Well, so much for reliable sources...

The MPD did not release the video, the family's attorney did. And the video starts with the deceased already on the ground. It doesn't show what they did to get the deceased on the ground. I wonder if that is when the wife started shooting the video or if it was edited to not show what happened prior. One would think that if there was improper conduct by the police getting the deceased to the ground on video it would not have been edited out. My hunch is that is when she started filming.

I wonder if the dog pile of officers that last awhile had something to do with the death, maybe the man couldn't breathe. it looked like the man wasn't resisting any longer (or if any since we didn't see the beginning) so why did they continue to be on top of him? at the 2:35 mark it shows blood on the ground so something happened before the camera started rolling

With all due respect...this sure didn't look anything like the Rodney King video back in 1991. With respect to the attorney, Michael Brooks-Jimenez, it appears that he is basically a criminal defense attorney. This is going to be an interesting case to follow.

The MPD did not release the video, the family's attorney did...
I don't dispute that... but this is what was said...


I finally got to talk to my neighbor yesterday about this situation. He told me that the video will never be shown because it doesn't show anything, it was reviewed then given back to the family and the families attorney also agreed it wouldn't be a good idea to realize the video...
Neither of the bolded statements turned out to be true...

I will say that nothing dramatic or definitive is revealed in the video released. I'm not saying the LEOs did anything wrong or are guilt-free. I was simply pointing out that the declarative statements turned out to be inaccurate.

I wonder if the dog pile of officers that last awhile had something to do with the death, maybe the man couldn't breathe. it looked like the man wasn't resisting any longer (or if any since we didn't see the beginning) so why did they continue to be on top of him? at the 2:35 mark it shows blood on the ground so something happened before the camera started rolling

LEO's are to respond with force necessary to subdue an individual, who in this case is obviously a big guy. The deceased's behavior prompted five officers to become involved, and one officer can be heard on the video saying that he was bleeding, so we know that the video does not show the scuffle, only the time after the deceased had been subdued and was being put into handcuffs.

I wonder if the dog pile of officers that last awhile had something to do with the death, maybe the man couldn't breathe. it looked like the man wasn't resisting any longer (or if any since we didn't see the beginning) so why did they continue to be on top of him? at the 2:35 mark it shows blood on the ground so something happened before the camera started rolling

Given what happened at the movie theater in Aurora, CO...I would say the number of PO's responding to this call was about right.

Like I said (before the video was even released), the cell phone video shows no criminal actions by police. Also, the additional video is from the Theater's security cameras and those backup the police. The security video shows the officers on scene were actually very professional and that the deceased was being aggressive towards them - regardless of what the relatives of the deceased claim.

The officer's actions leading up to the incident also backup the fact they were not your stereotypical thug cops. One was in the lobby with some drunk individuals he very easily could have simply arrested. Instead he was 'babysitting' them until a cab could get them safely home.

Again, I'm no cop cheerleader, but NONE of the video will result in criminal prosecutions or convictions of the officers on scene.

The only thing that seemed over the top was the need to keep a knee on his head once he stopped moving. Sure both sides could have handled it differently but I'm thinking it's pretty hard to prove what prompted a heart attack.

Without jumping to any conclusions . . . Perhaps the root cause of the unfortunate demise of this person was his inability to redirect the stress associated with the apparently ongoing "domestic quarrel" that precipitated the chain of events that followed? (an inability to process situations leading eventually, if not inevitably nor inexorably, to the heart attack that actually did him in?)

I don't know this for a fact, but it is my impression that police officers hate responding to domestic disputes more than any other event to which duty calls.

The only thing that seemed over the top was the need to keep a knee on his head once he stopped moving. Sure both sides could have handled it differently but I'm thinking it's pretty hard to prove what prompted a heart attack.

They might do that to prevent spitting or biting.

They do it because it is dang near impossible, if not impossible, for someone who is downed to get sufficient leverage to rise up if someone has that blocking position on you.

It looks very painful. With my messed up neck, css, that alone would probably kill me.

They do it because it is dang near impossible, if not impossible, for someone who is downed to get sufficient leverage to rise up if someone has that blocking position on you.

I can certainly understand why they do it but I would also assume they would be trained to let up a little if the suspect goes limp. But either way he didn't die from suffocation so I doubt it contributed to his death.

I can certainly understand why they do it but I would also assume they would be trained to let up a little if the suspect goes limp. But either way he didn't die from suffocation so I doubt it contributed to his death.

. . . although the jury is still out on that. And juries have a really tough job to do in this random, by-chance, chaotic reality in which we--or the infinitely small finite particles of which we are assembled--have to exist. =)

well . . . don't they/we?

(dang. never should have chased The Bible with that Deepak Chopra book on VHS . . . =)

I didn't sense any aggressive attitudes coming from any of the officers. In fact they appeared to be comfortable with being being video recorded. The officer who interacted with her appeared to be calm. I am leaning more towards this guy had more or less met his maker from stress alone. At the end of the day this was just an unfortunate incident. The only downside to the Warren footage is that it will probably not have sound and not be a 50 yard line view of the event.

Video and sound make all the difference. It would probably be good idea for Moore PD to invest in officer body cameras. Taser makes one that pre records the first 30 seconds before the officer hits the record button. Many police departments are using the cameras and using them for evaluation and training. The camera also gives the judge and jury a first hand view of what the officer is seeing and how he/she acts and reacts.

...It would probably be good idea for Moore PD to invest in officer body cameras. Taser makes one that pre records the first 30 seconds before the officer hits the record button. Many police departments are using the cameras and using them for evaluation and training. The camera also gives the judge and jury a first hand view of what the officer is seeing and how he/she acts and reacts.

Good luck with that. OCPD won't even put dash cams in their patrol cars - and for one reason only - Citty knows he has a lots of unprofessional and out-of-control cops. The first cops that should be required to wear lapel cams are the gang unit (and extremely appropriate name). I've seen footage of them in action and its disgraceful.

I the one thing that really bothers me though is when the guy goes lifeless and everyone including emsa just stands around and looks at the guy , There was no attempt for cpr or anything, these guys looked like deer in the headlights. They should have acted quickly that maybe their downfall in the whole circumstance.

One of my favorite blogs is PhotographyIsNotACrime (http://photographyisnotacrime.com).....

This released video shows how these alterations can go terribly wrong for police and even worse for citizens (FYI - I believe the cop was in the right to shoot the man - a firefighter).


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itPY54C_guM

While I don't let cops bully me, I know better than to get physical with one.

After some thinking, watching this too many times to count, and having something key pointed out to me - this looks really bad.

It's clear they knew he was dead within one - two minutes after the video starts. The panic on their faces, the checking his pulse and realizing he is dead is all over their faces. The officers telling the wife, "He's fine..." was not true.

After having it pointed it out to me, I think he may very well have said (very muffled) "I can't breathe." Listen for it almost immediately after the video starts at the :07 mark. At the :15 mark you hear an officer say, "Calm down sir." He may have been struggling with his body for his life because of lack of oxygen. That man may have been suffocated to death.

Notice you hear one of the cops tell the wife, "You don't want to get yourself in trouble..." even though he knows the husband is dead. What compassion. He should have been more worried about himself being in trouble. Telling a wife who is witnessing all that and (rightfully) panicking, he threatens HER with "trouble"?? The gall.

Finally, do you really have that many law enforcement personnel not know CPR? They just stand around?

Even at almost the 5:00 mark - they were telling her that he's fine.

This doesn't look good at all. It might with a quick view look innocent enough, but on further inspection it looks like a manslaughter, at least.

After some thinking, watching this too many times to count, and having something key pointed out to me - this looks really bad.

It's clear they knew he was dead within one - two minutes after the video starts. The panic on their faces, the checking his pulse and realizing he is dead is all over their faces. The officers telling the wife, "He's fine..." was not true.

After having it pointed it out to me, I think he may very well have said (very muffled) "I can't breathe." Listen for it almost immediately after the video starts at the :07 mark. At the :15 mark you hear an officer say, "Calm down sir." He may have been struggling with his body for his life because of lack of oxygen. That man may have been suffocated to death.

Notice you hear one of the cops tell the wife, "You don't want to get yourself in trouble..." even though he knows the husband is dead. What compassion. He should have been more worried about himself being in trouble. Telling a wife who is witnessing all that and (rightfully) panicking, he threatens HER with "trouble"?? The gall.

Finally, do you really have that many law enforcement personnel not know CPR? They just stand around?

Even at almost the 5:00 mark - they were telling her that he's fine.

This doesn't look good at all. It might with a quick view look innocent enough, but on further inspection it looks like a manslaughter, at least.

Its seems you may be letting a lot of emotion cloud what is really seen on the video.

It has already been released by Midwest Regional Emergency Medical Service that Luis was alive while being transported to the hospital. That would indicate he was breathing. So, if true (and no reason to believe its not), then it couldn't have 'been clear he was dead within one - two minutes after the video starts.'

So, obviously there was no panic from him being dead - because he wasn't. What I saw was officers doing their job and also very aware they were being taped and not wanting to say too much.

I've seen many (as in dozens) of people being held to the ground by law enforcement and bounty hunters - most always they yell that they can't breath, claim they are hurting or otherwise voice their objection or displeasure. Yet, when its all said and done they are fine.

As for CPR - you don't do CPR on someone who is breathing.

We can what-if this all night. But, in the end, emotions were high on the part of Luis and had he simply calmed down and shown his ID and explained what was going on, I feel 100% he would still be alive.

We may both never see the same thing in the video - but I really don't think its right to re-write history that Luis was dead at the scene and the officers knew it when NOTHING has been released to support that. In fact, medical personnel (who have nothing to gain or lose) confirm Luis was alive in transport.

Its seems you may be letting a lot of emotion cloud what is really seen on the video.

It has already been released by Midwest Regional Emergency Medical Service that Luis was alive while being transported to the hospital. That would indicate he was breathing. So, if true (and no reason to believe its not), then it couldn't have 'been clear he was dead within one - two minutes after the video starts.'

So, obviously there was no panic from him being dead - because he wasn't. What I saw was officers doing their job and also very aware they were being taped and not wanting to say too much.

I've seen many (as in dozens) of people being held to the ground by law enforcement and bounty hunters - most always they yell that they can't breath, claim they are hurting or otherwise voice their objection or displeasure. Yet, when its all said and done they are fine.

As for CPR - you don't do CPR on someone who is breathing.

We can what-if this all night. But, in the end, emotions were high on the part of Luis and had he simply calmed down and shown his ID and explained what was going on, I feel 100% he would still be alive.

We may both never see the same thing in the video - but I really don't think its right to re-write history that Luis was dead at the scene and the officers knew it when NOTHING has been released to support that. In fact, medical personnel (who have nothing to gain or lose) confirm Luis was alive in transport.

Why does an officer check his pulse, military style in the neck from the back, and then look bewildered?

What about "I can't breathe"? In this particular context that statement is very important.

I really don't KNOW what happened, but on multiple viewings and listening, watching body language, etc. - there's more there than I thought when it was first released.

Sometimes, agencies in trouble, panic. We may not know why the medical services said he was alive when he quite possibly wasn't. But it's very possible a lips are sealed and the guy was alive in the ambulance was the story-on-the-fly. Don't ever (and surely you know this) under-estimate the blue wall of silence. "We're all in this together."

submitted with respect: Confirmation bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias)

submitted with respect: Confirmation bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias)

Actually, I agree with that. Only the bias of "the tape doesn't show anything" has been the meme for 24 hours+ now. I think that confirmation bias may very well explain Brian's response.

edit: By the way, I favorited Brian's post and felt relief with the video when I first saw it as well. So, on my end, I went in on second and third viewing with the bias that everything was handled well. It was many more viewings today that has me perplexed. The officer on the far right who checks his pulse looks shocked, even despondent, and turns toward the wife with an open palm like "It wasn't supposed to happen like this" then places his palm on his back in a "poor fellow" like manner. I think HE knew, at that point, he was dead, he said nothing to the officers who may (or probably didn't realize) at that point he was lost, and kept up the "keep breathing" for - the wife? Watch the video again.

Why does an officer check his pulse, military style in the neck from the back, and then look bewildered?

What about "I can't breathe"? In this particular context that statement is very important.

I really don't KNOW what happened, but on multiple viewings and listening, watching body language, etc. - there's more there than I thought when it was first released.

Sometimes, agencies in trouble, panic. We may not know why the medical services said he was alive when he quite possibly wasn't. But it's very possible a lips are sealed and the guy was alive in the ambulance was the story-on-the-fly. Don't ever (and surely you know this) under-estimate the blue wall of silence. "We're all in this together."

That's your interpretation [officer checks his pulse, military style in the neck from the back, and then looks bewildered].

I simply can't rely on interpretation that's not overly convincing and a position of "They may have said he's alive, but why should we believe them." (obviously, not a direct quote)

I prefer to see what the M.E. determines - but, I guess we can include him in the big coverup too.

I'm not saying I don't knee-jerk react to these things too. But we have to take a step back and realize that while we may not like the actions of the officers and may second guess how it could have been handled differently, there just isn't a single shred of evidence to support the idea the police killed him maliciously or that they had any direct cause to his death beyond he had a heart condition.

That said, the video did get released to KFOR regarding the beating arrest of the deaf man in Oklahoma and I question the DA's conclusion that they showed remarkable restraint.

Actually, I agree with that. Only the bias of "the tape doesn't show anything" has been the meme for 24 hours+ now. I think that confirmation bias may very well explain Brian's response.

edit: By the way, I favorited Brian's post and felt relief with the video when I first saw it as well. So, on my end, I went in on second and third viewing with the bias that everything was handled well. It was many more viewings today that has me perplexed. The officer on the far right who checks his pulse looks shocked, even despondent, and turns toward the wife with an open palm like "It wasn't supposed to happen like this" then places his palm on his back in a "poor fellow" like manner. I think HE knew, at that point, he was dead, he said nothing to the officers who may (or probably didn't realize) at that point he was lost, and kept up the "keep breathing" for - the wife? Watch the video again.

Actually my bias is 99% of the time against police. I personally think that most people become cops for all the wrong reasons. People ask me all the time if I'm afraid of the pimps, drug dealers and gang members when I'm out along on S. Robinson - I tell them nothing scares me more than a bad cop with the confidence to abuse his authority. It takes a lot for me to look at a video like this one and not see fault in police.

Actually my bias is 99% of the time against police. I personally think that most people become cops for all the wrong reasons. People ask me all the time if I'm afraid of the pimps, drug dealers and gang members when I'm out along on S. Robinson - I tell them nothing scares me more than a bad cop with the confidence to abuse his authority. It takes a lot for me to look at a video like this one and not see fault in police.

I'm sorry, Brian. I should have said that "...in this particular situation." I know you've been vocal here since the tape was released and you may have noticed my own "liking" your post and I even posted something that I was glad it looked on the up and up.

What I meant was that since the tape was released, the bias (you and me both) was with the officers being cleared in the tape. That was the "confirmation bias" (using that theory that Kevin linked to), that I said could have caused your last post to mine. Back to everybody sees what they want to see. Except, I wasn't quite that way after the video was released. I was glad to see it didn't look as bad as expected. It was only, literally, within the last 8-10 hours that I have begun to look at this all over again.

I know your history and have since grown to respect your work. I didn't mean to presume you're always with the police, that would obviously be very, very wrong.

How can anyone know what happened when the video doesn't show the entire encounter?

Unlike Brian, my bias is strongly in favor of the police. They deal with the dregs of society, including murderers who have nothing to lose and won't be taken alive. The bad guys know what they've done, and what they're likely to do next ("If the cop tries to arrest me I'm going for his weapon"), and they have the element of surprise. Police officers enter a situation with few facts and can only bring force in response to force, not in anticipation of force.

"Why did it take five police officers?" "Why didn't they let him up?" "Why didn't they stop when he said he couldn't breathe?" "Why didn't they get off of the deceased when he stopped struggling?" "Why didn't they immediately begin medical resuscitation efforts?"

They're all fine questions, but the one I'd like answered is, "How did the deceased respond when approached by the first police officer?"

"Why did it take five police officers?" "Why didn't they let him up?" "Why didn't they stop when he said he couldn't breathe?" "Why didn't they get off of the deceased when he stopped struggling?" "Why didn't they immediately begin medical resuscitation efforts?"

They're all fine questions, but the one I'd like answered is, "How did the deceased respond when approached by the first police officer?"

I agree but would also like to ask the question of how did the officers approach the deceased? I have watched too many videos where a good part of the escalations were as much the officers fault as the citizen. This is especially true in situations where a person may have some mental issues. A good officer knows how to diffuse a situation instead of making it worse. Like you wisely pointed out, we don't know what happened at the beginning at this point as it isn't on the video I watched.

With respect, most of what troubles zoo, if I read correctly, involves what she feels she is seeing and hearing prior to the bus arriving with the paramedics. A lot is obscured regarding them, but what is visible does not suggest at all to me the man taken down was dead right there, either before they arrived or while they were present on that scene. Likewise, I don't believe there was any suggestion from the medics that the man had died on site. Indeed, I think it was completely contrary to that. Medics are not infallible of course, but consider that they hold no liability if the police had acted improperly, and had no reason to immediately join any perceived thin blue line.

And with that, I'll leave the rest to those who wish to stay calm and debate on.

I'll still wait for the investigation to conclude before I make any judgments.

How can anyone know what happened when the video doesn't show the entire encounter?

Unlike Brian, my bias is strongly in favor of the police. They deal with the dregs of society, including murderers who have nothing to lose and won't be taken alive. The bad guys know what they've done, and what they're likely to do next ("If the cop tries to arrest me I'm going for his weapon"), and they have the element of surprise. Police officers enter a situation with few facts and can only bring force in response to force, not in anticipation of force.

"Why did it take five police officers?" "Why didn't they let him up?" "Why didn't they stop when he said he couldn't breathe?" "Why didn't they get off of the deceased when he stopped struggling?" "Why didn't they immediately begin medical resuscitation efforts?"

They're all fine questions, but the one I'd like answered is, "How did the deceased respond when approached by the first police officer?"
You mean when he was asked for his papers? ... I mean his id.

You mean when he was asked for his papers? ... I mean his id.

You were there?

You were there?
I don't think he was, but he does have "reliable" sources...

I remember one night I was at some all night pancake/coffee shop in MWC winding down from a long night of partying with some friends. Some loudmouth a couple of tables down was giving the waitress a really hard time, almost bringing her to tears. I was still just drunk enough that I got up out of our booth, walked up to the prick and "invited" him outside to "discuss" his behavior. Just as we got to the door, the cops arrived. I tried to explain what was about to happen and why, but one of the cops said, "You want to go to jail tonight, too?"

I declined his invitation and returned to the booth. I hope the other party gave them a ration of sh!t so he could add injury to insult.

Bottom line?: Don't give a cop a lot of crap. It's a no-win situation.
My guess is that the unfortunate "victim" in the situation never learned that valuable lesson.

You were there?


I don't think he was, but he does have "reliable" sources...

Da Blaze?

From the police report on KFOR's Web site. For clarification, "Luis" is the deceased, Luis Rodriguez:

The altercation started when Officer Strang asked him what happened and Luis told the officer it was none of his business and was a “family matter.”
Strang asked him for his ID and said Luis told him he wasn’t going to give it to him and tried to walk around him.
At the point Officers Minard, Bradley and Clarkston came over to help.
Officers said Luis “took a defensive stance” and tried to get around them several times.
Clarkston said he thought Luis was trying to get around them to “go after” his family.
Officer Minard tried to put Luis in “investigative detention” until he could find out who he was and what happened during the family altercation.
Minard said he tried to handcuff Luis because of his “aggressiveness” but Luis “threw Minard off of him.”
The other officers stepped in and Minard and Luis ended up on the ground.
Officers said Luis ignored their orders to quit fighting them so they used “several compliance techniques” to handcuff him.

He disregards a police officer's question about what is happening, and when asked for ID he verbally refuses and walks away from the officer, in the direction of two family members involved in a physical altercation as reported by a witness. He repeats his attempts to reach them, so officers restrain him. He begins to fight, additional officers join in the effort, and the deceased is placed in handcuffs.

The deceased consistently resisted while increasing his level of non-compliance. Officers simply met force with force as it was increased.

From the police report on KFOR's Web site. For clarification, "Luis" is the deceased, Luis Rodriguez:

The altercation started when Officer Strang asked him what happened and Luis told the officer it was none of his business and was a “family matter.”
Strang asked him for his ID and said Luis told him he wasn’t going to give it to him and tried to walk around him.
At the point Officers Minard, Bradley and Clarkston came over to help.
Officers said Luis “took a defensive stance” and tried to get around them several times.
Clarkston said he thought Luis was trying to get around them to “go after” his family.
Officer Minard tried to put Luis in “investigative detention” until he could find out who he was and what happened during the family altercation.
Minard said he tried to handcuff Luis because of his “aggressiveness” but Luis “threw Minard off of him.”
The other officers stepped in and Minard and Luis ended up on the ground.
Officers said Luis ignored their orders to quit fighting them so they used “several compliance techniques” to handcuff him.

He disregards a police officer's question about what is happening, and when asked for ID he verbally refuses and walks away from the officer, in the direction of two family members involved in a physical altercation as reported by a witness. He repeats his attempts to reach them, so officers restrain him. He begins to fight, additional officers join in the effort, and the deceased is placed in handcuffs.

The deceased consistently resisted while increasing his level of non-compliance. Officers simply met force with force as it was increased.

I can show you a hundred reports where the report is completely different from what shows on the video. Police officers write reports slanted to their view and to convict. They never tell the entire story. I don't know what happened in this case as we have not seen the video. I do not have an opinion one way or another on whether this was done correctly or not but I am not going to take either side at face value.

However, if you have done nothing wrong, you have the right to walk away from a police officer. I am troubled by the fact that he had committed no crime (It was the mother that slapped the daughter) and thus there was no reason for him to be investigated. Oklahoma has no law requiring a citizen to produce an ID if they are not driving.

All good points . . . Yet doesn't the fact remain that it is often better to simply cooperate with the police rather than risk escalating things to level at which you will certainly come out the loser? I know that may sound a bit chickensh!t or whatever, but you and I both know that there are so many laws on the books that everyone is guilty of something and if push comes to shove, well . . .

Ironically, just the other day, I stumbled across a series of videos on how to deal with police officers at those pesky, random, traffic check-points so I am more aware of my rights as a citizen but where the rubber meets the road I think you have a better chance of walking away unscathed if you don't challenge the officer's enforcement of "authority". Note that I didn't say, "authority" because the officer didn't write the law.

I can show you a hundred reports where the report is completely different from what shows on the video. Police officers write reports slanted to their view and to convict. They never tell the entire story. I don't know what happened in this case as we have not seen the video. I do not have an opinion one way or another on whether this was done correctly or not but I am not going to take either side at face value.

However, if you have done nothing wrong, you have the right to walk away from a police officer. I am troubled by the fact that he had committed no crime (It was the mother that slapped the daughter) and thus there was no reason for him to be investigated. Oklahoma has no law requiring a citizen to produce an ID if they are not driving.

Well said. It seems some believe that the local police are to be bowed down to like the Stasi - for your own good. Compliance, compliance. Like good (and fearful) citizens.

The wife and daughter were in a shouting match. He's trying to break them up. Cops show up and assume he's the problem. Tom, Why aren't people ever allowed to be angry when men with badges are within a few feet? Are human beings supposed to simply shut off their emotions? This is a general problem and how law enforcement has changed within the last thirty years. At one time, police expected people to be upset given certain circumstances. But with the militarization of local police in personnel, everyone is an enemy, they expect compliance - in military fashion. Today - people are to see police and simply shutdown. Or risk multiple officers all over you, smothering you until -- you die?

Yes, police deal with the dregs of society. They also many times treat innocent people like dregs of society, and sometimes they are the dregs of society.

Oh, the stories I could tell.

All good points . . . Yet doesn't the fact remain that it is often better to simply cooperate with the police rather than risk escalating things to level at which you will certainly come out the loser? I know that may sound a bit chickensh!t or whatever, but you and I both know that there are so many laws on the books that everyone is guilty of something and if push comes to shove, well . . .

Ironically, just the other day, I stumbled across a series of videos on how to deal with police officers at those pesky, random, traffic check-points so I am more aware of my rights as a citizen but where the rubber meets the road I think you have a better chance of walking away unscathed if you don't challenge the officer's enforcement of "authority". Note that I didn't say, "authority" because the officer didn't write the law.

I read here an implied acceptance of police state tactics. Otherwise....

I read here an implied acceptance of police state tactics. Otherwise....

I can't say I disagree with you . . . Yet, pragmatically--rather than idealistically . . .
(p.s.: I'm "mad as hell" too--about a lot of stuff. Yet not so mad as to pick battles that I can't win.)

It helps keep the stress levels and blood pressure down.
Plus, minimizes the chances of losing some blood on the pavement.
Which is a bad way of controlling blood pressure, btw. =)

I will say, that I NEVER call a police officer "Sir".
Most of them are young enough to be a grandson.
I always say, "Officer." Usually preceded by, "Yes" =)

I can't say I disagree with you . . . Yet, pragmatically--rather than idealistically . . .
(p.s.: I'm "mad as hell" too--about a lot of stuff. Yet not so mad as to pick battles that I can't win.)

Correct. Principle matters but knowing when to take a stand is also important. Sometimes a better strategy is lie low to fight another day.

It's called "Gorilla Warfare" =)

I do not understand - DO NOT UNDERSTAND - why people on this board are so adamant that cops are bad until proven otherwise, that this situation was caused by the cops and not the deceased, why defiance is a better path than compliance, that complying with an officer's request is "acceptance of police state tactics."

If you wonder why maintaining order in society is so bleeding impossible, read this post.

I do not understand - DO NOT UNDERSTAND - why people on this board are so adamant that cops are bad until proven otherwise, that this situation was caused by the cops and not the deceased, why defiance is a better path than compliance, that complying with an officer's request is "acceptance of police state tactics."

If you wonder why maintaining order in society is so bleeding impossible, read this post.

Far be it from me to be in agreement with all of the most recent posts (I am, btw), but it's an interesting question you pose. I very carefully watch out for policemen (and other law enforcement entities) when I drive. I drive quite legally (mostly), but just the same, I keep aware of where they are. I also talk them up quite a bit when my kids are in the car, conspicuously noting that I'm glad to see them out patrolling and enforcing the law (even if I don't always feel that way). I want my kids to not fear the law (enforcement ...). Even with all of that, one of my kiddos recently had a small conniption fit when there was a LEO following us. I asked her about why she reacted so, and she really couldn't say why. I wonder if there's an ingrained fear of authority in us humans.

If you wonder why maintaining order in society is so bleeding impossible, read this post

I object to your use of the word "bleeding" within this context, Sir.
It is an affront to general decency.
I shall whistle for a "Bobbie" to put things right.
If we are fortunate, either Mr. Foyle or Bobby from NYPD Criminal Intent Unit
will arrive, posthaste.

=)

I do not understand - DO NOT UNDERSTAND - why people on this board are so adamant that cops are bad until proven otherwise, that this situation was caused by the cops and not the deceased, why defiance is a better path than compliance, that complying with an officer's request is "acceptance of police state tactics."

If you wonder why maintaining order in society is so bleeding impossible, read this post.

Just like lawyers, there are good cops and there are bad cops. Just because they have a badge and uniform doesn't give them a pass on credibility. Except for client privacy issues, I could show you well over a hundred of local cases where the cop severely misrepresented what happened in his report. Whether they lied intentionally or not....they still didn't tell what really happened when watching the video. I have seen cops perjure themselves and they get away with by saying...I was mistaken. I have also had many good officers when discussing what happen say...now that you mention that, this did happen.

Here is a video that I facebooked and twittered/tweeted (whatever it is) just this week. New Jersey man escapes 5 year sentence after dash cam footage clears him, indicts cops | The Raw Story (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/02/22/new-jersey-man-escapes-5-year-sentence-after-dash-cam-footage-clears-him-indicts-cops/#.Uw0-AO-HwJE.facebook) Glad his attorney didn't just take the cop at his word.

With the availability of dash cams and other type of recording devices I think the general public is better off on a officer said/I said situation. I believe that the vast majority of LEO's are good honest cops I wouldn't want to risk my freedom on a bad one. Just like every other member of society there are good ones and bad ones, I choose to believe most are good.

Since when do you have to produce id , because your wife and kids are yelling at each other?

A witness thought it was enough to call the police....think it was more involved than just yelling.

Since when do you have to produce id , because your wife and kids are yelling at each other?

He was identified as part of the family that was involved in a fight, so I suspect it was a standard delaying & diversionary tactic to have him focus on the LEO instead of the family, separating everyone while things are sorted out. If - perhaps like you - he wanted to engage in a discussion with the officer about the finer points of the first, fourth or fifth amendments to the constitution, then the LEO would have accomplished his goal and none of this would have happened. But he escalated, ended up being taken to the ground and cuffed. The wife didn't help the situation by filming everything and being hysterical, but remember - she had just beaten her daughter ("hit the teen girl in the face a few times"). Incidentally, was she arrested for assault, and if not, why not? Why was it OK for her to beat her daughter, but not OK for LEO to restrain her husband? Where's the cellphone video of mom beating her daughter, and wouldn't that paint this entire scenario in a different light?

The world isn't a cage match, despite some people doing their best to make it so.

I can show you a hundred reports where the report is completely different from what shows on the video. Police officers write reports slanted to their view and to convict. They never tell the entire story. I don't know what happened in this case as we have not seen the video. I do not have an opinion one way or another on whether this was done correctly or not but I am not going to take either side at face value.

However, if you have done nothing wrong, you have the right to walk away from a police officer. I am troubled by the fact that he had committed no crime (It was the mother that slapped the daughter) and thus there was no reason for him to be investigated. Oklahoma has no law requiring a citizen to produce an ID if they are not driving.

I too know all too well how an officer's recollection of events is often vastly different than how they occurred when seen played out on a recording. Is it intentional? Probably often it is. Is it also just human nature? Absolutely.

Every formal complaint I've won against an OCPD officer (and I've won several) was for one simple fact - I recorded the encounter AND I was extremely accommodating to any lawful commands and did not present myself as a physical threat. In EVERY case the officer was unaware he was being recorded and his version of events conveniently covered his butt and was vastly different than what my covert recording showed.

That said, I cannot fault the officers for requesting ID from Luis. They were summoned to a domestic involving physical violence and they simply asked for the ID of those direct family members that were or most likely could have been involved. They weren't just stopping everyone - they stopped those who most likely were involved. Also the video that hasn't been released yet clearly shows an agitated Luis who tried to ignore the police. Like it or not, he was subject to investigative detention and officers had a right to ask to see his ID. He is seen on tape taking an aggressive stance and officers responded aggressively.

We can all second guess this - and I am dumbfounded that a family outing to a movie resulted in death when confronted by highly trained police officers, but there simply was no crime committed by those officers.

I heard on the radio that the cops may not be as guilty. Rodriguez died
after after after being driven to the hospital by the ambulance and attended
to by the emergency room personnel.

It's good to be in a one party state.

It's good to be in a one party state.
Only because we've left the Democrat Dark Ages.

We should all be grateful. Not that you aren't.

It's good to be in a one party state.

This calls for a St. Patrick's Day Celebration. (don't it?)
(you are a CATHOLIC ain't ya?)
(at least you've kissed the Blarney Stone . . . to get the gift of gab =)
no?

(sorry . . . the urge to reflect cultural/political stereotyping is difficult to resist.)

Since when do you have to produce id , because your wife and kids are yelling at each other?

You don't have to.
You can choose to do so.
(to save time, etc.)

it's one of those id/ego/superego deals.
isn't it?

Only because we've left the Democrat Dark Ages.

We should all be grateful. Not that you aren't.

I was actually talking about this: Telephone recording laws - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_recording_laws#United_States)

I was actually talking about this: Telephone recording laws - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_recording_laws#United_States)

So in other words.... Anytime you are talking on the ph big brother could be listening on the other end. I think this has been going on since world war 2 and maybe before.

I heard on the radio that the cops may not be as guilty. Rodriguez died
after after after being driven to the hospital by the ambulance and attended
to by the emergency room personnel.

Said he started breathing again at Moore Medical and stopped again after an X Ray. I'm sure some money will trade hands but nothing else.