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

[QUOTE=Sega Saturn;49277249]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] That situation with the homeless man in Albuquerque was absolutely disgusting. Yes he had a knife, and yes he didn't drop it when ordered to, but FFS he was more than 20 feet away and they HAD a bean-bag loaded shotgun, and they use the lethal rounds first and THEN use the bean-bags now that he's on the ground bleeding to death? Also, having watched the video, I wonder if there's another version floating around where the guy actually pauses for more than a split-second, because I saw no such signs of him stopping while going prone. He was literally half-way through the process before he got kicked in the face.

so is he kicked off the streets yet? always a good idea to have an insecure jumpy cop out playing with 9mms. or are they gonna brush it off like every other time

[QUOTE=Rofl_copter;49277283]so is he kicked off the streets yet? always a good idea to have an insecure jumpy cop out playing with 9mms. or are they gonna brush it off like every other time[/QUOTE] Video on the article said his position in the force was being examined

[QUOTE=Rofl_copter;49277283]so is he kicked off the streets yet? always a good idea to have an insecure jumpy cop out playing with 9mms. or are they gonna brush it off like every other time[/QUOTE][quote]Webster had rejected an offer from prosecutors to plead guilty to third-degree assault, a misdemeanor, in return for surrendering his certification and never working as a police officer again.[/quote]Hey man thanks for responding to my previous post 'ppreciate it, keep it up with the reactionary emotional statements though.

[QUOTE=Mechanical43;49277238]what? are you trying to say that black people are not treated differently by the police?[/QUOTE] Prove that this case was racially motivated. [QUOTE=Mechanical43;49277238] if he was complying right now and then, everything else is irrelevant.[/QUOTE] He wasn't complying

[QUOTE=RichyZ;49277348]agentfazexx and nesto[/QUOTE]Damn that's true I thought it was just nesto though

[QUOTE=Killer900;49277322]Hey man thanks for responding to my previous post 'ppreciate it, keep it up with the reactionary emotional statements though.[/QUOTE] sorry forgot about my obligation of having respond to everything you say, didnt respond because you were being deliberately obtuse. also yeah in all likelihood hes an asshole since he didnt come out and say it, instead trying to justify it with absolute bs

[QUOTE=RichyZ;49277348] yeah he shoulda made a sudden drop movement im sure the cops wouldn't have turned him into swiss cheese[/QUOTE] He shouldn't have stopped going prone but go ahead n keep ignoring the video evidence.

STOP GIVING NORMAL HUMAN REACTIONS COMPLY COMPLY. he stopped for again, like a second at most and on top of that had no weapon in his hands, wasnt reaching for anything either. nevermind that, the point is he should know when and when not to use potentially lethal force

[QUOTE=Rofl_copter;49277371]sorry forgot about my obligation of having respond to everything you say, didnt respond because you were being deliberately obtuse. also yeah in all likelihood hes an asshole[/QUOTE]Deliberately obtuse huh, sure you aren't describing yourself there? I was trying to have a civil conversation and all you did was act condescending.

It seems to me like physical action was justified, but a kick in the face was not. The guy was obviously not showing compliance. He didn't even try to get on the ground when first told to, waiting until after the cop attempted to apply physical force by pushing in his knees. He then didn't go straight to the ground, but clearly delayed in that kneeling position before being kicked. I would go so far as to say that he had no intention of actually going all the way into a prone position based on the video. With that said the cop obviously shouldn't be kicking people in the face. If you're worried, then apply appropriate force. A assume the not guilty verdict was based on that grey area where force was justified, but the force applied went above the necessary threshold. I can see how the jury would find him not guilty for something like assault. If it was actually an accident, then it's simply not assault. Maybe some sort of negligence, but not assault.

Hey I think I found a picture of agentfazexxx [img_thumb]http://i.imgur.com/Lckv1hI.jpg[/img_thumb] edit: to actually contribute and not poke fun, I don't see how you can't see that as excessive force. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("shitpost" - Orkel))[/highlight]

You know, nesto, simply asserting that you're right and everybody else is wrong over and over again without actually making any argumentative points doesn't [I]actually[/I] make it true. At the very least, there's a serious grey area here, and not even acknowledging that possibility says a hell of a lot more about you than it does about the people you're arguing with.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;49277438]Hey I think I found a picture of agentfazexxx [img_thumb]http://i.imgur.com/Lckv1hI.jpg[/img_thumb] edit: to actually contribute and not poke fun, I don't see how you can't see that as excessive force.[/QUOTE] its funny how well that "useless piece of filth" quote would work in a Dredd movie. and i thought me calling the cop a piece of shit was colorful, that kinda gives you a taste of some peoples' line of thinking about police brutality. just weird

[QUOTE=Rofl_copter;49277459]its funny how well that "useless piece of filth" quote would work in a Dredd movie. and i thought me calling the cop a piece of shit was colorful, that kinda gives you a taste of some peoples' line of thinking about police brutality[/QUOTE] The "cops can do no wrong" mindset is every bit as damaging and ignorant as the "cops can do no right" one, really.

right, but when it gets to the point of victim blaming and you start hinting at how they deserved it because theyre on the lower spectrum of society its just so obviously wrong and evil af tbh. saying every cop is bad is dumb too (not my intention if i came across like that) but they deserve a fair amount of scrunity given that theyre supposed to be enforcing the law. this has just happened way, way too much

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;49277443]You know, nesto, simply asserting that you're right and everybody else is wrong over and over again doesn't [I]actually[/I] make it true. At the very least, there's a serious grey area here, and not even acknowledging that possibility says a hell of a lot more about you than it does about the people you're arguing with.[/QUOTE] I'm not trying to assert that I'm right and everyone else is wrong. I can agree with you that there is a grey area and he could have handled it differently, like say, pushing his back down and forcing him prone instead of punting his jaw. However, when you and others keep trying to push bullshit like he was compliant and prone or that this was because of race, despite hard irrefutable evidence to the contrary, then I'm going to assert that stance when [QUOTE]Defense witnesses, including a police academy defensive tactics instructor and former FBI agent who is an expert in the use of force, testified that Webster acted reasonably. A grand jury declined to indict the officer after the encounter, but a second one indicted Webster earlier this year. Jurors deliberated for about 16 hours over three days before acquitting Dover police officer Thomas Webster IV of felony assault and misdemeanor assault.[/QUOTE] Everyone, bar the prosecutor and 1 of 3 juries, said the officer was justified. That's not me trying to assert my own version of the truth, it is the truth. We can argue this until our faces turn blue but the fact is, he was justified.

i think your definition of justice differs from ours. we understand he was acquitted, not what were arguing

[QUOTE=Rofl_copter;49277564]i think your definition of justice differs from ours[/QUOTE] Not my definition of justice. Your definition of justice seems to differ from the state of Pennsylvania and her residents.

so what, thats it? case closed, no further discussion? gotcha

[QUOTE=sgman91;49277425]It seems to me like physical action was justified, but a kick in the face was not. The guy was obviously not showing compliance. He didn't even try to get on the ground when first told to, waiting until after the cop attempted to apply physical force by pushing in his knees. He then didn't go straight to the ground, but clearly delayed in that kneeling position before being kicked. I would go so far as to say that he had no intention of actually going all the way into a prone position based on the video. With that said the cop obviously shouldn't be kicking people in the face. If you're worried, then apply appropriate force. A assume the not guilty verdict was based on that grey area where force was justified, but the force applied went above the necessary threshold. I can see how the jury would find him not guilty for something like assault. If it was actually an accident, then it's simply not assault. Maybe some sort of negligence, but not assault.[/QUOTE] Exactly. The guy was a suspect of a violent crime and had a criminal record. He was somewhat complying, but I understand that the officer didn't want to take any chances. Breaking the man's jaw with a kick is excessive, sure, but I see it more as a wrong reaction while attempting to subdue the suspect than as police brutality with malicious intent. Actual assault would be the cop attacking the subject while he was obviously defenseless, like, while handcuffed or something. The article about the incident says that: [QUOTE]Webster had rejected an offer from prosecutors to plead guilty to third-degree assault, a misdemeanor, in return for surrendering his certification and never working as a police officer again.[/QUOTE] I think this would be a good way to deal with him, instead of sending him to eight years in jail for an assault charge. I at least hope he was punished by the police force.

[QUOTE=-nesto-;49277550]Everyone, bar the prosecutor and 1 of 3 juries, said the officer was justified. That's not me trying to assert my own version of the truth, it is the truth. We can argue this until our faces turn blue but the fact is, he was justified.[/QUOTE] Actually the truth would be that the majority [I]believed[/I] he was justified. That does not mean he was. Police should not be exempt from the same scrutiny in cases such as these that a civilian undergoing a self-defense case would be subject to. The badge should be disregarded and the case should be examined as one person excessively harming another. If a few examples were made this way I feel like more uses of force would fall in line with actually justifiable uses of force.

[QUOTE=-nesto-;49277550]I'm not trying to assert that I'm right and everyone else is wrong. I can agree with you that there is a grey area and he could have handled it differently, like say, pushing his back down and forcing him prone instead of punting his jaw. However, when you and others keep trying to push bullshit like he was compliant and prone or that this was because of race, despite hard irrefutable evidence to the contrary, then I'm going to assert that stance when Everyone, bar the prosecutor and 1 of 3 juries, said the officer was justified. That's not me trying to assert my own version of the truth, it is the truth. We can argue this until our faces turn blue but the fact is, he was justified.[/QUOTE] No, I'm sorry, there is simply no "hard" or "irrefutable" evidence in this case that the suspect was doing [I]anything[/I] other than complying. There is simply conjecture and assumptions about what [I]might[/I] have been going on in the suspect's mind based on what amounts to less than one second of hesitation as he moved into a prone position in compliance with the officer's demands. Sure, [I]maybe[/I] he was entering a "sprinter's stance" and getting ready to bolt... But there's no "irrefutable evidence" of that. There's no evidence of that at all other than, at most, a momentary pause. Furthermore, the juries did [B]not[/B] rule that the officer was [U]justified[/U], merely that there wasn't sufficient evidence to find him guilty, which is NOT THE SAME as saying he is innocent, justified, right, or proper in what he did. [B]That[/B] is the truth. [I]You[/I] are the one who pushing a "bullshit" narrative in implying otherwise. [editline]9th December 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Ekalektik_1;49277645][B]Actually the truth would be that the majority [I]believed[/I] he was justified. That does not mean he was. [/B] Police should not be exempt from the same scrutiny in cases such as these that a civilian undergoing a self-defense case would be subject to. The badge should be disregarded and the case should be examined as one person excessively harming another. If a few examples were made this way I feel like more uses of force would fall in line with actually justifiable uses of force.[/QUOTE] Not even that. It may have well been that not a single person on that jury felt he was [I]justified[/I] in what he did, but instead just didn't think the case was clear cut enough (beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt) to find him guilty.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;49276808]Watch his dang foot, man. It's sliding back as the officer kicked him in the face. He wasn't in a "sprinter's position," he was just slowly lowering himself to the ground. Because moving [I]quickly[/I] as a black man suspected of having a gun on you gets you shot and killed. Even if the dude had been in a sprinter's position, ready to bolt, literally breaking his face is not at all appropriate to the situation.[/QUOTE] at this point you're just a joke, aren't you. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Flaming again" - Big Dumb American))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=-nesto-;49277550]I'm not trying to assert that I'm right and everyone else is wrong. I can agree with you that there is a grey area and he could have handled it differently, like say, pushing his back down and forcing him prone instead of punting his jaw. However, when you and others keep trying to push bullshit like he was compliant and prone or that this was because of race, despite hard irrefutable evidence to the contrary, then I'm going to assert that stance when Everyone, bar the prosecutor and 1 of 3 juries, said the officer was justified. That's not me trying to assert my own version of the truth, it is the truth. [B]We can argue this until our faces turn blue but the fact is, he was justified.[/B][/QUOTE] So you're finally acknowledging that that the police officer could have dealt with this in a much less violent manner instead of practicing his football punt on another human's jaw? Man, you got one fucked up definition of grey morality if you think smashing the jaw of a suspect in the middle complying is okay. "All these people said he was justified, therefore the cop is justified/innocent." Make sure to get these scraps of leather out of our teeth when you're done licking those boots. Just because a lot of people say something is true, does not make it true. Juries can be on all kinds of bullshit dude. The Rodney King and Emmett Till cases are good examples.

[QUOTE=axelord157;49277896]So you're finally acknowledging that that the police officer could have dealt with this in a much less violent manner instead of practicing his football punt on another human's jaw? Man, you got one fucked up definition of grey morality if you think smashing the jaw of a suspect in the middle complying is okay. "All these people said he was justified, therefore the cop is justified/innocent." Make sure to get these scraps of leather out of our teeth when you're done licking those boots. Just because a lot of people say something is true, does not make it true. Juries can be on all kinds of bullshit dude. The Rodney King and Emmett Till cases are good examples.[/QUOTE] I know I sound like a broken record, but "Not Guilty" =/= "Justified." This is a very, very important distinction to make.

[QUOTE=axelord157;49277896]So you're finally acknowledging that that the police officer could have dealt with this in a much less violent manner instead of practicing his football punt on another human's jaw? Man, you got one fucked up definition of grey morality if you think smashing the jaw of a suspect [B]in the middle complying[/B] is okay.[/QUOTE] That isn't any more honest than pretending that the cop was completely justified. The guy was OBVIOUSLY not going straight to the ground and had already shown an unwillingness to comply. He clearly stopped in the kneeling position before being kicked. I mean, you can assume that he was just taking a breather before moving towards the ground, but based on previous evidence it's safe to assume that he had no intention of complying easily.

[QUOTE=sgman91;49277909]That isn't any more honest than pretending that the cop was completely justified. The guy was OBVIOUSLY not going straight to the ground and had already shown an unwillingness to comply. He clearly stopped in the kneeling position before being kicked. I mean, you can assume that he was just taking a breather before moving towards the ground, but based on previous evidence it's safe to assume that he had no intention of complying easily.[/QUOTE] If he stopped moving at all (which I'm simply not convinced the video demonstrates, merely a slow and deliberate move into a prone position), it was for a span of less than half a second, a period so short that there's simply no way to discern that he [I]obviously[/I] and [I]clearly[/I] didn't intend to comply, and certainly doesn't make it "safe to assume" that he had aggressive or noncooperative intentions, and [U]absolutely[/U] doesn't give the officer license to full on punt him in the face. That pause that you're claiming to see could have been as simple as him shifting his weight so he could slide his foot back easier. Or maybe it was him getting ready to try something? I'll at least allow for that possibility, but it's simply disingenuous to imply that there was any hard sign of clear and present danger. [I]Some[/I] force may have arguably been needed. Not a kick to the face hard enough to break the man's jaw, however.

[QUOTE=sgman91;49277909]That isn't any more honest than pretending that the cop was completely justified. The guy was OBVIOUSLY not going straight to the ground and had already shown an unwillingness to comply. He clearly stopped in the kneeling position before being kicked. I mean, you can assume that he was just taking a breather before moving towards the ground, but based on previous evidence it's safe to assume that he had no intention of complying easily.[/QUOTE] I saw no sign of him stopping, only slowing down. He had literally had his hands on the ground for less than 2 seconds before he was kicked.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;49277938]If he stopped moving at all (which I'm simply not convinced the video demonstrates, merely a slow and deliberate move into a prone position)[/QUOTE] We'll just have to agree to disagree about this point. I can clearly see him stop moving towards the ground. You can see that the kick was a reaction to that stopping of motion. [QUOTE]a period so short that there's simply no way to discern that he [I]obviously[/I] and [I]clearly[/I] didn't intend to comply[/QUOTE] He had already shown his desire to not comply by not even trying to obey until force was used. [QUOTE]and certainly doesn't make it "safe to assume" that he had aggressive or noncooperative intentions,[/QUOTE] I never said anything about aggression, but his non-cooperation had definitely already been established. It's safe to assume that his intentions didn't immediately go from non-cooperation to total cooperation in a matter of 5 seconds or so. Note that "safe to assume" doesn't mean absolute fact. It means that the assumption is founded and based on fact as opposed to arbitrary measures. [QUOTE]and [U]absolutely[/U] doesn't give the officer license to full on punt him in the face.[/QUOTE] Good thing I've consistently said that the officer went overboard. [QUOTE]That pause that you're claiming to see could have been as simple as him shifting his weight so he could slide his foot back easier. Or maybe it was him getting ready to try something? I'll at least allow for that possibility,[/QUOTE] If you are willing to allow for that possibility, then you have no reason to not give the officer the benefit of the doubt about immediate physical prevention being necessary. We are then left with the non-guilty verdict for assault being totally reasonable. As you've rightly pointed out. They jury didn't say that he was justified, just that there wasn't enough evidence to prove assault. [QUOTE]but it's simply disingenuous to imply that there was any hard sign of clear and present danger, however.[/QUOTE] You've already said that you are willing to allow for the fact that he may have been "getting ready to try something." So we have an individual who has already shown an unwillingness to comply and has been convicted of fairly severe criminal activity who might be "getting ready to try something." I'm not sure how you can take that situation and then conclude that there was absolutely no sign of clear and present danger. [QUOTE][I]Some[/I] force may have arguably been needed. Not a kick to the face hard enough to break the man's jaw, however.[/QUOTE] On that I agree.