Gang of NYPD cops beating up on 84 year-old man for jaywalking [W:129]

Buck Ewer said:

The cops had to beat the crap out of him... The reason it took so many of them is the old man was a secret Ninja with the Kung Foo grip.

Click to expand...

oh, what a pitty, if he was black you could have made a comment about fried chicken and water melon ...

dolphinocean said:

Jaywalking is NOT a crime. At most it's a simple violation of traffic ordinance like a parking ticket. You don't go to spend a day in jail, the most is you pay a fine.

You don't know what actually transpired between the cops and the old man and you talked about the old man fighting the cops as if it's a proven fact.

I've an 84 year-old parent who also walks about to the stores and visiting friends. If some able body cops would put my elderly parent through such bloody situation, rest assure I'd find them cops and beat the crap out of their lives and go to jail if I have to. Apparently, you would blame your elderly parent or grandparent if they failed to obey the police officers.

Click to expand...

It is against a law. There are laws against it.

The problem is you are going off of what you have in one report that is most definitely skewed against the police and making a decision on this entire situation based on that. I blame who is responsible. I haven't seen any evidence that the police did anything wrong. I don't trust the stories of people who would sue a city for millions without some other evidence, more than just their word, their story of what happened.

roguenuke said:

It is against a law. There are laws against it.

The problem is you are going off of what you have in one report that is most definitely skewed against the police and making a decision on this entire situation based on that. I blame who is responsible. I haven't seen any evidence that the police did anything wrong. I don't trust the stories of people who would sue a city for millions without some other evidence, more than just their word, their story of what happened.

Click to expand...

Going over a few second on the parking meter is also against the law. But it's not a crime.

Did you not pay attention to what I had quoted from the article you linked that said police officer at Time Square let a horde of patently jaywalkers crossed despite the "NO Walking" light? So, tell me, why must the cop be so be dead set to give this 84 year-old man who was actually crossing at the intersection? Or was the cop racist too?

You don't trust the victim but you are eager to make up stuffs to defend the police at every turn. But, no matter what the report, it doesn't take several police officers to arrest an octogenarian let alone having him ended up in a hospital bloodied.

Excon said:

What an absurd thing to say. Total exaggeration.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but it fuels the emotional fire.

dolphinocean said:

Going over a few second on the parking meter is also against the law. But it's not a crime.

Did you not pay attention to what I had quoted from the article you linked that said police officer at Time Square let a horde of patently jaywalkers crossed despite the "NO Walking" light? So, tell me, why must the cop be so be dead set to give this 84 year-old man who was actually crossing at the intersection? Or was the cop racist too?

You don't trust the victim but you are eager to make up stuffs to defend the police at every turn. But, no matter what the report, it doesn't take several police officers to arrest an octogenarian let alone having him ended up in a hospital bloodied.

Click to expand...

First of all, cars get tickets when they are parked near expired parking meters all the time. The cop doesn't care if the flag just went up or the time just expired, if they are see it, they can give a ticket. And that is what this cop was doing, ticketing someone for jaywalking.

Second, they have already said that different precincts of NYC have complete authority to do as they wish (within the law) to try to help prevent pedestrians from getting run over. The precinct this man lives in decided to include heavier enforcement of jaywalking (a ticketable offense) in their overall plan. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, and it doesn't matter what any other precinct in NYC decides to do about the problem.

I don't trust the victim because there is a lot missing from this story. Plus, there is a lot of contradictions, including between many articles that in fact take the old man's side. One claims that the cop stopped the old man from walking away, and that was why the cop laid a hand on him to begin with, while another says the old man claims he didn't try to walk away at all, but rather attempted to retrieve his ID card (something that you do not do to a cop, and it makes even less sense to attempt this when you know that you are not able to communicate effectively with the officer).

Obviously it does take several officers to arrest a resisting octogenarian that refuses to cooperate and cannot effectively communicate with the majority of the officers there. Especially if they are looking to minimize injury to the man. If they really wanted to, they could have simply tazed the old man, and he likely wouldn't have been bleeding at all. (Mind you, that would have been excessive force.) But instead they merely handled him. The injury cannot be even proven (at least not yet) to be due to the handling rather than a simple accidental fall. With a man of that age, had the police officers truly been rough on him, he would not have had only one fairly minor cut (my son had as many staples for an injury to his head a couple years ago, 2 at the time, and yes, it bled a lot, but it was a simple in and out to get it taken care of) and some soreness in his arms (likely from struggling with the cops).

roguenuke said:

See above post.

Click to expand...

You don't need to go hog wild into parking meter flag being going up or down, it's just a distraction from the point you made regarding jaywalking being a crime. Jaywalking is a simple offense of city ordinance regulating non-crime violation.


A crime is that when committed rendered the person a criminal when convicted and jail or prison time is most likely the punishment.


An offense, such as parking violation or jaywalking, is that when committed rendered the person in violation of an offense and the most is a fine when guilty.


I shouldn't have to go through hoops and several posts just to point this out to your understanding.


This old man worked his way up since 19, traveling to Cuba and then America with only the clothes on his back to New York to later became a successful owner of a restaurant. He raised three sons and had no run-ins with the law for the five decades he was in New York. The police and detectives used to come to his restaurant all the time. So, what is it in his history to cause you to be so suspicious of this old man's statement while at the same time indulging in making up stuffs not on records to villify the victim?


Your appeal to missing link doesn't mean a thing let alone proof that this old man lied. He probably did all that you claimed were contradiction when reporters only reported certain aspects of what transpired from different witnesses.


Therefore, he could have given his ID to the officer and then later asking it back. When he got back his ID, he just walked away not knowing he was accused of doing something wrong while the officer thought he refused to sign the ticket and attempted to walk away. This could be what one witness saw regarding your statement "the cop stopped the old man from walking away". Could this be the reason the officer stood him up against the wall to handcuff him that caused the victim to struggle and push away the officer as witnesses said they saw?


Therefore, all the events that seemed contradictory to you could be sequential but you rather jumped in to convict the old man as liar while making up stuffs in favor of the police.


Bottom line is that what this octogenarian was accused of doing is a very minor infraction that was just a recent implementation by that local precinct in reaction to recent car accident involving pedestrians. It's as if NY drivers are so well behaved and faultless. The strict enforcement of jaywalking wasn't even publicized and it was a Sunday for crying out loud.

If the police officer at Time Square was able to let a horde of jaywalkers had a pass, why must this police handling of an octogenarian for alleged jaywalking result in him on the ground and going to the hospitals receiving staples for his head injuries be tolerated?


The cops in question were just mean and that's my opinion of course.

Who dat say we don't live in a police state? :lol:

dolphinocean said:

You don't need to go hog wild into parking meter flag being going up or down, it's just a distraction from the point you made regarding jaywalking being a crime. Jaywalking is a simple offense of city ordinance regulating non-crime violation.


A crime is that when committed rendered the person a criminal when convicted and jail or prison time is most likely the punishment.


An offense, such as parking violation or jaywalking, is that when committed rendered the person in violation of an offense and the most is a fine when guilty.


I shouldn't have to go through hoops and several posts just to point this out to your understanding.


This old man worked his way up since 19, traveling to Cuba and then America with only the clothes on his back to New York to later became a successful owner of a restaurant. He raised three sons and had no run-ins with the law for the five decades he was in New York. The police and detectives used to come to his restaurant all the time. So, what is it in his history to cause you to be so suspicious of this old man's statement while at the same time indulging in making up stuffs not on records to villify the victim?


Your appeal to missing link doesn't mean a thing let alone proof that this old man lied. He probably did all that you claimed were contradiction when reporters only reported certain aspects of what transpired from different witnesses.


Therefore, he could have given his ID to the officer and then later asking it back. When he got back his ID, he just walked away not knowing he was accused of doing something wrong while the officer thought he refused to sign the ticket and attempted to walk away. This could be what one witness saw regarding your statement "the cop stopped the old man from walking away". Could this be the reason the officer stood him up against the wall to handcuff him that caused the victim to struggle and push away the officer as witnesses said they saw?


Therefore, all the events that seemed contradictory to you could be sequential but you rather jumped in to convict the old man as liar while making up stuffs in favor of the police.


Bottom line is that what this octogenarian was accused of doing is a very minor infraction that was just a recent implementation by that local precinct in reaction to recent car accident involving pedestrians. It's as if NY drivers are so well behaved and faultless. The strict enforcement of jaywalking wasn't even publicized and it was a Sunday for crying out loud.

If the police officer at Time Square was able to let a horde of jaywalkers had a pass, why must this police handling of an octogenarian for alleged jaywalking result in him on the ground and going to the hospitals receiving staples for his head injuries be tolerated?


The cops in question were just mean and that's my opinion of course.

Click to expand...

Why are you going off on whether or not it is a crime? It is against the law to jaywalk. You can be ticketed. That is what is important.

If the head injury is due to a fall, as reported that witnesses believed it was, then it couldn't be blamed on the police. Even if the police caused the man to hit the ground, it is not very likely that they meant to cause him to bleed. It is called "an accident".

Except it is kind of hard to ask for the ID back when you can't effectively communicate with the officer. That is the main problem and it was the old man's fault for not learning at least enough English in his 50 years living here to be able to communicate with police officers or other emergency personnel, including being able to ask for his ID back or know what the officer wished to talk to him about.

I'm not calling the man a liar. It is possible he simply does not understand what exactly happened. Plenty of people believe that they were pushed when they actually just fell or, given his age, it could be simple confusion over what actually did happen. Overall though, I don't see that the police did anything wrong here. Not unless more info comes out.

roguenuke said:

Why are you going off on whether or not it is a crime? It is against the law to jaywalk. You can be ticketed. That is what is important.

If the head injury is due to a fall, as reported that witnesses believed it was, then it couldn't be blamed on the police. Even if the police caused the man to hit the ground, it is not very likely that they meant to cause him to bleed. It is called "an accident".

Except it is kind of hard to ask for the ID back when you can't effectively communicate with the officer. That is the main problem and it was the old man's fault for not learning at least enough English in his 50 years living here to be able to communicate with police officers or other emergency personnel, including being able to ask for his ID back or know what the officer wished to talk to him about.

I'm not calling the man a liar. It is possible he simply does not understand what exactly happened. Plenty of people believe that they were pushed when they actually just fell or, given his age, it could be simple confusion over what actually did happen. Overall though, I don't see that the police did anything wrong here. Not unless more info comes out.

Click to expand...

Are you kidding me? You were the one calling jaywalking a crime and I merely responded to that point of yours. Here was what you said in your previous post:

roguenuke said:

Jaywalking is a crime...

Click to expand...

You said that it was reported that witnesses believed the head injury is due to a fall. I've read more than a dozen news sources and had yet to come across a news report of even a single witness saying that. Mind providing me the link to the news report or are you just making things up yet again?

dolphinocean said:

Are you kidding me? You were the one calling jaywalking a crime and I merely responded to that point of yours. Here was what you said in your previous post:

You said that it was reported that witnesses believed the head injury is due to a fall. I've read more than a dozen news sources and had yet to come across a news report of even a single witness saying that. Mind providing me the link to the news report or are you just making things up yet again?

Click to expand...

A much earlier post, and in some places, it is. But it absolutely is against the law. You are arguing over semantics. That is basically where you are with this "crime" argument.

I already provided where it says that the "impression" of witnesses was that he fell. This is an open investigation. That means that many things about the case cannot be released to the public via public officials. Private citizens, such as the man suing the city don't have to follow such rules when it comes to information release. Unfortunately that also means that the private citizen also has an advantage in getting to give his/her side of the story without much rebuttal or evidence to the contrary to avoid contaminating any evidence or saying something wrong (which a city official can get into more trouble for doing than a private citizen). This is also why I have a lot of skepticism of anyone who brings lawsuits against the city or police without much more information. Because it is almost always skewed in the citizen's favor to begin with, then normally more information comes out (usually during the trial or the weeks prior to) that shows that the police weren't at fault or didn't do anything wrong.

roguenuke said:

A much earlier post, and in some places, it is. But it absolutely is against the law. You are arguing over semantics. That is basically where you are with this "crime" argument.

Click to expand...

Yes, a much earlier post where you introduced the point that jaywalking is a crime and then when push come to shove you are wondering: "Why are you going off on whether or not it is a crime?" Now, instead of apologizing, you're accusing me of engaging in semantic?

I already provided where it says that the "impression" of witnesses was that he fell. This is an open investigation.

Click to expand...

Why are you purposely so vague about your source by using "it"?


The "it" is not an unbias news agency or report is it? In fact, the "it' is the NYPG Police Commissioner who was reported to have said he got the "impression" of the witnesses whom we the public have yet heard. But, don't you know the Police Commissioner is looking at a 5 million dollar lawsuit. Is he just going to fess up that his men had roughed up an octogenarian during an impromptu jaywalking stink?


Then again it's far a cry from your previous claim about the attribution to the alleged fall "as reported that witnesses believed it was", isn't it?

This is an open investigation. That means that many things about the case cannot be released to the public via public officials. Private citizens, such as the man suing the city don't have to follow such rules when it comes to information release. Unfortunately that also means that the private citizen also has an advantage in getting to give his/her side of the story without much rebuttal or evidence to the contrary to avoid contaminating any evidence or saying something wrong (which a city official can get into more trouble for doing than a private citizen). This is also why I have a lot of skepticism of anyone who brings lawsuits against the city or police without much more information. Because it is almost always skewed in the citizen's favor to begin with, then normally more information comes out (usually during the trial or the weeks prior to) that shows that the police weren't at fault or didn't do anything wrong.

Click to expand...

That whole speech is a moot point.


That octogenarian is beyond his age and had paid enough fat share of his income to feed the gluttony of the tyrant hands that bite him back. He should be given his due of senior citizen respect and assisted to cross the NY street safely instead of going from stop and frisk to stop and push you down for the beating by a few able-bodied NYPD cops. It really put this nation to shame worldwide on how our supposedly able-bodied police officers can't even handle an octogenarian without resorting to excessive force that bloodied the elderly victim to the hospital.

dolphinocean said:

Yes, a much earlier post where you introduced the point that jaywalking is a crime and then when push come to shove you are wondering: "Why are you going off on whether or not it is a crime?" Now, instead of apologizing, you're accusing me of engaging in semantic?

Why are you purposely so vague about your source by using "it"?

The "it" is not an unbias news agency or report is it? In fact, the "it' is the NYPG Police Commissioner who was reported to have said he got the "impression" of the witnesses whom we the public have yet heard. But, don't you know the Police Commissioner is looking at a 5 million dollar lawsuit. Is he just going to fess up that his men had roughed up an octogenarian during an impromptu jaywalking stink?

Then again it's far a cry from your previous claim about the attribution to the alleged fall "as reported that witnesses believed it was", isn't it?

That whole speech is a moot point.

That octogenarian is beyond his age and had paid enough fat share of his income to feed the gluttony of the tyrant hands that bite him back. He should be given his due of senior citizen respect and assisted to cross the NY street safely instead of going from stop and frisk to stop and push you down for the beating by a few able-bodied NYPD cops. It really put this nation to shame worldwide on how our supposedly able-bodied police officers can't even handle an octogenarian without resorting to excessive force that bloodied the elderly victim to the hospital.

Click to expand...

In other words, yes you are playing a semantic argument. Jaywalking is a ticketable offense in NYC. While not a violent crime (obviously), it is still punishable by the law (via fine) and involves the police to enforce.

Your own argument against the police is based on the other side, an old man who stands to get $5M from the police for what was his own fault (jaywalking, failing to learn enough English to understand at least emergency personnel/police officers, impatience for a situation that was taking so much time mainly due to his lack of being able to communicate, trying to attack and/or resist police officers, and by his own admission, making an assumption based on nothing really about the police officer's intentions and taking inappropriate actions toward the officer based on those assumptions). All of what I have stated is based on the old man's account of what occurred. He would not have been arrested at all, nor even touched by the police at all had he either a) learned English sometime during his 50 years in this mainly English speaking country or b) been patient enough to wait for the police officer to either let him go or an interpreter. The man's actions brought about all the problems he faced.

It is not an officer's place to help anyone, old or not break the law. Unless you can prove the man didn't jaywalk, then he likely deserved the ticket. His word is not proof.

And no, the police did not beat that man. Your bias against the police is showing through here.

roguenuke said:

In other words, yes you are playing a semantic argument. Jaywalking is a ticketable offense in NYC. While not a violent crime (obviously), it is still punishable by the law (via fine) and involves the police to enforce.

Your own argument against the police is based on the other side, an old man who stands to get $5M from the police for what was his own fault (jaywalking, failing to learn enough English to understand at least emergency personnel/police officers, impatience for a situation that was taking so much time mainly due to his lack of being able to communicate, trying to attack and/or resist police officers, and by his own admission, making an assumption based on nothing really about the police officer's intentions and taking inappropriate actions toward the officer based on those assumptions). All of what I have stated is based on the old man's account of what occurred. He would not have been arrested at all, nor even touched by the police at all had he either a) learned English sometime during his 50 years in this mainly English speaking country or b) been patient enough to wait for the police officer to either let him go or an interpreter. The man's actions brought about all the problems he faced.

It is not an officer's place to help anyone, old or not break the law. Unless you can prove the man didn't jaywalk, then he likely deserved the ticket. His word is not proof.

And no, the police did not beat that man. Your bias against the police is showing through here.

Click to expand...

So, if jaywalking is a crime then you are a convicted criminal when you are fined? Are you trying to go in circle here?

You weren't there, so your claim that the cops did not beat the old man just ring hollow.


Like I said before several times, I don't have to go with either side. Just look at the picture of the bloodied old man being lifted up by several cops with his hands already hand cuffed behind his back, is this how you think the cops should handle an octogenarian like that?

dolphinocean said:

So, if jaywalking is a crime then you are a convicted criminal when you are fined? Are you trying to go in circle here?

You weren't there, so your claim that the cops did not beat the old man just ring hollow.


Like I said before several times, I don't have to go with either side. Just look at the picture of the bloodied old man being lifted up by several cops with his hands already hand cuffed behind his back, is this how you think the cops should handle an octogenarian like that?

Click to expand...

My claims are supported by the picture we have of him. We know where the blood came from, the fall to the ground (whether police caused or accidental is the only thing in question here) caused a gash on his head. There is no evidence that the police caused any injury to him. No bruises, handprints, or even indication of pain/injury besides that cut on his head. That photo supports me a lot more than you.

This is one of those incidents that there just isn't enough evidence one way or the other to make a judgment. I'm not willing to give the old guy the benefit of doubt, because I know a hell of a lot of 80-year-olds who are ornery, mean-spirited pricks/prickesses who think the world owes them deference simply because they are still breathing. OTOH, if police can't detain an 84-year-old without blood being spilled, the situation should be scrutinized a bit by their superiors.

Given the other extremely serious cases of obvious police brutality and misconduct I've seen over the years, this is not even a blip on my radar.

roguenuke said:

My claims are supported by the picture we have of him. We know where the blood came from, the fall to the ground (whether police caused or accidental is the only thing in question here) caused a gash on his head. There is no evidence that the police caused any injury to him. No bruises, handprints, or even indication of pain/injury besides that cut on his head. That photo supports me a lot more than you.

Click to expand...

None of your claims are supported by the picture or the news report. You made stuffs up all the time. There is no news report of a single witness who stated the old man fell.


All you have are some media reports about the Police Commissioner having the impression from the witness or witnesses which to date wasn't even supported by any fact. Yet you latched on this tidbit and blew it out into a false claim about a witness' belief and maintained the falsehood to use it against the old man throughout your whole argument.


There was also not a single media report about the cop calling and waiting for an interpretator but yet you continued to use that as if it were fact by accusing the old man of being impatient for not waiting for the interpretator.


That old man had four staples to the head and yet you said he had either a cut or one gash to the head. Even so, it goes to show the brutality of the cops handling this case.


There are more stuffs you made up then I care to list them all. And the picture of the old man already handcuffed while on the ground is more consistent with the police pushing him to the ground with his head against the floor for the purpose of arresting and handcuffing than him falling to the ground. That's the unmistaken modus operandi of aggressive police tactics to execute an arrest when they perceive uncooperativeness of the person to be arrested.


If an elderly person is falling, an able person should be able to catch it or at least break the fall and check for sign of bone fractures or head concussions and attended to the well being of the person instead of swarming around and handcuffing him off the floor without making sure he wasn't seriously injured.


If an elderly person fell and fracture his hip or other bony part of his body, you shouldn't move or lift the person up on his feet. I'd think if the elderly did fall the police officers should have some basic training in dealing with such medical issue. Apparently the elderly man didn't just fall but was pushed down, as the victim said, by the cops without regards to his well being as we saw in the picture.

dolphinocean said:

None of your claims are supported by the picture or the news report. You made stuffs up all the time. There is no news report of a single witness who stated the old man fell.


All you have are some media reports about the Police Commissioner having the impression from the witness or witnesses which to date wasn't even supported by any fact. Yet you latched on this tidbit and blew it out into a false claim about a witness' belief and maintained the falsehood to use it against the old man throughout your whole argument.


There was also not a single media report about the cop calling and waiting for an interpretator but yet you continued to use that as if it were fact by accusing the old man of being impatient for not waiting for the interpretator.


That old man had four staples to the head and yet you said he had either a cut or one gash to the head. Even so, it goes to show the brutality of the cops handling this case.


There are more stuffs you made up then I care to list them all. And the picture of the old man already handcuffed while on the ground is more consistent with the police pushing him to the ground with his head against the floor for the purpose of arresting and handcuffing than him falling to the ground. That's the unmistaken modus operandi of aggressive police tactics to execute an arrest when they perceive uncooperativeness of the person to be arrested.


If an elderly person is falling, an able person should be able to catch it or at least break the fall and check for sign of bone fractures or head concussions and attended to the well being of the person instead of swarming around and handcuffing him off the floor without making sure he wasn't seriously injured.


If an elderly person fell and fracture his hip or other bony part of his body, you shouldn't move or lift the person up on his feet. I'd think if the elderly did fall the police officers should have some basic training in dealing with such medical issue. Apparently the elderly man didn't just fall but was pushed down, as the victim said, by the cops without regards to his well being as we saw in the picture.

Click to expand...

4 staples is nothing. That is the exact amount my son got when he was 2 years old for the gash on his head from falling onto our windowsill.

Since you like to play semantics, I want evidence of a beating. A single gash that we know was caused by impact with the ground (whether caused by him falling or being pushed is the only thing in question here) is not evidence of a beating as you claim. There are no bruises on that man, not even a split lip, bloody nose, or black eye. No other cuts at all. If you care going to claim beating, then actually show evidence of a beating, not a fall resulting in a single gash to the head, something a 2 year old gets when they are still wobbly on their feet.

clownboy said:

It's interesting how a fellow who has lived here for 50 years, the majority of his life, can't speak english when getting a ticket but somehow gives clear english responses to questions asked in english by reporters.

Click to expand...

Probably didn't really have a need for it. Many first generation Irish/Italians/Greeks/Chinese didn't speak English or even bothered to learn when they first came to the US. They could live perfectly well in their communities without it. All they needed was an acquaintance or family member with a basic understanding of English.

ric27 said:

Name these *alleged* corrupt group of police across the country

Click to expand...

Arvin Ca police dept. for starters. The Arvin traffic court for seconds. Bakersfield Ca police dept. for thirds. I could name plenty more if you like.

PirateMk1 said:

Arvin Ca police dept. for starters. The Arvin traffic court for seconds. Bakersfield Ca police dept. for thirds. I could name plenty more if you like.

Click to expand...

Go on a case-by-case basis. Don't generalized

roguenuke said:

4 staples is nothing. That is the exact amount my son got when he was 2 years old for the gash on his head from falling onto our windowsill.

Since you like to play semantics, I want evidence of a beating. A single gash that we know was caused by impact with the ground (whether caused by him falling or being pushed is the only thing in question here) is not evidence of a beating as you claim. There are no bruises on that man, not even a split lip, bloody nose, or black eye. No other cuts at all. If you care going to claim beating, then actually show evidence of a beating, not a fall resulting in a single gash to the head, something a 2 year old gets when they are still wobbly on their feet.

Click to expand...

Four staples to the head for the gashes are nothing to you or your son because both of you not octagenarian. Or are you? Head concussion for the elderly can send them into brain trauma and even death as a result.


You're been playing not just semantic from the beginning but also making up stuffs to villify the elderly victim in defense of the NYPD police action.


Why aren't you paying attention when I had in the beginning explained to you that beating does not necessarily means cops using their fists or batons to beat a person blue and black, split lip, bloody nose and all that. Beating can also be accomplished by bringing your head forcefully against a hard surface like the brick wall or concrete pavement. It's called pushing. The result is the same. That's how the old man got open wound injuries requiring four staples.


I see you avoided my previous logical explanation of why the picture and injuries showed the old man was pushed to the ground in consistence with what the old man claimed and as had been reported widely by news media of the "beating" and not a single person came forward and dispute that even though there were several reporters at the scene on that day to document an earlier accident. Well, let me put them to you against and expound it further:


1. According to a witness, Ian King, the police stood Mr. Kang Wong against the wall.


2. So, how the hell could Mr. Wong fell and busted the back of his head when he was standing against the wall with the officer in front of him within arms' length?


3. If he had fallen why wasn't the heavy set police officer able to catch hold or him, failing which at least be able to break his fall without suffering any injury?


4. If all else failed and Mr. Wong fell to the ground, why was the officer calling for backups instead of just calling the ambulance and then attended to him to make sure he did not suffer broken bones or closed head brain trauma given he had obvious sign of bleeding on his head.


5. And why was Mr. Wong handcuffed while still on the floor if he had fallen? Wasn't that clear that the intent of the officers was to arrest the old man? Or you still think the fall just came handy -- a lucky conincidence?


6. Why stood a handcuffed elderly man who had just fallen to risk dislocating a posssible fracture that might sever a major artery which could be fatal?


The scenerio we have, therefore, is more consistent of usual police modus operandi of tackling a person to the ground to execute an arrest than helping and attending to a fallen old man with bloody head injury. Like I said, the elderly man didn't just fall while against the wall with officer close by in front but was pushed down, as the victim said, by the cops without regards to his well being as we saw in the picture and the logical scenario. And if it's not a fall then the only way he would have gotten those head injuries was by being pushed to the ground and head pressed down for the handcuff. That's clearly evidence of a beating by cops.


Now take a look at some more pictures showing the bloodied Mr. Wong on the ground already handcuffed for the arrest:

ric27 said:

Go on a case-by-case basis. Don't generalized

Click to expand...

Sorry but it be a well known and general problem in this area. The Arvin court provides a majority of the funding for the city of Arvin. The Arvin is situated such that the Grapevine traffic violations are adjudicated there. I will gets some specific allegations and cases later when I have more time.

When I clicked "video" I expected to see a gang of officers beating down an elderly man.

Not what I saw at all.

dolphinocean said:

Four staples to the head for the gashes are nothing to you or your son because both of you not octagenarian. Or are you? Head concussion for the elderly can send them into brain trauma and even death as a result.

Click to expand...

A 2 year old busting their head open can cause major issues, including permanent lifelong brain damage. Plus, they generally have less blood to lose than an old guy. Head concussions and brain trauma are just as possible for a 2 year old as they are for an octogenarian, especially since 2 year olds can still have soft spots in their skulls.

dolphinocean said:

1. According to a witness, Ian King, the police stood Mr. Kang Wong against the wall.


2. So, how the hell could Mr. Wong fell and busted the back of his head when he was standing against the wall with the officer in front of him within arms' length?


3. If he had fallen why wasn't the heavy set police officer able to catch hold or him, failing which at least be able to break his fall without suffering any injury?


4. If all else failed and Mr. Wong fell to the ground, why was the officer calling for backups instead of just calling the ambulance and then attended to him to make sure he did not suffer broken bones or closed head brain trauma given he had obvious sign of bleeding on his head.


5. And why was Mr. Wong handcuffed while still on the floor if he had fallen? Wasn't that clear that the intent of the officers was to arrest the old man? Or you still think the fall just came handy -- a lucky conincidence?


6. Why stood a handcuffed elderly man who had just fallen to risk dislocating a posssible fracture that might sever a major artery which could be fatal?

Click to expand...

Head injuries bleed a lot. They simply do. They also stop bleeding fairly quickly (my son was no longer bleeding by the time we got him to the emergency room 25, 30 min after it happened. Really it had stopped before we got him to the car. A simple gash to the head does not require an ambulance.

They arresting him for disorderly conduct (attempting to grab his ID from the officer, possibly pushing the officer). They weren't arresting him for jaywalking. There is also no evidence that he was tackled to the ground.

And police make mistakes too. Just because they didn't catch him, doesn't mean he didn't fall.

dolphinocean said:

The scenerio we have, therefore, is more consistent of usual police modus operandi of tackling a person to the ground to execute an arrest than helping and attending to a fallen old man with bloody head injury. Like I said, the elderly man didn't just fall while against the wall with officer close by in front but was pushed down, as the victim said, by the cops without regards to his well being as we saw in the picture and the logical scenario. And if it's not a fall then the only way he would have gotten those head injuries was by being pushed to the ground and head pressed down for the handcuff. That's clearly evidence of a beating by cops.

Click to expand...

No, you want the gash to be evidence of the beating, when in fact it isn't. You cannot prove that he didn't just fall. You have no evidence to support this. He was fighting the police officers. It is quite easy to fall when you are fighting with the police.

dolphinocean said:

Now take a look at some more pictures showing the bloodied Mr. Wong on the ground already handcuffed for the arrest:

Click to expand...

Those pics again, support me. No bruises on the man. The only blood can be traced to the one head wound. His clothes do not show signs of dirt or muss associated with being "wrestled" on the ground.

So far, you have shown a preconceived bias against the police in every part of this. Not once have you even accepted the possibility that this man could have been responsible for what he went through or even admitted that the police may not have "beat" this man or even been responsible for his injury. I have stated several times, that given more evidence, it is possible the police officers were responsible for the injury, but that ultimately, without more information, it appears that the situation was mainly caused because of the man himself, jaywalking, then not being able to be patient enough to wait for a ticket which is bound to take longer with a communication barrier, and then making an assumption about the intentions of an officer, escalating the incident further.

roguenuke said:

See above post.

Click to expand...

Two year-old toddler falls all the time. That's how they learn to walk and run. They don't bust their head open that causes major lifelong brain damage for a simple fall. That's because toddlers are short in height and small in body mass as compared to octogenarian adult. Their bones are pliable and the end-plate cartilage still has not ossified whereas the bones of octagenarians are more fragile and usually at that age they suffer from osteoporosis. Hip fracture or femur fracture is the most common occurence in elderly as a result of fall.


Therefore your appeal to hyperbole is futile.


Sure, head injuries bleed a lot but four gashes that need stapling? It's not just a minor cut. Also, the following was reported in the media: