Your video, Bystanders Help Save a Beached Great White Shark, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Its the section commander (secco) that shouted (highlighted by lucky above), and likely the platoon sergeant (dude in front), or one of the bystanders that said move.

They are well within their rights to command civilians to make way for the drill formation.

It is not a catafalque parade, no such restrictions on keepin yer trap shut exist in normal drill for seccos or platoon sergeants.

Pretty sure the Guardsman didn't say anything. That was bystanders.

I don't believe the Queen's Guard is allowed to say anything, and once ordered to march, they march, even right into the side of a building.

I find the issue of "stepping on NYPD toes" to be trivial and unimportant. What is much more critical is that American laws and culture would, today, tend to discourage bystanders from stepping in and helping as these Swedes did.

Ask any lawyer, and they'll tell you to turn around and walk the other way, because nothing good can come from intervening, and/or you'll just be opening yourself up to lawsuits. I consider that to be a great failing in the direction that America has taken since I was young (80s) and especially before then. Modern America sure seems like a much more litigious, narcissistic, and entitled place than it used to be.

All the information I referred to or copied was from the link to the CNN article in the link the sifter provided above.

Crimes in which violence is the means to an end, such as robbery, are violent crimes. Violent crimes may, or may not, be committed with weapons. He robbed a store, committed arson on an occupied structure, committed breaking and entering upon a private home, stole the car at said home which is GTA, then committed another robbery at the walmart when he took the gun.

CNN stated that the person was also accused of pointing the rifle at the police, firing it in the air, and then later pointing it at himself. The man clearly has some mental issues, but he was a threat to society in the condition he was in. His rights do not trump the rights of his fellow citizens to be protected from his mental illness.

There are lots of ways that this could have been handled differently, but there are also lots of ways this could have went worse. We could be discussing why the police didn't do more before this guy shot an innocent bystander.

From the interview that I saw on CNN of the police chief, lethal force had been authorized if needed. I think this officer saw an opportunity and took it, perhaps over zealously, to end the situation without harm to innocents.

Sure you can, the asshole who sucker punched an innocent person.

Being angry doesn't give you the right to be violent toward unsuspecting bystanders.

Immediately thought of this entry in "City of Dreams", a Wiki-like book of facts about Port Townsend (PT) WA:

"Centipedes"

The Port Townsend Centipedes (PTC) were a ten-man team who, on July 27,1977, thrilled some 10,000 Seattle Kingdome spectators by winning the Seafair World Championship Tug-of-War. They not only brought home the laurels but also a winner-take-all check for $10,000. The PTC's success story was an object lesson in strategy. By adding art, ratiocination, strategy, and what might best be called a strange brand of PT spirit, they essentially redefined the sport. One reporter described their tactics as a "gumbo of hatha yoga, marital arts, intense dedication, and communal discipline." They proved that tug-of-war can be a little man's sport. Their average weight was less than 150 pounds. On the evening of their victorious tug in the Kingdome against the Montgomery Loggers of Cle Elum, Washington, authoritative bystanders noted how much more muscular the opposition was and predicted an easy victory for the Centipede's opponents. But, as one of the Centipedes said, "We are one being when on the end of a rope." They chose their name as one indication of their strategy: traction. They reasoned that if they could get ten sets of arms and legs working in perfect unison, they would have an advantage over those who tugged with fewer, larger bodies. They were right.

They also practiced rhythm, which included not only coordinating their breathing, but also pacing, the use of the "standing arch," and allowing some members to rest at given times during the tug-of-war. The Centipedes developed their own mythology and terminology: their "house of pain" was a technique of prolonging the tug-of-war in order to exhaust the opposition before administering the coup de grace.

[Not noted in this article is the rules stated that the each team had a weight limit, not a number-of-people limit. The PT team chose to spread the weight over more people.]

That would seem to be common sense except that same textbook instructs officers to only shoot to kill; if they fire, they are only supposed to do so to kill because doing otherwise may result in the perp still being able to harm them or others. (That's why I'm always bumped in movies and TV shows when a cop shoots a bad guy just once.)

Any other non-lethal uses of force could not be used in this kind of situation for that same reason. If they are approaching an unknown subject who is acting erratically and on the move and may be armed (meaning they are not proven to be unarmed), it's understandable [to me] they can't risk just attempting to disable him when doing so could put themselves or bystanders in danger if the guy pulls a gun and starts shooting.

Non-lethal means of disablement don't always disable a person. I've seen suspects get hooks directly and fully into the skin for a tasering, but be completely unaffected. Adrenaline and PCP work wonders in making you impervious to pain.

It's always easiest after the fact to assume there was a much better alternative, but in those precious few moments where you're concerned for the safety of yourself and everyone around you, the options that will guarantee that safety are limited.

Of course these kinds of things are debatable and always subject to ideas about what the cops could have or should have done and what the suspect did and could have or should have done, but the only certainty is that there was a potential threat and they took the only action that could guarantee that that threat was neutralized.

I could go along with that, but I don't think all 3 cops needed to empty their clips (or close to it) shooting to kill, especially when NO one saw a weapon, just arms flailing. That's text book definition of 'excessive use of force' in my eyes.

It's outrageous to me that not one of them had a taser, baton, or pepper spray out, and instead they all had their guns out ready to kill. It's inhuman to me that they always seem to think it's proper to kill rather than disable, and worse that they are supported in that contention by fellow officers AND the law (in many cases).

It's also outrageous and quite telling to me that they initially shoot at him 5 times as he's running/walking away with his hands completely visible. Apparently all those rounds missed the target and flew down the street where there were many bystanders. Absolutely no excuse for that part. That alone should get all 3 fired, or at least on desk duty until they all 3 pass a gun safety class.

All that said, I expect you are correct and this will be seen as 'justified' because...he had hands that might have had a gun in them? Sad but true.

I'm really starting to think we need to do what England did and stop allowing street beat cops to carry guns and only special weapon and tactics guys should have them, and they should be trained to not use them unless needed. These terrified bullies running around our country armed to the teeth with an immunity shield protecting them from consequence is not working.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'cops, power trip, pepper spray, innocent bystanders' to 'Cops, bycicle, legs, black hat, pepper spray, female cop, male cop, brick building' - edited by BoneRemake

I'm curious why this is being described as a racially motivated attack. Just because the assailant was ignorant of his own state's law(s) and an idiot doesn't make him a racist. He may very well be a racist but that can hardly be determined from a silent video; just because the man he tackled is black, doesn't mean the victim couldn't have just as easily been a Caucasian (or Asian, Hispanic, etc.)

I understand the current racial tensions and situation in the US is pretty volatile right now, but not every act of black-on-white or white-on-black violence is racially motivated. By making these assumptions and posting them as facts (e.g. dailykos website), all it does it stir the pot even more and shows a huge lack of journalistic integrity.

Unless there is evidence to suggest that Mr Foster, the assailant, targeted Mr Daniels, the grandfather, because he was a black man carrying a firearm then people should treat it for what it is: an over-zealous wannabe hero who is ignorant of the law. He was arrested, so it's not like he got away with his crime. Maybe more information will come to light (prior arrests, complaints, etc) that will reveal it to be a racially motivated attack.

As for the others being arrested, there were only two other people in physical contact with Mr Daniels, after the initial take-down, and I don't believe that they struck him; they only held him down, which is probably well within the confines of a citizen's arrest. The other bystanders just removed the gun from the area. Big deal. The cops did the right thing in this situation.

Yet more evidence, if any were needed, that there are -way- too many people out there who are too stupid to safely own a gun. It's just damned lucky he only shot himself, and not some innocent bystander.

I understand your point, but I disagree.
True, they CHARGED him with failure to disperse, along with public intoxication, battery on police, and resisting arrest, and we can see clearly that most of their accusations (delineated in the link) were lies. Also, they didn't arrest the woman standing with him or any of the other bystanders (except the one 'friend' that touched a cop), which to me indicated that was not an issue for them at any time. Also, he was in a small alcove off the sidewalk, not in anyone's way or interfering, unlike several bystanders. The closest officer comes over to him, walking around numerous others to get there, only when the cell phone is noticed. It looked to me like he was going for the phone himself, then went 'tough guy' when he complained about the theft by officer 2.
That's why it seems clear to me they arrested him for filming them and made up other charges later, it's almost certainly the reason they stole his phone. Maybe I'm wrong, but it is my take.
And @speechless is right, I couldn't fit all that in the title. ;-)

So, even after seeing there was no reason for the stop, or the assault, he was still kept in custody until AFTER the hospital?!? Another WTF!?!

I've been wondering recently, could those bystanders have effected a 'citizens arrest' on the cop for assaulting the elderly man...legally? If so, it may be there's going to be a lot of injured or dead cops, because they'll NEVER allow themselves to be arrested and it's (allegedly) perfectly legal to kill someone resisting citizens arrest. I really hope someone tries, and I get my answer (to be clear, I really hope it's legal to stop them...but I don't want them dead).