....uhh... really? So I can like.... shoot someone who pushes me... and be like.. 'I didn't kill him, he died 2 days later in the hospital, not my fault'..

Please tell me you're not serious.



Yup.

He was assaulted by the officer, and reacts with confusion and anger.....

and he's killed for it.

Please explain the legal justification for hitting someone when no threat exists, and there is NOT a compliance issue.

K THX

Please, PRETTY PLEASE, tell me it's OK for cops to hit someone if they point at them, or they 'get too close'...



I've worked with autistic kids (and adults) before.. with varying degrees of disability.. Some seem almost normal, but there's something 'off'.. others lack even the most basic of communications skills and act out wildly/violently, and everywhere in between.

The dude was identified as autistic. It seems that everyone is saying he was 'no stranger' to LE, which means they probably knew, and were sick of dealing with him and his antics, autism or not.

If I slapped an autistic kid, I would absolutely expect a confused and aggressive response. Hell, even if I didn't know he was autistic, and just drunk, I'd STILL expect a confused and aggressive response.

It boils down to this.. Dickhead wanted to show his manhood, hit someone who was pointing at him, then tried to be a bigger man and 'take him down', and killed him.

He escalated the situation, then used more force than necessary.

He's drunk, surrounded by HOW MANY officers? and you fucking DDT him? You think that's 'reasonable force'?

I managed not to kill a guy who was threatening to kill me as he was reaching towards his glove box... Despite the fact I'm 'looking for a reason to use my gun' (as has been accused of me, many times, despite it being complete BS)

But retard boy over here gets hit when he did nothing wrong, and reacts as expected with aggression and confusion, and is killed for his troubles, and that's 'reasonable'...

While we're at it Let's pepper spray handcuffed dudes sitting on a bench in a holding cell <---With video








Don't tell me, 'Those guys deserved it'....


If you leave trash sitting in the living room, pretty soon, the whole house starts to stink... Now doesn't it?

Then you're gonna say 'you can't blame everyone in the house, for one bag of trash'... Well, you can when no one wants to take 30 seconds, and take the fucking trash out, and just leaves it there to continue to stink up everything..

You're being very liberal with your definition of "Kill".
Did the officer pick the guy up and slam him into the ground with the intent to end his life? I doubt it.
Did the officer pick the guy up and slam him into the ground with the intent to seriously injure him? Probably not
Did the officer pick the guy up and slam him into the ground with the intent to hurt him? No doubt.

Your example is RADICALLY different. If you shoot someone, you know fully well that you are likely to end their life.
If you punch them, and they die 2 days later...you are less culpable. It's not murder, it's at most accidental death.

We don't know what head trauma the guy had before the officer slammed him into the ground, and we don't know for certain that it did not contribute to the man's death.
You are making the unfounded presumption that the man died solely from the body slam.
I contend, we don't know that. Even if it's true, the officers actions caused the man to die, but he did not KILL him. The context of the language used changes the intent.

As I said, it was wrong on the officer to slam the guy like he did, or even slap at his hand.
But under your argument, if someone sticks a finger in my face, I don't have the right to bat their hand away. Which is silly.
Even sillier is the idea that someone squares off against me, and I don't have a right to put an end to the fight before it even fully starts. Fights no longer play by Queensbury Rules.



Yes, he was assaulted. And a normal person's reaction to being assaulted by a police officer is one of shock and bewilderment. As I understand it, this is even more true for someone who is Autistic.
Aggressive behavior is the result of poor communication. This video doesn't show a communication issue. The video shows a shift from happy to aggressive...typical of drunk behavior.

Confusion and anger? There was no confusion I see in the video...the hand gets batted away and the guy immediately turns and squares up to fight. There is no period of shock, the is no indication of being startled or bewildered by the officers action....it is a shift from I'm drunk and being annoying, to I'm drunk and we're gonna fight!
I've seen it many times in security work.

Legal Justification? There was a threat there. The guy was not handcuffed, he was drunk, he squared off to fight and he was within striking distance of the officer. That's an immediate threat in anyone's book.
Take Autistic out of the conversation, and the officer would have done the exact same thing. Hell, you can take drunk out of the equation too.... The reaction that this was now a fight, by the officer, is totally rational any way you break it down. Did the officer cause that fight?....he contributed to it significantly, but it takes two to tango. It's not like the officer jumps him for no reason.
Had the guy been handcuffed, the threat would have been almost nil. Had he not squared off to fight, the threat would have been nil.
What is not rational is the degree to which he acted. It was excessive force.

As to your presumption that this was all a result of the guy being autistic... So is that the new excuse for bad behavior?
"Sorry, I'm mildly autistic. I shouldn't have done that, but you caused me harm after I threatened to attack you, so you are in the wrong and I'm not."
BS!

He was drunk and became combative after a piss poor decision on the officers part.
The officer didn't take him down for being autistic, or for pointing a finger at the officer...as your title suggests...he took the guy down because the guy opted to fight a cop, in a police station, during processing.
You make it sound like the officer watched him walk in the door and thought, "Oh this guy...he doesn't deserve to live....I'm gonna end this guy's miserable life right here, right now."

As to your other video....there are no excuses for that officer. That truly is a case of abuse of power and position. Fire him immediately.

So the fact that he had other officers there as backup didn't mitigate the threat at all? Squaring up isn't assualt and the person who throws the first punch is the instigator in a fight in the eyes of the law. Officers with backup shouldn't instigate anything ever against an unarmed threat. There wasn't a better way for him to handle the situation?

You seem to justify the initial assault by the officers based completely on the man being "drunk and combative." So anytime an officer has to deal with someone being drunk and combative then the officer is justified in assaulting them? I think most people have seen drunk and combative people subdued in much better ways. I've seen extremely drunk and combative people subdued and handcuffed without the backup of any other officers.

Why is it justified to assault someone when dealing with drunk and combative people is just a part of your job?

Yes the other officers should be a mitigation factor too. Over sight on my part.
Squaring up against a cop IS assault in most states.
"Officers with backup shouldn't instigate anything ever against an unarmed threat."
Should and do are radically different.
Yep, there were several. And you line of questioning towards me is based on not understanding what I said.

As I said
There was a threat there. [When the guy turned towards the officer and squared up]
The reaction that this was now a fight, by the officer, is totally rational any way you break it down. [When the guy turned towards the officer and squared up]
What is not rational is the degree to which he acted. It was excessive force. [When the guy turned towards the officer and squared up]


Jeez How the fuck is any of that justification? I placed the blame on the officer for starting the whole thing.
The guy could have walked away...he didn't, he chose to turn and fight.
Once the fight was engaged, the officer was correct in taking action to stop the fight.... but not with the excessive force he used.
In my previous post I even said, "Now I would agree that the officer is at fault for instigating the contact, and being overly aggressive. He slams that guy into the floor. There are 5 officers there. There was no need for the officer to drive him into the floor like he does.
After watching it a few times it looks like that officer is there to specifically be the muscle if an altercation breaks out. I think he grossly over reacts to a simple action by the Autistic guy."

Since I have now shown that I DIDN'T call the slap of the hand justified, I am ignoring your last question.

Oh.. so he didn't MEAN to do it... so he gets a pass..

So, like.. if someone is mentally disabled, and don't know any better, and they didn't MEAN to...say..point at someone...not thinking it was a bad thing.. they should get a pass??


I'd say slamming someone headfirst into concrete is 'known, or should have known' that the end result would be seriously bodily injury, or death. That's fucking common sense..



See below.





That we can agree on ... for the most part... mixing alcohol with a mental disability is not gonna end well.. emotionally unstable, then throw alcohol into the mix...



Confusion doesn't have to be a visible thing. When I was attacked with a knife, I was fucking confused as hell.. The ONLY thing I could think of was 'NO!NO! HIM BAD!'.. not even thinking it.. just 'knowing it'.. only way I can describe it is like a caveman..Instinctual response...

You don't have to scratch your head and go 'uhh..duuhhhhh' to be confused..

I think it's most likely he went into a fighting stance as he felt he was being attacked...because he was...just not to the level that necessitated a full on response.

I've been sober and let drunks take swings at me... a couple pushes back after dodging or putting them in a control hold is usually enough to get them to realize they've had a bit too much to drink..... and I've even had drunks square up after bumping into them accidentally.... but.. unlike the police, I have to deescalate the situation 'oh, hey, sorry about that, I'm not looking to fight, I just came here with my brother to have a good time, lemme buy you a beer'.... Problem fucking solved.

Instead, officer dipshit hits the guy, then tackles him when the emotionally unstable drunk mentally disabled man decides that he needs to defend himself...



AFTER he was assaulted...

I'm being detained, make up a fucking reason.. I'm handing him my ID, and he hits my hand, as I'm yelling at him 'WTF WAS THAT FOR?!' he tackles me.... I hit him a couple times to get him off me, he pulls his gun and shoots me..

This is essentially what happened here....

He's gonna say 'I had no choice, he was fighting me, he became belligerent and aggressive, and I had to take him down, then he continued to fight, I was afraid for my life.'

WELL NO FUCKING SHIT! YOU STARTED A FIGHT BY HITTING HIM!



So, let's assume the cop didn't know he was drunk, and didn't know he was autistic.. Is it assault to hit someone who's not posing a threat, yes or no?

So, officer gets charged with assault..

Now that we've decided that there was an assault, and the man had the right to defend himself, and prepared to do so, the officer is STILL the attacker, NOT the victim. You're trying to play the cop off as the victim here (or it appears so)... That's just not the case.



So, if we BOTH agree to that, then why are we 'arguing'? If I rob a bank and my partner gets shot, I get a murder charge, because it's forseeable that he gets killed. If I slam someone on their head, it's foreseeable that great bodily injury or harm will occur. I see a manslaughter charge AT MINIMUM.



I think that was a huge factor, not the sole deciding factor. Alcohol had a lot to play in that role as well, I'm sure.



Which was a direct result of the assault by the officer.




No one said it was on purpose, he probably thought he was just doing his job, making his presence known, maintaining control, demanding compliance, and all that jazz.




Only fire?

Autistic or not... Attempting to do myself or another human harm will result in me ending the threat. The "threat" gets hurt or killed in the process wether or not it by my my pistol, knife, tazer or fists.. Well... That's the threats problem.

Does it suck that his life was ended over something that could have been avoided? Yes... For starters... He shouldn't have been drinking. Second... He shouldn't have been drinking in public... Third... Well don't get aggressive with the 5-0.

Do I feel sorry for the dude... Nope... Play stupid games... Win stupid prizes... I'm sure I done pissed some people off with this but my thoughts are the same wether it be a normal person, an autistic person, a vet with ptsd. For every action there is an equal if not greater reaction.

Because this is the internet...and in general you are wrong.

TW, are you preping to be a reporter for the NY Times or such other BS "media"?

Silly goose, he can't be a traffic cop and a reporter at the same time!

Is this where I call you a poopy head?






The cop hit the guy without reason/cause, which caused drunk guy to act like a drunk guy, which caused the cop to kill him... intentional or not.

Again, we go back to 'comply or die'... If you do ONE thing you're not supposed to, all the sudden it's his fault for having been killed.

I would expect someone who at least purports to be a PEACE officer, to deescalate, and not assault a man, leading to circumstances which involve his death...

Again, one must be innocent of instigation to claim self defense... Otherwise I'll just roll up to a bunch of black dudes and be like 'hey, I'm lost, I'm trying to reach this KKK meeting and...' then shoot them when they all try to approach my car..

I'd say slapping someone is assault, there's your instigation, and your innocence.

Had you or I slammed someone on the ground, and killed them, after having slapped their hand away when it was pointed at them, we'd be on the hook for manslaughter.. and it'd be argued that a move like that should be reasonably known to cause serious injury.. Why are 'they' not held to the same standard?

I got a hard enough time dealing with shitheads on the road as it is, I couldn't have a job dealing with nothing BUT shithead drivers, and expect to remain professional...


Ohh.. you were driving like an asshole because you didn't think you'd get caught? You wrecked because you were racing and hit a van with kids in it and you want me to 'just write you a ticket' so you can go home?

Yeah.. It wouldn't end well. I know my limitations. I'd end up cussing them out or something.

The maneuver was practiced, and deliberate. What difference does it make that the weapon used was the ground?
In most cases, the law clearly defines where the line is drawn. From watching the video several times, it seems fairly obvious to me that the threat was minimal.
As is the case most of the time, there were multiple failures which concluded in the arrestee's death.

That intake hallway isn't exactly a break room. There are/were that many officers present because the policy is obviously strength in numbers. Disparaging force in the absence of lethal weapons, includes the tactic of throwing enough bodies at a threat, so that the threat is canceled out by the sheer weight of numbers.

That one officer reacted out of pride, and caused the altercation. He then decided to quickly escalate it to the point of deadly assault.
He was the last to arrive, the last to make a decision regarding the situation. I don't care what his service record looks like. He made a very serious mistake, which ended someone's life. An autistic person at that. I don't know if mentally challenged individuals reside in the same protected class as children, but from this citizens perspective...that was murder.

I wonder if the finger passed a background check