Moving this video to Eman_Laerton's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

*controversy *promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued - promote requested by MrFisk.

Adding video to channels (Controversy) - requested by MrFisk.

How did i miss this one *quality police abuse

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by eric3579.

Looks like a lot of police misbehavior there.

I'd like to see a rebuttal video, and show a lot of 'knockout game' videos with a tune that goes something like:

This is what happens when you meet a black person.

Yeah, probably won't happen.

I think the question should be, why do cops act out? I think I know the answer. It's dealing with shitheads almost every day and the constant frustration turns even eagle scouts (of which there are quite a few in police work) into pricks.

I didn't see anything on the video I could justify, including the lyrics.

However, the money is going for a good cause.

If you only change 'black person' to 'punk' or 'douche' or even 'thug' (I see no reason to be racist, not all 'knockout game' players are black by far, and he didn't say ''call the white cops") I could agree with all of that...and it would make a better tune than 'black person'. Write it.
As to even good cops being turned into pricks by dealing with shitheads, it sounds reasonable, but as Mom used to say, that's a reason not an excuse. They (you) should be offered counseling as part of your compensation package to help with that...or should spend time each week out of uniform 'serving' the community (like at a soup kitchen, cleaning parks of needles, volunteering somewhere), they'll get to see a much better side of people that way and be reminded we're a single community and no one benefits from 'us VS them', it's better for all if it's just "us".
But yeah, that also probably won't happen.
Progress?

I don't believe I need counseling. I've never used force w/o it being necessary.

That's probably what every one of the police officers in this video say as well.

30 yrs, never punched anyone, sprayed anyone, shot anyone, shot AT anyone...

who you trying to convince? us? or yourself?

The way you are internalizing these last few sifts is rather scary. The way you seem to think these videos are a personal attack on you is rather disturbing.

If you really are the model officer you seem to think you are, then I don't know why you're so insecure.

in other words, you doth protest too much sir.

There are approximately 780,000 law enforcement officers in the U.S., and there is just not enough police brutality (or violence against police) to go around.

I believe his claim, and probably many officers will go through their entire career without needing to use force, even if 50 officers a year are killed in the line of duty and 400 people are killed by law enforcement officers. As a simple ballpark figure, using 2011 stats, over a 30 year timeframe (would this be a typical length of a police career?), you could expect about 14,000 fatal incidents involving law enforcement officers (spread among 780,000 officers).

the point myself and others have been trying to drill into lantern's thick skull is that his claim is irrelevant. he's making a huge appeal to authority fallacy.

it's a bad case of "my dad can beat up your dad" mentality. The moment he inserted his RL into this "debate" he lost.

Even if he has been 100 percent truthful, it's all anecdotal. He's overcompensating for his small sample size again

" It's dealing with shitheads almost every day and the constant frustration turns even eagle scouts (of which there are quite a few in police work) into pricks."
If your job turns the best person into a prick (and cops aren't all eagle scouts to start with) it sounds like you all need counseling.
Nearly every cop justifies any use of force as 'being necessary', but force is rarely truly necessary, only convenient or, more often, an inappropriate response made out of anger that they find excuse for. If you think using force against a citizen was necessary, you should have received counseling (Whether you were right or wrong).

I will agree with you on one point...police officers probably do need a certain amount of counseling, but that would be a good idea for anyone in a job like police work. Certainly a lot of those police officers in the video should have had counseling. You can't justify punching someone in the face unless they are going for a knife.

But force is definitely necessary in police work...because asking just doesn't cut it every time. Believe me, cops ask for compliance all the time, but they don't get compliance all the time.

I'm curious, you say you have used force, but not these kinds of force. What kind of force have you used? What I see left (of the obvious) is wrestled with, kicked, and/or tazed, but that doesn't mean you have or have not done these or other forceful acts.
My point about counseling is if cops use force it was either necessary (because they or others were in immediate danger) and they should receive counseling so they don't start thinking all people are dangerous criminals that should be treated as such, or it was not necessary and they should receive counseling because they're a bully and/or coward with deadly weapons and a danger to all of us. Either way, counseling seems appropriate for each and every time 'force' is used. (The same should go for security of any kind, but they aren't public servants so I have less standing or reason to complain about them.) I know that's asking a lot, but it seems proper, reasonable, and healthier for all.

I have wrestled with a few people (mostly females), tackled a few people who were running from the police, pointed my weapon at a few people, and drive-stunned (taser) one guy who was resisting arrest. That's it for 30 years.

My dept. usually had around 35 officers and I've known two of them since 1975 or so who have shot at anyone. One officer shot a guy who was trying to run him over in a car, that guy was killed. The officer left the dept and found other work.
Another officer-involved shooting was an officer who shot a guy who had committed a homicide and was running away.
One shooting involved a cop who was shot at and returned fire, hitting one guy with a grazing shot.
So that's a hell of a lot of interactions with people (average about 2000 people per year arrested) with very little deadly force involved.

If you want to counsel police officers involved in using force...that's fine with me.

If that's honestly the extent of your use of force, and they all were proper arrests on people who were also resisting (you only said one of them was resisting), and those you brandished at were armed and violently resisting, that sounds acceptable, but totally abnormal. I would guess that not all those you brandished at were armed threats.
EDIT:A good question....was every suspect you used force against convicted? If not, it seems you made a mistake and were a violent assailant to an 'innocent citizen' yourself, no? If there's no repercussion for those kinds of 'bad acts', how do you know it's wrong? (I'll answer, it seems you don't.)
My experience has been that cops brandish their weapons at anyone they think may be criminal, including those only guilty of 'contempt of cop', like me when a cop read my license plate wrong and assumed the car was stolen, so he violently threw me to the ground at gunpoint and violently handcuffed me (as tight as he could make them go) and acted like a douchebag bully until he realized his mistake. (I followed all his directions to the T without pause but was still treated like I was resisting.) Then there's no apology, in fact he said something more like 'You know why I did that, now go on your way or I'll find something else to arrest you for, and don't think about making a complaint, I know where you live now.' That's only one instance in my life out of many where cops did not act properly, due to no fault of my own. (I was not intimidated by his threat and did make a formal complaint anyway.)

That's 3 shootings (maybe 2 were the same cop?). It sounds like one may have been improper, shooting someone in the back is usually not acceptable, unless he had just been shooting at the cop and turned to run just before being shot, or was running at someone else that needed protecting. If he was not an immediate threat to someone, there was no reason to shoot him in the back rather than track him until he could be safely arrested.
It seems you have a problem understanding our position. We understand that 95% of interactions with cops are done properly and often respectfully. That does not excuse the other 5% by any means, just as it does not excuse someone from committing murder if they were a fine, upstanding citizen otherwise. Get it? It only takes one bad act to erase all your good acts. That's the way of the world. You can't say 'Yeah, I raped that 6 year old, but come on guys, I take good care of little old ladies the rest of the time, so it's fine.'. That doesn't play, neither does 'Most of the time we're good cops, so we should get a pass for those 'rare' times when we are terrible thugs and violent criminals.'
EDIT: It's not only deadly force that is inappropriately applied. You don't have to end up murdering the citizen to have acted inappropriately violent. I hope I'm not telling you something you don't know, only pointing out something you ignored.
The fact that you don't seem to think mandatory counseling is appropriate for those in 'authority' that have failed in their job (to protect citizens) and resorted to using force against citizens (yes, I consider that a fail, there's nearly always another option) is bothering. As I explained, it leaves you feeling it's 'us VS them' (which has been shown to be your mindset from your past comments) and that's terrible for someone in authority to think. I think you need counseling to fix that mindset, and find it troubling that you might disagree (yet are still in a position of power).

I believe I said counseling was fine as far as I'm concerned.

I don't approve of officers using force unnecessarily, or treating people improperly. I don't excuse it. I give some reasons for it, but I don't excuse it.

Also, don't confuse judicial outcomes with justice.

I was never sued in my 30 yrs either.

You said that people understand that 95% of interactions are proper. That can't really be backed up based on the comments of quite a few people here, considering their invective and personal attacks.

You did say it's fine, but also said you don't need any. I think it should be mandatory at least once each time cops are forced to use force.
That's a distinction that may have been lost. Your explanations often sound like excuses. You should perhaps be more clear that they are not, and you may garner less animus.
I do understand courts aren't 100% perfect at justice, but they are fairly good at being more impartial than the average cop on the street. If force is used against someone, but a case can't be made against them, there was no reason OR excuse of the force, it was 'jumping the gun'.
I also said that the <5% of inappropriate contact outweighs the >95% appropriate contact. Like I said, if 95% of the time a person takes good care of little old ladies, that won't excuse or explain them spending the other 5% raping children. Good does not excuse bad. 20 goods do not equal -1 bad. If only .01% of police contact is violently inappropriate, that's 0.01% too much, and if all the other cops protect those inappropriate cops, they'll all be colored the same. If cops would police themselves and turn on bad cops instead of being 'team players', I (for one) would not have issues with the entirety of them, only the bad few.

Perhaps you could take some counseling each time you have a disagreement with your spouse? Those can be stressful times.

This conversation is starting to remind me of the time Michael Scott admitted to shooting a deer. "I only wounded him. Had to finish him off with a shovel. Took about an hour."

Every time a disagreement with my (or your) spouse leads to violence, yes, I (or you) should receive counseling at least. That has NEVER been the case for me and mine. I have the ability to not become violent when frustrated, it sounds like you may not.
Don't know what the F you mean about the deer, but Michael Scott (whoever he might be) sounds like another unbelievable asshole if he would spend an hour torturing a wounded deer to death with a shovel instead of 'wasting' another bullet in it's head/heart to stop it's suffering.