Tuscaloosa police released officer body camera footage of the cop at the center of a controversy that has been roiling the west Alabama city since early November.
The officer and a group of other cops conducted a rough arrest on three University of Alabama students after the police were called to an off campus apartment in the early hours of Nov. 8 because the students were allegedly playing music too loudly.
The incident came to light after the student newspaper, the Crimson White obtained and published a series of brutal cell phone videos.
The videos show multiple Tuscaloosa police officers grab three students out of an off campus apartment and throw them onto the concrete hallway where they are arrested and one is tased and beaten with a nightstick.
Tuscaloosa’s chief of police Steve Anderson quickly called for an internal investigation of the three main officers involved and put them all on paid administrative leave while the matter was being looked into.
WATCH: Tuscaloosa Police Storm Into Dorm And Arrest Three Students, Taser One
“Based on what I’ve seen, the individual did not have to exit the apartment,” Anderson said according to AL.com.
When he was asked if the officers had the right to go inside of the apartment, Anderson responded, “Based on what I’ve seen, no.”
While the footage released Wednesday didn’t show anything “earth shattering” according to Anderson, it was still important to make public the footage for the sake of transparency.
WATCH: Police Body Camera Footage of Tuscaloosa Rough Arrests
Have a news tip? Send to us! [email protected]
What Do You Think?
About the AuthorRich Robinson is the CEO and publisher of Rise News. He is also a journalist and a native of Miami. Robinson graduated from the University of Alabama and can be followed on Twitter @RichRobMiami.
You Might also like
By Alex Austin
A group of upwards of 150 armed men have taken over a building on the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge near Burns Oregon.
But don’t let CNN or other parts of the “mainstream” media fool you. This is not an act of “protest” by concerned “patriots”. This is terrorism by anti-government vigilantes.
This is the culmination of a long trail of events leading back to 2001. You can look here for a name-by-name breakdown of events, but I’ll give you the CliffsNotes version.
Over the New Year holiday, a group of about 300 protesters marched through Burns, led by Ammon and Ryan Bundy, sons of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, best known for refusing to pay about $1 million in taxes and engaging in an armed stand-off with the Bureau of Land Management back in 2014.
They were marching in protest to the sentencing of Dwight and Steven Hammond, who were found guilty of arson of federal and public lands.
By Friday, Ammon had led his group to take control of the refuge, claiming that they would control the building for years if they had to.
Do those sound like the words and actions of protesters to you?
If you said yes, congratulations, you’re part of the problem.
You see, this is being handled very differently than say when there were protests and riots in Ferguson, MO or Baltimore.
In both those cases, the entire 24/7 news cycle covered the events. With every major TV news station talking about nothing else for weeks.
For this story? Well, CNN had it on the front of their website, while ABC used the term “peaceful protest”.
Oh, and another thing that occurred in both the above cases that hasn’t happened yet in Oregon. The National Guard was called in.
“Here’s the problem: what the terrorists will ask for is something the federal government can’t give them.”
In Ferguson, there were armored vehicles patrolling the streets. And that was against (primarily black) people armed with stones, bricks, and foul language.
A federal building is being held by (white) people carrying semi-automatic weapons. They are being negotiated with.
Let’s just call this what it is and get it over with. This is terrorism. Plain and simple.
I won’t go into a long spiel about why it is because I’ve already done that. Different names, different places, different reasons, same conclusion.
There is no argument. As I see it, the more interesting questions are how will the federal government respond.
In a situation such as this, only two options are readily apparent. You either attempt to settle this peacefully, or you send in the military.
To me, the correct choice is the latter.
Historically, law enforcement and the government have preferred peaceful settlement. It is not only cheaper, but it saves lives. No reason to put soldier’s lives at risk if it isn’t necessary.
Here’s the problem: what the terrorists will ask for is something the federal government can’t give them. They will ask for the release of the (rightly) imprisoned Hammond men. This is impossible as it would be a slap in the face of the justice system.
Also, these terrorists, or at least the leaders, can’t walk away scot-free. Even though the building they are holding was empty and they have not brought injury or death to anyone, they still perpetrated an armed take-over of a federal building. Doesn’t matter if it’s on a small wildlife refuge or the White House, same rules apply.
The final problem with this arrangement is that it could open the doors for other like-minded people to take similar actions. They will feel emboldened by the fact that “those guys in Oregon got away with it, why not me?” Who’s to say in that scenario that such a thing couldn’t then happen in Texas, or Florida, or Minnesota?
So how would I suggest they bring this act of terrorism on US soil to an end? Well, I’m not a military man by any stretch of the imagination, but I do have an idea.
All the Oregon National Guard (and whomever else the government decides to send out) has to do is create a perimeter around the building and wait. They know exactly where the building is, and they know that it is solely occupied by terrorists. What they have is the makings of a good old-fashioned siege.
The terrorist leaders have called on others to join them, and to bring guns and supplies. You nip that in the bud by closing off the roads and paths. One guy in a truck will probably turn back at the sight of 20 guys with guns in his way.
As for how long this will take, Bundy has said that they plan to stay for years. I give it to the end of the week. They will realize that they are surrounded, out-gunned, and haven’t eaten well. Morale will be low and the “patriotic” gusto which started this ordeal will be nonexistent.
Then the final question is what to do after the terrorists’ surrender? That boils down to whether or not this action constitutes treason. According to US law, treason is defined as:
“Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.”
The phrase “levies war” is the kicker. It’ll be up to the Justice Department to determine that one.
But regardless of how this plays out, the men holed up in that building in Oregon should be considered terrorists by both the media and the law.
To do any less is an indictment upon the character of the media and an indication of what stories we can expect in 2016.
Cover Photo Credit: Ken Lund/ Flickr (CC By 2.0)Post Views: 976
What Do You Think?
By Paulus Choy
HONG KONG- “Slut walk” was held for the fifth time at Chater Garden in Central this Sunday, with protesters expressing concerns over recent sexual assaults in Hong Kong.
This event originated from Toronto, where a police officer said women should dress less “slutty” to avoid sexual crimes, sparking outcries and subsequent protests, according to the Hong Kong Slut Walk’s website.
Protests turned into a global movement, with Slut Walks happening in several places including Germany, Korea and now Hong Kong.
America’s very controversial personality Amber Rose, also organised her own Slut Walk, which occurred on 1st October this year.
The movement encouraged participants to dress in a provocative way, rebelling against social expectations and condemning gender violence on women.
Hong Kong’s Slut Walk organisers Sally Tang and Angie Ng discussed about gender violence before the march began, they talked about recent sexual assaults against women, they pleaded for societal and legal changes to better protect the rights of women.
They talked about a rape case involving an owner of a nursing home and a mentally-challenged girl, as the girl’s evidence was accepted by the Court, the owner was later acquitted.
Another case they talked about was a pub owner who drugged a girl and allegedly raped her.
He was sentenced to 240 hours of community service, as the judge found him to have an entrepreneurial mind and does not wish to harm his future.
Different concern groups came forth to give speeches, including migrant worker association Gabriella, and several political party-affiliated groups.
The protesters convened at around two in Chater Garden at Central, and started marching towards the High Court, ending their demonstration at Lan Kuai Fong district, which was a famous bar and clubbing spot for Hong Kongers.
Protesters shouted out pleads during their march, yelling out “my body my choice”,” my dress is not a yes.” and other slogans to express their concerns, which were also shown on their banners.
People of different races and nationalities came out to support: there was an Irish student, who talked about how women in Ireland is stripped of their rights to abortion; there was another student from the US, who came here to support the movement.
There were speeches as well as live performances throughout the protest; a group of students performed a poem in front of the High Court, some even painted pleads on their bodies, to express their anger.
There were roughly around a hundred people marching through Central.
RISE NEWS is a grassroots journalism news organization that is working to change the way young people become informed and engaged in the world. You can write for us.
You can also like our RISE NEWS Hong Kong Facebook page to stay engaged with our local coverage.
Photo Credits: Paulus ChoyPost Views: 1,642
What Do You Think?
What’s News In This Story?
–A group of Florida young people are suing the Governor and other state wide officials over what they say is government inaction over climate change.
-The suit, which was filed in a Tallahassee court on Monday, seeks to require the state to “adhere to its legal and moral obligation to protect current and future generations from the intensifying impacts of climate change…”
-Florida Governor Rick Scott does not believe in man-made climate change.
-The eight young people are between the ages of 10 to 20 and they come from various parts of the state.
-There is a nine member legal team that is backing up the suit on behalf of the kids and “Our Children’s Trust”, a group that has helped young people sue their state governments around the country.
-Fort Lauderdale attorney Mitchell Chester is part of the legal team.
-“We can’t delay anymore because climate change is a huge problem,” Levi Draheim, a 10-year-old plaintiff in the suit said. “We must deal with it right now and start reducing the emissions that are causing it.”
RISE NEWS is South Florida’s digital news network. Follow us on Facebook to make sure you never miss a story!
Have a news tip about this topic or something completely different? Send it on in to [email protected].Post Views: 1,254
What Do You Think?