The same people that claim that cops are always "protecting and serving"..

even when they're murdering innocent people because they're too chickenshit to face the risk inherent in their chosen profession.

"Shoot first, shoot some more, then beat & taze them for good measure.. then ask.. wait, what were we supposed to be doing?"

Is there like a BDSM club for people experiencing extreme forms of PTSD and Stockholm syndrome to get tazed and beaten by off duty police officers? Nothing sexual, just good old street level police brutality. Maybe even accidentally shoot me.

You know, I wouldn't be surprised. From what I can see, law enforcement wants to transform all humans into supplicating and subservient profit cattle.

Your video, Driver Beaten And Tazed As St Louis Police Shut Off Dashcam, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 24 Badge!

please taze this guy.

"That depends on who you ask...witnesses..." Really... Yeah, the same shit is argued by "witnesses" for the CIA that argue the CIA does not "torture" people. THAT ARGUMENT in general is utterly asinine. A group of people, many who contradicted each other in the heat of the moment want to portray the outsider as a bad guy...it doesn't help that most of them are low intelligence. Imagine if it had all been white police officers who were the "witnesses", you sure as hell would not side with them. You would say they lie, or defend one another...

Additionally, even if not intentionally, I know that mistaken identity has screwed so many innocent people because in a crisis situation your cognitive functions all but lie to you. You just don't remember things very clearly--even if you are unbiased.

So what do you do? Fault imperfect humans in an imperfect situation? No, you look at the physical evidence. Did the bullet enter the top of his head? Well then he was under the officer and people underneath someone usually try to take someone to the ground, etc. The DA threw the cases away...um, no...the Grand Jury did...the DA has considerable sway there, yes, but then so does public perception...

As a sidebar I should add that in proper uses of force, not Garner's particular situation at all, the more officers on a subject the better. This prevents injury by immobilizing someone. The more someone moves the more force that eventually has to be used. That is the principle behind the tazer. Yeah, I could rip you off the car door you grab on to resist arrest, or I could taze you. Potentially rip your arm out of its socket, or shock you for five seconds...same with three or four people grabbing you to gain compliance. Same reason handcuffs are applied.

In 'mericuh the cop would have noticed the cycle path too.


After the tazing, and the beating.

I'm curious, you say you have used force, but not these kinds of force. What kind of force have you used? What I see left (of the obvious) is wrestled with, kicked, and/or tazed, but that doesn't mean you have or have not done these or other forceful acts.
My point about counseling is if cops use force it was either necessary (because they or others were in immediate danger) and they should receive counseling so they don't start thinking all people are dangerous criminals that should be treated as such, or it was not necessary and they should receive counseling because they're a bully and/or coward with deadly weapons and a danger to all of us. Either way, counseling seems appropriate for each and every time 'force' is used. (The same should go for security of any kind, but they aren't public servants so I have less standing or reason to complain about them.) I know that's asking a lot, but it seems proper, reasonable, and healthier for all.

Grabbing at the officers gun would be immediate grounds for immediate use of deadly force, but once the suspect retreats and is no longer within reach of the officer those grounds have evaporated. The officer should afterwards be wary, but not act as if they are still in danger when the danger ended long before and now they are simply being disobeyed. That's not a legitimate reason for deadly force.
These 'witnesses' that corroborate the officers story are phantoms at best. No one has publicly come forward that corroborates his story that was actually there, all the known witnesses actually contradict the officers account and state that he was retreating, being shot at, flinched, turned, stumbled forward while raising his arms/grasping his sides and was shot another 5-6 times as he fell, including (according to the autopsy) once in the top of the head that exited through his eye...it's hard to see how he could both be a threat and in a position where he could be shot that way. I think if this was a citizen shooting, they would call that 'execution style'.
Attaching the statement of a single person or small group to an entire race is not only racist, it's simply wrong. No group is homogenous, they don't all see this the same way, even if their skin is similar in melanin content.
So, you seem to be saying a taser should only be attempted when the officer is backed up and the suspect is alone with no bystanders. I'll just say I disagree, it should always be the first choice when more than physical hands-on force is needed.
I'm guessing you've never been tazed. The complete incapacitation may stop when you stop the charge, but the residual pain, and the memory of that pain and knowledge that more can come instantly usually does stop even the angriest wanna-be supermen.

Grabbing at a gun is immediate grounds for deadly force in every case, law, home, etc. I only say this because the suspect obviously upped the ante to that zone with no regard for human life. Second, "witnesses" were there to see it all...that's not a good thing and ups the ante far, far more... witnesses are either friends or someone the cop has no idea who they are. That means they are potentially dangerous, especially in a city where blacks (by their own heartfelt admissions) HATE white police officers with a huge passion. I am not saying the racists are not justified, as they clearly have been profiled and such, but this is clearly the case. No confusion should ever arise in dispute of the fact that bystanders are different than potential dangers. If the officer does taze and someone gets involved, he is a dead mother fucker because now he is occupied with a screaming, shitting-self man who is 100% willing to murder him, as already displayed, and someone else. Lastly, the tazer does not always work. And when the tazer does work, immediately afterwards you are 100% capable of using your body to 100% again. Most people think that then tazer magically incapacitates someone for a long time. No--when you release that trigger the tazer's effects are over.
In my opinion deadly force is not the last option. It is the option right before you die.

Now the responses are, for certain, based on stupid choices. The chief trying to minimize was what we all do but pretty dumb. You ever comfort a kid that he might not be hurt so he doesn't feel pain or freak out? Happens, even if the kid is really really hurt and the ambulance is on the way. Stupid choice...and the releasing of the video is iffy at best. What pisses me off most is that it was not meant to calm down the violence, but to appease the nation's view of Ferguson's white people...

Sometimes a little common sense goes a long way. Are you legally obligated to tell your name to a cop? Nope. Would the situation have escalated if the guy had simply told them his name? Most likely not. They would have had a conversation and then left. No handcuffs, no tazing, no arrest. The cops certainly weren't justified in their actions but again, does it really make sense to antagonize someone who can taze/shoot/arrest you? Especially when it can be avoided with minimal effort?

As a father, he should have taken the most reasonable course of action, even if it isn't one that he's legally obligated to take. Sometimes it just makes more sense to swallow your pride and move on. Seems like he was more interested in getting hits on Youtube.

Please watch this video and tell that guy about how it is just "hyperbole." By the way, the department that cop belonged to is still calling it a justifiable taze.

@lantern53

When you have a country were it is acceptable for SWAT teams equipped with more weapons and body armor than an average soldier in your national military to kick down doors and throw flashbangs into people's homes on the "suspicion" that a small amount of drugs may be in the house, or to intimidate peaceful protestors by raising their weapons towards them, when it is acceptable for the NY city police department to conduct secret surveillance on anyone within three states who happens to be a Muslim in the name of counter-terrorism activities, when it is acceptable to taze people simply because they don't provide identification upon demand, when it is acceptable for the police to go to the wrong house to serve a warrant and shoot the dog that happens to live there then I think it is only natural that people are going to hate on the police. The police in the US (particularly the LAPD) have earned the hate they receive ten times over in my opinion for a lot of the reasons he states in this video.

Like he said, the problem is that you are telling a group of people that they are there to enforce the law. Which isn't a problem until it dawns on some of them that they occupy a position that allows them to actually act above the law and get away with it.

Every cop should have to have a camera attached to their uniform that is recording at all times while they are on duty and that video should be available for a civilian oversight committee to review. The committee should have the ability to punish or fire officers who overstep their authority or misbehave on the job. And the videos should be public record so we can see both the good cops and the bad.

Christ that is really depressing.

On the upside, now she can taze those cadavers as many times as she likes and not have to worry about pesky things like civil rights.

Must respectfully disagree, as being tazed by the secret service would be a right, not a privilege