Fujifilm's X-Pro1, now M Mount friendly
Olympus' Micro Four Thirds 75mm prime
Can you fix the focus on a blurry photo after the fact?
The birth of Mirrorless Cameras
The Joy Of Winning A Photo Contest
Choosing your first dSLR camera
New York City can be beautiful!
Choosing the Right Light Stand
Photojojo iPhone Telephoto Lens review — AudioCast
How To Buy Digital Photo Frames For An Exhibit - Part 2
Hey MAC users! A great source and an April Fool that is no joke
My week with Q
How To Become A Successful Photographer
"When the Wind Stopped" — poem with 4 photos
Creating The New Family Portrait
Tips for Textures 
Cast aways - saving those photographic memories
One Man Show: My 25 Years With Digital Photography
Studio, Flash, & Available Light — Three Books Reviewed
Portrait styling: dangerous pairings
Adobe Photoshop CS6 Product Managers Interview Audiocast
A gift of flowers: unfold your senses
On Set of "Love & Robots" the Film
No-Brainer Setup For A Digital Photo Frame Exhibit - Part 3
Exhibiting With Digital Photo Frames (DPF) Part 1
San Diego 7 photo gallery — Just Be Love All Stay Cool
Planning “National Geographic” style photo travel
Find Inner Peace and Beauty at San Jose, California, Airport
Wilderness Travel 1 Rainforests – Essential Gear
Backlighting Basics
What Moves You?
FIGURES IN MOTION: Decades of Evolving Personal Imagery in Photography, Part 7
Lomography Store, Austin, Texas — GALLERY
GALLERY — Up to $1,000 Reward for Cattle Rustlers
25% off on photography eBooks
eyePhone: The eBook for iPhone Photographers
Interview with Harold Davis — Closeup Maestro of Flowers & Water Drops
Interview with Steve Caplin — Photoshop Digital Artist, Commercial Illustrator, & Author
A Brief History Of Light & Photography: Part 3 of 3
A Brief History Of Light & Photography: Part 2 Of 3
Easy technique to select, edit and sequence keywords for web
How much should you charge for a photograph?San Diego Cop Smashes Man's Face to the Ground on Video
A San Diego police officer was struggling with a drunken spectator at Qualcomm Stadium when he smashed the man's face hard into the ground.
A witness captured the incident on a cell phone video camera.
David Rangel ended up with a bloodied face and stitches.
The incident took place Tuesday night during a heated soccer match between Mexico and Venezuala, according to a San Diego news station.
Wearing a Mexican shirt, Rangel, who admittedly was intoxicated, was getting thrown out by security for allegedly throwing things. He did not want to leave.
A struggle ensued between him and an officer. Another struggled ensued between another Mexico fan and a second police officer.
The video shows the two pairs of men wrestling on the ground with the officers.
It then shows one of the officers grasping Rangel in a chokehold. Then it shows that officer grasping Rangel by the back of his head and slamming his face hard into the hard ground.
The struggle comes to a stop as Rangel is placed in handcuffs.
San Diego police have defended the officer, but say they are "investigating" which means they are trying to appease their critics while doing nothing.
Rangel was charged with public intoxication, resisting arrest and battery on a police officer.
Comments
It looked like he stopped resisting BEFORE he had his face smashed.
However, since the the police weren't trying to harass the videographer, why is this posted here?
I'm going to side with the police officer here. Was he a little rough? Yes, but the fact that the perp was fighting with the cop tells me he wasn't being reasonable. Did the cop kick him, beat him or tell him he's going to "beat the F---ing Mexican Piss out of [him]?" No... That would be a cop in Seattle.
I'd be totally against this cop if the guy had not put up a fight first. And as a side note, if the perp had gotten into a bar fight, I'm sure he would have ended up with more than a couple stitches.
And what does this have to do with Photography? Going to show "street fights" next? ;-)
There's only a certain amount of outrage/sympathy to go around. You squander it on non-events like this it won't be there when it matters.
Looks like this guy earned 95% of what he got. There's a limit to how long I want an officer to risk injuries my taxes will pay for solely to coddle some violent drunk.
Maybe it's selfish of me, but police/security hassling photographers obeying the law is the issue I want to see covered, because that affects me. What happens to jerks who want to wrestle an officer just isn't ever going to be personally relevant to me.
I have to agree with the other posters. It is one thing to walk the cops into a first amendment trap where they look stupid. A momentary resisting arrest is one thing, but a long term fighting back the cop earns you a fdace plant into the concrete in an attempt to subdue you. Oh wait, that's what did happen....
I also don't see how this relates to photography is not a crime
You guys are truly dense if you don't see the significance this story has to this site.
We have an incident where police may or may not have been justified in smashing the man's face into the ground.
But the only reason we are able to discuss it is because a citizen was allowed to videotape it.
That's the whole point of this site, that we, as citizens, should be allowed to videotape and take pictures in public.
This site encourages citizen journalism, whether it shows police abusing their powers or maybe being justified in using force.
Personally, I think this case is a little iffy. I realize that once you become physically resistant or combative to a cop, you're basically giving him the green light to go all out on you.
But it did seem as if the man had already stopped fighting before his face was smashed into the ground.
Either way, this would not have been a story had the other guy not recorded the incident.
But he did, so it is a story.
Seriously? I think you need to tone it down Carlos. Your audience is starting to get a little tired of the constant police bashing.
This officer was in a 1 v 1 fight and did what he had to do to get the guy in custody. This "smash" was simply the cop trying to control the guy. If he did stop resisting right before that, you can't really expect the cop to stop the middle of the struggle do you? Who is to say the drunk wasn't about to start up again?
I seem to remember you punching a security guard in the face that reached for you and you claimed it was reflex. Why did you take the time to see what his intentions were?
If it ain't about excessive force, why not title it "Cop subdues drunk at soccer game"?
Actually I applaud Carlos for the work hes doing. And frankly I'm getting kinda sick of the citizen bashing. It was WAY over the line. officers to often get a pass on this stuff. Its just not justifiable to respond with that kind of force unless your life is in danger.
Have you ever tried to restrain a drunk while his friends surround you? No? Okay then. Maybe you think the officer should have tickled him into submission.
According to the news video the officer was using what they call a "carotid restraint" if he weren't already restrained he wouldn't have been in this so called carotid restraint. From the viewpoint of the video it appeared as if the man gave up just prior to getting slammed face first into the ground.
Unless the drunk man was using a knife, firearm, or car I wouldn't say he posed any immediate threat to life.
In my opinion it would have been perfectly fine if he was thrown down body first, but he wasn't. His face made the initial impact and that was a direct result of way the officer threw him to the ground. This could have ended much worse than a few stitches and a bloody face. Thats why it isn't acceptable.
Yea, sarcasm justifies police abuse. well argued sir. he didn't have to beat the guys head into the pavement. I don't car how drunk the guy was, its over the top and abusive. Thats why they have tazers. Again resisting arrest does not justify beating the shit out of people.
That poster may not have ever tried to restrain a drunk while his friends surround you, but I have! After 10 years on the street as a medic and the last 5 in the ER, I guarantee, your petty, condescending, smug (=cop-like?) remark falls on deaf ears on my end. I've not only restrained hundreds of drunks, tweakers, seekers, psychos, and actively committing suicide people, but I've done it without one injury to a patient and only one to myself (I got bit by a teenage girl once). I've done it in everything from stadiums, to riots, to dark alleys, with drunk friends, abusive family members, scared armed people, and panicked crowds around. Oh, and I did it without a gun, taser, pepper spray, rubber bullets, bean bags, or contempt for the people I was helping.
I've known great cops in my time, but the more I read you defending force time and time again convinces me that you are of the rare bad apple that is too lazy and impatient to actually use non-violent restraint. It would require a few more hours of your precious time to upgrade your vocabulary and education, but worse, you would have to waste entire MINUTES of your time actually talking to the sub-humans you are supposed to be helping and taking care to immobilize a person safely.
There are right ways and wrong ways to do something and I only see you defending those that take the easy way.
Wow that is impressive G. I guess your EMS school teaches ninja techniques since you are able to accomplish what trained police officers can't. You've had to restrain people in riots? Really? And you didn't have any problems or have to call those evil police for help?
Look let's get serious here. There is a big difference in trying to arrest a person and trying to treat him by holding him down on a stretcher or hospital bed. Don't try to bullshit me and tell me that you have been in the same type of situations
Every EMS call I have gotten dispatched to had the tech standing by and waiting for me to go hands on the with the subject because they couldn't or wouldn't.
Let me ask you this question, do you think the officer in this video was excessive? Do you think you could have used your EMS compassion to get the guy in handcuffs?
I don't always have a bed or a stretcher. But I always have excellent training and education in how to deal with violent people.
I enjoy how you cherry pick my response to make it look like I think all in uniform are "evil police". It makes me more convinced that there really are great cops out there; you just aren't one of them.
As for the video, could my crew or team handle it without giving the guy a subdural bleed?
You betcha.
Now get off your ass and stop taking the easy way out.
"As for the video, could my crew or team handle it without giving the guy a subdural bleed?"
Somehow I doubt it. I've got to work tomorrow night in the middle of a huge crowd of drunks. I can't wait to see some of the EMS crews use their gentle nonviolent methods to subdue these drunks.
I think you need to stop talking out of your ass and go back to sticking people with needles. Maybe I should come to the ER and insult your bedside manner?
If I'm doing something wrong in my bedside manner, you are more than welcome to provide input. Because real professionals know to keep an open mind and always try to improve their skill set and knowledge.
And I'm not surprised you doubt that we could handle it. Whatever isn't in your lazy imagination MUST be impossible. That, and it helps you justify not having a clue how to help people instead of just taking the quickest way out.
In a way, I'm happy you are so lazy. It keeps my ER in business, cleaning up another person you and any other bitter cop still on the force has abused.
"If I'm doing something wrong in my bedside manner, you are more than welcome to provide input. Because real professionals know to keep an open mind and always try to improve their skill set and knowledge."
I don't see you saying much to improve anyone's skill set or knowledge. All you are saying is that cops shouldn't be such meannies. You see, I wouldn't second guess your decisions about treatment because I wouldn't know what the heck I was talking about. That doesn't stop you though. You held a couple of upset family members in your arms and suddenly you are an expert on subduing a violent drunk?
You are condemning this video when in fact the officer didn't do anything wrong. He used proper tactics. Now maybe he pushed the guy's head downwards a second or two after the guy stopped resisting. However you aren't taking into account that the officer may have been exhausted from the struggle and needed to end it. Maybe he didn't notice the end of the resistance because he was trying to hold on the guy, watch his friends, and was dealing with the adrenaline of a fight. Maybe the guy was still tense against him and he thought the guy was still trying to get up. Maybe the drunk was about to start up again.
You see, the whole idea of objective reasonableness is the need to look at it from the eyes of the involved officer. You can't look at it from what you think you would have done. You need to consider what was done and look at the whole picture.
Let me say this again: We get paid to enforce the law and arrest offenders. Our job is not to give out hugs to people that fight us. I am not going to risk getting injured because of some EMS tech who thinks we should hold back in a fight. I'm not overly concerned about the other party when I am in a 1v1 wrestling match. If you had any real training (which as an EMS tech, you haven't), we are trained that if we are in a struggle, we end it as fast as possible.
If you think you and your other ninja medics can do a better job, go apply. The PD in your area probably pays better anyway.
Uh, not a tech (anymore) and probably get paid more than you do. And a PD job isn't one I would want. Not because I couldn't handle it, but because I don't want to be associated with your ilk. There are fine people on the force, but the more idiotic you look when you respond to these posts and the fact that these posts need to exist sully the entire PD. Especially the good ones out there that have a clue what it means to safely serve the public.
But thanks for minimizing the role of EMS. Although I have more training now, EMS receives extensive training, which shows you are talking out of the brown orifice. I'm sure EMS is going to want to back you up now that you've made blanket statements about the lack of training.
" And a PD job isn't one I would want. Not because I couldn't handle it, but because I don't want to be associated with your ilk. There are fine people on the force, but the more idiotic you look when you respond to these posts and the fact that these posts need to exist sully the entire PD. Especially the good ones out there that have a clue what it means to safely serve the public."
*sigh* I guess I will have to repeat myself. We get paid to enforce the laws and arrest violators. We don't get paid to give out hugs or hold back during a struggle just in case it offends you sensitive types. Just because you MAY HAVE had to coax a drunk into the back of an ambulance doesn't mean you are some expert on use of force.
In fact, you keep ignoring my points about objective reasonableness and the facts of this case and just resort to some ad hominem attacks on me and "my ilk". How exactly would you have done it better? What specialized training have you received on this?
"But thanks for minimizing the role of EMS. Although I have more training now, EMS receives extensive training, which shows you are talking out of the brown orifice. I'm sure EMS is going to want to back you up now that you've made blanket statements about the lack of training."
You seem to have a pretty inflated opinion of yourself. Maybe you are some expert combat medic. I dunno but it has absolutely nothing to do with arresting someone. Have you had any training on police arrest tactics, the force continuum, or legal decisions regarding the subject? Of course not. You are just some bystander who thinks that because you have been able to deal with a completely different situation (treating the injured vs arresting a resisting subject), you know exactly what to do.
At least I think that is what you are saying. You haven't really said anything about it other than that you woulda and coulda done it better. of course it doesn't matter if you would have used different tactics as long as the officer's tactics are reasonable. Remember, legally you don't have to use the minimum force necessary, just reasonable force.
Your complete failure to address these issues just shows you are talking out of your ass.
@G
There's no point in arguing with Carlos and Pixiq's pet troll. As you can see it doesn't go anywhere. Never mind that it's not very likely he's really a cop, anyway.
The troll wins because he gets attention. Carlos and Pixiq win because it generates page views.
@ Mike,
I'm sorry you don't like the fact that some people have different views. I hope it is not too upsetting for you.
JL
I am going to venture that most people found this website because they may have had an incident with Law Enforcement - this was the first site I found when I felt that I was wronged.... I found this site after an incident where I was shooting developing storm clouds and then was visited at work the next day by agents from the DEA - just a little abuse of power. I myself do not shoot video or photographs of law enforcement doing their jobs - just not my thing... however I do like the work that Carlos is doing with this blog.
Just to be fair I also respect your point of view too... sometimes I agree and sometimes I disagree. But I do like to read the discussions and views from both sides.
[duplicate deleted]
[duplicate deleted]
I like that your site not only defends photography, but highlights its importance in these cases.
You say it best, that we can only discuss it because a citizen taped it.
Using your logic we should start posting videos of cops directing traffic, since we have the right to do it.
Personally, I don't think most people want to watch a cop defending himself and controlling a suspect when the suspect is fighting the cop. It is the seemy underbelly of humanity. We know it happens, I just don't want to see it when the cops are in the right.
I think it is a question of degree. Once you start fighting the cop like this soccer fan did, then until you are on your belly handcuffed, you are asking for a beatdown.
I think you risk furthering your reputation as a cop hater/basher if you post things like this, but heck it's your site
Carlos,
I like your site too. But, don't you think calling visitors to your site "truly dense" a bit of an ad hominem? Clearly, I'm not the only one puzzled by this post.
It's interesting that you said that cell phone photographer was "allowed" to record. My friend, isn't photography a right? Of more importance would be someone being denied their rights to free speech and free press.
Two things in life are a given. Death and if you attack a cop, especially while drunk, you get a beat down. Its more of a fact of life than taxes considering it applies to everyone while many people and corporations in this country don't pay taxes!
Yes, Carlos, it is a story but not one suited to your site's title and original intent. This has NOTHING to do with photographers' rights. I've said it before, you are posting more and more videos just for the sake of police bashing. And then you make snide comments like this one:
San Diego police have defended the officer, but say they are "investigating" which means they are trying to appease their critics while doing nothing.
So what are the police supposed to say? That they are going to fire the officer without due process? My guess from watching the video was the officer was tired from fighting and just wanted the man to submit, which he wasn't. When the man again pulled up and tried to turn towards the officer he pushed him down hard, not thinking about the hard surface but the other friends who were moving in on him. You could clearly see that the officer saw them and was watching them as they moved closer.
I agree with difster, Michael, Jeff and Roger. This video does not belong here.
It's Carlos's site, he can post whatever he wants here. If he wanted to post a picture of three naked women dancing in the snow he could do so.
"It is the seemy underbelly of humanity. We know it happens, I just don't want to see it when the cops are in the right."
I think it's a perfect example of what has sometimes been mentioned here, that taking video is NOT always bad for cops. If not for the video the suspect would probably go screaming to his lawyer about how he offered no resistance at all.
Unfortunately, the video apparently has been removed so I can't judge for myself, but I agree with Carlos that it is within the site's subject matter.
Having had more run-ins with law enforcement he may be a bit more critical of law enforcement than I would be viewing the same video, but even Carlos calls the situation here "iffy" and acknowledges that it could be viewed in different ways.
In addition, Carlos has NOT always been critical of police actions in the past, as witness his reaction to a police officer punching a young girl in Seattle (http://www.pixiq.com/article/11128).
I'll withhold my own judgement on this particular case until I'm able to view the original video, but from the discussion earlier it hardly seems like there are arguments on both sides, and I'd probably base my decision on whether the officer's actions were beyond what was necessary to control the situation or whether he exceeded the minimum amount of force to control the situation, *including* any perceived outside threat from this subjects friends.
You can still watch the video if you click on the news click in the above story. Video will be on the right side of the story.
Y'all need to watch the video again. Somewhere around 46 seconds the cop had him sitting up and in a choke hold. (See the cops left arm squeezing around the guys neck.) For the next couple of seconds or so the guy was NOT in the process of resisting. At about the 50 second mark the cop violently slams the (non-resisting at that time) guys face into the floor.
As we all know.. and in the words of "Johnny Law":
"Cops Can Do NO Wrong!!"
The other thing that has to be considered.. if someone has YOU in a choke hold (and you're at that point where your air has been cut off and you're about to lose consciousness), aren't YOU going to try to take some action which will allow you to breathe again.. or are you just going to allow them to choke you to death?
Rail Car Fan
RCF,
You are watching that video from the comfort of your desk and you are counting the seconds. The officer was rolling around on the concrete in a 1v1 struggle with a drunk while that drunk's friends stood around him yelling. He had to worry about his suspect and if the friends were going to jump in.
Sorry buddy but real life means that he was operating under an adrenaline dump and probably had tunnel vision. Even with all these factors going on, he was able to subdue the guy and get him into cuffs without seriously injuring the guy or losing his professionalism.
I wonder how you would have handled it.
The officer did a good job and could have used more force if he felt it necessary.
Beating the guys head against the pavement is not professional at all. Adrenaline does not justify police misconduct, nor does tunnel vision.
Bob,
While you may expect perfect tactics, luckily the courts have a much more reasonable and realistic perspective. The legal standard is to determine if the officer's actions were objectively reasonable based on the totality of the circumstance. The law doesn't require the officer to use the absolute minimum force and makes allowances for the dynamics of the situation. While someone using hindsight, such as yourself, may imagine all kinds of ways the officer may have subdued the subject, it doesn't mean the office was in the wrong.
You mentioned in an earlier comment about tasers. So you think the officer should have disengaged and drawn his taser? Any chance that the bad guy would have spun around on the officer once he let go? Or any chance that the bad guy may have fled into the crowd before the officer could draw? And why would the officer give up a position of advantage (rear naked choke) and risk the situation getting worse?
This was not misconduct. This was an officer using force to get a resisting subject under control. I'm sorry if violence looks ugly but sometimes it is necessary. Remember, this was a split second decision that you now have the luxury to pick apart from the comfort of your PC desk.
This guy had stopped struggling, the police officer took the opportunity to slam the guys face in the pavement. Its flat out morally reprehensible. The fact that the courts hold low standards just to keep their officers out of jail doesn't change that.
Spoken like a true armchair quarterback who probably has no idea about the dynamics of a violent confrontation.
I understand that we employ Police officers to keep the peace, not abuse the citizens. As long as we allow police officers do do whatever they want, police themselves and never hold them accountable we are going to continue seeing bad cops to horrible things to people. Very frequently, even when police officers are found to be in the wrong, they get a slap on the wrist and sent on their way. You say the officers aren't required to use the minimal force necessary. The reverse implication of that is they are always allowed to use the maximum force possible. Thats a pretty screwed up way to think of law enforcement.
And as far as being an armchair quarterback, I'm allowed to be, and so is anyone else who pays your wage. You are ultimately accountable to the people. Now that these incidents are finding an audience on youtube the people are standing up and telling Police that these tactics are unacceptable. Change is coming, JL. Keep on defending these tactics, keep using them and someday your gonna find yourself on youtube and facing an investigation and possible criminal charges.
Bob said, "I understand that we employ Police officers to keep the peace, not abuse the citizens"
Sorry Bob, you're living in the past. That used to be why we employed police officers, but that has not been the case for a long, long time now. The police exist to ENFORCE THE LAW. Whatever law they want, whenever they want, however they want. Peace and common sense are absolutely forbidden in the police departments today.
"You say the officers aren't required to use the minimal force necessary. The reverse implication of that is they are always allowed to use the maximum force possible."
Please go read some case law on police use of force and then look up the phrase "objectively reasonable". You are completely misunderstanding the legal facts. To require police to use the absolute minimum force places an incredible burden on an officer involved in a quickly evolving dangerous situation. It is unreasonable. It is unrealistic. It sets officers up for failure.
"And as far as being an armchair quarterback, I'm allowed to be, and so is anyone else who pays your wage."
Wow, I haven't heard the old "I pay your salary" line in a long time. You are really digging deep on this one. You say you know that the police are paid to keep the peace. Well that is what this officer was doing in this video. We get paid to keep the peace but we DO NOT get paid to risk getting injured just because some members of the public are squeamish about the violence required to do this job.
The "pay your salary" line is always relevant, just because you don't like being reminded of that fact doesn't make it any less true.
"objectively reasonable" is clearly not a high enough standard. It has slipped down that ever steep slope and met the "probable cause" standards at the bottom.
I've been running this blog for four years and the blogging material has been pretty consistent as far as what topics I approach.
This blog has never been solely about photographers' rights, even though that is the major theme of the blog.
The blog is also about First Amendment issues, new media and police abuse, especially incidents that are caught on camera.
A video like this is not your typical mundane video of a cop directing traffic, although that could easily be PINAC material depending on how the cop reacts, whether it is positive or negative.
Readers have always been free to state their opinions on these stories and they have always been allowed to disagree with me without me banning them or deleting their comments, which is not the case with many bloggers.
I have always allowed a free discussion on this site, even continuing to allow Johnny Law to post even though several readers have asked me to ban him.
I like that we can discuss matters we don't agree on in a somewhat civil manner.
But I have to say, to come on here and dictate what I can and can't publish takes a lot of gall.
It goes against what this site stands for.
Ironically, "You guys are truly dense if you don't see the significance this story has to this site" is much more oppressive or limiting to free speech than "I don't see how this relates to [your blog]"
The title also suggests something different than "this would not have been a story had the other guy not recorded the incident."
Also, it's not really a story anyway. If we knew beforehand the guy was photographing the cop, or if he was just minding his own business and started getting choked, it would be a story. As it is it's just a routine (if infrequent) arrest.
If you want to post it, go ahead, it's your site. It just doesn't look like abuse or violation of rights.
I totally agree with Sutherlands. Your title and bias comments in the article completely contradicts your claim that you posted it under the "this would not have been a story had the other guy not recorded the incident."
"But I have to say, to come on here and dictate what I can and can't publish takes a lot of gall."
I think it takes a lot of gall to make a comment like that while claiming your running a 1st amendment website.
I'm glad to see most of your readers are disappointed by these types of articles when you post them. It gives them credibility, and shows that they are true professionals sticking up for their rights and not just some sourpuss with an agenda.
What, did the Bart KeppEl sockpuppet get banned, or did JL forget the fake login and have to start over?
Well, guys, I would love to say, point taken, I'll be more careful what I post in the future.
But fuck that. I'm not going to change what I've been doing for four years.
Thanks for posting this, Carlos.
That was a pretty hard hit against a concrete floor. I'm glad it sounds like the guy is ok. It could have been a lot worse.
I think I would rather be tasered than have my skull smashed against a solid concrete floor like that. It's too bad so many police officers have overused tasers to the point now that tasers have a horrible reputation.
Remember that Johnny Law believes that there is "absolutely nothing wrong" with giving a suspect a concussion even if the suspect is NOT resisting arrest.
Again, talking to Johnny Law about appropriate use of force in police work is like talking to a young-earth creationist about geology.
LOL I was wondering when someone was going to pull his string.
Johnny Law is a troll. Yes Johnny Law, you have a unique perspective on things, good for you, but your perspective belongs in Nazi Germany with your like minded buddies.
I had a perspective a lot like yours when I was younger, and then I matured. So start educating yourself to the contrary of your current programming, you wont be disappointed.
Peace and Love,
Jimi T.
P.S. Yes Johnny Law, you are a troll and a moral degenerate.
Post new comment