Police Brutality??

MJS

Administrator
Staff member
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Messages
30,187
Reaction score
430
Location
Cromwell,CT
Saw this article and video clip online. Supposedly the students are claiming police brutality, although I'm not seeing it.

**Warning: Some strong language on the video clip**


NEW HAVEN The incident was over in a matter of minutes. But just days after the controversial arrest of a Quinnipiac University student by New Haven policemen was videotaped by an eyewitness, it has led to a contentious debate over police brutality and students rights.

It began when an unidentified Quinnipiac University student tried to enter Toads Place, a popular college hangout in New Haven. According to eyewitnesses, he had a bloody finger and was not allowed inside the bar. At some point, several police officers were called over by the bouncer.

The matter might have ended there had not a bystander captured several minutes of the Sept. 25 incident with his cell phone camera. Within hours, Kenneth Hartfordthe one who filmed his friends arrestfound himself behind bars charged with disorderly conduct and interfering with a police investigation. Within days, the unsettling scene had infiltrated classrooms, was replayed for professors, students and lawyers. It was also posted online by the universitys newspaper, the Chronicle.
 

Archangel M

Senior Master
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
4,555
Reaction score
154
What as "brutal" about any of that? Im supposing something happened after the video cut out?

The one thing I did notice here, and I see this all the time:

I don't have to tell any bystander why I am arresting someone. I only have to tell the person I am arresting. Some random person with a camera demanding to know why Im arresting someone can go pound sand.
 

Archangel M

Senior Master
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
4,555
Reaction score
154
and people who want to stand on the "Im free to video a cop" soapbox (which I agree with BTW) have to realize that there is a difference between video taping a cop from a distance and inserting yourself into an arrest situation while video taping. Keep distracting me and/or placing yourself into my arrest situation and you start flirting with obstruction/dis con arrest yourself.

and...while Im not saying this is "right"...when the cops start telling you "get the **** out of here" and you dont? Well you would think the signs that nothing good is going to happen here would be obvious.
 

Jdokan

Black Belt
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
550
Reaction score
11
Location
Middleton, MA
I don't the see the "brutality" here...Each situation is different and can always erupt without warning...Even the language doesn't bother me...I did/do think that though videoing is ok and legal I thought taping audio was not...not without the consent of the individual....I thought that was federally controlled...I think the officers handled this fine....
my opinion...
 

sgtmac_46

Senior Master
Joined
Dec 19, 2004
Messages
4,753
Reaction score
188
Should have taken the clown to jail for interference.

As I said in another thread, where some morons get themselves in trouble is crossing the line between 'peacefully observing and recording' and in to 'active interference'.

This clown crossed over in to, tried to actively intervene, and should have been arrested and charged, instead of, completely legitimately, being told to get the **** out of there!

Booze+buddy in trouble+moron know it all with camera='s criminal interference.
 

sgtmac_46

Senior Master
Joined
Dec 19, 2004
Messages
4,753
Reaction score
188
and people who want to stand on the "Im free to video a cop" soapbox (which I agree with BTW) have to realize that there is a difference between video taping a cop from a distance and inserting yourself into an arrest situation while video taping. Keep distracting me and/or placing yourself into my arrest situation and you start flirting with obstruction/dis con arrest yourself.

and...while Im not saying this is "right"...when the cops start telling you "get the **** out of here" and you dont? Well you would think the signs that nothing good is going to happen here would be obvious.

Mommy and Daddy failed little junior at some point on his path when they told him that he was completely above and beyond rules and laws because he was a unique and special snowflake!
 

Hudson69

Brown Belt
Joined
Nov 28, 2008
Messages
419
Reaction score
20
Location
Utah
Mommy and Daddy failed little junior at some point on his path when they told him that he was completely above and beyond rules and laws because he was a unique and special snowflake!

HA!..... you said snowflake:roflmao:
 

sgtmac_46

Senior Master
Joined
Dec 19, 2004
Messages
4,753
Reaction score
188
I don't understand the perspective of some folks who don't obey the law.

Let me make that point clear.......I understand the mindset of a criminal, who knows that there is a law against his activity, he engages in it brazenly, but understands that the police will attempt to thwart his activities if he is caught.

I understand the mindset of a criminal that will flee, fight and even kill to keep from getting caught.

I understand that.

What I don't understand are the clowns who, somehow, don't think the law applies to them. They have the mentality that they can do whatever they want, and are actually both surprised and righteously indignant when the lawful authority goes to prevent them from doing it.

It is that entitlement mindset I don't understand. The kind that doesn't actually believe the cops are serious when they issue a warning to cease and decist. Do not believe they will use force. And then when force is used, view themselves as VICTIMS! That 'don't you know who I am? I'm special!' mindset that completely boggles me.

Now, i'm not going to say that circumstances couldn't be such that I would become a criminal. Perhaps the whole world could change and I could find myself as an outlaw. But I would never have that mentality. I would always view the 'lawful authority' as a tool of force, and would respect their capacity for enforcing the law through force, even if I resisted it. I understand the nature of law and force, and it would be the same, even if he laws themselves I had determined to be unjust. I would resist, KNOWING full well that the appointed enforces of that law can and will use force to that end.
 
OP
M

MJS

Administrator
Staff member
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Messages
30,187
Reaction score
430
Location
Cromwell,CT
I too, am a bit lost on where the brutality comes in. I mean, do these kids honestly think that because the kid who was using the cell cam, was arrested, that it was brutality?

As usual, these kids brought all their headaches on themselves. Why is that Chris Rock video coming to mind here. :D
 

Carol

Crazy like a...
MT Mentor
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
Jan 16, 2006
Messages
20,311
Reaction score
541
Location
NH
I think "Police Brutality" is a term much like "Hostile Work Environment".

Many people don't know, or care, that such a thing has a specific legal definition. They hear the term being used, and then apply it to a police encounter, or work environment, that they simply do not like.
 

sgtmac_46

Senior Master
Joined
Dec 19, 2004
Messages
4,753
Reaction score
188
I think "Police Brutality" is a term much like "Hostile Work Environment".

Many people don't know, or care, that such a thing has a specific legal definition. They hear the term being used, and then apply it to a police encounter, or work environment, that they simply do not like.

Exactly!

Another even more used term is 'Police Harassment'......I hear that from every two bit thug who gets intensive police attention as a result of their criminal behavior.

'This is police harassment! I'm going to sue the department!' Righto, skippy, you just get your high powered lawyer on it. ;)
 

bribrius

Green Belt
Joined
Sep 10, 2010
Messages
166
Reaction score
1
I don't understand the perspective of some folks who don't obey the law.

Let me make that point clear.......I understand the mindset of a criminal, who knows that there is a law against his activity, he engages in it brazenly, but understands that the police will attempt to thwart his activities if he is caught.

I understand the mindset of a criminal that will flee, fight and even kill to keep from getting caught.

I understand that.

What I don't understand are the clowns who, somehow, don't think the law applies to them. They have the mentality that they can do whatever they want, and are actually both surprised and righteously indignant when the lawful authority goes to prevent them from doing it.

It is that entitlement mindset I don't understand. The kind that doesn't actually believe the cops are serious when they issue a warning to cease and decist. Do not believe they will use force. And then when force is used, view themselves as VICTIMS! That 'don't you know who I am? I'm special!' mindset that completely boggles me.

Now, i'm not going to say that circumstances couldn't be such that I would become a criminal. Perhaps the whole world could change and I could find myself as an outlaw. But I would never have that mentality. I would always view the 'lawful authority' as a tool of force, and would respect their capacity for enforcing the law through force, even if I resisted it. I understand the nature of law and force, and it would be the same, even if he laws themselves I had determined to be unjust. I would resist, KNOWING full well that the appointed enforces of that law can and will use force to that end.


i agree... to a point. In this case the police officer was unprofessional, kid just annoying. The entire situation probably could have been avoided it looks like a waste of tax dollars. Now we got to pay for them to bring the kid in and process him as well and the court date. Yippee!! (sarcasm).

On the other hand sometimes i think people should have more respect for police. They have familys to go home to as well. They have to consider their safety and have the unfortunate experience of dealing with the bottom scum of society on the regular basis.

i cant fully agree with your apparent force/law/special thinking. Let us not forget who works for who. They should do away with police officer and call them peace officer or something. They are civil servants. The day our govt. decides to run the people is the day it has ceased to serve its purpose. peace officer, serve and protect.... sounds much better and prerable in action and philosophy. There have been lots of lawsuits won on towns, municipalitys and states over police activity. The taxpayers eat the bill everytime a cop gets a big head or police department forgets its purpose. The taxpayers pay the restitution and lawsuit settlements because the police department or cop foregets exactly what he is. I suggest any officer or department head that seems to think they are something else quit. I come from a town where our police budget is through the roof and lawsuits paid from just plain stupidy on behalf of certain officers. The heads at the department swelled, budget through the roof, and the elected officials are fighting amongst themselves. I see some heads rolling soon.
 
OP
M

MJS

Administrator
Staff member
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Messages
30,187
Reaction score
430
Location
Cromwell,CT
i agree... to a point. In this case the police officer was unprofessional, kid just annoying. The entire situation probably could have been avoided it looks like a waste of tax dollars. Now we got to pay for them to bring the kid in and process him as well and the court date. Yippee!! (sarcasm).

I disagree. The kid was egging the cop on by standing there. He wanted to see how far he could get, and he stepped over the line. The cops were conducting an investigation. Whether or not this kid with the phone was a friend of the other or not, the situation did not involve him...period.

On the other hand sometimes i think people should have more respect for police. They have familys to go home to as well. They have to consider their safety and have the unfortunate experience of dealing with the bottom scum of society on the regular basis.

This I agree with.

i cant fully agree with your apparent force/law/special thinking. Let us not forget who works for who. They should do away with police officer and call them peace officer or something. They are civil servants. The day our govt. decides to run the people is the day it has ceased to serve its purpose. peace officer, serve and protect.... sounds much better and prerable in action and philosophy. There have been lots of lawsuits won on towns, municipalitys and states over police activity. The taxpayers eat the bill everytime a cop gets a big head or police department forgets its purpose. The taxpayers pay the restitution and lawsuit settlements because the police department or cop foregets exactly what he is. I suggest any officer or department head that seems to think they are something else quit. I come from a town where our police budget is through the roof and lawsuits paid from just plain stupidy on behalf of certain officers. The heads at the department swelled, budget through the roof, and the elected officials are fighting amongst themselves. I see some heads rolling soon.

Regardless of who the cops supposedly 'work for' that does not give people the green light to be *******s. People need to start taking responsibility for their actions! People blame the cops for the bill....ok...well, if we follow the chain here, the person ultimately responsible for the lawsuit, is the person being the *******. If the person wasn't an *******, the cop would be able to do their job and the town wouldnt have to pay for someone elses actions. Lets place the blame where it really lies.
 

sgtmac_46

Senior Master
Joined
Dec 19, 2004
Messages
4,753
Reaction score
188
i agree... to a point. In this case the police officer was unprofessional, kid just annoying. The entire situation probably could have been avoided it looks like a waste of tax dollars. Now we got to pay for them to bring the kid in and process him as well and the court date. Yippee!! (sarcasm).

On the other hand sometimes i think people should have more respect for police. They have familys to go home to as well. They have to consider their safety and have the unfortunate experience of dealing with the bottom scum of society on the regular basis.

i cant fully agree with your apparent force/law/special thinking. Let us not forget who works for who. They should do away with police officer and call them peace officer or something. They are civil servants. The day our govt. decides to run the people is the day it has ceased to serve its purpose. peace officer, serve and protect.... sounds much better and prerable in action and philosophy. There have been lots of lawsuits won on towns, municipalitys and states over police activity. The taxpayers eat the bill everytime a cop gets a big head or police department forgets its purpose. The taxpayers pay the restitution and lawsuit settlements because the police department or cop foregets exactly what he is. I suggest any officer or department head that seems to think they are something else quit. I come from a town where our police budget is through the roof and lawsuits paid from just plain stupidy on behalf of certain officers. The heads at the department swelled, budget through the roof, and the elected officials are fighting amongst themselves. I see some heads rolling soon.
I never forget who works for who.......but it is entirely a misunderstanding of that situation to believe that I work for you, as an individual. And that is what causes many of these 'I pay your salary' problems.

The role of law enforcement is to enforce the laws, as written by the legislators, not to answer to the whims of individual citizens, especially when those particular citizens are the ones that have caused the problem to begin with.
 

sgtmac_46

Senior Master
Joined
Dec 19, 2004
Messages
4,753
Reaction score
188
The reality is that I can live just fine in a society where there is no law or order. It really doesn't matter to me either way. It seems to be the same folks demanding law and order, however, that complain the most.

A perfect example are the folks we get all the time who complain about speeding on a given street or road and the fact that police never go there. Then when we send an officer to run radar and write some tickets, surprise surprise, guess who usually ends up speeding through and getting the first tickets? The very folks who complained in the first place, and boy are they angry about it!
 

bribrius

Green Belt
Joined
Sep 10, 2010
Messages
166
Reaction score
1
The reality is that I can live just fine in a society where there is no law or order. It really doesn't matter to me either way. It seems to be the same folks demanding law and order, however, that complain the most.

A perfect example are the folks we get all the time who complain about speeding on a given street or road and the fact that police never go there. Then when we send an officer to run radar and write some tickets, surprise surprise, guess who usually ends up speeding through and getting the first tickets? The very folks who complained in the first place, and boy are they angry about it!


yeah, i have seen that as well. the cop callers. They call the cops for some of the dumbest things you can think of. I think they should bill them for the cost of sending a officer out when they do that. That isn't how the department explains it for budget purposes. They go simply by the number of calls they get and response time. And try to use it to get more people hired and a larger budget. They consider pulling the person over speeding 8 mph a useful task. They dont say the lack of coverage caused a twenty minute reponse time on A LOOSE DOG call. Most of it isn't realistic. Realistic is the community (not the individual) does not want to pay the two hundred k a year it costs for the wages and insurance and employer contributions to maintain three cops to arrest a kid with a cellphone, speeding 8 mph, over or going to a loose dog call. But they dont want to pay a officer for sitting in his cruiser all night talking to his girlfriend on his cellphone either and if he doesn't look like he does something he will get some hell.

There are the repetitive callers out there, wasting tax money as well, it isn't just the police. however the department doesn't mind that it justifys a bigger budget. The lawsuits have to stop though. It is rediculious. Our town just settled another one. No reason for it.
 

sgtmac_46

Senior Master
Joined
Dec 19, 2004
Messages
4,753
Reaction score
188
yeah, i have seen that as well. the cop callers. They call the cops for some of the dumbest things you can think of. I think they should bill them for the cost of sending a officer out when they do that. That isn't how the department explains it for budget purposes. They go simply by the number of calls they get and response time. And try to use it to get more people hired and a larger budget. They consider pulling the person over speeding 8 mph a useful task. They dont say the lack of coverage caused a twenty minute reponse time on A LOOSE DOG call. Most of it isn't realistic. Realistic is the community (not the individual) does not want to pay the two hundred k a year it costs for the wages and insurance and employer contributions to maintain three cops to arrest a kid with a cellphone, speeding 8 mph, over or going to a loose dog call. But they dont want to pay a officer for sitting in his cruiser all night talking to his girlfriend on his cellphone either and if he doesn't look like he does something he will get some hell.

There are the repetitive callers out there, wasting tax money as well, it isn't just the police. however the department doesn't mind that it justifys a bigger budget. The lawsuits have to stop though. It is rediculious. Our town just settled another one. No reason for it.

Like most issues in life, things often look different from the outside than from in.

The issue with the cellphone, for instance. He didn't get arrested for the cellphone. They weren't there in the first place because he had a cellphone.

There was a disturbance that precipitated the whole situation. The police were called there because these individuals, who were not doubt inebriated, were causing a disturbance and the lawful representatives of the establishment, the bouncers, called the police to deal with disorderly conduct.

Individual one was the key instigator to begin with, but then his buddy inserted himself in it as well, and became part of the disturbance.

Not only were these cops NOT doing something 'unimportant'.......they were engaged in the NUMBER ONE duty of law enforcement.......the maintenance of peace and order.

These two clowns created a disturbance that resulted in the police having to be called, and they got arrested, which was the most efficient and expeditious course of action in ending that disturbance and maintaining peace and order.

The fact is, leaving these two drunken college kids at the location they were causing a disturbance at in the first place, resulting in a continued disturbance, would have been a failure of their duty to maintain peace and order.

It never fails that every drunken frat kid is a lawyer and official spokesman and council for whatever buddy is currently being questioned by the police. The fastest way to restore order, however, is arrest the drunken mouth piece of the group. Drunken group dynamics 101.
 

bribrius

Green Belt
Joined
Sep 10, 2010
Messages
166
Reaction score
1
http://www.splc.org/news/newsflash.asp?id=2149&year=


http://www.middletownpress.com/articles/2010/10/01/news/doc4ca568a1083e1761499858.txt

if nothing happend before the camera film the department will lose this, or it will be settled. My guess.
There isn't enough in that film to show the reason for arrest and going by the article the eyewitnesses will be testifying and making statements it was false arrest. Disorderly conduct and interfereing there just isnt enough in that tape to show that imo.
The d.a. may not even follow through on charges i bet they get dropped and negotiations begin.

The dancing and saying "watch this" sure doesn't help.
 

sgtmac_46

Senior Master
Joined
Dec 19, 2004
Messages
4,753
Reaction score
188
http://www.splc.org/news/newsflash.asp?id=2149&year=


http://www.middletownpress.com/articles/2010/10/01/news/doc4ca568a1083e1761499858.txt

if nothing happend before the camera film the department will lose this, or it will be settled. My guess.
There isn't enough in that film to show the reason for arrest and going by the article the eyewitnesses will be testifying and making statements it was false arrest. Disorderly conduct and interfereing there just isnt enough in that tape to show that imo.
The d.a. may not even follow through on charges i bet they get dropped and negotiations begin.

The dancing and saying "watch this" sure doesn't help.

What is it that you think they are going to 'lose'? The case against this kid? 50/50. A lawsuit? Not a snowball's chance in hell does this even go to a court for review. By no stretch of even the most hungry trial lawyers imagination would this ever go to a civil suit. Oh, there'll be barking in that direction, but there's not a jury that would declare it objectively unreasonable. It's silly.

They won't lose anything......likely not even the charges they have against this guy. Something obviously happened before 'filming' otherwise the bouncers wouldn't have called about a disturbance. At it's face this is obvious. The police just didn't show up and start hassling college students.

It's very simple, actually.

Drunken idiot is denied entry. Starts hassling the bouncers. This is a private establishment.

Bouncers call police to have idiot removed.

Idiot is talking with the police when idiots friend starts trying to interfere with a police investigation, actively, not just by standing by and minding his own business filming.

Arrest is made and peace is restored.

There's nothing complicated or nuanced about what happened, and the facts aren't even in dispute.

It began when Ryan Lally, a senior at Quinnipiac University, tried to enter Toad’s Place, a popular college hangout in New Haven. According to eyewitnesses, he had a bloody finger and was not allowed inside the bar. At some point, several police officers were called over by the bouncer and Lally was asked to leave.

The police were lawfully investigating a disturbance. He should have stayed out of it. Nothing more.

The redherring here is that he was arrested for 'filming'. That is most obviously not what he was arrested for. As i've said on this forum before on the matter, 'simply filming' is standing at a distance and keeping your mouth shut, and not actively trying to interfer or intercede........filming is a passive act, interference is an active act, and a crime.

Connecticut General Statutes > Title 53a > Chapter 952 > 禮 53a-167a - Interfering with an officer: Class A misdemeanor


(a) A person is guilty of interfering with an officer when such person obstructs, resists, hinders or endangers any peace officer, special policeman appointed under section 29-18b, Department of Motor Vehicles inspector appointed under section 14-8 and certified pursuant to section 7-294d, or firefighter in the performance of such peace officer's, special policeman's or firefighter's duties.

(b) Interfering with an officer is a class A misdemeanor.

When a subject is being detained, quite lawfully as drunken clown A here most definitely was. Actively inserting yourself in to the situation, thereby making it more difficult to deal with clown A, most definitely falls under the heading of 'hinders' and 'obstructs'.



The moral of the story is if you're a drunken college student, make your little cellphone film, stand across the room, think how you're going to make these cops look bad on youtube, but keep your mouth shut and don't get arrested for active interference.
 
Last edited:

jks9199

Administrator
Staff member
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
23,026
Reaction score
3,344
Location
Northern VA
i cant fully agree with your apparent force/law/special thinking. Let us not forget who works for who. They should do away with police officer and call them peace officer or something. They are civil servants. The day our govt. decides to run the people is the day it has ceased to serve its purpose. peace officer, serve and protect.... sounds much better and prerable in action and philosophy. There have been lots of lawsuits won on towns, municipalitys and states over police activity. The taxpayers eat the bill everytime a cop gets a big head or police department forgets its purpose. The taxpayers pay the restitution and lawsuit settlements because the police department or cop foregets exactly what he is. I suggest any officer or department head that seems to think they are something else quit. I come from a town where our police budget is through the roof and lawsuits paid from just plain stupidy on behalf of certain officers. The heads at the department swelled, budget through the roof, and the elected officials are fighting amongst themselves. I see some heads rolling soon.
I generally try to ignore this sort of commentary. It's ill-informed.

I don't work for "the people." I work for the government of the municipality/county/state that employs me. My role is that of POLICE:
1. Also called police force. an organized civil force for maintaining order, preventing and detecting crime, and enforcing the laws.
2. ( used with a plural verb
thinsp.png
) members of such a force: Several police are patrolling the neighborhood.

3. the regulation and control of a community, esp. for the maintenance of public order, safety, health, morals, etc.

4. the department of the government concerned with this, esp. with the maintenance of order.

5. any body of people officially maintained or employed to keep order, enforce regulations, etc.
My job is more than merely "ensuring peace." And I don't "serve", though I do my best to "protect." Service implies that I'm at the bidding of the public when the simple truth is that, quite often, my job is to do anything but what someone wants. I'm doing what needs to be done to maximize EVERYONE's freedom and safety.

The sooner people understand and accept that the crap foisted by the Officer Friendlies and bend-over-backward-because-I-lack-a-spine administrators is not accurate, the sooner we'll all get along. Role confusion, in any activity, leads to problems, whether it's parents trying to run the dojo or people trying to understand why the cops are threatening to arrest them when they "didn't do anything wrong".
 
Top