El Monte and Alabama excessive force incidents and End of Chase Syndrome

[Wagonman]

You are just a cop not a citizen! You type the words of the over zealous police tactics that most of us law abiding americans rightfully deem UNCONSTITUTIONAL

I beg to differ, there is no such thing as just a Cop.

What unconstitutional tactic did I advocate? You might not like a particular 'tactic" that does not make it unconstitutional. Only the SCOTUS can judge something unconstitutional with finality. Thanks Marbury.

[bigger hammer]

Originally Posted by Dust Monkey

Well, if so. Why the 2 incidents that are at the root of this thread. The El Monte Officer is, IMO, from the video guilty of assault and violation of civil rights. So explain to me why we have way to many incidents like this, yet more civil rights training being taught, are happening. The 2 dont mesh.

Based on your complete avoidance of my question,

Wondering if you have any evidence to support the emboldened statement? I've been to many "police schools" across the US and have never seen such a "mindset" being taught.

It's probably safe to assume that you've made this statement in the complete absence of any evidence for it. That's as I thought.

It would also appear that in spite of quite a bit of discussion about "innocent until proven guilty" in this thread that you've managed to somehow convict the El Monte officer without a trial or even any evidence being gathered other than watching a few seconds of video. Aren't you climbing all over LEO's who you think have done this? Just seems a bit hypocritical to me.

It appears that you equate more curriculum on this topic with an absence of violations of civil rights. I think that's just silly. I’m not guessing, I'm stating facts. Would that you'd do the same instead of trying to pass off your opinion as fact.

Do you have any evidence (sounds familiar does it not?) that there are more incidents occurring these days than did in the past. Or are you suffering from cumulative information overload? Is it possible that just as many, if not more of these incidents occurred in days of old but that they didn't make the news the way they do today? I think it's not only possible, but that it's probable.

[bigger hammer]

Earlier I wrote,

Wondering if you have any evidence to support the emboldened statement?

Originally Posted by OuTcAsT

Given the incontrovertible evidence that is available from direct observation of law enforcement tactics in the form of SRT teams, No knock paramilitary operations, the adaptation by many officers of variations of BDU's as standard uniforms,

I'm reminded of a comment from a new hire who was just released from the US Army. I was giving him a tour of the station, introducing him to everyone and the topic of "room clearing" came up with another experienced officer. We were discussing various aspects of it and I noticed a wry look on his face. He had been trained that "room clearing" meant "toss in a grenade, enter and kill everyone that wasn't already dead." Police are hardly doing that so I really wonder what is meant by the phrase "the militarization of the police." Do you think that because some police have adopted BDU's that somehow they've been "militarized?" When I was a K-9 handler we wore BDU's because they were washable and the regular unis had to be dry–cleaned. It had nothing to do with "militarization." SWAT wears them because like the K-9 handlers they go to much "dirtier places" than does the average street cop and there's an intimidation factor that's desirable with the crooks that they deal with. But still no "militarization" there either.

SWAT teams are relatively new on the police scene, having been created to handle special circumstances. Among reasons for their existence were changes that were occurring in society that were beyond the capability of the street police officer. Among them were threatened guerilla tactics (including sniper activity) adopted by several militant groups and occurrences like the Watts Riots. Police are merely responsive to what society does.

Like SWAT, no–knock warrants came about as a result of changes in society. Mostly the disposable nature of narcotics. Such entries were authorized by judges to prevent the destruction of such evidence. No militarization there either.

Originally Posted by OuTcAsT

are you suggesting that the officers are taking it upon themselves to become more "militarized" ?

Nope. I'm denying that this "militarization" is happening at all. The instances under discussion, the El Monte "kick" and the Alabama end-of-pursuit beating have nothing to do with the military at all.

Originally Posted by OuTcAsT

Or that this mindset is not a part of the curriculum at all ? If not, please enlighten us as to where the adversarial mindset starts to be adapted into an officers thought process , from an expert point of view.

I don't think that there's an adversarial relationship between LEO's and honest, decent citizens. There certainly is between LEO's and crooks though. And I think that's existed since both groups have existed, thousands of years. Nothing new there either.

[bigger hammer]

Originally Posted by hogdogs

Wagonman, I am regretful to state that you have lost my respect as a fellow citizen... You are just a cop not a citizen!

Wagonman is BOTH a cop and a citizen!

Originally Posted by hogdogs

You type the words of the over zealous police tactics that most of us law abiding americans rightfully deem UNCONSTITUTIONAL and against the people you claim to protect.

Your opinion of what is constitutional and what is unconstitutional means nothing. The SCOTUS makes those decisions, not you.

Originally Posted by hogdogs

Ask to search my ride or home and you will be met with a slammed door in your face! If you ain't got enuff on me to arrest me and thus get free reighn to search than you obviously are grabbing at straws and fishing in a bathtub!

That is your right as it's our right to ask. Per SCOTUS.

Originally Posted by hogdogs

As a child I was told the cops were out to protect me... as a teen they lied to me and my parents and my pop apologized to me for wrongly teaching me this.

Oddly enough I still teach my kids this. lol. Oddly enough they've never had a police officer lie to them.

Originally Posted by hogdogs

I raised my son and daughter to avoid police contact at all cost!

Not bad advice, unless one needs help, directions or becomes a crime victim.

Originally Posted by hogdogs

In fact they have seen me try to provide cases for them to persue only to have them fumble the ball so now they, as I, realize if it was major enuff of a crime to dial 911it is best to handle it yourself and make sure justice is dealt!

Feel free to never dial 911 again. LOL.

Originally Posted by hogdogs

sad day when folks are willing to tell a cop they have little respect for them as they were trained!

Not really. Police have been told this since there were police. Nothing new there either.

[Dust Monkey]

SWAT is not new. Using SWAT to serve failure to pay tickets is


Not ignoring you or running from the discussion. I am gathering facts and figures to put up. From my initial findings, I am sure you won't like it and fnd some way to explain that it's crucial to your job and that if folks are not guilty they have nothing to hide

And FWIW, SWAT is a very good example of mission creep. Using SWAT just to justify a budget is common in many departments.

You don't see the problem because you have been trained to do your job a certain way. IMO the wrong way. To solve most of the problems I see wood be to do away with color of law protections and police unions. For instance. If a raid happens on the wrong address and results in a death, it's murder plain and simple. Some one dropped the ball and did not do their job and confirm the correct address. Anything after that mistake should not be covered by color of law protections. Period. And this crap of "don't like it, change it". That's what some of us are trying to do. And guess who wants to oppose us, oppose change in the civil rights area? Cops that's who. The sw cops who begged us for help getting nation wide carry for them with the promise they would help us get nationwide carry. And we all know how that ended up.

So. I will have some stats. Alarming as they may be. Just try not put your coptalk hat on. Those guys over there are scary. Now. Off to care for my father. Will get those stats up as soon as I can.

[Al Norris]

Those who watch TV news, see more and more "gun crimes." Newspapers carry more and more crime stories.

We "hear" about more assaults with long guns, most commonly being referred to as "assault weapons."

Therefore, "common wisdom" would conclude that violent crimes are on the upswing.

Yet, at the end of the day, the actual reports are collated and we find that crimes, of all kinds, are on the downward slide. We also should note that usage of so-called assault weapons has remained at between 1% and 2% of all firearms related crimes.

"Common wisdom," isn't!

The same thing is happening with respect to police brutality stories. More and more are being reported, yet statistically, these incidents have either remained stable or are dropping... Depends upon whose stats we are reading. They are most certainly not on the rise.

Perception is the appearance of something happening that may not be the actual reality of the thing perceived.

We have gotten off topic. End of Chase syndrome is real. but we are not discussing this aspect of police work now, are we?

What happens with almost any subject dealing with the police, is a general slide into general police bashing. I would ask you all to go back and re-read this thread, with the specific intent of watching the slide.

It's there, and I can point to (if I have to) where it started.

I'm off to work now. If this thread hasn't gotten back on track when I get home, it will be closed.

[Wagonman]

To solve most of the problems I see wood be to do away with color of law protections and police unions. For instance. If a raid happens on the wrong address and results in a death, it's murder plain and simple.

That's the ticket, have Cops do thier jobs taking their career in thier own hands without any kind of protection. I guarantee job-preservation will become the coin of the realm. They tried that in Cincy a few years ago and the Police made their point handily.

I find it more than a little ironic that you are railing against SWAT teams on a forum maintained by SWAT magazine.

[maestro pistolero]

I don't bluff which is why I put bluff in quotation marks. If I have enough PC which is the traffic violation that engendered the stop I am able to make a physical arrest for said traffic violation and impound said car and inventory the contents.

I do not engage in the practice of making false arrests, and would not tolerate the practice by any LEO I work with. But, I will use every tool at my disposal to do my job.

Thanks for that answer. Just to clarify, are you saying that you can or would arrest someone for a minor traffic violation, and that would be sufficient cause for a complete search? Unless I am misreading, then any minor traffic violation invalidates fourth amendment rights.? Thanks for bearing with me.

[Wagonman]

EOCS does happen, it shouldn't, we are professsionals and should act that way.

However, the rub as I see it is the level of punishment different people want to mete out on said LEO. The "Cops are the problem" crowd wants said officer to be drawn quartered, jailed for the rest of his Civil Rights abusing career, then a civil suit judgement to really punish this bad guy who in the heat of attempting to arrest under suspicious circumstances a honor student on his way to bible study.

The reasonable punishment crowd realizes that in the heat of the moment excrement happens and punishment should fit the crime. first offense some UOF retraining and maybe a couple of days on the bench. subsequent infractions should have more severe punishment.

[Wagonman]

Thanks for that answer. Just to clarify, are you saying that you can or would arrest someone for a minor traffic violation, and that would be sufficient cause for a complete search? Unless I am misreading, then any minor traffic violation invalidates fourth amendment rights.? Thanks for bearing with me.

When I am searching a vehicle that is impounded subsequent to arrest it is not a investigatory search it is an administrative search. I have control of said vehicle and I cannot be held responsible unless I know what I am being held responsible for. However, any contraband is fair game. It is akin to being searched when you hit the lock up. You don't lose your rights against USS but your safety and the safety of the lockup keepers take precedence.

Just to be clear, physical arrests for traffic are rare, they usually happen to people who fail the hello test.

[hogdogs]

So lemme get clarification...
Wagonman pulls over the ol'hogdogs pickup truck for the heinous crime of "No Tag Light". I provide required ID and paperwork as asked. While in his patrolcar wagonman decides that my unshaven face and raggedy clothing makes look "suspicious" and comes up to ask to search my truck, I reply I am rather in a hurry to get to the gun range and nothing in my truck for you to worry about... I will then be arrested for failing a test I did not know I had to take (I thought I had the right to be friendly to whom I choose) on the charge of my broken tag light, My truck then fully searched while I locate a bondsman?
That is shady police work at it's finest!
Brent

[maestro pistolero]

Just to be clear, physical arrests for traffic are rare, they usually happen to people who fail the hello test.

1. So if there is no arrest impending, you would be OK with my politely refusing a search? (in the absence of PC or RS, of course)

2. Pardon my ignorance, but what's the 'hello test', and since you say it's a reason to be arrested, is there a legal basis for it, or is it entirely discretionary?

Thanks for your answers.

[hogdogs]

Maestro, I am pretty sure their "hello test" is not published material as we would expect. But every citizen has a "Hello Test" to some degree or other... Part of my test involves LEO's who ask to search my ride when I have never been seen coming or going from known locations of illicit activity. No smell of weed, no bed full of tools possibly going to the pawn shop to support a crack habit stolen from homes... Just a tow strap, spare tire, gas can and some trash...
One of the funniest search situations I was involved in occurred when a deputy pulled me over for no claimed reason... just checkin' me out. It was my last day in Daytona Beach as I was moving out that night. I had to pick up my truck from the transmission shop so I had removed all items of value to prevent theft. I had a very dear friend with me so I could have more time to have our last personal conversation. He was off duty Juvenile probation officer and tasked with wearing a county deputy badge on his belt. He was always very neatly dressed and groomed. The cop asks for my papers and I comply, He then asks to search, I asked what for but since I wasn't wanting to involve my buddy in making a scene denying the consent to search I allowed. This old truck takes only seconds to search as it has no headliner or floor mats, no ashtray nor radio... just shine a light in the holes...
He then gets to the seat and he cannot figure out how to tip the back forward... I explained that it didn't flip. He tells me has never seen one that didn't, I informed him that you can learn something new each day. I then explained that the front seat in a crew cab or suburban did not flip, my seat musta come from one of them... Absolutely nothin' to be found and after 30 minutes I could have used loading my truck for the move, I was finally on my way...
Brent

[Wagonman]

1. So if there is no arrest impending, you would be OK with my politely refusing a search? (in the absence of PC or RS, of course)

2. Pardon my ignorance, but what's the 'hello test', and since you say it's a reason to be arrested, is there a legal basis for it, or is it entirely discretionary?

1, yes of course.

2, The hello test is indeed entirely discretionary. However, it is not a reason to be arrested on it's own, just something else to to base RS on.

The hello test is simply "you act like "one" you will be treated like "one" Passing the hello test is very simple hence the name

You say hello like a civilized person and you pass.

A good example of the hello test is in the infamous and decidely obscene Chris Rock "how not to run afoul of the police" video. You can youtube it, I am hesitant to link because it is a family forum.

Wagonman pulls over the ol'hogdogs pickup truck for the heinous crime of "No Tag Light".

I can only arrest for moving violations not compliance violations.

I will then be arrested for failing a test I did not know I had to take

No, but acting suspicious will raise my reasonable suspicion. Say what you will but being adversarial with the Police is indeed lawful and your constitutionally protected right but not a good idea in ther real world.

One of the funniest search situations I was involved in

How many times have you been searched incident to a traffic stop? The fog is starting to clear.

[nitetrane98]

Wagonman, you're doing a fine job defending yourself and other LEOS here and I'm kind of late on the particular point about being a judge.

I'm retired LE and I can remember the day a judge dismissed about half the charges I had written a guy up on, (mainly for failing the attitude test). They were all honest charges. Anyway, after the court session the judge took me aside and said, "Don't take it personally, you do my job every day. You dismiss charges on the street sometimes for your reasons and I dismiss some for my reasons." I came away with different point of view. Other than an arrest on a warrant (which I knew nothing about the particulars) I never arrested an innocent man.

My career spanned 1980-2000 with a sheriff department in East Texas. As I look back with this thread in mind I can see the gradual shifting toward what the OP calls militant LE training. Back in the day, an assault on a peace officer was handled quite differently than today. There was a price to pay for a BG assaulting a PO, and they knew it. We won all of those fights, no matter how many men it took. Today the public expects a LEO to take those kicks in the balls, head butts, etc when they are in cuffs or not and simply gently subdue the actor ad file the appropriate charges. Somehow those charges always seem to get plea bargained away. It's disheartening to know that he went to prison for 5 years for burglary but walked on assaulting you.
This same guy will expect the Officer Friendly treatment when he gets out.

It seems that many here want a completely emotionless LEO when dealing with BGs and a smiling compassionate, empathetic, LEO when dealing with them. They want you to find the BG that broke in and stole your Xbox but don't want you stopping anybody in a ragged, beat up old car at 3:00AM in your neighborhood unless he commits a traffic or equipment offense.

Godspeed, wagonman, retirement is good.

I'd better go now.

[hogdogs]

No, but acting suspicious will raise my reasonable suspicion. Say what you will but being adversarial with the Police is indeed lawful and your constitutionally protected but not a good idea in ther real world

Thus the crux of the problem! We all know that exercising my civil rights can and does lead to them being violated in the end in the name of PC or RS!

1. So if there is no arrest impending, you would be OK with my politely refusing a search? (in the absence of PC or RS, of course)

1, yes of course.

Then the officer informs you that they now have PC or RS and you may be informed that they will just get a warrant to search the vehicle which may take several hours as they detain you waiting for the judge signed warrant to arrive...
How about this... "The reason I do not consent to the search of my vehicle is I am not a criminal involved in any criminal activity and your time would be better spent pulling over cars and suvs typically driven by the thug life crowd and searching them." If I am seen leaving an area of criminal activity I can expect a stop but not violating any traffic laws 'tween my house and the properties I do hog removal on isn't the time to stop and ask to search my truck! My appearance isn't thug, goth, punk, or radical in any way... just a typical redneck guy who chooses to only shave ever so often to save money as razor refills are outrageous and my attire is only to keep me warm and cover my privates. I do not see that as reason to stop my old truck and ask me to search it...
Brent

[hogdogs]

In my 24 years of driving cars and trucks or riding motorcycles I have been approached for permission to search in excess of 15 times... possibly closer to 20 or more.
In a few of cases I admit I intentionally was less than friendly. I haven't been asked to consent to search since leaving the peninsula of florida 3+ years ago...
Coincidence? I think not... I have changed none of my looks or MO of day to day routine.
Brent

[orangello]

This has been a very enlightening thread. Wagonman, thank you for your candor in your responses, seriously. It is better to know what the officers I may encounter could be thinking.

I still see no good reason for the militarization of the law enforcement agencies in this country. Leadership comes from above, and i can only assume that this militarization trend will be ended when the right people are elected to the offices that can influence that trend. In the mean time, i will continue to look at LEO's as unfortunate plauge victims & avoid them as such.

On the original part of the topic of the syndrome associated with police pursuits, maybe it would work out better for the police & for those pursued if all registered vehicles were equipped with a law enforcement operable "kill switch" to cut power in the pursued vehicle as safely as possible when the vehicle is being pursued by an authorized police vehicle. Obviously, this would fall prey to the same types of failures as emissions controls have (removal with annual reinstallation for official inspection & such). I'm not sure i'd want to participate in such a system, but that would make for safer pursuits and would eliminate any type of "syndrome" as an excuse for police brutality.

The irony of a thread critical of the militarization of police forces (partially) on a forum with a "SWAT" section is not lost on me.

[ilbob]

Back in the day, an assault on a peace officer was handled quite differently than today. There was a price to pay for a BG assaulting a PO, and they knew it. We won all of those fights, no matter how many men it took. Today the public expects a LEO to take those kicks in the balls, head butts, etc when they are in cuffs or not and simply gently subdue the actor ad file the appropriate charges. Somehow those charges always seem to get plea bargained away. It's disheartening to know that he went to prison for 5 years for burglary but walked on assaulting you.

I don't know what public you are refering to but I don't know of too many people who think LEOs are expected to allow the BGs to beat on them without the LEO taking action to defend himself.

Some of the crap you guys are getting is because of what appears to be a double standard where police think street justice is Ok for them when they are attacked, but not OK for Joe citizen.

[fbrown333@suddenlink]

I agree I also could not be law enforcement as I believe in 3 things there is right, wrong, and then there is the law, and they are not always the same.

[OuTcAsT]

Some of the crap you guys are getting is because of what appears to be a double standard where police think street justice is Ok for them when they are attacked, but not OK for Joe citizen.

That is a pretty good summation. ^^

I will leave this topic on the same note I started.

When a crime is committed it should carry the same consequences for a LEO as it does for anyone else.

I think this little point-counterpoint illustrates a perfect example of the real problem;


The Public:

To solve most of the problems I see wood be to do away with color of law protections and police unions. For instance. If a raid happens on the wrong address and results in a death, it's murder plain and simple.

Law Enforcement:

That's the ticket, have Cops do thier jobs taking their career in thier own hands without any kind of protection.

I would submit that you do have protection,
and that would be the same law that protects us all. If every officer did have to take his career in his own hands you would not see the type of violence that was exacted in the OP, and if you did, it would be self-correcting thru due process. Same crime/Same punishment whether dirtbag or deputy.

[bigger hammer]

Originally Posted by Dust Monkey

SWAT is not new. Using SWAT to serve failure to pay tickets is

Please provide a link to such a case. I'd bet that unless this person had a history of violence that it was NOT just for failure to pay tickets.

Originally Posted by Dust Monkey

Not ignoring you or running from the discussion. I am gathering facts and figures to put up. From my initial findings, I am sure you won't like it and fnd some way to explain that it's crucial to your job and that if folks are not guilty they have nothing to hide

You'd be wise not to try and put words in my mouth. Nearly 30 years of LE work and I've never uttered such a phrase. I believe in the right to deny an officer consent to search. That does not mean that the search won't take place, just that consent has been denied.

Originally Posted by Dust Monkey

And FWIW, SWAT is a very good example of mission creep. Using SWAT just to justify a budget is common in many departments.

And this is related to this discussion exactly how?

Originally Posted by Dust Monkey

You don't see the problem because you have been trained to do your job a certain way. IMO the wrong way.

You have no idea how I was trained to do my job. Assuming that you do, has lead you down the wrong road and allowed you to make all sorts of assumptions that aren't true.

Originally Posted by Dust Monkey

To solve most of the problems I see wood be to do away with color of law protections and police unions.

I don't see how.

Originally Posted by Dust Monkey

For instance. If a raid happens on the wrong address and results in a death, it's murder plain and simple.

No, sorry but you're quite wrong. Murder in most cases (the felony murder rule is one such exception) is a specific intent crime. The act must be committed with "malice aforethought." The actor must have the "mens rea" a guilty mind in order to commit murder. In the situation you describe there was a mistake. If a death were to occur that's manslaughter, not murder. Didn't you tell us that you have 14 years LE experience? I'd have thought that would have come up sometime in your career.

Originally Posted by Dust Monkey

Some one dropped the ball and did not do their job and confirm the correct address.

Until and unless you can show that someone made that mistakewith the intent that someone be killed, it's an error. That's not murder. One can't commit murder accidentally. I've only heard about one perfect human being and he wasn't on a SWAT team.

Originally Posted by Dust Monkey

Anything after that mistake should not be covered by color of law protections. Period.

It's not covered by a "color of law" protection. It's covered by the specific language of the law. There was no intent to kill a person. There was an error.

Originally Posted by Dust Monkey

And this crap of "don't like it, change it". That's what some of us are trying to do.

Not here you're not. That would happen in the legislature. This is a place to vent and rant.

Originally Posted by Dust Monkey

And guess who wants to oppose us, oppose change in the civil rights area? Cops that's who. The sw cops who begged us for help getting nation wide carry for them with the promise they would help us get nationwide carry. And we all know how that ended up.

I don't recall "begging" you for help in passing HR 218. Can you show us some documents to support such a claim? In any case, getting such a law passed for civilians is a process, just as passing HR 218 was. Your claim that this is how it "ended up" is nonsense. It's not over.

Originally Posted by Dust Monkey

So. I will have some stats. Alarming as they may be. Just try not put your coptalk hat on. Those guys over there are scary.

I'll be the first one to say that some cops are doing the wrong thing. I'm personally responsible for the firing of several who did. I reported wrongdoing whenever I came across it. The last thing a decent cop wants is to work alongside a crook in the same uniform. That goes for cops who violate the law or who do the wrong thing.

The fact is that a police officer will perform hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions) of stops and have various kinds of contacts in the course of his career. One reason that these incidents make headlines is because they're so rare. There are about one million police officers of various levels in the US. If we assume 5,000 "bad deeds" (and I think that's way more than actually occur) that's still only 0.5%. Can you name an industry with that low an error (or accident) rate or such a low rate of good guys gone bad? I don't think so. If you take a look at prison populations you'll find far more judges, lawyers, doctors, and plumbers there than police officers.

Originally Posted by Dust Monkey

Now. Off to care for my father.

Godspeed.

[bigger hammer]

Since this has wandered so far from the original topic I'll try and steer it back. I'll make some comments to your original post that I passed by in my first post here.

I think that part of the problem is that you think you know quite a few things when the fact is that you've made many assumptions and jumped to many conclusions.

Originally Posted by Dust Monkey

We all remember the video of the El Monte Police officer kicking a compliant suspect in the head at gunpoint.

I think that the issue of compliance is one of those assumptions. Since there's no sound we don't know if he's being complaint or not. He IS on the ground but he's also looking towards the officer. I was trained to have the suspect turn his head away from me to hinder him in preparing an assault or any resistance. How do you know that the officer was not giving commands for the suspect to do that and that he was refusing to comply? At the end of a chase wherein the suspect deliberately tried to run down a police officer with his car I think it's reasonable to assume that he might resist the actual arrest as well. The officer is alone, and in my opinion has committed a tactical error in leaving cover to approach the suspect. But now that he's there, he must get compliance.

Originally Posted by Dust Monkey

The El Monte incident was not the only incident in recent news to attract my attention. There were 5 Alabama Officers fired after a video surfaced showing them beating an unconscious suspect after a chase. By some reports this video is over a year old and was viewed by several LE supervisors, several in the LE community and Prosecuting Attorneys. Yet not one of them thought something was wrong until the trial.

Another assumption on your part. I think it's far more likely that they KNEW something was wrong but chose to turn their heads away from it. I find that far more disturbing than the initial act. It appears to me that the suspect was unconscious but I don’t know that the officers saw that. Neither do you BTW. If he was, then while he was certainly not resisting but he was also not complying with their commands. In the heat of the moment they may have perceived that he was not complying and went to a use of force to gain that compliance.

I've not made any assumptions, I've just pointed out a few possibilities.

Originally Posted by Dust Monkey

During the trial, the Prosecuting Attorney did not have his edited copy so he asked the defense to borrow their copy. The current Prosecuting Attorney had not seen the entire tape, it was a surprise. Think about that. 5 officers beating the hell out of an unconscious suspect, not a threat to anyone, maybe in need of medical attention at the time himself, not one person thought that this might be wrong.

Your perception, and it may be correct, is that the suspect was unconscious. But you do not know if the officers realized this of even if it was true! ANOTHER assumption on your part. I doubt that the prosecuting attorney was surprised, as you say, by the entire video, but again you've made this assumption.

Originally Posted by Dust Monkey

Higher ups in several departments involved saw this video, and no one scratched their head and said, um, wait a minute. It took a year to surface. That folks is sad and alarming at the same time.

AGAIN you have no idea what those "higher up in several departments" said or even if they saw this video. Perhaps I'm wrong in this and eagerly await your proof of it. Until then it's just another assumption.

I will say that I doubt that if they saw it, that they "scratched their head and said, um wait a minute." I'm sure that if they saw it they said, "Oh [color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color]. I hope this doesn’t get out!' I find THAT alarming.

Originally Posted by DUST MONKEY

In the past few days I have had the time to speak with some old friends, some retired LE some current, and all of them agree on what a “distraction blow” is. And they all agree that you never should deliver one, alone, and holding a suspect at gunpoint.

I think his error was in moving from cover toward the suspect while still alone. But once he got there, if his perception was that the suspect was not complying, a distraction blow was warranted.

Originally Posted by Dust Monkey

Now I believe both of these instances are a result of 2 things. End of chase syndrome and the growing militant behavior/training of today’s peace officers.

I have no idea what "end of chase syndrome" is. It sounds a bit like the press' use of the term "assault weapon" when discussing an AR-15. It's meant to inflame and conceal more than to give information. Anyone who is not excited and adrenalized at the end of a chase has some pretty serious problems. But I don't think there's a "syndrome" of any wrongdoing that occurs. I've already addressed the issue of "militarization of the police" in previous posts.

Originally Posted by Dust Monkey

The militant attitude that is all consuming in today’s LE is scary.

What's scary is that you think that it's "all consuming."

Originally Posted by Dust Monkey

Police should not act like soldiers. Soldiers are trained to kill, period. They are trained to seek out an enemy and kill. They have that mindset instilled during basic training and advanced training.

Odd but in both situations you brought to this discussion no one was killed. So how to you jive these situations with your "killing mindset?"

[bigger hammer]

Originally Posted by hogdogs

So lemme get clarification...
Wagonman pulls over the ol'hogdogs pickup truck for the heinous crime of "No Tag Light". I provide required ID and paperwork as asked. While in his patrolcar wagonman decides that my unshaven face and raggedy clothing makes look "suspicious" and comes up to ask to search my truck, I reply I am rather in a hurry to get to the gun range and nothing in my truck for you to worry about... I will then be arrested for failing a test I did not know I had to take (I thought I had the right to be friendly to whom I choose) on the charge of my broken tag light, My truck then fully searched while I locate a bondsman?
That is shady police work at it's finest!

So let me give you some clarification from another viewpoint.

A police officer knows that several rapes where the suspect was armed with a handgun have occurred in his district so he's on the lookout for the suspect. These rapes have occurred at about the same time of day that the officer is working now. This suspect drives a truck and has removed his license plate light so make it more difficult to identify him. He has been described by his victims as being unshaven and wearing raggedy clothing. He's known to keep the victim's panties as "souvenirs."

Ol' hogdog is unshaven and wearing raggedy clothes. He's in the area at the time of day that the crimes have been committed. He's driving a truck that fits the description given by the victims. Hmm says the officer, this is a possible. Knowing that he can't arrest for just the the equipment violation he follows Ol' Hogdog for a few blocks and then he drives through a red "no right turn" arrow. He stops Ol' hogdog. Ol' hogdog provides all the required paperwork. While the officer knows that he has PC to search, he asks for consent anyway. It's refused because as ol' hogdog tells him, he "is in a hurry to get to the gun range," adding to the officer's PC and to his concerns for his own safety. Rather than just use the PC to search, he arrests Ol' hogdog for the blown red arrow and searches his car because he knows that such a search, incident to the arrest, is less likely to be overturned by a judge than one based on just the PC. He locates a gun matching the rape victim's description and several pairs of worn women's underwear. Because of these discoveries, and the totality of the circumstances, he books Ol' hogdog for suspicion of rape, the victims identify him and he's convicted.

That is excellent police work at it's finest!

Just another view of similar situations.

[bigger hammer]

Originally Posted by hogdogs

Thus the crux of the problem! We all know that exercising my civil rights can and does lead to them being violated in the end in the name of PC or RS!

I'm sorry but we DO NOT "all know" this. There's nothing unconstitutional about an officer deciding, based on his observations, including how you respond to him, from taking action on a violation or letting you walk.

And if the PC or RS exists then it's ALSO not a violation of your rights if the officer searches despite your refusal to consent.

Originally Posted by hogdogs

Then the officer informs you that they now have PC or RS and you may be informed that they will just get a warrant to search the vehicle which may take several hours as they detain you waiting for the judge signed warrant to arrive...

That may well be the case. If he lies and says this, it's not unconstitutional. If he tells the truth and says this, that's not unconstitutional either.