Still no fun, but still a far cry from "teeth knocked out". Title was changed. Good.


>> ^Pantalones:

AAAAAAAND TEETH!
"Fox said in addition to a facial fracture, a split chin and chipped teeth she's also trying to recover emotionally."

>> ^quantumushroom:

http://crimeblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2010/10/trooper-a
ccused-of-using-exces.html

The charges against Fox (the driver) who suffered a gash in her chin and other scrapes, have since been dropped.
Didn't read anything here about teeth. Let the camera do the work without making sh1t up exaggerating.


Really doesn't matter if she lost any teeth or not ffs .. as if slamming her face first into concrete when she poses no damn threat at all isn't bad enough.

No.

>> ^rottenseed:

>> ^bareboards2:
Love the cameras. Cameras and the internet are weaving a web of protection around each citizen.
Too cool, baby!

you mean highlighting how fucked we really are?

AAAAAAAND TEETH!

"Fox said in addition to a facial fracture, a split chin and chipped teeth she's also trying to recover emotionally."

http://www.myfoxdfw.com/dpp/news/100710-victim-talks-about-alleged-trooper-assault
>> ^quantumushroom:

http://crimeblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2010/10/trooper-a
ccused-of-using-exces.html

The charges against Fox (the driver) who suffered a gash in her chin and other scrapes, have since been dropped.
Didn't read anything here about teeth. Let the camera do the work without making sh1t up exaggerating.

>> ^bareboards2:

Love the cameras. Cameras and the internet are weaving a web of protection around each citizen.
Too cool, baby!


you mean highlighting how fucked we really are?

>> ^Psychologic:

>> ^blankfist:
>> ^Psychologic:
>> ^blankfist:
I hope you have a great lawyer and deep pockets to sue the city or state.

If the free market won't handle it then I'm sure volunteerism will. =)

It's voluntaryism I think you were trying to write. No? Just trying to understand what you're getting at.

Actually it was a reference to individuals volunteering their time free of charge to help others, such lawyers working pro bono. As far as I can tell, volunteerism was the correct term.


Okay.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^Psychologic:
>> ^blankfist:
I hope you have a great lawyer and deep pockets to sue the city or state.

If the free market won't handle it then I'm sure volunteerism will. =)

It's voluntaryism I think you were trying to write. No? Just trying to understand what you're getting at.


Actually it was a reference to individuals volunteering their time free of charge to help others, such lawyers working pro bono. As far as I can tell, volunteerism was the correct term.

>> ^Psychologic:

>> ^blankfist:
I hope you have a great lawyer and deep pockets to sue the city or state.

If the free market won't handle it then I'm sure volunteerism will. =)


It's voluntaryism I think you were trying to write. No? Just trying to understand what you're getting at.

>> ^blankfist:

I hope you have a great lawyer and deep pockets to sue the city or state.


If the free market won't handle it then I'm sure volunteerism will. =)

UPDATE: http://www.news10.net/news/article/141207/2/DOE-raids-Stockton-home-as-part-of-fraud-investigation

Neighbors are backing his story. "Excessive Force" now mentioned and an attorney acquired. It does seem excessive when the line regarding "Criminal contraband" was stricken through on the warrant, suggesting they had no anticipation of drugs, weapons, etc. Then why the 13 armed men?

""They surrounded the house; it was like a task force or S.W.A.T team," across the street neighbor Becky said. "They all had guns. They dragged him out in his boxer shorts, threw him to the ground and handcuffed him."

According to Becky and her two children, the raid started at 6 a.m. with agents ramming down Wright's front door.

"I watched until I went to work at 10:45 and they were still out there," Becky said.

Her young daughter, Valerie, said she counted 13 agents and one Stockton police officer outside Wright's home.

"I felt really bad for those kids," said Becky about agents when they brought out Wright's three children. "They were crying really loud.""

http://videosift.com/video/SWAT-Team-Raids-House-at-6-AM-for-Student-Loan-Debt

Someone else posted this vid and killed it, had the text of the news article, including these declarative sentences:

"The Office of the Inspector General has a law enforcement branch of federal agents that carry out search warrants and investigations.

Stockton Police Department said it was asked by federal agents to provide one officer and one patrol car just for a police presence when carrying out the search warrant.

Stockton police did not participate in breaking Wright's door, handcuffing him, or searching his home."

So it was the feds. And it looks like the title to this vid is incorrect -- SWAT? What SWAT?

Now I AM outraged. What the hell? It's a civil matter, a financial matter. Are banks allowed to break down doors to collect debts? Then the federal government shouldn't be allowed to break down doors.

(And the guy still is entertaining -- and he needs to go to the feds for the apology and the new door, if that is really all he wants. Maybe the ACLU will get involved and help change procedures.)

It is so tiring to be painted with beliefs I don't hold just because I don't agree 100% with someone else's stance.

I am very confused by this whole story. First I was outraged as is everyone else, but then the broadcast ends by saying that he wasn't handcuffed and the door wasn't broken down? Somebody is lying, and they are OUTRAGEOUS lies. This happened at 6 am, and he sat in a car in front of his house for six hours! There must be neighbors! Witnesses!

If the cops are lying, that just compounds my outrage. Weiner lying about a tweet is NOTHING compared to a lie of this magnitude. Thank god for the fourth estate and a free press -- heads will roll and roll they should.

If the guy is lying, well, that makes it all kind of funny. I thought while watching it that he was entertaining -- he played that camera like a pro and was clearly having a GREAT time. And to end with his little speech about paying your student loans? This guy is priceless. If he made up the whole thing, that makes him even more entertaining. And then what does it say about our free press -- if they don't do the least bit of investigative reporting to see if he is credible. Did they talk to the neighbors to see if they had seen anything, to corroborate the story before airing it? Or were they more interested in their "exclusive" story so they can capture eyes and therefore profit from advertising dollars?

I have nothing but questions.

What a roller coaster ride this vid was for me -- outrage and amusement and wha???

just FYI, the cops are required to fill out a suspicious persons report. So the cops are trained to harass suspicious people.

"That is not necessarily true. Detaining you requires the officer to have a reasonable suspicion you violated the law. If you try to walk away when they are lawfully detaining you, you will probably be handcuffed and placed in their squad until they figure out what is going on."

Just finished watching, it is really good to see the other side of what was presented to us during the riots. The spin from the media during the riots led me to believe the destructive acts were just coming from the 'protesters', however that is clearly not the case, the Canadian government not only knew about the agent provocateur acts, they condoned them via the withdrawal of troops so it could continue. Shame, and shame some more.

What irks me the most however is when people say "I was not even part of the protest and I got manhandled/dragged off/handcuffed/searched etc". What they are assuming when they say that is that somehow protesters deserve to lose some of their rights when they protest and that when said protesters get manhandled/dragged off/handcuffed/searched they somehow deserve it.

Change of thinking incoming in 10,9,8,7.. OMG Simpsons is on!

>> ^bareboards2:

Am I the only one who saw the cop continuing to beat him when he was on the ground? It wasn't just the two flashlights to the head.


Can't see the guy on the ground at all at that point in the video, so how can you possibly say for sure any additional strikes weren't justified? You can't even see where the strikes are landing. This is important because strikes with a flashlight INTENDED to hit the head area would be considered a lethal force option by most police forces. A guy grabbing at an officers belt is a scenario where it would be reasonable to articulate why that level of force was necessary. A guy on the ground resisting being handcuffed? Not so much.

>> ^bareboards2:

The fact that he is on unpaid leave, rather than transferred to a desk while they investigate, is also proof that this was illegal and inappropriate and not his training.


People complain all the time about cops being being on paid leave or desk duty whilst being investigated for misconduct/criminal acts. Management hanging someone out to dry to cover their ass or avoid controversy? Maybe. Proof? Not even close.