We could learn that there was a history between one of the cops and the band leader. Who knows?
But I do think the police set a negative tone from the start. It shouldn’t be just the band leader who could have set a good example. Those police could also set a good example for all those kids by being reasonable. The cop who tased him was not in fear for his life, he was just pissed. I’m glad he didn’t pull his pistol instead, by mistake.
I watch a lot of OP Live and see a lot of cops interacting with large groups. Most of the police on that show are really pretty good about dealing with the situation. They approach in a friendly manner and explain what the problem is and they keep calm and measured. They might even joke around with some people in the group or ask questions about a hat or the music that’s playing. I can’t even recall a crowd scene turning bad after they’ve approached it in this manner. The cops here could have done that. They could have enjoyed the music and maybe even clapped for the band afterwards. Complimented the band, urged the kids to stay in school.
Now that would be a good example to show those kids. “See, not all cops are bad.”
I sincerely hope the band leader does not suffer any permanent damage from being tased twice.
Why use guess words like “apparently” and “might or might not have”? The transcript is available above, there’s no need to guess. It doesn’t support what you’re saying.
They were waving in his field of vision. He knew they were there and acknowledged their presence and even their request. All of this is in the transcript. Here in a thread where everyone is suggesting it’s a grave civil rights violation to ask a band to stop playing, now you want the police to communicate their point by initiating physical contact?
This is ridiculous. When I went to high school, in a middle-to-upper-class predominantly white neighborhood, no one took any issue with people “hanging out” after a football game. But I guess the standards are different if minorities are involved…
Laughable. You repeating over and over again that there can’t be any reason why one band could be done and another wasn’t. You have no facts whatsoever to suggest that this was outside of the normal course.
I’m not reading anyone’s minds. I have provided some reasonable inferences from documented facts. It’s my opinion. Just like you have been providing.
I’m perfectly up front of my bias against the police. Don’t pretend that your biases in favor are “facts”.
I doubt it was anything like that. If I were to guess and speculate, I know in my home county there are certain combinations of rival teams that have led to hooliganism and injuries over multiple years in the past. In those cases I want the police clearing the entire field before anyone gets hurt.
I don’t know the parties involved here so I can’t say for certain this is the case. But if you’ve been around high school sports at all, you would not say this is a ridiculous scenario that couldn’t possibly happen. There’s public risk in people loitering after a game, there’s no public benefit. It’s a net negative cost to society, people just need to go home after the buzzer. Or the party or the dance, wherever arrangements have been made to safely host a crowd.
The police officer told you exactly what happenef in the bodycam footage:
These officers are the sorts of pathetic, insecure men who treat challenges to their authority as personal assaults. This officer felt his manhood was being threatened by the band director, so he was “fixing” to take action, and found pretext to do so.
Unfortunately, the profession of law enforcement seems particularly attractive to these sorts of people. It would behoove police departments to root them out and get rid of them - such people are unfit to wield authority over others.
Hmmmm…somehow I seem to have missed that. Can you please point out where anyone (never mind everyone) suggested “it’s a grave civil rights violation to ask a band to stop playing?”
If you want to accuse someone of pro-cop bias, I would not pick on the guy who earlier in this thread stated:
So that’s me being initially skeptical toward cops (as I always am), and changing my position in response to new information.
If you want to suggest I’m wrong, fine. I could point you to evidence of that (in other threads, not this one). If you think I’m blindly pro-cop, again it’s very plain that you’re not engaging with facts in evidence.
This is going to blow your mind, but there’s a thing called rhetorical hyperbole, and it’s surfaced in this thread once or twice. I’ll own mine. You want to own yours?
The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers.
Attributed by Plato to Socrates, circa 400-something B.C.
If you say you don’t have one, I will take you at your word, but absolutely nothing in that quote shows a lack of pro-cop bias.
Call me skeptical though, as you have apparently concluded (post 94) that, it was a lawful order and that there was a plausible public safety interest involved in that order. Those are 100% not facts in evidence, and will likely not be answered until there is a trial.
Yeah, that’s one’s on me. In a thread where people have demonstrated no interest or ability in separating fact from rhetoric, it was a bad idea to trust the audience for even a half-sentence of literary license. I appreciate your demonstrating the necessity of being tediously literal and obvious at all times.