@lantern53

Christ, dude, he doesn't "think" he is surrounded by racism, he clearly IS surround by racism! The events in Balitmore and Ferguson (and N.Y. and L.A. and Atlanta and all the other cities where this has happened before) clearly demonstrate that.

The media in this very video are trying to make it seem like smashed windows and burning buildings are a worse problem than black people being killed in custody by police! Meanwhile, the media barely even cover white kids rioting in Huntington Beach for reasons not even remotely as good as protesting racist oppression. How can you not see the racism that is right in front of your face--the racism that literally is dripping from the screen in this video?

It's not about "letting your skin color hold you back." It's about overcoming the odds that are stacked against many black people born into poorer communities, which takes incredible luck as much as it does incredible effort. Black people want an equal chance to succeed. They've been asking for a more level playing field for quite literally decades now and they still don't have it. Can you really not understand that anger? That feeling of powerlessness and rage? Can you really not see how condescending and patronizing it is for you to suggest people to just suck it up and get over it? How ridiculous it is to comparing overcoming low grades to get into college with constantly getting pulled over and roughed up (or killed) by cops simply because of the color of your skin? Is there no cognitive dissonance at all?

I wasn't quite clear. I don't mean scrap the system. I mean replace the officers, and train the new ones how to behave PROPERLY, and insist on severe punishment for any infraction. When the rule enforcer breaks the rules, they should have to pay twice what non-enforcers pay for the same crime...with no coddling in "protective custody".
I also agree with reversing the militarization. People will use the tools you give them...if you give them tools of war, they'll commit acts of war with them. Seems obvious to me.
My issue is that the "good cops" NEVER go after the bad cops themselves....as I see it, that makes them accessories after the fact, and also bad cops for obstructing justice. I'm fine with keeping any cop that's testified AGAINST another cop, even one that has documentation proving they stopped another cop from taking things too far. The rest need to go, IMO. They have all been complacent in the face of their own being criminal, and I'm simply not OK with that.
I do agree, simply enacting a zero tolerance policy for ANY officer misconduct, and stricter punishment than normal citizens get for the same infraction would remove most "bad cops" right away...but only if their fellow officers no longer cover up for them. With what we have today, there's no prosecution because they can't make a case when most officer crime happens off camera and the only witnesses either lie or refuse to testify. That's why I say they ALL need to go, and be replaced with new people who take the job knowing it's not a power trip and abuse won't be tolerated a whit. I also think they should have to waive their right to not talk, even self incriminate, in order to wield the authority they wield. I know it won't happen, but a newt can dream.

Let's see...we've got assault and battery, armed robbery, destruction of private property, destruction of evidence...and probably a few more crimes here. I won't be surprised in the least if there's not a single crime charged, however.

Police are proving conclusively that they are NOT protecting, serving, or upholding the law. Since they refuse to police themselves, I'm thinking it's time to disband the criminal gang and start again, they've all failed time and time again to be honest and upright people, much less proper authorities. If cops policed themselves, the other cops would have tackled this cop, jumped on his head, hog tied him, and carted him off to jail....but that's NEVER happened, not a single time, ever, no matter what kind of murderous crime the cop commits in front of his fellow officers. In my mind, that means they are not real cops and so not deserving of respect or compliance.
How about a ballot initiative to remove any 'protective custody' for officers sent to prison, so they have to go to gen pop like every one else? Then they might think twice...assuming some are prosecuted...because it would no longer be summer camp with other cops, it would be real prison.

So he beat up a lot of people and didn't take anyone into custody. That won't put much of a dent into the crime problem there in Hell's Kitchen.

Also, didn't read anyone their rights.

Your video, Samantha Bee- Rape Victims Sharing Custody With Rapists, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I asked you if you had evidence of your claims, you ignored that query, so I logically assumed you don't. You still refuse, claiming it would do no good, but you have never tried (because you've clearly already made up your mind about me & my positions), still leading to the conclusion you don't have any.
I have the knowledge/memory of the reported threats, and her reaction. That's all I needed to dispute your contention that she cut comments off solely to silence reasoned debate.
Again, you have still not backed up any of your statements, which leads to the reasonable conclusion that you can't, and are just riding your high horse and acting the fool. Please prove that impression wrong by supplying the repeatedly requested evidence, or prove it correct by continuing to simply claim it will be ignored and so refusing.

EDIT: and I'm not ignoring Bobknight!
and if using a word's technical meaning is denigrating, that's the denigrateds' problem IMO. They should own it, there's nothing wrong with it. I didn't mind being called a janitor instead of a custodial technician. If she's called them 'dirty whores on film', then she meant it to be denigrating, and I'll change my mind.

Brian Millikan, attorney for the St. Louis Police Officers Association, represented four officers during the internal investigation.

"The officers followed the use of force continuum," Millikan said. "They took the suspect into custody with the minimal force that was necessary that evening."

That's absolutely not what's been reported. The reports have repeatedly said his hyoid was severely injured and he asphyxiated.
Also, we can not take the word of the public coroner when it comes to officer involved death. Like the DA, they work with the cops daily, and bend over backwards to 'help' them repeatedly. Independent prosecutors and coroners are needed on EVERY officer involved death, without them we'll see you all as members of a deadly, powerful gang of thugs.
Cops should have TALKED to him instead of deciding 'he's not complying fast enough, get him fellas' and dog piling on him, starting from behind with a hold specifically disallowed by the department. (I'm glad you didn't try to say he wasn't choked, because that would just be ridiculous). That's really overboard for someone selling loosies, and was really, obviously about contempt of cop.

It might be a good idea for them to not laugh and joke about it while the body is still lying on the sidewalk and the family is filming them too, btw. (I've seen the extended video)

Perhaps he should have cooperated, but in no way would that ensure he'd be alive. The 77 year old man cooperated fully, (when a cop just nastily grabs at your papers for no reason and without saying a thing, pulling away is expected and acceptable) and was beaten and tasered for his trouble. Cooperation simply means the cops won't be hurt, not the citizen. Many many people are injured and killed cooperating with police and in full custody yearly. You somehow put the blame 100% on them and 0% on the police that have them under their control and have the duty to protect them. The rest of us have lost all trust in cops lately, and we feel if you have a duty you should perform it.

EDIT: How did 'cooperating' work out for this guy?
http://videosift.com/video/South-Carolina-cop-shoots-man-for-getting-license

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).

Also he should have never been pulled over as he has dealer plates and is exempt from inspection sticker thing.

Took him to the hospital and after was released from custody with no charges.

No, a police dog is a dog. A tazer is a tool. (I could have made a terrible joke there, but will refrain)
I understand that humans being more 'valuable' than 'animals' (as if we aren't animals) is the normal way of thinking, but you make the knee jerk assumption/implication that they are the only options, either let a dog attack a dangerous armed person that WILL hurt/kill the dog or do it manually and be hurt yourself. There are MANY other options always available that don't involve releasing the unsuspecting dog into harms way. Most don't even involve deadly force. It would NEVER be proper to let the dog attack a known armed threatening person instead of using one's brain to deal with the danger in a safer manner, but that is what you've said you would do.
As a society, we have partially reversed the thinking that 'humans are more important than animals'. That is shown by the creation of many 'preserves' that stop people from farming/hunting on land to save animals, and that ends up killing some people (through starvation, malnutrition, etc). So while your statement is usually correct, people do usually consider humans more valuable than animals, as an absolutist statement it is wrong. That kind of thinking has put us in a position where the food chains are being broken because we only thought about humans (and not very thoroughly).

I'm sorry to hear about your cat, it's a terrible thing to have to help them go, but often the right thing for them. :-(

Your comments were "a dog is a tool" and "If I were tasked with taking a person with a machete into custody, I would be happy to have a dog take a chance over a person risking their life." Both show a complete lack of concern for the dog, or even thought for it as a living, thinking, feeling being. The latter also shows a propensity to put the unsuspecting dog in far greater danger rather than accept a manageable danger themselves. In your scenario, you could easily disarm 'Machette' with your Taser, firearm, car, other officers, etc. with minimal or no danger to the officers, only more time taken, but you say you would send in the dog to get sliced. I find that terrible and not the words of someone that truly cares for the animal.
EDIT: " I would be happy to have a dog take a chance over a person risking their life." really translates to 'I would be happy to have a dog risk their life over a person taking a chance.'...and I and others find that thinking uncaring and irresponsible towards the living, feeling being (your tool) who's care and welfare you took responsibility for.
You are quite correct, I could never be a cop. I don't have the mentality to constantly tell others what to do (and insist they follow my directions), or to deal with the drudgery of writing people tickets, paperwork, etc. I could not dehumanize people I think are criminals daily and treat them like the inhuman scum they 'are'. I would have too hard a time enforcing laws I disagreed with, and I would fear that dealing with people at their worst would make me think the worst of all people, and so cause me to treat them all like the awful criminals they are (in my mind), making me a douchebag with authoratah. I don't want to be that in any way.
I feel like being a cop is a truly hard job that screws with one's mind. Again, why I think therapy on the job should be mandatory.
Honest discussion is never a waste of time.

In police work, a dog is a tool. You can use any tool properly or improperly. If I were tasked with taking a person with a machete into custody, I would be happy to have a dog take a chance over a person risking their life.

No. That's simply wrong.
Cops MAY need to use more force than they are met with, they certainly do NOT need to escalate to violence every time they take someone into custody (as your post suggests)...if they did, why didn't they beat up and/or shoot the Governor of Texas?!?
There's a huge range of action they can take between doing nothing and using overwhelming deadly force. Cops that think they should use the maximum amount of force possible, to 'protect themselves' should not be cops, those are cowardly bullies with immunity and guns.
If the proper thing is to use the most force possible, why are cops given pepper spray, tasers, batons, hand to hand combat training, radios, Kevlar gloves, etc. ? In this instance, ANY of those could have been tried before shooting someone retreating, surrendering, and far enough away for any of them to be tried.
From my viewpoint, this was likely more about the cop being pissed he was ignored when he told them to stop than any fear he had of two youths that were leaving the scene, and about them 'respecting his authoratah'. That's not an acceptable reason to shoot a person....even if they're black.
For you, as a cop, to claim you should always be MORE violent than your suspect means YOU are the violent criminal (or at best, an advocate for being violently criminal)...so perhaps a cop needs to come to your home based on an anonymous tip and shoot you in the head?!?...why would you say not?...you're armed and angry and advocating deadly violence!
Cops are supposed to DE-escalate violent situations, not aggravate and escalate them. It's not just sad but frightening to hear you, a self professed long term cop, to say the exact opposite. Once again I'll ask, where are you located. If you are representative of the police there, I truly want to avoid your stomping grounds.
To me, your stance means I should meet officers with deadly force, because if they decide they 'fear' me, they'll use deadly force on me without hesitation, so killing them first is always self defense. I don't think you thought it through to conclusion saying they should always be MORE violent.

Cops have to be one step more violent than the people they must take into custody. That's a simple fact. That is the use of force continuum. You can probably google it.

But people who have no knowledge of it or think a cop can 'shoot the guy in the hand' will never understand it.

I have no idea what happened between them pushing her to the ground and her being placed in custody, but that in no way excuses their behaviour.

While I'm here @dannym3141, yeah, the description is unfair.

First up, that title is dangerously close to implying she got what she deserved.

Second "entirely peaceful"??? The video actually shows them assaulting someone.