Video: Time for another 800-comment police brutality thread
posted at 8:17 pm on May 13, 2009 by Allahpundit
Via HuffPo, an unusual entry in our long series of cops behaving badly: There’s no doubt that this is, in fact, brutality, but there is some doubt that any serious harm was done. Also, what’s the deal with the press making a big deal about the high-five? It’s not clear if the second cop even saw the kick to the suspect’s face. Looks to me like they’re celebrating having apprehended him, not booting him in the skull.
Still, a nasty blow, and one for which he’ll surely reprimanded. Prediction: Desk duty for three months.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 3 4 5 6 Next »
Unless you’re a public servant. Then breaking the law is admirable.
Pablo on May 14, 2009 at 1:45 PM
Whoooooa, we’re halfway there….
Pablo on May 14, 2009 at 1:46 PM
I live in LA and, while I don’t think the kick was strictly necessary, I have ZERO sympathy for the nasty little gang-banger who got kicked in the head. These people have contributed greatly to the utter ruination of what apparently used to be a decent city to live in. In fact, it wouldn’t bother me one tiny bit if the cop had just blown his head off instead.
califcon on May 14, 2009 at 1:49 PM
I agree. And it pisses me off that the cop has probably done him a big favor. I sure hope he enjoyed himself.
Pablo on May 14, 2009 at 1:56 PM
Sorry: bad move on the cop’s part; perp is flat on the ground, no visible weapon; cop is armed, gun drawn and then boots the guy in the head. No justification. The second cop who punches the perp in the ribs a number of times doesn’t seem justified, the perp was clearly contained. Both should face some discipline, the first cop, the most.
Willie on May 14, 2009 at 2:03 PM
No sympathy for the perp, but he doesn’t have standards. The cop does. He failed to live up to those standards and should be disciplined according to the rules of his department. Without rules anarchy prevails.
SKYFOX on May 14, 2009 at 2:06 PM
So sick of this. Who knows why he was being pursued, the guy almost hit someone head on, then damaged someone’s car. He will not be held accountable for that, and the owner has to pay out of pocket. My belief is, if you run from the police, you are guilty and they have the right to open fire.
Doctor B on May 14, 2009 at 3:20 PM
That is the same as kicking someone on the ground who is defenseless?
Once someone gives up, then the game is over…you won, no reason to kick him in the face, you got him, on the ground, with a gun trained on him.
Now if the guy got up and came at the officer, shoot him…or if he got up and ran, shoot him.
You are basically saying, if the guy was even in jail, you can walk in and beat him because he evaded arrest?
right2bright on May 14, 2009 at 3:48 PM
I’ll defend any police officer if I think there’s a reasonable explanation for thier behavior. This was a cop kicking a guy who had stopped resisting. I think that, in this case, AllahPundit’s analysis in the beginning is dead-on.
q2600 on May 14, 2009 at 4:29 PM
Make me, jackass. You’re the libertarian weirdo who wanted to play word games. Why are you people such weirdos all the time. You’re down right creepy.
Blake on May 14, 2009 at 5:23 PM
Good example proving that you, allahpundit, and others don’t know what the hell you are talking about. The guy was refusing to allow the officer to handcuff him and he struck him several times in the side. That is a legitimate police tactic.
I don’t know what the first cop saw or what he heard or where he kicked the guy or why, but unlike you and others, I’ll wait for his explanation. Almost every time you people hang these cops and then we find out the police officer was acting legally and how he was trained to react. And for this vicious kick in the head people claim he received, he only has a red mark on his cheek which doesn’t look like it was caused by a shoe.
Blake on May 14, 2009 at 5:31 PM
Looking at it again, he did kick him in the shoulder.
Blake on May 14, 2009 at 5:34 PM
Apparently I hit quite a nerve.
Of course, I’m not the one arguing in favor of extrajudicial punishment, or aligning myself with those who are in favor of turning cops into executioners.
That is behavior best discussed at Stormfront. I’m quite sure Blake is more comfortable there, then he is discussing matters with libertarians concerned with the maintenance of our constitutional republic, given his clear disregard for the precepts that republic is built upon.
JohnGalt23 on May 14, 2009 at 5:35 PM
Is it the training in this person’s town to kick a person in this situation? Again, I’d like to see that training manual.
I’d also like the ability to question a police officer’s actions without having the servants of the public treat my good faith inquiries with condescension and derision. If there’s a complaint about the public’s perception of something, then educate…don’t dicate.
JohnTant on May 14, 2009 at 5:37 PM
I’m not a public servant. Piss off.
And yes, blows to the shoulder are legitimate restraint techniques. Also, the police union has stepped forward and said this was a distraction blow which is also a legitimate technique.
Maybe if you and others did not treat cops with condescension and derision, people wouldn’t respond in kind.
If you want to see a copy of the training manual, try FOIA.
Blake on May 14, 2009 at 5:44 PM
I’m not the one making the argument that this guy is reacting as trained. You are. So put up. :)
And where have I treated you or anyone else with condescension, such that you feel justified in telling me to “piss off?” Maybe if by abandoning the bullying you might be more persuasive.
As for the union…isn’t the purpose of the union to protect the member, not determine truth? It’s like asking the cop’s lawyer if it was OK. If he was actually trained to kick a person who had surrendered and was lying prone, then let’s see it. Otherwise it’s either unsupported opinion or unpersuasive after-the-face justification.
JohnTant on May 14, 2009 at 5:48 PM
Also, Blake…are you (or have you been) a police officer? That might help to put your opinions into context.
JohnTant on May 14, 2009 at 5:50 PM
Tant: Read your damn post to me and don’t tell me you weren’t rude and condescending. I have no desire to persuade you of anything. Do your own research. You want to see the training manual, FOIA it. And I see that you automatically assume the police union rep is lying with out even checking to see if there was a basis for what he said. Oh, and piss off!
Blake on May 14, 2009 at 6:14 PM
Clearly not what happened here.
Perp was lying on the ground with arms outstretched. What more was there to “finish”?
In this case, the moral high ground is about a toe high. It’s clear brutality, and will result in action against the officer, and probably a lawsuit against the force.
So the perp clearly needed a swift kick in the head.
Right back atcha! You’re the type that just can’t and wont accept the reality of police brutality. Disgusting.
csdeven on May 14, 2009 at 12:41 AM
deesine on May 14, 2009 at 6:14 PM
I think one must work extra hard to take offense at anything I’ve written here.
Your posts, on the other hand, make it pretty easy to do so.
In short, with your posts we’re left with unsupported opinion delivered in a bullying style. I’m reminded of the old law school saw…when you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. When you have the law on your side, argue the law. When you have neither, get belligerent and insulting.
I particularly laugh at the demand that I prove a negative, or to do “my own research” to support your claim. You made the assertion, and if you can’t back it up then it’s consigned with the flat Earth theory.
Further, where did I say the union was lying? I pointed out the union is not an unbiased source. If you automatically jump to “oh, so you think they’re lying” then that betrays a certain suspicion on your part of the same, I think….
JohnTant on May 14, 2009 at 6:40 PM
See, I knew you were simply a liberal loon who has secret desires to kick people for no reason and cannot fathom a situation where a cop kicks a guy in the head to simply protect the community.
You are a F**KING loon.
csdeven on May 14, 2009 at 7:19 PM
My emotional side screams, “Kick ‘em again”. But my rational side is shouting; “AWWW!!! Damn!!! Not again!!!”
Zaire67 on May 14, 2009 at 7:20 PM
From where I’m sitting, the only mistake the police made was not shooting the gang banger dead.
Jabba The Cat on May 14, 2009 at 7:34 PM
The punk should get kicked in the head for every $20 worth of damage to the two cars that he damaged.
Spartacus on May 14, 2009 at 7:44 PM
Quit pretending like there is a debate here, the only reason you care about this video is because seeing people getting a beat down gives you something to beat off to besides mein kampf
sirmyth on May 14, 2009 at 7:47 PM
No, you’re just a lazy and dishonest jerk.
And you and your ilk have neither the facts nor the law. However, it doesn’t seem to stop you from making dishonest arguments, jumping to conclusions, and just out and out making crap up.
Laugh all you want, fool. You are the one who made the assertion that there was police brutality — you prove it, jackass. You are so biased, you can’t even describe what occurs on the video tape honestly: He was kicked in the shoulder – not the head. When the other officer strikes him on the side, he is resisting being cuffed.
Somebody is lying and apparently it is you. Oh, and your pretense that you are arguing in good faith as oppose to making the smarmy arguments that in fact you are making, was a good one. You started with the insults and continued with them. So, piss off!
Blake on May 14, 2009 at 7:55 PM
Chris Rock agrees with you.
CanuckInPA on May 14, 2009 at 8:14 PM
Only at 425 comments.
I’m not thinkin’ this hits 800 unless the gangbanger turns out to be Obama.
cntrlfrk on May 14, 2009 at 8:29 PM
You certainly went through a lot of trouble to parse my post, and yet you weren’t able to offer anything substantive. Not one point was refuted. Instead all you are apparently willing to offer is ad hominem and defensive tough-guy posturing ala the Monty Python “argument” sketch. Unfortunately, that doesn’t make your arguments persuasive.
Since you have only offered your unsupported opinion as to what’s right, I guess the thread will have to accept it in the spirit in which it’s offered and move on.
Too bad you decided to punt the opportunity to enlighten.
JohnTant on May 14, 2009 at 9:05 PM
Oh, bullshit. You don’t know what you’re talking about. In fact, you’re making it up. Stoner.
Quote?
Pablo on May 14, 2009 at 10:27 PM
FRED!!!
C’mon, csdeven. Lose your mind again. You’re always fun to watch unravel.
Pablo on May 14, 2009 at 10:30 PM
Yeah, because it would be really cool if his family collected millions of taxpayer dollars instead of him collecting thousands. I’ll bet his Chief of police is chewing his ass right now, asking “Why didn’t you just shoot the son of a bitch, on camera?”
Pablo on May 14, 2009 at 10:32 PM
Haha!
Sweet!
He should have drop kicked him in the nutsack though.
The high-five is simply a congratulatory gesture between ‘teammates’. Meh… Big effin deal.
SilverStar830 on May 14, 2009 at 10:34 PM
P.S.: The only thread’s that get ’800 comments’, AllahP, are the ‘police
brutalityexcessive force’ video’s you like to post… that aren’t!SilverStar830 on May 14, 2009 at 10:37 PM
Oh look! It’s Sherrif Pusser. Nice to see you, Silver Star. How many punks did you beat on today?
Pablo on May 14, 2009 at 10:38 PM
Yeah, that’s real police work.
Pablo on May 14, 2009 at 10:47 PM
Nah. More like real forward thinking.
SilverStar830 on May 14, 2009 at 10:56 PM
Huh. It certainly isn’t thinking as far forward as the courthouse. What’s the upside, exactly?
Pablo on May 14, 2009 at 10:59 PM
Oh Pablo. Pobrecito :(
SilverStar830 on May 14, 2009 at 11:05 PM
Oh, so you don’t have an answer then. Thanks, Buford!
Pablo on May 14, 2009 at 11:07 PM
This is more evidence of your lunacy. You clearly lose your cool and project that onto others. You’ve already admitted that you desire to kick someone in the head because they don’t ascribe to your misguided “reality”.
I have never threatened a HA member over any discussion. You have.
Case closed. You’re a loon.
Point 2: I never unraveled about ?fred?. I was proven correct about ?fred? from the beginning. Every move he made I predicted weeks before he made it. It was you ?fred? dopes who unraveled.
Deal with it loser.
csdeven on May 15, 2009 at 12:10 AM
As with all these cases, I – like all thinking people – would prefer to have a little more information before passing judgment. A better picture and some sound would help. If the officer had some legitimate reason to think the
scumbagheroic victim was reaching for (or intending to reach for) a weapon, it makes a lot of difference.Of course, the fact that I loathe people who willingly put others in danger, who disrespect their fellow citizens enough to put their lives in jeopardy … has almost nothing to do with my caution before passing judgment.
I guess we really should have a fair trial first. But then can we kick him in the head a few times? Please?
Professor Blather on May 15, 2009 at 12:40 AM
I have no clue what you’re talking about, kid. But I do know that you’ve been a full on loon for years, and you were so unhinged back in the Fred days that I used to tune in just to see you unravel.
So whoever the other guy is … he’s probably right.
:)
Knock yourself out getting in a lather. Fred would have beaten Obama, you know …
Professor Blather on May 15, 2009 at 12:41 AM
You moronic dolt…that lying fake ?fred? couldn’t even beat McShanesty. His involvement in the race was to simply get stupid asses like you to give money to his campaign so he could drop out of the race, transfer his remaining cash to his PAC, and then hire his unqualified family (at exorbitant salaries)to “manage” it. Just like he did in the last campaign he strung you fools out with just to finally refuse to run at the last minute.
csdeven on May 15, 2009 at 12:52 AM
I can’t read the prevous pages of comments so perhaps this point has already been made, but here’s my observation of this incident:
the officer kicked the guy’s face away from the officer’s body to prevent the suspect both biting the officer and/or spitting at him.
In these days, law enforcement can be killed by both or either biting and/or spitting.
Lourdes on May 15, 2009 at 1:08 AM
#444 – you’re welcome.
Oh, the officer will need to complete sensitivity training before being reinstated.
Next time, stick with the old “wood shampoo”.
Laura in Maryland on May 15, 2009 at 1:26 AM
Lourdes – hilarious comment; well done.
Lost in all of the foofarah here is the often overlooked point that Allah had the analysis instantly, and pretty much spot on right from the get-go.
Shouldn’t have done it; no big deal; ignore the press “high-five” distraction; the cop will be reprimanded; AP guesses 3 months and that sounds about right, but who knows.
All the high dudgeon from our libertarian cop haters is a circle jerk, and my crowd suggesting that if they had shot him in the car no one would have bat an eye is probably a little Rambo-esque.
Meh. This story was over before we stopped spitting at each other.
Jaibones on May 15, 2009 at 7:52 AM
No, I haven’t. You inability to read for comprehension does not constitute a threat on my part. Ya nutcase.
Pablo on May 15, 2009 at 8:15 AM
Professor Blather,
Hilarious stuff, wasn’t it?
FRED!!
Pablo on May 15, 2009 at 8:17 AM
As usual, everything out of your mouth, including “a” and “the” is a lie. Piss off.
Blake on May 15, 2009 at 8:43 AM
-
Could not have said it better my self! There is only one way to deal with scum like that, and make sure they do not commit any more crimes, and that is to eradicate them!
Confederate on May 15, 2009 at 9:05 AM
GOOOOOAAAAALLL!
Navig8r on May 15, 2009 at 9:15 AM
Death Wish rules! Paul Kersey wasn’t a cop, though. Cops have that pesky “uphold the law” thing to wrestle with.
Pablo on May 15, 2009 at 9:17 AM
Leave Rooster alone!!!
Pablo on May 15, 2009 at 9:36 AM
It is obvious that he slipped
la.rt.wngr on May 15, 2009 at 10:05 AM
Am I the only one who sees the boot actually hitting the perp in the brachial plexus area? This would be like a karate chop to the neck.
I’m not excusing the cop – it was completely unnecessary. But if the blow was actually to the plexus area, it would suggest that the intent was to disable the perp, not humiliate him. Which sure makes a whole lot more sense.
connertown on May 15, 2009 at 10:34 AM
Hey, it looks like this cop is a real warrior in fighting gangs and gang culture on the streets of El Monte. He’s got a little side business, it seems. Maybe everyone can go buy a Mexican Mafia T-Shirt from him to show your support for his fine, fine work. Or maybe this one. Everybody should have a 186.22 T-shirt.
Kinda ironic that his fellow officers seem to think that Officer Fierro is a rat, ain’t it?
Pablo on May 15, 2009 at 11:05 AM
This was justice. A Mexican gangbanger put hundreds in jeopardy of their lives by engaging the police in a pursuit. He got exactly what he deserved. Most people don’t realize that police administered punishments were what kept crime low before we got the 60s and 70s and the assault on law enforcement those decades gave us. Police administered punishments deter crime. I bet this joker will think hard about his choice of a criminal lifestyle.
federale86 on May 15, 2009 at 11:08 AM
Harder!
BallisticBob on May 15, 2009 at 11:21 AM
I have often said, they should pass a law that basically says, if you get beaten up after running or resisting arrest, then you can’t be charged for resisting arrest.
jeffn21 on May 15, 2009 at 11:28 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s61cL6b3hws
Watch what he says between 1:27 and 1:32
98fromCA on May 15, 2009 at 1:25 PM
To further the quest for 800 comments…
The cop does have the his gun pulled. The perp is lying motionless on the ground. It certainly seems like, even though no backup is present, the cop is clearly in control. The kick appears unnecessary, but we have several layers of due process to determine it. My comment from the last page of comments does assume an outcome, so that is a level of armchair quarterbacking, I suppose.
We don’t know if there were verbal exchanges, so, yes, I would like like to hear from the cop. The video also can’t see from the angle at which the cop can see, so maybe the cop saw something the aerial couldn’t that made him think his own life was in jeopardy. If the perp were saying he was going to do something to the cop, even though he were otherwise motionless, then, yes, his head should have become a football. Had the guy had been shifting his muscles (or had the cop thought he had been), then, yes, it’s time for kickoff. It doesn’t *look* like he’s talking or shifting, but who knows.
Perhaps I don’t know what I’m talking about, but, as much leniency as I’d like to give the cops, that is simply no longer the age in which the ACLU lets us live.
flutejpl on May 15, 2009 at 1:50 PM
I have no problem with what I saw in the video whatsoever.
D2Boston on May 15, 2009 at 2:14 PM
I wasn’t going for hilarity nor anything entertaining. And I do believe the officer was doing whatever he could to REDIRECT the suspect’s head/face/mouth AWAY from the officer so the officer could cuff the guy without interference from the suspect’s available “weapon” which was his face/mouth.
The suspect had already put the public at great risk, the cops were right to apply force to get the guy, who was a known gang associate (thus, violent history). So the first cop on the scene (who used his foot to kick the guy’s face away from himself) wasn’t acting randomly or impulsively, he was approaching as fast as possible a known violent criminal.
I would NOT condemn the cop in this situation. Not at all.
Lourdes on May 15, 2009 at 2:32 PM
Wait to hear from the cop. He is lying on the ground, but that does not mean that he is complying.
We don’t know what words (if any) are exchanged. And what directives the perp was not following.
“Guilty until proven innocent” *ALSO* applies to the cop.
jlibson on May 15, 2009 at 2:39 PM
I happened to see one of the local news broadcasts last night and the community of El Monte seemed primarily grateful for the officer’s treatment of this scumbag.
Here’s a little excerpt from the story in today’s LA Times:
He also hit at least one vehicle. Does anyone think, as a well-known gangbanger with a lengthy criminal record, he carries insurance that will compensate that person for damages, no?
califcon on May 15, 2009 at 2:43 PM
Are we at 800 yet?
exlibris on May 15, 2009 at 3:28 PM
Kid deserves to ket his head kicked just for wearing those stupid enormous shorts.
Alden Pyle on May 15, 2009 at 3:45 PM
467, far less than 800. Would be even less if you subtracted the fools like me who just comment on the count.
TooTall on May 15, 2009 at 3:49 PM
Video and television are deceptive things. Remember the Bush in Albania wrist-watch incident.
1960 Nixon v. Kennedy debate:
Radio listeners: Nixon won.
TV watchers: Kennedy won.
Libs controlled the video.
Feedie on May 15, 2009 at 4:32 PM
The gangbanger deserves a few swift kicks to the family jewels and some quality time, about 40 years worth, with a cellmate named Spike.
Actually, the cop should be reprimanded for not shooting him! Now more taxpayer money will be spent on this low-life.
Just wondering what the odds of our little gangbanger friend being an illegal? Pretty good I’d say.
Bubba Redneck on May 15, 2009 at 11:17 PM
I’m sensing a voter initiative along these lines in many, many states.
Bubba Redneck on May 15, 2009 at 11:20 PM
Perhaps the gangbanger owed the cop a few bucks for some of the shirts?
Bubba Redneck on May 16, 2009 at 12:50 AM
No, I agree. I also believe if he had been kicked in the head, he would have visible injuries. While he does have some on the right side of his face, it could be more to resisting being cuffed immediately afterwards. He’s a young guy and a fast runner. The police officer, not so young, just did a sprint to catch him. He’s tired, alone, and doesn’t want to be put in the position that mr. gangbanger is going to physically fight him with the possibility he’ll disarm him.
Blake on May 16, 2009 at 6:50 AM
BS
The cop (and I use the term loosely) had a gun trained on a spread-eagled guy wearing shorts. This clown was in no danger until he kicked the guy. He could have slipped, or the guy could have grabbed his leg and pulled him down. The brave bozo just had to get his cheap shot in. The El Monte Clown College shows what it really is with the laughable excuse it put out.
Whenever you think that the self-deluded only hang out with the DUMmies or the Kos Kidz, just remember that self-described “conservatives” write the nonsense you read here. Police enforce laws – they have no business punishing suspects.
corona on May 16, 2009 at 9:20 AM
Sorry to lump you in with these moronic idiots who claim they can divine the officers intentions from a video clip, but you’ve made the same assumption also.
This goes for you turds who come in here claiming to be officers yourselves. Lying BS artists. But you didn’t fool me.
For further clarification….
See, it’s perfectly clear that the douches who claim the officer was dispensing his brand of justice are really just closet jackboot NAZI’s whom are projecting their desires to dispense their brand of justice against people who are more knowledgeable and refuse to acquiesce to their threats.
Pablo is the worst offender (and the stupidest for admitting as much) as he has already threatened to kick a HA member in the head.
csdeven on May 16, 2009 at 10:29 AM
What isn’t ironic is that here you are again assuming you know the intent of this officer with no evidence to substantiate it whatsoever.
I guess we all ought to be careful or you’ll threaten to kick another HA member for not buying into your tripe.
csdeven on May 16, 2009 at 10:38 AM
Bump for the count.
I know the cop didn’t waterboard the perp, but he coulda fence boarded him.
44Magnum on May 16, 2009 at 10:52 AM
You’re hallucinating that, which is not surprising. I just think he’s a dope. And I’ll bet that his Chief has told him the same thing.
Pablo on May 16, 2009 at 10:27 PM
That’s pretty funny, csdeven. Here’s a little clue for you: Lawyers are not the same thing as cops.
Pablo on May 16, 2009 at 10:29 PM
That’s pretty funny, csdeven. Here’s a little clue for you: Lawyers are not the same thing as cops.
Not as funny as you, jackass. Here’s a big clue for you: Lawyers are not the same thing as cops unless they are, you know, cops.
Dammeier became a police officer in 1989 and worked full time until he received his law degree in 1996. After becoming a full time attorney, he continued to work in law enforcement as a reserve sheriff’s deputy. He specializes in police litigation.
Blake on May 16, 2009 at 11:09 PM
Oh, he specializes in police litigation? As a cop? No, Blake, as a lawyer. Doing what lawyers do. Which, as often as not, is spreading fertilizer. Telling tales on behalf of their client. That being what lawyers do. And that, dear Blake, is what Dammeier is doing in regard to Fierro.
This, btw, is pretty funny too.
Or it could be more to
kicking himself in the headcutting himself while shaving!That video, where you see the cop kicking him in the right side of the head, and then where you see the injury to the right side of his head? No relation at all.
Have you ever done stand up, Blake?
Pablo on May 17, 2009 at 8:51 AM
A priest, a rabbi and a gangbanger walk into a bar…
No, they didn’t! Damn your lying eyes!
Pablo on May 17, 2009 at 8:53 AM
Hey, jackass! I responded to your bullshit. You are the asshole who shot his mouth off to cdsdeven. You are the one who tried to claim that since Dammeier is an atty he can not state that the officer acted within his training and department policy. It backfired on you, jackass. And once again, you made yourself look like a fool.
That video where I see him kicking the suspect in the shoulder would not cause the injuries to his face. The resisting being cuffed would. If he had kicked him with the force to the right side of his head that you claim, he would have serious injuries — not a few scrapes and redness. Lord, you are stupid.
Blake on May 17, 2009 at 11:41 AM
No, I noted that he’s a lawyer, dipshit. Apparently, you can’t read any better than csdeven. Have you two ever been in the same place at the same time?
That’s funny. Everyone else sees him getting kicked in the face. Like, read the post, genius.
Shoulder! I SAID SHOULDER! Damn your lying eyes!
You’re a joke, Blake.
Pablo on May 17, 2009 at 5:10 PM
Oh, btw, Google “distraction blow” and see how many hits you get that aren’t related to
OfficerAttorney Dammeier’s bullscat.Pablo on May 17, 2009 at 5:20 PM
Oh, knock it off, loser. You attempted to discredit csdeven by insulting him and to discredit Dammeir’s statement that the officer acted within dept. training and policy by claiming he is not a cop. You made yourself look like an asshole. Live with it.
No, not everyone. And not by me. And the lack of significant injuries to the right side of his face supports what I and others see. Again, you lose.
I’m sure allahpundit will be happy to add you to his legion of ass kissers. But if you think that is proof of anything other than his opinion, you lose.
You’re a real fool, dumbass.
Blake on May 17, 2009 at 7:54 PM
FOIA police procedure manuals from a variety of police departments and I guarantee you will find distraction blow in every one.
Blake on May 17, 2009 at 7:58 PM
Quote me saying that, liar.
“Google El Monte Cop shoulder kick” then Google El Monte cop head kick. You are part of a very small, low sighted, delusional minority. Except you did see injuries to his face, but you want to explain them away as a result of handcuffing. Because being handcuffed always messes your face up.
You’re an idiot, Blake. Things will be easier for you once you accept that painful fact.
Pablo on May 18, 2009 at 7:19 AM
Why FOIA request when you can just Google? How about this one? It isn’t there. Maybe this one? Hmmm. No. It seems that you don’t know what you’re talking about, Blake.
Pablo on May 18, 2009 at 7:30 AM
Spin. Spin. Spin. You’ve got to be dizzy by now. Again, give it up, loser.
Opinion by google??? Lord, you are dumb! Nope, I’m part of a very small, very intelligent, educated minority. Facial injuries from resisting handcuffs is not uncommon. But, since you probably won’t find it in google, in your pablo pea brain it can’t be true. And facial scrapes and slight redness are not the type of injuries one would get by being kicked in the head. Again, I can’t believe how stupid you are. Jeesh!
Nah, you’re the idiot, pablocito. It’ll be better for you when you stop projecting your deficiencies on others and get help.
Blake on May 18, 2009 at 9:08 AM
So, what you’re saying is you can’t quote me saying that. That makes sense, because I didn’t. Liar.
Damn your brilliant, lying eyes! It isn’t a matter of opinion, Blake. It’s a matter of being able to see. And what you can see on the vid is a kick in the head.
You, dear sir, are an idiot. I have done my share of handcuffing, and also being handcuffed as a matter of training. I don’t need an internet blowhard to tell me how that works. But I can give you this news flash: handcuffs go on the wrists. And when you’re face down in the grass, you don’t get facial injuries from being cuffed.
So Blake, about that guarantee of yours….Whadda ya got?
Pablo on May 18, 2009 at 9:29 AM
Oooh, and tell me again how police abuse claims never get settled, Mr. Very Intelligent, Educated Minority! That fits well with the term you guarantee will be in every single police procedure manual, yet doesn’t appear in, well, most if any.
There’s a word for people like you, Blake: Wrong.
Pablo on May 18, 2009 at 9:34 AM
Why? Obviously, because they are not going to put all their manuals online, you idiot. You really think they are going to make public all their use of force training, procedures, techniques,and tactics manuals to the benefit of thugs and thuglovers like you? You are truly a fool. Also, in service training and education is ongoing. If you knew what you were talking about, and you clearly do not, you would know this. Your links refer to this material, but they don’t include it, for the reasons I already stated. Again, if you knew what you were talking about instead of merely starting pissing contests with anyone who doesn’t share your hatred of cops, you would have known what to look for. Clearly, you don’t.
In fact, subpoena is probably the better way to go rather than FOIA. Go ahead, knock yourself out.
Blake on May 18, 2009 at 9:58 AM
Oh, look! Pablo’s a top! Spin. Spin. Spin. Liar.
It’s called bias, thuglover. You hate cops so much you see what you want to see.
You handcuffing your boyfriend in bed, doesn’t count. I have seen people receive facial injuries while resisting being cuffed on grass and on carpeting. Carpeting is the worse.
I stand by my guarantee. I also stand by the guarantee that you are an idiot and will always be an idiot.
Blake on May 18, 2009 at 10:37 AM
Ok, first you tell me that every Police Procedures Manual is going to contain that information, I produce a couple of them (and there are dozens more available online) and then you tell me NOT THOSE POLICE PROCEDURES MANUALS!!!! YOU HAVE TO GET THE ONES THEY DON’T WANT YOU TO SEE!! THE SECRET ONES!!! Very funny, Blake.
Oh, and the thug lover is the guy in your mirror. Me, I like people who follow the law. Unlike you.
Pablo on May 18, 2009 at 10:38 AM
Again? I never said it to begin with, Mr. Very Dishonest, Uneducated Minority!
See my previous answer, peabrain.
And there are words for people like you: poseur, peabrain, personality disorder…
Blake on May 18, 2009 at 10:48 AM
Lord, you are a dishonest and bitter bore.
Blake on May 18, 2009 at 11:37 AM
Yes, you did. Here. I said:
And you quoted that and replied:
See how this works, Blake? When I assert that you said something, and you tell me you didn’t say it, I can link to you saying it and quote you saying it, proving you to be wrong and/or a liar. When the tables are turned, you link to nothing, quote nothing and say “Spin, spin, spin!” as if that means something other than that you’re a hack. You suck at this, Mr. Very Intelligent, Educated Minority!
Pablo on May 19, 2009 at 9:13 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 3 4 5 6 Next »