Don't f**k with the LAPD
Pages :
[1]
2
blindside.AMG
06-25-2004, 06:31 AM
Well, it happened again. The LAPD beat another suspect on camera. Not quite sure what the think yet. I'm torn between civil rights and my personal feeling that if you steal a car you kind of deserve to get beat. But not really kicked in the head and hit 11 times in the head with a flashlight.....
-------------------------------
Beating by LAPD Officer Airs on TV
*The case is seen as a test for Bratton as parallels are drawn to the Rodney King incident of 1991.
The televised beating of a suspected car thief Wednesday by a flashlight-wielding Los Angeles Police Department officer was described by a top department official as "Rodney King-esque," drawing comparisons with the 1991 beating of an African American man by LAPD officers that led to catastrophic riots a year later.
Television news crews in helicopters recorded the early morning car chase that ended in Compton shortly before 6 a.m. when about half a dozen LAPD officers ran after an African American man who bolted from a stolen Toyota Camry.
On the videotape, the unarmed man appears to surrender after sprinting a short distance along the concrete-lined Compton Creek channel, raising his arms and starting to crouch.
As two officers are restraining the suspected thief on the ground, a third officer is seen delivering a quick kick to the suspect and then striking him 11 times in the upper body with a flashlight. A short time after the man is handcuffed and in custody, three officers can be seen exchanging handshakes.
The LAPD and FBI have opened investigations.
The case is seen as a key test for LAPD Chief William J. Bratton, who has spent the last two years trying to improve relations with South L.A. communities, particularly African Americans, with the aim of trying to temper lingering anger and resentment over past police brutality. He and Los Angeles Mayor James K. Hahn promised a quick and thorough investigation.
"If, after that investigation, officers of the Los Angeles Police Department are found to have violated the law, those officers ought to be terminated. They ought to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law," Hahn said at a late afternoon news conference. "The community is watching. They'll hold us accountable. This is the test."
DeMaria Perry, an elected member of the Watts neighborhood council, called the beating outrageous. "I don't think I am safe with the LAPD," said the 16-year-old African American boy. "That's why people run. We don't know what to expect."
Police identified the man in the video as Stanley Miller, 36, of Compton. LAPD officers first spotted him driving north on the Harbor Freeway at Alondra Boulevard about 5:25 a.m. and chased him for about 30 minutes, mostly on surface streets.
After his arrest, Miller was treated at a hospital for what police described as scrapes. Late Wednesday, LAPD South Bureau Deputy Chief Earl Paysinger reported that Miller had said at the hospital that he had been struck in the head.
Miller has since been booked on suspicion of grand theft auto and is being held in lieu of $30,000 bail at Parker Center. He is listed on the booking report as 200 pounds and 6 feet tall, and appears to have past convictions, including for burglary and car theft.
Bratton, who was in Hartford, Conn., said the department immediately launched criminal and internal investigations.
"There is no denying that it looks very bad from what is seen on the video," he said by telephone Wednesday morning. "But there should be no rush to judgment before the investigations are completed."
In a departure from past incidents, the LAPD would not release the names of the officers involved, citing legal advice by the city attorney's office. Paysinger said several officers had been assigned to their homes and would be put on administrative leave.
The three officers seen as most aggressive on the videotape are white, Paysinger said, and none are rookies.
Department policy allows officers to use any force that is "reasonable and necessary" to make an arrest or to protect the public," said LAPD Cmdr. Eric Lillo.
Los Angeles police are allowed to use metal flashlights to strike suspects. They are supposed to use only as much force as needed to overcome resistance.
The proper use of force is determined case by case, and can take into account, for example, the level of danger posed by the suspect and whether he may be armed.
Such determinations "are very subjective, and you have to evaluate it through the cop's eyes," said Connie Rice, a civil rights attorney and chairwoman of an LAPD task force investigating the Rampart scandal.
Rice criticized the department for past rulings by its investigators that gave officers the widest margin possible. The LAPD would "rule that everything was in policy no matter how absurd it appeared to rational people," she said.
Today the department should be measured, not by whether it finds these officers guilty of wrongdoing, but by whether "they are doing a rational and by-the-book investigation," she said.
LAPD officials defended their decision to keep secret the names of the officers involved, saying legal constraints of personnel and penal codes are now more strict.
But Alonzo Wickers, an attorney specializing in 1st Amendment law, disagreed. When police use force, he said, the public has a right to know who they are. "The city has misread the law in this case," Wickers said.
Paysinger, whose bureau includes the Southeast Division, where the officers in the incident are based, termed the video "troubling."
He called for the public's patience to allow the department time to investigate.
"We have built a strong relationship with the public…. We are asking the public to believe in us," he said.
The videotape, which was broadcast throughout the day on local TV stations, looked "Rodney King-esque," Paysinger said. But such comparisons, he said, do not take into account changes in the LAPD's leadership and in public attitudes in the years since motorist King was beaten in 1991.
That videotaped beating was one of the most notorious cases of police brutality in American history and sparked the Los Angeles riots of 1992 after the officers involved were acquitted.
Daryl Gates, who was chief at the time, is often remembered for a defiant attitude toward community criticism, and some activists made reference to him Wednesday.
John Mack of the Los Angeles Urban League recalled that Gates "was quick to defend officers. He almost implied that Rodney King deserved it."
Gates' initial reaction to the King beating, however, echoed some of Bratton's comments Wednesday. Gates called the earlier incident "shocking," then said he would withhold judgment until an investigation had been conducted.
The King incident, which was followed by such other high-profile controversies as a furor over corruption and brutality in the LAPD's Rampart Division, also triggered a decade of examination and reform.
The city agreed to a federal consent decree that mandated changes in officer training and systems to track officer conduct.
Paysinger, the highest-ranking African American officer in the LAPD and Bratton's voice in South Los Angeles, has worked for two years to improve relations with former critics, particularly among African Americans.
"Chief Bratton, to his credit, has been aggressive in reaching out," said Mack of the Urban League. "Back during Rodney King, it was all-out war; it was very antagonistic. But there has been general improvement."
Changes in police attitudes have been matched by changes in community attitudes, said Khalid Shah of Stop the Violence/Increase the Peace.
People in South L.A. "were tired of the polarization that existed between law enforcement and the community," he said.
But Mack, Shah and many others said Wednesday's incident could severely test those new bonds.
Some activists were scathing in their criticism.
The incident shows that relations between blacks and the LAPD have gotten worse, not better, said Tony Muhammad, Western regional minister with the Nation of Islam. "The Gates mentality is back with Bratton," he said.
Shah, Mack and Muhammad were among dozens of community leaders whom Paysinger assembled for a meeting at the 77th Street station to explain the department's response.
The mayor and other city officials also attended, but the media were shut out. Many activists lingered afterward to urge calm and demand that the LAPD thoroughly investigate.
Hahn called on the department to conduct an inquiry that would "give confidence to the community that no one is above the law in Los Angeles."
By contrast, Councilman Bernard C. Parks, former police chief and now a challenger to Hahn in next year's mayoral race, sharply criticized the officers' actions. He said there was an appearance of poor tactics and possible excessive force on the video.
The third officer's kick "appears not to be appropriate," Parks said. "And you certainly can't justify the striking with a baton or flashlight."
Other police officials disagreed, saying officers must do whatever the situation demands when they arrest a suspect.
The Southeast Division is one of the most dangerous in the city.
Fleeing suspects there are nearly twice as likely to be armed as in the city as a whole, according to LAPD data. About one in seven fleeing suspects there was found to be armed in 2003.
To view video of the beating, go to latimes.com/lapdvideo.
-----------------------------
Hopefully this link works, I had to sign in the read the article and view the tape...
http://www.latimes.com/la-me-beating24jun24,1,56032.story
-------------------------------
Beating by LAPD Officer Airs on TV
*The case is seen as a test for Bratton as parallels are drawn to the Rodney King incident of 1991.
The televised beating of a suspected car thief Wednesday by a flashlight-wielding Los Angeles Police Department officer was described by a top department official as "Rodney King-esque," drawing comparisons with the 1991 beating of an African American man by LAPD officers that led to catastrophic riots a year later.
Television news crews in helicopters recorded the early morning car chase that ended in Compton shortly before 6 a.m. when about half a dozen LAPD officers ran after an African American man who bolted from a stolen Toyota Camry.
On the videotape, the unarmed man appears to surrender after sprinting a short distance along the concrete-lined Compton Creek channel, raising his arms and starting to crouch.
As two officers are restraining the suspected thief on the ground, a third officer is seen delivering a quick kick to the suspect and then striking him 11 times in the upper body with a flashlight. A short time after the man is handcuffed and in custody, three officers can be seen exchanging handshakes.
The LAPD and FBI have opened investigations.
The case is seen as a key test for LAPD Chief William J. Bratton, who has spent the last two years trying to improve relations with South L.A. communities, particularly African Americans, with the aim of trying to temper lingering anger and resentment over past police brutality. He and Los Angeles Mayor James K. Hahn promised a quick and thorough investigation.
"If, after that investigation, officers of the Los Angeles Police Department are found to have violated the law, those officers ought to be terminated. They ought to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law," Hahn said at a late afternoon news conference. "The community is watching. They'll hold us accountable. This is the test."
DeMaria Perry, an elected member of the Watts neighborhood council, called the beating outrageous. "I don't think I am safe with the LAPD," said the 16-year-old African American boy. "That's why people run. We don't know what to expect."
Police identified the man in the video as Stanley Miller, 36, of Compton. LAPD officers first spotted him driving north on the Harbor Freeway at Alondra Boulevard about 5:25 a.m. and chased him for about 30 minutes, mostly on surface streets.
After his arrest, Miller was treated at a hospital for what police described as scrapes. Late Wednesday, LAPD South Bureau Deputy Chief Earl Paysinger reported that Miller had said at the hospital that he had been struck in the head.
Miller has since been booked on suspicion of grand theft auto and is being held in lieu of $30,000 bail at Parker Center. He is listed on the booking report as 200 pounds and 6 feet tall, and appears to have past convictions, including for burglary and car theft.
Bratton, who was in Hartford, Conn., said the department immediately launched criminal and internal investigations.
"There is no denying that it looks very bad from what is seen on the video," he said by telephone Wednesday morning. "But there should be no rush to judgment before the investigations are completed."
In a departure from past incidents, the LAPD would not release the names of the officers involved, citing legal advice by the city attorney's office. Paysinger said several officers had been assigned to their homes and would be put on administrative leave.
The three officers seen as most aggressive on the videotape are white, Paysinger said, and none are rookies.
Department policy allows officers to use any force that is "reasonable and necessary" to make an arrest or to protect the public," said LAPD Cmdr. Eric Lillo.
Los Angeles police are allowed to use metal flashlights to strike suspects. They are supposed to use only as much force as needed to overcome resistance.
The proper use of force is determined case by case, and can take into account, for example, the level of danger posed by the suspect and whether he may be armed.
Such determinations "are very subjective, and you have to evaluate it through the cop's eyes," said Connie Rice, a civil rights attorney and chairwoman of an LAPD task force investigating the Rampart scandal.
Rice criticized the department for past rulings by its investigators that gave officers the widest margin possible. The LAPD would "rule that everything was in policy no matter how absurd it appeared to rational people," she said.
Today the department should be measured, not by whether it finds these officers guilty of wrongdoing, but by whether "they are doing a rational and by-the-book investigation," she said.
LAPD officials defended their decision to keep secret the names of the officers involved, saying legal constraints of personnel and penal codes are now more strict.
But Alonzo Wickers, an attorney specializing in 1st Amendment law, disagreed. When police use force, he said, the public has a right to know who they are. "The city has misread the law in this case," Wickers said.
Paysinger, whose bureau includes the Southeast Division, where the officers in the incident are based, termed the video "troubling."
He called for the public's patience to allow the department time to investigate.
"We have built a strong relationship with the public…. We are asking the public to believe in us," he said.
The videotape, which was broadcast throughout the day on local TV stations, looked "Rodney King-esque," Paysinger said. But such comparisons, he said, do not take into account changes in the LAPD's leadership and in public attitudes in the years since motorist King was beaten in 1991.
That videotaped beating was one of the most notorious cases of police brutality in American history and sparked the Los Angeles riots of 1992 after the officers involved were acquitted.
Daryl Gates, who was chief at the time, is often remembered for a defiant attitude toward community criticism, and some activists made reference to him Wednesday.
John Mack of the Los Angeles Urban League recalled that Gates "was quick to defend officers. He almost implied that Rodney King deserved it."
Gates' initial reaction to the King beating, however, echoed some of Bratton's comments Wednesday. Gates called the earlier incident "shocking," then said he would withhold judgment until an investigation had been conducted.
The King incident, which was followed by such other high-profile controversies as a furor over corruption and brutality in the LAPD's Rampart Division, also triggered a decade of examination and reform.
The city agreed to a federal consent decree that mandated changes in officer training and systems to track officer conduct.
Paysinger, the highest-ranking African American officer in the LAPD and Bratton's voice in South Los Angeles, has worked for two years to improve relations with former critics, particularly among African Americans.
"Chief Bratton, to his credit, has been aggressive in reaching out," said Mack of the Urban League. "Back during Rodney King, it was all-out war; it was very antagonistic. But there has been general improvement."
Changes in police attitudes have been matched by changes in community attitudes, said Khalid Shah of Stop the Violence/Increase the Peace.
People in South L.A. "were tired of the polarization that existed between law enforcement and the community," he said.
But Mack, Shah and many others said Wednesday's incident could severely test those new bonds.
Some activists were scathing in their criticism.
The incident shows that relations between blacks and the LAPD have gotten worse, not better, said Tony Muhammad, Western regional minister with the Nation of Islam. "The Gates mentality is back with Bratton," he said.
Shah, Mack and Muhammad were among dozens of community leaders whom Paysinger assembled for a meeting at the 77th Street station to explain the department's response.
The mayor and other city officials also attended, but the media were shut out. Many activists lingered afterward to urge calm and demand that the LAPD thoroughly investigate.
Hahn called on the department to conduct an inquiry that would "give confidence to the community that no one is above the law in Los Angeles."
By contrast, Councilman Bernard C. Parks, former police chief and now a challenger to Hahn in next year's mayoral race, sharply criticized the officers' actions. He said there was an appearance of poor tactics and possible excessive force on the video.
The third officer's kick "appears not to be appropriate," Parks said. "And you certainly can't justify the striking with a baton or flashlight."
Other police officials disagreed, saying officers must do whatever the situation demands when they arrest a suspect.
The Southeast Division is one of the most dangerous in the city.
Fleeing suspects there are nearly twice as likely to be armed as in the city as a whole, according to LAPD data. About one in seven fleeing suspects there was found to be armed in 2003.
To view video of the beating, go to latimes.com/lapdvideo.
-----------------------------
Hopefully this link works, I had to sign in the read the article and view the tape...
http://www.latimes.com/la-me-beating24jun24,1,56032.story
DGB454
06-25-2004, 07:27 AM
What is the matter with the LAPD officers? They have a huge image problem and they do something like that. Is ignorance a prerequisit to joining the LAPD? I saw a short exerpt of the tape this morning. I would think one hit in the head with a flashlight should have been enough to stop someone from struggling. If it takes 11 then you either aren't trying hard enough or you are enjoying yourself a little too much.
blindside.AMG
06-25-2004, 07:32 AM
It seems like the third officer who arrives is the one who had the biggest problem. First he kicked the kid in the head, then he beat him eleven times with his flashlight. I didn't really see any of the other cops do much.
driftu
06-25-2004, 02:36 PM
sorry i have no tears for crooks.
Integra06
06-25-2004, 02:43 PM
sorry i have no tears for crooks.
:iagree: I can't feel sorry for a guy that stole a car and has had a history before that. He deserved every bit of it and maybe even more.
:iagree: I can't feel sorry for a guy that stole a car and has had a history before that. He deserved every bit of it and maybe even more.
Sean
06-25-2004, 02:53 PM
I saw that on TV. Quite unnesessary if you ask me.
Connie Rice, a civil rights attorney hehehe
Connie Rice, a civil rights attorney hehehe
YogsVR4
06-25-2004, 03:09 PM
I don't have a problem with the police getting rough on a criminal who's fighting back. This guy was surrendering. Those cops need to be tried - convicted and spend time in the big house :swear:
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
Raz_Kaz
06-25-2004, 03:13 PM
True! Cops who beat the shit out of a criminal thats trying to get away should have all the baton rights. But those who beat down on a criminal thats already cuffed should get his ass beat from the criminal themselves
psychobadboy
06-25-2004, 03:28 PM
Saw the video on TV a lot already since it happened. The LAPD sure do know how to make themselves look bad. The guy was down on the ground surrendering. No reason to get kicked and beaten with a flashlight.
Another incident happened (the same day this happened) where the LA County Sheriff's Department beat some guy surrendering in Compton. Those living here in SoCal might have heard about it.
Then there was that incident in Inglewood where the guy's head was slammed onto the trunk of a police car while he was handcuffed.
And then...
You get the idea. Gotta be something wrong with police officers here in Southern California. Maybe the smog affects their brains...iono.
Another incident happened (the same day this happened) where the LA County Sheriff's Department beat some guy surrendering in Compton. Those living here in SoCal might have heard about it.
Then there was that incident in Inglewood where the guy's head was slammed onto the trunk of a police car while he was handcuffed.
And then...
You get the idea. Gotta be something wrong with police officers here in Southern California. Maybe the smog affects their brains...iono.
lazysmurff
06-25-2004, 03:35 PM
:iagree: I can't feel sorry for a guy that stole a car and has had a history before that. He deserved every bit of it and maybe even more.
i do believe one of the main concentrations in the bill of rights is the fair treatment of people, even those that are arrested and convicted of crimes. he deserved nothing, but cuffs and a fair trial.
and maybe a straight jacket...if your gonna steal a car, try and do better than a camry
i do believe one of the main concentrations in the bill of rights is the fair treatment of people, even those that are arrested and convicted of crimes. he deserved nothing, but cuffs and a fair trial.
and maybe a straight jacket...if your gonna steal a car, try and do better than a camry
Ace$nyper
06-25-2004, 04:19 PM
thank god i'm no where in there
yes he had a history but that kinda beating should not be allowed.
I think those cops should lose there jobs and serve some jail time
yes he had a history but that kinda beating should not be allowed.
I think those cops should lose there jobs and serve some jail time
Integra06
06-25-2004, 04:22 PM
i do believe one of the main concentrations in the bill of rights is the fair treatment of people, even those that are arrested and convicted of crimes. he deserved nothing, but cuffs and a fair trial.
and maybe a straight jacket...if your gonna steal a car, try and do better than a camry
IMO, an amendment needs to be added that says if you commit a crime, you waive your right to fair treatment. Stealing a car and running from the police is different than say getting a speeding ticket and going about the business like a normal human. If you steal a car, run from the police, damage other people's property, and put lives in danger, then you don't deserve a slap on the wrist, you get a kick in the head or similar.
and maybe a straight jacket...if your gonna steal a car, try and do better than a camry
IMO, an amendment needs to be added that says if you commit a crime, you waive your right to fair treatment. Stealing a car and running from the police is different than say getting a speeding ticket and going about the business like a normal human. If you steal a car, run from the police, damage other people's property, and put lives in danger, then you don't deserve a slap on the wrist, you get a kick in the head or similar.
mospeed1
06-25-2004, 04:28 PM
I don't have a problem with the police getting rough on a criminal who's fighting back. This guy was surrendering. Those cops need to be tried - convicted and spend time in the big house :swear:
:iagree:
:iagree:
2strokebloke
06-25-2004, 04:42 PM
Yes, unecessary violence is unecessary. I agree with Yogs, I hope they get what they deserve.
I do hate however, how people want to drag race into this.
I do hate however, how people want to drag race into this.
taranaki
06-25-2004, 05:29 PM
I don't have a problem with the police getting rough on a criminal who's fighting back. This guy was surrendering. Those cops need to be tried - convicted and spend time in the big house :swear:
Print this post,frame it,and hang it on the wall.It's one of the rare occasions when myself and Yogs are in total agreement. :sunglasse
Print this post,frame it,and hang it on the wall.It's one of the rare occasions when myself and Yogs are in total agreement. :sunglasse
kcap122
06-25-2004, 07:35 PM
IMO, an amendment needs to be added that says if you commit a crime, you waive your right to fair treatment. Stealing a car and running from the police is different than say getting a speeding ticket and going about the business like a normal human. If you steal a car, run from the police, damage other people's property, and put lives in danger, then you don't deserve a slap on the wrist, you get a kick in the head or similar.
wtf is your problem?
Yeah if the guy stole a car, it would make sense to worsen his punishment, (i.e. longer jail time etc) but thats a job for the judge. The purpose of domestic police forces is to maintain civil order, NOT to decide justice for the people they arrest. The courts are supposed to be the brains, and police only the hands.
Just because a guy is running from arrest is not a reason to beat him. I mean later on, yeah sure corporal punishment is okay, but not out in public at the discretion of a low-income, low-education patrol officer. There's a reason that your town has a police bureau AND a court. That's because the police aren't supposed to beat a guy to death just because they think it's more fair that way
I bet you wouldn't be so happy to see a no-fair-treatment amendment someday if you're arrested for antipatriotism, and the guys who come to pick you up fuckin beat you in the head. That's just stupid, dude.
wtf is your problem?
Yeah if the guy stole a car, it would make sense to worsen his punishment, (i.e. longer jail time etc) but thats a job for the judge. The purpose of domestic police forces is to maintain civil order, NOT to decide justice for the people they arrest. The courts are supposed to be the brains, and police only the hands.
Just because a guy is running from arrest is not a reason to beat him. I mean later on, yeah sure corporal punishment is okay, but not out in public at the discretion of a low-income, low-education patrol officer. There's a reason that your town has a police bureau AND a court. That's because the police aren't supposed to beat a guy to death just because they think it's more fair that way
I bet you wouldn't be so happy to see a no-fair-treatment amendment someday if you're arrested for antipatriotism, and the guys who come to pick you up fuckin beat you in the head. That's just stupid, dude.
Toksin
06-25-2004, 07:39 PM
I saw that, totally uncalled for. The guy ran, but then surrendered without putting up a fight, and got thrashed for it. Not cool.
driftu
06-25-2004, 07:49 PM
i think the key is to not do illegal things. if you infringe the rights of others why should protect your rights. i can't agree with the beating but at the same time i don't feel sorry for the bastard.
Sean
06-25-2004, 07:57 PM
It sounds like some people are forgetting the "innocent until proven guilty" rule.
The courts were around long before the police. It's not an officers job to punish a suspect; that role belongs to the court.
There is a term (which i convieniently can't remember) for the mindset officers are in after a pursuit. Basicly, when a pursuit has just ended, the officer's urge to just beat the shit out of the suspect for making them endanger everyone on the roads is quite high. If the police were free to punish the suspect I would be the first one out of the country.
The courts were around long before the police. It's not an officers job to punish a suspect; that role belongs to the court.
There is a term (which i convieniently can't remember) for the mindset officers are in after a pursuit. Basicly, when a pursuit has just ended, the officer's urge to just beat the shit out of the suspect for making them endanger everyone on the roads is quite high. If the police were free to punish the suspect I would be the first one out of the country.
taranaki
06-25-2004, 08:17 PM
It's not an officers job to punish a suspect,
Nicely nailed the issue here,Sean, thank you.
These clowns are not fit to be lawmen.Quite apart from the noble sentiments of the law,if they are too stupid to realise that at the end of a lengthy car chase there is likely to be a news chopper following their every move,then they are too stupid to be enforcement officers.
IMO, an amendment needs to be added that says if you commit a crime, you waive your right to fair treatment.
That's exactly as the law stands.You report a crime to the police[or they detect it happening],they apprehend a suspect and bring him before the courts to determine whetheer or not a crime was committed,and if so,whether the person on trial committed it.
In civilised countries the police are not employed to smack the bejeezus out of a person on th the ground particularly when it is obvious that they are not in any personal danger from that suspect.
Nicely nailed the issue here,Sean, thank you.
These clowns are not fit to be lawmen.Quite apart from the noble sentiments of the law,if they are too stupid to realise that at the end of a lengthy car chase there is likely to be a news chopper following their every move,then they are too stupid to be enforcement officers.
IMO, an amendment needs to be added that says if you commit a crime, you waive your right to fair treatment.
That's exactly as the law stands.You report a crime to the police[or they detect it happening],they apprehend a suspect and bring him before the courts to determine whetheer or not a crime was committed,and if so,whether the person on trial committed it.
In civilised countries the police are not employed to smack the bejeezus out of a person on th the ground particularly when it is obvious that they are not in any personal danger from that suspect.
Integra06
06-25-2004, 08:38 PM
Nicely nailed the issue here,Sean, thank you.
These clowns are not fit to be lawmen.Quite apart from the noble sentiments of the law,if they are too stupid to realise that at the end of a lengthy car chase there is likely to be a news chopper following their every move,then they are too stupid to be enforcement officers.
That's exactly as the law stands.You report a crime to the police[or they detect it happening],they apprehend a suspect and bring him before the courts to determine whetheer or not a crime was committed,and if so,whether the person on trial committed it.
In civilised countries the police are not employed to smack the bejeezus out of a person on th the ground particularly when it is obvious that they are not in any personal danger from that suspect.
I'm talking about if a person is caught in the act on a camera, in front of an officer, or similar, that they should get a swift kick to the balls. If not witnessed by law enforcement or others is a totally different situation where a good blow to stun a person would not be needed unless the person is resisting arrest and trying to attack an officer. He did deserve at least one hit for stealing a damn Camry, I'm sure that there were better things around.
These clowns are not fit to be lawmen.Quite apart from the noble sentiments of the law,if they are too stupid to realise that at the end of a lengthy car chase there is likely to be a news chopper following their every move,then they are too stupid to be enforcement officers.
That's exactly as the law stands.You report a crime to the police[or they detect it happening],they apprehend a suspect and bring him before the courts to determine whetheer or not a crime was committed,and if so,whether the person on trial committed it.
In civilised countries the police are not employed to smack the bejeezus out of a person on th the ground particularly when it is obvious that they are not in any personal danger from that suspect.
I'm talking about if a person is caught in the act on a camera, in front of an officer, or similar, that they should get a swift kick to the balls. If not witnessed by law enforcement or others is a totally different situation where a good blow to stun a person would not be needed unless the person is resisting arrest and trying to attack an officer. He did deserve at least one hit for stealing a damn Camry, I'm sure that there were better things around.
2strokebloke
06-25-2004, 09:52 PM
Cops don't sentence the guilty, judges do. That's why we have judges. It's not that hard to comprehend. We don't live in the 1860s anymore. Cops don't punish, that's not part of their job.
TexasF355F1
06-28-2004, 04:29 PM
I don't have a problem with the police getting rough on a criminal who's fighting back. This guy was surrendering. Those cops need to be tried - convicted and spend time in the big house :swear:
I agree. But I also think anyone who is running from the police needs to get a few pops.
I agree. But I also think anyone who is running from the police needs to get a few pops.
psychobadboy
06-28-2004, 04:44 PM
I agree. But I also think anyone who is running from the police needs to get a few pops.
If that's the only way to apprehend them, then yea. But in this case, the "pops" from the officer's flashlight was uncalled for. He was down already.
If that's the only way to apprehend them, then yea. But in this case, the "pops" from the officer's flashlight was uncalled for. He was down already.
Raz_Kaz
06-28-2004, 05:08 PM
I'm talking about if a person is caught in the act on a camera, in front of an officer, or similar, that they should get a swift kick to the balls.
:lol2: :rofl: HA HA HA HA! I read that and burst out laughing!!!!
:lol2: :rofl: HA HA HA HA! I read that and burst out laughing!!!!
driftu
06-28-2004, 05:25 PM
why is it always the LAPD? :shakehead
i think given the size and reputation that newyork would have higher uncalled for police brutality. or even new jersey. so why is the spot light always on LA?
i think given the size and reputation that newyork would have higher uncalled for police brutality. or even new jersey. so why is the spot light always on LA?
twospirits
06-28-2004, 05:32 PM
Because we here in NY we NYers say, "been there done that". The NY cops had a problem a while back as well but so far it looks like they finally got the message. I think the last major problem we had was when the cops beat up that guy that was having an asthma attack and they thought he was going for a gun when it was just a inhaller.
Strider Negro
06-28-2004, 11:47 PM
hey driftu, your using my avatar!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
driftu
06-29-2004, 01:37 AM
hey driftu, your using my avatar!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
sorry dude my bad
sorry dude my bad
susan94civic
07-02-2004, 11:18 AM
Is the flashlight made of steel or plastic. If plastic then the guy will be fine but steel I hope they gave him some asprins.
psychobadboy
07-02-2004, 12:17 PM
Certainly not plastic...some type of metal. I carry a flashlight just like the ones the police have in my car. Trust me, you get hit with that, it's gonna hurt real bad. Definately gonna leave a few marks.
SniperX13
07-02-2004, 12:47 PM
Being a member of law enforcement, I would like to see if they release alot of information about the suspect as well. Like a toxicology screening. Seeing if the Subject was on anything. We had a guy come in high on Wet. It took 8 officers 11 minutes of wrestling, plus two cans of capstun to subdue him and put him in restraints. he ended up knocking our LT 4 feet in the air when he charged out of the room. for those of you who might object, it was all video taped as per departmental policy. Please, remember that there is an investigation going on, and nobody has all the information. you dont know all the circumstances, the reason, if it was or wasnt justified. I am not defending them, because I saw the tape as well, and looks like he was given to many, but I am also reserving my judgement for when the findings are released. I am more worried that they will be hung out to fry as a way to appease the public, and be over punished.
WissNX01
07-12-2004, 01:35 AM
If you run from the cops after breaking the law, you deserve to get beat.
taranaki
07-12-2004, 05:41 AM
If you run from the cops after breaking the law, you deserve to get beat.
So don't you have a court system in your country?Is it so far bacjkward in your neck of the woods that you have to employ vigilantes?
In simple small words
COPS are there to CATCH criminals
COURTS are there to PUNISH criminals.
There,so simple, even a child could understand it. :rolleyes:
So don't you have a court system in your country?Is it so far bacjkward in your neck of the woods that you have to employ vigilantes?
In simple small words
COPS are there to CATCH criminals
COURTS are there to PUNISH criminals.
There,so simple, even a child could understand it. :rolleyes:
WissNX01
07-12-2004, 02:14 PM
It might be backwards, but I bet that guy will think twice before he takes off running next time.
taranaki
07-12-2004, 04:35 PM
I daresay the cops involved will think twice next time,if they still have jobs.Beating the crap out of a guy on the ground is not part of their job descripion and belittles the good work that the majority of enforcement officers do.This is a clear case of a few bad officers putting the reputation and safety of the force at risk,and these officers should face criminal charges[I wouldn't be surprised if the fugitive doesn't sue them for a big fat wedge as well, but that doesn't mean I approve.]
WissNX01
07-12-2004, 04:38 PM
Wedgies? Wedgies are funny. Maybe if they did that instead of flashlight beatings, it wouldnt be so bad. I mean really, how seriously would you take a car thief if he whined about getting his underwear crammed up his ass crack?
taranaki
07-12-2004, 04:49 PM
Wedgies? Wedgies are funny. Maybe if they did that instead of flashlight beatings, it wouldnt be so bad. I mean really, how seriously would you take a car thief if he whined about getting his underwear crammed up his ass crack?
:screwy:
whatever. :rolleyes:
:screwy:
whatever. :rolleyes:
WissNX01
07-12-2004, 04:52 PM
honestly, guys like you ^ crack me up. Youll debate anything. Again, you make personal attacks, somethign you warn against.
Integra06
07-12-2004, 11:05 PM
Police and tow truck drivers alike carry Mag-Lites. They are very useful for breaking a window to extract a car wreck victim when the door can't be opened. They're also useful to beat the shit out of a suspect that is resisting arrest.
kcap122
07-12-2004, 11:42 PM
Police and tow truck drivers alike carry Mag-Lites. They are very useful for breaking a window to extract a car wreck victim when the door can't be opened. They're also useful to beat the shit out of a suspect that is resisting arrest.
....sorry, i thought you had a point to make. nevermind.
....sorry, i thought you had a point to make. nevermind.
Integra06
07-12-2004, 11:45 PM
editPost deleted,any further use of such language and you will be removed. :smile:
Taranaki
Taranaki
WissNX01
07-13-2004, 02:31 AM
Police and tow truck drivers alike carry Mag-Lites. They are very useful for breaking a window to extract a car wreck victim when the door can't be opened. They're also useful to beat the shit out of a suspect that is resisting arrest.
Goddamn right. YOu resist arrest, you damn well better expect to get fucked up by a flashlight, or even shot.
Goddamn right. YOu resist arrest, you damn well better expect to get fucked up by a flashlight, or even shot.
Toksin
07-13-2004, 02:56 AM
He ran, but once he was cornered, he peacefully surrendered, he didn't fight. He was already pinned, and the cop came and beat the shit out of him.
how is that right?
how is that right?
WissNX01
07-13-2004, 02:58 AM
They are doing this thing, perhaps you have heard of it, investigating what really happened. YOu dont know waht he had in his fists or what. YOu know, maybe the cop just caught his best friend fucking his dog or something and wanted to take it out on somoene. That happens. Is it right, no. Butthe facts will emerge.
Toksin
07-13-2004, 03:58 AM
So he has issues and shoudl take it out on someone else? Right.
So he had something in his hands, lay down with his hands behind his back, got restrained and cuffed...AND THEN SHOULD BE BEATEN?
K.
Is up down and down up in your world?
So he had something in his hands, lay down with his hands behind his back, got restrained and cuffed...AND THEN SHOULD BE BEATEN?
K.
Is up down and down up in your world?
WissNX01
07-13-2004, 04:02 AM
More personal insults. YOur a real hypocrite. I can respect that.
Jetts
07-13-2004, 04:06 AM
lapd can stick up their ass, no one cares. a cop in phoenix just got off all charges after shoting a lady behind and killing her with her infent child in the car.
WissNX01
07-13-2004, 04:07 AM
Why did he shoot her?
Toksin
07-13-2004, 04:10 AM
How am I a hypocrite?
And how was that a personal insult? I am simply perplexed by your outlook on the world, and seek some understanding.
PS. "You're".
And how was that a personal insult? I am simply perplexed by your outlook on the world, and seek some understanding.
PS. "You're".
WissNX01
07-13-2004, 04:12 AM
Was she breaking the law? Just out of curiousity, what race was the cop, and the woman?
Toksin
07-13-2004, 04:13 AM
lapd can stick up their ass, no one cares. a cop in phoenix just got off all charges after shoting a lady behind and killing her with her infent child in the car.
:eek:!
Link to a story?
:eek:!
Link to a story?
Jetts
07-13-2004, 04:15 AM
the lady was trying to get illegal prescriptions filled in a drive thru pharmacy and the cop was a motorcycle cop and he got off his bike and approaced the car and she took off past him and hit his bike and he shot her from behind. ill look for the story/s
Jetts
07-13-2004, 04:16 AM
the cop was white and i think the victim was white also
WissNX01
07-13-2004, 04:16 AM
Oh, if she hit his bike, the cop can consider the car a deadly weapon. It could very well be legal to kill her before she kills someone else while trying to get away.
WissNX01
07-13-2004, 04:17 AM
At least the NAACP wont be suing the city.
Jetts
07-13-2004, 04:23 AM
"Shooting only recourse, ex-officer says
Jim Walsh
The Arizona Republic
Jun. 30, 2004 12:00 AM
A former Chandler police officer testified Tuesday that shooting an Ahwatukee Foothills mother to death as she drove past him was a last resort when he had no other self-defense options.
"It happened so fast, I thought it was the last thing I was going to do living," Dan Lovelace testified. "I had to do something. I'm not going to let someone run me over."
But Lovelace also conceded under hostile cross-examination by prosecutor Vince Imbordino that prescription drug fraud suspect Dawn Rae Nelson's left front tire had passed him by the time he fired.
Lovelace, 39, concluded about six hours of testimony in a jammed Mesa courtroom before Maricopa County Superior Court Judge James Keppel.
He is accused of second-degree murder and endangerment in the Oct. 11, 2002 shooting death of Nelson, 35, who was attempting to flee from a Walgreens drive-through window with her 14-month-old son, Kenneth, in a rear car seat.
The child was unharmed.
Lovelace, an officer for 7˝ years, is the first Arizona officer in modern history to stand trial on felony charges related to an on-duty shooting.
In response to questions submitted to Keppel by jurors, Lovelace said he believes he would have been run over if he hadn't fired.
"The only way I can explain it to you is reaction to a threat," he said. "We know that physically, a bullet is not going to stop a car. That's all I had left."
He also said that he believes shooting Nelson caused her white Camaro to swerve.
Earlier, Lovelace testified that he thought the car's left-front tire had struck him and that he had a red mark on his left thigh but no serious injuries. He said he did not fire his Glock semi-automatic pistol until he thought the car hit him.
After the shooting, Lovelace said his entire body felt numb.
"I didn't feel pain. I didn't feel anything," he said. "My head was rushing. I was still scared from this entire thing that was happening."
Lovelace parked his motorcycle in front of Nelson's Camaro, asked for her identification, and stepped to the rear of her car to read the license plate when she told him she did not have identification with her.
The Camaro was in the outer bay, while Lovelace said he was walking in an inside bay as he used a portable radio to call in Nelson's plate number.
Lovelace said he was walking toward the drive-through window when he heard Nelson restart the car.
He said he took several "big steps" toward the end of the bay, but when Nelson turned left to flee, he started back-peddling to avoid getting hit.
Lovelace estimated he was 1˝ to 2 feet away from the car when he fired, while a prosecution witness estimated he was 3˝ feet away.
Imbordino argues Lovelace had no reason to pursue Nelson and had no reasonable fear for his life when he fired, shooting Nelson from behind.
But Lovelace said he was standing in a position slightly in front of Nelson's open driver's side window when he fired." - Arizona republic
Jim Walsh
The Arizona Republic
Jun. 30, 2004 12:00 AM
A former Chandler police officer testified Tuesday that shooting an Ahwatukee Foothills mother to death as she drove past him was a last resort when he had no other self-defense options.
"It happened so fast, I thought it was the last thing I was going to do living," Dan Lovelace testified. "I had to do something. I'm not going to let someone run me over."
But Lovelace also conceded under hostile cross-examination by prosecutor Vince Imbordino that prescription drug fraud suspect Dawn Rae Nelson's left front tire had passed him by the time he fired.
Lovelace, 39, concluded about six hours of testimony in a jammed Mesa courtroom before Maricopa County Superior Court Judge James Keppel.
He is accused of second-degree murder and endangerment in the Oct. 11, 2002 shooting death of Nelson, 35, who was attempting to flee from a Walgreens drive-through window with her 14-month-old son, Kenneth, in a rear car seat.
The child was unharmed.
Lovelace, an officer for 7˝ years, is the first Arizona officer in modern history to stand trial on felony charges related to an on-duty shooting.
In response to questions submitted to Keppel by jurors, Lovelace said he believes he would have been run over if he hadn't fired.
"The only way I can explain it to you is reaction to a threat," he said. "We know that physically, a bullet is not going to stop a car. That's all I had left."
He also said that he believes shooting Nelson caused her white Camaro to swerve.
Earlier, Lovelace testified that he thought the car's left-front tire had struck him and that he had a red mark on his left thigh but no serious injuries. He said he did not fire his Glock semi-automatic pistol until he thought the car hit him.
After the shooting, Lovelace said his entire body felt numb.
"I didn't feel pain. I didn't feel anything," he said. "My head was rushing. I was still scared from this entire thing that was happening."
Lovelace parked his motorcycle in front of Nelson's Camaro, asked for her identification, and stepped to the rear of her car to read the license plate when she told him she did not have identification with her.
The Camaro was in the outer bay, while Lovelace said he was walking in an inside bay as he used a portable radio to call in Nelson's plate number.
Lovelace said he was walking toward the drive-through window when he heard Nelson restart the car.
He said he took several "big steps" toward the end of the bay, but when Nelson turned left to flee, he started back-peddling to avoid getting hit.
Lovelace estimated he was 1˝ to 2 feet away from the car when he fired, while a prosecution witness estimated he was 3˝ feet away.
Imbordino argues Lovelace had no reason to pursue Nelson and had no reasonable fear for his life when he fired, shooting Nelson from behind.
But Lovelace said he was standing in a position slightly in front of Nelson's open driver's side window when he fired." - Arizona republic
WissNX01
07-13-2004, 04:26 AM
Hmm, Its a wonder it wasnt a hung jury, could go either way
Jetts
07-13-2004, 04:28 AM
"Officer cleared in killing
Lovelace shot mom in car at Chandler drugstore
Jim Walsh and Josh Kelley
The Arizona Republic
Jul. 10, 2004 12:00 AM
Jurors refused to second-guess a former Chandler police officer, acquitting him of all charges after three days of deliberations in the on-duty shooting of an Ahwatukee Foothills woman.
Dan Lovelace, 39, the first Arizona officer to stand trial on felony charges stemming from an officer-involved shooting, was found not guilty of second-degree murder, manslaughter and endangerment in the shooting of Dawn Rae Nelson.
"The message will be that it's difficult to convict a police officer," said Deputy Maricopa County Attorney Vince Imbordino. "That's just a fact. Whether that's right or wrong is a question for a different day."
Friends and supporters of Lovelace gasped in Maricopa County Superior Court Judge James Keppel's jammed Mesa courtroom as the verdicts were read. An elated Lovelace kissed his wife, Trish, and his 1* year-old daughter.
Lovelace left through a side door and refused to comment, but defense attorney Craig Mehrens said his client was going to celebrate the verdict.
"He's numb. He's so happy to know there are eight men and women who had faith in him. Sometimes, the system really does work," Mehrens said. "He now knows that he's free. He wants to spend some time with his wife and daughter."
Mehrens argued during the trial that Lovelace was just doing his job when he chased prescription drug fraud suspect Dawn Nelson, 35, and fired only to avoid getting run over by her car. Imbordino argued that Lovelace had no reason to chase Nelson and was never in the path of her car. He said police easily could have arrested her later because they had her license plate number.
Dawn Nelson's widower was disappointed by the verdict and said it was a miscarriage of justice.
"I thought it was very cowardly of them," John "Colby" Nelson said. "They just didn't do their job. What were they afraid of to convict him?"
The key question faced by jurors was whether Lovelace was reasonably in fear for his life when he shot Dawn Nelson. Lovelace testified that he feared for his life and believed the front left tire of her Camaro had already struck him when he fired.
Colby Nelson attributed Lovelace's acquittal to his historic role as the first Arizona officer to stand trial for an on-duty shooting.
The Nelsons' son, Kenneth, 14 months old at the time, was riding in a rear car seat when Lovelace shot Dawn Nelson.
"I wish I could tell him (Kenneth) that the person who killed his mother is in jail," Colby Nelson said. "There was just overwhelming evidence against him."
A motorcycle officer, Lovelace went to the Walgreens at Dobson and Warner roads on Oct. 11, 2002, to investigate a report of a prescription drug fraud in progress. Witnesses testified he chased Nelson's car on foot when she fled from a drive-through window and knocked over his motorcycle.
After Nelson made a sharp left turn, Lovelace testified that he was afraid she would run over him or crush him against a nearby building. Prosecutors said he shot her from behind, the bullet entering the rear of her left arm and ripping through her heart and lungs.
"If they (jurors) didn't believe him, they wouldn't have acquitted him," Mehrens said.
The department fired Lovelace after an internal investigation, and the city paid at least $1.9 million to the Nelson family to settle a civil lawsuit.
Lovelace's certification was never suspended because the Arizona Peace Officers Standards and Training Board was awaiting the outcome of his trial. A felony conviction would have resulted in automatic revocation of his certification.
"I would be disturbed if he's ever employed as an officer again," Imbordino said.
Lovelace faced up to 24 years in prison if con- victed.
Dave LeVoy, president of the Chandler Law Enforcement Association, said that he wasn't surprised by the verdict and always thought Lovelace would be exonerated.
"We always had faith in the judicial system," said LeVoy, who hugged Lovelace after the verdicts were read. "And we knew that once the facts were heard by a jury of his peers that this would be the verdict."
County Attorney Rick Romley said he knew going into the trial that very few law enforcement officers have been convicted nationwide on charges stemming from on-duty shootings.
"Knowing what I know today, even with the not guilty verdicts, I'd still bring the charges," Romley said. "The facts of this case, we believe a jury needed to make the ultimate decisions."
Lovelace was the only officer charged with crimes stemming from an on-duty shooting during Romley's 16-year tenure as county attorney.
"I believe a police officer has a very difficult job. I will generally give the benefit of the doubt to a police officer," Romley said.
But Romley said he would not hesitate to file charges against an officer in the future if he believed the officer acted outside the law in a police shooting." - Arizona republic
Lovelace shot mom in car at Chandler drugstore
Jim Walsh and Josh Kelley
The Arizona Republic
Jul. 10, 2004 12:00 AM
Jurors refused to second-guess a former Chandler police officer, acquitting him of all charges after three days of deliberations in the on-duty shooting of an Ahwatukee Foothills woman.
Dan Lovelace, 39, the first Arizona officer to stand trial on felony charges stemming from an officer-involved shooting, was found not guilty of second-degree murder, manslaughter and endangerment in the shooting of Dawn Rae Nelson.
"The message will be that it's difficult to convict a police officer," said Deputy Maricopa County Attorney Vince Imbordino. "That's just a fact. Whether that's right or wrong is a question for a different day."
Friends and supporters of Lovelace gasped in Maricopa County Superior Court Judge James Keppel's jammed Mesa courtroom as the verdicts were read. An elated Lovelace kissed his wife, Trish, and his 1* year-old daughter.
Lovelace left through a side door and refused to comment, but defense attorney Craig Mehrens said his client was going to celebrate the verdict.
"He's numb. He's so happy to know there are eight men and women who had faith in him. Sometimes, the system really does work," Mehrens said. "He now knows that he's free. He wants to spend some time with his wife and daughter."
Mehrens argued during the trial that Lovelace was just doing his job when he chased prescription drug fraud suspect Dawn Nelson, 35, and fired only to avoid getting run over by her car. Imbordino argued that Lovelace had no reason to chase Nelson and was never in the path of her car. He said police easily could have arrested her later because they had her license plate number.
Dawn Nelson's widower was disappointed by the verdict and said it was a miscarriage of justice.
"I thought it was very cowardly of them," John "Colby" Nelson said. "They just didn't do their job. What were they afraid of to convict him?"
The key question faced by jurors was whether Lovelace was reasonably in fear for his life when he shot Dawn Nelson. Lovelace testified that he feared for his life and believed the front left tire of her Camaro had already struck him when he fired.
Colby Nelson attributed Lovelace's acquittal to his historic role as the first Arizona officer to stand trial for an on-duty shooting.
The Nelsons' son, Kenneth, 14 months old at the time, was riding in a rear car seat when Lovelace shot Dawn Nelson.
"I wish I could tell him (Kenneth) that the person who killed his mother is in jail," Colby Nelson said. "There was just overwhelming evidence against him."
A motorcycle officer, Lovelace went to the Walgreens at Dobson and Warner roads on Oct. 11, 2002, to investigate a report of a prescription drug fraud in progress. Witnesses testified he chased Nelson's car on foot when she fled from a drive-through window and knocked over his motorcycle.
After Nelson made a sharp left turn, Lovelace testified that he was afraid she would run over him or crush him against a nearby building. Prosecutors said he shot her from behind, the bullet entering the rear of her left arm and ripping through her heart and lungs.
"If they (jurors) didn't believe him, they wouldn't have acquitted him," Mehrens said.
The department fired Lovelace after an internal investigation, and the city paid at least $1.9 million to the Nelson family to settle a civil lawsuit.
Lovelace's certification was never suspended because the Arizona Peace Officers Standards and Training Board was awaiting the outcome of his trial. A felony conviction would have resulted in automatic revocation of his certification.
"I would be disturbed if he's ever employed as an officer again," Imbordino said.
Lovelace faced up to 24 years in prison if con- victed.
Dave LeVoy, president of the Chandler Law Enforcement Association, said that he wasn't surprised by the verdict and always thought Lovelace would be exonerated.
"We always had faith in the judicial system," said LeVoy, who hugged Lovelace after the verdicts were read. "And we knew that once the facts were heard by a jury of his peers that this would be the verdict."
County Attorney Rick Romley said he knew going into the trial that very few law enforcement officers have been convicted nationwide on charges stemming from on-duty shootings.
"Knowing what I know today, even with the not guilty verdicts, I'd still bring the charges," Romley said. "The facts of this case, we believe a jury needed to make the ultimate decisions."
Lovelace was the only officer charged with crimes stemming from an on-duty shooting during Romley's 16-year tenure as county attorney.
"I believe a police officer has a very difficult job. I will generally give the benefit of the doubt to a police officer," Romley said.
But Romley said he would not hesitate to file charges against an officer in the future if he believed the officer acted outside the law in a police shooting." - Arizona republic
Jetts
07-13-2004, 04:29 AM
the family got 1.9 million
Automotive Network, Inc., Copyright ©2025