Words, by themselves don't constitute assault. A threat to assault may be harassment. It's not assault.

@1. Yes, they do. A threat is an assault. You must be thinking of battery. An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm

So I can start to beat the shit out of someone and as long as I say "I'm going to beat the fucking Mexican piss out of you" I am perfectly within the bounds of the law?

And another VIP gets a paid vacation for abusing their power...

And another cop gets a paid vacation for abusing their power...

Some things never change.

Doesn't violate a law? How about oh, assault?

Oh Jesus H Christ

You know, the fact that he got off with this behavior is just more evidence that the Mayor will be totally derelict in his duties to the people of Seattle if he doesn't push for the OPA to get teeth in the next labor agreement.

Are you guys planning on reporting on the fact the police contract is up soon, or is that a taboo topic?

How did it happen that during all seven months of uproar over this incident, I never heard until now that one of the three was arrested and charged in the armed robbery(s) that occurred nearby?

Specifically: http://www.seattle.gov/personnel/resourc…

Good through 12/31/2010.

So is it ok if we beat up the cops and call them pigs while we do so?

Guess so ...

Here's hoping they can still nail Cobane for repeatedly choking out a handcuffed suspect in the back of a squad car.

Unless they already decided that was lawful use of force as well.

"When determining the necessity for force and the amount of force required, officers shall consider the circumstances, including, but not limited to, the level of threat resistance presented by the subject, the danger to the community, and the seriousness of the crime." So says the City Attorney.

It's clear from the video that the victim's "level of threat resistance" was nil. If I, an innocent bystander, was treated the same way, I'd be twitching a little bit too. And the "danger to the community" was also nil; he was prone on the ground and surrounded by police officers.

Bad call by the C.A., but he's a politicial animal too, and nobody wants the Police Guild coming after them at election time.

OK, here's what I missed:

The video showed police detaining three men suspected in what prosecutors have now determined to be two armed robberies.
...
The third man and another suspect identified nearby were arrested and are facing armed robbery charges.

Monetti was present during the alleged robberies but didn't actively participate, according to the prosecutor's statement.

So this little angel cruises Westlake with three associates, two of whom actively commit robberies (plural) armed with a machete ... and he ends up on the ground, where his continued failure to comply leads to escalated attempts to control him.

My heart bleeds.

You think you're pissed about this now? Wait until the cop who killed John T Williams is found to have used reasonable force...

Good thing the guy didn't have to scratch his balls... he'd end up dead for resisting arrest.

From my perspective, it's extraordinarily difficult to imagine someone lying face down on the ground presenting a threat that armed and trained police officers can't control without stomping. It's really simple: if the suspect could've been controlled any other way then the force was excessive; if not, then those assholes shouldn't be carrying guns to begin with.

Also, to clear up a common misunderstanding the police aren't here to serve or protect, regardless of the propaganda on the squad cars. In the view of the Supreme Court, they're here to enforce the law... period.

I'm gonna go stomp on a cop! It's legal to stomp on people, I'm sure it will turn out well!

@16- So you think the cops should just stomp on people who aren't resisting because...

Holy shit, I really don't see any reasoning behind your thinking this is OK. You just seem to enjoy having your father figures be violent. It's creepy.

Dwight @ 20 -- Please don't presume to tell me what I think. Let me tell you.

I don't think the kid was stomped, much less beaten. If you or I or officer Cobane wanted to hurt or harm somebody, a "stomp" would look a whole lot different. I've seen my share of police misconduct, I've been beaten by police, I have friends who have been beaten by police, and I don't think this incident in any way merits the description "beating".

I don't think the kid was compliant. The cops gave him direction which were explicit and reasonable, his friends encouraged him to comply, and he chose to do otherwise.

I don't think the kid was kicked in the head. Incidental contact, yes. Frame by frame, the video supports the City Attorney's interpretation. (That interpretation will be tested again in Federal review and in civil court. Good luck.)

I think if the kid was "dazed" after the incident, it's because he was dazed before the incident - high and trying to get higher. Why else would the group launch such high-risk, low-reward criminal ventures?

I think that the kid and his pals threatened to kill multiple citizens that night. He was part of "we" as in the reported "we are gangster, we can kill you right now". At the time of the video, one and possibly two accomplices are unaccounted for, and at least two weapons are unaccounted for.

I think former OPARB Chair Pete Holmes is far from a soft touch when it comes to police misconduct, and Holmes presents his reasoning in considerable detail. Holy shit, if you don't see any reasoning behind his conclusions, I don't know where to start. Take it up with Pete.

And I don't see any reasoning behind your thinking there's a problem with the police conduct here. With the language used, yes. But with procedure and conduct - what's your beef?

I think it's good to live in a community where folks are skeptical of authority figures ... but I'm skeptical of virtual communities where authority figures are presume wrong from the outset, and still insistently presumed wrong even after a careful review of the facts show them in the right.