I won't defend this particular cop's actions but damn there's a serious bias against cops on this site, and in the media generally. It's approaching zeitgeist levels. Guys, they're not all fucking power-tripping stormtroopers. News isn't news unless it's bad. Yes, speak out against things like this , but get a grip.

Bob, I'd like to.

Seriously. I'd like to see offsetting videos of cops being good citizens and good protectors and defenders. Because deep down, I want to believe cops are exactly that. I don't want to believe The Thin Blue Line is a collection of corrupt thugs who believe it's their right to act as judge, jury and executioner. I want to think cops are doing the right thing for the right reasons and not riding the wave of a power trip.

Show me the videos of cops being helpful, courteous and kind and I'll upvote them. But at the same time, I will not close my eyes to the videos that show cops doing the exact opposite.

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.

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

Okay, yes, the cop is a puffed up dick but so is this smart ass kid who appears to be on a power trip of his own after spending the day perusing infowars in his parents' basement. It is obnoxious to hold a phone up in someone's face while having a conversation with them. The fact that he is acting within his constitutional rights doesn't make him any less of a prick.

I can only judge the police on a person by person basis when they act independently.

Myself, I respect the police, and I obey and cooperate with them as required.
I've never done anything to necessitate any negative behaviour from them, so from experience, I have only good things to say about them. Though, I must admit, I've encountered some that were amazingly nice, and also some that were absolutely on a power trip.

BUT I know of three scenarios which Make them less than desirable.

1). The term Police should be synonymous with Peace (Peace officer). They are a team created to keep people safe. They uphold laws. Laws are meant to keep people safe.
But when they are used for other things, like aggressively engaging groups of protestors, they often behave against the people they have sworn to protect in insite more violent behaviours just so they can create arrests.

2). Police are given quotas. This is inherently corrupt. It's only purpose is to extort monies from the public and creates tensions between them and the people they are supposed to be helping.
It serves no purpose and forces even the good police to commit crimes against the people just so they can keep their jobs. These quotas are often passed down from ranking officers or higher up in the system.
This includes everything from Stop-and-frisk policies, to Speeding-infractions, to Roadside-vehicle-searches. It gives police a legal excuse to badger, bully, extort and abuse the people.

3). There are police not cut out for the job, and we've seen this in video time and again. The officer labelled as the "Hot Head". They over react, insight conflict, and use their position to create problems where none exist.
I can only attest to this example from what I see in the news. Being from Canada, we have different laws than the US, and I see this abuse most often in news from the US.
This type of officer either joined the system so they could be above the law, or has been tarnished and gone bitter along the way. They need to be weeded out and removed from duty.

All this being siad, the Police is an exclusive club. They are a close knit group of members which stand up and support each other. This could be a good thing. they need to rely on each other, especially in times of life or death.
Unfortunately, they also stand up for each other in times where they shouldn't. They protect the wrong doers in the system, cover up irregularities and just basically lie to cover up those officers breaking the law.
It's a system of "not covering up, means you can't trust others to come to your aid."

So, yes, we need the police. We like the police.
But if they don't rethink the way they operate, they only increase the gap between helping ind hindering the people. On the current course, they are forcing a large wedge between themselves and the people that are paying their pay check to keep them safe.
If you can't trust the police, they are no longer the police -- just thugs.

The good police need to stand up against the police that are abusing the system and making their job harder on a daily basis. Fix the system, fix the interaction, and then it will fix the work environment police work in.

I don't like being on the end of anyone's power trip.

I understand why people don't like the cops. When I'm doing 76 in a 65, I don't like seeing the state patrol. One gave me a ticket a few years ago. Expensive.

But cops have a job to do and they're expected to do it. If you don't like how it's done, get a lawyer or file a complaint.

well, we've all walked in our own shoes for a while and we've concluded that we don't like being on the receiving end of police power-trip bullshit.

Too true. I think it's a double whammy. It stops you from taking control, and then it festers afterwards. Victims feel they were somehow complicit in their own abuse because they weren't more assertive.

I wonder if this type of abuse, and indeed the catcalling as well, is basically a power thing - a dominance thing. Confronting them deprives them of their little power trip. At any rate, it's evidently a hard thing to do.

This case looks simpler than that to me. The main officer involved looks to be 90% of the problem and it looks as though he either enjoys power tripping and bullying in general, or equally likely has a hate-on for the victim for some unknown reason(but race is a good first guess).

This is a clear cut example of a criminal in a uniform and a really good reason I'd like sentences for crimes committed by uniformed officers come with much, much steeper penalties than if committed by joe blow public.

> "you are sounding more and more like an anarchist.
> you didnt click the link i shared did you?
> it explained in basic form the type of anarchy i subscribe to. "

The link is about libertarian socialism, not strictly anarchism. I consider libertarian socialism, not left-libertarianism, but rather a contradiction. Coherent left-libertarianism, like that of Roderick Long, is for free market, not the traditional definitions of socialism. Different people define these differently. I use libertarianism to mean adhering to the non-aggression principle, as defined by Rothbard. But whatever it means, socialism, communism, syndicalism, and similar non-voluntary systems of communal ownership of "property" cannot but interfere with individual property rights, and by extension, self-ownership rights. These also need rulers/administrators/archons to manage any so-called "communal" property, so it cannot fit the definition of anarchy. If you don't have a bureaucracy, how do you determine how resources get allocated and used? What if I disagree from how you think "communal" resources should be distributed? Who determines who gets to use your car? It is a version of the problem of economic calculation. That wikipedia article conflates several different "libertarian socialist" positions, so which one does he adhere to?

> "i agree with your position.
> i may word mine differently but our views are in alignment for the most part."

This may be true, at least once we do away with any notions that socialism, or non-voluntary "communal" property can be sustainable without a free market and the notion that you can have any such thing as "communal" property, owned by everyone, and not have ruler/administrators/government to make decisions about it. that shirt you are wearing, should we take a vote to see who gets to wear it tomorrow? How about if there is disagreement about this? Anarcho-socialism is unworkable.

> "what i do find interesting is how a person with a more right leaning ideology will
> point to the government and say "there..thats the problem" while someone from a
> more left leaning will point to corporations as the main culprit."

Governments exist without corporations. Corporations cannot exist without government. Governments bomb, kill, imprison, confiscate, torture, tell you what you can and cannot do. Apple, Microsoft, Walmart do not and cannot. Government produces nothing. Corporations produce things I can buy or not voluntarily and pay or not for them. There is no comparison in the level of suffering governments have caused compared to say Target.

If you disobey the government, what can happen? If you disobey Google or Amazon, then what?

> "in my humble opinion most people all want the same things in regards to a
> civilized society. fairness,justice and truth."

Yes, but some want to impose (through violence) their views on how to achieve these on everyone else and some (libertarians) don't.

> "i agree the federal government should have limited powers but i recognize
> government DOES play a role.i believe in the inherent moral goodness of
> people.that if pressed,most people will do the right thing."

If people are inherently good and will do the right thing, then why do we need government/ruler?

Why not just let everyone do the right thing?

> "this is why i think that governments should be more localized.we could use the
> "states rights" argument but i would take it further into townships,local
> communities and municipalities."

I agree. And from there we can go down to neighborhoods, and then households. And of course, logically, all the way to individuals. And any government a voluntary one where everyone unanimously agree to it. But this is not longer government per se, but rather contracts between voluntary participants.

> "for this to even have a chance this country would have to shake off its induced
> apathetic coma and participate and become informed.
> no easy task.
> in fact,what both you and i are suggesting is no easy task.
> but worthy..so very very worthy."

Ok.

> "when we consider the utter failures of:
> our political class.
> the outright betrayal of our intellectual class who have decided to serve privilege
> and power at the neglect of justice and truth for their own personal advancement,
> and the venal corporate class."

So if people are basically good and do the right thing, why has this happened? Then again, when have politician not been self serving kleptocrats?
few exceptions

> "we,as citizens,have to demand a better way.
> not through a political system that is dysfunctional and broken and only serves the
> corporate state while giving meaningless and vapid rhetoric to the people."

True.

> "nor can this be achieved by violent uprising,which would only serve to give the
> state the reason to perpetrate even greater violence."

True.

> "we cannot rely on our academic class which has sold itself for the betterment of
> its own hubris and self-aggrandizing."

True.
Nothing a libertarian anarchist would not say.

> "even the fourth estate,which has been hamstrung so completely due to its desire
> for access to power,it has been enslaved by the very power it was meant to
> watchdog."

I have not gone into this, but you can thank "democracy" for all this.

> "when we look at american history.the ACTUAL history we find that never,not
> ONCE,did the american government EVER give something to the people."

Yeah, governments are generally no-good.
Let me interject to say that I agree that plutocrats cause problems. I certainly agree that kleptocrat cause even more problems. But I am not ready to exclude the mob from these sources of problems. As Carlin said, "where do these politicians come from?

> "it is the social movements which put pressure,by way of fear,on the political
> class."

The mob can and does often get out of control.

> "we have seen the tea party rise and get consumed by the republican political
> class."
> "we saw occupy rise up to be crushed in a coordinated effort by the state.this was
> obama that did this yet little was ever spoken about it."
> "power is petrified of peoples movements."

I don't disagree. But people's movements are not necessarily always benign. And they have a tendency to fall in line with demagogues. Plutocrats bribe kleptocrats. Kleptocrats buy the mob. They are all guilty. I know, you say, they people need to be educated. Sure, like they need to be educated abut economics? How is that going to happen? If everyone was educated as an Austrian libertarian economist, sure, great. Is that the case? Can it be? Just asking.

I do support any popular movement that advocates free markets and non-aggression. Count me in.

> "power is petrified of peoples movements."

People's movements are often scary. And not always benign. But non-aggressive, free market ones, like Gandhi's, sure, these are great!

> "because that is the only way to combat the power structures we are being
> subjected to today. civil disobedience. and i aim to misbehave."

Maybe. This is a question of strategical preference. Civil disobedience. Ron Paul says he thinks that maybe that's the only option left or it may become the only option left sometime in the future. But, like you said, secession to and nullification by smaller jurisdictions is also a strategy, although you may consider it a "legal" form of civil disobedience. You seem on board.

I see great potential for you (writer), once you straighten out some economic issues in your mind.

> "there will be another movement.
> i do not know when or how it will manifest.
> i just hope it will not be violent."

If it is violent, it is not libertarian in the most meaningful way, adhering to non-aggression.

> "this starts exactly how you and i are talking.
> it is the conversation which sparks the idea which ignites a passion which turns
> into a burning flame.
> i am a radical. a dissident. but radical times call for radical thinking."

If you want something not only radical, but also coherent and true, here you have libertarian anarchy.

> "you and i both want fairness,justice and truth. everybody does."

Yep.

> "some of our philosophy overlaps,other parts do not.
> we discuss the parts that do not overlap to better understand each other."

Yes, good. Keep listening, and you will see for yourself.

> "this forms a bond of empathy and understanding.
> which makes it far more harder to demonize each other in terms of the political
> class and propaganda corporate tv."

And for clarity, I don't say the corporate is made up of saints. I only point out that their power to abuse comes from government privilege that they can control. Whether corporations control this power or the mob does, either way, it is a threat to individual liberties. Break the government monopoly, and let the market provide for what we need, and they will have little power to abuse, or as little as possible, but both more power and incentive to do good.

> "I don't say the corporate world is made up of saints"

As long as government and not the market distributes the spoils, abusive plutocrats will arise.

As long as government and not the market distributes the spoils, kleptocrats will seek office to enrich themselves and cronies, as well as for the power trip.
As long as government and not the market distributes the spoils, kleptocrats will bribe the mob (the so-called people) with stolen goods taken from their legitimate owners through force.

The only real positive democracy, is market democracy, the one much harder to exploit and abuse. the one that is not a weapon used to benefit some at the expense of others.

> "the power elite do not want me to understand you,nor you to empathize with me."

But I do empathize with you! And you are making an effort to understand me.
And remember, many not in the "power elite" have been bribed/conditioned also to turn on you and prevent you from understanding/empathizing.

> "fear and division serve their interests.
> hyper-nationalistic xenophobia serves their interests.
> i aim to disappoint them."

Good for you! And for everyone else.

> "maybe it will help if i share the people i admire.
> chomsky,zinn,hedges,watts,harvey,roy,
> just some of the people who have influenced me greatly."

I know them well. Now perhaps you can take a look at things from a different angle, one that I think corrects some of their inconsistencies.

> "nowhere near as polite and awesome as you."

Thanks, man. You too

I say things like FUCK THE POLICE and I get downvoted. But clearly they're assholes with power trips. Even if there are so-called "good people" and "responsible officers", the policies in place to enforce so-called "justice" are UNJUST.

Fuck you if you're in law enforcement. I'm sorry, but FUCK YOU. I don't care if you're one of the good guys. All humans suck, no one is a hero, people all have their own value system.

The fact that they're just playing this woman with comments like "Oh, you have a law degree?" "I thought you said your husband works at home?"

Just trying their best to trip her up and call out "lies". It's a frame of mind and our law enforcement puts people -- humans, just like you and me -- into this state of mind.

Law enforcement has their own state of mind and they turn it in an us-versus-them situation all the time. Because they have authority. People have bad days and police are people. If you catch someone on a bad day they do bad things. Therefore this bullshit of manhandling your fellow citizen as a policy is RUBBISH.

Oh, police lives. Oh golly, the police lives that might end if they don't act like brutes. If they go easy on us, we'll kill them!! Right? Right... BULLSHIT.

Just because the judge has power doesn't mean he deserves special respect or that he should be able to abuse his power to enforce such respect. Power is the worst reason to determine how much respect someone deserves. How is he serving the public interest by putting an emotionally disturbed first-time offender in prison for flipping him off? FUCK and THAT. Am I right she hasn't even been convicted at this point, if they're talking about bail? How about requirements for the judge to respect the accused? She's so weak there that the only power she can exert is being flippant and saying rude things. That's the last person to go on a power trip over.

"...childish.", "...narcissistic power trip.". Are you talking about the interviewer? Seems to me that is exactly what is going on.

Succinct answer: he doesn't think there is a link. why?. Movies are fantasies. That was pretty succinct answers from this video clip.

I personally find his attitude pretty childish. He reminds me of a scumbag politician who sidesteps answering a serious question because he's worried about what impact it could have on his career later. He could have given a succinct and mature answer and moved on, but no, he raves for almost 3 minutes and turns it into a narcissistic power trip. If he was a leader he would have had the courage to defend his point of view by giving a fucking answer.