New Jersey police officer enjoys clubbing man for complying with another officer's request to zip his sweatshirt
The CNN video shows a man standing on a street corner in Passaic, NJ. According to the story, a police car drove next to the man, and one of the officers instructed the man to zip up his sweat shirt (Apparently the police officer decided it was OK to abuse her authority to enforce her personal dress code on the man). The man complied with the request immediately and another officer jumped out of his car and ran to the man and proceeded to beat him senseless.
Imagine what officer friendly would have done to the man had he refused to zip his sweat shirt!
After the incident, police locked Holloway in a holding cell for the night and did not provide treatment for his injuries, according to Holloway's attorney, Nancy Lucianna. Those injuries included a torn cornea and extensive bruising to the left side of his body, she said.The man, 49-year-old Ronnie Holloway, is mentally challenged. His attorney says his client's neighborhood walks are a "chief pastime."The Passaic Police have filed three charges against Holloway: resisting arrest, disorderly conduct and wandering for the purpose of obtaining controlled dangerous substances.
New Jersey police officer pounds man on tape (Via The Agitator)
the latest
latest episodes
standard practice for N.J. finest.
"wandering for the purpose of obtaining controlled dangerous substances"
WTF is that? Sounds like the old vagrancy laws they used to roust undesirables.
How the hell are cops supposed to determine the purpose of my "wandering"? Is there also a law against "wondering" if I can find some dope?
WTF, seriously. I'm at a loss.
One thing that I like about the pervasiveness of CCTV cams is that more and more "your word against the cops" bullshit like this is being recorded.
I suppose they'll add "repeatedly obstructing the path of an officer's club" to the list of charges.
The man was clearly caught in possession of an offensive weapon, viz, the big brown table down at the police station.
You cop haters! Don't you see how much restraint the officer showed? Are you completely ignoring the fact that he DID NOT use a TASER?!! He obviously had utmost concern for the perpetrator's well being.
These brave men and women in pimped up Ford Crown Vics are living legends .. heroes.. I tell you. And look at how us common gentry treats them - we bring lawsuits against them. Will the world never accept its heroes?
WTF? Didn't he have a Tazer?
Gavin and Stacy are getting really aggressive for the new series of What Not To Wear.
I like the part where these two goons in uniform end up in jail for twenty year for assault. That's what happens next, right? Right?
I've sometimes wondered what would happen if someone like Bruce Lee, or someone equality proficient in hand-to-hand combat, was assaulted by a police officer in this way. If, though video/audio/indisputable evidence it was found that the police assaulted Mr. Lee without provocation, what would happen to him? Would it be self defense, even though he fought back against police?
#10: He/She would be shot. Obviously.
Given that he is schizophrenic, I wouldn't be surprised if he was already "known" to the officers. There is a sad tendency for cops to "have it out" for mentally ill people, particularly if they are homeless, or if their illness compels them to act out in public.
really, how stupid are these cops? it's cameras, cameras, cameras everywhere you go. they should have quietly led him down a deserted alley before shoving a cattle prod up his ass.
c'mon, guys...think a little!
Am I the only one wondering why the female cop who asked him to zip his sweatshirt didn't intervene? Are these the fashion police with their own arbitrary rules of style?
A clear case of standing while black. Poor chap, should've known he shouldn't be doing that.
Hey, you know what? When we de-institutionalized the institutions, we put a lot of odd people on the streets. Mostly, they did nothing bizarre. They took walks, for example.
One would think that at some point, in the six weeks of training that it takes to wear a badge and carry a gun, this might have been mentioned.
OTOH, In my experience, the cops are trained to "assert their authority" from the get-go. Which means that they are acting like assholes from jump. Which means that however the situation is ultimately resolved, cops come off looking like petty thugs.
Fashion Police
Score one for ubiquitous surveillance: protection from the fuzz. Too bad they own most of the tapes...
i doubt they'll get 20 years, but you'd have to figure with this video and CNN coverage both those officers have lost their jobs and will face some kind of charge..
@#10: There used to exist a common law right to resist illegal arrest. However, this right has been gradually taken away in most jurisdictions, for two reasons: One, it's thoguht that enough due process exists that illegal arrest and long-term incarceration is no longer a big risk and Two, weapons have become lethal enough that a group of twenty townsfolk can no longer safely disarm an out-of-control constable, but instead there'd be a bloodbath.
I find those reasons to be crap. The first seems less likely, considering this place called Guantanamo... The second seems to be less salient with the more prolific use of lethal weapons like Tasers in non-lethal situations. If there's already significant violence going on, I'd rather the offender (that is, the cop, who has sworn to defend the law he is violating) get hurt than the innocent. Although, naturally, I'd rather no one get hurt. Cops might think twice about using unlawful force if there's a risk they'd get hurt by angry citizens.
Some jurisdictions, including North Carolina, where I live, (as well as GA, LA, MS, MD, MI, OK, SC, TN and WV) maintain the right to resist unlawful. Lucky me.
Source: Craig Hemmons and Daniel Levin. "Resistance is Futile: The Right to Resist Unlawful Arrest in an Era of Aggressive Policing", Crime and Delinquency. 2000. SagePub.
@Wareagle #18: You'd have to figure, but you might be wrong. I bet it will be more like a month of unpaid leave while the spotlight is on, and then it's back to duty. The system takes care of its' own, and it would be par for the course if no one lost their job over this, let alone faced criminal charges.
Ah, yes, the 'royal treatment', ala Rodney King.
Hopefully a high profile case like this will attract a dynamic law firm to take the case, pro bono. Then, maybe these cops won't go to jail, but maybe sweatshirt guy can win a big lawsuit from the city, who in the future will screen applicants more carefully. I'd take that beating for, say, half a million.
How the hell are cops supposed to determine the purpose of my "wandering"?
It probably depends on how smoothly you zip up your sweatjacket when commanded to do so out of the blue by a police officer.
@Insert, #21:
Unlawful arrest is a tricky concept. It depends on there not being probable cause, which is itself subjective, and something most people being arrested would likely assert. With the exception of physical self-defense against unprovoked violence on the part of police (as in this case, but not in a case of mere restraint), it makes sense that resisting ought to be illegal. If it's unlawful, that could be determined after the fact, and the alleged offense could be thrown out, the cop sued, etc.
To be fair, the cop just came off of baby seal duty. If you've ever seen a baby seal zip itself in its coat... No wait...
@Moriarty:
It's true that it's tricky. And it's the idea in those 40 or so states that the legality of an arrest can be sorted out after the fact. But I think that there's still an argument for the fact that cases like this one (and Rodney King, Oscar Grant, that Polish guy in Vancouver and the Naked Wizard at Coachella) that "the people" have a right to prevent the police from engaging in illegal conduct. The only way to ensure that that right exists is to prevent DAs from bringing bogus charges against those who interfere to stop police brutality.
twenty years ago, there would have been no video. A few years ago, the cop would escape punishment. These days, cops are actually getting fired for assaulting innocent people. And it IS the video evidence that is convicting them. Not because the video gets to court, but because it gets to the whole world and CANNOT be buried or ignored any more.
Kids growing up today; take note and appreciate the change.
Well, that beats the hell out my own "cops are out of control assholes" story for the weekend.
(Pun intended)
yes all major news outlets covering it, and people are protesting and filing complaints with internal affairs..I'd say Joseph R. Rios III is toast for sure..thankfully. from reading about him he has a history of beating people for no reason.
The "zip up yer jacket" bit is for the cop-cam. You aren't supposed to record that part (whoops! There's another camera we didn't notice) because it's the reaching up for the chestal area that gives Officer Friendly the legal justification for the beat-down.
He could have been reaching for a weapon!
After watching the (edited and MOS) video, I think the cops should also be charged with "falsifying a police report" because they clearly charged him with "resisting arrest" to justify the bruising they gave him.
Maybe it's a small point, but they should have the book thrown at them.
Joseph R. Rios III has not been charged and is still collecting a paycheck. He's been assigned to desk duty.
I wonder if civilian who had been caught on tape viciously beating up an innocent mentally disabled person would have been arrested?
You know in the 90's this would have started a riot. I mean, Rodney King was MORE guilty than this guy, and all we're doing is having a polite discussion about it?
Ray Bradbury's "The Pedestrian". You are under arrest for suspicion of walking around.
Bdragule: Fuck you!
-There. Now we are no longer having a polite discussion. ;D
I wonder if civilian who had been caught on tape viciously beating up an innocent mentally disabled person would have been arrested?
Yes, but he would also have become a YouTube celebrity and ended up on a reality show with Paris Hilton's second cousin.
Anonymous @ 31
Streetwise tip. Thx.
@ Bdragule #34:
Two important differences:
1) The Rodney King beating happened before video cameras were so ubiquitous that we all got desensitized to this sort of thing. Now it's pretty much expected that a scandalous video showing out-of-control police will come up now and then.
2) People didn't riot when King's video came to light. They rioted when the police involved were acquitted.
I lived in L.A. back in 1992. I also just moved out of Oakland due in part to a string of violent incidents near my home, including the small riot after that kid got shot by BART police. I'm all for holding crooked cops accountable, but I also have come to favor non-riot based expressions of anger.
If the "zip up the jacket" command does turn out to provide a pretext for the beatdown, that makes the other officer at the scene guilty of conspiracy.
Damn you, Lord Acton!
Damn yoooooou!
-- MrJM
that BART cop is standing trial for murder.
In jurisdictions where the judges are elected, 'resisting arrest' no longer means 'presenting the arresting officer with a credible threat of bodily injury;' it means 'not acting sufficiently servile.' Simply saying 'huh? what's going on, officer?' when a cop approaches you qualifies. Otherwise the judge will be ousted at the next election because there will be a campaign proving that s/he's "soft on crime."
It's a good thing, really. If cops didn't have absolute authority, civilization would collapse. Everyone knows that.
Which portions of this post are irony is left to the reader. When the censors come for me, I'll ask them to read it literally.
@ Takuan #42:
And I appreciate that, but correlation is not causality. I see no reason why my neighbors' cars and businesses needed to be smashed for that trial to take place.
There is some confirmation bias that goes with these reports. Not that this incident isn't horrible and justice should be served but not all police are like this. I wonder if there are any good statistics? Who counts all the times that cops calmly and quietly arrest someone with no ensuing violence?
The worst crime that police like this are committing (aside from the harm to the individual victims) is that they are gradually making it more socially acceptable to kill cops.
Civilization and faith in a civil society are fragile things indeed.
For the record, i AM a big fan of civilization and the benefits it brings...
At least simple wandering is not yat criminalized...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYN9jXRXgPo
we all know that he will serve no time. he will be transferred, or go into mall security. there will be no accountability. nothing to see here kids. please, just move along.
"Civilization and faith in a civil society are fragile things indeed."
Well, no, I don't think it's quite so fragile. A year ago I would have never believed that a black man could be president of the US. There many times in the past few years I thought Bush was going to suspend elections and declare himself dictator for life. Those were personal delusions based on confirmation bias and selective filtering of what media information I, and many others I might add, chose to take in.
Out of a population of 350 million every once in a while you get these horrible results. So then giving in to cynicism and despair is not the answer. There is corruption, always will be, but that is no excuse to throw up one's hands and give up.
"There is some confirmation bias that goes with these reports."
I'm not sure the cop "enjoyed" clubbing the man...but look at it this way.
Say you called 9-1-1 because you had a prowler in your yard, the calltaker accidentally transposed some numbers in your address, and the police got sent to the wrong location. Would it matter that the calltaker set up the last 500 9-1-1 calls he or she took exactly right?
The bias with 9-1-1 calltakers is that they should be perfect 100% of the time. They get publicity pretty much only when they screw up.
The bias with police is that, since they have the legal right to beat on people with batons in some circumstances, they shouldn't ever misuse that right by acting like thugs. Cops probably get more good press than 9-1-1 workers do, since they're more visible, but they also get lots of publicity when they screw up.
Charles Manson got one thing right - "The police used to watch over the people, now they're watching the people"
Interesting article on Men's Health web site: Cops on Steroids.
@50
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
steroid monkey cops? Weekly drug testing then.
The United States of America is a nation that has lost its way.
@ 50 social_maladroit - I didn't understand that all. Makes no sense to me. Do you even know what "confirmation bias" is?
Social_maladroit: Cops have no right to beat people with batons (or anything else): but they are obligated to do their lawful duty. Which duty, at times, may require them to use lawful deadly force against their fellow humans.
And no one else in civil society may do that, ever, except in the most extreme circumstances: only those circumstances where civilization itself has (locally) ceased to exist!
So: their exclusive monopoly on lawful physical force necessitates the eagle-eyed observance and montitoring of their use of it, on the part of all of the other citizens.
For the cost and price of its mis-use is so achingly high. Both for both those beaten, and for civil society itself.
Crooks are bad, but crooked cops are worse...
I wonder if there are any good statistics? Who counts all the times that cops calmly and quietly arrest someone with no ensuing violence?
Let's see. For counting/tabulating the "Cops calmly arresting someone" stories I don't think you'd need more than the fingers and toes you came into this world with to keep track of those. So that could be, like, your job.
"twenty years ago, there would have been no video. A few years ago, the cop would escape punishment. These days, cops are actually getting fired for assaulting innocent people. And it IS the video evidence that is convicting them. Not because the video gets to court, but because it gets to the whole world and CANNOT be buried or ignored any more."
Law enforcement is fighting back.
Videotaping police is becoming increasingly illegal, and I think it's only a matter of time before such tapes are automatically excluded from court in case they contradict an officer's testimony.
so they are getting rid of their own dash cameras?
I believe there are many more good cops than bad cops like this one. Even in America. I use the word "good" loosely. Not necessarily a saint, but someone who turns up for work every day, with the intention to do their job well, who does not assault anyone unprovoked. Just like most people who are not cops.
I am not a cop. If I were to do something like this, my colleagues would not remain my friends. They would say things like "he used to be a nice guy, who would have thought he'd turned into a sadistic monster beating up strangers at random".
I wonder why these good cops would put themselves on the side of this person? Why would they still consider him to be "one of them"? Why do they not beat him up and throw him out on the sidewalk. He's giving them a bad name. He makes their job harder. He makes their jobs more dangerous. It is all of those things when the community do not like their police.
@#56 - "Confirmation bias" probably refers to the assumption that police usually act like thugs. The video and the blog title both uphold that bias.
You don't hear much about the police when they're not acting like thugs.
@#57 - To be more precise, the law defines when the use of physical force (by the police and others) is lawful and unlawful.
common scene tells you that, you are not to overstep your duty. I'm a Policeman and I think they should be fired. the female officer should be put on admin for several months. laws are for both sides. they should be used. I hope the victim is paid well. ignorance is never a good excuse. leo's view
so slow, so painful
http://www.theprovince.com/News/RCMP+hiring+videographer+letter/1680167/story.html
Social Maladroit: And the, "few bad apples" defense also give the police departments the cover they need to keep arguing it's confirmation bias.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/13/jose-maximo-colon-turn-ta_n_215275.html
Cops get huge benefit of the doubt on the stand, which, when coupled with the training they get in how to testify; being allowed to appear in uniform, etc., gives them a greater ability to, casually, abuse their power.
The fact of the matter is they have a great deal of power, and need to be held to a much higher standard than they are. Until then I am going to assume the permission they have to lie to me, the discretion they have in charging me, and the incentive they have to quickly clear cases makes them a threat to my liberty; in all our transactions.
I am also going to put the burden of proof on them (as the law explicity states to be the case) when they allege a citizen has broken the law.
Beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard. They have to meet it. Until I see a greater sense of that, I am going to be a trifle chary in granting the owners of so much power the idea of some sort of exception to human nature.