You forgot to mention the part where he grabs her after she tries to flee the scene, and continues to struggle and resist being handcuffed.
I know how police brutality turns you on, but be careful not to get jizz on your keyboard.
She moved forward a couple of inches, then he jerked her off the bike to the ground, jerked her right back up and slammed her against the car then had his hand around her neck. At the time, he has acting as a MALL cop, and the “crime” was CUTTING THROUGH A PARKING LOT.
Smapti, just this once-know when back away.
Is there a certain distance that police are obligated to allow a fleeing suspect to travel before they’re permitted to take action?
Mall cops don’t wear police department uniforms and patrol in police department vehicles. He was not “acting as a mall cop” - he was acting as a cop who was patrolling a mall.
No, the crime was resisting arrest. If she hadn’t tried to run away she wouldn’t have gotten manhandled or Tased.
You type pretty well with one hand.
You are one scary sad fuck.
I don’t know the answer to your question, but there is no evidence she was fleeing. Maybe you believe that police have the right, or even duty, to tackle, taze, or roughly manhandle minors that make small movements while they are being addressed by a police officer, but I don’t agree with you that this is acceptable. It’s not like this girl was a threat to anybody. She had not even committed a crime that I am aware of. I don’t believe that riding a bike through a mall parking lot is trespassing and until I see a jury convict her, I believe she has a presumption of innocence. You know, like the law says she has. If she was breaking the law by trespassing, why didn’t they charge her with this crime Smapti? You obviously have come to the conclusion that she is a dangerous criminal, doesn’t it seems strange to you that she wasn’t even issued a ticket for this?
Anyway, let’s say she was going to try and run away on her Schwinn bike; where do you think this 8th grade career criminal would go anyway? She was surrounded by 2 armed adult males with SUVs; do you really think she would make it far? I get that you believe that police can kill people if they have a fear for their lives whether or not the people they kill are armed or even remotely a threat, but now I see that you believe that police can assault, taze, and probably even shoot people that they believe might possibly flee. Is this what you believe? That only the officer’s fear that the a person might flee is enough to warrant any kind of violet response to take said person down?
Regarding your second paragraph, you don’t know what you are talking about; it says right in the linked story that the family is suing the security service the officer was moonlighting for. Who the fuck cares anyway? It was still egregious to treat a 15 year old guilty of nothing more than riding their bike through a parking lot this way.
Regarding you last paragraph, you are either stupid or a liar (but either way, you are definitely an asshole). It said right in the article that the charges of resisting arrest and assaulting an officer were dismissed by the court. At this point, I believe that writing she resisted arrest is libelous.
Finally, what kind of police force do you want Smapti? How should the police interact with our kids in middle and high school? You think tazing them if they ride their bikes where they shouldn’t is a good idea? Slamming them to the ground? Is this really the best way to police our young citizens? Do you think that the fact there is a large fraction of our population that does not trust the police and will not call them even if they have been the victim of a crime is a problem? Do you think this is good for our society?
Irrelevant. Fleeing detainment is unacceptable behavior even if you’re completely innocent.
From the same above cite, she wasn’t “accused of trespassing”. She was told she would be trespassed from the mall.
I’ve come to the conclusion that she attempted to flee and was resisting arrest. This is not a judgment on her status as being dangerous.
No, I don’t. Maybe she should have thought of that before deciding to make a break for it.
You’re right. I concede the point.
The treatment she got has nothing to do with what she was doing before the stop. This is the same fallacious exclusion we’ve been seeing in this thread for years when people say “Michael Brown was killed for jaywalking” or “Eric Garner was killed for selling cigarettes” and so on.
Double jeopardy has not been established.
A police force that people will obey.
Yes. That is not rational behavior.
If this is your most important goal, then why not advocate that police be allowed (or, perhaps better yet, mandated) to use deadly force any time someone doesn’t cooperate? If they immediately executed every single person who didn’t immediately obey, then wouldn’t obedience to police increase hugely?
It’s entirely rational in circumstances in which people are mistreated by the police. If a kid grows up seeing his family mistreated by the police, and his cousin who cooperated with police get beaten up, and his other cousin who fled from the police get away to safety, then it’s entirely rational to see fleeing from (or otherwise not cooperating with) police as the wisest course of action in some circumstances.
In most circumstances that would be overkill.
Then he should ask himself what his family has been doing and whether his definition of “mistreated” needs adjustment.
That’s the fault of the criminal element, not the police.
His other cousin is a fugitive from justice and he should not be harboring any sympathy for him.
And in this case, fleeing from the police clearly wasn’t a very wise course of action, as the video demonstrates.
Why? I thought what you wanted most was for the police to be obeyed. If that’s the highest goal, then why wouldn’t you support something that would help that goal?
So you don’t believe that any child in America (or American history) has every truthfully and honestly grown up witnessing police mistreatment of his family?
You don’t believe it’s the fault of the police officers who did it, or the other police officers who witnessed it and said nothing, or the other ones who heard about it and did nothing?
So you believe that his cousin should have submitted himself to be beaten up by those same cops who abused his other cousin?
That doesn’t mean it wasn’t rational from her point of view at the time.
Do you believe it’s ever in all of American history been rational for any person to run from police? Was it rational for a slave to flee a slave-hunting police officer in the 1840s? How about for a black person to flee a group of policemen in 1870s Alabama who say that he illegally touched a white woman? Or how about a black person fleeing from police officers leading a lynch mob for a false rape accusation in the 1930s? Or a black person fleeing from cops in Mississippi of the 1960s who say that he broke the law by protesting for Civil Rights? If you think that these might have been rational, then at what point in American history do you believe that it ceased to ever be possible under any circumstances for fleeing from the police to be rational?
Because it’s unnecessary to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I believe most people’s definition of “police mistreatment” boils down to “There I was, just breaking the law like I do every day, and the cops went and bothered me for no reason!”
What “police officers who did it”? Your hypothetical said nothing about any police officers doing it.
That’s her failing.
No.
I don’t understand. I thought your most important goal for police was that they were obeyed. Is that not the case? Is there something even more important than that the police are obeyed?
We’re not discussing “most people’s definition” – we’re discussing a situation in which a child has grown up witnessing his family mistreated by police. Unless you’re arguing that this is impossible and could never occur.
My hypothetical was about police beating up my hypothetical child’s cousin even though he cooperated with them.
I see it as society’s failing if some people actually have rational reasons to flee from police.
Got it – you believe that, even when police officers (not all, but some) brutalized, raped, and murdered black people who did nothing wrong throughout American history, the only rational behavior by their victims was to cooperate with their own brutalization, rape, and murder.
We can add this one to the Smapti position bank that the only moral way for slaves to behave was to obey their masters; that it was wrong for MLK Jr. and other Civil Rights leaders to conduct civil disobedience; that Harriet Tubman was wrong for breaking laws to help slaves escape; among other truly hideous moral stances.
You are a broken human being, and I’m sorry for whatever trauma has caused your moral sense to be so massively distorted. The best thing for you would be to recognize that you have no ability to rationally analyze anything regarding conflict with authority, lest one day your colossally screwed up morality leads you to cooperate with authority figures conducting atrocities like genocide.
I’m arguing that most people have a definition of “mistreated by police” that includes “they were breaking the law and got caught”.
They don’t.
You’re arguing a lot of things from a position of zero evidence.
Someone who, like you, believes that the only morally correct way for slaves to act is to obey their masters, is incapable of rationally analyzing such a situation.
The overwhelming majority of this thread is testimony to the fact that people don’t think the law ought to apply to them.
In order for society to function, the rule of law must be upheld. That means it is the responsibility of anyone living in a given society to obey any and all laws applicable to them, whether they agree with the law or not, whether they think the law should be changed or not, whether they have any power to change the law or not. If the law of the land is that slavery is legal, and a person has lawfully been made a slave, then they are thus obliged to obey, distasteful as it may be. It’s as simple as that.
That’s an incorrect analysis, which isn’t surprising coming from “slaves should obey their masters” advocates.
Simple and wrong. Such a society is broken and is non-functioning, and it’s the duty of decent people to violate such laws. If you live by the same philosophy as you post, then you are not a decent person. Harriet Tubman, and others who helped free slaves, were decent people… those who tried to hunt them down and kill them were not. If you live as you post, had you been alive, you would have been one of those helping to hunt down Tubman and others involved in the Underground Railroad.
You won’t understand, and I don’t expect you too, since whatever trauma you have suffered has broken you, probably irreparably. But for the good of humanity (especially your neighbors and others close to you who may suffer due to your monstrous moral sense) you should accept that your capability to rationally and morally judge any situation regarding authority is skewed and non-functional, and you should not trust your own instincts and beliefs.
Bullshit! The overwhelming majority of this thread is testimony to the fact that people think the law ought to apply to the police!
You’re wrong about this too; there are such things as unjust laws and dictatorships. Government is for the people, not to oppress them, and laws that give police carte blanche authority without limit or oversight are morally wrong. You may think that the USSR worked well under Stalin during the purges, China during the cultural revolution, or in the killing fields under the Khmer Rouge, but almost everybody else in the world would beg to differ.
I had forgotten what a warped individual you were and will bow out of this discussion to preserve my emotional well being.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: Smapti is not fully human. Sometimes once something is broken, it can’t be fixed.
By “people”, you mean “police officers”, yes?