FREE e-Newsletter
Important News - Hot Topics
Get them Now!

Top News

Video: Seattle City Attorney Backs Cop In Rough Arrest

October 20, 2011  | 

VIDEO: Seattle Cop Slams Man Onto Hood

The Seattle City Attorney's office has asked a federal appeals court to review a rough arrest captured on a patrol car's dash-cam that depicts an officer slamming a subject's head onto a cruiser's hood.

Seattle Police officer Kevin Oshikawa-Clay's 2008 arrest of businessman Jon Kita became the subject of a civil claim by Kita that the officer used excessive force to subdue the smaller, complaint Kita.

The officer is shown slamming Kita's head to the car, and taking him to the ground, where he delivers two blows.

The city is arguing, in a brief filed with the 9th Circuit Court, that the officer's actions fall within the department's use-of-force protocol and.

Source: Seattle Weekly

Tags: Seattle PD, Patrol Car Video, Use-of-Force Policies


Comments (14)

Displaying 1 - 14 of 14

John Jackson @ 10/20/2011 5:54 PM

He may have a problem with that one.

John Jackson @ 10/20/2011 5:55 PM

On face value, the officer may have big trouble. Little guy, with little resistance, wearing glasses. Not my cup of tea.

Robert Johnson @ 10/20/2011 7:19 PM

The offender has sometihing, a dark handercheif, rag, whatever in his left hand and then switches it to his right hand while walking to the squad car, never dropping same. The officer had every right to be concerned - the "slam" was'nt violent - it's an effort to get the offender who isn't following the officer's instructions to comply and show who is in control. Even if the offender is just not picking up the very succinct commands, is the officer suppose to be a mind reader and decide whether he has someone trying to lull him into complacency befer attacking or just a person that has diifficulty following instructions. Of course the 9th Circuit is the worst so best of luck on the appeal.

Lt. Robert Tester @ 10/20/2011 7:44 PM

Not everyone knows what we mean when we say "give me your hands". How about trying "put your hands behind your back sir".

halderon @ 10/21/2011 3:18 PM

After watching this over an over, two things come to mind, 1. That is not a rag that he is carrying, that is his hat. 2. The officer tells him to put his hands on his car, and when the guy tries to comply, the officer bumps the guy''s head and orders him to "give me your hands."Now the guy's mind is trying to understand two conflicting demands, which is impossible..

Francis @ 10/24/2011 8:50 AM

@ Gregory & @ Frank, I am cop for more than 24 years with a prestige department and I have been in the use of force situations more than most of my colleagues. I have been in IA and been sued many times and none was found valid. However, I would disagree with the action of the Seattle Officer Kevin Oshikawa-Clay's action. I would like to blame this on training and perception errors. First, the officer would not do what he did to a much larger person by shoving the confused suspect’s neck onto the hood and waived at the suspect with a finger. The officer has forgotten that all suspects are presumed innocent until ... Second, if the suspect were a larger man, the officer probably would not conk the man’s head. This conduct would only escalate to a dangerous situation to the officer, not safer. Third, the officer had amble of time to use hinged cuffs to secure the suspect’s wrist and to bring the hand to the back while he was on the hood. As we taught in the academy, the second hand will have a sympathetic reaction to the handcuffs. Speed is a factor of success in defensive tactics, not intimidation. Intimidation would only lead to “Rough” arrest. Fourth, if the suspect had the intention to assault or to kill an officer, Officer Oshikawa-Clay probably would not be able to handle the assault, given that his handling of the arrest was “Rough.”

Fed Cop @ 10/25/2011 6:30 AM

"Do I have your attention NOW?"

krisnlc @ 10/28/2011 8:51 AM

This police officer represents a small segment of bad police officers. This police officer responded in a unnecessary way because the person did not respond "perfectly" to his commands. Poor policing decision, poor protection by Seattle City Attorney... this cop is a bad cop and should be fired before he really hurts someone!

You guys study use of for @ 12/22/2011 7:11 PM

1) Ofc. witnesses man assault woman. *danger sign*

2) Ofc. commands him to put his hands on the car... The guy instead turns his head around and puts his right hand in his pocket. *danger sign /possible flight or fight*

3) Ofc. says, "give me your hands" (Guys... how is that not clear?!).The guy does not give the ofc.his hands. *danger sign* - Federal, State, and local agencies advise that a person's hands are very important to control as they are what can manipulate a weapon.

4) Ofc. gives open handed strike to non-compliant, potentially dangerous person - as taught even by FEDERAL AGENCIES (yet federal courts think it is not allowed - go figure). He didn't grab the guy by the hair and dent the car hood. His forehead hit the hood incidentally (if at all).

5) Arm bar takedown for non-compliant, dangerous individual. The officer still doesn't know what the heck is in the guy's pocket (if anything) and doesn't want to find out the hard way. Apparently on the ground, the man has his hand under his body, hidden and near his waistband - VERY dangerous according to the FBI's own published studies. 2 strikes to get his hand out because VERY clear verbal commands are ignored.

6) Guy is handcuffed and the use of force immediately ends - no extra beating to teach a lesson... no abuse at the station house. In other words - no malice and no real "damages". (I thought torts needed REAL damages... not hurt feelings!)

None of the above is meant to cover for cops who like to kick handcuffed suspects in the face, or treat people poorly. As a matter of fact... those abusive idiots have made it harder for cops like this to use legitimate force to make an arrest. This video is about this one incident and the officer did what he was trained to do... the city has to back him up. Looked professional for the arrest of a man who just assaulted a woman.

I doubt some of you have a clue about use of forc

No Brainer @ 12/22/2011 7:30 PM

Lt. Tester... C'mon. "Give me your hands," if not clear all by itself (which I think it is), was accompanied by the officer reaching and pulling on Kita's arm to get it behind his back. This guy is ignoring verbal commands and is non-compliant. Even Verbal Judo says that the officer must "act." The only thing that got hurt was the offender's pride.

A fair tradeoff... @ 12/22/2011 7:37 PM

What is the officer's alternative, take a chance and end up like NYPD Peter Figoski, or Lakeland, FL police officer Arnulfo Crispin? I've got a better idea, when one is assaulting one's girlfriend, and the police gives one verbal orders, maybe one should comply. Then no force would be necessary.

noizy @ 4/9/2012 7:02 PM

What people seem to forget is that there has already been a trial, the facts of the case have come out, the woman has testified, etc. Someone wrote:

"1) Ofc. witnesses man assault woman. *danger sign*"

It came out in the trial that the officer never witnessed Kita assaulting any woman for the simple reason that Kita never assaulted any woman.

Study some law, Noizy @ 1/23/2014 7:39 AM

Conclusions of a trial do NOT reach backward in time and negate what an officer saw. Arrest criteria is "Reasonable cause to believe" / trial criteria is "beyond reasonable doubt" - 2 different standards... with good reason - otherwise cops would be Judge Dredd and bring 12 jurors to every call. And domestic violence victims sometimes let abusers off the hook... that doesn't mean the cop didn't see what he saw. Apparently the west coast (9th circuit etc.) needs to read Graham v. Connor. Did the officer see Kita drag a woman to the ground? Then THAT is what he had to work with. Graham v. Connor says that cops have split seconds to make decisions... A guy dragging a woman to the ground (inspite of whether Kita is later acquitted) made the officer believe Mr. Kita had propensity towards violence. Kita wouldn't follow directions, and the force wasn't brutal - it was enough to get Kita cuffed. Seattle settled for $75,000. If people understood Graham v. Connor they would not have.

Study some law, Noizy @ 1/23/2014 9:04 AM

"The "reasonableness" of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight. The Fourth Amendment is not violated by an arrest based on probable cause, even though the wrong person is arrested, nor by the mistaken execution of a valid search warrant on the wrong premises. With respect to a claim of excessive force, the same standard of
reasonableness at the moment applies: "Not every push or shove, even if it may later seem unnecessary in the peace of a judge's chambers," violates the Fourth Amendment. The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments — in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving — about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular
situation." - Graham v. Connor 87-6571

Join the Discussion





POLICE Magazine does not tolerate comments that include profanity, personal attacks or antisocial behavior (such as "spamming" or "trolling"). This and other inappropriate content or material will be removed. We reserve the right to block any user who violates this, including removing all content posted by that user.

Other Recent News

Teen Convicted of Killing Off-Duty Texas Officer
The jury deliberated for about five hours Monday before finding 19-year-old Juan Antonio...
Texas Cop Killer Gets Death Penalty
A jury has decided the punishment for the man convicted of killing a Bellaire, Texas,...
Bratton Asks New Yorkers to Stop Interfering with Arrests
"There is no denying on the videos which have surfaced . . . what is seen is interference...
Video: Illinois Officer Fired for Shooting Little Girl's Dog
A police officer in Hometown, Ill., has been fired days after fatally shooting a dog in...
Video: Nevada Officer Stabbed, Suspect Killed
The officers and the man got into a confrontation and the man stabbed one of the officers...

Get Your FREE Trial Issue and Win a Gift! Subscribe Today!
Yes! Please rush me my FREE TRIAL ISSUE of POLICE magazine and FREE Officer Survival Guide with tips and tactics to help me safely get out of 10 different situations.

Just fill in the form to the right and click the button to receive your FREE Trial Issue.

If POLICE does not satisfy you, just write "cancel" on the invoice and send it back. You'll pay nothing, and the FREE issue is yours to keep. If you enjoy POLICE, pay only $25 for a full one-year subscription (12 issues in all). Enjoy a savings of nearly 60% off the cover price!

Offer valid in US only. Outside U.S., click here.
It's easy! Just fill in the form below and click the red button to receive your FREE Trial Issue.
First Name:
Last Name:
Rank:
Agency:
Address:
City:
State:
  
Zip Code:
 
Country:
We respect your privacy. Please let us know if the address provided is your home, as your RANK / AGENCY will not be included on the mailing label.
E-mail Address:

Police Magazine