Cop grabs another cop’s throat!?

#cops #police #florida

We obviously need to get ALL the info. It’s good another cop would stand up for what’s right if what was going on was wrong. I want ALL the info before saying that but it certainly doesn’t look good regardless!

** (Disclaimer: This video content is intended for educational and informational purposes only) **

Author: rafael.nieves


23 thoughts on “Cop grabs another cop’s throat!?

  1. Legal or not, policy or not, the public will not stand for cops pepper spraying handcuffed suspects in the back of cars anymore. What that sergeant was doing is exactly the kind of old school policing that starts riots, gets businesses burned and cops targeted by emboldened dirtbags. Suspect should have been pulled out, shacked and place back in the car. Strapped to a gurney was an option as well. Rookie grabbing Sergeant by the belt may or may not have been optimal, but those cops are now trained to and responsible to intervene and protect a suspect in custody. It's state law in Florida that they be trained that they have a duty to do so. It looked to me that she was trying to both fulfil her duty and protect all their jobs. Hate to say it, Sergeant is done. Rookie was trying to stop him from flushing all their careers down the drain, but then he turned on her and flushed twice on his own. It will be interesting to find out exactly what Sarg said to the suspect that made her feel compelled to grab his belt and pull him off.

  2. Handcuffed doesn't mean the restrained person is not a danger to themself or others. Part of my job at one of the prisons I use to contract at was to be present off camera at use of force events as a neutral observe. As a medical person my observations was about as neutral as you could get. Anyhow I have seen CO's at times take a course of action that I initially thought, "what the …." but turned out to really have been the right action in the end. Anyhow one of things I learned from having that task was that a person really needs some experience with such activities and also have confidence in the ability of their workmates. In my case I was in a prison so I had the advantage of having at least a minimal knowledge of the inmate. Which I see as an advantage over police on the street dealing with a total unknown to them person. I was totally shocked at an officer intervening in the manner of the officer grabbing the Sergeant from behind by the belt and dragging him away.
    On the side of the Sergeant he was no doubt shocked by the event. Initially having no idea who would have acted this way toward him so unexpectedly. As far as his hand on her neck it seems that she was just that much shorter than him that her neck was a natural reach for his hand. (For example I'm 5'0" which makes my face at just the natural moving elbow height of some one who is 6' or more. It didn't take me long to factor that into my assessment of my surroumdimgs) I marginally thought that the news people were making some sort of issue out of the Sergeant going back to look in the vehicle. He was likely just going through the event in his mind. Revisiting where something happened is a good way to consolidate exactly what happened. Hopefully there are some more camera views and the audio will be helpful. Hopefully the defund the police crowd will not be able to influence the out come of this occurrence. I really don't think that thinking people want to see police officers acting like that officer who who disruptively pulled the Sergeant away the way she did.

  3. Why you got a child cut out behind you bro. Hard to take a serious take with that kid staring at us. Might wanna hide him next time and leave him for streams. xoxo <3

  4. I’m bothered by the fact that the Sgt went straight to the prisoner with his pepper spray out without assessing the situation first. From what we could see and the chief’s comments it looks like the resistance was minor. I don’t care why the female officer was pulling him away from the car. There is no reason for him to put his hands on her. And as a sgt he is expected to be more in control than an officer and to set the example on how to handle things. I will be surprised if he didn’t end his career. And I wouldn’t be surprised if he catches a charge. Although if I was the female officer I wouldn’t press charges because it would most likely make things harder for her in the long run.

  5. It's almost like this super yoked Sergeant has something in his system that's making him get overly angry. Maybe it's too much coffee or trouble at home. Or maybe it's roid rage. I'm going with roid rage. 👍☮️

  6. you do not grab your fellow police officer either by the belt or by the neck – unless if it is a life or death situation, which it clearly wasn't
    normally it would be a "we never talk about it again" situation, but because of the publicity that is impossible now. so the sergeant should take his pension and retire, while the rookie girl should relocate to a place like San Francisco and "serve" in their "police" department.

  7. There's something that I don't think I've seen anyone else say about what happened. What if when the Sgt felt someone grabbing his duty belt and pulling him back he thought maybe it was a bystander trying to intervene. We've seen that happen a bunch of times where an officer is trying to get someone into custody and family members or even strangers try to jump in and attack the officer(s). What if Sgt felt someone pulling him back and instinctually turned around and used his leveraging arm to deal with the threat than once he realized who it was he moved to her shoulder. What if what he said was something to the effect of "I didn't know that was you but don't ever do that again!"?
    Not saying that's what happened and not excusing or accusing anyone here, just thought that could definitely be something he may say to explain himself when he's investigated. Thoughts?

  8. I think there's a good amount of people in the comments that don't understand that police officers still have rights. Those rights aren't just thrown away when you take the oath and put on the badge. That's probably why the Chief is being cautious in what he's saying. I've listed 2 below. The Garrity rights and Weingarten rights, both of which are case law.

    Garrity warning is an advisement of rights usually administered by federal, state, or local investigators to their employees who may be the subject of an internal investigation. The Garrity warning advises subjects of their criminal and administrative liability for any statements they may make, but also advises subjects of their right to remain silent on any issues that tend to implicate them in a crime.

    In 1975 the United States Supreme Court in the case of NLRB v. J. Weingarten, Inc. 420 U.S. 251 (1975) upheld a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) decision that employees have a right to union representation at investigatory interviews. These rights have become known as the Weingarten Rights.

    During an investigatory interview, the Supreme Court ruled that the following rules apply:

    Rule 1- The employee must make a clear request for union representation before or during the interview. The employee cannot be punished for making this request.

    Rule 2- After the employee makes the request, the employer must choose from among three options:Grant the request and delay questioning until the union representative arrives and (prior to the interview continuing) the representative has a chance to consult privately with the employee;Deny the request and end the interview immediately; orGive the employee a clear choice between having the interview without representation, or ending the interview.

    Rule 3- If the employer denies the request for union representation, and continues to ask questions, it commits an unfair labor practice and the employee has a right to refuse to answer. The employer may not discipline the employee for such a refusal.

  9. Mike, I've been following you for a few years now and I will continue to do so. As a Florida law enforcement officer, I will tell you the use of pepper spray on a handcuffed subject is permitted. As with most of our jobs, it will come down to the officer articulating why in whatever version of a UOF form that agency uses. With that said, the female officer did exactly what she was trained to do. Clearly she moved with a purpose to remove the Sergeant from the situation she perceived as prevent or halt excessive force. The Sergeant was wrong to put his hands on her, period.

  10. I haven't researched this, but how does the use of force continuum apply to the placement of his hand on her throat? Could she have escalated to using a baton, taser, or firearm? Because his hand moves very quickly and it doesn't seem like he puts much "squeezing" pressure, I would suggest that he didn't intend to place his hand on her throat.

  11. It's hard to say, because the SGT seems like he showed up ready to go, but why? What did he know or think was happening in this situation. Obviously it wasn't being handled or dude would have been secured in the back of the car. We gotta see the full video with audio. I do have to give props to the "rookie" because she thought she saw something and did something which, like the Interviewee stated, that's what we want to see happen. It did seem like SGT showed up ready to go, but we don't know what happened before SGT showed up.

Comments are closed.