His refusal to stop resisting and obey the police killed him.
Dunno where you get “non-resisting” from. But you want to know what would constitute an upper ground? Beating him, shooting him, breaking bones so he couldn’t do anything, bodily picking him up and throwing him (unsecured) into a police van.
Not trying to restrain him and get him to cooperate.
Dunno if it’s been posted yet, but I’ve justread an article about how cameras have lead to the conviction of a violet police officer. I’ve not watched the video, but it seems to have convinced a jury so I’d be surprised if it didn’t convince me. But from the description, that is the upper ground - punching a restrained suspect in the throat and crotch.
That is a very dangerous power to grant to police. Lethal force to get compliance is way beyond what is necessary to maintain public order. Police must be held to a standard of proportional response, or they become the problem, not the solution.
I’m not up on bot lingo, but I think you’re saying you’ve found a line not to cross. Cops shouldn’t punch a restrained suspect in both throat and crotch. How humane of you!
What’s the cop supposed to do? Pick either the throat or crotch to punch, just not both?
Cops shouldn’t be using force except to effect an arrest or defend themselves. The vast majority of cases here involve them doing one, if not both, of those.
Well you’d have to ask the jury that, but I suspect they shouldn’t be doing either to a restrained person. If someone’s attacking them both could be acceptable. There’s no bright line, this is always acceptable, this never is rule.
(FTR, your laughter about me using the term “flop around” was weird because I was directly quoting you).
It’s not just extremely difficult, but practically impossible. And we’re talking about this in the context of choosing whether to do this or sit on top of someone who claims they can’t breathe.
If the suspect somehow managed to get to his feet while leg and hand cuffed and then managed to hit his head hard enough on the ground to hurt himself then the police would be fine by me, as long as they’d already called for medical help because he clearly bloody needs it, or assessment for superhuman powers. At least the police would be able to see any problems he had unlike when they’re sitting on him.
Sheesh. Why am I talking to you? It’s like I’m talking to a lunatic on a street corner. You are not actually clever and everyone you’ve ever met thinks “yeah, not as clever as he thinks he is,” even when they’re trying to be nice. I mean, you’re a disabled man on benefits who’s just voted for a govt that has vowed to cut your benefits.
That whole scene was horrible and infuriating. But I’m really glad they caught him on film doing that stupid drop-roll like someone on the A-Team. That said it all right there.
Heh. A coworker of my gf (ad agency) was bored and made a 30 second mock-ad for a police force. Twenty five seconds of video clips of the most outrageous police brutality scenes; pregnant woman thrown to ground, cuffed man being kicked repeatedly, peaceful protesters being pepper-sprayed, etc. The most visceral/intense things imaginable.
Then, large letters, “STOP RESISTING”, smaller, “now accepting applicants for part or full time employment, stop in today!”
Not sure what point you’re trying to make here. By isolating on the time when the purple shirt guy’s hand is obscured and not the time immediately before or after are you saying this evidence isn’t despositive? I don’t believe you can conclude the hand behind the back was invisible to the cop from the video.
My take is that the biggest outrage is a result of the gun draw. I think it was reasonable. Do you?
The salient part of that insult is pretty obviously not the genders of the participants.