With the constant flow of proof that cops lie, cheat, and steal daily, and the complicit nature of their superiors allowing them to hide the proof of their crimes, they have forced society into requiring douche reporters chasing the douche cops to capture independent proof of their criminal behavior....proof they can't erase or deny exists.
Notice how easily this douche cop comes up with multiple lies to detain the videographer, intentionally interfering with his job, to protect his cohorts ability to lie to citizens without a record, because undoubtedly all their body cams are turned off.
Also notice how, when those body cams are replaced secretly with cams that only appear to turn off, but keep recording, they consistently capture abuse of power if not outright falsification of charges, like the one just caught framing over 120 for drug possession in a single year.

Cops have made their own job tougher by insisting on being able to legally lie, and being a cadre of criminal liars who think they're above the law, and are all too often right about that thanks to apologists and those willing to turn a blind eye.

True, but that's not the case here.
Edit: I was simply explaining why changing the laws, while the right method, might not be a possibility even though it's supported by a majority. Democracy in America is broken, as I explained, and obstructionism is rampant. People shouldn't be forced to suffer because of that fact if it can be avoided, imo.

No sir. It's his job and sworn duty to follow and uphold the law. Ignoring the words, words that stated the law and legal rights, is the same as ignoring (flaunting) the law, their rights, his job, and his sworn duty.

There's no such duty for the average citizen, who may recognize the failure and obstruction of democracy and, to avoid inhumane treatment of friends and family, stand on their legal rights to deny ice agents the opportunity to abuse their powers and lie about their authority in order to trick the ignorant into not availing themselves of the protections they enjoy under the law. (It's obvious that changing the law to force them to be honest about people's rights and the law is a non starter, since police and prison guard unions are the biggest non corporate lobbyist groups, and they are consistent in their insistence that they be allowed to lie to citizens about the law and rights.) That is not flaunting the law, it's availing oneself of their rights under it, granted it's sometimes in an effort to help others flaunt it.

Often those flaunting the rules of the state regarding who can and cannot enter and stay in the country are the ICE or border agents themselves, as exemplified in this video and many others....but smugglers, who also fit that bill, aren't doing good either, imo.

This person, however, was not flaunting the rules of the state, he was insisting the police follow them if they wish to arrest people, even suspected undocumented immigrants. You agree with that action, I hope.

A cop not being a dick one time doesn't make him a good cop. A cop going on a speaking tour getting applauded over a minor example of humanitarianism pretty much erases the humanitarian part and it becomes a pure self serving PR ploy.

How many criminal cops has he turned in and testified against? That's the test, daily vigilance against his buddies abusing their power, not singular instances of charity he then milks for public relations points.

Pablo Escobar gave tens of millions to the poor. Was he also a good cop? According to your metric, he would be the greatest person ever.
*facepalm

Edit: I'll make it simple for you....any cop that allows fellow officers to get away with breaking the law or abusing their authority is a bad cop, even if they otherwise are above reproach and never abuse their own authority in any other way.

Do you not understand that he gave you a very precious gift. He gave you his problem whether you know it or not.

How do you know he's not remorseful now? It's been 30+ plus years.

You're a fact guy. Check the facts if that's what you need. But that means you'd have to face your fears. Find him. That's the only way you will know for sure if he remorseful. Do you have the guts to face him again? I doubt he would send you a greeting card.

But you still have another problem. If he's dead already you will still need to forgive him. You will still have his anger. His death will not take away the hate.

You need to do this for yourself otherwise you will pass the anger onto someone else to find the answer you're not capable of. You may even pass it on to the people you love the most.

In short, you're just another bad cop. You have become the very thing you hate. You are abusing the power you have.

SHIT! Look at the clock. We're never going to make it to OZ on time!

Write that down. We can use it later.

Bob.
You must be joking.
'We don't like the way you look' is justification for violent abuse of power in your great America, eh?
You really must be Russian, I've rarely heard anything more unAmerican and short sighted.

edit: I was completely respectful and compliant until the cop removed his gun from my head and knee from my neck....my respect or lack thereof had zero to do with his actions, tone, or threats.

Besides, the cop had his gun out through my window before he saw me based on his misreading my licence plate and assuming it was a stolen plate/car, a new Honda Civic....it had nothing to do with my looks at least at first.
I got the same disrespectful treatment with a buzz cut as when I had hair to my waist. I got harassed when I wore a prep school uniform and when I wore tattered army surplus.

Ever thought your disrespectful preconceptions might be wrong?

Perhaps, but in this instance it's my hatred of bullies and liars.
Being angry isn't a waste of time, it's one of the best motivators there is for humans....yes, better at motivating than love.

I dunno, he was recording them for a reason, and what group isn't going to jump at helping a dying cancer patient address the draconian disrespect and abuse of power he was subjected to? Over an anonymous accusation.

A love of cynicism IS me. If there were awards for cynicism, I would be famous. Blind acceptance isn't a positive or intelligent trait. It takes bravery to open your eyes and admit the ugly truth, especially when admitting it contradicts the willingly blind masses, much more bravery than going along with the crowd pretending everything's fine.

Harassing citizens because the cop is ignorant of the law should be an abuse of power charge. I hope Oregon state trooper Rummer's boss gets an earful about him.

Its kind of comical how terrified american police officers always appear in these videos. The contrast between the police officer and the woman's composure is too much, they may want to consider improving their selection procedure and training techniques.

the elephant in the room, and no one wants to admit it right or left, is that the history of police /judicial systems has never been good. Im not saying it to advocate for anarchy but basically everywhere, always, police abuse their power, while preventing very little crime / providing justice. I dont pretend to know all of history, but I never get much of a response when I say this and I thinks its because power corrupts no matter what, and there will always be minority others to justify abusing. The very very best you can hope for is to have enough oversight so as to make the corruption spread out, obscure, and minimal but even then...

For a long time I thought the US police was at least more effective in closing cases but between the US getting its ass kicked in the drug war despite the militarized police and a report I saw about poor coordination across state lines leading to murders and missing persons cases going unresolved for decades

No, but that's not the point.

To be topical to this video, the essence if what you're implying is "what's the point?" It is always the point to deal with abuse of power no matter what the end result is. It is repression and subjugation to believe that some random action should just be allowed to continue because of the futility of response.

No. The line must be drawn here. This far, no further.

More Black Men Are In Prison Today Than Were Enslaved In 1850.
Knowing the past is important to understanding the future. There have been improvements, but there are still disparities too numerous to list. The thought that blacks make up excuses is just ignoring present realities they have to deal with.

As for getting over slavery, well Blacks have been free less then half the time they were enslaved in this country. Studies have even concluded the stressful, violent and brutal traumas experienced over lifetimes of generations of enslaved people may even be pass down to there offspring.

Epigenetics, if one believes in that sorta thing, could lead to explaining why on top of current modern day racial based micro aggressions, bias and abuses of power things within the Black population as a whole in america are still broken. Neither political party is willing to address that.

It is a shame that he abused his power and position as a police officer, because I really believe he cares for his daughter's well being. He probably doesn't know how to show it, and that's unfortunate for both of them.

Choking is a perfectly valid submission technique for someone posing a threat to the cop or other people.

I'm not saying that happened here, because there's no context in the video.

Clearly, the guy is resisting arrest, but we have no idea whether a) the arrest was warranted in the first place or b) whether this was a proportionate response.

Neither can you deny that there's a strong possibility this wouldn't have happened if the guy was white.

As for the cop, he should be suspended with pay while the investigation is carried out. We apply the same "innocent until proven guilty" standard to police that we do to everyone else. On the flipside of that, if he's found guilty of misconduct, he shouldn't just be fired, he should face jail time for assault and abuse of power.

Finally, suggesting that crowds should "turn on police" is a recipe for disaster. There are zero good outcomes from that. At best, you have police unable to do their jobs in case of crowd violence, and at worst, you end up with people being killed.

No matter how unjustified you feel your treatment is, it's important to remember that resisting arrest is very much at your own risk. The law varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but even where it IS allowed, if the arrest later turns out to be lawful, you will be charged with an additional crime.

God damn, I wish that guy had kicked that fat fucker right in the balls so hard he has to quit the job permanently. He absolutely doesn't belong in a position of authority if he feels the need and right to choke out kids (edit: ok, turns out he's 22) 1/3 his size and body slam them into cement by the neck for being disrespectful....he needs to be in anger management classes after prison.

This was over a purely verbal argument. There was zero need for physical contact or arrest.

It's hard to fathom why crowds don't turn on police more often and do to them what they were doing to the kids they abuse. It's not hard at all to understand why the police are the enemy to so many people, deserving no respect, when so many abuse their power this way.
*nsfw

Waffle house is now facing a boycott being called for by Bernice King.

Lol.
I'm lucky enough to have found an actual woman to put up with me long before the pc movement started. I was thinking of what single men are going through in today's climate, and how most people I know met under circumstances that, today, would be dangerously close to sexual harassment or abuse of power accusations of late.

I'll still take that sexbot if you're offering, though. Only way I'll ever have a 3way.

Being held accountable for what we do is a good thing, but ignoring degrees and distinctions can turn it bad.

Weinstein out of a position of power, out of a job, and quite possibly into jail: good. Deserved, and sends an important message to those that might want to abuse their power in similar ways in the future. Precedent set -- however things worked before, we won't stand for that shit anymore.

Louis CK out of favor, and on record for doing creepy things which reduces opportunity to continue doing said creepy things. Also removed from positions where he could exert pressure to "consent" to said creepery where consent likely wouldn't be granted if the threat of job repercussions wasn't implied or patently stated. Again, good outcome -- in my opinion including the fact that he likely won't face criminal charges while Weinstein may.


Franken, on the other hand, was held accountable for actions in a way that I found troublesome for two reasons:

1) He was under scrutiny for past actions, yet placed under the judgement of current (bleeding edge current, even) behavioral standards. That is trending towards ex-post-facto law. I can't pass a law in December making it illegal to wear white shirts, then throw you in jail for having worn a white shirt in November before the law was in effect.

It isn't the same thing because sexual harassment has been illegal all along, and because he wasn't really facing legal trouble, just professional / political trouble -- where "ex-post-facto" judgments aren't prohibited. Still, it seems like when standards change we should try to limit judgement under current standards to current behavior. There's a reason why it works that way in law.


2) Furthermore, a lot of the scrutiny Franken was under completely stripped the behavior from context. Context is extremely important. That's why Weinstein "asking" women to "consent" to his rapey behavior wasn't OK, even though asking for consent is sort of the baseline "good"/expected behavior -- they weren't actually completely free to tell him to shove it.

Ignoring the context of Franken's behavior means that it is immaterial that he was working for the USO at the time, where on-stage suggestive stuff and raunchiness was/is pretty much the whole idea. Immaterial that on-stage "groping and kissing" stuff may well have been scripted as such, and basically consented to by the actors -- part of the show.

Combine that with ignoring degrees of offense, and we're listing Franken's name in the same sentence with Louis CK and Harvey Weinstein, which is ridiculous. Franken "had to" be a sacrificial lamb to demonstrate that Democrats are willing to walk the walk as well as talk the talk on this issue -- but did he really?

If more Democrats were willing to "tell it like it is", as I'd argue Maher is doing here, Franken could have said that the photo where he mimed groping a sleeping Karri Turner was a mistake, a joke in poor taste done in the context of an entire tour that seems in poor taste by modern standards, and that could have been the end of it. He could still be in office, and the Democrat party at large would have been better off, as would the net balance in Congress with regards to women's issues.

But nope. Context, distinction, and degrees are all meaningless, so Franken's name is in that same list of dirty sleazeball asshole men, no asterisks or footnotes necessary. I don't think the outcome of that game goes in a favorable direction.