Politics

[mdwest]

Oklahoma AG dismisses assault charge against officer who slammed 71-year-old man to the ground

Oklahoma's Republican attorney general is dismissing a felony assault charge against a police officer who slammed a 71-year-old man to the ground, breaking his neck.

apnews.com

From the AP article:

“As attorney general, I will not permit Oklahoma police officers to face criminal prosecution for conduct adhering to their training,” Drummond said in a statement. “While the outcome of this incident is unquestionably devastating for Mr. Vu and his family, I do not believe the officer exhibited criminal intent.”

Pretty much what I have been saying all along...

No one has to like it.. but the AG found that the officer acted in accordance with his training and that the officer exhibited no criminal intent...

If the academy taught him to do this.. his departments policies support him doing this.. and he had no actual intent to cause those injuries to Vu (he certainly intended to control him... but lacked intent to crack his skull).. then his is just the outcome of someone resisting a police officers lawful order(s)...

If the people of Oklahoma don't like police policies or don't like particular aspects of police training, there are proper ways to go about change.. Vu's approach isn't the proper one..

Also as stated earlier, there is A LOT of information missing here that people not involved in law enforcement or the criminal justice system are likely not looking for..

like.. why was Vu out of his vehicle? For a basic traffic stop it is very uncommon to ask the driver (much less the passenger as well) to step out of the vehicle unless there is cause....

So.. what was that cause?

Same for the passenger? Why was she out of the vehicle? what was that cause?

If the officer asked them to step out, there's a reason for that (he's planning on towing the vehicle? he's planning on arresting the driver? he suspects the driver of another crime (intoxication or something else?) that he needs to investigate? (these are just a few possibilities)...

If the people just stepped out on their own, that is a pretty significant problem.. that presents risk to the officer and potentially to the driver and passenger..


One thing I likely would have done differently (doesn't mean Im right or the officer is wrong.. its simply a different approach) is as soon as Vu said "Im ready to go to jail", my response would have been "not a problem sir, turn around, face away from me, and place your hands behind your back"...

There would have been no further discussion.. at that point Vu had been told to sign or he was going to jail, and Vu had affirmed he wasn't going to sign and was ready to go to jail...

If Vu didn't immediately turn and face away from me and put his hands behind his back, I would have taken physical control of him..

The officer didn't need to wait for Vu to sshuush him or to put his hands on him.. Vu had already crossed the line and the officer had probable cause to make his arrest..

The officer actually (IMO) was still trying to NOT take Vu to jail at that point and was trying to reason with him..

In my experience "verbal judo" has the potential to be effective for about the first minute or so of an encounter.. after that if someone isn't being reasonable, the chances of them suddenly becoming reasonable is incredibly small..

 

[mdwest]

I don't know the OK statutes and not interested in knowing, it's enought just to keep up with Texas. But it's not Ag Assult. As far as the 1983 claim and excessive force that's a jury question, once past Summary Judgment and the battle of the experts. One that I think a jury would find in the affirmative.

youve got a whole lot more experience on the criminal court side of things than I do.. I suspect you're correct.. BUT.. Im not completely convinced...

at the end of the day, the real question is whether or not his training and department policy support the officers actions... if they do, it SHOULD be hard to find him guilty of any wrong doing..

prior to 1985 it was perfectly legal for a police officer to shoot a fleeing felon.. even if that felon presented no active threat to the officers or the public at the time the officers encountered the felon..

TN vs Garner changed all of that.. it is now illegal for a police officer to use deadly force to stop a felon from fleeing if that felon doesn't present an active threat..

the officers involved in the Garner case however faced no criminal or civil liability.. at the time they shot Eddie Garner in the back (a 15 year old, unarmed kid that had broken into a radio shack and stole some stuff).. they were acting within the limits of the law as it was written, and within departmental policy as well...

FWIW, I worked the same ward that Garner was killed in, less than 10 years after that case made it to the Supreme Court.. the officers involved in the Garner shooting were still very much around the department and the community (although Hyman, the shooting officer had already retired)..

On the surface I think Graham v Connor also supports the officer (i.e. the reasonableness of an officers use of force is to be determined by the officers perspective based on the circumstances that were apparent to the officer at the time of the action)..


Perhaps there will be an OK vs Vu that will make it to a court that will ultimately change use of force laws in OK or the entire US.. but until then.. who knows how everything shakes out in either a criminal case (now not going to happen) or a civil case against the officer...

 

[Mark A Ouellette]

One thing I likely would have done differently (doesn't mean Im right or the officer is wrong.. its simply a different approach) is as soon as Vu said "Im ready to go to jail", my response would have been "not a problem sir, turn around, face away from me, and place your hands behind your back"...

@mdwest I usually agree with you 100% but on this I refer back to the the unwritten rule for Marines, "The perception of wrong doing is in fact wrong doing."
-- Often that seemed illogical but for the good of the service, unit moral, and ability to lead Marines, perception was and is very important.

Your response quoted above is what me as a never been police, typical John Q. Public thinks is reasonable. Other opinions may vary.

I do NOT think the officer should have been charged with crime. Rather a inquiry of why so much force was used. If in his department that is normal, it would be time to evaluate their training and policy.

If most policemen are taught to use the maximum force they can muster for each and every incident, the perception of police brutality will be reinforced. That in turns damages policemen, departments, and pubilc confidence in police as our heros.

 

[wesheltonj]

youve got a whole lot more experience on the criminal court side of things than I do.. I suspect you're correct.. BUT.. Im not completely convinced...

at the end of the day, the real question is whether or not his training and department policy support the officers actions... if they do, it SHOULD be hard to find him guilty of any wrong doing..

prior to 1985 it was perfectly legal for a police officer to shoot a fleeing felon.. even if that felon presented no active threat to the officers or the public at the time the officers encountered the felon..

TN vs Garner changed all of that.. it is now illegal for a police officer to use deadly force to stop a felon from fleeing if that felon doesn't present an active threat..

the officers involved in the Garner case however faced no criminal or civil liability.. at the time they shot Eddie Garner in the back (a 15 year old, unarmed kid that had broken into a radio shack and stole some stuff).. they were acting within the limits of the law as it was written, and within departmental policy as well...

FWIW, I worked the same ward that Garner was killed in, less than 10 years after that case made it to the Supreme Court.. the officers involved in the Garner shooting were still very much around the department and the community (although Hyman, the shooting officer had already retired)..

On the surface I think Graham v Connor also supports the officer (i.e. the reasonableness of an officers use of force is to be determined by the officers perspective based on the circumstances that were apparent to the officer at the time of the action)..


Perhaps there will be an OK vs Vu that will make it to a court that will ultimately change use of force laws in OK or the entire US.. but until then.. who knows how everything shakes out in either a criminal case (now not going to happen) or a civil case against the officer...

I don't see a criminal problem here. I see a civil problem. The 1983 and excessive force claims.

 

[BJH65]

Actually it's right there on the video. Notice the guy tap the left arm of the officer and do a shushing gesture right before the officer grabs him. Yes that's technically assault and an arrestable offense, I get it.

How he fell??? Yeah dude he fell. Definitely wasn't rag dolled by a much bigger dude half his age.

I hope your 6'4", 255 lb ass wasn't so tender that this is how you would handle this particular situation.

IMO, body slamming a 125 lb, 70 yr old guy because of that is excessive force. Borderline attempted murder. Definitely aggravated assault.

Here's a longer video. Notice how his superior calls it a de-escalation to cause a brain bleed, broken neck and broken eye socket.

I’m not sure I agree with your assessment regarding excessive force. I worked as an officer, Sgt. and Lt in a large urban area , 2 million plus population. We’ve always had a saying use of force never “looks good” and is rarely palatable to civilians who base their knowledge on this subject from movies and television shows.

I thought the Sgt exercised some degree of patience and restraint even after the driver verbally refused to sign the ticket and told the officer to take him to jail. The driver was arrestable at this point but the Sgt still tried to engage the driver in dialogue in an attempt to resolve the situation.

I do not know why the driver was out of the vehicle nor do I know if he was patted down or searched for weapons but I believe unlikely at this point. The driver was clearly uncooperative and arrestable but the red line was when the driver tapped the officer in a quick backhanded gesture which the unlawful touching of another is considered assault and battery. This caused a reaction and the Sgt. chose to immediately effect an arrest by forcing the suspect to the ground and subsequently handcuffing him.

You say “body slamming” which there are multiple definitions like the WWE version of lifting someone overhead and slamming then, physically picking someone up and slamming them to the ground, or in this case, forcing him to the ground. The Sgt. was authorized to use reasonable force to effect an arrest. You believe this to be unreasonable, however would another officer with the same level of experience and training perhaps use the same level of force after being assaulted by the driver to effect an arrest?

Would I or MD West do exactly what this Sgt did? I wasn’t there so I can’t say for certain. I will say if a suspect made deliberate physical contact with me they would likely end up in handcuffs although I may have handled it differently with different arrest control techniques. I will say in general, once you put hands on an officer, they will most likely physically take you into custody and handcuff you and not continue to verbally engage you in dialogue.

Yes, the driver does appear to be frail, and usually older folks have frail skin tissue and any contact with a hard surface will cause injury. I will say there are some very fit 70 plus year old gentleman on AH that could give some folks a run for their money! Plus this driver could have been armed. So in retrospect, forcing a non compliant arrestable suspect who has physically assaulted the officer, quickly to the ground to effect an arrest could be deemed reasonable. Doesn’t look good to the public but this was no Rodney King incident.

 

[mdwest]

@mdwest I usually agree with you 100% but on this I refer back to the the unwritten rule for Marines, "The perception of wrong doing is in fact wrong doing."
-- Often that seemed illogical but for the good of the service, unit moral, and ability to lead Marines, perception was and is very important.

Your response quoted above is what me as a never been police, typical John Q. Public thinks is reasonable. Other opinions may vary.

If most policemen are taught to use the maximum force they can muster each and every incident, the perception of police brutality will be reinforced. That in turns damages policemen, departments, and pubilc confidence in police as our heros.

i hear you.. but this is where law enforcement and the military are very different.. (see Graham v Conner comment in the above post)...

when it comes to use of force, the officers perspective and perception are what matters.. not anyone else's..


I also might be miscommunicating (or not being clear).. a use of force continuum is not about maximum force.. its actually about minimum force...

in the most simple of terms, a police officer isn't required to fight "fair" or use equal force to meet equal resistance.. at most agencies there is a +1 continuum.. meaning.. if someone is passively resisting (simply not doing what they are told), a police officer isn't required to just keep telling them.. he can go "hands on" and force control.. if someone is actively resisting (running away, or physically resisting you in any way).. you don't have to just chase them or just fight them with empty hands... you can then go to an intermediate weapon (baton, pepper spray, taser, etc.. whatever is appropriate, trained, etc..etc..) to gain control.. etc... etc... it keeps escalating until you get to deadly force...

the key is applying the minimum... so in this case while Vu put his hands on the officer, the officer could have argued that he was justified in going to his taser or his spray, etc (although that would have been a tough argument to make.. Vu didn't punch or kick him or do him any damage that can be seen.. he simply touched him.. although in the strictest sense of the law, that can certainly result in an "assault" charge being placed on Vu (that would almost certainly be thrown out by the courts.. Vu would do the ride, but its very unlikely he would do the "time").. all of that said, empty hand control is just that... you use empty hands to do what you have to, to gain immediate control...

there are limitations.. for example, there are certain techniques that are not allowed.. one of the reasons the lateral vascular neck restraint has fallen out of popularity (ie the "sleeper hold") is it is easy to misapply it and do permanent damage to the windpipe.. until the late 90's however it was still being taught in most police academies around the country... so if someone is passively resisting an officer cant willfully or intentionally cause serious bodily injury to a perpetrator.. (he cant intentionally throw Vu into the concrete for the purpose of cracking his skull)... but he CAN intentionally sweep Vu's legs, take him to the ground, and take complete control over Vu... if Vu ends up with a couple of scratches, bruised wrists from handcuffs, etc.. that's the price paid for passively resisting (in accordance with the law)... if Vu ends up unintentionally getting his skull cracked, the officer is not going to be criminally liable (he wasn't trying to do that.. it just happened).. but he might be found civilly liable (the discussion @wesheltonj and I are having)..

 

[CJW]

I said based on the limited information I would have done the same thing…

I also have a 78 year old parent on the road…

I’m guessing neither your parent or mine is going to resist lawful orders given by a police officer…

I’m further guessing the woman in the video is the man’s daughter or some other younger relative…

I’m going to even further guess if you or I were present we wouldn’t allow our 70’s parent yo to resist, nor would we participate (she is attempting to argue also)… we’d try to get things resolved and encourage the elderly parent in the same way the officer did… argue in court… not on the side of the road…

At the end of the day the easiest solution to all of this was for the guy to comply with lawful orders…

For some reason the American public thinks it’s ok to tell a cop during the execution of his duties that they won’t comply, and think there will be no consequences for that.. and then we want to hammer the cop when they do what they were trained to do, when they were trained to do it…

It’s no surprise we see BS like BLM and Defund the Police get traction…

And no further surprise that it’s getting harder and harder to recruit people into the field…

Based on what limited information? The fact that everyone seemed calm and that the only physical indiscretion was a light arm slap by a little old dude? The cop didn't appear afraid for his safety in any way.

What if our 70+ year old parents aren't exactly having the best of cognitive days all of a sudden? I sure don't want my mother's head, neck and eye socket to be cracked just because she nudged an ego with a badge.

You ever think that a healthy line of crap recruiting and crap accountability has maybe hurt the police force as well? I know it's sacrilege to criticise cops in any way. Body cams and cell phones have worked both ways.

I doubt this dude was trained to do exactly this in this situation. I'm confident that cops have always been taught some sort of de-escalation and discretion.

 

[mdwest]

another thought/observation on police "excessive force"... (that relates to @Mark A Ouellette observations).. is public perception does matter... just maybe not in a criminal case sort of way...

in the late 90's I had an opportunity to spend a month in Austria training with WEGA (Vienna SWAT / Counter Terrorist Team) and COBRA (their national CT Team.. which is also a law enforcement unit).. the Austrians were absolutely brutal in their application of force by comparison to US law enforcement..

I had several late night discussions over beers with guys on the two teams about the very different tactics and methodologies used between US and Austrian cops and why things worked in Austria that would never work in the US and why things that worked in the US would never work in Austria..

One of the things they just couldn't understand or comprehend was the typical American cops batman utility belt.. even back in the 90's we carried more crap on our belts than we had space for.. a pistol, 2 spare mags, 2 sets of cuffs, a baton, pepper spray, radio, as a minimum.... some agencies had also already started issuing tasers, requiring small med pouches, and other stuff as well...

your typical Austrian cop carried a Glock, a spare mag, a little 12" wooden truncheon/baton, and a single set of cuffs, and that was it..

They couldnt comprehend why we needed pepper spray, AND a baton, AND a taser, AND, AND, AND... they considered it crazy that we would have to haul all that crap around, and didn't understand how we could run/chase people with all that extra weight, how we could fight with it on, how we could maintain control of it, etc..

I tried to explain the "use of force continuum" to them, and our requirement to be able to escalate and de-escalate based on the threat or the situation, etc..

They found that hysterical (and scary that we had to adhere to such a complicated system)..

In their world it didn't matter what crime you committed.. you could have spit on the sidewalk.. or you could have just axe murdered someones grandma... they treat all people exactly the same...

they give you direction... if you comply... great...

if you do not comply and passively resist, they pull out the 12" truncheon and begin to beat the hell out of you until you comply...

if you do not comply and actively resist, they draw their service pistol and they shoot you..

their system was that simple..

the end result was people respected law enforcement... they simply didn't resist direction.. they knew the consequences would be severe for doing so..

and law enforcement respected the people.. they knew their agencies would have their head on a pike if they didn't treat people well (until they crossed the line, and treating them well was no longer an option)...

I don't know what things look like in Austria today.. my guess with the way politics have gone in most of Europe, their system looks a lot more like ours now than it used to..

 

[gbflyer]

That one’s gonna cost OKC a lot of money in civil court.

 

[mdwest]

Based on what limited information? The fact that everyone seemed calm and that the only physical indiscretion was a light arm slap by a little old dude? The cop didn't appear afraid for his safety in any way.

What if our 70+ year old parents aren't exactly having the best of cognitive days all of a sudden? I sure don't want my mother's head, neck and eye socket to be cracked just because she nudged an ego with a badge.

You ever think that a healthy line of crap recruiting and crap accountability has maybe hurt the police force as well? I know it's sacrilege to criticise cops in any way. Body cams and cell phones have worked both ways.

I doubt this dude was trained to do exactly this in this situation. I'm confident that cops have always been taught some sort of de-escalation and discretion.

you think a local news report and a couple of minutes of body cam footage tells the entire story?

that is limited information..

Regarding the cop fearing for his safety... that's not a requirement...

Thats something citizens get taught in CCW classes.. you need to fear for your life or fear you are going to experience great bodily harm before you can respond with deadly force...

the same rule does not apply to law enforcement in the execution of their duties..

their requirement is to maintain control... google "use of force continuum".. don't bother with the wiki page.. read some articles from police publications or on police department websites.. that is going to be the standard that guides an officers decision in using force.. fear can play a role.. but it is not the determining factor..

If your 70 year old parent isn't having a cognitive day.... that would lend itself to a whole additional line of questions.. like.. why is your parent out driving a car? if we're going to apply this to Vu, then it would make sense that Vu, lacking cognition, likely did commit the violation the officer is attempting to cite him for... and... oh by the way... old people, including those without solid cognition do commit crimes and can be dangerous.. and... oh by the way again, statistically do you know what the most dangerous thing a police officer does is?

Ill answer that for you... traffic stops...

unlike a bank robbery, or a rape, or a bar fight in progress, where a cop knows what he is responding to as soon as the call goes out.. a traffic stop might involve a rapist, a robber, a murderer, a dude methed out of his mind, a 5 time loser that doesn't want to go back to jail, or anything else..

its also a fairly mundane task where cops tend to lower their guard and sometimes get lazy, which gets them hurt..

Regarding body cams... Im of the opinion they are the best thing that ever happened.. no one liked them in the 90's when they first came out.. everyone thought they were "big brother" and evidence that the agency didn't trust them, etc...

Within just a few years almost every cop I knew LOVED dash cams and body cams.. because the cameras don't lie... and unfortunately, citizens often do... prior to the 90's it was very common for someone to get locked up on a legitimate charge.. then the next day they're on the phone with internal affairs claiming an officer beat them, or abused them, etc.. because they knew that would be a way to get out of whatever they were arrested for.. body cams and dash cams changed that.. liars found themselves getting additional charges tacked on for filing false police reports, etc.. and found that judges and courts really didn't like being BS'd around...

you say you doubt he was trained to do this... based on what?

the President of the Fraternal Order of Police says this is what he was trained to do... the Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma says this is what he was trained to do... a guy with extensive law enforcement experience (me) is telling you that empty hand control is how police officers are trained to deal with passive resistance...

who exactly else do you need to hear from? or where do you draw your experience from that would tell you this is not in line with his departments policies or the training he has received from a variety of different sources (cops get unarmed defensive tactics training from many places.. the academy, private trainers, a multitude of different training groups, inter agency training, etc..)..

Was he taught to "sweep" specifically when someone passively resists? Of course not.. that's not how any fight training works.. whether you're talking an MMA guy, a cop, a judo practitioner, or anyone else..

What he was taught is a variety of unarmed, empty hand techniques that are to be used (and are not on the "unapproved" list by his agency) whenever he has a passive resistance situation.. which technique gets applied depends on the circumstance, scenario, etc.. (for example, as Ive said before, Im not going to use any technique that has the potential to find myself on the ground if there are multiple people nearby.... you also have to consider what part of the other persons body is available for attack and what part of your body is available to utilize... for example if the guy is squared off with you, its going to be hard to do a knee strike to the outer thigh (common peroneal strike).. if he is bladed toward you, its probably going to be difficult to execute a fluid shockwave strike to the tibial nerve motor point... etc..etc..)...

Whether or not the technique he selected was the best one at the moment it was executed is subjective.. and the law says the subjectivity factor is based on the officers perspective and officers perception.. no one else's..

Regarding de-escalation... you're absolutely correct.. they are taught all kinds of de-escalation and escalation of force techniques... he is trying very hard to use verbal de-escalation prior to going hands on..

discretion however is in many ways discouraged these days... that's what gets you sued.. what cops are taught to do is follow policy.. follow procedure.. follow training.. don't deviate.. because deviation is liability... and your agency will hang you out to dry if you create liability..

pre Rodney King.. I'd agree with you.. there was a whole lot more focus on discretion..

these days you'll get in just as much trouble for not writing someone a ticket (you'll get accused of favoritism, racism, discrimination, or a host of other things), as you will for writing someone a ticket (same accusations).... its better just to follow the rules to the letter and treat absolutely everyone exactly the same..

 

[CJW]

I’m not sure I agree with your assessment regarding excessive force. I worked as an officer, Sgt. and Lt in a large urban area , 2 million plus population. We’ve always had a saying use of force never “looks good” and is rarely palatable to civilians who base their knowledge on this subject from movies and television shows.

I thought the Sgt exercised some degree of patience and restraint even after the driver verbally refused to sign the ticket and told the officer to take him to jail. The driver was arrestable at this point but the Sgt still tried to engage the driver in dialogue in an attempt to resolve the situation.

I do not know why the driver was out of the vehicle nor do I know if he was patted down or searched for weapons but I believe unlikely at this point. The driver was clearly uncooperative and arrestable but the red line was when the driver tapped the officer in a quick backhanded gesture which the unlawful touching of another is considered assault and battery. This caused a reaction and the Sgt. chose to immediately effect an arrest by forcing the suspect to the ground and subsequently handcuffing him.

You say “body slamming” which there are multiple definitions like the WWE version of lifting someone overhead and slamming then, physically picking someone up and slamming them to the ground, or in this case, forcing him to the ground. The Sgt. was authorized to use reasonable force to effect an arrest. You believe this to be unreasonable, however would another officer with the same level of experience and training perhaps use the same level of force after being assaulted by the driver to effect an arrest?

Would I or MD West do exactly what this Sgt did? I wasn’t there so I can’t say for certain. I will say if a suspect made deliberate physical contact with me they would likely end up in handcuffs although I may have handled it differently with different arrest control techniques. I will say in general, once you put hands on an officer, they will most likely physically take you into custody and handcuff you and not continue to verbally engage you in dialogue.

Yes, the driver does appear to be frail, and usually older folks have frail skin tissue and any contact with a hard surface will cause injury. I will say there are some very fit 70 plus year old gentleman on AH that could give some folks a run for their money! Plus this driver could have been armed. So in retrospect, forcing a non compliant arrestable suspect who has physically assaulted the officer, quickly to the ground to effect an arrest could be deemed reasonable. Doesn’t look good to the public but this was no Rodney King incident.

We can argue semantics but I don't think "body slam" is totally out of the question. His velocity and impact was greatly enhanced by another.

Any 70 yr old hitting the ground with force is a bad thing for them.



The guy gave two reasons to be arrested but the force WAS excessive. Now imagine that guy in an actual tense scenario. Yikes!

 

[Mark A Ouellette]

when it comes to use of force, the officers perspective and perception are what matters.. not anyone else's..


I also might be miscommunicating (or not being clear).. a use of force continuum is not about maximum force.. its actually about minimum force...

In the above quoted points,

Officers' persective is most important for their and public safety. Agreed, but the perception of excessive force is where all the Defund the Police bullcrap starts.

Minimum force is best for non-violent perpertrators. The Kenneth (male Karen) would have benefitted from a handcuffed ride in the back seat of a patrol car. Call it an attitude adjustment!
For anyone stupid enough to get violently physical with a police office, God help them!

your typical Austrian cop carried a Glock, a spare mag, a little 12" wooden truncheon/baton, and a single set of cuffs, and that was it..

they give you direction... if you comply... great...

if you do not comply and passively resist, they pull out the 12" truncheon and begin to beat the hell out of you until you comply...

if you do not comply and actively resist, they draw their service pistol and they shoot you..

While I agree with the above Austrian police rules in concept, I believe our Eighth Ammendment (US Constitution) forbids Cruel and Unusual Punishment. If I am wrong someone please educate me...

The above stated, my mother is 86 and of sound mind. If in the future she has a crazy day, gets stopped by a cop and turns into a physco Karen, I hope the officer has compassion and doesn't slam her to the ground.

"Yes sir, no sir, am I free to leave?" is what I advise my step daughters to say to a police officer. I also make it crystal clear, I don't bail Karens out of jail...

 

[CJW]

you think a local news report and a couple of minutes of body cam footage tells the entire story?

I can see the body language of all subjects involved can't I? Anything look dangerous to you? Does that cop look afraid in the seconds before the incident? I don't normally turn sideways and stand a foot or so apart from someone I don't trust. Has anybody reported that the guy told him to "shush or else I'll kill you!"? I think that might have come out by now.

that is limited information..


If your 70 year old parent isn't having a cognitive day.... that would lend itself to a whole additional line of questions.. like.. why is your parent out driving a car?

You are no better than anyone else at reading things the way you want them to be or not reading carefully enough. I said "all of a sudden" didn't I? My mother is a single widow and I don't do cognitive health tests on her everyday. Any elderly person can have it happen out of the blue. I was simply stating a scenario.

if we're going to apply this to Vu, then it would make sense that Vu, lacking cognition, likely did commit the violation the officer is attempting to cite him for... and... oh by the way... old people, including those without solid cognition do commit crimes and can be dangerous.. and... oh by the way again, statistically do you know what the most dangerous thing a police officer does is?

Ill answer that for you... traffic stops...

So obviously slam the old folks.

unlike a bank robbery, or a rape, or a bar fight in progress, where a cop knows what he is responding to as soon as the call goes out.. a traffic stop might involve a rapist, a robber, a murderer, a dude methed out of his mind, a 5 time loser that doesn't want to go back to jail, or anything else..

its also a fairly mundane task where cops tend to lower their guard and sometimes get lazy, which gets them hurt..

Regarding body cams... Im of the opinion they are the best thing that ever happened.. no one liked them in the 90's when they first came out.. everyone thought they were "big brother" and evidence that the agency didn't trust them, etc...

Within just a few years almost every cop I knew LOVED dash cams and body cams.. because the cameras don't like... and unfortunately, citizens often do... prior to the 90's it was very common for someone to get locked up on a legitimate charge.. then the next day they're on the phone with internal affairs claiming an officer beat them, or abused them, etc.. because they knew that would be a way to get out of whatever they were arrested for.. body cams and dash cams changed that.. liars found themselves getting additional charges tacked on for filing false police reports, etc.. and found that judges and courts really didn't like being BS'd around...

you say you doubt he was trained to do this... based on what?

He was trained to show no discretion as to how he physically treated an unarmed elderly person? And if you're going to say that he could have been armed then why didn't the cop pat him down and arrested him when the gentleman said he wanted to go to jail? That training is absolute garbage if that's the case.

the President of the Fraternal Order of Police says this is what he was trained to do... the Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma says this is what he was trained to do... a guy with extensive law enforcement experience (me) is telling you that empty hand control is how police officers are trained to deal with passive resistance...

who exactly else do you need to hear from? or where do you draw your experience from that would tell you this is not in line with his departments policies or the training he has received from a variety of different sources (cops get unarmed defensive tactics training from many places.. the academy, private trainers, a multitude of different training groups, inter agency training, etc..)..

Was he taught to "sweep" specifically when someone passively resists? Of course not.. that's not how any fight training works.. whether you're talking an MMA guy, a cop, a judo practitioner, or anyone else..

What he was taught is a variety of unarmed, empty hand techniques that are to be used (and are not on the "unapproved" list by his agency) whenever he has a passive resistance situation.. which technique gets applied depends on the circumstance, scenario, etc.. (for example, as Ive said before, Im not going to use any technique that has the potential to find myself on the ground if there are multiple people nearby.... you also have to consider what part of the other persons body is available for attack and what part of your body is available to utilize... for example if the guy is squared off with you, its going to be hard to do a knee strike to the outer thigh (common peroneal strike).. if he is bladed toward you, its probably going to be difficult to execute a fluid shockwave strike to the tibial nerve motor point... etc..etc..)...

Whether or not the technique he selected was the best one at the moment it was executed is subjective.. and the law says the subjectivity factor is based on the officers perspective and officers perception.. no one else's..

We'll see how that goes. This will be $$$$.

 

[BJH65]

We can argue semantics but I don't think "body slam" is totally out of the question. His velocity and impact was greatly enhanced by another.

Any 70 yr old hitting the ground with force is a bad thing for them.



The guy gave two reasons to be arrested but the force WAS excessive. Now imagine that guy in an actual tense scenario. Yikes!

I completely understand the optics look bad, they usually do. In addition if you have parents of a similar age it’s not hard to be sympathetic to a frail suspect. I will say I have encountered some extremely violent older suspects, including a 68 year old man who killed both an officer and animal control officer during an eviction that necessitated a mutual aid callout.

Another was a kind looking grandmotherly suspect who was a serial killer, collecting her tenants social security checks. The jury deadlocked on the death penalty because she looked like someone’s kind grandmother. I’m sure MD West has similar encounters as well. Even Charles Manson got old. I learned quickly that anyone is capable of anything, young, old, male, female.

The best thing I can offer which most will never do is to go on a police ride along in a sizable city to gain a better understanding of what the job entails.

 

[CJW]

I completely understand the optics look bad, they usually do. In addition if you have parents of a similar age it’s not hard to be sympathetic to a frail suspect. I will say I have encountered some extremely violent older suspects, including a 68 year old man who killed both an officer and animal control officer during an eviction that necessitated a mutual aid callout.

Another was a kind looking grandmotherly suspect who was a serial killer, collecting her tenants social security checks. The jury deadlocked on the death penalty because she looked like someone’s kind grandmother. I’m sure MD West has similar encounters as well. Even Charles Manson got old. I learned quickly that anyone is capable of anything, young, old, male, female.

The best thing I can offer which most will never do is to go on a police ride along in a sizable city to gain a better understanding of what the job entails.

No need for the ride along. I'm perfectly aware of how people are.

 

[skydiver386]

Things go great with Law Enforcement as long as you follow these simple hints.

 

[mdwest]

I can see the body language of all subjects involved can't I? Anything look dangerous to you? Does that cop look afraid in the seconds before the incident? I don't normally turn sideways and stand a foot or so apart from someone I don't trust. Has anybody reported that the guy told him to "shush or else I'll kill you!"? I think that might have come out by now.



You are no better than anyone else at reading things the way you want them to be or not reading carefully enough. I said "all of a sudden" didn't I? My mother is a single widow and I don't do cognitive health tests on her everyday. Any elderly person can have it happen out of the blue. I was simply stating a scenario.



So obviously slam the old folks.



He was trained to show no discretion as to how he physically treated an unarmed elderly person? And if you're going to say that he could have been armed then why didn't the cop pat him down and arrested him when the gentleman said he wanted to go to jail? That training is absolute garbage if that's the case.






We'll see how that goes. This will be $$$$.

You can see the body language for a moment in time.. and body language is only one factor in play...

does anything look dangerous to me? yes.. all traffic stops are dangerous.. 2x people out of their car refusing to comply with directions being given is inherently dangerous..

standing bladed and closing the distance is exactly what cops are trained do to before going hands on with someone..

so your cognitive scenario was fictitious.. and improbable regarding your parent... we can all play "what if" games all day long.. it doesn't change the facts... the facts are Vu resisted.. the officer followed his departments training and policies (supported by the Attorney Generals statement).. which you clearly don't like.. but you liking or hating changes nothing... the facts remain the same..

its not "slam the old folks".. its take control of passive resisters in accordance with policy and training.. doesn't matter if they are old, young, female, male, fat, skinny, black, white, green, or yellow.. hindu, catholic, or shinto... you follow policy, you follow procedure, and you follow training... which again, the FOP and the AG both clearly state this officer did...

CORRECT... he was trained to treat all perpetrators per policy and procedure.. you don't treat people differently based on what the general public will claim are discrimination factors.. if his position is "I only go hands on muscular black men under the age of 40 when they passively resist my direction" how do you think that goes over in court..

I can guarantee you no manual he has been trained by, no departmental policy, no departmental procedure, and no OK law advises officers in that state to consider the age of a perpetrator before making a decision about how to deal with them...

What happens when the arresting officer is in his early 60's, nearing retirement, is on the skinny side, and has been sickly for the last few weeks... is he held to a different standard?

Policy is going to tell officers to treat all people the same...

Whether or not an officer chooses to show discretion (which would be outside of policy) and whether or not his agency applauds him or punishes him for doing that is something we wont know.

we're in agreement about pat down and arrest.. although I don't think you understand how that typically works... as I stated earlier, the moment Vu said "Im ready to go to jail" I would have obliged him...

that said.. you don't pat someone down before putting them into custody.. ESPECIALLY if you're the only officer on the scene.. and doubly especially when there are 2 people present and only one officer..

you place them into custody first.. then you search them..

you don't have the right to search someone under most circumstances if they have not been placed in custody..

 

[mdwest]

For those that dont understand how dangerous people that don't appear to be dangerous can be...

watch this video

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/national/2010-police-video-shows-teen-shooting-two-police-officers/2017/02/22/b1d17508-f535-11e6-9fb1-2d8f3fc9c0ed_video.html

that video is very personal for me.. I knew both of those guys.. and I trained one of them (taught his SWAT Level 1 class, and a few other classes he attended)..

the person that LOOKS like a threat (the middle aged father) isn't the problem...

its the 16 year old boy.. that kills both officers.. and then shortly thereafter shoots 2 more officers (both of them thankfully survived).. the officers are distracted by the middle aged man behaving poorly (much like Vu.. he is refusing to comply with directions given, arguing with them about being a "sovereign citizen", etc)... and they are shot and killed by the kid..

ALL traffic stops are dangerous.. you never know who you are dealing with.. and people you don't think are dangerous, absolutely can be... traffic stops are where the majority of cops get hurt and/or killed..

you don't treat people differently because of the way they look...

 

[CJW]

You can see the body language for a moment in time.. and body language is only one factor in play...

does anything look dangerous to me? yes.. all traffic stops are dangerous.. 2x people out of their car refusing to comply with directions being given is inherently dangerous..

Dude was about to turn into Mr. Miyagi.

standing bladed and closing the distance is exactly what cops are trained do to before going hands on with someone..

so your cognitive scenario was fictitious.. and improbable regarding your parent... we can all play "what if" games all day long.. it doesn't change the facts... the facts are Vu resisted.. the officer followed his departments training and policies (supported by the Attorney Generals statement).. which you clearly don't like.. but you liking or hating changes nothing... the facts remain the same..

its not "slam the old folks".. its take control of passive resisters in accordance with policy and training.. doesn't matter if they are old, young, female, male, fat, skinny, black, white, green, or yellow.. hindu, catholic, or shinto... you follow policy, you follow procedure, and you follow training... which again, the FOP and the AG both clearly state this officer did...

Their policy and training is "slam the guys head into the concrete".

CORRECT... he was trained to treat all perpetrators per policy and procedure.. you don't treat people differently based on what the general public will claim are discrimination factors.. if his position is "I only go hands on muscular black men under the age of 40 when they passively resist my direction" how do you think that goes over in court..

I can guarantee you no manual he has been trained by, no departmental policy, no departmental procedure, and no OK law advises officers in that state to consider the age of a perpetrator before making a decision about how to deal with them...

And obviously the cop lacks the critical thinking ability to play out this horrific scenario even a little bit in his head, yet he was given a badge, gun and authority.

What happens when the arresting officer is in his early 60's, nearing retirement, is on the skinny side, and has been sickly for the last few weeks... is he held to a different standard?

Policy is going to tell officers to treat all people the same...

Whether or not an officer chooses to show discretion (which would be outside of policy) and whether or not his agency applauds him or punishes him for doing that is something we wont know.

we're in agreement about pat down and arrest.. although I don't think you understand how that typically works... as I stated earlier, the moment Vu said "Im ready to go to jail" I would have obliged him...

that said.. you don't pat someone down before putting them into custody.. ESPECIALLY if you're the only officer on the scene.. and doubly especially when there are 2 people present and only one officer..

you place them into custody first.. then you search them..

You got me man. I turned some words around.

you don't have the right to search someone under most circumstances if they have not been placed in custody..

 

[mdwest]

no one said their policy is to slam his head into the ground..

what has been said over and over again is police agencies use a force continuum.. their training and their policy will adhere to that continuum, which tells the officers when someone passively resists (doesn't do what they are told to do) that you use empty hand control to obtain compliance..

there are a wide variety of techniques that are trained and are legal to use..

there is no evidence that the officers INTENT (key word there.. because intent is integral to the law and to policy) was to bounce Vu's head off the ground..

clearly Vu's head bounced.. and there MAY be civil liability because of it...

but your assertion was that the officer committed a CRIMINAL act (ag asslt, attempted murder, etc).. which is simply untrue.. which is why the AG threw the DA's charge out..

there are "elements" in every law.. for a law to be broken ALL elements must be met... INTENT is one of those elements here..

the officer clearly intended to sweep and pivot Vu onto his belly so that he could control him, put cuffs on him, etc..

in the execution of that technique, whether because Vu moved in a way unexpected or the officer muffed up the sweep, Vu hit the ground hard...

if it cannot be proven that the officer INTENDED for this to be the outcome.. then you don't have a crime..

the law really is that simple.. you don't have to like it... you clearly don't..

but once again, the facts remain the facts, the law remains the law.. and you bitching that you don't like it doesn't change it..

you don't have to trust me on that... one of the previous posters in this thread is a TX judge that has extensive experience in the criminal courts.. he's already said no criminal liability.. no ag asslt.. etc..

the AG has said it...

the FOP has said it...

who else do you need to hear it from?