He called cops - they beat, cuffed him

[Leonard Washington]

http://www.nj.com/news/jjournal/index.ssf?/base/news-4/118787192332510.xml&coll=3

A Jersey City man called cops Monday night when he saw what looked like burglars on his roof and said he was then badly beaten by arriving officers, who apparently thought he was a burglar as he ran to the front door to let them in.

Mathias Bolton, 34, of Palisade Avenue near Bowers Street, suffered a broken arm, black eye, possibly a broken foot, and many abrasions on his arms, back and shoulders, as a result of the incident on Monday at 10:11 p.m., he said.

On top of that, Bolton was charged with aggravated assault on a police officer and resisting arrest, but after he appeared in Central Judicial Processing Court in Jersey City yesterday, the charges were downgraded to simple assault and a lesser degree of resisting arrest. The case was remanded to Municipal Court.

Police Chief Tom Comey said yesterday that there would be an investigation of the incident.

"I would urge everyone not to rush to judgment," Comey said.

Bolton said he heard a noise on his roof and when he looked out a skylight saw two men trying to break in, so he called police and was told a car would be sent. After hanging up he ran downstairs to open the front door because there is no bell, Bolton said.

"I opened the door and midway up the steps were two thug-looking guys in jeans and T-shirts, and they looked pretty tough," said Bolton.

In fact, they were plainclothes Police Officers Victor Vargas and Kevin Hill.

Bolton said the two didn't identify themselves or display badges - a point the officers disputed in the police report of the incident.

"These guys rushed me and I heard sirens in the distance and my first thought was, these guys might be connected to the burglars," Bolton said.

He said the officers were grabbing him and screaming "Did you call

police?" which Bolton said made him think they were burglars and were angry

at him.

He said the pair were trying to push him back into the building.

Bolton said he braced himself to resist being pushed in and he was

punched in the face a number of times. He was still able to stop them

pushing him in and could hear the sirens getting closer, Bolton said.

When the cruisers arrived, Bolton said, he yelled: "Officer,

officer, come get these guys off me. I need help."

As the uniformed cops approached with night sticks out, he said he figured

those punching him would get beaten, but instead the arriving cops

laid into him, Bolton said.

He told police he was the one who called them but they put him

in a police car as confusion seemed to grow among the officers, Bolton said.

In a police report filed about the incident, the cops said Bolton ran to the

door, looked surprised and was out of breath. The officers said they

identified themselves and had their badges out, and that when they asked

Bolton if he called police and did he need help Bolton responded, "What?"

The police report says Bolton tried to close the door but an officer held it

open and then Bolton punched him in the chest and tried to push his way through.

They grabbed him and told him they were investigating a burglary and

Bolton replied, "So get the hell off me," and then fell

trying to run away, kicking at Hill and Vargas while down, the reports said.

When the cruiser arrived, the report said, Bolton said: "Get the

(expletive) off me. Who are you guys?"

According to the police report, after the uniformed officers were on the

scene, Bolton said, "OK, I give up. I'm sorry" and was taken to the police

station and then to the hospital for treatment of what the report calls

"minor scrapes....."

more in the link

funny but scary at the same time.

[Turban Beardface]

That's complete BS....he shouldn't be charged with anything. I'm sure it'll get thrown out but still. One things for sure...he's gonna sue the hell out of that department

[Fergasun]

Seriously what the hell is wrong with our justice system? This isn't how we want our cops to behave... sheesh! The story and report strong favor the civilian trying to defend his home and then trying to get away from 2 people he wasn't sure who they were. Not to mention police shouldn't use that type of force unless they are in danger... was Bolton a ninja?

[ACW]

I guarantee you the cops will get away with this

[Xameil]

Anyone else think the plain clothes officers were the ones on his roof?

[Koolblue13]

I'de like to know what kind of history the plain clothes cops and Bolton have, before jumping to conclusions. That is a rough nieghborhood.

[Xameil]

well I thought it was policy to send a cruiser to a call not a plains clothes officer because there could be confusion...kinda like what happened.

[Riggo-toni]

Anyone else think the plain clothes officers were the ones on his roof?

Just what I'm wondering.... Think of how many DC cops moonlight as criminals. :doh:

[ACW]

Just what I'm wondering.... Think of how many criminals moonlight as DC cops. :doh:

Fixed :laugh:

[Baculus]

Yeah, I bet the guys on the roof were the cops. After all, how did they get there so quickly, and why were they dressed in that matter? I rarely, if ever, hear of plainscloth officers reporting to call, as someone mentioned.

I remember years ago, when the D.C. police department was being investigated, over 70 D.C. cops were being probed for activity ranging from burglary, drug dealing, rape, and prostitution. Apparently the department hadn't conducted any background checks, and they were hiring criminals to be officers. And the criminals were figuring out that they can become cops and continue their activity.

[Xameil]

Yeah, I bet the guys on the roof were the cops. After all, how did they get there so quickly, and why were they dressed in that matter? I rarely, if ever, hear of plainscloth officers reporting to call, as someone mentioned.

Yeah besides any plain clothes officers that are on the clock are usually dressed in suit and tie still.

[Commander PK]

:laugh:

Once again another "cop brutality" thread in tailgate. Another thread of people jumping to conclusions about the officers being guilty, before any of the facts even come out. When those same people would defend somebody who just shot up a McDonald's as "innocent until proven guilty."

What's good for the goose, is good for the gander.

Like it or not, the same justice system applies to the cops, as applies to the thugs.

The cops may be guilty. They may be innocent. Just because this yahoo has a interesting version of the story, that doesn't make it true.

With that said, if his story IS true. Then the cops deserve whatever they have coming.

[Baculus]

Once again another "cop brutality" thread in tailgate. Another thread of people jumping to conclusions about the officers being guilty, before any of the facts even come out. When those same people would defend somebody who just shot up a McDonald's as "innocent until proven guilty."

I have yet to see someone on this forum defend a person who just shot up a McDonalds.

And have you noticed that a lot of the threads that focus on police brutality often have a basis in fact, i.e., the cops overstepping their boundaries? I have rarely read a thread on this subject, at least on this forum, where the story ended up being "the cops were completely OK to beat this person." Yes, sometimes police force is justified, but it can also either be borderline assault or police abuse. (And I am not talking about events where a person doesn't cooperate, repeatedly receives a warning of a tasering, and when they are tasered, act surprised.)

What's good for the goose, is good for the gander.

Like it or not, the same justice system applies to the cops, as applies to the thugs.

That is the entire point! The justice system applies to cops, and they can't act like thugs! This article is a damning piece written against police as a whole, but may demonstrate the action of some officers who were thug-like.

The cops may be guilty. They may be innocent. Just because this yahoo has a interesting version of the story, that doesn't make it true.

With that said, if his story IS true. Then the cops deserve whatever they have coming.

Why is he a yahoo? And have you even read the story, with officers, dressed like "thugs," immediately appearing at the scene when the civilian just saw two men on his roof attempting to force an entry?

There is a reason why these stories are posted and discussed: Cops have a duty to protect and serve within the allowances of their powers as law officers. And even though officers have one of the most difficult jobs imaginable, they sometimes make bad decisions over step over the line. And that is where we have events such as the story in this thread.

[Thiebear]

Plain clothes do report to it: My Dad a 7th Princinct plain clothes in D.C. investigated rapes/robberies/homicide... 70's / 80's... i went with him quite a few times in the cruiser as a single dad thing...

[Destino]

When I read a story like this I ask "what doesn't seem reasonable?"

A guy calling the police because he spots some bad guys prowling about wouldn't normally react to plain clothes cops with badges by fighting them. What would make him react this way? Plain clothes guys WITHOUT badges asking if he called the cops.

[Baculus]

When I read a story like this I ask "what doesn't seem reasonable?"

A guy calling the police because he spots some bad guys prowling about wouldn't normally react to plain clothes cops with badges by fighting them. What would make him react this way? Plain clothes guys WITHOUT badges asking if he called the cops.

Especially if he calls the cops, hangs up the phone, runs down the stairs to the door, and there's two cops already there?

That, to me, is the suspicious part. Unless the storyline is correct, I don't see how the officers could have reacted so quickly. That is why, if events are correct, I believe the guys attempting the break-in possibly were the officers.

[Commander PK]

I have yet to see someone on this forum defend a person who just shot up a McDonalds.

Obviously, this was over-the-top, but my point, was that people who are the first to defend a criminal, are quite often the first to convict a cop in the court of public opinion.

And have you noticed that a lot of the threads that focus on police brutality often have a basis in fact, i.e., the cops overstepping their boundaries? I have rarely read a thread on this subject, at least on this forum, where the story ended up being "the cops were completely OK to beat this person."

What public opinion considers cops to be over-stepping their boundries, is often perfectly acceptable use of force when put up for scrutiny in American courts. Sometimes the cops are out of line, and other times (even though the court of public opinion may have convicted them months earlier) they are not. Use of force is not a straight line.

Yes, sometimes police force is justified, but it can also either be borderline assault or police abuse. (And I am not talking about events where a person doesn't cooperate, repeatedly receives a warning of a tasering, and when they are tasered, act surprised.)

Often times it's justified, and yes it can be assault or abuse. The public often perceive use of force differently than the law enforcement community though.

For example, several baton strikes to the head of a coked up suspect, that is choking out another person is justified until he releases his hold, and can be controlled by other means. It becomes excessive when he gets an extra 2 or 3 after being handcuffed. The part that will usually piss people of is the justifiable part, because they don't understand what they are looking at.

That is the entire point! The justice system applies to cops, and they can't act like thugs! This article is a damning piece written against police as a whole, but may demonstrate the action of some officers who were thug-like.

I will assume that you meant, is NOT a daming piece written against police as a whole. I agree, it is not. My reaction was directed at those, who are quick to judge the cops, because they are cops, and somebody alleges abuse.

Why is he a yahoo? And have you even read the story, with officers, dressed like "thugs," immediately appearing at the scene when the civilian just saw two men on his roof attempting to force an entry?

I never said they WEREN'T the guys, they might be. They could very well be out of line. My point, was that maybe they AREN'T also.

There is a reason why these stories are posted and discussed: Cops have a duty to protect and serve within the allowances of their powers as law officers. And even though officers have one of the most difficult jobs imaginable, they sometimes make bad decisions over step over the line. And that is where we have events such as the story in this thread.

The media are quick to run with stories of alleged police wrong-doing. Hopefully, this won't come down to a his story against theirs, and somebody else witnessed this situation. You talk about the story like it's fact. Do we know that it's fact? Maybe he's lying. People do lie you know. A court of law is where this case should be settled, and guilt should be assessed. Not within knee-jerk reactionists threads.

Once again, i've never said they were innocent. Who knows? All I'm saying is just because they are cops, and somebody says they did something wrong, doesn't make it true. Due process applies to everybody.

Once again, if they were in the wrong, then they deserve to proverbially hang.

[Commander PK]

What makes no sense to me about this whole thing, is that the officers that showed up in plain clothes, if they ARE the two guys on the roof, then why would they have stuck around? Wouldn't they have had a better chance of getting away, if they just took off. Why would you stick around, and then pretend to be responding to the call? An internal affairs investigation would see through that in a minute.

If they knew about the burglary, they are going to have to be able to show how they knew. I.E. police radio on one of them, were they in the area? Were they on/off duty? The article doesn't answer any of these questions.

[Koolblue13]

:laugh: LMFAO @ the guy defending the cops, while sporting a sig who's only kick ass song is "breaking the law":laugh:

[Commander PK]

:laugh: LMFAO @ the guy defending the cops, while sporting a sig who's only kick ass song is "breaking the law":laugh:

You got me there, although I'd definately argue against "breaking the law" being their only kick ass song.

My vote goes to "Painkiller"

and I'm not defending the cops. I'm defending against a rush to judgement, just because this guy's story is different from the police report.

[Koolblue13]

You got me there, although I'd definately argue against "breaking the law" being their only kick ass song.

My vote goes to "Painkiller"

and I'm not defending the cops. I'm defending against a rush to judgement, just because this guy's story is different from the police report.

Painkiller ain't bad. Just a funny observation, even if it was a little off.:laugh:

[Baculus]

For example, several baton strikes to the head of a coked up suspect, that is choking out another person is justified until he releases his hold, and can be controlled by other means. It becomes excessive when he gets an extra 2 or 3 after being handcuffed. The part that will usually piss people of is the justifiable part, because they don't understand what they are looking at.

I can agree with that - we sometimes do not get the whole picture. At times, we do only see the end result of the subdued by force action of the police, while we do not see the suspect rampaging like a madman.

I will assume that you meant, is NOT a daming piece written against police as a whole. I agree, it is not. My reaction was directed at those, who are quick to judge the cops, because they are cops, and somebody alleges abuse.

You are correct, I meant to say it isn't a damning piece. It is amazing how one word can change the complexion of a sentence! Darn fast typing and no proof-reading...

I never said they WEREN'T the guys, they might be. They could very well be out of line. My point, was that maybe they AREN'T also.

As a person who resists authority, I'd be a liar if I said I never jump to conclusions with these sort of articles. Also, on the other hand, there are folks, too, that always assume the police had good reason to use force. I guess, in the middle-ground, is probably closer to the truth. And that is where the "Innocent Before Guilty" aspect that you are discussing comes into play.

You do have to admit, though, that the story doesn't look good for the cops, so it isn't too hard to assume a bit of guilt.

The media are quick to run with stories of alleged police wrong-doing. Hopefully, this won't come down to a his story against theirs, and somebody else witnessed this situation. You talk about the story like it's fact. Do we know that it's fact? Maybe he's lying. People do lie you know. A court of law is where this case should be settled, and guilt should be assessed. Not within knee-jerk reactionists threads.

Sure, the suspect could be lying - that wouldn't be impossible.

Again, the knee-jerk reaction can go the other way, too: Always assuming the suspect, or in this case, the person who called the police in the first place, is lying or committed a misdeed. You have to remember we are discussing a person that called the police - this fact isn't disputed by the police.

Also, you have to recall that there have been some ugly events caused by police abuse, and often, nothing at all has happened to the responsible officers. After hearing about these events, it becomes easy to assume the officers may be in the wrong.

Some of our assumptions about some of today's law enforcement are formed by these past acts of police abuse. Of course the media sometimes will run away with these stories, but other times, the media are the only ones reporting real acts of police abuse. And if it was up to some folks, we'd never hear of these acts of abuse.

Again, a double-edged sword.

Once again, i've never said they were innocent. Who knows? All I'm saying is just because they are cops, and somebody says they did something wrong, doesn't make it true. Due process applies to everybody.

Once again, if they were in the wrong, then they deserve to proverbially hang.

Right - but what are we to do? After all, it was the person who called the police is received the pummeling: They didn't catch him breaking in, beat him, and then he called "foul" on the officers.

Remember that granny that supposedly shoot at some officers for no reason, and as it turns out, the officers were busting into the wrong house on a drug raid, she was defending her domicile, and they shot her? The reaction was that she was guilty, and the officers, in fact, had made a horrible mistake. It is often that the guilt is also placed on the citizens, and the fact that the citizens are relying on the officers to make good decisions...well, this can certainly color one's outlook on police actions.

But, all in all, police officers do deserve a fair shake of justice, like everyone - that can be agreed. But they are in a greater position in responsibility, and guilt shouldn't also be shouldered onto the citizens as well.

[Baculus]

What makes no sense to me about this whole thing, is that the officers that showed up in plain clothes, if they ARE the two guys on the roof, then why would they have stuck around? Wouldn't they have had a better chance of getting away, if they just took off. Why would you stick around, and then pretend to be responding to the call? An internal affairs investigation would see through that in a minute.

If they knew about the burglary, they are going to have to be able to show how they knew. I.E. police radio on one of them, were they in the area? Were they on/off duty? The article doesn't answer any of these questions.

Perhaps the time line isn't correct, but why did they officers react so quickly, and why didn't they identify themselves with a badge? Either the civilian is lying, has a bad recall of events, or things were too FUBAR to sort of the order of events.

If they were on the roof - at and this point it is pure theory - then they could have been just trying to cover their tracks. And people, even cops, do stupid things that internal affairs can easily deduct; that still doesn't stop people from doing stupid things. At this point, it is pure conjecture, of course.

[No_Pressure]

They should make every police officer in the country have a "COPS" team with them to catch this **** on tape.

[Xameil]

They should make every police officer in the country have a "COPS" team with them to catch this **** on tape.

:laugh: someone cue the song