CNN: Officer slams teen into wall

[Bob Hubbard]

Officer slams teen into wall 0:45
A police officer in Kalamazoo, Michigan, is suspended for 10 days after slamming a teen face-first into a wall.
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2008/06/18/vo.mi.officer.injures.teen.surveillance

 

[Twin Fist]

whats your point?

and by that i mean, are you reporting or commenting?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

My only point here is, here is news story. That's all.
Do I need to post an editorial piece with every article I post here?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Additional Information: http://www.knbc.com/news/16641959/detail.html

Most sites had just the video, rabid cop-hating, etc.

 

[MA-Caver]

It was admittedly excessive and above and beyond. Still a lone officer trying to escort a prisoner to a section of the jail (for questioning or other reason) and the suspect is being uncooperative or resisting (and probably running off at the mouth since there was no sound we won't know for sure), the officer lost his temper/patience.

That's how I see it anyway. I would think that is the reason why two officers are needed or at least preferred to escort prisoners but manpower shortages don't always allow for that.

 

[Kacey]

Disturbing, on multiple fronts - both for the action, and the under-staffing that leads to the opportunity for such actions to occur.

 

[Twin Fist]

Oh, no prob Bob i was just wondering is all.


excessive? maybe
deserved? i have no doubt
illegal? most likely

 

[arnisador]

Certainly seemed excessive to me. Presumably those who suspended him knew the whole context.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

For those who say it was excessive, I would like you to articulate just what exactly was excessive about it.

 

[Big Don]

I didn't see excessive. I saw a person struggling against an officer who, took action to end the person's struggling.
Now, had he slammed him into the wall 8 or 9 times, THAT would have been excessive, but, a one shot, WHAM into a wall is more of a wake up call.
This kid should have watched Chris Rock's little video of how not to get your *** kicked by cops.

 

[morph4me]

I don't think it was excessive, just dumb, he could have easily "accidently" let the kid fall down becuase he was struggling, the result would have been the same, since he was handcuffed and couldn't protect his face, and the whole thing would have looked like the kids fault.

 

[Big Don]

I don't think it was excessive, just dumb, he could have easily "accidently" let the kid fall down becuase he was struggling, the result would have been the same, since he was handcuffed and couldn't protect his face, and the whole thing would have looked like the kids fault.

Yanking back on his collar would have done that.

 

[MJS]

I watched this a few times. In the opening seconds, there were 2 times when the suspect was resisting. I'd be willing to bet that if he had taken him down to the ground, injuries still would have been a result.

Was that the best option? The officer needed to regain control. I'd be willing to bet that even if he didn't use as much force, injury still would be a result. As Don said...beating the kid, slamming him repeatedly...thats excess. Should there have been 2 officers? It may have helped, however, it may not be a requirement. I see single officers all the time, take a suspect from the back of the car, into booking, etc.

The bad guys tend to forget that when they start to resist, they are the ones who are raising the use of force bar. Perhaps if they just did what was asked, half the headaches wouldn't happen.

This kid should have watched Chris Rock's little video of how not to get your *** kicked by cops.

Yes, that is a classic.

 

[punisher73]

Here is a newstory from the Kalamazoo Gazette about the young man's background.

http://blog.mlive.com/kzgazette/2008/06/prosecutor_to_ask_state_to_car.html

Here is a link to the newstory about the incident.

http://www.mlive.com/news/kzgazette/index.ssf?/base/news-29/1213800611230270.xml&coll=7

The video clearly shows the kid actively resisting the officer and actually starts to get away from the officer when the officer slams him into the wall to regain control. Did the officer grab him by the back of the neck and slam his face/head into the wall? Nope, what he did is a standard move when you need to regain control and don't have the time or space to do it another way. The unfortunate part is the kid got hurt, but you are taught that as long as you perform a move in "good faith" and it is appropriate to the situation you are not responsible if the person resisting gets hurt.

What if the officer would have started using knee strikes to the kid to bring him under control? That is the other option when someone is actively resisting in an escort position, and then it is followed by a takedown. There would have been a higher risk of injury on this option because the person was cuffed. The officer made a split second decision to use the wall to stop the resistance and regain control.

Kalamazoo is the next city over from where I live and it has already started that this was all a racially based thing because the officer was white.

 

[shesulsa]

I had some sound - not much but some - and it was enough to exhibit that the kid was yelling something and then proceeded to scream/moan (in pain) after being slammed into the wall.

This kid needed a teamed escort - something that should have been arranged before they moved him. But if it wasn't clear he would behave like this they wouldn't have arranged it.

He clearly struggles to free himself from the officer twice, is yelling something that sounds like "No! Officer I really don't wanna go. Please." at the officer and is being uncooperative.

It could be argued that had he not struggled like that no force would have been necessary.

I'm not as willing to condemn on this one. I can see why the officer would not want to get more physically close to this guy in an empty hallway and push him into the wall more gently or let him go and call for backup (the latter makes about as much sense as letting yourself be assaulted and waiting for the police to arrive).

I think he was doing his job.

There should be a sign in police stations and at local correctional facilities that reads: "We reserve the right to use necessary force on all persons who give physical challenge to officers of the law. This means YOU." :lol2:

 

[shesulsa]

Did the officer grab him by the back of the neck and slam his face/head into the wall? Nope, what he did is a standard move when you need to regain control and don't have the time or space to do it another way. The unfortunate part is the kid got hurt, but you are taught that as long as you perform a move in "good faith" and it is appropriate to the situation you are not responsible if the person resisting gets hurt.

Exactly. The kid's posture upon being shoved is more to blame.

What if the officer would have started using knee strikes to the kid to bring him under control? That is the other option when someone is actively resisting in an escort position, and then it is followed by a takedown. There would have been a higher risk of injury on this option because the person was cuffed. The officer made a split second decision to use the wall to stop the resistance and regain control.

Or the officer *could* have used an old LAPD tactic - shove them up against the wall, take a fistful of hair and repeatedly slam kid's head into wall. THAT is NOT what this officer did.

Kalamazoo is the next city over from where I live and it has already started that this was all a racially based thing because the officer was white.

Where's the video of the white kid being slammed onto the floor? Show him that.

 

[jks9199]

The technique is called a wall stun. It can be a very effective technique. Issues about two-person escorts are nice -- but they're not always possible in the real world.

I don't agree with the 10 day suspension, and suspect that it would be reduced on appeal/grievance. But I also don't know the officer's disciplinary history or all of the circumstances. If he had a significant history of questionable use of force, or if he had ignored policies without justification, it may have been in order. What I suspect here is that an interim chief wants the job to become permanent and threw his officer under the bus hoping to get it.

I don't consider the technique itself excessive; done properly, even on a cuffed subject, you distribute much of the force across a fairly large part of the subject's body, but still shakes them up enough to often subdue them. My only concern in this particular case is that the way it was done threw the suspect's face into the wall with nothing to protect it; it would have been better had the officer directed the force of the push a bit lower so that the body, not the face took the brunt of the impact. But that's easy for me to say from perfect hindsight, too.

 

[rmclain]

I guess he'll be less likely to resist in the future.

R. McLain

 

[Archangel M]

His Dept/Supervison has no spine, they prefer to placate the mob by suspending the officer instead of supporting him.

Sad but common.

 

[Big Don]

I guess he'll be less likely to resist in the future.

R. McLain

With over twenty arrests, I think his learning curve doesn't...