@Jinx -- Whether in "meatspace" or on the internet, I think the difference is engaging with others vs being in the echo chamber.

A lot of "engaging" with others is going to be negative. Picket line meets picket line has about as much chance of being productive as reading the comments on a controversial YouTube video.

But even if the majority of the "engagement" is that, there are going to be some patient people who connect in a positive enough way to actually enlighten and persuade. Like the former-WBC lady's new husband.

And while that positive engagement seems to have the best shot at redeeming those that can be redeemed, it also might be the best way to show the true colors of those beyond redemption. The skinhead leader guy got maced by counter-protesters twice. That gives him a semi-legitimate provocation to respond in kind or with escalating violence (bloody knuckles, broken bones, whatever). But if he isn't provided with any such provocation and still resorts to violence, people can truly see his "idealogy" for what it is.

Hence Rosa Parks responding to the bus driver in Montgomery:
Driver - "If you don't stand up, I'm going to have to call the police and have you arrested."
Parks - "You may do that."


If I was there in Charlottesville in the heat of the moment, face to face with that kind of hate and bigotry, I'd have been one of the people chanting "fuck off nazis". I'd have cheered when somebody on "my side" maced chief-skinhead in the face, if I hadn't done it myself. ...But I recognize that we could sure use more people that react like Rosa Parks did, and less like I would have.

was it brave for him to drive his motorcycle over a cliff at 65?

was it a heroic act for that kid to help the old guy down the escalator? personally I thought that one was borderline racist

If he fell into the escalator machinery, he could be seriously injured, missing parts, or dead.

21. if you're a teleworker and I'm trying to help you over the phone don't give me vague descriptions like "I can't get to my stuff. I clicked on the thing and I can't get in now." I'm not in the room looking over your shoulder for the past 5 minutes, you need to describe the steps you took to get to where you are now. And don't give me this exasperated tone when I ask you to do something the Help Desk already asked you to do, like reboot your computer. You got a cab waiting?

22. Don't present a problem like "My FAX123 program won't connect" as if was working yesterday and stopped connecting today. When more likely you have been told many times your supervisor needs to request an account for you and you haven't bothered to start the process. And you think somehow I have the magic touch and can circumvent that whole process on the spot. And even if I could do it you would appreciate it for all of 3 seconds, then come to expect it every time. And so would your colleagues sitting within earshot.

23. Don't ask me to work on something without telling me another tech is already working on it and you just haven't heard back from them in a timely manner and thought you would start over with me.

24. Not everyone in IT knows each other and can do each others' jobs and are cross-trained on account creation, purchasing, application support, etc. So the guy at the home office in Virginia hasn't created your account after a week, you want me to drive there and stand over him? There are MBA's who get paid buckets to manage this mess, you want bottom-rung techs to somehow make it all better?

25. Make sure to follow the last instructions I gave you with troubleshooting an issue, like try it on a spare computer, or reboot, or try printing from a different app, etc. Because when you don't, and a week later when I get a high priority email from your manager saying "why is nobody helping them with this issue?" I will provide a record of our last contact where the ball was in your court.

26. You wonder why it's hard to get a hold me by IM, email or voice mail now? You no doubt wasted my time with one of the previous entries above, or sounded annoyed and impatient that I can't do everyone's job or escalate your issue instantly.

27. If you see me in the building don't ask me IT questions any more, I have moved on to SQL development.

I don't see what her crime is for the cop to start the arrest?
If she's initially arrested for running her mouth then why is the cop even on duty if that's all it takes for him to escalate the situation.

All I see in this video is a cop who oversteps his mandate, fails to de-escalate the situation and ends up assaulting a civilian when he should have just let them be.

And the cops wonder why they aren't trusted by the community!

I notice that even though their authority is challenged, they don't escalate except for after the one kick and then they back right down to having a chat again

You are wrong.
ANYTHING you say will be used against you. Time and time again officers use "hello" and "no, I don't know why you pulled me over" as excuse for escalation, claiming aggressive or impaired demeanor.

Rights only exist if exercised. They can and should be applied at all times. If they can only be invoked when one is guilty, then exercising them IS an indication of guilt, so that's not how they work.

She clearly told them what she was doing, there was no bank robbery, and she didn't look comatose or impaired.

This is nothing like your douchbag friends. They intentionally created suspicion, she stood on her right to avoid any suggestion of suspicion, and was arrested for contempt of cop plain and simple. There is no charge of "won't answer incriminating questioning"....not in America, maybe in China and North Korea.

Again, you show you simply don't understand legal rights....are you a cop?

So, you think it's proper to be arrested on suspicion of......nothing....based on a cop's biased judgement on how you look, but with ZERO crime committed?!? I'm incredibly glad you aren't a judge.

The really sad part is, this woman may get more for this violation than the family of the black man murdered for following officer's directions to get his ID....they got $3 million, but she's a white lawyer, so may fare far better in our system.

I seem to recall a sifted video of a cop pulling over a concealed carry dude, who told him that he had a firearm and a concealed carry permit, but otherwise refused to answer questions.

The officer in that video had experience that these 2 guys apparently lack, and was very skilled at figuring out what he needed to without escalating things and/or overreacting.

Some of that could be wrong, I'm fuzzy on it. If I could remember it more clearly, I'd search and see if I could find it to tag as related. As I remember it, it seemed like the perfect contrast to this one -- the right way to do things compared to this one being the wrong way.

She's lucky to have been taken into custody with all her teeth and without the beat down she would have gotten if she were a black or brown skinned male. Demonstrating a knowledge of the law has been proven to be the main cause of police escalating a minor road side stop to a violent and possibly deadly encounter if you are not white and male. Hope the settlement includes mandatory training for the municipalities police force.

If they tried and she didn't sit, fine, take the next step. They didn't try, they just went for escalation. She comes back when he told her to....she just didn't stay. After they grab her is when she stops following directions.

In the car, when and where they maced her, she's no threat and kicking no one.

If you believe they are there just to help you, cooperate. The prisons are full of people who did just that. They are not normal humans, they are authorities looking for infractions.

Funny, I've managed peaceful solutions even when assaulted at gunpoint because a cop made a mistake, and every other interaction I've ever had with them too. These days I don't speak, though, except to tell them I won't speak with them. That's civil enough, and serves me well.

Yes, that's where we differ, because she sure didn't seem to be trying to leave to me, just had an inability to stand still under stress, like many 15 year olds. (And as I've said, it's the macing a handcuffed, secured girl that's out of line imo, the manhandling was just more than needed and was certain to escalate problems rather than solve them, so not smart but on the low end of the scale of acceptability, the macing was a pure assault in my eyes, for no good reason beyond sadism. It was not the right way to get her in the car.)

Keep in mind, she gets on her bike and rides (slowly) with ZERO complaint from the officer she's right in front of, he LET her do it, then got pissed off that she did it. WTF?!
Again, this could have been solved with a simple command to sit down, a command they did not give. Also, detained is not under arrest. You are under zero obligation to submit to detention. If they thought she was leaving the scene, they should have arrested her. Instead, they said repeatedly that they were detaining her for 'cooperation of investigation' (not a crime) and a medical release (something they probably need for their own liability purposes, but not something they can arrest a person for as far as I know).

Yes, the little girl was in the wrong...did my saying exactly that confuse you?

Yes, I absolutely think that if an officer pepper sprayed another officer's child for something the first officer screwed up (like failing to put her all the way in the car) the parent would go ballistic and sue...no matter how their child had acted. Rude behavior is not a threat, the only legitimate reason to use force. I don't think they would see it like you do if it was their child.
Yes, they would also probably reprimand the child too, but bad manners do not excuse assault with a weapon on a handcuffed detainee.

There was no reason to use mace, the proper response is to pull her into the car from the other side.

Your analogy only works if the wolf hounds go after the sheep when there's not a wolf in sight.

Hours? Really? Try an extra 10 seconds to avoid 15 minutes of battle and days of court. "Sit down" doesn't take even that. If they don't have the patience to verbalize the instructions they want followed, they should quit. Deescalation is their job, and they absolutely failed, as they often do.

Remember, they repeatedly say they're only detaining her because she may need medical treatment, then they treat her in a way that ensures she needs medical treatment. If they were really trying to help her, they failed so utterly miserably that they all should quit today...but we know that was bullshit lies, right?

I'm guessing you've never had a gun to your head and a knee on your neck face down in a gutter because an officer made a mistake reading your licence plate and had zero patience for the car thief he was taking down, followed by threats of retaliation if you report them. You might give them less cooperation and leeway if you had.

Yes, and she does "come here", then he lets her get on the bike without telling her not to. It didn't look like an escape attempt to me, but may have to them. That's not the point, the point is they didn't tell her to stay there when she turned around and went back "here". It's clear to me that her problem is being touched by strangers, and had they simply told her to sit, no one would have had to touch her, and things would not have escalated.

Detained is not under arrest, so you can't be charged with resisting detainment. Ignoring the police is totally fine until they give a lawful command....one that doesn't end with "OK?".

Again, you're assuming she was trying to flee and not just being an OCD (ADD?) teenager trying to avoid being touched. That's how she appears to me, spoiled, trouble, disrespectful, yes, but also scared, troubled, confused, and under assault.

I do think they should stop her from fleeing, (if that's what she was trying to do) I just think they should start with "sit down" or "stay right there" before manhandling a child that's just been in an accident, especially if the contention is they are "detaining" her because she might need medical treatment. "Come here" is a command satisfied when she returns "there", it does not command her to stay anywhere, no matter how logical it is to infer that.

As a citizen, you do have the right to arrest her (which they should have done if they thought she was fleeing the scene, not just "detained" her) but you had better be able to totally justify any force you use to hold her...as should the police. The force used must be reasonable, minimal, only what's required to prevent escape, and on par with the crime she's being detained for. They might have 1 out of 4 covered in part if they stretch it.

My issue is far more about the pepper spraying her for not moving her foot rather than the manhandling, but I do think both were wrong and more about disrespect and power trips than trying to calmly handle the accident. ONce she was handcuffed and in the car, she wasn't escaping anything, nor was she a threat to anyone. The pepper spray was totally out of line. The rest is just questionable to me and absolutely not how you make the community support you, but probably not illegal.

Then doesn't that mean you agree?

If you say they didn't need to spray her, you agree the police escalated to using weapons for no good reason, making them the one's more out of control. You should expect more self control from an authority figure (or 4) than you do from a scared 15 year old girl (with OCD?), should you not?

Refusing on scene medical care is reason for arrest?!? In what world? That's just insanity, even for a minor. I'm lucky that wasn't the case when I was a kid. She sure didn't seem to need medical attention...until they got hold of her that is.

They say "you're being detained for cooperation of investigation", which is not a crime, and neither is not cooperating. They should not have let her back on the bike, and should have told her to sit if they needed her to stay until they contacted a guardian, they didn't say that until after pushing her around and handcuffing her. Even then they don't give a lawful command, they ask..."...OK?". If a cop ends his command with "OK?" it's not a lawful command, it's a request. They know this. It's at least their responsibility to give the command before attacking her for not following one, imo. She didn't seem to be trying to escape to me, but she shouldn't have been allowed back on the bike at all.

I saw no need to grab her, push her around, handcuff her, and continually escalate a battle with a 15 year old to use of pepper spray because she wouldn't move her foot. That was totally uncalled for, and was use of force for contempt of cop because they were feeling disrespected, not for their safety.

I do agree, she was seemingly in the wrong in the accident and not acting like an adult....but she isn't one. They are. They were FAR from calm or collected, evidenced by the repeated violent manhandling of a girl 1/2 their size, and spraying her for trying to comply with their earlier request instead of following the current one (listen, she's saying 'let me get my phone to give you my mom's number' when they spray her...twice). I think that's the part that will bite them in the ass, because she was not a threat in any way when they sprayed her, just annoying.

Well, I have to disagree. I hate brutality as much as anyone. This girl however was uncontrollable, and all they were trying to do was ask some questions. She was uncooperative, and wouldn't let them even close the car door. (putting her foot in the door).

She wouldn't give her information, and was refusing on scene medical care while under age.

I can agree maybe they didn't need the spray, but she escalated this, not them. She got herself arrested. The police were calm, and collected through the entire ordeal.

She had no reason to loose it, and to be uncooperative.
But wait, maybe she did..., does it say she was also charged with possession. Could be she was freaked out over what her parents were going to say or do - didn't want to get caught by her parents..., unfortunately it was too late for that - she just made it worse on herself.

Thailand, where I live now is called the "Land of Smiles". But I ran into some hiccups trying to fit in that conform to some of what the video said:

Basically, the "Land of Smiles" thing is pretty accurate -- generally Thais want to keep a (somewhat subdued) smile on their face. Even/particularly in frustrating/aggravating situations; Thais are extremely confrontation-averse and I think the smiling is a cultural adaptation to try to defuse those situations before they escalate.

BUT, when I first came here, I caught on to the "try to smile through all situations" culture but kind of went overboard on the enthusiasm in what I gather might be a typically American way. One time some Thais that I knew were introducing me to somebody that I hadn't met before. The new person didn't speak any English, and I couldn't speak much of any Thai at the time, so I was just trying to smile through the awkward second-hand introduction. Since I was just passively sitting back and smiling, the new person asked my friends if I was a "special person" -- a direct translation from Thai which means exactly the same thing that it does in English.

So I guess even in the "Land of Smiles", going overboard can make people think you're a bit dim...