Since this has wandered so far from the original topic I'll try and steer it back. I'll make some comments to your original post that I passed by in my first post here.
I think that part of the problem is that you think you know quite a few things when the fact is that you've made many assumptions and jumped to many conclusions.
Dust Monkey said:
We all remember the video of the El Monte Police officer kicking a compliant suspect in the head at gunpoint.
I think that the issue of compliance is one of those assumptions. Since there's no sound we don't know if he's being complaint or not. He IS on the ground but he's also looking towards the officer. I was trained to have the suspect turn his head away from me to hinder him in preparing an assault or any resistance. How do you know that the officer was not giving commands for the suspect to do that and that he was refusing to comply? At the end of a chase wherein the suspect deliberately tried to run down a police officer with his car I think it's reasonable to assume that he might resist the actual arrest as well. The officer is alone, and in my opinion has committed a tactical error in leaving cover to approach the suspect. But now that he's there, he must get compliance.
Dust Monkey said:
The El Monte incident was not the only incident in recent news to attract my attention. There were 5 Alabama Officers fired after a video surfaced showing them beating an unconscious suspect after a chase. By some reports this video is over a year old and was viewed by several LE supervisors, several in the LE community and Prosecuting Attorneys. Yet not one of them thought something was wrong until the trial.
Another assumption on your part. I think it's far more likely that they KNEW something was wrong but chose to turn their heads away from it. I find that far more disturbing than the initial act. It appears to me that the suspect was unconscious but I don’t know that the officers saw that. Neither do you BTW. If he was, then while he was certainly not resisting but he was also not complying with their commands. In the heat of the moment they may have perceived that he was not complying and went to a use of force to gain that compliance.
I've not made any assumptions, I've just pointed out a few possibilities.
Dust Monkey said:
During the trial, the Prosecuting Attorney did not have his edited copy so he asked the defense to borrow their copy. The current Prosecuting Attorney had not seen the entire tape, it was a surprise. Think about that. 5 officers beating the hell out of an unconscious suspect, not a threat to anyone, maybe in need of medical attention at the time himself, not one person thought that this might be wrong.
Your perception, and it may be correct, is that the suspect was unconscious. But you do not know if the officers realized this of even if it was true! ANOTHER assumption on your part. I doubt that the prosecuting attorney was surprised, as you say, by the entire video, but again you've made this assumption.
Dust Monkey said:
Higher ups in several departments involved saw this video, and no one scratched their head and said, um, wait a minute. It took a year to surface. That folks is sad and alarming at the same time.
AGAIN you have no idea what those "higher up in several departments" said or even if they saw this video. Perhaps I'm wrong in this and eagerly await your proof of it. Until then it's just another assumption.
I will say that I doubt that if they saw it, that they "scratched their head and said, um wait a minute." I'm sure that if they saw it they said, "Oh sh!t. I hope this doesn’t get out!' I find THAT alarming.
DUST MONKEY said:
In the past few days I have had the time to speak with some old friends, some retired LE some current, and all of them agree on what a “distraction blow” is. And they all agree that you never should deliver one, alone, and holding a suspect at gunpoint.
I think his error was in moving from cover toward the suspect while still alone. But once he got there, if his perception was that the suspect was not complying, a distraction blow was warranted.
Dust Monkey said:
Now I believe both of these instances are a result of 2 things. End of chase syndrome and the growing militant behavior/training of today’s peace officers.
I have no idea what "end of chase syndrome" is. It sounds a bit like the press' use of the term "assault weapon" when discussing an AR-15. It's meant to inflame and conceal more than to give information. Anyone who is not excited and adrenalized at the end of a chase has some pretty serious problems. But I don't think there's a "syndrome" of any wrongdoing that occurs. I've already addressed the issue of "militarization of the police" in previous posts.
Dust Monkey said:
The militant attitude that is all consuming in today’s LE is scary.
What's scary is that you think that it's "all consuming."
Dust Monkey said:
Police should not act like soldiers. Soldiers are trained to kill, period. They are trained to seek out an enemy and kill. They have that mindset instilled during basic training and advanced training.
Odd but in both situations you brought to this discussion no one was killed. So how to you jive these situations with your "killing mindset?"