WTF?!? They still do field sobriety tests without a breathalyzer to back them up? That's moronic. They could supply the entire force with two breathalyzers each for what this one bad arrest is going to cost us.
....and WTF 2.0....
Aren't they supposed to have female officers search women. That was not a normal search either, you don't open palm the breast and rotate, that's copping a feel, not searching. Proper search method is to use the back of the hand across the under side of the breast, and maybe a pat to the middle/top if it's possible there's something hidden, not a grab and rotate.

She's going to get paid, no matter what the cops say. All her attorney has to do is ask the jury 'what if that was your wife, mother, daughter being molested over someone else's mistake?' They won't have to leave the court room to deliberate. Sadly, the cops don't seem like they'll learn a thing.

So, unconstitutional arrest = civil rights lawsuit and desk duty/dismissal, right? I hope so, but the DA's comment seems to indicate he thinks the judge is being swayed by public opinion against (abusive) cops, and he indicates he thinks the officer did nothing wrong, so the cops probably feel the same, but more strongly. That's so f**ked up, the cop was obviously over reaching at every turn.
I hope he gets mad cheddar outta 5-0...the fancy extra sharp kind.

Seriously, *wtf? It looks like he tried to cop a feel when she went to hand him the menu and then goes and grabs her crotch after she smacks him?!?.

What a catchy jingle for all of you who love tyranny and/or communism over liberty! Maybe this could be the new anthem for Police State USSA!
Not only do cops not feel bad about all the people they kill, they celebrate it. This is the direct result of having centrally planned theft and violence based on systems of control.

I think the cops would feel that it is 'us v. the bad guys' versus 'us v. everyone else'.

Much of it depends on where a cop trains. If all the other cops have a kick-ass first, ask questions later attitude, the new people will take up that same attitude.

So again, a lot comes from the top.

Small town cops usually are much easier to get along with, but the big town cops are dealing with more stress, more danger, more bullshit....eventually it gets to EVERYONE.

Which is why I say, walk in their shoes for a while and your attitude will be adjusted.

*downunder indeed... so is this being sold in the states? Or did they just set it there to make the 'cop chase' feel more authentic?

It would have been even perfecter if he copped a feel. That would have been awkward, but well within the realm of professional creative license had she objected. After all, she did choose the bit.

The cockeyed cop cockishly copped a feel, put his copcock cockily in the copcocktease and copped it; the cop'll have to tell a cock-and-bull story to not cock it all up.

Holy shit, this guy's a freakin' paranoid sociopath. My guess is the police had good reason to pick the kid up. I feel for the cops. I feel even more for this guy's kid(s) if they have to grow up with his craziness.

Facts? Okay, 1 out of four go bad for cops as opposed. K. But there are 1000 or more citizens than cops. So, individual cops get the bad end of the stick most often than individuals by and large--thanks for the stat you just provided.And the death ratio is far high for cops too. (I am not saying abuse doesn't matter, but it doesn't matter as much as death...)

So when you say, "Clearly the individual should have more to fear" you are, clearly incorrect (By your own stat.)

Additionally, "Fear" and "blind power" can never go together. It has to be one or the other.


I agree some cops act either-or, which makes them thugs. They should be prosecuted. Did you also know who the more likely applicant for suicide is? Cops... Why? Who knows. Probably the same psychological reason that more commit crimes.



>> ^swedishfriend:

Reality!!!
Tazing is supposed to be used instead of deadly force (it is very dangerous to taze someone). At what point would any of this man's behavior constitute a reason to use deadly force?
Traffic stops end badly for the one being pulled over far more often than for the cop (4 to 1 as I recall). Clearly the cop should feel 4 times less worried than the man. The cop is the one being offensive both statistically and by being the more aggressive in this situation.
Cops are 2-10 times more likely to be a criminal than the general population depending on the type of crime you look at the statistics for (percentage of cops who are convicted of rape is double of that of the general male population. Statistics for murder was 4 times the general population). And that is despite the difficulty in prosecuting a cop for any crime.
Clearly, the general population has far more to fear from a police officer than a police officer has to fear from the general population in a situation like this so I don't find it reasonable for anyone to just blindly do what an officer asks them to do since the balance of danger is so greatly skewed against the private citizen. Nor do I find it reasonable for an officer to assume they are in all kinds of danger and act as if they are when they clearly are not in any danger and are being more aggressive than the suspected person.
Considering we live in the USA the police should be very careful around other people not the other way around. The public servant should not be in a position of power over the general population. Considering the protections of the constitution and the bill of rights not much could be considered a lawful order by a police officer. The officer would need good evidence of a crime just to even ask the suspect a question (reasonable cause).
The cops and their training is why the city had to pay out a settlement. The man acted quite reasonably if you believe in a free society and right to privacy. The cop acted out of fear and blind power.
The man gets out of car to talk to cop. Cop yells at man. man does not get into a more vulnerable position after being attacked like that (that would be suicidal in an evolutionary sense). Man continues to try to calmly resolve the situation while the cop continues to attack. At what point is it reasonable to turn your back on an attacker, to get into a more vulnerable position? It never is! At all points the man was more calm and less threatening than the cop was!

Reality!!!

Tazing is supposed to be used instead of deadly force (it is very dangerous to taze someone). At what point would any of this man's behavior constitute a reason to use deadly force?

Traffic stops end badly for the one being pulled over far more often than for the cop (4 to 1 as I recall). Clearly the cop should feel 4 times less worried than the man. The cop is the one being offensive both statistically and by being the more aggressive in this situation.

Cops are 2-10 times more likely to be a criminal than the general population depending on the type of crime you look at the statistics for (percentage of cops who are convicted of rape is double of that of the general male population. Statistics for murder was 4 times the general population). And that is despite the difficulty in prosecuting a cop for any crime.

Clearly, the general population has far more to fear from a police officer than a police officer has to fear from the general population in a situation like this so I don't find it reasonable for anyone to just blindly do what an officer asks them to do since the balance of danger is so greatly skewed against the private citizen. Nor do I find it reasonable for an officer to assume they are in all kinds of danger and act as if they are when they clearly are not in any danger and are being more aggressive than the suspected person.

Considering we live in the USA the police should be very careful around other people not the other way around. The public servant should not be in a position of power over the general population. Considering the protections of the constitution and the bill of rights not much could be considered a lawful order by a police officer. The officer would need good evidence of a crime just to even ask the suspect a question (reasonable cause).

The cops and their training is why the city had to pay out a settlement. The man acted quite reasonably if you believe in a free society and right to privacy. The cop acted out of fear and blind power.

The man gets out of car to talk to cop. Cop yells at man. man does not get into a more vulnerable position after being attacked like that (that would be suicidal in an evolutionary sense). Man continues to try to calmly resolve the situation while the cop continues to attack. At what point is it reasonable to turn your back on an attacker, to get into a more vulnerable position? It never is! At all points the man was more calm and less threatening than the cop was!

From one of the links in the description:

A traffic stop is viewed by police officers as a potentially life threatening situation, regardless of the impetus for the stop. The cop doesn't know whether the driver of the car stopped for some trivial reason is the nicest guy in town or a mass murderer. He is not about to take any chances finding out.

To the officer, the "threat" initiates with the refusal to comply with commands. There are some basic rules of a safe encounter, that the driver remain in the vehicle with his hands where they can be seen. No, the officer has no reason to believe he has a gun or the inclination to use one, but he's not willing to take any chances finding out.

When the driver alights from the vehicle, the cop immediately feels threatened. When the driver refuses to comply with commands, the sense of threat is elevated. When the driver argues, the threat reaches an untenable position.

Seems like the real problem was what happened at the very end.

I get that it was a tense situation, but from the video and reporting, once they had him subdued they kicked his ass. That wasn't necessary, and constituted excessive force.

They then got sued for exactly that, and wound up settling out of court over it.

Isn't this the way things are supposed to work?

I'm afraid it's just cops I feel that way about. Only with cops (because that's whose job it is) do I think the good ones should protect me from the bad ones. No other group do I expect that from.

In reply to this comment by SDGundamX:
>> ^eric3579:

No,I don't think it's justified. It just didn't bother me when I saw the cop getting a beat down.
Until the majority good cops, and police departments, start ridding themselves of the bad cops, I will fear and thus hate them all. It's impossible for me to know which are good and which are bad sense they all look the same.
>> ^SDGundamX:
>> ^eric3579:
Men in uniform, or with big funny hats, have never done it for me.
Usually I can't stand violence, but this just didn't bother me. Who knew?

I'm curious, do you think this is justified? I personally hope every person involved--including the cop--stands trial. I don't want to live in a world where people "gets what's comin' to 'em" through vigilante/mob violence rather than through the court of law.
As to whether the cop was justified or not, I'd like to see another angle (I'm sure there must be one) that shows what that guy on the ground was doing. If he's reaching for the cops' weapons while they're trying to hold him down then I'd say the cop was justified in using violence to get him to comply. On the other hand, if he simply was refusing to put his hands behind his back and this cop lost his patience then no, the cop wasn't justified--but neither was the beating and knocking out of a completely different officer that wasn't even doing the striking in the first place.



Looks like that vid is about to be duped to oblivion, so I figured I'd profile reply too.

I understand your viewpoint, but I find it hard to believe you actually think that way. It seems a bit illogical. Let's change your argument a little by substituting "black people" for police.

"Until the majority of black people start ridding themselves of all the bad black people, I will fear and thus hate them all. It's impossible for me to know which are good and which are bad sense[sic] they all look the same."

I'm not saying you're a racist, but the logic of your argument clearly parallels that which a racist person might use to justify their hatred. Are you seriously saying it's okay for all people of a given group (whether that group is cultural, professional, ethnic, or whatever) to be punished for the sins of certain individuals in the group? That is the exact logic by which Al-Qaeda and most other terrorist groups justify the targeting of civilians, by the way.

unfortunately, i live a few minutes away from this dickbags relatives. they all gorged themselves onetime at this fatty fuck sandwich place behind my rubbin' shop. afterwards, mr. fist strode into my place like some suave motherfucker with a righteous a 'fro, carrying a hemingway novel... what a fucking asshole. all the girls at my rubbin' shop did a few double takes. then we went back to my rented room, one of us got naked and the other got to work. afterwards we smoked cigarettes and stuttered. then i hugged the shit out of his precious fucking aunt. i hit on her and copped a feel.

i learned a few things about mr. fists body that day. he almost got cut in half one time, apparently his brain was trying to get as far away from his venerally infested crotch as possible. unfortunately, medical science sewed him back together. so now we all have to be subjected to this hideous roast of this death defying scum bag with the sexy aunt, hosted by that miserable failure, twatbag247.

i quit.

>> ^messenger:

Getting your jollies is exactly the wrong way to think when you're doing a selfless good deed like this guy. You think he mighta gotten away with copping a feel too? Giving them a little squeeze each?>> ^Godless:
>> ^Krupo:
I know this is cooler and all, but wouldn't it have made SO much more sense to have them get in the car, and drive them to the other side?

Not NEARLY as fun as physically picking them up! If you're gonna perform a good deed, why not make it pleasant and make it last a little longer (they looked cute... from a distance...)?



There is a difference between chivalry and selflessness, you know... Unless you associate the former with "courtly love", as it was celebrated by troubadours in 12th century France. And even back then, 10 times out of ten, it usually had to do with a beautiful young woman... Is that such a terrible thing?