Monday, September 30, 2013

Hayward Police Officer Arrested on Child Molestation Charges

2013-09-30 by Lisa Fernandez []:
Livermore police photo showing Richard Scott McLeod, 38, of Livermore arrested on child molestation charges. Sept. 28, 2013

A Hayward police officer was arrested this weekend on several counts of child molestation dating back more than a decade ago when he worked with middle school children at an after-school program.   
Officer Steve Goard said in a statement Monday that detectives took Richard Scott McLeod, 38, into custody on Saturday on charges stemming from accusations that allegedly occurred between 1998 and 2007. During the last five years of that time span, McLeod, who now lives in Livermore, was the lead teacher at the Kid Zone, an after-school program for middle schoolers.   
McLeod was arrested on three counts of “lewd and lascivious” acts with girls between 12 and 14 years old. He was booked into Santa Rita Jail, where he remains in custody on $750,000 bail. An alleged victim came foward in early 2013, police said.   
For the most part, the statute of limitations in California allows lewd and lascivious prosecutions to go forward at any time as long as the victim was younger than 18 at the time of the offense and it's before the victim turns 28.   
McLeod's defense attorney couldn’t be immediately located for comment.   
At this time, Goard said the crimes being investigated occurred before McLeod became a police officer.  Still, Hayward police have put McLeod on administrative leave pending the outcome of the investigation.

Sunday, September 22, 2013

Police are trained to view political protesters as "terrorists"

"Police Officers Are Trained to Believe You're a Terrorist if You Videotape in America Chevron"
2013-06-26 upload to by "policecrimecom" []:
Know your rights! [] It's now the new law you must say "I'M GOING TO REMAIN SILENT" if a police officer ask you to talk to him, even if you're not under arrest. There's no law that requires you to talk to a police officer, but you must say "I'M GOING TO REMAIN SILENT" and then shut up!

Monday, September 16, 2013

David Sal Silva (Bakersfield)

Vallejo PD's Militerized weapons: Long Range Acoustic Device (LRAD)

Vallejo Police Dept. (VPD) has militarized offensive equipment, including what appears to be an armored vehicle with Assault Intervention Device (AID), a Long Range Acoustic Device (LRAD) or "Silent Guardian" device produced by Raytheon for use against crowds.
It reminds me of what journalist Ando Arike wrote in Harpers Magazine about the implementation of this violent municipal militarization, as well as the terrifying new frontiers in “pain compliance” being inflicted upon us by the police:  “The result is what appears to be the first arms race in which the opponent is the general population.”

"Prison to use 'excruciating' laser pain ray to control unruly inmates"
2010-08-24 from "Daily Mail" newspaper []:
A senior police officer aims the Assault Intervention Device (AID) with a joystick during a demonstration on Friday 

Nonlethal weapons like 'pain rays' and Tasers are controversial and usually criticised by human rights groups who fear that they can be misused and could even be fatal if used on vulnerable people.
The device is controlled by a joystick and computer monitor and emits a beam up to 100 feet. The wave travels at the speed of light and penetrates the skin up to 1/64 of an inch.
Targets instinctively move out of the beam’s way to try and escape the pain.
Commander Bob Osborne of the Sheriff's Department Technology Exploration Program said: ‘We hope that this type of technology will either cause an inmate to stop an assault or lessen the severity of an assault by them being distracted by the pain as a result of the beam.
'I equate it to opening an oven door and feeling that blast of hot air, except instead of being all over me, it's more focused,’ he said.
‘And you begin to feel this warming feeling, and then you go 'Yow, I need to get out of the way."'
The device will be mounted on the ceiling at Pitchess Detention Centre at Los Angeles County Jail, which houses around 65 prisoners.
Prison officers say it should reduce injuries by speeding up the time it takes to break up a fight.
'This device will allow us to quickly intervene without having to enter the area and without incapacitating or injuring either combatant,' said Sheriff Lee Baca in a statement.
Mike Booen, vice president of advance security at Raytheon, which developed the device said: ‘If you got in the way, you'll know.
'You feel the effect in less than a second. No one can stand there for more than about three seconds because it really hurts.’
The device works in a similar way to Raytheon’s Active Denial System which was mounted on a Hummer and was sent by the US military to Afghanistan to break up crowds.
It has since been withdrawn.

"Silent Guardian pain ray gun gets tested by journalist"
2007-09-20 by James Allan Brady []: Why is it that these journalists are always willing to jump in front of all these non-lethal weapons? This past year it was all the new tazers they came out with, now its military and police riot control weapons, how dumb are these guys?  Regardless, another one of them was willing to hop in front of the Army’s latest, a ray gun not of death, just intense pain. Its called Silent Guardian, and they hate it when you call their ray gun a ray gun. It has a range of half a mile, which means you should be able to see it just before it brings you to your knees with so much pain some Excedrin just won’t cut it.
It only goes one sixty-fourth of an inch deep, but what it does at that depth cause an immense amount of pain. It works kind of like a micro wave sending beams of radiation that penetrate your skin and literally get on your nerves. The journalist said it hurt his finger, I say, if the Army says it will hurt, I believe them, I don’t need to find out first hand, because personally I have no intention of being on the business end of any of the Army’s weapons. As a journalist, if I wanted to find out how much this hurt, I would wait till they implemented it, and then go to the jail and ask someone.

"Run away the ray-gun is coming : We test US army's new secret weapon"
2007-09-18 by MICHAEL HANLON []:
Modern face of warfare: The Silent Guardian

Oww! Michael Hanlon tries the Raytheon ray-gun

"Where do I put my finger? There ... OK? Nothing's happening ... is it on?"
"Yes, it's on. Move your finger a bit closer."
"Er ... ow! OW!" Not good. I try again. "OWWW!" I pull my hand away sharpish. My finger is throbbing, but seems undamaged.
I was told people can take it for a second, maximum. No way, not for a wimp like me.
I try it again. It is a bit like touching a red-hot wire, but there is no heat, only the sensation of heat. There is no burn mark or blister.
Its makers claim this infernal machine is the modern face of warfare. It has a nice, friendly sounding name, Silent Guardian.
I am told not to call it a ray-gun, though that is precisely what it is (the term "pain gun" is maybe better, but I suppose they would like that even less).
And, to be fair, the machine is not designed to vaporise, shred, atomise, dismember or otherwise cause permanent harm.
But it is a horrible device nonetheless, and you are forced to wonder what the world has come to when human ingenuity is pressed into service to make a thing like this.
Silent Guardian is making waves in defence circles. Built by the U.S. firm Raytheon, it is part of its "Directed Energy Solutions" programme.
What it amounts to is a way of making people run away, very fast, without killing or even permanently harming them.
That is what the company says, anyway. The reality may turn out to be more horrific.
I tested a table-top demonstration model, but here's how it works in the field.
A square transmitter as big as a plasma TV screen is mounted on the back of a Jeep.
When turned on, it emits an invisible, focused beam of radiation - similar to the microwaves in a domestic cooker - that are tuned to a precise frequency to stimulate human nerve endings.
It can throw a wave of agony nearly half a mile.
Because the beam penetrates skin only to a depth of 1/64th of an inch, it cannot, says Raytheon, cause visible, permanent injury.
But anyone in the beam's path will feel, over their entire body, the agonising sensation I've just felt on my fingertip. The prospect doesn't bear thinking about.
"I have been in front of the full-sized system and, believe me, you just run. You don't have time to think about it - you just run," says George Svitak, a Raytheon executive.
Silent Guardian is supposed to be the 21st century equivalent of tear gas or water cannon - a way of getting crowds to disperse quickly and with minimum harm. Its potential is obvious.
"In Iraq, there was a situation when combatants had taken media as human shields. The battalion commander told me there was no way of separating combatants from non-combatants without lethal force," Mr Svitak tells me.
He says this weapon would have made it possible because everyone, friend or foe, would have run from it.
In tests, even the most hardened Marines flee after a few seconds of exposure. It just isn't possible to tough it out.
This machine has the ability to inflict limitless, unbearable pain.
What makes it OK, says Raytheon, is that the pain stops as soon as you are out of the beam or the machine is turned off.
But my right finger was tingling hours later - was that psychosomatic?
So what is the problem? All right, it hurts, but then so do tear gas and water cannon and they have been used by the world's police and military for decades.
Am I being squeamish?
One thing is certain: not just the Silent Guardian, but weapons such as the Taser, the electric stun-gun, are being rolled out by Britain's police forces as the new way of controlling people by using pain.
And, as the Raytheon chaps all insist, you always have the option to get out of the way (just as you have the option to comply with the police officer's demands and not get Tasered).
But there is a problem: mission creep. This is the Americanism which describes what happens when, over time, powers or techniques are used to ends not stated or even imagined when they were devised.
With the Taser, the rules in place in Britain say it must be used only as an alternative to the gun. But what happens in ten or 20 years if a new government chooses to amend these rules?
It is so easy to see the Taser being used routinely to control dissent and pacify - as, indeed, already happens in the U.S.
And the Silent Guardian? Raytheon's Mac Jeffery says it is being looked at only by the "North American military and its allies" and is not being sold to countries with questionable human rights records.
An MoD spokesman said Britain is not planning to buy this weapon.
In fact, it is easy to see the raygun being used not as an alternative to lethal force (when I can see that it is quite justified), but as an extra weapon in the battle against dissent.
Because it is, in essence, a simple machine, it is easy to see similar devices being pressed into service in places with extremely dubious reputations.
There are more questions: in tests, volunteers have been asked to remove spectacles and contact lenses before being microwaved. Does this imply these rays are not as harmless as Raytheon insists?
What happens when someone with a weak heart is zapped?
And, perhaps most worryingly, what if deployment of Silent Guardian causes mass panic, leaving some people unable to flee in the melee? Will they just be stuck there roasting?
Raytheon insists the system is set up to limit exposure, but presumably these safeguards can be over-ridden.
Silent Guardian and the Taser are just the first in a new wave of "non-lethal" weaponry being developed, mostly in the U.S.
These include not only microwave ray-guns, but the terrifying Pulsed Energy Projectile weapon. This uses a powerful laser which, when it hits someone up to 11/2 miles away, produces a "plasma" - a bubble of superhot gas - on the skin.
A report in New Scientist claimed the focus of research was to heighten the pain caused by this semi-classified weapon.
And a document released under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act talks of "optimal pulse parameters to evoke peak nociceptor activation" - i.e. cause the maximum agony possible, leaving no permanent damage.
Perhaps the most alarming prospect is that such machines would make efficient torture instruments.
They are quick, clean, cheap, easy to use and, most importantly, leave no marks. What would happen if they fell into the hands of unscrupulous nations where torture is not unknown?
The agony the Raytheon gun inflicts is probably equal to anything in a torture chamber - these waves are tuned to a frequency exactly designed to stimulate the pain nerves.
I couldn't hold my finger next to the device for more than a fraction of a second. I could make the pain stop, but what if my finger had been strapped to the machine?
Dr John Wood, a biologist at UCL and an expert in the way the brain perceives pain, is horrified by the new pain weapons.
"They are so obviously useful as torture instruments," he says.
"It is ethically dubious to say they are useful for crowd control when they will obviously be used by unscrupulous people for torture."
We use the word "medieval" as shorthand for brutality. The truth is that new technology makes racks look benign.

Long Range Acoustic Device (LRAD) -
LRAD seen here being used against non-violent civilians, 2009, in Pittsburg:

"Long Range Acoustic Device (LRAD) G20 Pittsburgh"
2009-09-26 upload by glassbeadian to []:
The LRAD (Long Range Acoustic Device) was used for the first time in the USA in Pittsburgh during the time of G20 summit on September 24-25th, 2009

"LRAD (Long Range Acoustic Device) - Combat Footage of Pittsburgh G-20 Protests"
2009-09-26 upload by Jeff Cushing []: Protesters gather in Pittsburgh to demonstrate outside the G-20 Summit. Protesters, however, continue to develop tactics to counter a massive police and military presence.Check out my next video, "LRAD Tactics of Resistance One" at [].

"LRAD Tactics of Resistance One"
2013-08-07 upload by Jeff Cushing []:  LRAD, which stands for Long Range Acoustic Device, is a sound cannon first used on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan, which has since migrated back to the "Homeland." First used in the US in Pittsburgh, the deployment of the LRAD, though, can be fairly easily defeated through a number of tactics. Here is one.

Friday, September 13, 2013

DHS Fusion Centers

State and local police departments provide both space and resources for the majority of fusion centers. The analysts working there can be drawn from DHS, local police, or the private sector. A number of fusion centers operate tip hotlines and also invite relevant information from public employees, such as sanitation workers or firefighters.
A 2007 ACLU report raised concerns with four areas of fusion center aspects, the first of which was that they suffered from "ambiguous lines of authority", meaning that the fusion process "allows the authorities to manipulate differences in federal, state and local laws to maximize information collection while evading accountability and oversight through the practice of 'policy shopping'." The ACLU was also concerned with the private sector and military participation in the surveillance of US citizens through these fusion centers.
Also criticized is the involvement of private Terrorism Liaison Officers, a citizen who has been trained to report suspicious activity that may be encountered during the course of his or her normal occupation as part of the United States' War on Terror. While some of these individuals are members of local law enforcement agencies, others such as paramedics, utility workers, and railroad employees have also been recruited into the program.
Another example was a California fusion center report on the Mongols Motorcycle Club's distribution of leaflets to its members instructing them how to behave when stopped by police. According to the Senate report, the leaflet suggested to the Club members that they should be courteous, control their emotions and, if drinking, have a designated driver. One supervisor eventually killed the fusion center report, noting that “There is nothing illegal or even remotely objectionable [described] in this report,” and that “The advice given to the groups’ members is protected by the First Amendment.”
Part of the problems identified by the Senate report is that the DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis imposed a quota of reports to be filed by the fusion centers, leading to diminished quality. The Senate committee estimated that about $1.4 billion had been spent on the fusion centers. It also estimated that:
"Of the 386 unclassified HIRs that DHS eventually published over the 13-month period reviewed by the Subcommittee investigation, a review found close to 300 of them had no discernable connection to terrorists, terrorist plots or threats."

Regional Information Sharing Systems (RISS) is an information-sharing program funded by the U.S. Federal government whose purpose is to connect databases from local and regional law enforcement so that they can use each other's data for criminal investigations. In 2003, the National Criminal Intelligence Sharing Plan (NCISP) declared that RISSNET would be the official "backbone" for all unclassified, but sensitive criminal intelligence data traffic. Later that year, members were also given access to the Automated Trusted Information Exchange (ATIX) database, which contains information on homeland security and terrorist threats.

Wednesday, September 11, 2013

NSA shares raw data to Israel agencies about USA Citizens

National Security Agency (NSA) [link] / Israel [link]

"NSA shares raw intelligence including Americans' data with Israel"
2013-09-11 by Glenn Greenwald, Laura Poitras and Ewen MacAskill for "The Guardian" []:
• Secret deal places no legal limits on use of data by Israelis
• Only official US government communications protected
• Agency insists it complies with rules governing privacy
• Read the NSA and Israel's 'memorandum of understanding' []
The National Security Agency routinely shares raw intelligence data with Israel without first sifting it to remove information about US citizens, a top-secret document provided to the Guardian by whistleblower Edward Snowden reveals.
Details of the intelligence-sharing agreement are laid out in a memorandum of understanding between the NSA and its Israeli counterpart that shows the US government handed over intercepted communications likely to contain phone calls and emails of American citizens. The agreement places no legally binding limits on the use of the data by the Israelis.
The disclosure that the NSA agreed to provide raw intelligence data to a foreign country contrasts with assurances from the Obama administration that there are rigorous safeguards to protect the privacy of US citizens caught in the dragnet. The intelligence community calls this process "minimization", but the memorandum makes clear that the information shared with the Israelis would be in its pre-minimized state.
The deal was reached in principle in March 2009, according to the undated memorandum, which lays out the ground rules for the intelligence sharing.
The five-page memorandum, termed an agreement between the US and Israeli intelligence agencies "pertaining to the protection of US persons", repeatedly stresses the constitutional rights of Americans to privacy and the need for Israeli intelligence staff to respect these rights.
But this is undermined by the disclosure that Israel is allowed to receive "raw Sigint" – signal intelligence. The memorandum says: "Raw Sigint includes, but is not limited to, unevaluated and unminimized transcripts, gists, facsimiles, telex, voice and Digital Network Intelligence metadata and content."
According to the agreement, the intelligence being shared would not be filtered in advance by NSA analysts to remove US communications. "NSA routinely sends ISNU [the Israeli Sigint National Unit] minimized and unminimized raw collection", it says.
Although the memorandum is explicit in saying the material had to be handled in accordance with US law, and that the Israelis agreed not to deliberately target Americans identified in the data, these rules are not backed up by legal obligations.
"This agreement is not intended to create any legally enforceable rights and shall not be construed to be either an international agreement or a legally binding instrument according to international law," the document says.
In a statement to the Guardian, an NSA spokesperson did not deny that personal data about Americans was included in raw intelligence data shared with the Israelis. But the agency insisted that the shared intelligence complied with all rules governing privacy.
"Any US person information that is acquired as a result of NSA's surveillance activities is handled under procedures that are designed to protect privacy rights," the spokesperson said.
The NSA declined to answer specific questions about the agreement, including whether permission had been sought from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance (Fisa) court for handing over such material.
The memorandum of understanding, which the Guardian is publishing in full, allows Israel to retain "any files containing the identities of US persons" for up to a year. The agreement requests only that the Israelis should consult the NSA's special liaison adviser when such data is found.
Notably, a much stricter rule was set for US government communications found in the raw intelligence. The Israelis were required to "destroy upon recognition" any communication "that is either to or from an official of the US government". Such communications included those of "officials of the executive branch (including the White House, cabinet departments, and independent agencies), the US House of Representatives and Senate (member and staff) and the US federal court system (including, but not limited to, the supreme court)".
It is not clear whether any communications involving members of US Congress or the federal courts have been included in the raw data provided by the NSA, nor is it clear how or why the NSA would be in possession of such communications. In 2009, however, the New York Times reported on "the agency's attempt to wiretap a member of Congress, without court approval, on an overseas trip".
The NSA is required by law to target only non-US persons without an individual warrant, but it can collect the content and metadata of Americans' emails and calls without a warrant when such communication is with a foreign target. US persons are defined in surveillance legislation as US citizens, permanent residents and anyone located on US soil at the time of the interception, unless it has been positively established that they are not a citizen or permanent resident.
Moreover, with much of the world's internet traffic passing through US networks, large numbers of purely domestic communications also get scooped up incidentally by the agency's surveillance programs.
The document mentions only one check carried out by the NSA on the raw intelligence, saying the agency will "regularly review a sample of files transferred to ISNU to validate the absence of US persons' identities". It also requests that the Israelis limit access only to personnel with a "strict need to know".
Israeli intelligence is allowed "to disseminate foreign intelligence information concerning US persons derived from raw Sigint by NSA" on condition that it does so "in a manner that does not identify the US person". The agreement also allows Israel to release US person identities to "outside parties, including all INSU customers" with the NSA's written permission.
Although Israel is one of America's closest allies, it is not one of the inner core of countries involved in surveillance sharing with the US - Britain, Australia, Canada and New Zealand. This group is collectively known as Five Eyes.
The relationship between the US and Israel has been strained at times, both diplomatically and in terms of intelligence. In the top-secret 2013 intelligence community budget request, details of which were disclosed by the Washington Post, Israel is identified alongside Iran and China as a target for US cyberattacks.
While NSA documents tout the mutually beneficial relationship of Sigint sharing, another report, marked top secret and dated September 2007, states that the relationship, while central to US strategy, has become overwhelmingly one-sided in favor of Israel.
"Balancing the Sigint exchange equally between US and Israeli needs has been a constant challenge," states the report, titled 'History of the US – Israel Sigint Relationship, Post-1992'. "In the last decade, it arguably tilted heavily in favor of Israeli security concerns. 9/11 came, and went, with NSA's only true Third Party [counter-terrorism] relationship being driven almost totally by the needs of the partner."

In another top-secret document seen by the Guardian, dated 2008, a senior NSA official points out that Israel aggressively spies on the US. "On the one hand, the Israelis are extraordinarily good Sigint partners for us, but on the other, they target us to learn our positions on Middle East problems," the official says. "A NIE [National Intelligence Estimate] ranked them as the third most aggressive intelligence service against the US."
Later in the document, the official is quoted as saying: "One of NSA's biggest threats is actually from friendly intelligence services, like Israel. There are parameters on what NSA shares with them, but the exchange is so robust, we sometimes share more than we intended."

The memorandum of understanding also contains hints that there had been tensions in the intelligence-sharing relationship with Israel. At a meeting in March 2009 between the two agencies, according to the document, it was agreed that the sharing of raw data required a new framework and further training for Israeli personnel to protect US person information.
It is not clear whether or not this was because there had been problems up to that point in the handling of intelligence that was found to contain Americans' data.
However, an earlier US document obtained by Snowden, which discusses co-operating on a military intelligence program, bluntly lists under the cons: "Trust issues which revolve around previous ISR [Israel] operations."

The Guardian asked the Obama administration how many times US data had been found in the raw intelligence, either by the Israelis or when the NSA reviewed a sample of the files, but officials declined to provide this information. Nor would they disclose how many other countries the NSA shared raw data with, or whether the Fisa court, which is meant to oversee NSA surveillance programs and the procedures to handle US information, had signed off the agreement with Israel.
In its statement, the NSA said: "We are not going to comment on any specific information sharing arrangements, or the authority under which any such information is collected. The fact that intelligence services work together under specific and regulated conditions mutually strengthens the security of both nations.
"NSA cannot, however, use these relationships to circumvent US legal restrictions. Whenever we share intelligence information, we comply with all applicable rules, including the rules to protect US person information."

Tuesday, September 10, 2013

Justice for Ernesto Duenez, jr.!

Justice for Ernest Duenez Jr. []
The Duenez Family Representing at the 1st Annual Chicano Unity Festival.

"On June 8th Ernest Duenez Jr. was wrongfully killed by a Manteca Police Officer. The Family is represented by Attorney John Burris in a Civil lawsuit against the Manteca Police Dept. because we believe Ernest was killed as a result of excessive force.The family is requesting to see video evidence that the police have that may show the incident in which an unarmed Ernest was shot multiple times while trying to get out of the back seat of a vehicle where his leg was caught in the seatbelt.
Witnesses reported Ernest had his hands up while exiting and was shot in the chest and face.We are seeking answers from the Manteca Police Dept, we are seeking to review the dash cam video of the officers vehicles that were present, we are seeking to find out why the police have changed their story of the event and see that the officer is brought to justice who took the life of our beloved Ernest."

"Justice for Ernest Duenez Jr - 2 Year Anniversary March"
video from "Revolutionary Hip-Hop Report", 2013-06-19 posted at []:
On Sunday, June 9th 2013 around 300 people took to the streets of Manteca, CA to protest the killing of Ernest Duenez Jr. by Manteca PD officer John Moody. Duenez was shot multiple times by Moody two years and one day before on June 8th 2011, the shooting has since been ruled "justified" by Manteca PD's own investigation. Citizens from all over California attended the several mile march from where Duenez was killed to the Manteca PD headquarters. The marched included many family members of victims of police violence who came to support the Duenez family in their continuing fight for justice. More information can be found at [] (Background beat is a RHHR original...that's right we make beats too!)

Monday, September 2, 2013

Long beach police beat man and knock his teeth out

This video was filmed on September, 2013. Porfirio Santos-Lopez is beaten by Long Beach PD.
"Long beach police beat man and knock his teeth out", posted 2013-09-02 by "BeachBoiLBC" [], at []:

"Long Beach Police Accused Of Brutality After Violent Arrest Captured On Video"
2014-09-04 by "Los Angeles Daily News" []:
A still from mobile phone footage of the arrest.

LONG BEACH -- Long Beach Police officers have been accused of police brutality after a YouTube video that shows several officers surrounding a man as one officer hits him with a baton went viral.
The video, posted to YouTube Monday, shows a man lying on the ground as several Long Beach Police officers surround him. One of the officers then strikes the man in the legs as others shout orders.
Family members identified the man as Porfirio Santos-Lopez, 46, of Long Beach, and said they were devastated by the incident which took place at Locust Avenue and South Street Monday.
He was being taken into surgery at Long Beach Memorial Hospital late Tuesday night for his injuries, said his wife, Lee Ann Hernandez.
Long Beach Police would not make a comment on the incident late Tuesday night saying a statement would be made on Wednesday.
However, police did speak to KTLA and said the case was under investigation. They also offered nearby store video surveillance that shows Santos-Lopez punching a man prior to the alleged police beating.
Reaction to the video has been mixed with some stating the police over-stepped their bounds while others who saw the footage of Santos-Lopez allegedly attacking an unidentified man, saying it may have been justified.
"He was already on the ground," said Carlos Uribe when shown the video for the first time Tuesday night. "They didn't have to hit him."
However, Connie Morales, who said she saw the surveillance video said the 46-year-old looked like he was out of control.
"I don't know if it was excessive or not, but he was just swinging at people," she said.
Its' unclear if the man will be arrested for any offense following his release from the hospital.

"Video shows Long Beach police striking a suspect; Long Beach police chief vows a thorough investigation of the incident in which officers used batons and a Taser on a man before his arrest"
2013-09-04 by Ruben Vives, Richard Winton and Kate Mather from "Los Angeles Times" []:
Frame of a video showing Long Beach police officers striking a suspect with… (YouTube )

A video posted to YouTube showing Long Beach police repeatedly using a Taser and baton on a man has prompted an internal investigation and raised questions about the officers' actions [].
Police training experts who reviewed the 41/2-minute recording were divided about whether it amounted to excessive force. Long Beach Police Chief Jim McDonnell said he understands that there is community concern about the video and vowed a vigorous investigation.
"It is too early to make any judgments.… The YouTube video is certainly disturbing," the chief said. "Any time you see someone hit with the baton, there is level of discomfort."
The incident unfolded about 6 p.m. Monday, when officers were called to Locust Avenue and South Street after receiving multiple 911 calls about a fight outside a liquor store, Long Beach Police Sgt. Aaron Eaton said. Surveillance footage showed a man later identified by police as Porfirio Santos-Lopez, 46, hitting another man in the head.
Eaton said Santos-Lopez acted irrational when first approached by police, and at one point punched the asphalt.
"As the officer tried to communicate with him, he started to yell," Eaton said. "He asked the officer to kill him."
Maria Ruiz, 29, said she was cutting hair at a nearby beauty salon when she saw three or four officers trying to speak to the man. She doesn't speak English, but said it looked like the officers and the man were arguing. Ruiz said a client told her that at one point, the man yelled "Shoot me!" to police.
"It looked like they were trying to arrest him but he didn't want them to," Ruiz said. "He tried to kick and punch one of the officers and that's when they took him down."
Surveillance footage from a nearby business shows Santos-Lopez falling to the ground, apparently after being Tasered. The video then shows two officers hitting him at least six times with batons.
The video posted to YouTube — taken by a witness — begins a short time later, and depicts another round of baton strikes. Santos-Lopez is seen lying on his back as one officer hits him six times in the legs, with Santos-Lopez sometimes kicking between blows. A Taser can be heard, although it is not clear exactly how many times it was used.
At one point, the officers can be heard commanding Santos-Lopez to "roll over," with the man responding "Why?" But most of what the officers and Santos-Lopez say is unclear.
Eaton said Santos-Lopez refused orders to roll on his stomach, prompting officers to use batons and a Taser as "tools for us to use and get a combative subject into custody."
"It wasn't that he couldn't understand," Eaton said. "He refused to go on his stomach."
Police officials said the baton blows were delivered to Santos-Lopez's arms, legs and possibly his torso. The department trains officers to avoid the head, neck, throat, kidneys and groin areas, which could result in permanent damage.
Santos-Lopez was eventually taken into custody and transported to Long Beach Memorial Medical Center, where he remained Wednesday. Santos-Lopez suffered a broken right arm, a partially collapsed left lung and needed stitches in both legs, his girlfriend said. Police said they were unaware of the lung injury.
Eaton said beer cans were found near the scene, and after his arrest Santos-Lopez told officers he had used methamphetamine before the incident. His girlfriend denied that he used drugs.
The officers involved remain on regular duty, Eaton said.
Greg Meyer, a former LAPD captain and use-of-force expert, said the baton blows shown on the YouTube video appeared to follow protocol. He cautioned that the recording did not show the full context of the interaction or clarify exactly how Santos-Lopez was injured.
"It doesn't appear from the video that the police officers were doing anything wrong," Meyer said. "But we still don't know all the facts here."
But Larry Smith, a use-of-force expert and retired Fontana police sergeant and former training specialist, said the response looked excessive because of the baton use. He questioned why the officers didn't exhaust other nonlethal measures — such as pepper spray — or move in to handcuff Santos-Lopez after he was Tasered.
"To me, he must not have been that violent, because otherwise the other officers would have jumped in," Smith said. "They could have always just dog-piled him and then you're not hitting him with a baton."
Lee Ann Hernandez, 59 — who has dated Santos-Lopez for four years and refers to him as her husband — said the father of three hadn't been acting like himself lately. She said he started hearing voices and seeing people who weren't there six months ago. He worried that Hernandez's late husband was trying to hurt him, she said.
Santos-Lopez's behavior worsened in recent weeks, Hernandez said. He would constantly call police and paramedics, she said, and she would ask that they take him to a psychiatric facility. Hernandez said authorities told her they couldn't because Santos-Lopez was not a danger to himself. They gave her the number of a police psychiatric unit, she said, but they never returned her calls.
"They had no right to beat him up like that," she said. "They don't need to be doing that to someone like that."