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


Seattle Cop Slams Man Onto Hood


Seattle Police Officer Kevin Oshikawa-Clay's dash-cam captured his arrest of businessman Jon Kita in 2008. Seattle's city attorney is backing the officer in the case, which is heading to the 9th Circuit Court.

October 20, 2011
6001 views

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


Comments (32)

Displaying 1 - 32 of 32

michael @ 10/20/2011 6:15 PM

What lead up to this contact/arrest. The suspect here was not complying with the officers orders. The officer trying to arrest the suspect who obviseouly wasn't going to comply to his verbal commands and was refusing to place his hands behind his back. Looks like a good arrest to me, you don't comply with a lawful order you go to jail. To many people today thinks they can resist officers because they don't agree with the officer. Sorry folks, that is not the way it works. You can always protect later.

Jim @ 10/20/2011 6:43 PM

It's really a shame that assholes like that are insulated from being sued personally. There is no excuse for that behavior. Probably practices on his wife.

Jason Barnes @ 10/20/2011 7:02 PM

The purported perp was a dumbbell for putting his right hand in his pocket. When he was on the hood the officer said, "Put your hand OUT." (emphasis added). The perp COMPLIED by stretching his arm out and opening his hand. The officer did not ask the perp to "put your hand behind your back."

Of course, it's pretty easy to be Monday morning quarterback. We were not there when the perp stuck his right hand in his pocket!

Gregory @ 10/20/2011 7:21 PM

The real shame here are the people who speak out against law enforcement with no real understanding of what happened or what it's like to be a patrol officer these days. I can also tell you that if the city attorney didn't agree, the officer would be left to fend for himself. Thanks to the men and women who involve themselves for to serve others.

Tom Ret @ 10/20/2011 7:42 PM

When I first watched the video my impression was this doesn't look good for the officer. As I understand the initial contact, the officer viewed some type of assault in which the subject pushed a female down.
After watching the video several times, it is apparent to me that the officer is telling the subject to give him his hands more than once to which the subject appears to not be complying for whatever reason. It is possible he wasn't understanding. The officer was in no mood to debate whether he was going to comply and conked him on the back of the head as an attention getter or motivator. When the officer conked the back of the subject's head, it appears that it made contact with the hood of the car but doubtful that it was hard enough to cause injury. The officer looking back on the incident, may now think he conked the guy in the back of the head a little harder than he intended to. Even though the suspect is visibly smaller than the officer, the officer is alone which reasonably allows more force than if other officers were present. Now that the subject has contacted an attorney, he is complaining of being hurt which wasn't an issue apparently right after the incident. Street officers will be more sympathetic to the officer's actions than civilians who don't have to make physical arrests. A lot of officers have been killed by smaller subjects when they lose control of the situation. It is a balancing act between keeping control and using too much force. I personally would not find the officer at fault but then again I look at it from a street officer's perspective.

DEADMAN @ 10/21/2011 12:06 AM

I have mixed thoughts on this,not having witnessed what the man was doing to attract attention,if the man did infact assault a woman and throw or push her to ground,he is a perp and your senses are heightened ,especially when the man puts his right hand in his pocket.That being said,bouncing the mans head against the hood,might have rattled the perp but it is doubtful that it would cause any seriousl injury to the perp if any,plus i don't think that was the original intent of the officer,he just want him splayed on the hood.Good Job,Officer!

Brandon @ 10/21/2011 5:15 AM

SO MUCH is not covered in this 00:47 snippet of an entire situation!!!

1) The reporter seems to take special note to mention that this guy is a "business man." Is that supposed to suggest that he is a classy/law abiding citizen?!?!

2) If you've spent any time working the street, around shifty/shady CRIMINALS, this guy (i.e. Businessman Kita) is displaying some very concerning body language that would certainly warrant a bit of concern on the officers part to get Mr. Kita secured quickly.

3) The "blows" and "slams" never once made Kita cry out or even say ouch and once he's in cuffs Kita says he now "understands" and "I'm really sorry. I really am." Doesn't sound hurt to me, sounds guilty... of something.

BUT I don't know, I wasn't there. (Mr. Kita was though.)

Frank @ 10/21/2011 6:19 AM

@ Jim above, re: "Probably practices on his wife."

That's just the kind of profiling police officers get accused of, making assumptions based on absolutely no fact. Very classy on your part. Are you a cop? If not, you have no idea what you would have done in this situation. If you are, maybe you will get your chance at getting sued one day.

Ric Walters @ 10/21/2011 6:54 AM

The biggest surprise is that the Seattle City Attorney actually supports a cop!

onehotredhead @ 10/21/2011 7:04 AM

it wasnt much of a slam on the hood and the two blows to the head wear like 6inches from the idiots head. if the idiot would have done what he was told it would not have escalated.

Captain David @ 10/21/2011 7:40 AM

Not wrong! Guy just didn't want to listen, would not follow commands. In my 27 yrs experience, he was justified..

c. britt @ 10/21/2011 8:37 AM

all he had to do was to do what the officer said,and there would not have been a problem. good job.

c. britt @ 10/21/2011 8:40 AM

just do what the officer says and there would not be a problem. good job.

Thebeav @ 10/21/2011 10:00 AM

and what was done wrong?? The suspect here was not complying with the officers orders - and these losers sue.

Thebeav @ 10/21/2011 10:01 AM

The suspect here was not complying with the officers orders. I see nothing wrong and these losers use.

scpdblue @ 10/21/2011 11:39 AM

I agree with Ric Walters comment;Ric Walters @ 10/21/2011 6:54 AM

The biggest surprise is that the Seattle City Attorney actually supports a cop!

scpdblue @ 10/21/2011 11:42 AM

The officer was not hitting the guy in the head on the ground but in the left shoulder to get him to bring his hand around so that the officer could cuff him.

JD @ 10/21/2011 10:45 PM

@ Jim. You have no law enforcement experience. When someone you give lawful orders to does the opposite of what you are telling them to do, it will cause a very heightened awareness for survival in any officer. That suspect was very lucky for the actions he displayed in the video.

D.R. Elliott @ 10/22/2011 7:46 PM

I agree with Frank in reference to "Jim's" comment on practicing on his wife. Guess what "sir" he can be sued personally and some of us have. The U.S. Supreme Court stated in Graham v. Conner that a Use of Force must be "Judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer coping with a tense, fast evolving situation." You weren't there, I wasn't there. I will respectfully request Police to remove your post since you refered to the officer as an asshole. Police Magazine's policy does not allow profanity or personal attacks.

Mike Patterson @ 10/23/2011 12:26 PM

Where was the threat to the officer. If he felt treatened or that the guy was not complying he should have not let him walk up to him. layed him on the ground. It looked as though the officer was angry more than the guy was not complying. I never saw any type of resistance. Again Love the Police. Love seeing them do it right. I can not agree with that procedure.

gp cobb @ 10/23/2011 6:41 PM

Frank @ 10/21/2011 6:19 AM

@ Jim above, re: "Probably practices on his wife."
Ditto on Frank; Obviously Jim is out to the left somewhere.
I'm a little guy, I'da shot the guy before he got his right hand out of the pocket, just my .02!

deportega @ 10/24/2011 7:32 AM

It's pretty obvious the suspect is asian and doesn't speak english. The over excited officer lacks experience and training. Why is he ordering him to his car? Could have just proned the suspect out at soon as he exited the vehicle. If this had been a real "bad guy" why wasn't the officer's gun out for his own safety?

POOR TACTICS! is why this happened

don'tquote @ 10/28/2011 2:46 AM

James Barnes, the order to "get your hand out" was given well after the subject did not comply with the order to " give me your hand." One can clearly see that the offender was not removing his hand that was underneath his body when on the patrol car. The move to the pocket coupled with the lack of cooperation is what got the subject tossed to the ground. So your point being that he did cooperate is accurate, but only after the officer took appropriate measures to insure his safety and make an arrest by putting the subject on the ground. Police officers hear subjects complying all the time, but saying "ok, ok" is not the same as doing what you are told.

krisnlc @ 10/28/2011 8:34 AM

this is ridiculous! I cannot even start to believe that so many people on here are defending the policeman actions. Yes, the guy is a dummy.. he should not have placed his hands in his pockets...but depending on the type of person some people who do not regularly encounter cops, dont know how to respond... could this guy be dangerous yes...was he dangerous in this video obviously "no".... In my law enforecement career i have seen these people, and you give them a bit more consideration when you come across them.... you are told over and over do not stereo type, but you (we) do it anyway...i have seen this type of cop over and over...big tough guy when he comes across the meek and mild, weak and poor decision skills when they come across the real criminal, this type of officer spends his type trying to refine and convince himself that he is a good confidnet officer with the week and mild people we are suppose to protect, he is also the one that goes home drinks beer (obviously fat and overweight) and talks to his friends of the conquests like this one.... Seattle DA, you should be ashamed of yourself... this cop is a predator, not a protector... the perp, is a dummy, and obvious not a person who comes face to face with cops.... no reason for this action by the officer...ridiculous responses by others statments... To protect and To serve is the motto not To intimidate and abuse! use your heads man... "comon man!"

krisnlc @ 10/28/2011 8:38 AM

Frank: Jim above (probably practices on his wife comment) is correct... this cop is an asshole... I am law enforcement, i dont treat people like that... bad cop, bad decision, bad day, now he will go to a bar and tell everyone how he attacked a motorcycle gang...yeah right...! To protect and to serve.. not intimidate and abuse...

halderon @ 10/29/2011 1:23 PM

I watched this over and over. The guy is not carrying a rag, he is carrying his hat. The human brain cannot understand two conflicting orders. One was,"put your hand on my car." the second was,"give me your hands."And when his mind is thinking,"I can't do both!" Bang!, but since I was not there to understand,I reserve judgment. It is important that we each decide, how would we have responded? More information on the stop is needed. Why? is the question and that may change our perception of what happened.

2Lincoln9 @ 11/1/2011 9:40 AM

The ultimate issue is did he violate the use of force policy? Technically, no. He gave verbal commands and escalated from open hand control, to soft restraint, to palm-heel strikes to the eventual arm-bar take down. Were there things he could have done/said to keep the incident from escalating to the use of force, probably, but on a force continuum, he is most likely within department policy. It may not look pretty, but life and law isn't always boxed up with a pretty little bow either.

Jim @ 11/6/2011 2:08 PM

Sorry, I don't see any reason for the cop to behave like he did. I see a cooperative but confused individual who had trouble understanding the officers unclear commands. At 0.14 on the video he can be seen turning the palm of his free hand up and trying to give it to the cop in response to the command "give me your hands". Had the officer issued the command "put your hand behind your back" I have no doubt the suspect would have complied. I see an angry cop having a bad day and taking out on someone smaller and weaker than himself.
I have no doubt had the suspect been 6'-4" and 265 lbs he would have handled the situation with much more respect.

JB @ 11/11/2011 9:30 AM

I don't think the officer was wrong. disect the video before you make judgements.

-At 4 sec: subject approaches ofc with hand in pocket. RED FLAG, who does that?

-At 7 secs: Ofc tries to grab subject and he pulls his right arm and hand away from the officer.

-At 12 secs: Ofc issues verbal commands that subject does not comply with, as ofc pulls subjects right arm back you can see the subject responds by tensing the arm.

- Ofc then responds with a strike to subjects head.

Too bad... dont approach officers in a hostile manner with hands in pocket, comply with verbal commands, and dont resist.

Well done officer.

Steve E @ 3/21/2012 9:44 PM

Looks like a good bust. What next rubber cushion hoods so resisting suspects can bounce in comfort, lol . My split second take is > the suspect is not a hardened criminal , more like a weakling and a mildly psychotic bratty narcissist, just the kind that are passive-agressive to authority and think they are above the law. These types tend to act like prissy females who think they can resist and not comply and get away with it, "survey says" > NOT, bounce him into jail.

abc123 @ 5/22/2012 4:31 PM

I must respond to: krisnlc.

You may be a LEO (maybe not). And there may be prick cops out there that taint the rest of us. Unfortunately for the profession, there are other videos that make your point. But I don't think that this video is one.

Graham v Connor says this seizure must be viewed from the perspective of the reasonable officer with the information he knew at the time the force was used.

"Mr." Kita was observed pushing a female to the ground. He has already, right in front of the officer's eyes shown violence. He puts his hand in his pocket. It's his hat... OK... and the officer under a certain amount of stress or uncertainty (and the lack of psychic powers) doesn't pick up on that as quickly as the armchair quarterbacks who can watch the video a dozen times in a stress free environment. Plus... what is in his pocket besides the hat?

If someone behind me said "give me your hand" while tugging backward... I believe that is pretty DARNED clear. I don't see compliance. Maybe if you climb down from your high horse, you can see the video a little better.

There is no beat down, retaliation, or "lesson" taught... the cop wasn't brutal. The force ends once the subject is under control... not the illusion of control by some guy saying, "OK. OK," meanwhile he doesn't do what he is told.

And all of your assumptions about the cop beating his wife are baseless and destroy your credibility.

I've seen other videos where we might agree the officers were in the wrong. This ain't one of them. You are wrong.

noizy @ 1/30/2013 1:36 PM

Just to clarify: the "perp" was not a perpetrator of any crime or misdemeanor. The officer involved did NOT observe Kita commit any acts of violence. Kita had no reason to believe that the officer was there for any reason other than to assist him. Imagine his surprise when his "rescuer" proceeded to assault him.

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 Videos


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