Black women slammed to the ground and pepper sprayed because she recorded white cops arresting another black person.

[Vic]

Not at all. Being innocent until proven guilty, is the state of every criminal too. How are police to apprehend people if they don't have the control to do so? On the contrary, vigorous apprehension of criminals is what keeps the rest of us safe.




Ridiculous argument. When did I ever state that anyone should be denied a trial? Do you not have any idea how the legal system works?

Besides, guilt has nothing to do with whether someone should be detained using force if they won't comply, nor is it more justifiable to use excessive violence against someone even if it a certainty they are guilty, unless there is imminent danger to others at that moment.



Nope, it's you taking my argument in a direction I didn't, hoping you can then make a counter argument that isn't nonsense, except you're not even doing well at that.

At no point did I offer or suggest to impose any judgement for stealing.

If you are accused, and police come and investigate, you have to comply with their orders, you and everyone else, guilty or not. At the same time, because we have rights, we can't be indefinitely detained, have to be arrested or let free fairly soon. It “must be temporary and last no longer than is necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop…” (US v. Segoviano).

The absurd ideas you have, would effectively keep anyone guilty from being detained, and potentially arrested, if they simply didn't want to be. Someone can just choose not to comply and leave and police can do nothing because it would be "violent excessive force" to stop you, if you continued to resist?

That's not at all how reality or your rights, work. Clearly you are so deep into delusion on this topic that there's no helping you and hopefully you won't pull this nonsense in front of police if they do ever have a cause to detain you. It won't turn out well.

I've wasted enough time on this topic.

As has already been explained to you, people are only required to comply with LAWFUL orders. Telling a suspect that has only been detained that they must stop recording the interaction is not a lawful order in the state of CA.

And yeah dude, in your last post you did argue that a person could be considered guilty on the basis of accusation, using the specious logic that accusation is rare enough to warrant such.
But, this being the internet, of course you're denying saying what we can all go back and see you said.

But it is always fun to see an RWNJ get triggered and reverse course when it's suggested that they might be done unto as they wish to do unto. Never fails.

 

[mindless1]

As has already been explained to you, people are only required to comply with LAWFUL orders. Telling a suspect that has only been detained that they must stop recording the interaction is not a lawful order in the state of CA.

And yeah dude, in your last post you did argue that a person could be considered guilty on the basis of accusation, using the specious logic that accusation is rare enough to warrant such.
But, this being the internet, of course you're denying saying what we can all go back and see you said.

But it is always fun to see an RWNJ get triggered and reverse course when it's suggested that they might be done unto as they wish to do unto. Never fails.

You have no rebuttals to what I wrote so again you had no option but to imply things I did not write, then try to pretend I'm triggered or a stereotype, when it is quite the opposite, the obscene amount of time you devote to topics like this when you don't even know the law.

People should not be considered guilty on the basis of accusation, but on that basis, are still going to go through the same process of interview, detention if suspicion remains, further investigation, and then arrest if there is sufficient evidence. The process is the same right up until they are arrested or released. Yes, people have to necessarily be treated as if they MIGHT be guilty, but there is no penalty attached to that.

It's not about not being able to record the event, rather not complying with commands whether they are recording or doing something else instead.

If I weren't already bored with this topic, I'd have wondered just how you expect police to ever enforce the law if they cannot issue commands and detain people. It makes no sense, like you want anarchy.

I've made no reversals in course. You just imagined I meant things that I didn't write and upon clarification, you realize you are wrong so have no rebuttal.

For example in your post I've quoted:

1) I never stated that people were required to comply with unlawful orders.

2) I never stated that people must stop recording, yet they must obey commands consistent with being detained if it is deemed appropriate to detain them.

3) I never stated that a person should be considered guilty, though it should be obvious that suspects are treated as suspects, because police don't have a crystal ball that can tell them if a court would later find a suspect guilty.

This topic is a waste of time. You cannot accept the law and think that posting deceptive things, changes that.

 

[Vic]

You have no rebuttals to what I wrote so again you had no option but to imply things I did not write, then try to pretend I'm triggered or a stereotype, when it is quite the opposite, the obscene amount of time you devote to topics like this when you don't even know the law.

People should not be considered guilty on the basis of accusation, but on that basis, are still going to go through the same process of interview, detention if suspicion remains, further investigation, and then arrest if there is sufficient evidence. The process is the same right up until they are arrested or released. Yes, people have to necessarily be treated as if they MIGHT be guilty, but there is no penalty attached to that.

It's not about not being able to record the event, rather not complying with commands whether they are recording or doing something else instead.

If I weren't already bored with this topic, I'd have wondered just how you expect police to ever enforce the law if they cannot issue commands and detain people. It makes no sense, like you want anarchy.

I've made no reversals in course. You just imagined I meant things that I didn't write and upon clarification, you realize you are wrong so have no rebuttal.

For example in your post I've quoted:

1) I never stated that people were required to comply with unlawful orders.

2) I never stated that people must stop recording, yet they must obey commands consistent with being detained if it is deemed appropriate to detain them.

3) I never stated that a person should be considered guilty, though it should be obvious that suspects are treated as suspects, because police don't have a crystal ball that can tell them if a court would later find a suspect guilty.

This topic is a waste of time. You cannot accept the law and think that posting deceptive things, changes that.

In what respect was the officer throwing to the ground the middle-aged woman who was neither fleeing the scene nor resisting detention within the confines of the law?

And for the record, I am opposed to anarchy and criminal behavior. Which is why I insist that ALL persons be bound by the rule of law. Including, and this is clearly the hard part for you, law enforcement officials. No one is above the law. Not even (especially not) those tasked with enforcing it.

 

[Vic]

Why is it that the posters who complain of being bored or otherwise dismissive of the topic are usually the same ones who keep replying back with full-page thesis?
Brevity is the key to a solid logical argument. If you have to go on at great length in order to make a simple point, that's because 1) you've made it personal, and 2) you came to your conclusion first and are now trying to make your logic fit your conclusion rather than having your conclusion fit your logic.

The issue before us is actually quite simple.
The evidence is that a couple was accused of petty shoplifting at a grocery store. The store's loss prevention employees over-reported theft as robbery due to personal contact (would be interesting to know Winco's policies in this regard). The video begins after LEO has arrived and shows that neither suspect is attempting to leave the scene, with one in the process of being handcuffed by officers, while the other is recording and visibly upset. An officer commands her to stop recording, the woman does not comply with this unlawful command, and the officer uses considerable physical force in order to obtain compliance.
The questions are:
Was the use of force warranted?
Was the use of force necessary?
And was the use of force excessive?
The obvious answers, based upon the evidence, are no, no, and yes.

And I want to be clear about something. The argument that not throwing this woman to the ground and beating and pepperspraying her into compliance will somehow lead to an explosion in crime and jeopardize public safety is fucking emotional horseshit.
It was a fucking cake. And for all anyone of us actually know, the store employees called it in because the couple declined to let them check their receipt.

And FYI the corporate loss mitigation equation of over-reporting a theft to law enforcement vs letting the $15 cake go out the door and flagging those customers in the security system is heavily slanted against the store employees here.

 

[mindless1]

In what respect was the officer throwing to the ground the middle-aged woman who was neither fleeing the scene nor resisting detention within the confines of the law?

And for the record, I am opposed to anarchy and criminal behavior. Which is why I insist that ALL persons be bound by the rule of law. Including, and this is clearly the hard part for you, law enforcement officials. No one is above the law. Not even (especially not) those tasked with enforcing it.

When did I state that it was within the confines of the law?

It is pretty clear that after the woman made the mistake of trying to make a spectacle out of this instead of trying to cooperate in the investigation, that the officer went too far, and should be held accountable, but only for injuries sustained, not some massive payout based on PR. I mean from a monetary perspective, the officer should also be highly scrutinized and probably removed from LEO duty, globally. We need more than this little snippet of video to see what lead up to this.

Even so, that does not change anything else about the situation. It does not change what your rights are and aren't, does not change a requirement to comply with commands when an officer is controlling the scene, and does not limit an officer from using force to detain someone.

It is not hard at all for me to want LEOs held accountable. I never stated they shouldn't be, quite the opposite if you actually read my posts instead of cherry picking only the parts you thought you could twist into something to argue about.

For the record, I am done with this topic. I attempted to inform people what was true and what was fiction, not try to justify or deny whether the event should have happened. Clearly mistakes were made on both sides and if the woman WAS significantly injured, her mistakes were less than those of the LEO that manhandled her. That still doesn't change any of the other misinformation being posted in this topic.

What happens if people start acting on this misinformation? Odds are pretty fair that they'll get hurt, and whether it's their fault or that of an abusive LEO, they still got hurt. People need to accept submission to LEOs because it's necessary in the process of law enforcement. Even. IF. They. Make. Mistakes. Disagree, do what you want, but I'm telling you, your attitude is a lot closer to that of people who get hurt, than mine is.

 

[Moonbeam]

Truth is always some third way I was taught by people who saw a third way. Truth is a paradox that resolves itself at a higher level of understand, it was explained to me by people at a level of understanding well beyond me.

What I see is the paradox hidden in law enforcement, a methodology for maintaining order out of chaos by means of violence and physical threat. How can you make people obey the law if you can't use intimidation and punishment to maintain order. And after that how do you prevent the same kind of corruption that drives people to crime not infecting the body charged with maintaining law and order.

We have our authoritarians and our libertarians who see different aspects of the same coin, the dilemma created by violence. What is the proper amount, how do you regulate, how do you protect and punish, how do you prevent, etc. Who ever considers that crime is an act committed only by people who hate themselves, who have no inner conscience that bothers them about harming others, be it criminal or cop. Perhaps some day the real issue will come into focus and society will make some real efforts at progress, the sickness created by putting down children to force conformity on them. Only love of others will prevent crime.

 

[Fenixgoon]

clearly this man made a grave mistake by..... complying with the officers orders?

https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/12/us/derek-diaz-orlando-police-shooting-death/index.html

mods please move to new thread if needed

 

[Vic]

clearly this man made a grave mistake by..... complying with the officers orders?

https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/12/us/derek-diaz-orlando-police-shooting-death/index.html

mods please move to new thread if needed

Gotta love how the police want people to believe that the possible presence of drugs justifies one of their officers fucking up and committing a homicide.

These false narratives from law enforcement to justify their incompetence need to stop.

 

[Vic]

Truth is always some third way I was taught by people who saw a third way. Truth is a paradox that resolves itself at a higher level of understand, it was explained to me by people at a level of understanding well beyond me.

What I see is the paradox hidden in law enforcement, a methodology for maintaining order out of chaos by means of violence and physical threat. How can you make people obey the law if you can't use intimidation and punishment to maintain order. And after that how do you prevent the same kind of corruption that drives people to crime not infecting the body charged with maintaining law and order.

We have our authoritarians and our libertarians who see different aspects of the same coin, the dilemma created by violence. What is the proper amount, how do you regulate, how do you protect and punish, how do you prevent, etc. Who ever considers that crime is an act committed only by people who hate themselves, who have no inner conscience that bothers them about harming others, be it criminal or cop. Perhaps some day the real issue will come into focus and society will make some real efforts at progress, the sickness created by putting down children to force conformity on them. Only love of others will prevent crime.

One of my co-workers, who is ex-law enforcement, once told me the he "hated our govt, but supported the police." And I looked at him and said "but the police are the govt."
Our relationship has been a bit strained ever since. Luckily he reports to me and not the other way around.

 

[Moonbeam]

One of my co-workers, who is ex-law enforcement, once told me the he "hated our govt, but supported the police." And I looked at him and said "but the police are the govt."
Our relationship has been a bit strained ever since. Luckily he reports to me and not the other way around.

I would say that on average if you tell a blind person who is actually blind they are blind they will a likely agree, but it you point out to a person who thinks they can see that they actually don't they will be highly offended. Most people don't like to see if they are hypocrites. It could be luck but there's always the possibility you are where you by recognition of merit.

 

[HomerJS]

You have no rebuttals to what I wrote so again you had no option but to imply things I did not write, then try to pretend I'm triggered or a stereotype, when it is quite the opposite, the obscene amount of time you devote to topics like this when you don't even know the law.

People should not be considered guilty on the basis of accusation, but on that basis, are still going to go through the same process of interview, detention if suspicion remains, further investigation, and then arrest if there is sufficient evidence. The process is the same right up until they are arrested or released. Yes, people have to necessarily be treated as if they MIGHT be guilty, but there is no penalty attached to that.

It's not about not being able to record the event, rather not complying with commands whether they are recording or doing something else instead.

If I weren't already bored with this topic, I'd have wondered just how you expect police to ever enforce the law if they cannot issue commands and detain people. It makes no sense, like you want anarchy.

I've made no reversals in course. You just imagined I meant things that I didn't write and upon clarification, you realize you are wrong so have no rebuttal.

For example in your post I've quoted:

1) I never stated that people were required to comply with unlawful orders.

2) I never stated that people must stop recording, yet they must obey commands consistent with being detained if it is deemed appropriate to detain them.

3) I never stated that a person should be considered guilty, though it should be obvious that suspects are treated as suspects, because police don't have a crystal ball that can tell them if a court would later find a suspect guilty.

This topic is a waste of time. You cannot accept the law and think that posting deceptive things, changes that.

This isn't hard to figure out. Just treat people like decent human beings.

Couple walks out of store: Police, "I need to ask you a few questions."

What likely would have happened is the couple would have entertained the questions and the issue could have been deescalated. If they refused, then detainment is warranted.

What happened? Couple walks out of store and police immediately arrest the man with no explanation. With the abuse of black people by police I don't blame the couple one bit for their reaction. However, you seem to think that particular couple didn't deserve basic dignity and rights.

 

[darkswordsman17]

One of my co-workers, who is ex-law enforcement, once told me the he "hated our govt, but supported the police." And I looked at him and said "but the police are the govt."
Our relationship has been a bit strained ever since. Luckily he reports to me and not the other way around.

Its because, much like Jesus/God, they believe police are a divine entity that is above the law. I'm not even joking, that's the level of discourse in these peoples' brains.

Literally every person I've encountered that is even tangentially connected to law enforcement is wholly unwilling to entertain any criticism of it, even when confronted with blatant proof of a multitude of objectively verifiable abhorrent behavior (that they will openly call for just straight up murdering non-police persons for just being accused of having perpetrated). There is exception, and that's when they themselves or someone close to them has to interact with police due to even minor things (like say a speeding ticket, where they'll openly admit they were speeding but somehow the police are this evil cabal that is out to get them, singularly). At which point, its "don't say anything, don't cooperate, you cannot trust police at all." And when pointing out this odd dichotomy they get mad that somehow these saints, these angelic beings, are not arbiters of truth any more.