i agree its tempting to stop this from happening... but you say this after the fact that floyd is dead.

in your scenario, the person being arrested ends up living. so he goes to jail, alive. you get arrested for assaulting an officer and obstructing justice and now have to prove the person would have died if you had not intervened. that's a steep uphill battle but i would be on your side.

"Any other person would be getting an RO charge"?
Any other person would be tazed, beaten, thrown to the ground, and charged with resisting and assaulting an officer.
Officers should not be allowed to refuse field sobriety tests, breathalyzers, or blood tests whenever there's the hint they may be impaired. It's a real public safety issue.
Even though they did arrest him (they had zero choice), this was just 20 minutes of handling a fellow officer with serious kid gloves. He needs to go to jail.

Anyone who assaults an officer should be expecting the worst kind of trouble.

They are all grounded; but Alexandar Zivojinovich isn't without flaws. He was arrested in Florida, I believe, about 7 or 8 years ago for assaulting Police officers.

Is sexual assault an offical part of the judicial system now? Or just the reality..?

>> ^mxxcon:

The cop is a fucking liar!
If he actually "run over" the pig's foot you would see the car move up and down, it would've traveled further forward and the pig would've screamed much louder and faster. Here you see a delayed reaction as he's trying to think how to act.
This liar cop just didn't like that the guy was moving forward and decided to do what soccer/football players do by faking nothing into something huge.
That pig cop should be suspended for abuse of power!


the car would move up no more than it would on a rock. It probably just went over the tip and applied pressure to his toes. Maybe pressed in the nail on his big toe enough so he knows he's prolly bleeding but doesn't need an ambulance.

he DID position himself in a way so that he would appear in front or "to close" to the car so that the guy wouldn't drive away. Clearly the driver was too stupid to know he could cause bodily harm and now adds an assaulted police officer charge to the ticket. Well done. Frankly I didn't see nearly as much police brutality as I should have. he clearly did not care if he ran over the police officers foot and was not listening to him even after the fact. I would have dragged him out and put said foot up his ass and then given him the opportunity to drive over said foot again.

>> ^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

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.

>> ^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.

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.

may have been somewhat drunk when writing that comment, glad to see i'm not the most hated person in the world.

i am in no way justifying what the cop did. it was a very quick interaction and he probably did not think through what he was doing.

he should probably be fired or at least suspended without pay and issue a formal apology. it sounds like he made a pretty big mistake and hopefully he learned from it.

also, @Duckman33 "The kid wasn't doing anything wrong or shady other than looking like someone that sold drugs to an under cover officer" maybe i'm reading the articles wrong, but this wasn't the wrong kid. he was with the men who sold drugs to and assaulted the officers, he just wasn't the one doing the selling/assaulting and was let off.

Dude, you seem to be the only one that doesn't understand what I'm saying. So I'm not going to tailor my posts to cater to your whims, sorry. If you can't understand what I'm trying to say, then simply ignore my posts and move on. It's really that simple.

In reply to this comment by Lawdeedaw:
>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^reiwan:
I'd hate to bust anyones bubble, but if anyone here on the sift was getting bubbles blown in their face from some girl, you would be livid. He may have been very curt with her about what she was doing, but he handled it better than a lot of non-uniformed people would have.
Then she is taken aback and complains about not getting any respect after what she did? fuck her.

No, I wouldn't be "livid" if someone was blowing bubbles in my face. Kids do it all the time. I ask them nicely to stop. Please don't speak for me, as I can speak for myself.

Wow... Apples to science here.
First, that woman is old enough for all of us to legally play her field. She is not a child. To put this in perspective, all of the above would have to be met... A-You would have to have an adult blow bubbles in your face. B-It would have to be at your job. C-It would also have to be in front of a crowd that does not work with you, D- You would have to lose authority from both your co-workers and the public watching...
Way different scenario.
Kids do it? Kids also piss the bed. Kids also pick their noses and do not wash their hands. Kids do a lot of things adults should not. What if a kid went up to your father's casket and blew bubbles on his corpse? Again, way different...
Now, in a funtastic world, let's reverse the roles. Have the cops blowing bubbles into the crowds with industrilized bubble blowers (So every one get's it.) I say this because if she is allowed to blow bubbles, someone will step it up... and take it to the next level. Someone mentioned flowers next? Sure, with poison ivy on them. Pranks rarely get gentlier if allowed to continue.
But, in all, this cop is a hat... Just because he said about bubbles being a detergent... Lame-o was his name-o.

My point, as before with you has obviously gone over your head. Here I'll say it again so you hopefully can understand it clearly. Please don't speak for me, as I can speak for myself.

I never spoke for you; so what is your point? I have an idea--as I did not speak for you, don't speak for me by saying I spoke for you. Pot, kettle.

Dude, what in THE fuck are you talking about? Do you even READ what I'm saying in my posts before you fucking reply, or are you just an illiterate ass hole? Seriously.
In the conversation, I was asking reiwan (who I was replying to by the way) not to speak for me. THAT was the point of my reply. YOU had nothing to do with it. But somehow you decided it was all about you anyway. <IMG class=smiley src="http://static1.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/oops.gif"> I wasn't trying to compare the situation in the video to a kid blowing bubbles in my face. I was saying "shit happens, get over it". It's really that simple. I used to play music for a living. I've had far worse done to me in front of "crowds that don't work with me" by adults than someone blowing bubbles in my face. So I'll make a simple request to you as well now. Please don't lecture me on what I would and wouldn't do in any given situation.



I know/knew the point of your first reply--however, since you unfairly and directly compared what happened with you to being mad at something like this happening, then I simply pointed out the two versions as completely incompatible.

You then stated, this time to me, to stop speaking for you--which I did not. Perhaps you were once again telling Re to stop but that makes little sense...

Now you're all huffy and sad because your feelings are hurt. This reminds me of the last time we discussed and you flipped because I inferred something from your writing. However, you assumed something about my writing so we were pretty even...

I just give up on you Duck; either write what you actually mean or do not write at all. Don't just use words you think are appropriate. I am an over-analytical sort and so I get confused when people use words just to hear themselves speak... I will always mistake your point if you have no clue how to put it down in posts.

>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^reiwan:
I'd hate to bust anyones bubble, but if anyone here on the sift was getting bubbles blown in their face from some girl, you would be livid. He may have been very curt with her about what she was doing, but he handled it better than a lot of non-uniformed people would have.
Then she is taken aback and complains about not getting any respect after what she did? fuck her.

No, I wouldn't be "livid" if someone was blowing bubbles in my face. Kids do it all the time. I ask them nicely to stop. Please don't speak for me, as I can speak for myself.

Wow... Apples to science here.
First, that woman is old enough for all of us to legally play her field. She is not a child. To put this in perspective, all of the above would have to be met... A-You would have to have an adult blow bubbles in your face. B-It would have to be at your job. C-It would also have to be in front of a crowd that does not work with you, D- You would have to lose authority from both your co-workers and the public watching...
Way different scenario.
Kids do it? Kids also piss the bed. Kids also pick their noses and do not wash their hands. Kids do a lot of things adults should not. What if a kid went up to your father's casket and blew bubbles on his corpse? Again, way different...
Now, in a funtastic world, let's reverse the roles. Have the cops blowing bubbles into the crowds with industrilized bubble blowers (So every one get's it.) I say this because if she is allowed to blow bubbles, someone will step it up... and take it to the next level. Someone mentioned flowers next? Sure, with poison ivy on them. Pranks rarely get gentlier if allowed to continue.
But, in all, this cop is a hat... Just because he said about bubbles being a detergent... Lame-o was his name-o.

My point, as before with you has obviously gone over your head. Here I'll say it again so you hopefully can understand it clearly. Please don't speak for me, as I can speak for myself.

I never spoke for you; so what is your point? I have an idea--as I did not speak for you, don't speak for me by saying I spoke for you. Pot, kettle.

Dude, what in THE fuck are you talking about? Do you even READ what I'm saying in my posts before you fucking reply, or are you just an illiterate ass hole? Seriously.
In the conversation, I was asking reiwan (who I was replying to by the way) not to speak for me. THAT was the point of my reply. YOU had nothing to do with it. But somehow you decided it was all about you anyway. <IMG class=smiley src="http://static1.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/oops.gif"> I wasn't trying to compare the situation in the video to a kid blowing bubbles in my face. I was saying "shit happens, get over it". It's really that simple. I used to play music for a living. I've had far worse done to me in front of "crowds that don't work with me" by adults than someone blowing bubbles in my face. So I'll make a simple request to you as well now. Please don't lecture me on what I would and wouldn't do in any given situation.



I know/knew the point of your first reply--however, since you unfairly and directly compared what happened with you to being mad at something like this happening, then I simply pointed out the two versions as completely incompatible.

You then stated, this time to me, to stop speaking for you--which I did not. Perhaps you were once again telling Re to stop but that makes little sense...

Now you're all huffy and sad because your feelings are hurt. This reminds me of the last time we discussed and you flipped because I inferred something from your writing. However, you assumed something about my writing so we were pretty even...

I just give up on you Duck; either write what you actually mean or do not write at all. Don't just use words you think are appropriate. I am an over-analytical sort and so I get confused when people use words just to hear themselves speak... I will always mistake your point if you have no clue how to put it down in posts.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^reiwan:
I'd hate to bust anyones bubble, but if anyone here on the sift was getting bubbles blown in their face from some girl, you would be livid. He may have been very curt with her about what she was doing, but he handled it better than a lot of non-uniformed people would have.
Then she is taken aback and complains about not getting any respect after what she did? fuck her.

No, I wouldn't be "livid" if someone was blowing bubbles in my face. Kids do it all the time. I ask them nicely to stop. Please don't speak for me, as I can speak for myself.

Wow... Apples to science here.
First, that woman is old enough for all of us to legally play her field. She is not a child. To put this in perspective, all of the above would have to be met... A-You would have to have an adult blow bubbles in your face. B-It would have to be at your job. C-It would also have to be in front of a crowd that does not work with you, D- You would have to lose authority from both your co-workers and the public watching...
Way different scenario.
Kids do it? Kids also piss the bed. Kids also pick their noses and do not wash their hands. Kids do a lot of things adults should not. What if a kid went up to your father's casket and blew bubbles on his corpse? Again, way different...
Now, in a funtastic world, let's reverse the roles. Have the cops blowing bubbles into the crowds with industrilized bubble blowers (So every one get's it.) I say this because if she is allowed to blow bubbles, someone will step it up... and take it to the next level. Someone mentioned flowers next? Sure, with poison ivy on them. Pranks rarely get gentlier if allowed to continue.
But, in all, this cop is a hat... Just because he said about bubbles being a detergent... Lame-o was his name-o.

My point, as before with you has obviously gone over your head. Here I'll say it again so you hopefully can understand it clearly. Please don't speak for me, as I can speak for myself.

I never spoke for you; so what is your point? I have an idea--as I did not speak for you, don't speak for me by saying I spoke for you. Pot, kettle.


Dude, what in THE fuck are you talking about? Do you even READ what I'm saying in my posts before you fucking reply, or are you just an illiterate ass hole? Seriously.

In the conversation, I was asking reiwan (who I was replying to by the way) not to speak for me. THAT was the point of my reply. YOU had nothing to do with it. But somehow you decided it was all about you anyway. I wasn't trying to compare the situation in the video to a kid blowing bubbles in my face. I was saying "shit happens, get over it". It's really that simple. I used to play music for a living. I've had far worse done to me in front of "crowds that don't work with me" by adults than someone blowing bubbles in my face. So I'll make a simple request to you as well now. Please don't lecture me on what I would and wouldn't do in any given situation.