[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

[FULL VIDEO] Police release bodycam footage of Monroe County District Attorney Sandra Doorley traffi Police clash with pro-Palestine protesters on Ohio State University campus Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests) What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic? War in Ukraine Turns on Russia what happened during total solar eclipse Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage Earth is Scorched with Heat Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman Vibe Shift A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound. Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks Questioning the Big Bang James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go Early humans had sex with chimps O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp. Biblical Contradictions (Alleged) Catholic Church Praising Lucifer Raising the Knife One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make.. Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship) Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war: {Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture. Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY Bible Help Libertysflame Database Updated Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit! Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney. Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End? What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery! 2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years 2024 and beyond in prophecy Questions Status: Not Logged In; Sign In Video and Audio See other Video and Audio Articles Title: 'This is my vehicle, sir': Shocking moment black Northwestern University PhD student is beaten and cuffed when cops refuse to believe he owns the Chevy he's driving Source: Daily Mail Online URL Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art ... e-believe-car-driving-his.html Published: Jan 15, 2017 Author: Emily Crane Post Date: 2017-01-15 07:32:06 by cranky Keywords: None Views: 10566 Comments: 38 Lawrence Crosby, then 25, was arrested in Evanston, Chicago in October 2015 He is suing Evanston Police Department for excessive force over the ordeal Authorities released dashboard video this week of moment he was arrested It shows him being tackled to the ground after telling officers he owned the car This is the shocking moment a black Northwestern University PhD student was tackled to the ground when police thought he'd stolen the car he was driving. Lawrence Crosby is now suing the Evanston Police Department for excessive force and false arrest following his confrontation in Chicago in October 2015. Authorities released dashboard video recordings on Wednesday of the moment Crosby, then 25, was pulled over for a traffic stop and subsequently beaten and cuffed. The video also included audio of the 911 call made by a woman who thought Crosby was trying to break into a vehicle, which sparked the series of events. Police released dashboard video recordings this week of the moment Lawrence Crosby, then 25, was tackled to the ground in Evanston, Chicago in 2015 after they refused to believe he owned the car he was driving Footage shows police signalling for Crosby to stop in the 1500 block of Ridge Avenue in Evanston about 7pm on October 10, 2015. He can be seen getting out of his Chevrolet with his arms in the air before telling officers he owns the vehicle. A number of officers shouted at Crosby as they approached him with their guns drawn, before wrestling him to the ground. Crosby, who was studying for his doctoral degree in civil engineering, repeatedly told the officers he owned the car and had the documentation to prove it. He also tried to tell them he was fixing a piece of loose molding on the top of his car when the woman spotted him and mistakenly thought he was trying to steal it. When police eventually realized Crosby did own the car, the student was charged with disobeying officers. The charged were later dropped in March 2016. The 25-year-old Northwestern University PhD student repeatedly told the officers he owned the car and had the documentation to prove it as they wrestled him to the ground When police eventually realized Crosby did own the car, the student was charged with disobeying officers. The charged were later dropped in March 2016 Crosby filed a civil lawsuit last year against the city and arresting officers. The footage was released after an alderman's request at an Evanston City Council meeting last week, the Chicago Tribune reports. Police justified the actions of the arresting officers saying they thought they were responding to an auto theft. Evanston Police spokesman Joseph Dugan said the officers delivered knee strikes and open-handed strikes like they had been trained. 'He was not injured, no bruises, his face was fine,' Dugan said. 'The use of force is justified,' he said. 'They had to make a decision with what they had at the time.' Footage shows police following Crosby in Evanston in 2015 after a woman called 911 to report she saw a black man trying to break into a car (4 images) Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 38. #12. To: cranky, A K A Stone, GrandIsland, randge, paraclete, Vicomte13, misterwhite (#0) http://bluelivesmatter.blue/lawrence-crosby-evanston-police-video-steal-car/ Opinion Video Breakdown Of Lawrence Crosby Story, ‘Black Man Beaten For Stealing His Own Car’ By Officer Blue On January 15, 2017 58 Comments Video of Lawrence Crosby, "beaten for stealing his own car," shows something else. Lawrence Crosby ‘Beaten For Stealing Own Car’ Video Evanston, IL – Video footage from an October 2015 incident showing the arrest of Lawrence Crosby has recently been released and is causing outrage. The narrative is that a black man was beaten by police for stealing his own car, but that’s actually not what happened at all. First, watch the video and we’ll break it down after the jump: The incident started when a woman was walking down the road when she noticed Lawrence Crosby using a metal bar on window molding. If anybody witnesses this, they should call the police. When this sort of thing goes unreported, officers show up later to take a theft report only to find that a witness had seen the suspect, but they hadn’t called the police because they weren’t 100% sure that they weren’t legit. This sort of thing happens all of the time. People should always report suspicious activity. People don’t need to know before calling; it’s the job of law enforcement to investigate if the suspicious activity is illegal or not. The 911 caller said, “I don’t know if I am racial profiling…” Which, when heard in hindsight, makes it look she was racial profiling. However, she called for entirely reasonable suspicious activity which had nothing to do with Lawrence Crosby’s race, and over-publicized incidents like these cause people to hesitate when they witness illegal activity. Evanston Police Officers were dispatched to Lawrence Crosby’s vehicle for somebody matching Lawrence Crosby’s description who “just broke into” a car. The officers located Crosby driving and got behind the vehicle to execute a “high-risk stop.” The Evanston PD officers only knew what they were told. They were told that the vehicle had been broken into by a person matching the description of the driver and that he had driven off. Officers did exactly what they were supposed to do and they stopped the car as if it were a stolen vehicle with the suspect inside. Stopping stolen vehicles is a high-risk incident because officers are dealing with people who are in the middle of committing a felony, and they got caught red-handed. If the suspects get caught, they are likely going to prison, potentially for many years, which leads them to frequently fight or run. Because of the high-risk nature of these stops, officers take every precaution. Lawrence Crosby stopped his car and immediately got of the car with something in his had. Immediately getting out of the car on a traffic stop is what people who fight or run do, and so it’s generally a bad idea for people to get out of the car on traffic stops until ordered to do so. Getting out of the car with something in your hand which could be mistaken for a weapon is also a good way to get shot. Crosby is lucky that all of the officers apparently recognized that he wasn’t holding a gun. Officers then ordered Crosby to put his hands up and he did. Officers ordered Crosby to get on the ground, and instead of getting on the ground, he stood still. Officers had time to approach Crosby while yelling at him to get on the ground, and Crosby didn’t react. Police officers are trained to get high-risk suspects prone because it makes it much more difficult for the suspects to fight or run. It’s fairly standard training to put these suspects in a position of disadvantage, which is why, if you watch enough dash or body camera videos, the officers are always telling people to get on the ground. Rather than getting on the ground, Lawrence Crosby suddenly turned like he was going to run or lunge for a weapon. Officers grabbed him and they continued to order him to get on the ground. Crosby still did not obey the commands to get on the ground. Furthermore, because Crosby was contracting his muscles to resist the officers’ efforts to get him on the ground (the video makes it apparent he is resisting the officers’ efforts,) he moved from simply being non-compliant to actively resisting. When somebody is actively resisting arrest, officers can (and often should) strike them. The officers still didn’t know who this guy was or if he was armed. What they did know is that he was a suspected car thief, caught in a suspected stolen car, who refused commands, looked like he was going to take off or lunge for something, and he was actively resisting arrest. The longer that situations like this go on, the more chance there is for the suspect to access a weapon or escape. Officers are taught to end active resistance as fast as possible for everyone’s safety. Hitting somebody who’s resisting arrest can get them to loosen up enough to be handcuffed. The officers hit Lawrence Crosby only as long as it took to get his arms under control, and then they stopped. Once he was fully under control, the officers were able to investigate and determine that Crosby was driving his own vehicle. The way that this incident should have happened is that when officers stopped Lawrence Crosby, Crosby should have remained in his car until ordered out, and he should have followed all orders until he was securely handcuffed. Officers would have then investigated and released Cosby when they determined that he didn’t do anything wrong. Instead, Crosby did not comply with commands and he resisted arrest. Lawrence Crosby did not get hit because he was driving his car, he was not hit because somebody saw him “breaking in” to his car, he was hit because he was actively resisting arrest, and striking a suspect who is actively resisting arrest is an appropriate level of force. You may be wondering how Lawrence Crosby was “resisting arrest” when he couldn’t have been arrested for driving his car, and I’ll explain. When you got stopped by a police officer for any actual or suspected violation, you are detained and obligated to obey officers’ lawful orders. Officers can control where you move and what you do, for everyone’s safety. When Crosby failed to comply with orders to get on the ground, he was failing to obey the lawful orders of a police officer. In most (all?) jurisdictions, that’s a crime. If you don’t move where/when officers tell you to, the officer will make you move. Depending on the level of danger that the officers judge in a situation, you may be afforded more leeway in not immediately obeying or being able to argue with the officer. However, Lawrence Crosby was stopped in a high-risk situation. No suspects in high-risk situations are afforded the chance to do anything except comply immediately, because any other action may be done to kill the officers or escape. Lawrence Crosby’s failure to comply with the officers’ commands led to his arrest for Disobeying Officers, and subsequent additional charges of Resisting Arrest when he resisted arrest. Those charges were later dismissed in court, but just because somebody isn’t successfully charged in a court of law doesn’t mean they didn’t actually commit the crime. In a review of the situation it was determined that all of the officers acted lawfully and within policy, but backlash has forced change. Per a policy change, Evanston PD officers are no longer supposed to order a suspect to get on the ground during a high-risk stop. Do you think that this use of force was justified? Let us know on our Facebook page or in the comments below. nolu chan  posted on  2017-01-17   18:57:12 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #13. To: nolu chan (#12) of course it wasn't justified, what you have is a confused suspect, on his lawful occasion, surrounded by police. As I said earlier, the person reporting this alleged crime should be changed with public nuiance and sued for deformation paraclete  posted on  2017-01-17   19:11:21 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #17. To: paraclete (#13) As I said earlier, the person reporting this alleged crime should be changed with public nuiance and sued for deformation There is no public nuisance, nor any defamation. It appears the policy is the circumstance was to have the suspect get on the ground. nolu chan  posted on  2017-01-18   1:36:02 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #18. To: paraclete (#17) Of course coming from bluelivesmatter.com they want to twist the story to state that the suspect resisted arrest when from the very start he had fully complied by keeping his hands up and there was no weapon ever found on him. That said, was he ordered to get on the ground, and did he fully comply? nolu chan  posted on  2017-01-18   1:37:56 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #28. To: nolu chan (#18) (Edited) I did not hear them tell him to get on the ground. All I saw was him holding up his hands and it appeared he had something in one of those hands but it turned out not to be a weapon but perhaps identification. At the same time that he was standing with his hands up and not resisting, they all bum rushed him and knocked him down. They never gave him time to get down on on the ground. They just rushed after him and tackled him down to the ground like he was some wild animal out of control. The way they handled this matter would be best described as gross criminal misconduct. goldilucky  posted on  2017-01-18   14:18:16 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #31. To: goldilucky (#28) I did not hear them tell him to get on the ground. All I saw was him holding up his hands.... Getting out of the car and approaching the police is most certainly not an order ever given by the police. Stay in the vehicle, engine off, hands on the wheel in clear view, and await and follow instructions. Please keep us updated with the gross criminal misconduct case. It appears they followed established procedure (which procedure you are free to disagree with) and they therefore have qualified immunity. nolu chan  posted on  2017-01-18   20:02:04 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #33. To: nolu chan (#31) Qualified Immunity does not apply to police officers acting outside the scope of their duties. Was it within the scope of their duties to rush at and push down to the ground and begin hitting at the suspect when they already had decided he posed no threat to them? No, it was not within the scope of their duties. What they did was use their badge of authority to brazenly attack an unarmed suspect who had fully complied from the start to surrender. The officers even admitted this themselves. So, with that being said, if those officers were so damn sure about their actions being legal, why did they go and change their policy procedure? It's because their story was not consistent with what what I saw on that video. goldilucky  posted on  2017-01-19   13:40:11 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #34. To: goldilucky (#33) Qualified Immunity does not apply to police officers acting outside the scope of their duties. Was it within the scope of their duties to rush at and push down to the ground and begin hitting at the suspect when they already had decided he posed no threat to them? No, it was not within the scope of their duties. What they did was use their badge of authority to brazenly attack an unarmed suspect who had fully complied from the start to surrender. The officers even admitted this themselves. So, with that being said, if those officers were so damn sure about their actions being legal, why did they go and change their policy procedure? It's because their story was not consistent with what what I saw on that video. That is your opinion. Other expert opinion varies. What they did was use their badge of authority to brazenly attack an unarmed suspect who had fully complied from the start.... This assertion is just patently false. It is blatantly apparent that he did not comply with the police. The police never instruct the suspect to put something in his hand, exit the vehicle, and come toward them. Stopping stolen vehicles is a high-risk incident because officers are dealing with people who are in the middle of committing a felony, and they got caught red-handed. If the suspects get caught, they are likely going to prison, potentially for many years, which leads them to frequently fight or run. Because of the high-risk nature of these stops, officers take every precaution. Lawrence Crosby stopped his car and immediately got of the car with something in his ha[n]d. Immediately getting out of the car on a traffic stop is what people who fight or run do, and so it’s generally a bad idea for people to get out of the car on traffic stops until ordered to do so. Getting out of the car with something in your hand which could be mistaken for a weapon is also a good way to get shot. Crosby is lucky that all of the officers apparently recognized that he wasn’t holding a gun. Officers then ordered Crosby to put his hands up and he did. Officers ordered Crosby to get on the ground, and instead of getting on the ground, he stood still. Officers had time to approach Crosby while yelling at him to get on the ground, and Crosby didn’t react. Police officers are trained to get high-risk suspects prone because it makes it much more difficult for the suspects to fight or run. It’s fairly standard training to put these suspects in a position of disadvantage, which is why, if you watch enough dash or body camera videos, the officers are always telling people to get on the ground. Rather than getting on the ground, Lawrence Crosby suddenly turned like he was going to run or lunge for a weapon. Officers grabbed him and they continued to order him to get on the ground. Crosby still did not obey the commands to get on the ground. Furthermore, because Crosby was contracting his muscles to resist the officers’ efforts to get him on the ground (the video makes it apparent he is resisting the officers’ efforts,) he moved from simply being non-compliant to actively resisting. When somebody is actively resisting arrest, officers can (and often should) strike them. The officers still didn’t know who this guy was or if he was armed. What they did know is that he was a suspected car thief, caught in a suspected stolen car, who refused commands, looked like he was going to take off or lunge for something, and he was actively resisting arrest. The longer that situations like this go on, the more chance there is for the suspect to access a weapon or escape. Officers are taught to end active resistance as fast as possible for everyone’s safety. Hitting somebody who’s resisting arrest can get them to loosen up enough to be handcuffed. The officers hit Lawrence Crosby only as long as it took to get his arms under control, and then they stopped. Once he was fully under control, the officers were able to investigate and determine that Crosby was driving his own vehicle. When stopping a suspected fleeing hi-risk person, it is standard to order that person to the ground. If the suspect fails or refused to comply, it is standard to put the suspect on the ground, using such force as necessary to overcome resistance. Discussiong follows after the high-risk threat of violence is eliminated. Qualified Immunity does not apply to police officers acting outside the scope of their duties. True. However, it was within the scope of their duties to put the high-risk suspect on the ground, and to use such force as necessary to overcome his resistance. Was it within the scope of their duties to rush at and push down to the ground and begin hitting at the suspect when they already had decided he posed no threat to them? I am not a mind reader. I suspect you lack such superpowers as well. Your assertion that the officers "already had decided he posed no threat to them," requires such superpower to read their minds. No, it was not within the scope of their duties. It was within the scope of their duties to put the high-risk suspect on the ground and eliminate the perceived threat. It is not a negotiation process. The goal is to establish complete control of the scene, eliminating the perceived threat to themselves or others. The question is whether the police acted within established policy for a high-risk stop of a suspected fleeing felon. If the officers acted pursuant to established policy, limited immunity inheres. This is true even if compliance with the policy results in an unlawful act. In such case, the qualified immunity protects the officers and any suit must be brought against the employing agency. The vast majority of such cases are brought against an employing city or county or agency. If the object is to sue for big bucks, suing the individual cops is self-defeating. Suing a defendant with deep pockets is the way to go. nolu chan  posted on  2017-01-19   16:59:55 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #35. To: nolu chan (#34) It was within the scope of their duties to put the high-risk suspect on the ground and eliminate the perceived threat. Perceived threat? Why? Hitting somebody who’s resisting arrest can get them to loosen up enough to be handcuffed He was not resisting arrest. The only think you and I can agree on here is that the suspect should have stayed in the car and let the officers approach him and ask for id. goldilucky  posted on  2017-01-20   1:37:00 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #36. To: goldilucky (#35) Perceived threat? Why? See #12, #34. Evanston Police Officers were dispatched to Lawrence Crosby’s vehicle for somebody matching Lawrence Crosby’s description who “just broke into” a car. The officers located Crosby driving and got behind the vehicle to execute a “high-risk stop.” The Evanston PD officers only knew what they were told. They were told that the vehicle had been broken into by a person matching the description of the driver and that he had driven off. Officers did exactly what they were supposed to do and they stopped the car as if it were a stolen vehicle with the suspect inside. Stopping stolen vehicles is a high-risk incident because officers are dealing with people who are in the middle of committing a felony, and they got caught red-handed. If the suspects get caught, they are likely going to prison, potentially for many years, which leads them to frequently fight or run. Because of the high-risk nature of these stops, officers take every precaution. He was not resisting arrest. You are entitled to your opinion. He did not follow standard procedure, and he did not comply with instructions to get on the ground. Crosby admitted he walked toward the front of his vehicle "because he wanted the incident to be cuaght on his vehicle's dash cam video." http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/cops-force-arrest-black-northwestern-grad-student-article-1.2945759 A member of the Evanston Police Department said in the introduction to the city's video that Crosby was put on the ground because he was "non-compliant" with an order to get down. Additionally, Sgt. Dennis Leaks said Crosby instead turned and walked toward the front of his vehicle. Crosby admitted he walked in that direction because he wanted the incident to be caught on his vehicle's dash-cam video. "You will see the subject actively resisting arrest as the officers command him to get on the ground," Sgt. Leaks says in the opening of the video. Sgt. Leaks also admits that "you will see some empty-hand strikes to the heavy muscle region" in the upper thigh "to gain compliance and control." The sergeant said that the use of force "was in compliance" with police procedure, and that Crosby did not suffer any injuries. nolu chan  posted on  2017-01-20   15:32:17 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #37. To: nolu chan (#36) He did not follow standard procedure, and he did not comply with instructions to get on the ground. C If he did not comply with standard policy procedure to get on the ground, then why after all the commotion that took place with them wrestling him to the ground, did they decide to get rid of their policy concerning this very procedure? goldilucky  posted on  2017-01-20   17:52:41 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #38. To: goldilucky (#37) If he did not comply with standard policy procedure to get on the ground, then why after all the commotion that took place with them wrestling him to the ground, did they decide to get rid of their policy concerning this very procedure? It is irrelevant why they changed the policy. What is relevant is the policy that was in effect at the time of the event. nolu chan  posted on  2017-01-24   0:31:46 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   Replies to Comment # 38.         There are no replies to Comment # 38. End Trace Mode for Comment # 38. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com