Grandpa Tastes Concrete Over Videogames

[Darkmantle]

Funny thing is in many cases the police officer will run into internal discipline if he DOESN'T use an extreme level of force. Because the supervisors will point out that he placed himself (and their disability benefits funds) in danger by taking a less violent and aggressive approach that exposed him to the potential for being injured by the individual in custody.

if that's how the police force is run, it needs to be rebuilt from the ground up. that is despicable. they are there to protect the people, not their disability funds. If you are not willing to place yourself in danger, policing is not for you. at least not up in canada.

 

[SmegInThePants]

if you think that's bad, here's a recent one from my neck of the woods:

http://mynorthwest.com/?nid=15&sid=583255

***

but back to the OP's story. The proper place to fight police is the courts. When they are actually there in front of you, whether you agree w/them or not, you say yes sir and do whatever they ask. Not to say this guy didn't do that, he may well have been cooperative and got face planted anyways. When you can help it though, better to argue about it later, w/a lawyer, maybe even make some money and get the cop fired, and save yourself from eating the floor.

on a side note, i read an interesting book about american police, talking about how police have changed. Back in the day, police had 'beats' and would be on foot, each neighborhood had its own cop. That cop would be there every day. He would know who belonged, who didn't, could detect suspicious behavior on sight, and could often stop crime *before* it happened. Whereas now, cops are isolated inside their cars, have no way of knowing who does or doesn't belong somewhere, and respond almost exclusively through the 911 system *after* the fact, not counting traffic stops and occasional stings. The modern police are far more reactive and than pro-active. hehe, then again, this guy in the OP's story was pretty pro-active, a little too much, so it obviously isn't necessarily a good thing.

but its ok, out here we have the phoenix, we don't need no police.

 

[SmegInThePants]

And you're right. It's impossible to know intent without being psychic. That's why it could just as easily be argued the other way.

and you're right, it could just as easily be argued either way what his intent was in stuffing this in his waistband, but since it has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, we need much more than that to convict him: so it would stand to reason that even if we could nab him before he's even hit the check stands that we should wait and see what he does. Arresting him before we can show beyond a reasonable doubt what his intent was is not only useless, it prevents us from gathering anymore evidence as to what he actually intended to do since we have now stopped his progress.

just look at the disagreement in this forum topic over the issue. Now imagine trying to get 12 jurors to agree beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to steal that game. Not likely. If I was a county prosecutor I surely wouldn't pursue this case.

 

[McNinja]

This is nothing compared to what the police have gotten away with in the past. there was a case brought against the police in DC where two women called the police because they were about to be raped, but the policeman went to the outside of the building knocked on the door, then left. Meanwhile, the man had dragged to two women into the room and raped them for nearly 12 hours straight. What happened to the police? Nothing.

Man get slammed to the ground? please. How about the police don't actually have to help just beccause you call 911? This is far, far worse:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

 

[awsome117]

if that's how the police force is run, it needs to be rebuilt from the ground up. that is despicable. they are there to protect the people, not their disability funds. If you are not willing to place yourself in danger, policing is not for you. at least not up in canada.

But they also need to protect themselves as well. If you don't know what the guy has on him or what he is capable of, it could lead to very terrible circumstances. Also the main goal of the police is not to protect people, but to uphold the law. Also, he was willing to put himself in danger. He was an officer on duty on black friday. That is a very scary day for anyone, police in particular as regular people turn into crazy frenzy.

The argument can go either way at this point who was in the wrong, since not enough evidence is given. Me personally, I side with the cop.

 

[Darkmantle]

if that's how the police force is run, it needs to be rebuilt from the ground up. that is despicable. they are there to protect the people, not their disability funds. If you are not willing to place yourself in danger, policing is not for you. at least not up in canada.

But they also need to protect themselves as well. If you don't know what the guy has on him or what he is capable of, it could lead to very terrible circumstances. Also the main goal of the police is not to protect people, but to uphold the law. Also, he was willing to put himself in danger. He was an officer on duty on black friday. That is a very scary day for anyone, police in particular as regular people turn into crazy frenzy.

The argument can go either way at this point who was in the wrong, since not enough evidence is given. Me personally, I side with the cop.

They need to protect themselves, not assume every person they deal with is a violent criminal. Police must be willing to take risks, not be terrified of getting hurt to the point of excessive force.

EDIT: so I guess because the officer was on edge because of the scary holiday he over reacted to something minor then. sounds about right.

 

[awsome117]

They need to protect themselves, not assume every person they deal with is a violent criminal. Police must be willing to take risks, not be terrified of getting hurt to the point of excessive force.

EDIT: so I guess because the officer was on edge because of the scary holiday he over reacted to something minor then. sounds about right.

The officer was taking a risk. They took a risk subduing the suspect, even though it could lead them to harm if things took a wrong turn. Also from some source, excessive force wasn't used until the grandpa started flailing about.

Like I said, it can go either way on this one until there is more evidence revealed, if ever there is. Until then, I still side with the cop.

 

[Darkmantle]

They need to protect themselves, not assume every person they deal with is a violent criminal. Police must be willing to take risks, not be terrified of getting hurt to the point of excessive force.

EDIT: so I guess because the officer was on edge because of the scary holiday he over reacted to something minor then. sounds about right.

The officer was taking a risk. They took a risk subduing the suspect, even though it could lead them to harm if things took a wrong turn. Also from some source, excessive force wasn't used until the grandpa started flailing about.

Like I said, it can go either way on this one until there is more evidence revealed, if ever there is. Until then, I still side with the cop.

excessive force is still excessive, just saying.

and the best way to minimize risk isn't excessive force.

 

[Guardian of Nekops]

This all depends.

Security was well within its rights to go up to the gentleman and say, "Excuse me sir, but could you remove that game from your waistband and be sure to keep it out in the open? Yes, we know you weren't trying to steal anything, but it's store policy..."

If they started that way, then they should be able to escalate as far as they need to. If someone gives you attitude, you invite him back to the station. If he doesn't come along willingly, you put a hand on his shoulder and lead him. If he struggles, you tackle him. If he pulls a gun, you shoot him... escalation happens until the situation is under control, always staying one and only one step ahead of the troublemaker. That's the only way to do it... but it starts with a polite, "Excuse me, sir, but you aren't allowed to do that." Give the poor guy a chance to cooperate and explain.

On the other hand, if they just came out of left field and shoved his face into the ground, then that's uncalled for. Hopefully, the same cameras that let them see him will prove what happened one way or the other.

So then you're going to be completely calm when you're being arrested without just cause, right? We don't live in a police state, yet. Last I checked, it is your right and responsibility to determine exactly why you're being arrested before you allow the police to handcuff you.

When a police officer is talking to me, I am absolutely going to be completely calm. And consumately polite. You have the right to know what you're being charged with, sure, but the police officers have the right to defend themselves too... they're nervous, and rightly so. For all they know, you're gonna pull out a gun and shoot them. If you challenge their authority with physical force, they are going to, HAVE to, respond in kind.

IF a police officer acts improperly and doesn't read you your rights, your best bet is to cooperate, keep your mouth shut, and get yourself the cheapest lawyer you can. Hell, go with the free lawyer they provide you. You know why? Because lawyers put careless cops to shame every day. That's just about the first thing they learn to do.

However, when was the last time that physical force won out against the law of the land, and I mean actually won rather than let someone escape to go into hiding for the rest of their life? Unless you're ready to stage a revolution, physical resistance is NEVER your friend.

 

[Cyrus Hanley]

I'll reserve judgment till we get the whole story.

If he was resisting arrest at ALL, cops can and will do that to you. Regardless of if you're in cuffs or not. They don't fuck around.

There's not one fucking excuse to do this shit to an unarmed man. Not one.

And I like that "resisting arrest" is now *any and everything you could ever possibly do* while being arrested. Said the cuffs are too tight? Resisting arrest. Said your arm is about to break? Resisting arrest. Bleeding on the ground with a cop's knee in your back? Resisting arrest. Screaming because you've just been shot twice while kneeling on the floor with your hands cuffed behind you? Resisting arrest.

Screaming while being sexually assaulted? Resisting arrest.

 

[RvLeshrac]

I'll reserve judgment till we get the whole story.

If he was resisting arrest at ALL, cops can and will do that to you. Regardless of if you're in cuffs or not. They don't fuck around.

There's not one fucking excuse to do this shit to an unarmed man. Not one.

And I like that "resisting arrest" is now *any and everything you could ever possibly do* while being arrested. Said the cuffs are too tight? Resisting arrest. Said your arm is about to break? Resisting arrest. Bleeding on the ground with a cop's knee in your back? Resisting arrest. Screaming because you've just been shot twice while kneeling on the floor with your hands cuffed behind you? Resisting arrest.

Screaming while being sexually assaulted? Resisting arrest.

*snip*

http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2009/02/police-assault-woman-who-called-for.html is the follow-up, for anyone who thinks the cops in the case may have been punished.