General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumsmisterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)Bet not
napkinz
(17,199 posts)police understand???
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)This is heartbreaking.
atreides1
(16,093 posts)His job was to make sure that the officer wasn't indicted, so he did do his job!
Just as he'll make sure to get an indictment for the next non-cop who gets arrested...like the guy who filmed the altercation involving Mr. Garner!
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Because they don't.
They play taxpayer-funded defense attorneys for them who, also, get paid by taxpayer dollars. And we, the non-cop taxpayer, pays these corrupt "public servants" to harm us on every level - including losing our civil rights.
When they say they protect and serve, they obviously mean their own. We're just good sheep who have to keep our mouths shut and to make sure that they get the best benefits, best pensions, best bonuses, and 80-85% of a drug haul via the "civil asset forfeiture" law.
The ACLU is, correctly, against this.
Asset forfeiture practices often go hand-in-hand with racial profiling and disproportionately impact low-income African-American or Hispanic people who the police decide look suspicious and for whom the arcane process of trying to get ones property back is an expensive challenge. ACLU believes that such routine civil asset forfeiture puts our civil liberties and property rights under assault, and calls for reform of state and federal civil asset forfeiture laws.
https://www.aclu.org/criminal-law-reform/civil-asset-forfeiture
That's why they look openly bored when they have to come to your home to report a theft or something like that. That doesn't make them any money so they're not interested - and it always shows.
So when President Clinton advocated for more police officers, and my not knowing that there even was such a thing as "civil asset forfeiture", I was already wondering...why? Why on Earth should that be a good thing for us non-cops??
elleng
(131,138 posts)first complained for a few minutes about being hassled by the cops repeatedly, said 'Don't touch me.' He might have had to be subdued but not, clearly, in the way he was: Subdued and killed. :sad
napkinz
(17,199 posts)nt
elleng
(131,138 posts)but generally he was not cooperating, he was complaining and resisting and gesticulating, at which point they decided to take him down, came at him from the back.
Yes, it's a universal gesture, but I'm not sure it was so intended at this time.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)They didn't even give him time to contemplate that he was actually being arrested. And who among us would believe that they would arrest us for selling single cigarettes?
It is an instinctive reaction to say 'don't touch me' when grabbed unexpectedly. Are we to automatically lay down on the ground and put our hands behind our back when we see an officer?
To hell with people making excuses for police brutality and murder.
BubbaFett
(361 posts)You must be 100% compliant and docile when interacting with police. You don't get your day in court curbside with today's militaristic police. They will treat most interactions as felony arrests.
Manic gesticulation, raising your voice, and moving around will increase the threat level YOU create in the officer's mind.
Today's modern militaristic police are not there to counsel you, give you your space, or let you mentally process your arrest before they do their job.
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)So I dont think getting arrested again should have been a suprise.
SalviaBlue
(2,918 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)He's not being unreasonable either.
Yes, he is verbally expressing his annoyance at being shaken down, but I can't figure out why they feel the need to go horizontal with him in the first place.
sir pball
(4,761 posts)Even if he were healthy, his "resisting" is a passive refusal to follow orders, not active combativeness...I really can't come up with any justification for a physical takedown, be it a hold, taser or pepper spray. Though a threat with the latter just might have worked wonders - "cuffs, or we spritz you!"
elleng
(131,138 posts)He wasn't passively refusing to cooperate, and the cops were not encouraging passivity. They must have been absent from cop school the day the lesson on toning things down was given.
sir pball
(4,761 posts)He wasn't quietly standing, no, but at worst he swatted hands away. I'm not arguing with you, just saying he barely even met the bar of "resisting" in any book, let alone being an uncooperative combative suspect who could be physically wrestled down.
elleng
(131,138 posts)maybe not really 'resisting.'
subterranean
(3,427 posts)I watched the video repeatedly, and at no point did he attempt to run away.
All he did was wave the cops off when they tried to grab his arms.
KMOD
(7,906 posts)why should he have even been detained for selling cigarettes.
That is what is crazy for me.
I believe in most circumstances people should cooperate with police and fight them later in court.
But this particular situation should have never even happened. It's mindless, senseless, and ridiculous.
Last edited Thu Dec 4, 2014, 09:34 AM - Edit history (1)
oops ... duplicate post
napkinz
(17,199 posts)we seem to be having a plethora of these "situations" in this country ... and it's been going on for YEARS
when is enough enough?
it's just sickening
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)it seems to me we have too many officers. I will never vote another penny for police protection. We might as well just pay the mob for protection since the results seem quite similar.
napkinz
(17,199 posts)doesn't that go back to the Giuliani broken window theory of government?
I thought the new mayor parted from that approach.
brooklynite
(94,745 posts)I'm not aware of any constraints on arrests for laws on the books with the exception of marijuana possession.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)But in this case it should have been handled differently.
Textbook time for a taser, not a jump to hands-on.
justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)bel·lig·er·ent
hostile and aggressive
He was being neither hostile nor aggressive. He was passionately stating he'd done nothing wrong but that does not make him hostile nor aggressive.
Takket
(21,634 posts)a special federal prosecutor should handle all cases involving police from now on. this needs to be a new law. I'm convinced prosecutors think the citizens are going to demand they be tossed out of office if they send a cop to prison so they basically go into these grand juries as defense attorneys. the justice system is so severely compromised right now that for the police murder is now legal.
napkinz
(17,199 posts)so much for no person is above the law
morningfog
(18,115 posts)napkinz
(17,199 posts)imagine if he were an African-American selling a cigarette
sir pball
(4,761 posts)Or at least no deployed sights. I'm not entirely familiar with AKs, but it looks like the rear sight is folded down, and there's definitely no scope mounted.
Then again, given how laughably inaccurate they are, I'm not sure sights would help...at any rate that guy isn't nearly the threat he's made out to be. Not that the Bundy crew as a whole isn't, just this one yahoo.
chrisa
(4,524 posts)Guy probably got the gun out, ran over and laid down, and then ran away 5 seconds later after the pictures were snapped. Also, look how thin the gaps on the concrete walls - about the size of the muzzle. Total bullshit.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)The ones he is aiming at can't see him, so what makes you say that law enforcement had no problem with him?
napkinz
(17,199 posts)nt
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Ykcutnek
(1,305 posts)Fuck the Bundy Ranch defenders.
Never thought I'd cross paths with them on this site.