Cross-posted with links and video at PoliticalReformer.com
How many baton blows to the head does it take to "calm" a man who is attempting to return to his mother's home on a summer night? Not less than 20, and a few good kicks to boot -- that is, according to defense attorney Stephen Worth and his client, New York City Police Officer David London.
For most of the past two weeks, London has been on trial in Manhattan for second-degree assault, filing false records, falsifying business records and making a false written statement against Walter Harvin, an Iraq War veteran who, just moments before the attack, was simply trying to enter his mother's apartment building, where he was staying at the time. According to Mr. Harvin's mother, her son, who is reported to have suffered from post traumatic stress disorder since his return from the war, has seen his mental health spiral since the incident, drifting into homelessness, and this year, he has disappeared for an extended period of time. Without Mr. Harvin's testimony, and despite extensive video evidence depicting the vicious violent assault against him, this week, in a stunning jury verdict, David London was . . . acquitted of all charges.
Based on convincing video evidence (see the security camera recording below this article), there is no question that officer London, whose partner was at the scene and assisted with the arrest, used an extraordinary level of force against Mr. Harvin. The video shows that Harvin was not only repeatedly bashed in the face and head with a baton before and after he was on the ground, but further battered and kicked after being cuffed and in a fetal position. To top it off, after literally beating Harvin partially out of public view into an alcove off of the building lobby, at one point, officer London walked away from the scene to use his cell phone, only to return to Harvin — still lying on the ground with hands cuffed behind his back — to beat him even more. That last pounding, London told jurors, was to keep Harvin from drawing a “dangerous” crowd. In light of the video evidence, one must wonder whether the additional blows were actually intended to prevent a large group of potential witnesses who, upon seeing Mr. London so mercilessly beaten and bloodied, might have gathered the courage to report the incident.
Officer London, who took the stand in his own defense, explained the events this way: the beating was simply meant to both calm and gain compliance from Mr. Harvin. In fact, according to defense attorney Worth, far from being an instance of police brutality, this was an event in which the arresting police officer “out of compassion,” had “used too little” force to incapacitate the victim. As for London’s inaccurate arrest report, which described a punch which Mr. Harvin neither threw nor landed, the officer-defendant said he simply didn’t read the document carefully before it was filed.
To be fair to officer London, who is no stranger to the complaint of police brutality and who has been assigned to desk duty since the incident, Walter Harvin did not seem to be at all compliant with his directives. At the start of the altercation, London can be seen both removing an object that had propped the front door open, and then beginning to close the door. However, he holds it slightly ajar as he sees Mr. Harvin approaching the building. Mr. London claims that it was when he asked to see a key, that Harvin became hostile, saying at one point, “I f**king told you I live in apartment 22-C!’” London also says that after Harvin proceeded to walk through the door and pushed away from his grasp, he informed the Iraq vet that he was under arrest. As the video shows, once in the lobby, Harvin soon headed for the elevator, clearly to the consternation of the officer, who followed closely behind with his partner. As Harvin entered one of the building’s elevators, London caught up with him and says that he ordered him back out. According to London, Harvin, even while walking away was unleashing threats and expletives, such as, “You can’t f**king take me. I’ll f**king kill you.” Mr. London then grabbed Harvin from behind and pulled him off the elevator, spinning him around, a few feet back into the lobby. Within seconds, Harvin, who appeared to move forward, and London, were standing face-to-face, exchanging words. It is at this point, that the confrontation truly began to take a turn for the worse, as London stepped back, pulled out his baton and landed the first volley of crushing blows to Harvin’s skull.
Interestingly, what the video shows is that Harvin was certainly no angel in this incident. Just as important, London is by no means easy to caricature as a monster. In short, this was not a case about a chronically corrupt cop, but rather, a police officer who, as prosecutors argued, appears to have lost his temper, inflicted unnecessary and potentially life-threatening harm on a citizen, and then sought to cover up the incident, in part, by escalating the charges against him.
Despite the striking evidence of police brutality, based on Mr. Harvin’s apparent failure to comply with police orders prior to the physical exchange, it is conceivable that a small number of observers might conclude that he actually had a beating “coming to him.” Unfortunately, it seems that this is what all 12 members of the jury concluded. Such reasoning, however, defies any notion of common decency, let alone the proper administration of justice.
Was Mr. Harvin uncooperative? It seems so. Was he verbally hostile? That too, may have been the case — at least as far as we can tell from police testimony, since Mr. Harvin was reportedly unable to testify after having been doubly traumatized, first by the war and then by the beating. Mr. Harvin’s actions may have in the end justified a stop, and, perhaps, an arrest — and possibly even the use of force to incapacitate him. But, does a failure to comply truly justify the savage beating of this man . . . after he had already suffered more than a dozen full baton swings to the head . . . after his hands were cuffed behind his back . . . while laying in a fetal position . . . on the ground? Really? Really?
Officer London, if convicted, would have faced up to seven years in prison — which is less time than the inaccurate charge of assault could have brought Mr. Harvin for his “phantom” punch, had the DA’s office not dropped the charges against the Iraq War vet upon seeing the incriminating video.
Perhaps, the bigger issue that emerges from the case is this: if a police officer can be acquitted of all charges after a jury has seen extensive video of him beating an unarmed individual who has already been incapacitated, then one has to wonder . . . what chance for justice does a man or woman have when he or she has been at the mercy of an angry law enforcement officer and a video recording is not available?
The security video below presents the incident involving police officer David London and Walter Harvin in its entirety — from multiple angles. Note that there is no accompanying audio.
