"Paraplegic man pulled from car, thrown to ground by police in Ohio"

[ObsidianJones]

Warning: Graphic

Paraplegic man pulled from car, thrown to ground by police in Ohio

As motorist Clifford Owensby was pushed into the pavement, he asked for anyone who could hear him: "Can y'all call the real police, please?"

www.nbcnews.com

Police in Ohio forcibly pulled a paraplegic man out of his vehicle and threw him to the ground, despite his repeated appeals and him saying that he has no use of his legs, according to body-camera video released Friday.

The Dayton Police Department shared the video with NBC News that shows two officers commanding motorist Clifford Owensby to step out of the Audi he was driving during a traffic stop last week.


The video was edited, and it's not clear what happened before or after the video.

Owensby can be heard telling the officers he's paraplegic. One of the officers said he'd help him out of the car, but the motorist declined and asked why he was pulled over.

"I can't get out of the vehicle sir," Owensby said.

The officer told Owensby he needed to be out of the vehicle so a dog could smell for drugs, but the motorist objected, the video shows.

"No you're not, no you're not, you're not going to touch me. You are definitely not going to touch me," he can be heard saying in the video. "There will be a lawsuit if you put your hands on me for no reason, bro."

Owensby then appears to make a phone call and ask someone to come to him and film his interactions with officers.

Owensby asks officers to call their supervisor before they unbuckle him and appear to drag him out by his shoulders and dreadlocks.

He screams and repeatedly shouts, "Somebody help, somebody help!"

As officers pressed him to the pavement, one put his knee into his back as Owensby kept pleading for help.

At one point he screamed, "Can y'all call the real police please?" as one officer threatened to Tase him.

The officers involved have not been identified.

Dayton Fraternal Order of Police President Jerome A. Dix said in a statement Friday night that the officers asked for compliance and said offered to "assist" Owensby when they were told he is paraplegic. He said the motorist "continued to be verbally noncompliant," thus escalating the officers' response.

"The officers followed the law, their training, and department policies and procedures," he said. "Sometimes the arrest of noncompliant individuals is not pretty, but is a necessary part of law enforcement to maintain public safety, which is one of the fundamental ideologies of our society."

Owensby did not respond to NBC News's attempts for comment Friday, but he told the Dayton Daily News in a story published Monday, "I feel like they don’t even respect me as a citizen."

He said he suffered scrapes from being pulled from the vehicle. He told the publication a previous back injury was reinjured.

Dayton Mayor Nan Whaley said in a statement Friday, "The video of this police interaction is very concerning to me. No matter where you live or what you look like, everyone deserves to be treated with dignity and respect when dealing with Dayton Police."

She said the incident was under investigation.

"Dayton remains committed to our ongoing community-led police reform process and providing transparency in situations like this," Whaley said.

So.

Put an elderly confused woman, a pregnant woman, a highly autistic man, you name it... and have the same situation play out. These officers would be hunted down.

But the Dayton Police President himself said it was procedure to ignore reasons that are beyond the control of individuals and proceed to brutalize someone once you gave an order.

This is the amazing thing about current conservative cultists (If this catches on, let the world see that I was the first one to label them the CCC, or triple C if you like). Hold an election that uses mail in ballots, something that has been around forever, and you can't trust the government no matter how many audits actually prove that Joe Biden won MORE with each audit that is held.

But we can't go sometimes weeks without video proof of police brutality which is usually completely unconscionable and we get 'Back the Blue' bumper stickers everywhere. And the constant harping on that Police are the Good Guys and that we're digging for things to drag their name through the mud.

Do you honestly not get why we are afraid of you guys?

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

It's astounding. Just last week a dude was acquitted of a "shooting at police" charge because the cops he shot at over a year ago were driving around in a white unmarked van shooting "rubber" bullets at random people on the sidewalk. He'd thought he'd got caught in a drive by. As soon as he realized they were police, he dropped the gun, dropped to the ground, and out his hands up. So of course the cops beat him for 30 seconds before even trying to handcuff him. He had to sue to make the body cam footage public.

Yes, that's right: the cops recorded themselves driving around town shooting random people. The prosecutor had all this footage and still tried to put the dude away for years.

System's fucked.

 

[XsjadoBlayde]

The video was edited, and it's not clear what happened before or after the video.

Yeah, I don't trust them to not be pulling some project veritas type shit here yet again. Like that "promotional" tweet of them claiming to have rescued a child at some BLM protest that turned out to be, well...

Philadelphia Reaches $2 Million Settlement With Rickia Young Over Violent 2020 Incident

After officers ripped Young from her car, the National Fraternal Order of Police used her toddler for propaganda, her lawyers say.

www.huffpost.com

“I will not forget what those officers did to us that night,” Young said at a news conference Tuesday. “I hope that the officers responsible will never have the chance to do something like this to another person ever again.”

Young was driving home last October amid unrest in the city following the shooting death of Walter Wallace Jr., a 27-year-old Black man whose family called for mental help and who police say was armed with a knife, when protesters surrounded her vehicle.

The 29-year-old mother stopped to avoid hitting them, Young’s lawyers said, when “suddenly and without warning,” a pack of Philadelphia police officers smashed the windows of her vehicle, then yanked both Young and her nephew into the street and beat them, “causing significant injuries.”

Video of the encounter recorded from a building down the street corroborates her account.

Young was taken to a hospital and held for hours, all while separated from her 2-year-old son, who was in the back seat of the SUV throughout the confrontation.

Soon after, a photo of a Philadelphia officer comforting Young’s son in her absence went viral, boosted by an inaccurate pro-police caption the National Fraternal Order of Police shared on social media.

“This child was lost during the violent riots in Philadelphia, wandering around barefoot in an area that was experiencing complete lawlessness,” the caption on the since-deleted post read. “The only thing this Philadelphia Police Officer cared about in that moment was protecting this child.”

"national fraternal order of police" is a nauseating coalition of red flags by itself too

 

[Seanchaidh]

"The officers followed the law, their training, and department policies and procedures," he said.

Abolish the police.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Abolish the police.

Says it all right there, doesn't it. The cops egregiously abused a random civilian and their primary defense is that that's what they are trained to do.

 

[Bob_McMillan]

Genuinely surprised the article doesn't mention that Owensby is a Black man. Interesting. I could tell he was Black from the obvious fear in his words at the idea of being pulled over by the police.

A "Fraternal Order of Police" is just a fancy name for a union isn't it?

 

[Cheetodust]

Anyone who tries to justify this with "noncompliance", fine whatever, but they can not say they value freedom when their defence of police brutality is "well it wouldn't happen if they just did what the police wanted."

 

[Eacaraxe]

"national fraternal order of police" is a nauseating coalition of red flags by itself too

My fave part of that is how cops always parrot the party line, "having FOP/donor/BtB stickers won't get you out of a ticket if you've been pulled over, cops know what's up and know criminals put FOP tags on their cars to try avoiding attention". Just never mind the "if you've been pulled over" disclaimer, since those stickers keep you from getting stopped in the first place unless the cop's behind quota, fishing for DUI's, run plates and found an outstanding warrant, bored or feeling particularly sadistic that day, or the driver has done something well and truly stupid.

Cop support groups are one of the biggest protection rackets left in the country.

Now, as for the main topic...these threads have more context:

Police dragged a paraplegic man from his car after he told them he couldn't get out

Clifford Owensby told police he was a paraplegic and couldn't exit his car, but officers dragged him out anyway in an arrest that is now under investigation by the Dayton Police Department.

www.npr.org

Dayton police investigate after video shows disabled man pulled from car by officers

Body camera footage shows the interaction between Dayton police officers and a paraplegic man who would not exit his vehicle during a traffic stop and was yanked from the car and onto the road.

www.daytondailynews.com

Officers stopped Clifford Owensby on Sept. 30 as he was driving away from what police say was a suspected drug house. Because of Owensby's past felony drug and weapons history, officers wanted a police K-9 to conduct a "free-air" sniff of the vehicle to determine if there were illegal drugs inside, police said in a video briefing.

Okay, let's be real: given facts, it probably was a drug house and the dude just finished a deal. A drug dog hitting on paper money isn't dispositive -- over 90% of USD's in circulation are contaminated with drug residue. To the point federal courts have ruled drug dogs hitting on paper money isn't admissible as evidence nor legally dispositive.

But the dude having $24,000 in cash in the car says it all, even if it's not legally dispositive. However...

The recorded probable cause for the stop was illegal tint? That's razor thin, sloppy-ass, work, even for cops. They can manufacture probable cause based on practically anything. If they'd waited thirty seconds, they probably could have gotten him on turning without signaling or failure to stop at the posted four-way. I know how Ohio drivers are. The first issue here, is justification for warrantless search is way out of hand in this country. It has been for decades thanks to the "war on drugs".

And really, how difficult is it to call a supervisor and/or paramedics to the scene to oversee or assist the man getting out of the car?

 

[BrawlMan]

Spineless dick holes.

 

[ObsidianJones]

My fave part of that is how cops always parrot the party line, "having FOP/donor/BtB stickers won't get you out of a ticket if you've been pulled over, cops know what's up and know criminals put FOP tags on their cars to try avoiding attention". Just never mind the "if you've been pulled over" disclaimer, since those stickers keep you from getting stopped in the first place unless the cop's behind quota, fishing for DUI's, run plates and found an outstanding warrant, bored or feeling particularly sadistic that day, or the driver has done something well and truly stupid.

Cop support groups are one of the biggest protection rackets left in the country.

Now, as for the main topic...these threads have more context:

Police dragged a paraplegic man from his car after he told them he couldn't get out

Clifford Owensby told police he was a paraplegic and couldn't exit his car, but officers dragged him out anyway in an arrest that is now under investigation by the Dayton Police Department.

www.npr.org

Dayton police investigate after video shows disabled man pulled from car by officers

Body camera footage shows the interaction between Dayton police officers and a paraplegic man who would not exit his vehicle during a traffic stop and was yanked from the car and onto the road.

www.daytondailynews.com

Okay, let's be real: given facts, it probably was a drug house and the dude just finished a deal. A drug dog hitting on paper money isn't dispositive -- over 90% of USD's in circulation are contaminated with drug residue. To the point federal courts have ruled drug dogs hitting on paper money isn't admissible as evidence nor legally dispositive.

But the dude having $24,000 in cash in the car says it all, even if it's not legally dispositive. However...

The recorded probable cause for the stop was illegal tint? That's razor thin, sloppy-ass, work, even for cops. They can manufacture probable cause based on practically anything. If they'd waited thirty seconds, they probably could have gotten him on turning without signaling or failure to stop at the posted four-way. I know how Ohio drivers are. The first issue here, is justification for warrantless search is way out of hand in this country. It has been for decades thanks to the "war on drugs".

And really, how difficult is it to call a supervisor and/or paramedics to the scene to oversee or assist the man getting out of the car?

And here's the root of the issue.

I don't even have any thought of the man's innocence or not. That's a non-issue with me. And that's exactly why I get so mad when people try to paint BLM as an anti-American, Anti-police thing.

Let the man be guilty. Hell, I'll just go out and say he was guilty. That doesn't preclude him from his rights or basic human civility. The man isn't attacking you, the man isn't making any sudden moves, the man explained his situation.

Just like Eacaraxe said. Ok. He's a freaking criminal. He just did criminal things. He's such a damn criminal. Get a damn Ambulance to take him to jail. Do not drag him by the hair. Do not drag his limp legs on the asphalt. Do not disregard his property because you're agitated that he didn't drop down and do everything you asked the second the words left your mouth.

Black Lives Matter isn't anti-Police. It's anti-abuse. The man literally called for someone to get the real police. Black People want to trust the police, too. They want to be able to call them and have manners solved as everyone else does. But you can't see this treatment of this man and then turn to blacks and go "really, I don't know what you guys are on about".

 

[Gordon_4]

My fave part of that is how cops always parrot the party line, "having FOP/donor/BtB stickers won't get you out of a ticket if you've been pulled over, cops know what's up and know criminals put FOP tags on their cars to try avoiding attention". Just never mind the "if you've been pulled over" disclaimer, since those stickers keep you from getting stopped in the first place unless the cop's behind quota, fishing for DUI's, run plates and found an outstanding warrant, bored or feeling particularly sadistic that day, or the driver has done something well and truly stupid.

Cop support groups are one of the biggest protection rackets left in the country.

Now, as for the main topic...these threads have more context:

Police dragged a paraplegic man from his car after he told them he couldn't get out

Clifford Owensby told police he was a paraplegic and couldn't exit his car, but officers dragged him out anyway in an arrest that is now under investigation by the Dayton Police Department.

www.npr.org

Dayton police investigate after video shows disabled man pulled from car by officers

Body camera footage shows the interaction between Dayton police officers and a paraplegic man who would not exit his vehicle during a traffic stop and was yanked from the car and onto the road.

www.daytondailynews.com

Okay, let's be real: given facts, it probably was a drug house and the dude just finished a deal. A drug dog hitting on paper money isn't dispositive -- over 90% of USD's in circulation are contaminated with drug residue. To the point federal courts have ruled drug dogs hitting on paper money isn't admissible as evidence nor legally dispositive.

But the dude having $24,000 in cash in the car says it all, even if it's not legally dispositive. However...

And even if he's guilty as sin - which if you rolling with 24k in hard currency these days he probably is - its up to Mister Plod to earn his pay and prove it.

 

[Eacaraxe]

And here's the root of the issue.

I don't even have any thought of the man's innocence or not. That's a non-issue with me. And that's exactly why I get so mad when people try to paint BLM as an anti-American, Anti-police thing.

Let the man be guilty. Hell, I'll just go out and say he was guilty. That doesn't preclude him from his rights or basic human civility. The man isn't attacking you, the man isn't making any sudden moves, the man explained his situation.

Yeah, absolutely. My commentary here is meant more to indicate how fucked our contemporary CJ system is, and how badly these cops pooched it despite having a blank check for all intents and purposes, before they even laid a finger on the dude.

Because, for those not in the know, here's the reality of the situation: they "needed" to search Clifford's car. I say "needed" in quotation marks, because that was their foot in the door for securing a search warrant of the domicile -- either they could argue the drug deal took place at the house to get the warrant, or they could get Clifford to snitch.

But to search his car, they needed to manufacture probable cause. That meant pulling him over, on basically any infraction they thought would stick.

One way or the other, Clifford's car was getting pulled over and it was getting searched -- I can guarantee you the instigating cops made that decision long before they turned the lights on. If it wasn't window tinting, they would have waited to see if he turned without signaling or ran the stop sign at the four-way. Or they would have caught him "driving erratically" and pulled him over on suspicion of DUI. Or they would have followed him until he broke speed limit. No one drives so immaculately they can avoid a traffic stop from a cop who has decided, one way or another, they're initiating one.

And if he didn't have priors, I guarantee you one of the cops would have "smelled marijuana and/or alcohol". Or they would have leveraged his having a toddler in the back seat without a child seat as probable cause to search the vehicle for contraband.

Having to pull him over for window tinting is just a -- comical, were it not for the weight of the circumstances -- expression of how limp-dick their case was.

Because the objective was to search his car and every decision made pursuant to that objective, not good faith enforcement of the law. As I've said on here before, a cop's job isn't to protect and serve the public. A cop's job is to build and deliver cases to prosecutor's offices. That means, to those cops, Clifford was guilty until proven innocent, not the other way around, and any attempt by him to assert his legal rights or take actions to protect himself assumed obstruction by default; ergo, escalation and violent action taken toward him to expedite the goal of searching his car "justified".

That's why probable cause and prohibitions against search and seizure matter, and why post-"War on Drugs" jurisprudence is a linchpin of neo-Jim Crow which needs be overturned, in sum, before there can ever be a meaningful dialogue on racial justice in criminal procedure. This matters even if you're white.

And even if he's guilty as sin - which if you rolling with 24k in hard currency these days he probably is - its up to Mister Plod to earn his pay and prove it.

That's...actually the problem, here. That's what I'm getting at. Cops have few if any meaningful restrictions, and even less oversight, when it comes to "proving it". Because the end zone for these cops had nothing to do with Clifford, directly. It could have been you, me, or anyone else in that car; who was in it mattered less to the cops, than the "value" of the stop as instrumental to securing a warrant on the suspected drug house.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

That's...actually the problem, here. That's what I'm getting at. Cops have few if any meaningful restrictions, and even less oversight, when it comes to "proving it".

And a lot of people have become disturbingly okay with the idea of police determining guilt and meting out punishment, rather than the courts. I'd rather not live in an '80s cop movie.

 

[Asita]

But to search his car, they needed to manufacture probable cause. That meant pulling him over, on basically any infraction they thought would stick.

One way or the other, Clifford's car was getting pulled over and it was getting searched -- I can guarantee you the instigating cops made that decision long before they turned the lights on. If it wasn't window tinting, they would have waited to see if he turned without signaling or ran the stop sign at the four-way. Or they would have caught him "driving erratically" and pulled him over on suspicion of DUI. Or they would have followed him until he broke speed limit. No one drives so immaculately they can avoid a traffic stop from a cop who has decided, one way or another, they're initiating one.

You want the "fun" part? That situation is almost straight out of the Bar Exam as a textbook example of illegal police action that would get thrown out of court. No, seriously:

Police and firefighters were at the scene of a house fire. As the fire was being handled by the firemen, the police were maintaining the area, making sure that bystanders were far enough away from the blaze to remain safe.


A car drove up, and out of curiosity parked nearby to watch the efforts to fight the fire. However, this car was blasting very loud music and contributing to the overall chaos at the scene. A police officer approached the vehicle and asked the driver to please turn down the music, and the driver complied. During this interaction, the officer noticed a handgun on the passenger front seat of the car. Although in this state the law allowed carrying a gun, whether it was concealed or not, the officer ordered the driver to exit his vehicle and drew his gun.


The other policemen saw the first officer draw his gun, so they rushed to his aid, drawing their guns as they approached. They surrounded the vehicle and the driver, who was now standing outside the car with his hands behind his head. The driver was told to face the car, and they slapped handcuffs on him and sat him down on the curb. A thorough search of the vehicle ensued, during which cocaine and illegal amphetamines were found. He was arrested, and charged with drug possession. A motion to suppress based on a Fourth Amendment violation was filed by his lawyer. How will the court most likely rule?


1. The drugs will be suppressed. The officer overreacted to the stop, which was only based on loud music. He began an arrest in a situation where there was no probable cause to do so.


2. The drugs are admissible. The act of driving up to a house fire, which is already a chaotic situation, with loud music blasting was indicative of volatile behavior. When the officer saw the gun in the front passenger seat, that elevated the situation. The officer had a duty to protect everyone involved, so the arrest and search were reasonable.


3. The drugs will be suppressed. Just because the officer noticed a gun on the front seat does not indicate that any law had been broken in a state that allows people to carry guns, therefore he had no cause to arrest the driver or search the car.


4. The drugs are admissible. For the safety of everyone involved, this officer had the right to remove this driver from the vicinity of his gun – and everything else that transpired was properly motivated by the officer’s duty to protect everyone in the area.

#1 is Correct.

The drugs will be suppressed. The officer overreacted to the stop, which was only based on loud music. He began an arrest in a situation where there was no probable cause to do so.


This officer’s actions were unreasonable. The stop was appropriate, but after the driver turned down the music as instructed, the reason for the initial stop was over. However, seeing the gun on the front seat did give the officer the ability to remove the driver from the car. Separating him from his gun – however legal it may have been, it is still a lethal weapon – was justified for the safety of everyone at the scene.


However, all of the officers’ actions after that were excessive. There was no indication that this driver had broken any law, since guns were legal in the state. To have several officers approach you with guns drawn, when no crime has been ascertained, is not reasonably related to the scope of the initial stop. The arrest was neither reasonable nor expected by any citizen. The arrest was illegal, and the subsequent search of the car was illegal as well.

Or, at least, that's how it's supposed to work.

 

[Gordon_4]

You want the "fun" part? That situation is almost straight out of the Bar Exam as a textbook example of illegal police action that would get thrown out of court. No, seriously:





Or, at least, that's how it's supposed to work.

This may be a stupid question, but do Police actually study the law when they train or go for promotion?

 

[Eacaraxe]

You want the "fun" part? That situation is almost straight out of the Bar Exam as a textbook example of illegal police action that would get thrown out of court. No, seriously:

Different circumstances, different situations. The window tinting established reasonable suspicion for the stop, and once the car was stopped the question of whether it was lawful to expand the scope of the investigation again falls to the reasonable suspicion standard based on totality of the circumstances. In this case, suspicion justifying expanding the scope of the stop is particularized, specific, and articulable: a driver with drug-related priors seen leaving a suspected drug house currently under investigation by the same department. Ross, Acevedo, and Cortez are the landmark cases specific to this, if I remember right.

No, I do not agree with it, but the legal landscape is disturbingly clear here. Where the cops fucked up was dragging the poor bastard out of his car by force, decidedly not the least-intrusive means of detection to address reasonable suspicion in absence of suspicion Owensby was armed and dangerous.

Where the example from the Bar deviates, is in the legality of the firearm. Being the firearm was legal, there was no reasonable suspicion to expand the scope of the stop, nor probable cause to justify a search. The question's based on the case facts of US v. King, by the way.

 

[Asita]

This may be a stupid question, but do Police actually study the law when they train or go for promotion?

Your guess is as good as mine. The only reason I know what I quoted was because I saw it a few months ago when I looked up sample Bar questions on a whim (Long story short, I wanted to see how accurate my intuitions were). Though if I were to speculate...I'd say that that's one that they have no excuse not to know as it's a due process violation that explicitly focuses on their own conduct. It legitimately makes no sense for them to be allowed to be ignorant of it. Even setting aside the constitutional and ethical issues and looking at it from the police's angle, the result would be a shitshow. Optimistically, such violations can reasonably be expected to invalidate their case and therefore waste both their time and that of the courts. Pessimistically, it opens up the officer and potentially their agency to legal action against them. I mean, does it really make sense for them not to have this drilled into them as thoroughly as "Read the suspect the Miranda Warning"?

Source: https://www.vjamesdesimonelaw.com/police-harassment-and-a-citizens-constitutional-rights/

An example of a due process violation is when the police arbitrarily stop, detain, or demand information from a citizen when no crime is being committed, and with no apparent evidence that a crime may be committed. In these situations, if a citizen is stopped by police but not detained or arrested for a crime, they are not required to answer officer questions and are lawfully free to leave an interrogation.

All United States people, regardless of immigration or citizenship status, have rights should they be stopped or detained by police, that include the following protections by the U.S. Constitution’s 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments:

• To say out loud that they wish to remain silent,
• To refuse search of one’s body, car, or home without probable cause,
• To leave calmly if they are not under arrest,
• To obtain a lawyer if arrested.

Under the protection of the U.S. and California Constitution and Title VI, if you’ve been harassed by police, you have the right to file a complaint with the Department of Justice (DOJ) and gain administrative remedy for the police harassment you experienced. It may also be reasonable to file a lawsuit after filing the complaint with the DOJ.

 

[Agema]

This may be a stupid question, but do Police actually study the law when they train or go for promotion?

Undoubtedly. But...

Compare to a standard university exam. You get a first class degree in the UK with a mark over 70%. Therefore, being one of the smartest people in the room means you didn't know anywhere up to 30% of what you studied.

I could also say that I've taken a particular role in my department for 2 years - I didn't need to pass a test to do it (unless you count having the confidence of my bosses that I was up to it) - and I'm still finding myself not infrequently having to scurry around trying to find stuff out. In some cases, I know my employer's policy, but when that somewhat vague/general policy comes to a specific situation, you find it's not clear know what the "correct" action would be.

 

[Drathnoxis]

Genuinely surprised the article doesn't mention that Owensby is a Black man. Interesting. I could tell he was Black from the obvious fear in his words at the idea of being pulled over by the police.

I could tell he was black because ObsidianJones posted the article and I don't ever recall him posting an article about anything but. I was actually surprised also before I read your post confirming it.

over 90% of USD's in circulation are contaminated with drug residue.

Wait, what? Over ninety percent?! How is that even possible? Is literally everybody in the world except me constantly doing drugs and not washing their hands before touching their money?

Undoubtedly. But...

Compare to a standard university exam. You get a first class degree in the UK with a mark over 70%. Therefore, being one of the smartest people in the room means you didn't know anywhere up to 30% of what you studied.

And if any of the questions were multiple choice they probably know considerably less.

 

[Trunkage]

Wait, what? Over ninety percent?! How is that even possible? Is literally everybody in the world except me constantly doing drugs and not washing their hands before touching their money?

I think this shows the power of not washing your hands