But, moving right along, you are free to infer, so long as what you are inferring is directly reflected in the evidence. Your suggestion that the video was altered to omit something taking place before the incident at hand does not qualify, being unsupported.
Your suggestion that the use of the term “observer” is relevant does not qualify, since the labels were applied after the fact, and do not change anything on the video itself.
Here are my inferences. I infer that when the officer reaches for his belt, he means to retrieve something. I infer that the object retrieved is a can of pepperspray/Mace. I infer that he extended that object in the direction of the, ah, unsub. I infer that the spray that issued from said cannister was directed at the unsub. I infer that her back was turned to him, by which I infer that she was not approaching him. I infer that it is far more likely that she was moving away from him, which undercuts any suggestion of aggressive action on her part. Hence, it is fair to conclude that she was offering no threat, and that his actions were aggressive and punitive.
My inferences are different from yours, they are supported by direct physical evidence. I offer the conclusion that, therefore, mine are substantial, and yours are not.
Mind if we call you “Stretch”? The video clearly shows him retrieving it from his “utility belt”. Think it might be air freshener? Do police commonly carry air freshener in their belts? Do they commonly carry pepper spray in their belts?
It could be Silly String, have you thought of that? Invisible Silly String of course. Or maybe he thought the protesters were stinky, so he used his handy belt deodorant. Or he was freshening up their 'dos with his hairspray.
I think it’s pretty obvious that Deputy Inspector Bologna knew that he was doing something wrong. If not, he wouldn’t have slunk away. He was not arresting anyone, and the protesters were moving away from the police and from him.
Of course, he may have wandered off from a Barney Miller rerun, and had to get back before the commercial break was over.
After carefully reviewing the video, it seems obvious that the officer was reaching for tictacs. I’m sure the protesters were skank-mouthin’ and when they realized that their breath offended they reacted in a manner that looked, to us, like a bunch of people getting pepper sprayed.
But we haven’t even scratched the surface of hypotheticals. Who’s to say that the “police officers” in the video aren’t actually demonstrators dressed up as police, spraying eau de toilette on each other and feigning distress? (One of my cousins knows a reporter who had a friend on the Chicago police force and he says this was a common trick during the Democratic Convention riots in 1968).
You can’t prove it isn’t so, and if it is you’d have to revise your hippie-loving assumptions now wouldn’t you? And if you didn’t you’d be dishonest like a lot of the leftist posters who have offended the sensibilities of the bitterly attacked conservative minority of this board who are here to uphold righteous standards of debate even if they don’t want to take actual positions on the issues.
To be ruthlessly fair, “slunk away” is an unwarranted inference. He did what he did, which is bad enough. And then he left. That is really all we got. More than enough.
You didn’t actually infer the things you say you did. You observed them.
From what I “observe” it doesn’t seem that the woman turns her back until after she is sprayed with what I “infer” is pepper spray. To further support this theory I note that the woman is crying in pain in a way that seems to me pretty consistent with being sprayed in the face with pepper spray.
I’m guessing that pepper spray is not like a bullet where getting shot in the back is just as damaging.
So, the fact that she is on her knees screaming suggests to me that she got hit in the face which means her back was probably not turned.
Now, you may try to dismiss the whole observer issue if you wish but that’s kind of disingenuous since you were the one who presented the annotated version. If you don’t wish to accept comments on the annotation or think it’s irrelevant then why present it?
Furthermore, the “observer” label is significant, because that is not something that one can derive from the information on the tape. These leads me to “infer” that the annotator has information not on the tape. Since the tape is notable for what is missing, one can reasonably assume that an edit has occured.
Nope. Second count 34, the officer approaches with pepper spray in hand, hand exteneded. She has her back to him, most likely unaware of him or his hand. He releases the spray directly at her, and then continues to release his spray in a more general fashlon, which hits the woman next to her, who is facing in the cops direction. But he didn’t start with her, he started with the woman facing away.
You may then note that the “altercation” you refer to appears to be an arrest, several cops surround someone on the ground. The group of people are all focused on that, several have cameras out, apparently in an effort to document the indicent, but they are clearly shocked and dismayed by what they are witnessing. The police are not “detaining” them in an " arrest" fashion, but preventing them from getting closer. Nothing wrong with that part, it could prevent an incident from escalating.
And further note that the officer continues to spray. He wasn’t defending himself, they aren’t that close to him, they are making no threatening motions, they are not armed. One woman is directly hit, face on, another had her back turned, and a third was some steps away. To my eye, it appears that the group as a whole was the target.
Not hostile and not a mob. The women were marching on Wall Street, not confronting the cops. The confrontation was the action of the cops.
Nobody deserves to get maced. Yet somehow you can ascertain what the discussion was and that she refused to follow orders from a public servant.
I am glad you enjoy the police hurting citizens who exercise their rights peacefully.
If you have a substantive issue with current policies and practices, you should not protest or raise awareness of those issues unless you have a coherent, workable idea of the steps necessary to address the issues. If you are unlikely to directly influence policy, it is bad to attempt to make your voice heard.
The ‘I’m not touching you’ or ‘JAQing off’ method of engagement is not disingenuous; it substantively adds to the developing conversation.
People should accept to be physically abused merely for partaking in a protest. To not expect it, or to decry it, means that the subject of the protest can be dismissed.
:rolleyes:
Besides being fairly childish, much of that is antithetical to the political foundations of the country. Shameful.
And ain’t it curious how many, many, times we’ve seen video of someone on the wrong end of a can o’ mace/pepper spray or a riot club/PR24 who’s apparently done something bad enough (in the mind of the officer) to warrant that response but somehow not bad enough to actually get arrested.
Just like in this video.
Unsub predates both and IIRC the word was used in other serial killer fare before that.
