It's absolutely true, and there are countless videos on youtube of white 'karens' resisting arrest and not being brutalized by the police.
Keep defending the indefensible, buddy. It's the right look for you.
It's absolutely true, and there are countless videos on youtube of white 'karens' resisting arrest and not being brutalized by the police.^ Yes, that's the straw man argument, that if a non-black person had acted the same way, they wouldn't be forcibly put on the ground. It's simply not true.
Brutality? If she had substantial injuries then I agree. If she did not, then it wasn't especially brutal, rather a typical physical event where someone is resisting detainment. It will happen to everyone who continues to resist detainment.
There's also plenty of videos of other races resisting arrest and not being brutalized, which is a word you threw in with no evidence.It's absolutely true, and there are countless videos on youtube of white 'karens' resisting arrest and not being brutalized by the police.
Keep defending the indefensible, buddy. It's the right look for you.
Once again, no one is arguing that there should be no consequences for theft. The actual issue being discussed here is that the law does not prescribe that those consequences be police brutality.There's also plenty of videos of other races resisting arrest and not being brutalized, which is a word you threw in with no evidence.
The indefensible, is stealing a cake then not accepting the consequences. It's the inevitable outcome of criminal behavior combined with bad choices when faced with law enforcement.
Yes excessive force should have little defense (in court), but I really don't feel sorry for anyone who wasn't seriously injured, if they bring it on themselves through the choices they make. Steal and resist detainment and you're asking for it.
What do you expect if you watch 1A community videos? I bet if you choose to watch kitten videos, you'll see a lot of kittens.FFS a significant portion of the 1a auditor community on youtube are white right-wingers flexing that they don't even have to show ID to LEO when asked, but then turn around and say "comply or die" when it's a black person.
Except this was not necessarily a case of police brutality.Once again, no one is arguing that there should be no consequences for theft. The actual issue being discussed here is that the law does not prescribe that those consequences be police brutality.
You still didn't address the rights of an arrested person. This entire incident could have been diffused if the cop had just questioned the guy with the cake.Once again you are trying to make an event turn into a reason to get up on your soapbox.
What if it's just two criminals who stole a cake then resisted apprehension and detainment, and a particular police officer who shouldn't have gone to the excess he did?
If the woman suffered substantial injuries, I'm not against her being compensated and charges filed against the officer, not just a work reprimand.
At the same time, it is self-fulfilling. A person can't just think, "I'm black and police abused someone else, so I get to steal cakes and be defiant about it, ignoring commands towards solving this potential crime".
That's asking for use of force, and of course the person it is used against, isn't going to like it, but that is not, yet another excuse to make things worse.
Well, if that doesn't just "take the cake." Everyone knows you can't have your cake and avoid a beating, too.If the left wants to win elections they have to start executing cake thieves. I thought we had established this.
I was thinking maybe the cake had to be taken because it's 'store freedom' not to have to bake them for or sell them to black people.Well, if that doesn't just "take the cake." Everyone knows you can't have your cake and avoid a beating, too.
Marie Antoinette had the right white idea, "Let them eat cake . . . so long as they're not black or gay."I was thinking maybe the cake had to be taken because it's 'store freedom' not to have to bake them for or sell them to black people.
The French, it would seem, preferred the advise of the Red Queen.Marie Antoinette had the right white idea, "Let them eat cake . . . so long as they're not black or gay."
Also, anyone who has been to a grocery store, how do you call the police and they get there that fast for a so called stolen cake?Question; how can you shoplift a cake when you are getting escorted out the shop? Dont you have to leave the shop with said item before its theft?
Next question; how do two people lift one cake? Am I guilty by proximity or what?
Anyway, that copper should receive a beating of her choice. He escalated that from a 2 to a 10 in 0 seconds.
They probably also sell doughnuts.Also, anyone who has been to a grocery store, how do you call the police and they get there that fast for a so called stolen cake?
There is no legal requirement for citizens to help police in criminal investigations. They can't obstruct, of course, but there is no requirement to assist. Nor does non-compliance, by itself, justify the use of force.Except this was not necessarily a case of police brutality.
If you watch the right angle of any scuffle with police putting someone on the ground, you could say it's brutal but it's just forcing someone to the ground who isn't complying.
If the woman was seriously injured then it is an exception. Show me the proof of that. It's not the consequences of theft. It's the consequences of being combative and non-compliant, defiant suspect instead of helping police resolve this crime.
Meanwhile, non-brick and mortar retailers can't get law enforcement to lift a finger even when fraudsters steal tens of thousands of dollars from them.Also, anyone who has been to a grocery store, how do you call the police and they get there that fast for a so called stolen cake?
There is no legal requirement for citizens to help police in criminal investigations. They can't obstruct, of course, but there is no requirement to assist. Nor does non-compliance, by itself, justify the use of force.
And she doesn't have to be seriously injured either.
The use of force must be consistent with level of threat towards the LEO, which in this case there was none. Which is why these officers are currently suspended from field duty and the LA county taxpayers are for sure looking at paying out yet another police brutality settlement.
Yaknow, nothing quite says "I'm a small govt conservative" like "comply or die." You clowns love big govt worse than any socialist or commie.
It's literally proven they have criminal gangs inside the dept, and the typical deputy extorts the taxpayers for more overtime than there are hours in the day (the compensation data for all public employees in the state of CA is readily available online), but emptyhead is gonna keep defending a govt agent who tossed a middle-aged woman to the ground just because she talked back to him as if we're supposed to believe he's an upstanding representative of the law.Oh gee, la county sheriff at it again.
“We’ve had x many days since our last brutality lawsuit”
It's literally proven they have criminal gangs inside the dept, and the typical deputy extorts the taxpayers for more overtime than there are hours in the day (the compensation data for all public employees in the state of CA is readily available online), but emptyhead is gonna keep defending a govt agent who tossed a middle-aged woman to the ground just because she talked back to him as if we're supposed to believe he's an upstanding representative of the law.
There is a legal requirement to obey commands, in that you are helping them do their job by not interfering if a bystander, and not resisting detainment and/or arrest if a suspect.
Non-compliance does justify the use of force if the suspect is not obeying the commands necessary to detain them, like turn around and hands behind your head, or get on the ground, or if it's a bystander that's coming up on them. We both know you've seen this countless times on reality TV shows if not IRL.
They are suspended because they should be until this is investigated, but a payout without significant injury would be about PR more than anything else. There's plenty of times police have had to use force to put someone on the ground and they weren't entitled to anything, except to be released if there wasn't sufficient evidence to arrest them.
Are cops allowed to arrest people without any basis? Neither of these people were informed why they were being arrested. That's a basic right, unless you are saying these particular people didn't deserve their rights.There is a legal requirement to obey commands, in that you are helping them do their job by not interfering if a bystander, and not resisting detainment and/or arrest if a suspect.
Non-compliance does justify the use of force if the suspect is not obeying the commands necessary to detain them, like turn around and hands behind your head, or get on the ground, or if it's a bystander that's coming up on them. We both know you've seen this countless times on reality TV shows if not IRL.
They are suspended because they should be until this is investigated, but a payout without significant injury would be about PR more than anything else. There's plenty of times police have had to use force to put someone on the ground and they weren't entitled to anything, except to be released if there wasn't sufficient evidence to arrest them.