I need a critique from Tony

Scott Stone

Scott Stone

New member
They all Froze when they realized the guy had a video Camera running.
The Officer did not have to attempted the apprehension until he was sure there was back up. The cop coming in slamming the car was a bit ridiculous but stuff happens. Get off the ground and call for emergency service, they are sadly all out of breath. So I would if I was the captain require not only a yearly physical but PT every six months to ensure they are not putting my life or there own at risk.

Unfortunately the suspect should have listened to the officer, I never heard your being detained or your under arrest. ID is usually the first thing, it was apparent this guy was not running. If he had run they would not have caught him looking at the physical condition of those officers Gasping for AIR as they finally got him cuffed.

By no means do I fault these officers for the situation its just that MESA PD i'm sure doesn't see citizens like this much. Although they are suppose to be trained they have failed numerous times before in this type of spot.


That looks like the Famous Circle K they shot first and announced police second. That Man didn't live and all he did wrong was be drunk. Everyone remember this because it was caught on video. COps pull up BOOM BOOM BOOM< then say Police. Of course the man was dead over his wheel.

Scott Stone said:
http://www.azcentral.com/12news/articles/20130603mesa-arrest-take-down-viral.html

Just curious if there was anything inappropriate in this arrest, in your opinion.

Personally, I have found Mesa police pretty tolerant of things, and that Circle K is in an area that could be troublesome, though not necessarily in a bad part of town.
Click to expand...
 
Scott, here are a couple of observations based on variable circumstances that we have no way of knowing yet:

1) Scenario 1 - The guy is a murder, kidnapper, rapist or has just assaulted (physically) someone:

In this case the lone cop had no business attempting to do anything with this man once he determined the man was going to resist. He knew backup was coming and he had all the time in the world to observe the guy and wait for some other officers to surround the guy and wait for a peaceful surrender. There is no question who the aggressor was here. A little common sense would have resulted in a better ending for everyone.

2) Scenario 2 - The guy stole something, caused an illegal disturbance, or did something else that harmed others:

In this case the lone cop had no business attempting to do anything with this man once he determined the man was going to resist. He knew backup was coming and he had all the time in the world to observe the guy and wait for some other officers to surround the guy and wait for a peaceful surrender.

This is the way it was done back when the police had respect for the lives and rights of others. (Including the rights of the innocent lady that the stupid piece of sh#t hit in the car trying to get to the fight to work off some of his steroids he had shot up earlier in the day.)


3) Scenario 3 - The guy was mad about something in the store and caused a verbal disturbance:

There was no reason whatsoever to detain him so they can search him for reasons to arrest him.

He was gone from the store and no one was hurt.

The cop should have tried to figure out what the problem was and instruct him not to return to the store.

The only reason to cuff him with the demeanor that he had would be to either look for something to arrest him for that had nothing to do with the initial call or, if he made them mad enough, for them to slip some drugs in his pocket to take him to jail.

I don't blame anyone for resisting arrest in this country. Once upon a time it was our duty to resist arrest if we were detained unlawfully. But those men are dead now. Leaving us with no leaders to remind us of what freedom is supposed to look like.


The fact is we don't know what was going on prior to the altercation. But whatever it was, it wasn't worth an innocent woman's car being crashed into.
 
Tony, he cut a guy off who ran into Light post and then crushed a Car. LOL
Tony Shelton said:
Scott, here are a couple of observations based on variable circumstances that we have no way of knowing yet:

1) Scenario 1 - The guy is a murder, kidnapper, rapist or has just assaulted (physically) someone:

In this case the lone cop had no business attempting to do anything with this man once he determined the man was going to resist. He knew backup was coming and he had all the time in the world to observe the guy and wait for some other officers to surround the guy and wait for a peaceful surrender. There is no question who the aggressor was here. A little common sense would have resulted in a better ending for everyone.

2) Scenario 2 - The guy stole something, caused an illegal disturbance, or did something else that harmed others:

In this case the lone cop had no business attempting to do anything with this man once he determined the man was going to resist. He knew backup was coming and he had all the time in the world to observe the guy and wait for some other officers to surround the guy and wait for a peaceful surrender.

This is the way it was done back when the police had respect for the lives and rights of others. (Including the rights of the innocent lady that the stupid piece of sh#t hit in the car trying to get to the fight to work off some of his steroids he had shot up earlier in the day.)


3) Scenario 3 - The guy was mad about something in the store and caused a verbal disturbance:

There was no reason whatsoever to detain him so they can search him for reasons to arrest him.

He was gone from the store and no one was hurt.

The cop should have tried to figure out what the problem was and instruct him not to return to the store.

The only reason to cuff him with the demeanor that he had would be to either look for something to arrest him for that had nothing to do with the initial call or, if he made them mad enough, for them to slip some drugs in his pocket to take him to jail.

I don't blame anyone for resisting arrest in this country. Once upon a time it was our duty to resist arrest if we were detained unlawfully. But those men are dead now. Leaving us with no leaders to remind us of what freedom is supposed to look like.


The fact is we don't know what was going on prior to the altercation. But whatever it was, it wasn't worth an innocent woman's car being crashed into.
Click to expand...
 
Very Good Jill!! That is exactly right. Unless this man had caused harm to someone there is no reason to detain and cuff him.

If you want to see the extent of the rights we have lost sometime just watch a couple of episodes of COPS.

Here's how it goes.

Man argues in a restaurant because he thinks the clerk cheated him on his change.

Clerk gets on the phone and calls the cops.

Customer is happy the cops are called, because he feels he has been cheated.

Cops get there and cuff the customer "for his safety".

Of course they have to search his pockets "for their safety"

The find four percocets in his pocket that he has a prescription for, but the bottle is at home.

They tell him he's being arrested for felony narcotics.

He tells them he is on his way to work and can't lose his job and pulls away.

They throw him down on the ground, taze him and beat the crap out of him.

In the process one of the cops breaks a knuckle on the tooth he just knocked out.

Guy goes to jail for felony narcotics, resisting arrest, assault for pulling away from the one officer and battery for hitting the cops fist with his tooth.

None of this had anything whatsoever to do with the reason they were called there in the first place. They manufactured the entire episode by unlawfully detaining a citizen.

Now the guy loses his job, has to pay $5k for an attorney to get the felony drug charges dropped after a year and a half of bringing his pill bottle and description to 20 court dates. He has to plea bargain down to assault to get probation just to stay out of jail for the other stuff.

All that time he thought the police were going to come and help him get back his change that he felt he was cheated from.

There is nothing legal about arresting someone for something that had nothing to do with the reason the cops were called. That is why the founding fathers made it very difficult for soldiers or law enforcement to SEARCH US.

Cops need to be instructed in the supreme law of the land and to uphold that law over and above all other laws or "permissions" they might have obtained through crooked legislators and foul police unions. If only half of them stood up for our rights the other crooked half would be too cowardly to continue what they are doing.

I could go on all day with this.

Jill gets it.

A few others on here get it.

But it's hard to explain freedom to a nation with democrats who don't know anything about the freedom to keep our own property and not be forced to give it to other countries or people who refuse to work and Republicans who vote against legalized pot when the people of the state already voted to legalize it twice in two separate years!

Democrats think the government can do no wrong (as long as Democrats run it) and Republicans think that without jack booted terrorist cops screaming for everybody to "Get the f$ck down on the ground!" at every traffic stop, that the pot heads are going to break into their houses and sacrifice their children to the devil.

There's just no getting through to people who don't understand what freedom means.
 
The only problem is, we don't know why he was being detained. You are assuming that the arrestee had done nothing. That was never stated in the video, so it is really hard to say whether or not the cop needed to arrest him. The moment that the arrestee started resisting is when the problems started. The cop did not behave aggressively first. In fact, he probably thought that the guy was going to go along peacefully, which is why he was willing to arrest the guy without backup. Although safer, there is no legal requirement to have a backup officer available. The accident probably happened because the second cop saw the scuffle starting.
It would be interesting to know what the potential charges were going to be.
 
Rapid HotClean said:
I served on my city's police advisory board for three years and trust me, being a cop is fraught with all sorts of danger. As happened here, one bad apple can ruin the barrel.

A lot of people don't like cops. That is until they really need one.
Click to expand...

I don't like them. I am 47 years old and have yet to come across a time when I "needed" them.

I called them to help a wounded dog on the street. They told me to call the SPCA or take him to the vet myself.

I called them when Shelly was in an injury accident. Ambulance showed up in less than 10 minutes. Police took over 4 hours in 110+ temps. Lost half a day's work.

I called them when two guys were threatening two fellow board members at the homeowners association telling them they were going to beat the crap out of them for daring to put a note on their fence saying "I gave your dogs some water, you might want to think about giving them some water on the hot days if you are going to be gone all day". One of them picked up a golf club to swing at a 60 year old lady. I body slammed him and broke his face. Of course, the ambulance got there about the same time as the cops we had called 20 minutes earlier. They didn't care about the 15 witnesses. They gave me a citation because "you sent that other guy to the hospital, the judge will figure it out", and I had to drag the witnesses to two court dates to get the charges dismissed. No common sense.

No, I won't be needing them anymore. There was a time when they were useful to society. Now they just prey on society.

This country got along just fine for decades without them. Neighbors and volunteers took care of their own. If we got back to that mindset criminals would be scared to set foot in our neighborhoods.
 
Scott Stone said:
The only problem is, we don't know why he was being detained. You are assuming that the arrestee had done nothing. That was never stated in the video, so it is really hard to say whether or not the cop needed to arrest him. The moment that the arrestee started resisting is when the problems started. The cop did not behave aggressively first. In fact, he probably thought that the guy was going to go along peacefully, which is why he was willing to arrest the guy without backup. Although safer, there is no legal requirement to have a backup officer available. The accident probably happened because the second cop saw the scuffle starting.
It would be interesting to know what the potential charges were going to be.
Click to expand...

Scott, Scott, you faithful Republican..... lol.

I wasn't assuming. I just gave a few different possibilities.

Here is the officers point of view. It's pretty apparent the guy didn't think he had done anything wrong and the cop kept repeating the same orders to him over and over again and swearing at him. Why? Scott? Why is it ok to force citizens to "get on the the f$cking ground" or "sit the f#ck down" when a conversation could be had perfectly without one party having to demean the other by putting them on the ground. This is exactly the type of behavior our founding fathers had just been subjected to prior to taking up arms and dealing with it.

http://www.azcentral.com/video/2431467136001
 
Scott Stone said:
The only problem is, we don't know why he was being detained. You are assuming that the arrestee had done nothing. That was never stated in the video, so it is really hard to say whether or not the cop needed to arrest him. The moment that the arrestee started resisting is when the problems started. The cop did not behave aggressively first. In fact, he probably thought that the guy was going to go along peacefully, which is why he was willing to arrest the guy without backup. Although safer, there is no legal requirement to have a backup officer available. The accident probably happened because the second cop saw the scuffle starting.
It would be interesting to know what the potential charges were going to be.
Click to expand...

No one knows for sure, I didnt hear the officer read him his Miranda rights I didn't hear him say put your hands behind your back. But it could of been done before the video you never know. but to say hes innocent or guilty is both wrong at this point. God says Love first to me that means give the benefit of the doubt until proven guilty. And that goes for all. And if I might add, If citizens are standing around video taping and are on the side of the aresstee, to me raises the suspicion that they thought something was odd enough to turn on the video rec. however like I said the benefit of the doubt.
 
There are some fine officers in this country. Unfortunately they don't have the courage to get rid of the rest of them.

It's time for youtube to get some new videos.

I'd like to see videos of 20 good cops beating the living $hit out of a cop they caught planting evidence or lying on the witness stand.

Anything short of that and the only hope we have is that enough Americans will get tired of it and start doing what needs to be done. Like the 3% of Americans who did it in the Revolutionary War.
 
Jillian Shelton said:
No one knows for sure, I didnt hear the officer read him his Miranda rights I didn't hear him say put your hands behind your back. But it could of been done before the video you never know. but to say hes innocent or guilty is both wrong at this point. God says Love first to me that means give the benefit of the doubt until proven guilty. And that goes for all. And if I might add, If citizens are standing around video taping and are on the side of the aresstee, to me raises the suspicion that they thought something was odd enough to turn on the video rec. however like I said the benefit of the doubt.
Click to expand...

In that area, all the citiizen's are going to be automatically against the cop. We also don't know why the citizen was standing around taking cell phone video. It could be he knew the guy who was being talked to, and knew it was not going to end well. Perhaps he also knew that the guy had just done something and wanted to catch it on tape when the arrest went down.
Incidentally, the cop was obviously responding to a call, judging how his car was parked, and a convenience store clerk had been killed earlier that day not far from that area. My guess is the clerks in the store were on edge, and the cop was on edge. Call it mitigating factors.
 
According to Sgt. Landato, Circle K reported the suspect because he was milling around the store and apparently trying to pick up his prescriptions.

He still didn't do anything to rise to the level of arrest or having a taser pointed in his face. He wasn't stealing. Here are his charges:

Meanwhile, Matatangi Sentituli Tai is being held on charges of aggravated assault on a police officer, resisting arrest, criminal trespass and criminal damage.

Maybe this is why he didn't want to sit down:

http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/story/2...or-apprehension-that-left-him-horribly-burned


Just FYI, here is a comment from the police boards regarding the guys who taped the confrontation:


Posted by carbri on Monday, June 03, 2013 07:57 PM Pacific Report Abuse
I mean really why bother to comment, but I will. We (cops) all know what we are up against and what the future of society holds. This comes as no surprise and simply another video depiction of our near out of control society. Only in this "free country" and especially Arizona would a group of garbage be allowed to stand within feet of the officers and talk and say as they were. The same trash that would and will call the police crying as soon as something happens to them. We call them todays suspects, tomorrows victims.

"Out of Control Society"......a society where people are free to take video in public places is....out of control. A place where people are free to exercise their first amendment rights to verbally disagree with what they see happening is "out of control".

The only thing "out of control" is the guys who want to "control" what they perceive as "trash".
 
Last edited:
Jillian Shelton said:
No one knows for sure, I didnt hear the officer read him his Miranda rights I didn't hear him say put your hands behind your back. But it could of been done before the video you never know. but to say hes innocent or guilty is both wrong at this point. God says Love first to me that means give the benefit of the doubt until proven guilty. And that goes for all. And if I might add, If citizens are standing around video taping and are on the side of the aresstee, to me raises the suspicion that they thought something was odd enough to turn on the video rec. however like I said the benefit of the doubt.
Click to expand...

An untold number of cops have given someone the benefit of doubt and because they did so they themselves are dead. That's the truth and there's no way around it.
 
http://www.azcentral.com/video/2433818541001

Incidentally Tony, that is a different case. It is obvious that guy was resisting after committing a theft and trespassing. If he had done that in your home, what would you have done? I think he got off easy, in this case. I am just tying to figure out what you think Mesa PD should have done with someone that was obviously resistant, had stolen something, even if it was a piece of Pizza, and was trespassing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top