"Common sense" is actually defined as "ignoring jaywalking". Look it up.

No, he did not get arrested for jaywalking. No, he wasn't slammed to the ground for no reason at all. That description couldn't be more slanted, and is complete BULLSHIT.

The 16 year old didn't comply when asked to do something. He cussed at the cop and told him “Fuck You, I’m not stopping for you,” and continued to struggle and fight.

If he had done what he was supposed to (not walk in the bus lane, and not argue and fight with the cops) then he wouldn't be in that situation.

He's an insubordinate asshole, and that woman needs to STFU and let them do their job. Enough of the slanted bleeding heart bullshit.

Anyone who's read my comments knows I'm not a big fan of the police these days, but they were totally in the right here, and the description is absolutely ridiculous BS IMO.
People who try to make a police misconduct case out of this should think first and realize that offering this as evidence of police misconduct/abuse minimizes ACTUAL misconduct/abuse. There was NO "brutal beating", no choking seen, no stomping, no 'swarming by 9 officers', no 'slamming to the concrete', no 'arrested for jaywalking', just a teenager acting a fool and ignoring commands, pushing and kicking officers, and grabbing their weapons, all of which didn't end well for him when he's arrested for resisting arrest and refusing to comply with a direct lawful order from a peace officer...he'll be incredibly lucky if another charge for assault on a police officer isn't coming.
I wonder, what alternative actions do those complaining about this think the police SHOULD have taken? Just let him walk away indignantly? The law simply doesn't work that way.

Jaywalking may not be an arrest-able offence, but refusing/ignoring an officer's lawful command to stop certainly is, so is resisting when the cop tries to control/arrest you (like pulling the cop's hand off your arm, pushing the cop, or grabbing the baton that has yet to hit you).
The kid only gets hit with the baton (in the video) when he grabs it with both hands and tries to wrestle it away from the cop, as the cop wrestles for control of the weapon, the kid gets grazed in the face. When the other 4 (not 9) officers take control, he continues to fight with them and is taken to the ground.
As to his being a kid, he certainly thought he was adult enough to ignore/fight with the police. As far as I could tell, they all used restraint (compared to the normal dog pile and face kicks we've seen in the past in this kind of situation). I really don't think this video is going to help that 'kid' in court.
I'm somewhat surprised they didn't go after the woman screaming for interfering with a police action, or at least command her to move away. Telling the kid to stay seated (and ignore the command to get on the ground) sure seems to meet the criteria in my eyes.

wait..what?
do you even know what a cops job is?
or have you become so fucking indoctrinated that you will lie down and tacitly accept an ever-increasing militarized and VIOLENT police force?

let us take your inanely stupid comment and take it to its logical application,according to your own facile and twisted logic.
shall we?

"don't wanna get hurt? then don't F'n speed"
"don't wanna get hurt? then don't F'n jaywalk"
"don't wanna get hurt?then don't F'n smoke weed"

and before you start backpedaling like a pussy and try to make an argument of distinctions,you need to go look up what a cops actual job IS and what it is NOT.

it IS to enforce the law....period.

outrage over cops over-stepping and abusing their authority is a bleeding heart?
seriously?
sorry man,but that is fucking dumb.

/drops mic

I'd keep crossing the street like I always have, heck, I'll even jaywalk.
My point being that anonymity + The Internet = people shooting their mouths off. The airplane bombing scenario is a totally different situation, big companies like that live by a different set of rules than a single individual, it also never stops people from flying anyhow. Beyond that I'm not sure what else I could say on the matter.

Yeah, I'm calling the pedestrian a dick. The driver likely decided at the last second to play it safe by not going through the intersection on a stale amber and so wound up in the crosswalk. Every driver has had that happen to them at some point.
Along comes a douchebag who takes it upon himself to be an asshole. The proof is that he then goes after the white car who is what? a couple of feet into a very wide crossing.
If karma exists this asshat will get mowed down by a driver while jaywalking.

No cops aren't above the law... that's why I anxiously await the next in this series of videos:
1. Badass citizen confronts cop caught jaywalking.
2. Badass citizen dresses down cop for littering.

If you have no reason to believe they may be corrupt, then you simply haven't been paying attention.
For the action of the cop to be self defense, you must take his word as truth and ignore the witnesses (granted, they have not been consistent) and you must accept that it's the right method to attempt to manhandle a person for jaywalking (the reason for the stop in the first place) and that it's the right thing to do to escalate a confrontation from a fist fight directly to firearms, ignoring the other options made available like pepper spray, tasers, batons, and backup. If the officer was truly in fear, he only needed to shut and lock his door to be safe, how is that hard?

Your reading comprehension is terrible. He said clearly that it's NOT reasonable or condonable, but is understandable as a misguided attempt to 'lash out' at the system that keeps you down.

I saw lots of white people on TV rioting and looting too, but they don't count because they don't further your (seemingly racist) theories, right?

It seems you've ignored the majority of the protests that have been responsible, civil, and peaceful in favor of focusing on the minority of trouble makers (that insert themselves into ANY mass protest these days) and blame their actions on the entire community (while knowing that most of the rioters are not from the community but have traveled there in order to riot and loot).

As the one's in 'charge', is it not the police that have the responsibility to display 'responsible behavior'? I thought it was your position that behavior works on a trickle down system, where the behavior of the top is emulated all the way down...does that not make this the police chief's fault?

Good points, Redsky.

However, there hasn't been nearly enough research on the effects of rehabilitation to claim that it consistently reduces recidivism. You mention Scandinavian countries in particular. How many of those rehabilitated prisoners were guilty of violent crimes? If you want to reduce recidivism, the death penalty will offer guaranteed results.

As for the U.S.'s murder rates, they aren't the highest among first-world countries. Higher than European countries, sure, but Europe is tiny. Russia is more comparable to the size of the U.S. and it has almost double the murder rate. China claims to have a 1.0 but I'd question the reliability of any data provided by that government.

I'm also pretty sure that most criminals recognize the severity of their crimes. If they aren't insane, they'll know that jaywalking will result in a far lesser penalty than murder. What it comes down to is risk versus reward. If breaking the law is the most convenient way of getting what they want and the likelihood of them getting caught is low, they'll break the law. That's rational behavior. It's the reason why people people slow down when they see a cop on the freeway instead of speeding like they would normally do. It's the reason why people won't hesitate to download a pirated movie but would think twice before trying to steal a movie from Best Buy. If someone wants to rob a liquor store and they see a cop inside, they will most likely not rob that particular liquor store. Not all criminals are psychotic murderers. On the contrary, most criminals are perfectly sane and break the law on a regular basis. They just make sure that the risks are low enough so they don't get caught.

Severe penalties mean nothing if they aren't enforced and increasing surveillance increases the likelihood of enforcement. Increasing surveillance wouldn't be cheap but then, rehabilitating criminals isn't cheap either. Getting rid of the prison system entirely and replacing it with efficient executions (nothing overly elaborate like lethal injections) would cut costs dramatically and allow for greatly expanded surveillance and enforcement, in addition to dramatically increasing the risk for any given crime. If the penalty for speeding was death and there were more cops patrolling the roads and freeways, I guarantee 99.9% of drivers would stop speeding. There's no hard data for this, of course, but that's because no country has ever attempted it.

Venezuela currently has over ten times the murder rate of the U.S. It was the first country in the world to abolish the death penalty. Now, the country is riddled with corruption. Laws have no meaning because they are not enforced so criminals do whatever they want without fear of reprisal.

I read your first post... and your second which for the most part was like reading the first one again, although without the zeal for rapid executions. Speaking of replying and not reading...

Never did get an answer to how many innocent people you'd be willing to sacrifice to see that "justice' was enacted that much faster?.

What your argument has lacked in its entirety is any sort of facts beyond what you seem supremely confident would work.

Correct me where i'm wrong... i'm genuinely asking here... Lets get the whole list of what exactly your advocating... as the solution to solving the prison problem.

Rapid executions... i'm assuming some kind of limit to appeals and time to issue them? (despite over 140 people being exonerated since 1973)

Dramatic increase in government surveillance... Because you know... its not like a right to privacy was one of the founding principles of this country.

Forced Sterilizations?... I'm really curious how else you'd enforce your breeding policy... or would you simply lockup the parents if they didn't meet the criteria you think appropriate, and had a child anyway? May fine them into oblivion?

Dramatically stricter sentencing?.. because lets be honest those jaywalkers have had it too easy for too long!... guessing this means you'd be advocating dramatic bulding projects... more prisons... more guards... MUCH more from the sounds of it. I'm sure companies like Geo Group would LOVE to provide that service... they're doing just awesome so far!...

And finally prison conditions... despite it being extraordinarily expensive to warehouse people for profit like we are... Doing just a TERRIBLE job of doing it and already sending an unprecedented number of people to prison... you want more.. because THAT will deter crime.

You want conditions to be 'adequate' yes? Indoor-plumbing... clean water... etc... just not TOO adequate lest they get to comfortable at 'casa de prison' system and never want to leave!...So things like AC or 'clean food' might be optional?... and of course... they should be billed for any treatment?.. .maybe have to 'work off the cost'?

Did i miss anything?

I sure wish the world was as simple as Jerykk. No, really, I don´t mean that in a bad way, I really wish the world was a lot simpler than it is.

So, Jerykk, you seriously don´t commit crimes (like jaywalking...) because you´re afraid of jail conditions?

Are there maybe some other rules in the particular society you live in that your parents and educators may have failed to point out to you?

Trying to stop people you don´t like from reproducing. To save the world. Is that an official -ism?

@Jerykk

Wouldn't a much better way to get the crime rate to go down be, oh I don't know...not criminalizing illnesses like substance addiction and instead getting those people the medical/psychological help they need?

Or maybe--and I'm just going out on a limb here--constructing a more equitable society so that people don't feel so disenfranchised that crime seems like a better way to accrue wealth than slaving at some minimum wage job where you'll never actually make enough to afford anything above the subsistence level?

Maybe we might want to consider these kinds of suggestions before we start executing people for jaywalking or sterilizing people "unqualified" for parenthood.

Also, I love how your answer to the problem of too many American's being incarcerated is more surveillance and enforcement so we can catch more people and put them in prison. I'm amazed no one has thought of this solution. Bravo.

You should read my complete post before posting reactionary statements. I never said current prison conditions are ideal. I said prison isn't working as a deterrent to criminals. As I said before, there are three potential ways of fixing that: make the punishment more severe, increase surveillance and enforcement or make prison safer and more comfortable in an attempt to rehabilitate criminals. The first two options are practically guaranteed to produce results. People litter, jaywalk, pirate and break traffic laws all the time because they know they can get away with it and even if they get caught, the punishment will be relatively minor. Conversely, it's much harder to get away with major crimes and the punishments are far more severe, which is why major crimes are committed far less often than minor ones. History has proven that fear is a very effective deterrent. Convince people that there are significant consequences for their actions and they'll think twice before doing something stupid.

Rehabilitation is less proven. If prison were comfortable, safe and enlightening, it could reduce crime rates as criminals are taught the error of their ways and spread their new-found wisdom amongst other potential criminals. Or it could increase crime rates as prisons become a refuge where the desperate get free food, shelter, healthcare and other conveniences.

The ideal solution would be to ensure that only qualified parents are allowed to reproduce. The majority of criminals are the result of poor upbringings, with negligent, ignorant and/or abusive parents unwilling or unable to train their children to become productive members of society. In an ideal world, there would actually be prerequisites to parenthood. Aspiring parents would need to meet certain criteria like minimum income, education and a clean record. If these requirements were somehow enforceable, crime rates would drop drastically.

Given the situation in Detroit, there's probably not a single cop within a 5-10 mile radius to stop him for "jaywalking"

That cat did a stellar, double-take slide all, instant Vaudevillian-like. *related=http://videosift.com/video/Jaywalking-Into-Oblivion