*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Cops-Tazer-Horse-Thief-Then-Beat-And-Kick-Over-50-Times

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by eric3579. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

Sorry, but *dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Cops-Tazer-Horse-Thief-Then-Beat-And-Kick-Over-50-Times

...but I posted that one so I can't invoke 'dupe'

Um, yeah, he died, so definitely *snuff and *NSFW. We just watched a murder, plain and simple.
This would not have ended in murder charges if there was no video of the cop planting the tazer , he would have gotten away with claiming the man took it and threatened him with it. Lucky for us all there was proof he's a liar and murderer.

"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.

No, a police dog is a dog. A tazer is a tool. (I could have made a terrible joke there, but will refrain)
I understand that humans being more 'valuable' than 'animals' (as if we aren't animals) is the normal way of thinking, but you make the knee jerk assumption/implication that they are the only options, either let a dog attack a dangerous armed person that WILL hurt/kill the dog or do it manually and be hurt yourself. There are MANY other options always available that don't involve releasing the unsuspecting dog into harms way. Most don't even involve deadly force. It would NEVER be proper to let the dog attack a known armed threatening person instead of using one's brain to deal with the danger in a safer manner, but that is what you've said you would do.
As a society, we have partially reversed the thinking that 'humans are more important than animals'. That is shown by the creation of many 'preserves' that stop people from farming/hunting on land to save animals, and that ends up killing some people (through starvation, malnutrition, etc). So while your statement is usually correct, people do usually consider humans more valuable than animals, as an absolutist statement it is wrong. That kind of thinking has put us in a position where the food chains are being broken because we only thought about humans (and not very thoroughly).

I'm sorry to hear about your cat, it's a terrible thing to have to help them go, but often the right thing for them. :-(

Your comments were "a dog is a tool" and "If I were tasked with taking a person with a machete into custody, I would be happy to have a dog take a chance over a person risking their life." Both show a complete lack of concern for the dog, or even thought for it as a living, thinking, feeling being. The latter also shows a propensity to put the unsuspecting dog in far greater danger rather than accept a manageable danger themselves. In your scenario, you could easily disarm 'Machette' with your Taser, firearm, car, other officers, etc. with minimal or no danger to the officers, only more time taken, but you say you would send in the dog to get sliced. I find that terrible and not the words of someone that truly cares for the animal.
EDIT: " I would be happy to have a dog take a chance over a person risking their life." really translates to 'I would be happy to have a dog risk their life over a person taking a chance.'...and I and others find that thinking uncaring and irresponsible towards the living, feeling being (your tool) who's care and welfare you took responsibility for.
You are quite correct, I could never be a cop. I don't have the mentality to constantly tell others what to do (and insist they follow my directions), or to deal with the drudgery of writing people tickets, paperwork, etc. I could not dehumanize people I think are criminals daily and treat them like the inhuman scum they 'are'. I would have too hard a time enforcing laws I disagreed with, and I would fear that dealing with people at their worst would make me think the worst of all people, and so cause me to treat them all like the awful criminals they are (in my mind), making me a douchebag with authoratah. I don't want to be that in any way.
I feel like being a cop is a truly hard job that screws with one's mind. Again, why I think therapy on the job should be mandatory.
Honest discussion is never a waste of time.

That makes you an unbelievable piece of shit IMO. A dog is an animal, not a 'tool'. A living, breathing, feeling animal that trusts you to take care of it. You don't put an animal that you accept control over and the obligation to care for in a position where they protect you at the expense of their own life, especially when you have many other options. The dog doesn't understand the danger you put them in, they expect they're holding the person, just like when they trained. They've been trained to think they aren't hurting the person, and that there's no chance they'll be hurt back. In fact, they're trained to think they get a treat/play time afterwards, not knifed.
I'm so disappointed in you. Don't get a dog.
The next time you see a person with a knife/machete, how about back off and wait for Swat...or try your tazer, or pepper spray, or bean bags, or your car, etc.... You have many other options besides just putting a dog in danger for no reason other than you're scared and uncaring.

EDIT: Your statement, and the fact that it's how most cops seem to think, is proof positive that these 'tools' are misused more often than not, and are treated unconscionably by those that are supposed to care for them. I think the ASPCA and other anti-animal abuse organizations should band together to work towards removing K-9 units from service as they are terrible for the dogs they use without a thought for the dogs welfare.
Dogs naturally act like furry, stupid/dumb/mentally challenged, sweet children, and should be treated as such.

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...

The only problem I have here newtboy is the concept of escalation. You are obviously not in Law, so here is a bit of schooling. Ever wonder why cops use tazers on people who just passively resist (Like holding or bracing to prevent cuffs from being applied?) Or how it "takes" seven cops to "subdue" someone? It's actually practical and less violent. 1-A fun fact is that the longer a confrontation goes on for the further it escalates. By doing nothing you are letting it get further than by doing something. This means that there is a definitive time to stop trying to talk and start acting. 2-Those "escalated" methods are really lessor force than others. The more a body moves the greater the chance someone gets hurt. That means you A-Place someone on the ground as soon as possible, B-Immobilize him as prudently as possible, C-Get him in cuffs.

Don't get me wrong, abuse is abuse. But if you see a cop punching a person's ass to get him to let up on his grip, for example, that's not brutality. If you see a cop curbstomping someone, yeah, that is. Because more movement is involved.

A tazer may have been a option here if they have it handy. These officers had just rolled up. They were a distance away and just initiated the interaction. The man immediately starts coming at them and is brandishing a weapon. This guy called out the cops and had a plan. The cops do not deserve to get knifed here.

Really, so whenever someone tries to commit 'suicide by cop', they should oblige and just kill them? They should never try to de-escalate the issue, only use the maximum force possible at any opportunity?
I find total fault in them shooting him, they had many other non-lethal options but chose the most deadly response possible to a minimal, avoidable threat.
The officers had every opportunity to retreat safely, had time to pull out a tazer or pepper spray, and were in no danger. Teaching them to shoot to kill anyone 'threatening' is insane and should lead to more cops being shot in self defense. If they're going to kill any 'threat' and I think they might think I'm a 'threat', it's self defense to kill them first, right? Obviously.

I'm sorry, I guess I maybe should have ticked the sarcasm box.

This wasn't a pro-tazer or anti-police comment; I was just thinking that getting to see this eff-tard writhe around in pain (not just via a tazering, but by any effective method) - even if only for a moment or two - would have been more enjoyable/rewarding than anything I saw in the 5 narcissism infused minutes of this video.

That's all. Nothing more. No deep analysis or social commentary was intended.

Sorry, but I'm inclined here to call this one as I see it.

If Mr. Veitch is trying his hardest to come across as a loud-mouthed, peace-disturbing, douche-nugget, then I must commend him on a job well done. Really would have made my day to reach the end of the clip and find this obnoxious dicktard flopping around on the ground like a beached fish as a couple of the legit officers steadily pump some serious Mega-voltage through him via their several well-tuned tazers. A-hole.

@chingalera

Your delusion as to what the fuck police are baffles me. Here, we have a video clearly showing not only the cops are NOT using excessive force, be it physical or tazer, doing everything in their power to actually resolve this situation in a manor that is civil up to and including explaining why they did what they did ALL THE WHILE not releasing the information of what the girl did to keep it private (likely, there was a warrent issued for her arrest for something she did OFF camera), and yet you're still claiming to the "gun totin' bullies" schtick.

I could cite thousands of examples of police officers doing their jobs correctly, and I take PERSONAL offense to the notion that A) "All cops are cocksuckers" and B) "All cops are felons". Why? Mostly because, unlike you, I actually know quite a few personally. Including my Father, and step mother.

Lets go ahead and actually skip a shitload of the easy shit, like the fact my step mother is (and for the past almost 9 years has been) the President of an optimist group, whose primary goal is to raise funding for underprivileged children and give them access to things like sports, and in some cases educational scholorships.

Lets graze over the fact that my dad and a good deal of my own local police officers actually put on not one, but two musicals (Caught in the Act / Caught in the act II) to raise money for Charity (the womens Y, and unfortunately I can't remember the other one).

Hell, we'll even skip the time I was in DETROIT, and while on the highway blew a tire and needed to pull over to the side of the road to change it, only to have a police officer see this going the opposite direction, get off the highway, and then back ON the highway, so he could park behind us and keep his lights on so that we remained safe while doing so.

Lets focus on the fact that you're citing one example of you. Where a friend apparently was in too deep a sleep, or drugged up to answer a phone call from the people she's now paying to call the police when the alarm system goes off and they can't reach her.

They then show up, and either you, or somehow she, answers the door and lets them in, only to seemingly be a rude prick about it, and one of you winds up getting yourself arrested. Your entire post on the subject is incredibly vague (yes, I'm sure the fact that you said the cops sunglasses make you nervous was the exact reason you had whatever happen to you happen.) And yet, you still have the gall to maintain that the entire problem is with the people who did their jobs right in the first place. (You know, showing up to a distress call about a home that may be broken in to)

Also, if you're referring to those of us who actually maintain that the police aren't all the devil in bullet proof vests with badges as "cunts who are afraid to show their asses", you're once again wrong. I've stopped voicing my opinion on the matter, it typically goes nowhere. I'll cite law, you'll cite something crazily in some form of gibberish, and at the end of the day, neither person has made progress.

You want to voice your opinion, fine. I'll stay in the shadows and save both of us a lot of time arguing back and forth. DO NOT drag my family's honour through the mud by insinuating that part of it is somehow the bane of the earth because my Dad and Stepmom signed onto a group of people "To serve and protect" the damned community.

But onto the content of this video, this has little to do with the high speed limit. The mother was probably concerned with the drugs she had in the car--which could have resulted in the loss of her children.

First there are many factors here. The biggest one is that the last officer to arrive was most likely unaware of the children in the vehicle (Since it looks like he had just arrived at the end of the video.)

Second, there were a lot of people there who were defensive of their mother, one of which was already physically aggressive.

The third point to make is that a vehicle is a deadly weapon, no matter what kind. By driving off you are showing a dangerous recklessness and willingness to hurt/kill other people (Including your children) and that you are fine with the worst scenario happening. (This is also why there is a no chase policy, unless circumstances outweigh the risks.)

I personally think this officer was indecisive and used far too little force to start with when the mother drove away the first time. In fact, it resulted in far too much at the end. The officer holds his tazer at the son without using it. What was he thinking? In truth, he let this happen by trying to be kind.

Make no mistake, I don't agree with how the officers handled it. There are policies to avoid this. And shooting into a car, for the simple fact that it can then be driverless and a danger to others, is/should be prohibited (Again, based on the totality of what a reasonable officer thinks is the danger to others.)