L.a Police Arrest Camera man for warrants

File photo showing Mitchell Crooks, the bystander who videotaped an Inglewood police officer slamming a handcuffed teen against a patrol car, during an interview with Reuters on July 9, 2002. Crooks himself was arrested on July 11, 2002 as he prepared to give a television interview. Crooks was arrested on warrants for petty theft and driving under the influence of alcohol issued in northern California by authorities who also served him with a subpoena to testify about his videotape before the grand jury. (Fred Prouser/Reuters)

 

They should've beat him while handcuffed to teach him a lesson.

 

I wonder if the petty theft charge was for stealing that videocamera.

It seems like bad public relations to me to arrest the guy, especially right before he's about to go on television on CNN. But it doesn't appear that Crooks gave them much choice by ignoring his Grand Jury appearance.

And if the warrants are legitimate (and there's no reason to think they aren't), they are duty-bound to serve them.

Seems like a bit of a cop-out, though, that they haven't arrested this police officer already, though. If they wanted one, they could've had an arrest warrant by now as there's more than enough evidence to sustain an arrest.

 

I wonder how many stairs he's going to accidentally fall down while in custody. Hmmm...

 

If the guy had warrants, then the cops had to arrest him. I still don't understand how the cop who hit the kid isn't in custody yet.

 

I kneel before your signature Paige-A-Matic.

 

Good! This guy was in it for the money, not to do the "public a service."

If they are going to record something like this, then submit it in his defense or Internal Affairs, not CNN.

 

Yeah Space Ghost, this is obviously just a money thing. Probably taped five or six police beatings but held out for that special money making one.

Wait, I see the bigger motive now. Maybe he's part of that secret group that I'm in. You know the one that is the reason why there are still race issues in this country. You know, the one that see's 'black, white, punch' and throws race all over it.

 

MovieManiac, you're new here, but I was being completely sarcastic.

Yup, you're right Space Ghost...do you have to go to school to be a travelling cop beater videotaper?

 

I think UCLA offers an extension course in videotaping police beatings.

 

If you have outstanding warrants and the police find you, then you go to jail. It's that easy. Maybe the video-taper should have considered that before volunteering to do all these interviews.

One item I found very thought-provoking was that the black teenager that was struck in the face by the officer was alledgedly grabbing that officer's testicles before the punch was thrown. That certainly casts the story in a different light. I've said this before, we absolutely have to wait for all the details to come out on this before jumping to any conclusions. People these days are too quick to accuse police of wrongdoing when many times they are not aware of all the facts.

 

Even assuming the testicle grab is true (though one would wonder why stepping closer to the kids' hands so you could punch him would be the way to go instead of maybe stepping back or perhaps grabbing his hands would be the way to go, but whatever....), what's the excuse for lifting him up and slamming him into the trunk?

That kid must have amazingly long hands, too, as the officer, when he hits the kid, is standing sideways and away from where the kids hands would be and another officer has his hands across the kid's arms. When the punch itself was thrown, the officer most certainly was not having his testicles grabbed by the kid.

That's the problem with waiting for the facts to come out. They won't come out at this point. Even if the officer was completely out of line, he'll never come out and say so. Same with the family. Even if this kid did lunge at the officers, they'll never come out and say so. Both sides have incentive to muddy the waters to make their cases better.

if the testicle grab story doesn't hold, we'll hear some other excuse. If the security camera from the convenience store shows the kid lunge, we'll hear an explanation for that.

The closest we're going to come to the truth is whatever a jury rules... unless the police succeed in whitewashing this enough to keep it out of court. They've managed to go this far without arresting the officer and charging him despite having enough evidence to sustain said arrest. Nobody else gets that consideration (even the kid has already been arrested and charged for his part in the scuffle. Why didn't they wait until all the facts came out to charge him?)

It took eleven days to arrest the Rodney King cops (and, in my opinion, that tape was more open to interpretation in many ways). So should we set the over/under on when this offier is finally arrested at July 17th?

 

The "excuse" is resisting arrest. Why do you think there were about 5 of them there trying to get the kid into the car? Clearly the situation was a dangerous one. I'd rather protect the police by allowing them to use force when necessary (please note I am not saying they were right or wrong in this case), as opposed to letting criminals (nor am I saying the black kid was wrong or is guilty of anything until proven so) put the lives of innocent civilians and policemen in jeopardy.

 

No. The excuse was the testicle grab thing. He doesn't appear to be resisting at that point and he wasn't resisting immediately prior to being slammed into the trunk of the cruiser.

I don't know why they need six officers to write a guy a ticket for driving with expired license plates.

The police can use reasonable force when necessary. The problem is when they exceed what is necessary. From that tape, it certainly appears that the police crossed the line. But if they have a good excuse for their actions, let them prove it in court. Arrest 'em and charge 'em and let the chips fall where they may. Why should the rules be any different because the guy has a badge? Why should he be abovve the law? We don't usually like that in this country.... you know the country where all men are created equal and all that. We usually put a whole lot of faith in those ideals.

And the problem with saying you'd rather let the police use force than let someone like this kid (assuming he was, in some way, dangerous to society) go free is that there's nobody who will convict this kid of anything anymore. Show a jury that tape and very few juries would vote to convict.

It's like the old gripe about criminals getting off on technicalities. Well, these criminals wouldn't walk on technicalities if somebody along the line didn't screw up somewhere. Following the law is important for the police and prosecutors and everyone along the chain of command. Otherwise, you run a very real risk of making it that much harder to get a conviction.

Think about the Rodney King thing. Had that arrest gone by the book, 54 lives would've been saved. Would you really trade those 54 lives for getting Rodney King off the street? (especially since Rodney King was not taken off the street. Because he was beaten, the charges against him, which likely would've stuck had there been no beating, wouldn't stick).

And when things like this come out, it erodes confidence in the police and makes the jobs of the good cops that much harder. And when the police drag their feet in bringing these police offenders up on charges (and usually just sweep the whole thing under the rug. You can't tell me that less 1% of complaints of excessive force have merit, but even if we accept that number, almost zero of those cases that actually have merit result in criminal charges), it only creates an atmosphere of distrust of the police and makes it that much harder to fight crime.

Heck, how dangerous was this situation in the first place? The father was driving with expired tags and a suspended license. Something happened to escalate the situation (we don't know what), but no matter what escalated the situation, are the streets really safer having the suspended license guy briefly in jail? Especially when neither of these people will now be convictable because the kid was slammed into the cruiser and punched during the arrest?

 

Hey, I have that camcorder!

 

internal affairs would have buried it

Rocket River

 

does this guy look like Jason Kidd to anyone?