Ok, I'll start with a few things that most people would probably agree with, but the police force currently would fight like hell to avoid. How about we decide to actually punish cops who break existing rules and laws. Use testing to weed out unbalanced power hungry or corrupt types from becoming cops. QUIT hiring COMBAT veterans to become PEACE officers. I'm sure there are many things that could be done to fix the problem with the police, its just that it's not being done because the police think the only problem is that we, the lowly people, dont always follow ALL commands,and sometimes we need to be put in our place. >> ^shveddy:
False dichotomy, among other things. There are innumerable intermediate steps between "allowing them to do whatever they want to you" and "shooting the motherfuckers." I'll admit that there is a point where armed resistance is warranted, but if you think that we have arrived anywhere near that point with enough frequency to warrant armed resistance, then you are crazy.
Yes, there are plenty of instances of people's rights being violated - but in 99.99% of those occasions, I think the problem can best be solved through other means.
Do I think that the students who got peppersprayed at UC Davis had their rights violated?
Yes, I do. But this guy seems to suggest that the proper response is for the students to pull guns and start a shoot-out. Let's imagine what that would look like for a second:
One of the students peers through the caustic mist with righteous fury and a wet t-shirt over his mouth. He can feel the comforting weight of his Barretta, held close to his heart in a chest holster, and he knows that this is the moment to act. He stands up tall despite the onslaught of bright orange asphyxiation, reaches for his piece and takes aim. Somewhat startled, the officer is suddenly defenseless with his canister and it is not long before he crumples to the ground in an ever expanding pool of blood. He basks in a brief moment of clarity before chaos reigns. His fellow students are quick to bear arms themselves, but the training, body armor and poise of the officers allows them a significant head start and the students suffer heavy casualties in this initial volley.
Not to be deterred by the deaths of their friends, the occupy movement takes up refuge in the life sciences building which, designed in the late sixties with a brutalist aesthetic, is mostly concrete and as such is a perfect fortress from which to outlast the ensuing siege and inspire innumerable citizens on the outside world to take up arms as well. Guerrilla warfare is the only tactic effective in such asymmetrical circumstances, and after a few weeks of violence the powers that be succumb to international pressure and agree to negotiate with the 99%...
...or we could launch an official investigation, fire the guy as a scapegoat after an admittedly long, expensive and cumbersome process, and let the public outrage that ensued lead to a more cautious approach to future student protests. Bloggers and editorialists collectively write millions of words on the subject, increasing awareness and generally shaming the agency that allowed it to happen.
Not perfect, but a whole hell of a lot more civilized.
Any time you use guns against a government entity in he US, you will eventually be caught and put in jail. Period. The only way to avoid this is to be a small part of a large popular movement that eventually overthrows the US government, and I don't see that ever happening with citizen gun-owners unless it involves guerrilla tactics. Imagine gunfights erupting at your local municipal buildings. Imagine pipe bombs at your local police station. People need to realize that this is what they are advocating when they argue for second amendment rights as a fourth check and balance.
If you disagree with that statement, feel free to fill in a reasonable sequence of events to span the gap between "guy whose fourth amendment rights are violated guns down cop" and "said guy is vindicated, and massive changes are made to our law enforcement policies." I suspect that we are far more likely to see a greater militarization of the police in response.
I humbly propose that we join the civilized world and come up with more creative ways to correct our problems.

False dichotomy, among other things. There are innumerable intermediate steps between "allowing them to do whatever they want to you" and "shooting the motherfuckers." I'll admit that there is a point where armed resistance is warranted, but if you think that we have arrived anywhere near that point with enough frequency to warrant armed resistance, then you are crazy.

Yes, there are plenty of instances of people's rights being violated - but in 99.99% of those occasions, I think the problem can best be solved through other means.

Do I think that the students who got peppersprayed at UC Davis had their rights violated?

Yes, I do. But this guy seems to suggest that the proper response is for the students to pull guns and start a shoot-out. Let's imagine what that would look like for a second:

One of the students peers through the caustic mist with righteous fury and a wet t-shirt over his mouth. He can feel the comforting weight of his Barretta, held close to his heart in a chest holster, and he knows that this is the moment to act. He stands up tall despite the onslaught of bright orange asphyxiation, reaches for his piece and takes aim. Somewhat startled, the officer is suddenly defenseless with his canister and it is not long before he crumples to the ground in an ever expanding pool of blood. He basks in a brief moment of clarity before chaos reigns. His fellow students are quick to bear arms themselves, but the training, body armor and poise of the officers allows them a significant head start and the students suffer heavy casualties in this initial volley.

Not to be deterred by the deaths of their friends, the occupy movement takes up refuge in the life sciences building which, designed in the late sixties with a brutalist aesthetic, is mostly concrete and as such is a perfect fortress from which to outlast the ensuing siege and inspire innumerable citizens on the outside world to take up arms as well. Guerrilla warfare is the only tactic effective in such asymmetrical circumstances, and after a few weeks of violence the powers that be succumb to international pressure and agree to negotiate with the 99%...

...or we could launch an official investigation, fire the guy as a scapegoat after an admittedly long, expensive and cumbersome process, and let the public outrage that ensued lead to a more cautious approach to future student protests. Bloggers and editorialists collectively write millions of words on the subject, increasing awareness and generally shaming the agency that allowed it to happen.

Not perfect, but a whole hell of a lot more civilized.

Any time you use guns against a government entity in he US, you will eventually be caught and put in jail. Period. The only way to avoid this is to be a small part of a large popular movement that eventually overthrows the US government, and I don't see that ever happening with citizen gun-owners unless it involves guerrilla tactics. Imagine gunfights erupting at your local municipal buildings. Imagine pipe bombs at your local police station. People need to realize that this is what they are advocating when they argue for second amendment rights as a fourth check and balance.

If you disagree with that statement, feel free to fill in a reasonable sequence of events to span the gap between "guy whose fourth amendment rights are violated guns down cop" and "said guy is vindicated, and massive changes are made to our law enforcement policies." I suspect that we are far more likely to see a greater militarization of the police in response.

I humbly propose that we join the civilized world and come up with more creative ways to correct our problems.

so..im trying to play devil's advocate here.

Let's say the woman was a complete ass and completely disrespectful to the cop and let's even say she was talking on her cell phone so that there was actually a law broken. Let's say she did everything negative except actually being violent or being a threat.

and let's even say that the taser is completely 100 percent safe.

when is it ok to use non-lethal force on someone who is resisting and being antagonistic but yet not being violent and is completely NOT a threat.

If I was a police officer and I had to choose between getting physical/baton/fists/etc and just pressing a button on a compliance device, I'd want to just press a button too. Anyone would I suspect. How long do you attempt to reason with someone before saying, ok we're just spinning our wheels here and accomplishing nothing...time to take you in whether you like it or not.

My problem with the actual situation is that yeah, the taser is not non-lethal, it is LESS-lethal, big difference. so even if the woman was talking on her phone and thus committed a crime, I'd have a problem with using a taser on someone, risking their lives over something like that. ESPECIALLY since the woman posed absolutely zero threat.

And then you have the kids, even if you arrested her without incident, you still got two kids sitting there crying and scared as fuck. In the best situation the dad would go pick them up, but even that would take a ton of time and you still have the car sitting there. At worst, you've got no one to pick the kids up and you have to have another officer (a stranger to the kids) watch over them until the situation is resolved. Even in the best situation, the cops seem ill equipped to deal with that sort of situation.

There's got to be a better way to arrest people for smaller crimes like that instead of pulling them over and dragging them out of the car I can't stand people who talk on phones either and would agree there needs to be punishment for that as it is a risk to other drivers, but I REALLY don't want a situation like this either. Seems it would be safer for the cop too.

give me some robot cars damnit, remotely shut them down or divert them to the police station while locking the vehicle so they can't just jump out and a video screen notifying them of the infraction and communication with the cops so they can make arrangements for kids or other odd situations.

something that forces them to comply, but without endangering anyone needlessly.

>> ^Fletch:

>> ^Jerykk:
If a protest involves hordes of people marching in the street, blocking traffic and generally being loud and annoying, I don't really consider that "peaceful." It may not be violent but it's entirely disruptive and hinders people's ability to get where they need to go and do what they need to do.
You can try and justify the disruption by saying that it's the only way to get attention but really, you would only say that if you agreed with the protestors. If a bunch of people marched on the streets because the MSRP of Twinkies was raised by 5 cents, would that protest still be "justified"? A disruption is a disruption, regardless of motivation. If the protestors in the video had permits and conducted their activity in a genuinely peaceful manner, I seriously doubt there would have been any police intervention.

You only see what you want to see. The only people being disruptive and blocking traffic in this video are the cops and their fucking horses.
And who said you have a right to life without "disruption" anyway? You gonna call the police when that asshole won't stop talking in the movie theater? You going to just keep your mouth shut and walk away peacefully when that cashier overcharges you for your Twinkies? Maybe your idea of protest is standing quietly on some street corner, permit in pocket, holding a sign. It's not my idea of protest (not any more), and if disruptions bother you, stay home and veg on VS all day. Just remember to be quiet and keep your opinions to yourself, because I feel they are disruptive, and they bother me.


Flawed analogies. If you're telling someone to quiet down in a theater, you are directly addressing the person you take issue with. If you tell a cashier that he overcharged you, same deal. Nobody aside from the people directly responsible for your grievances are affected. Conversely, when you block traffic so you can protest against police brutality, who are you actually affecting? The cops will show up and do what they get paid to do. Bystanders, on the other hand, get screwed.

If you want to protest police brutality, do it where only police are affected. Like a police station. Don't do it in the middle of a business area where you're just impeding people's ability to live their lives. If you're so self-centered that you're willing to promote your agenda at the expense of everyone else, don't surprised when people get irritated. And when these people have body armor, guns, tazers, tear gas, pepper spray, riot shields, etc, things probably won't end well for you.

Ive been in jail (not the Police station, county jail which was one step below prison). It is hard for me to write about it. I am still so damaged by it that I have a hard time watching shows depicting real or imitation incarceration.

Trust me from the bottom of my heart that the system in the USA makes you worse for society. You become a hardened evil monster who has had to use all of your energy every minute of the day just to survive. You pick up skills that have no application in normal society.

No offense HPQP but you don't know what the hell you speak of. Have you ever trained a dog? Do you understand that punishment (negative reinforcement) creates dogs with problems? Yes we are human but he same applies. If you don't like that analogy then its like raising a child. You can't just use punishment without encouragement to raise a good child.
Wouldn't you want the criminals to see what type of life they can lead when they follow the rules? Let me tell you that even if you are PERFECT at following the rules in the US Jail system you get fucked up. Someone is out to get you. Its a breeding tank for sociopaths.

My thoughts are so scattered from being upset that its hard to write this without getting myself banned or looked upon like a crazy person.

If any of you have questions I can answer feel free.

In the US, if you do not show some kind of identification, you are going to the police station.

Also, if you give a man a stupid job like enforcing bicycle laws, you bring out the worst in them.

Also, the way this bicyclist was treating the officer was highly likely to evoke a violent response, whether it is justified or not.

He never went to the hospital, he was said to have been wearing a red sweatshirt by witnesses. He was seen by paramedics, you'll notice one of the officers made note of him telling the paramedics that he was yelling for help in other reports.

He went to the hospital the day after according to lawyers.

And the time line is to be best of my ability to get times from various things.

7:30 police arrived
7:40 Martin declared dead
7:55 we see him show up on this tape
10PMish he was released.

So he was at the police station for a little over 2 hours....whole fiasco took about 3 hours.

He didn't walk police through the events until the next day.

Martin's parents filed missing person report on the 27th (day after event). Were informed of Trayvon's death on the 28th. So police hadn't even figured out Trayvon had some reason for being there until at least the 27th with the report being filed.

Best I can get from the information out there:

Around 7:30 the shooting had occurred and the police were just arriving.

7:40 they pronounce Trayvon dead.

7:55ish Zimmerman shows up at police station that we see on video.

10PM ish Zimmerman is released.

So, 7:30 to 7:55 is the amount of clean up and dress time Zimmerman had for his wounds at a maximum. But it's doubtful they were cleaning him up in the car...and it's doubtful they were cleaning him up immediately upon arriving. So, I think the 25 minutes becomes more like 10-15 for clean up.

So, what you see on that tape, if this time line is pretty close to actuality. He had very little clean up time for someone to be claiming a broken nose and repeatedly slamming of their head into concrete.

You DO see the police officer looking at the back of Zimmerman's head in the video.
You also see the police officer handling the clothing with no gloves on......presumably where blood would be if the back of his head being slammed and he shot up at his attacker.

They are also saying that the police took him from the scene against his wishes to go to the hospital, but that was not the claim prior to the video coming out that I can find. Prior to the video it was that he had been treated on the scene and was trying to cooperate with the police and went to the hospital the next day.

Also, Trayvon report supposedly had his full name and address on the morning of the 27th at like 3 AM. His father filed a missing person the 27th, and was informed of the death the 28th.

My biggest concern aside from the short 3 hour maximum window they spent with Zimmerman on this, they supposedly had him walk police through the events the next day, is that they hadn't even found out Trayvon's reason for being there until the 28th. That means they have a NW leader saying there's a non-resident there whom he killed. And they haven't even figured out by the time they let him go if Trayvon did have a reason to be there, because supposedly the house in the neighborhood was owned by Trayvon's father's fiancee. Oh, and they didn't take Zimmerman's clothes, I am just hoping they got pictures. Plus there is report of the lead investigator filing an affidavit that he didn't believe Zimmerman's story the night of the crime. SYG not only grants immunity, it also impairs the police ability to investigate to see if it actually was self defense to any degree of accuracy which pretty much means you're getting immunity unless there was someone left alive who witnessed the moments leading up to the shooting, the shooting, and survived long enough for police to arrive. So you go from witness of all events = crazed gun man/mass murder/whatever to no witness = Self Defense.

youtube comment: "I do love though how they parked up at the police station for like 4 minutes and let him finish"

I thought it strange that the cop is touching Zimmerman without gloves on. You would think he'd have blood on him and the cop would not want that on his hands. On the red coat you wouldn't think it would show up on camera, but that grey shirt it would. So either he had no blood on his shirt and the jacket closed, and that cop stuck his hand in blood while checking him.......or there's no blood on him at all.

You do see the cop wipe his hand on his pants, but that's after he checks Zimmerman's back, which would be wet or have dirt on it if he was in the grass.

I see no bandages, nothing in his nose to stem blood flow from a broken nose. There is a point in the video where the light catches the crown of his head and you can see a line that may be indicative of a scrape or abrasion, but he would have a bandage if it were bad. The paramedics had seen him by this point, and he chose not to go to the hospital.

If I had just been brutally attacked, I'd want to go to the hospital and not the police station. Since the head beating was supposed to be bad, you don't know what the hell may have happened.....unless he was knocked crazy and was loopy from the beating. Which they would have made him go to the hospital at that point.

I also find it strange that they didn't take his clothes.


And for those whom are following the case, there's news out now that the police wanted to get an arrest warrant for manslaughter for Zimmerman, but were denied by the Attorney General. The expert the news interviewed said it was unusual, but not unheard of for an AG to not take police recommendation. That AG has recused himself from the case and they've put someone else in charge of the decisions now.

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/newsnation/46883285/#46883285 This is a video where they discuss this.

I suspect Joe Oliver was let into the press to make Zimmerman look better, failed. So now Zimmerman's father has come into the picture realizing it looks bad.

I think the point of this story is that this is a fairly commonplace occurrance, part of daily life in the world of a black male in America, especially the South. In other words, maybe it isn't all that surprising that Z hasn't spent a day in prison nor even at a police station, and THAT's the problem.>> ^cyberwire:

How can you even bring up self defense if you put yourself in the situation by following the kid after the cops tell you not to... I just don get it... I cannot believe he hasn't stepped foot inside a cell by now like any other person in that situation would have if it were in any other town.

This is what I'm hoping for: http://drh.img.digitalriver.com/DRHM/Storefront/Site/eaemea/pb/images/SimCity4/PoliceStation.jpg

What I see in that image is the ability to upgrade and customise buildings to suit the needs. So in this case, the police station can be upgraded to increase it's effectiveness at fighting crime, or being friendly with the community. That sort of ability to upgrade things when you have the money or when the surrounding areas needs it, would be awesome.

>> ^conan:

it has to be clearly stated that nearly all of the coppers in this clip were being very professional. we all love to scream and rage when some of them are being dicks but these guys? nicer than i expected, especially the hugger ;-)
I disagree with you. It shows how power-hungry they are. Nobody would piss in the middle of a sidewalk in Times Square or next to a police station.
They were just begging for an excuse to arrest somebody.

>> ^alien_concept:

This whole argument is getting on my nerves! There is only so much you can pin on the fact that the cops killed Mark Duggan. I understood the riots, the kick-offs at the heavy handed, I'm sure often racist tactics enforced by the police. But then it stopped being about that and started being about theft and destruction OF THEIR OWN COMMUNITIES.
If your argument is of police racism, then target the police stations, cop cars, whatever if you really feel you want your vengeance in this way. But to try and justify greed and theft and ruining peoples homes and livelihoods because you're oppressed? Fucking spare me. All they're managing to do is turn the majority of the UK against them and I really resent that I am one of them


Sorry if my quality came across as irksome. I wasn't really endorsing the rioters, so much as someone giving voice to what the grievances of the riots really are.

Here in America we're getting the standard BS about thugs and opportunism, without really giving us any sense of what people are pissed off about.

This whole argument is getting on my nerves! There is only so much you can pin on the fact that the cops killed Mark Duggan. I understood the riots, the kick-offs at the heavy handed, I'm sure often racist tactics enforced by the police. But then it stopped being about that and started being about theft and destruction OF THEIR OWN COMMUNITIES.

If your argument is of police racism, then target the police stations, cop cars, whatever if you really feel you want your vengeance in this way. But to try and justify greed and theft and ruining peoples homes and livelihoods because you're oppressed? Fucking spare me. All they're managing to do is turn the majority of the UK against them and I really resent that I am one of them