Related news article:
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/article_e28e3c02-1829-11e0-8561-00127992bc8b.html

Just another reason to hate the po-po.

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by eric3579.

RESPECT MY AUTHORITY!

Details from the article linked --

The guy was an off duty police officer working security at the gas station.

The drunk guy had been a problem for quite some time before they ended up at the car.

The reason the cop was hitting him was because the drunk guy was holding onto the cop's ankles and only let go after he was pepper sprayed.

The cop was named in two other abuse of power complaints in the past. One was dismissed, one settled out of court for an undisclosed amount.

I sense an apologist in our midst.

*controversy

Adding video to channels (Controversy) - requested by MrFisk.

It amazes me that people think they can get away with mouthing off and abusing cops then when the cops finally respond they say "woah, abuse of power". Don't be a dickhead and you wont cop a beat down. Simple!

Really hope that's sarcasm..

>> ^NaMeCaF:

It amazes me that people think they can get away with mouthing off and abusing cops then when the cops finally respond they say "woah, abuse of power". Don't be a dickhead and you wont cop a beat down. Simple!

Oscar Grant

I've never seen a bigger collection of pansy-assed cowards in my life.

>> ^Opus_Moderandi:

I've never seen a bigger collection of pansy-assed cowards in my life.


That was my intention to responde to entirly since the video started. That twat in the back lights up a cigarret and the other just stands there and vaugly looks the other way periodically..

Badge or no badge... well I mean completely in that situation, so formal garments and badge alike, I would of went after the cop after the baton came out. That is not right and thats that. The people in the vehicle saying to be quiet.. Just a pathetic bunch of newbs. A badge does not give you the right to beat a person.

This video doesn't even show the guy getting hit. Yes, it shows the off-duty cop swinging a baton, but you can't actually see it hit the guy (meaning, you can't see what part of the guy's body is being hit, nor can you see how hard he might be getting hit). Also, you can't see him use the "pepper spray" either. All you see is a can in his hand - and we learn through narration that he was sprayed -- since the camera's pointed at the dash at the time. She says he has a bloody lip, but, you can't see the blood in the video.

Additionally, you can't see what the guy on the ground is doing.

I'm just sayin's all

Just because a cop uses force to subdue someone doesn't mean it's an abuse of power.

>> ^schlub:

This video doesn't even show the guy getting hit. Yes, it shows the off-duty cop swinging a baton, but you can't actually see it hit the guy (meaning, you can't see what part of the guy's body is being hit, nor can you see how hard he might be getting hit). Also, you can't see him use the "pepper spray" either. All you see is a can in his hand - and we learn through narration that he was sprayed -- since the camera's pointed at the dash at the time. She says he has a bloody lip, but, you can't see the blood in the video.
Additionally, you can't see what the guy on the ground is doing.
I'm just sayin's all
Just because a cop uses force to subdue someone doesn't mean it's an abuse of power.


There's a use of force continuum for a reason.

Just because we can't see what is going on doesn't mean that the officers use of a weapon is warranted.

What I saw was an escalation in force that was unwarranted which ended in the officer putting the lives of the perpetrator and his at risk. He was outnumbered and practically waylaying on a drunken idiot who was on the ground with friends who were there.

Here's how I would have handled the situation ask them to leave upon which no acquiescence I would contact the police and tell them there is a drunk and disorderly person on the property which I am protecting.

Being an off duty cop working security means that if you make an arrest that's double the paperwork. There's paperwork for the client in your contracted capacity and then paperwork for the police in your official capacity. Fuck that, if I'm off duty then the guys working that night can do the official paperwork.

He hits him with two vertical 'hammer' swings , then a further seven times with horizontal 'hooking' motions. He uses his full upper body and hips, as opposed to just arms, and backswings before each strike. Factoring in the annoying drunk hanging onto his ankles, it would be reasonable to assume he was hitting as hard as he could. However, he was hitting him on the arse, every strike. you can see it clearly on the video.
>> ^schlub:

This video doesn't even show the guy getting hit. Yes, it shows the off-duty cop swinging a baton, but you can't actually see it hit the guy (meaning, you can't see what part of the guy's body is being hit, nor can you see how hard he might be getting hit). Also, you can't see him use the "pepper spray" either. All you see is a can in his hand - and we learn through narration that he was sprayed -- since the camera's pointed at the dash at the time. She says he has a bloody lip, but, you can't see the blood in the video.
Additionally, you can't see what the guy on the ground is doing.
I'm just sayin's all
Just because a cop uses force to subdue someone doesn't mean it's an abuse of power.

Not all cops are bad. This one is.

Not all Nazis were bad. Just the ones that killed Jews.

Godwin bitches.

I knew someone would think that. I notice that can be knee jerk reactions to certain points of view expressed on the Sift.

My intent was to add background to the video. Timbrwulf did us a service by finding a news link. I knew that some portion of Sifters wouldn't take the time to read it.

So I summarized the salient points, so that the discussion could include some additional facts.

I worked very hard to not editorialize. I listed facts from the article.

Oh, but look. Someone in the Sift Community had a knee jerk reaction to a list of facts, as if facts were negotiable and indicated a point of view.

Your "sense" wasn't completely wrong. What you were sensing was someone who doesn't look at the world through black and white glasses, who as soon as the word Cop shows up thinks that they immediately know what is going on.

For the record, I hope this guy loses his badge. NordlichReicher has a great post above, reasoned and reasonable. Look at the facts and then conclude.

>> ^blankfist:

I sense an apologist in our midst.

I sense a self-righteous apologist in our midst.

I sense a bully in our midst.


>> ^blankfist:

I sense a self-righteous apologist in our midst.

>> ^jackhalfaprayer:
Not all cops are bad. This one is.


And yet, how many of this cop's peers will actually condemn his actions publicly? If you do not step up and actively stand against people like this in your midst, then you're complicit in their actions.

So yes, all cops who passively allow this type of action are bad. For those keeping track...that's all cops.

I saw a cop attack a young teenager once for simply being in a public space (with a skateboard that he wasn't using), then arrest him. The teenager only asked why he was being attacked and arrested. He didn't resist or provoke. Unfort I didn't have a device to record what happened. I wish I did. Total bullshit.

blankfist trollin hard

>> ^NordlichReiter:

There's a use of force continuum for a reason.
Just because we can't see what is going on doesn't mean that the officers use of a weapon is warranted.
What I saw was an escalation in force that was unwarranted which ended in the officer putting the lives of the perpetrator and his at risk. He was outnumbered and practically waylaying on a drunken idiot who was on the ground with friends who were there.
Here's how I would have handled the situation ask them to leave upon which no acquiescence I would contact the police and tell them there is a drunk and disorderly person on the property which I am protecting.
Being an off duty cop working security means that if you make an arrest that's double the paperwork. There's paperwork for the client in your contracted capacity and then paperwork for the police in your official capacity. Fuck that, if I'm off duty then the guys working that night can do the official paperwork.


A cop is a cop on duty or off. Like teachers, they are held to a higher standard than regular careers. Unlike the rest of us they do NOT have the right to ignore laws being broken. Like everyone else, they also do not have the right to break the law, but I was just pointing out a specific, important difference.

If you were a cop, and you did what you said you would, you could be penalized in some way. If anything, by your brethren who now think you're a pussy.

>> ^solecist:

blankfist trollin hard


http://troll.videosift.com/

"That dude touched me! Get me the cleaver!!"

There's one dude who wishes the cop had a Taser instead. ha ha ha.

>> ^TheFreak:

And yet, how many of this cop's peers will actually condemn his actions publicly? If you do not step up and actively stand against people like this in your midst, then you're complicit in their actions.
So yes, all cops who passively allow this type of action are bad. For those keeping track...that's all cops.


Yeah, looks like the article answered a few things. Your mistake tho, Freak, is assuming that people know *how* to fight something like this. You can't just go over and tackle the guy, that's assault. You can't yell at him either. Actually, the only thing that can be done is by the person who's being assaulted in this video. Repeat after me: "I'll cooperate in every way, officer, but..." Then after but, add things that are within your rights. "I'd like to be informed of what law I've broken." "I don't consent to a warrantless search." Or ask questions like. "Am I being detained?" Etc. Not many people are aware of how to do that.

"those who do nothing are complicit" is an interesting viewpoint, but not exactly fair to citizens who aren't always educated about what to do exactly. Since this is technically an off-duty cop, the people would be in their rights to report him or to go for a citizen's arrest... but who's going to take down the guy with a nightstick and pepper spray, for a stranger? and stay there all night? Nobody in that car. But they posted it, and the video will lead to more discipline. Therefore they did not stand by, they did something. By your definition, they are not complicit. Bravo, camera people.

Apparently the guy was grabbing his feet, and if his story collaborates with marks on the victims arms then it is probably the truth. Still, it is very excessive. Officer knew he was drunk, he wasn't violent, just being annoying. A normal response would have been to ask his friends to remove him and get him back in the seat, at which point I would prolly figure out whos driving or take to keys incase he was the one going to drive.

Either way I see several tickets on both sides of this fight.

Unnecessary note about the choice of narcotic used: imagine if he were paranoid instead of belligerent.

Did you guys see how awesome that cop was. Woot!

obvious troll is obvious

>> ^albrite30:

Did you guys see how awesome that cop was. Woot!

>> ^TheFreak:

>> ^jackhalfaprayer:
Not all cops are bad. This one is.

And yet, how many of this cop's peers will actually condemn his actions publicly? If you do not step up and actively stand against people like this in your midst, then you're complicit in their actions.
So yes, all cops who passively allow this type of action are bad. For those keeping track...that's all cops.


"While all of the circumstances of the incident are not known, what is seen on the video is extremely disturbing to us," St. Louis police said in a statement. "Force is to be used only when absolutely necessary and this department takes the use of force very seriously."

oops.

I try to explain his actions and I can't. Can you?

He was on fire and the nice police officer was trying to put it out with a combination of his anti-fire stick and some fire repellent.

Those sticks dont hurt that much. The solid ones do, but not the flick sticks.

>> ^charliem:

Those sticks dont hurt that much. The solid ones do, but not the flick sticks.


My understanding of the construction of these extensible batons is some sort of hard plastic/carbon fiber/whatever with a steel ball at the end.

IMHO the steel ball would still hurt pretty fucking bad when someone is standing over you and swinging in a downwards hammer motion.

>> ^charliem:

Those sticks dont hurt that much. The solid ones do, but not the flick sticks.


It's commonly called an asp, and it is considered a restricted weapon in most places outside the US and 3rd world countries.

I disagree. If there's one thing the Internet has taught me, it's that you don't fuck with US police. And you don't fuck with US military people. And you *definitely* don't fuck with the US foreign service nor any other branch of US government. Simply put; you don't fucking fuck with any authority figure remotely related to the US. If you do, you're fucked, and they will fuck you over till you die. So don't.

>> ^BoneRemake:

>> ^Opus_Moderandi:
I've never seen a bigger collection of pansy-assed cowards in my life.

That was my intention to responde to entirly since the video started. That twat in the back lights up a cigarret and the other just stands there and vaugly looks the other way periodically..
Badge or no badge... well I mean completely in that situation, so formal garments and badge alike, I would of went after the cop after the baton came out. That is not right and thats that. The people in the vehicle saying to be quiet.. Just a pathetic bunch of newbs. A badge does not give you the right to beat a person.

37 comments and no *nsfw invoke yet? Impressive.

This video has been flagged as being Not Suitable For Work - declared nsfw by brycewi19.

I agree I wouldn't have messed with the cop then unless it became life threatening/permanently damaging to the victim. The best thing would be to film things like this and get the cop in as much trouble as possible - that way you would not have ended up being arrested where your credibility goes down and any videos if already filmed will most likely be deleted before they see the light of day.

>> ^hugith:

I disagree. If there's one thing the Internet has taught me, it's that you don't fuck with US police. And you don't fuck with US military people. And you definitely don't fuck with the US foreign service nor any other branch of US government. Simply put; you don't fucking fuck with any authority figure remotely related to the US. If you do, you're fucked, and they will fuck you over till you die. So don't.
>> ^BoneRemake:

That was my intention to responde to entirly since the video started. That twat in the back lights up a cigarret and the other just stands there and vaugly looks the other way periodically..
Badge or no badge... well I mean completely in that situation, so formal garments and badge alike, I would of went after the cop after the baton came out. That is not right and thats that. The people in the vehicle saying to be quiet.. Just a pathetic bunch of newbs. A badge does not give you the right to beat a person.

>> ^bareboards2:

The reason the cop was hitting him was because the drunk guy was holding onto the cop's ankles and only let go after he was pepper sprayed.claims the gas station owner, employer of this bastard-cop, who wasn't present during the incident. hardly an objective party.

That's true. However, all the drunk guy's friends were just standing around watching their friend get beat on. I thought that was so weird when I watched the video. I couldn't imagine myself not yelling at a cop if they were beating on a friend lying helpless on the ground. So when I read the gas station owner's account (hearsay, as you noted), I thought to myself -- oh. I see. The cop was reacting to the guy.

Over-reacting. Reacting poorly. I hope he gets his ass-canned reacting. But still. Reacting to something.

So I believed the gas station owner's statement.

If he was lying, which you seem to think, there will be plenty of witnesses to prove him a liar in court.



>> ^mxxcon:

>> ^bareboards2:
The reason the cop was hitting him was because the drunk guy was holding onto the cop's ankles and only let go after he was pepper sprayed.claims the gas station owner, employer of this bastard-cop, who wasn't present during the incident. hardly an objective party.

Legs are so many times stronger than arms that it would be easy to break free of a drunk guy's grip on your ankle. Also he's swinging the bat a foot and a half away from his legs which doesn't really match the gas station owner's hearsay.

I think you are assuming that this guy isn't an assbite with anger issues who found a feeble excuse to whale away on the drunk guy. Of course he could have gotten away. He didn't want to.

I say it is a waste of time to speculate on whether the gas station owner lied or not. I find it highly unlikely that he would, with so many witnesses. But if you and mxxcon want to continue to think that, hey, it's a free country.


>> ^jwray:

Legs are so many times stronger than arms that it would be easy to break free of a drunk guy's grip on your ankle. Also he's swinging the bat a foot and a half away from his legs which doesn't really match the gas station owner's hearsay.

As I understand it that law is loosely interpreted given the circumstances. Sure peace officers are to uphold the law 24/7 but when they are out to dinner with their families? If an officer is ill equipped to deal with the situation then they should differ to those better equipped.

I'm also fairly certain that the laws applicable to officers differs from state.

As for this "If anything, by your brethren who now think you're a pussy," bullshit; courage is doing the right thing when everyone else is doing the wrong thing. Meaning don't let peer pressure or fictive kinship affect the way you handle a situation. It clouds judgment and muddies the waters making it impossible to uphold the law objectively.

While not the best source it is very interesting to see opinions of those who stand in the line of duty. Of the more cognitive writers in the forum linked below, most of those seem to agree that being a good witness is the best way for an off duty officer to uphold the law.

http://www.wikilaw3k.org/forum/Law-Enforcement-Police/Police-Officers-when-off-duty-346696.htm

>> ^Payback:

>> ^NordlichReiter:
There's a use of force continuum for a reason.
Just because we can't see what is going on doesn't mean that the officers use of a weapon is warranted.
What I saw was an escalation in force that was unwarranted which ended in the officer putting the lives of the perpetrator and his at risk. He was outnumbered and practically waylaying on a drunken idiot who was on the ground with friends who were there.
Here's how I would have handled the situation ask them to leave upon which no acquiescence I would contact the police and tell them there is a drunk and disorderly person on the property which I am protecting.
Being an off duty cop working security means that if you make an arrest that's double the paperwork. There's paperwork for the client in your contracted capacity and then paperwork for the police in your official capacity. Fuck that, if I'm off duty then the guys working that night can do the official paperwork.

A cop is a cop on duty or off. Like teachers, they are held to a higher standard than regular careers. Unlike the rest of us they do NOT have the right to ignore laws being broken. Like everyone else, they also do not have the right to break the law, but I was just pointing out a specific, important difference.
If you were a cop, and you did what you said you would, you could be penalized in some way. If anything, by your brethren who now think you're a pussy.