20 Year Old Temple University Student Sues Atlantic City Police
WARNING: THIS POST CONTAINS GRAPHIC IMAGES
A Temple University student has filed a lawsuit that claims he was wrongfully arrested and beaten by officers of the Atlantic City Police Department.
On June 15, 2013, 20 year old David Connor Castellani of Linwood, was told to leave the Tropicana Atlantic City casino for being under aged. David, who admitted that he was drunk, left the casino. Being separated from his friends, he called from his cell phone so they could leave Atlantic City and go home. About 4 police officers standing outside said something to David, who said he then asked them for directions to where his friends said they would pick him up.
David crossed the street, but rather than ignore the cops, he exchanged words with them. David was then rushed by at least 5 cops, taken to the ground, and beaten with fists, kicked and hit with night sticks. It didn’t stop with that. A canine unit pulled up. The officer exited the police SUV with a German Shepherd dog that immediately began biting David on the head and back of his neck. Surveillance video shows that David was on the ground at the time, still constrained by the cops. David has said that he was handcuffed as the dog bit him, and each time the dog dragged him off the curb, the cops pulled him back and continued beating him.
The incident was captured on surveillance video.
“I look at that video and I know I am lucky that my son is alive. I don’t want any other parent to have to go through this; I don’t want any other kid to go through this,” Terri Castellani said.
Atlantic City Mayor Lorenzo Langford called the video “disturbing. ”
20 year old David Connor Castellani spent four days in the hospital as a result of being beaten by Atlantic City cops, and bitten on the head and neck by a police dog.
David spent four days in the hospital from the injuries sustained in the beating. He required more than 200 stitches, has nerve damage, a loss of feeling and permanent shoulder damage as a result of the incident.
Adding insult to injury, the cops charged David with aggravated assault, disorderly conduct, resisting arrest and assault on a police dog.
David Castellani and his parents filed a lawsuit in federal court against the city and the police department. He is seeking to have charges against him dropped, to receive undisclosed damages, and to have the six officers removed from the police force.
Between 2008 and 2011, the canine officer, Sterling Wheaton, who is seen in the video, had 21 complaints filed against him by civilians alleging misconduct; 15 related to excessive force or assault. Officer Wheaton has been exonerated or a finding of allegations not sustained was entered in every complaint. There are currently five pending civil suits against him involving his use of force.
David’s attorney, Jennifer Bonjean, says that Atlantic City police department’s internal affairs is a “sham.” In September, Mayor Langford asked both the State Attorney General’s Office as well as the United States Department of Justice to help investigate the incident.
The following video was made possible by “Good Cop, Bad Cop,” and begins at about the time David leaves the casino and captures about 8 minutes of the incident, unedited.
Additional sources:
Posted on 11/08/2013, in Cases, David Castellani, Videos and tagged Atlantic City, attorney Jennifer Bonjean, David Castellani, police brutality, Sterling Wheaton. Bookmark the permalink. 125 Comments.
We Hold These Truths To Be Self-Evident 
While the man provoked the situation, probably because of the bravery induced by alcohol, the response by the officers was horrendous… I can’t even imagine what they had in their minds as they beat this man senseless..
LikeLike
Yes, agreed, crazy1946, he probably did provoke them because he was drunk.
But, those policemen were rabid and foaming at the mouth when they went after him like depraved thugs.
They should be arrested and never allowed to serve on any police force again.
Now that this police brutality has been committed upon a white person, I SADLY bet you a nickel that more will more done to remedy the problem.
How many thousands of Black citizens have endured this treatment from the police over the years with NO redress? What is it going to take to clean out and fire all the bad cops in this nation? To rid the nation of police brutality and racial injustice?
LikeLike
Hey Crazy!!! They probably thought, “Here’s the son of some tourists who will take him home, lick his wounds, pay some fines and plea for probation. He can kiss his future goodbye.”
According to CATO, David’s dad, (who is also named David) is an attorney. The dog bit the wrong dog this time.
LikeLike
I’ve been it that area a few times in the distant past, and it seems like nothing has really changed! The police at that time were IMO out of control and treated people rather rudely, to put it mildly… Off topic, the German Shepard in the video looks like a miniature one next to mine. My four legged child would stand at least six inches taller at the shoulder than that one does, and at 110 lbs of muscle, he would out weigh him as well… but then again, sharp teeth hurt no matter how big the dog…
LikeLike
@Crazy1946. I have a friend with a German Shepherd from the German line. Huge dog. My dog before my current grand-dog was a mixed German Shepherd/Great Dane who looked like a really big German Shepherd. She got lots of respect when we walked. 🙂
Wheaton allowed his canine to intentionally go after David. With his hands handcuffed in the back, he could not even protect his head. That is terrifying to not be able to protect yourself.
LikeLike
I just hurt so much for this young man. He is going to have nightmares and PTSD for so long plus permanent physical damage.
How heinous of the policemen to charge him with aggravated assault and resisting arrest when it was they who brutally beat him.
Those policemen are frightening!
LikeLike
Yes Yahtzee. They are frightening.
Got another video where a cop claims the woman attacked him and resisted arrest. That one takes place in Maryland. The video does not agree with his report.
When intoxicated folks are minding their own business, why can’t cops ignore them like they want intoxicated folks to do?
LikeLike
Your right Xena, They knew he was intoxicated, they should have ignored him. I’m sure when they told him to leave the casino, knowing he was intoxicated, they were concerned enough that they offered him a ride home so he would not drive and get involved in an accident. It’s not as if they didn’t have the time since they were all standing outside. Yeah, he was provoking them, but again, they could have handled the situation different. There was absolutely no reason for the dog. I guess the next thing we will hear is they were standing their gound.
When I was about 16, I was stopped by the sheriff while walking home with two of my friends at around midnight. They knew we had been drinking. They could have taken us to the hall and made my parents pick me up, but instead they put me in the squad car, and delieved me home safely to the front door step.
LikeLike
@dreamer.
The cops had checked his ID and knew he didn’t live in Atlantic City. They would not be able to go outside of their jurisdiction to drive him to Linwood, NJ. When they ordered him out of the casino, he had no where to go and had to contact his friends.
LikeLike
After a little thought about this story, I see several areas that are being ignored (or over looked), the first being that the young man that was intoxicated was asked to leave the establishment by the police, and while a kind gesture on their part, he should have been arrested for the use of alcohol and public intoxication, the question should be at this point might be “why” did they not arrest him? If they had arrested him at that point would there have been such a horrible attack later? The next point that needs to be brought out is “personal responsibility”, while not condoning nor excusing the events that took place outside the establishment and on public property, the video clearly shows the young man goading the officers and actually returning to vocally taunt them even more. Again, while it is obvious that the officers over reacted (stating it mildly) and acted in a morally despicable manner in the treatment of this young man, does he not bear some responsibility in the situation? Do you think that if a person stands and provokes a lion that it does not have consequences? What should be done in this case? IMO, the young man has been charged with several crimes, yet the officers have not, why? The question I pose is this, did the young man commit a crime, or actually several crimes? Should he be forgiven for those crimes because the officers retaliated in a heinous and despicable manner? I would say no.. The officers that participated in the arrest also committed several crimes as well, and they need to be charged, punished, and be removed from their positions in law enforcement.. As far as the law suit is concerned, IMO all the young man should receive is actual damages, such as medical costs, and loss of income during his recovery, to do any more than that is to reward him for his behavior. Personal responsibility carries a cost, and that is simply, you are responsible for your actions and the results of your actions. I know these words will be found offensive by some, but perhaps if you actually read and try to understand the reasoning behind them, you will be in a better position to understand my position. Again, the actions of the victim does not justify the reaction of the aggressor, but the actions of the aggressor does not remove the responsibility for the victim to act in a legal manner and bear some portion of responsibility resulting from his actions….
LikeLike
My problem with your assertion that the victim’s personal responsibility shld nullify all but actual damages in his lawsuit is partly based on your own analogy. ‘If one provokes a lion should one not expect lion to attack’ bc 1. its a false comparison and 2. Is exactly the type of excuse these cops keep benefitting from! The lion is not a human being supposedly trained in conflict resolution, paid for by the taxpayer nor does he have any ethical & legal responsibilities law enforcement has sworn to. This isn’t about what the victim did to provoke rouge cops, it’s about those cops practically beating a man to death. So i don’t think anyone is ignoring anything bc whether or not a person verbally taunts police or gets drunk in public while underage, no person has a right to brutalize him much less a person in such position of authority! Basically it’s not our job to teach the victim a lesson on manners & underage drinking, but it is our job to protect him from scumbags w/badges from thinking that it’s their job! In fact the real focus should be on teaching all cops what happens if they don’t do the jobs we hire them to do and not figuring out what the victims did wrong and how to punish them, bc maybe it’s just me, but I think this guy’s punishment was and will forever be far worse than what he deserved for merely mouthing off at cops. They’re not supposed to be like wild animals and lose all control at the slightest affront to their ego. It’s time to actually start expecting them to be the trusted professionals we hire them to be.
LikeLike
shannoninmiami, While I agree with most of your comments, I still fail to understand why you folks feel this person has absolutely no responsibility for his own actions, which incidentally, if you will watch the video again, was the direct cause of the incident. Again I will state, the officers were wrong, horribly wrong in the vicious attack, and need to be punished, if for no other reason, as you said they have a higher responsibility to act professionally and morally correct, which they did not. I realize it is their job to stand and take all forms of verbal abuse and not take offense nor action, because that is what the public expects. I do suppose in todays society that personal responsibility, that is accepting the consequences of one actions is a thing of the past. So in light of that, I suppose that this man should be awarded for his behavior… I stand corrected….
LikeLike
just so you know, i am not one of those folks who think ppl shouldn’t be held responsible for their actions. but in this case i don’t think there’s much this victim should be held responsible for. why should he suffer anymore than he already has and will be in emotional and physical trauma?
he did not lay his hands on anyone.
but how about this?
what if there was no NEN call, 911 call or calls to DD in Trayvon’s case? what if all we heard was the killer’s version of events? would you think Trayvon has to take responsibility for possibly running his mouth to the killer since there’s no video to the contrary?
because it’s kinda the same thing in this case.
Think of it this way, if not for zimmerman chasing and restraining Trayvon no matter how much he was offended by Trayvon’s leisurely walk or if it weren’t for the gang of thug cops chasing this guy down and attacking him no matter how provocative his words were, neither victim wouldn’t be dead or severely injured.
oh and you keep suggesting that but for the actions of the victim these cops wouldn’t have done this; so no cop has ever abused a person who was in fact just minding their own business?
if all cops were so perfect and they didn’t brutalize ppl routinely and get away with it we wouldn’t be having this conversation because those honest cops wouldn’t have attacked this guy for talking smack.
LikeLike
shannoninmiami, Good morning.. Yesterday evening I attempted to remove myself from this discussion, but because Xena asked me to remain, I have stayed. This subject is one that will bring out a lot of emotion during the discussion, and unfortunately if allowed, that emotion will continue even after the close of the discussion. That is something that I wish to avoid…
Perhaps it is a lack of vision on my part, but the comparison of the murder of Trayvon to the vicious beating of this young man is like comparing apples to kiwi fruit. There simply is no comparison to be made other than both involved violence.
Your words indicate that the officers were going to beat down this man regardless of his actions. However if you watch the video again, you will see that they more or less ignored him even when he approached them to (perhaps?) ask them for directions. If you will notice even as he crossed the street, they continued on with the conversation they were engaged in, seeming to ignore him. It was after he crossed the street that he (appears) starts to address them verbally, and the situation continues as he walks down the street, you might note they still did not attack at this point. Perhaps, they called for him to return, which caused him to suddenly turn around and back track to ensure he was within their hearing range, all the while continuing his tirade of words and body language indicating anger. What would have happened if he had simply continued on down the sidewalk and out of hearing range is and could only be a guess, on my part, and while I suspect the incident would have ended quite differently, I don’t know that as factual.
It seems to me that you feel I am defending the actions of the officers in this case, I assure you, I can’t and won’t do so, all I am attempting to do is point out that the victim of the beating, by making several wrong choices (common with the use of intoxicants) caused the event to reach the point it did. What caused the officers to commit the crimes against this man? Was it lack of training in dealing with intoxicated people? Was it just that they need someone to attack? Or was it that they are human and acted on human instinct and became angry, is it not easy to forget that behind that badge is a human being and not a robot? I can almost understand the situation that the first officers were in, please note, I said understand not condone. The actions of the canine officer, who was not even involved in the verbal exchange, is something that shocks, astounds and confuses me… with his prior record I can only wonder why he was still wearing a badge… while all of the officers involved in this need to not only be removed from their positions, but prosecuted as well, I am not sure what additional step need to be taken in the dealing with the canine officer…
Shannon, please do not allow this discussion to drive a wedge between us that follows into future discussions. I would hate to lose even one on line friend, and especially one whose words I have enjoyed reading and hope to continue to do so in the future. I have enough people that dislike me, having an ex-wife fills my quota of people to dislike me! Have a great day, I have a day of fishing (leaving my cell phone home!) planned, so it will be this evening before I return…. PS: FYI, I catch fish, but I don’t keep them…
LikeLike
@crazy1946.
Not speaking for Shannon, but she and I have disagreed on some things and it has not driven a wedge. In fact, if anyone was to ask me what we disagreed on, I don’t know if I’d remember. It seems to be cancelled out by the things we do agree on.
Crazy, you might disagree with some in this discussion, but you have done so with respect, and that reaps respect.
Now, remember to tell the fish hello for me and I’m sorry that I eat their cousins. 🙂
LikeLike
Hey i’m not mad, you’re NOT my enemy!
i’m actually happy you disagree, dissenting opinions kinda shake things up every once in a while! 🙂
and personally this case could never have the emotional affect Trayvon’s murder has on any of us, mainly because this guy’s alive and Trayvon was a defenseless kid attacked 70yds from his own dad’s backyard with a bunch of neighbors watching/listening and doing nothing to assist a screaming kid!
but my comparison between the two cases is b/c both victims were attacked by someone trusted with authority (gz the self appointed NW, relationship w/police officers esp.TimSmith,answered the last couple of his NEN calls and him being an adult(adult age wise not brain wise) over a kid) and because both attackers used their position in the community to do what they did and didn’t worry about their actions being questioned. their word was all the proof they needed!
and but for the recorded evidence from both we would never have been 100%positive of the aggressors aggression!
imagine if we didn’t have the video of that guy getting beat, he would be shit outta luck trying to convince the judge or anyone what really happened because the cops carry way more weight than the complainant! and they knew they could do and say whatever lie they wanted. which they did!
and this isn’t strange and unusual behaviors by cops, that one cop w.all those complaints against him just knew he could do whatever he felt like and nothing would happen to him, he didn’t care about the witnesses on the street!
and that’s a problem. we aren’t supposed to find out from secret video that a pack of wild pigs w.badges went out and attacked a young man because they just “snapped” – all 6 of them at the same exact moment on the same exact person! that’s just bullshit! and there’s nothing that drunk guy could’ve said that should provoke all those cops! they were together perfectly safe.. and if one of them got mad one of the others should’ve been professional enough to catch him before he did something, not all jump on the bandwagon with him.
another thing is that i don’t know how you can even begin to understand what was being said by either party. i can’t tell what the problem was by that tape and i cant see what the cops were doing while he was walking away much less what if they were saying anything back to him. and i’m not gonna just assume the cops weren’t talking smack too, why would i assume they wouldn’t be saying something just as provocative the victim was saying- if that’s what was going on. i mean if they felt they could jump that guy in the middle of the street with all kinds of witnesses why wouldn’t they feel just as emboldened to talk smack to him too?
i just don’t think it’s right to blame the victim for anything those cops did because it’s not his fault THEY couldn’t act professional. i mean who cares what someone says to them as long as it’s not threatening or illegal, what right do those cops have to loose their cool so bad that guy could’ve been killed!? just one kick to the wrong spot could’ve killed or paralyzed him for life! no one deserves that no matter what they say! sticks and stones rule! if something he said was illegal they should’ve arrested him. period. but i’m not going to hold this victim responsible for anything compared to what they did to him! if he needs to be held responcible for something he says or dose then fine, but these cops can’t be the ones to do it!
in a way we should be grateful he got that beating when and where he did so the truth finally came out. who knows how many ( totally innocent, non provocative) ppl have been hurt by those assholes who now may be believed and how many more might be spared because these punks might finally be taken off the streets thanks to this guys big mouth.
LikeLike
@Shannon.
BINGO!!! I think that’s what David’s attorney was also saying. Sadly, evil is exposed when someone is victimized by that evil.
LikeLike
@crazy1946. Let’s stand in David’s shoes for a moment. He and some friends drove from Linwood to Atlantic City. He is intoxicated in a casino. He is told to leave. He is separated from his friends. He leaves the casino and contacts his friends. He has to find the place where they say they will pick him up. He starts walking.
Now the question is, why were the cops following him? Why did they stay within talking-hearing range of him?
LikeLike
Xena,
“Now the question is, why were the cops following him? Why did they stay within talking-hearing range of him?”
Time out, watch the video again, he started to get out of yelling range, stopped and returned to where he was sure they heard him.. so it was not them staying within hearing range of him it was just the opposite, David wanted to make sure they were able to hear him…
Putting my self in David’s shoes, having just been evicted from a casino where the police requested I leave because of my illegal underage drinking and being some what intoxicated, is something that is impossible to do. Too bad that either he was not smart enough to realize they did him a favor by not arresting him, or he was smart enough not to provoke a situation in which he was horribly injured. Again, while I can’t stress enough that the officers handled their part of the situation in not only a horrible manner, but committed what could only be considered assault, and abuse of power by a public official, had David not done what he did the event would probably not have occurred…. but it would seem that I am the only one able to realize that David bears a large part of responsibility for what occurred due to his actions… I suppose times have changed much more than I had realized, now it seems that we should be able to curse, threaten and harass police officers at will and face no response from them, wow have things ever changed on that part…
LikeLike
@crazy1946. I understand what you’re saying, but it’s my position that cops lack training,or in the alternative, do not care about understanding citizens who have mental disease or are mentally impaired. Being intoxicated is a mental impairment.
Is there a law against using profanity at cops? Deputized law enforcement has to be above reproach. When they react to abusive language by abusing their authority, they violate law and impugn law enforcement.
LikeLike
Xena, I was going to let my portion of this discussion simply die, because in everyone’s eyes I was wrong to expect this man to be responsible for his part of the situation, but will attempt to answer your questions first.
” Being intoxicated is a mental impairment.”
While that might be true, it is a mental impairment that one freely chooses to acquire, not many people are forced to suffer from this form of “mental impairment” unless they wish to. Again, the problem starts from the actions of the victim, and to think that the officers went out of their way to abuse this individual without quite a bit of abusive action on the part of the victim, simply is not realistic. Think about it for a moment, they actually did the victim a favor by allowing him to leave the casino, rather than arresting him at that point, in hindsight, they should not have done that…
“Is there a law against using profanity at cops?”
This young man was what could be considered “drunk and disorderly”, and the use of language played into this activity. I am going to use an old saying that comes to mind in this case (forgive me for the language, please). It has been said that “a wise man does not allow his 100 pound mouth to over load his 10 pound ass”! Or perhaps this one could also be used, “If you can’t pay the price, don’t do the crime”! Both of those saying go back to taking personal responsibility for your actions… If I don’t respond to any more of these posts, it is simply because nothing I could say would change the opinions that have been formed, and to attempt to do so would be futile..
LikeLike
Crazy1946,
Why throw a hand grenade at an annoying fly?
LikeLike
change “fly” to “an annoying, squawking (California) blue jay.”
LikeLike
Yahtzee, NO, leave it as a fly! The other day I had a fly in my cave that was rather annoying! It is a good thing that I no longer own a shotgun, or I probably would have used it on the fly. Hmmm, could that mean that I am human and sometimes over react to things that I should not?
LikeLike
I would recommend this “catching” approach:
LikeLike
@crazy1946.
No crazy. Don’t let it “die.” We need discussion on this topic.
True. I do not know if NJ has a dram shop law. If so, then the casino that served David the alcohol is also responsible.
Does NJ have a public intoxication law? That’s another question that will need answering before we jump to a conclusion that the cops did David a favor.
If private citizens, and one was provoked to get into the space of the one with the 100 pound mouth and physically attack that person, what then? They could be arrested for assault, right? The badge worn by law enforcement gives them authority to serve and protect. It gives them authority to question and arrest. It does not give them authority to violate laws that undeputized citizens are held to.
I hope you do respond, and I have a question in hope that your response will inform or maybe educate us. My question is, what are your thoughts about the Rodney King incident?
LikeLike
Xena, I will defer to your judgment and attempt to discuss this issue a bit more…
” the Rodney King incident?”
What does this incident have in common with the Rodney King incident other than both involve police out of control? You mentioned that a private citizen could have been charged with assault, but I suppose you fail to realize that these officers can and should be charged with not only assault, but abuse of power as well. They according to the law of the land are not immune from the force of the law and the same laws that apply to the common man apply to them as well, however due to the internal corruption of the justice system, and the good ole boy persona there are way too few officers prosecuted. I have no real answer on how to change this, to do so would require a complete overhaul of our criminal justice system, and it is doubtful that will ever occur.
I think that perhaps my thought process on this whole case/situation/incident has not been that the officers involved were innocent of criminal acts, but that as humans they are subject to the same emotions that the rest of us mere mortals are. They after being provoked, unleashed the savage instinct that all of us possess, and acted like primitive animals! Unfortunately, this man possibly because of his intoxicated state did not act in a prudent manner and brought the full wrath of the anger he provoked upon him self. Should he, because of his choice to drink to excess, be given a pass for his actions? He was illegally drinking, he drank to excess becoming intoxicated to the point that he was asked to leave the casino, after leaving the casino, he seems to have asked the officers where he should go. It seems that he was not happy with the answer he was given, and then crossed the street, started yelling what appears obscenities to and at the officers, and even after getting almost out of hearing range, turned back to continue his tirade at/toward the officers. Finally they obviously had received sufficient taunts to proceed to go toward the intoxicated individual and viciously attack him, using excessive force in restraining him. No doubt that what they did was not only excessive, it was brutal and even in an area like NJ would be an illegal act that requires justice to be applied. Now, would any of this have happened if the drunken victim had used any small amount of restraint in his own actions. Again, can you really tell me that he should not be responsible for his own action in this incident? I’m going to shut the computer off in a few moments and take a little while to reflect on the events of the day. Have a good night…
LikeLike
They rushed him. He wasn’t doing anything. It is beyond comprehension they would bring the dog in and then charge him with assault on the dog. This shit has got to stop!
LikeLike
mndyme62, So as you watched the video you saw the victim simply walking down the street, minding his own business and not taunting the police officers? I agree that this kind of brutality on the part of law enforcement officers must stop, but I do question why you ignore his actions (fueled by alcohol), and think they played no part in the attack? Do you think that if he had not acted the way he did they would have still crossed the street to attack him? I’m not defending the attack, nor have I said it was the right thing to do, the point that I have attempted to make is simple, the man provoked the attack and while it ended up much more vicious and horrendous than he (or anyone else) should have suffered, he did play an important role in causing the situation…
LikeLike
It is a horror story!
LikeLike
@mindyme62.
Yes. The canine was totally unnecessary. I don’t know the legal drinking age in New Jersey, but it seems that since he was ordered out of the casino for being under aged AFTER he was drunk, that someone should have responsibility for making sure he is safe. To say it another way, young, intoxicated folks, should not be left alone on the streets, especially when they do not live in that city. David lives in Linwood.
LikeLike
@Xena,
I agree with you 100%. I did look up some information, and if he was served alcohol at the casino, it looks as though they may hold some responsability.
Casinos are not allowed to serve alcohol to people who are under 21 or intoxicated,are strictly liable for patron’s behavior,and are subject to dram shop lawsuits for injuries stemming from negligence in serving alcohol.
Crazy, it does look as though David could have been charged with Harrassment
The New Jersey Harassment Law is set forth at N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4. This statute provides that a person is guilty of a petty disorderly persons offense “harassment” if he:
1.Makes or causes to be made, a communication or communications anonymously or at extremely inconvenient hours, or in offensively course language, or any other manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm;
2.Subjects another to striking, kicking, shoving, or other offensive touching, or threatens to do so; or
3.Engages in any other course of alarming conduct or repeatedly committed acts with purpose to alarm or seriously annoy such other person.
Harassment is a Fourth Degree Crime where it is committed by someone on probation or parole for an indictable offense.
So the big question is, was he served alcohol. If so, does the responsability fall to the casino for his behavior. Too bad there is no audio of the exchange between him and the police. I don’t see where he should be charged with assault. Another case of the police using exessive force. They had other choices they could have made.
LikeLike
@dreamer. Thanks so much for looking up info on the legal drinking age and dram shop law in NJ.
This might mean that David was intoxicated when he entered the casino. Or, maybe not. Maybe they did serve him without carding first.
One thing that bothers me is that cops didn’t just take David down. With at least 4 cops on him, another kicked him and another used a night stick hitting his legs. He said that he was handcuffed behind his back when the canine unit arrived. It’s hard to see that on the video, but I did not see his arms flailing. He must have thought that he was going to be killed and there wasn’t a damn thing he could do to stop it.
LikeLike
dreamer, Thank you for taking the time to look that up, I had already done so, but had be negligent in posting the information. I will suggest that if you read a little more about the “Harrassment Law” you will find that historically it has been difficult to prosecute because it is so ambiguous. I would suggest that a more fitting law to apply would be as follows…
“New Jersey Disorderly Conduct Law
N.J.S.A. 2C:33-2
Disorderly conduct is a criminal charge in New Jersey governed by N.J.S.A. 2C:33-2, which provides in pertinent part:
a. Improper behavior. A person is guilty of a petty disorderly persons offense, if with purpose to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly create a risk thereof he or she:
(1) Engages in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavior; or
(2) Creates a hazardous or physically dangerous condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor.
b. Offensive language. A person is guilty of a petty disorderly persons offense if, in a public place, and with purpose to offend the sensibilities of a hearer or in reckless disregard of the probability of doing so, he addresses unreasonably loud and offensively coarse or abusive language, given the circumstances of the person present and the setting of the utterance, to any person present.”
Xena, I did do some additional research when I got home a little while ago, and it appears that New Jersey does not have a public intoxication law. There is however the speculation that David had been drinking in the casino, but that as of now has not been confirmed as far as I can determine. I did discover that the officer that determined that he was intoxicated did have three choices on how to handle David, he could have taken him home (nothing in the law addresses distance allowed on this part), he could have taken him to a treatment facility (emergency room), or do as he did allow him to simply leave.
It was mentioned I think, by Shannon that it would have been good if we had audio to go with the video. If we did it would clear up many of the questions that plague us on this issue, what was the actual wording that David was using, we can guess it was not very sweet by his over all body language, but the actual words could supply us with a little more insight into the incident. It would also provide us with what the officers said to David, I won’t say definitely that he was ordered to stop, and that he was under arrest, at the point that he turned and started to walk away from them the last time, but it is possible. However, even if he failed to stop when ordered, it did not warrant the excessive force they used in detaining him, because the canine officer acted in such a horrendous manner I can’t and won’t even attempt to discuss or even understand how an “alleged” human being can inflict such pain on another! Ok, I’m going to shut up now and do a little reading…
LikeLike
Yes, things have happened in the past that would make people cringe. But, times are changing. I’m not talking about the some LE officers changing but the availability of cameras are everywhere; security cameras, personal, phones, etc.
Without the video of the beating the cops could easily have prevailed in their charges…..6 cops against one drunken adult. But the tape shows another story, I bet quite different from their own.
21 complaints in 3 yrs time with just one of the officers should have been a huge warning flag to any department.
I wish this tape had audio. Yes, the man shows like he was upset with the police, pointing his fingers, waving out his arms but it doesn’t show what the cops were doing in turn. Where they just as provoking? Did he ask for help and then they said just find your own way home? Starting a verbal assault of aren’t you supposed to help people? Whatever was said I have always felt that cops should have thicker skin when it comes to verbal assault, but it appears that the opposite is true in this. What is clear is that even if he called them every name in the book, he didn’t rush them and he didn’t make the first physical contact.
LikeLike
Excellent points, tower flower!
LikeLike
towerflower, You make some excellent points, but you miss some also, watch the video again, as the underage drunken person crosses the street, they are ignoring him. While I don’t doubt that after the verbal exchange began the officers responded, first verbally then after he turned and returned to closer range for the exchange and if you watch carefully he appeared to give the officers an obscene gesture. While nothing the drunken individual did rose to the level that justifies the horrible carnage they unleashed upon him, he did participate in creating the problem. Wonder what would have happened if he had not first been allowed the opportunity to simply leave the establishment (a courtesy by the officers?) and been arrested instead? My whole point in this discussion is not to exonerate the officers, but to simply point out that the whole problem could have been avoided but for the actions of the victim… Personal responsibility is and has been an issue that has gone by the wayside as time has gone by and is only considered when convenient. Would you have been as understanding of the plight of this drunken individual had he gotten into an auto and killed a family? The officer that allowed him to leave the establishment would have also been partly at fault in that event also…
LikeLike
crazy, Yes the young man was drunk and most likely obnoxious. No I wouldn’t want him getting behind the wheel of any car. BUT……like I said I would love to know what was said on both sides. When he left the casino he doesn’t appear to be angry and it’s only after his interaction with the officers that something happened.
I’m only saying that even though this man was drunk and may have said some obnoxious things to the cops they should have the ability to ignore the insults and any gestures given to them. I also don’t want a cop around who has a short fuse and goes off on someone when they can’t handle what is said to them. It seems to me that if they just ignored his rants then he would have kept walking
LikeLike
towerflower, It has been said the hind sight is much better that fore sight. If the original officer had only arrested him, if only he had not gotten obnoxious, if only the officers had been deaf and not heard him yelling and screaming at them. This whole case is full of “if only’s”, and what has happened can not be undone. I suppose as I stated a few moments ago, I live in a world that no longer exists where I am responsible for the results of my actions! I suppose we must excuse this man for his actions because times have changed. I still don’t think that I will go out tonight, get drunk and find a police officer to curse at in public, some how I don’t think the results would be something I would enjoy…
LikeLike
@towerflower.
BINGO! Then turn around and lie about it to charge David for assault.
LikeLike
I think what need to be taken into consideration first is if he was served alcohol at the casino. IF he was then I believe the personal responsibility shifts to the casino. Had they not served him and thrown him to the streets then I beleive that would exonerate them from being responsible. Once they allow him to drink, they then become the resposible party for what occurs. The fact that he may have looked of age doesn’t fly. You better make sure he is not under age. At my age, I have been able to purchacce ciggarettes for over thirty years, but from time to time I am still asked for ID.
Given the choice of three options, if they served him alcohol, and only if, you would think the option to throw him to the streets would be the last one to choose. Casino’s are being fined big time for serving to the underage. If the law states 21, it was written because they feel those under that age are not mature enough for the consequences that may come with drinking. Whoever is respsonsible, does not excuse the exessive force and as far as I can see, there was no need for the dog. Unless something else ocurred that what we can see on the video, they all need to loose their badges and be charged with assault.
LikeLike
dreamer, As normal when dealing with the facts of any news story that we receive in todays market, we only receive part of the story, and as we see in this case, we are left to guess what the unknown facts actually are… We read and hear that David was asked to leave the casino, but by who? I did a little research and now realize that while the laws of New Jersey that cover the use and consumption of alcohol do not exactly apply to the casino, they are governed by similar laws, but I have not determined if any of them could or would apply to this case.
I realize that many on here do not agree with my assessment that David’s actions played a part in this situation, while I agree that the response of the officers was not only horribly wrong but criminal as well. One of the things that citizens of this nation have abandoned over the last years is the failure to accept any responsibility for the result of their actions.. I’m not suggesting that David bears the bulk of the responsibility for what happened, however without his actions it is likely that we would have no story to read, and the same could be said about the actions of the officers, if they had not over reacted like they did, we would have no story to read… Many times we fail to realize that but for something we do, something else will not happen (good or bad)..
LikeLike
LikeLike
Correction as far as quotation marks:
My only comment is that if someone does something to make us angry, go ahead and be angry, BUT do NOT act on anger.
There is NO excuse to be violent just because someone has made us angry.
LikeLike
Yahtzee,
“My only comment is that if someone does something to make us angry, go ahead and be angry, BUT do NOT act on anger.
There is NO excuse to be violent just because someone has made us angry.”
I agree 100% with that statement! Too bad our “modern” society has forgotten that! Now have you not realized that statement also applies to David? Had he not become angry and acted verbally on that anger, things would have ended differently?
LikeLike
You missed my point. There is NOTHING violent about mouthing off.
I am saying that NO one has a right to be physically violent just because that person is angry.
LikeLike
Yahtzee,
“I am saying that NO one has a right to be physically violent just because that person is angry”
We “agree” on that point, and at no time have I attempted to justify violence. Especially when it involves members of the law enforcement in this nation…
LikeLike
@crazy1946.
Thank you.
Although I am not totally familiar with that case, I had heard that Rodney deserved the beating inflicted on him because he was under the influence. Some said that he fought back. I did see the video and did not see him fighting back. I just wonder if you think that Rodney was responsible in the same manner that you see David being responsible.
Now, I would like to point out some things so that this discussion does not continue based on assumptions or misrepresentation of what we do know.
We don’t know if he was illegally drinking. That depends on NJ law. In some states, those under 21 can drink beer and wine. David was asked to leave the casino for being under aged, which conveys that one has to be 21 or over to legally gamble in NJ.
According to his mom, after he called his friends to pick him up, he asked the cops for directions. In the video, we see David talking on his cell phone, then walking in the direction of the cops. He then crosses the street and walks in the opposite direction of where the cops are.
We don’t know if he was unhappy, but if I were in his shoes, I would be unhappy with the thought that I was away from home, in Atlantic City, and had to walk further from the casino while intoxicated, which could subject me to being targeted by criminals looking for just such a person.
If there is law in NJ that David violated by being intoxicated and mouthing off to the cops from a distance, that would be different. The fact is that David was not charged with anything until after the cops and their canine put him in a position requiring 4 days hospitalization and 200 stitches.
Let me say this another way; we cannot hold David responsible for anything he did before or after the incident, because he was not charged with anything before the incident, and the charges filed against him afterwards are false as evidenced by the video.
LikeLike
Xena,
“We don’t know if he was illegally drinking. That depends on NJ law. In some states, those under 21 can drink beer and wine. David was asked to leave the casino for being under aged, which conveys that one has to be 21 or over to legally gamble in NJ.”
You are correct in saying that it is not proven that he was drinking in the casino. In the casino, not only do you have to be 21 to be on the floor, you must be 21 to drink alcohol. The only thing we know without a doubt that he was in the casino and was asked to leave, we don’t know for sure who it was that requested he leave, was it the management, the security for the casino, or a police officer. I was in error when I “assumed” it was a police officer..
“If there is law in NJ that David violated by being intoxicated and mouthing off to the cops from a distance, that would be different.”
There is a law that does apply to David’s actions prior to the attack, (I posted a copy of the law to “dreamer” earlier), and that would be disorderly conduct, which is one of the thing that David was charged with.
“Let me say this another way; we cannot hold David responsible for anything he did before or after the incident, because he was not charged with anything before the incident”
I’m sorry, but I’m having difficulty processing this statement! How do you propose that he could be charged prior to the incident when the act he was engaged in did not stop until the incident? I would think of all the charges placed against David that were realistic the disorderly conduct was accurate, we don’t have enough information to determine if he was resisting arrest based simply on what we see in the video, that is one place where audio would possible give us enough information to determine that charge, assault was another charge the only action that the video shows is of a defensive nature. Now to the question of whether David should be charge with the alleged infractions he committed, I would think not, due to the excessive punishment that has already be administered…
LikeLike
@crazy1946.
I commented:
You replied:
The police did not charge David with anything until after they beat and terrorized him. Had David been charged with disorderly conduct before he was attacked, then we can ponder his level of responsibility for the attack. While it is disrespectful to mouth off to cops, cops must be above reproach. To beat, kick, use night sticks, and allow a canine to maul, is not the proper response.
IF we support that mouthing off to the police is disorderly conduct, then it opens a can of worms for constitutional violations.
LikeLike
Xena,
” I just wonder if you think that Rodney was responsible in the same manner that you see David being responsible.”
Wow, this is a question that I’m not sure there is a singular answer to.. The two cases can only be compared because of the actions of a group of out of control police officers and that both victims were male.. You seem to think that my comment that David is responsible for his actions, translates into saying he is responsible for his being attacked and beaten by a group of out of control police officers, that is not what my point is. David is responsible for his actions that created a climate that allowed the attack to take place, however only the police officers are responsible for the attack they failed to follow the law as to the treatment of a member of the community..
The Rodney King case is rather unique in that it was the first well publicized case of police brutality that was captured on video and played for the nation to expose the treatment of minorities at the hand of the people entrusted to enforce the laws of the community. At the time it took place, I was shocked, horrified and outraged that this would happen in our nation, this kind of thing did not happen here, only in other nations.. It did expose the ugly underbelly of our society and brought it out into open sight.. To some of us it also gave us a better understand of the lack of equality to be found in the criminal justice system. The real problem is that despite the progress that many of us thought had been made it was merely superficial and no in depth change has been made up to now…
LikeLike
@crazy1946.
Was it not said that Rodney was under the influence when the cops beat him?
It sounds confusing, because if David is held responsible for the climate that allowed the attack, then the attack appears to be justifiable. If we conclude that the attack was unjustifiable for any and all reasons, then David is alleviated from responsibility.
Let’s apply the same words to the case of David Castellani. It is unique in that it captured police brutality on camera that exposes treatment of a young White male at the hands of people entrusted to enforce the laws.
Injustice to anyone is a threat of injustice to everyone. We cannot have a double-standard.
LikeLike
Xena, I’m now starting to understand how the deer being chased by a pack of wolves feels like….
“Injustice to anyone is a threat of injustice to everyone. We cannot have a double-standard.”
I went back and read my post again, and still can not find how my comments could lead to that comment? I have not suggested that a “double standard” should or would be acceptable…
It would seem that this “discussion” is/has becoming more of an impeachment of ideology held by a singular member of the group, and I fail to see how that could result in any sort of positive outcome….
LikeLike
@Crazy1946. You might be a deer, but there are no wolves here. Sorry that you feel that way. No matter what David did, it did not create a climate for the cops to beat him senseless then let a dog maul him at will.
You agree with that, but still hold David responsible for provoking the incident.
When I brought up Rodney King, it’s because I heard arguments like the one you present regarding David — Rodney was under the influence; he provoked the situation by not laying down playing dead; the cops were wrong but so was Rodney, etc.
In situations involving law enforcement, that are not life or death situations, no victim should ever be blamed for causing their own victimization. Law enforcement has the training, authority, and the tools to restrain people. Citizens should have respectful fear for those tools and skills, rather than being fearful that those tools and skills will be abused.
Authority should never be abused because effectively, it is authority and carries weight without being abusive.
LikeLike
Xena, It would seem that either I am unable to communicate my points in a manner that is understandable or that my words are being twisted and distorted to say things that are not meant, I am betting on the first being the case. I will ask you a few questions that after you answer them, perhaps we may both better understand the others position. Please attempt to base your answers simply on factual (or as close as we can get to factual evidence due to the limited information we have) evidence with out allowing emotion to control our answer.
I will first post the New Jersey law that would seem to apply to David’s conduct “prior” to the actions of the Police Officers. Please understand that while David has not been convicted of this crime, an objective individual might conclude that there is a strong possibility that he was in violation of this law.
“New Jersey Disorderly Conduct Law
N.J.S.A. 2C:33-2
Disorderly conduct is a criminal charge in New Jersey governed by N.J.S.A. 2C:33-2, which provides in pertinent part:
a. Improper behavior. A person is guilty of a petty disorderly persons offense, if with purpose to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly create a risk thereof he or she:
(1) Engages in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavior; or
(2) Creates a hazardous or physically dangerous condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor.
b. Offensive language. A person is guilty of a petty disorderly persons offense if, in a public place, and with purpose to offend the sensibilities of a hearer or in reckless disregard of the probability of doing so, he addresses unreasonably loud and offensively coarse or abusive language, given the circumstances of the person present and the setting of the utterance, to any person present.”
Now, after reading that law go back and watch the video again, this time stop the video at 3:09 and consider what was taking place up until this point.
Now my questions….
1> Does David appear to be intoxicated?
2> Have the police officers shown any indication they wanted to attack David?
3> Does it appear that David is in violation of the New Jersey law that I provided above?
4> Does the use of any intoxication substance by “choice” allow an individual to violate the laws of the community?
5> Does it appear that David is being forced to act in the manner that he is by someone outside of the field of view?
6> Who is responsible for David’s actions up to this point?
You will note that we stopped the video prior to the vicious attack upon David by the police officers. I did that by intent, the reason being that rather than dealing with “emotion” I will simply deal with the “alleged facts” that preceded the attack by the officers. While in no way these facts “excuse” the actions of the officers, they will perhaps if looked at objectively, will explain the events that lead up to and perhaps escalated the situation creating a “climate” that allowed to “out of control” police officers to commit a horrendous and illegal act against David… This is not, and has not been an effort to “excuse or to justify” the acts of the actions of those officers involved in this incident, only they are responsible for their part in this, David is not responsible for the beating and I have not said at any point that he was, however had it not been for his actions leading up to the beating one can only conclude that the event would not have occurred, that is unless you feel that they would have attacked him regardless? Can you accept that almost every thing that occurs in life happens because of another occurrence? Has it not been said that every action has an opposite reaction? I truly hope that this ridiculously long post will clarify my “actual” position on this subject and remove the assumptions that some here have made of my position…
LikeLike
@crazy1946. Answering you down here so my response won’t end up in a little-bitty box.:-)
Yes.
We don’t see the police officers when David appears to be intoxicated.
Maybe subsection (b) but we don’t know what he was saying.
This question is based on a false hypothesis that David violated a law. To reach that conclusion we would need to conclude that the answer to number 3 is yes, but we do not know what David was saying.
Don’t know, because we don’t see anyone outside of the field of view.
Mouthing off is not necessarily an action and if it is considered an action, then First Amendment consideration needs to be given before it can be ruled that it fits under the proverbial, “Don’t yell fire in a crowded theater.”
Now, you get to the point that leads to the confusion we’re having. My position is that there is absolutely nothing anyone can ever do that leads to allowing the police to behave in that manner. Taking an unruly or threatening person down and handcuffing them — okay. If physical weight is needed to hold the person in order to handcuff, fine. But punching, kicking, using Night Sticks, and allowing a dog to maul a man who is handcuffed behind his back —- well, not even those who rate highly in my book for deserving punishment, such as Timothy McVeigh, deserves that.
Again, this is where it gets confusing because we can’t have it both ways. Police are not suppose to punch and kick and use Night Sticks when the person is putting up no fight. Neither are they suppose to let a dog chew on the head and neck of a person who is unarmed, restrained, and handcuffed.
We don’t see the police in the video as David is walking, but we do see him walking. Why did the police leave their little corner outside of the casino and get close enough to David for him to talk to or at?
Well no, but we would have to talk about divine will, astrology and karma. 🙂
I appreciate your time and your effort. You don’t have to continue unless you wish to do to so.
LikeLike
After David Castellani hung up his cellphone with his friends, he probably asked the police for directions to where his friends were. In other words, he needed help from the police to connect with his friends.
It is my belief that David was not given the help he needed from the police, that they just brushed him off in a “get lost” manner.
So David started walking away, he became overwhelmed by his helplessness. As his helpless situation began to hit him, he turned to the police in order to beg them to reconsider helping him.
This is apparent by his body language at the beginning of his talking again to the police from a distance. Note: His arms are outstretched to the side in front of himself WITH HIS PALMS FACING UPWARD.
I looked up what this gesture means on a body language site, and I quote here what I found:
My feeling is that the police would NOT reconsider his APPEAL FOR HELP and then said something back to him that was not nice causing David to probably say something like “Police are supposed to be helpful.”
I really believe that there was a verbal back and forth that escalated on BOTH sides.
LikeLike
@Yahtzee.
I absolutely agree. The police must have also been walking towards him.
Years ago, I was in a city that I’m unfamiliar with — had a map to where I was going. At an intersection where I was to turn right to enter the freeway, a cop was there flagging traffic to go straight. I didn’t know what was happening, and was afraid of going straight because I had no clue where that street was going or if I would get back to where I needed to be.
So, I rolled down my window and said “Officer, I’m not ….” and he interrupted me saying, keep going. I tried again, “I’m not from around here and …” and he interrupted me again saying, if you don’t want a ticket, keep going young lady.”
I sat still — put the car in park, and asked if he would listen to me. He told me to pull over. I did. Then he waved to another cop who came over. I told him that I had no intent to cause any problem but I was not from that city, was unfamiliar with it, and only knew where I was going according to the map. He asked to see my driver’s license. No problem. He saw that I did not live in that city. And, he allowed me to make a right turn.
Wow! Those were actually decent cops compared to those who jump the gun.
LikeLike
Yahtzee, While your opinion of what he was saying sounds good, it has the same problem that everyone has said of my opinion, and that is you don’t actually know what the facts are. But then again, as I have admitted, I don’t know with all certainty what his words were…
LikeLike
Well, I should have reviewed the video….the palms up gesture occurred later. His first gestures before the palms up began as if upset and blaming the police for not helping him.
LikeLike
The “palms up” gesture begins at Timestamp 2:15.
LikeLike
@Yahtzee. You know, a 20 year old away from home, separated from his friends and drunk, would be like a 10 year old lost in the woods.
LikeLike
Xena,
Thanks for sharing your experience, Xena.
Yes you were treated fairly by DECENT policemen.
David, was NOT.
We should note that when David came out of the casino, he was CALM. He calmly stood and called his friends. He CALMLY walked up to the policemen. He then spoke to the policemen in a CALM manner as he asked for their help.
Xena, I absolutely agree with you when you write:
LikeLike
Xena, Off topic, but important information, that will possibly have a major impact on this nations treatment of the mentally ill….
http://www.nbcnews.com/health/experts-praise-historic-mental-health-addiction-parity-rule-8C11565155
LikeLike
here is the worst video i’ve ever seen half of. i couldn’t watch the rest because i got sick and stayed physically sick for 3 days. but it’s not like you can see everything like the above video because you really can’t see all that much, it’s the sounds that make it crystal clear what happened. this is the sound of a man being beat to death by a bunch of rough cops, just like what these cops could’ve done to David. and this is why there’s just no way i hold David’s words responsible for causing his own beating in any way. his words, no matter what they were never killed anyone.
LikeLike
@Shannon. I have this story on file. That’s the homeless guy at the bus station. His dad did some interviews.
LikeLike
This is the attorney for Kelly Thomas’ family.
LikeLike
I am shaken and trembling from watching this and shannon’s video.
Everyone needs to see this no matter how hard it is too watch IF we are going to advocate for people brutalized by LE officers.
LikeLike
I feel I am going to vomit.
LikeLike
That was so upsetting, to know that he lost his life at the end of this. To know that his last thoughts were calling out to his dad for help. My son watched it too after hearing the noises from my computer and he wanted to know what he did to cause it. I played it again and asked him did you hear what the cop said to him? In it you can hear the cop saying “Do you see my fist?” and after he says yes the cop tells him he was going to f him up.
They other thing I feel most people forget is that when faced with a beating, a person will do anything to protect themselves from it, it is only human nature. They didn’t give him a chance to comply with their demands when they continued to beat him.
LikeLike
I know, towerflower.
I have NEVER before now actually seen a man TORTURED to death.
I am better, but still shaken.
Last night, before I went to bed, I had pictures of Emmet Till and others who were tortured to death. This video caused me to cross an emotional protective line….the rather automatic line where my mind and being tells me not “to go there”…… but in some sort of rush (just a few seconds worth) I graphically pictured what the act of the actual, brutal torture would have looked like for Emmet Till.
Yes, as you said
LikeLike
Here ya go Shannon. The cops that beat Kelly Thomas have been charged.
“Former Fullerton Police Department Officer Manuel Anthony Ramos, 39, is charged with second-degree murder and involuntary manslaughter and ex-Cpl. Jay Cicinelli, 41, is charged with involuntary manslaughter and excessive force in connection with the beating death of Kelly Thomas, a homeless man with schizophrenia.
Both officers were dismissed from the Fullerton Police Department.
Jury selection is expected to begin in early November and the trial is scheduled for November 18.
A Friday trial-setting conference scheduled for ex-Fullerton police officer Joe Wolfe, who is expected to go on trial after Ramos and Cicinelli, was rescheduled to January 24. Wolfe faces charges of involuntary manslaughter and excessive force in the Thomas beating.”
Orange County Superior Court Judge William Froeberg will only allow a TV camera in the courtroom during opening statements and closing argument, the verdict and sentencing phases of the trial.
Kelly’s father, Ron Thomas, a former Orange County Sheriff’s Deputy, said he’s gearing up for another difficult stretch. “Now we’re ready for battle, and it’s going to completely drain me to go through it all again,” said Thomas. “But this is what we’re here for – justice for Kelly.”
“Ramos faces a potential sentence of 15 years to life if convicted of second-degree murder but only four years if convicted of involuntary manslaughter. Cicinelli and Wolfe face a maximum sentence of four years in prison if found guilty.”
http://www.scpr.org/news/2013/10/18/39889/trial-set-for-ex-fullerton-cops-charged-in-kelly-t/
LikeLike
Here’s another case that I collected info about. It happened in Whitehall, OH on August 1, 2009 to 84 year old Virginia Dotson. Dotson has Alzheimers and uses a cane to support her. Dotson resides at an assisted care facility where her daughter visits and purchases personal items for her mom. Her daughter left her in the car, seat belt fastened, while she ran into WalMart to get some personal items for her mom. Only Dotson found a steak knife in the car and cut the seat belt. She got out of the car and walking with the steak knife in one hand and her other hand on her cane, was calling out her daughter’s name.
Police officer Tammy Scott approached Dotson and told her drop the knife. Dotson, still calling out her daughter’s name, was swiftly slammed to the pavement by Scott like a rag-doll, cracking Dotson’s head.
The man who filmed the scene, Stan Brown, told NBC: ‘I believe it could have been taken care of a lot easier than that. I kind of think that was too much force with her being that old.’
The daughter appears in the video and therefore, was not in the store that long. Identifying herself as Dotson’s daughter, the police would let allow her to comfort her mom as she laid on the ground bleeding.
Although Officer Scott said that she used force because Dotson was armed, Dotson was not charged with any crime.
It was caught on video by a person using a cell phone.
Dotson and her daughter filed a suit naming as defendants the City of Whitehall, Whitehall police dept., Officer Scott and others. They requested compensatory damages exceeding $50K and one million in punitive damages, plus attorney fees and costs. The case was settled in August 2011 for an unspecified amount. If anyone wants to see the lawsuit, let me know and I’ll upload it.
LikeLike
Brutal….inexcusable to have done this to an 84-year-old woman with Alzheimers.
LikeLike
@Yahtzee. Yep. She might has well had been a rag doll.
A five year old could have knocked that frail woman down.
The lawsuit complaint alleged a count for lack of police training. The attorney laid-out that the plaintiff was walking with a stare; was not comprehending; that there were people walking around her who were not afraid, and that she had not attacked anyone.
Interesting what happened after the cop realized she had hurt the woman. She held on to her wrists.
LikeLike
And Ametia posted this video at 3chicspolitico:
LikeLike
Xena, Let’s take a moment and look at the answers you provide to my questions.
Here is your response to question #2
“We don’t see the police officers when David appears to be intoxicated.”
Did you not watch the video? Take the time to watch it again, take note of David as he walks out of the Casino and into view of the camera, and again as he walks toward the officers to “allegedly” ask them for direction or help. Does a young healthy person stager and weave as he is shown to be doing? It appears that for some reason you perhaps are chosing to ignore these signs of intoxication?
Here is your response to question #3
“Maybe subsection (b) but we don’t know what he was saying.”
Once again I must question if you are attempting to be objective in that comment? While we can not hear the words spoken by David, do we really need to in order to conclude that they were not words of praise and gratitude toward the police officers? I must ask you this, if we were to take the portion of the video that I isolated to provide the basis of the origional questions, and play it for another person who had never heard of this case, can you honestly say that they would not see the indication of anger and hostility on the part of the person in the video? It has been said that in communication between humans that body language plays a large part of the conversation, are you seeing that body language or are you ignoring it by intent to prove my points false? I’ll ask again, do we need to know the exact words he was using to see the anger and frustration that he was exhibiting?
Here is your response to question #4
“This question is based on a false hypothesis that David violated a law. To reach that conclusion we would need to conclude that the answer to number 3 is yes, but we do not know what David was saying.”
I’m sorry, but this could hardly be considered a “false hypothesis” if one were to be objective in their observation of David’s actions after he crossed the street and began to address his displeasue to the situation that he was in. While granted he has at this point not been convicted of a criminal act, that to suggest that there is not an extremly strong possiblility that he was doing so is not realistic. I know you will probably come back with the innocent till proven guilty portion of the law, however we in this discussion are not a court of law, are we?
Here is your response to question #6
“Mouthing off is not necessarily an action and if it is considered an action, then First Amendment consideration needs to be given before it can be ruled that it fits under the proverbial, “Don’t yell fire in a crowded theater.”
Wow, I really don’t know how to respond to this statement! Since when is the use of our spoken language not considered an action by the party speaking? Granted that the 1st Amendment allows one to express anger and emotion, but does a reasonable and prudent person make comments that could be construed as objectionable to another person and expect no response? Now before you twist this into saying that I say that the beating of David was justified because of his actions, it is not what I am saying at all. Only that one needs to expect the possibility of reaction in response to their actions… Would you walk up to a hornets nest with a short stick and proceed to strike the nest? Would you not expect some response from the hornets? Again, it would seem that you are not being truly objective in your response.
On the balance of your response to my post you jumped ahead of the area that I highlighted (in the video) to explain my position…. I suspect that was to prove your points perhaps? While I won’t dispute that your points were some what correct using an emotional viewpoint, but not if you wish to us a more factual approach to the incident…
“I appreciate your time and your effort. You don’t have to continue unless you wish to do to so.”
Even with the way this discussion has gone, I have no real “need ” to disconnect from it. I suppose I am too dumb to know when to walk away! Besides why quit when you are behind, any one can do that…
LikeLike
@crazy1946. Okay. As Ed says, “Let’s get to work.” 🙂
That’s not an allegation but what his mom reports as stated to her by David.
Not ignore — maybe unfamiliar, but it was when David crossed the street that I notice he walked as if intoxicated. Still, after he crosses the street, we do not see the cops in the video.
Makes no difference. Your logic or theory, or opinion, accepts that there is always a response to provocation. If a child says something the parent doesn’t like, then the child provokes the parent. If an employee says something a supervisor doesn’t like, then the employee provokes the supervisor. In such situations, the person with the authority is the one who should not allow themselves to be provoked.
Possibly.
Your points assume a perception to find David at fault for cops behaving like a street gang. But then, you say the cops have no excuse. That is the crux of this discussion. If there is no excuse for the cops to have rushed, beat, kick, use Night Sticks on David, and allow a dog to maul him, then we cannot judge his behavior PERIOD.
David’s words have no relevance on cops using excessive force. What David may or may not have said is the argument you introduced. I simply answered your questions.
David did not violate any law IF he addressed his displeasure with the situation.
Here’s you’ve implied my thoughts and provided your own answer.
“Mouthing off is not necessarily an action and if it is considered an action, then First Amendment consideration needs to be given before it can be ruled that it fits under the proverbial, “Don’t yell fire in a crowded theater.”
And so, we come back full circle to the beginning. If you indeed believe that the beating of David was not justified because of his actions, they why are you debating about his words/actions to hold him responsible for provoking the cops?
That’s not true, because we don’t know if David has ever been previously intoxicated in public, neither how those around him responded.
We’re talking about cops — not insects.
There is one fact that is important in this matter, and that is the fact of deputized law enforcement using excessive force — so excessive that David ended up in the hospital for 4 days, required 200 stitches, and has permanent nerve damage. That is not using emotion. Those are facts that a court of law examines when determining excessive force as a criminal matter, and damages to the victim in a civil matter.
LikeLike
Xena, Young lady in my eyes you are the greatest! However due to the circular direction this discussion has taken, I honestly feel that there is no way you can actually take an objective look at what I have tried to say, perhaps for historical reasons, it does not matter why however.. I asked a series of questions earlier, and not surprisingly no one chose to answer them, too bad. I suppose I will simply have to say that I, while disagreeing with your position do understand and respect it… I hope that my position in this has not offended too many people as that was not my intent… Now perhaps we can move forward and find a solution to the nations economic problems or perhaps we can find a way to prove the world is indeed flat…. it is isn’t it?
yahtzee, I went back and read my post to you earlier and I think that I might have been a little sharp in my response! If I beg, and grovel, and craw thru broken glass, could you find it in your heart to forgive me? You and Xena are two beacons of light in a dark and foggy night and to bring forth anger in your heart and mind would be devastating! 😉
LikeLike
crazy1946,
Not necessary.
We are here to engage in discussions and express our individual viewpoints.
LikeLike
@Crazy1946.
What I am doing is applying one standard to the parties that caused David permanent damage. You focused on David. I focused on the cops that brutalized him. If there is no excuse nor justification for what the cops did, then I’m not going to blame David for their actions. When victims are accused for their own victimization, is when we see the perpetrators relieved of consequences.
Because it is Veterans Day, I spent time with my son, then we went out for dinner. I arrived home after 7 p.m. CST and am catching up. Your questions deserve more than drive-by responses and I do plan on addressing some, if not all of them.
This is what you cannot do and anticipate honest discussion — you cannot introduce your own hypothesis, build on that with questions, and hope that the answers decides who wins and who loses. There are no winners in matters of harm, damage, and/or death; regardless of our opinion.
LikeLike
Xena,
“This is what you cannot do and anticipate honest discussion — you cannot introduce your own hypothesis, build on that with questions, and hope that the answers decides who wins and who loses. There are no winners in matters of harm, damage, and/or death; regardless of our opinion.”
With that statement you make a false assumption that I was intent on winning the discussion! How can one win something like that? Can it be some how perceived as a contest with winners and losers? If I had been intent on this being a contest, I would not have attempted to be open and honest with my answers to the questions posed, and would have done what was done to me, and twisted and distorted comments to imply things that simply were not said nor meant. So, no I did not consider this a contest…
The questions that I “attempted to ask” were not an attempt to win, they were not trick question, nor an attempt to form a hypothesis, they were question that asked to better understand the other participants positions, nothing more and nothing less! I’m sorry that you made an assumption that they were some other than that…
Quite honestly, I started to not respond to your comments, especially after I attempted to simply disengage from a discussion that had no resolution in sight.. Please don’t think that I am angry, because I am not, trust me if I was, you would never know it…
Now, I think I will shortly shut down this computer and try to get a little work done! Have a great night!
LikeLike
@Xena,
If I am understanding what you are saying, is that your belief is that if it is determined that the police used execessive force then they are 100% responsible for what occured regardless of what led up to the execessive force? Comming from an Insurance background, I will have to disagree. For example, If there are two people who are involved in an accident, the claims department will investigate all aspects to determine who is the responsible party. Party #1 speeds thru a intersection and hits Party #2 who is coming the opposite direction, but is driving with a suspended licence and no insurance, driving her parents car. Both cars are totaled, #2 is injured. #2 believes #1 is responsible, #1 was speeding and caused the crash. The investigation concludes that to be true. They also conclude #1 was driving with a suspended license no insurance. The next twist. Did the parent allow #1 to drive their vehicle. Did #2 live in the household, and if so how was she listed on the policy. If #2 lives in the household, #2 has to to be listed on the policy, either as a rated driver, or excluded from coverage, meaning #2 will not be covered if she drives the car and is involved in an accident.
The parents say they were unaware #2 is unlicensed, they state #2 did not live in the home,therefore should be covered. They are unable to then provide proof of residency, 2 bills with #2 address, tax records, school records, something that shows current proof of #2 residence. Even though #1 caused the accident, it is determined after the investigation each 1/3 resposonsible, #1 for speeding, #2 for driving on a suspended license, and the parents for insurance fraud.
In this case what we see is horrific, but I have to agree with crazy, there may be more than one party found responsible, including the casino if served him, and it could be found David could be in part responsible. We don’t know all the facts, an investigation will determine that, and if more than one party is found, what percentage they find them.
Look at it this way, if we base the verdict in the case of Trayvon, based on what happened only at the time George shot him, with no whittness, then we would have to conclude the jury was right. When you look at what led up to the shooting, common sense will tell you George is guilty beyond a resonable doubt.
Based on what we see in the video, we can conclude one thing, but will need all the facts from start to finish. This is only my opinion, I could be wrong in the area of crimminal law.
LikeLike
@dreamer. Since you mentioned insurance and police using excessive force, I want to post this link before I lost it, and will get back to responding to your comment later.
http://www.heymannfletcherlaw.com/blog/2013/10/new-jersey-premises-liability-case-result-of-excessive-force.shtml
LikeLike
@dreamer. I spent some time looking to see whether New Jersey has a definition for excessive force. They do not. I thought that would be a good starting point because I agree with your assessment regarding the insurance industry. When situations involve sworn officers of the law, they are held to another standard. What I did find to help me clarify that police are liable for using excessive force, (or as you say, 100 percent responsible), came from several reports; one by the National Institute of Justice,and several case decisions decided by federal courts or SCOTUS. I’m going to paraphrase what I read along with some of my own understanding.
For police officers, “excessive force” falls under misconduct. Misconduct is very broad. It covers many things, including not telling the truth in a police report; perjury in a court of law; tampering with evidence; using excessive force. The following site keeps a list of police misconduct based on actions taken or court decisions. http://www.policemisconduct.net/
Wiki provides that “police misconduct refers to inappropriate actions taken by police officers in connection with their official duties. Police misconduct can lead to a miscarriage of justice and sometimes involves discrimination. …” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_misconduct It goes on to say that misconduct includes “off-duty” conduct.
Liability falls on police officers for misconduct. As it concerns excessive force, police officers should use only the amount of force necessary to control an incident, effect an arrest, or protect themselves or others from harm or death. They are trained in handling situations but even with training, they can make a split decision — some turn out right — some turn out bad.
Here’s a situation where excessive force was alleged, but unfounded. A woman who stole merchandise was walking when the cops asked her to halt. She ran. The cops gave chase. Not only was she holding a bag containing the stolen merchandise, but she was also holding her 3 year old granddaughter. A cop caught up with her, took her to the ground and in doing so, her ankle was broken. The little girl was knocked over and suffered a bruise and small cut on her face.
The woman alleged that the broken ankle and her granddaughter being knocked over was the use of excessive force. The cops used the procedure and force necessary to make an arrest. The woman was liable for the injuries she and the child suffered because she committed a crime, and not only disobeyed the police, but took off running requiring them to use force to stop her. She wasn’t contributory negligent but 100 percent negligent. In this case, I agree that excessive force was unfounded BECAUSE there was no misconduct on behalf of the police.
The courts look at “reasonableness” when determining whether excessive force was used. Even in situations where suspects are unruly, there are reasonable actions by the police (sometimes resulting in physical harm to the suspect), and there was unreasonable actions.
LikeLike
Xena, Please forgive me for taking so long to respond to your post from last evening, I started working on the reply above then had to go help a friend with a problem that ended up taking all day long….
LikeLike
I have a serious question..
What causes a person that has been entrusted by the community to serve as a law enforcement officer to commit an act of brutality upon a fellow citizen?
Does the use of an intoxicating substance relieve a person of responsibility for act done while under that use? No specific individual or case, just in general under the common law of the land… Think about this one very carefully, before you answer…
Can a person solve a complex problem without understand the cause and effect of that problem?
In a court of law, which would apply in determining a true and just verdict, “emotion” or “factual evidence” or opinion?
I have received a number of questions during this “discussion” (?), now which one or ones of you wish to answer these? Try to answer them as asked and not as you wish they had been asked, please…
LikeLike
There have been protests and rallies to stop police brutality.
This video was posted in October 2012:
LikeLike
Xena, Please forgive me for submitting so many posts back to back, but I had a full days worth of posts to write… Simply because I was unable to access my computer to answer the questions and comments directed to me last night.. I will try not to do this again.. ;-(
LikeLike
@crazy1946. No need to apologize. There’s absolutely no problem with you or anyone else submitting comments back-to-back.
LikeLike
Xena, Thank you! You might notice that my spelling and punctuation is worse than normal, I have no excuse for that, other than being in a hurry. Trying to cook dinner, feed four legged child, post here and answer the phone, left me a little stretched.
LikeLike
Here is a link to an organization that is fighting police brutality:
http://www.october22.org/index.html
LikeLike
Also, the following is their link to the book “Stolen Lives Project”:
http://www.october22.org/StolenLivesProject.html
LikeLike
Listen to these 911 calls reporting that policemen had brutally beaten a man to death. All of the witnesses’ cellphones with videos of the incident were quickly taken away by the deputies at the scene.
Excerpt:
You can read the complete story entitled “Dad Who Died During an Arrest Begged for His Life; Witness Video’s Seized” at this link:
http://www.bakersfieldcalifornian.com/local/x568091070/Dad-who-died-during-arrest-begged-for-his-life-cops-take-witness-video
LikeLike
http://www.bakersfieldcalifornian.com/local/x1891155809/Autopsy-answers-many-but-not-all-questions-about-Silvas-death
The autopsy says he died from heart disease……..but there were more questions raised by the autopsy than answered, sadly the family had the body cremated so no independent autopsy can be preformed. One of the questions was raised by a commentator who said that hog tying a person who is overweight and leaving them on their stomachs can cause death and that they are to placed on their sides to prevent problems but no where is it mentioned how he was placed when hog tied.
Sadly it doesn’t look like the family will get any answers anytime soon.
LikeLike
http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd599.htm
LikeLike
@crazy1946.
My mistake. It’s because you use the words “prove” and “disprove.” I should have articulated my response more plainly.
Your questions are from a position of focusing on David, and that is not my focus. For me to explain would be to repeat things I’ve already written.
LikeLike
Xena, I did not sleep much last night, as you might guess from the time stamp on this post (actually started this post much earlier, but have edited it several times in an effort to ensure that my words would not be taken out of context)! The subject of this whole discussion is one that invites emotion to over ride any logical processes that can be presented. This is the reason several days ago I attempted to stop my portion of this discussion, I foresaw the direction that the discussion would go. However, because I was asked to continue, I did so, attempting to but failing in an effort to clarify the points that I was attempting to make. This is/was a poor choice on my part, I know better than to over ride my instincts in regards to the outcome of any discussion. Yesterday at about 6:18, I asked several question (4?) that were an attempt to better understand how the other commenters were formulating the content of their comments. They were not directly posed to prove or disprove anyone’s (especially mine) position in regards to the subject being discussed. The questions were asked with honorable intent only… I find the avoidance of presenting answers to these question as being unfair to all of us involved in the discussion, especially considering that I have attempted to answer all the questions I have been asked, even being aware that some questions, such as the comparison of the beating of David to that of Rodney King, was an attempt to imply that some how I approved of the police brutality as being justified in either case, especially after seeing how my words were being taken and used selectively to distort what I had said. With all this having been said, I still can’t seem to find anger in my heart toward anyone here, anger is an emotion that I do not allow to control my life, nor my dealing with other people, and especially amongst individuals that I have a high respect for.. For me this has been another of life’s learning moments, one that teaches me that some subjects are too emotionally charged to attempt to discuss in an open and honest manner… Thank you for taking the time to read and hopefully truly understand my words as they are intended…
LikeLike
@crazy1946.
We are not robots. It is you who have implied emotions and unfairly projected that upon others in this discussion. I say “unfairly” because the nature of what happened to David is emotional. I make no apologies for feeling concern and compassion for David. Just watching that video of him being beaten by the cops is disturbing, but when the dog comes in and mauls him is barbaric. It goes way beyond what law enforcement does in a civilized society.
The argument that police can be provoked is contrary to the very nature of being a law enforcement officer, and that is why this discussion has gone around the same mountain more than once.
LikeLike
Xena, Emotion entered this discussion near the beginning, along with too many instances of projection of false intent and reason toward and about my statements and comments. I was not the person that entered emotion into this discussion, I am only the person that pointed out that it had entered! I did not whine and cry or fuss as the accusations were made that I was claiming that David was responsible for the actions of the police officers were projected toward me, did I, I did however continue to make it plain that David was solely responsible for his actions and the police officers were responsible for their actions. Only because emotion and sympathy for the victim has blinded people to the realization that while David is not responsible for the beating he sustained at the hand and feet of the officers he still is responsible for his actions prior to the attack, especially under civil law, which if you recall is where my early points were directed. Under criminal law, as I have plainly stated several times there is strong indication that David was committing disorderly conduct as exhibited by his apparent yelling and screaming in a public setting, I supplied the law covering that offense in an earlier post, where the contention was then made that because he was attacked and beaten and not charged (which there was not time to do so) before the attack that part does not count.. but nothing in the law concerning disorderly conduct allows for a “but it does not count because of”, or at least I have been unable to find that exemption as of yet, perhaps you can point it out in the law for me?
You point out that this is a very emotional and disturbing case, I agree, however there are two unique elements to this case, one being the emotional viewing of the incident, along with the pain and injury sustained by David at the hands of the officers, which any normal person would find to be horrific, especially the portion involving the canine officer and his dog.. but there is another side to this incident, that for some reason is being ignored or not understood, and that is the “legal” side of this case, both civil and criminal, where under our “laws” emotion on the part of the justice system can not come into play when dispensing justice… That is the portion and the dimension about which I have attempted to make my points understood, however emotion has controlled the discussion and the legal aspect has been ignored by most of the comments. When and if this case makes it into a court of law, either civil or criminal, emotion will not, according to our justice system be a factor in the decision of the court. So now if you will take the emotion out of you mind for just a moment (as hard as it will be in this emotionally charged case) and look at the points that I have attempted to bring out, perhaps you might better understand what my points are, or at least I hope you do…
LikeLike
@crazy1946. You’ve gone around the same mountain several times. I think 40 times is the limit. 🙂
LikeLike
Xena, I’ve already conceded that all my thoughts and comments are invalid and of no importance, and have fallen off the mountain you have chased me around… The flight down to the bottom is amazing but the landing is painful, ouch?
LikeLike
Excessive force lawsuit against ACPD draws calls for more scrutiny
http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/press/atlantic/excessive-force-lawsuit-against-acpd-draws-calls-for-more-scrutiny/article_f25c8d70-2acb-11e3-85e3-0019bb2963f4.html
The lawsuit sheds additional light on the incident. According to the document, Castellani was escorted out of the Boogie Nights nightclub because he was intoxicated while underage.
While Castellani was talking on the phone, a few feet from police, his friends told him to walk to their car at the front of the casino. He asked for the police officers’ assistance in returning to the car.
“Defendant Lorady and Defendants John Doe #1-3 mocked and ridiculed Plaintiff and did nothing to assist Plaintiff — instead ordering him to the other side of Pacific Ave,” the suit reads.
In the video, the officers are not visible as Castellani shouts from across the street, but the suit alleges that the officers “continued to ridicule, taunt and mock Plaintiff who was merely searching for his ride home.”
The suit alleges the officers never directed any commands to Castellani, but at some point — at 3:10 a.m. on the video — they crossed the street to apprehend him.
LikeLike
Dreamer, Thank you for finding and posting this article. After reading the article, I read the response’s to the article, which seemed to pretty well mirror those in this series of posts! It seems that to point out David’s actions prior to the attack is a pretty unpopular thing to do, and brings forth quite a bit of name calling on that site, at least here things are much more civil, right?
“Comparative Negligence
New Jersey is one of a number of states which have adopted a form of the comparative negligence rule. Under the comparative negligence doctrine, a plaintiff may recover if his/her negligence contributed to the damages provided their negligence was not greater than the party or parties against whom recovery is sought (not greater than 50%). However, the damages to which an injured party would be entitled will be diminished by the percentage of negligence attributable to the recovering party. N.J.S.A. 2A:15-5.1 et. seq. The purpose of the comparative negligence statute was to eliminate the harsh doctrine of contributory negligence which bars any recovery to a plaintiff if his/her own negligence contributed to the injury – regardless of how great or how slight the contributory negligence was.
Further, the New Jersey Joint Tortfeasor Act allows a plaintiff to recover the full amount of damages from any joint tortfeasor determined to be 60% or more responsible for the total damages. N.J.S.A. 2A:15-5.3(a) In the alternative, any party found to be less than 60% responsible for the total damages is only responsible for the percentage of damages attributable to that party. N.J.S.A. 2A:15-5.3(c) In the event a party is required to pay more than his share of the damage award in accordance with the Joint Tortfeasors Act, he/she may seek contribution from the other joint tortfeasors for the excess over his/her pro rata share. N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-3.”
http://www.njcounselors.com/law.htm
___________________________________________________________________
This is one of the reasons that the part David played prior to the attack needs to be understood. However I feel sure that some will still use emotion and deny that he has any responsibility (legally or morally) in this incident.. Again while his actions do in “no” way justify the response of the officers in this attack, they “do” have a bearing on this case…perhaps I need to clarify that statement, IMO it only has a bearing on the civil action that David is pursuing, and hopefully will have no bearing on the criminal portion of the case against the officers involved in this incident.. One other small point, the only possible criminal act that David was possibly guilty of as shown in the video provided is “disorderly conduct”, which is not a crime that the police officers are by law allowed to dispense corporal or capital punishment! Some points of the law suit, because of the lack of audio to go with the video are at this point simply allegations made by the plaintiff in the action. Perhaps at some point audio will surface, along with the video from inside the casino that recorded the actions of all parties in the removal of David from the premises.
LikeLike
@crazy1946.
Provocation is emotional, is it not? Hasn’t your argument been based on the police being provoked by David? Sorry, but provocation is not a defense for police misconduct.
Cases involving police misconduct are based on the reasonable person standard and asks, would a reasonable police officer have acted in the same manner as the one or those accused of using excessive force? What do you think a “reasonable person” standard is based on? Thoughts? Training? Following proper procedure? All of the aforementioned?
LikeLike
Xena,
” Hasn’t your argument been based on the police being provoked by David? Sorry, but provocation is not a defense for police misconduct. ”
Curious, why do you continue to ignore the statements that I have made several times about David being responsible for “his actions only” and he is “not and I repeat once more, NOT” responsible for the actions of the officers!!! Are those words difficult to understand? So in answer to your question, no provocation is not a defense for police misconduct, no matter who provoked who!!! David’s actions possibly will have an impact on the civil case as noted in the link I provided earlier.. But will they, no they won’t because the case will never go to court, the civil portion will be settled and David and his family will be able to retire in luxury in the Bahamas’, Florida, or anywhere of their choosing, that is how the civil case business works. I’ll predict that only one of the officers will actually face criminal charges due to his alleged acts of violence toward the citizens of the community. The only thing that will change that will be if enough public support demands farther action, will that happen, possibly, but who knows…
Just to throw another monkey wrench into your argument, I read on another blog that I read but don’t comment on due to the hateful environment of the site, that the officers involved were not on duty at the time and were actually working a paid security for the casino, and it was claimed that due to that it was possible that this suit will be thrown out of court and will have to be refilled naming the casino and it’s principals as defendants. Is that possible, I have not had enough time to research that issue yet, but it is quite possible that the casino is the liable party in the civil portion. How will that allegation affect any criminal charges against the officers, is another thing I am not sure of yet, it is possible that it will place them in the status as private individuals under the law rather than public servants. If I can find any more information about that part, I will post what I find. However it may take a while, because my concentration on that part is becoming rather strained by other issues.
I truly hope this post clears up the “misconception” you have displayed about my points involving David’s responsibility for his actions.
LikeLike
@crazy1946.
David took responsibility for his actions by leaving the casino as he was told to do.
Settlement or not, David’s actions will not have an impact on the civil case because those cases are decided based on the “reasonable person” standard for law enforcement. Would a reasonable officer of the law refuse to help an out-of-towner who is intoxicated, and who had complied with instructions to leave the casino, to find where his ride had parked? Would a reasonable officer of the law not make an arrest for disorderly conduct, allow the person to walk away from them, and then pay attention to what that person was saying as he walked away?
I think they could do that anyway. His dad is an attorney and according to one report, actually represented cops.
And that is why they were wearing on-duty police uniforms and the canine unit arrived in a police issued SUV with a police issued canine because they were moonlighting??? LOL!! You know, the cops that killed Saylor were off-duty, moonlighting for mall security, but their actions were still investigated through the chain of police command because “misconduct” applies to deputized law enforcement whether on duty or not.
Hopefully my comments clear up the “misconception” you have of my points.
LikeLike
Xena, Yes your comments do clear up the “misconception of your points”
Ok, you’re right, David was not intoxicated, he was not on the floor of the casino (illegally), he left voluntarily, he was on his hands and knees begging the big mean police officers for help when they just out of the blue decided to attack him. It was my fault for not being able to have read this in the original article…. It was wrong of me to expect a person to be responsible for their actions (that’s not done in this nation anymore), and I was wrong when I read David was asked (or escorted) from the casino, and my eyes did not see what they thought they saw when they mistakenly saw David outside the casino after he crossed the street. I need to go to the eye doctor and get new glasses that can see correctly… And I was mistaken when I read the Law In New Jersey that would apply any portion of responsibility to David in a civil case, it did not say that, at all obviously…. but I will admit it is confusing to think that David is in no way responsible for his actions but the officers are for theirs especially when I actually thought the officers were guilty of abuse toward David and were responsible for that action, it would seem that if you don’t hold one responsible you shouldn’t hold the other and that seems to be a concept that I failed to understand, but then again times are changing and the old rules seem not to apply, guess I need to invest in a new rule book so I can learn the new rules, right?
Now that I have expressed a large degree of sarcasm toward the way my words have been twisted, distorted, ignored and unfairly treated as invalid, for reasons known only to you, we are left with two options, I leave the discussion feeling completely frustrated and trashed not only as a person but as a contributor to this community as well, or you may ban me from further participation here, and that is your choice to make and I will abide by your wishes… You can either make your wishes known here or by
e-mail to my registered address, again your choice… Regardless of your choice I will still wish you a good evening and a wonderful night…
LikeLike
@crazy1946.
Your words presented as my points, but they are not.
LikeLike
Xena, Now you feel the way I have… about the way my thoughts have been distorted…
LikeLike
@crazy1946.
No, not the same way. There was confusion, but no one distorted what you wrote.
LikeLike
Xena,
“Your words presented as my points, but they are not.”
Psst, if you had read past the first sentence of my post you might have noticed there was more to the post than what you might have noticed. Then again perhaps you did read past there and did not feel my comments were worthy of a response… that seems to have been a common theme in this discussion (IMO)… I thought the very last twelve words were especially important, but?
LikeLike
@crazy1946. I do believe that you’ve not responded to my comments point-by-point. No matter.
There is no place to take this discussion between the two of us without going around the same mountain that we have previously visited. Is that what you want to do? If so, then don’t expect point-by-point responses.
LikeLike
@crazy
Yes, things are much more civil here, that’s what brings us here. We are free to share our own opinions, experiences, and knowledge. I added my own perspective coming from the insurance industry. If I could go back in time, I would have continued my education in law. I know you’re never too old, but I am old. Anyway, my emotions tell me one thing, but my experience in insurance tells me another. In the end, it may not matter, when left to a jury to decide, toss a coin.
LikeLike
Thanks for posting this article, dreamer.
LikeLike
@dreamer. Thanks for the article. It does shed light.
LikeLike
dreamer, Perhaps you could consider a move toward becoming a para legal (hmmm did I spell that right)l? All the thrill (and all the work) of being an attorney with out the money! I entered college with the intent on becoming a lawyer, then I started to realize to be truly successful one would have to sell their soul to the devil, and while I have plenty of faults, I won’t stoop to that level. The perspective you were using was covered in the link that I provided about “Comparative Negligence”, that law is in effect in many of the states and prevents some but not all abuse of the trivial law suit by scam artists and shysters! It was good to know that the state you live in has a similar law. Have a good evening..
LikeLike
LikeLike
Here you go, Yahtzee!
LikeLike
@crazy,
I could never be a laywer as well, I would find it difficult to not let my emotions take hold, and there would be no way I’d sell my soul to the devil. I do however know the labor and wage laws in Cal., and if you think your employer is paying you correctly, read the laws. I happened to have a question on my husband check, and after I read the laws, Lets just say when it went before the Labor Commissioner, she was not a happy camper when she had to open her check book up. She then blamed me for her getting caught, I was stirring the kettle. LOL. The one question turned into about six violations, and had I not researched the laws we never would have known.
LikeLike
Good job advocating for your husband, Dreamer!
You would not have to sell your soul to the devil just because you choose law.
Both my brothers (one, a retired judge + one an retired attorney) had successful careers with integrity. And, right now my nephew (a prosecutor) is having a strong career with integrity.
LikeLike
Here is one of the most likely charges that the officers that attacked David could/should be charged with. Because I actually posted the applicable laws that covered David’s alleged violation, it would only be fair to post the applicable law that covers what the officers did, that way we are not in the dark as to what charges they could face, because to this point all that has be done is assume that they were guilty of “reasonable and prudent person” laws, which while they apply specifically to “non intentional” incidents are not exactly applicable to willful and voluntary action causing physical harm to an individual. One of the things that I discovered while researching the various laws in New Jersey is that civil and criminal laws hold different standards of proof.
“New Jersey – Aggravated Assault Laws & Penalties
Aggravated assault is the more serious of assault offenses and subsequently carries a tougher potential penalty. You could be charged with this offense if it’s believed you did any of the following:
1.Recklessly cause bodily injury to someone with a deadly weapon,
2. Attempt to cause or purposefully or knowingly cause bodily injury to another person with a deadly weapon,
3.Attempt to cause serious bodily injury to someone or cause such an injury purposely, knowingly, or under a negligent, or reckless situation, or
4.Recklessly pointing a firearm at another person
This serious offense can be charged as a crime of the fourth degree, the third, or even the second degree. Crimes, or indictable offenses, are felony level offenses under NJ law. How it is charged depends not only on the result of the assault but who it was committed against and other specifics of the case.
In general, you could face up to 10 years in prison for aggravated assault.”
As strange as you might find it, the canine officer could very well be charged under this statute using #2, in this instance the deadly weapon being his dog… Don’t laugh at this, I failed to write down the location of the source, but it was in the state of MA. where it was done in the past in a case where the neighbor unleashed his dog who then attacked and did quite a bit of physical damage. The officer that used the night stick could well fall under #1, all the others probably under #3. The real question is, will the charges be brought and will they be convicted… Needless to say, there are other potential charges in addition to this, but this one would be the one that I predict would be filed..
Just for clarification purposes, the Disorderly Conduct charge that David has had filed against him is the only charge that realistically could have been filed, the rest of the charges against him that the officers filed are bogus and even if the officers had not beaten David would not have stood. However that action (like it or not) under the civil law will come into play in a lawsuit when damages are assigned based on his actions involved and the officers actions involved. Try to understand, the laws are not the same under the civil statutes as they are under the criminal law…
LikeLike
@crazy1946. Thanks for the info. I’m going to refrain from getting deeper into civil law for causes of action alleging use of excessive force unless case decisions are discussed. To argue elements and affirmative defenses without case decisions is a slippery slope.
Regarding David Castellani, his dad is an attorney who has hired an attorney, so I trust they know what they’re doing and hope that David is provided redress.
LikeLike
Xena, You are welcome. Because at the time of the original posting of the article concerning David and this incident, the only legal action that had been taken per your article you used as a basis of the post. My entire points were addressing the civil case that was brought out as a basis of the article. If you would like case law specific to New Jersey and surrounding states with similar laws, I have about twenty five pages of case law that I would be willing to supply that support the argument that I presented in my postings. I am and was aware of David’s fathers occupation, and also aware of his having an attorney. David does have an extremely good case, but if it does go to court, which is unlikely, he will per historical case law receive less that 100% of the awarded damages due to his contributory negligence leading up to the incident.. However this will not come into play because it will never go to court, the city, the casino and the police unions insurance carrier will settle out of court… You might note I also included the Unions insurance carrier because they would carry a policy to protect the liability of the individual officer members.. I would be willing to bet you a cup of coffee on that, and I am not a betting person…
Just a little side note to bring up something on the video that I don’t think anyone else noticed and it might be important in the case.. Did you notice that David’s shirt was torn at both shoulders? Is it possible that he was physically ejected from the casino? That could put additional liability on the casino, but that is speculation on my part, only after the video from inside the casino is released will we know about that.. As far as David being provided redress, never fear, he will be paid quite well for this incident, prior settlements have been substantial…
LikeLike
Whoops, I failed to do what anyone that posts anything not clearly identified as “opinion” should do, I forgot to post a link to the information I posted about the New Jersey Law..
http://www.assaultandbattery.org/new-jersey/
It is also helpful when posting a link to an attorney’s site, and he does not give you the specific law and talks in laws in a general sense, that it is not law but instead the opinion of the attorney.
LikeLike