[Yuki Maru Hoshi]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

"Punch in the back of the head while pinned" is not an acceptable method of detaining anyone, and the fact that they have been de facto suspended pending investigation confirms that.

That doesn't mean anything. Some departments will run investigations per policy. A "Use of Force" has to be documented and there is almost always an investigation. Could be something so minor, but the paperwork is C-Y-A. Even the spitting has to be documented for insurance. We receive constant paperwork through the mail from Workmans' Comp anytime my husband is spat or if he comes into contact with other bodily fluids...

The paperwork is usually reviewed by other divisions, which means sometime before his shift or on an off-day, he will get a call and sit in front of someone who puts him through the third degree to get him to 'confess' or change his statement. Other times they just have questions that don't affect him (as far as he's aware), but maybe other witnesses, so he is asked to provide testimony and to sign. They almost always give a gag order to not speak to other people about the incident while it's still pending investigation.

That doesn't mean that certain things won't fall through the cracks. Even when other officers report something that doesn't look right, it still happens... of course it's not uncommon for people to get themselves fired before the investigation even concludes... which can take several months to a year. Sometimes a video/leak ends up in the media, way after the fact when most of the people involved are not longer employed, so they will pull people in to try to get as many under the bus as quickly as possible...

In this case, it's probably mandatory, but maybe also being done more as a precaution. Especially if there is a likelihood this will turn into a lawsuit, once the media get involved... the dept may have to defend the arrest in court, so it's important their lawyers need to know what they are defending.

Anyway, video doesn't show everything, which is why it's important to get witness testimony and it could be the lady had some warrants... hence "Failure to ID", but it depends on how much force she was using whether punching in the back of the head was necessary... some investigators will say too much was used, especially when it done in a particularly aggressive way... like punching them or mishandling them while handcuffed is a big no-no. They're not allowed to strike the neck in the front, but they can use the pressure point at the bottom of the neck. So it really just depends on the particular method behind the "use of force"... but there's usually some policy that says how and when force should be used as a general guideline.