also this guy is an idiot for getting out of his car in a traffic stop and actually pointing his black wallet at the cop and grabbing at it with his right hand unnecessarily. If you kinda squint it actually looks like he's trying to pull a gun and shoot. If this was one of those arcade games where you had to shoot the 'bad guys' and not shoot the innocent bystanders I would have totally lost a quarter there. (i realize that analogy dates me.)

Eh, their overall point is certainly valid, but in the situation with the woman assaulting the man, I would not be greatly concerned for his physical safety (which, granted, is assuming he doesn't have some kind of physical disability, which isn't a great assumption). Being bigger and stronger, he has the option to extricate himself while staying purely on the defensive, whereas a woman being assaulted typically doesn't have that option without assistance from a bystander. I don't think we want to over-equalize everything to the point where we overlook that underlying all male-female interaction is that if it somehow degenerates to violence, the male will most likely ultimately control the outcome

Newt
I do go to bed hatting you but then I think of you in that yellow dress then all is well.


Having a clear opportunity to plant evidence is not the same as planting evidence.

When was his body camera on? When was it turn off? You are making a reach that he turned it off to "plant a gun" . If this happened then yes I would have more suspicion towards the cop.

Other than facts you are speculating , pure conjecture of a planting of a gun. That does not hold up in court..

Ok

Black guy shoots me - a white drug dealer -- then plants a gun in my car .. but only evidence is a bystander showing the killer messing around in his back seat then goes to my dead body in the car and later a gun is "found" ... But no one see this planting -- DNA of only the black shooter found on the planted gun.

Yes in this case you might be convicted of planting a gun.. Or some other that would suggest that you planted the gun.

..........Only because there is no reason for the killer to be in the car...............


The cop had reason -- to search for weapons/ drugs / paperwork of the car etc. So not quite apples to apples.

Bob
You're so dishonest. You've said clearly that you go to bed hating me. ;-)

In the tape, I see the clear opportunity to plant evidence (with no other explanation for what he was doing retrieving something in his squad car after shooting him but before he's even removed from the car, and sitting in the victims car with his body camera off), which he hides from the cameras in his uniform instead of showing it off to bystanders in his hands, and when tested, the gun only had the officers DNA and fingerprints, and the victim wasn't wearing gloves, the cop was. No explanation given for any of that.
Edit: that's motive, means, and opportunity, and unexplained evidence with no other reasonable explanation.
Case closed.

EDIT: Given the exact same circumstances but a black citizen shooting another citizen, then performing the exact same hyper suspicious actions, you would absolutely, zero question in my mind, say it's incontrovertible that the black man murdered the other man and planted a gun and drugs to get away with it.

Funny, you and your side of the isle has spent at least 8 years in the streets over sour grapes, now you suddenly think you're reasonable and thoughtful....but you don't even understand the words.

If blacks were killing officers at the rate that officers are killing blacks, you would say they've declared open season on law enforcement...oh wait, you've already said that, even though cops actually kill 25 times more citizens than people kill cops, and by far most of those citizens are black.

@Diogenes

I'm not sure I'm following what you're saying. Why should a reasonable person be pissed off at a third party calling out offensive language use? To use a hypothetical:

I jokingly call my brother a "retard" because he locks his keys in the car. We grew up in the 80s, so this this pejorative is something we are comfortable with and feel no inhibitions about using. My brother laughs it off.

Now let's assume this happens in a parking lot as we're standing outside my brother's car and a woman passing by overhears my comment and chastises me for equating stupid actions with people who have mental disabilities.

Should reasonable bystanders watching all this be pissed off, since my comment wasn't directed at the woman? On the one hand, my brother and I weren't offended by the use of the word "retard" to mean stupid. On the other hand, our very usage of the word "retard" in that particular way promotes and sustains a culture that already heavily looks down on mental illness and mental disabilities.

I'm genuinely curious about your answer to this. If I'm reading your comment correctly, the primary negative of PC language that you see is that some people feel smug when they call out other people on their language usage. But does the fact that some people are smug about it make them wrong in pointing out the offender?

Great illustration of a potential social study ... hero dude from across the room vs the girl in red's reaction !

Reminds me of this experiment around the 'bystander effect' : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KE5YwN4NW5o

Comply....this is not a solution for the citizens, it's a solution for the officers. People clearly complying have been shot, on camera, repeatedly. Remember "hands up, don't shoot"....that was a slogan because so many people were shot while their hands were up complying. It sure didn't help the caregiver that was prone with hands outstretched begging them to not shoot at the totally harmless mentally challenged man child seated and playing with a truck, but they still did shoot repeatedly, hitting the prone caregiver.

Also, just comply means just allow them to violate your rights, claiming you can recapture your violated rights with no effort by suing...WTF?!? You have a right to know why you're being arrested. You have a right to not answer them when they scream at you. You have a right to carry cash without it being stolen. You have a right to insist on your rights not being violated in the first place. You do not have to allow them to violate you in the hopes that you can prove they did it....prove it against their lies, their fellow officers lies, the prosecutors bias, the judges bias, the evidence disappearing, the harassment from them and other cops, and while fighting the bogus charges that pop up when you file your lawsuit.

The police do act as judge, jury, and executioner many times....that's why people hate cops, not because they are confused about what judges are for. It's because cops so often abuse their authority and/or lie and in the process completely destroy multiple lives (both those they charge and family/bystanders) with impunity, immunity, derision, and zero empathy, then they usually blame their victims for not 'just complying'.
I'm already really beginning to dislike this asshat.

Just let them violate you to death and then sue them, huh? When those 2-3-4 officers all lie, hide evidence, and retaliate against anyone who contradicts their lies (including other cops), that 'remedy' rarely wins in court without incontrovertible evidence proving they all lied, incontrovertible evidence that the cops didn't know about to hide or destroy...and it can't unviolate you or restore lost time, sanity, or life.
...and yes, because they overwhelmingly stand behind those proven to have violated rights and worse, they all get painted with that brush until that changes. The blue wall is responsible for those "good" cops being painted as "bad", not the citizens who's trust has been so often violated. When you stand with a thug and support and protect them, you are one.

No quotas? OK, now this guy has moved from bad advice that benefits only the cops, not the citizen, to ridiculous self serving bold faced lies. It's been clearly, incontrovertibly, repeatedly proven and unashamedly admitted by uncountable officers and their supervisors in hundreds if not thousands of jurisdictions, most cops do have quotas.

BTW, that's EX officer Izzo....thank goodness.

This isn't one of those things you can discuss in isolation. There does exist the problem of violent criminals that refuse to listen to any and all authority. When you have free citizen that murders somebody, if you are lucky enough to catch and convict them they go to jail. Some of these folks continue to violently attack other inmates. Some even continue to violent attack the prison guards when they come in to try and stop that. There comes a point where the question is what to we do? Just how many resources do we expend working with individuals hell bent on abusing the rights and bodies of everyone else around them? Western legal systems have already ruled any form of punishment through physical force as out of the question, so self preservation isn't a motivation. There exist scenarios where the only option left for protecting people from an individual is isolation.

It's good to do our best to treat even the worst elements of society with the highest standard possible. The trouble is in practice failing to punish certain actions with imprisonment or isolation leads to predictable abuse of otherwise innocent bystanders.

There have been at least 3 mass shootings in Australia since 1997 (defined as a shooting where 4 or more people are injured or killed - the same as the popular https://www.massshootingtracker.org/ )

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia

One could include a 4th incident in NSW this last week where our poorly trained police shot 5 people. One guy with a knife and 4 bystanders. Check that line of fire yeah?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-09/four-injured-as-police-shoot-man-hornsby-shopping-centre/7496102

I 99% agree with you, but:

Some of that responsibility we all assume when driving to be able to react to things happening in front of us is legitimately mitigated by assumptions that people are going to drive mostly sanely.

Like, on a highway with only 1 lane going each way, when there is an oncoming car in the other lane we assume that they are going to stay in their lane and not swerve right in front of us at the last second. Or, when going around a semi-blind curve on a road, we generally maintain speed and assume that nobody is going to stop / reverse down the lane (although causing accidents that way is a fairly common insurance scam trick).


The tailgater here was *NOT* giving himself enough space to react to 100% normal, sane things that could happen. The brake-check goes (slightly) beyond the normal, sane things that we would usually assume are going to happen when driving. The only problem that I have with it (the brake-check) is that like @SDGundamX said, it very likely could have resulted in an accident including completely innocent victims -- like the car pulling onto the highway or even oncoming traffic on the other side of the ditch.

Basically, the tailgater deserved what he got here. BUT, he could easily have smashed into bystander cars that wouldn't have deserved it at all. So, the takeaway for me is that I'd be hesitant to do a brake-check like that in a situation with that much traffic around. It is still 99.9% the tailgater's fault, and would have been that way even if he had smashed into somebody else. But I'd feel real bad if I brake-checked some asshole like that and he careened into somebody that did nothing wrong.

As has been said, both are douches (and depending on the state, both were guilty of driving infractions). Very real chance that by brake-checking, the tailgater is going to swerve into someone else (like the guy coming up from the on ramp). Even if that didn't happen, (s)he almost flew into oncoming traffic after losing control, which again would have caused damage to other cars and possible injury to innocent bystanders.

And even if the tailgater hadn't have lost control, the situation is escalated and you're looking at a possible road rage incident with the tailgater retaliating--which actually happened to me when I purposely drove slower (no brake-checking) while being tailgated. Guy jumped out of his car at the next traffic light and tried to get me out of mine to start a fight. I drove off when the light turned green and he actually chased me down, passed me, then skidded sideways and blocked the whole road with his car, again jumping out and wanting to fight. I backed up, turned around, and drove straight to the nearest police station (which was thankfully just a half-mile away)--he didn't follow me into the lot and just kept driving.

Now, if that guy had had a gun, I would almost certainly be dead. The smugness that comes from "teaching someone a lesson" is not worth the potential injury you may cause yourself or others when 2-ton vehicles travelling at high speeds are involved. As has been said, the proper response in these situations is to safely get out of the way and possibly call the police if the driving seems erratic enough to warrant it.

They can start with simple approaches and get progressively more difficult. We don't know if that was the first attempt.

For example, if they're determined enough it's simple enough to get your home ip address and target your router since the firmware's rarely updated. From there they have all unencrypted traffic on your network as well as metadata on your encrypted traffic. They can then target the main PC, particularly if it's not fully patched and not running additional security software, and so on.

It's all about how much effort they want to put into the attack. Try the simple stuff first, and if it's worth it you can get more and more complex.

I'm no expert but I am an interested bystander. I even read Bruce Schneier's blog, so I'm all, like, leet and shit

The woman doing all the yelling is escalating the situation. She is the one who is taking a simple situation and turning it into an incident.
I know we don't know what happened before the camera is filming. But what we do see is a teen, resisting and fighting back against an otherwise calm officer, (Who by the way, did a great job controlling his adrenalin.)
The first time you watch this, you feel for the kid who the woman yelling, is convincing us that something horrible is happening. But if you watch it again, and shut her out, it's clear the officers did nothing other than to quickly handle the situation.
One of the bystanders should have stood up and handled that woman before she actually caused the teen some harm.

Not for me. I see a guy carrying a gun, I have -no- way to know if he's trying to "stick up for his rights", or preparing to open fire. And by the time I -can- tell, it's too damned late if he's the wrong one.

So I'm clearing the area, and calling the cops. That sort of thing is -precisely- what they're supposed to be handling. And frankly, I don't much care how it's handled, as long as no innocent bystanders get shot. I've had it up to here with these nutcase ammosexuals.

Reminds me of the time that I observed an old woman walking home from the grocery store, who tripped and fell on her face as I drove by. Blood streamed from her face as I immediately pulled over to the side of the road and ran to her aid. I shouted at the bystanders to go get some towels to stem the bleeding as I checked to see if she was okay and called for help on my (at the time, fairly rare) cellular phone.

She asked me not to call the police, but to call her son-in-law, instead. She gave me the number and he came in about 10 minutes, as I sat by her side, helped to calm her jittery nerves and ensure that she was alright.

Three years later, she called me at random to thank me for my kindness. It was the least I could do and was surprising that so few people would have done likewise.