Milwaukee Police Officer Pounds Lamborghini Driver's Head After Traffic Violation!

Did anybody see this video?

 

http://www.worldstarhiphop.com/videos/vide...7Cv1d7Whu2WJ3we

That shit is real.

That shit is real.

 

 

What bullshit....the driver is obviously putting up no struggle and the cop is pounding his head into the concrete....unbelievable.

what a mother fucker. i dont like to wish bad on people, but this is an exception.

Driver was drunk, which equates to being an asshole. BUT, that doesn't give Joe Napolean here the right beat the guys head in because Joe Asshole got to drive a car worth more than his 401k.

 

Should be interesting to see what develops.

Hopefully the next thing to get pounded is the cops ass in prison..

Hopefully the next thing to get pounded is the cops ass in prison..

 

 

LMAO; I posted the link all over the PD's page on facebook. I need something to do I'm bored LOL

The drunk driver was probably being a shit. He probably deserved it.

Wow, that was bad.

Anyone know if cops are trained to yell "stop resisting" when they're beating on a suspect, just in case bystanders are watching/filming? The "stop resisting" yells seemed theatrical.

Wow! Why wouldn't they have used a tazer if the perp was getting that out of hand (doesn't look like he was)? I will be shocked if that cop gets out of this with his job. Hitting someone in the head standing is one thing. Pounding their head against the concrete with what looked to be his entire forearm is crazy.

Wow, that was bad.

Anyone know if cops are trained to yell "stop resisting" when they're beating on a suspect, just in case bystanders are watching/filming? The "stop resisting" yells seemed theatrical.

 

More than likely an outdated policy for the media generation.

 

Before the advent of cameras, youtube and every other public wifi internet service and pocket cameras, if an officer was beating the shit out of someone, they could yell, "Stop resisting" and Joe Pedestrian's credibility could be called into question because he couldn't see properly or wasn't aware of everything going on. So when it hits the judge, it's the officers "trained experience" vs. Mugwump Pedestrian. A no-lose situation for Rosco P. Coaltrain.

Unreal. The dude was clearly contained on the ground and not going anywhere.

Before the advent of cameras, youtube and every other public wifi internet service and pocket cameras

Yeah, now that everybody walks around with a camera and video recorder (cell phone) in their pocket 24/7 it will force some more accountability. It seemed like the officer was yelling "Stop Resisting" for the benefit of himself and bystanders, but certainly not the perp.

Time to call in Zimmerman for some street justice!

http://fox6now.com/2012/04/17/two-new-view...g-drunk-driver/

 

 

MPD issued the following statement Friday, April 13th: “Milwaukee police officers made an arrest of a suspected drunken driver Thursday night, April 12 at about 11 p.m. in the 200 block of E. Juneau Ave. The suspect, Jeffrey R. Strasser (4-29-1972), was cited for Operating a vehicle While Intoxicated. The matter is under review for additional charges.

 

A police sergeant observed a reckless driver at Water St. & Juneau Ave. operating a 2008 Lamborghini in a manner that posed a danger to the public in the Water Street area. The sergeant, in a marked police squad, activated his red lights and siren and attempted to stop the vehicle. Strasser refused to stop. Strasser was observed operating with no headlamps, disregarding a stop sign and endangering the public safety by operating the vehicle in a manner that forced other vehicles to take evasive action to avoid collision. As Strasser pulled into a parking lot, he nearly struck multiple pedestrians and uniformed police officers.

 

Strasser eventually stopped and refused to exit the vehicle. Strasser was taken to the ground as officers removed him. One officer delivered focused strikes to gain compliance and control as Strasser was resisting attempts to place handcuffs on him. During the booking process, the 6’0, 200-pound suspect, in response to direct police questioning, stated he was not injured, had no complaint of pain and did not require medical attention .

 

Strasser was placed under arrest and about 90 minutes after the traffic stop, was still more than twice the legal limit with a Blood Alcohol Content of .19. Strasser has a prior OWI conviction from 1999.”

 

."

Well, I guess that's what they mean by "punch drunk"

I didn't see a lot of resisting when the forearm to the skull was delivered. Seems like the officer lost his cool and decided to get his power trip going.

Ya, that's clear excessive force. Banging someone's head against concrete is really only justifiable if it's a life/death battle - or if your handgun gets touched by the bad guy.

 

At least the cop wasn't drunk. This is the kinda shit we are dealing with in Indianapolis: http://www.wthr.com/story/17525050/prosecu...ite-mishandling

 

Multiple incidents involving officers drinking on duty, driving their patrol cars drunk, smashing into things (and people killing them) as well as involvement with strip clubs, excessive force, etc. Best part is, no one is stepping in and REALLY breaking things up.

 

 

http://www.wisn.com/news/south-east-wiscon...90/-/dio3mbz/-/

 

Office will not be suspended, reasigned, nor fined.

 

I don't care if that guy had a blood/alcohol level twice the legal limit.

They already had him on the ground, and the office was on top of him. This guy was not going anywhere any time soon. Even if he was resisting, at the point that the blows were delivered there was no justification.

I can't believe he won't get in trouble.

http://www.wisn.com/news/south-east-wiscon...90/-/dio3mbz/-/

 

Office will not be suspended, reasigned, nor fined.

 

I don't care if that guy had a blood/alcohol level twice the legal limit.

They already had him on the ground, and the office was on top of him. This guy was not going anywhere any time soon. Even if he was resisting, at the point that the blows were delivered there was no justification.

I can't believe he won't get in trouble.

 

 

We have the same problem in LA. An off duty cop had a road rage incident, shot at another vehicle several times and received 15 day suspension. How on earth is the cop not being charged? If there are no meaningful consequences, it's going to continue. Article from last week's La Times on this.

 

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-be...0,6283440.story

 

April 15, 2012, 8:19 p.m.

Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck is under fire from his civilian bosses, who increasingly are troubled by his reluctance to punish officers who are found to have killed or wounded people unjustifiably.

 

"If this pattern continues, it could undermine the entire discipline system and undermine the authority of the commission," said Robert Saltzman, a member of the Police Commission and associate dean at USC law school. "It runs the risk of sending the message to officers that there will be no consequences."

 

The dispute marks a rare point of contention for Beck and the commission, a five-member panel that oversees the Los Angeles Police Department and has otherwise heaped praise on the chief for his performance.

 

Since Beck took over as chief in late 2009, the commission has ruled on about 90 incidents involving officers who fired weapons or used other deadly force. In almost all of them, Beck concluded the officers used force appropriately and urged the commission to clear them of wrongdoing. The board followed his guidance most of the time.

 

But in four shootings — in which three people were killed and three others wounded by police gunfire — the commission went against the chief's recommendations and ruled the officers' use of lethal force was inappropriate.

 

In each of those cases, Beck either refused to impose any punishment on the officers or gave them only a written reprimand, The Times has found. In a fifth incident, Beck agreed that the officer had been wrong to fire his gun but nonetheless chose not to punish him.

 

The chief's apparent unwillingness to suspend or demote officers, or to initiate the process to fire them, in these types of cases has worried a majority of the commission. Beck, they say, is ignoring their conclusions that the officers made serious, often deadly, mistakes. And they fear the lack of punishment may be sending a dangerous message to the LAPD's rank-and-file officers that the consequences for a bad shooting are minimal.

 

"Sometimes the chief just needs to set a tone and, through his actions, send a message about what kind of conduct is acceptable," said commission President Richard Drooyan, an attorney who served as a high-ranking official in the U.S. attorney's office. Drooyan emphasized that he does not expect the chief to impose a punishment in every case, but said, "If we find there was a very serious transgression … we'd expect there to be some consequences."

 

John Mack, the board's vice president, shares the concerns of Drooyan and Saltzman. Alan Skobin, who soon will step down after several years on the board, has been a lone voice of opposition to the trio, saying he believes Beck is right to focus on retraining officers involved in questionable shootings instead of punishing them. The fifth commission member, Debra Wong Yang, said Beck's record on deadly force cases "raise questions in my mind," but she wants to see if it continues before drawing conclusions.

 

Although the number of cases in question is small, the public's perception of the LAPD is strongly affected by controversial police shootings and the department's response to them. "The most important thing the department does," Drooyan said, "is that it uses force."

 

Beck defended his decisions, saying he imposes harsh punishments when they are appropriate but refuses to come down harshly on officers who, he believes, acted within the department's policies and tried their best during stressful, dangerous encounters. "I see things from a different perspective than they do," he said of the commissioners. "I have to be able to align my discipline with my review of the occurrence."

 

The friction underscores an odd, and some say dysfunctional, division of power in Los Angeles. The city's charter gives the commission the authority to decide whether a police officer's use of deadly force was justified. But decisions on how to discipline officers reside with the police chief.

 

In Los Angeles, the success or failure of past police chiefs to lead the large, often roiling Police Department has rested in large part on how they handled discipline.

 

The legacy of Daryl F. Gates, the influential, controversial leader from 1978 to 1992, was tarnished by his reputation for being too tolerant of crass, brutish behavior. By contrast, Bernard C. Parks relished his reputation as a disciplinarian but was ousted after a tumultuous term in which he lost the support of rank-and-file officers who viewed him as vindictive. When William J. Bratton succeeded Parks, he announced to officers that "the game of 'Gotcha' in this department is coming to an end" — a line that won him considerable leeway from the rank and file.

 

In deadly-force cases, however, Bratton took a decidedly harder line than Beck. An internal LAPD report obtained by The Times tallied 14 shootings over a two-year period in which the commission ruled officers had violated the department's policies on using force. In all but two of the shootings, Bratton suspended the officers or recommended they be fired. (In Los Angeles, a disciplinary hearing panel, not the chief, decides whether to fire a police officer.)

 

The current discord over the shooting cases has played out almost entirely during private meetings Beck and the commission have each week, but was on display briefly last month at a public commission meeting. A commission report questioned whether it had been appropriate for Beck to give reprimands twice to a detective who was involved in two similar deadly-force cases.

 

In both shootings, which occurred about a year apart, the detective repeatedly fired a shotgun into cars carrying armed-robbery suspects. The commission found the officer had been justified firing the first few volleys, but that subsequent rounds had been excessive because the officers were no longer under threat.

 

Drooyan, Mack and Saltzman all registered their concern about Beck's decision to let the detective off with the reprimands, saying they worried it was too lenient and could send the wrong message.

 

"Well, the chief is very aware of the message he needs to send to the department," Beck shot back tersely. "This is the chief's purview."

http://www.wisn.com/news/south-east-wiscon...90/-/dio3mbz/-/

 

Office will not be suspended, reasigned, nor fined.

 

I don't care if that guy had a blood/alcohol level twice the legal limit.

They already had him on the ground, and the office was on top of him. This guy was not going anywhere any time soon. Even if he was resisting, at the point that the blows were delivered there was no justification.

I can't believe he won't get in trouble.

 

What should an officer do when a drunk is not allowing them to place handcuffs? Ask Pretty please with sugar on top?

 

 

 

What should an officer do when a drunk is not allowing them to place handcuffs? Ask Pretty please with sugar on top?

 

 

How about a tazer? No need to attempt to give the suspect brain damage.

How about a tazer? No need to attempt to give the suspect brain damage.

 

If he's driving erratically and 2x the legal limit I suspect he's already got some brain damage.

No matter what the charge of the crime, police cannot use excessive force just because a suspect may "deserve it".

No matter what the charge of the crime, police cannot use excessive force just because a suspect may "deserve it".

 

You are correct. I agree a tazer would have been better, but still fcuk him. These double the limit triple the limit fuckers are the ones that end up killing maiming others and walking away.