Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

What bullshit. Use of crushing, excessive force FTL. We drink raw milk. In Australia it's marketed as "BATH MILK - NOT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION".

POLICE BRUTALITY!! He totally grabbed her without her consent. Excessive force!

But well done. Cops are an integral part of a working society.

@NetRunner, screw the settlement. I'd prefer a tit-for-tat settlement where a couple of my buddies and me get to taze the officers repeatedly and pummel the shit out of them.

That was a joke. But would certainly be more fair in some respects than robbing the taxpayers every time a cop uses excessive force.

From one of the links in the description:

A traffic stop is viewed by police officers as a potentially life threatening situation, regardless of the impetus for the stop. The cop doesn't know whether the driver of the car stopped for some trivial reason is the nicest guy in town or a mass murderer. He is not about to take any chances finding out.

To the officer, the "threat" initiates with the refusal to comply with commands. There are some basic rules of a safe encounter, that the driver remain in the vehicle with his hands where they can be seen. No, the officer has no reason to believe he has a gun or the inclination to use one, but he's not willing to take any chances finding out.

When the driver alights from the vehicle, the cop immediately feels threatened. When the driver refuses to comply with commands, the sense of threat is elevated. When the driver argues, the threat reaches an untenable position.

Seems like the real problem was what happened at the very end.

I get that it was a tense situation, but from the video and reporting, once they had him subdued they kicked his ass. That wasn't necessary, and constituted excessive force.

They then got sued for exactly that, and wound up settling out of court over it.

Isn't this the way things are supposed to work?

The video was sifted here with the title that it had at youtube. This isn't some case of media bias.

>>> The youtube goofus who originally posted this is a crackpot with the usual chemtrails/truther crap on his/er youtube page. I fully support his/er right to free speech, but it's obvious s/he has an axe to grind with police and other authority figures. If anyone is at fault for the original dumb title it's him (or her) and now has a slightly improved title on the sift.

Having parts of her teeth knocked out qualifies as "teeth knocked out" as far as I'm concerned. How can this small bit of minutiae mean anything to you? They fractured her friggin skull. For what? She was a non threat. There is simply no excuse for it.

>>> The fact remains: she was acting the fool. As I wrote once before (and now have to again, apparently) the use of force was excessive. The officer in question is no longer an officer and is being brought up on charges. What more do you want?

>>> What's the real beef here? Are you simply upset that I don't share your EXACT level of outrage?









>> ^burdturgler:

>> ^quantumushroom:
How did this happen? Drunk a-hole suspect, prevented from easily wiping out entire carloads of people on the highway, resists arrest and swears at cop.
Did she "deserve" what she got? No, the force was excessive. But by acting the fool she accelerated the potential for serious injury, in this case her own.
If she had been compliant from the start and still been thrown around she'd have a much better case.
Attn media: hyping non-existent injuries is no better than crying wolf.

>> ^Pantalones:
The cop broke her face, split her chin open, and chipped her teeth and she's now coping with being the victim of a violent crime, but thank goodness her teeth were not knocked out? Because that would have been a whole new level? Weak. Take that s to the beach, and get a tan.>> ^quantumushroom:
Still no fun, but still a far cry from "teeth knocked out". Title was changed. Good.

>> ^Pantalones:
AAAAAAAND TEETH!
"Fox said in addition to a facial fracture, a split chin and chipped teeth she's also trying to recover emotionally."




The video was sifted here with the title that it had at youtube. This isn't some case of media bias. Having parts of her teeth knocked out qualifies as "teeth knocked out" as far as I'm concerned. How can this small bit of minutiae mean anything to you? They fractured her friggin skull. For what? She was a non threat. There is simply no excuse for it. She had an accident and she called 911 for help. Instead, the heroic men in uniform drive her skull into a concrete divider face first. This whole "crying wolf" thing is disgusting and stupid QM. This woman was a victim of assault. The police department was in the process of firing this asshole for the assault which is why he resigned. However, that didn't save him from being charged and convicted for the crime of assault.

>> ^littledragon_79:

You know, I can't say for sure, but it looked like maybe he didn't intend for that to happen the way it did. So much for giving people the benefit of the doubt, eh? Innocent until proven guilty?


He was proven guilty, when we was convicted for this in a court of law on assault charges.

>> ^quantumushroom:

How did this happen? Drunk a-hole suspect, prevented from easily wiping out entire carloads of people on the highway, resists arrest and swears at cop.
Did she "deserve" what she got? No, the force was excessive. But by acting the fool she accelerated the potential for serious injury, in this case her own.
If she had been compliant from the start and still been thrown around she'd have a much better case.
Attn media: hyping non-existent injuries is no better than crying wolf.

>> ^Pantalones:
The cop broke her face, split her chin open, and chipped her teeth and she's now coping with being the victim of a violent crime, but thank goodness her teeth were not knocked out? Because that would have been a whole new level? Weak. Take that s to the beach, and get a tan.>> ^quantumushroom:
Still no fun, but still a far cry from "teeth knocked out". Title was changed. Good.

>> ^Pantalones:
AAAAAAAND TEETH!
"Fox said in addition to a facial fracture, a split chin and chipped teeth she's also trying to recover emotionally."





The video was sifted here with the title that it had at youtube. This isn't some case of media bias. Having parts of her teeth knocked out qualifies as "teeth knocked out" as far as I'm concerned. How can this small bit of minutiae mean anything to you? They fractured her friggin skull. For what? She was a non threat. There is simply no excuse for it. She had an accident and she called 911 for help. Instead, the heroic men in uniform drive her skull into a concrete divider face first. This whole "crying wolf" thing is disgusting and stupid QM. This woman was a victim of assault. The police department was in the process of firing this asshole for the assault which is why he resigned. However, that didn't save him from being charged and convicted for the crime of assault.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'police, brutality, excessive force, protect and serve' to 'police, brutality, excessive force, protect and serve, texas, Arturo Perez' - edited by dystopianfuturetoday

UPDATE: http://www.news10.net/news/article/141207/2/DOE-raids-Stockton-home-as-part-of-fraud-investigation

Neighbors are backing his story. "Excessive Force" now mentioned and an attorney acquired. It does seem excessive when the line regarding "Criminal contraband" was stricken through on the warrant, suggesting they had no anticipation of drugs, weapons, etc. Then why the 13 armed men?

""They surrounded the house; it was like a task force or S.W.A.T team," across the street neighbor Becky said. "They all had guns. They dragged him out in his boxer shorts, threw him to the ground and handcuffed him."

According to Becky and her two children, the raid started at 6 a.m. with agents ramming down Wright's front door.

"I watched until I went to work at 10:45 and they were still out there," Becky said.

Her young daughter, Valerie, said she counted 13 agents and one Stockton police officer outside Wright's home.

"I felt really bad for those kids," said Becky about agents when they brought out Wright's three children. "They were crying really loud.""

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Thanks for that. I think I understand your position now too. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

In reply to this comment by Opus_Moderandi:
lol, immediately after I sent that mssg, I thought I probably should have said "Not that your position makes you a non-level headed guy." Sorry bout that. I always seem to think after I hit send.

And thanks for that out pouring, I think I understand your position a little better now.

I guess our difference is there are no laws or ordinances restricting what I want out of life for myself. In my country, of course. This includes dancing in a memorial, which I still am sure not a lot of people (outside of protesters) care to do.

You see this (if I may) as the long arm of the law reaching out and bitch slapping these protesters. I see it as the protesters stomping on the arm of the law and then pretending nothing happened. And I disagree as far as the use of excessive force. The one instance where it might seem excessive (that I saw) was due to resisting arrest, imo.

As far as peaceful disobedience threatening the cops authority, in this case, I think it was forced. The cop warned them not to dance. They went ahead and danced. He has to back up his warning or look like a moron. In front of a crowd of people, no less. So, I'm sure his/their testosterone level was peaking out. And who wants cops that are timid about following through? "Stop or I'll shoot! Maybe...."

Not all cops are good. Not all cops make the best decision regarding situational outcomes. And I will agree that a lot of them are looking to fill a quota. But in this instance, I sincerely believe their actions were warranted.

Not problem. I'm actually happy with your thoughts as well. I might not agree with some of them but, it's a good discussion, imo.


In reply to this comment by dag:
Wow, I always thought you were a critical thinker.
I'm so perplexed that you would take this position. <- Condescension is never a good way to argue a point. I'm probably as "level-headed" as the next guy, but much like yourself I have opinions.

My opinions are shaped by my life experiences. I currently live in a bureaucratic nanny-state. It's functional, and in many ways serves the public better than the United States - but I do now have a keener appreciation for the wilder, unvarnished idea of American liberty. Here in Australia we're mainly well-off. (by world standards) We have public healthcare, well-stocked libraries, good schools - and incidentally one of the highest tax rates in the world.

Because we're so fat and happy and lacking an underclass, not many care that we need a permit to have a protest anywhere, that there is no enshrined bill of rights guaranteeing things like free speech or freedom of the press - or that we owe allegiance to a monarch thousands of miles across the pond.

But one thing that really, really chafes my balls - so to speak - is that I feel constantly governed. There are laws and ordinances covering everything - and the government wants to know everything about you. It's all for my own good of course, but I fear stepping out of line, standing out and becoming subject to the scrutiny of the all-seeing-eye of the State.

To answer your question directly, I don't think that those cops were looking for an excuse to arrest them - I do think they were using excessive force. I do think that sometimes the best option is to issue citations and wait for the troll fest to finish. Cops rarely err on the side of non-aggression though, because they see any peaceful disobedience as a threat to their authority.

But speaking in general terms, yes, I do think that police often look for excuses to cite, arrest or otherwise assert their authority / meet their citation quota - and laws like this give them one more way to do it.

PS. Sorry for going from private to public, but I'm kind of happy with my thoughts on this, as I've never really examined them this way. Thanks!

In reply to this comment by Opus_Moderandi:
Yeah, I was debating with myself when (if at all) would be a good point to carry this conversation "underground". I'll try now.

Also, I hope it doesn't seem like I'm trying to badger you. If you don't feel it's necessary to move forward with this discussion, I understand. From what I know of you on the site, I believe you're a level headed guy and I'm puzzled that you see this demonstration as you do.

So, you're saying that those cops were just looking for a reason to arrest them? Then why warn them? Just to make it look good? I don't buy that. And, again, I have to say that if you put this up to a vote, a real democratic vote, the majority would agree with the law (or ordinance, what have you) against dancing.

And aren't most protests about things that have been going on for awhile? I mean, dancing at this memorial wasn't really an issue until these "activists" made it one. I'm guessing you'll say it was the cops that made it an issue but, I'm gonna stick with "They were given a warning."

In reply to this comment by dag:
I don't think that at all. At the risk of blowing away the new crusty layer of love and peace that has recently been established here - I'm against silly freedom-restricting laws and ordinances that police can use as an excuse to arrest people at any time or place.

If people are really disturbing the peace, use that. We don't need laws against dancing and we don't need laws against people sitting on park benches sans children (see my above link).

>> ^Opus_Moderandi:

>> ^dag:
A greater reluctance of the state to pass frivolous laws the restrict the liberty of the people. That's all.>> ^Opus_Moderandi:
>> ^NordlichReiter:
>> ^Opus_Moderandi:
>> ^dag:
Small little creeping, insiduous changes. Little prohibitions against little things. No dancing at national monuments, no burning old glory, apple pie must always be served with an American flag toothpick, and then slowly, slowly it becomes much safer to just stay home, watch Fox News on your jumbo Sony-tron and eat microwave burritos.

This is what paranoia looks like.

It doesn't matter how little the law is changed here and there.
If it's a bullshit law it should be challenged. This is the way Jefferson would have wanted it.
It's not paranoia. If anything it's democracy wearing a ball gag in the name of Justice and Tourism.

Tell me, what is the next step for the dancing activists? What will this great victory lead to? I'll tell you what, nothing. And a nothing that doesn't even deserve all caps.


I think you and blankfist (and the others crying freedom) believe that most people that go to the Jefferson Memorial go there to dance. They don't. It's just this bunch of "activists" that are concerned with it. The majority of people that go there do not go there to dance. If you were to take a vote, a public vote, passing out ballots at the entrance to the Jefferson Memorial that ask "Should dancing be allowed here?" I will bet you my firstborn that you will get a resounding NO.

lol, immediately after I sent that mssg, I thought I probably should have said "Not that your position makes you a non-level headed guy." Sorry bout that. I always seem to think after I hit send.

And thanks for that out pouring, I think I understand your position a little better now.

I guess our difference is there are no laws or ordinances restricting what I want out of life for myself. In my country, of course. This includes dancing in a memorial, which I still am sure not a lot of people (outside of protesters) care to do.

You see this (if I may) as the long arm of the law reaching out and bitch slapping these protesters. I see it as the protesters stomping on the arm of the law and then pretending nothing happened. And I disagree as far as the use of excessive force. The one instance where it might seem excessive (that I saw) was due to resisting arrest, imo.

As far as peaceful disobedience threatening the cops authority, in this case, I think it was forced. The cop warned them not to dance. They went ahead and danced. He has to back up his warning or look like a moron. In front of a crowd of people, no less. So, I'm sure his/their testosterone level was peaking out. And who wants cops that are timid about following through? "Stop or I'll shoot! Maybe...."

Not all cops are good. Not all cops make the best decision regarding situational outcomes. And I will agree that a lot of them are looking to fill a quota. But in this instance, I sincerely believe their actions were warranted.

Not problem. I'm actually happy with your thoughts as well. I might not agree with some of them but, it's a good discussion, imo.


In reply to this comment by dag:
Wow, I always thought you were a critical thinker.
I'm so perplexed that you would take this position. <- Condescension is never a good way to argue a point. I'm probably as "level-headed" as the next guy, but much like yourself I have opinions.

My opinions are shaped by my life experiences. I currently live in a bureaucratic nanny-state. It's functional, and in many ways serves the public better than the United States - but I do now have a keener appreciation for the wilder, unvarnished idea of American liberty. Here in Australia we're mainly well-off. (by world standards) We have public healthcare, well-stocked libraries, good schools - and incidentally one of the highest tax rates in the world.

Because we're so fat and happy and lacking an underclass, not many care that we need a permit to have a protest anywhere, that there is no enshrined bill of rights guaranteeing things like free speech or freedom of the press - or that we owe allegiance to a monarch thousands of miles across the pond.

But one thing that really, really chafes my balls - so to speak - is that I feel constantly governed. There are laws and ordinances covering everything - and the government wants to know everything about you. It's all for my own good of course, but I fear stepping out of line, standing out and becoming subject to the scrutiny of the all-seeing-eye of the State.

To answer your question directly, I don't think that those cops were looking for an excuse to arrest them - I do think they were using excessive force. I do think that sometimes the best option is to issue citations and wait for the troll fest to finish. Cops rarely err on the side of non-aggression though, because they see any peaceful disobedience as a threat to their authority.

But speaking in general terms, yes, I do think that police often look for excuses to cite, arrest or otherwise assert their authority / meet their citation quota - and laws like this give them one more way to do it.

PS. Sorry for going from private to public, but I'm kind of happy with my thoughts on this, as I've never really examined them this way. Thanks!

In reply to this comment by Opus_Moderandi:
Yeah, I was debating with myself when (if at all) would be a good point to carry this conversation "underground". I'll try now.

Also, I hope it doesn't seem like I'm trying to badger you. If you don't feel it's necessary to move forward with this discussion, I understand. From what I know of you on the site, I believe you're a level headed guy and I'm puzzled that you see this demonstration as you do.

So, you're saying that those cops were just looking for a reason to arrest them? Then why warn them? Just to make it look good? I don't buy that. And, again, I have to say that if you put this up to a vote, a real democratic vote, the majority would agree with the law (or ordinance, what have you) against dancing.

And aren't most protests about things that have been going on for awhile? I mean, dancing at this memorial wasn't really an issue until these "activists" made it one. I'm guessing you'll say it was the cops that made it an issue but, I'm gonna stick with "They were given a warning."

In reply to this comment by dag:
I don't think that at all. At the risk of blowing away the new crusty layer of love and peace that has recently been established here - I'm against silly freedom-restricting laws and ordinances that police can use as an excuse to arrest people at any time or place.

If people are really disturbing the peace, use that. We don't need laws against dancing and we don't need laws against people sitting on park benches sans children (see my above link).

>> ^Opus_Moderandi:

>> ^dag:
A greater reluctance of the state to pass frivolous laws the restrict the liberty of the people. That's all.>> ^Opus_Moderandi:
>> ^NordlichReiter:
>> ^Opus_Moderandi:
>> ^dag:
Small little creeping, insiduous changes. Little prohibitions against little things. No dancing at national monuments, no burning old glory, apple pie must always be served with an American flag toothpick, and then slowly, slowly it becomes much safer to just stay home, watch Fox News on your jumbo Sony-tron and eat microwave burritos.

This is what paranoia looks like.

It doesn't matter how little the law is changed here and there.
If it's a bullshit law it should be challenged. This is the way Jefferson would have wanted it.
It's not paranoia. If anything it's democracy wearing a ball gag in the name of Justice and Tourism.

Tell me, what is the next step for the dancing activists? What will this great victory lead to? I'll tell you what, nothing. And a nothing that doesn't even deserve all caps.


I think you and blankfist (and the others crying freedom) believe that most people that go to the Jefferson Memorial go there to dance. They don't. It's just this bunch of "activists" that are concerned with it. The majority of people that go there do not go there to dance. If you were to take a vote, a public vote, passing out ballots at the entrance to the Jefferson Memorial that ask "Should dancing be allowed here?" I will bet you my firstborn that you will get a resounding NO.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Wow, I always thought you were a critical thinker.
I'm so perplexed that you would take this position. <- Condescension is never a good way to argue a point. I'm probably as "level-headed" as the next guy, but much like yourself I have opinions.

My opinions are shaped by my life experiences. I currently live in a bureaucratic nanny-state. It's functional, and in many ways serves the public better than the United States - but I do now have a keener appreciation for the wilder, unvarnished idea of American liberty. Here in Australia we're mainly well-off. (by world standards) We have public healthcare, well-stocked libraries, good schools - and incidentally one of the highest tax rates in the world.

Because we're so fat and happy and lacking an underclass, not many care that we need a permit to have a protest anywhere, that there is no enshrined bill of rights guaranteeing things like free speech or freedom of the press - or that we owe allegiance to a monarch thousands of miles across the pond.

But one thing that really, really chafes my balls - so to speak - is that I feel constantly governed. There are laws and ordinances covering everything - and the government wants to know everything about you. It's all for my own good of course, but I fear stepping out of line, standing out and becoming subject to the scrutiny of the all-seeing-eye of the State.

To answer your question directly, I don't think that those cops were looking for an excuse to arrest them - I do think they were using excessive force. I do think that sometimes the best option is to issue citations and wait for the troll fest to finish. Cops rarely err on the side of non-aggression though, because they see any peaceful disobedience as a threat to their authority.

But speaking in general terms, yes, I do think that police often look for excuses to cite, arrest or otherwise assert their authority / meet their citation quota - and laws like this give them one more way to do it.

PS. Sorry for going from private to public, but I'm kind of happy with my thoughts on this, as I've never really examined them this way. Thanks!

In reply to this comment by Opus_Moderandi:
Yeah, I was debating with myself when (if at all) would be a good point to carry this conversation "underground". I'll try now.

Also, I hope it doesn't seem like I'm trying to badger you. If you don't feel it's necessary to move forward with this discussion, I understand. From what I know of you on the site, I believe you're a level headed guy and I'm puzzled that you see this demonstration as you do.

So, you're saying that those cops were just looking for a reason to arrest them? Then why warn them? Just to make it look good? I don't buy that. And, again, I have to say that if you put this up to a vote, a real democratic vote, the majority would agree with the law (or ordinance, what have you) against dancing.

And aren't most protests about things that have been going on for awhile? I mean, dancing at this memorial wasn't really an issue until these "activists" made it one. I'm guessing you'll say it was the cops that made it an issue but, I'm gonna stick with "They were given a warning."

In reply to this comment by dag:
I don't think that at all. At the risk of blowing away the new crusty layer of love and peace that has recently been established here - I'm against silly freedom-restricting laws and ordinances that police can use as an excuse to arrest people at any time or place.

If people are really disturbing the peace, use that. We don't need laws against dancing and we don't need laws against people sitting on park benches sans children (see my above link).

>> ^Opus_Moderandi:

>> ^dag:
A greater reluctance of the state to pass frivolous laws the restrict the liberty of the people. That's all.>> ^Opus_Moderandi:
>> ^NordlichReiter:
>> ^Opus_Moderandi:
>> ^dag:
Small little creeping, insiduous changes. Little prohibitions against little things. No dancing at national monuments, no burning old glory, apple pie must always be served with an American flag toothpick, and then slowly, slowly it becomes much safer to just stay home, watch Fox News on your jumbo Sony-tron and eat microwave burritos.

This is what paranoia looks like.

It doesn't matter how little the law is changed here and there.
If it's a bullshit law it should be challenged. This is the way Jefferson would have wanted it.
It's not paranoia. If anything it's democracy wearing a ball gag in the name of Justice and Tourism.

Tell me, what is the next step for the dancing activists? What will this great victory lead to? I'll tell you what, nothing. And a nothing that doesn't even deserve all caps.


I think you and blankfist (and the others crying freedom) believe that most people that go to the Jefferson Memorial go there to dance. They don't. It's just this bunch of "activists" that are concerned with it. The majority of people that go there do not go there to dance. If you were to take a vote, a public vote, passing out ballots at the entrance to the Jefferson Memorial that ask "Should dancing be allowed here?" I will bet you my firstborn that you will get a resounding NO.

I'm skeptical about this video simply because of the way it was edited. I am always against police brutality and excessive force. I just don't like being misled. I too want to know the full situation. The news link is just someone's blog post. There is no actual investigative information.

At the start of the video you see the guys legs kick up and then brace against the sidewalk. He pushes up with his legs and locks forcing the officers and him into a standing position which actually increases the distance in which they slammed into the sidewalk.

The video clearly cuts out everything before the moment the officers grabbed the man and then quickly cuts out as soon as they clam the surrounding situation and begin to explain.

>> ^ex-jedi:
The officer in this case realised that the kids had 'mental disabilities', still no sympathy? I agree that if you're dealing with an officer, being respectful is the most sensible way of not turning the situation into a clustercuss, but I hope officers can use their discretion, especially when dealing with vulnerable individuals. And most of them do actually. I've had lots of dealings with the police over the years, and they've all been pretty cool.




Look, there's no doubt he deserves to be thoroughly investigated for the incidents decribed. Maybe he even deserves to be thrown off the force or into jail. I don't know, I wasn't there.

All I'm saying is, if you disobey an officer and resist arrest, you are asking to get seriously hurt or even killed. In the case of the two kids, their parents should have taught them to respect and obey officers. Sure it sucks when the officer is an asshole, but you are just making it worse for yourself if you try to run.

That being said, everybody should know their rights. "I have been advised not to speak to law enforcement without the presence of my attorney. I do not submit to any searches. Am I free to go, officer?" Stay polite, don't touch them, don't get upset. Anything they do wrong, you can sue them for afterwards.

>> ^MaxWilder:

Every single story described somebody fleeing or resisting. I have no sympathy for them.


The officer in this case realised that the kids had 'mental disabilities', still no sympathy? I agree that if you're dealing with an officer, being respectful is the most sensible way of not turning the situation into a clustercuss, but I hope officers can use their discretion, especially when dealing with vulnerable individuals. And most of them do actually. I've had lots of dealings with the police over the years, and they've all been pretty cool.