Mike Bennett arrest footage

[kidhawk]

Does anyone get this?

You think they have any interest in remaining professional or unbiased in the matter? I don't think so.

When you are threatened with a lawsuit from the get go, your replies will always be taking that into account. The LVPD obviously is careful to insure that everything they say and do keeps them ahead of the curve if that lawsuit ever emerges. Had a lawsuit not been brought to the equation from the start, things may have gone differently, but once lawyers get involved, it's always going to be a different ballgame.

Sure, which makes it laughable for people to take the evidence that the LVPD has put out so far and somehow use it as proof that Bennett is a liar.

LVPD has handled it poorly from the start, and releasing edited footage last week that didn't help their cause... well, it didn't help their cause I guess.

At this point, with what is out there, it's laughable that anyone would or could state that either side is completely without fault. Both sides are only saying what helps them, because lawyers are involved. That's no surprise at all. The thing with the lawyers involved, it will never fully be resolved unless he actually sues, and if he is telling the whole truth, he should. Once he does, it's on him to prove his case, and the LVPD isn't going to do anything to help him with that. That's how the system works.

 

[JGfromtheNW]

You think they have any interest in remaining professional or unbiased in the matter? I don't think so.

When you are threatened with a lawsuit from the get go, your replies will always be taking that into account. The LVPD obviously is careful to insure that everything they say and do keeps them ahead of the curve if that lawsuit ever emerges. Had a lawsuit not been brought to the equation from the start, things may have gone differently, but once lawyers get involved, it's always going to be a different ballgame.

Sure, which makes it laughable for people to take the evidence that the LVPD has put out so far and somehow use it as proof that Bennett is a liar.

LVPD has handled it poorly from the start, and releasing edited footage last week that didn't help their cause... well, it didn't help their cause I guess.

At this point, with what is out there, it's laughable that anyone would or could state that either side is completely without fault. Both sides are only saying what helps them, because lawyers are involved. That's no surprise at all. The thing with the lawyers involved, it will never fully be resolved unless he actually sues, and if he is telling the whole truth, he should. Once he does, it's on him to prove his case, and the LVPD isn't going to do anything to help him with that. That's how the system works.

I'm not sure why you're trying to explain the dynamics of lawyers, lawsuits and the parties involved protecting themselves. I've already conceded that no information has come out so far to prove or disprove that Bennett is lying. So far one side has come out and made a statement, and the other side has come out with multiple attempts to shame and discredit the other party. One party is acting mature and professional, the other party is not. You can call whatever you want "laughable."

I think you're right, in that the truth prolly lies somewhere in the middle between the two stories. And for what it's worth, I don't think Bennett has a case here at all whether he wants to sue or not, based off of the information that we've received so far.

 

[kidhawk]

When you are threatened with a lawsuit from the get go, your replies will always be taking that into account. The LVPD obviously is careful to insure that everything they say and do keeps them ahead of the curve if that lawsuit ever emerges. Had a lawsuit not been brought to the equation from the start, things may have gone differently, but once lawyers get involved, it's always going to be a different ballgame.

Sure, which makes it laughable for people to take the evidence that the LVPD has put out so far and somehow use it as proof that Bennett is a liar.

LVPD has handled it poorly from the start, and releasing edited footage last week that didn't help their cause... well, it didn't help their cause I guess.

At this point, with what is out there, it's laughable that anyone would or could state that either side is completely without fault. Both sides are only saying what helps them, because lawyers are involved. That's no surprise at all. The thing with the lawyers involved, it will never fully be resolved unless he actually sues, and if he is telling the whole truth, he should. Once he does, it's on him to prove his case, and the LVPD isn't going to do anything to help him with that. That's how the system works.

I'm not sure why you're trying to explain the dynamics of lawyers, lawsuits and the parties involved protecting themselves. I've already conceded that no information has come out so far to prove or disprove that Bennett is lying. So far one side has come out and made a statement, and the other side has come out with multiple attempts to shame and discredit the other party. One party is acting mature and professional, the other party is not. You can call whatever you want "laughable."

I think you're right, in that the truth prolly lies somewhere in the middle between the two stories. And for what it's worth, I don't think Bennett has a case here at all whether he wants to sue or not, based off of the information that we've received so far.

Not everything I say is designed to convince anyone to change their mind. I'm simply inputting my opinion in a thread. People can agree/disagree, discuss/ignore as they wish.

 

[Osprey]

At this point, with what is out there, it's laughable that anyone would or could state that either side is completely without fault. Both sides are only saying what helps them, because lawyers are involved. That's no surprise at all. The thing with the lawyers involved, it will never fully be resolved unless he actually sues, and if he is telling the whole truth, he should. Once he does, it's on him to prove his case, and the LVPD isn't going to do anything to help him with that. That's how the system works.

Sue for what? Being talked to harshly? Having a LEO point a gun at him? Were not exactly talking gross negligence here.

What are the damages? Physical injury? Lost wages? Emotional distress? Don't see how any of that applies.

If you're Bennett and want to press this issue, your best case scenario is a DOJ investigation.

 

[JGfromtheNW]

Not everything I say is designed to convince anyone to change their mind. I'm simply inputting my opinion in a thread. People can agree/disagree, discuss/ignore as they wish.

My apologies, I guess I read it in a different light.

Carry on :irishdrinkers:

 

[kidhawk]

At this point, with what is out there, it's laughable that anyone would or could state that either side is completely without fault. Both sides are only saying what helps them, because lawyers are involved. That's no surprise at all. The thing with the lawyers involved, it will never fully be resolved unless he actually sues, and if he is telling the whole truth, he should. Once he does, it's on him to prove his case, and the LVPD isn't going to do anything to help him with that. That's how the system works.

Sue for what? Being talked to harshly? Having a LEO point a gun at him? Were not exactly talking gross negligence here.

What are the damages? Physical injury? Lost wages? Emotional distress? Don't see how any of that applies.

If you're Bennett and want to press this issue, your best case scenario is a DOJ investigation.

According to Bennett's release, he hired his attorney "to investigate all legal options including filing a civil rights lawsuit for the violation of his constitutional rights". This statement is what I was referring to. I can only conclude from that, he would be open to a DOJ investigation, but isn't ruling out a civil lawsuit. In fact, I believe his lawyer has reiterated the threat of a lawsuit since that opening statement.

 

[hawk45]

JGFromtheNW, I want to just restate that we do not have evidence of dishonesty on the part of the LEOs involved, and repeat that even if the facts played out as Bennett's statement verbatim I see no excessive force or grounds for any kind of lawsuit.

That said, here is some common ground I think you and I can find:

1) Bennett does not seem like a malicious or dishonest man.
2) It's damned frustrating that when other body cams were active during other parts of the pursuit, the body cam of the officer engaging Bennett at the pivotal moment was not activated. The one body cam that would have shown or cleared misconduct, and this critical piece was in the control of the LVPD.
3) Given 1 and 2, it isn't entirely unreasonable for there to be misgivings as to whether the LVPD is being entirely forthcoming about the actual exchange that Bennett disputes.

I did read that LVPD reviewed 193 videos and offered those videos to Bennett's attorney without response. To me this mitigates somewhat the idea that the editing was deliberate and not, as LVPD said, merely to splice video together from teh best sources and present the scene with brevity.

It remains a possibility that the LVPD have video outside the 193 that they won't share. But I do think it behooves Bennett's attorney to review what they were offered at a minimum.

 

[Uncle Si]

The video i saw was him on the ground, in handcuffs, with a gun pointed at his head. People are accepting this as routine procedure?



Or did I see a different video?

 

[Osprey]

The video i saw was him on the ground, in handcuffs, with a gun pointed at his head. People are accepting this as routine procedure?

For a suspected shooter? Hell yes, no problem at all with it.
Does it make for good optics? Hell no, but it's akin to making sausage.

 

[Uncle Si]

The video i saw was him on the ground, in handcuffs, with a gun pointed at his head. People are accepting this as routine procedure?

For a suspected shooter? Hell yes, no problem at all with it.
Does it make for good optics? Hell no, but it's akin to making sausage.

He was in cuffs, on the ground, with a police officer on his back. He was detained. He was compliant.

Still needs the gun to his head? Come on...

And while you may not have a problem with it, Michael Bennett certainly does (as the gun was to his head) and I agree with him.

 

[Mindsink]

He was in cuffs, on the ground, with a police officer on his back. He was detained. He was compliant.

Still needs the gun to his head? Come on...

And while you may not have a problem with it, Michael Bennett certainly does (as the gun was to his head) and I agree with him.

Hypothetically speaking, If Bennett WAS the shooter, was apprehended, and complied, would you really care about his feelings at that point?

 

[Uncle Si]

Nothing to do with his "feelings."

it's about the perception of police control, abuse of authority, inequality and unstable relations in these situations.

They took the kid who shot up the church in Carolina to lunch.

Let's not be daft here. This is what it is and it is emblematic of a much larger issue.

 

[hawk45]

Nothing to do with his "feelings."

it's about the perception of police control, abuse of authority, inequality and unstable relations in these situations.

They took the kid who shot up the church in Carolina to lunch.

Let's not be daft here. This is what it is and it is emblematic of a much larger issue.

I'm reading that when Roof was being held in custody they sent an officer out to get a burger because he said he hadn't eaten in a couple of days. He was in cuffs in police custody at a police station. They did not "take him to lunch."

http://www.snopes.com/2015/06/22/dylann-roof-burger-king/

I won't impugn your motives by suggesting you deliberately spread this falsehood to gin up the racial element, I suspect you just had a bad source, but this sort of falsehood destroys honest conversation. It is why it is so critical to wait for the facts and make sure of the facts before feeding the racial-based accusations.

 

[kidhawk]

Nothing to do with his "feelings."

it's about the perception of police control, abuse of authority, inequality and unstable relations in these situations.

They took the kid who shot up the church in Carolina to lunch.

Let's not be daft here. This is what it is and it is emblematic of a much larger issue.

I agree that there is a larger issue at play, but I find it hard to see where anyone can point to the Bennett arrest and conclusively say that it was racial.

 

[Osprey]

Nothing to do with his "feelings."

it's about the perception of police control, abuse of authority, inequality and unstable relations in these situations.

They took the kid who shot up the church in Carolina to lunch.

Let's not be daft here. This is what it is and it is emblematic of a much larger issue.

So you hold LEO to a standard of 'perception' yet are willing to throw out easily debunked 'fake news' ?

Ever stop to wonder what effect myths like Hands up - don't shoot, clock boy was just proud of an invention, Trayvon was just a little boy out for skittles, the Duke lacrosse players are rapists, etc have on public discourse?

Bennett is a public figure with a large platform, shouldn't he be held to a higher standard? Personally I'm getting a little tired of the attitude of 'even if this wasn't racial, we all know it happens every day' trope.

 

[Uncle Si]

Who said anything about it being racial? and who can defend this action against the kid from Carolina? Come on.. you guys are grasping at straws to string together an argument that is so conclusively biased it takes away from any opportunities to enact change.

I have no idea what you are talking about Osprey.. if you are going to hold a conversation the first and primary thing you can do to ensure it is not an argument is to defer from assuming or inferring your own feelings into someone elses. You don't seem interested in that, so you end up arguing with yourself.

The issue here is simple... why does a police officer need to hold a gun to the head of someone, anyone, of any color, who is restrained in handcuffs and on the ground.

2 pages in and this is already like the old days.. hearing without listening.

You want to adopt a racial line to that and argue against it, feel free. the issue here is perception. police have escalated the use of force across America and some checks need to be put in place. There are a number of factors. However, the first and foremost is the trust of the public in their officers.

You can all argue semantics and specifics to death if you want. that's just wagging the dog.

 

[kidhawk]

Who said anything about it being racial?

[tweet]https://twitter.com/mosesbread72/status/905430701595652096[/tweet]

I'm Going to die for no other reason than I'm black and my skin color is a threat

 

[kidhawk]

The issue here is simple... why does a police officer need to hold a gun to the head of someone, anyone, of any color, who is restrained in handcuffs and on the ground.

2 pages in and this is already like the old days.. hearing without listening.

Maybe this advice is just as well taken as given....This issue isn't about overall police violence, it's about violence against people of color. You may want it to be about all police interactions, but Bennett has been explicit in his concerns for police racial bias and that is what we are talking about here. If we want to discuss police as a whole, that would be different, but that's not what this thread is about.

 

[Osprey]

The issue here is simple... why does a police officer need to hold a gun to the head of someone, anyone, of any color, who is restrained in handcuffs and on the ground.

I'll skip over the race angle since Kid already nailed that one...

I still don't think holding a gun on a suspected shooter in the process of being detained is in anyway inappropriate. Until the threat is 100% contained I'd expect no less.

I do, however, agree that LEO appear to be escalating to lethal force quicker than in the past. Pure speculation, but I wonder how much of this is due to the public perception / reaction to the use of non lethal force being just as harsh.

 

[hawk45]

Who said anything about it being racial? and who can defend this action against the kid from Carolina? Come on.. you guys are grasping at straws to string together an argument that is so conclusively biased it takes away from any opportunities to enact change.
You can all argue semantics and specifics to death if you want. that's just wagging the dog.

What do you mean who can defend the action against Dylan Roof? Nobody is defending his actions, they are just correcting your falsehood about him being taken to lunch, a falsehood designed to imply he was treated differently because he was white. Yet race isn't part of your argument? Others are grasping at straws? It's just "semantics" to demand that the discussion be limited to facts?

You're way out over your skis here.