Home > Uncategorized > Eureka cop body slams senior

Eureka cop body slams senior

Check out this video posted yesterday on YouTube. It appears to be an attack by a Eureka Police officer on a man on a bike. Captions on the video say the man is 61 years-old.

The cop, identified on the video as Officer Adam Laird, attacks the man from behind — twice — and tazers him.

There’s no indication of what, if anything, provoked the attack, but the second body-slam-from-behind and the tazer use appears ridiculously unnecessary. WTF EPD?

Here’s another video of the incident sans captions.

UPDATE: The Humboldt Herald has learned that the video was shot by Jumbo.  Sources say the man was interfering with an arrest before the incident on the video.

  1. tad
    June 11, 2008 at 5:28 pm

    Peace be with you

    That’s fucked up, and that’s our EPD under Garr “POP ’em” Nielsen.

    love eternal

  2. Anonymous
    June 11, 2008 at 5:36 pm

    It’s a highly selective scene. Why has the videographer not shown us what happened before and after this small snippet? Why has the videographer intentionally removed the audio track?

    It looks like from body language that the bicyclist ignored an order to stop before and after the takedown. It looks like the videographer hates cops and made a smear video. Shameful.

  3. Anonymous
    June 11, 2008 at 5:38 pm

    and Heraldo assumes the worst of the EPD and demands an immediate explanation

    btw, the tazer didn’t appear to have any effect whatsoever

  4. June 11, 2008 at 5:40 pm

    Are you joking? There appears to be no justification for the second attack from behind. The man was obviously not a threat, having just been injured from the first body slam and two tazer shots. The cop isn’t trying to arrest him, just beating him up. Bad cop. WTF?

  5. June 11, 2008 at 5:40 pm

    Hell yes I want an explanation!

  6. Anonymous
    June 11, 2008 at 5:41 pm

    It would be interesting to look at the police report to see if any charges were filed.

  7. Anonymous
    June 11, 2008 at 5:42 pm

    Fleeing bank robbers aren’t threats either but they have to be stopped.

    He was injured? How do you know?

    The officer is trying to stop his flight, subdue him and them (presumably) arrest him.


    Since when are 61 year olds senior citizens?

  8. mresquan
    June 11, 2008 at 5:43 pm

    No charges were filed.

  9. Anonymous
    June 11, 2008 at 5:44 pm

    Well, maybe they found where some of the budget cuts can come from.

  10. June 11, 2008 at 5:46 pm

    He was injured? How do you know?

    He’s limping away after the first attack from behind that knocked him off his bike.

    No offense to 61 year-olds, but in some places that ripe age will get you 10% off.

  11. June 11, 2008 at 5:47 pm

    mresquan: Do you know his name and did you see the police report?

  12. lodgepole
    June 11, 2008 at 5:48 pm

    Even at 61 you have to obey the law. That’s what the guy with the gun and badge represents, the law.

  13. June 11, 2008 at 5:49 pm

    What law is he representing here?

  14. mresquan
    June 11, 2008 at 5:59 pm

    Well I guess I could possibly retract my statement since I heard that from the one who shot the video.Can’t think of this guys name at the moment.But I was told that no report was filed,and that there is some sort of meeting scheduled tomorrow with Garr Nielsen.

  15. June 11, 2008 at 6:00 pm

    No report filed, huh? What a bunch of bullshit.

  16. June 11, 2008 at 6:03 pm

    I’m very skeptical of this piecemeal video.

  17. mresquan
    June 11, 2008 at 6:05 pm

    Well I certainly can’t see what may have led to Laird going after him the first place.But the sucker punch with the knuckles and the constant tasering seems a bit much regardless.

  18. Anony.Miss
    June 11, 2008 at 6:08 pm

    There is an excellent article/contribution to the Arcata Eye in this week’s paper, regarding police protection in Arcata. As someone who has lived around here a long time, I totally agree with it. Alan Sanborn wrote it. I would not change places with people who chose to go into law enforcement. I am thankful we have them.

  19. Just the Facts Please
    June 11, 2008 at 6:10 pm

    This video does not look legit. It appears to be edited, as it repeats scenes, and is out-of-context. I often agree with Heraldo but this appears to be bullshit to me.

  20. June 11, 2008 at 6:21 pm

    The Humboldt Herald has learned the video was shot by Jumbo. Sources say the man was interfering with an arrest before the incident on the video.

  21. Anonymous
    June 11, 2008 at 6:23 pm

    Because the video is selectively edited and intentionally contains no audio, I have to call shenanigans. If the person who got the takedown didn’t deserve it, the cameraman wouldn’t be hiding a huge swath of evidence. Most likely, the missing footage and audio incriminates the bicyclist.

  22. mresquan
    June 11, 2008 at 6:23 pm

    Did your source say what charges were filed,if any?

  23. Anonymous
    June 11, 2008 at 6:25 pm

    When I was young, I used to wait
    upon my master and hand him the plate
    and pass the bottle when he got dry
    and brush away the blue tail fly.

    Anyway, more to the point, I used to read what was written and view what was presented to me, and never think very much about what was not being written or about what was not being shown.

    These days, I believe that every account of an event is a part of the reality of that event. If one account interests me, I will try to find other accounts in order to arrive at something closely approximating the truth of what happened.

    This case does not particularly interest me. It seems on its face to be a routine encounter between a police officer and a person who refused to recognize the officer’s authority under our law. We are a representative democracy. The police officer was acting in the interest of the majority of our People. Yes, I know there are occasional abuses of authority, but they are not as common as various malcontents (one of whose names it would be impolite, as his guest here, to mention) would have us believe.

    Even so, I would like to know why the camera operator thought to turn the camera toward these people when he did. It is reasonable to believe there was some earlier conversation between the man on the bike and the officer. But what was said? What happened in the “prequel” to this video clip? Will we ever know?

    In friendship, Heraldo, I feel I must say that if you keep jumping to conclusions about the dyed-in-the-wool evil-nastiness of police officers, your credibility may eventually suffer.

    The rest of you, please look around for more and yet more information about this major, earth-shattering video clip, redolent of Rodney King and revolutions in society’s dominant paradym.

  24. Anonymous
    June 11, 2008 at 6:26 pm

    the man was interfering with an arrest

    Holy crap. OK, so the cop was in the right.

  25. June 11, 2008 at 6:28 pm

    6:23 wrote, “Because the video is selectively edited and intentionally contains no audio,…”.

    Exactly. Something might be fishy here.

  26. June 11, 2008 at 6:30 pm

    That video is not the video that was shot, heraldo, that is heavily edited and pieced together, repeating scenes over and over and over and over, just to get someone like you all agitated. If this was the video that was shot, with the audio, then you MIGHT have something to go on, this is just trash.

    You are better than this. Man. C’mon.

  27. Anonymous
    June 11, 2008 at 6:31 pm

    Rose, this must be exciting for you. Paul may very well be back in the news in a tight spot. You love that shit!

  28. June 11, 2008 at 6:32 pm

    This is the video that was “shot” rose, and yes, it’s edited. Did you think I was trying to fool you that the captions appeared out of sky? It’s a miracle!

  29. tad
    June 11, 2008 at 6:33 pm

    Peace be with you

    It’s not out of sequence though. At first the cyclist is clearly seen riding down a ramp with a 90% right turn, towards the direction of the cop car. The Laird is clearly walking calmly to the cyclist’s right, also heading in the direction of the cop car. The cyclist was obviously not threatening Laird. The cyclist obviously felt Laird had no tarry stop (probable cause). In fact after he got attacked by Laird ,with the shock torture, and beating, he still obviously felt Laird had no cause to stop him. If he got no charges, then Laird used excessive force. If the charges were small, then again Laird used excessive force. I doubt a bank robber or a murderer would be taken down by Laird, and not be the top headline in every paper in the area.

    love eternal

  30. Anonymous
    June 11, 2008 at 6:38 pm

    This video shows the same clip over and over again to make it look like the officer is engaging in excessive use of force. Yet I see someone approaching the officer in a threatening manner. You have to clearly have prejudice against the police to ;conclude from this video the officer is acting inappropriately. Does Heraldo really hate the police? If so, why?

  31. June 11, 2008 at 6:41 pm

    The video repeats a few clips — that’s obvious. Do you really think people are too dumb to see that?

    Remember: Heraldo — Cop Lover

  32. tad
    June 11, 2008 at 6:43 pm

    Peace be with you

    I thought Jumbo shot that. “Interfering with an arrest” is a bullshit charge people get all the time for advocating for a cop victim. He probably told the cop to fuck-off before the two times we saw him do it in the video. I talked to Jumbo about this, and he told me he had a video on you-tube. He called it a beat down. If there is in fact a unedited version of this video send it to the TV stations. This cop is pissed and takes it out on this guy, that’s excessive!

    love eternal

  33. Anonymous
    June 11, 2008 at 6:43 pm

    Jumbo, homeless himself and constantly harrassed by the EPD sees his chance and it is a home run…the same guy who taped himself at his grow and put it out over the internet.

  34. tad
    June 11, 2008 at 6:48 pm

    Peace be with you

    “I see someone approaching the officer in a threatening manner”

    I call bullshit on that one! I’ve watched a lot of evidence video and I watched the prior contact on this one over and over, small screen, big screen, with a magnifying glass, and I am 100% convinced the never approached Laird at all, let alone in a threatening manner! Watch the first few seconds of that video!

    love eternal

  35. Anonymous
    June 11, 2008 at 6:50 pm

    Actually I think you have to take responsibility for posting this video in the first place, and you really should admit you inflamed things with the text that you posted with it.

    You say “It appears to be an attack by a Eureka Police officer on a man on a bike.”.

    You also say “the second body-slam-from-behind and the tazer use appears ridiculously unnecessary. ”

    These statements are not objective, and make it appear you accept the video as credible.

    I really don’t know where you stand on police behavior, but this one appears to be a low blow against an officer that for what I have heard is one of the better ones, and working down on the Boardwalk has to be one of the more difficult beats in the City.

    I sure hope that this piece of nonsense doesn’t intimidate our police force from trying to clean the scum off our boardwalk.

  36. Anonymous
    June 11, 2008 at 6:55 pm

    Yep, have to knock Heraldo for a ridiculous initial analysis of this video. It shows nothing, and it’s intentionally edited that way.

    If I were to guess, the bicyclist was ignoring the officer’s orders. Can’t tell, can we, because there’s no audio. And if what Heraldo later said about interfering with an arrest is true, it’s a shame the guy wasn’t taken down faster.

  37. June 11, 2008 at 6:56 pm

    I watched the video several times and wrote what “appears” to happen on the video. It’s posted for all to see and you are free to disagree.

    I disagree with your statement that “You have to clearly have prejudice against the police to ;conclude from this video the officer is acting inappropriately.” But thanks for your comment.

    The video is disturbing, but if the guy deserved it, he deserved it. The video is out there, I happen to come across it, and now we’re having this enlightening discussion. I look forward to learning what happened before the incident on the video.

  38. Anonymous
    June 11, 2008 at 6:56 pm

    Another good question to ask is if the police called for an ambulance. Based on the throwdowns alone, he probably needed to be checked out. But he was also tasered. Twice.

  39. Anonymous
    June 11, 2008 at 7:03 pm

    Useless video. It’s been edited beyond any productive use by rational, thinking adults.

  40. Anonymous
    June 11, 2008 at 7:07 pm

    You have to wonder about people who use the word “scum” when speaking of other human beings.

  41. Anonymous
    June 11, 2008 at 7:09 pm

    Wouldn’t someone who “deserved” to receive that type of treatment have been arrested?

  42. Hayduke
    June 11, 2008 at 7:09 pm

    I am of the opinion that all the real news in on the blogs these days, and this one is no exception. However the video has little credibility, and is for sure not a Rodney King incident. However, it shows if nothing else how quickly we can shape public sentiment with doctored video, whether it be alleged weapons of mass destruction or police brutality . Sometimes what we see is real, and sometimes it is not. I would be very careful not to jump to conclusions based on this, particularly now that we know the source.

  43. June 11, 2008 at 7:09 pm

    Wouldn’t someone who “deserved” to receive that type of treatment have been arrested?

    One would think.

    June 11, 2008 at 7:10 pm

    Every cop deserves to have the absolute SHIT beaten out of him.
    THEN and only then will they be fit to deliver such punishment upon their enemies – us CITIZENS.

    FUCK the epd.

  45. Anonymous
    June 11, 2008 at 7:13 pm

    This is why we don’t have police review, because if idiots like 7:10. And Tad, etc. All the extremely unreasonable people in this world ruin it for the rest of us. Their absurdist activism gets all the reasonable people who want change get lumped in with the loonies.

  46. Anonymous
    June 11, 2008 at 7:24 pm

    Here’s hoping 7:10 gets the shit beat of him/her by some homeless boardwalk tweaker and then cries to the cops who weren’t there to protect.

  47. tad
    June 11, 2008 at 7:29 pm

    Peace be with you

    Who was “the arrest” that was interfered with? Would probably have to be around that same booking time. I had a friend once get arrested once for “interfering with an arrest,” right in front of me, and he was the only one getting arrested. The snippet we did see (actually a photo would prove that) Laird starts chasing, dude after dude turned the corner and headed away from Laird. That was pursuit on behalf of Laird, not assault on the part of dude. If dude’s interfering was assault, it would be of been charged assault and dude would probably be in Jail now. Nowhere do we see dude acting aggressive towards Laird. We see a lot of incidents where Laird is acting very aggressive towards dude.

    The Coalition for Police Review, the real CPR, is having the meeting with POP ’em.

    love eternal

  48. Anonymous
    June 11, 2008 at 7:37 pm

    Well, call me near-sighted, but when the bike dude got up off the ground and wheeled his bike toward the officer, the bike dude looked hale and hearty and plenty DEFIANT.

    Still, without the audio or the rest of the video, or any eye or ear-witness testimony, I don’t know how anybody can honestly say their opinion at this point is anything more than a guess.

  49. Anonymous
    June 11, 2008 at 7:38 pm

    7:10 reminds me of preachers’ kids who hate the clergy.
    I bet 7:10’s Daddy is a Cop.

  50. Anonymous
    June 11, 2008 at 7:44 pm

    The video shows a guy on a bike wheeling into the area and circling out, the cop starts after him, tackles him and knocks him down, when he gets up he tazers him repeatedly, then runs after him and throws him to the ground. But no charges filed against the cyclist? Really?

  51. Anonymous
    June 11, 2008 at 8:01 pm

    plenty DEFIANT

    Yeah, I thought he was going to charge the cop. Good thing the cop kept a cool head. I’d have taken the guy out.

  52. June 11, 2008 at 9:09 pm

    Hard to tell what was going on. Arrests don’t look pretty under the best of circumstances.

    If there had been a crowd there, my guess is that they’d be shaking the cop’s hand and thanking him afterward.

  53. theo therme
    June 11, 2008 at 9:14 pm

    Jumbo was there….you think that Jumbo shook his hand and thanked him after?

  54. Anonymous
    June 11, 2008 at 9:19 pm

    Someone said there was no arrest.

  55. Anonymous
    June 11, 2008 at 9:19 pm

    Do you know what was going on there Theo?

  56. June 11, 2008 at 9:21 pm

    I don’t know Jumbo, but the guy on the bicycle doesn’t appear to be cooperating.

  57. June 11, 2008 at 10:08 pm

    If that’s a tazer the cop is pointing it sure doesn’t look like he fired it because there is no reaction from the guy – it looks like he chooses not to use it, but to use conventional means of subduing the uncooperative guy for unknown reasons.

    Who edited it, heraldo? You? Did you put the captions on? Or is it this guy Jumbo?

    Seriously, this is beneath you. I’d say ‘even you’ but that isn’t what I mean. This is beneath YOU.

    Just some guy looking for his 15 minutes of tabloid news fame. And you’re going for it.

  58. June 11, 2008 at 10:11 pm

    As stated above I found it on YouTube. Ever heard of it?

  59. Anonymous
    June 11, 2008 at 10:13 pm

    What? Of course it’s a tazer! Didn’t you notice the man jump each time the video edit dials back a second, over and over again? He’s hopping more than Jiminy Cricket. Of course the cop is too, as are all moving elements in the frame.

    Nice goin’ cop haters. Better luck next time with the creative video storytelling.

  60. June 11, 2008 at 10:24 pm

    Jumbo didn’t think we’d get it, because we’re slow, so he “enhanced” it. Gee, thanks Jumbo.

  61. Anonymous
    June 11, 2008 at 10:29 pm

    Well, with a name like Jumbo, you know he’s credible.

  62. June 11, 2008 at 10:40 pm

    “Officer Laird failed to identify himself…”

    He’s in a uniform for fuck’s sake!

  63. Anonymous
    June 11, 2008 at 10:41 pm

    Officer Laird was one of the first on the scene last August when Martin Cotton II was brutally beaten to death.

  64. June 11, 2008 at 10:43 pm

    Connecting the dots, are you, Anonymous?

  65. Anonymous
    June 11, 2008 at 10:58 pm

    Is it possible an unedited version will be up for viewing in the near future? Jumbo, the artsy editing was cool for family and friends but for the community, it’s important you give it to us straight.

  66. Two Street Pete
    June 11, 2008 at 11:46 pm

    Oh my God, The world is upside down, I’m almost agreeing with ROSE!
    I always liked Jumbo and I never believed some of the forest defenders, that were convinced Jumbo was some kind of crazy provocateur. But after watching this over edited, completely out of context, Bullshit, spin job, propaganda on Officer Laird. who by the way, most street people like, I got to wonder.

  67. Anonymous
    June 12, 2008 at 1:24 am

    The claim that the guy is 61 years old is also kind of funny.

  68. Anonymous
    June 12, 2008 at 1:35 am

    Actually, CPR, arrests don’t always look all that bad. The one time I was arrested, the police officer kept complimenting me for being calm and cooperative. He said most people fight being arrested. Oh. I guess that’s what you meant.

  69. Anonymous
    June 12, 2008 at 1:38 am

    If someone is beaten to death, why is it necessary to say the poor SOB was “brutally beaten to death.” Is there any other way to beat a person to death except the brutal way?

  70. Anonymous
    June 12, 2008 at 2:58 am

    “Brutally” is a great word if you want to incite some good old fashioned cop hate. You just have to kind of forget about the two fights the dude was in prior to his altercation with police. Gentle as a kitten he was, I’m sure.

  71. robash141
    June 12, 2008 at 6:43 am

    The video looks too choppy to really be considered as evidence.

    I would have to give the policeman the benefit of the doubt until I see more evidence

  72. Not A Native
    June 12, 2008 at 12:45 pm

    H, I thought sensationalism is the forte of tabloids, not your blog. This item is more about stirring passions than discussion.

    The cop didn’t look that aggressive to me, at one point he actually backed away when approached. Given that he felt a need to apprehend this person, what were his better options?

    We can’t know from the video why he wanted to stop the cyclist. I can easily speculate both ways, cop rage or defiance of authority. But why speculate? Audio would clarify it greatly. Glad neither were injured in the altercation.

  73. June 12, 2008 at 2:28 pm

    It would be nice if there was some audio for context, though it does look bad.

  74. Anonymous
    June 12, 2008 at 2:52 pm

    Brutal? Not really. Excessive? Yes, particularly if there were no charges on whatever the officer was trying to detain the guy on in the first place. If there were charges I would say the officer came uncomfortably close to crossing the line, but didn’t.

  75. tad
    June 12, 2008 at 6:35 pm

    Peace be with you

    “Officer Laird was one of the first on the scene last August when Martin Cotton II was brutally beaten to death.”

    Who were the other officers?

    love eternal

  76. Anonymous
    June 12, 2008 at 8:52 pm

    Gallegos listed them in his report, Tad. It is interesting reading.

  77. June 12, 2008 at 8:57 pm

    Eric! C’mon. You know you are looking at heavily edited footage, trying to make something out of nothing, trying to make it look like a long drawn out incident. Geez. Don’t play along.

  78. The Monitor
    June 12, 2008 at 9:05 pm

    Listen People—-You don’t have any idea what happened in this highly edited jerky tape. Showing 2 second snips over and over doesn’t offer any reality nor allow you to see what happened before the camera started to roll. All this does is allow you to again show your bias and lack of critical thinking. Did you know that Old Town’s his beat and that was why he was “on the scene” when Marten Cotton was arrested after taking over 20 tabs of acid. You should start writing murder mystery novels!

  79. The Monitor
    June 12, 2008 at 9:14 pm

    To those of you who write “brutally beaten to death”—may I remind you that Martin Cotton died in jail and there is a video that his JAILERS refuse to release. Clarity comes from knowledge of the truth.

  80. Anonymous
    June 12, 2008 at 9:30 pm

    Don’t you think there should be an investigation and report about the incident shown on the video, Monitor?

  81. June 12, 2008 at 9:45 pm

    “Don’t you think there should be an investigation and report…”


  82. seti
    June 12, 2008 at 9:50 pm

    Clarity also comes from the knowledge that Garr Nielsen could force the release of the jail video if he were serious about the truth and not part of the cover up.

  83. Anonymous
    June 12, 2008 at 9:56 pm

    No CPR? Because you don’t think it matters why a cop would knock a person down twice, tazer him and then not arrest him?

  84. kateascot
    June 12, 2008 at 9:59 pm

    What I want to know is why every time there is a question about what a cop does the questioners are pointed to as cop haters? I’m also curious about why we are supposed to just do whatever a cop says whether he is right or wrong just because he is a cop? People should be smart enough to know what their rights are and not allow power hungry and over zealous cops get away with treating anyone disrespectfully. Obviouosly the man on the bike was not aggressive and didn’t deserve such cruelty. If the cops can’t figure out how to handle a man that is not violent without being violent then they have a problem worse than the citizen. I’m not a cop hater but cops that do this kind of thing are dangerous.

  85. June 12, 2008 at 10:06 pm

    “Obviouosly the man on the bike was not aggressive and didn’t deserve such cruelty.”

    We do not know that from what little we’ve seen here. The cop didn’t file a report, and the “victim” didn’t file a complaint, so what’s the point?

  86. kateascot
    June 12, 2008 at 10:09 pm

    Any time the cops don’t answer questions or aren’t forthcoming with information, videos, reports, etc. something is wrong. Somehow things have gotten turned around in this city, who works for who?

  87. kateascot
    June 12, 2008 at 10:10 pm

    Excuse me, are you blind?

  88. June 12, 2008 at 10:11 pm

    Are you omniscient?

  89. kateascot
    June 12, 2008 at 10:16 pm

    Perhaps the dude didn’t file a complaint because often street people who do so get a 2×4 across the back of the head in a dark alley for God’s sake! Honestly, most folks are in deep denial as to what kind of situation is going on with power struggles in their own towns. My question remains, who works for who?

  90. kateascot
    June 12, 2008 at 10:17 pm

    Oh come on, where is the violence?

  91. June 12, 2008 at 10:22 pm

    Get a grip on yourself, Ascot.

    We can’t tell much by what we see on the video. We can’t see what the guy on the video was up to before the video begins. I’d bet that there were people there who were relieved that the cop was intervening.

    Perhaps cops should be drafted. Everyone should get a little taste of dealing with public nuisances.

  92. mresquan
    June 12, 2008 at 10:29 pm

    “and the “victim” didn’t file a complaint,”

    That may not be all that true. I know there was sort of meeting with Garr Nielsen about it today.

  93. June 12, 2008 at 10:41 pm

    You can’t even tell if that is a real cop, much less which officer it is, if it is.

    The only thing that sets the stage for believing that is a real cop is the presence of the cop car in the first frame.

    This whole thing could be a staged stunt.

  94. Anonymous
    June 12, 2008 at 10:42 pm

    Probably perpetrated by Gallegos to make cops look bad, right Rose?

  95. Anonymous
    June 12, 2008 at 11:03 pm

    If you look in the background you can see the Silent Black Helicopter of DA Paul Gallegos.

  96. Anonymous
    June 12, 2008 at 11:11 pm

    Rose is just working on the plot of her next Nancy Drew Mysteries novel.

    The last one, where the devious ‘Mr. G’ tries to frame a small town police chief for rape turned out to have ‘Mr. G’ putting the bad man away. Rose wasn’t happy so the Nancy Drew novels are going to delve more into Fantasy and Science Fiction than ever before.

  97. la-la-land
    June 12, 2008 at 11:21 pm

    You are so right Rose.

    Jumbo rented a cop car and hired a couple of actors to play cops and robbers, bought the taser for a prop, and filmed it all on the boardwalk in broad daylight. Murl Harpham lent his expertise to the production.

    Jumbo staged it all to make you look like the complete utter paranoid fool that you are.

    Did it work?

  98. The Monitor
    June 12, 2008 at 11:39 pm

    I believe all taser incidents are investigated. That is how the truth is usually arrived at, investigating what happened. At least we find out whether there is reasonable evidence to proceed or dismiss. It is an imperfect system but it still works most of the time. Remember. it only takes a few agitated people to bring on mob rule. Which would you prefer?

  99. Anonymous
    June 12, 2008 at 11:57 pm

    Rose, call your doctor. The new meds aren’t working either.

  100. Anonymous
    June 13, 2008 at 12:06 am

    Last August 8 armed men wearing gang insignia beat one unarmed man almost to death, and then he was left to die alone in a jail cell. Was that a mob?

    Was the armed gang that killed Cheri Moore a mob?

    Haven’t we had mob rule here in Eureka for a long time?

    Monitor said:
    “Remember. it only takes a few agitated people to bring on mob rule.”

  101. June 13, 2008 at 7:08 am

    Again, this snippet of video doesn’t show much. I see an uncooperative citizen on a bicycle who appears to be fleeing from a cop. I see the cop knocking the fleeing man down. I see a drawn taser, but I don’t see it being fired at the still uncooperative citizen.

    All this video has proven to me is how much more information other people are able to draw from such feeble evidence.

  102. Anonymous
    June 13, 2008 at 8:54 am

    CPR, a cop hater will always see a mean cop.

  103. The Monitor
    June 13, 2008 at 9:20 am

    There seems to be way too many armchair judges out there, who are all to eager to rush to conclusions. I am glad they are only on a blog and not on a jury. They are like the mouse climbing the elephant’s tail looking for sex. No big picture.

  104. Anonymous
    June 13, 2008 at 12:03 pm

    There seems to be too many paid disinformation peddlers here, and all of them support the police state.

  105. June 13, 2008 at 1:39 pm

    “…paid disinformation peddlers…”

    I’d hang around and argue more, but I have to go cash my check from the police state.

  106. Anonymous
    June 13, 2008 at 1:41 pm

    Save me a place in line.

  107. Not A Native
    June 13, 2008 at 2:33 pm

    This is the standard jury instruction when considering police misconduct, (of course giving the finger or insulting a cop could be construed as prelude to a threat, which is a crime):

    A peace officer may legally detain someone if [the person consents to the detention or if]:

    1. Specific facts known or apparent to the officer lead him or her to suspect that the person to be detained has been, is, or is about to be involved in activity relating to crime;


    2. A reasonable officer who knew the same facts would have the same suspicion.

  108. Concerned
    June 13, 2008 at 2:56 pm

    The most disturbing part of this incident is that this much violence can take place without any investigation, or any oversight as long as there was no arrest or formal complaint.

    If the officer was really interfered with enough orthreatened enough to warrant this violent response, why didn’t he make an arrest?

    And it’s sad that the citizen also apparently didn’t make a complaint (at least until now). It’s not so surprising, though, as he probably just didn’t want to get arrested or hassled by the police in the future.

    This is exactly why we need a Civilian Police Review Board to review incidents like this.

    And, yes, I’m fully aware that the footage is edited, and I’d much rather see the whole interaction before judging. I’d want to hear from both the officer and the bicyclist, and also from any eyewitnesses. Again, that’s why we need civilian review – many people simply don’t trust the police to police themselves. And why should they?

    So, no, we don’t really know the whole story from the edited video that we have been shown here. But we have seen enough to conclude that incidents like this cannot be allowed to go unreported and uninvestigated.

    We see a police officer using violent force against a civilian. Was it somehow justified by something we didn’t see that was edited out? We don’t know. But acting as if nothing happened and sweeping it under the rug just because you don’t like how the videographer edited it to emphasize the cop’s violence isn’t a very logical response.

    I look forward to getting the rest of the story as it comes out…

  109. June 13, 2008 at 4:53 pm


  110. June 13, 2008 at 5:06 pm

    No Rose, what’s unreal is your suggestion that the only evidence for this being a real cop. “is the presence of the cop car in the first frame.”

    What we need here in Eureka is a citizen ride-along program, so that folks can get a better feel for police work. I’m in favor of some sort of Civilian Police Review Board, but it should be a diverse group and all members of it should be required to spend time with working officers.

  111. Ribeye
    June 13, 2008 at 5:30 pm


  112. Anonymous
    June 13, 2008 at 5:31 pm

    That is an excellent suggestion CPR.

  113. mresquan
    June 13, 2008 at 5:57 pm

    Can the police legally just beat up someone without making arrest?Serious question.

  114. Anonymous
    June 13, 2008 at 6:17 pm

    It seems incredible doesn’t it Mresquan? People almost always deny and ignore when authorities overstep their legal boundaries.

  115. Anonymous
    June 13, 2008 at 7:15 pm

    Rose is funny. And scary.

  116. Anonymous
    June 13, 2008 at 8:23 pm

    People almost always deny and ignore when authorities overstep their legal boundaries.

    You must be referring to something other than the youtube video, because if you think the youtube video is overstepping legal boundaries, you’re a nutcase without a case.

  117. June 13, 2008 at 8:36 pm

    Eric wrote, “It would be nice if there was some audio for context, though it does look bad.”.

    Not sure it looks bad at all, since it’s obviously a very edited video. I’m very suspicious of what’s going on here.

    Among other things, what’s suspicious to me is, not that there’s no audio, if there was any to begin with it’s not audible because of the weird music type stuff that was added to the video.

    I just can’t imagine why someone would film something, edit it, and then add music type sound effects to the film if he wasn’t trying to pull something off. Makes no sense.

    If the guy had a case to be made, wouldn’t he have left the original sound with the video? If the guy had a case to be made, wouldn’t he show the entire unedited version of the film? I would think so.

    I’m wondering if the video guy should be taken to court for defamation, or even to jail for some crime? This looks like a deliberate attempt at slander.

    Probably my last word here on this thread.

  118. Yo...
    June 13, 2008 at 8:54 pm

    nada here.

    If there was sumpthn here, ya’ll be on it like Heraldo on stink…and though he or she has tried, it just has NOT fuckn happened…..

  119. June 13, 2008 at 9:21 pm

    Please don’t drink and blog.

  120. tad
    June 13, 2008 at 10:21 pm

    Peace be with you

    It is so obvious from fact 1: no arrest, let alone an attacking a Laird charge, and fact 2: the suspect and Laird are coming from separate directions, and fact 3 the victim is always moving away from Laird, and fact 4: Laird is always attacking, is enough to believe it is police abuse.

    It IS a Rodney King incident. A complaint can STILL be filed. Being told to fuck-off is not grounds to beat and electrocute someone. It is standard operating procedure for the EPD to apply excessive force to those they believe can’t fight back legally. And personally I think this cyclist has a winner.

    And: Fred if they took Jumbo to court on any of that shit he would become the defendant, and that would allow him access to a things he would otherwise have to pay for. I know you couldn’t convict him of shit over this video, but you would get it the publicity it deserves, and you might bring out the “uncensored” version which I guarantee is a loser for Laird. You can’t outlaw free speech just because you disagree with the message. Bring those charges, ’cause I’ll be part of Jumbo’s legal team, and it is always fun to say, “I told you so.”

    love eternal

  121. June 13, 2008 at 10:30 pm

    Tad’s “love eternal” sure is creepy.

  122. tad
    June 13, 2008 at 10:36 pm

    Peace Carson

    Why is that?

    love eternal

  123. mresquan
    June 13, 2008 at 11:06 pm

    Can anyone answer my question ?It seems to be true that no arrest was made. Why did Laird hit a guy who apparently he saw doing nothing wrong enough to warrant arresting him ?

  124. Anonymous
    June 13, 2008 at 11:22 pm

    I guess we’ll never know because all we know of this incident is taken from a smear video.

  125. Paid Disruptor
    June 13, 2008 at 11:24 pm

    Peace Tad,

    I love you too.

    Best Friends Forever,

  126. Anonymous
    June 14, 2008 at 8:19 am

    Those pieces of human waste are a detriment to our community. The cops should harass and kick the shit out of the wasteoids ruining our downtown. Keep-up the good work EPD.

  127. Anonymous
    June 14, 2008 at 10:09 am

    8:23 pm, I was referring to people in general. History is rife with people ignoring brutality by authority so long as it victimizes “others.” It is in evidence here. We don’t know what the circumstances were but we do see an edited video of a cop beating up a citizen who reportedly wasn’t arrested for a crime. There are some here who deny there is any chance that the beating wasn’t justified (some saying a certain class of people should be beaten just for existing), a few who think this may be evidence of an authority figure overstepping his legal boundaries, and a few who think the video is definitely evidence of that.

    The latter may be people who have experienced or witnessed abuses of police power. The first group are the people who support increased police power and are willing to risk people’s rights being violated for their convenience. I don’t need to tell anyone about the mind set that thinks some people should be beaten because they exist. Those in the middle think there may be a problem that should be investigated when evidence of this nature (edited though it may be) surfaces. Which is the more reasonable attitude?

  128. Anonymous
    June 14, 2008 at 10:14 am

    There are some here who deny there is any chance that the beating wasn’t justified

    What beating? You’re on drugs, dude. The guy had a takedown from a bicycle. That’s not a beating. That’s regular, legal procedure. Get a clue.

  129. mresquan
    June 14, 2008 at 10:24 am

    “That’s regular, legal procedure. Get a clue.”

    In a case where an arrest or something of that sort went down. I don’t know about this one though.

  130. Anonymous
    June 14, 2008 at 10:26 am

    Sure looks like disobeying an officer’s orders to me. If he merely told the cyclist to stop and the cyclist kept going, that would be enough to act upon.

    Even in the heavily edited video it looks like the guy was going to charge the cop with his bike. It was a completely normal and controlled takedown. If there was anything sinister to it, the videographer would have shown it. Instead, he relied on sinister music to imply something improper happened. All signs point to bullshit on the part of the youtuber.

  131. Anonymous
    June 14, 2008 at 10:36 am

    The cop chased him down and then jumped on him and knocked him down. I didn’t seen anything indicative of a charge on the cop with the bike.

  132. June 14, 2008 at 10:46 am

    “Sure looks like disobeying an officer’s orders to me.”
    I agree.

    “It was a completely normal and controlled takedown.”
    Anonymous is losing credibility here.

    “…he relied on sinister music to imply something improper happened.”
    Again I agree.

    The guy on the bicycle still refuses to stop, even after he’s been knocked down. He’s asking for trouble, and it wouldn’t be far-fetched to imagine that he was a nuisance before the video begins.

    Whether to arrest or not, or file a report or not is probably up to the police officer, depending upon department policy.

    Nobody answered Mresquan’s question, and it deserve’s attention.

  133. June 14, 2008 at 10:47 am

    Oops, errant apostrophe.

  134. Anonymous
    June 14, 2008 at 10:50 am

    It isn’t just THIS event. This type of thing happens all the time and it’s always the same. Unless there are multiple videos from different angles of the same event from beginning to end showing horrific brutality, the same people argue there was no police brutality. Some aren’t even convinced when there is overwhelming evidence as in the Rodney King case. Why are so many resistant to an investigation of events like this? They don’t want to know?

  135. Anonymous
    June 14, 2008 at 10:59 am

    Kateascot wonders why some people call critics of the police “cop haters.” She then proceeds to write things that make perfectly clear her animosity toward the police. If she would but read her own comments here, she would find the answer to her question.

  136. June 14, 2008 at 12:58 pm

    Police brutality is shameful! I thought law enforcement is supposed to keep the peace, not disturb it. Eureka has a terrible history of attrocities. The entire community needs to act now, before it’s too late.

  137. Concerned
    June 14, 2008 at 4:04 pm

    I haven’t made up my mind yet, but I AM concerned about what I saw, despite the fact that I am fully aware that the video is short, heavily edited and has “sinister” music in place of the audio. Yes, it’s clear that the person who shot and edited the video has a certain bias. It’s also clear that many of those making comments on this thread also have strong biases – in one direction and in the other.

    So if I was to make a real judgement about what happened here, I’d want to see the whole video. I’d want to hear from the cop, the bicyclist, and any eyewitnesses. I’d want to find out what happened before and after the incident. Of course none of us blog commentators are really in a position to take testimony from the cop or the bicyclist, or witnesses etc.

    That’s why we need a credible, well-organized, unbiased Civilian Review Board. Then all the facts can be gathered and made available to the public. Then we don’t have to rely on just a short snippet of a video on youtube to inform our opinions (or more likely to reinforce our pre-existing biases).

    Without all the context of what happened before and during this incident, the youtube video is mainly functioning as a kind of Rorschardt Ink Blot Test – everyone looks on it and puts their own meaning on it, depending on what they already believe, what they expect to see, and how they already feel about police or about people that they view as a “nuisance” or worse.

    Jumping to conclusions is foolish, no matter which way you’re jumping. Ignoring incidents like this isn’t real smart either. The answer is to get MORE of the facts and to get them in front of reasonably unbiased people, not to just dismiss the whole incident because you don’t like the way it was edited on a particular video on youtube.

  138. Anonymous
    June 14, 2008 at 4:51 pm

    “Concerned” seems to have distilled the essence of all that has come before. Bravo, old boy! I say, Bravo!

  139. Not A Native
    June 14, 2008 at 5:18 pm


    Are you proposing that every encounter that a cop has with a person needs to be investigated? That doesn’t sound reasonable, efficient, or desirable. So, assuming you don’t mean that, then which incidents are worthy of being investigated?

    My point is that if you are saying that the Eureka police need closer scrutiny by the public and their supervisors(elected officials, courts, and the DA) this video is not a good vehicle to argue that. I’d agree, there are other past incidents that do indicate greater oversight is needed. The police chief was hired with that mandate. The DA ran on that platform. This video, as it is, fails the sniff test. In my opinion, you weaken your argument by citing this particular incident as justification to establish a civilian review board.

  140. Concerned
    June 14, 2008 at 5:31 pm

    How about all incidents in which an officer uses physical force against a civilian. Is that too much to ask?

    And no one, except you, said anything about an investigation into each and every encounter that an officer has with a civilian.

    In my opinion, you weaken your argument by trying to set up a straw man argument as if it was my argument, and then asking whether your straw man argument is unrealistic, inefficient, or undesirable. Of course it is -you made it that way.

  141. Concerned
    June 14, 2008 at 5:40 pm

    “this video, as it is, fails the sniff test…”

    I agree, as I think I made very clear above. But this is exactly why we should want MORE info on the incident, not less. I see enough to leave me “concerned,” but not properly informed.

    The reason to have a good, unbiased, well-organized Police Review Commission is not to just investigate the incidents that are obviously over-the-top. The purpose would also be to look at questionable situations to get at all the facts so that we know WHETHER or not the actual incident, not just the imperfect video of it, indicates a real problem.

    The purpose, in other words, is not just to expose and have acountability when cops are behaving wrongly, but also to help exonerate them in the eyes of the public when the full airing of the facts indicates that they did not act wrongly.

  142. June 14, 2008 at 5:53 pm

    “How about all incidents in which an officer uses physical force against a civilian.”

    That would be a very low threshold..

  143. Concerned
    June 14, 2008 at 6:08 pm

    Really? Most officers go months without having to use this kind of physical force on a civilian.

    Of course I guess you can play around with definitions if you want, and say that anytime someone is arrested that is a use of physical force, but I think most people would realize that’s not what I’m getting at.

    I avoided the term “violent force” because it seems to imply something particularly brutal, but perhaps the term “violent force” which would certainly include what was seen on this video, whether it’s justified or not, may be the better term.

    However you want to define it, incidents such as this one are not everyday occurences for most cops, and if they are everyday incidents for some cops, then the public might want to know which ones and why.

  144. Not A Native
    June 14, 2008 at 6:30 pm

    Gotta agree with CPR on this one.

    Concerned, I wasn’t setting up a straw man, its a genuine issue of how to establish a threshold. You’re too quick to accuse, that will lessen your credibility. Without clear standards of performance, a police review board could become a witchhunt in the same way that police without standards can become oppressive. The devil is in the details. They need to be thrashed out to get needed political support.

  145. Concerned
    June 14, 2008 at 7:01 pm

    Well, you set up an absurd argument, then asked if it was realistic, efficient or desirable. Did you really think anyone would answer “yes”? Of course not. Was anyone making the absurd argument you set up before you made it for rhetorical purposes? Of course not. That’s a straw man argument, or sometimes simply called a straw argument.

    Similarly, no one is advocating a witch-hunt, so why waste time saying we shouldn’t have one? Of course we shouldn’t, and perhaps that’s why no one is advocating it.

    So let’s just stick to what IS being advocated here – a well-organized, unbiased Civilian Review Commission, similar to what many other municipalities have. If you’d like to emphasize that there should be clear standards of performance for our police, great, just say so. You’ll get no argument there. But for some reason you seem to want an argument. Sorry I’m unwilling to joust with the straw men, but I’d be quite willing to discuss the devilish details, if you like.

    It should be pointed out that we’ve been “thrashing out” the details for several years now, most recently at the League of Women Voters forum on the issue a few months ago. Did you attend? If you did, you should realize that plenty of other cities have this sort of civilian review and it functions quite smoothly for them. So we don’t need to re-invent the wheel, or start with silly questions like “should every encounter between police and residents be investigated?” We’re way, way past that nonsense at this point.

    So if you truly thought that was an appropriate starting point for the discussion, then perhaps you could look into what is being done in other communities (Santa Cruz for example) before you waste more of your time and mine with that sort of stuff. Or, on the other hand, if you really are up to speed and just like setting up silly straw arguments, then drop the bullcrap, and let’s talk turkey.

  146. Not A Native
    June 15, 2008 at 12:52 am

    The Humboldt human rights commission has been trying to develop terms of a review board for 5 years with no agreement in sight.

    Well, the clear mandate of any review commission should be interpreted to mean the video we have as evidence for investigation would be rejected as insufficient to establish a liklihood of misconduct. Can we agree on that? Because basically that’s all we have here on this blog to discuss. If you think the video, as presented, is sufficient to open an investigation then I believe your standard of sufficiency is too lax. I think appropriate statements by the bike rider and the police dept and hopefully an uninvolved witness could rise to the level that would warrant more investigation, the video is useless except to arouse passions and polarize people. The standards of evidence and procedures need to be very clear for a reveiw board to get community support. If there’s a perceived bias for or against police authority, it just won’t fly.

  147. Anonymous
    June 15, 2008 at 7:47 am

    The video raises suspicions. Suspicious events should be investigated. The cop, cyclist, videographer and any witnesses should be questioned as to what took place. Every “investigation” doesn’t have to be a major production. If that video showed a civilian taking the actions the cop took, wouldn’t you think the cops should investigate an assault?

  148. kateascot
    June 15, 2008 at 10:53 am

    To Anon 6/14 10:59am…..I have respect for the police, I have needed them from time to time and my Uncle was a detective on the force of a large metro city, I loved and feared him because he beat his wife and dealt in the black market of drugs and who knows what else. I’ve been around in large cities and small towns and talk to police and their victims as well as those cops who taught my kids in public schools DARE pgm. I’ve been to college and studied criminal justice. I’ve decided not to hate anyone, I hate what people do when they are violent and disrespectful to those who are powerless against them. I seek justice and peace.

  149. Concerned
    June 15, 2008 at 11:01 am

    “Well, the clear mandate of any review commission should be interpreted to mean the video we have as evidence for investigation would be rejected as insufficient to establish a liklihood of misconduct. Can we agree on that?”

    As I made abundantly clear above, numerous times, this edited video alone is not clear evidence of anything, except that a police officer used violent force on a civilian.

    “If you think the video, as presented, is sufficient to open an investigation then I believe your standard of sufficiency is too lax. ”

    Here I must respectfully disagree. I think what we saw on the video is certainly worth investigating. So it should be sufficient to open an investigation, but certainly not sufficient to conclude such an investigation. I think that saying that an incident needs to have a proven “liklihood of misconduct” BEFORE it can be investigated is too high a standard, and requires someone (whom?) to pre-judge the situation before they have more of the facts in hand. That would seem to me to defeat part of the purpose of the review, which is to restore (or establish) greater confidence on the part of the public in our public servants.

    “I think appropriate statements by the bike rider and the police dept and hopefully an uninvolved witness could rise to the level that would warrant more investigation…”

    Those are the things that would come out in an investigation. Hence the need to investigate further. You don’t just investigate things that are already clear, you also need to investigate things that are unclear – like this video. Simply investigating it should not be taken as an attack on the officer in question – he may well be exonerated in the eyes of the public after more of the facts come out. Or not.

    “The standards of evidence and procedures need to be very clear for a reveiw board to get community support. If there’s a perceived bias for or against police authority, it just won’t fly.”

    Yes, I said much the same thing above. There’s no disagreement there.

  150. Concerned
    June 15, 2008 at 11:29 am

    I would also point out that the establishment of a competent, neutral Civilian Police Review Commission would increase the liklihood that an incident such as this would not first be heard of through a youtube video. The bicyclist, the videographer and any witnesses would have a credible, unbiased civilian body to report the incident to. Thus, your higher threshold of evidence to open an investigation would be more likely to be met.

    If the only place to register a complaint against the police is with the police, many people will continue to be unwilling to come forward with their concerns. We can call that paranoid or whatever, but the fact is that self-investigation IS quite problematic, as loyalties and friendships within and between police agencies understandably can become an issue. And when we’re talking about trying to increase public confidence that justice is being done, then the appearance of fairness and neutrality is important as well.

  151. tad
    June 15, 2008 at 11:35 am

    Peace be with you

    What the video does definitely shows is an EPD (Laird) chase down an innocent (no charges) person to cause bodily harm. The video leaves no doubt about these facts. No matter how poor the video quality or the artistic license used in airing it, the facts still remain that the cop chased, beat and electro-shocked a person not charge with a crime. If the victim of police abuse had attacked the cop or otherwise created a situation in which justified that much physical violence on behalf of Laird, you can bet your ass the victim would be in jail.

    If one can’t discern this from the evidence presented here then that person is either blind, or an apologist for the cops. What I believe we should be discussing here is whether this was an attack on a homeless man and thus a hate crime.

    love eternal

  152. Concerned
    June 15, 2008 at 12:24 pm

    You may be right about the essence of what happened in this incident, Tad, but this video alone does not prove it.

    If you were shown a similarly edited tape of a homeless person tackling someone on a bike, would you automatically assume that it was unprovoked? Or would you want to know how the whole event took place before assigning blame? I would.

    I agree that the fact that this violent act was committed by a police officer against someone who was never even arrested is grounds to be suspicious of what took place.

    That’s why the incident should be fully investigated. It’s too bad we don’t yet have a Civilian Police Review Commission to handle such concerns. At this point I think the options for the bicyclist are to go to the EPD and file a complaint (yeah, I know, I know…), take the issue to the civil Grand Jury, or to go to another law enforcement agency such as the D.A. or the A.G. Clearly there are potential problems with all of these options, but you’ve got to start somewhere. Expressing your opinion about this vidoe on a blog is fine, but without more follow-up it’s not going anywhere.

    If the bicyclist, and any witnesses, including the videographer, go ahead and make a report and are willing to testify about what happened, then we can start to talk in a meaningful about whether there is a case there, hate crime, excessive force, or whatever. But what we’ve seen so far is just one piece of heavily edied video, with no context whatsoever. I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t want to be judged as guilty of a crime on the weight of such one-sided evidence, nor should anyone else.

    Like I said before, jumping to conclusions isn’t a good idea, whether you are jumping one way or the other.

    Okay, this is the part where you assert that I must be either blind or an apologist for the cops. Of course neither is true, but if that’s what you need to believe for some reason, that’s certainly your prerogative.

    Peace be with YOU, my brother.

  153. tad
    June 15, 2008 at 2:31 pm

    Peace be with you Concerned

    “but this video alone does not prove it.

    If you were shown a similarly edited tape of a homeless person tackling someone on a bike, would you automatically assume that it was unprovoked?”

    Because I 100% disagree with the first statement, the second statement is an even more unrelated comparison.

    We know charges weren’t filled. That means no crime was being committed prior, during, or after this “clip.” Thus we know what happened! We know violence was perpetrated against the bicyclist by a cop who believed no crime was committed. There is nothing else to investigate – cop beats and tazes an innocent unarmed man.

    Now comparing the homeless person example to a video with an unknown outcome (ie the homeless person may or may not have pressed charges) would only be speculation. We would know that the homeless person used violence, but we would not know, as we do know in this case, that the person being beat was innocent.

    love eternal

  154. Devil's Advocate
    June 15, 2008 at 2:51 pm

    What if the cop, on seeing the cyclist ride up, thought he looked like someone with a warrant? He tells the cyclist to stop but instead the cyclist takes off trying to get away, continues to try to escape after the first take down, through the tazering, until he is taken down a second time but turns out to be not the person the cop suspected? Why did the guy keep trying to leave when it was obvious that the cop was telling to stop?

  155. Concerned
    June 15, 2008 at 5:18 pm

    Okay, Tad, I’ll go along with your objection to the hypothetical scenario. So to clarify, let’s say that the hypothetical homeless guy did not press charges against the hypothetical bicyclist he had tackled. If that’s the case, does that mean that a few seconds of a highly edited tape (showing the takedown but not what happened leading up to it) is then sufficient “proof” for you that the homeless guy is guilty of assaulting the bicyclist?

    In other words, if you substitute “homeless guy” for “police officer” in this situation, would you still be so willing to declare his guilt based on such an incomplete picture of what happened?

    You say you don’t need to know anything else about what happened in the incident shown on the video, but the D.A., a judge, a jury, a grand jury, or even a civilian review commission would want to know as much as possible about the full sequence of events. That’s not some anti-homeless conspiracy, it’s just due process. Assuming that the bicyclist in the video is at fault because he didn’t stop for the cop (as some did above) is foolish because we don’t know the context of the situation. Similarly, assuming that the cop had no reason to stop the bicyclist, simply because he didn’t arrest the guy, is also foolish because, again, we don’t know what happened leading up to this situation.

    Apparently there was no arrest, but that doesn’t prove (legally) that the cop wasn’t allowed to stop the bicyclist. There are a few possibilities as to why there was no arrest. For example, the bicyclist might have escaped. Or after stopping the bicyclist the officer may have determined that he was not the suspect the officer was trying to apprehend, or that the crime that was suspected was not indeed being committed. Personally, I doubt any of these are the explanation, but of course that’s pure speculation on my part, since I don’t have any additional information other than the few seconds of aggressively edited video.

    And actually, the video itself does not contain any evidence that there was no arrest. I’m not saying that there was one, I’m just pointing out that even that piece of information, which you find to be so crucial (and I agree is an important piece of context) is not provided by the video. It is one piece of the context that surrounds this incident and was supplied in addition to the video in order to try to make sense of what happened.

    The question is why shouldn’t we want MORE information, MORE context as we try to judge what happened here? Why do you, Tad, get to decide which pieces of context can be considered (such as the fact that there was no arrest) and which are irrelevant (such as what happened leading up to the scene that was shown in the video).

    I’m quite ready to hold police accountable for their actions, but not based on a few seconds of edited video and some cherry-picked, incomplete context. Again, I doubt you would want to be judged by such standards.

  156. kateascot
    June 15, 2008 at 6:27 pm

    Personally I’m happy to hear many people admit that a civilian police review board would be a welcome addition to this county! The fact that so many people won’t admit that we have serious problems with police activity and need to bring accountability into focus so that we can be reassured that our families and neighbors are safe with the police. Is that too much to ask?

  157. kateascot
    June 15, 2008 at 6:31 pm

    sorry….got distracted…..the fact that so many people won’t admit that we have serious problems with police activity and need to bring accountability into focus so that we can be reassures that our families and friends are safe with the police is worrisome, why is that too much to ask?

  158. tad
    June 16, 2008 at 7:59 am

    Peace be with you concerned

    “is then sufficient “proof” for you that the homeless guy is guilty of assaulting the bicyclist?”

    Yes! First the “homeless” example would not be attacking the person “under the color of law.” That means any attack would in fact be assault, and a video of this caliber would be sufficient proof of a crime. In the real video, we were told that the cops had prior contact with the cyclist for alleged interfering with a cop in the line of duty. If the cops thought he had a warrant they would of done more then just have Laird causally stroll towards his car. Police would also be chasing him when he left the scene of interfering. But still the fact that a cop beat and tazered an INNOCENT person is enough to show an out-of-control cop! Cops are expected to be held to a higher standard then even homeless people,

    I agree we need a Police Review with subpoena power, and punishment power. We needed it just because of this type of behavior which happens without the benefit of cameras quite often. Cops on homeless eradication patrol were, are, and we can assume will be less then legal in their use of force against the homeless. Martin Cotton’s brutal death is the most striking example of this behavior. Your right a really good defense lawyer for the cop will tear the video apart because of its editing, but a half ass prosecutor could get a conviction despite it.

    love eternal

  159. Anonymous
    June 16, 2008 at 8:10 am

    I didn’t see Laird “stroll casually to his car,” Tad. The video shows him running after the cyclist which culminated in him knocking the guy down. If he was strolling casually he wouldn’t have caught the cyclst. Of course, we don’t have the benefit of the audio to tell us what he was saying as he was chasing the cyclist. I am a staunch supporter of police review, but let’s keep it honest here please.

  160. tad
    June 16, 2008 at 8:44 am


    Watch the first couple of seconds again.


  161. Anonymous
    June 16, 2008 at 8:50 am

    i did, Tad. I see the cop heading in the direction of the cyclist as the cyclist is heading toward him and as the cyclist turns to take off, the cop starts to run. It is obvious that the cop wanted the cyclist to stop but he didn’t. If you have access to the audio, that would be quite helpful in determining if the cyclist ignored an order to stop, wouldn’t it? What would you have a cop do when a suspect refuses to stop?

  162. Paid Disruptor
    June 16, 2008 at 8:51 am

    Love and Understanding,

    The cyclist should have obeyed the officer’s order, probably in the minutes preceding the start of the video, and certainly afterward.

    Best Friends Forever,

  163. tad
    June 16, 2008 at 8:56 am

    Peace be with you

    A cop HAS to have reason to stop someone! No charges, no reason!

    “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

    love eternal

  164. Anonymous
    June 16, 2008 at 9:00 am

    They can stop someone on suspicion that they are someone with a warrant, Tad. Surely you don’t think everyone who is a suspect until they show ID is arrested do you?

  165. Paid Disruptor
    June 16, 2008 at 9:07 am

    Tad, you do not understand the law, yet you have so many strident opinions about it. Stop embarrassing yourself. Get informed. You don’t have a clue what you’re talking about.

  166. Anonymous
    June 16, 2008 at 9:11 am

    Tad, if you were to interfere with an arrest, I’d make a citizen’s arrest myself, even if you are on a bike. And then we’ll just see who knows the law.

    Your problem is that you live in a universe of one. The world works according to how your mind things it does. Only it doesn’t. That’s why you’re so troubled. You lash out at a world that is confusing to you because you’ve never taken the time to understand how it works, only how you think it’s supposed to work. Sorry Tad. We don’t live by your fantasy rules.

  167. Anonymous
    June 16, 2008 at 9:11 am

    things = thinks. Sorry, I was off my meds.

  168. tad
    June 16, 2008 at 11:39 am

    Peace be with you Anonymous

    If you made a citizen arrest on me with the violence that was perpetrated by Laird I guarantee you would learn some expensive lessons about the law. Just because someone is poor does not make them suspect of having a warrant out for their arrest. The cops MUST have a “reasonable belief” that a crime has been committed before they can stop someone. You can’t tackle someone just to find out if they are wanted. If a cop stops me and can’t give me a reason for the stop I WILL NOT cooperate, I WILL NOT identify myself, and I WILL sue the shit out of them if they assault me. The constitution of the United States of America is NOT a fantasy rule, like you cops tend to believe.

    love eternal

  169. Anonymous
    June 16, 2008 at 11:46 am

    You are jumping to unsupported conclusions now Tad. You have no way of knowing who the cop thought that guy was or why he wanted him to stop. When a cop tells you to stop, you must comply or you can be forced to do so. You may not like it, but that is the law. If you comply with the order to stop and then are abused, you may have a legal case against the cop. But refusing to stop and being subdued in any way necessary doesn’t mean you can sue because the cop was mistaken about who you were. Sorry, that’s the way it is.

  170. Anonymous
    June 16, 2008 at 11:49 am

    If you made a citizen arrest on me with the violence that was perpetrated by Laird I guarantee you would learn some expensive lessons about the law.

    Yes, I would learn that someone who breaks the law can still file a frivolous lawsuit against me and cause me a lot of trouble before I win and force him to pay my attorney’s fees. Oops, except if the man is homeless. I guess he really did screw me. Lesson learned.

  171. June 16, 2008 at 10:28 pm

    Tad seems to know an awful lot from the video:

    “The cop was loitering lazily on the boardwalk, thinking mean thoughts. While shuffling towards his patrol car, he saw the approaching pacifist on the bicycle and decided to teach him a thing-or-two about global warming. The officer shouted ‘Off the bike, you Jewish homosexual communist!’

    The virtuous bicyclist, who always exhibits first-rate conduct, could not hear the cop (too much rockin’ out near the speakers, back in the day) and he suddenly veered off in another direction on an unrelated whim. The cop ran up from behind and knocked the completely surprised bicyclist to the ground. The officer then deliberated over which would give him more pleasure: to taze or to beat the saintly victim with the billy club.

    Knowing that the tazer would immobilize the man, making him much easier to hammer with the club, the cop fired a few rounds (as is plainly visible in the video), but amazingly, the righteous bicyclist, with strength from God, managed to keep walking his bike. Finally, the officer runs out of tazer rounds and tackles the man. The punishing assault went on for several minutes (available soon on volume two from Jumbo Productions).

    love eternal (except to those fuckin’ cops)

  172. "Henchman of Justice"
    June 17, 2008 at 12:42 am

    What did officer drop, while backing up trying to stop biker, that had a chord attached to it?

    Was it the discharged taser?

    Anyhow, I can’t see where this biker did anything wrong in the video – going off of body language. Sound does not exist, so provocation by verbal tactics is not evident.

    Jeffrey Lytle
    McKinleyville – 5th District

  173. Anonymous
    June 17, 2008 at 9:47 pm

    The reason most Eurekans do not distrust, much less hate, their police force: Most Eurekans have lived here a long, long time; have seen the members of the Eureka Police Department in action; and have seen time after time how appropriate, professional, supportive, and caring their behavior has been.

  174. Anonymous
    June 17, 2008 at 9:52 pm

    tad, an officer does NOT need to file charges against every person her or she orders to stop. Think. Please think.

  175. Anonymous
    June 17, 2008 at 9:54 pm

    Anonymous at 9:11 am has done tad a huge favor. I hope tad is wise enough to recognize it and act upon it.

  176. Anonymous
    June 17, 2008 at 9:59 pm

    Correction, folks!

    tad, an officer does not need to file charges against every person he or she orders to stop. Think. Please think.

  177. mresquan
    June 18, 2008 at 9:19 am

    Glad to see that we have some bloggers ready to dive straight into a police state.Why does our government spend so much time and money on inching us there when there exists a citizenry all ready to oblige and surrender their rights without question?

  178. American
  179. American
    July 30, 2008 at 9:55 am


    Prior to the surfacing of this video, the police officer filed an official report claiming that the biker had hit him, then resisted arrest. The officer is (or should be) facing not only assault charges but perjury as well for the lies in his sworn statement.


  180. Anonymous
    April 17, 2013 at 5:28 pm


  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: