Sideswiping a car /= attempted murder and you didn’t say “potentially lethal,” you said, “But the obvious reason not to appeal is that the police actually did nothing wrong in shooting at the people trying to kill them.” (bolding mine)
I think if I get a summons to go to court for a trial I think I should be able to resist that too. And paying taxes.
Sad but true.
Most of the cops I have encountered in my life have been courteous and professional. But the few bad ones left an indelible impression. In an age where almost everyone can capture someone’s behavior on camera, that impression is spreading.
Which leads me to wonder why the good ones, and the departments, will turn a blind eye, and even go so far as to protect the bad ones. It is against their own self-interest. Certainly against the interest of the community and department and their very profession.
Most of the [insert minority here] I have encountered in my life have been courteous and professional. But the few bad ones left an indelible impression.
Therefore, I shall assume EVERY [insert minority here] I meet are the bad ones.
No offense but you are probably white.
But you are not blind or stupid.
LOL, no offense but the whole being white thing makes a HUGE difference in how kids are treated.
I wouldn’t be so sure. There is still a huge disparity between how a white kid’s hijinks are treated compared to a black kid’s petty criminality. White kids joyride, black kids are committing grand theft auto. White kids wander into someone’s house and its trespass, a black kid does it and its conspiracy to commit burglary.
Thrown means she has to be airborne at some point. That’s how I interpret it. It’s semantics for sure, but it weakens your position if you use words incorrectly to make your case more favorable. She was wrestled and forced to the ground which included parts of the pavement and grass area.
I don’t know his motives. They probably weren’t pristine. Regardless, if a police officer is making an arrest for not dispersing when lawfully ordered, it is perfectly legal to treat that person in the way the officer did. Your original question was what world is that treament okay. I answered that - when a person is resisting a lawful arrest.
When the two other officers arrive on screen, you can hear the original officer saying “That motherfucker!” pointing in the purple shirt guy’s direction and they both immediately leave in pursuit. I can’t tell the two additional officer’s motivation, but you can see earlier in the video before the wrestling begins that the original officer looks like he’s radioing someone - my guess is that he knows he doesn’t have any more cuffs. Later in the video, you can see the other two offcers return with purple shirt guy, who now has a mouthfull of what looks to be blood. Maybe he fell.
I have no idea. There are probably multiple reasons.
I actually do not think the behavior is acceptable. My focus is on whether it is legal. Many times in threads about police behavior, there is a vast misunderstanding of what is legal for the police to do. I find it important to highlight these so at least we know what to fight against. In this thread, you have **Bob **who I thought was being disingenuous but who now appears to be genuinley surprised that police can give people orders that must be complied with. In another thread (maybe this one) there was genuine surprise that police can order the driver and all passengers out of a vehicle during a traffic stop for no reason at all. Still others where posters are surprised to learn police can lie to you, have no duty to protect you, and so on.
It’s critically important to get the matters of law accurate - to know what to rally against and fight. It weakens claims against unjust laws when the matters of law at issue are mistaken. I have no confidence in police in general.
It seems like an overly common problem.
If she’d run, it is likely Officer Napoleon D’Crazy would have shot her 6 times in the back. And Smapti, doorhinge, and Steophan would be patiently explaining to us why this was a reasonable consequence to disobeying an officer.
I think it is almost universally agreed that if you removed officer casebolt, the police response was generally appropriate.
You can read something into the fact that police arrested black kids that lived in the neighborhood and had a right to be at the pool while entirely ignoring a white kid that wasn’t supposed to be there.
How do you make that determination? If a person is wearing a police uniform, we pretty much have to assume that they are acting within their duties. These days, if you are in Denver and an officer’s shoulder patch says Winnebago County Wisconsin, you cannot even assume that that officer’s actions are precluded by jurisdiction. If they are a constable, that seems to be all that matters.
The [insert minority here] who pushed ahead of me in line annoyed me. But I’ll still be polite to the next one.
The cops, supposedly hired for responsible behavior and dedication to public service, who murdered a kid with a toy, murdered a guy complying with their orders, etc., seem significantly more annoying than the [insert minority here] who pushed ahead of me in line. No, manson1972 ? What am I missing?
Depends on the state. But in almost all states they can order you to do stop “don’t make me chase you with 20 pounds of gear on my belt”, they can order you to do thing that will ensure the officer’s safety “get face down on the ground with your hands behind your head” they can order you to leave a secured area (crime scene, obstructing traffic, loitering, etc.).
But regardless of what lawful commands are given, police cannot use “excessive force” in most jurisdictions. This is usually a grey area, police have to be concerned about their safety and the possibility of flight but when you are talking about a barefoot 14 year old girl in a bikini, its pretty clear you don’t need to exercise a whole lot of force to accomplish your authorized objectives.
I’m sure you trying to make a point, but I have no idea what it is.
Could you clarify?
In a world where 20% of the people are assholes (and I think I’m being generous), I am amazed at how many people are surprised that cops can be assholes too.
double jeopardy.
You’ve answered your own question, really. It goes back to what’s been repeatedly said - let them peacefully arrest you then fight it in court later.
Unless they are breaking into your house in an attempt to kill you. Or serving a no-knock warrant. It probably looks about the same.
Why would you ever assume the police are breaking into your house in an attempt to kill you? That’s absurd paranoia even by the standards of this thread.
Criminals can easily don police uniforms and then break into your house in an attempt to rob or kill you. Actual police in uniforms can break into your house serving a no-knock warrant. How can you tell the difference?
In 1991, some officers were recorded being serious assholes. In 1992, they were acquitted of being serious assholes. That was basically the first real instance where the police were recorded in the act of being serious assholes. The fact that it is happening more now may indicate that the police are increasing their assholery, but more likely it just means the assholery has been more or less constant but that there are now cameras everywhere capturing it.
If we cannot weed out the problem officers, that is a real problem that must be addressed. If there will be assholes on the force, we ought to attempt to insure that they are not a concern, by establishing greater restraints on police behavior. Because an asshole is an asshole, but an asshole with real power should not be tolerated.