Well....shit like this does not help the public perception....LINK

Youtube video of incident: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIhueN-vL-M

Full report (go to page 5 for description of action): LINK

Vertically stuns.....decentralizes.....directs his right hand ....

It's never pretty
 

Use of force rarely looks good on film. The camera lenses gives a much wider perspective of the incident than the officer sees. In this video the suspect is obviously non-compliant and the report articulates probable cause that he was obstructing another officer from taking someone into custody.

The suspect and officer appeared fairly evenly matched in size and strength. Even when the suspect was on his back he was not effectively in custody. The officer did a great job of delivering strikes to the suspect causing him to turn away so he could be maneuvered onto his stomach. Once he was secured the strikes stopped and the applicating of force was over. That is as clean as it gets with a combative person at bar close. If my wife called the police for an intruder breaking into my house I would want that officer to respond.

Thanks for this thread. I showed the West Memphis video at roll call yesterday.

How about this one, then: http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/07/us/cal...otape-beating/

Going to fists seems to make it personal.

Pat

In this example it is harder to determine appropriateness. The video reports the trooper received a call about this women on the freeway. The reason she was out there is unknown and the possibilities are many and the officer was alone at the time. The supervisor is right in that once the facts are known a determination can be made. When police agencies decline to give opinions about appropriateness of a police action, it's more about letting the government systems in place do their jobs than any ill will or wall of silence. That is my opinion and experience.

On a side note, I feel it will be the norm for officers to wear body-cams within the next five years or so. The perspective of the officer will be clearer as well as the intent of suspects.

Have you ever heard of an LEO being convicted in criminal court of assault, ADW, or homicide relating to an on-duty incident?

Are officers ever held personally financially responsible for their actions, or are the taxpayers always on the hook for the incidents?

TR

I am not an attorney so this my opinion on the question. Criminal prosecution of police officers related to use of force cases are rare. If an officer is prosecuted in criminal court it usually stems from egregious conduct like extortion or other crimes where the criminal intent can be proved by prosecutors. The proverbial bad apple if you will.

The majority of excessive use of force cases take the civil path of the 4th Amendment principles of unreasonable search and seizure. The suspect or suspect's family allege that the force applied was an unreasonable seizure, violating their constitutional rights. When these suits are filled, they most always include the agency and the individual officers involved. In essence they are bringing civil action against the government and then the officer personally.

Who foots the bill is dependent on the circumstances. Most agencies have legal council as part of operating expenses. They pay a fixed amount that gives them council in the event a suit is filed. Where it gets dicey is they can choose to officially support the officers actions or not. If they support them, their defense is covered under the agencies plan. If the officer is not supported, the cost of their defense is their responsibility. Most police unions collect dues and use that money to contract with a law firm for legal council for their members.

How about lying
 

How about lying...

Durham cops lied about 911 calls

http://www.indyweek.com/indyweek/dur...nt?oid=4201004

"...When Beck took the witness stand, he admitted to fabricating the 911 story in order to enter the house. Beck testified that his true intent was to serve a warrant, though he never produced the warrant in the courtroom.

Beck further testified that the 911 ruse was permitted under a department policy in cases where domestic violence is alleged, recalled Morgan Canady, the defendant's lawyer...."

When cops lie it's a deal breaker with the agency and the courts. Most cases of false reporting are discovered by the agency. Once the allegation is substantiated the officer can no longer be viewed as a credible witness in court. Agencies are required to notify prosecutors when this happens. The officer is then either let go or resigns.

Whether the officer is charged with a crime based on the lie is up to the prosecuting authority. The ex-officer is open to civil liability as well.

Justin Volpe. NYPD got 30 years, and cost NYC 8.75 million payout to Abner Louima.

I believe the federal government is behind some of the anti local police sentiment. What better way to cause a rift between the two forces capable of stopping government overreach, than to coerce people into believing local police are the problem by making bizarre statements on websites they know anti big government advocates communicate.

As long as there's a blue wall(code) of silence, LEOs will be be viewed in a suspect way by the public in general.