Yes it is.
So, according to the cop, “It’s their [whoever called the police] perception that counts” as to why this guy is under arrest for carrying a BB gun. Going past that, there’s no justification for tasing him while handcuffed… twice.
He wasn’t “non-resisting”. If people stop making false claims like that it would be possible to actually have dialogue about what is or isn’t a reasonable response, but when people repeatedly deny the evidence of their eyes and ears, that is impossible.
I just watched that video again, about 5 times. Can you point out the time when the resisting starts?
He must be a fact.
‘He wasn’t “non-resisting”.’ Holy fuck, what the hell, man. How much more compliant does a person have to be?
Oh, right, he was refusing to not be black. That explains it.
What a piece of fetid shit you are.
To be non-resisting? Entirely compliant. It’s not complicated. As I said, there’s obviously a discussion to be had about whether or not the amount of force used was appropriate, but to pretend that he’s not constantly telling the cops that they can’t do what they’re doing, or to pretend you didn’t see him try to pull away, is just silly.
Posting a cite that agrees with me but claiming the opposite is not going to be a winning tactic. Posting in this thread gives me a great understanding of how Winston Smith must have felt. Do you not understand that the people trying to claim that words mean the opposite of what they actually do, or that things you can clearly see didn’t actually happen, were the bad guys?
Again, can you point to the timestamp were you believe he is trying to pull away? And what does “telling the cops that they can’t do what they’re doing” have anything to do with resisting?
He was resisting their opinion that he did something wrong?
I got nothin’.
Cops are on their feet for hours every day. Anything other than an offer of a foot massage is apparently resisting.
“Winston Smith”? Says the guy who fellates the police? This is more cog-dis than any normal person should have to face.
Hey FactBoy, the police chief, to his credit, had the incident investigated and then reprimanded the assailant, including keeping the son-of-a-bitch away for the public until he had been re-educated.
But of course you know better, because you are privileged to have special facts and special ethics. What a very special little boy you are, FactBoy, to be able to live in your own self-created universe without regard to reality, rationality, or human decency.
Regards
Yes, it’s at 1:29, about 4 or 5 seconds before he gets tased. As for your question, it’s nonsensical. “What does resisting have to do with resisting?”… Obviously (well, to me anyway) verbal resistance doesn’t require a physical response, but neither is it actual compliance - which is what I was asked about when I mentioned it.
So, the investigation determined that the cop overreacted. I’ve not denied that at any point, I’ve simply said that lying and saying that the suspect complied with the police is not an acceptable starting point for the investigation.
Fuck off, homophobe.
At 1:29, I see the one cop has a hold on his arm as they are cutting off the backpack. Not sure how much trying to get away he can do.
As for “verbal resistance”, that is a bunch of shit. A suspect could be laying on the ground, face down, not moving anything but his mouth telling the cops to go fuck themselves, and you would call that resistance.
“verbal resistance”?? You’ve got to be kidding me.
So you call that 100% compliance? Because that’s bullshit, it isn’t. It’s nothing particularly serious, and not somethimg that deserves any sort of reprisal, but neither is it ideal.
But hey, focus on that rather than on the rest of what happens. Ignore him pushing back on the cop then trying to pull away, because you don’t like that I mentioned what he was saying. It might make you feel better, but it won’t make you right.