That cop was WAY out of control, excessive force and threats, and failure to provide a business card; that poor citizen should sue the department, the officer, the county, and the state for mental anguish and/or lost wages...

Unless the dog magicked out of thin air he should have known it was there and not left the safety of his door until he could discern it's demeanor. Failing that he could have used his pepper spray on the thing. Not the nicest thing to do to the dog but a lot better than killing it.

Some supposition on my part: I think the lady knows full and well the dog is aggressive, for one I didn't hear her proclaim the dog was a little angel that wouldn't hurt a fly, owners of aggressive dogs always say that, especially the ones that let their dogs run free. For her not to say that likely means she knows full and well the dog wasn't running up to him to give him kisses. And seeing as she has a security camera I'm guessing she's the paranoid type who let's her aggressive dog run free to keep people away from her property. Which is fine if the dog can't leave the property, and warning signs are posted for you know mailmen, package delivery people, kids etc.

So while I blame the officer for not being cautious and using excessive force, I don't think he's some monster who gets his jollies by shooting people's dogs.

With a little sleight of hand, swapping a twenty for a ten from her left pant pocket out of view of the security camera, then ringing it up as a ten, then transferring the twenty to some hiding place when she walked out of the room, there's no way they could catch her by auditing the cash register, looking at the security tapes, or strip-searching her. You can't be 100% sure that she wasn't short changing the cop. Penn and Teller could easily pull it off. The cop probably saw it as resisting arrest. Common sense: If you don't wanna get pepper-sprayed by a cop, don't be yelling "fuck da po-lice" and resisting arrest. He used excessive force, but it was totally predictable and avoidable on the part of the cashier.

>> ^gwiz665:
Excessive force.



Judge: "What do you have to say about this case, officer?"
Officer: "It was dark, he had something in his hand,... yada-yada-yada,... we tased him to death. ... it turned out to be a hat, btw. I believe the hat had a bag of cookies in it..."
Judge: "Well, it was dark... you couldn't have known that at the time,... case dismissed!"

Excessive force.

>> ^SDGundamX:
And what happened before has EVERYTHING to do with excessive force. There are no rules out there that say "this is excessive, this isn't excessive." It's all relative to the situation.

Yes, it is all relative to the situation. Where does it say it is all relative to what happened prior to the situation? In the video you see a small woman who is clearly unarmed, what other evidence do you need? Irregardless (yes this is a word, albeit non-standard, it is used as the emphatic form of regardless) of her previous state (armed, hostile, criminal) she is currently unarmed and standing in place peacefully and clearly not a threat to a man twice her size in full riot gear with a gun, baton, taser, and mace at hand.

I'm surprised this hasn't come up yet, but here is a legal definition of excessive force:
"A law enforcement officer has the right to use such force as is reasonably necessary under the circumstances to make a lawful arrest. An unreasonable seizure occurs when a law enforcement officer uses excessive force in making a lawful arrest. Whether force is reasonably necessary or excessive is measured by the force a reasonable and prudent law enforcement officer would use under the circumstances."

Note that it says under the circumstances--as in, the current circumstances--not before or after, but exactly right when the force is applied. Given that definition, and the video, do you think there is any way a jury of your peers would consider that officer reasonable or prudent? Keep in mind he didn't even arrest her he just left her laying on the ground in writhing in pain afterwards.

>> ^SDGundamX:
And what happened before has EVERYTHING to do with excessive force. There are no rules out there that say "this is excessive, this isn't excessive." It's all relative to the situation.


Dude, you are quite wrong.

Words do not beget excessive force, no matter what state's police policy you look at.

Excessive force is not relative to anything other than police departments guidelines on excessive force, and no state's PD says it's OK to use this kind of force because someone said something you don't like.

Sheesh!

>> ^bamdrew:
Just punching at a lady with billyclub in-hand?
I thought U.S. officers had tasers and sprays and other advanced knickknacks to brutalize protesters? This is amateur hour stuff here.


I know this changes from state to state, but Indiana defines tasers as just less than lethal force. Id imagine that other states do as well.

Having recently discussed excessive force with a friend in the Indiana state police office, I can say that refusing to cooperate with police is often seen as a hostile action. When a offending party possibly has a weapon and is confrontational the first response is to remove and reduce the risk to all involved.

As code pick was in a crowd of citizens and officers alike and could possibly have a concealed weapon on her person, the slightest confrontational behavior will result in this type of action.

Sorry if your going to protest, respect those officers responsible for your safety. Its not likely that code pink will face criminal charges (unless she did threaten the officer) but neither will the cop.

TL;DR version: The video leaves to many questions to side with anyone.

>> ^imstellar28:
And for the 10th time, SDGundamX, what would be the point of finding out what she said beforehand--are you just curious or something? Because it has no bearing on the argument of excessive force.


10th time? I'd like to have what you're smoking, because this is the first comment I've seen from you addressing me. This video bills itself as showing what happened before the confrontation. It doesn't. So I pointed that out.

And what happened before has EVERYTHING to do with excessive force. There are no rules out there that say "this is excessive, this isn't excessive." It's all relative to the situation. So if you don't know what happened before that hit there can be no determination of whether the force was excessive or not.

But as I pointed out in the other thread, there can be a lot of jumping to conclusions and conjecture, which people still seem to be doing quite well. Does it look bad from the vid? Yeah, it does. But that's why we have a justice system to look into these things, interview witnesses, collect evidence, and ultimately find out what was actually said and done. I see no merit in arguing about whether excessive force was used in the vid or not when a) we don't have all the facts and b) we won't be the ones to decide anyway.

And yes, also, I am just curious about what happened before this as well.

>> ^imstellar28:
>> ^Payback:
Wow, this thread sure has people putting their heads up their asses. Jeez, this is a video rating site, not Capitol Hill...

Its a controversial video, in a political channel--what do you expect? If you're anti-intellectual, stick to the big boobs, nut shots, and fluffy bunny videos.


I'm sorry, do you have something to prove here?

From what i've read about your comments, you take things out of context and try to make some form of rebuttal against them.


"You clearly have no understand of the meaning of excessive force. Excessive force is judged, and is applied to the current situation only! It has nothing to do with past actions--it has to do with the current state of the arrestee. No matter how belligerent/criminal they were acting prior, if they are currently passive and cooperating you cannot apply force based on previous actions."

This seems to be a cover-up for the fact that you said that cops aren't allowed to do anything to someone who has been shooting cops.

"She could have shot 10 cops right before this, and they still could not have used that much force to arrest her."

Of which, two things. First, you only furthered their point about "But that doesn't mean that it would be excessive in every situation."

See, what I draw from that is, That much force can be used in certain situations and not be called Excessive, and that seems to be what you're trying to lecture them about.

And the second thing, If you think cops aren't allowed to use lethal force to subdue a target that's been shooting at officers, no matter how innocent they were in the first place, THEY JUST FUCKING SHOT 10 COPS. Lets even take cops out of the picture and replace it. THEY JUST FUCKING SHOT 10 PEOPLE.

There.

>> ^imstellar28:
>> ^anyprophet:
These types of videos always bring out the crazies who think we live in some kind of police state.

What is that, a joke? Rights don't mean anything unless you have them when you need them and in every single case in recent memory when someone actually needed them, they were violated. How is that not a police state?
Examples:
Confiscation of firearms during Katrina
Japanese sent to internment camps after pearl harbor
The American citizen who was sent to Guantanamo bay for several years.
Inability to protest in public (freedom cages)
Un-prosecuted Police Brutality



Ooo, a fun one now. Lets start with.. Oh, The guns, during Katrina. Now, you can keep in mind I'm canadian, and maybe we somehow think differently about these things up here.. But during a state of mass panic of the people, where mass disaster is happening, looting, all that fun stuff, I don't think it's a smart idea to have any form of firearm. All that's going to cause is more potential panic and destruction.

Japanese sent to internment camps? wow, we're really digging here aren't we. You are right for that point, their right to freedom was compromised, but that somehow doesn't fall under the category of "Recent Memory" to me. That more falls under the.. "There was a war going on at the time" category of things where lots of bad shit happened.

>> ^imstellar28:
>> ^Aemaeth:
>> ^charliem:
Its legal to defend yourself against a cop...hell you can kill a cop if they are arresting you and you are innocent.
Happened a few years back, guy got off any charges at all.

Wait, what? You can't be serious. What country is that in?
"I knew I hadn't been speeding, but he kept writing that ticket anyway, so I shot him."

Jesus you're ignorant. What is the difference between a cop and a criminal who approaches you, while you are minding your own business and not breaking any laws, and tries to utilize lethal force against you? Nothing! Unless the cops badge number is 007, he doesn't have a license to kill. If your life is in danger--from cop or criminal--you have a legal right to defend yourself. What country are you living in?


ohh... an attempt at a joke! It really wasn't funny.
Why don't we backtrack here to show the point they were making originally, but YOU were too ignorant to see it.

"She could have shot 10 cops right before this, and they still could not have used that much force to arrest her."

The main quote, by the way, really doesn't have anything backing it up, So far it's just someone saying "I heard once that..." which really has nothing to it. For all WE know, that's exactly what happened.

Other then that, their quote was a joke. That happens on the sift. a lot. They're usually funny... usually.

>> ^imstellar28:
If someone initiates lethal force on you, irregardless of the circumstances, you have the right to defend yourself with lethal force as well....
How hard is it to make a simple argument around here without a bunch of random, irrelevant crap spewed in response?
Yes gwiz665, I understand you would go to trial after killing someone. Yes I also understand shooting a cop who simply arrests you is not a valid self defense argument. Why are you even making these points?
And for the 10th time, SDGundamX, what would be the point of finding out what she said beforehand--are you just curious or something? Because it has no bearing on the argument of excessive force.


Who the fuck are you to stifle curiosity? For all we know she threatened the cop, she could have punched him in the face, she could have been weilding a tazer that miraculously got knocked out of her hands by a big boobed woman carrying a fluffy bunny, and then went on to hit some guy in the nuts. The cop, then seeing his opportunity finally struck back at the woman and saved his life and then went on to cure cancer.

We don't know every single detail of the circumstances surrounding the lethal force. You've taken up an "Innocent until proven guilty" stance, where as the rest of us are actually being optimistic.

Whatever your issue is, being it getting off by trying to correct people over teh interwebs, or thinking you're somehow superior to the rest of the sifters because YOU KNOW HOW TO USE BOLD! just save the asshole routine, and watch the video.

Oh, and just a P.S. don't bother quoting me and trying to make yourself seem like a big man. This post is long enough as it is without it being picked apart, also: I don't care about what you have to say in response.

And now, I'm going to go get some pie.

If someone initiates lethal force on you, irregardless of the circumstances, you have the right to defend yourself with lethal force as well....

How hard is it to make a simple argument around here without a bunch of random, irrelevant crap spewed in response?

Yes gwiz665, I understand you would go to trial after killing someone. Yes I also understand shooting a cop who simply arrests you is not a valid self defense argument. Why are you even making these points?

And for the 10th time, SDGundamX, what would be the point of finding out what she said beforehand--are you just curious or something? Because it has no bearing on the argument of excessive force.

>> ^Psychologic:
>> ^imstellar28:
She could have shot 10 cops right before this, and they still could not have used that much force to arrest her.

If she was shooting cops then I'm pretty sure they could have killed her on the spot.
His reaction was probably excessive (I still couldn't see what she did leading up to it), but that doesn't mean that it would be excessive in every situation.

You clearly have no understand of the meaning of excessive force. Excessive force is judged, and is applied to the current situation only! It has nothing to do with past actions--it has to do with the current state of the arrestee. No matter how belligerent/criminal they were acting prior, if they are currently passive and cooperating you cannot apply force based on previous actions.

>> ^NordlichReiter:
If you shoot at cops they are authorized to use lethal force. Don't make whimsical statements like that.

It is not a "whimsical" statement. She was clearly unarmed at the time the force was applied. Thus, my point was that no matter what she possible did prior to her current state, including shooting ten cops--there is absolutely no justification for what they did!

Just because you shoot a cop, doesn't mean they can use lethal force...if you shoot 10 cops then lay your weapon down and place your hands behind your head...they absolutely cannot use lethal force, or even much physical force at all if you are cooperating.

Think before you make "whimsical" statements.

How can any situation ever warrant the use of excessive force? I'm sorry but anyone who claims that wasn't excessive force is wrong. It does not take a high-speed baton to the chest cavity to arrest a 110lb unarmed woman who is standing peacefully.

Anything she did before could have only warranted an appropriate amount of force to be used. Period. She could have shot 10 cops right before this, and they still could not have used that much force to arrest her.

This should be pretty obvious--as the second time they confront her, with the intent to arrest her they easily drag her like a rag doll with one arm across the street. If it wasn't excessive force the first time, why didn't they slam her in the chest cavity again?

"The cyclist was acting illegally and may be charged, or not, depending on how embarrassing this gets for the NYPD."

What are you basing this assessment on? There is no evidence in that video that the cyclist is acting in an illegal manner. Do you have other evidence we have not seen? From the video it is apparent the traffic signal is indicating red--but there is no indication as to where the bicyclist originated from (a sidewalk, a side street, or the roadway) or whether he stopped at the traffic signal before preceding (as he is legally permitted by law).

Furthermore, the question could be raised as to whether the NYPD was acting legally (excessive force aside), as they may have legal obligations to control or direct the flow of traffic during an assembly, protest, or parade.

My old man was a cop for 30 years.
Excessive force would be whipping the guy with his baton if the guy was laying face down placing his arms behind his back...this guy was resisting arrest, so he got a beating, which got the cuffs on him.

Job done, quit whinging. They dont give cops those night sticks so they can just swing them from a rope and whistle.