edited: Tasering at Club Nationals Afterparty

Good points.

And the morons vehemently defending the cops are being f***ing irrational. How many eyewitnesses do they need to hear from to convince them that the cops way overreacted and that the guys beaten on did nothing to deserve such treatment?? Apparently 1000 wouldn't convince them because they decided to make up their minds ahead of time and defend the cops.

And this bullshit about "they basically got what they deserved, because if they hadn't 'broken the law' none of this would have happened" is absurd. As others pointed out in some manner, I am sure these cop-defenders would have no problem if a police office pulled over their girlfriend, wife, kid, or elderly parent for driving 5 mph over the limit, and then when that person close to them simply said something like "I don't think I was speeding officer" the cop then pulled that person out of the car, whipped him/her to the ground and then tasered him/her.

Twisting that guy Sam's arm, whipping him through TWO sets of doors, smashing his head on the bar, and crashing him to the ground all because he was in the girl's bathroom is the DEFINITION of unnecessary force. And then whipping the other guy (mike) against a wall, tasering him to the ground so he cracks his head open, and charging him with all sorts of offenses because he stepped towards a cop beating up his friend is also nuts.

Here are a couple other nice stories that someone else mentioned on this thread about more incidents with one of “america’s finest”, another “true hero” in blue-

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=291417&page=1

http://www.11alive.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=55575

(oh, this a-hole was finally fired[he had only had about a dozen previous actions that he was disciplined for, including about 5 suspensions] and cost Atlanta $350,000, which is what they settled for)

I have seen many reality TV shows (actual footage) where bystanders interfere/argue/distract police from an arrest. In hindsight perhaps Gerber would have been better off filing a complaint later.

Remember, Bellingham Sam fled a crime scene, so the cop had 2...soon to be 3 potential perps he was dealing with.

Let's get back to the REAL issue here that is conveniently glossed over - when is it okay to be in a womens restroom (not Gerber, but Bellingham Sam).

Even elementary schools have zero tolerance rules in effect. It is the age we live in....right or wrong.

desert rodent wrote:

Let's get back to the REAL issue here that is conveniently glossed over - when is it okay to be in a womens restroom (not Gerber, but Bellingham Sam).

Even elementary schools have zero tolerance rules in effect. It is the age we live in....right or wrong.

Are you TRYING to be a jackass?? Firstly, no one "conveniently glossed over" anything. People have stated time and time again that yeah, he shouldn't have been in there, but once the cop told him to leave, he was going, and that is WASN'T A BIG DEAL (or should not have been). And "zero tolerance" rules ? So this means that anyone breaks this sacred trust of separate but equal bathrooms for men and women deserves an automatic beatdown, and anyone questioning the beatdown deserves a tasering? And since it is a zero tolerance policy, maybe the cops should waterboard Mike and Sam until they give up the name of the woman who went into the men's room to start the whole thing, and that woman should be hunted down and arrested. Right? I mean that that would be the true definition of zero tolerance, huh?

And "It's the day and age we live in" ?? Want to tell me WHY that it is?

Have you ever driven 5 mph over the speed limit? Next time you do, I hope some cop kicks your ass and tasers you wife/girlfriend/mom if she happens to be a passenger and dares to say, "please stop, he didn't do anything" while you are being thrown to ground. 'Cause you know, speeding kills people, and we should have a zero tolerance on speeding, right?

You're full of shit by the way.

desert rodent wrote:

I have seen many reality TV shows (actual footage) where bystanders interfere/argue/distract police from an arrest. In hindsight perhaps Gerber would have been better off filing a complaint later.

Remember, Bellingham Sam fled a crime scene, so the cop had 2...soon to be 3 potential perps he was dealing with.

Let's get back to the REAL issue here that is conveniently glossed over - when is it okay to be in a womens restroom (not Gerber, but Bellingham Sam).

Even elementary schools have zero tolerance rules in effect. It is the age we live in....right or wrong.

These things you see on "reality" cop shows are the cases where something more interesting than a conversation occurred. 99.999% of cops dealing with drunks results in drunks complying and no arrests or violence occurring.

The goal of the cops should have been to remove the offender from the restroom, and determine if anything more serious than standing in the wrong room had occurred.

It sounds like the guy left the restroom pretty fast. It doesn't sound like he was fighting to stay in there.

If the cops hadn't been busy tasing a bystander, then maybe Sam wouldn't have gotten away. Anyway, didn't Sam say in an earlier post that he got tossed through a door? If the cops had calmly handcuffed him instead of assaulting him, he wouldn't have gotten away.

What they should have done was cuff the guy from the bathroom, find out if he peeped or sexually harrassed anyone, arrested him if he did, or released him if he didn't. There was no need for any of the violence.

I've been to a New Year's party in a bar where a small fight broke out. The music stopped, the cops separated everyone, the DJ told everyone to be cool, and the music started again, and nobody was even asked to leave. Good cops ought to be able to manage a bunch of happy drunks without resorting to tasers.

Cases like this one are why I am afraid to take a piss in the woods when I'm out on a long run. God forbid some righteous cop comes by and I spend the rest of my life on a sex-offender watchlist.

Let me get this straight. I wasn't there, but I'm trying to figure out what happened. Based on what I see in this thread, this is what happened:

1. Drunk guys/girls are fooling around and dare each other to use the opposite sex's bathroom.

2. Drunk guys accept dare, and do their business in women's bathroom.

3. Someday in women's bathroom feels uncomfortable, notify police/security at party what is going on.

4. Police enter women's restroom and ask guys to get out immediately.

(now here is where events are less clear. this will be sorted out in court, but here is my best guess)

5. Guys in bathroom (being drunk) semi-laugh off police request and are hasty to comply with the order to leave the restroom. They don't seem themselves as doing anything wrong and take police request lightly.

6. Police have short fuse (as they should) and forcibly remove guys from restroom. Sound like the police really had to drag these guys out. On the way out, guys are dragged/pushed against wall (which I don't consider unreasonable if these guys didn't immediately cooperate).

7. Once they are out of bathroom, Mike sees these guys getting dragged out. He thinks police are acting out of line (***EVEN THOUGH HE HAS NO IDEA WHAT WENT ON IN THE BATHROOM***), and speaks up (perhaps in a semi-threatening tone). He also moves toward the officers.

8. Police feel need to subdue Mike. The quickly bring him to the ground. Mike, who is not sure why he is being brought down gives them lip and resists (sure, he didn't run or say "f*** off", but he probably didn't fully relax, shut up, and let the police cuff him which would have been the smart choice).

9. Police taze Mike to get him under control.

If this is in fact what happened. I don't think the charges are unreasonable. Mike should not have cried bloody murder and moved toward the officers, especially if he didn't know what went on in the bathroom. Perhaps the police dragging the guys out of the bathroom was legitimate and justified (it probably was, IMO). Particularily when they feel threatened or someone is breaking the law (guys in bathroom) the police have ultimate authority to enforce the law, and anyone who stands in their way [erhaps deserves to be tazered.

Stop bringing out hypothetical situations about the police pulling you over for 40 in a 35 zone and then beating the s*** out of you. That just doesn't happen (unless you give lip, run, or are packing heat). And if I ever was in the situation, I would be smart, comply with police instructions, and get off with a warning. What you YOU do?

It's funny how when some people recount the incident the story grows.

Twisting that guy Sam's arm, whipping him through TWO sets of doors, smashing his head on the bar, and crashing him to the ground all because he was in the girl's bathroom is the DEFINITION of unnecessary force. And then whipping the other guy (mike) against a wall, tasering him to the ground so he cracks his head open, and charging him with all sorts of offenses because he stepped towards a cop beating up his friend is also nuts.

whipping through doors, smashing his head on the bar, crashing him to the ground...

This version makes the cops, or was it COP (singular) sound much worse than some of the eyewitnesses accounts that have been told on here. I believe the reason some people are defending the police is because of statements like that above which make it sound like there was a Rodney King style beating.

From reading the entire thread throughout the day it sounds like there was one dickhead cop who has an authority complex. Put him in a crowd situation where he thinks (right or wrong) he has to exert his authority over everyone there and it's a recipe for disaster.

While most cops aren't like this, it only takes one, and they usually can get away with it.

Assuming your assumptions are correct, then your conclusion is fine. But there are 5-6 of your points up there that are disputable and probably won't be certain until decided in court (if then)

so what went down? wrote:

6. Police have short fuse (as they should) and forcibly remove guys from restroom. Sound like the police really had to drag these guys out. On the way out, guys are dragged/pushed against wall (which I don't consider unreasonable if these guys didn't immediately cooperate).

For the most part I can almost agree with everything you say with the exception of this part. Exactly why should the police have a short fuse? If the cops kept their cool, this guy would have been out of the bathroom in a controlled manner and they wouldn't have had to beat on him which would have kept the guy who is now in jail from ever getting involved. What if it had been a hostile crowd? Some cop might have got seriously injured or killed, all because this hero decided to bounce a guy off the wall for no good reason.

Now all of them are going to end up in court. Taxpayer money will be wasted. And either a cop is going to face disciplinary action or a drunk kid is going to have a serious record (or both) over something that should have been benign.

I think cops should have a short fuse because their job is dangerous enough to warrant it. There are situations where if a cop hesitates, he gets hurt or killed. Of course that wouldn't have happened here, but how is the cop supposed to know that? They have to assume the worst, especially if a woman complained about the guys being in the bathroom. They could be "to catch a predator" pyschopaths, for all he knew.

I'm not saying my account of the story is correct, it is all based off what I read in this thread. Hopefully this gets worked out in court. Witnesses need to step forward.

so what went down? wrote:

3. Someday in women's bathroom feels uncomfortable, notify police/security at party what is going on.

6. Police have short fuse (as they should) and forcibly remove guys from restroom. Sound like the police really had to drag these guys out. On the way out, guys are dragged/pushed against wall (which I don't consider unreasonable if these guys didn't immediately cooperate).

A couple points where your assumptions were wrong:

3. The doors of both bathrooms had been propped open much of the night (presumably by the lines of people waiting to use them). People of both sexes were freely talking in and wandering into and out of the common areas (the areas away from the actual stalls) of both bathroom (which were clearly visible through the propped doors). No one called the management or police. The police had been wondering around the party all night and one just happened to walk by the bathroom when a couple of kids were standing in the bathroom common area talking to some girls.

6. The police officer did not have to drag anyone out. The kids were leaving the restroom with no argument and their hands clearly raised above their heads. As reported, one even said several times, "We're leaving" & "We are not resisting". The officer initiated the violence by pushing one kid into a wall from behind.

I can't comment on what happened after that as I moved on, but it was clear to me that no "lip" or "attitude", and certainly no threat of violence was initiated by either of the kids involved prior to the police officer pushing the first kid (from behind as I mentioned before).

I would consider that description very accurate. Now it depends on how you interpret those words as everyone does differently, but I would consider that description accurate.

To respond to your points as I was standing very close and your guesses are less than accurate.

1. They did not appear to be very intoxicated to me. I know that's not the issue, but I know people are assuming it contributed to the supposed insubordination.

2. Possibly

3. Possibly

4. Yes

5. Possibly

6. This is wrong. They did not really have to drag these guys out. They were quick to leave and were assaulted while complying completely from where I was standing. They did immediately cooperate. So dragging and pushing might not be reasonable by your definition any more.

7. Everyone who saw it that I spoke with thought those police were immediately acting out of line. (Yes, mostly just one though).

8.It looked to me like he relaxed and completely complied. He had just gotten his head cracked open against the wall which may have confused and disoriented him physically into taking a very non aggresive step forward toward a cop who was ACROSS the doorway from him, at least two to three meters.

9. At no point was he ever out of control in my and every other witness's view that I've spoken to.

Have we established that their was any defineably illegal activity going on yet in that bathroom? I'm not sure that we have.

Gerber didn't stand in their way. He was complying with abusive police in every way especially after he was slammed through that door.

I can promise you this. If there was video of the incident, it would be making at least local news, would be on you tube, and it would get Gerber off and probably cause the offending officer to lose his job. I'm curious as to whether this hotel had security camers in those double doors. That would exonerate Mr. Gerber.

Another Witness wrote:

The police had been wondering around the party all night and one just happened to walk by the bathroom when a couple of kids were standing in the bathroom common area talking to some girls.

This puzzles me.

Why in the world were there on-duty police (plural) at the party? I've never been to a party where the police were hanging out waiting for something illegal to happen. Is this the world's slowest town that the cops went to the xc club nats party expecting that's where the action was going to be that night?

Trouble with this thread is none of the opinions expressed are going to mean a darn thing to those being charged with whatever they'll get charged for.

ex drunk wrote:

This puzzles me.

Why in the world were there on-duty police (plural) at the party? I've never been to a party where the police were hanging out waiting for something illegal to happen. Is this the world's slowest town that the cops went to the xc club nats party expecting that's where the action was going to be that night?

Possibly. The place was pretty dam depressing and Club Nats and the party were by far the biggest thing going on in town (by an order of magnitude). However, the police were probably originally called because the management was pissed people were bringing in there own beers from their rooms/cars rather than waiting in the long line at the bar.

it is clear from your "interpretation" of the facts presented on this thread that you are biased in favor of the police. After several rebuttals from actual witnesses, it is apparent you got MOST of your major points incorrect. But keep trying to justify the cops behavior, I am sure have almost convinced yourself they acted appropriately.

so what went down? wrote:

Stop bringing out hypothetical situations about the police pulling you over for 40 in a 35 zone and then beating the s*** out of you. That just doesn't happen (unless you give lip, run, or are packing heat). And if I ever was in the situation, I would be smart, comply with police instructions, and get off with a warning. What you YOU do?

No, I and others will continue to bring up such hypothetical examples because they are a useful retort to the people saying "just don't break the law and this won't happen." Most would consider being in a women's room near the entrance during a party a minor offense, and most would consider 5 mph over the speed the limit equally minor. So if cops beat you down just for asking why you were pulled over for such a minor infraction I am sure you would be pissed. It's a fairly good analogy my friend.

AND as far as your "that just doesn't happen (unless you give lip, run, or are packing heat)" fantasy land, guess what?

a) you are right that it should NOT happen (just like the cop should not have wailed on and tasered these runners), but..

b) incidents like this DO unfortunately happen far too often. Want proof??? Did you read the links I provided for you about that Atlanta Cop ? He whipped a 50 year old woman out of her car, picked her up and slammed her to the ground because she accidentally bumped him with her rear-view mirror while slowly backing up because he told her to move. He also allegedly cuffed a guy, a woman, and the guy's sister all because when the cop told the sister to move her car, the guy said "it says 'drop-off zone' " as he walked into the airport. Yeah, i guess in your world where cops never overreact and commit police brutality that counts as "severe mouthing off" and the slight bumping with the mirror counts as assault on a police officer and that cop was justified in his actions, right? Too bad the Atlanta PD didn't agree, and the A-hole got fired, and the city had to pay $350,000 in damages to cover this hero's actions.

Hey Chicken Wing Guy, Have you sent an email to Indra with what you saw? I just wanted to make sure. To anyone who is a potential witness please contact her, she is in direct contact with Mike's Lawyer. I believe he will need to talk with you very soon, ie. before the weekend. Any information/evidence (pictures, videos, whatever) from that night please send to

indra@rbosolutions.com

. No matter how insignificant it might seem, I've been told the more information the better at this point.

Thanks,

Jim

I'm not trying to justify police brutality.

I am merely playing Devil's Advocate because this thread is riddled with (most likely) exagerated accounts of what happened and anti-police rhetoric.

Not all cops are perfect, and it is easy to point fingers long after an incident occurs, but when you look at this cop's actions in the context of that moment, they don't seem nearly as unreasonable.

Was the line crossed, MAYBE? I don't think it is totally clear. Remember, just because a cop pulls a tazer on someone doesn't automatically make it "police brutality". The courts will decide that.

As for my numbered list of the events leading to this unfortunate sitation, I never said I knew what happened. I was going off what was posted earlier in this thread. A couple posters have pointed out that some of the details I included were incorrect. I stand corrected on these points.

While I sound like I'm siding the police, I do hope this all works out in court. Getting tagged with a felony sounds a little steep.

Hopefully anyone who was there with info, pics, videos, or whatever comes forward so that the outcome of the trial is fair and correct.

I sent an e-mail offering my help and my contact info to the "haywood" address and received a reply, but I can drop Indra a reply and offer as well. I'm assuming at this point the people who need to know how to contact me have that information.