3 Arkansas officers involved in violent arrest are identified

[DragonGunner]

Looks like a good jack booting to me....whats the problem.....?....I mean the video clearly shows all 3
police officers with handcuffs in their hands trying to get them on his wrists.....oh wait....3 cops and they all forgot their handcuffs that day. Guess it happens?

 

[Denny347]

I consider you a reasonable man and a stand up guy and professional. But under what circumstances would this be acceptable behavior for the officers? At what point is stomping on them and slamming their head into the pavement repeatedly acceptable behavior?

Im honestly interested in how that would be justified and under what circumstances. No trolling or disrespect intended. I honestly want to know how this would be justified?

As a civilian, I see 3 men who need to be shown the door at least. Maybe more.

Each officer has to justify each strike and they are justified/excessive independently. Sort of like Rodney King. They were justified until the last few strikes, then they were not. However, what was the context surrounding the use of force? What did the officers know, were told, or observed, prior to the use of force? It appears that the suspect was face down with his hands under him. That is a tough spot to hands from if they don't comply. I know we teach knee strikes to the torso, strikes to the upper back, ect, in those situations. In reality, there are arm leverage techniques to handle this but most academies don't have enough time to teach officers to perform these at any competent level. So I have no issue with striking a person who is refusing to give up their hands that they are laying on. As far as the "slamming" of the head, I saw punches to the top/side of the head. Those were during the same time frame that he was laying on his hands. Again, what is their training in regards to that? They very well could be following it? A strike to the head in this instance is not automatic excessive force. Now, just as I stood there and exclaimed that watching this video ALONE isn't enough to condemn these officers actions, it is not enough to SUPPORT them as well. I am just giving you some insight as to why it COULD be justified. A more thorough investigation might conclude they were excessive, time will tell.
Final thought and quote I like to use in these instances, "Ineffective force looks identical to excessive force to the untrained eye." Those strikes were mostly ineffective as he refused to give up his hands for most of time. However, in the days where these tactics are taught in a 40-50 hr timeframe, this is what you get. Easy to teach but woefully ineffective techniques.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Each officer has to justify each strike and they are justified/excessive independently. Sort of like Rodney King. They were justified until the last few strikes, then they were not. However, what was the context surrounding the use of force? What did the officers know, were told, or observed, prior to the use of force? It appears that the suspect was face down with his hands under him. That is a tough spot to hands from if they don't comply. I know we teach knee strikes to the torso, strikes to the upper back, ect, in those situations. In reality, there are arm leverage techniques to handle this but most academies don't have enough time to teach officers to perform these at any competent level. So I have no issue with striking a person who is refusing to give up their hands that they are laying on. As far as the "slamming" of the head, I saw punches to the top/side of the head. Those were during the same time frame that he was laying on his hands. Again, what is their training in regards to that? They very well could be following it? A strike to the head in this instance is not automatic excessive force. Now, just as I stood there and exclaimed that watching this video ALONE isn't enough to condemn these officers actions, it is not enough to SUPPORT them as well. I am just giving you some insight as to why it COULD be justified. A more thorough investigation might conclude they were excessive, time will tell.
Final thought and quote I like to use in these instances, "Ineffective force looks identical to excessive force to the untrained eye." Those strikes were mostly ineffective as he refused to give up his hands for most of time. However, in the days where these tactics are taught in a 40-50 hr timeframe, this is what you get. Easy to teach but woefully ineffective techniques.

For the head slam, about 15 seconds or a bit more into the video below. Guy looks like he's on his side and the officer pulls his head up with both hands by the hair and slams it back down on what appears to be the curb.

 

[Destro]

I believe he had just threatened to kill a gas station clerk and at some point during a conversation about it, attacked one of the officers and took him to the ground. I could be incorrect.

Force, justified or otherwise, rarely looks pretty.

 

[hooky]

Notice how they chilled when they discovered they were being recorded.

They were probably exhausted from all that protecting and serving in such a short amount of time.

 

[Denny347]

For the head slam, about 15 seconds or a bit more into the video below. Guy looks like he's on his side and the officer pulls his head up with both hands by the hair and slams it back down on what appears to be the curb.

Ok, I missed it the 1st 2 times I watched it. Everything BUT that could be justified. We shall see.

 

[Denny347]

Notice how they chilled when they discovered they were being recorded.

Everyone records everything anymore. I'm surprised when NOONE is standing by and recording. Justified or not, I have no doubts these officers were doing what they thought they should. In my other post I just made, I brought up training. Small, poorly paid, southern departments are likely some of the worst trained officers in the US. Whether that plays into this situation, I do not know.

 

[radar8756]

I thought I saw a statement about the guy Spitting and threating the Clerk - so I would not put it past him to Spit on the Cops -- which to me is justification for whatever he gets

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Ok, I missed it the 1st 2 times I watched it. Everything BUT that could be justified. We shall see.

Yeah, I missed it the first time or two myself.

Everyone records everything anymore. I'm surprised when NOONE is standing by and recording. Justified or not, I have no doubts these officers were doing what they thought they should. In my other post I just made, I brought up training. Small, poorly paid, southern departments are likely some of the worst trained officers in the US. Whether that plays into this situation, I do not know.

IIRC and sorry I can't find the links, they are deciding whether or not to release the body cam video. Again IIRC he threatened to cut the store clerk, was cooperative with the police until he wasn't and knocked down and hit one of them in the back of the head.

To my untrained eye it looks like when the video starts the guy is on his left side, and the one officer is using knee strikes to his upper thigh and butt to turn him on to his stomach, once he does he hops over to be opposite of the other officer that was kneeling which was right before the head slam. Guy continues to roll and ends up on his back at which point the officer that is kneeling appears to pull his shirt up perhaps to check for weapons. Officer head slam (sorry couldn't resist) punches to me seem to be about the only thing perhaps out of line until the head slam. That's all I got without more info.

 

[HoughMade]

I can defend that.

 

[thunderchicken]

Each officer has to justify each strike and they are justified/excessive independently. Sort of like Rodney King. They were justified until the last few strikes, then they were not. However, what was the context surrounding the use of force? What did the officers know, were told, or observed, prior to the use of force? It appears that the suspect was face down with his hands under him. That is a tough spot to hands from if they don't comply. I know we teach knee strikes to the torso, strikes to the upper back, ect, in those situations. In reality, there are arm leverage techniques to handle this but most academies don't have enough time to teach officers to perform these at any competent level. So I have no issue with striking a person who is refusing to give up their hands that they are laying on. As far as the "slamming" of the head, I saw punches to the top/side of the head. Those were during the same time frame that he was laying on his hands. Again, what is their training in regards to that? They very well could be following it? A strike to the head in this instance is not automatic excessive force. Now, just as I stood there and exclaimed that watching this video ALONE isn't enough to condemn these officers actions, it is not enough to SUPPORT them as well. I am just giving you some insight as to why it COULD be justified. A more thorough investigation might conclude they were excessive, time will tell.
Final thought and quote I like to use in these instances, "Ineffective force looks identical to excessive force to the untrained eye." Those strikes were mostly ineffective as he refused to give up his hands for most of time. However, in the days where these tactics are taught in a 40-50 hr timeframe, this is what you get. Easy to teach but woefully ineffective techniques.

You make good points, and I really like the quote " Ineffective force looks identical to excessive force to the untrained eye." That's absolutely spot on.
I never worked the streets and didn't have the same level of training over 20 yrs ago when I was a court deputy. Nor did we have tasers back then. Sometimes you have to go hands on to get control of an individual, I get that (enough experience with that).
My question is, wasn't the taser supposed to help in situations like this to temporarily incapacitate an individual or dry stun to gain control? I guess what I'm asking is, in some similar situations (maybe this one, maybe not) is it justified or taught to break off physical contact with the individual and go to the taser and then re- engage the individual?

 

[thunderchicken]

I can defend that.

Of course you can
Everyone is entitled to a defense

 

[HoughMade]

Of course you can
Everyone is entitled to a defense

Exactly.

 

[littletommy]

Y’all do realize, that if we have any shot at straightening out this ridiculous assed world, bustin heads is what it’s going to take, right?

I have zero issue with a dumbass getting the beat down he’s probably been begging for for a long time, too bad those cops will probably take the fall for that idiots retarded choices his entire life.

 

[thunderchicken]

Exactly.

It's all about how you can articulate it and how you make it make sense to others. Seen some brilliant arguments justifying actions and say some that left me wondering wtf kind of defense was that.

 

[thunderchicken]

Y’all do realize, that if we have any shot at straightening out this ridiculous assed world, bustin heads is what it’s going to take, right?

I have zero issue with a dumbass getting the beat down he’s probably been begging for for a long time, too bad those cops will probably take the fall for that idiots retarded choices his entire life.

To some extent you're probably right. But there's always a fine line between right and wrong.
The only officer I see doing anything questionable is the one who punched, then knee struck the head before slamming the head onto the ground.

 

[Rookie]

Question for Denny...

After watching it, two of the officer's actions are questionable, but I'm not judging whether right or wrong. My question is about the officer in the middle who doesn't look, to me, like he's doing anything that could be considered excessive. Is the default guilty by association? Suspend them all and let someone else sort it out?

 

[Rookie]

Oh yeah...

THANKS DENNY!!!

 

[HoughMade]

Y’all do realize, that if we have any shot at straightening out this ridiculous assed world, bustin heads is what it’s going to take, right?

I have zero issue with a dumbass getting the beat down he’s probably been begging for for a long time, too bad those cops will probably take the fall for that idiots retarded choices his entire life.

I get the sentiment....but there's this whole "due process" thing about having a determination based upon the law before handing out punishment. It goes both ways. No one should be convicted and punished based upon a bunch of things we don't know. The guy on the ground, and the police.

First they came for the mopes, and I did not speak out—because I was not a mope....

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Man, I'm not even (in my own consideration) very much of a "pro-police" sort of guy, but I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around how so many people think they can condemn these officers based on this one extremely short, context-deprived clip. How is it so hard to imagine a scenario where this is completely justified? Imagine this guy threatened people, assaulted the officers, gets physical with them, then they spot something in his pocket or waistband that could be a knife, or a gun, they don't know for sure, and he's struggling and refusing to give up his hands. Doesn't matter how many cops you have piled on top of a guy, if he gets a weapon out he can still kill somebody, and there are far too many body cam videos out there to prove it.

Yes, whenever the context of this video is determined by investigation (which hopefully it will be, in a fair and truthful manner, but who am I kidding...) it could very well be that this was totally unjustified (and the way they all seemed to get chill all of a sudden when they saw a camera pointed at them is suspicious, undoubtedly.)

But if that guy had a weapon, or had even acted at one point like he had a weapon and was willing to use it, then I don't care how many cops it is, it my book they're justified no matter how much of a tune they want to whale on him until he shows his hands and lets them cuff him. And to think that this might end up something like, "Yes, this guy had a knife and was reaching for it, and you were pumped up on adrenaline in the middle of a fight that could easily turn deadly in the blink of an eye, and you were totally justified in getting physical, but that one time you bonked his head on the pavement was technically not allowed, so we're throwing the book at you because a clip went viral on social media..." that thought just ticks me off. Call me a boot-licker if you will, I don't care.