Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Kelly Thomas

2»

Comments

  • #32
    UCDVet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,894 ✭✭✭UCDVet


    end of the road wrote: »
    jesus, if thats minimal force then i think we know what full force can be, they over reacted, if 4 cops aren't able to restrain a single man without having to beat him over 30 times then its time for them to be demoted to desk duties or sacked, loose cannons comes to mind

    i'm surprised they didn't.

    not being hurt doesn't mean you have handled something well, they didn't handle this well at all

    exactly, so therefore they should be on desk duties or sacked, letting them back on the streets will be another disaster waiting to happen

    How many cops do you think it *should* take to restrain Mike Tyson, while drunk, in his prime?

    The reality of it is that there is a lot involved in being a cop and only a tiny percentage of it is restraining people. There are professional MMA fighters that are bigger, stronger, and faster than even the toughest cops - much less the average cop. It's unrealistic to expect someone to magically be able to take on someone in a physical altercation, just because they are a cop.

    Again, ignoring the last six blows, everything the cops did was by the books and correct.

    Using the taser as an example - the taser is quite effective. The fact that it didn't phase Mr. King even after being used twice doesn't mean that the taser is useless and shouldn't be used. I'm inclined to believe that the guy was either strong, tougher, more determined, or drunker than the the people for which it is effective.

    I'm not even a tough guy - but I have a look at some of the guards and I'm confident that one on one I'd be able to take them. And that's FINE. I'd rather have friendly, intelligent, people than super-tough guys. Same deal with bouncers at a night club. They aren't SUPPOSED to be able to take on any guy that walks in the door, they are supposed to maintain order and they often do that by outnumbering the people they take on.

    While I totally dig the idea that every cop should be Robocop with superhuman strength....it just doesn't work.

    In the Rodney King situation - the cops were pretty effective. They used some amount of force, found it to be ineffective and used more force. The cops weren't injured and while you can say 33 hits is a lot - it happened in 66 seconds. As far as I'm concerned, that's good enough. The ONLY thing they did wrong was not stopping at 27 and, for that, at least one of them spent years in jail.

    The ones that kept hitting him might have been bad cops but again, the cop was sent to jail and lost his job. So he *was* punished (more than Rodney King was, IMHO).


  • #33
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,008 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    UCDVet wrote: »
    How many cops do you think it *should* take to restrain Mike Tyson, while drunk, in his prime?

    The reality of it is that there is a lot involved in being a cop and only a tiny percentage of it is restraining people. There are professional MMA fighters that are bigger, stronger, and faster than even the toughest cops - much less the average cop. It's unrealistic to expect someone to magically be able to take on someone in a physical altercation, just because they are a cop.

    Again, ignoring the last six blows, everything the cops did was by the books and correct.

    Using the taser as an example - the taser is quite effective. The fact that it didn't phase Mr. King even after being used twice doesn't mean that the taser is useless and shouldn't be used. I'm inclined to believe that the guy was either strong, tougher, more determined, or drunker than the the people for which it is effective.

    I'm not even a tough guy - but I have a look at some of the guards and I'm confident that one on one I'd be able to take them. And that's FINE. I'd rather have friendly, intelligent, people than super-tough guys. Same deal with bouncers at a night club. They aren't SUPPOSED to be able to take on any guy that walks in the door, they are supposed to maintain order and they often do that by outnumbering the people they take on.

    While I totally dig the idea that every cop should be Robocop with superhuman strength....it just doesn't work.

    In the Rodney King situation - the cops were pretty effective. They used some amount of force, found it to be ineffective and used more force. The cops weren't injured and while you can say 33 hits is a lot - it happened in 66 seconds. As far as I'm concerned, that's good enough. The ONLY thing they did wrong was not stopping at 27 and, for that, at least one of them spent years in jail.

    The ones that kept hitting him might have been bad cops but again, the cop was sent to jail and lost his job. So he *was* punished (more than Rodney King was, IMHO).
    they handled it shambolically

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • #34
    woodoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,219 ✭✭✭woodoo


    In any civilised country those cops would be in jail.


  • #35
    UCDVet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,894 ✭✭✭UCDVet


    end of the road wrote: »
    they handled it shambolically

    Fair enough.

    Incompetent cops or not....

    I certainly wouldn't hold up Rodney King as an example of police brutality or of racial profiling as it so frequently is. Mr. King was a complete d-bag by any definition of d-bag I have ever seen and while he might not have deserved 33 hits, he did deserve 27. And, given that the cops were put on trial AND at least one served jail-time, it's hardly an example of police being above the law or of systematic corruption in the legal system.

    There are real cases of innocent (often black) men being arrested, abused until they confessed, then placed on trial, found guilty (by a bunch of white southerners), and put in jail for 30 years that were good people who didn't do anything wrong. But everyone keeps talking about Rodney King, the abusive, alcoholic, convicted repeat offender who got paid ~4 million dollars and had his criminal charges dropped as an example of someone who was given an unfair deal by a racist and corrupt system.


  • #36
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,008 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    UCDVet wrote: »
    Fair enough.

    Incompetent cops or not....

    I certainly wouldn't hold up Rodney King as an example of police brutality or of racial profiling as it so frequently is. Mr. King was a complete d-bag by any definition of d-bag I have ever seen and while he might not have deserved 33 hits, he did deserve 27. And, given that the cops were put on trial AND at least one served jail-time, it's hardly an example of police being above the law or of systematic corruption in the legal system.

    There are real cases of innocent (often black) men being arrested, abused until they confessed, then placed on trial, found guilty (by a bunch of white southerners), and put in jail for 30 years that were good people who didn't do anything wrong. But everyone keeps talking about Rodney King, the abusive, alcoholic, convicted repeat offender who got paid ~4 million dollars and had his criminal charges dropped as an example of someone who was given an unfair deal by a racist and corrupt system.
    he didn't even need 27 hits, way over the top, if anything it shows that better training is needed

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Femme_Fatale
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,628 ✭✭✭Femme_Fatale


    Bambi wrote: »
    Called them innocent at the time
    On what basis? It looking bad-ass of you?


  • #38
    user2011
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,071 ✭✭✭user2011


    Better training to be able to deal with mentally unwell people is what they need nothing to do with restraining people.

    The screams of him calling for his Dad :(

    If I was his Dad and listening to that as my sons final words would send me over the edge.. I'd be in jail for a very long time.


  • #39
    sunflower27
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,822 ✭✭✭sunflower27


    Absolutely shocking story.

    As if that man's life wasn't tragic enough, but to die while screaming for help from his father while he is beat and bludgeoned to death is absolutely disgusting.


  • #40
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,008 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    sunflower27 wrote: »
    Absolutely shocking story.

    As if that man's life wasn't tragic enough, but to die while screaming for help from his father while he is beat and bludgeoned to death is absolutely disgusting.
    hopefully these vermin will have it made very difficult for them by their colleagues who actually want to be there and make a difference

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • #41
    returnNull
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,235 ✭✭✭returnNull


    if that was my son I'd fukking kill the kunts.

    Hopefully it will be pursued at a federal level but Im not hopeful.

    That video is hard to watch.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    RDM_83 again
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,116 ✭✭✭RDM_83 again


    FTA69 wrote: »
    RDM_83 again wrote: »

    I'd go so far as to say they're institutionally racist.

    It was popularised because it was caught on camera. Black people for years were well accustomed to police brutality and racism and this simply came to symbolise it because it was there for all to see. The acquittals were the straw that broke the camel's back and was the catalyst for years of pent up rage to emerge.

    I think the brutality issue is a separate issue to the racism issue.

    This isn't saying that neither exists.

    What I feel is that as far as I can see American police seem to resort to violence and occasionally extreme levels of it where it is not necessary (I haven't lived in the states though).

    Black people would suffer more from this due to racism and profiling issues but as can be seen from any search on a youtube etc the willingness to use excessive force is a factor in encounters whether the "suspect" is black or white.
    FTA69 wrote: »
    What's the "right aspect"? Do you think it's actually whites who are oppressed in America or something?

    No but that doesn't reduce the fact that there is a particular narrative that tends to come into play in relation to white authority on black violence.
    The specific incident I mention it is an excellent example how situations are handled if there is not political capital to be gained from inflating them (the city settled in a case the Judge made clear if they challenged they would have won)

    Witness how the Travyon incident (not commenting on the rights and wrongs of it) resulted in senior Government figures intervening because there was significant political capitol to be made.


  • #43
    RDM_83 again
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,116 ✭✭✭RDM_83 again


    end of the road wrote: »
    jesus, if thats minimal force then i think we know what full force can be, they over reacted, if 4 cops aren't able to restrain a single man without having to beat him over 30 times then its time for them to be demoted to desk duties or sacked, loose cannons comes to mind

    While I agree that that level of violence can never be justified and what they did was just brutal, I some garda arresting a few lads (the joys of living in north inner city Dublin ;) ), one guy had two garda on him and they couldn't restrain him, then another two joined in and they still couldn't get him into the wagon in the end it was six garda that got him properly restrained and arrested.
    Now they seem to have acted really professionally and no battons or anything were used but I was really suprised how hard it was for them to subdue one (large) guy if they decide there is no way they are being taken in.


  • #44
    Dyr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,246 ✭✭✭✭Dyr


    Femme_Fatale wrote: »
    On what basis? It looking bad-ass of you?

    Oh Just a silly hunch that their actions would be defensible in a court :)


    Stupid juries :mad:


  • #45
    UCDVet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,894 ✭✭✭UCDVet


    end of the road wrote: »
    he didn't even need 27 hits, way over the top, if anything it shows that better training is needed

    Exactly how many hits did he need?


  • #46
    Potential-Monke
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,111 ✭✭✭✭Potential-Monke


    Just going to put it out there, and i'm in no way saying that it was handled perfectly, or even well, but, when someone who doesn't want to be arrested (be it right or wrong) they will shout and say anything to make the un-informed passing by try to help them. "Assault", "Brutality", "I can't breathe", "You're breaking my (appendage)" and "Help" are the most common things shouted out by someone being arrested against their will. It's rarely the case that those words are indications of what is going on.

    Now, i watched the video, start to finish. The first issue i had with it (as a Garda) was the threat of "fu%king you up" with his fists. Idiotic move, considering he knows he's wearing a mic. So Kelly tells him to bring it on. A struggle starts, Kelly is brought down and the whole incident takes a turn. Now, i don't know if any of ye have ever tried to arrest someone who doesn't want to be arreted, and it's something you learn quite quick in the job, but if someone doesn't want to be arrested they get this surge of strength out of nowhere. It's not uncommon for 4+ members being needed to subdue even a skinny person. Size is not an indication of strength, and the person being arrested is more determined to get free than the cop is determined to arrest them.

    Anyway, back to the video. Kelly is quite obviously refusing to co-operate (even if he says ok, etc), as if he co-operated they would not have been struggling with him for so long. You use force (if necessary) until the objective is attained. If he had co-operated and put his hands behind his back, he would have been left handcuffed behind his back, face down, with maybe 1 or 2 cops holding him there, and possibly another one or two holding his legs. However, he didn't co-operate (as is obvious by the struggling and the fact that he ended up handcuffed to the front), and that's why the struggle continued.

    And back to the bad parts. You can hear a cop shout "Choke him out" and this apparently happens. Don't know if that's an ok thing to do in the US of A, but it's 100% something i wouldn't even dream of doing, and would actively stop a colleague if they started doing it. Crazy carry on, restricting someones airways like that, and you can hear Kelly slowly succumbing to it. Also, i think it's an indication of the determination of Kelly when you hear a cop saying that his Tazer was fully used up. Christ, nearly every video of someone getting tazed, 1 hit is enough to incapacitate them. But, and you can hear the cop saying clearly in the video, that once it was used up his hit him in the face with it. In the face! Idiot. Legs and arms, that's what you hit if necessary. Not the face.

    Anyway, paramedics could see that he had stopped breathing, that he was turning blue, and that there was loads of blood. I'm fairly surprised that they got off with it. The coroner didn't help the case, stating that she believed it was due to chest compression when there was no actual signs of same (read the autopsy), but there was bruising to one side of his chest. X-Rays showed cracked ribs, but no mention of this in the autopsy. And the prosecution were also using the enlarged heart as a sign or assault, whereas the heart was enlarged due to previous heavy drug abuse. I was also surprised to hear that there were no drugs found in the toxicology report, i was full sure they'd find meth, or cocaine.

    All in all, can't see how they got off with it. I can see why they got off murder: that has to be premeditated, whereas imo this wasn't. Manslaughter, maybe. Abuse of power, definitely. Assault causing serious harm. Definitely. As i said above, goes to show what a highly paid lawyer can do for you. But the FBI are looking into it still. Give it 10 years or so and we'll see them prosecuted for assault at least.


  • #47
    Da Shins Kelly
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,047 ✭✭✭Da Shins Kelly


    UCDVet wrote: »
    What I find really depressing is that people were so enraged over King they were willing to take to the streets and riot. I mean, wow. I assume they were all as uninformed about it as I was and thought they were fighting the good fight.

    People didn't take to the streets and riot simply because of Rodney King. The LA riots were years in the making. It was a manifestation of dissatisfaction that was bubbling up for years in Los Angeles, it was only a matter of time before it all erupted. The King incident was simply the last straw. It wasn't this one incident that incited people to take to the streets - it was years of abuse of power within the LAPD that incited the LA riots. Rodney King just became the face of it because his incident happened to be caught on camera.

    As for this case, it's depressing to say the least.


Advertisement
Advertisement