Video Shows Maryland Police Beating Student After Maryland-Duke Basketball Game

A new video appears to support brutality claims against three Prince George’s County police officers shown beating of a Maryland student after the Maryland-Duke basketball game.

Prosecutors are investigating the matter and this video is likely to be the central feature of any trial.

The video shows the student taunting and then talking to police. However, beyond being perhaps a bit obnoxious, the student does not appear to be doing anything warranting arrest let alone such a beating.

115 thoughts on “Video Shows Maryland Police Beating Student After Maryland-Duke Basketball Game”

  1. Yeah, it would be nice if they collected all excessive force incidents and all alleged excessive force incidents and all police coverups and all alleged policice cover-ups into a central database with stats on the officers.

    Until that happens we just have to go with common sense, and what common sense tells me is that the bad things police do here look like things that are acceptable for soldiers in Iraq. That coupled with all the soldiers flooding into the ranks of US police tells me what to believe unless and until meaningful data starts getting collected.

    The burden of proof here belongs with the persons with access to the data and that is the police.

  2. Buddy,

    The link you posted provides no evidence for your point – the soldier interviewed is not, as far as I can tell, a police officer much less one accused of excessive force (in the performance of his duty as a police officer). You need to provide some evidence of military veteran police officers being MORE prone to excessive force than non-veteran police officers, until then you are making knee-jerk inflammatory conclusions based on your own prejudices, nothing more.

  3. However, as that number gets over 50%

    Do you have a link for this statistic?

  4. Buddy,

    What war college did you attend? Do you have a PhD in socialogy, psychiatry or psychology? Have you experienced military training or perhaps conducted research on those who have? I’m just courious, with this wealth of knowledge you have about military training and the effects on the human psyche what your backround is.

  5. Correction:

    –They are brainwashed not to understand or admit, even in their own minds, that the Iraq / Afghanistan occupation rules (where anything goes but outright malice aforethought) are PERMISSIVE rules.

  6. What if they were MP’s and not combat veterans?

    The key issue is whether the individual has been trained for combat.

    If the MP has never been trained for combat he might still be a good policeman. If all MPs are combat trained then they all should not be policemen.

    The problem with combat are that the “rules” are extremely permissive in the first place and second they do not need to be scrupulously followed. Most potential violations of the rules are kept secret and are not scrutinized in any detail. Any (secret) scrutiny that ROE rules violations get is heavily tilted in favor of the soldier. Nobody is in jail for killing Pat Tillman. That is just how it is over there and that it a fine way for it to be over there.

    However, these fighting men get used to this idea of permissive rules and lax, secretive enforcement. More to the point, the fighting men are brainwashed into believing that the permissive rules are restrictive. They are brainwashed not to understand or admit, even in their own minds, that the Iraq / Afghanistan occupation rules (where anything goes but outright malice aforethought) are a virtual straightjacket. They are further brainwashed into believing that the scrutiny they receive there is very rigorous oversight and extremely impartial. They lose the ability to understand what the word impartial really means. They learn the word, but are trained and experienced to attach the wrong concept to it.

    So then they get to Maryland or Arizona or wherever. It is different here. Yeah, yeah, yeah, whatever. The Rules of Engagement are much stricter here. Yeah, yeah, yeah, whatever. You will be more closely watched for overaggressiveness here. Yeah, yeah, yeah, whatever. If you are accused of brutality then your fellow officers and department won’t “have your back” the way they did in Iraq. Yeah, yeah, yeah, whatever. Congratulations — you’re a policeman.

    This might not be bad if one percent of the department is combat trained. However, as that number gets over 50% the cynicism and partiality will become the order of the day and has. Instead of training away unsuitable combat training previously received, the unsuitable combat training will end up infecting even the policemen who haven’t had that.

  7. No, I believe that military training to “follow” “rules” of engagement make a police officer LESS likely to follow police rules of engagement

  8. Buddy,

    I’m not defending the police, I’m staying that the problems are not due to police officers being former members of the military and that you haven’t provided any evidence to the contrary. I would agree that police rules of engagement allow for excessive force (especially with regard to tasers as Professor Turley has documented) I just don’t agree that excessive force has anything to do with military veterans being police officers and I believe that your argument is illogical (specifically, you seem to believe that military training to follow rules of engagement make a police officer LESS likely to follow police rules of engagement).

  9. You are so far out there this is ridiculous. There is no way this own guy’s department should be investigating him at all. You are so acclimated to this military driven police nonsense that you can’t even see it right in front of you.

  10. Buddy,

    The fact the the investigating officer is a facebook friend of the deputy should be disclosed (which it was), but it is not an immediately disqualifying fact. And this has absolutely no bearing on your argument.

  11. One shouldn’t be investigating one’s own friends to see whether they committed murder. This is true for both close/personal friends and more distant ones.

  12. Buddy,

    I see, so anyone who holds a view of law enforcement that you disagree with holds that opinion because of military training? It couldn’t possibly be an attitude born of police training? And it’s nice to know that you have such close, personal relationships with all of your Facebook friends. I have Facebook friends that I knew only causally and haven’t seen since high school over 20 years ago… Sorry, but your entire argument is pathetic and lacks any meaningful support.

  13. the law enforcement community

    The law enforcement community is full of military veterans and they think anything goes.

    Did you see how the shooter’s own department is investigating the shooting. The lead investigator is (or was til yesterday) a “Facebook friend” of the gunman. On what planet are these things not a clear and direct conflict of interest? Answer: planet military think.

Comments are closed.