The Capitol Hill Police Broke Reverend Lennox Yearwood's Leg In Order to keep him away from Petraus' Hearing.


Yearwood is president of the Hip Hop Caucus. A statement from the group says: "Rev. Yearwood was attacked by six Capitol police [Monday], when he was stopped from entering the Cannon Caucus Room on Capitol Hill, where Gen. Petreaus gave testimony ... to a joint hearing for the House Arms Services Committee and Foreign Relations Committee on the war in Iraq.

"After waiting in line throughout the morning for the hearing that was scheduled to start at 12:30 p.m., Rev. Yearwood was stopped from entering the room, while others behind him were allowed to enter. He told the officers blocking his ability to enter the room that he was waiting in line with everyone else and had the right to enter as well. When they threatened him with arrest he responded with 'I will not be arrested today.' According to witnesses, six Capitol police, without warning, 'football tackled' him. He was carried off in a wheelchair by D.C. Fire and Emergency to George Washington Hospital."


Question For Debate: Was this a case of Police Brutality?

Thou be the judge.

Question For Debate: Was this a case of Police Brutality?


No. If one reviews the video objectively, difficult for some here to do I know, they will notice that at the 1:40 mark the "Rev" makes a lunge at the Capitol Police officers in an attempt to enter the hearing room. They wrestle him down to the floor. How he "broke his leg" during the altercation is unclear. I sure didn't see anyone beating on him or anything like that, so I don't know how that happened. I will say though that the video presented was pretty good, almost television news standards. They had exactly the right angles, perfect shots, nice lighting and pretty decent audio. Why it was almost like the entire thing was staged, but of course the whacklibs would never do anything like that would they? Or would they?


I don't know, makes for good TV though.


Aquilla

No.

But more importantly, listen, everyone... if I am ever in an altercation with police please, I beg you all - SHUT UP! If I'm a cop and hear some whiny batch screeching "He's a minister, he's a man of peace" I'm GOING to START hitting the guy on the ground. Which is probably why I'm not a police officer... stupid psychological profile... anyway...

I can't wait for Al Sharpton and the NAACP to defend this dude. The video does show him as the aggressor. I believe that they should've pepper sprayed him also. That would've taught him a lesson.

Igmos... we all know he was trying to make press.

I agree. Anytime a person or group tries to “stage” something for the camera maximum non lethal force should be used – like the pepper spray.

Theses idiots endanger hard working police and you can be sure if the cop gets hurt it will NOT be news anywhere.

" they should have pepper sprayed him"? "maximum non lethal force should be used"? "these idiots (?) endanger hard working police"? These are probably one of the most absurd things I have read here on . I hope both of you are making a joke here, but unfortunately I doubt this is the case.

Was this a case of Police Brutality?


100% sure the actions of these police men fall within this definition. Come on, we are talking about a minister here, not some kind of dangerous lunatic. A minister who got floored by a bunch of overzealous police officers!!

The operative phrase these days is respect mai authritay!

Was this a case of police brutality?
Not if the good reverend was on the NSA's watch list. Goddamned peaceniks. They should've shot him in the other knee to make sure he couldn't get up and wobble out of reach from our imperiled, courageous and unappreciated Capitol Hill Police!

The idea Renger is that the minister staged this event. Sort of a Suicide By Cop Lite. I can't see how his leg was broken in this video.

So if you buy into this being a staged event, or at least an event that the minister hoped would turn out this way then Yes, the minister did endanger those Police. Watch the damned video! The Police are calm and in no way threatening the minister and then he lunges/darts and then he's on the ground. He knew exactly what the outcome of this would be. Be sure to watch this to the end. The cops aren't try block anything, and they are hardly brutalizing the minister.

Except the reverend from reaching a so-called public hearing mandated by the last "emergency" supplemental bill. You're probably right about it being staged, tho. Peaceniks are notorious attention whores.

In most amusement parks they have signs that alert and warn patrons .

They should also place warning signs in the capitol hallways advising citizens that they should not attempt to enter hearings if they are not republicans and/or lily white .

The BA does not want CSPAN to accidentally show an uppity negro protesting the Iraqi invasion or embarassing Gen Petraeus. ,. Folks in Iowa may resent that.

TaTa

There was a long line of people, mostly ugly women dressed in equally ugly pink dresses waiting to get into the hearing room and collect their 15 secs of fame. The "Rev" attempted to cut into the line and when the Capiitol Police stopped him, he charged them. Now any moron, even a whacklib moron should know that if you charge at a police officer bad things are going to happen. In this case the "Rev" ended up with an alleged booboo.


Aquilla

I can't tell by watching the beginning of the video whether the Rev cut into the line because the video clip begins with the Rev at the front of the line. He did try to get past them, though, and before that asks them why they're singling him out.

After a lot of Googling - I see I could havce just read your post. Yes Yearwood was cutting the line as he saw that he might not make it. So that's how it starts. So Yearwood is at fault initially. He's either allegedly injured his ankle or leg.

Okay, you are convinced this a staged event ... where is your proof for that? On what evidence does this argument rests? I m curious.



I did watch the "damn" video BA, three times now and in no way did he endanger those police officers. Did he really posed a threat to anyone? He doesn't show any sign of agression at all, instead he stays very calm and polite untill the officers want to arrest him. It is then that he makes a move and before you know it seven police officers jump on him like he is some sort of dangerous lunatic. Seven officers jump on him (a non-violent minister) ... and for what? Doesn't that seem a bit excessive to you? To me it certainly does. But hey, perhaps this is just the usual stuff the U.S. police does, perhaps you are so used to it that it doesn't even strike you as excessive at all any more. Just a thought.

The cops aren't trying to block anything? Are you sure about that, BA? Cause I counted at least two officers who were blocking him to reach the door. It is there job after all, you know, why would they stand there in the first place?

Look closely at the beginning of the video, Lesly. The line of people waiting to get in is on the left of the frame and the "Rev" is on the right when he starts arguing with the police officers. While the argument ensues they are letting people into the hearing room on the left hand side. (appropriate ) It sure looks to me like he was trying to cut the line.


Edited to add a response to Renger.......



Well, if you've watched it three times, I suggest you watch a fourth and this time pay attention. Prior to him charging into the police officer there was absolutely NO indication that the police wanted to arrest him at all. They may have told him that he could be arrested if he continued his disruption in the hall, but no officer made any move whatsoever to arrest him. The physical contact was initiated solely by him when he charged into the officer and attempted to enter the hearing room. I don't know how it is where you come from but back here in the US that's called "assaulting a police officer". And, it's a crime. What the other officers did in response to this assault is called the "swarm maneuver" which is classic police procedure for dealing with a violent person. It's designed to protect not only the officers, but the suspect as well against a further escalation of violence. It allows the police to subdue the person without the use of a baton or pepper spray or anything else. If he did indeed suffer a booboo, and I'm not so sure he really did, then that falls under the category of "stuff happens" and bad stuff can happen when you attack a police officer.

As far as suspicions that the entire thing was staged is concerned, one only has to blow the video up to full screen. That ain't no cellphone video, that's professional quality with broadcast standard equipment. The camera person is in exactly the right position to shoot the scene and capture the audio, particularly the voice of the "Rev". Either he was miked or they used a directional microphone since his words are crystal clear but the officers are background noise. I've seen news video shot by professionals that made it to air with lower quality than this one was. Something to consider I think.



Aquilla

1) He doesn't have to endanger the officers. He wasn't complying with them. He was ALREADY under arrest.
2) Do you know anything about Rev/Minister Yearwood? I'm not saying he's violent, but he is ex-Military, and he's not slight. When you resist arrest and make a quick move in the direction you've been asked not to go chances are you're going to be subdued. In this case, but 6 or 7 police officers.

Sgt. Kimberly Schneider, spokeswoman for the Capitol Police, claimed that Yearwood was stopped from entering the room after attempting to cut in front of people waiting to get in. “What he tried to do was jump to the front of the line. He was told he couldn’t do that,� Schneider said. “And he pretty much charged at the officers to get past them into the room, after he was told not to.

3) I wasn't clear upthread about blocking. I meant they weren't trying to block the camera from rolling. These police did nothing wrong. Several accounts have Yearwood creating a scene, some by his cutting the line, and basically starting a ruckus with the police. They are very calm, and very respectful until he makes a sudden move. Then he is subdued and cuffed. Afterwards the police return to their previous demeanor.
4) As for why I think this is a staged event it's the camera. Oh and Democracy While Black is great bumper sticker...

And lest we forget this is the Capitol Building. These Police report to The Speaker's Office. So you should certainly complain to Nancy Pelosi that her police are out of line attacking a peace loving minister.

I was just thinking the same thing BA. This falls completely in the lap of Nancy Pelosi, how dare she allow such a travesty to take place.

*end sarcasm

I watched the entire video and the police handled the situation as they should. It looked like a staged event to me.

Did anyone else notice the guy with the hat and backpack that was in the video. He was one of the first to be thrown out when they were having mic problems before Petraus spoke.

I found an interview with The Rev from today's Democracy Now. To correct the title of this thread, he says his leg wasn't broken:


I'm not saying the police were blameless here, they did seem rather aggressive. But Yearwood repeatedly says he was "beaten," which is hard to credit if you've seen the video:


Here's Yearwood's explanation of whether he was in line or not:


I'm not convinced the whole thing was staged. I think he was planning to get in to the hearings, loudly call Petraeus a liar, and get arrested for it. But this will probably end up getting him more publicity.

This actually makes some sense. At some point before he makes a move towards the door Yearwood says, "I was waiting in line."

This video was shot and uploaded to YouTube by a group called "WhyNotNews". Here is a link to their website. From the front page of that website we have the following quote.......



Still not convinced, Jobius?


Aquilla

Okay, I watched the clip another three times and I did pay even closer attention this time. Perhaps the police officers made no attempts of arresting him, I agree with that, but they were trying to escort him out of the hallway.


Okay, this a bit were we will probably in the end agree to disagree. I saw this segment (1:40- 1:41) multiple times and in no way did he made physical contact. In all probability he was trying to each the door, instead of attacking the officers. (remember we are not talking about some sort of unstable, agressive lunatic here, we are talking about a minister!) So any charge of "assaulting a police officer" is dubious at best.

BTW: you do know where I am from, it is on the left side of your screen. And if such an incident would happen in my country the chief of the police would have a lot of explaining to do.


I know that procedure and I still think in this instance it was used in an excessive way. They could handled the situation in a better and more sophisticated way, instead of escalating this whole situation.


I will consider it, and I have to agree that indeed the footage is of high quality and the voice of Yearwood is way clearer than the officers. Still this is just speculation, I haven't seen any clear evidence that the minister staged this event.


Funny, you say he was already arrested (on which grounds one might ask), while Aquilla pointed out that there is no indication that he was going to be arrested (which I have to agree with).


And I still believe it was excessive use of force.


Please remember, I am not from the U.S., I do not give a "damn" about Democrats and Republicans and their political mud fights. Pointing out to the fact that Pelosi ( a Democrat) should be held responsible does little to me. I just think (from my own Dutch perception) that the actions of the police officers were out of line.

BTW: you do know where I am from, it is on the left side of your screen. thumbsup.gif And if such an incident would happen in my country the chief of the police would have a lot of explaining to do.

In a way, the Chief of Police reports to Nancy Pelosi.

This wasn't excessive force. It just wasn't. I don't know what you expected the Police to do. I'm thinking tea wasn't an option.

No we are talking about a man deliberately braking the law with his friends there with camera trying to “catch it on film”. This is not demonstration but “stage” and it is despicable no matter which side of the issue you are on.

So yes I would have sprayed the fool. He knew exactly what he was doing.

So you are saying that even though he had waited for over 4 hours and they were letting people who were behind in that he should have simply said "yassa massa" and walk out. Right?

The least you can do here is read the whole thread.

Yearwood admits he left the line to do a radio interview. When he came back Capitol Police thought he was cuting the line. He was there to get arrested anyway. What's the problem?

You do realize that two of the officers he was arguing with were black, right? This isn't a racial thing.

By the way, I'm a regular lurker/observer of these boards. I joined several months ago, only to be distracted by a new job. I just wanted to pop in and comment on this topic that shouldn't really even be a question, methinks.

Question for debate: Was this a case of police brutality?

Of course not. Yearwood was obviously the aggressor, and any sign of this kind of aggression/disruption outside the meeting place of such an important and distinguished body (although I'm not so sure about the "distinguished" part, after hearing some of the comments from such Congresspersons as Hillary Clinton) should be put down immediately. That meeting was too important to be disrupted by someone merely trying to make a commotion, which is obvious from the fact that it was taped by WHYNotNews, which has a quote from the Rev. Yearwood on its home page, signifying a relationship.

There are one gazillion cameras inside the Capitol building . The Police could had easily looked at the tapes and confirmed that he had been in line for over 4 hours. But no sireeeeee, bobski. They had to inflict major mayhem on the brother.

Oh sure, that would have worked. Just hold everyone up in line while you wait for the police to review one gazillion video tapes to find out where the "Rev" was in line. I can just imagine the hysterical howls of the whacklibs over that.

And "major mayhem"? Oh pulleeaassseee.......


Aquilla

You know what BA, I think we have to agree to disagree on this one. Apparently I am the only one in this thread who thinks the actions of the police officers were excessive. It seems that people in the U.S. and people in the Netherlands in general just have different views what appropriate police actions are in these kind of circumstances. Perhaps this difference of views we have on this issue are in part the outcome of different social and cultural backgrounds. I will leave it at that.

Fair enough. However, what should the Police have done instead?

It was clearly over-zealous actions of the police. A broken leg on that Rev, no matter his political intentions or whatever- is inexcusable. I would feel the same if it were anyone but Rev Phelps perhaps. If it were Jerry Falwell, who I think deserves a special place in hell, I would feel the same way. The physical response was absurd.

In fact, if I behaved that way at work- I probably would be looking at termination, just from watching the tape.

Oh, it may have been "staged"- which is a call for MORE proffesional behavior, NOT less.

As far as the camera quality of the shoot whatever- so what? We take a camera with us stunting on motorcycles all the time. The quality is quite high, even though we have no idea what is going to happen- maybe a killer crash, maybe a killer stunt- the bottom line is- it is NOT scripted and it is NOT known what is all going to go down- but it only takes about 500 bucks worth of equipment. Poeple have them everywhere. Slick video production is now in the grasps of even morons like our president - if we can get him to take the lens cover off and look out of the correct side of the camera

but it is a bit of a stretch to say that the high quality video shoot was evidence by itself of a "staged event".

I would say anyone that brings some sort of recording device at any time to any political event is technically "staged" as there is a high possiblity of something newsworthy being caught on tape.

His leg isn't broken. He claims to have torn ligaments. Earlier it was claimed he was in a cast.


How about the fact that he has ties to the organization that was doing the filming? Or, as I just discovered this:

And this is germane to the cops harming the guy how? Protesting is neccesary to the free society- and jack booted thugery is not.

If you're going to go off of the incredibly misinformed topic here and not even read what's been posted under it CR I'm not going to rehash the entire thing for you. Suffice it to say what you think happened, and what happened aren't remotely similar.

Oh brother...... I've seen more violence at the local grocery store when they open another check-out line and someone tries to cut in front of the little old ladies and their shopping carts. If the "Rev" had tried to pull that at the Ralphs in Glendale, CA instead of the Capitol, he'd be in intensive care.

Aquilla

I watched the whole video. I have personally had to deal with mentally disturbed poeple that were actually violent. Only two of us were able to subdue that violent person, with all that "crazy" strength. This was very much over zealous behavior by those cops. This injury and the treatment were both unneccesary and very much unproffesional. IN fact- it is even WORSE if they believe it to be staged- they should have been ultra-vigilent. I have cameras on me at all times at my job- and am aware that my actions are being videotaped, and act as if I am being scrutinzed every minute.

It is unthinkable that they don't behave in the same manner, considering where they are working.

They are NOT the praetorian guard, in charge of man-handling those that don't agree with those inside that room.

They behaved badly, no matter which way you shake it, and need to be held accountable for it.

It is NOT who they wrestled- could have been Rush Limbaugh for all I care- they still botched it, and botched it badly.

Well there's two way to look at that.

If they knew they were being taped and they still did what they did they may feel completely justified. They don't seem hyper aggressive before or after the subduing or Yearwood.

The other is that they didn't know they were being taped.

That, in and of itself, I find to be a horrendous oversite in training, if true. Any well trained department teaches you not to even raise your hands above your head in a clinched fist manner- even when blocking a blow- to avoid the appearance of delivering blows back. Without getting into the specifics of training- I have now watched this vid about 10 times, and I would say, without bringing the politics into it- this would be a training vid on what NOT to do.

I don't really know this reverend's politics and don't care- but this behavior by the cops makes all LEOs and anxillary services that have quasi-corrections type poeple in custody MUCH harder- I am sure, that we will now have a whole new list of crap we can't do when the litigation is over.

The hardest thing to teach a new recruit in LEO or services that have corrections-type duties is that they are NOT to be the judge of the person, outside the behavior being exhibited at the time, and if you lose contorl of yourself, you lose control of the situation. The LEOs here lost control, big time, to the point they harmed the alleged line breaker (whoa, one thing we need to do to keep America safe from terrorists is to stop line breaking, there are so many ignorant rednecks where aevens lives that they are willing to kill over line breaking apparently. )

The first thing you are SUPPOSED to ask is- is this an issue that can be handled now or later? Is it worth physical intervention? Will folks be harmed if there is no physical intervention? Am I engaged in an actual need to restrain this person to keep folks safe or am I engaged in a power play over minor rules violations?

These questions were obviously not asked- because, quite franly whoever started this fracas on the LEO side put the others in harms way over a "line infraction"- pretty big screw up there. I would have let him in, maybe, issued a citation later. At the point they started this shoving match, the only rule broken was that he (possibliy) cut in line.

Big freakin' whoop. This caused someone to get injured, caused un-needed scrutiny on the department, and could have potentionally harmed an LEO at the same time.

I will switch it up and say, oh, Rush Limbaugh was the non-LEO in this fracas- and I would put my analysis in the same manner- it doesn't matter who the civilian in question is- it matters on how the police handled it- and they handled it very , very badly.

They ended up in a power play over line placement - NOT GOOD. I may use that as further issue if they were thrown out at a later time for another infraction- but this one was NOT a reason to use force.

I just watched the "tackle" and I don't see and clenched fists. Can you point that out by time?

Sorry- I edited my post while you were posting- but I was refering more to the need to act as though everyone around you WOULD think you are abusing someone- and even though you are blocking a blow with your hand over your head, with a clenched fist- it could be interpreted that YOU are the attacker.

I re watched the video again to answer your question. In my opinion, instead of throwing him on the ground and jump on him , the police officers could easily just block him, grab him by his arms and escort him out of the building by two officers in a normal and controlled way without hurting anybody or making a big scene. Don't you agree this would have been a better way? If they would have done it in such a manner, there would be no questions raised about police brutality and we wouldn't have this discussion.

I don't know, Renger. One thing to consider is that this incident occurred in a crowded hallway. Lots of people around and had this situation turned into a dynamic struggle with people flailing around some innocent bystander might have been hurt. I've seen this happen for example at sporting events where there is a fight between two people in the crowd and the next thing you know, other people are getting knocked down and injured. If nothing else, the fact that the police swarmed in and surrounded this "reverend" meant that others in the vicinity were shielded from any potential stray blows or kicks that might have been thrown.


Aquilla

The bigger question is "why are they escalating the violence to this level for the, oh, horrible, felonius OMG "LINE CUTTER" (and possibly only percieved cutter at that)- why risk injury to yourself and others to join in a power play over line position?"

I watched the video twice. I noticed that the person who was arrested was being told he was going to be arrested and right before he "lunged" into the room he was saying something to the effect, no I'm not going to be arrested. So clearly the police had decided his actions were worthy of an arrest, which I completely disagree with.

I did not necessarily see police brutality, but I do see liberty infringement running amok. I don't see how this event is in any way less genuine because it was "staged". The event they were going to was staged, and this use of police was an attempt to make sure that the "staged" press conference would go as needed. We have too long tolerated removing coices of dissent outside of camera and microphone range so that the government's staged events can go more smoothly. This is a democracy, things aren't supposed to run smoothly, they are supposed to run with free speech, dissent, debate, and a constantly shifting consensus controlled by checks and balances.

This is not brutality by the police at the event. But, while they had an armada of police at the event, no one would answer this citizen's questions about why he was not being allowed into the room. He was not being allowed to explain himself. When I travel to Washington to try to get my 2 cents in, I'm going to be awfully ticked off that a policeman says that I cannot get in.

Why do we always turn these events into partisan hack sessions? While this was a citizen who seemingly had an agenda, what valid reason was there for blocking him from the room? I have not researched behind this incident much, but do we know he was intending to get arrested by disrupting the proceedings? And if so, should we tolerate a little more disruption and give citizens the right to make some comments formally or informally at these events.

While I don;t see police brutality, I see the creation of imperious federal policies that would have Thomas Jefferson rolling and rolling in his grave.

Here is a video of another encounter with police officers at a speech by John Kerry. Might make for an interesting comparison with the video we're been debating.



Aquilla

This video ticks me off for a few reasons.

1) The buildup to this video is that the kid overstays his time, we don't see that. But OK, so what? I mean what's the big deal? They turn of his mic, and he starts yelling...
2) John Kerry has no problems answering these questions (again) so the police really should have backed off.
3) The kid should have simply walked away. He made his point. No one helped him because he was being a pain in the butt.
4) This video will be used as proof we're in a Police State - and all it is is proof that some kid somewhere is pain in the butt and the Police have a new toy that works really well at getting people to do what you want them to do.

So getting down to brass tax here we have a kid looking to create a ruckus, job done. We have Police (in the loosest sense) who clearly have no idea how to deal with a trouble-maker on a college campus. At the end of the day we have a kid resisting arrest and cops who are clearly incapable of doing anything remotely correctly. What we'll hear is that this is further proof the BushCo has turned the US into a police state that's out of control. When really all we have are two idiots clashing.

This version of the video give a different perspective on the event.

Edited to add new video footage

well isn't that just nice. I will bite this one and restate that this, in my opinion, is again a clear case of unnecessary use of force by U.S. police officers. Again we see the so-called "swarm maneuver" and this time a taser was added .... for what? Aren't those officers supposed to be trained to de-escalate situations instead of aggravate them? I just don't get it. It seems the whole attitude towards police actions is different here in Holland than it is in the U.S..

A part of the problem is your misunderstanding about what US Police are trained to do. They are trained to get compliance. Thus when a US Police Officer tells you stop resisting arrest you can bet something is going to be hitting you soon. They aren't trained to de-escalate the problem, they are train to get you in cuffs and to stop moving. Take it from me, I have first hand experience, even if you aren't resisting arrest they'll put your arms in positions they weren't intended to go in.

Yes as the man tasered at the Kerry talk found out. –

“Gainesville, Fla. — A university student with a history of taping his own practical jokes was Tasered by campus police and arrested after loudly and repeatedly trying to ask U.S. Senator John Kerry questions during a campus forum.
Andrew Mayer, 21, spent a night in jail before his release this morning. His attorney, Robert Griscti, did not return messages seeking comment. “
http://www.denverpost.com/ci_6927671