|
[VIEWED 61978
TIMES]
|
SAVE! for ease of future access.
|
|
|
|
|
|
iLLumination
Please log in to subscribe to iLLumination's postings.
Posted on 02-11-15 7:19
AM
Reply
[Subscribe]
|
Login in to Rate this Post:
0 
? 
|
| |
As seen in many recent cases where people of color have been victims of excessive use of force by police, this is not about race but the inclination of police to use excessive force.
U.S.COURTESY OF HENRY F. SHERROD Lawyer: Indian citizen out for a walk left paralyzed by Alabama policeSureshbhai Patel was allegedly slammed to the ground by police after they responded to a 'suspicious person' callFebruary 10, 2015 7:04PM ET Police in a northern Alabama city severely injured a 57-year-old Indian citizen after slamming him to the ground, leaving him temporarily paralyzed, according to the man’s lawyer. “He was just out for a walk, and apparently someone made a suspicious person call … This is a grandfather who came to help his son and daughter-in-law with their 17-month-old son who was premature and developmentally delayed,” Henry F. Sherrod, a civil rights attorney from Florence, Alabama, told Al Jazeera on Tuesday. Sureshbhai Patel, a permanent resident of the U.S., arrived in the U.S. only one week before the incident occurred. His son Chirag Patel, an engineer, flew him from the small Indian town of Pij to live with them in Huntsville, a suburban town next to Madison, according to Sherrod, who described the neighborhood as affluent. While he was out for a walk in his new neighborhood on Friday morning, Patel was stopped by two Madison police officers who said they were responding to a suspicious person call. When the officers began to question him, Patel said “no English” and “India” as he tried to point to his son’s house and repeated the house number. Sherrod said Patel was walking on the sidewalk and not acting suspiciously. Unable to communicate with Patel, the officers began patting him down before they claimed the man put his hands in his pockets and “slammed him to the ground,” Sherrod said. The attack left Patel bleeding from the face, paralyzed and in need of surgery to fuse two vertebrae, local news website AL.com reported. He remains hospitalized. “I think it was because he looked brown,” Sherrod said, adding that the two police officers involved were white. Only one of the two policemen was responsible for the injuries, he added. Madison police on Monday issued a statement saying that the officer responsible for Patel’s injuries had been suspended and that they were investigating his use of force, according to AL.com. The family has decided file suit for damages including Patel’s medical bills — which will likely be in excess of $100,000 dollars even if he makes a full recovery, according to Sherrod, who met with the family on Tuesday. Sherrod, who visited Patel at the hospital Tuesday, said Patel had regained movement of his arms, but was not yet able to grip with his hands. Patel also regained limited use of his left leg, but his right remained paralyzed, Sherrod said. In addition to damages, the family is suing to obtain audio and video evidence taken by the police officers during the incident. It had not been released to the public because the Madison police department said the recordings were evidence in the ongoing investigation. Sherrod criticized the incident as evidence that use of force by police is an issue that extends beyond people who are poor or African-American. “It can happen to anyone,” he said. “It just takes a little bit of a miscommunication and the officer thinks violence is the solution,” Sherrod said.
Last edited: 11-Feb-15 11:18 AM
|
| |
|
|
|
|
kundale
Please log in to subscribe to kundale's postings.
Posted on 02-11-15 4:16
PM [Snapshot: 1683]
Reply
[Subscribe]
|
| Login in to Rate this Post:
0
?
|
| |
I am still waiting for an answer to my question, "What law would you enact to prevent this?" If you don't have the answer then hush with the criticism. Excessive use of police force usually can fall between 8th amendment of constitution - Cruel and unusual punishment 14th amendment of constitution - deprive individual of life, liberty or property without the due process of law Seems like both are applicable here. The probable cause did not justify for the officer to paralyze a grandfather. Again, problem is - laws do exist to prevent exactly these kinds of situations, are they enforced? Well, that is entirely different question. Are they enforced if the complainant is colored or has something in their history that is questionable? we all know "blame the girl for wearing short skirt" syndrome. Would the situation have been the same if instead of an Indian uncle it was a small Ukranian grandma putting her hand in her purse? Yes I would not want my teenage daughter to go into the streets with short skimpy skirt, but if she gates raped - well I don't think the blame is on me. It should be on the rapist. Not to be glib, but with great power comes great responsibility. -astu
|
| |
|
|
Kiddo
Please log in to subscribe to Kiddo's postings.
Posted on 02-11-15 6:20
PM [Snapshot: 2047]
Reply
[Subscribe]
|
| Login in to Rate this Post:
0
?
|
| |
I knew somebody would invoke 8th amendment, well at least we have some logical point to argue about. The party suing the police department will definitely refer to 8th amendment. It is also possible that compensation will be awarded, the cop might also be reprimanded (if he is not already). But that will not prevent this kind of incident which was my question at the first place. Why not, you might ask. Well, how do you enforce it? Tell cops not to use cruel and unusual punishment? How do you define cruel/unusual punishment. Think about it, if the Indian man was a criminal, or a mentally disabled person, reaching out for a gun in his pocket- what would a cop do in that case? Worry about the definition of "cruel and unusual" punishment or protect his life by subduing the suspect? How can the cop tell a difference between a mentally disabled person and a person who they just met and who was reported as "suspicious" by neighbors? I still don't support what the cop did, but to argue that he did wrong I have to come up with a clear violation of a policy and I can't point to it. It's not as easy and clear cut as some of us think here.
|
| |
|
|
biology
Please log in to subscribe to biology's postings.
Posted on 02-11-15 6:20
PM [Snapshot: 2049]
Reply
[Subscribe]
|
| Login in to Rate this Post:
0
?
|
| |
Cop are trained, however they need to trained to use some common sense as well. Do you think the cops should act the same way as they did with the Indian man in the news in the following cases: 12 year old, 22 year old, 32 year old, 52 year old, 72 year old, 92 year? Based on experience and training they should understand when to use excessive force and when not. You cannot just day that they were trained that way.
|
| |
|
|
kundale
Please log in to subscribe to kundale's postings.
Posted on 02-11-15 6:39
PM [Snapshot: 2178]
Reply
[Subscribe]
|
| Login in to Rate this Post:
0
?
|
| |
Tell cops not to use cruel and unusual punishment? Yes. Because the assumption in your argument is that the person detained has to prove their innocence or that they're not doing anything wrong else law enforcement is justified on doing whatever they want. My reading is that, it is the law, who has monopoly on violence who has to prove either probable cause or imminent danger - which from what I can see is not straightforward in this case. You say, " Indian man was a criminal, or a mentally disabled person, reaching out for a gun in his pocket-" I say, The whole reason of presumption of innocence requires that you not "encounter" someone because they are "mentally disabled" or "reaching for a gun". The law enforcement is required to produce them in court. Re:- habeas corpus. Also remember equal protection under law - after all it is not Nepal where a Danthe can break your head just 'cause he feels like it.
|
| |
|
|
divorceguy
Please log in to subscribe to divorceguy's postings.
Posted on 02-11-15 7:29
PM [Snapshot: 2460]
Reply
[Subscribe]
|
| Login in to Rate this Post:
0
?
|
| |
partially the blame goes to these immigrants who lacks English and knowing that people here dun speak Nepali and Hindi, should have taken someone who can communicate. how could u walk alone with language barrier in a red neck county.
|
| |
|
|
sojoketo
Please log in to subscribe to sojoketo's postings.
Posted on 02-11-15 9:20
PM [Snapshot: 2816]
Reply
[Subscribe]
|
| Login in to Rate this Post:
0
?
|
| |
अब भो त, हुदा हुदा divorcey को तर्क पनि सुन्नु पर्ने भो. :) "how could u walk alone with language barrier in a red neck county. " Lol Lol Lol Lol bhanyo paci eklai hidnu pani bhayena..haha.. the cop is already suspended which clearly indicates the power granted to him was misused.. अब साझा का नेतागिरी गर्ने हरु अझै आफ्ना filthy diplomatic तर्क दिन बाट पचि हट्दैनन् भने कसको के लाग्छ र. मुर्ख संग तर्क गर्नु भन्दा चुप बस्नु नै उचित हुन्च भन्ने हाम्रो ujl साधु महाराज को भनाइ छ. अब तेस्लाई नै follow garnu parla. btw, sojoketo prefer telling his dad not to put his hands in his pocket but go for putting hands in cop's pocket. if he/she is a sane cop, he/she will smile....like i am smiling...
|
| |
|
|
Kiddo
Please log in to subscribe to Kiddo's postings.
Posted on 02-11-15 10:02
PM [Snapshot: 3130]
Reply
[Subscribe]
|
| Login in to Rate this Post:
0
?
|
| |
@biology What you said makes sense, but I hope you understand it is hard to implement as there is too many areas of discretion. A 52, even 72 year old man can be a threat with gun in his pocket. A cop's duty is towards protecting civilians, but first and foremost he is going to protect himself. Regardless of how wrong this cop was, I sure don't think he slammed the old man just because he felt like doing it.
@kundale "Yes. Because the assumption in your argument is that the person detained has to prove their innocence or that they're not doing anything wrong else law enforcement is justified on doing whatever they want." It's not an assumption, its a fact. It's not a court of justice where you are innocent till proven guilty. Google "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause." The cop does NOT have to prove that you are a threat for him to take action to defend himself. Habeas Corpus applies once the arrest is made; the cop slammed the poor old man not to make arrest - but because he "feared" for his life. Justified? Hell no. But do I have a ground to charge him? No.
For those who are saying his suspension proves his misdeed, you will be surprised how many suspensions have come forward just to quiet down the matter. Besides suspension is common on this kind of matters and many times if the matter quiets down enough, the cop will be reinstated without any paycut.
|
| |
|
|
Kiddo
Please log in to subscribe to Kiddo's postings.
Posted on 02-11-15 10:10
PM [Snapshot: 3188]
Reply
[Subscribe]
|
| Login in to Rate this Post:
0
?
|
| |
Few related articles might shed some light for few (click on the link to read full article):
What is excessive force?"There’s no concrete definition of excessive force. Police have to use force to subdue suspects every day. Reasonable levels of force are guessed by cops on the street, second-guessed by police review boards and sometimes tested in civil lawsuits and criminal prosecutions on a case-by-case basis." "‘Excessive’ will have different meanings in different jurisdictions,”
" Excessive ForcePolice officers are generally allowed to use whatever force is necessary to make an arrest or defend themselves. In most jurisdictions, when a jury has to decide whether an officer used more force than was necessary to make an arrest, the judge instructs it to consider what a reasonable person with the officer’s knowledge would have deemed necessary under the circumstances. So, an arresting officer is allowed to use more force to arrest a resisting suspect than if the suspect were compliant, and may use deadly force if threatened with death or great bodily harm."
As I am saying this is NOT as clear case as many of us here believe it is.
|
| |
|
|
kundale
Please log in to subscribe to kundale's postings.
Posted on 02-11-15 10:20
PM [Snapshot: 3235]
Reply
[Subscribe]
|
| Login in to Rate this Post:
0
?
|
| |
No it is not a fact. Quoting you - "The poor old man probably was reaching to his pocket to show the officer something (wallet, phone number, written down address etc). " The word "probably" negates fact. The action that the guy put his hand in his pocket still does not meet probable cause for "forceful" detention. The fact that a law is wrongly enforced or interpreted does not make it a fact or right. The fact that the onus is on us to tell our "aged" parent who have difficulty walking, have difficulty communicating to be wary of law enforcement officials - instead to look at them as helpers tells me something is wrong with this picture. Again if we accept that the state has monopoly on violence, the onus is on the state to show cause on violence.
|
| |
|
|
Kiddo
Please log in to subscribe to Kiddo's postings.
Posted on 02-11-15 10:46
PM [Snapshot: 3354]
Reply
[Subscribe]
|
| Login in to Rate this Post:
0
?
|
| |
Forceful detention? Probable cause? What are you talking about? You were making sense a while ago my friend. The cop wasn't detaining the old man by slamming him on the ground. They were acting on self defense when he reached out to his pocket during a pat-down. Do you want the cop to go get a probable cause warrant before they take any action to defend themselves? I think we are missing something here. My argument is not about cop taking an action to defend themselves. Also, please do not twist my words. I didn't say the onus is on us to tell our parents. No it's not! And you can chose to not tell your parents, it was merely a suggestion to keep ourselves protecte. Did you even read the links I posted? I am just about done repeating the same thing again and again.
|
| |
|
|
kundale
Please log in to subscribe to kundale's postings.
Posted on 02-11-15 10:59
PM [Snapshot: 3411]
Reply
[Subscribe]
|
| Login in to Rate this Post:
0
?
|
| |
Did you even read what you wrote? "The cop wasn't detaining the old man by slamming him on the ground. " In order for the law enforcement officer to do that, they need a warrant or in absence of a warrant they need a probable cause. "Do you want the cop to go get a probable cause warrant before they take any action to defend themselves?" A warrant and a probable cause are to different things. "I think we are missing something here." I agree "I am just about done repeating the same thing again and again." It's up to you. ;)
|
| |
|
|
kundale
Please log in to subscribe to kundale's postings.
Posted on 02-11-15 11:01
PM [Snapshot: 3421]
Reply
[Subscribe]
|
| Login in to Rate this Post:
0
?
|
| |
"You were making sense a while ago my friend." This really made me laugh, maybe it was Mr. Johnny Walker talking not me :) plausible deniability and all that you know...
|
| |
|
|
kundale
Please log in to subscribe to kundale's postings.
Posted on 02-11-15 11:09
PM [Snapshot: 3456]
Reply
[Subscribe]
|
| Login in to Rate this Post:
0
?
|
| |
FYI below copied from Wikipedia, sorry my Google skills are not that great. Now, someone putting their hands on their pocket during a conversation does not meet that standard. "In United States criminal law, probable cause is the standard by which an officer or agent of the law has the grounds to obtain a warrant for, or as an exception to the warrant requirements for, making an arrest or conducting a personal or property search, etc. when criminal charges are being considered. It is also used to refer to the standard to which a grand jury believes that a crime has been committed in conjunction with a preponderance of the evidence. This term comes from the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. "Probable" in this case may relate to actual statistical probability, or to a general standard of common behavior and customs. The context of the word "probable" here is not exclusive to community standards and does not predate statistics, as some have suggested.[1]"
|
| |
|
|
Kiddo
Please log in to subscribe to Kiddo's postings.
Posted on 02-11-15 11:14
PM [Snapshot: 3457]
Reply
[Subscribe]
|
| Login in to Rate this Post:
0
?
|
| |
A man is reaching out to his pocket. The officer notices this and instinctively thinks his life could be in imminent danger as the suspect could be reaching for his gun. The right thing for the officer to do in this situation is to go get a warrant. Why worry about your own life, warrant is a must. Does that make sense to you? I think yo are arguing that the cop should've gotten the warrant before he patted the suspect. That's not what I am discussing here. Most of us are discussing the officer's use of "excessive" force to subdue a suspect who he percieved as a threat to his own life. How is probable cause and reasonable suspicion relevant at that stage? Those two are relevant when the cop is approaching the old man, and they had reasonable suspicion part covered there. If this doesn't clarify it for you, I think nothing will.
|
| |
|
|
Kiddo
Please log in to subscribe to Kiddo's postings.
Posted on 02-11-15 11:19
PM [Snapshot: 3499]
Reply
[Subscribe]
|
| Login in to Rate this Post:
0
?
|
| |
One last time: reasonable suspicion or probable cause is NOT required to prove the cop's life was in imminent danger, which is the reason he slammed the old man. Unfortunate but illegal? That's debatable.
|
| |
|
|
kundale
Please log in to subscribe to kundale's postings.
Posted on 02-11-15 11:40
PM [Snapshot: 3520]
Reply
[Subscribe]
|
| Login in to Rate this Post:
0
?
|
| |
Oh, wow. This is where we differ, and is the crux of the matter. When the officer stops you and your face meets the pavement, better believe that you have been detained. And in order to do that the officer needs a "probable cause" or a "warrant". I will try and give you an analogy You are driving merrily along I95. You are obeying speed limit, you car has proper license, seems road worthy (a wheel is not falling off) and you are driving within a speed limit. The officer can pull you over on two cases a. You are driving a car with the same make and model or description where a crime was involved b. The officer observed you or thinks he observes you violating a law (speeding etc.) Or, he may have a "warrant" saying stop a car driven by "kundale" with make and model such and such and license such and such. (depends upon the parameters of the warrant). It is not that if you are involved in a drive-by-shooting and an officer sees you and he cannot shoot you back. He is justified in such a scenario. But if you have done nothing wrong, and all you have is a broken tail-light and you refuse for your car to be searched, the officer is not justified in putting a cap in your ass. The Indian grandpa from the article above, was just walking down the street. The call of a suspicious person notwithstanding, he was not running away from a crime scene, a violent robbery, a murder, a terrorism event - just walking down the street. The key word being suspicious not guilty. If you think that is cause enough to break someones back and have them paralyzed for life - well let's just agree to disagree, there is nothing I can say to change your mind. But if you think, well maybe, just for an instance - that could have been my father walking down the street - and even if I told him not to look shifty when brown, and not to make furtive actions or put his hands in his pocket when talking to police officers, maybe he makes this little mistake (--- i don't know fill in the blanks here - his breath smells of onions) and gets his back broken - do I still say that the cop is justified? and thank you for protecting and serving us? You better know what I am about to say....
|
| |
|
|
Yaaku
Please log in to subscribe to Yaaku's postings.
Posted on 02-12-15 5:40
AM [Snapshot: 4075]
Reply
[Subscribe]
|
| Login in to Rate this Post:
2
?
Liked by
|
| |
This problem can't be solved by writing any freaking law, it needs removing existing law. Law can't change people being racist or cops using too much force. Of course people are bias toward any other color of people then, it will change with time and proper law , policy and procedures. But the main reason playing role for fear is gun violence. Cops fear of getting shot , and fear will be lot less if cops know , there is a lot less chance of other guy having gun. This is not much of issue in other country where there is no gun rights. Take away gun right and take away gun from people it will go down slowly. You can't have both ways, gun right and also non aggressive law enforcement.
|
| |
|
|
ny2
Please log in to subscribe to ny2's postings.
Posted on 02-12-15 8:34
AM [Snapshot: 4382]
Reply
[Subscribe]
|
| Login in to Rate this Post:
2
?
Liked by
|
| |
Kundale bro, The Cop is definitely not justified and should be held accountable, there is no question about that. Going forward, what is the best way to prevent those things from happening to our parents???? As long as the gun violence exists in US, those Cops will also have fear dealing with a stranger and so will not simply wait n see what the person does. Different Cops react differently in those scenarios and we cannot change each n every cop's behavior. As long as its their fault, one can easily take them to the court. But what we can do is letting people know what not to do during police encounter which will definitely minimize these sort of unwanted outcomes. Like in Eric Garner's death case, even though the jury did not indict the Cop, i do believe the Cop used unnecessary force. Though the Cop is not indicted the City will pay millions in civil lawsuit to his family. will it bring back his life? NO. We cannot change their culture, all we can do is take them to the court after our loved ones are dead or injured. Can we prevent ourselfes or our loved ones from getting killed or unjured by Cops?? Yes, by yielding to those Cops especially when they are searching u or arresting you even if they are mistakenly arresting you or searching you. We can take them to court for illegal arrest or illegal search anyway but at least we save ourselfes from getting injured or killed by yielding to them and telling our loved ones to yield to the cops in those situations.
|
| |
|
|
Kiddo
Please log in to subscribe to Kiddo's postings.
Posted on 02-12-15 10:34
AM [Snapshot: 4597]
Reply
[Subscribe]
|
| Login in to Rate this Post:
0
?
|
| |
Kundale
Let's do play by play and tell me what part you don't agree.
Act 1: The cop starting a pat down on the old man. The cops were there because of a complaint about suspicious activity. That is enough to make a "reasonable suspicion" case for a pat down. Yes, this is arguable, but certainly not illegal.
"Under the Terry ruling, a police officer may stop and detain a person based on reasonable suspicion. And, if the police reasonably suspect the person is armed and dangerous, they may also frisk him or her for weapons."
Act 2: The cop slams the old man down. The cop doesn't need a warrant or an approval to do so, because he felt his life was in an imminent danger. Think about it, a guy randomly walks to a cop and points a gun at the cop. Does the cop need a warrant to shoot him? No, because he thought his life was in imminent danger. Yes, no gun was drawn here - but who is to say that the man didn't have a gun in his pocket? Don't tell me it is not the same thing just because I gave you an extreme example, the motive of the cop (i.e. to defend himself) is still the same and he can use any force to subdue his victim if he feels his life is in danger.
Again, action fully justified? Hell no. But do we have a case? Not as clear cut as many think.
|
| |
|
|
sojoketo
Please log in to subscribe to sojoketo's postings.
Posted on 02-12-15 11:47
AM [Snapshot: 4678]
Reply
[Subscribe]
|
| Login in to Rate this Post:
1
?
Liked by
|
| |
i am wondering ई मुजी हरुको बाउलाई पर्योभने , ईनिहरुले आफ्नो पीडा मा अस्पतालमा रहेका बाउलाई, येह बूदो बाउ, तिम्रै गल्ति त हो नि , खल्तीमा किन हात हाल्नु परेको' भनेर गाली गर्छन कि that's not the right way to handle the situation by the freaking insane cop bhani sochchan?? anyways sane cop - have common sense. do not misuse the power granted insane cop - seek a way to misuse the power and every other day they are doing so as encouragement garne haru ko kami ma dekhdina sane people - speak against it insane people - they lost their common sense which has been overridden by their EGO. they kept on arguing to prove their freaking false interpretation
|
| |
|
|
