police procedure is, once you refuse testing the tape is turned off (& yes i’ve refused, so i know 1st-hand).

how was he to know she’s faceplant into the floor instead of the wall?

those injuries are consistent with a faceplant…and with handcuffs on, there’s nothing to prevent the slam into the floor & the subsequent amount of blood.

Would anyone here have a problem with a bunch of folks catching this ex-cop out on a street, turning off their video camera, and turning it back on to show him being carted off by an ambulance?

It’s just his word against their’s … they couldn’t be found guilty of beating him down, so there is no point to prosecuting them.

He just fell down, really, really, really hard.

That act alone, should result in some sort of sanction by his superiors.

Then there’s all tha blood …

What the hell else were they supposed to do, with someone who was not cooperating?

JannyMae on February 21, 2008 at 3:57 PM

Handcuff them, check.
Put them in a holding cell or an anchor position, (bench with a rail to cuff them to) No check.
I can’t believe some people who think that being unruly or acting out, cussing or even spitting on a cop while handcuffed is a license to get their face kicked in. If you truly, honestly think she deserved it or “fell down”, you’re late for the bridge sale.
Police have to be held to a higher standard than civilians because they are representatives of the law. They have a great power should be subject to a higher standard because of that.
Not to mention the whole “brotherhood” of police. I know that most, even the vast majority of Police officers are good. It’s the bad ones that need to be made an example of. This cop has prior assault complaints against him, no wonder the dept got rid of him. He’s a liability. I guarantee she will make a boatload of money out of this and she should sue him into oblivion just for the hell of it. The preponderance of evidence is against him.

If you buy the she “just fell” argument, why was there no attempt at first aid by any of the police in attendance? If a non-suspect fell and injured themselves, would the police just stand there and look at a non-suspect bleeding profusely on the floor, or would they administer first aid? A compress on the bleeding wound?

Mofugger on February 21, 2008 at 8:28 AM

You’re ridiculous. Dude, if that was the case there would have been blood splat all over the place from her “resisting arrest” in the whole first part of that tape. Dude, the tape came back on, blood was pooled IN ONE SPOT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE FLOOR BY HER FACE, and she was screaming “Help me! He just beat the crap out of me!” Yeah, Sherlock! She got the injuries in a DUI hit & run crash! BTW ~ Before, he turned the video off, did you notice her, after she asked to make a phone call, look right into the camera as say, “is that thing on? I hope you’re getting this all on tape!”

JannyMae on February 21, 2008 at 11:00 AM

Yes, they said it was policy. But was it also policy to turn it back on? DOH!! Seems to me she got angrier and angrier as a “drunk” because he was giving her the phone call which she felt was in her rights. Cop sure did had it by policy. DOH 2X!!

BOTTOM LINE: HE’S FIRED!!!

unseen on February 20, 2008 at 9:35 PM

Punk-A$$ anarchy is not becoming. No one should be able to “He did what he had to do to subdue the suspect. I could care less how he did it.” Why don’t you go down to Berkeley and say these same stupid crap, because it’s no different. It’s no different regardless of whose right/wrong, guilty/innocent. If you make statements like this then you AGREE that the officer took matters into his own hands. If that’s the case, HE broke the law and therefore, is as much of a “dirtbag” as you might consider her to be. If we’re using “law-breakers” as “dirtbags” terminology. I don’t want “dirtbags” representing the law.

But when the camera goes off, and then comes on again and she is laying in a pint of her own blood with a broken nose, black eyes and busted teeth, I’m going to convict.

Allow me to speculate, as well. Looks to me like the evidence is consistent with the woman taking a face-plant.

Also, people seem to be ignoring that the tape was shut off per policy, and that the woman, according to video is indeed facing a trial for DWI, reckless driving, etc. unlike what someone said.

I also noted that, as soon as the woman confirmed that she was being recorded, she became more belligerent and the cop ended up cuffing her, to control her.

The cop may have beat her, but I doubt it. He definitely screwed up by not having someone else in the room.

He most definitely beat her. Glad he got fired. And hope she has a brother bigger and madder than he.

Sick.

although it doesn’t show you anything GMA doesn’t.

It also doesn’t show you the smarmy little GMA fem introducing the piece with his faux concern.

Does anyone here remeber the douche bag john fairplay when he jumped on Danny Bonaduce. Fairplay fucked up his grill pretty badly. Very much the same way this bitch probaly did. If your handcuffed you can’t break your fall so it is possible she could have fallen and broken her nose and a few teeth. Not to mention the pics of were taken after the swelling so it looks far worse. Don’t be so fast to judge things may not be the way they seem.

What makes you want to ignore everyone else that has had the same injuries and all of them received NOT by police abuse? Seriously, what is up?
Voidseeker on February 20, 2008 at 3:44 PM

When pro-lifers got arrested for rescue missions in the late 80s, angry cops (only a very very few, not the majority) would handcuff the prolifer, then hold him up (instructions to prolifers were to go limp when being arrested) then let him drop him on his face. Prolifers sued a couple and the cops claimed the person tripped while handcuffed.

So the “same injuries” can result from abuse because the same thing is happening, only from the officer’s actions, not the DWI lady’s.

Bottom line: turning off the camera makes him look awfully bad, no matter whose procedure told him to do it.

Was she being a drunken pain in the butt? Yes.

Would I normally support a cop who was just trying to restrain an out of control drunk? Yes.

However this is pretty cut and dry IMO.

The technology exists and its not expensive.

I think it would be a very good use of time for the Justice Department to do a little sniffing around that Department.

I am glad that piece of garbage has been fired.

Criminal charges should be filed and a massive lawsuit should hit that city.

I do not want to live in a society where cops turn off surveilance cameras so that they can beat a woman and leave them lying in pools of blood on the floor.

The worst part is most cops probably think this thugs actions are justified.

Tim Burton on February 20, 2008 at 11:28 PM

Why did he get fired then? The police chief obviously thought something was not right. The local news here says the DA, State boys and FBI are reviewing the facts so it may not be over yet.