Yes Reardon the beating continued once he was cuffed. Trust me I'm not saying that anyone should flee or not comply when given a direct order, however I am saying that to continue to beat on ANYONE while they are restrained is extremely excessive as well as kicking someone in their face as they sit on the ground in handcuffs awaiting medical attention. It's all on the 11minute 40 some odd seconds video.
Reardon, they didn't get to pat him down and they may have been in survival mode, but does that mean continue to beat him while he is restrained? Once the cuffs were on he was still being beat.....what makes that right?
In cuffs he can't pull out a knife, in cuffs he can't harm them, in cuffs he is no longer a threat so why continue to beat him once he is cuffed?
That's what makes this excessive.
I've read through the comments and its alarming that so many would view this video and applaud the actions of these two officers. Ok some mention that the use of excessive force was warranted because the victim did not comply with order and that he also had a knife. So lets start there.
1. If he had a knife once they were out in that hallway the victims hand are on the ground as he scoots to back up against the wall.
2. He's backing up against the wall......meaning he's on the ground no where to run an the two larger men are standing over him.
How is this man still a threat?
Once he is cuffed and rolled back over on his back why is it ok for the officer to get on top of him and continue to beat him about the face?
If that's not enough to show that this was in excess then please tell me how much of a threat can a man be once he is cuffed and outside sitting......yes sitting in the grass and the officer turns and kicks him in his face?
This is a human be it a criminal or a person with a squeaky clean record. He is someone's son, brother, father, uncle, and/or friend. If this was someone that you knew would you still be so harsh? It's easy for you to say such mean things and feel that the person is deserving of such cruel treatment because he has no value to you.....just another bad person in your eyes.
I believe this was truly excessive no ifs ands or buts about it.
We do have excellent men and women in uniform protecting our streets just not these two nor the other 10 that stood by and witnessed this awful attack and did nothing to stop it.
The issue here is not with the people who sold the properties, our issue is with Ms. Gilchrist and her accountability. As with any situation, processes and procedures had to be followed in order to make any of these purchases. When these lots were purchased property on MLK was at it's highest value and the real estate market was booming. The people who sold these properties have done nothing wrong. Ms. Gilchrist supposedly bought these properties with the intentions of growing the chamber. So our issue shoud be with Ms. Gilchrist and her ineffective plans. However our need to know has led us astray. Please readers and reporters of the Times Free Press focus on the issue at hand. Its not a black or white issue. The issue is with Ms. Gilchrist and her board, which approved these purchases and allowed her to do nothing once the land was acquired. Focus on the REAL issue.