Cities like Fresno and Fontana and CA's prison towns are a primary reason why GOP candidates can't compete in CA any more.

He said there were several known gang members and firearms present.

So when one of them acts up, you don't know what's going to follow.

The cops are dealing with rabid, feral animals here. They chose their life. This is part of it.

The cops are dealing with rabid, feral animals here. They chose their life. This is part of it.

An apartment filled with gang members and their guns, and an ongoing parole check, is an extremely dangerous situation. It is imperative that the police immediately establish absolute control over everybody present. One unruly dipshit cannot be permitted to create a distraction. The cops had to do whatever it took to establish absolute control, and do it without delay.

London Wallace had no gang connections.... He's a nice, calm, timid person....

The thread article omitted that timid London Wallace, with no gang connections, was in an apartment with gang members and their guns, and the cops were there for a probation check.

Perhaps next time timid London Wallace, when in the company of his thug friends, will be more compliant.

The thread article omitted that timid London Wallace, with no gang connections, was in an apartment with gang members and their guns, and the cops were there for a probation check.

The kid said barely a word before the cop just hauled off and started punching him. The kid was not resisting, wasn't really struggling with the cop.

I'm a little surprised you would choose this case as justifiable use of force.

But the D.A. disagrees with and has already dropped the charges. I would expect a settlement from the PD (paid for by taxpayers) for $50K or so. When the D.A. drops charges that quick, they know it's a stinker and they'd better settle quick.

The cops are dealing with rabid, feral animals here.

There was only one rabid feral animal in the video. It was the cop.

There was only one rabid feral animal in the video. It was the cop.

I see what you did there.

Perhaps next time timid London Wallace … will be more compliant.

Hell, this behavior was probably his ticket to the gang.

The kid said barely a word before the cop just hauled off and started punching him. The kid was not resisting, wasn't really struggling with the cop.

The video is very short and there is no context. Add the context that it was a parole check in an apartment of gang members with guns. If you want to go in there and play Mother Teresa, go right ahead.

But the D.A. disagrees with and has already dropped the charges.

Just how does dropping charges against the yute equate to a finding of unjustifiable use of force by the cop??? The only finding announced on that so far is that it was a justified use of force. Do you have some uncited source where the D.A. found the use of force to be unjustified?

Just how does dropping charges against the yute equate to a finding of unjustifiable use of force by the cop??? T

Whenever charges are dropped, both Tooconservative and Deckard open the floodgates to all kinds of unsupported interpretations -- "It must mean this" or "It must mean that". "The suspect is innocent" or "The cops are guilty".

Just open the door a crack and they bust in.

If you want to go in there and play Mother Teresa, go right ahead.

Now that he knows nothing bad happened, he would. The phrase "Monday morning quarterback" comes to mind.

I see what you did there.

And I thought I was being so subtle.

Just how does dropping charges against the yute equate to a finding of unjustifiable use of force by the cop?

Normally, if there is any basis for prosecution, the D.A. will hold out on that. Only if they know the case is a total loser will they drop the charges.

That kid is going to get a sizable settlement. I'm not sure why you don't see it.

The phrase "Monday morning quarterback" comes to mind.

And your willingness to opine on the case does not qualify? Pot, kettle, black.

Normally, if there is any basis for prosecution, the D.A. will hold out on that. Only if they know the case is a total loser will they drop the charges.

So, how does that equal charges against the cop?

That kid is going to get a sizable settlement. I'm not sure why you don't see it.

Sizeable settlements can be handed out for political reasons. A settlement almost always means no admission of guilt. Where is the connection to prosecution of the cop?

At #8 you stated,

I'm a little surprised you would choose this case as justifiable use of force.

But the D.A. disagrees with and has already dropped the charges.

Do the to circumstances, failure to immediately secure complete control of the room could have been fatal for the cops. It is difficult to find the cop's actions to be criminal when anything else may have endangered the lives of all the cops.

Here's my showing that the only finding to date didn't find the officer used excessive force.

https://abc7.com/video-fresno-police-officer-punches-teen-multiple-times/5483063/

Police chief Jerry Dyer saw the video for the first time Tuesday.

"I can tell you after looking at the video that it is disturbing to see what occurred in the video," Dyer said.

An initial use of force investigation didn't find the officer used excessive force, but Chief Dyer says there's now an internal affairs investigation. He says there are a lot of different angles and different people may have different perspectives, but the investigation will be conducted quickly and it could possibly lead to discipline.

I do not yet see what justified your comment that "the D.A. disagrees" with the prior finding of justifiable use of force. This case is from January. It is not like the issue of justifiable force just came up. The officer involved has not been disciplined, much less charged criminally. The D.A. has not issued a contrary opinion and it is the police who are conducting an internal affairs investigation, not the D.A. who is pursuing some mythical criminal investigation.

So, how does that equal charges against the cop?

I don't think I suggested that it would. I did say that when charges get dropped fast like that, it usually means a settlement for the victim.

The rule of thumb is that the perpetrator walks free if it is a cop. I didn't think this case was any different.

Do the to circumstances, failure to immediately secure complete control of the room could have been fatal for the cops. It is difficult to find the cop's actions to be criminal when anything else may have endangered the lives of all the cops.

But can't that be used to justified any use of force?

Only if they know the case is a total loser will they drop the charges.

Two words: Jussie Smollett

And your willingness to opine on the case does not qualify?

My comments are based on what the participants believed at the time, not on what the rest of us found out about later.

You sit in your armchair after the investigation is completed and complain that the cops should have known these things and thus reacted differently. Because they didn't, they're either stupid, inept, or simply out of control.

You sit in your armchair after the investigation is completed and complain that the cops should have known these things and thus reacted differently. Because they didn't, they're either stupid, inept, or simply out of control.

So it's fine if you are somewhere with your brother and his allegedly thuggish friends and any cop there just beats you viciously for no reason?

I don't see why you bother to argue it. You give yourself such a malodorous reputation doing this stuff that no one pays attention to your opinions and writes it all off as due to you being a copsucker no matter what.

So it's fine if you are somewhere with your brother and his allegedly thuggish friends and any cop there just beats you viciously for no reason?

From his posting history here, I surmise that his response would go something like this:

From his posting history here, I surmise that his response would go something like this:

Right up until something like that happens to one of his loved ones. Then it would be the crime of the century.

if you are somewhere with your brother and his allegedly thuggish friends and any cop there just beats you viciously for no reason?

It's not like they were all on some church outing. It was a tense situation that the cops had to get under control. What would you do in a hallway with armed gang members? Other than pissing your pants.

When he refused to sit down -- unlike his brother and his allegedly thuggish friends -- he had to be forced to sit down.

Act like an asshole, get treated like an asshole.

Right up until something like that happens to one of his loved ones. Then it would be the crime of the century.

Oh, I doubt it.

Pretty sure he would still suck up to the cops even if they assaulted one of his kids.

After all, the police are never wrong.

Act like an asshole, get treated like an asshole.

How's that working out for you - in real life I mean?

If someone is an asshole on line, it's a pretty good bet he's one in the real world.

Just ask GrandIsland.

If someone is an asshole on line, it's a pretty good bet he's one in the real world.

Why is that it's only you and a couple of others who feel that way? Did you ever think that maybe you deserve to be treated the way I treat you?

At #8 you stated,

I'm a little surprised you would choose this case as justifiable use of force.

But the D.A. disagrees with and has already dropped the charges.

Directly following the assertion that I chose this case as justifiable use of force, you continued, "But the D.A. disagrees with [something missing here]...." What did you assert that the D.A. disagreed with? It certainly appears to relate back to "justifiable use of force."

[nolu chan #18] So, how does that equal charges against the cop?

[Tooconservative #19] I don't think I suggested that it would. I did say that when charges get dropped fast like that, it usually means a settlement for the victim.

The dropping of the charge of resisting arrest against the teen does not mean he was a victim of something, or that he will get big bucks for not resisting arrest. He would not sue because he was wrongfully accused of resisting arrest.

A negative finding for resisting arrest does not equate to unjustifiable use of force by the cop, just a flawed charge. I do not see evidence of resisting arrest. I did not see evidence that the kid knew he was being arrested prior to the altercation. I did not even see evidence that the cop was thinking of an arrest at that time. The cop was securing the scene, not arresting a perp.

A more appropriate charge would have involved failure to comply in a timely manner, perhaps framed as interference in the administration of justice or whatever specific language is locally used. Even here, it appears to be an act that would justify the officer's use of force, but not justify a criminal charge against the yute. Junior's acted stupidly, not criminally, but his actions endnagered the lives of everyone present. The still video grab shown in the article appears to indistinctly show at least one other individual spread out on the floor. While there is insufficient information to draw a firm conclusion, it appears an order was issued to get on the floor and there had been time to comply.

While Junior had a cop tasked with getting him on the floor, Junior appears to be non-compliant and desirous of entering into a verbal discussion of the matter. He seems to have lacked the maturity of his more experienced seniors who appear to have recognized that the situation did not allow for that. The first mission for the cops was to secure that scene, not to win a debate about it. Just one idiot going for a gun could get a lot of people killed. Other cops had their own subjects taking their undivided attention. Junior was faced with the choice of getting on the floor or being put on the floor. It appears his more experienced companions made a wiser choice than Junior.

The D.A. is not directly involved with any civil litigation. He has no direct involvement in whether a settlement is offered. He prosecutes criminal actions. Any allegation of wrongful use of force has not even been referred to the D.A. It lies with the police internal affairs division.

[nolu chan #18] Do the to circumstances, failure to immediately secure complete control of the room could have been fatal for the cops. It is difficult to find the cop's actions to be criminal when anything else may have endangered the lives of all the cops.

[Tooconservative #19] But can't that be used to justified any use of force?

No, it does not. It can be used to justify the use of whatever force was necessary to secure the scene and the safety of the officers. It would not justify shooting Junior just to get him on the floor, where a lesser use of force was adequate.

The dropping of the charge of resisting arrest against the teen does not mean he was a victim of something, or that he will get big bucks for not resisting arrest. He would not sue because he was wrongfully accused of resisting arrest.

Well, we can wait and hope to find out.

Almost uniformly, when you see a cop haul off and violently attack someone like that and the D.A. drops the initial charges (which would normally be used to protect the police power using prosecutory tactics to place the victim at a legal disadvantage), then you know a settlement is coming and that the D.A. and city managers and police leadership have already agreed that a settlement is easier and cheaper than anything else.

Like most things, these kinds of incidents most often follow a path of least resistance. The script calls for a settlement of some kind. I think the D.A. saw the writing on the wall with the courts and in public sentiment and dropped the charges and will not object to a settlement to make it all go away.

We'll have to wait to see the actual outcome but I will be surprised at anything that does not result in at least a $25K settlement. Probably in the range of $50K but it would be surprising to me if it reached a $100K unless the local PD had a public reputation for gross abuse.

The kid was disarmed and not resisting. He wasn't under arrest. He was a bystander with no criminal record who happened to be in an apartment in a complex. We don't know if the victim was actually a resident of that apartment or not or why there were a number of young men present or whether those young men constituted a criminal gang or people breaking the law. Or whether the victim just stopped in for a few minutes to see a classmate and all these thuggish types the cops were shaking down were present when the raid was launched. And the single most damning statement is the one by the police chief. They don't say their officer was "disturbing" if they're actually backing up his legitimate arrest. At least, I've never read such a case.

Any competent civil attorney is going to have a field day with this in court. Or he would if the city wasn't going to settle first.

Just one idiot going for a gun could get a lot of people killed.

Like the bar scene in Inglourious Basterds. What a slaughter.

and the D.A. drops the initial charges

He could have dropped them in exchange for no civil suit against the cop.

He's a nice, calm, timid person," Kane said. "And you can kind of see that in the video.

"Kind of" see it? You mean if I squint real hard? Maybe?

Nope. I do not see a kind, timid person. I see a person who hangs out with armed gang-bangers and thinks he immune to the things these scumbags are used to, and is more than willing to fight with the cops rather than play along (like the rest of his buddies).

The kid was disarmed and not resisting. He wasn't under arrest. He was a bystander with no criminal record who happened to be in an apartment in a complex. We don't know if the victim was actually a resident of that apartment or not or why there were a number of young men present or whether those young men constituted a criminal gang or people breaking the law. Or whether the victim just stopped in for a few minutes to see a classmate and all these thuggish types the cops were shaking down were present when the raid was launched. And the single most damning statement is the one by the police chief. They don't say their officer was "disturbing" if they're actually backing up his legitimate arrest. At least, I've never read such a case.

The kid was unarmed, not disarmed. We do know his was attending a party, and not a resident of the apartment. We know people were attending a party. Wallace was told to sit and got up in the officer's face. Call it what you will.

Or whether the victim just stopped in for a few minutes to see a classmate

Oh, please. And Fresno police conducted a probation search for domestic violence.

His claim is use of excessive force. It is a civil suit.

The D.A. does not proceed to trial when he may have an embarrassing lack of proof. Some municipality officials do throw away taxpayer money to settle civil suits and win votes. Heck, it's not like it's his money. The D.A. does not do it. The D.A. only handles criminal prosecutions. The civil litigation would handled elsewhere.

https://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/article234210312.html

Kane [nc - Wallace's attorney] said Wallace, 17, and several others were attending a birthday party at the complex when Fresno police conducted a probation search for domestic violence.

In the body cam footage, Wallace places his hands behind his head with his fingers locked as a pair of officers pat him down.

After Wallace is done being patted down, one of the officers says a few words to Wallace and points toward the ground where other people are sitting down.

Within five seconds, Martinez confronts Wallace and grabs the teen’s arm.

Wallace yelled back at Martinez.

Then a man who claimed to be Wallace’s brother, Patrick Beard, yells: “Hey, don’t touch my little brother.”

Almost simultaneously, Martinez unleashes a fury of punches at Wallace’s head.

“I noticed Wallace was not listening,” Martinez said, according to a Fresno police report. “I believed Wallace was going to attempt to flee. …

“I punched Wallace approximately three times in the face in order to get him off me and to back him up. …”

“By punching Wallace in the face,” Martinez added, “I received the desired effect, creating the distance between me and Wallace, which allowed me to get my back off of the second story balcony railing.”

Body cam footage goes on to show Wallace wrestled to the ground by officers and police struggling to get both of his hands behind his back and handcuff him.

Eventually the body cam footage shows Wallace in tears, with blood on the side of his right eye, along with a bloody nose and bloody mouth. Kane said Wallace suffered a broken nose.

“I ain’t do nothing to you,” Wallace appears to say to police. “I didn’t do (sic) to nobody.”

Wallace was arrested that day on accusations of resisting arrest and obstruction.

The charges were later dropped.

“What you see is an officer who is unprovoked but taking irresponsible actions against a minor who was of no threat to the officers or their investigation,” Kane said. “My firm has had several cases against the city and county where no criminal charges were ever brought against the officers for excessive force.

“We do recognize a pattern. Hopefully, a jury will, too.”

- - - - - - - - - -

Any competent civil attorney is going to have a field day with this in court. Or he would if the city wasn't going to settle first.

It is the land of fruits and nuts, where tens of thousands shit and piss on the sidewalks, so who knows.

We now know that Wallace dindu nuthin to nobody.

Just how long should the officer debate with the yute about the yute sitting down???

Is 5 seconds sufficient, or is 60 seconds called for as in a presidential debate?

Like the bar scene in Inglourious Basterds. What a slaughter.

I haven't seen Inglorious Basterds. Maybe like The Gunfighter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXfltmzRG-g

8m 45s

He could have dropped them in exchange for no civil suit against the cop.

How do you know he hasn't? Or that he worked out an agreement not to prosecute that older brother? Or to oppose the parole of another incarcerated family member?

We do not know all the facts on the ground. There are almost certainly circumstances not covered in the article. And this story is old-ish. Maybe they've already worked out an arrangement. Or maybe the kid's lawyer is just gearing up for a court date. The article does not tell us any of the current case status which is about what you'd expect because it is written as clickbait for a content farm. It isn't journalism; its success as a piece of writing is directly proportional to the number of clicks it generates.

“I punched Wallace approximately three times in the face in order to get him off me and to back him up. …”

You're delusional if you believe that statement after you've seen the video.

This is why the local top cop won't back up his officer. And they never make such statements if they are backing the officer. Their lawyers would warn them not to compromise the PD's legal position by handing such legal ammo in admissible official statements.

Oh, please. And Fresno police conducted a probation search for domestic violence.

I didn't see domestic violence. I saw police violence against a kid with no criminal record who barely opened his mouth at all before he got punched multiple times, very violently. Apparently you saw something different there. Was the big burly cop actually that frightened of the teenager that weighed half as much as him and who wasn't trained in physical violence? Is this just another outbreak of FraidyCops who use "officer safety" as a get-out-of-jail-free card when they exceed any reasonable level of judgment. To be honest, the officer looks like he's melting down in a 'roid rage. There's something downright psychotic about the way he goes after the victim.

Just how long should the officer debate with the yute about the yute sitting down???

I dunno. If a cop stops you for speeding and asks for your documents and you are in a hurry and trying to talk him out of it for just 5 seconds, is that cop legally entitled to start punching you hard in the face to force your compliance? You wouldn't object to taking three hard punches from a burly officer if you tried to "resist" for 5 seconds, would you?

I think you wouldn't like that. I think a jury won't either. Except they are going to settle this before a jury does in a civil suit.

[Fresno Bee] “I punched Wallace approximately three times in the face in order to get him off me and to back him up. …”

You're delusional if you believe that statement after you've seen the video.

I will alert the Fresno Bee that you believe their reporter is delusional.

This is why the local top cop won't back up his officer. And they never make such statements if they are backing the officer. Their lawyers would warn them not to compromise the PD's legal position by handing such legal ammo in admissible official statements.

Better have more legal ammo than that someone found the video disturbing or that it certainly raises concerns, without saying anything specific. That's like a politician who admits to having made mistakes but does not say what the mistakes were.

Oh, please. And Fresno police conducted a probation search for domestic violence.

I didn't see domestic violence.

So? The video is 57 seconds long. The incident coverage is about 10 seconds long. The edited footage was selected and released by the attorney for London Wallace. There is lots more footage from the 40 cameras that were present.

Wallace's attorney, Nolan Kane said it was a domestic violence probation search.

Kane said Wallace, 17, and several others were attending a birthday party at the complex when Fresno police conducted a probation search for domestic violence.

Do you have some point other than that the 10 second clip did not show one of Wallace's "classmates" beating up his bitch?

I saw police violence against a kid with no criminal record who barely opened his mouth at all before he got punched multiple times, very violently.

I see a bunch of people who had time to obey the officer order to get on the floor, and one numbnuts in an aggressive posture being an asshole.

Apparently you saw something different there.

I saw a video which starts about a second or so before some numbnuts get smacked in the face. The video indicates rest of the group that can be seen are on the floor, having obeyed the command to get there. Only numbnuts was too stupid to comply.

Was the big burly cop actually that frightened of the teenager that weighed half as much as him and who wasn't trained in physical violence?

We much be watching different videos. I did not see a big burly cop cowering in fear because he was frightened of the teenage numbnuts. Either that or you have a strange conception of perceived fright.

Is this just another outbreak of FraidyCops who use "officer safety" as a get-out-of-jail-free card when they exceed any reasonable level of judgment.

No. The big burly cop smashed him in the mouth until he got on the floor. Then the teen who you observed inspiring fright, proceeded to cry.

To be honest, the officer looks like he's melting down in a 'roid rage. There's something downright psychotic about the way he goes after the victim.

To be honest, the cops were in a place with gang members, convicted criminals on probation, and guns. There was something downright lunatic about the way numbnuts got in the cop's face. He almost appeared to want suicide by cop.

Just how long should the officer debate with the yute about the yute sitting down???

I dunno.

I know everyone else in the video figured it out faster than numbnuts. And you are still working on it.

If a cop stops you for speeding and asks for your documents and you are in a hurry and trying to talk him out of it for just 5 seconds, is that cop legally entitled to start punching you hard in the face to force your compliance?

If the cop was serving a probation warrant for an apartment with gang members, convicted criminals on probation, and guns, and you hallucinate that he was giving a speeding ticket, it does not change the reality. His use of force was, in fact, found not to be unreasonable.

You wouldn't object to taking three hard punches from a burly officer if you tried to "resist" for 5 seconds, would you?

If I was ever stupid enough to do what numbnuts did, my daddy, Sheriff Buford T. Justice would loudly proclaim that I could not have sprung from his loins.

Being a victim of one's own stupidity is no justification to seek reparations.

I saw police violence against a kid with no criminal record

You're saying the cop knew that?

To be honest, the cops were in a place with gang members, convicted criminals on probation, and guns. There was something downright lunatic about the way numbnuts got in the cop's face. He almost appeared to want suicide by cop.

That's what I saw on the video.

To be honest, the cops were in a place with gang members, convicted criminals on probation, and guns. There was something downright lunatic about the way numbnuts got in the cop's face. He almost appeared to want suicide by cop.

He had already been searched and was clearly no match physically for any of the cops on the scene.

Look, this is fruitless. We're at the point where everyone has staked out a position. Yours seems insane and your points are little more than contrarianism.

Let's just wait to see whether there is a settlement after a civil case is filed.

You're saying the cop knew that?

And you're saying he didn't. So what?

A high school kid with no record and a baby face who is unarmed and already submitted to a search and has been recorded on video by police (making escape unlikely to be anything other than a basis for serious charges) is not likely to be the gangbangers that the cops were raiding the joint to find.

But believe what you want. Like I care that deeply which brutal cop you want to suckle next. You've always got a new one to admire, it seems. And you're such a Johnny-one-note on this topic that no one expects any kind of balance at all from you.

A high school kid with no record and a baby face ...

Awwww. A baby face like this one?

I'm always amused that so few people know who he is. He is the prototype.

I'm always amused that so few people know who he is.

I'm amused YOU know who he is. Geez Louise, nobody would know who he is other than psychos obsessed with murdering sodomizers.

Everyone knows Hannibal Lecter, the fictional cannibal. But no one knows the guy who was much worse, Carl Panzram. Panzram had an interesting life story. There's a good documentary about him that I saw once. Very inspiring with a great message for the young people.

But, yes, the biggest serial killer fans do all know who he is. For the rest of you, it seems you're more interested in Hollyweird's strange notions about serial killers.

Here's the bar scene from Inglorious Basterds. The German SS officer is real. The rest of the table are American and British spies.

I just finished watching Inglorious Basterds on Netflix. That was a pretty good flic.

He had already been searched and was clearly no match physically for any of the cops on the scene.

Why, earlier today at #38, you posted,

Was the big burly cop actually that frightened of the teenager that weighed half as much as him and who wasn't trained in physical violence? Is this just another outbreak of FraidyCops who use "officer safety" as a get-out-of-jail-free card when they exceed any reasonable level of judgment.

Now you've gone from having the big burly cop cowering in fear, an outbreak of FraidyCops, to the misunderstood yute visiting his classmates clearly being no match physically for any of the cops on the scene. And you seem to know the physical ability of all the cops who were on scene from just 10 seconds of video, perhaps because they repeated it over and over.

Look, this is fruitless. We're at the point where everyone has staked out a position. Yours seems insane and your points are little more than contrarianism.

Let's just wait to see whether there is a settlement after a civil case is filed.

I have found a report that satisfied my other curiosity about whether anyone at the party was arrested. As Sarah would say, you betcha. Three of young Wallace's "classmates" were arrested for parole violations. I'll bet young Wallace was there trying to reform them. And as young Wallace was so young, I'll bet they only served soft drinks at the party.

If my position seems insane, your seems ill informed.

Earlier, at #35, I had to inform you that Wallace was unarmed, not disarmed; and that we do know he was attending a party, and not a resident of the apartment. And now you are waiting for a civil case to be filed. It was filed in the Fresno Superior Court. There were tapes from at least 40 body cameras. Tens seconds selected from one of at least forty bodycam videos was leaked to the press. It would appear that discovery has commenced and the leaking has begun. The only reason it is in the news now is that ten seconds of video was leaked from one of at least 40 bodycam videos.

Trying a case in the press, instead of in court, using a very selective ten seconds of video, is not a show of strength.

Trying a case in the press, instead of in court, using a very selective ten seconds of video, is not a show of strength.

Proper conclusive observations demand a widespread qualitative improvement in the thought process to develop a better understanding.

Continue to be critical of those who jump too quickly to a conclusion and spontaneously decide that something is right or wrong, when they don’t know all the facts.

Good job …

Now you've gone from having the big burly cop cowering in fear, an outbreak of FraidyCops, to the misunderstood yute visiting his classmates clearly being no match physically for any of the cops on the scene. And you seem to know the physical ability of all the cops who were on scene from just 10 seconds of video, perhaps because they repeated it over and over.

I saw three big cops, all around 200lbs, all three showing physical confidence in their ability to handle the yout's present. Two of them searched the yout' and directed him to sit down. The first two cops were just doing routine processing and were briskly professional but not rough, just doing their job processing a group of detainees; clearly they didn't think this kid was a threat when they turned their backs on him to move on to process some other yout'. The yout' took a step forward and was moving a little to the right to try to sit down but apparently there wasn't enough room for him to sit where he was wanted to sit down and as he turned to move left to find room to sit down, the third cop came shoving his way through suddenly, grabbed the kid, and the yout' said something - like one or two syllables judging by his jaw movement - and the cop hauled off and punched him multiple times.

Maybe you should take the time to download the video if you know how and just step through it frame by frame. Maybe you'll see it correctly.

I saw two professional cops searching suspects and seating them in a routine search operation. Then I saw a third cop come busting over like he didn't have anything better to do - like doing his part on the team to search the other yout's - and chose to bust the hell out of a detainee but only after he had seen that the kid was unarmed.

Yeah, I do think it is worth discussing whether he's a FraidyCop and a badged bully who only has the courage to start beating a compliant unarmed young suspect once he knew the kid had no knives or gun on him.

Maybe GrandIsland would like to review for us how he would evaluate the conduct of the three officers. I know what I saw: two pros calmly processing a pool of detainees and one FraidyCop bully busting a kid's face up but only after he knew he was harmless and compliant. Such a brave cop, a real fuckin' hero.

To form a firm conclusion after viewing a very selective ten seconds of video Is not a good display of rational thinking as a process.

Courts reach factual determinations on considerably less. And, given that the video is the most neutral witness to events in general, what would you prefer to use as a basis for determining the lawfulness of these events?

How exactly are you claiming the footage was "selective"? Are you saying the local TV station edited it to make the cop look bad? And thus the local PD chief just went along with that? If the local TV station edited their footage, you don't think the local PD chief would have said, "You know, that video you all saw was edited to make our cops look bad deliberately!" No PD chief is going to stand there like an idiot while some sleazy local station puts out doctored video and libels the cops under the command of that chief. If he did let his cops be framed like that, he should be fired. And so should the city's lawyers.

Proper conclusive observations demand a widespread qualitative improvement in the thought process to develop a better understanding.

I know you think you're saying something profound but this is just babble.

Continue to be critical of those who jump too quickly to a conclusion and spontaneously decide that something is right or wrong, when they don’t know all the facts.

LOL. You've already patted nolu's head and said "Good boy" a few times, you don't have to scratch his belly and rub behind his ears too.