Funny you only say that when it’s a black man or woman beaten for not waiving their rights, but absolutely never against white murderous pedophilic terrorists like Ashley Babbitt. When MAGgots are being violent, destructive, and murderous you defend them to the bitter end, call any prosecution a political witch hunt, and simply refuse to discuss facts.

Non compliance with illegal orders.…because they had zero reason to ask him a thing, no reasonable suspicion of any crime but released the dog anyway.

Why is it you don’t think these non white citizens have CONSTITUTIONAL CIVIL RIGHTS? Why do you believe this one group should always cheerfully waive those RIGHTS and comply or it invites a violent attack from police, but you NEVER say that about white people (unless they’re obviously far left whites)? Never mind….it’s obvious why.

Maybe you should carefully examine your own true motives, because what you claim are your motives don’t match what you say and do.

Babbitt was an active violent destructive terrorist trying to murder US representatives with a murderous mob that had killed or tried to kill hundreds of police…like every MAGgot there. They all deserved at a minimum a good tooth breaking beating and assault and battery on a police officer and resisting arrest and interfering with police duties charges, right? They didn’t comply…have some consistency.

The law and courts ALL disagree that this is in any way acceptable, that’s why these victims get multi million dollar settlements. I say bankrupt Galveston so bad they change their police policies to match the law. Give this man $250 million. You say arrest him and put him in prison for resisting arrest (but not anyone white who did the same on Jan 6, they were exorcising their rights).

Clearly you think this is fine…but only against non MAGA. That destroys your pretend stance that you want financial responsibility, because you know every time this happens it costs taxpayers millions.

Eat a bag of baby dicks Gary.

So, the LAPD intentionally overloaded the containment system maximum by 1.5 lbs of explosives, and the safe load by 6.5 lbs…but since they can’t count they really put in nearly 3 times as much as they thought….then couldn’t figure out how it exploded!?!
Er mer gerd!

And now, suddenly, after admitting they thought they put 16.5 lbs of explosives in it, they say it’s capacity was 25 lbs, but for weeks and weeks they officially said it had a maximum capacity of 15lbs, but they only put 10lbs in it. Another case of the LAPD rewriting history and their story to escape responsibility. They never hit Rodney King too…he received minor injuries by falling while resisting arrest, remember?

Those are decent points, but have absolutely zero to do with the mass abandoning of their positions. It was 100% due to one of their own being charged after beating nonviolent protesters. They originally admitted exactly that, and now that they aren't being supported in their walkout, they are coming up with excuses that didn't matter to them the day before the officer was charged.

I think they should have to pay for the training and equipment they now refuse to use.

What are you talking about? You think budget cuts caused time off to be cancelled?! It costs double to not rotate in other officers, because you pay those on duty overtime, it doesn't make it cheaper. Budget cuts were not the issue when these cops were doing crowd control, only now that they're suddenly called to account for their own actions. No time off temporarily, because of extreme circumstances, was not an issue until one of their own was charged. It's certainly not abnormal, and absolutely not because of budget cuts, it costs more.

No prosecutions is the norm, if I recall, over 98% of charges levied at protesters have been dismissed nation wide, mostly because police had no evidence to back the charges they brought. You might note, as described in the article, "Mr. Schmidt immediately announced that he would focus on prosecuting cases of violence or vandalism; protesters who simply resisted arrest or refused to disperse after a police order would not necessarily be charged." They are taking a stand against anarchic violent protesters, but not the peaceful protesters with a legitimate gripe about violent, racist, deadly police acting as an anarchist gang that believes rules only apply to you, not them.

There are few prosecutions in large part because police declare riots when all participants are peaceful and not causing damage, and police are almost always the one's giving the orders to remove the people they declared "rioters", and in most cases they have zero evidence to back up their declarations, and are as violent as possible, beating peaceful videographers and reporters who were trapped and could not disperse, then charging them with refusal to disperse and resisting arrest, even violence against police for attacking police batons with their faces.
(Edit: remember the freeway shutdown when they marched on the freeway, and police blocked them from exiting or continuing while a second group of police came from behind, forcing them into a small fenced in area with no exit, then charged them all with refusal to disperse and the few that tried to disperse were charged with attacking police officers who blocked every escape route, violently attacking anyone trying to leave...all on live tv?)
Many peaceful protests became riots only after police moved in to violently disperse protests, fully 1/2 were riots because counter protesters and bad right wing actors like proud and boogaloo boys were planting bombs, shooting crowds, starting fires, driving through crowds, and murdering police in an effort to paint protesters as violent anarchists. That is verified fact directly from the DOJ investigation.

It's not a Portland only thing, police abandoning their communities because, as they indicated to the DA, "“It was like, ‘There’s our team and there’s their team, and you are on their team and you’re not on our team. And we’ve never had a D.A. not be on our team before,’” Police assume they are on a team against citizens, and won't do their jobs if, by doing them wrong with bias and malice, they might be prosecuted. They are used to immunity, and don't know how to do their jobs without it because they are abusers of power.

One day after charges were levied they quit in solidarity with the criminal abusive cop, and came up with fake excuses later.

You seem to have missed "the Justice Department said that the city’s Police Bureau was violating its own use-of-force policies during crowd-control operations, and that supervisors were not properly investigating complaints." part.

In this case, I sympathize because Portland has refused to assist or back any of their police in the riots there. The DA has refused to charge anyone who resists arrest or refuses to disperse after police have been given orders to remove rioters (they are rioters. even the Mayor is now saying to stop calling them protesters and to call them anarchists instead).

Why would anyone want to go out, night after night, and face the same people you arrested the night before doing the same stuff?

The fact also exists that Portland has made massive cuts to the police budget. That has led to time off being cancelled for police, no rotations to move fresh police into the riot situations so the same ones have to deal with the face to face confrontations with no break, and the alternative policing option which was hands off was tabled. "A paramedic and a social worker would drive up offering water, a high-protein snack and, always and especially, conversation, aiming to defuse a situation that could otherwise lead to confrontation and violence. No power to arrest. No coercion."

There are a lot of problems with police, for sure. Portland's government is the driver behind these issues, though. Until they start taking a stand against these anarchist, violent protesters (who are PREDOMINANTLY white), the situation will not get better.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/09/us/portland-protests.html

Don't blame the union. Unions have ways of sidestepping that process and contracts have provisions for people to be fired for blatant and flagrant violations of the law.

He wouldn't be on administrative leave if he drove his cruiser through a crowd full of kids while he was drunk. Similarly, there's no investigation to be done here.

He attacked a child - and if there was a reason to justify the first assault, I'm assuming it's the usual "police presumed to be acting in good faith" would be thrown up because that's fair ^eye-roll^; even that doesn't hold up to the second slam. The second slam is an individualized version of a squad-car running through a crowd. It's blatant, flagrant, and criminal.

We need to stop treating COPs (citizens on patrol) like a class of citizens that can get away with this shit or receive any special treatment. If that man was a custodian, he'd be fired on the spot and arrested. Then if he was black it wouldn't matter if his hands were laid flat on the ground and he was spread eagle screaming "I AM NOT RESISTING ARREST AND AM UNARMED" someone would shout

Well, that escalated slowly. For once, I'm on the officer's side.
A well deserved tazing. She was resisting arrest and was trying to hit and kick the officer after running from him.

Where does she get this sense of entitlement? Driving near 6 months with a broken taillight, and she balks at a fix it ticket? They don't have to let you off with a warning.

If that was a young man, the treatment would undoubtedly have been much more violent. Had she been black, it likely would have ended with gunshots. There's no excuse in the law for being white, female, fat, or old. Lock her up, she fled and assaulted that cop.
She's facing one hell of a lot more than $80 in fines now.

I didn't run, I just told you you couldn't arrest me and drove away....that's what running from the law means, hun.

Choking is a perfectly valid submission technique for someone posing a threat to the cop or other people.

I'm not saying that happened here, because there's no context in the video.

Clearly, the guy is resisting arrest, but we have no idea whether a) the arrest was warranted in the first place or b) whether this was a proportionate response.

Neither can you deny that there's a strong possibility this wouldn't have happened if the guy was white.

As for the cop, he should be suspended with pay while the investigation is carried out. We apply the same "innocent until proven guilty" standard to police that we do to everyone else. On the flipside of that, if he's found guilty of misconduct, he shouldn't just be fired, he should face jail time for assault and abuse of power.

Finally, suggesting that crowds should "turn on police" is a recipe for disaster. There are zero good outcomes from that. At best, you have police unable to do their jobs in case of crowd violence, and at worst, you end up with people being killed.

No matter how unjustified you feel your treatment is, it's important to remember that resisting arrest is very much at your own risk. The law varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but even where it IS allowed, if the arrest later turns out to be lawful, you will be charged with an additional crime.

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

Arrested for resisting arrest - Orwell would love that.

"I will arrest you for resisting arrest." Don't you have to be under arrest you can resist?

Now this is good footage. You see and hear what the cop sees and hears and you actually have context before the incident. This why all cops should wear body cams and why body cam footage should be released to the public.

The cop was entirely justified here. The suspect tried to flee the scene, refused to cooperate or comply with commands and physically resisted arrest. When the suspect repeatedly tried to keep the car door open with her legs, the cops made the correct choice in pepper-spraying her. It's very hard to close a door when someone is aggressively pushing it open. Brute force might have worked but that would have been dangerous and potentially lead to accidental injury. Pepper spray was the safest option.

And newtboy, ignoring the police is not "totally fine." In fact, it's one of the dumbest and most dangerous things you can do. Police are authority figures with the right to detain or arrest you. As such, the best way to deal with police is to listen and cooperate in a civil manner. If the girl had done that, she wouldn't have been cuffed, carried off to the police car or pepper-sprayed. I know it's cool to hate cops (and authority figures in general) but at a certain point, pride needs to give way to reason and logic.

Come here is the very first thing the cop with the body can says to her. She responds with don't f'ing touch me, dodging back around him and trying to ride off on her bike. Officer then physically restrains and tells her she IS being detained. Pretty straight so far in support of the officer unless you think ignoring the police and resisting arrest is cool.

She had very good reason to be detained as from the only report so far, she was fleeing the scene of an accident. Whether she caused it or not, tracking down teenage girl on a bike isn't going to be easy without some manner of identification first. Maybe you and I disagree this fundamentally, but in the case of fleeing the scene of an accident, not only do I think police should physically prevent that, I believe private citizens should have the right as well.

If she was trying to escape, she wasn't trying hard. She looked like she was slowly riding circles to me.
When, exactly, do you hear them tell her to stay? I don't here them say anything of the sort before she's handcuffed, not that I think she was trying to leave.

Being detained for cooperation of investigation? You do not have to submit to handcuffing and detention without a suspected crime, and "cooperation of investigation" is not a crime I've ever heard of. Detention is not arrest, so she wasn't resisting arrest.

Because I warn you I'm going to shoot you if you don't do something, that makes it OK if I do? Hmmmm. They can legally use spray and tasers in self defense, but should not be allowed to use them as a coercion technique. She posed no threat seated in the car handcuffed, so there was no legitimate use of force, and certainly no legitimate use of weaponry.

Again, this was only detention, not arrest. I've never heard of anyone charged with resisting detention.

I'm gonna have to side with Sagemind on this and disagree. First interaction right on video with the officers there is her trying to leave the scene. They tell her to stay, and she just tries to escape anyway. At this point she IS being detained. She fights and struggles against them the entire remainder of the video. That's resisting arrest. Not once do the cops use anything resembling excessive force. Even the pepper spray at the very end is warned 2(3?) times before being used.

Sorry, but the right to actively fight and resist arrest does not exist and I do not believe it should. If you forcefully resist arrest the police not only may, but should use force to make the arrest.

@bareboards2 is right.

You do not have the right to resist arrest.

Even if the cops are 100% in the wrong (which they clearly are here), you can be charged, tried and convicted on this charge alone, regardless of the legality of the arrest.

As much as it fucking sucks, that is reality.

And @newtboy, "If you are black and armed and you get stopped, shoot first." are you serious? I must be reading this wrong, because what you are suggesting sounds insane.

Let's ignore that you are advocating killing a potentially innocent cop who might have stopped you for a perfectly legitimate reason. We can also ignore the fact that regardless of whether you have committed a crime, if you shoot at a cop the BEST possible outcome is that you do serious jail time.

Even ignoring all that, do you really want to give ammunition to the kind of people who say shit like "blue lives matter"?

Also ... Mom, answer your goddamn phone in future and give your son a fucking house key!

I guess it all depends on your viewpoint. I watched that video and would have labeled it: "Woman violently resists arrest."

As far as the officers comments to the woman. He is an asshole.