LibriumArcana.Games

reuters

A former U.S. Army Ranger and Occupy Oakland protester was in intensive care on Friday after a veterans group said he was beaten by police during clashes with demonstrators this week.

The veteran, identified as Kayvan Sabeghi, was the second former American serviceman during the past two weeks to be badly hurt in confrontations between anti-Wall Street protesters and police in Oakland.

The group Iraq Veterans Against the War said Sabeghi was detained during disturbances that erupted late on Wednesday in downtown Oakland and was charged with resisting arrest and remaining present at the place of a riot.

Highland General Hospital confirmed that Sabeghi was a patient in the intensive care unit there.

Brian Kelly, who co-owns a brew pub with Sabeghi, said his business partner served as an Army Ranger in Iraq and Afghanistan. He said Sabeghi told him he was arrested and beaten by a group of policemen as he was leaving the protest to go home.

"He told me he was in the hospital with a lacerated spleen and that the cops had jumped him," Kelly said. "They put him in jail, and he told them he was injured, and they denied him medical treatment for about 18 hours."

The Oakland Police Department did not immediately return calls seeking comment. Sabeghi's name was listed by the Alameda County Sheriff's Office as one of more than 100 people arrested that night.

The veterans group said in a statement that police struck Sabeghi with nightsticks on his hands, shoulders, ribs and back, and that in addition to a lacerated spleen he suffered from internal bleeding.

Clashes between police and demonstrators broke out in the early morning hours of Thursday in downtown Oakland following a day of mostly peaceful rallies and marches citywide against economic inequality and police brutality.

The Port of Oakland was forced to shut down during those demonstrations, sparked in part by the severe injury of another former serviceman, ex-Marine Scott Olsen, during a confrontation with police last week.

Olsen's injury became a rallying cry for the anti-Wall Street protest movement nationwide.

(Reporting by Noel Randewich; Editing by Steve Gorman and Cynthia Johnston)

That's two.

Oakland PD seems to have extraordinarily bad luck in the guys they bead up

At this rate, the idiots among their Police Force will end up causing something much much more horrible to occur in these protests.....

His big sister has released a statement saying that he lay for hours in his cell without being given access to a doctor.

[youtube][/youtube]

If true, that's just outrageous. What's wrong with the Oakland police department?

Yeah... That's Strike Two. Strike Three is going to be the one that gets the Military Command into it.

I'd like to remind everyone that we don't really know what happened yet....

Destructionator XV wrote:I'd like to remind everyone that we don't really know what happened yet....

Well, we DO know he was kept in custody for 18 hours before being admitted to the hospital, where the OR had to repair his spleen which was bleeding internally. This is all from non-American sources, too, so as to avoid the bias. There's really not much excuse for a man being kept for 18 hours away from doctors when he's bleeding internally.

Unless nobody had any reason to think he was bleeding internally.

Destructionator XV wrote:Unless nobody had any reason to think he was bleeding internally.

True, I may be over-estimating the intelligence of the police force. However, spleens do not start hemoragging from thin air; the beating required for it should have triggered a trip anyway. But no, let's wait 18 hours.

I will be blunt, we know he was severely beaten, to the point that one of his internal organs is busted. We know he was left in a cell without any medical care for most of a day, people have died in less time.

This, they couldn't have known shit is exactly that, shit. People who are that messed up inside aren't dancing around and singing show tunes for one thing, for another when you have several guys beat down on one enough to do something like this, you cause alot of extra damage. In short, common fucking sense would have stated that this guy needed a medical check after taking clubs to the chest, stomach, back and hands. You know what happens when someone gets battered with a club on his hands? Bones get broken, gee maybe a medical check up would have been a good idea. But no let's leave him a cell for 3/4ths of a day, what could happen.

I'm sorry but we know quiet a bit about what happened here, we know a business owner, with a record of service to his nation was beaten by police officers who then proceeded to refuse him any care what so ever. That's flatly illegal even if he murdered someone.

No, we don't know that.

We know:

* his friend said he said he was beaten.

* his friend said he said he was left in the cell

* he is injured, and is in a hospital

* he was arrested


We don't really know how the injuries occurred. He might have lied to his friend, or his friend might not have gotten all the details or misunderstood the story. There's a reason we don't put much faith in hearsay.

We don't really know how long he waited there, or how bad the injuries were.

And we most certainly don't know who caused them, or even when (or if!) it happened.


Though on if, a CBS news story says his friend witnessed bruises on him, so it's possible. (Again though, they could be from something else.)


Nitram: it's called internal bleeding because it's happening inside the body. It's quite possible that they never noticed it, and this doesn't require stupidty.

And spleens actually can rupture on their own, or at the least, by pre-existing conditions that could have occurred weeks ago, if not more: http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/ruptur ... ION=causes

You might want to look at diagnosis too. It includes doctors doing a physical examination, at the least. It isn't always obvious.

Actually we have his own words for it.

guardian

A second Iraq war veteran has suffered serious injuries after clashes between police and Occupy movement protesters in Oakland.

Kayvan Sabehgi, who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, is in intensive care with a lacerated spleen. He says he was beaten by police close to the Occupy Oakland camp, but despite suffering agonising pain, did not reach hospital until 18 hours later.

Sabehgi, 32, is the second Iraq war veteran to be hospitalised following involvement in Oakland protests. Another protester, Scott Olsen, suffered a fractured skull on 25 October.

On Wednesday night, police used teargas and non-lethal projectiles to drive back protesters following an attempt by the Occupy supporters to shut down the city of Oakland.

Sabehgi told the Guardian from hospital he was walking alone along 14th Street in central Oakland – away from the main area of clashes – when he was injured.

"There was a group of police in front of me," he told the Guardian from his hospital bed. "They told me to move, but I was like: 'Move to where?' There was nowhere to move.

"Then they lined up in front of me. I was talking to one of them, saying 'Why are you doing this?' when one moved forward and hit me in my arm and legs and back with his baton. Then three or four cops tackled me and arrested me."

Sabeghi, who left the army in 2007 and now part-owns a small bar-restaurant in El Cerrito, about 10 miles north of Oakland, said he was handcuffed and placed in a police van for three hours before being taken to jail. By the time he got there he was in "unbelievable pain".

He said: "My stomach was really hurting, and it got worse to the point where I couldn't stand up.

"I was on my hands and knees and crawled over the cell door to call for help."

A nurse was called and recommended Sabehgi take a suppository, but he said he "didn't want to take it".

He was allowed to "crawl" to another cell to use the toilet, but said it was clogged.

"I was vomiting and had diarrhoea," Sabehgi said. "I just lay there in pain for hours."

Sabehgi's bail was posted in the mid-afternoon, but he said he was unable to leave his cell because of the pain. The cell door was closed, and he remained on the floor until 6pm, when an ambulance was called.

He was taken to Highland hospital – the same hospital where Olsen was originally taken after being hit in the head by a projectile apparently fired by police.

Sabehgi was due to undergo surgery on Friday afternoon to repair his spleen, which would involve using a clot or patch to prevent internal bleeding.

Thousands of protesters had attended the action in Oakland on Wednesday, taking over the downtown area of the city and blockading Oakland's port.

As demonstrations continued near the camp base at Frank H Ogawa plaza during the evening, a group of protesters occupied a disused building on 16th Street at around 10.30pm, with some climbing up onto the roof.

There had been little police presence during the day, but more than 200 officers arrived after 11pm. Some protesters had set fire to a hastily assembled barrier at the corner of 16th Street and Telegraph, in a bid to prevent access to the occupied building, but police drove demonstrators away from 16th Street using tear gas, flashbang grenades, and non-lethal rounds.

Sabehgi said he had not been in the occupied building, and was walking away from the main area of trouble when he was injured.

He said he had his arms folded and was "totally peaceful" before being arrested.

A spokeswoman for Highland hospital confirmed Sabehgi had been admitted. Oakland police were not immediately available for comment.

So we have a man who was beaten, left in a cell on the floor after vomiting and diarrhea for hours, who is now undergoing operations. Really man, saying "well spleens do burst on their own" is really stretching it don't you think? Especially given accounts of what Oakland cops have already done these protests, injuries have been confirmed.

I don't jump to conclusions. It's important to get all the facts together before passing judgement.

Now, we've moved a little beyond hearsay, but I still find this hard to believe without corroboration:

"Then they lined up in front of me. I was talking to one of them, saying 'Why are you doing this?' when one moved forward and hit me in my arm and legs and back with his baton. Then three or four cops tackled me and arrested me."

Why would they hit him for asking a question? I'd like to hear from someone else who was there.

Consider if this happened: "I asked one of them, 'Why are you doing this?' and then tried to walk between them to get home when one whacked me with his baton. Then the other cops arrested me."

If that's what happened, would he admit it? By trying to push through them, the officer might have been (over) reacting to a perceived threat. It certainly seems plausible. Hell, it's what I might have done - his apartment was very near, if they just let him pass he'll be out of their hair in a minute. He clearly felt it was absurd that they stopped him.

Of course, the guy who allegedly beat him almost certainly isn't going to say "he calmly asked me a question, so I beat his ass".

I'd like to see testimony from a third party who was there before I blame anyone.



Though this new information tells us one thing: he was not refused any care whatsoever. A nurse was called who tried to do something, although it looks like the absolute minimum.

Destructionator, as someone who has had spleen swell to unnatural sizes for nearly a full year, allow me to illuminate some things for you.

First off, the conditions involving a spleen rupturing involve either massively crippling illnesses, or pretty crippling physical trauma. If he had severe mono or cancer, that sort of thing would come up, not to mention he'd have trouble "resisting arrest", much less, you know, walking to a protest.

Secondly, even when my spleen was enlarged, I was told it would take a serious blow to rupture it, and that the light roughhousing I engage in on a regular basis would not result in rupture, but that it would take an auto accident, or serious blow to the abdomen even when enlarged. That might just be my particular case, but I had some pretty serious mono (I'm still suffering from the aftereffects of it).

Third, no, I'm sorry, I will not defend the Police no matter what. I will defend them when it is reasonable to do so, because I know how difficult it is to deal with high stress situations and how less than perfect judgments can occur when you're in them, but I also know there are times when you need to reign it in and stick to your guns when you are told to do something that is wrong. If a guy gets some bruises and scrapes after being tackled by the cops when he runs, I really couldn't give a damn for that idiot. If a cop decides to help a man "fall down" on his billy club a few dozen times when he wasn't resisting arrest? No sir, we can't have that. And yes, people like that do exist in the police departments of the US and no, they shouldn't be there. End of story.

This is certainly not the only story of police brutality with regards to the Oakland demonstration, it's just one of the ones getting the most press because it involves a man who has served his country. Had it just been anyone else, this story would have been swept under the rug along with the bulk of the stories regarding these protests.

The Tea Party gets a few thousand people to march on Washington, it's all over every news channel for two weeks, and mentioned for months after.

Wall Street was occupied for over a month, with similar protests forming across the country and all over the world before it even gets anything close to page one status for a few weeks.

If the cops looked wrong at the Tea Party protests, people would be screaming discrimination and oppression so loudly even they would probably believe it.

Police have used manipulation, deception, and riot gear to try and disrupt the 99% movement, which has resulted in numerous hospitalizations, arrests, and detentions, many of which had no merit and were used to discourage protesters.

Regardless if you agree with the message or not, you can't deny that there has been a serious disparity of how this has been handled across the board.

But I do go on. Point being, you're reaching far too much to try and justify what is almost certainly a spotlight of police brutality in the face of what was a peaceful protest, because if he was savagely beaten by the Oakland PD, then it's likely others were as well, and that sheds a bad light on the entire department. Which, you know, makes everyone less trustful of the police, which in turn actually increases the crimes rates, and suffering for everyone.

It turns out, however, that when you have untrustworthy people doing a job, people do not trust them to do the job. It's shocking, I know. Remove those people, show that the replacements are, in fact, trustworthy, and trust is restored. Slowly, but restored.

I don't know, Destruct, why they would hit him for asking a question. ASK THOSE POLICE. Or are we moving to defaulting to beleiving the police always and the victims never? This isn't some violent anarchist: It's a guy who owns a local business, who retired honourably, from, you know, actual combat, as opposed to cops who are, by the video evidence flooding in each time these raids happen(Not to mention plenty of history of it), practicing violence rather one-sidedly. Instead of asking people who dared read sources that would remove most of the bias, why not remove your own inherent bias?

Nitram, there's so many fallacies and bullshit in your post I'm amazed it didn't self-destruct. I said ask someone who was there what happened, so no need to capitalize that. I said I wouldn't necessarily believe the cop's story either, so no need to pull out that blatant strawman. Then a (reverse) guilt by association fallacy, and ad hominem fallacy.

We don't know what happened here. Soldiers and business owners can whitewash the truth and provoke people too. My alleged bias is irrelevant - if I'm saying something that isn't true or is illogical, you could attack the points instead of the man.


Hotfoot: I'm not trying to justify it at all. What I'm saying is we do not know what actually happened there. Until we have all the facts, it's premature to pass judgement. It's possible that he was just assualted out of the blue. It's possible he tried to walk past them and an officer overreacted. It's possible he was injured in a fight before meeting the police and just made up the beating story to get attention.

We simply don't know until more witnesses come forward or more evidence comes to light.

BTW, I'm not calling him a liar, do let's not jump to that. There's a difference between saying "it's possible. We don't know yet." and saying "this is what happened".

Some video of the Mr. Sabeghi moments after the alleged incident:

http://www.ktvu.com/videos/news/oakland ... red/vD5pb/


At about 0:40, we see him in handcuffs. He doesn't appear to be in agonizing pain at this point, and is not asking for medical attention. He was appealing to his military service.

Hotfoot said a ruptured spleen takes pretty crippling physical trauma. If he was severely beaten right before being arrested, like he said, wouldn't we see some effects of that here, mere seconds later?

-- BEGIN SPECULATION --

One possibility is he did get whacked, it did some damage, but it didn't feel bad at first. It might have gotten worse over the hours he was waiting - he did say the pain got to him while waiting in the van. He and the police guards might have underestimated it: since there were hours before it got bad, they might not have connected the dots between the baton whack and the pain.

He asked for help, and they sent a nurse. He or she similarly underestimated it and offered an anal pill or whatever. He said he refused this. He didn't say he argued for more and got nothing. Could be that he thought it wasn't so bad and would just tough it out (perhaps because he figured he would get out soon on bail anyway). Could also be that he did ask for more, and the nurse wasn't interested.

Anyway, then it continued to get worse over the next couple hours, and he eventually got an ambulance to the hospital.

-- END SPECULATION --


Alternatively, the other possibilities are still open. Maybe he wasn't whacked by the police at all. If there's a few hours between the crippling pain and the event that caused it - which seems to be the case here in the video - it could have been something that happened before he talked to the police.

Nobody knows yet.


Other things from the video:

* There were a lot of people around, including a news crew. It's possible nobody saw what happened, but that's a lot of eyes, and we should see if any of them witnessed the events in question.

* The video said his friend said he was denied proper medical treatment in jail until he made jail and was rushed to Highland Hospital. This is a different story than the other articles, where he saw a nurse and had to wait several hours after being bailed out before getting the ambulance.

* The police are investigating the allegations. I'm sure they are questioning witnesses. Once their report is made public, we'll have to revisit this.

* At about 1:40, we see him a couple minutes before. In this video, his arms were not folded. (goes to credibility - check his statements in the OP. Is he exaggerating the truth?) It's possible he folded them later, after the camera moved, and that's what he was talking about.

If he was there for several minutes though, what happened in all that time? Was he loitering and harassing the officers for several minutes when they decided to arrest him for it?

We don't know yet.

You're right, we don't know. I don't know that I will see the Sun come over the Eastern Horizon tomorrow. I don't know if the Sun will even exist tomorrow. In fact, I don't know if I will teleport to Jupiter at the end of this post. The evidence? It's not in yet.

In fact, I don't know that YOU exist. I've not seen any evidence that you are who you say you are, I just have unreliable hearsay and circumstantial evidence that can't be proven yet. I've never met you. I don't know if you're a real being.

Language? It's just a construct, artificial and utterly arbitrary. Why, we could be speaking two entirely different languages right now and who could say we weren't? They don't have enough evidence.

/Baked2ndYearPhilosophyStudent

There, that's done. We had our little chat on AIM, but hey, you know, far be it from me to stop beating a dead horse. Let's talk about "Logic". You keep saying this word, I do not think it means what you think it means. Logic is not about twisting variables until you get to see what you want to see. It is not about defining words that already have definitions. It is not about making assumptions based on what you think you know. It's not about searching for evidence to fit your own conclusions.

All of which you have been doing. The medical data you offered? You took the tiniest bit of information and tried to make it seem as though it were reasonable to assume that events could have happened that way. It's not, and had you not been looking to support your argument, rather than actually supporting the position of "looking at the facts and making a determination based on that", you would have realized that. But no, your entire role in this thread has been to be as contrary and trollish as you can. Congrats, you're a troll. I'm sure you're proud.

Actually looking for truth, and the most likely explanation? Look at the data in front of you, some of which you've supplied yourself. The man had over half a dozen men on him for what had to be several minutes. He was not resisting. Well over a dozen officers moved to attempt to stop the filming. His stance when standing off with the officers was not aggressive, but it was resolute. When brought up, he was clearly not standing or moving fully under his own power. The clip of him talking? Heavily edited and with no context. With context, maybe it would mean more, but without it, it's not much to go on.

Fact: Police Response to the previous protest, which was peaceful, resulted in a former Marine getting badly hurt and rushed to the hospital.

Fact: Police Response to the following protests AGAINST POLICE BRUTALITY as well as the Occupy/99% movement resulted in more Police Violence. The man mentioned here ended up in the same hospital as the other injured vet, meaning that it's very likely they were in the same section of the city, and dealing with the same group of cops in both cases.

Fact: Oakland PD has a nasty history of Police Brutality, a fact that has been covered numerous times, including earlier this year, before the protests.

Fact: Previous behavior is the best predictor of future behavior.

You can try to dispute these facts, but really, it's a fruitless exchange. You'd just be airing your ignorance of the subjects in question and showcasing your own prejudices and bias. Even if you're right, which is incredibly unlikely, your standard of "evidence" is unreasonable, even within the confines of a court of law. But again, let's talk about Logic. Occam's Razor comes into play here, where the conclusion that requires the fewest explanations is almost always the correct one. Amusingly, this works out very well in Law Enforcement and in trials, since really it's usually the obvious stuff that happens most of the time. It's just that the boring stuff doesn't make for good TV.

So, what are the options so far? We know the guy was arrested, and by Oakland PD, held for a pretty long time without medical attention, when he finally got medical attention, it was revealed that he had an injury that is almost always the result of physical trauma (note, this doesn't mean beating him within an inch of his life, but it does require a strong blow to the abdomen/chest, in case you were wondering where the spleen was, and if it would affect his ability to talk, think, walk, or continue existing). What options are there? Feel free to add your own, but let me make a few to start.

1. He was sick and really only got mildly roughed up resisting arrest (requires: rare and usually crippling/terminal illness)
2. He did it himself to get back at the Oakland PD (requires: willingness to potentially kill himself to prove a point/sue the city, awkward striking angle makes self-infliction difficult at best, would likely draw attention)
3. Another prisoner did it (requires: motive, means)
4. The Oakland PD did it: (requires: ....well, really, not much. They have a history of brutality, the most recent case being last week, which isn't enough time to find out who is at fault, much less remove them from the force, this was in the same general area, for largely the same reasons)

It may not be enough right now for a conviction, but it's certainly far more than probable cause to start an investigation and start getting people kicked to desk duty or couch duty until the trial. Meanwhile, the police can close ranks and try to make as much of the hard evidence disappear, fellow officer's memories suddenly get very fuzzy (though at other trials they get clear as a bell somehow), "convince" people to not get involved, so on and so forth. Cops that don't do this get shunned, given shit duties, and basically fucked in every way possible until they eat a gun, get gunned down without support, or pressured off the force. By the by, that's what the Blue Wall is about, not that behavior like that is limited to the Police, but the term was popularized due to rather serious Police Corruption cases over the years. Things have gotten better over the decades, but there's still too many cases of abuse of power by Police Officers and lack of punishment for the abusers to claim that it's gone forever. Remember all those "It's illegal to film police officer" cases that have been cropping up lately? Yeah, that.

As far as if it's likely that Oakland PD beat this man and left him to wallow in his vomit for nearly a day? Yeah, I'd believe it. I've seen far worse reported over the years and I'll likely see worse yet. And when the sound of hooves comes from around the corner, I'm going to keep guessing it's a horse, maybe a donkey, perhaps a zebra if I'm near a zoo.

Keep holding out for that unicorn. That's Logical, right?

We won't be finding the police version of events of any of this, looks like. Link to the ACLU and National Lawyer's Guild's request for public records. The response is kind of unnerving in some way I can't put my foot on.

"The Oakland Police Department understands that the greater and more unfettered the public official's power, the greater the public's interest in monitoring the governmental action. We recognize and acknowledge your October 26th, 2011 request furthers our commitment to this obligation."

And then proceeds to say 'No. We're not giving you anything.'. You know what really bothers me, though? Unfettered being used to describe the police department's power.

They did not say they aren't giving anything. Did you actually read the pdf?


First off, they did release some of the information requested, and some of the request was broken up into two letters, so they might have simply not gotten around to the second one yet.

Secondly, it was a preliminary response, not the whole thing. The last sentence of the #2 pdf says outright "we understand it is not a completed or all inclusive response".

Third, the reason the police gave for not releasing it at this time was that it's an ongoing investigation, and thus not required to release (the department policy is probably to say no to all of these by default, to avoid tainting the investigation). The second letter is the ACLU lawyer arguing that this is not the case.


It's premature to jump to any conclusions. At least in the OP case, we can conclude that he was injured. Here, we can't even say they won't give anything up, since the response is incomplete and the discussion ongoing.

You know what really bothers me, though? Unfettered being used to describe the police department's power.

This is probably a good thing: they realize there might be a big problem. That's the first step to solving it.

Why is it premature to come to the logical conclusion of police brutality? I'll agree that it's premature on a legal level, since the process of law should be followed, but you'll note none of us are DA's or Judges. So why is it so important that we not decide what is likely to have occurred based on the evidence in front of us? Are we incapable of admitting we were wrong in the face of new evidence (unlikely as that is to come up)? Does the world suffer if we assume things based on what we feel is sufficient evidence? What is the reason?

It's not the logical conclusion. Police brutality doesn't mean "officer used reasonable force to effect arrest of resisting suspect", which, is easily the most likely scenario.

And then the medical thing makes almost no sense at all. I'll discuss that when I finish my post on the laptop.

Why is "reasonable force" the most likely scenario? You don't bust a spleen with "reasonable force". Moreoever, we never see any evidence of him resisting. As in at all. That's an assumption from facts not in evidence.

Oh, wait, personal bias, not logic. Got it.

You know, for all this going on you do about "logic" and "wait for the facts", you are actually quite terrible at it. I mean, I even went through the trouble of spelling it out for you, but rather than read it and respond to the critical points I raise, you just keep repeating yourself. No clarification, no explanation. Nothing new, nothing different.

To assume "resisting arrest", you have to have some evidence of it. The video you yourself supplied does not show that. Assumption #1 on your part.

Next, you assume that it's reasonable that a spleen could become ruptured from "reasonable force". How, exactly? The assumption here is either that there is an underlying condition the explains a far easier than normal rupture, yet somehow allows him to be fit enough to seem perfectly healthy prior to the arrest, much less resist arrest (goes to assumption #1), or that the "reasonable force" includes a severe blow to the subject's midsection. (Assumption #2).

These are large assumptions based on no facts in evidence and instead, on pure speculation on your part. How is this the scenario with the least assumptions? How does this meet the test of Occam's Razor, one of the most critical tools in this "Logic" you speak of so highly.

Or are you using the definition of "logic" that just lets you declare whatever you dream up as true?

Hotfoot wrote:Why is "reasonable force" the most likely scenario?

He was arrested on suspicion of resisting arrest as well as not leaving the scene of a riot. This is a matter of public record. We saw him standing with with the police in the video, and his first hand statement admitted he was chatting up the officers and didn't understand why they wanted him to leave.

We know he received an injury at some point, which is consistent with him being hit by a police officer. Why would an officer hit him? To arrest him for the crime of failing to obey the lawful order to leave the scene.

To assume "resisting arrest", you have to have some evidence of it. The video you yourself supplied does not show that.

Yes, it does. You don't need three guys to tackle someone to arrest him if he wasn't resisting.

It's interesting how you're being an ass when I say "he might have gotten his injury somewhere else", but at the same time, you're being an ass because I won't automatically assume the alternative answer of police brutality is obviously right rather than the simple answer of the police responding to his actions.

He's not a weakling either, by the way. He's former military, and appears to be physically fit. If he became agressive, that'd explain an escalation of force.

Next, you assume that it's reasonable that a spleen could become ruptured from "reasonable force". How, exactly?

An officer swung at him with a baton, probably aiming for his arms, to force compliance. This is consistent with his first hand statement. See frigidmagi's second post: "one moved forward and hit me in my arm and legs and back with his baton."

Now, I'm pretty sure you aren't supposed to hit the torso with a baton, but there's a simple explanation for that: the officer missed. Suppose you have a right handed officer, face to face with someone. He swings and misses. What is he most likely to hit? The left side of the body.


I'm not saying this is how it happened, but it's a good possibility.

Wait, wait, wait. The best case scenario you can think up is "the police officers were trying to hit him on the arms with their nightsticks, and missed and hit his spleen."

Seriously?



So, in your hypothetical view of the events, they were swinging hard enough on his arms to produce severe damage to his spleen. In looking at the graphic above, do you at least agree that this is, at best, extraordinarily unlikely?

Even with this ridiculous water-carrying for the reason the soldier's spleen was severely damaged aside, there's still the matter of leaving him in a cell for 18 hours with no medical attention. I see no reasonable explanation for this, other than... the police chose to leave an injured vet in a cell for 18 hours without medical attention.