Cowards and Bullies

20 cops show up to beat and arrest mentally handicapped teenager.


For one mentally handicapped kid.

Who wasn’t doing anything wrong.

This entry was posted in Police State. Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to Cowards and Bullies

  1. Scott McCray says:

    Every time I think we’ve sunk to a new low, some asshat (or group of them) proves me wrong. *Disgusting*

  2. mike w. says:

    How can you be “resisting arrest” when no crime was committed in the first place.

    Apparently some officers think walking away / not talking to them when they pass you on the street is a “crime.”

    Absolutely despicable, but sadly I doubt the offending fuckhead of an officer will get any jailtime whatsoever. Now if some average citizen chased down and beat the shit out of a mentally handicapped kid simply for not talking to him he’d be facing jail time for sure.

  3. Bubblehead Les says:

    Don’t think there’s anything in the Ohio Constitution about “Disrespect”, so I think the Dayton Gooberment is about to hand over a Nice Fat Check. Now, meaning no disrespect to this Cartman Wannabe (“Respect My Authority!”) on the Dayton Police Dept., but he can Eat Me.

  4. Jake says:

    Had I been that family friend, I would probably be either dead or in jail right now.

  5. Jay G. says:

    The more incidents like this are tolerated, the most I suspect this is part of a larger plan.

    More and more incidents like these increase the likelihood that someone will take the Raudjhborn approach and start shooting cops.

    And once that happens, watch all the Brady wet dreams come true…

  6. Medic3 says:

    “…seek damages from the city and the two lead officers, for false imprisonment, false arrest, malicious prosecution, assault, battery, excessive use of force, infliction of emotional distress and civil conspiracy.”

    I’m surprised that they’re not also making a criminal complaint regarding the home invasion and kidnapping.

  7. BobG says:

    I’m surprised they didn’t call in a SWAT team.

  8. Chris C. says:

    Looks like another one of the flash mob incidents I’ve been reading about lately. Except these weren’t teenagers looting a store.

  9. Old NFO says:

    I hope they get a couple of million $$…

  10. Newbius says:

    It is time to remove personal immunity from the cops. Perhaps when Officer Friendly is bankrupted for his illegal acts under color of law, and then rots in prison for a few years, then maybe the message will get out that these F***ers work for us.

  11. Nylarthotep says:

    I don’t know if the immunity from cops should be completely removed, but there should certainly be a non-police review panel that should decide whether the actions taken deserve immunity or not.

    It also shouldn’t be related to the courts since many of those in the courts are to closely associated with the police to make a logical decision.

  12. Kristopher says:


    Police review boards get subverted, and stuffed with badge polishers.

    Removal of immunity is the only workable answer left.

  13. glenn b says:

    Sounds terrible to me and sounds like the officers were in the wrong but they are not guilty yet. So, I find myself wondering just how Soviet-like you might allow yourself to become while trying to put that evil authority shroud over others. You put down the police and in essence have already convicted them of crimes before they have had their days in court. Wasn’t that a specialty of authorities in the USSR too – guilty because they said so? Our laws protect us all. If you think the defendants in this case do not deserve their days in court and that they are guilty on your say so instead of being innocent until proven guilty then aren’t you acting just like the Soviets once did?

    By the way, if they are guilty of the offense(s), there is definitely a great possibility of personal liability for these officers. They can be sued personally if there job decides not to indemnify them. It happens with fair frequency, especially if the defendants, who were law enforcement, were acting outside color of law as may be the case here. They also can be found guilty of criminal offenses and can do jail time. In addition they can and probably will be subjected to some form of administrative disciplinary proceeding, if actually found to have committed any offenses, and if so they will likely lose their jobs, at least Hooper and maybe his partner.

    As for those they called for back-up, those officers responded to a call for help probably not knowing the exact nature of the situation but only that an officer needs assistance call was placed. To have 20 officers show up for such a call is not unusual or in any way unprofessional. What they did once they got there though could make all the difference as to whether or not they too will face charges.

    If any of the officers are found guilty of improper actions, either in criminal court, civil court or administrative proceedings, then they should suffer the consequences and the consequences should be fitting the offense(s).

    All the best,
    Glenn B

  14. Jake says:

    Glenn B: While I wish and hope that there will be an honest investigation, I also doubt that it will happen. It will most likely get whitewashed into “he followed procedures, and there’s no physical evidence of excessive force.” After all, it’s the word of two or three mere subjects citizens against that of 22 police officers. They’re police officers, so they must be honest, right?~ They don’t have any reason to lie, right?~

    Cases like this get covered up so often that it has become the perceived norm. I wonder why we are assuming the witnesses are telling the truth and that the cops are lying?

  15. Jake says:

    @ Nyarlothotep & Kristopher:
    Perhaps a review board drawn randomly from local citizens, like juries are selected? The only disqualifications would be a previous criminal conviction (NOT counting traffic offenses), or a traffic citation by that particular officer. And there would be no equivalent to voir dire – it would be a straight up random selection of law-abiding citizens.

    Require a 2/3 majority for any ruling, including a ruling that the officers did not do anything wrong. The board could rule for any punitive action up to and including immediate dismissal of an officer, and could also refer a matter for criminal prosecution (which would be conducted in another jurisdiction to avoid any conflict of interest).

    Yeah, you’ll occasionally get some cop-haters who will vote against the police no matter what, but the random nature of the selection should keep the damage from that to a minimum, and it would provide an incentive for the police to actually care about how they’re perceived by their community.

Comments are closed.