cops, and the mindset we're permitting them

Dvergar · **Posted:** Wed Apr 27, 2011 4:14 pm

Quote:

whenever a cop approaches you and starts asking you to do shit...you just comply.

And this is exactly why cops can get around our constitutional rights. I'm not saying fight back, but people allow officers to do things they aren't allowed to force you to.

As for the video, the woman was clearly in the wrong for punching the officer, but the officer was clearly in the wrong for smacking her in the face (nice revision there "pushing her away"). Her face wasn't in holding up the arrest more than her hand on his shoulder was. And even if she punched an officer in the arm twice that doesn't mean the officer can punch her in the face, while her arms were being held, while it was 3 on 1 and she was unarmed. It doesn't matter if it would have been a guy, it still would have been wrong.

Mns · **Posted:** Wed Apr 27, 2011 4:41 pm

If I have the cop's toolbelt of mace, a loaded gun, one of those baseball bats for flashlights, and months or years of both training and on the force, don't tell me that some hysterical woman that's probably half my weight is going to pose any sort of legitimate threat in an IHOP, especially if I have 2 buddies just as heavily armed and as trained with me.

Like I said, we don't have context, but the idea of "if you resist against a cop, you deserve to get beat down" is ridiculous. If he was being calm and talking to her friend and she swung (or whatever) at him, then that's something different.

Battletard · **Posted:** Wed Apr 27, 2011 6:48 pm

Mayo, it's assault on a police officer if you so much as touch them with a single finger. What she did far exceeded the definition of assaulting an officer. I'm not one to take up for police, but I think Azelma had it right when he said the threshold for brutality is compliance vs noncompliance.

Compliance with an officer's reasonable requests and demands is common sense. In the first video where the guy was LEGALLY allowed to have his camera and have it running, he did not have to comply and should not have complied.

In the IHOP video, if you fucking hit a cop, I don't care who you are..that cop is gonna subdue you with whatever force is deemed necessary. Keyword here being necessary.

The cop hit her once and initiated a takedown. Excessive force comes into play when you have the subject subdued and CONTINUE to batter and beat them.

Dvergar · **Posted:** Wed Apr 27, 2011 7:05 pm

Battletard wrote:

Azelma had it right when he said the threshold for brutality is compliance vs noncompliance.

Quote:

he did not have to comply and should not have complied.

Are you reading the things you write?

Quote:

Excessive force comes into play when you have the subject subdued and CONTINUE to batter and beat them.

Not even remotely correct.

Quote:

The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) in Data Collection on Police Use of Force, states that "…the legal test of excessive force…is whether the police officer reasonably believed that such force was necessary to accomplish a legitimate police purpose…" However, there are no universally accepted definitions of "reasonable" and "necessary" because the terms are subjective. A court in one jurisdiction may define "reasonable" or "necessary" differently than a court in a second jurisdiction. More to the point is an understanding of the "improper" use of force, which can be divided into two categories: "unnecessary" and "excessive." The unnecessary use of force would be the application of force where there is no justification for its use, while an excessive use of force would be the application of more force than required where use of force is necessary.

Considering the punch to the face: there was not justification and the force was excessive for what was required for compliance. The takedown wasn't even bad and unless the cop picks someone up off the ground and slams then down, it's hard to say a takedown is excessive or unjustified.

Usdk · **Posted:** Wed Apr 27, 2011 7:23 pm

cops are not allowed to hit you once you're in cuffs. that much is for sure.

Tehra · **Posted:** Wed Apr 27, 2011 7:32 pm

Usdk wrote:

cops are not allowed to hit you once you're in cuffs. that much is for sure.

yeah, if you're resisting then, that's what the taser's for.

Usdk · **Posted:** Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:22 pm

lol i prefer the tazer to someone having their face kicked in any day. the tazer, unless you're a fat fat fatty or otherwise abnormally large human being, is an I-WIN button.

Dvergar · **Posted:** Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:42 pm

Usdk wrote:

lol i prefer the tazer to someone having their face kicked in any day. the tazer, unless you're a fat fat fatty or otherwise abnormally large human being, is an I-WIN button.

http://www.fquick.com/videos/COPS__big_ ... sered/2769

It's an I-WIN even if you are a big dude. This is an oldie but a goodie.

Battletard · **Posted:** Thu Apr 28, 2011 5:06 am

Quote:

Are you reading the things you write?

Are you cutting and pasting certain parts of what I said and omitting others to attempt to make me look like a moron? Yes you are, shut the fuck up plz.

Dvergar · **Posted:** Thu Apr 28, 2011 6:42 am

Battletard wrote:

Are you cutting and pasting certain parts of what I said and omitting others to attempt to make me look like a moron? Yes you are, shut the fuck up plz.

You said he shouldn't have complied, thus by not complying his ass-whopping would have, by your own assertions, become justified and not brutality.

Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

cops, and the mindset we're permitting them

Who is online