I am failing to see where it was justified.:mad:
Did you notice how the spokesman said it was justified and then down the line it talks about the internal investigation that will take place? I think they were way to quick to declare it justified if they haven’t investigated, which is akin to the problem the officers had in jumping to conclusions.
I am curious, if they continue to say it was justified, how they justify, OC, taser, and hitting him in the head.
This happened here in our city, and the national media picked it up from my husband’s TV station (he’s in news.)
The minute Mr. Love showed the police officers the card that indicated he was deaf, certain procedures were to be followed (an interpreter called, to begin with) but that didn’t happen. The whole incident is being reviewed, and there will almost certainly be a lawsuit.
At least the magistrate had the good sense to realize no basis for any charges existed.
How horrible. They maced him because he had an umbrella? He was in the bathroom, it’s not like he was trying to hit them with it! Yes, an umbrella could be used as a weapon, but so could my purse! Anything has the potential to be a weapon! With that justification, police can mace anybody! :mad: Did the article say why the police tased him after he was maced? (I can’t remember). That seems like way overkill. And then to arrest him after finding out he was deaf and disabled, that just screams “powertrip” to me! These guys give all cops a bad name.:mad: