Now THIS should have been posted first. A lot more obvious what happened.

The mob, which is what it was after the guy who caused his hand to come in contact with the officer (probably the reason for the arrest, technically assault on an officer) and they arrested him, moved out into the street, which is against the law. The mob then tried to interfere with the arrest, which is also illegal. Then the girl defied an order by the cop in question to move back "bitch" when she didn't, hit hit her, with what I always thought was too much force, but couldn't be sure wasn't warranted with the info provided before.

This video did not come out first. So we got it after.
Payback you are wrong, the officer violated his authority.
The cops did wrong here, they fucked up a simple snatch and grab.
They gave up tactical advantage by entering the crowd.
The crowd moved into the street after they began the arrest.
Just arrest her, do not strike her.
Do not strike any one, just arrest them, that's how it should be done and that's how they trained us.

The officer in charge put the lives of his men and the lives of civilians in danger by adding a mixture: of outnumbered cops, angry protesters, and questionable arrests.

Do not be fooled into thinking that an officer of the law is above the law, they are not. Simply touching an officer does not warrant an arrest. It is not assault unless that person has aggressively acted on the officer, that means a grab, punch, slap, push etc.

If I would have detained half the citizens that touched me I would have still be doing the paperwork on them.

This is what happens when you don't enshrine a citizen's right to defend themselves against law enforcement officers in your constitution. Cop acts outside their moral authority, any person present should have the right to punish them there and then, with a savage and crippling beating. Cops think they can do whatever the fuck they want, and any time there isn't a camera pointed at them they're absolutely right.

Every person has the right to defend themselves against the immoral aggression of any other person, whoever they are. If we lived in a moral society, and that crowd had any balls, they would have charged the pigs and taken their people back from the arms of their enemies.

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?

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.

These types of videos always bring out the crazies who think we live in some kind of police state.

>> ^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.

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

anyprophet:
http://democratequalssocialist.wordpress.com/2008/01/12/how-to-catch-wild-pigs-2/

How do you catch wild pigs?

Make a nice place for them to eat.

Each day they come to eat put a fence up. One side at a time so that they are used to the fence.

Then when all three sides of the fence are up, and they come back to eat one more time, slam the gate shut.

Yeah, so code pink, ineffectual as always, has missed the real issue to protest-The diversion they create by protesting symptoms of a problem, rather than helping effect solutions with complete information, takes the eyes off the inevitable-

If anything, as gorillaman points out, they are a barometer for what is to come not only in the US, but hell....these motherfuckers own the planet-

up vote for consciousness-Code Pink? Damn, you guys really aught to get yer heads outta yer asses and direct that passion and frustration at the Wizard.....He ain't wearin' pants ...

>> ^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.

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


Getting closer every day.

>> ^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

>> ^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."

>> ^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?

One might take a look at our Capitol for any evidence of a police state. We see: barricades, metal detectors, police, military soldiers at times, dogs, ID badges required for every move, vehicles checked at airports and throughout the Capitol. The people are totally disarmed, except for the police and the criminals. But worse yet, surveillance cameras in Washington are everywhere to ensure our safety

Almost all of our economic activities depend upon receiving the proper permits from the federal government. Transactions involving guns, food, medicine, smoking, drinking, hiring, firing, wages, politically correct speech, land use, fishing, hunting, buying a house, business mergers and acquisitions, selling stocks and bonds, and farming all require approval and strict regulation from our federal government. If this is not done properly and in a timely fashion, economic penalties and even imprisonment are likely consequences.

Because government pays for much of our health care, it's conveniently argued that any habits or risk-taking that could harm one's health are the prerogative of the federal government, and are to be regulated by explicit rules to keep medical-care costs down. This same argument is used to require helmets for riding motorcycles and bikes.

Not only do we need a license to drive, but we also need special belts, bags, buzzers, seats and environmentally dictated speed limits- or a policemen will be pulling us over to levy a fine, and he will be toting a gun for sure.

All 18-year-old males must register to be ready for the next undeclared war. If they don't, men with guns will appear and enforce this congressional mandate. "Involuntary servitude" was banned by the 13th Amendment, but courts don't apply this prohibition to the servitude of draftees or those citizens required to follow the dictates of the IRS- especially the employers of the country, who serve as the federal government's chief tax collectors and information gatherers. Fear is the tool used to intimidate most Americans to comply to the tax code by making examples of celebrities. Leona Helmsley and Willie Nelson know how this process works.

All our financial activities are subject to "legal" searches without warrants and without probable cause. Tax collection, drug usage, and possible terrorist activities "justify" the endless accumulation of information on all Americans.

Government control of medicine has prompted the establishment of the National Medical Data Bank. For efficiency reasons, it is said, the government keeps our medical records for our benefit. This, of course, is done with vague and useless promises that this information will always remain confidential- just like all the FBI information in the past!

Personal privacy, the sine qua non of liberty, no longer exists in the United States. Ruthless and abusive use of all this information accumulated by the government is yet to come. The Patriot Act has given unbelievable power to listen, read, and monitor all our transactions without a search warrant being issued after affirmation of probably cause. "Sneak and peak" and blanket searches are now becoming more frequent every day. What have we allowed to happen to the 4th amendment?

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr062702.htm

Gorillaman, in modern political philosophy, the state has a monopoly on the use of physical force that is non-negotiable. If a party believes an arrest is unjust, there are legal motions that can be started, but it presents obvious problems to say anybody has the right to simply "charge the pigs and take their people back."

I'd like to see protesters getting proactive instead of just getting angry repeatedly, because the current situation is a waste of everyone's time and energy.

Are there national protesting organizations that are involved in the city's planning process for protests? That seems like a concrete and achievable goal that protesters could work toward, as opposed to vague philosophical goals like "speak truth to power."

>> ^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?


Your life is not in danger if a cop is arresting you and you are innocent, thus you are most definitely not allowed to shoot him. You are allowed to defend yourself, if you are threatened, but not for being arrested. Your second and first comment are not coherent, they describe two different examples.

If a cop fires at you and you shoot him, you will go to trial, but be acquitted. You can't just shoot a cop (or anyone else, for that matter) and just go about your own business again.

This video still doesn't show exactly what was said or what happened between the officer and the woman before he pushed her back. All those cameras and nobody caught it on tape?

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.

>> ^chilaxe:
Gorillaman, in modern political philosophy, the state has a monopoly on the use of physical force that is non-negotiable. If a party believes an arrest is unjust, there are legal motions that can be started, but it presents obvious problems to say anybody has the right to simply "charge the pigs and take their people back."


I'm familiar with the term. The monopoly on force is the most corrosive lie in our political system. I find it an inherently immoral idea; in fact I believe you are committing a crime by endorsing it.

Discarding modern obfuscations of ethics for a moment, the simple fact of our existence qualifies us, necessarily and automatically, for certain rights, whether they are acknowledged and respected or not. The only way a person can ever lose those rights is voluntarily to give or trade them away. If a government requires a monopoly on the right to defensive and, by extension, punitive force, it must obtain, without coercion, each citizen's informed and deliberate abdication from authority over their own lives.

Law is a tool to be used on children. Men act according to absolute rational morality.

>> ^gorillaman
Men act according to absolute rational morality.


Swish.

There is an absolute morality. All human beings have the power to discover it through reason.

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

>> ^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.

The head is always wear it shoont be, oppp mine own ass....and so ares yers.....

>> ^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.

>> ^Shepppard:
And now, I'm going to go get some pie.


What? No sandvich?

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.

I see, so you are an authoritarian? From that perspective, I can understand all of your points.

>> ^imstellar28:
If someone initiates lethal force on you, irregardless of the circumstances, you have the right to defend yourself with lethal force as well....


I think you mean "unregardless".

People who mock the notion that American is or is becoming a police state need to wake the fuck up. What will it take?

http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/08/31/2140252

I'm glad we have Code Pink. I'm too young to remember the hippie war protesters during Vietnam, so it's nice to see idiot retards again in this day and age.

>> ^calvados:
>> ^imstellar28:
If someone initiates lethal force on you, irregardless of the circumstances, you have the right to defend yourself with lethal force as well....

I think you mean "unregardless".


Methinks it's just regardless, not even sure that unregardless is a word. I think the original word he may have been looking for is irrespective. Little mash up there. Sorry to be condescending!

>> ^alien_concept:
>> ^calvados:
>> ^imstellar28:
If someone initiates lethal force on you, irregardless of the circumstances, you have the right to defend yourself with lethal force as well....

I think you mean "unregardless".

Methinks it's just regardless, not even sure that unregardless is a word. I think the original word he may have been looking for is irrespective. Little mash up there. Sorry to be condescending!



Uh, yeah, I was being droll.

LOL?

oops redacted

^ I'm sorry! I actually thought you were a moron

>> ^Shepppard:
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.


There needs to be a name for this tactic, like there is for Godwin's law. If you compare something to Nazis, you automatically lose the debate. Similarly, if you make a huge rambling post and then finish it off by saying "don't bother replying because I don't care to read your response", you automatically lose. This is the interweb version of taking your ball and going home. You have just admitted you can't win, even if you are actually in the right.

Let's call it Wilder's Internet Debate Corollary Number 7, just for the sake of brevity.

>> ^alien_concept:
^ I'm sorry! I actually thought you were a moron



Alien! How could you??

/snif!

>> ^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.

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.

>> ^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.



mmmm big boobs....

>> ^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.

thats ok im sure the state will have another attempt at getting better officers after those 2 sue them for every penny the police force is worth.

>> ^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!

>> ^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.

where are the protesters? i just see reporters and tv crews