LE Officers throw blind man to ground.

RandFan

Mormon Atheist
RandFan
Joined
Dec 18, 2001
Messages
60,135
Bear in mind, a call to police is not probable cause. Officers much observe a crime or investigate and determine if a crime had been committed.

The man is legally blind and was cooperating when he was thrown to the ground.

https://youtu.be/4i1ak_37qbs?t=16s
 
Can't watch at work.
If this is how it went down, I hope action is taken.
However, can't help but wonder why they decided to toss him if he was cooperating...
 
Monketey Ghost said:
Can't watch at work.
If this is how it went down, I hope action is taken.
However, cave help but wonder why they decided to toss him if he was cooperating...
Click to expand...
They saw a black handle in his pocket. It was a phone for the blind.
 
RandFan said:
They saw a black handle in his pocket. It was a phone for the blind.
Click to expand...

"Fearing for their safety".

:rolleyes:

Well, at least the cops went home safe; that's the important thing.

ETA: Another BS police report too. Nice.
 
Last edited:
Monketey Ghost said:
No "What's that?"
Sounds overcautious to me.
I figure you should at least be resisting before you get the slam treatment.
Click to expand...
It is a rather odd video. The guy complies with every instruction without hesitation. I can't hear if he is being confrontational but he doesn't appear agitated or anything like that.
 
FTR: There is a video jump (edit) at 1:17. Before the take down. I didn't see that before. I'd like to see the full video. It's possible (I think unlikely) that something was edited out that vindicates the officers.
 
I know I'm going to sound horribly prejudiced.

In this case the guy obviously has a case, but I normally get skeptical when they insert "legally"

Probably my own ignorance as I don't know when you hit this level
 
The guy says he hears someone yelling for him to "come here", but being that he is blind, he didn't head their way because he didn't know they were police (not sure if they ID'd themselves verbally).

So, the cops probably saw this as a black guy not obeying their commands and got assed up.

Just a hunch.
 
1. i can't fathom what "LE" stands for....

2. plaintiff lawyer produced video.... the bread and butter of local tv news programing..

The argument is invalid
 
16.5 said:
1. i can't fathom what "LE" stands for....

2. plaintiff lawyer produced video.... the bread and butter of local tv news programing..

The argument is invalid
Click to expand...

1. "Law Enforcement". Not hard.
2. So? Is anything RandFan described from the video inaccurate?

<snip>


Edited by Loss Leader: 
Edited for Rules 0/12
 
Last edited by a moderator:
cullennz said:
I know I'm going to sound horribly prejudiced.

In this case the guy obviously has a case, but I normally get skeptical when they insert "legally"

Probably my own ignorance as I don't know when you hit this level
Click to expand...

It means you can't read the big "E" on the eye chart. If you are just on the border of legally blind, you would certainly not be able to verify that those were cops from a distance. Depending on the nature of the impairment, you might be able to identify them from a foot or two away.
 
Around here, legally blind = worse than 20/400. Not many people are "black blind".
So, at the pistol range, my blind friend outshoots my inept friend. But the blind guy did give up Trap.
 
casebro said:
Around here, legally blind = worse than 20/400. Not many people are "black blind".
So, at the pistol range, my blind friend outshoots my inept friend. But the blind guy did give up Trap.
Click to expand...

Not sure which is worse; a blind shooter or an inept one.
 
That Fell Flat

Babbylonian said:
I would hope that a doctor would tell you first...of course, in the US you'll need money for that to happen, and being legally blind can cut into the ability to make money.
Click to expand...
I was trying to be funny. :)
 
16.5 said:
1. i can't fathom what "LE" stands for....

2. plaintiff lawyer produced video.... the bread and butter of local tv news programing..

The argument is invalid
Click to expand...
Also as LEO - Law enforcement officer.
 
12AX7 said:
Not sure which is worse; a blind shooter or an inept one.
Click to expand...

The inept one. The blind shooter can still be a good one if the target go through his blindness. I can for example shoot relatively far away despite an extremely poor eyesight, IF the target sports relatively extreme color coding, like archery target. It is all a mishmash of blurry and deformed color shape, but I can still gauge where the center is. On the other hand an inept shooter will send the bullet or arrow in the crowd despite being well seeing where the center is.
 
RandFan said:
Bear in mind, a call to police is not probable cause. Officers much observe a crime or investigate and determine if a crime had been committed.

The man is legally blind and was cooperating when he was thrown to the ground.

https://youtu.be/4i1ak_37qbs?t=16s
Click to expand...

I am not quite sure what I am supposed to see really. I do not know if the man react to an order but goes the wrong way and is firmly thrown to the ground because of that, or if he stumble, or if the officer see something and throw him to the ground. I watched that part 5 timers now and i am still unsure.

PS: a MUCH better link would be showing 1:45 onward. The rest is crap news journalism trying to sell off a story.
 
Last edited:
Aepervius said:
I am not quite sure what I am supposed to see really. I do not know if the man react to an order but goes the wrong way and is firmly thrown to the ground because of that, or if he stumble, or if the officer see something and throw him to the ground. I watched that part 5 timers now and i am still unsure.

PS: a MUCH better link would be showing 1:45 onward. The rest is crap news journalism trying to sell off a story.
Click to expand...
The problem as I see it is this. The officers had not witnessed a crime. They had no probable cause (a call is not probable cause).

The constitution prohibits unlawful search and seizures. As an example, New York's Stop-and-frisk policy was called into question and a federal judge ruled against it in 2013. I'm not sure exactly where the case is right now but NY has pretty much eliminated the practice.

The officers were free to talk to the gentlemen but absent evidence of a crime they had no business to touch him at all. Now, this is assuming the video hasn't been edited to leave out something that justified the officers placing the man under arrest. I can't say. However, after the jump the man appears calm with his hands outstretched.

I'm not in LE so I could be off base. I don't think so but perhaps someone better informed can confirm or deny the claim.
 
Last edited:
cullennz said:
In this case the guy obviously has a case, but I normally get skeptical when they insert "legally"
Click to expand...

Why? It just means that for all intents, purposes and legals ways, the person is considered blind. My mother has 2-3% vision, and is therefore considered legally blind, so she can partake in the support network set up for the blind. Why does it make you sceptical?
 
It doesn't help that the editing omits what happened immediately before Wilson was forced to the ground, but what there is from 01:44 seems to show him with both hands behind his back, and the officer behind him cuffing him, before that officer suddenly kicks the back of Wilson's leg. There just under three seconds between the start of this clip and the kick, and Wilson doesn't seem to do anything untoward in that time, although the officer in front of him suddenly reaches for the area of Wilson's waistband or his left trouser pocket. This is what appears to precipitate the kick.

Obviously it's Wilson's fault for not wearing sunglasses and carrying a white stick!
 
Last edited:
16.5 said:
Yeah, that video openly refutes that claim.

Trial lawyer produced videos are such a scam.
Click to expand...

The video is in a news report. We don't know whether it was the broadcaster who decided on what to cut, or if it was like that when they got it. Either way, to my eye it looks like Wilson was not doing anything to merit getting his legs kicked out under him.

Probably a stupid question, but what sort of training to American ELOs get about dealing with disabled suspects?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom