what are you talking about? did we watch the same video? Have you read my previous comments? I feel like there a ton of anti-establishment Americans in here that don't even read what I wrote and get all up-in-arms just because of the subject matter.

I never said the cops were right to arrest, or that she should cooperate with an illegal search or detainment. In fact I said the opposite. But, I am saying her ridiculous, uncalled-for behavior upfront exposed her to a much greater chance of being harassed by inexperienced/incompetent cops.

I have no sympathy for people who instigate to seek out conflict just as in my previous example which does apply.

you say "She clearly told them what she was doing", but no, she does the completely unnatural and suspicious silent treatment from the get-go, when pulled over for a routine-appearing traffic stop.

You start your response with "you are wrong". That is a pretty close-minded statement. Especially when you make so many incorrect assumptions and missed so much of what I've already said? I'm not going to assume you are wrong about this encounter because we don't have all the facts about what caused the stop, but I can say you (and a few others here) are getting what I'm saying wrong.

I'm torn by our pulling out of Paris. I think it's critical that we all cooperate to reduce our Co2 emissions. But I also understand that at least what China offered (not) to do is the single biggest factor in our future success (failure).

Their "reductions" are tied to points of GDP compared to 2005 levels, meaning that they can either reduce their emissions, or grow their economy faster than their emissions grow. The latter is what is happening.

Their contribution is to try to have their reliance on coal "peak" by or prior to 2030. At the moment, they are emitting over 30% of the world's Co2, with the US at about 17%. But even when and if China's Co2 emissions peak, they almost certainly won't fall...they will plateau. As we speak, China is building dozens of new coal-fired power plants...and these new plants, along with those already built, have life spans of at least 50 years. So when you hear talk of China's already reducing their emissions, they aren't speaking of real reductions, rather lowered percentages as a ratio of growing GDP. For example, China emitted over 5,800,000 kilotons of Co2 in 2005, and 10,600,000 kilotons in 2015. Yet China's nominal GDP was only US$2.3 trillion in 2005, and a whopping US$11.1 trillion in 2015. So as a ratio of GDP, China's emissions appear to have decreased. The opposite is true, and they'll continue this farce for as long as possible. Now, some will answer with things such as:

A. But America pollutes more per capita!
B. But China deserves to have a per capita GDP that rivals that of the US!
C. You should be comparing GDP per capita or PPP!

To which I answer...our planet's climate and environments don't give a damn about these abstractions. What matters is the TOTAL amount of greenhouse gases being emitted.

So, I guess we won't keep warming under two degrees Celsius. Because it's more important that China's per capita GDP of about US$8,000 grows to match the US$56,000 of the US. In effect, if populations stayed the same, and the US economy stagnated...we'd need to wait for China's nominal GDP to grow to US$77.7 trillion compared to the US's $17 trillion.

Let me just add that if China were allowed to grow that powerful, polluting all the while, then the free nations of our planet would have graver problems than climate change.

You may think that China is a poor country without the current means to effect a major transition. To which I'll answer that their government and state-run corporations could stop buying foreign businesses and real estate, as well as not building more missiles, planes, rockets, blue-water navies, and man-made islands...and perhaps put those funds toward an honest shift toward green energy.

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.

So some of you Americans honestly believe this is the correct way to police a neighborhood community? Or are you all trolls?

This is close to incarceration for jaywalking or shooting someone for wearing a hoodie and being black.

Look at how many officers and what effort and time it takes to solve the case of a scratched car at a crossroads scene and how they manage to make a meal of it.

At 3 minutes into the video they are exactly one competent cop, two calm sentences and one phone call to parents away from not having to deal with the ensuing fracas. Even if they did everything by the book they will be remembered as assholes.

The message the girl gets is she should have tried harder to get away sooner because cops are pigs (even when they try to do things right and have a camera).

Policing a community is much easier (or only possible?) if people want to cooperate and trust the policemen to not be arrogant douchebags waiting for 15yr old girls to "make their day".

Possession of marihuana - she should be glad to be alive. Go watch Fort Apache, the Bronx one more time.

I don't really understand why you think that ordering her to sit down would have somehow made her cooperate. The video shows her repeatedly ignoring everything the cops say. Her behavior wouldn't just magically change if the cops said "I order you to sit down." You even said yourself that an irrational girl isn't going to act rational.

As for her posing "zero threat," that's not true at all. She was throwing a tantrum and kicking the cops. They needed to detain her because she was a suspect in a crime and she was physically resisting, posing a threat to others and herself. Just because someone is unarmed doesn't mean they are harmless.

Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. You may have the legal right to ignore a cop that isn't officially arresting you but from a practical standpoint, that's a pretty stupid thing to do. It makes much more sense to be civil and cooperative, just like in any other interaction with human beings.

The fact that you proudly proclaim that you don't talk to cops shows a pretty clear bias against cops. Then you say you hope you get arrested so you can make money. With that mentality, it's pretty clear that you aren't interested in peaceful resolutions.

If you really think this would have been prevented by one simple command from the officer, you are clearly not looking at this objectively. The other officer is talking to her on the bike when the camera-wearer walks up, and she just walks away from the conversation. She had no interest in talking to them and a simple request wasn't going to change that.
"Also, detained is not under arrest. You are under zero obligation to submit to detention."
Wrong. Investigatory detention is a thing, and not always voluntary. When they announced they were detaining her she should have let them cuff her without resisting.

https://www.flexyourrights.org/faqs/how-long-can-police-detain-you/

The other person trying to help her who is later warned to back off even tells her "don't make it worse than it is". As the girl began to overreact more and more the cops could have tried to get this man to calm her down and explain how things work and that it was in her best interests to cooperate.

I think the reason they were so insistent on getting her parents down there instead of just her identification was that they are legally required to release a minor to the parents' custody if an injury is possible. They are responsible for her health after detaining her, and if she had a broken vertebrae or something not obviously visible from the crash and they just let her walk away, then they definitely would get sued if there was a later complication. An adult can refuse medical care, a child cannot. Blame the lawyers, not the cops here.

With so many better examples of terrible policing easily found, it's odd that this one is so popular.

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.

We really do see an entirely different world.

What I see originally happening here is a dispute/conflict between two citizens. The driver and the cyclist. There was a collision that damaged the car and maybe the cyclist. The cyclist is a minor, and the only account we get on video is the driver fairly insistent they were the ones that got hit when the cyclist ran a traffic sign. Blame on that doesn't matter to the video though because the police aren't meant to address blame and never attempt to.

Do we agree on the above preamble view of what happened at least? I think we do, so I'll pick up with that assumed.

The cyclist does not want to cooperate with the required exchange of information for insurance and liability purposes. So presumably the driver got the police get involved. This is exactly what I think we all should want. Rather than expecting the parties involved resort to their own use of force, we want to defer that to trained police officers. This is preferable for either party to simply being victimised with no recourse for injury to the cyclist if the driver's at fault or damages to the car if the cyclist is.

I again would hope we are still on the same page at this point, lets call it point B?

If I understand right, we now diverge in that I believe when office says come here to the cyclist, the cyclist is in the wrong for instead dodging around the officer and trying to take off on their bike. When the officer immediately stops them from that physically and tells them they are being detained, the cyclist is again wrong for actively resisting for the entire remainder of the video.

You seem to think the officers would be angry to see their child in the video, and we agree on that. We disagree on whom they would be angry with though. I'm pretty sure the officers would angry with their kid for consistently resisting the officers and would likely be telling their kid they are lucky the officers were as gentle as they were because they absolutely didn't need to be.

I don't know who to credit the analogy to, but this feels to me like an instance of the police being the wolf hounds protecting the us sheeple. Their use of violence and force looks scary to us and we just wish those mean, nasty and violent wolfhounds would be replaced with more mild mannered sheep. It's not until an actual wolf comes along that all of sudden we wonder were those hounds are because we went to get as close under their shadows as we can.

The reason it comes to mind is because having 3-4 officers spending hours begging, pleading and otherwise trying to non-violently persuade a cursing, kicking, resistant teenager to take accept pretty basic instructions is not what I want. I get the impression you would prefer that, but I do not. I want the officers sitting at nearby coffee shop bored and eating donuts instead. When they come to deal with this incident, I want them back to those donuts as quickly as possible. The reason being, when a wolf somewhere starts up a domestic dispute, or starts beating up someone in the street, or breaking into somebodies home I want the police unhindered and ready to their 'real' jobs.

Now this is good footage. You see and hear what the cop sees and hears and you actually have context before the incident. This why all cops should wear body cams and why body cam footage should be released to the public.

The cop was entirely justified here. The suspect tried to flee the scene, refused to cooperate or comply with commands and physically resisted arrest. When the suspect repeatedly tried to keep the car door open with her legs, the cops made the correct choice in pepper-spraying her. It's very hard to close a door when someone is aggressively pushing it open. Brute force might have worked but that would have been dangerous and potentially lead to accidental injury. Pepper spray was the safest option.

And newtboy, ignoring the police is not "totally fine." In fact, it's one of the dumbest and most dangerous things you can do. Police are authority figures with the right to detain or arrest you. As such, the best way to deal with police is to listen and cooperate in a civil manner. If the girl had done that, she wouldn't have been cuffed, carried off to the police car or pepper-sprayed. I know it's cool to hate cops (and authority figures in general) but at a certain point, pride needs to give way to reason and logic.

If she was trying to escape, she wasn't trying hard. She looked like she was slowly riding circles to me.
When, exactly, do you hear them tell her to stay? I don't here them say anything of the sort before she's handcuffed, not that I think she was trying to leave.

Being detained for cooperation of investigation? You do not have to submit to handcuffing and detention without a suspected crime, and "cooperation of investigation" is not a crime I've ever heard of. Detention is not arrest, so she wasn't resisting arrest.

Because I warn you I'm going to shoot you if you don't do something, that makes it OK if I do? Hmmmm. They can legally use spray and tasers in self defense, but should not be allowed to use them as a coercion technique. She posed no threat seated in the car handcuffed, so there was no legitimate use of force, and certainly no legitimate use of weaponry.

Again, this was only detention, not arrest. I've never heard of anyone charged with resisting detention.

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.

Congratulations! Your video, Did he say that out loud? Anderson Cooper slips dirty one, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 8 Badge!

*related=https://videosift.com/video/Did-he-say-that-out-loud-Anderson-Cooper-slips-dirty-one

Did he say that out loud? Anderson Cooper slips dirty one has been added as a related post - related requested by PlayhousePals.

Your video, Did he say that out loud? Anderson Cooper slips dirty one, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 4 Badge!