No Charges for Police Misconduct During Occupy

[Gravekeeper]

Bit of a blast from the past.

Feels a tad dubious considering the sheer amount of video evidence of these two in particular.

[jackfaire]

Was any of the video shot by supporters of the police like any of it at all? I have seen video from both sides of various issues during the occupy movement and what the occupy videos almost never show is their repeated aggravation of the police in an attempt to get the police to respond so they can yell "police brutatlity"

it's like the kid that would push and torture you until you punched him and then suddenly you are in trouble for being a "bully"


The reason that the video evidence wouldn't be sufficient is if it is all filmed by clearly biased parties. For example if the evidence of an "unprovoked" assault is a video shot by the "victim's" best friend then it raises questions of validity.

There is an obvious bias there and the lawyers have to concern themselves with was it self defense and the friend didn't start the camera until the real victim started fighting back. Video isn't as concrete of evidence as people would like it to be.

[Greenday]

Attack the police. Police defend themselves. Turn cameras on just as police defend themselves. Claim brutality.

That's basically how the Occupy protests worked.

[Gravekeeper]

Was any of the video shot by supporters of the police like any of it at all? I have seen video from both sides of various issues during the occupy movement and what the occupy videos almost never show is their repeated aggravation of the police in an attempt to get the police to respond so they can yell "police brutatlity"

The police don't get to sucker punch you for being aggravating though. If I goad you into punching me, you still end up with an assault charge. Police officers especially need to be above losing their temper in the face of aggravation.

Attack the police. Police defend themselves. Turn cameras on just as police defend themselves. Claim brutality.

That's basically how the Occupy protests worked.

Sweeping biased generalizations already? -.-

If you can watch either video and say "self defense" you're hallucinating. Did stupid shit occur? Oh yes, on both sides. But you still don't get to cold cock someone from behind. If you're going to make an arrest against someone walking away, you grab and subdue. You don't spin them around and lay them out so hard you tear their earrings out ;p

[jackfaire]

The police don't get to sucker punch you for being aggravating though. If I goad you into punching me, you still end up with an assault charge. Police officers especially need to be above losing their temper in the face of aggravation.

I am not talking about sucker punching. There were actual evidence in many of the arrests of citizens failing to obey a lawful command and even threatening the police to get a reaction.

One "unbiased" reporter was all "arrested for being a reporter" when really she was arrested for the same thing every other person refusing to get off that bridge was arrested for.

It's easy to provoke a legal response from the police but paint it as police brutality.

[jackfaire]

If you can watch either video and say "self defense" you're hallucinating. Did stupid shit occur? Oh yes, on both sides. But you still don't get to cold cock someone from behind. If you're going to make an arrest against someone walking away, you grab and subdue. You don't spin them around and lay them out so hard you tear their earrings out ;p

Not saying this is how it happened but here is a great example of catching only part of something on film.

If I come up punch a police officer then turn around and walk away but my friend only tapes his responses to my attack then boom I am a victim.

The videos if only shot by biased parties are not good enough evidence because it is easy to doctor them or even just only film what you want people to see and leaving out your own bad actions.

[Greenday]

If you can watch either video and say "self defense" you're hallucinating. Did stupid shit occur? Oh yes, on both sides. But you still don't get to cold cock someone from behind. If you're going to make an arrest against someone walking away, you grab and subdue. You don't spin them around and lay them out so hard you tear their earrings out ;p

We don't know what happened in the second video. We don't know what he did to provoke the cop. Perhaps he punched the cop. We don't know, but that would be on par for the occupation movement.

In the first video, the crowd was being rowdy, the cops were telling the people to get back, the crowd was refusing to do it, the cop maces the people further forward. Very typical crowd control measures and very sensible.

[HYHYBT]

"If shot by biased parties" is far less relevant than what the video contains and, specifically, what it doesn't.

[Gravekeeper]

I am not talking about sucker punching. There were actual evidence in many of the arrests of citizens failing to obey a lawful command and even threatening the police to get a reaction.

Yes, and this is actual evidence of problems on the other side too. But we filtered through all this crap a year ago. There was shit on both sides. These two incidents in particular though are obviously of dubious nature. The debate is not whether or not they were right, they ARE wrong. That was already decided. The debate is whether or not they are criminal.

If I come up punch a police officer then turn around and walk away but my friend only tapes his responses to my attack then boom I am a victim.

Here's the before from a different angle if you want.

No actively hostile moves and a calm crowd, which gets set off by the cop's attack. The NYPD alleges that the guy "attempted" to elbow the cop.

This is a police officer. He is NOT suppose to react like some dude in a bar. He is suppose to neutralize and subdue, NOT avenge. A suspect turning a back to a police officer should be pure gold for getting him on the ground and getting the cuffs on him.

Even if a suspect is being actively, physically violent, the cops don't get to just kick the shit out of him until they feel they've paid him back. In this case especially though, regardless of what the guy did ( and he did do something dickish, I recall there was a full video ) he was walking away with his back turned. Not an active attacker. The officer is not suppose to dish out street justice.

It should be noted that despite the fact the cop knocked him out when he hit him, he failed to make an arrest because he set the crowd off. Who pulled the guy's limp form away. So not only did he assault the guy, it was a total lack of situational awareness to spark the crowd as well. It should also be noted that the dude in question is suing him now and curiously enough did not end up in jail the alleged elbowing.

If you're still not convinced this one cop was a dick, here he is before that, dragging a women out of the free speech zone or whatever by her throat for....something. The interwebs documented pretty much every dickish move this cop made that day after they identified who he was. The guy has issues.

[Gravekeeper]

We don't know what happened in the second video. We don't know what he did to provoke the cop. Perhaps he punched the cop. We don't know, but that would be on par for the occupation movement.

We do know, its right in the first article I linked. If you're going to argue about this, at least bother to read first. The NYPD said that the guy attempted to elbow the cop. Which, even if 100% true, does not invite a one hit KO from behind.

Here I'll even help you out:

In the episode involving Inspector Cardona, video shot from several angles on Oct. 14, 2011, appears to show the inspector tapping a man, Felix Rivera-Pitre, on the shoulder, and then, after Mr. Rivera-Pitre turns to look at Inspector Cardona and walks away, the inspector grabbing Mr. Rivera-Pitre and punching him in the face.

The police said at the time that Mr. Rivera-Pitre had tried to elbow Inspector Cardona in the face beforehand and was being sought for attempted assault.

They were looking for him for an alleged assault from earlier. There was no hostile moves on his part during this encounter.

As for the pepperspraying, that officer was found in violation of procedure in the use of pepperspray. He was not permitted or trained to use pepperspray for disorder control.

[Greenday]

He was not permitted or trained to use pepperspray for disorder control.

Ok, so it was against the rules. IMO, it's still a valid use.

[Gravekeeper]

Ok, so it was against the rules. IMO, it's still a valid use.

Pepper spraying penned in civilians for no reason is a valid use? Hell he even half sprays one of his fellow officers in the process. >.>

[Andara Bledin]

Pepper spraying penned in civilians for no reason is a valid use? Hell he even half sprays one of his fellow officers in the process. >.>

Yeah. That has to be the worst defense of an indefensible act I've ever heard.

[Greenday]

Pepper spraying penned in civilians for no reason is a valid use? Hell he even half sprays one of his fellow officers in the process. >.>

"penned in"? Right, as in there was no hard wall blocking them and the "penned in" crowd was expanding outwards into the police's space. Uh huh.

And getting rowdy while advancing on the police is a valid reason to defend oneself with a non-lethal weapon.

Yeah. That has to be the worst defense of an indefensible act I've ever heard.

Hope that's sarcasm.

[Gravekeeper]

"penned in"? Right, as in there was no hard wall blocking them and the "penned in" crowd was expanding outwards into the police's space. Uh huh.

And getting rowdy while advancing on the police is a valid reason to defend oneself with a non-lethal weapon.

They're standing there with cameras, behind the police line. The police are not advancing on them to drive them away or anything. They are simply holding the line. These are just regular cops, this is not a riot squad dispersing a crowd.

Additionally, he clips one fellow officer with the pepper spray and forces another one to dodge out of the way and let go of the very line he's suppose to be holding.

You don't get to pepper spray people for holding up an iPhone and even if he had any sort of justification, he caused a hole in the line by clipping his fellow officers regardless. Had the crowd really been advancing there would have been a hole in the police line.

There was no reason to use pepper spray and the officer in question was neither trained nor permitted to use pepper spray for a riot type situation even if one HAD existed in this instance.

People don't lose their rights just because you don't agree with them.