Police respond to a call from an upset mother about her son. When police arrive the son is irritated and wants nothing to do with police. He is on his own property, curses at them, and instructs police to stay off of it. He then turns around and walks away. As he is walking away, without any warning, he is tackled by an officer. A second officer joins and and punches him. A third officer intervenes and attempts to stop the officers perceiving their actions as excessive force and a violation of the departments use-of-force policy. The officer who tackled the individual says that individual is resisting arrest. The intervening officer says he was never under arrest to begin with.

 

Who is right and who is wrong? Is the officer who intervened wrong, or the officer who attempted to arrest the individual?

 

Just curious to what others opinions are.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBfF_7rdIxg

Why did the upset mother call the police?

 

Did the son threaten to hurt his mother or himself?

Mother wants to take him to the hospital to get checked out. The son is in his 20's. He makes no threats of violence at any time. He doesn't want to go and says "eff that, I'm going to walk away."

Just because of how things tend to progress here... keep things on topic, I will not hesitate to lock this at any hint of bashing.

Imo, the arresting officer is wrong. Evven though the guy cussed and yelled, as long as he didnt erbally or physically attemp to harm the officer then its wrokgful arrest. It becomes excessive force and potentially assault when the other officer starts beating the individuall. The third officer is completely right in his attempt to stop tje other officers.

I am assuming the mother wants to take the son to the hospital for some kind of "mental" problem rather then a physical one.

 

Has the son had any past history of mental problems? Have the cops ever been called before?

Not bothering with this. Still too much unknown. Hate what if hypothetical threads.

Impossible hypothetical

This is not a hypothetical scenario. I have chosen to not yet post the actual incident as I don't want the conclusion that has been determined to effect peoples own personal beliefs.

Too little info to post an opinion.

Imo, the arresting officer is wrong. Evven though the guy cussed and yelled, as long as he didnt erbally or physically attemp to harm the officer then its wrokgful arrest. It becomes excessive force and potentially assault when the other officer starts beating the individuall. The third officer is completely right in his attempt to stop tje other officers.

 

i’ll go with this, been seeing way to many excessive force stories lately so i am biased

 

Arresting officer has had multiple complains and lawsuits alledging excessive force. One such resulted in a $140,000 settlement paid out to the victims.

Intervening officer in 20 years on the force had never had a single civilian complaint filed against.

 

Verdict: Intervening officer was wrong! Fired!

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBfF_7rdIxg

as blue said ....not enough info given to make an educated decision...questions that pop into my head...what prompted the mother to call the police?...while not making an actual"threat of violence"...was son acting irrational/out of control ...drugs prescription/illegal or alcohol involved....is the son/family "well known" by the lpd?.....while the initial post seems to show "police brutality/excessive force " etc.....id venture to say there is alot more to the story

 

oops..late post....but after seeing the video/verdict.....maybe its a small town and the "physical" cop is family or connected...lol...while im not a fan of the ghetto/thug attitude....the officer was out of line in my opinion.......and in typical "jerry springer/ cops " fashion....person that called the police in the first place is bashing the police....that is annoying also

The dirt bag nice gentleman resisted when he started to walk/run away. He was arrested prior to that. That's how my report would go. Also, the **** the lady yelling also should have been arrested for interfering.

 

BTW, I saw no officer attempt to stop the arrest. Also, I did not see any excessive force. :unknw:

The lady yelling was the intervening officer. I no point prior to being 'arrested' was he told he was under arrest.

i meant the skinny lady prancing around the front yard like she was all jacked up on something..calling the police she called in the first place "assholes"...the "take down/roundhouse" seems a little excessive to me at face value regardless of the punk acting like a "gangsta/thug" and profanity doesnt warrant physical abuse...but i wasnt there and its hard to see if he was resisting or just walking away...

Poor taste to bring this up now, almost two years after it happened, under these circumstances.

She was only fired 2 months ago....

Pointless thread....looking to start an argument. Not surprised at the op

Pointless thread....looking to start an argument. Not surprised at the op

 

I don't know the OP, but I have to agree with the thread being pointless and where it's headed.........

the officer should not have been fired for trying to PROTECT and serve her community. while the vast majority of cops are good cops there are ones that slip thru the cracks that like to abuse the power. from just the video and no other info i would say the cop who tackled the kid is wrong. however without more information i cannot prove it wasn't warranted. either way tho, the intervening cop should not have been fired. she didn't let the kid go, she just didn't want the other officer to be charged for excessive force. and probably didn't want to see the kid get beat up.

Looks like excessive force to me. If a civilian were to assault a person who has their back turned and is walking away, they would be in trouble. At the very least, these thugs should be fired and prosecuted. But, who am I kidding? They'll be retiring with fat pensions in their late forties, maybe early fifties.

If a cop jumps an unarmed, unarrested relative of mine from behind like that, I'm pretty sure we will wind up in adjoining cells. What do they seriously expect bystanders to do? Sit there and watch an unarmed person get their head kicked in?

 

It's nice working for the government. Evern when you are wrong, you are right. Have a doubt? Swing by Edison.

I wouldn't take a LEO'S job at twice the salary. The one thing I've always detested in my work life is to be second-guessed or judged without all facts being known and considered.

 

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

Didn't watch the vid, based on OPs description the following apply:

 

He curses in an area where others can hear (that includes standing on your property outside your home) = Disorderly persons offense = arrested. 

 

2C:33-2 Disorderly conduct

a. Improper behavior. A person is guilty of a petty disorderly persons offense, if with purpose to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof he 

 

(1) Engages in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavior; or 

 

(2) Creates a hazardous or physically dangerous condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor. 

 

b. Offensive language. A person is guilty of a petty disorderly persons offense if, in a public place, and with purpose to offend the sensibilities of a hearer or in reckless disregard of the probability of so doing, he addresses unreasonably loud and offensively coarse or abusive language, given the circumstances of the person present and the setting of the utterance, to any person present. 

 

"Public" means affecting or likely to affect persons in a place to which the public or a substantial group has access; among the places included are highways, transport facilities, schools, prisons, apartment houses, places of business or amusement, or any neighborhood.

 

Oh, and if Cops a called to your property or witness a crime there, they don't necessarily need permission to set foot on your property.

 

The defendant walks away, pulls back, threatens, refuses to comply = resisting, and as a bonus here is the kicker - a resisting charge can be given even if the arrest was unlawful under certain circumstances.

 

2C:29-2. resisting Arrest; Eluding Officer. a. (1) Except as provided in paragraph (3), a person is guilty of a disorderly persons offense if he purposely prevents or attempts to prevent a law enforcement officer from effecting an arrest. (2) Except as provided in paragraph (3), a person is guilty of a crime of the fourth degree if he, by flight, purposely prevents or attempts to prevent a law enforcement officer from effecting an arrest. (3) An offense under paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection a. is a crime of the third degree if the person: 

 

(a) Uses or threatens to use physical force or violence against the law enforcement officer or another; or 

 

(b) Uses any other means to create a substantial risk of causing physical injury to the public servant or another. 

 

It is not a defense to a prosecution under this subsection that the law enforcement officer was acting unlawfully in making the arrest, provided he was acting under color of his official authority and provided the law enforcement officer announces his intention to arrest prior to the resistance. 

 

If while resisting he lands a punch, kick, or shove in the Officer = Aggravated Assault

 

2C:12-1. Assault. 

 

b. Aggravated assault. A person is guilty of aggravated assault if he: 

 

(5) Commits a simple assault as defined in subsection a. (1), (2) or (3) of this section upon: 

 

(a) Any law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his duties while in uniform or exhibiting evidence of his authority or because of his status as a law enforcement officer

 

That can be a 3rd or 4th degree crime. That's indictable and carries real jail time.

 

So he tackled the kid from behind? So what? Should he have said pretty please first? Should he have sauntered up, toed the line, and gone to fisticuffs? Or maybe gone right to pepper spray and a leg strike with a baton?

 

Finally,

I no point prior to being 'arrested' was he told he was under arrest.

 

Where does it say you have to be told you are under arrest before you are in handcuffs and under control? 

 

That must be taught right after the block of instruction on "I get a phone call, I know my rights" "You can't write me a ticket because you didn't tell me why you stopped me" and "If your a cop you have to tell me, otherwise its entrapment" at the police academy that everyone but Cops go to.

 

Like any other profession, if an employee is dangerous and does not know the Job then termination is appropriate.

I think Moms should just stop calling cops on their kids.. Thiers your problem..

And another installment of the NJGF Law Enforcement monday morning quarterback club...

Gee who didn't see this coming. Lets just start the us vs them thread..it's the same thing. Unnecessary inflammatory postings. Just close this.

I agree

This thread really has no use ......

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk excuse the spelling