'Horrific' Police Beating in California Caught on Camera

I like the part at the end, where the third cop comes in and helps hold him while the fourth cop beats him on the back of the head. I lol'd at that.

a reply to: eisegesis

What mental illness? The one his sister says he has?

Sorry, that's not any more credible than police saying he was on meth and whatever else. Can't accept one at face value and not the other. Accept both, accept neither, or wait for the story to develop further.

I'll wait.

a reply to: Shamrock6

According to the Huff Post article that I linked earlier, Velasco admitted to meth use before the incident.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: eisegesis

What mental illness? The one his sister says he has?

Sorry, that's not any more credible than police saying he was on meth and whatever else. Can't accept one at face value and not the other. Accept both, accept neither, or wait for the story to develop further.

I'll wait.

Fair enough.

You would think the sister would side with her "innocent" mother instead of excusing her brother's actions. She is either just as f'd up as he is or mom really is an a-hole. Regardless, unnecessary violence towards mom or anyone for that matter is wrong. The keyword being "unnecessary." I guess you're one who found it necessary.

a reply to: eisegesis

Now now. I know the thread isn't going the way you thought it would but there's no need to get personal.

Nothing I've said, unlike others, can be remotely construed as offering an opinion on the use of force itself. My opinions were limited to a) finding it funny that you say two officers could've quickly controlled him and b) that people are trying to accept one side while dismissing the other out of hand.

How you took either of those to mean I found it "necessary" or, for that matter, "unnecessary" is just plain fantasy.

a reply to: eisegesis

That reminds me of what happened to a friend's mom. Her brother beat the crap out of their mom because she wouldn't give him money for meth. Speaking of meth users, have you seen one in action when they're violent? Things can get out of control really quick. Sorry but I can't find much sympathy for the guy.

In my opinion that is excessive force. Highly unprofessional behavior.
No, I don't support beating up on parents or any of that stuff but two wrongs never made a right.
Properly trained personnel can take down without striking the head at all. I've seen my share of meth and crack-crazed, violent people when I worked at our local hospital. Our LEOs, paramedics and hospital orderlies were trained to constrain them without beating them on the head. Why can't cops learn this.
Heck, my self defense classes included a lot of ways to take down people that didn't involve beating them over the head and shoulders with batons.
These guys were acting like thugs, not like people trained to deal with out-of-control violent offenders. What makes them so fearful that they lose all common sense?

If he was on meth then I get that it may take more then two officers to get him down.

But beating him more and more doesn't do much help.

a reply to: MoreBeer
Could you please point out which posts were defending criminal behavior? I thought I had read the entire thread and I missed that part. Some people seem to think that one can't condemn all bad behavior. I don't understand that attitude. Both sides CAN be wrong and this is a sterling example of that.
It is bad to beat on another human being---whether it's your mother, your brother or a stranger on the street. It's against the law to assault people. Properly trained police officers don't do it. These cops did. It just amazes me when people can defend cops for committing crimes in the name of "protecting and serving."

a reply to: Shamrock6

Now now. I know the thread isn't going the way you thought it would but there's no need to get personal.

I don't follow. Why would I care what direction this thread goes in?

Do I win a prize?

Having been an officer, I'm curious if you thought this was excessive or not. How would you have handled it? If your're not willing to share, I'll move along and I'm sorry if I offended you.

a reply to: eisegesis

Maybe it's just me or I need some more video footage but compared to many other video's I've seen this didn't seem too bad IMO. I'm certainly not Pro-LEO by any stretch and I'm all for stopping their abuse and militarization. But if you want me to feel bad about a Drunk, Tweeker who likes to beat on his mother, you're going to be waiting a long time. Maybe now he'll know what it feels like to be his Mother and get beat down and the fear of being helpless to such a horrible act.

Not that I like the fact that it's the LEO who taught him that lesson, but somebody obviously needed to do it. The way I see it, his mother could have stopped any of this from happening years ago with an abortion.

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: MoreBeer
Could you please point out which posts were defending criminal behavior? I thought I had read the entire thread and I missed that part. Some people seem to think that one can't condemn all bad behavior. I don't understand that attitude. Both sides CAN be wrong and this is a sterling example of that.
It is bad to beat on another human being---whether it's your mother, your brother or a stranger on the street. It's against the law to assault people. Properly trained police officers don't do it. These cops did. It just amazes me when people can defend cops for committing crimes in the name of "protecting and serving."

Yes it is against the law to assault people.

We have cops to remove these people from the streets by any means necessary.

You can see in this video what it takes sometimes.

You and the OP obviously think some kind of wrong doing has occurred. You are defending the actions of the criminal.

If the cops would have shot the guy there would be riots in the streets and chaos.

They choose to subdue him with a good old fashion ass beating and are still demonized.

No wonder cops have no desire to do their job anymore and are resigning.

You will get what's coming to you though.

a reply to: MoreBeer

Again, could you point out to me any post that defended criminal behavior?
How do you not understand that both sides can be wrong?
The dude was wrong to beat on anyone. The cops were wrong to beat on his head with what amounts to a baseball bat.
IF you are attempting to "take down" or subdue a person, you attempt to weaken the foundation that is keeping them up and fighting. Beating them on the head isn't a recognized technique for accomplishing that. Whacking them across the ankles or knees does the trick. That's what those batons are designed to do. Beating on the skull of a person is just plain dumb.

Properly trained cops don't behave that way. It's all bad behavior and I just want us to be free of bad behavior.

What is it that you think is coming to me?

a reply to: MoreBeer

I don't see a problem with the first part of the arrest.

I see the problem starting when the third and fourth cop showed up.

At that point, they had the manpower to secure the guy, but three of them held them down and a fourth beat on the back of his head multiple times.

That is complete and utter bs. It is not their job to beat someone unconscious, it is to get them restrained, arrested and to jail.

originally posted by: MoreBeer

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: MoreBeer
Could you please point out which posts were defending criminal behavior? I thought I had read the entire thread and I missed that part. Some people seem to think that one can't condemn all bad behavior. I don't understand that attitude. Both sides CAN be wrong and this is a sterling example of that.
It is bad to beat on another human being---whether it's your mother, your brother or a stranger on the street. It's against the law to assault people. Properly trained police officers don't do it. These cops did. It just amazes me when people can defend cops for committing crimes in the name of "protecting and serving."

Yes it is against the law to assault people.

We have cops to remove these people from the streets by any means necessary.

You can see in this video what it takes sometimes.

You and the OP obviously think some kind of wrong doing has occurred. You are defending the actions of the criminal.

If the cops would have shot the guy there would be riots in the streets and chaos.

They choose to subdue him with a good old fashion ass beating and are still demonized.

No wonder cops have no desire to do their job anymore and are resigning.

You will get what's coming to you though.

Ex frigging zactly


These anti police anti gun people are going to have a tough time existing some day.

The police should have done the taxpayers a favor and choked the SOB to death. Anyone who beats the woman who brought him into this world should be snuffed out.

Now, many thousands of California taxpayer dollars will be spent to defend and ultimately incarcerate this piece of trash for many many years. One can only hope that his fellow prisoners (who all have/had Moms) will do what the police failed to do.

It's ironic that police easily kill people who don't deserve to die, but FAIL to get the job done with Mom beaters.
-cwm

a reply to: carewemust

I get it, he is a punk, but he will probably walk because excessive force went viral.
Then he will do it again, maybe she will die this time cause a cop wanted to teach a lesson that wasn't his to teach.

originally posted by: Mandroid7
a reply to: carewemust

I get it, he is a punk, but he will probably walk because excessive force went viral.
Then he will do it again, maybe she will die this time cause a cop wanted to teach a lesson that wasn't his to teach.

Yep because people like you are complaining non stop that some wrong doing has occurred.

That is what is coming to people who think there is anything wrong with that video. You'll have no one to blame but yourselves.

a reply to: eisegesis

I don't know why you would care, but your post at the bottom of page one seems a little upset at the lack of outrage.

I would've handled it pretty much how they handled it. I don't care one bit that he got his legs and hands and arms whacked. That's what a baton is suppose to be used on. Strikes to the head, neck, and spine area are not recommended unless the subject is directly attacking you. At least twice in the video I think the officers could reasonably argue that they felt the subject was lunging at them. In which case, a head strike is theoretically permissible. Holding a guy up so another guy can hit him in the back of the head isn't really a good idea, though, and I don't really see how that can be justified. But, that is with the benefit of not being there and not being in the moment and being completely removed from the situation. Which is not how an officer's actions are judged after a situation.

All that being said, I have both heard and personally seen or been involved with subjects doped up on meth or the similar drug who've fought off multiple officers after being OC sprayed and Tased. The level of force needed to bring this guy under control doesn't really surprise me, though a couple of points in the video raise an eyebrow AFTER THE FACT.

To put a point on it: I've never fought a bear, but given the option of tangling with a bear or a doped up meth head, I'll probably take the bear. I know what the other one is like and I can't see a bear being much worse.