>> ^DerHasisttot:

>> ^MaxWilder:
Every single story described somebody fleeing or resisting. I have no sympathy for them.

A human being died for running away. A HUMAN BEING DIED FOR RUNNING AWAY!


Wrong! A human being died for being stupid! Happens every damn day. He resisted arrest, fled the scene, then FOUGHT with an armed police officer!

I'm not saying he deserved to die. But when you're an idiot, and you fuck with somebody who's got a gun, then don't be surprised if that's the end for you.

You obey the officer. If you are wrongfully arrested, you file a complaint and sue later. Or you can risk a painful death. Choice is yours.

I got no sympathy for him.

>> ^MaxWilder:

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


A human being died for running away. A HUMAN BEING DIED FOR RUNNING AWAY!

>> ^NordlichReiter:

It's about time that cops started getting punished to the fullest extent of the law. No more Blue Code of Silence, no more complicit judges, and no more bullshit.
The Executive Branch is supposed to be separate from the Judicial Branch.
At 2:25 is that an abrasion to her head? Looks like a red patch if that's damage caused by the arresting officer his ass should be fucking grass.
This is un-fucking-believable.


No, it's about time people start to realize that the Code of Silence has been deteriorating for YEARS. But the social machine never adapts fast, so people were oblivious based on past prejudices. No offense Nord, but even if cops changed, you wouldn't notice for a long while...

Nowadays, with cameras everywhere, cops can't afford to have each other's backs (Which is a good thing.) You lie on a report, or you lie for someone else, and you cannot be trusted in court, so you get suspended or fired. In excessive force like this--and when you tell the truth--usually you just get suspended.

Let's review some things that hold officers more accountable. GPS in their cars. It's to make sure they actually work. Dash cameras? They watch the officers 24/7 when they pull over criminals. Someone once said that those dash cameras were to protect the officer? Really? What a douche he was... Scrutiny of reports, outside boards for review of cases relating to misconduct, etc...

And these, GPS, dash cameras, etc., have been around for years. Yet nobody has cared to applaud them... In most cases, these safeguards are not mandated by anything besides a department...

@blankfist

The question is simple, I'm asking you to explain to me, what in your eyes explains the astronomical rate of death where firearms are involved in the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

I have provided quantitative data showing that you both have the highest death from firearms rate in the developed world, and the highest gun ownership rate in the world.

As far as I'm concerned, I think there's a blatant link between the two. You seem to not.

Where is you proof? You suggest motives play a part. Of course they do. All that's left is for you to demonstrate how they explains the gargantuan difference in gun murder rates between the US and any other developed country. Do you think that Americans are egregiously more violent than people in any other developed country?

Let's be honest here, you certainly haven't convinced me (or for that matter provided any actual evidence to support your claim) that the stupendous gun murder rates in the US are caused exclusively by a police state using excessive force or neighbourhood insecurity. I doubt that you really believe that yourself.

If you want to have a genuine conversation about this I'm up for it, but otherwise I feel like I'm wasting my time.

@GeeSussFreeK

I'm curious what your answer to the question above is too.

@RedSky, I haven't answered your question because I'm not sure I know the answer. I'm not sure it's fair to assume its the result of firearms just because a gun was involved. There's motivation to consider. Some feel one-sided and one-size-fits-all government legislation and protectionism keep them poor, limit opportunity and ultimately disenfranchise them.

It's a loaded question, because it requires a lot of discussion that won't easily fit into a yes or no answer. I'll just say statism creates victims. It's a system that must steal to legitimize itself, and by majority vote polices morality (sin tax, prohibition on prostitution, drug laws, etc). We've seen the militarization of the police thanks to heavy funding from the Pentagon.

Maybe the police state is paranoid of its armed citizenry and uses excessive force more than necessary? Maybe incidents are quickly escalated by the police and there's a growing distrust from the less fortunate neighborhoods?

@Jinx Wow that's so the same. Because this was a normal scenario that happens every day. You know what does happen every day? People walking out of stores with stolen shit. Happens EVERY SINGLE MUNDANE day. And these people are used to it. Were they excessive after it was quite obvious he was deaf? Yea. Unreasonable excessive force after the fact. But how do you tell a squirming, confused deaf guy that's fighting for his life to please get up and come with you to your office to sort things out? Do YOU have any ideas that are practical and can be used in the heat of the battle? No, you're at your computer with Cheeto fingers.

>> ^budzos:
Sometimes I wonder about people. Are we all watching the same video?
You can't just decide a cop is in the wrong and start interfering with an arrest. The girl who got punched in the face DID grab the cop by the arm. I think the cop was perfectly justified in suddenly and forcefully asserting his authority. If he had failed to assert himself immediately, the situation might have gotten even uglier.
You can stand around yelling at the cops all you want, but seriously the moment you grab one, you've earned a punch in the face.


And then what would have happened to the camera? It would have been shut off and a story made up by each different "innocent" bystander. (I agree with what you say 100%)

With the reactions to cops in most communities - I mean look at the comments in the other video for instance - I can understand if he felt threatened when a crowd gathered around.

For once, this was a good cop in a bad situation, not a bad cop making a bad situation.

*quality

>> ^longde:

The officer wasn't alone.
The area was crowded with law-abiding citizens.
>> ^volumptuous:
btw: You can see the pedestrian overpass just in front of the cop car, that people are supposed to use to get to the other side of this street.
From what I've read, a lot of assholes in the area just jaywalk, and taunt cars as they do, so the local precinct decided to try to crack down on it, which leads us to this story.
Also in this video, you can clearly hear someone in the background saying "there's gonna be a riot right here". Real, real nice. I'll bet the officer was very happy to hear that, especially being alone.

The officer wasn't alone.

The area was crowded with law-abiding citizens.
>> ^volumptuous:
btw: You can see the pedestrian overpass just in front of the cop car, that people are supposed to use to get to the other side of this street.
From what I've read, a lot of assholes in the area just jaywalk, and taunt cars as they do, so the local precinct decided to try to crack down on it, which leads us to this story.
Also in this video, you can clearly hear someone in the background saying "there's gonna be a riot right here". Real, real nice. I'll bet the officer was very happy to hear that, especially being alone.

>> ^MaxWilder:

1. Wow, this thread has sure brought out the crazy in a lot of people.

2. Of course this situation could have been handled better if this guy had better training,

3. but if it wasn't for the atmosphere of disrespect toward officers that some in this thread are exacerbating, this situation would not have ever happened.


1. I agree.

2. So why not just get all officers better training. This seems to happen quite a bit.

3. You sincerely think it's our outrage at a situation which under any other context would be consider 'uncalled for' is the reason cops are disrespected? Instead of say - the entire history of police corruption and misconduct. Seriously?!

Being a cop doesn't give you the right to be violent whenever you feel like it. There's no excuse.

If you can't handle a jaywalking teenager without excessive forceful you shouldn't be a cop.

If you don't hold cops accountable when they overstep their duties, you give them a superiority complex which inevitably leads to abuse.
Zimbardo's Prison experiment proves that.

Laws don't mean shit if there's a double standard.
Max, you can't comprehend how that's more important then arresting some jaywalking idiot?!

It's a shame that the cop that did the punching was the first one to get away. I have mixed feelings about this; while I didn't like to see the other cop getting hurt, it was fantastic to see the people standing up against excessive force.

Really, a pitch invasion by a single fan is part of the game; while it may be inconvenient for the stadium staff it's just a bit of fun. All of which is a complete world away from police intervention and physical attacks, yet they felt the need to take it down to that level.

If there's any kids in that crowd, or even watching on tv; what are they learning about the police?

>> ^MrFisk:

Rage against the machine.


I wish it would happen more often when excessive force is being used against the apprehended. I have to think about that statement a bit because I hate to see anyone get hurt, but if you have a dude on the ground and five LEO's on top of him at the neck, torso and legs and one of them is punching him with a nightstick because he won't "comply", I don't really have a huge amount of sympathy for their point of view.

>> ^dedstick:
Blah, blah, blah! What the fuck are we gonna do about this shit and when. That is the only topic I'm interested in. And the sad thing is - is that I don't have any good suggestions.


Really? How's this suggestion...Boycott Missouri or at least Columbia Missouri until the officers involved are publicly convicted of at least cruelty to animals, child endangerment, excessive force, and illegal discharge of a firearm and loose their jobs without pension or other benefits. Send an email/letter to the Columbia, Missouri chamber of commerce telling them that's your plan, then follow through.
admin@columbiamochamber.com
Columbia Chamber of Commerce
(573) 874-1132
300 South Providence Road
Post Office Box 1016
Columbia, Missouri 65205-1016
Cancel any travel plans you might have had to visit Missouri. If you find yourself on a website of a company based in Missouri, find a different company to purchase from and write the company to tell them why you are not going to do business with them. Guaranteed, if this starts hurting their economy, they'll fix the problem and ensure it doesn't happen again, quickly. That goes for any other state that protects it's agents when they commit violent crimes against citizens or their property instead of prosecuting them.
It seems like a no brainer to me. Hit them where it hurts, the wallet. I don't think Missouri is doing so well economically that they can afford to stop doing business with animal and/or child lovers and rational non-violent citizens nation wide for long. Evil may thrive when good people do nothing to disuade it.
That's my plan anyway...

I keep wondering why no one seems to bring up the point that these officers were in full armor, and so there was no danger of injury from either dog. If the pit bull was caged as reported, there was no danger (other than to their ear drums) and a corgie isn't dangerous to a naked man, much less someone in full kevlar, knife proof armor head to toe. There is no reasonable excuse they can offer for shooting the corgie.

And to answer riewan's last comment, most people of color (black, Mexican, Arab, etc.) with or without bald tires are (unfairly) associated with weapons by many people, especially those in law enforcement. There are certain undisputed facts here, like the shooting of the corgie, that can't be reasonably defended under any circumstances.

Took me awhile
Your last question seems like the first I should answer, so no, I'm not part of any Israeli online initiative, nor am I aware of one (I'll probably look it up after I post this to satisfy my curiosity).

I'm no expert on the other two questions.

I'm assuming that what you refer to is that the inequity of the death tolls and injuries seems to create an image of excessive force. That image is not necessarily true - you can't deduce the usage of excessive force from that inequity, given the terrorists lack of care for civilian lives on both sides, and the nature of a conflict between an organized army and guerrilla warriors. That inequity also does not reflect the harsh reality of people living under constant threat of terrorist attacks before the conflict (or, to be fair, the harsh reality of Palestinians living in Gaza).

The vote you're referring to is the vote to support the Goldstone report, which the Israeli government considers biased. I honestly don't know enough about the report to verify that claim. It should be pointed out though that Israel traditionally has very little support in the UN, so this vote does not necessarily reflect whether the report is true and its recommendations appropriate.

I don't beleive kicks are justified at any point unless the officer is fending off an attacker, which this was clearly not. This is why they go to police training to learn submission holds and pressure points; its knowledge to safely take control of the people and the situation, safely for both the cops and suspects. This just escalates and promotes violence rather than stopping it. Watching that predator hand weapon video makes me wonder why cops even need to use excessive force that could seriously hurt or kill someone (even though they might be breaking the law, its not worth killing someone over a bar fight)when they could just use the predator to quickly force someone to submit. A hard full force kick to the torso is not the answer.


>> ^kurtdh:

The video isn't clear enough to understand if the first kick was justified. The second kick on the second individual, however, seems like it could be justified. When the man was told to lay on the ground and put his hands behind his back, he refused to do so. Even when one officer was attempting to get the individual to put his hands behind his back, the individual resisted and struggled to keep from being arrested. I don't know if the arrest itself was justified, but that is completely besides the point. When you're given an order by law enforcement and you don't comply, they have the right to increase their level of force according to the matrix of force they are taught in the academy. If the second individual didn't want to get kicked in the ribs, he should have followed the directions of law enforcement from the beginning and not resisted arrest.