Nahh, there's no pandering, and barely any condescension from him. There's a huge amount of condescension from her and he shows remarkable restraint even while becoming a bit frustrated.

She shows positively @bobknight33-levels of inability to see another's viewpoint and unwillingness to debate honestly.

That he remains mostly unfazed by it is one of the reasons this video (and man) is great.

Anyone who's read my comments knows I'm not a big fan of the police these days, but they were totally in the right here, and the description is absolutely ridiculous BS IMO.
People who try to make a police misconduct case out of this should think first and realize that offering this as evidence of police misconduct/abuse minimizes ACTUAL misconduct/abuse. There was NO "brutal beating", no choking seen, no stomping, no 'swarming by 9 officers', no 'slamming to the concrete', no 'arrested for jaywalking', just a teenager acting a fool and ignoring commands, pushing and kicking officers, and grabbing their weapons, all of which didn't end well for him when he's arrested for resisting arrest and refusing to comply with a direct lawful order from a peace officer...he'll be incredibly lucky if another charge for assault on a police officer isn't coming.
I wonder, what alternative actions do those complaining about this think the police SHOULD have taken? Just let him walk away indignantly? The law simply doesn't work that way.

Jaywalking may not be an arrest-able offence, but refusing/ignoring an officer's lawful command to stop certainly is, so is resisting when the cop tries to control/arrest you (like pulling the cop's hand off your arm, pushing the cop, or grabbing the baton that has yet to hit you).
The kid only gets hit with the baton (in the video) when he grabs it with both hands and tries to wrestle it away from the cop, as the cop wrestles for control of the weapon, the kid gets grazed in the face. When the other 4 (not 9) officers take control, he continues to fight with them and is taken to the ground.
As to his being a kid, he certainly thought he was adult enough to ignore/fight with the police. As far as I could tell, they all used restraint (compared to the normal dog pile and face kicks we've seen in the past in this kind of situation). I really don't think this video is going to help that 'kid' in court.
I'm somewhat surprised they didn't go after the woman screaming for interfering with a police action, or at least command her to move away. Telling the kid to stay seated (and ignore the command to get on the ground) sure seems to meet the criteria in my eyes.

Good to shed some light on kids intentionally being disobedient even with a reasonable officer (relatively speaking).

The first officer showed a great deal of restraint and probably was even bowing to the pressure from all the cameras and onlookers and woman yelling "It's a kid!" because he actually backed off and just tried again and again asking the kid to get on the ground.

He clearly, purposefully resisted (probably feeling goaded on by the crowd) and was rightfully taken to the ground.

I didn't think I 'switched back' to anything. It's been my position all along that the only one in the wrong was the cop, and that his behavior of not talking, while rude in normal society, is prudent, proper behavior when dealing with law enforcement, and the advice given by numerous high priced lawyers.

Part of living in a 'free' society is we must accept the restraints it puts on law enforcement, and the loss of some ability to keep us 'safe'. The founding fathers understood that clearly, and made sure it was clear they intended it to be that way. To paraphrase Franklin, 'those that would give up essential liberty for a little temporary 'safety' deserve neither'. In a free country, in the contest between a citizen's rights and law enforcement's ability to do their job, the citizen should always come out on top, even though that's more dangerous.

Is he really on the 'watch list'? Would that be just because he's an activist? If so, that kind of inclusion is exactly what's made the 'watch list' a bad joke rather than a real tool against terrorism.

Without people putting their freedom in jeopardy to do this kind of 'audit', an audit the cops unsurprisingly failed miserably, the right to not self incriminate (and many others) would be gone...these officers believed it already WAS gone because apparently no one had ever stood up to them before. The camera was necessary because without the proof of the entire interaction, he would NEVER have been released without charges. It sucks ass that we need people to do this, but obviously we do. If we didn't need this kind of public 'testing' (because the cops act properly), this video would be pretty boring and uninteresting.
That's why I don't see him or his behavior as being a 'tool'. Others make cops 'nervous' all the time, people without the resources and knowledge to come out of the situation on top who end up in jail for not breaking any law, but just making cops nervous just because of how they look, or because of their personality, or other factors beyond their control. Hopefully this public 'shaming' will stop others from being accosted over nothing.

Several bar bouncers told you that? That's good enough for me too, especially with the marked restraint you see in all bar bouncer videos.

Some serious restraint to not hit him in the head with their skateboards....
Maybe that's what happened in his past to make him insane.
What a douchebag.

You seem to have clearly missed the point and are obviously trying to just push an agenda rather than objectively look at the situation. The first thing you can think of is a race issue? Stop trolling. The officer in the video I linked showed restraint, attempted to issue verbal directions to the person and a lack of action got him killed. The same could have happened to the officer in this sift. How do you know that man was not going to start grappling with the officer? Then what? The man steals the officers side arm and kills him? The man pulls out a hidden weapon and kills the officer? Maybe you need another example?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8P5mB6grzf4

The officer in this sift told the guy to stop advancing towards him. The guy repeatedly ignored the officers commands. The officer has no idea what the suspect is capable of and felt sufficiently threatened to shoot considering what the suspect could be capable of. What do you think he was doing? Going in for a hug? This was either suicide by cop, or he was trying to get in close enough to do something.

By which you mean if he was white, the officer would have shown an overabundance of restraint?
What DO you mean by that completely different situation?

Agree that we disagree then.
I say statements about races are racist, since they are being divisionary by race. I say not all discrimination is discrimination against the target, but all discrimination is discrimination.
'Cry me a river' is not the same thing. If I heard him say 'little girls are all worthless bitches' but he really said 'some people think little girls are all worthless bitches, but they aren't' I would still think him a jerk for saying the offensive word to a little girl. I think that's closer to the topic. When a single word is the offensive remark, not the entire statement, context means less, and certainly not all.
When Mark Twain did it, yes it was racist, intentionally so, but also reflective of reality, so not wrong of him to portray racism as it existed.
As I said, most people tolerate a low level of racism, and intent also colors their response quite a bit. Because it's tolerable, even palatable, doesn't make a statement not racist.
Pryor was hilarious, and racist as shit! As I said, I think comedians get a 'pass' for being racist (EDIT: by which I mean SAYING racist jokes, not actually being racists) if they're funny enough. You are free to disagree, but you won't convince me his humor wasn't racist, not ever. That didn't make it not funny, or make him a bad person, it made him a comedian that used racism to expose and ridicule racism, as I see it. There's nothing wrong with that, unless you need him to be completely non-racist (a 1 on my earlier scale), then it's a big problem.
I don't need that from anyone, I just wish for a reasonable, non-hateful, non discriminatory (against people) level of racism from those around me (although even that can still be harmful, I know, but people are never perfect and I don't expect them to be).
Yes, I've heard people say that they would 'kill somebody', and didn't think they meant it. I tend to try and avoid those kinds of people, or at least correct them, as the unedited excessive anger is a sign of a lack of restraint. I wouldn't think them homicidal, anymore than I expect Pryor at a militant black panther rally, but I would think of them as lacking restraint and so possibly dangerous (at least somewhat unpredictable), just as I see Pryor as somewhat racist (ever hear him riff about honkeys? Hilarious...and SO racist!)

EDIT: BTW, Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman did a great episode about racism recently where they explained how even jokes between friends not meant or taken seriously can actually still tint how your subconscious sees race...making you (and those exposed) slightly subconsciously racist a little more each time you are exposed to negative portrayals, even when you know they aren't serious or realistic portrayals. It was a great and informative episode, I highly recommend it.

It seems to me that you folks think cops should be put in dangerous situations and it's always up to the cops to go the extra mile to protect the citizen.

But the cops will go the extra mile to protect themselves. That's a big difference.

You allow for all the misbehavior imaginable and then tell the cop to use Swedish style restraint under circumstances that are evolving rapidly.

Is that what you would do under the same circumstances?

I would contend that 100% of people who comply with the police do not get harmed.

When you engage in risky behavior, shit happens, like that deputy who shot the guy with his gun instead of his taser.

You demand perfection from cops while requiring nothing from the perpetrator.

Well, cops ain't perfect, so your results may vary.

That seems a little overboard.
That officer might have been injured if the suspect had a knife and the officer reacted the same way, but he had both backup and training to defend himself, so "would likely be dead if the suspect wanted him to be" is a big stretch, IMO.
That said, he did show amazing restraint and a willingness to accept a relatively high level of personal risk to avoid killing a civilian, both of which I applaud him for.
I certainly hope there isn't follow up where he's been reprimanded for not shooting.

What you have done is excuse each and every instance where a cop blatantly goes overboard and hurts or kills a citizen, and supported the lack of prosecution, and said that how they are treated is proper, not being prosecuted, or being allowed to kill with impunity. You never strung the exact words together, only the sentiment.

No, what you do is say "if" some ridiculous thing that isn't true "then they are justified." That's your MO, and how you excuse the inexcusable every time.

The cop in front had the same amount of time to decide and the best view of anyone, and decided backing off was clearly proper...he can be heard instructing the other cop to do just that...but demolition man decided he knew better from behind....so....

Hmmm...why don't you go down to the local crack house alone and unarmed and tell them how to act? The local crack heads have more patience, sense, restraint, and will listen better.

My point is cops no longer 'put their lives on the line to protect innocent people', they put innocent people's lines on the line to protect themselves these days, and that's the problem. 10 people killed by cops for every cop killed by citizens says it all.
(drops mic)

I would say they exercised too much restraint in that case, i credit them for their restraint, but i wouldn't want things to get far enough to have one of them get shot. Smack the crap out of a fighter with a telescopic baton, by all means, or pepper spray, or tazer.

Interesting though that it was their own gun that ended up escalating the physical confrontation into a firearm confrontation. However with the wild west nostalgia for gun laws over there, i can't see how you could send them out unarmed.

Here's a instance of police showing amazing RESTRAINT before being forced to shoot a civilian for good cause.
3 officers are violently gang attacked by a family of 7+ in a Walmart parking lot. Multiple times the officers are taken to the ground by multiple assailants, but they continue to try only non-lethal means of control for over 3 minutes of getting beaten down, at one point one cop actually kicks another in the head in the scuffle. They only resort to using lethal force when one assailant manages to take a cop's gun and shoots repeatedly, hitting the cop. Only then does another officer use lethal force against that single attacker, with a SINGLE controlled shot, then goes back to non-lethal methods of restraint on the remaining crowd. These officers acted the way I want all officers to act.

There's fairly graphic death, so it's snuff, so I won't sift it, but it can be found here....Warning, violent graphic death.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zv5Cbgn4TOU