The Problem That Won't Go Away

In Response to Lawsuit, SPD Releases Controversial Dash-Cam Video

Comments

1
Everybody in the video plays their stereotyped role very well here. It's interesting to watch everybody reactions when they realize it's gone out of control. Even the agro cop realizes he messed up and acts concerned for the suspect-turned-victim. The victim jumps all over that with claims of blindness. Will be interesting to learn if there really is permanent vision damage there.
2
Is there a link to the video?
3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDsX4rlB-…
4
The officer that threw the punch reminded me of a pit bull on straining his leash. He couldn't contain the urge to rough-up some belligerent, smart-mouth suspect. This officer wasn't under threat of assault - there were two other officers restraining Mr. Etherly on either side of him. The resistance demonstrated by him (Mr. Etherly) was half-hearted at best. There was nothing in his behavior to provoke such aggression. Officer Faust actually leapt on Etherly and began shoving his head down. Mr. Etherly is guilty of being an obnoxious pain-in-the-ass. Officer Faust is guilty of not just overreacting, but assault. What bothers me the most is the attempt by SPD to spin this as a kind of "Who wouldn't want to hit this guy?" scenario, rather than holding officers to a higher standard of conduct. If somebody spit at me it does not give me the right to coldcock the offender. I would be prosecuted for such an over-reaction. Shouldn't we be able to expect the same standard from our local police?
5
@4

Actully if someone spits on you you do have the right to coldcock the offender. Spitting is assault and you are allowed to use neutralizing force to stop the assault.

It is completly reasonable and predunt to respond with force when spat on, just like how if I hit you you would be well within your rights to hit me back.
6
Also in response to the video, if the suspect is able to say "quit choking me" he clearly is not being choked. The covering the mouth and nose on a violent spitting subject is also standard procedure, which would be followed by placing him in a spit hood once restrained.

I assume most people here have never had to contain a combative spitting person, therefore the force used is seems a bit extreme to the uninitiated.

It should also be noted that this case is being pushed by by "witness" Omari Tahir Garrett of the Umoja P.E.A.C.E center. Garrett is a known racist who advocates white genocide. Garrett is also a violent felon himself and was convicted of assualting Mayor Schell and fracturing his facial bones with a megaphone.

Overall it seems a case of "Play stupid games win stupid prizes."
7
Just like the gal on Rainier Ave who got herself punched a couple years back- if you're stupid enough to fight with the cops, you take what you get. Stupid fuck.
I see nothing wrong with SPD's use of force in response to this guy. They should've released the vid at first request, tho.
9
@6 I can choke you and you will be able to talk... for about 15 seconds before you go out. There are different kinds of chokes. Air chokes, where the trachea is compressed making speaking difficult. And blood chokes, where the carotid arteries are restricted and if done expertly you barely even feel it. The unfortunate euphemistically named "rape-choke" that the officer attempts in the video can be BOTH a blood and air choke depending how he's putting pressure.
10
@5 That is not precisely correct. Spitting on somebody means you can be CHARGED with assault. It doesn't always give you carte blanche to hit somebody.

I know because when I was a bouncer it was a classic baiting tactic used by shit-starters When a member of the staff got suckered into hitting somebody THEY got prosecuted and in one instance successfully sued.
11
Here is the law on self defense in Washington State:

The use of force upon another is lawful when a person reasonably believes that he/she is about to be injured and when the force is not more than is necessary. The person may employ such force as a reasonably prudent person would use under the same conditions.
12
Here is the law on self defense in Washington State:

The use of force upon another is lawful when a person reasonably believes that he/she is about to be injured and when the force is not more than is necessary. The person may employ such force as a reasonably prudent person would use under the same conditions.
13
So the question is if someone spits on you, does that give you the legal right to punch them in the eye, fracturing their orbital bone? The question is no different if the person getting spit on is a cop or a regular joe. In this case, how can the cop claim the force is not more than necessary? The cop is supposed to act like a reasonably prudent person.
14
@5 good god, I bet your bedroom wallls are covered in wrestling posters and NRA stickers. You also probably eat guns and violence for breakfast. Pyschopath.
15
I'm not surprised;the SPD AND the Defarment of Injustice left all the community groups who filed a complaint against the KKKoppigs of SSnobattle in the first damn place! (what do you expect when the DoI is run by a "former" corporatistic/silk-stocking lawyer--Eric Holder!!!Pfft!!!) --- http://theyrule.net
16
COPS ARE FUCKED
17
For all you "defenders", invite Mr. Bad-ass-hate-you-whitey to your next hookah party, at some point, when you don't agree with him 100%, he'll get all testy on you and your friends...that's 'cause he has a cultural chip (more likely a sizable CHUNK) on his shoulder and he's been raise to take no caca (or differing views) offa nobody. As one poster said, there were stereotypical behaviors seen in this vid...the most glaring is the stance against authority...while you got a malt likkah in your hand. Dude got the beat down he was asking for...now he'll be getting a healthy settlement...how's that feel you tax slaves???
18
The Defartment of Injustice and the Snobbattle PoLICE Defartment have ignored the very groups and persons who complained about the absence of enough transparency to begin with.Pfft!