Police Brutality

JayMysteri0

What the F?!!!
Vaccinated
Site Donor
Top Poster Of Month
Posts
4,876
Reaction score
9,413
Location
On a plane
THIS is brutality


DAYTON — The interim chief of Dayton Police Department and Dayton’s City Manager are promising a thorough review of an encounter last week where officers forcibly removed a man who reported being disabled from his car, handcuffed him, and dragged him to a police cruiser.

The case involved a traffic stop Thursday, Sept. 30 on Grand Avenue in Dayton.

Clifford Owensby, who told News Center 7 he cannot walk, said he was out running errands without a wheelchair in the car.

“I usually get assistance with getting in and out of the vehicle,” he said

Body camera footage WHIO obtained through a public records request shows officers appeared to pull Owensby over for a traffic stop, noting his window tint at 20 percent.

Minutes after conferring in a police cruiser, the video shows an officer approach Owensby on the driver’s side of his car, and ask him to turn off the engine and step out of the car. The officer noted a dog would need to search the vehicle, due to Owensby’s “history.” WHIO checked and found Owensby has past drug and weapons convictions in Montgomery County Common Pleas Court.

Owensby explained to officers he could not step out of the car.

“I’m paraplegic,” he said numerous times.

Officers offered to help him out of the car numerous times.

“Sir, I’m going to assist you to get out of the vehicle,” video shows, the officer said.

“No you’re not. No you’re not. You’re not going to touch me,” Owensby replied.

The video then showed Owensby appeared to call someone – apparently nearby – asking that person to come and bring others to witness the encounter.

“Bring cameras,” he said to his phone.

He then asked for a police supervisor.

“That way, if they were there they could possibly make sure the stop could be conducted in a decent manner,” he told News Center 7 Monday.

“Can you call your white shirt please?” Owensby is seen on video saying.

“I’ll pull you out and then I’ll call the white shirt,” the officer replied. “Because you’re getting out of the car. That’s not an option.

How does something like car tint escalate into someone needing to get out of their car, let alone being forcibly dragged?

Does having a past automatically justify suspicion? Or are we going to finally abandon the pretense that leads to such fishing?
 

SuperMatt

Elite Member
Vaccinated
Posts
4,439
Reaction score
8,767
THIS is brutality





How does something like car tint escalate into someone needing to get out of their car, let alone being forcibly dragged?

Does having a past automatically justify suspicion? Or are we going to finally abandon the pretense that leads to such fishing?
The FOP is defending the conduct of the officers! :brickwall:

“The officers followed the law, their training and departmental policies and procedures,” Jerome Dix, president of Dayton Fraternal Order of Police Lodge #44, stated. “Sometimes the arrest of noncompliant individuals is not pretty, but is a necessary part of law enforcement to maintain public safety, which is one of the fundamental ideologies of our society.”

The guy literally could not comply with the request due to his disability. F the FOP. Next time they call for a donation, I’ll mention this BS.

 

JayMysteri0

What the F?!!!
Vaccinated
Site Donor
Top Poster Of Month
Posts
4,876
Reaction score
9,413
Location
On a plane
The FOP is defending the conduct of the officers! :brickwall:



The guy literally could not comply with the request due to his disability. F the FOP. Next time they call for a donation, I’ll mention this BS.

My big issue besides the man's treatment, is the pretext for the stop.


Stops for window tinting has always been known as one of the bullshit reasons for fishing. Either as quota thing, or as reason for some police to stop someone they decide is "suspicious", but have no real justification for the stop. People have gotten the window tint stop, which usually involves a warning, but NOT a reason for one to get out of the car or inspect the contents.

What the 'F' does window tint have to do with anything INSIDE the car? Unless that's the real motivation for the stop, and the police can't legally justify any other reason for a stop. In THAT case there has to be a real motivation besides, "they were involved with drugs in the past". That's such a bullshit reach that is ONLY applied to one sort of individual, and to give a hint, 'Karen' ain't getting asked to get out of the car.

Everything involved with this from start to literal stop is why trust in the police is so easily eroded, and the calls for reform increased.
 

JayMysteri0

What the F?!!!
Vaccinated
Site Donor
Top Poster Of Month
Posts
4,876
Reaction score
9,413
Location
On a plane
Since the story blew up all weekend, it's time for the police to add some new facts, after the fact of course...


Officers stopped Clifford Owensby on Sept. 30 as he was driving away from what police say was a suspected drug house. Because of Owensby's past felony drug and weapons history, officers wanted a police K-9 to conduct a "free-air" sniff of the vehicle to determine if there were illegal drugs inside, police said in a video briefing.

To do that, officers told Owensby, he would have to step out of his car, according to body camera footage released by the department. "I cannot step out," he tells the officers. "I'm a paraplegic."

The unidentified officer speaking to Owensby tells him police can help him out of the car, but Owensby says they may hurt him. Owensby requests a "white shirt," shorthand for a police supervisor, but the officer says he'll call one only after Owensby gets out.

So they had their suspicions based on the supposed house & the man's history, but... still went with the window tint excuse.

The police department is conducting an internal investigation​

The Dayton Police Department's Professional Standards Bureau is now investigating the incident and says it will share the results when the investigation is complete.

Authorities say they found a bag of cash containing $22,450 in the car which the K-9 "alerted" on, which police say means it was in the vicinity of illegal drugs at some point. Officers also removed a 3-year-old child from the backseat.

Owensby was cited for failing to restrain a child in the backseat and having a tint on his windows. According to the Dayton Daily News, a police report also cited Owensby for obstructing official business and resisting arrest, but he was not charged with either offense.

I'm pretty sure we'll get the results of the investigation after the reach the preferred conclusions. In the meantime it still didn't look good how the officers handled the entire situation.

Was having the supervisor show BEFORE they did all this, that out of the question?
 

SuperMatt

Elite Member
Vaccinated
Posts
4,439
Reaction score
8,767
Since the story blew up all weekend, it's time for the police to add some new facts, after the fact of course...





So they had their suspicions based on the supposed house & the man's history, but... still went with the window tint excuse.



I'm pretty sure we'll get the results of the investigation after the reach the preferred conclusions. In the meantime it still didn't look good how the officers handled the entire situation.

Was having the supervisor show BEFORE they did all this, that out of the question?
The guy who read this story on my local news read it that the person refused to comply and get out of the car. He completely ignored the fact that the guy is disabled and literally could NOT get out of the car! And it was NBC, not Fox… terrible job reporting a story.
 

JayMysteri0

What the F?!!!
Vaccinated
Site Donor
Top Poster Of Month
Posts
4,876
Reaction score
9,413
Location
On a plane
The guy who read this story on my local news read it that the person refused to comply and get out of the car. He completely ignored the fact that the guy is disabled and literally could NOT get out of the car! And it was NBC, not Fox… terrible job reporting a story.
Technically speaking the local news person is correct. They are just leaving out WHY. The person in the car perhaps based on their history knew enough to ask for a supervisor first. An officer decided that request would only be filled AFTER the man got out of the car, but not WHY that was necessary. They know the man isn't going anywhere, why couldn't they wait?

Reporting the story the way the news person did was correct, and it helps the police.
 

SuperMatt

Elite Member
Vaccinated
Posts
4,439
Reaction score
8,767
Technically speaking the local news person is correct. They are just leaving out WHY. The person in the car perhaps based on their history knew enough to ask for a supervisor first. An officer decided that request would only be filled AFTER the man got out of the car, but not WHY that was necessary. They know the man isn't going anywhere, why couldn't they wait?

Reporting the story the way the news person did was correct, and it helps the police.
It’s also interesting that the police didn’t try to defend themselves by defending their actions. They immediately attacked the man, claiming he was dealing drugs… as if that made their behavior ok? Because it’s ok (or really a good thing!) for an officer to abuse a drug dealer.
 

JayMysteri0

What the F?!!!
Vaccinated
Site Donor
Top Poster Of Month
Posts
4,876
Reaction score
9,413
Location
On a plane
It’s also interesting that the police didn’t try to defend themselves by defending their actions. They immediately attacked the man, claiming he was dealing drugs… as if that made their behavior ok? Because it’s ok (or really a good thing!) for an officer to abuse a drug dealer.
Once again, it's all about justifying WHY a stop that normally does NOT involve you being asked to get out of the car or have your car looked thru, happened. To ME it seems like they used the pretext for the window tint issue, as the entry to investigate their suspicions of the person, when they couldn't rationalize any other, and NOW where they supposedly observed them coming from. Which is what my big issue is. The whole window tint thing exists really for fishing. If the window tint issue was legit like for most people, you get a warning that gets filed, that you need to have your window tint issue addressed within a time frame. Otherwise the NEXT stop for it results in a fine.

The fact that a window tint issue should escalate to having a supervisor called, to dragging out anyone ( not just physically disabled ) is mind blowing.
 

JayMysteri0

What the F?!!!
Vaccinated
Site Donor
Top Poster Of Month
Posts
4,876
Reaction score
9,413
Location
On a plane
So, this happened last year. The only people to suffer was the man knocked down sustaining serious brain injury, and Buffalo didn't have an Emergency response team.

Who did NOT suffer anything or face any real responsibility?


Or even this guy and his bullshit

Donald J. TrumpTwitter
@realDonaldTrump
Buffalo protester shoved by Police could be an ANTIFA provocateur. 75 year old Martin Gugino was pushed away after appearing to scan police communications in order to black out the equipment. @OANN I watched, he fell harder than was pushed. Was aiming scanner. Could be a set up?
June 9, 2020

Yeaaahhhh...
 
OP
P_X

P_X

Peter Principal
Vaccinated
Site Donor
Posts
3,526
Reaction score
6,663
Location
Eyjafjallajökull
THIS is brutality





How does something like car tint escalate into someone needing to get out of their car, let alone being forcibly dragged?

Does having a past automatically justify suspicion? Or are we going to finally abandon the pretense that leads to such fishing?
This cop either has no idea what paraplegia means or he's a sociopath (i.e., antisocial personality disorder).
 
OP
P_X

P_X

Peter Principal
Vaccinated
Site Donor
Posts
3,526
Reaction score
6,663
Location
Eyjafjallajökull
So, this happened last year. The only people to suffer was the man knocked down sustaining serious brain injury, and Buffalo didn't have an Emergency response team.

Who did NOT suffer anything or face any real responsibility?


Or even this guy and his bullshit



Yeaaahhhh...
I think we talked about this. The guy probably has Parkinson's syndrome. One of the more sensitive testing for is retropulsion testing. They can't bend their legs and take a step back, they will start taking steps back with extended legs and would fall if you don't catch them. Cops hurt an old disabled man. US policing seems to be the least accountable job I've ever seen in my life.
 
OP
P_X

P_X

Peter Principal
Vaccinated
Site Donor
Posts
3,526
Reaction score
6,663
Location
Eyjafjallajökull
There's so many people in law enforcement ... that should NOT be in law enforcement.
My understanding is that they didn't even have probable cause to stop the Audi...

BTW this one made it to Eastern European media too. These cops are unaware but their actions represent America internationally, and well, the community isn't impressed.
 

JayMysteri0

What the F?!!!
Vaccinated
Site Donor
Top Poster Of Month
Posts
4,876
Reaction score
9,413
Location
On a plane
My understanding is that they didn't even have probable cause to stop the Audi...

BTW this one made it to Eastern European media too. These cops are unaware but their actions represent America internationally, and well, the community isn't impressed.
They had suspicion, because of the driver's history.

So one of the "interesting" things implemented to "help" police, are certain safety violations that allows the officers to stop someone.

So because of the level of tint on the vehicle's windows it was the rationalization for stopping the vehicle. I'm still not sure how they got to then justify inspecting the car, and demanding him out of the vehicle. Nor why waiting for a supervisor to arrive, as the man asked to was seemingly unacceptable.

I'm sure that will be clarified as the police continues to polish it's narrative over time.
 

SuperMatt

Elite Member
Vaccinated
Posts
4,439
Reaction score
8,767
My understanding is that they didn't even have probable cause to stop the Audi...

BTW this one made it to Eastern European media too. These cops are unaware but their actions represent America internationally, and well, the community isn't impressed.
Sandra Bland - they had no reason to pull her over either. They don’t care about the law. Look at the vaccine mandates. They are rules but the police don’t think they need to follow them.
 
OP
P_X

P_X

Peter Principal
Vaccinated
Site Donor
Posts
3,526
Reaction score
6,663
Location
Eyjafjallajökull
They had suspicion, because of the driver's history.

But is that probable cause? Serious question.
The thing is, these cops will never ever give a fuck until their reckless actions will have direct implications to their own financial well-being.

Sandra Bland - they had no reason to pull her over either. They don’t care about the law. Look at the vaccine mandates. They are rules but the police don’t think they need to follow them.
I mentioned before, but her case made it to Eastern European media too, although the representation was a little too sympathetic for the cop. Their interpretation was miscommunication. It was blatant racial profiling.
 

JayMysteri0

What the F?!!!
Vaccinated
Site Donor
Top Poster Of Month
Posts
4,876
Reaction score
9,413
Location
On a plane
But is that probable cause? Serious question.
The thing is, these cops will never ever give a fuck until their reckless actions will have direct implications to their own financial well-being.
As I said, it's a gift given to police, so suspicion can often be confused with probable cause.

Called "reasonable suspicion", it's something that give the power to the police to stop individuals, but NOT arrest them.

Reasonable Suspicion​

A police officer may have reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed if based on all of the facts and circumstances of the situation, a reasonable police officer would have the same suspicion. The police officer does not need physical evidence in order to have reasonable suspicion. Instead, the presumption of reasonable suspicion is made based on the officer’s training, the circumstances of the situation, and what other officers would do in similar circumstances.

If a police officer has reasonable suspicion, he may briefly stop the person involved, but an officer may not make an arrest based on reasonable suspicion alone. For example, if a driver is driving erratically, swerving between lanes, and failing to stop for traffic signals, a police officer may have reasonable suspicion that the driver is drunk. The officer may pull the driver over, but the officer may not arrest the driver unless there is further evidence of drunk driving to establish probable cause for the arrest. If after being pulled over a driver fails a sobriety test, that may provide probable cause for an officer to make a drunk driving arrest.

The officers claimed that driver's history with drugs as well as where the driver supposedly came from was what inspired their suspicion. They went with the vehicle's level of tint as their justification for the stop though, as the entry to all of these things.

Officers stopped Clifford Owensby on Sept. 30 as he was driving away from what police say was a suspected drug house. Because of Owensby's past felony drug and weapons history, officers wanted a police K-9 to conduct a "free-air" sniff of the vehicle to determine if there were illegal drugs inside, police said in a video briefing.
 
OP
P_X

P_X

Peter Principal
Vaccinated
Site Donor
Posts
3,526
Reaction score
6,663
Location
Eyjafjallajökull
As I said, it's a gift given to police, so suspicion can often be confused with probable cause.

Called "reasonable suspicion", it's something that give the power to the police to stop individuals, but NOT arrest them.




The officers claimed that driver's history with drugs as well as where the driver supposedly came from was what inspired their suspicion. They went with the vehicle's level of tint as their justification for the stop though, as the entry to all of these things.
Thanks! The question is whether they can search the car should "reasonable suspicion" arise. Also, canines can't sniff free air with the guy sitting there? They didn't seem to have canines on them, ergo they could have easily awaited the supervisor with the dogs.... But we all know it's all bullshit.
 

DT

Filled with Pumpkiny Goodness
Vaccinated
Site Donor
Posts
3,007
Reaction score
5,435
Location
Planet Express
Another way this goes down:

A cop will just run a tag, maybe the driver flinched, or looked in their mirrors too many times - nothing that would even cover the minimum for reasonable suspicion. The owner/driver report will come back, with previous infractions/arrests/etc., so at this point, the cop hasn't done anything that violates anything procedurally, they can literally run every single tag they see.

In the case above, if the there was criminal history, so now they can be heavy handed and make a stop based on some trivial bullshit like a tint check - the criminal history isn't the justification for the stop, it's just the "motivation" that the person might be an opportunity for an arrest (if that makes sense).
 

JayMysteri0

What the F?!!!
Vaccinated
Site Donor
Top Poster Of Month
Posts
4,876
Reaction score
9,413
Location
On a plane
Thanks! The question is whether they can search the car should "reasonable suspicion" arise. Also, canines can't sniff free air with the guy sitting there? They didn't seem to have canines on them, ergo they could have easily awaited the supervisor with the dogs.... But we all know it's all bullshit.
Pretty much. It's been set up that things often lean in the favor of the police, because criminals have no such rules to follow. The problem of course is when police abuse the things in their favor ( DA's, safety violations, over zealous police unions, etc ) that we find ourselves questioning ALL police when it's just a few abusing things.
 
Top Bottom