Dover officer who kicked prone suspect in the face found not guilty of assault - Polidicks

[QUOTE=-nesto-;49276940]This has nothing to do with race, please cite a source that says the officers actions were racially motivated.[/QUOTE] by "this" i meant the greater discussion not this event specifically

[QUOTE=-nesto-;49276926]He stopped going prone, thats the point. He started to comply and stopped when he went to one knee, how hard is that to understand.[/QUOTE] The man was on his hands and knees for a little under 2 seconds. That's quite the hairpin trigger for application of force.

[QUOTE=agentfazexx;49276696]Fucked up, but why was he being detained?[/QUOTE] Irrelevant. You don't kick a suspect in the face after he has already surrendered and is prone on the ground even if that guy is Hitler.

[QUOTE=agentfazexx;49276932]Wanna re-read my post above? Or are you still taking the side of the felon?[/QUOTE]Uh no? I'm not taking either side, I only said that because of the posts on the first page, not meant as a personal attack or anything, my bad. [QUOTE=Big Dumb American;49276930]Sorry, you're right, it's more accurate to say that he was in the process of going prone, not that he was already prone.[/QUOTE]No big deal no need to apologize, I do see what you meant about his foot sliding back however, though it's hard to tell if he was about to lower his other leg or if it slid back because the cop kicked him, since it slid back at literally the exact same time he got kicked.

[QUOTE=-nesto-;49276940]This has nothing to do with race, [B]please cite a source that says the officers actions were racially motivated[/B].[/QUOTE] C'mon man lol.. [QUOTE=OvB;49276948]The man was on his hands and knees for a little under 2 seconds. That's quite the hairpin trigger for application of force.[/QUOTE] If you click through the video and try to time out how long he had his first knee on the ground before the cop kicked him.. It is literally less than one second lol. I tried to pause and count it out but the cop kicked him in the face before I even had a chance to click the video.

[QUOTE=srobins;49276965]If you click through the video and try to time out how long he had his first knee on the ground before the cop kicked him.. It is literally less than one second lol. I tried to pause and count it out but the cop kicked him in the face before I even had a chance to click the video.[/QUOTE] I counted just around 2 seconds using the "one Mississippi two Mississippi" method.

[QUOTE=OvB;49276976]I counted just around 2 seconds using the "one Mississippi two Mississippi" method.[/QUOTE] I think you're counting from when he puts his hands on the ground, not from when his knee touches the ground.

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;49276931]this has everything to do with race but apparently bringing up the obvious is "pulling the race card" and gets your argument dismissed[/QUOTE] Devil's advocate: What if the cop kicked him in the face because he was a shitty fucking cop and not because the victim was a black man? What if the correct questions to be asking are misuse and abuse of power as officers of the law in general, and not specifically in regards to black people? What if systemic corruption in the police force runs deeper than race?

I can see why they didn't find him guilty. There's really not much there showing that it wasn't probably an accident.

[QUOTE=srobins;49276989]I think you're counting from when he puts his hands on the ground, not from when his knee touches the ground.[/QUOTE] Missing the point. The point was that it wasn't a long amount of time. I don't care if it was 2 seconds or .5 seconds, it's still unacceptable.

[QUOTE=srobins;49276989]I think you're counting from when he puts his hands on the ground, not from when his knee touches the ground.[/QUOTE] Counting from hands, as that's the "sprinters position" many are arguing. Point still stands that it's an awful small amount of time to determine that the use of force was necessary to bring the suspect to the ground.

[QUOTE=OvB;49277005]Counting from hands, as that's the "sprinters position" many are arguing. Point still stands that it's an awful small amount of time to determine that the use of force was necessary to bring the suspect to the ground.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;49277000]Missing the point. The point was that it wasn't a long amount of time. I don't care if it was 2 seconds or .5 seconds, it's still unacceptable.[/QUOTE] Yeah I mean we're all on the same page here so whatever. Either way it was an unreasonable kick imo.

[QUOTE=Apache249;49276999]I can see why they didn't find him guilty. There's really not much there showing that it wasn't probably an accident.[/QUOTE] The officer admitted that he intentionally kicked him, just that he wasn't specifically aiming for his face. However, even if he had successfully kicked him in the chest, as he claimed to be aiming for, it would still be unnecessary and excessive by my definition. The dude was compliant. You don't deliver a full force kick to a compliant suspect. What I can at least agree on, however, is that there was [I]just[/I] enough room for the defense to attorney to weasel in "reasonable doubt" for a diverse jury to be unable to give a "guilty" verdict across the board. So I too can see why they didn't find him guilty. I don't believe the officer could have been found guilty unless he had kicked him again, and even then there would be some blatant apologists out there claiming that the unconscious suspect could have spun his head around and projectile vomited green sludge into the officer's face like a possessed child.

[QUOTE=agentfazexx;49276828]Why are they always the "victim?"[/QUOTE] A+ post watch the video again. if you still think the cop wasn't at fault there's something wrong with you i don't understand how there's any debate over this whatsoever. the guy was complying and unarmed. given his history caution is understandable, but a kick in the face? [editline]d[/editline] so are cops supposed to be fucking foot soldiers now? (actually enforcer or something along those lines is probably a better term)

You have to take the whole situation into account, lets break it down. Police are responding to a robbery Suspect's physical description is yellow shirt and a hat, aswell as being armed with gun Officers pull up on a man wearing a yellow hat Officer exits his car, immediately giving him the command to get on the ground Suspect just stands there(You are now technically resisting arrest by not complying) Another officer comes up from behind and tries to force him down(You see his knees buckle. He doesn't go down, still resisting arrest) Now he decides to comply, begins the motion of going prone, and stops. [B]For the third time, you have an armed robbery suspect refusing to comply[/B]. Officer forcibly takes him down and they cuff him. Officer was charged, found not guilty. End of story.

[QUOTE=Rofl_copter;49277037]A+ post watch the video again. if you still think the cop wasn't at fault there's something wrong with you i don't understand how there's any debate over this whatsoever. the guy was complying and [B]unarmed[/B]. given his history caution is understandable, but a kick in the face? [editline]d[/editline] so are cops supposed to be fucking foot soldiers now? (actually thug is probably a better term)[/QUOTE]Read the article again, he was believed to be armed with a handgun, whether or not that's true is not a risk that police are meant to take.

[QUOTE=-nesto-;49277062]You have to take the whole situation into account, lets break it down. Police are responding to a robbery Suspect's physical description is yellow shirt and a hat, aswell as being armed with gun Officers pull up on a man wearing a yellow hat Officer exits his car, immediately giving him the command to get on the ground Suspect just stands there(You are now technically resisting arrest by not complying) Another officer comes up from behind and tries to force him down(You see his knees buckle. He doesn't go down, still resisting arrest) Now he decides to comply, begins the motion of going prone, and stops. [B]For the third time, you have an armed robbery suspect refusing to comply[/B]. Officer forcibly takes him down and they cuff him. Officer was charged, found not guilty. End of story.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Killer900;49277065]Read the article again, he was believed to be armed with a handgun, whether or not that's true is not a risk that police are meant to take.[/QUOTE] "takes him down." you mean kicking him in the face, right? real professional. like how in any way did this situation call for that lmao it's scary how our police are being "trained" to deal with things nowadays [editline]d[/editline] goddamn he stops complying for literally like half a second then wham. fuck this so much

[QUOTE=Rofl_copter;49277084]"takes him down." you mean kicking him in the face, right? real professional. like how in any way did this situation call for that lmao it's scary how our police are being "trained" to deal with things nowadays[/QUOTE]I'd love to see how you would have handled it, it's very easy to say what you say from the safety of your home behind your computer screen when you don't deal with potential threats to your life on a daily basis (I'm talking about in a general sense, not this particular incident).

[QUOTE=Killer900;49277128]I'd love to see how you would have handled it, it's very easy to say what you say from the safety of your home behind your computer screen when you don't deal with potential threats to your life on a daily basis (I'm talking about in a general sense, not this particular incident).[/QUOTE] if i was a cop id like to think id like to think id have some semblance of respect for the well being of my countrymen. and not kick them in the face for failing to comply for less than a split second so because cops work a dangerous job this means they're exempt from any of their actions? sorry but it's what they signed up for and they wield a lot of power, and because of that they [I]should[/I] be scrutinized

[QUOTE=Killer900;49277128]I'd love to see how you would have handled it, it's very easy to say what you say from the safety of your home behind your computer screen when you don't deal with potential threats to your life on a daily basis (I'm talking about in a general sense, not this particular incident).[/QUOTE] Well if it was me personally I'd be running away from the alleged criminal. And then I'd accidentally shoot myself in the thigh with my gun and lose the police hat in the ensuing chaos. But that's why I'm not a cop. I don't have training in subduing people without causing serious skull injuries. Cops do.

[QUOTE=Rofl_copter;49277138]if i was a cop id like to think id like to think id have some semblance of respect for the well being of my countrymen. and not kick them in the face for failing to comply for less than a split second[/QUOTE]And then you're put in a situation like this and your instincts of fight or flight take over.

[QUOTE=Killer900;49277170]And then you're put in a situation like this and your instincts of fight or flight take over.[/QUOTE] just what you're a cop, you (hopefully) have been trained to deal with these kinds of situations. stop defending an action that is simply not ok for someone in their line of work if you can't keep cool in situations like this you never should've joined the police

[quote]The defense had argued that Dickerson was in a "sprinter's position" from which he could have lunged at the officers, pulled a weapon or fled with a gun.[/quote] its complete bullshit that they can justify everything with "well hypathetically one could do x y and z from this position, hell you could justify half of the fucking positions in yoga as being potentially dangerous to an officer's life

[quote] so because cops work a dangerous job this means they're exempt from any of their actions? sorry but it's what they signed up for and they wield a lot of power, and because of that they should be scrutinized[/quote]No, and yes. That doesn't mean though they should automatically be labelled pieces of shit, they are still human and not infallible and comments like this one [QUOTE=Zeke129;49277163]Well if it was me personally I'd be running away from the alleged criminal. And then I'd accidentally shoot myself in the thigh with my gun and lose the police hat in the ensuing chaos. But that's why I'm not a cop. I don't have training in subduing people without causing serious skull injuries. Cops do.[/QUOTE]make me believe people think otherwise [QUOTE=Rofl_copter;49277180]just what you're a cop, you (hopefully) have been trained to deal with these kinds of situations. [B]stop defending an action that is simply not ok for someone in their line of work[/B] if you can't keep cool in situations like this you never should've joined the police[/QUOTE]Oh I'm not, go read the first two pages, the ones where I said his force [I]was[/I] excessive

don't flip flop. so what are you trying to argue with me about, exactly? originally you said how he was thought to be armed? now it seems like you're trying to excuse what he did cos "we weren't there, man!!"

[QUOTE=Rofl_copter;49277210]don't flip flop. so what are you trying to argue with me about, exactly? originally you said how he was thought to be armed? now it seems like you're trying to excuse what he did cos "we weren't there, man!!"[/QUOTE]I dunno? You said he was unarmed when it was believed that he was armed, that's all I had said. Then you made one of [I]those[/I] posts, the kind of post people usually make on here when they don't take someone else seriously, that reeks of condenscention and a hint of boredom complete with the all lowercase and "lmao"s lol flip flop, you're funny man

[QUOTE=Fort83;49277222]That cop must have some shitty coordination to miss the upper body that badly.[/QUOTE] exactly my thoughts, looks like a little kid [QUOTE=Killer900;49277231]I dunno? You said he was unarmed when it was believed that he was armed, that's all I had said.[/QUOTE] uh ok [editline]d[/editline] [QUOTE=Killer900;49277231]lol flip flop, you're funny man[/QUOTE] ??? thanks, what i think is funnier is people defending a piece of shit move as well as possibly a piece of shit person

[QUOTE=-nesto-;49276814]Nice, pull the race card. Real class act.[/QUOTE] what? are you trying to say that black people are not treated differently by the police? you got to be living that good sheltered life to be that ignorant of that fact. [QUOTE=agentfazexx;49276828]Why are they always the "victim?"[/QUOTE] why the fuck does it matter that someone stole something two months beforehand? if he was complying right now and then, everything else is irrelevant. cops can be assholes and this cop is the perfect example

I'm beginning to question whether there's any such thing as police brutality anymore. Every time I think I've witnessed it, a whole gallery of commentators shows up to tell me how I'm misinterpreting things, that the cop had to shoot that homeless guy, had to beat that jaywalker with a baton, had to break that surrendering man's jaw. The suspect had it coming by not complying properly or quickly enough. And even if they didn't [I]have to[/I], it's always the suspect's fault when the cops make a mistake. For example, if this man hadn't looked so threatening while down on his hands and knees, the unrestrained and unchallenged officer wouldn't have been obligated to kick him in the head. But wait, it's not like they're saying that bad cops don't exist, it's just that every time I think I see a bad cop, it turns out that I'm just not looking at the "whole situation..."

[QUOTE=Rofl_copter;49277232]??? thanks, what i think is funnier is people defending a piece of shit move as well as possibly a piece of shit person[/QUOTE]A. Whose defending it B. How does watching one video of a man whom you know nothing, a man which neighbors describe him as a very polite and helpful person, where he makes an unjustifiable action which he later regretted and even turned himself in afterwards automatically make him a piece of shit person.