprove — its defenses are down.

  The law is where reality goes to die. The cops stood expecting our amusement to be paralyzed in deference. Many had confused their profession with full human identity. I thought a few had guns, and asked someone why. “To assure us that nice people carry guns too.”

  Freedom in cyberspace would be fine and dandy if we happened to live there.

  There was a time when the extension of illegality to innocent acts could be used to manipulate men. But when guilt is no longer felt over acts of genuine criminality, what hope of instilling guilt in the innocent?

  Authority takes everything. It nails the puddle of wine to the table. The average legislator is driven by the desire to cool his molten ignorance into some lasting obstacle.

  Organized religion added Jesus to the food groups. The past is killed off by American marksmen. The obligation to possess money, the forced flowers of convention, replicated controversy, canned gunfire, the ordeal venom of litigation, the dwindling comb-over of western culture — here, written in blood and English, is the hobbling of humanity.

  At what time are people so reckless with meaning? When only the utterly powerful can risk an act of kindness.

  When I was a kid the devout sang a chorus of subordination and villains wore masks to keep off the glare of our envy. I thought things couldn’t get any worse — that’s how young I was.

  I’ve learned that a man must go where he’s welcome if he wishes for conviviality, and where he’s unwelcome if he wishes for mayhem and adventure.

• 199 Pinandpuller // May 18, 2009 at 4:11 PM

  I read Heinlen, Bova and Orson Scott Card so I will check that guy out-sounds like he has interesting phrasing.

  It’s easy to see what Mo Dowd reads-it ends up unattributed in her columns!

• 200 Voice of Reason // May 18, 2009 at 5:50 PM

  Note to Pinandpuller: You said, “I read Heinlen, Bova and Orson Scott Card so I will check that guy out — sounds like he has interesting phrasing.”

  Aylett’s wording is the point. Don’t expect to find coherent plots. In fact, in some cases, don’t expect to find plots at all.

  Additionally, the quality of Aylett’s books ranges up and down the scale. Start with Atom, which is one of his better efforts. Look for the book with a piranha on the cover. The book is about a detective named Atom, and the piranha is his partner Jed.

  You remind me of Aylett occasionally, which is why I brought him up. I don’t know if you’ll find his books worthwhile, but I thought I’d mention the similarity.

  Aylett’s books aren’t S.F. They’re essentially drug trips. However, since you’re an S.F. fan, here’s a quote from Atom about technology in Aylett’s universe:

  Modern cloaking devices worked on a principle of denial allow. Unlike thermoptic camouflage, the denial cloak made a reading of whatever the onlooker could not afford to believe and sent out a microwave pulse mimicking that object. The onlooker refused to perceive it.

  Aylett’s Bigot Hall is pretty good too. I like the scene where the narrator reaches down into a model that turns out to be the world he himself is inhabiting.

  S.F. fans may enjoy portions of Aylett’s Lint. I’m referring to Lint, as opposed to And Your Point Is? Both books are about an S.F. writer named Jeff Lint.

  There’s a chapter in Lint that discusses a lost Star Trek: TOS episode. Here’s an excerpt that’ll give you the general idea:

  When the cause of the singularity is explained to them by a kindly exposition alien, Spock suggests that they open the airlocks with a semipermeable containment field in place… Kirk reluctantly agrees to allow a few minor ideas aboard from outside — a sacrifice necessary to equalize the pressure… Spock [asks himself] “If you had an idea that was complexly ironic enough, could it become independently self-aware?” … Uhura calmly gives Kirk a week’s notice, her thoughts elsewhere.

• 201 Anonymous // May 18, 2009 at 8:27 PM

  “But I don’t understand the herd mentality — the “Code of Silence” as one commenter here puts it — that leads otherwise good cops to defend bad ones”
  In my book these aren’t good cops. They may not be the killer bees or the queen bee but they’re still part of the hive and will do nothing if you get “stung” by one of these pests.

• 202 Anonymous // May 18, 2009 at 8:46 PM

  Voice of Reason. Thanks for the reply. I read the link you posted about the “The Lucifer Effect” in another thread. I am familiar with the Stanford prison experiment and hope to be able to purchase more books in the future. I’m guessing these books are in the same vein as “Becoming Evil: How Ordinary Men Commit Acts Of Genocide”.

  “it’s related to evolution, groups (or tribes), bonding, social standing (i.e., pecking order), and territory”

  Ironic how the enforcers of the law—which is based on personal responsibility—have none of the latter and choose instead to think in terms of “tribal” group think.

  I thought your post on triggers (supported by the book “Blink”) was interesting because I’m continuously shocked by some of the hostile, knee jerk responses of people defending cops. Worse, they have zero ability to consider all the facts involved. They just grab on to one piece of information with the tenacity of a pit bull.

  The only “problem” I have with blaming group dynamics, Lol even when they are to blame, is that this approach can overlook the guilty or disturbed individuals within the group….

• 203 Disgusted by the Hate // May 18, 2009 at 9:15 PM

  Of course this site is filled with cop haters. You’re like the anti-Semite sites that keep ranting about Bernard Madoff. A tiny minority of Jews are swindlers, but all they can talk about is the “greedy Jew” Madoff.

  You people are exactly the same way here. A tiny minority of cops are dirty but all this site does is emphasize negative stories about the police without talking about the the vast majority of positive stories.

  This site is as biased and bigoted as any KKK website. You’ll never open any kind of dialog with the police because you people can’t get over your narrow-mindedness. You can’t improve anything because you’re strident and arrogant.

• 204 Voice of Reason // May 18, 2009 at 10:50 PM

  Note to Anonymous at #202: Is this the same Anonymous as before? If so, consider using a handle.

  You said, I’m guessing these books are in the same vein as “Becoming Evil: How Ordinary Men Commit Acts Of Genocide”.

  Yes.

  I haven’t read Waller’s “Becoming Evil”, but it apparently presents a model that’s more or less a superset of the model used by Bloom in “The Lucifer Principle”. Bloom’s book discusses issues that you’ll find in Waller’s book in the sections on the “ancestral shadow”.

  Incidentally, one or two posts on this site have confused “The Lucifer Principle” with “The Lucifer Effect”. It doesn’t matter. They’re both useful books, and “Becoming Evil” looks good too.

  You mentioned Gladwell’s “Blink”. I’ve read that one, and I recommend it. I’m not saying that I agree with everything in “Blink”, but Gladwell’s books are interesting.

  You added, “I’m continuously shocked by some of the hostile, knee jerk responses of people defending cops. Worse, they have zero ability to consider all the facts involved. They just grab on to one piece of information with the tenacity of a pit bull.”

  Everybody has hostile, knee-jerk responses to various things. Additionally, it’s normal to “grab on to” things that strike a chord. Your middle statement is the crucial one: “they have zero ability to consider all the facts involved”.

  The thing that distinguishes us from the animals is our ability to reason. Reason isn’t natural. It’s something that we need to struggle with. Science and debate are the tools that work. Regrettably, relatively few people know how to use either tool.

  You closed with, The only “problem” I have with blaming group dynamics, Lol even when they are to blame, is that this approach can overlook the guilty or disturbed individuals within the group.

  I don’t “blame” evolution and group dynamics. They’re a part of Science that helps me to understand people, and to predict behavior in some cases.

  “Blame” is related to responsibility and guilt. Different level. It’s what trials are for.

• 205 Voice of Reason // May 18, 2009 at 10:53 PM

  Note to Disgusted by the Hate: You said, “Of course this site is filled with cop haters… You people are exactly the same way here. A tiny minority of cops are dirty but all this site does is emphasize negative stories about the police without talking about the the vast majority of positive stories.”

  “Disgusted by the Hate”, try to rise above your animal instincts. You’re using a standard argument reflexively and without any real understanding of what you’re saying. It’s “Polly want a cracker”, but it’s about real-life issues, life and death issues in some cases.

  In particular, you’re using the “few bad apples” argument. You don’t seem to be able to comprehend that the argument is irrelevant. I’ve written about this argument before. If there’s a rational being inside your head, and hopefully he or she is present at some level, please read my post on the subject. The link is here.

  You closed with, “You’ll never open any kind of dialog with the police because you people can’t get over your narrow-mindedness. You can’t improve anything because you’re strident and arrogant.”

  First, plenty of LEOs and former LEOs post here, and some of them come across as rational. You might find Karl Mansoor’s posts interesting. He’s a former police officer. Do you believe that Mr. Mansoor, a former police officer, is a “cop hater” ?

  Second, speaking for myself, I’m “arrogant”, but I no longer apologize for it. I was humble for most of my life, and it never got me anything but kicked in the teeth. For whatever time I’ve got left, I’m going to speak honestly.

  Third, you don’t come across as “strident”. However, as a general rule, apologists such as yourself are the most irrational, harsh, vindictive, and “strident” people on the planet. It’s related to evolutionary forces. See the books mentioned in my previous post.

  I’ll add that apologists aren’t individuals. Although you aren’t “strident”, you personally come across as an automaton. As I said in another post, people like you are no more significant than the cow that went into my last hamburger, because you’re interchangeable with a thousand others.

  It goes beyond superficial similarities. Apologists are usually cookie-cutter clones. If somebody criticizes the actions of an individual police officer, or if they criticize the Code of Silence, the culture that makes abuses possible, the trigger is activated, and the standard script is executed:

  You’re just cop bashers, you’re just cop haters, you’re just liberals, police are brave, police are heroes, it’s a thin blue line that needs our support, you never talk about the good cops, what about the cops who die in shootouts, it’s just a few bad apples, the victim was “asking for it”, the victim was “looking for trouble”, the victim didn’t show respect, the victim had a “tramp stamp” so she was just white trash, etc.

  On the rare occasions that one of you is able to focus on relevant issues, I’m surprised and pleased.

• 206 Pinandpuller // May 18, 2009 at 11:54 PM

  And Lt J Kelley beget Sheepdog…
  And Sheepdog beget Almost Wetmyself…
  And Almost Wetmyself beget Disgusted By the Hate…and so it was

  re “You’ll never open any dialog with the police…”

  DON”T TALK TO THE POLICE!!! DON”T EVER TALK TO THE POLICE!!! EVER!!!

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik

• 207 Pinandpuller // May 18, 2009 at 11:58 PM

  VOR

  Sounds like if Douglas Adams wrote “Trainspotting” while watching “A Clockwork Orange” with Hunter S Thomson fetus in fitu.

• 208 Anonymous // May 19, 2009 at 12:17 AM

  “You You You”
  #203 If you people had half a brain you would realize that you get back what you give; what goes around comes around. Cops in general have earned the hatred (i.e. disgust and distrust) of most of the public and “cop haters” on here.
  To compare those who have a problem with bad cops to racists is comical on many levels. First, unlike a profession people don’t get to choose their race. It is cops who behave more like a (hate) group then a culture or race. No one ethnic group is as insular and self righteous as police.
  Far more then a tiny minority of cops are bad; this site doesn’t even post 1/100 of the stories out there. If cops would start aggressively policing their own and respecting the people who pay their salaries there wouldn’t be sites like this in the first place.

  “you people can’t get over your narrow-mindedness. You can’t improve anything because you’re strident and arrogant”

  Talking about yourself and your brothers again? This is YOU not us. Not everyone is like you, that’s why “we” dislike you.

• 209 Pinandpuller // May 19, 2009 at 12:22 AM

  DBH

  If you really knew what you were talking about you would know that only a small minority of anti-Semitic sites are talking about Bernie Madoff so get your facts straight!

• 210 Voice of Reason // May 19, 2009 at 12:23 AM

  Note to Pinandpuller: You said, Sounds like if Douglas Adams wrote “Trainspotting” while watching “A Clockwork Orange” with Hunter S Thomson fetus in fitu.

  Pinandpuller, nobody is ever going to accuse you of cookie-cutter posts.

• 211 Voice of Reason // May 19, 2009 at 12:38 AM

  Note to Anonymous: I told “Disgusted by the Hatred” myself that he or she came across as an automaton with limited reasoning abilities. However, “Disgusted” did seem to be sincere. I’d like to encourage people like this to stay and talk, provided that they can move beyond the simple parroting of scripts.

  There’s no need for Mr. Miller’s site to become the flip side of the Conservative Cave, a dull and repetitious echo chamber where dissent isn’t tolerated. These forums are a chance to rescue people from a dimly-lit place.

• 212 Anonymous // May 19, 2009 at 12:39 AM

  From the Injustice In Seattle (soon to be Injustice Everywhere) site

  First, officers, let me ask you this, do you find articles critical of your fellow officers who have been found to have committed acts of misconduct in your police union newsletters?

  Probably not, huh?

  Well, do you guys see articles critical of officers who were convicted of breaking the law at the websites run by your fellow cops?

  Nah?

  Do you expect that any of the thousands of organizations and associations out there dedicated to support police officers to also support the victims of police abuses?

  Nope?

  Do you see those officer memorial sites also contributing money to make memorials to innocent people murdered by cops?

  Unlikely, huh? Then let me ask you this…

  Why do you expect to see one of the handful (I could probably count the legitimate ones that haven’t been scared off by threats from officers on my hands) of sites dedicated to helping and advocating for the victims of police misconduct to praise you guys and ignore all the stories of police misconduct and of officers who get away with it?

  Why is it that, with all of the billions of dollars at the disposal of all these groups that support police officers, that you feel the need to attack the unfunded efforts of a few to help the people who are victimized by the worst of your profession?

  Why is it that you are all so thin skinned and fragile of ego that you feel affronted when articles about acts of brutality performed by one of your fellow officers is posted anywhere in print or on electronic media that you feel the need to threaten those who simply report the truth?

  Yeah, that wouldn’t make sense, would it?

  So, I’ll make it clear for you officers, like the one who spent taxpayer time to criticize this site and the one who goes by “Bad Boy In Blue” from Tempe AZ who thinks it’s a good idea to try and defend bad cops by slandering their victims…

  This site isn’t here to sing your praises, you have multitudes of others who do that for you all the time.

  It is here to support victims of police misconduct and work towards making it harder for the worst of your profession to keep giving all of you a bad name through their unpunished misdeeds.

  So, if you come here to trash someone just because they claim to be a victim of police misconduct, I’ll delete your comment.

  If you come here to criticize me for criticizing the police officers who do bad things and those who defend those bad acts, I will ignore you.

  If you come here expecting someone with rose-colored glasses to fall for your sob stories about how we should ignore police misconduct because cops have it so hard, even when you have so many resources at your disposal and your victims have none… you will be sorely disappointed.

  If you want someone to defend you no matter what horrible things you do, go talk to your union rep or your mom…
  http://injusticeinseattle.blogspot.com/2009/04/important-notice-for-law-enforcement.html

• 213 Pinandpuller // May 19, 2009 at 2:18 AM

  VOR

  I have come to the conclusion that posting to people like disgusted is akin to playing chess against the computer.

• 214 Anonymous // May 19, 2009 at 9:58 AM

  Voice of Reason
  I agree dissent is good. I question whether or not these cops really want to (or can) learn anything, or if their ego and defenses are so strong they can only lash out at those who *dare* criticize the police. How do you reason with the unreasonable?

• 215 Voice of Reason // May 19, 2009 at 1:51 PM

  Note to Anonymous: You said, “if their ego and defenses are so strong they can only lash out at those who *dare* criticize the police. How do you reason with the unreasonable?”

  You can’t “reason with the unreasonable”. I’ve said this myself. In most cases, you’re not even dealing with legitimate dissent. If people are unable to perceive that their favorite arguments (Cops are brave! Why aren’t you talking about the good cops? It’s just a few bad apples!) aren’t relevant, they’re animals in a literal sense, and nothing more.

  I have lost patience with the “few bad apples” argument, by the way. I’ve been hearing the “few bad apples” argument for more years than some of the people reading this post have been alive, and “a few bad apples” isn’t the point. I’d like to refer people again to my post on the subject. The link is here.

  Additionally, I’m sometimes irritated by the use of arguments of the type “Clowns! Cop bashers! Cop haters! Liberals! Moonbats!” My arguments are occasionally relevant. They deserve a more focused response than that.

  I’ve discovered that if somebody manages to get under my skin, I enjoy the process of shredding their arguments into small pieces. I like to watch the pieces waft away in the breeze.

  For example, see my responses to “Don” on the Obama Torture Photos thread. The thread is linked here. “Don” gave me a chance to say things that I’ve wanted to say for quite a while. He came across as smug and sanctimonious, so I took him apart and I found it pleasant to do so. Hopefully, I did a good job. Of course, if you’re on the other side of that particular issue, perhaps you and I will discuss the matter as well.  

  If anybody does read the “Don” discussion, note that the posts are out of sync in one or two places. You’ll need to read the entire discussion in order to make sense of it.

  If somebody is sincere, or if they appear to be sincere, I don’t believe it’s productive to “bash” them or harass them. It doesn’t accomplish much except to confirm the mistaken impression that forums of this type are simply the flip side of the Conservative Cave.

  If somebody like “Don” tells me that I “miss the obvious”, I’ll double-check my facts. If I’m correct about the facts, I’m going to point out that I’m correct, and I’m not going to use gloves when I do so. I see no reason to show respect to smug and sanctimonious apologists. They’re animals, and I’ll farm them like animals for points worth dissecting. Apologists are useful for this purpose.

  If somebody such as “Almost Wet Myself Laughing” or “Disgusted by the Hatred” makes pointless observations, but comes across as more sincere than “Don” did, I’ll address the pointless observations, and I’ll encourage them to stay.

  Originality is important too. Take another look at “Almost Wet Myself Laughing’s” previous post. He didn’t know what he was talking about, but he put some effort into the post.

  “Wet Myself’s” reference to “whack-job cop-haters” was a standard and tedious LEO apologist talking point. However, I liked the way that he characterized me as less together than a “batshit street person with a tinfoil hat”. If he demonstrated the ability to focus on relevant issues, he might have potential.

  Of course, that’s the crucial point. My experience tells me that kneejerk reactions in either direction aren’t going to go away. If somebody appears to be sincere or at least original, though, it might be a mistake to dismiss them based solely on one or two posts.

  Note to Pinandpuller: You said, “I have come to the conclusion that posting to people like disgusted is akin to playing chess against the computer”.

  I’m not sure if you mean that it’s predictable, or that it’s pointless. Either way, this might be correct most of the time. However, it’s possible that there might be surprises occasionally.

• 216 Rob Molecule // May 19, 2009 at 3:42 PM

  I hope all the police defenders are right and there are just a few bad apples. But these bad apples are a big problem. It seems that no matter how bad these apples are, the law enforcement community will still rush to defend them. Yes, sites like this will exist to point out police corruption. We don’t see sites pointing out every time a gas station attendant or other random job holders break the law, because there is no double standard with them. Police are in a position of power that needs to have a high standard. Corruption is inevitable, not because there is necessarily anything wrong with all police, but that such power just becomes to easy to abuse. I want only to see people who abuse that power held accountable, and held to the high standard that goes with such an important position.

• 217 Pinandpuller // May 19, 2009 at 11:39 PM

  VOR

  My main point is that it’s predictable most of the time-but it can be fun as well as instructive time to time. It just seems like there is a spark of humanity missing from the equation.

• 218 Pinandpuller // May 19, 2009 at 11:41 PM

  Rob Molecule

  Gas station attendants don’t usually get medals for doing their jobs.

• 219 Voice of Reason // May 20, 2009 at 1:01 AM

  Note to Pinandpuller: You said, “It just seems like there is a spark of humanity missing from the equation”.

  Yes. I might be misunderstanding you. However, when I mentioned the “pointless” side of it in my previous post, I was referring to this issue. Additionally, I’ve brought up automatons several times, and I’ve been talking about a similar issue there.

• 220 mrqcrew // May 20, 2009 at 11:43 AM

  He’s a minority, gangster and an ex-con. He’s less than human – some would say.

  I was raised in So. Cal. I live across the country now. Police are all the same anywhere. Those in authority have a sense of superiority, and when someone violates the law, they take it personally, and bet the hell out of him. …especially if it’s a young, minority, gangster, ex-con.

• 221 Rob Molecule // May 20, 2009 at 1:15 PM

  Pinandpuller:
  I just picked out a random everyday job because I have seen that argument by police offers before; that it is unfair to single them out and you never see the media singling out (insert random job here) for crimes they commit. I just think that argument is bullshit.

• 222 Anonymous // May 20, 2009 at 3:48 PM

  I agree Rob it’s pure bs. Another example of stupidity from the pig forces. Has anyone ever read cops opinions on people on welfare? They are such hypocrites—cops are the biggest welfare recipients and abusers of “the system” of all. First they get benefits (and sometimes pay) which belies their level of education. Then they’re lucky to even get a slap on the wrist for stuff that would get everybody else fired. Do they clean up their own mess? No. They will whine and complain with a fever pitch when one of their own gets fired for ANYTHING. Who pays for all this? Do they even get a cut in salary when they mess up big time? No, they get a paid vacation, and the taxpayers foot the bill for their lawsuits. They are truly “pigs” in every single definition of the word. Unbelievable.

• 223 Voice of Reason // May 20, 2009 at 5:01 PM

  Note to Anonymous: You said, “Another example of stupidity from the pig forces… They are truly “pigs” in every single definition of the word. Unbelievable.”

  I don’t wish to aggravate anybody. In fact, I’d prefer that people would like me and think of me kindly, though perhaps this is asking too much.  

  However, I’d like to reiterate a point I’ve made several times, which is that these forums shouldn’t become the flip side of the Conservative Cave.

  Welcome all viewpoints. Invite people in. Then smash their points to pieces. Grind the pieces into smaller pieces. Feed the smaller pieces to the ducks and chickens. Point out that people need to do better with their arguments. Explain that they’ve failed to demonstrate they’re anything more than automatons. Don’t use insults that are no more reasoned or intelligent than the typical “basher” insults they hurl at you. This kind of thing makes it much easier for serious readers to dismiss you.

• 224 Duane Kerzic // May 20, 2009 at 7:42 PM

  Check this out. Kind of reminds me of this story, I’ll bet the outcome for the officers is about the same, http://www.rantrave.com/Rant/Birmingham-Police-Beating-5-Cops-Fired.aspx

• 225 dumbass // May 22, 2009 at 1:21 PM

  Ok how many of you quoting what is standard legal police procedure are cops huh ? None. I thought as much.

  Yes the use of force is justified by police in an attempt to subdue, restrain or arrest a suspect. There is NO cause for kicking a subdued, held-at-gunpoint suspect. None whatsoever.

  Why not taser him if they felt he might resist?

• 226 Mel // May 24, 2009 at 9:09 PM

  I was just wondering what kind of person becomes a policeman? I am also concerned about the kind of training that our government does to turn out identical cops. They all seem to come out looking and acting the same. They are all brain washed to act and look the same. They lose their human triats and act more like mechanical robots.
  I was watching another video of a man that was ejected from a van after a chase. The man looked dead after he was ejected but he was just unconcious. Five cops ran up to him as he laid on the ground and started kicking and hitting him with clubs. All Five of them at once. It was the worse thing I have ever seen. It was worse that the Rodney King beating. It made me feel bad to see what my country has turned into. Men we pay to uphold the law turning into horrible animals. The man had just been in a horrible accident the the cops were kicking his lifeless body. I don’t care what kind of crime he did, he didn’t deserve that. Not even a dog deserves that. It was just horrible and it made me sick.

• 227 john // May 30, 2009 at 7:26 PM

  I agree that we shouldn’t make things easy for violent criminals. We probably shouldn’t make them easy for the guy they arrested, either. They should be made cellmates for a few years. Justice served.

• 228 Wize Guy // Jul 6, 2009 at 4:44 PM

  this is why the cops get no respect from the citizens. period ….

• 229 Rob Molecule // Jul 29, 2009 at 5:45 PM

  http://www.policeone.com/legal/articles/1860601-Calif-gang-member-kicked-by-police-suing-for-5M/

• 230 fdv // Sep 4, 2009 at 1:45 AM

  Air Jordan 1 men’s shoes

  Air Jordan Men Embroidery 11+23

• 231 Ronald // Feb 17, 2010 at 3:43 AM

  What a dumb action from those cops, they create hate. Ofcourse the driver was doing stupid things, but if you know cops act like that, you’ve got a reaon to drive like he did to get away from the pigs.

• 232 adam // Feb 17, 2010 at 5:06 AM

  People, whether criminals or not, aren’t suppose to fear cops. They should be fearful of the consequences for their actions though.

• 233 Florida // Feb 17, 2010 at 11:04 AM

  Exactly. They create the situation then they play the victim. This case might not be the best example, as this man wasn’t exactly a fine upstanding member of society. But like others have said if they’ll do it to one they’ll do it to another. In their minds if they wrong someone they must be scum who had it coming. No sense of right or wrong.

• 234 USMC // Mar 7, 2010 at 3:53 AM

  WAHHHH WAHHHHH THE PO PO ARE MEAN, OMG THEY KICKED HIM IN THE FACE

  Stfu hippies cry more

  /spit

Leave a Comment

Name

Mail

Website