"Big Easy" Cops Beat Old Man on Tape

[dgridley]

Two New Orleans police officers repeatedly punched a 64-year-old man accused of public intoxication, and another city officer assaulted an Associated Press Television News producer as a cameraman taped the confrontations.

There will be a criminal investigation, and the three officers were to be suspended, arrested and charged with simple battery Sunday, Capt. Marlon Defillo said.

more

The Video

 

[Lyte]

"....they show the poor old man...

Let's not get carried away.

He got himself drunk, annoyed someone so the cops were called. THEN, because he got himself drunk he then resisted arrest. The fact that they decided to arrest him vs. sending him home or calling a cab leads me to believe he was probably acting like an ass.

I'm not saying he deserved getting whacked in the head but he wasn't grampa in the park feeding the pigeons either.

 

[Iravan]

He got himself drunk

No Proof of that... Also Video footage shows no sign of resisting arrest... Another point a police man on a horse comes and block the camera man... if its perfectly fine then why block it...

All we have for proof is the police officer who says hes not guilty of beating the peroson...

 

[dgridley]

Yeah.. I'm ready to agree that he may have gotten a bit out of hand but his lawyer says his client was NOT drunk, that he was in town to check on his home and a few other homes he and his wife owned. He was out to buy cigarettes. I guess it will all, hopefully, come out in the proverbial wash. Still looks to be a case of excessive force...

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/10/10/D8D5F3N85.html

Let's not get carried away.

He got himself drunk, annoyed someone so the cops were called. THEN, because he got himself drunk he then resisted arrest. The fact that they decided to arrest him vs. sending him home or calling a cab leads me to believe he was probably acting like an ass.

I'm not saying he deserved getting whacked in the head but he wasn't grampa in the park feeding the pigeons either.

 

[CrazyTech]

No Proof of that... Also Video footage shows no sign of resisting arrest...

That's for a very simple but important reason. The press in general shows you what they want to see. If you're going to take an edited video by face value than by all means go right ahead but in contradicts your questioning nature. The fact is the news places are always out for the story and there was a thread a few weeks back about how we'd feel if we saw the entire video or heard the entire story every time. We'd feel different about many daily events.

Another point a police man on a horse comes and block the camera man... if its perfectly fine then why block it...

Uh, maybe you missed it but not a soul here is arguing what was done was "fine." Besides, from the pictures, you can see there was more than one photographer/cameraman standing around.

Yeah.. I'm ready to agree that he may have gotten a bit out of hand but his lawyer says his client was NOT drunk, that he was in town to check on his home and a few other homes he and his wife owned. He was out to buy cigarettes. I guess it will all, hopefully, come out in the proverbial wash. Still looks to be a case of excessive force...

And you believe a lawyer...hehe

So what was the camera man doing? resisting arrest?

This would be that whole frustration thing I was talking about in the rest of my post.

 

[Iravan]

Links to both During beating and after beating here

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/10/10/taped.beatings/index.html

 

[Lyte]

Also Video footage shows no sign of resisting arrest...

Sure we do... he wasn't complying... he wasn't doing what they told him to do... so he was resisting.

 

[Iravan]

Sure we do... he wasn't complying... he wasn't doing what they told him to do... so he was resisting.

I didnt notice that... does it clearly show it... remeber the person is innocent until proved guilty

 

[HHDomains]

Sorry folks but I'm not buying this "frustration" argument.

Who cares if they are frustrated. They are police. They are expected and paid to act in an appropriate manner.

If I get frustrated and beat the piss out of someone at a bar you can bet your ass I will end up in court.

This case is nothing more that police brutality. They will get what is coming to them in the end.

 

[Lyte]

I didnt notice that... does it clearly show it... remeber the person is innocent until proved guilty

I think it shows it quite clearly. The fact that they must FORCE him to turn over on his stomach and pull his arms behind his back, means he is resisting them. If he was not resisting they would not have to use force. Logical??

Sorry folks but I'm not buying this "frustration" argument.

Who cares if they are frustrated. They are police. They are expected and paid to act in an appropriate manner.

Agreed! They have a great deal of power and with that comes responsibility. Cops aren't allowed to have a "bad day." :bah:

 

[CrazyTech]

Who cares if they are frustrated. They are police. They are expected and paid to act in an appropriate manner.

Agreed...but does the job description involve what happened after Katrina? My point is there should have been people here to help these guys - it all comes down to burnout and while it doesn't justify what was done it doesn't mean that those specific policemen are out to get anyone.

 

[True_Snake]

Cops aren't allowed to have a "bad day." :bah:

Certainly not at the expense of beating up a 64-year old :tri:.

He claims he was sucker punched after crossing the street. This happened after the man asked a cop about the curfew times and another officer walked into the conversation. When the 64-year old said "We're having a conversation here", the officer stopped, the man finished his question, and crossed the street.

That's his story, but man... .

Strange situation here.


True_Snake

 

[sdtrader]

:wave: For my satisifaction,it is not nescessary to see the before and after sequence of events leading to another pulpifying of a citizen by multiple police.Just cuff them up and take them away already.Attempts to stomp a weakened detainee or hide the coverage only leads to well deserved suspicion.Such individuals only make the work of other fine officers difficult but will tell you shames their work.It is delusional to keep defending these characters with the lets see the whole story bit or the media is distorting the facts defense.If officers are standing watching or have time to block cameras,they certainly aren't undermanned to carry out the operation.
Stress is not just something police must live with.Nor are hurricanes,or poor pay or family problems,or anything else one may want to attribute such behavior to.
I have nothing but respect for the police and for that reason would like to see these so called officers disgraced.
Just my humble opinion.

 

[photoshopfreak]

Sorry folks but I'm not buying this "frustration" argument.

Who cares if they are frustrated. They are police. They are expected and paid to act in an appropriate manner.

If I get frustrated and beat the piss out of someone at a bar you can bet your ass I will end up in court.

This case is nothing more that police brutality. They will get what is coming to them in the end.

Exactly, but i don't agree with the last bit, they will be found to be innocent, **** them...

 

[Michelle]

Ok for what its worth..............


I nurse in an elderly mental home. I get spat at, punched, kicked and abused EVERY day of the week.

If I were to ONCE hit back....................




I AM IN THE WRONG JOB

 

[photoshopfreak]

Yes exactly,

If you worked for any company & even got angered on the phone & told the customer to "Get lost", you would be fired. So everyone has to behave in a certain way whilst at work & esp when dealing with human beings in person...

Also if the man was "resisting arrest" that doesn't mean the police can start a street fight/brawl or starting assaulting a totally innocent cameraman

And it doesn't matter which side your on in this case whether it be the man or the police the fact remains they did assault atleast one man for no reason whatsoever (the cameraman) & nobody should side with the police for this reason alone, never mind the old man being attacked...

It's quite clear they were aggressive & looking for trouble, & there is no justification for this as there job is to prevent or stop this type of thing...

I think it shows it quite clearly. The fact that they must FORCE him to turn over on his stomach and pull his arms behind his back, means he is resisting them. If he was not resisting they would not have to use force. Logical??

Would you think that's logical if it were your own mother? The answer would be no, if it were your mother you would just want them to be forceful & take control of her not attack her...

 

[CrazyTech]

Exactly, but i don't agree with the last bit, they will be found to be innocent, **** them...

Exactly, ______ the people that put their lives on the line to protect you every day...

Ok for what its worth..............


I nurse in an elderly mental home. I get spat at, punched, kicked and abused EVERY day of the week.

If I were to ONCE hit back....................




I AM IN THE WRONG JOB

I can't say I've seen too many intoxication or others issues that cause trouble at a nursing home.

Also if the man was "resisting arrest" that doesn't mean the police can start a street fight/brawl or starting assaulting a totally innocent cameraman

If you want to practice selective reading then go right ahead.

Would you think that's logical if it were your own mother?

It wasn't anyone's mother for one, it was a drunk on the street. Give me a break.

 

[GHoD]

I dunno to beat an old person is a sin enough to burn in hell for many years...

I dont care how frustreated a person may get its still disgusting.

Also watch the CNN video, they show the poor old man covered in blood with head injuries, and still officers are kicking him. This footage was taken from a balcony after the street was closed off...

You must be watching a diffrent video from the one i seen on that link, just seen the police dragging him to the floor, then taking his frustration out on a passer by. Maybe its a new edited video.

 

[photoshopfreak]

Exactly, ______ the people that put their lives on the line to protect you every day...

Actually it's **** those cops not all, & if they were protecting that guy then i don't want protection...

I can't say I've seen too many intoxication or others issues that cause trouble at a nursing home.

She didn't mean what issues are going on in the nursing home or the issues going on with that guy who was attacked, she meant that just because your pissed off that you can't take it out of the people your supposed to help/protect...

If you want to practice selective reading then go right ahead.

I'm simply telling you they attacked a cameraman for no reason, so that proves what those police are...

It wasn't anyone's mother for one, it was a drunk on the street. Give me a break.

It doesn't matter, simply dismissing my points due to him be male & "a drunk" does not mean the police can do what they like...

Theres force & excessive force, they used the latter...

You must be watching a diffrent video from the one i seen on that link, just seen the police dragging him to the floor, then taking his frustration out on a passer by. Maybe its a new edited video.

No doubt the news has been told to remove the footage of him being kicked.

 

[Lyte]

Would you think that's logical if it were your own mother? The answer would be no, if it were your mother you would just want them to be forceful & take control of her not attack her...

I don't think you were following the argument. The question posed to me was (paraphrased) "did I see him resist?" The answer is yes... because, if he had not being resisting then the cops wouldn't have to use force. Conversely, if they said "Get on the ground" and he did so, they wouldn't use force to take him to the ground cuz he was already there. Right??

Now, if it were my mom they would NOT have had to use force because MY mom would have immediately complied with whatever they asked.

The point I’m making has nothing to do with whether or not what they did was right! My only point is that he was in fact resisting the officers.

I saw an interview with him this morning. He stated that he was talking to a "black" officer on horse back and a white officer came up and interrupted. He then told the white officer that he was not talking to him and that's about when the problem started. Shrug...

Also, when asked how was he able to remain standing with three officers on him he stated that he played football as a kid and so he had practice. That sounds to me like he was resisting the officers and he knew it!

Lyte

 

[photoshopfreak]

Yes, i follow what you say & your right he did resist, but the point i'm making about resisting arrest is that the only force to be used by the police is reasonable force...

A man resist's arrest by refusing to do what the police ask but remains none violent should not be punched, kicked or shot even though he is resisting, reasonable force would be to drag/manhandle him...

A man fighting police should be attacked.

A man resisting arrest with a gun should be shot.