Waiting for the apologists.

what the fucking fuck? did he have lasers on his chair or something? i could see a takedown for that

anyone got any more info on this? hoping i hear something positive from this cuz as it stands im just in a bad way watching this

I've found the news story and put a link to it in the description.>> ^smooman:

anyone got any more info on this? hoping i hear something positive from this cuz as it stands im just in a bad way watching this

Just sprinkle some crack on him, case closed.

Fucking thugs.

>> ^Ti_Moth:

Waiting for the apologists.


If he didn't want to get beat down, he shouldn't have been riding around in a wheelchair.

You could not make this shit up.

Anyone other than cops doing that, would have gone straight to jail.

I don't see why I'm supposed to be mad if I can't see the video of what caused the arrest.

>> ^DrewNumberTwo:

I don't see why I'm supposed to be mad if I can't see the video of what caused the arrest.


You should be mad because a disabled guy was slammed face first into the pavement. It's the job of the police to arrest not to assault.

@DrewNumberTwo

Serious question... what would warrant that take down of a man in a wheel chair?... what action in your mind would have 'justified' what they did to him?

Did he have any weapons? Was he resisting? For how long and in what ways did he resist? Was he actually disabled? Did he have accomplices nearby? For all I know that was the end of a city wide manhunt of a heavily armed guy that had already fought off a dozen officers. Yeah, that's a stretch. Maybe it was something simple like resisting arrest for an extended period. Maybe he was striking the officers. Who knows? Without seeing more, we are missing at least half the story. Just because a man is sitting in a chair with wheels on it doesn't mean that he isn't dangerous.

Better a take down that leaves the perp a little bloody than have to get in a foot race that might leave one of those jelly bellies winded.

I guess if there's any logic to this it's that they want control of his arms in case he has a gun in one of his pockets.. but that doesn't warrent having to slam him onto the pavement like that. Each office could just grab an arm, tilt him forward and then cuff.

..but whatever, don't some of the Bond villains ride around in powered chairs?

>: /

Though I would usually say "We don't know what happened before the video started," I find it hard to imagine anything that warranted a body-slam to a man with obvious mobility issues. This one is indefensible, and I'm glad it was caught on video.

We see a man sitting in a chair for 4 seconds before he is immobilized by the police. How exactly did you determine that he has mobility issues? For all we know, he could have just thrown the owner of the wheelchair to the ground and ridden his chair down the block. And let me kick start your imagination regarding reasons to body slam him: He was armed with a knife, or a stun gun, or an extending baton, or a gun, or brass knuckles, or just his own knuckles. He was assaulting the officers, or bystanders, or family members, or children. He was resisting arrest for an extended period of time, or trying to evade the officers. Again, we have HALF THE STORY at best.

>> ^Ryjkyj:

>> ^Ti_Moth:
Waiting for the apologists.

If he didn't want to get beat down, he shouldn't have been riding around in a wheelchair.


That, and black.

>> ^DrewNumberTwo:

We see a man sitting in a chair for 4 seconds before he is immobilized by the police. How exactly did you determine that he has mobility issues? For all we know, he could have just thrown the owner of the wheelchair to the ground and ridden his chair down the block. And let me kick start your imagination regarding reasons to body slam him: He was armed with a knife, or a stun gun, or an extending baton, or a gun, or brass knuckles, or just his own knuckles. He was assaulting the officers, or bystanders, or family members, or children. He was resisting arrest for an extended period of time, or trying to evade the officers. Again, we have HALF THE STORY at best.


He has mobility issues. Clue number 1: HE NEVER MOVES HIS LEGS.

Like I said, I don't like choosing a side when we have only half the story, but common sense leads me to side against the two officers body-slamming a skinny old dude. If he had just thrown somebody from the scooter, where is that person? If he had a weapon, why are the officers not seen putting an object into evidence?

The reaction of the crowd and the behavior of the officers after the take-down indicates that the worst thing that the guy could have done was mouth off and maybe take a weak-ass swing at one of them.

I'm certainly open to other possibilities, but you gotta come up with something realistic. I was the one throwing out possibilities for the video where a cop tackles a teenage girl, but this crosses even my line of acceptable police precaution.

I dunno, you can see his feet twitch around at about :45...>> ^MaxWilder:

>> ^DrewNumberTwo:
We see a man sitting in a chair for 4 seconds before he is immobilized by the police. How exactly did you determine that he has mobility issues? For all we know, he could have just thrown the owner of the wheelchair to the ground and ridden his chair down the block. And let me kick start your imagination regarding reasons to body slam him: He was armed with a knife, or a stun gun, or an extending baton, or a gun, or brass knuckles, or just his own knuckles. He was assaulting the officers, or bystanders, or family members, or children. He was resisting arrest for an extended period of time, or trying to evade the officers. Again, we have HALF THE STORY at best.

He has mobility issues. Clue number 1: HE NEVER MOVES HIS LEGS.
Like I said, I don't like choosing a side when we have only half the story, but common sense leads me to side against the two officers body-slamming a skinny old dude. If he had just thrown somebody from the scooter, where is that person? If he had a weapon, why are the officers not seen putting an object into evidence?
The reaction of the crowd and the behavior of the officers after the take-down indicates that the worst thing that the guy could have done was mouth off and maybe take a weak-ass swing at one of them.
I'm certainly open to other possibilities, but you gotta come up with something realistic. I was the one throwing out possibilities for the video where a cop tackles a teenage girl, but this crosses even my line of acceptable police precaution.

>> ^MarineGunrock:

I dunno, you can see his feet twitch around at about :45...


True. Which is why I said mobility issues, and not paraplegic.

On the other hand, we might argue that the twitch was actually an attempted leg sweep. Good thing those peace officers have been studying their martial arts self defense techniques!

Hey now, I'm not saying that they were right in what they did. If he's actually a paraplegic, they're fucked. If he was some asshole that stole the chair and had a weapon - different story.

It's funny you mention that because the officer on the left DOES actually use technique in his takedown. watch the leg sweep. TAKE THAT YOU CRIPPLED BITCH KEEYAII

>> ^MaxWilder:

>> ^MarineGunrock:
I dunno, you can see his feet twitch around at about :45...

True. Which is why I said mobility issues, and not paraplegic.
On the other hand, we might argue that the twitch was actually an attempted leg sweep. Good thing those peace officers have been studying their martial arts self defense techniques!

Hrm, I actually wanted to see those cops get ambushed by the crowed and beat severly. That would of been something to stick around and watch. BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD !

come on everyone , if we chant it enough maybe it will happen !

Protecting and serving the shit out of people.

FYI, just because someone is paralyzed doesn't mean their legs won't move. It's called spasticity, which is kind of like when you cut off the head of a snake and the body continues to twitch.

>> ^MarineGunrock:

I dunno, you can see his feet twitch around at about :45...

Yes. Because maintaining the possibility that he had a weapon, and stole the wheelchair he's in, isn't a massive fucking leap of faith at all.

>> ^Gallowflak:

Yes. Because maintaining the possibility that he had a weapon, and stole the wheelchair he's in, isn't a massive fucking leap of faith at all.


It's a leap of faith to believe he stole the wheelchair, not to acknowledge that it's a possibility.

Why is it any more reasonable to believe that anyone who sits in a wheelchair is definitely disabled?

I don't know of anything the guy did to deserve being thrown to the ground with such force, but a lot of people here seem to be getting upset that others aren't automatically accepting their own assumptions.

I'm skeptical about this video simply because of the way it was edited. I am always against police brutality and excessive force. I just don't like being misled. I too want to know the full situation. The news link is just someone's blog post. There is no actual investigative information.

At the start of the video you see the guys legs kick up and then brace against the sidewalk. He pushes up with his legs and locks forcing the officers and him into a standing position which actually increases the distance in which they slammed into the sidewalk.

The video clearly cuts out everything before the moment the officers grabbed the man and then quickly cuts out as soon as they clam the surrounding situation and begin to explain.

@Psychologic

Making particular assumptions about the nature of an event like this at all seems retarded. To construct a scenario that would justify the coppers' violence is groveling and obsequious.

Yeah, there could very well be a good reason. Based on the history of police brutality in America, the weight of evidence is on the other side, which is why the "he might've had a gun! also it might've been a stolen wheelchair!" seems absurd and dense, much moreso than it would be to make the assumption that they're just violent cocks.

indeed, we know nothing about the incident leading to the arrest. More than likely, he was over the wheelchair speed limit. and presumably, he was about to hit the nitrous button.

i think a lively round of the ol' tasering would have evened the odds in this case

>> ^Gallowflak:

@Psychologic
Making particular assumptions about the nature of an event like this at all seems retarded. To construct a scenario that would justify the coppers' violence is groveling and obsequious.
Yeah, there could very well be a good reason. Based on the history of police brutality in America, the weight of evidence is on the other side, which is why the "he might've had a gun! also it might've been a stolen wheelchair!" seems absurd and dense, much moreso than it would be to make the assumption that they're just violent cocks.


Past abuses by other cops have nothing to do with this event, though past abuses by these cops would be relevant (I don't know their history).

If someone believes that no cop should ever treat any person like this for any reason then I'm fine with that... such a belief doesn't require any knowledge of the events leading up to this confrontation.

As far as why the cops felt the need for a forceful takedown, I have no idea. They apparently thought it was necessary. Did they have a good reason or were they just being assholes?

I've known several cops that would take someone down like this simply because the person was being disrespectful. I've also known others who would only do so if their safety were being threatened. Which is the case in the video?

Pointing out that there are ways the man could possibly have been a threat is not the same as saying he was a threat. It's really ok to admit there is no way of knowing simply by watching this video.

they see him rollin, they be hatin!

>> ^Gallowflak:

Yes. Because maintaining the possibility that he had a weapon, and stole the wheelchair he's in, isn't a massive fucking leap of faith at all.


Well, I don't buy the 'he had a weapon,' however, the police did...and when your right next to someone, that means that in one second the weapon can transfer hands.

Next, what would you do against someone bracing themselves against an immovable object (As is clear in this video.) I am not judging you Gallow, I am asking a serious question. Do you rip his arm off his hover-round? And if so, take the risk of snapping his arm? How do you handcuff him from his back since you cannot reasonably make him stand to handcuff him?

Well, I finally posted a video here, and it had a law-versus aggravated criminal. And guess what? There wasn't any unreasonable force. I know what some of you must be thinking. Impossible!!! A cop without brutality?! Guess pigs can fly... Loler.

'Get on the ground!'
'I'm in a wheel chair, how much lower can I go... wait, forget that I said thaaAAAHHH!!'

The scary thing is that these cops seemed to work together really well in throwing this crippled guy to the pavement, so they've either been trained for this or have done it before.

Yeah, see, they don't show you the part just 10s previous when he was up outta his chair round house kickin everyone in sight. It's been edited just to make the pol-eece look bad.

Disabled man, if you don't get on the ground we will bring the ground to you!

@Psychologic

Right. The situation in this video is entirely ambiguous and, again, I'm not saying I can't conceive of reasons that this might be justified, as unlikely as I might think they are. I think that if someone's first reaction to this is to play devil's advocate, to come up with something that would explain it away, it seems incredibly childish and "groveling and obsequious" and whatever else I said.

@Lawdeedaw

I tip him over.

Edit: That was a joke.

It's never going to get better, is it?

>> ^MaxWilder:

>> ^DrewNumberTwo:
We see a man sitting in a chair for 4 seconds before he is immobilized by the police. How exactly did you determine that he has mobility issues? For all we know, he could have just thrown the owner of the wheelchair to the ground and ridden his chair down the block. And let me kick start your imagination regarding reasons to body slam him: He was armed with a knife, or a stun gun, or an extending baton, or a gun, or brass knuckles, or just his own knuckles. He was assaulting the officers, or bystanders, or family members, or children. He was resisting arrest for an extended period of time, or trying to evade the officers. Again, we have HALF THE STORY at best.

He has mobility issues. Clue number 1: HE NEVER MOVES HIS LEGS.


1:49

>> ^Gallowflak:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/Psychologic" title="member since August 30th, 2008" class="profilelink">Psychologic
Right. The situation in this video is entirely ambiguous and, again, I'm not saying I can't conceive of reasons that this might be justified, as unlikely as I might think they are. I think that if someone's first reaction to this is to play devil's advocate, to come up with something that would explain it away, it seems incredibly childish and "groveling and obsequious" and whatever else I said.
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/Lawdeedaw" title="member since May 3rd, 2010" class="profilelink">Lawdeedaw
I tip him over.
Edit: That was a joke.


Lol-ed my ass off! Good joke, but that would be soooo wrong.

That's what you get for jayrolling.