Rev Yearwood talks about police brutality against him on Monday

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bibOz2WkNg

Rev.Lennox Yearwood regarding being attacked, arrested, and hospitalized by Capitol Police

the behavior on the part of the police was totally outrageous, and to be honest, a little bit frightening. Is Rev Yearwood now on some "Enemies List" or something? Why did they refuse to give him a pass for the hearings?

Also, who is the guy pictured in your sig line? If I'm not mistaken, I saw him briefly in the House hearings on Monday?

I don't know what the deal is with Rev Yearwood. They broke his leg. I'd say that means they are definitely out to get him.

Dude looks like a Teamster.....Thanks again.

desperately trying to be rational voice. That was a cookie cutter 'trying to come off as perfectly innocent' type video. It is so blatant.

But the part that gets to me the most is that it exposes his and his spokeswoman's lie outright, that he broke his leg and it was in a cast. It is plain to see in the video that there is no cast on his leg so it is now quite apparent that they outright lied about that part. At least now I know my gut feeling was right.

He can put on that smooth talking, I'm so calm and rational how dare they do this to me voice all he wants. He disobeyed direct instructions, acted defiant, and lunged abruptly towards the door and other cops. It's a shame it had to turn out the way it did, but he's by no means some innocent victim here. It is also quite disturbing that they would like so outright about his having broken a leg.

That's it for me on this. Go believe whatever you want.

in your mind and then posting here to claim something that is not shown in the video at all.

Reverend Yearwood speaks to the camera in closeup. The camera never pans below his hands folded in his lap.

I wonder if an innocent person "comes off as perfectly innocent". Even "blatantly" so?

Why not try being a "rational voice" for a change. Post the time marker where the video shows "It is plain to see in the video that there is no cast on his leg".

At the very last frame of the clip, for about half a second, you quite readily see his knees and jeans. But even prior to that, just the fact that they so conveniently avoided showing his legs the entire video, speaks volumes towards their intentions.

I mean think about it: If you had just gone through all of that and even had your leg broken and in a cast, and then made a video to declare how wrong it all was, would you avoid throughout the entire thing actually showing your leg and cast? Does that actually make ANY logical sense to you whatsoever? Wouldn't one of the most eager things you'd want to document be the broken leg? Do you really think for a second that anyone who would've suffered such WOULDN'T have shown it on the video? C'mon now. Let's be real here.

But like I said earlier, that point is moot anyway since you DO in fact see his legs and knees in the very last frame, and there isn't a cast in sight.

The lie has been quite readily exposed, by them no less.

"It is plain to see in the video that there is no cast on his leg".

WTF? When is the last time you saw a full cast on a broken ankle? I never have.

but just tore some ligaments in his ankle. If that's the case, he probably would not be in a cast.

As if it matters anyway. He was assaulted and injured for no good reason.

If it turns out he tore Anterior Talofibular Ligament instead of the Anterior Calcaneofibular Ligament, then that changes everything!

No kidding! Obfuscating bastard!

He must also be anti-American, as he is evidently anti-body. Sheesh, leave those poor ligaments alone!

The Police tore my Anterior Calcaneofibular Ligament!

Oh how oh how I wish I could believe that!

(And right after that freeze frame, for a split second, it goes down even farther)

and my nephew, who has broken his ankle twice in the last 3 years, had the same thing. His ankle was actually broken, whereas mine was a severe sprain with torn ligaments. This what was put on at the hospital for both of us. Neither of us ever had a plaster cast. Even if we did, a cast for a broken ankle usually only comes mid calf, if even that high.

And does it make any sense to you at all that he wouldn't show it on video for even a second, given the circumstances?

You don't find it even a bit curious that they didn't show it at all or even REFERENCE it whatsoever? Tell me, does that really make sense to you?

And a leg is most definitely different than an ankle.

Lower leg/ankle, same point. I broke my leg/ankle, technically was a fractured non-displaced medial malleolus (lower part of a leg bone which impacted my ankle since that part affects both). And these days large plaster casts are not as common.

from your claim of "they outright lied" to "a bit curious".

"a leg is most definitely different than an ankle." I guess you're not an orthopedist, just an authority on 'outright lies'. You disregard the fact that the two lower leg bones (tibia and fibula) are two of the three ankle bones (as shown above). If you break your tibia, have you broken your leg or your ankle?



Here is an illustration of varous types of broken ankle ("ankle fractures"). I would call two a broken "leg", but I'm not a doctor.



I knew nothing of Rev. Yearwood prior to this incident. I don't know much about him other than what the videos show.

You have called him an 'outright liar' on more than one thread without any backup. You seem quite interested in the person. Why?

You have provided NOTHING whatever to illustrate any of your bullshit at all. None.

I am not sure why it is so important to you. You even claim that there is a further frame in the video than there actually is. Why?

You claim he is in jeans. (He is in black slacks, as fitting to the dress of a reverend). Why?

You seem to have a peculiar interest (other than not being the least interested in the work of RY) in smearing Yearwood as a 'liar' regarding the specific location of the bone break of the tibia or fibula. Why?

Why do you call him a liar with nothing to base it on? Why is that?

Refer to the illustration above. Who (but you) cares to split hairs over the difference between ankle and leg, as they are the same bones. Kindly provide a concise division to differentiate, as you are calling people "liars".

:rofl:

They said he broke his LEG and that it was in a CAST. I see no cast. Furthermore, it is quite perplexing that he would have a video of that nature and just so conveniently happen to avoid showing his injury AT ALL. Tel me, that doesn't strike you as odd in the slightest?

Hey, believe what you want. But I ain't believing a thing until the inconsistencies stop and there's a bit more credibility.

And I haven't diagnosed anybody. He diagnosed himself. I'm merely providing my observation on what I saw on the video. Am I declaring it fact? No. But is it highly suspicious? Absofuckinglutely.

Didn't you listen to the video in the OP? You make it sound like you did:

"OPERATIONMINDCRIME (1000+ posts) Wed Sep-12-07 11:09 PM
Response to Original message
4. I've Heard The Guilty Speak Like That A Hundred Times. That Calm, Poor Me, Innocent Victim,
desperately trying to be rational voice. That was a cookie cutter 'trying to come off as perfectly innocent' type video. It is so blatant.

But the part that gets to me the most is that it exposes his and his spokeswoman's lie outright, that he broke his leg and it was in a cast. It is plain to see in the video that there is no cast on his leg so it is now quite apparent that they outright lied about that part. At least now I know my gut feeling was right.

He can put on that smooth talking, I'm so calm and rational how dare they do this to me voice all he wants. He disobeyed direct instructions, acted defiant, and lunged abruptly towards the door and other cops. It's a shame it had to turn out the way it did, but he's by no means some innocent victim here. It is also quite disturbing that they would like so outright about his having broken a leg.

That's it for me on this. Go believe whatever you want."

Listen again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bibOz2WkNg
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"And does it make any sense to you at all that he wouldn't show it on video for even a second, given the circumstances?"

Yes, it makes plenty of sense. If he *did* show off the cast, people would be trying to accuse him of trying to use it to arouse or anger his base, young black men & women, into some kind of civil disobedience against cops.

But that's just my opinion...

Ghost

chirp chirp..

All I know is multiple sources supposedly confirmed he had a broken leg and that it was in a cast. Now supposedly it's torn ankle ligaments. How hard is it to get the injury straight?

And do you really believe that malarkey about why he wouldn't have shown the cast? :rofl:

Give me a break. They'd use it as propaganda in a heart beat.

But you can believe whatever you want. There's way too much fishy about all this and inconsistent about it all for me to just buy into it hook line and sinker. I think I'll await more credible confirmation.

You never responded to another reply I left you:

"Ghost in the Machine (1000+ posts) Tue Sep-11-07 09:02 PM
Response to Reply #4
18. When I severely sprained (rolled) my ankle, the doctor told me I would have been better
Edited on Tue Sep-11-07 09:03 PM by Ghost in the Machine
off if I had broken it, that it was worse than a break and would take longer to heal with the pulled muscles, ligaments and tendons.

Sorry, I don't have the info you're looking for, but just passing along that sometimes a sprain is worse than a break.

Maybe they just say "broke" his ankle to show the severity of it... afterall, 'broke' does sound worse than 'severely sprained', doesn't it?

I can understand them doing that because I go through it myself. When I talk about my disabling accident at work, I just say "I fell off a roof and broke my neck", although I didn't really "break" my neck. It's just easier & quicker than to explain that I fell off a roof, tried to land on my feet, but went down hard on my ass, causing my spine to compress, which caused a tear in my spinal cord which allowed my cerebrospinal fluid to leak inside my spinal cord, causing a liquid filled cyst, also known as a syrinx, to form inside my spinal cord, destroying it from the inside out as it grew. They had to totally take my neck apart by cutting the vertebra, taking the tops off, lifting my spinal cord up so they could take the bottom pieces out and then shave the insides of my vertebra to make them wider because my spinal cord was so swollen that it was pressing against the insides of the vertebra, causing me partial paralysis. They also had to detach my spinal cord from the vertebra in a couple places where it had grown to the bone. Oh.. they also had to drain the syrinx... and *that* was just the first operation...

See, it's just easier to say "I fell and broke my neck"...

I understand your original reasonings for your question though..."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1787880&mesg_id=1788194

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I've already provided you with a link and a picture to show a cast that doesn't come up to the knee, as well a link and the time to watch for on the video of the man himself saying "my ankle went out. I felt(heard) a "pop"."

The fact that his spokesperson said he "broke his leg" is irrelevant in this discussion. Like someone said: the leg bone is connected to the... well, you know the song..

If a person was ejected from a vehicle during a wreck and slid down the pavement on his face, would you argue whether he had a head injury or not?

I still don't blame you for questioning anything, because my motto is "don't believe anything you hear, and only half of what you see", but I've chosen to believe the video I saw of him being taken down by 4 to 6 cops, and I believe that they broke his ankle...

Question everything!

PEACE!

Ghost

However, it is always good to wait for full information and an accurate diagnoses as sometimes these take a while. For instance, you could think you broke your leg, when in the end all you did was break a bone in your leg, or broke a tendon off a bone (torn tendon that got broken loose). Not to mention displace fractures vs greenstick vs etc etc etc. Instant news is good but not always accurate.

Is that really a limb you want to go out on?

So I guess Rev's attorney is lying as well. He's the one who said it was a broken leg, not an ankle.

"his and his spokeswoman's lie outright", "they outright lied"

That is beyond suggesting. He called them liars.

Then there's this: "smooth talking", "he disobeyed", "defiant".

Hm.

:P

:shrug:

Cause a poster I have on ignore is hijacking my thread with accusations against Rev Yearwood. I find this discussion about whether or not he broke his leg just beyond repulsive. Thank you for all you have done to defend this brave activist. But it sounds like this DUer doesn't understand the point here and I am not sure he ever will.

He was tackled to the ground for allegedly cutting in line. How that is in any way acceptable behavior on the part of the police is beyond me. OPERATIONMINDCRIME, for some reason, is adamant on focusing on the completely irrelevant issue of his injury.

It's puzzling. :eyes:

Go see the other main thread on this. I've addressed this a brazillion times already. Your argument above is completely disingenuous.

I think you were seeing things.

don't see a pierced navel either.

It's a good thing for the Reverend that he wasn't being "uppity"--I hear that's still a lynching offense in some states! :eyes:

He also didn't break his leg.

He's the one who acted defiant and lunged away abruptly. It is perfectly expected that they would then subdue him. He also continued to resist once on the ground, or at least it appears that way on the video. Nowhere do you see the cops punching, kicking, overly pulling, or being overly aggressive as can be seen in some other brutality type videos. In fact, everything seemed quite by the book. And if his leg or ankle was injured, it was still an inadvertant outcome of his defiance and lunging. No cops came down hard on his leg or did anything to facilitate that sort of injury. He may have twisted it on his way down but then shit happens. All I know is there was all sorts of stuff yesterday about him having broken his ankle or leg, followed by multiple confirmations that he broke his leg and it was in a cast. That appears now to be blatantly misleading and false.

Not beat up innocent people.

Sorry, wrong again.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Oh how I love over the top rhetoric with no basis in reality.

Beleive whatever you want. I'll continue to believe facts as they actually exist.

and the cops put him in the hospital.

:shrug:

He not only lunged towards the door, but in the direction of other officers as well. That's a fucking fact pal. And when you do that, after they are calmly trying to escort you away, then you'd be the worlds biggest moron to think you'd be able to just go lunging on your merry way without their apprehending you further.

He brought the situation on himself through his direct behavior, all of which can be seen on the video. He is no innocent victim here. He is the root cause of the outcome.

So go on believing whatever 'cops are nazis!' silliness you want. I'll go on believing what's actually real.

The Reverend had a right to be there.

The role of the police is to serve and protect. Not put innocent people in the hospital.

It's on tape, OPERATIONMINDCRIME!!!!!!!!!

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

your description of the event is not accurate.

Rev stands near the door, asking police why he won't be admitted, and eventually moves off in a direction away from the hearing room door. A policeman immediately puts both hands on Rev's back. Rev turns slightly.



Rev apparently looses his footing and goes partly down. Two officers then grip (lift?) him, and while he may still be attempting to regain footing and is off balance, is propelled or shoved forward into other officers and he is taken down.





The part where Rev first loses his footing, is lifted and taken down again takes place in one second.

From the time Rev loses his footing, two officers had their hands on him. He does not seem to ever have regained footing.

Note the arm of the officer with the hat. As Rev is being brought up, officer's arm moves from Rev's arm onto his back to immediately propel Rev forward toward the other officers.

You never had any credibility, but now I think you've gone into negative territory.

OPERATIONMINDCRIME, There is a video of this. I don't know if you are forgetting this or if you really are this stubborn. Click anywhere here in this paragraph to watch the video again. Just click. It is incomprehensible that you can continue on this absurd path. There is video evidence. You can't do what you usually do when there is video evidence. Or so I used to think!

:rofl:

I'mm so done with this. You all can believe whatever silliness you want. I'll continue to sit here in awe shaking my head back and forth while laughing my ass off at the claims of police brutality here. My god. :rofl:

That's all for this. This has gotten too silly.

He did it to himself. He brought the outcome on himself. He is to blame. The cops acted appropriately. He then exaggerated his injury if not outright lied about it, since there is no broken leg. This whole thing is just one more piece of false propaganda.

So go on posting whatever mockeries and ridiculousness you want. I know the immature comments are bound to keep flying as they've done throughout this thread already. But I'm done. It's been beaten to death already. It's all just too funny to me how some over react here to things like this.

Or, at least pretend to be outraged.

Everybody can see the video. And you expect everybody to believe you, instead of their own lying eyes. And then you act surprised when nobody does.

Nobody cares about your intepretation of the "fact" or your opinions.

You've really marginalized yourself this time.

I'm generally amused whenever you get into one of these back and forth flame fests, OPERATIONMINDCRIME, but you've really outdone yourself this time. I'm actually laughing out loud as I type this. This is hilarious.

You persistently continue while video evidence directly contradicts you! :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

See for yourself.
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/62293/?hidecomments=on

That's the whole point here, not the details of what happened to him but WHY the cops did this.

Prior to the Rev lunging for the door/officer (bad camera angle), the cops were clearly in the wrong. Afterward, what the Rev got was SOP. Frankly I am surprised that the cops went as gentle on him as they did, but they may have remembered that the whole thing was being recorded on multiple video cameras.

The cops' bad behavior does not excuse the Rev for his behavior.

And no he didn't lunge. He was walking. He repeatedly asked the cops why he was being refused entry and they did not answer. Then they attacked him.

This just blows my mind that anyone would blame this peaceful man for provoking the cops. Or that anyone would quibble over his exact injuries. Sorry you do't see what is happening here.

Last week, Tina Richards was attacked by a swat team on horse back and injured while she was arrested for PUTTING A SIGN UP in DC. No, she didn't resist either.

The next day, a woman (another peace activist) was arrested for WALKING DOWN THE STREET in DC and held for 26 hours IN SHACKLES (Tina was held in shackles too) and then her case was thrown out by a judge.

Then on Monday, Rev Yearwood was assaulted FOR TRYING TO GO TO A HEARING.

It's fascism. Good grief, it is NOT okay.

"And no he didn't lunge. He was walking."

You call that walking? :rofl:

For real, you can't see when he lunges away? You really with a straight face can claim that was walking? You truly believe this? Holy cow you've got to be kidding.


"He repeatedly asked the cops why he was being refused entry and they did not answer."

Please get your facts straight. You're making this part up. They told him several times why. In fact, near the beginning of the video, you can quite clearly hear the initial officer calmly explain to him that he isn't being singled out but that he had not been in line.



"Then they attacked him. "

Oh god how I love these overdramatic no basis in reality statements LOL. Attacked? Where's this alleged attack? Geez, you can't see him lunge but you can see him attacked? No hits, no kicks, no pulling, no abuse. He resisted arrest and lunged to break free towards the door. They then subdued him as would be SOP. Resisting arrest isn't exactly a great idea, ya know.


"This just blows my mind that anyone would blame this peaceful man for provoking the cops."

He was disruptive and defiant (to direct orders) and then resisted arrest and lunged to break away. Yeah, how dare we like, ya know, tell the truth and stuff. I mean, we should all lie and make things up in order to change the story when the truth points in a direction other than where we want it to go, right? :eyes: No thanks.


"Or that anyone would quibble over his exact injuries."

Facts matter. It was confirmed from multiple sources that he had been DIAGNOSED with a broken leg and it was in a cast. That was an outright lie designed to sensationalize the story further. Now the claim is torn ankle tendons, though I'm not sure if I should even believe that. But if true so what, it's still due to his own actions. But it is important to get the FACTS about an incidence like this, rather than just knee jerk reacting emotionally and calling everyone fascists. If his injuries didn't matter so much, then all the knee jerkers wouldn't have been touting it like a broken record ever since. Propaganda, nothing more.


"Sorry you do't see what is happening here."

Ah my dear but we actually do, quite readily. That's why me and a few others are speaking up honorably in an attempt to defend against those who are sensationalizing this story for sake of propaganda and outrage while demonizing cops unfairly.


"Then on Monday, Rev Yearwood was assaulted FOR TRYING TO GO TO A HEARING."

No, he wasn't. He was arrested for disorderly conduct after refusing to obey direct orders and continuing to be defiant and disruptive, in the halls of congress. He was injured after he resisted arrest and tried to break free and lunge away. And those are the facts. And facts matter. (yes, even the ones you don't like)


"It's fascism."

No, no, it's not. I don't expect you to be able to see why that claim is so beyond absurd.

He walked away, and while he was walking an officer grabbed him from behind, at which point he had the kind of reaction any human being has when grabbed from behind, which is followed by the officer tackling him to the ground and other officers joining in.

IT'S ON TAPE.

:rofl:

Your interpretation borders on hilarious.

You are right. It is on tape. He lunges away abruptly in an attempt to resist arrest, after they verbally tell him he is under arrest. His desperate screams of "why? I'm NOT being arrested" make his intentions quite clear.

But nice try with the hilariously absurd interpretation that he was just innocently spooked and flinched a little. You're too much! :rofl:

It's as if it is not possible for you to ever admit you are wrong, which is almost all the time.

Here it is in pictures, if video is too hard for you.

Come on, OPERATIONMINDCRIME you're just being silly now.

many in this thread. This was such a benign incident brought on by his own behavior and actions. It is so clear to see from the very video you keep flaunting. Yet so many, including yourself, keep putting forth this amazingly warped perception that isn't even close to the reality of what occurred. So that's what I find unbelievable.

Keep posting your link as much as you want. Keep trying to claim that the video shows something it doesn't. Repetition is not going to alter the reality nor change the contents of that video, no matter how hard you try. All of your mockeries and confident attacking in the world can't change that. Mock me all you want. Belittle me all you want. But I'm the one on sane and accurate ground here, with all due respect.

He flat out resisted arrest. They told him he was going to be placed under arrest at which point he became desperate and asked in a shocked tone 'why?'. As soon as they went to proceed with the arrest, he tried to lunge away and break free in an attempt to resist arrest, at which point they calmly and professionally subdued him. You are right: It is all right there on the video. If you take your warped perception blinders off, you'll see it for exactly what it is, which is what I've described.

It is you who cannot admit wrong here, because you have to much at stake to do so. The cops just HAVE to be wrong in your world. They just HAVE to be fascists in your world. He just HAD to be innocent, no matter what, in your world. And nothing presented to you, no video, no audio, no anything, could ever in a million years convince you or some of the others of otherwise. Why? Because your minds are made up from the get go before you ever even see the footage. Just reading the headline is enough for your minds to snap shut and declare "those goddamn fascist brownshirts! What'd they do now???", and then with a scowl proceed to open the video just to see how outraged you'll actually be, without ever a whiff of objectivity while viewing it.

So spare me your mockeries and false attacks. I'm speaking the truth as can readily be seen on the video and in fact is clear as day to those who actually DID view it with an open mind. But it is you and some others who let objectivity fly out the window and had your opinion made up before the link was even clicked. Sure, you'll deny it to your deathbed, but that doesn't fool anyone. We that know better know full well what the people found in this thread were going to say and what their opinion would be, and that it would've been that way NO MATTER WHAT WAS ON THE VIDEO.

So you ain't foolin anybody, least of all me. So go on with your petty and misguided attacks. I know I'm standing on the solid ground of reality and all of your laughter and denial in the world ain't gonna change that.

He was belligerent and defiant. He resisted arrest. He lunged and tried to escape them. He was an idiot. He was apprehended and subdued due to his actions. Those things are facts. You can either accept them as such and admit your error, or you can continue to put forth these silly and completely misguided perceptions of what you believe happened. Makes no difference to me. But it's just too damn predictable.

He did lunge. The police swarmed him, took him to the ground with minimal violence, then apparently sent him to the hospital for treatment of his leg. This is all very clear from the video. At this point he was no longer a peaceful man and got treated exactly like any violent man should have been.

Prior to his lunging, he was very peaceful and very in the right; and the cops were very in the wrong. Then the Reverend "lost his mind" and got the prescribed response anyone would expect.

Had the Reverend gone peacefully with the cops, or at least peacefully refused to go, he would have gotten lots of mileage out of this. The correct response the Reverend should have used was to get a higher ranking officer to correct the junior officer's mistake. Unfortunately he chose otherwise.

I have no quibble with his injuries. I would have been surprised if he had none. Ankles, elbows, and shoulders are expected injuries in these type of actions.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1795477&mesg_id=1809161

OMC has a twin. How wonderful for him. :puke:

Oh, BTW, when all these activists in DC are marching tomorrow, and when we are marching here in my city, we will all be marching for YOU and your children against the fascist behavior of the police and against the war mongers. And if anyone is assaulted and arrested by brown shirted thugs, they will go to jail for YOU.

Keep that in mind while you are watching football or shopping or whatever you are doing tomorrow.

he was not so serious in his mistake. He can repeat it as often as he wants, but that will not make him any less wrong about what is shown in the video.

I make no excuses for the bad behavior of the Reverend. Nor do I excuse the bad behavior of the cops. However, two wrongs do not make a right.

Feel free to march/protest on my behalf, and thank you for doing so. However, if you are going to jail because you do something stupid when you could have easily done the right action and got lots of good press for it, you go to jail on your own and certainly NOT on my behalf.

I don't know much about OMC, but I do know that he understands what he sees on the video, unlike L_S and many others.

As a long time activist, I am anxious to hear what you think is right. And how we can get any press, not only good press. :rofl:

to arrest you? Know your rights. Know and follow the correct procedures when dealing with and correcting junior officers who make mistakes, including being calm and polite. But then you knew this already, based on your smiley.

Good press is everything. Bad press makes you look like an idiot to the non-protesters and gets you dismissed off hand.

edit: typos.

First: They had NO reason to arrest him. None. He did not break any law and he did not give them any "excuse", and your use of the word "excuse" clearly demonstrates that you do know these actions by the police were unjustified.

Second: It is not the civilian's obligation to "know correct procedures", to "correct junior officers", and no, not even to "be calm and polite".

Are we talking about the United States of America, a supposedly free country? What is with this Gestapo apologist garbage I have been reading on DU lately?

While the Reverend was calm and polite, he could have gone on all day. Then he did the lunge and gave the cops the one and only real reason they needed to arrest him.

Not only were were the initial actions of the cops (skipping the Reverend and others with the admission "tickets") unjustified, they were probably illegal.

After the lunge, the actions of the cops were legal, expected, and by the book.

You can chose to accept societies rules, or suffer the consequences by going to jail. Personally, I will take the High Road, help correct the errors of those in need of correction, and go home at the end of the day. My time is too valuable to be wasted sitting in jail due to stupidity.

If you choose not to correct the junior officers, then you choose to let them take your rights away. If you choose the wrong method of correction by not using common sense, you will get what the Reverend got (or worse).

You can choose to be calm and polite (and firm in your convictions) or you can let your emotions get the best of you and pay the price by interacting wrongly with the cops.

Freedom to choose is a good thing, but bad choices often have unpleasant, and usually predictable, consequences.

The hand picked frames and their misinterpretation do not help your case.

Yes, the cops initially screwed up to the point of possibly being illegal, including the attempt at an improper arrest.

Then the Reverend lost is mind and attempted to get away or enter the room. This gave the cops all the real reason for arrest that they needed.

OMC is not the only one on this thread that can diagnose by video.

"lost his mind". Now that your diagnosis has been rendered, you can hang up your white coat and leave the office.

(pardon me, this was a response to Dr. ManiacJoe's diagnosis/post #115)

Feel free to substitute any other euphemism for "stopped thinking clearly" as you wish. I will happily accept any you choose.

Assuming semantics are not really what you are now looking to argue over.

"Indisputable evidence of false arrest and assault and battery by the Capital Police."

"Indisputable evidence of false arrest" accurately describes the pre-lunge activities by the cops.

"assault and battery by the Capital Police" is not supported by the video evidence as post-lunge activities by the cops. Feel free to correct me if there is something in the pre-lunge activities that you think qualifies as such that you think I have missed.

Starting to exit, got dropped, then he "lost his mind" by trying to save himself while falling, trying to regain his balance or control his fall is losing his mind? Wild interpretation.

The cops started escorting him away. He lunged for the door (aka, "lost his mind"). The cops swarmed him, took him to the floor, and put him in handcuffs.

During the handcuffing, the cops easily could have had difficulties due to the multiple cops trying to control him thus getting into each others' way. Hence the multiple commands to quit resisting; but this is not in question.

swarmed and down.

"He started towards the door, stumbled, got swarmed and down."

This is not a bad interpretation. The mistake made by the Reverend is that he forcefully started towards the door using a quick direction change. Also called lunging.

Given that he was probably wearing dress shoes and on a polished floor, it is also reasonable that his lunge ended so awkwardly just prior to the swarm of cops taking him to the floor. Had he been wearing sneakers, he would have gotten closer to the door before the swarm hit him. (Not that it would have changed anything in the Grand Scheme of things.)

The problem with this thread is the many folks are either honestly mistaken or willfully mistaken in not seeing the "lunge" part.

"Know and follow the correct procedures when dealing with and correcting junior officers who make mistakes, including being calm and polite"

What the fuck are "correct procedures"?

What law did Rev Yearwood break? He was notified of being under arrest at the 52 second mark, while asking why he was not being admitted to a public hearing and why he was being singled out. "Why are you singling me out? Yes, everybody says I was in line." Presenting his story and questioning his treatment is not following "correct procedure"?

Apparently you (and the police) believe that questioning police is not following "correct procedure" and is an "excuse for cops to arrest you", without having violated any law.

You say "know your rights", then say we have none if we do not present ourselves as "calm and polite", within "correct procedure" and in such a manner as to assure "good press".

If failure to be calm is a crime, then they'd better come and get me now.

Correct procedure: When a person in a junior position makes a mistake, refer them to their supervisor for correction. Applies to law enforcement, business, and everything else I can think of.

Yes, he was singled out. This is the mistake of the junior LEO. The correct action for the Reverend was to get a Sgt or Lt involved to correct the mistake. Yes, that takes time. Yes, that may still not get him into the hearing due to the time involved. No, it will not send him to jail. Trying to argue your case with a low level LEO is bad tactics and a waste of time as it will not work for you. There is a reason they are still at the junior level.

If you choose to not be calm and polite, the cops will just wait you out and let you give them all they need to arrest you, all by your effort. However, if you can maintain your wits while being other than calm and polite, more power to you.

ALWAYS question those who try to use more authority than they actually have. However, to successfully do so, you need knowledge of your actual rights, of their actual authority, and of the procedures used to navigate through The System. It is a lot more satisfying to use their system against them than to be on the receiving end. In the meantime, work to change the system if you don't like it.

Your comments and interpretation are so strange, I hardly know what to think (or maybe I do).

Rev Yearwood was walking away from the situation (not happy, and still prostesting outrage at the situation), was grabbed from behind by a police officer with both arms. Yearwood then turned about a quarter turn (a natural reaction when someone grabs you from behind), then immediately went down with a pile of police on top of him.

There was no "lunge" toward the door.

But have it your way. Here's a pickle.

Thank you for kicking this thread back to the top. I needed a laugh after that depressing speech.

It's amazing to see how far some people are willing to bend over backwards to justify police brutality in the name of "keeping the peace." Thank goodness this country was founded by those who weren't afraid of "acting defiant."

:rofl:
:spray:
:crazy:

Whatever you say pal!

He definitely moved towards the door. He was not pushed. Given the angle of the video, it's possible that he was pulled in that direction, but who pulls somebody down on top of themself? And who gets pulled over so easily? But he certainly moved towards the door before he was taken down. He might have been pulled that way, but that's not what he claimed, and I am not even sure there is a cop in that direction to have done the pulling. I have watched that video four or five times and clearly see him make a move to the door. I cannot see the assault that others here are outraged about. I think the denials and the outrage are strange.

:toast:

Perhaps someone not resisting while being grabbed by two officers and being (as you say) "pulled in that direction".

So now he's criminal for being "pulled over easily", being "pulled in that direction" and piled on by six officers.

Just fucking amazing. I guess you figure that he should have fought back, while having a bible under one arm, rather than being pulled over, and shoved.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1795477&mesg_id=1809188

Still, I grant it is possible. That was not, however, a story that he told. He glosses over it, saying it 'all happened so fast'. The 'stumble' you postulate in your still-shots, seems more like a deliberate 'duck' on his part in the live action.

It's speculation even from the video, since I cannot see all angles, nor see it in 'slow motion'. Neither can anybody else here. My call, however, as an arm-chair ref, is that the Rev made a move towards the door and the officers acted appropriately. It is at least as plausible as 'stumble' or 'pulling' as a theory. I viewed and reviewed it and just do not see a pull or a push or a tackle. Heck, maybe he tripped over somebody else's feet, but he definitely moved towards the door when he should have been standing still.

I think he could have avoided the scuffle by waiting quietly after he was told he was being arrested, or he could have moved when they told him to move away. I also figure he was angry about being denied entry and wanted to make a scene so he could later play martyr. Like the rest of the activists there, he came to the hearing to disrupt and be arrested, and now he claims to have been 'beaten'. His statement lacks credibility. I don't like saying that about somebody who is passionate about ending the war, but the video is there, and I call it as I see it.

His focus is quite the opposite. He seems concerned that this sort of violence by police may intimidate peace-supporting people of color from showing up at marches.



So WHO benefitted by this show of police violence against a peace activist???? Those who would hope to discourage other people of color from showing up to be harrassed, beaten and arrested? Yearwood stated at the scene that he had no intent to (perform civil disobedience) be arrested that day.

What crime do you believe the Reverend committed, OMC?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

"Openly mocking" is a bit closer, I think.

I can always figure out it is him. LOL

He apparently thinks he's unique as well, check the whole subthread on this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1777353&mesg_id=1783335

Most of which are demonstrably untrue.

Just look at the comment in his profile.

.....

Waiting....


.....


Waiting.....


He responds to everything else......


Waiting.....

.....

Always dodges the question. "I'm too smart and logical to respond to that question."

That sort of thing.

Only he is capable of starting an argument by siding with the police when there is video evidence of their unjustified actions.

So if I start ignoring it a bit more often, you'll have to get over it.

:rofl:

:thumbsup: Nailed it in one. :thumbsup:

You're basically arguing with people who want so bad for the carnage between the "people" and "the man" to begin that arrests for disorderly conduct in the halls of Congress are PROOF POSITIVE THAT IT"S FASCISM NOW!!!. Believe me, if it was "fascism yet" you wouldn't have to fire up your computer and hop on an internet forum to get your answer.
I'm amazed at the amount of personal attacks the mods overlook when it comes to you.Lots of thin skinned posters here who can dish it out,but wail like babies when anyone dares to disagree with them.

"I'm amazed at the amount of personal attacks the mods overlook when it comes from you."

Fixed that for you. :hi:

I guess, at its core, it's because I care for this community as well as its image, and I feel like if ridiculously exaggerated and nonsensical premises like these went unchallenged, then onlookers might believe that it is representative of how our entire community feels. I think maybe I respond in an effort to show that there are those here who recognize how absolutely absurd the premise is, rather than the thread being one big lockstep.

I know so many others here agree with our position as well, but most wouldn't dare speak it due to the pirahna like abuse that would come their way if they did, as can be well recognized in this thread. I speak for them as well, because I'm so used to the playground abuse that it doesn't really phase me, and I don't mind sacrificing myself for them, in order to get our side out. But I do thank you for your reply and defense. And I agree with you about the fascism thing too. It's embarrassing how often that terms thrown around at the drop of a pin.

because it smacks of prejudice-

"I have heard the guilty speak like that...."

"That was a cookie cutter 'trying to come off as perfectly innocent' TYPE video"


I hope if you are ever at the mercy of a jury OMC- the term you use to describe your perspective-
the claim of "objectivity" is held to a much stricter standard for those who would determine YOUR guilt or innocence.

You have a decided prejudice of this incident-

Where was the 'evidence' that Rev. Yearwood "cut ahead" in the line????-

I'm old enough to have been part of the generation raised with the need to "QUESTION AUTHORITY"-
Something that needs to be resurrected and remembered today, more than ever.

If you were an African American Male- you might be less inclined to just assume the position that those who wear Police uniforms DICTATE to you- without due cause-- regardless of the ethnicity of the person behind the badge.-

Can you explain why a white male wearing shorts, a canvas hat, carrying a large backpack was allowed to simply stroll by the officers from behind where Rev. Yearwood was standing, without anyone even batting an eye????

Does it matter what part of a persons limb was injured by the Police? Would you have preferred to see some blood perhaps? Would a body cast have changed your 'opinion' of his treatment at the hands of the Officers?

Racism is not only alive and well in the US- it has been undergoing a sick revival under the * administration. IMO.

From the Amy Goodman interview:



It seems pretty obvious that the 'broken leg' reports came about before they figured out exactly what the injury was. Sheesh. :eyes:

It was confirmed supposedly by his spokeswoman as well as his lawyers that he had a broken leg and it was in a cast. Now all of a sudden it is torn ankle ligaments?

I don't know. I'm going to continue to be wary about this until something a bit more credible comes along.

Rev. Yearwood 'assaulted an officer'?

What kind of injury will the officer need to have to satisfy you that he was assaulted?

Justice is a two way street- otherwise it isn't JUST- it's "just" us-

though, so I'm not sure if they did or didn't have a reason. Hopefully more details as to what the assault had been will come out.

Having had both a broken bone and torn ligaments, the torn ligaments are by far the worst injury.

You go right along and be wary. There's a nice spot right over there in the established "Free Speech" zone behind the chain link fence around that corner. Enjoy your stay.

Do you have any idea how much it hurts? The reaction of most people to a localized injury like that would be to assume that they'd fractured a bone.

It's quite believable that the Rev. thought his leg was broken until a medical examination confirmed otherwise. Unless, of course, you simply have a bone to pick with uppity people who dare to disagree with the police.

I'm going to listen to it later (I'm listening to Malloy right now).

What an awesome woman!!!! I just love her. She should be the 1st woman President !!!!!!!!

** What happened to Rev Yearwood is disgraceful *******

Who was the officer who denied him entrance?

I am calling my Rep. Keith Ellison, to see what he has to say about what happened to Rev Yearwood

Col. Ann is friends with my business partner, close friend, and Kucinich volunteer coordinator, Jeeni Criscenzo, who ran against Issa last year.

I got to meet Ann, and converse with her, at a Jeeni fundraiser last year; she's wonderful - she's very sincere and knowledgeable.

I also met Jeeni in Chicago this summer.

They are both inspirational.

thank you!

"Democracy While Black" - Rev. Lennox Yearwood Arrested, Charged with Assault While Entering Petraeus Hearing

The Rev. Lennox Yearwood, president of the Hip Hop Caucus, was tackled by six Capitol police officers after he tried to enter the Petraeus hearing on Monday. Rev. Yearwood was injured in the incident taken to hospital. He was later charged him with felony assault of a police officer.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/13/1445202

I read the transcript.

Rev Y was charged by police with "felony assault on a police officer". It was thrown out by the court.

They tried to get a judgement in court to BAR HIM FROM THE CAPITOL. It was thrown out. Rev Y is an ORGANIZER and LEADER of the Sept. 15 march on the capitol.

I get it now!

I couldn't get 'motive' for messing with Rev Y., but it seems apparent that the object was to have him charged and barred from leading or being present at the protest. He is known to the police as a protest leader, organizer and peace activist.

One officer put his hand on him early on, well before being arrested when RY questioned why he was not being admitted. The same officer who gripped Rev when RY went off balance before being sent to the floor:



I note that the officer with the hat puts hands on RY when he lost his footing, and appears to then lean his weight and body momentum (his hand on RY's BACK) TOWARDS the direction RY was propelled. Were the officer with hat tried to prevent a 'lunge', his body position would have been entirely different (leaning against the direction of RY, trying to foil it).

See frames 2 & 3, officer's leg, arm and weight motion.



Rev Y was not lunging, he was hurled/propelled.

I am sorry if I am being dense but what does Rev. Yearwood being assaulted have to do with what part of his body was injured????:shrug: The Capitol Police threw the man to the ground. What difference does it make if he has a cast or not?

I read one report where the police were issuing blue slips for people to go into the hearings. Witnesses said he was ignored while being in line with no explanation. This is the people's government. Rev. Yearwood is the people.

People are just arguing trivialities and missing the bigger picture.