Which justifies being beaten to death.
Apparently, the cell phone law in California only applies to motorized vehicles.
I’m curious as to how the paper was able to interview a dead man.
Does that law specify immediate physical assault, without due process, as the punishment?
He wasn’t assaulted for having his phone out. He was lawfully subdued when he started resisting arrest.
Ahh, I wasn’t aware that you were there witnessing that he resisted arrest. Quite a coincidence!
Out of curiosity, why did you mention the phone law as if it justified him being beaten, then?
I’m just taking his word for it, as he says himself in the article, that he refused to follow instructions and was verbally and physically resisting the officer.
If he hadn’t been breaking the law in the first place, he wouldn’t have been stopped, and if he hadn’t kept mouthing off and refusing to follow instructions he wouldn’t have been subdued.
Once again, he brought it on himself.
No he didn’t, liar.
Just as slaves who were beaten, raped, and killed “brought it on themselves” by not obeying their masters, right?
It’s almost as if you’re beginning to see the association between disobeying authority and suffering negative consequences.
This is progress.
Progress can also take the form of questioning authority and its actions, but I doubt any of us are expecting much advancement from you on that front.
There are countless instances in history in which the resistance of authority was necessary for progress. You are incapable of seeing this possibility.
Not that this has anything to do with the case in question, since there’s no evidence at this point that he resisted arrest.
To repeat, Smapti believes it is wrong for slaves to disobey their masters.
Care to show that quote? I’m not seeing it.
I disagree. History shows that violent revolution does more harm than good.
Do you dispute that he refused to provide ID, refused to put away his phone when instructed to do so, and proceeded to about at the officer when arrested, continued flailing about and refusing to be handcuffed such that reinforcements were required, and continued to verbally refuse to stop resisting?
Because that’s the arrestee’s account of how it went down.
Except in the American Revolution, various successful slave uprisings and escapes, camp uprisings, and many, many more.
No it’s not, liar.
Yeah, the American Revolutionary War proved that.
ETA, beat by a minute. lol
Please provide the quote from the arrestee’s account that demonstrates his refusal to provide ID. The story says that he can’t provide any; that’s not the same as refusing to provide any.
The American Revolution killed 130,000 people who otherwise would have lived, accomplished nothing the rest of the British colonies didn’t get peacefully within a few generations anyway, and left us with a society, culture and government that is more conservative, less adaptive to changing times, less free, less equal, more violent, and more subject to control by religious zealots and wealthy elites than even the country we broke away from.
It was a net loss for the American people, and ironically a direct cause of many of the law-enforcement issues you’re complaining about.
For all intents and purposes, it is. He obviously possess ID, because he has legitimate employment. He therefore made a conscious decision not to carry it with him.