[News] The USA Police State will never satisfy its lust for beating, gassing, and imprisoning minorities

Cajungal

Cajungal

Staff member
Null said:
Yes, just not in the case where it was, you know, actually used. When a brawl is in progress, then yes, taking a belligerent down and subduing them is absolutely justified. When a girl is mouthing off at her desk? Not so much. Some people might consider the circumstances to be slightly different.
Click to expand...
When he went to grab her, she kind of elbowed him and tried to wriggle out, but yeah, his response was really harsh. The sheriff commented in a news article that it was a situation that he should have worked to calm down, not escalate. But he'd be saying that right now even if he didn't believe it. How would it look to get a belligerent, but not really threatening, individual out of an awkward school desk appropriately? I bet it's difficult to do. I'm not defending what he did at all. It was wrong. But I'm just wondering. I often put myself in the place of the officer and wonder how they're trained to physically handle a situation like that one, where someone's in a weird position and you can't really move them easily.
 
Gruebeard

Gruebeard

I would think if it's that difficult to do, then you don't do it. You wait it out and calm yourself down as you calm down the "perpetrator." Sure, she's disrupting the class and being a hassle for a lot of people, but that is a really small price to pay to avoid teaching all those kids that cops are assholes.

(Not that cops are assholes)
 
Null

Null

That's just it, it wasn't physical until the cop grabbed her. That's a major escalation, from a classroom disruption to an assault. So yeah, dealing with a noncompliant person in a shaped desk might be hard, but jumping it up to a body slam is not the right move. Generally, if they're not posing a threat, I'd think talking and waiting would generally be the solution.
 
Tress

Tress

The "talk it out" side of the argument doesn't work. She's already disrupting class. She's disrespecting authority and needs to shown that she is not in charge. She definitely needed to be physically removed.

But dear God, not like that. The slamming around was a grossly disproportionate response.

There's a middle ground here. He should have grabbed her and/or restrained her in a controlled manner until she complied. He should not have slammed her to the ground or dragged her out.

Ugh. The whole situation was shit, from both sides. The cop was much, much more out of line though. He deserved to be fired, and a lawsuit would be reasonable IMO.
 
evilmike

evilmike

GasBandit said:
Cop got fired. Turns out he has a history of violent behavior.
http://www.complex.com/pop-culture/...ory-of-violent-arrests-including-army-veteran

Meanwhile, in another school, here's a picture of a principal getting tossed when he tried to stop a fight between students in the cafeteria.

http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/crime/article41673117.html

Sometimes a strong arm might be a little warranted.
Click to expand...
Of course, it looks like the people who committed battery in that story have been arrested. So far, aside from the student who was acting out, the only other person who has been arrested in the first story is one of the students who vocally objected to the attack. (via WLTX)
 
D

Dubyamn

Cajungal said:
When he went to grab her, she kind of elbowed him and tried to wriggle out, but yeah, his response was really harsh. The sheriff commented in a news article that it was a situation that he should have worked to calm down, not escalate. But he'd be saying that right now even if he didn't believe it. How would it look to get a belligerent, but not really threatening, individual out of an awkward school desk appropriately? I bet it's difficult to do. I'm not defending what he did at all. It was wrong. But I'm just wondering. I often put myself in the place of the officer and wonder how they're trained to physically handle a situation like that one, where someone's in a weird position and you can't really move them easily.
Click to expand...
Well I know back when I was in school those desks move pretty easily and it's not like there's anyway the person in the desk can avoid being dragged backwards. Might have been a big hassle to drag the desk out to the hallway but it's certainly the adult way to handle the situation.
 
DarkAudit

DarkAudit

Dubyamn said:
Well I know back when I was in school those desks move pretty easily and it's not like there's anyway the person in the desk can avoid being dragged backwards. Might have been a big hassle to drag the desk out to the hallway but it's certainly the adult way to handle the situation.
Click to expand...
Maybe it's the "not had coffee yet," but with a second officer, they could have just carried her, desk and all, out the door, down the hallway *in full view of everyone*, and outside to the waiting squad car.
 
Ravenpoe

Ravenpoe

Dubyamn said:
Well I know back when I was in school those desks move pretty easily and it's not like there's anyway the person in the desk can avoid being dragged backwards. Might have been a big hassle to drag the desk out to the hallway but it's certainly the adult way to handle the situation.
Click to expand...
The whole slamming thing is pretty gross, but any attempt to suggest he was just trying to detain and control goes out the window with the rest of the video. The sheriff's office pointed out when they announced his termination that the video shows him pick the student up and then throw her across the room after she'd been taken from the desk. At that point, he was no longer making any attempt to control or contain, he was just being violent.
 
strawman

strawman

This defies explanation:

http://gawker.com/california-cop-guns-down-man-crawling-from-car-wreckage-1747954638

Officer approaches a wrecked car, the survivor of the wreck is climbing out of the wreck, and the officer shoots them. There doesn't seem to be any explanation as to why the officer felt they were a threat, it's all on the officer's dash cam. The DA isn't going to prosecute, calling it an accidental shooting. The person survived, though may be paralyzed as the bullet hit their spine.

Video in link.
 
Denbrought

Denbrought

stienman said:
This defies explanation:

http://gawker.com/california-cop-guns-down-man-crawling-from-car-wreckage-1747954638

Officer approaches a wrecked car, the survivor of the wreck is climbing out of the wreck, and the officer shoots them. There doesn't seem to be any explanation as to why the officer felt they were a threat, it's all on the officer's dash cam. The DA isn't going to prosecute, calling it an accidental shooting. The person survived, though may be paralyzed as the bullet hit their spine.

Video in link.
Click to expand...
If I had to take a wild guess, they don't want to prosecute so as to not give more ammunition to the multi-$M civil suit that will inevitably follow.
 
fade

fade

Staff member
Rice was a terrible tragedy, but it's also unfair to classify it the same as some of the other shootings. This was a mistake anyone, regardless of races involved, could've made. Note that I said "could", not "would". In complete fairness, no one told the officers that the person who reported the kid to 911 knew the gun was fake. I thought about it from the perspective of the officer--you've got a report that someone is pulling a gun and pointing it at people. Your job is to make sure this person kills no one. You warn the person verbally. The person draws a realistic toy gun and points it at you. What do you do?

For reference, this is a photo of the actual toy gun. Someone had removed the orange safety tip:



Note that I in no way condone the death of Rice. However, this is not the same as choking a man to death for selling untaxed cigarettes or hanging a woman in her cell because she back talked to you.
 
Ravenpoe

Ravenpoe

fade said:
Rice was a terrible tragedy, but it's also unfair to classify it the same as some of the other shootings. This was a mistake anyone, regardless of races involved, could've made. Note that I said "could", not "would". In complete fairness, no one told the officers that the person who reported the kid to 911 knew the gun was fake. I thought about it from the perspective of the officer--you've got a report that someone is pulling a gun and pointing it at people. Your job is to make sure this person kills no one. You warn the person verbally. The person draws a realistic toy gun and points it at you. What do you do?

For reference, this is a photo of the actual toy gun. Someone had removed the orange safety tip:



Note that I in no way condone the death of Rice. However, this is not the same as choking a man to death for selling untaxed cigarettes or hanging a woman in her cell because she back talked to you.
Click to expand...

Was there evidence of a verbal warning? I don't disagree with you, I think it was a terrible tragedy and very likely a mistake rather than anything malicious, but from the (admittedly grainy) servailance video, it appears the officers pulled up while he was at a picnic table and shot him immediately after exiting the car.
 
Reverent-one

Reverent-one

fade said:
Rice was a terrible tragedy, but it's also unfair to classify it the same as some of the other shootings. This was a mistake anyone, regardless of races involved, could've made. Note that I said "could", not "would". In complete fairness, no one told the officers that the person who reported the kid to 911 knew the gun was fake. I thought about it from the perspective of the officer--you've got a report that someone is pulling a gun and pointing it at people. Your job is to make sure this person kills no one. You warn the person verbally. The person draws a realistic toy gun and points it at you. What do you do?

For reference, this is a photo of the actual toy gun. Someone had removed the orange safety tip:



Note that I in no way condone the death of Rice. However, this is not the same as choking a man to death for selling untaxed cigarettes or hanging a woman in her cell because she back talked to you.
Click to expand...
If the situation matched your hypothetical, that would be another matter. But from video evidence, they pulled right up to him and shot him, without time to give him the verbal warning they claimed they gave 3 times (much less time to actually comply), and his gun was still in his waistband rather than pointed at the cops. The fact that the toy gun had the orange cap removed is a moot point, they never saw the end of the gun and wouldn't have seen it if it had been on.
 
fade

fade

Staff member
I haven't watched the video, so I very well could be wrong. They claimed there was sufficient evidence that the officers issued a warning, for whatever that's worth.
 
blotsfan

blotsfan

I don't want to watch the video because it sounds awful, but from what I've read the time between exiting the car and shooting the kid was about 3 seconds.
 
Dave

Dave

Staff member
Yeah, and the initial reports even said the gun was fake (although that information might not have gotten to the officer). In any event, there was no attempt at all to deescalate a situation and instead the officer was ready to shoot even before he pulled up. Add in the fact that they refused medical care that might have saved him, and you have a clusterfuck of stupidity that had it been done by a civilian would have resulted in multiple charges.
 
Reverent-one

Reverent-one

blotsfan said:
I don't want to watch the video because it sounds awful, but from what I've read the time between exiting the car and shooting the kid was about 3 seconds.
Click to expand...
The more generous reports put it at 1.7 seconds, though in one of the more recent ones that the attorney for the family released the expert put it at under 1.

blotsfan said:
Jesus, of the recent spate of these that seemed like the most open and shut.
Click to expand...
I thought that as well.
 
fade

fade

Staff member
I stand corrected.

Thanks for the fact-based corrections, instead of insulting me and angrily shouting me down, which surely would've put me on the defensive. I see my mistakes now, rather than remaining defensively ignorant of them like I would probably have if everyone had resorted to anger and insults.

/zerosarcasm
Cough.
 
Gruebeard

Gruebeard

fade said:
I stand corrected.

Thanks for the fact-based corrections, instead of insulting me and angrily shouting me down, which surely would've put me on the defensive. I see my mistakes now, rather than remaining defensively ignorant of them like I would probably have if everyone had resorted to anger and insults.

/zerosarcasm
Cough.
Click to expand...
I still can't tell if you're being sarcastic.
 
fade

fade

Staff member
Not you personally. I just don't understand what people think is going to happen when they angrily attack a position they disagree with. It might make you feel better, but it will never change the other person's mind. In fact, it will usually entrench them more than they were originally because they get defensive. Even when I agree with someone, if their tactic is jumping on people, it just makes me think, "stop helping" sometimes. Unless their objective is not to change the world but just bark at the mailman, in which case, carry on.

Also it wasn't just passive aggression. I genuinely meant it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top