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

[QUOTE=-nesto-;49277593]Not my definition of justice. Your definition of justice seems to differ from the state of Pennsylvania and her residents.[/QUOTE] I don't get why people do this, whenever there's a discussion where people disagree with a jury's decision, someone always has to continually reaffirm that [I]legally[/I], the person is in fact innocent.. Which is a complete waste of time because everyone is well aware of that, and that's the entire reason for the debate we're all having here is that we disagree with the decision the jury made and we're presenting our reasoning as to why we disagree. Just saying "they found him innocent" over and over again is pretty meaningless. It's like if somebody said I robbed them, I disagreed and gave an alibi, and you just keep repeating "yeah but.. he said you robbed him".

[QUOTE=axelord157;49277896] "All these people said he was justified, therefore the cop is justified/innocent." Just because a lot of people say something is true, does not make it true.[/QUOTE] [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.[/QUOTE] I'd surely take their word over any Facepuncher's on whether he was justified in his use of force.

[QUOTE=-nesto-;49278074]I'd surely take their word over any Facepuncher's on whether he was justified in his use of force.[/QUOTE] And you seem to do anyway so stating it again is pointless. The whole point of this thread is to have a discussion on the topic, otherwise what is the point of even allowing replies to the OP? Just state the news article, give the jurys verdict and that's it. And honestly in this case I cannot justify the force used by the policeman. Was some force necessary? Perhaps. Should you still be punished if you want to kick his chest but miss and break his jaw? Absolutely. In these cases I usually wish for the exact same thing to happen to people who side with violence (justified or not justified, doesn't matter). Obviously this is not realistic, you are not a career criminal, you probably will comply with the orders faster, your face probably won't be known to the officers etc... but I wish it more as a thought exercise. If you can imagine yourself going through the same thing and still find the violent party lawful and justified then I don't have much else to say, you might be right.

[QUOTE=-nesto-;49278074]I'd surely take their word over any Facepuncher's on whether he was justified in his use of force.[/QUOTE] I couldn't give a shit what a tactics instructor says. Seeing as he, "hypothetically" could've bolted form the sprinters stance, lets look at this another way. You're walking down the street, not seen the news in the past 15 minutes or had interaction with another human. A cop car, blaring lights and sirens pulls up on you. Very quickly two armed police, pointing their guns at you, run up and scream at you to get on the ground. You've just gone from calmly walking down the street to very scared and/or confused. At this point, you've got to get on the ground into a prone position without hesitation or slowing down. If you do not do this in UNDER 3 seconds, you get your jaw broken.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;49276721]That he got kicked in the face hard enough to break his jaw when he was almost fully prone and completely complying with the officer's orders? The guy being a criminal does not give police officers license to beat the shit of him without provocation.[/QUOTE] I see guy who didn't comply with the orders and was still standing after an officer tried to jerk him to the ground, and then as he lowers, he takes the stance of a 100m dash runner about to book it. The instant he looked up after taking that stance is when he was making the decision to haul ass or not, and the police knew it. That's probably why his ass got kicked in the face And if you're lawfully under arrest the police are allowed to use the force necessary to arrest you. Though they will have to explain the reasoning and why they skipped any steps before arriving at what force they used. Force is never gentle If you think that's bad, police used to be allowed to shoot you if you ran instead of chase you if you committed a felony. A lot of times they could fire warning shots and that would stop a foot pursuit right there. You might think yeah the 1800's and early 1900's were different, but this was the early 80's. A kid committed a felony and was running and hopped a fence, and instead of bothering to chase him any further the officer just shot him in the back. Legal and justified at the time, but it's what kicked off the whole striking down of the fleeing felon law

[IMG]http://i.giphy.com/oN0FGeW9ZEvDy.gif[/IMG] Sprinter stance? Really far fetched if youre saying that. The dudes getting on the ground and moving his foot back just as he gets his jaw broken.

He puts his hands up, he gets pushed, he stumbles, he regains his balance, he starts lowering himself into a prone position, he gets kicked in the face. How would any of you handled this differently? Stiffening the moment you felt the officer shove you so that you could topple like a tree? Leapt into the air with arms outstretched so that you could belly flop onto the ground? Seeing people watching this video and STILL trying to justify that the suspect was "resisting arrest" is truly concerning to me, because it demonstrates that there is simply no possible way to AVOID resisting arrest under your definition. If slowly dropping to your knees and swinging your legs back, which is just about the most natural and careful way to enter a prone position I can imagine, is "entering a sprinter's position" and means you deserve to face physical force, then there simply isn't a condition in which you are likely to argue that physical force ISN'T justified. Under ANY circumstances it can be argued that there is at least some amount of concern over a suspect's intentions, thus physical force is always arguably justified under those terms. Completely unreasonable, actively harmful.

I really don't understand how people are watching that clip and claiming he is not complying. He's going prone the same way I would go prone, albeit maybe slightly more slowly. He doesn't even stop for more than a split second on the one knee before the kick lands. Whether the kick was an accident or what, it was unnecessary and there were way better ways to handle that.

I honestly think the biggest problem is the angle of the video, you can't exactly see well how the legs move. Although if anyone is considering that "Stopping" then they are pretty freaking dense, because a few moments before the kick he was still clearly lowering himself as seen from the movements of their behind. How many times was the video shown to the jury in order to make their decision? Because if they are told about the "Sprinter Stance" beforehand and only shown it once I think they would mentally see them as being prepared to run, like some psychological bullshit.

The cop even starts swinging their leg as he brings his knee down, he was planning on this.

[QUOTE=SinjinOmega;49279209]I honestly think the biggest problem is the angle of the video, you can't exactly see well how the legs move. Although if anyone is considering that "Stopping" then they are pretty freaking dense, because a few moments before the kick he was still clearly lowering himself as seen from the movements of their behind. How many times was the video shown to the jury in order to make their decision? Because if they are told about the "Sprinter Stance" beforehand and only shown it once I think they would mentally see them as being prepared to run, like some psychological bullshit.[/QUOTE] The whole "not complying" thing is bullshit too, the guy gets shouted at from behind, turns around and sees cops with guns. You can see hesitation as he realizes whats going on then proceeds to raise his hands above his head, the cop forces him to turn and he starts to get on the ground. Then *kick*, broken jaw.

[QUOTE=D3vils Buddy;49278667][IMG]http://i.giphy.com/oN0FGeW9ZEvDy.gif[/IMG] Sprinter stance? Really far fetched if youre saying that. The dudes getting on the ground and moving his foot back just as he gets his jaw broken.[/QUOTE] Well I guess it depends on what you mean by "sprinter stance". He most certainly isn't in a stance you could effectively burst into a sprint from seeing as how the man has a knee planted on the pavement. If I must say it looks like anything it would be the resting stance you take in the blocks as you wait for the official's command to adopt the set position(i) or what makes the most sense a man slowly crawling onto the ground for armed police officers. [IMG]http://www.sport-fitness-advisor.com/images/sprinting_technique_start.jpg[/IMG] For reference (i) is the set position.

This is why cops need to be held to a higher standard and actually be accountable for their actions

[QUOTE=zeroXSBK;49280088]Well I guess it depends on what you mean by "sprinter stance". This most certainly isn't a stance you could effectively burst into a sprint from seeing as how the man has a knee planted on the pavement. If I must say it looks like anything it would be the resting stance you take in the blocks as you wait for the official's command to adopt the set position(i) or what makes the most sense a man slowly crawling onto the ground for armed police officers. [IMG]http://www.sport-fitness-advisor.com/images/sprinting_technique_start.jpg[/IMG] For reference (i) is the set position.[/QUOTE] Thing is, the dude doesn't have blocks, has his trousers/pants/joggers hanging around his ass and (from the angle) a police office standing in front of him. This 'whole stance' was probably something thought up by either the officer or someone on the force after all this shit went down. Not saying youre wrong btw, its does look like a sprinter or runners starting position. But so do many things when you describe them in a certain way. I seriously doubt the officer that kicked his face, in the 1-2 seconds, thought "fuck me, this guy is pulling a Usian and about to Bolt, better kick his teeth in". [editline]9th December 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=cody8295;49280125]This is why cops need to be held to a higher standard and actually be accountable for their actions[/QUOTE] Unfortunately, As long as there are people to say "well the courts deemed it justifiable so who am I to argue", they won't be. Unless your case gets huge media attention and all eyes watching, what you did will most likely be brushed under the carpet. A nice payout for the victim, paid suspension for the office and its all okay.

[QUOTE=Killer900;49276746]It was excessive force yes, he claims he was aiming for his torso and not his face although why he couldn't put his knee on his back instead I'm not sure, heat of the moment I guess. And he wasn't fully prone, he was "felony prone", you even quoted it in the OP. You can see it in the video, he starts to get down yet slows up and ends up kneeling on one knee, the officers weren't exactly sure what his next move may have been. I agree it was excessive, but Dickerson has a criminal record stretching back to 2002, so yeah like you say he isn't innocent and that is correct. Dickerson was also charged with assault, theft, and resisting arrest from this incident but the charges were dropped.[/QUOTE] Felony prone, huh.. Never heard of that one myself. [editline]9th December 2015[/editline] I see it is a thing, though.. Anyways, the kick was clearly unnecessary pain&injury to the suspect criminal.