He will now be paid a nice tidy sum by Evanston for his trouble.

One can only hope that is how it will turn out.

But many have stated publicly that by exiting his vehicle without permission, he brought it all upon himself and that the police reaction was warranted here in the land of the free and the home of the brave.

the number of arresting officers in this case is rediculous.

First you can't spell. The number of officers isn't ridiculous. You don't go one one one. That would be stupid.

The number of officers isn't ridiculous. You don't go one one one. That would be stupid.

Exactly.

He was inconvenienced and his life was put at risk.

Exactly.

We should all have a checklist on a little card in our vehicles at all times so that we can follow best practices when stopped.

Absent that the average citizen can be expected to react any number of ways when apprehended behind the wheel for specious reasons.

The guy jumped out the car with his hands in the air with his ID visible. He was subjected to contradictory orders brayed at him by a crowd of LEO's. He was then subject to The Blitz by half a dozen cops that was A) unprofessional, B) unnecessary and C) damaging to the public's perception of law enforcement.

If I were a police officer, I wouldn't relish having to defend such actions before a jury.

You don't go one one one. That would be stupid.

no this time they went one one one one, what is stupid is that you should focus on spelling not the issue, I spell as I speak, but I don't live in a racially charged society where a black man is automatically a criminal and where people tend to mind everyone's business Why would the police assume the report of some old busybody is the truth? Why would more than one car respond? I'll tell you racism

At the 0:41 mark instead of the cops approaching with caution and asking to see id (license and registration), like a real seasoned officer would have done, they all run and attack him tackling him to the ground before ever asking for any identification at all. These cops needs to go back to basic training on approaching all suspects in vehicles. They are disgusting and an embarrassment to the police academy and department.

Verdict is in and in favor of the student. Those cops are all toast!

At the 0:41 mark instead of the cops approaching with caution and asking to see id (license and registration), like a real seasoned officer would have done, they all run and attack him tackling him to the ground before ever asking for any identification at all.

Yeah, the kid made a mistake in getting out of the car.

That happened to me last year when I had a headlight out heading to work. I had no idea that I had defective equipment as I had two good headlights when I parked my car the previous evening. My left headlamp must just have failed so I was confused as to the reason for the traffic stop. I'd pulled out on a side road for the officer wondering, "What the hell?" and I jumped out of the car without thinking. It had been years since I'd been stopped. The officer said, "Please remain in your car sir." I complied and got a warning.

Many of us are not pro's at encounters with LE and do stuff out of confusion. The guy in the vid had his ID in his hand, and I'm thinking that getting out of the car was his way of being compliant.

Good practice in the the Evanston stop would have been for the senior cop on location to have asked the young man to stay in his car with his hands on the wheel. A half dozen armed guys yelling one thing and another evidently freaked the kid out. Bad command and control. Bad practices. I'm sure these officers had training that should have been followed here. I suspect the problem is attitude. Too much gung ho in these guys.

http://bluelivesmatter.blue/lawrence-crosby-evanston-police-video-steal-car/

Opinion

Video Breakdown Of Lawrence Crosby Story, ‘Black Man Beaten For Stealing His Own Car’

By Officer Blue
On January 15, 2017
58 Comments

Video of Lawrence Crosby, "beaten for stealing his own car," shows something else.

Lawrence Crosby ‘Beaten For Stealing Own Car’ Video

Evanston, IL – Video footage from an October 2015 incident showing the arrest of Lawrence Crosby has recently been released and is causing outrage. The narrative is that a black man was beaten by police for stealing his own car, but that’s actually not what happened at all.

First, watch the video and we’ll break it down after the jump:

The incident started when a woman was walking down the road when she noticed Lawrence Crosby using a metal bar on window molding.

If anybody witnesses this, they should call the police. When this sort of thing goes unreported, officers show up later to take a theft report only to find that a witness had seen the suspect, but they hadn’t called the police because they weren’t 100% sure that they weren’t legit. This sort of thing happens all of the time. People should always report suspicious activity. People don’t need to know before calling; it’s the job of law enforcement to investigate if the suspicious activity is illegal or not.

The 911 caller said, “I don’t know if I am racial profiling…” Which, when heard in hindsight, makes it look she was racial profiling. However, she called for entirely reasonable suspicious activity which had nothing to do with Lawrence Crosby’s race, and over-publicized incidents like these cause people to hesitate when they witness illegal activity.

Evanston Police Officers were dispatched to Lawrence Crosby’s vehicle for somebody matching Lawrence Crosby’s description who “just broke into” a car. The officers located Crosby driving and got behind the vehicle to execute a “high-risk stop.”

The Evanston PD officers only knew what they were told. They were told that the vehicle had been broken into by a person matching the description of the driver and that he had driven off. Officers did exactly what they were supposed to do and they stopped the car as if it were a stolen vehicle with the suspect inside.

Stopping stolen vehicles is a high-risk incident because officers are dealing with people who are in the middle of committing a felony, and they got caught red-handed. If the suspects get caught, they are likely going to prison, potentially for many years, which leads them to frequently fight or run. Because of the high-risk nature of these stops, officers take every precaution.

Lawrence Crosby stopped his car and immediately got of the car with something in his had. Immediately getting out of the car on a traffic stop is what people who fight or run do, and so it’s generally a bad idea for people to get out of the car on traffic stops until ordered to do so. Getting out of the car with something in your hand which could be mistaken for a weapon is also a good way to get shot. Crosby is lucky that all of the officers apparently recognized that he wasn’t holding a gun. Officers then ordered Crosby to put his hands up and he did.

Officers ordered Crosby to get on the ground, and instead of getting on the ground, he stood still. Officers had time to approach Crosby while yelling at him to get on the ground, and Crosby didn’t react.

Police officers are trained to get high-risk suspects prone because it makes it much more difficult for the suspects to fight or run. It’s fairly standard training to put these suspects in a position of disadvantage, which is why, if you watch enough dash or body camera videos, the officers are always telling people to get on the ground.

Rather than getting on the ground, Lawrence Crosby suddenly turned like he was going to run or lunge for a weapon. Officers grabbed him and they continued to order him to get on the ground. Crosby still did not obey the commands to get on the ground. Furthermore, because Crosby was contracting his muscles to resist the officers’ efforts to get him on the ground (the video makes it apparent he is resisting the officers’ efforts,) he moved from simply being non-compliant to actively resisting.

When somebody is actively resisting arrest, officers can (and often should) strike them. The officers still didn’t know who this guy was or if he was armed. What they did know is that he was a suspected car thief, caught in a suspected stolen car, who refused commands, looked like he was going to take off or lunge for something, and he was actively resisting arrest.

The longer that situations like this go on, the more chance there is for the suspect to access a weapon or escape. Officers are taught to end active resistance as fast as possible for everyone’s safety. Hitting somebody who’s resisting arrest can get them to loosen up enough to be handcuffed.

The officers hit Lawrence Crosby only as long as it took to get his arms under control, and then they stopped. Once he was fully under control, the officers were able to investigate and determine that Crosby was driving his own vehicle.

The way that this incident should have happened is that when officers stopped Lawrence Crosby, Crosby should have remained in his car until ordered out, and he should have followed all orders until he was securely handcuffed. Officers would have then investigated and released Cosby when they determined that he didn’t do anything wrong. Instead, Crosby did not comply with commands and he resisted arrest.

Lawrence Crosby did not get hit because he was driving his car, he was not hit because somebody saw him “breaking in” to his car, he was hit because he was actively resisting arrest, and striking a suspect who is actively resisting arrest is an appropriate level of force.

You may be wondering how Lawrence Crosby was “resisting arrest” when he couldn’t have been arrested for driving his car, and I’ll explain. When you got stopped by a police officer for any actual or suspected violation, you are detained and obligated to obey officers’ lawful orders. Officers can control where you move and what you do, for everyone’s safety. When Crosby failed to comply with orders to get on the ground, he was failing to obey the lawful orders of a police officer. In most (all?) jurisdictions, that’s a crime.

If you don’t move where/when officers tell you to, the officer will make you move. Depending on the level of danger that the officers judge in a situation, you may be afforded more leeway in not immediately obeying or being able to argue with the officer. However, Lawrence Crosby was stopped in a high-risk situation. No suspects in high-risk situations are afforded the chance to do anything except comply immediately, because any other action may be done to kill the officers or escape.

Lawrence Crosby’s failure to comply with the officers’ commands led to his arrest for Disobeying Officers, and subsequent additional charges of Resisting Arrest when he resisted arrest. Those charges were later dismissed in court, but just because somebody isn’t successfully charged in a court of law doesn’t mean they didn’t actually commit the crime.

In a review of the situation it was determined that all of the officers acted lawfully and within policy, but backlash has forced change. Per a policy change, Evanston PD officers are no longer supposed to order a suspect to get on the ground during a high-risk stop.

Do you think that this use of force was justified? Let us know on our Facebook page or in the comments below.

As I said earlier, the person reporting this alleged crime should be changed with public nuiance and sued for deformation

This was horseshit.

The subject really hasn't had time to comply before he was bum rushed.

He's got a billion candlepower focused on him and a crowd of cops hollering at him.

He's supposed to perform like a rational actor.

I see unprofessional hysteria on the part of LE here.

Lawrence Crosby stopped his car and immediately got of the car with something in his had. Immediately getting out of the car on a traffic stop is what people who fight or run do, and so it’s generally a bad idea for people to get out of the car on traffic stops until ordered to do so. Getting out of the car with something in your hand which could be mistaken for a weapon is also a good way to get shot. Crosby is lucky that all of the officers apparently recognized that he wasn’t holding a gun. Officers then ordered Crosby to put his hands up and he did.

Of course coming from bluelivesmatter.com they want to twist the story to state that the suspect resisted arrest when from the very start he had fully complied by keeping his hands up and there was no weapon ever found on him.

And this statement here "In a review of the situation it was determined that all of the officers acted lawfully and within policy, but backlash has forced change." tells me that they did a "cya" so as to make themselves not liable. They admitted from the very beginning that the suspect complied with keeping his hands up and now they want to switch their story. From the video that I first mentioned, I did not see the suspect resisting anybody. So why would those same officers who made the claim of the suspect resisting arrest charges now want to change their policy? What they actually did is change their story and hoped that the Internal Affairs Dept covered their behinds.

As I said earlier, the person reporting this alleged crime should be changed with public nuiance and sued for deformation

There is no public nuisance, nor any defamation.

It appears the policy is the circumstance was to have the suspect get on the ground.

Of course coming from bluelivesmatter.com they want to twist the story to state that the suspect resisted arrest when from the very start he had fully complied by keeping his hands up and there was no weapon ever found on him.

That said, was he ordered to get on the ground, and did he fully comply?

People should always report suspicious activity.

Especially, suspicious activity by family members should be reported to the state.

America needs more informants.

That said, was he ordered to get on the ground, and did he fully comply?

While at the same time being told hands up. Lights in your face. You can't necessarily react that fast.

That said, was he ordered to get on the ground, and did he fully comply?

While at the same time being told hands up.

The police need to be reined in, in a serious way.

We hired a bunch of combat veterans because they are well-trained and used to discipline, but we didn't deprogram the "I'm in a war zone and all of these people are potential hostiles" mindset that Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans have.

The Army is not there to SERVE the Afghani or Iraqi public, but the US President's orders. They are there to protect THEMSELVES while carrying out that mission.

But the police are there to protect and to serve the public. That's why the public hires them and tolerates the taxation to pay their taxes. It's why the public generally supports the police, and allows the cops SOME slack in carrying out what can be difficult duty in dealing with the scumbags of our society.

BUT when the police start to ROUTINELY treat the public they serve as a threat - when they default to their war training and think of themselves as patrolling hostiles, and act that way - well, that's not why we hire them and pay them.

It has become a bad enough problem, visible enough, that people's attitudes are changing about the police. The benefit of the doubt is being lost. As that accelerates, juries will stop protecting the police, and prosecutors, who are often elected, will favor the public.

The police are in for a rough time in the years ahead if they don't exercise much greater self-control and self-discipline. We're not a people under occupation. The police are there to protect and to serve US. They are failing at that job, more and more, thinking of themselves as Rangers on patrol in Iraq. That's going to lead to police joblessness and prosecution, and political retaliation by the public.

Right now, we're seeing Trump preparing to manhandle the intelligence services of the United States and make it very clear to them, before the world, that they are guard dogs who SERVE the President, not RULE his decisions.

The police are headed towards the same dressing down and humiliation.

In short: the police, right now, have been given the deference to determine what THEY think is reasonable response to police commands, to dealing with the public. They are abusing that discretion, and are going to see it stripped from them, and start seeing themselves held personally accountable for behaving like 'roid ragin' jackasses.

What happened to this kid is indefensible. It's over the top. The police may have followed their procedures, but their procedures need to be subject to political control by the public. The police cannot be permitted, in their discretion, to behave that way. They have to expose themselves to more risk in order to deal more reasonably with the public for whom they work, and whom they serve.

If they are too frightened to deal with the public that is on its feet instead of supine, they do not have the character or courage to be policemen, and should return to military service abroad. We're not going to permit the police to turn into Redcoats on their own authority.

You see the opposition building even here on this right wing website. People who, five years ago, three years ago, would have always taken the side of the police are losing faith, because the police are acting too aggressively.

"The guy jumped out the car with his hands in the air with his ID visible."

Yeah! What's wrong with that? Isn't that what you're supposed to do when you're pulled over?

"He was then subject to The Blitz by half a dozen cops that was ... unnecessary"

He's lucky he wasn't shot. What triggered "The Blitz" was (according to the video) the fact that he ignored the officer's orders then turned away, reaching to his waist with his right hand.

Here ya go. Maybe this will help:

The Army is not there to SERVE the Afghani or Iraqi public, but the US President's orders. They are there to protect THEMSELVES while carrying out that mission.

Were these police officers former army?

Were these police officers former army?

I don't know. Haven't looked into it. Not sure where to.

We have certainly militarized the police in any case, with massive hiring and transfer of military equipment.

The police forces are starting to act like an army in occupation. They need to knock that off.

It just seems to me that there was no one in command of this situation and that led to panic on both sides. The bellowing and screaming were amateur hour.

It's human nature to be somewhat reluctant to get down on the ground especially when it's wet and grimy out.

They had the drop on him. "Put your hands on top the car" or "Keep your hands in the air, turn around and back up slowly" might have done the job. I've watched operations like this and these tactics seem to work reasonably well.

"They had the drop on him. "Put your hands on top the car" or "Keep your hands in the air, turn around and back up slowly" might have done the job."

I watched and listened to the video and all I heard was "Get on the ground". All the cops were saying "Get on the ground". Did you hear anything different?"

He refused. So they forced him to the ground.

You tell me. With all these cops pointing guns at him and yelling for him to get on the ground ... why did he refuse a lawful and reasonable command from uniformed police?

Wouldn't you say he brought this on himself?

Wouldn't you say he brought this on himself?

I would not. I would say that the police here are clearly, without any reasonable doubt, completely out of control. The city should be sued for their misconduct, and forced to pay large sums to this man.

And police practices should be investigated and adjusted.

BUT when the police start to ROUTINELY treat the public they serve as a threat - when they default to their war training and think of themselves as patrolling hostiles, and act that way - well, that's not why we hire them and pay them.

Police who do not treat a suspected car theif as dangerous put their own life, and that of others, at risk.

People who are pulled over and get out of their car and approach the police, and who do not follow commands, endnager their own life.

We all know the drill. Stay in the care, put your hands on the wheel in plain sight, and await and follow instructions.

The police are in for a rough time in the years ahead if they don't exercise much greater self-control and self-discipline.

If the liberal mindset takes control, we are in for more Chiraqs.

That the liberals have been voted out of office at the Federal and State levels, speaks to the public will.

I did not hear them tell him to get on the ground. All I saw was him holding up his hands....

Getting out of the car and approaching the police is most certainly not an order ever given by the police. Stay in the vehicle, engine off, hands on the wheel in clear view, and await and follow instructions.

Please keep us updated with the gross criminal misconduct case.

It appears they followed established procedure (which procedure you are free to disagree with) and they therefore have qualified immunity.

We all know the drill. Stay in the care, put your hands on the wheel in plain sight, and await and follow instructions.

Yes, it's really that simple. Some people have lived their entire lives never complying with authority. Street cops are often the first people to demand they do so.

It's because their story was not consistent with what what I saw on that video.

Qualified Immunity does not apply to police officers acting outside the scope of their duties. Was it within the scope of their duties to rush at and push down to the ground and begin hitting at the suspect when they already had decided he posed no threat to them? No, it was not within the scope of their duties. What they did was use their badge of authority to brazenly attack an unarmed suspect who had fully complied from the start to surrender. The officers even admitted this themselves. So, with that being said, if those officers were so damn sure about their actions being legal, why did they go and change their policy procedure?

It's because their story was not consistent with what what I saw on that video.

That is your opinion. Other expert opinion varies.

What they did was use their badge of authority to brazenly attack an unarmed suspect who had fully complied from the start....

This assertion is just patently false. It is blatantly apparent that he did not comply with the police. The police never instruct the suspect to put something in his hand, exit the vehicle, and come toward them.

Stopping stolen vehicles is a high-risk incident because officers are dealing with people who are in the middle of committing a felony, and they got caught red-handed. If the suspects get caught, they are likely going to prison, potentially for many years, which leads them to frequently fight or run. Because of the high-risk nature of these stops, officers take every precaution.

Lawrence Crosby stopped his car and immediately got of the car with something in his ha[n]d. Immediately getting out of the car on a traffic stop is what people who fight or run do, and so it’s generally a bad idea for people to get out of the car on traffic stops until ordered to do so. Getting out of the car with something in your hand which could be mistaken for a weapon is also a good way to get shot. Crosby is lucky that all of the officers apparently recognized that he wasn’t holding a gun. Officers then ordered Crosby to put his hands up and he did.

Officers ordered Crosby to get on the ground, and instead of getting on the ground, he stood still. Officers had time to approach Crosby while yelling at him to get on the ground, and Crosby didn’t react.

Police officers are trained to get high-risk suspects prone because it makes it much more difficult for the suspects to fight or run. It’s fairly standard training to put these suspects in a position of disadvantage, which is why, if you watch enough dash or body camera videos, the officers are always telling people to get on the ground.

Rather than getting on the ground, Lawrence Crosby suddenly turned like he was going to run or lunge for a weapon. Officers grabbed him and they continued to order him to get on the ground. Crosby still did not obey the commands to get on the ground. Furthermore, because Crosby was contracting his muscles to resist the officers’ efforts to get him on the ground (the video makes it apparent he is resisting the officers’ efforts,) he moved from simply being non-compliant to actively resisting.

When somebody is actively resisting arrest, officers can (and often should) strike them. The officers still didn’t know who this guy was or if he was armed. What they did know is that he was a suspected car thief, caught in a suspected stolen car, who refused commands, looked like he was going to take off or lunge for something, and he was actively resisting arrest.

The longer that situations like this go on, the more chance there is for the suspect to access a weapon or escape. Officers are taught to end active resistance as fast as possible for everyone’s safety. Hitting somebody who’s resisting arrest can get them to loosen up enough to be handcuffed.

The officers hit Lawrence Crosby only as long as it took to get his arms under control, and then they stopped. Once he was fully under control, the officers were able to investigate and determine that Crosby was driving his own vehicle.

When stopping a suspected fleeing hi-risk person, it is standard to order that person to the ground. If the suspect fails or refused to comply, it is standard to put the suspect on the ground, using such force as necessary to overcome resistance. Discussiong follows after the high-risk threat of violence is eliminated.

Qualified Immunity does not apply to police officers acting outside the scope of their duties.

True. However, it was within the scope of their duties to put the high-risk suspect on the ground, and to use such force as necessary to overcome his resistance.

Was it within the scope of their duties to rush at and push down to the ground and begin hitting at the suspect when they already had decided he posed no threat to them?

I am not a mind reader. I suspect you lack such superpowers as well. Your assertion that the officers "already had decided he posed no threat to them," requires such superpower to read their minds.

No, it was not within the scope of their duties.

It was within the scope of their duties to put the high-risk suspect on the ground and eliminate the perceived threat. It is not a negotiation process. The goal is to establish complete control of the scene, eliminating the perceived threat to themselves or others. The question is whether the police acted within established policy for a high-risk stop of a suspected fleeing felon.

If the officers acted pursuant to established policy, limited immunity inheres. This is true even if compliance with the policy results in an unlawful act. In such case, the qualified immunity protects the officers and any suit must be brought against the employing agency. The vast majority of such cases are brought against an employing city or county or agency. If the object is to sue for big bucks, suing the individual cops is self-defeating. Suing a defendant with deep pockets is the way to go.

It was within the scope of their duties to put the high-risk suspect on the ground and eliminate the perceived threat.

Perceived threat? Why?

Hitting somebody who’s resisting arrest can get them to loosen up enough to be handcuffed

He was not resisting arrest.

The only think you and I can agree on here is that the suspect should have stayed in the car and let the officers approach him and ask for id.

Perceived threat? Why?

See #12, #34.

Evanston Police Officers were dispatched to Lawrence Crosby’s vehicle for somebody matching Lawrence Crosby’s description who “just broke into” a car. The officers located Crosby driving and got behind the vehicle to execute a “high-risk stop.”

The Evanston PD officers only knew what they were told. They were told that the vehicle had been broken into by a person matching the description of the driver and that he had driven off. Officers did exactly what they were supposed to do and they stopped the car as if it were a stolen vehicle with the suspect inside.

Stopping stolen vehicles is a high-risk incident because officers are dealing with people who are in the middle of committing a felony, and they got caught red-handed. If the suspects get caught, they are likely going to prison, potentially for many years, which leads them to frequently fight or run. Because of the high-risk nature of these stops, officers take every precaution.

He was not resisting arrest.

You are entitled to your opinion. He did not follow standard procedure, and he did not comply with instructions to get on the ground. Crosby admitted he walked toward the front of his vehicle "because he wanted the incident to be cuaght on his vehicle's dash cam video."

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/cops-force-arrest-black-northwestern-grad-student-article-1.2945759

A member of the Evanston Police Department said in the introduction to the city's video that Crosby was put on the ground because he was "non-compliant" with an order to get down.

Additionally, Sgt. Dennis Leaks said Crosby instead turned and walked toward the front of his vehicle. Crosby admitted he walked in that direction because he wanted the incident to be caught on his vehicle's dash-cam video.

"You will see the subject actively resisting arrest as the officers command him to get on the ground," Sgt. Leaks says in the opening of the video.

Sgt. Leaks also admits that "you will see some empty-hand strikes to the heavy muscle region" in the upper thigh "to gain compliance and control."

The sergeant said that the use of force "was in compliance" with police procedure, and that Crosby did not suffer any injuries.

He did not follow standard procedure, and he did not comply with instructions to get on the ground. C

If he did not comply with standard policy procedure to get on the ground, then why after all the commotion that took place with them wrestling him to the ground, did they decide to get rid of their policy concerning this very procedure?

If he did not comply with standard policy procedure to get on the ground, then why after all the commotion that took place with them wrestling him to the ground, did they decide to get rid of their policy concerning this very procedure?

It is irrelevant why they changed the policy. What is relevant is the policy that was in effect at the time of the event.