Police Brutality at Purdue

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The videos will speak for themselves. There is no reason to believe a word of police reports where there is video

By and large, I think body cams have helped police more than they harmed them. No idea what this one will show, but suspects are very often not honest, and police have given people reason not to trust them. Video isn't always reliable since it doesn't always provide the context we'd like. But it's better than nothing.

If the cop is shown beating someone on the ground, there is no context to justify it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The videos will speak for themselves. There is no reason to believe a word of police reports where there is video

By and large, I think body cams have helped police more than they harmed them. No idea what this one will show, but suspects are very often not honest, and police have given people reason not to trust them. Video isn't always reliable since it doesn't always provide the context we'd like. But it's better than nothing.

If the cop is shown beating someone on the ground, there is no context to justify it

Here it's a little more ambiguous. Cop is on top of the man. Cop's forearm goes from the guy's chin to throat to chest and back as the guy is moving under him. Not clear how much pressure is being applied. So, not a beating. Maybe a choke, but that's not entirely clear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The videos will speak for themselves. There is no reason to believe a word of police reports where there is video

By and large, I think body cams have helped police more than they harmed them. No idea what this one will show, but suspects are very often not honest, and police have given people reason not to trust them. Video isn't always reliable since it doesn't always provide the context we'd like. But it's better than nothing.

If the cop is shown beating someone on the ground, there is no context to justify it

Here it's a little more ambiguous. Cop is on top of the man. Cop's forearm goes from the guy's chin to throat to chest and back as the guy is moving under him. Not clear how much pressure is being applied. So, not a beating. Maybe a choke, but that's not entirely clear.

They never needed to come into physical contact. There was no arrest and no reasonable suspicion. By the time they ended up in the ground the cop already f’d up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The videos will speak for themselves. There is no reason to believe a word of police reports where there is video

By and large, I think body cams have helped police more than they harmed them. No idea what this one will show, but suspects are very often not honest, and police have given people reason not to trust them. Video isn't always reliable since it doesn't always provide the context we'd like. But it's better than nothing.

If the cop is shown beating someone on the ground, there is no context to justify it

Here it's a little more ambiguous. Cop is on top of the man. Cop's forearm goes from the guy's chin to throat to chest and back as the guy is moving under him. Not clear how much pressure is being applied. So, not a beating. Maybe a choke, but that's not entirely clear.

They never needed to come into physical contact. There was no arrest and no reasonable suspicion. By the time they ended up in the ground the cop already f’d up.

We can't possibly make that conclusion based on the video we have so far. Also, there was an arrest. From the student newspaper article, it sounds like the police arrested him for resisting efforts to separate the witnesses so the officer could conduct his investigation. Cop still could've f'd up, but we really don't know yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The videos will speak for themselves. There is no reason to believe a word of police reports where there is video

By and large, I think body cams have helped police more than they harmed them. No idea what this one will show, but suspects are very often not honest, and police have given people reason not to trust them. Video isn't always reliable since it doesn't always provide the context we'd like. But it's better than nothing.

If the cop is shown beating someone on the ground, there is no context to justify it

Here it's a little more ambiguous. Cop is on top of the man. Cop's forearm goes from the guy's chin to throat to chest and back as the guy is moving under him. Not clear how much pressure is being applied. So, not a beating. Maybe a choke, but that's not entirely clear.

They never needed to come into physical contact. There was no arrest and no reasonable suspicion. By the time they ended up in the ground the cop already f’d up.

We can't possibly make that conclusion based on the video we have so far. Also, there was an arrest. From the student newspaper article, it sounds like the police arrested him for resisting efforts to separate the witnesses so the officer could conduct his investigation. Cop still could've f'd up, but we really don't know yet.

We do know there was no crime before the cop assaulted the man.

So, there was no reason to investigate, no reason to separate, no reason to detain.

It's illegal to detain somebody that has not committed a crime.

The cop will have to prove that there was a reasonable suspicion that the man committed a crime. Talking loudly is not reasonable suspicion. If the woman had a black eye or somebody on the scene said that there was an assault on the woman there would have been reasonable suspicion. That did not exist.

[Anonymous]

It’s West Lafayette, Indiana. This is not surprising to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The cop will have to prove that there was a reasonable suspicion that the man committed a crime. Talking loudly is not reasonable suspicion. If the woman had a black eye or somebody on the scene said that there was an assault on the woman there would have been reasonable suspicion. That did not exist.

No. The burden of proof is going to depend on who is bringing a lawsuit. If the guy brings a civil suit against the cops, he's going to have to prove some things. If the State brings a criminal case against the guy, it's going to have to prove some things. And reasonable suspicion of a crime is not the only thing that would justify use of force. If the guy refused a lawful order to move away from a witness while the cop sought to interview that witness, the cop would have justification to use some level of force to stop him from interfering with that investigation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The cop will have to prove that there was a reasonable suspicion that the man committed a crime. Talking loudly is not reasonable suspicion. If the woman had a black eye or somebody on the scene said that there was an assault on the woman there would have been reasonable suspicion. That did not exist.

No. The burden of proof is going to depend on who is bringing a lawsuit. If the guy brings a civil suit against the cops, he's going to have to prove some things. If the State brings a criminal case against the guy, it's going to have to prove some things. And reasonable suspicion of a crime is not the only thing that would justify use of force. If the guy refused a lawful order to move away from a witness while the cop sought to interview that witness, the cop would have justification to use some level of force to stop him from interfering with that investigation.

No internal affairs need to investigate too.

You can’t order people around if there is no suspicion of a crime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The cop will have to prove that there was a reasonable suspicion that the man committed a crime. Talking loudly is not reasonable suspicion. If the woman had a black eye or somebody on the scene said that there was an assault on the woman there would have been reasonable suspicion. That did not exist.

No. The burden of proof is going to depend on who is bringing a lawsuit. If the guy brings a civil suit against the cops, he's going to have to prove some things. If the State brings a criminal case against the guy, it's going to have to prove some things. And reasonable suspicion of a crime is not the only thing that would justify use of force. If the guy refused a lawful order to move away from a witness while the cop sought to interview that witness, the cop would have justification to use some level of force to stop him from interfering with that investigation.

No internal affairs need to investigate too.

You can’t order people around if there is no suspicion of a crime.

There was suspicion of a crime. Someone called in a domestic dispute between the guy and his girlfriend, arguing on the street. At that point, the police officer has enough to stop them, separate them, and make sure she's o.k. It's not at all unreasonable to make him go stand somewhere else while he asks her these questions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The cop will have to prove that there was a reasonable suspicion that the man committed a crime. Talking loudly is not reasonable suspicion. If the woman had a black eye or somebody on the scene said that there was an assault on the woman there would have been reasonable suspicion. That did not exist.

No. The burden of proof is going to depend on who is bringing a lawsuit. If the guy brings a civil suit against the cops, he's going to have to prove some things. If the State brings a criminal case against the guy, it's going to have to prove some things. And reasonable suspicion of a crime is not the only thing that would justify use of force. If the guy refused a lawful order to move away from a witness while the cop sought to interview that witness, the cop would have justification to use some level of force to stop him from interfering with that investigation.

A criminal lawsuit against the guy is unlikely since there was no crime committed and no arrests made.

A criminal suit against the officer is likely only if the Police department finds he broke the law. The AG in a republican state is not going to override that.

A civil lawsuit by the guy against the police officer is likely but won't go anywhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The cop will have to prove that there was a reasonable suspicion that the man committed a crime. Talking loudly is not reasonable suspicion. If the woman had a black eye or somebody on the scene said that there was an assault on the woman there would have been reasonable suspicion. That did not exist.

No. The burden of proof is going to depend on who is bringing a lawsuit. If the guy brings a civil suit against the cops, he's going to have to prove some things. If the State brings a criminal case against the guy, it's going to have to prove some things. And reasonable suspicion of a crime is not the only thing that would justify use of force. If the guy refused a lawful order to move away from a witness while the cop sought to interview that witness, the cop would have justification to use some level of force to stop him from interfering with that investigation.

A criminal lawsuit against the guy is unlikely since there was no crime committed and no arrests made.

A criminal suit against the officer is likely only if the Police department finds he broke the law. The AG in a republican state is not going to override that.

A civil lawsuit by the guy against the police officer is likely but won't go anywhere.

The guy was arrested for resisting law enforcement. Taken to jail and posted like $250 bail.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The cop will have to prove that there was a reasonable suspicion that the man committed a crime. Talking loudly is not reasonable suspicion. If the woman had a black eye or somebody on the scene said that there was an assault on the woman there would have been reasonable suspicion. That did not exist.

No. The burden of proof is going to depend on who is bringing a lawsuit. If the guy brings a civil suit against the cops, he's going to have to prove some things. If the State brings a criminal case against the guy, it's going to have to prove some things. And reasonable suspicion of a crime is not the only thing that would justify use of force. If the guy refused a lawful order to move away from a witness while the cop sought to interview that witness, the cop would have justification to use some level of force to stop him from interfering with that investigation.

No internal affairs need to investigate too.

You can’t order people around if there is no suspicion of a crime.

There was suspicion of a crime. Someone called in a domestic dispute between the guy and his girlfriend, arguing on the street. At that point, the police officer has enough to stop them, separate them, and make sure she's o.k. It's not at all unreasonable to make him go stand somewhere else while he asks her these questions.

No the police have an obligation to respond. Upon their response they can see with their own eyes and the statements from the caller there was no crime.

At this point the cop escalated the situation which is against his training. He is legally bound to follow his training.

It’s reasonable to ask HER to walk to the side to ask questions, it’s also reasonable for her to refuse. The cops can see with their own eyes she is free to go and there is no abuse.

Detaining somebody that has not committed a crime with no reasonable suspicion is illegal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The cop will have to prove that there was a reasonable suspicion that the man committed a crime. Talking loudly is not reasonable suspicion. If the woman had a black eye or somebody on the scene said that there was an assault on the woman there would have been reasonable suspicion. That did not exist.

No. The burden of proof is going to depend on who is bringing a lawsuit. If the guy brings a civil suit against the cops, he's going to have to prove some things. If the State brings a criminal case against the guy, it's going to have to prove some things. And reasonable suspicion of a crime is not the only thing that would justify use of force. If the guy refused a lawful order to move away from a witness while the cop sought to interview that witness, the cop would have justification to use some level of force to stop him from interfering with that investigation.

No internal affairs need to investigate too.

You can’t order people around if there is no suspicion of a crime.

There was suspicion of a crime. Someone called in a domestic dispute between the guy and his girlfriend, arguing on the street. At that point, the police officer has enough to stop them, separate them, and make sure she's o.k. It's not at all unreasonable to make him go stand somewhere else while he asks her these questions.

No the police have an obligation to respond. Upon their response they can see with their own eyes and the statements from the caller there was no crime.

At this point the cop escalated the situation which is against his training. He is legally bound to follow his training.

It’s reasonable to ask HER to walk to the side to ask questions, it’s also reasonable for her to refuse. The cops can see with their own eyes she is free to go and there is no abuse.

Detaining somebody that has not committed a crime with no reasonable suspicion is illegal.

During a lawful police stop or investigation, a cop can order you to back up further away from him (out of range of grabbing her or her weapon), or can order you to stay out of her blind side (again to protect herself). If you refuse to obey those orders the cop can take reasonable actions to include the use of reasonable force, to ensure her safety from a non-complying person under investigation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The videos will speak for themselves. There is no reason to believe a word of police reports where there is video

By and large, I think body cams have helped police more than they harmed them. No idea what this one will show, but suspects are very often not honest, and police have given people reason not to trust them. Video isn't always reliable since it doesn't always provide the context we'd like. But it's better than nothing.

If the cop is shown beating someone on the ground, there is no context to justify it

Here it's a little more ambiguous. Cop is on top of the man. Cop's forearm goes from the guy's chin to throat to chest and back as the guy is moving under him. Not clear how much pressure is being applied. So, not a beating. Maybe a choke, but that's not entirely clear.

They never needed to come into physical contact. There was no arrest and no reasonable suspicion. By the time they ended up in the ground the cop already f’d up.

We can't possibly make that conclusion based on the video we have so far. Also, there was an arrest. From the student newspaper article, it sounds like the police arrested him for resisting efforts to separate the witnesses so the officer could conduct his investigation. Cop still could've f'd up, but we really don't know yet.

The cops always arrest someone when they know they've screwed up. Hopefully the kid lawyers up and gets a nice chunk of change from Purdue. The cop belongs in jail

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The cop will have to prove that there was a reasonable suspicion that the man committed a crime. Talking loudly is not reasonable suspicion. If the woman had a black eye or somebody on the scene said that there was an assault on the woman there would have been reasonable suspicion. That did not exist.

No. The burden of proof is going to depend on who is bringing a lawsuit. If the guy brings a civil suit against the cops, he's going to have to prove some things. If the State brings a criminal case against the guy, it's going to have to prove some things. And reasonable suspicion of a crime is not the only thing that would justify use of force. If the guy refused a lawful order to move away from a witness while the cop sought to interview that witness, the cop would have justification to use some level of force to stop him from interfering with that investigation.

A criminal lawsuit against the guy is unlikely since there was no crime committed and no arrests made.

A criminal suit against the officer is likely only if the Police department finds he broke the law. The AG in a republican state is not going to override that.

A civil lawsuit by the guy against the police officer is likely but won't go anywhere.

Please explain what a criminal lawsuit is