Grandpa Tastes Concrete Over Videogames

Baresark

New member
Dec 19, 2010
3,908
0
0
Treblaine said:
TheBelgianGuy said:
TheBelgianGuy said:
TheBelgianGuy said:
So what about, "we don't know what happened before they cuffed him" are you failing to grasp? That video starts off with the guy on the ground, cuffed and bleeding. We have no idea what happened before that. For all we know he was going bananas and the cops had to throw him to the ground to get him to stop.

Again, we don;t know everything that lead up to that video starting. If we get the stuff that happened before we can better judge. If it proven the cop was over the line, throw the book at him and fire him from the force. Simple as that. But stop being judgmental when we don't have all the facts.
HAHAHAHAHAHA. So what about, you're the one who doesn't want to read?

"
Jerald Newman, 54, spent Friday night in a Maricopa County jail hours after being arrested.

David Chadd, a CNN iReporter from Las Vegas, was among the crowd shopping for video games set up in the Walmart's grocery section. He said Newman "was not resisting" arrest as he was led away from the crowd by a police officer.

That officer, Chadd said, then suddenly hooked the suspect around the leg, grabbed him and "slammed him face first into the ground."

"It was like a bowling ball hitting the ground, that's how bad it was," he said.
Maybe read before you're judging other people for judging FACTS?
"Witness accounts" are far from facts:

http://www.ufocasebook.com/2009/multiplewitnesses.html

Consider all the spurious "witness account" of UFOs, Bigfoot, the grassy knoll and Elvis sightings and a load of other bollocks that makes up the billion dollar conspiracy industry.

There is a reason Hear-Say is not permitted as evidence in court. Witnesses are only valued in court Under Oath and under cross-examination which is a VITAL step in detecting what they actually saw without exaggeration, vagueness or bias. When you stick a camera in someone's face and ask the right question you can get the question you want. I've done it myself and even after that I've fallen for it.

When you hang the sword of perjury over people's heads and ask them what they ACTUALLY saw, and you'll find often "not resisting" was really "not resisting enough to deserve getting his head smashed in, in my opinion" but we don't know, these witnesses have not truly had their witness turned into evidence, that is fact.

You know what is going on here: it's trial-by-media

A kangaroo court with no representation operating FAR beyond the learned principals of justice.

I think this should be investigated and evidence gathered for a trial where the evidence can be weighed, NOT for it to be prejudged WITHOUT ALL the evidence being weighed.
Unfortunately, the evidence being weighed is only the statements by the police officer in question and the several other accounts saying the old man didn't try to steal it. Then you have the witness who claims he didn't try to resist.

Also, the police usually are not brought up to code on the "learned principals of justice" either. But, as you say, at this point it is all hearsay, even what the police officer said, up until he put it into his report. And other statements are hearsay, up until it's put into the police reports (seeing as how you are not allowed to lie in that document either). I would imagine, those other witnesses were not actually talked to because small town police tend to be kangaroo forces for justice who get off when they have done bad things because of their position in society.
 

Raddra

Trashpanda
Jan 5, 2010
698
0
21
Eri said:
What's more terrifying is you seem to imply it's okay to resist an officers orders or contest them. It's not. They have the court system for that. If you receive a lawful order, you must do it, it's not a choice. That's how the system works.
Its terrifying to have and stand up for your rights against an increasingly violent force of people wearing police uniforms but not acting like them?

I stand up for real police officers, but police can be wrong. They are human. Standing up and speaking reasonably is an entirely different ballgame than what you see so many do: scream loudly and get physical in their struggles.

Nowhere did I state that it is ok to resist / contest real police officers doing their job in a physical manner: I am not one of the 'f the police' morons. But standing up politically against a corrupt system is something else entirely. This is what needs to happen: lawful solidarity in the face of an increasingly corrupt system whereby yobs in uniforms go off on violent power trips against innocent people.
 

Treblaine

New member
Jul 25, 2008
8,682
0
0
seraphy said:
Eri said:
What's more terrifying is you seem to imply it's okay to resist an officers orders or contest them. It's not. They have the court system for that. If you receive a lawful order, you must do it, it's not a choice. That's how the system works.
Sure lawful order. But police also very often try to trample your rights.

Say filming or photographing in puplic property is perfectly legal, yet there are dozens of videos in youtube where police tries to tell you differently. You are perfectly within your rights to tell them to get lost if they try to insist othervise.

On this op case too, unless Arizona laws are really moronic, you can't be shoplifting unless you leave the store so it really isn't lawful for police to start handguffing people inside shop for possible shoplifting.
Well it is the polices' authority to arrest people just to do their duty.

If you think about it, wouldn't the cop be doing the guy a favour arresting him BEFORE he technically broke the law, sending him to the police station and getting a right-good-talking-to but avoiding serving long prison time? Wouldn't it be a major dick move for a cop to see someone in the process of stealing, do nothing to stop it and allow them to cross the line just to fill the overflowing prison system?

Prison sentences are not the only way police operate. It is not illegal nor immoral for police to arrest without the intention of a judicial sentence as the outcome. You should not see police arrest as "for the sole purpose of due process to imprison criminals".

I know that is the way many people justify the imprisonment aspect of arrest, that it is acceptable because the person would be going to prison. But arrest is justified as a way for the police do their policing job, which is to be very diplomatic with warnings and rapprochement. Arrest simply stops who they are dealing with running away and refusing to face burning questions, yet give them time to calm down or sober up and compare statements - the old prisoner's dilemma scenario.

But only 24 hours and with time for a lawyer. It's kinda hard to get a lawyer on the street corner!

Police powers of arrest are just a compromise between liberty and justice, you can't immediately take every suspect from free movement to charged and in jail awaiting trial.

As to arresting people for filming an arrest. That is not acceptable unless they are filming the suspect's face and media laws forbid pre-trial prejudice by the media in which case they'd have good reason to stop you filming so the jury pool doesn't all see it:
"ooh, Mr Smith got arrested by police, he must be the serial killer, and of course I knew this all along because of *insert tawdry tattles here*"

But then America has the 4th amendment, containing the clause of "Probable Cause" as the basis of police actions of arrest and searches, they must be "if it is reasonably suspicious that a crime has been committed by them". So in a way, the cop is forced by the 4th amendment to let a would be shoplifter cross the line of criminality before intercepting if he knows it isn't a crime till he leaves the property. He can hardly just ask the gentleman to take the copy of Black Ops out of his boxers and put it back on the shelves, that's hardly the discouragement of a trip down the yard.

However, 4th amendment is less a legal jeopardy for police, more that it causes cases to be thrown out.
 

Ferrious

Made From Corpses
Jan 6, 2010
156
0
0
Amnestic said:
Pick up that can.
You won the thread here, I didn't really need to continue reading.

---

OT - Stupid amounts of force when for all we know the guy was trying to save his grandson from being trampled. Even if he was intending to shoplift, you don't assault people for a $60 game. Where I'm from being arrested doesn't land you in hospital unless you were trying to land someone else in hospital and had to be stopped.
 

Electric Alpaca

What's on the menu?
May 2, 2011
388
0
0
I don't like news pieces like this because they're always taken completely out of context.

I can perfectly imagine a scenario (especially considering the random heroes telling the police to 'take the handcuffs off) in that the gentleman injured will have provoked this action.

No matter how much the general public like to make out law enforcement are bullies, they generally have no interest in making a scene for no reason - especially in Wal*Mart with the risk of the mob.

Sure, the individual is claiming he merely placed the game in his waistband - but when the media steps in there's always an apocryphal statement.
 

Galletea

Inexplicably Awesome
Sep 27, 2008
2,877
0
0
I'm also interested in what game it was. I wonder if he was trying to grab the kid, or just to hide the game from the kid. Either way it doesn't seem like he deserved the violence that the police seem to really enjoy dishing out.
 
Sep 14, 2009
9,073
0
0
THEJORRRG said:
My guess would be that he was putting it in his trousers to hide it from his grandson. It makes sense. It was probably a Christmas present for him.

Why was he arrested for putting it in his trousers? If he had left the shop with him in it, then yeah, fine, but he was still inside the shop. They should've left him be, rather than smashing his face on the floor.

Besides, he's an old man at Wal-Mart with his grandson, what the hell would he have done to the cop?

Poor bastard. Hope he's Ok.
yeah this.

plus it was his young grandson, on black friday, that he was with, you bet your ass i would be flailing my arms around trying to get him if he was getting lost/stuck in the crowd.

like its been stated, concrete hard ass floor, face first, as a old man who had a small pond of blood on the ground....

classy. /sarcasm
 

AzrealMaximillion

New member
Jan 20, 2010
3,216
0
0
Aeonknight said:
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.
Shouldn't be arresting people for shoplifting INSIDE a store though. Sorry kind of hard to reserve judgment when he was arrested before any actual crime took place.

Had he been arrested outside, different story, but to be handcuffed, then tackled is a sign of sloppy police work.
 

Xanthious

New member
Dec 25, 2008
1,273
0
0
Well seeing as your average cop is just a government worker that was too stupid to work at the post office and too lazy to work at the street department this really doesn't surprise me in the least. The only difference between the cops and criminals anymore is one has a badge and one doesn't. While I'm sure there are some officers that do their best to honor their profession most cops these days are people you wouldn't trust to pick up dog shit in your backyard never mind keep the peace.

As for the poor bastard that got face planted into the floor at Walmart, well I don't think he will have any problem finding legal representation. I can't imagine that the criminal charges won't end up being dropped or dismissed once it gets in front of a judge or on the DA's desk. Furthermore, I'm sure after he sues the ever living fuck out of both Walmart and the city this whole thing will end up being quite the financial windfall.
 

Treblaine

New member
Jul 25, 2008
8,682
0
0
Baresark said:
Treblaine said:
"Witness accounts" are far from facts:

http://www.ufocasebook.com/2009/multiplewitnesses.html

Consider all the spurious "witness account" of UFOs, Bigfoot, the grassy knoll and Elvis sightings and a load of other bollocks that makes up the billion dollar conspiracy industry.

There is a reason Hear-Say is not permitted as evidence in court. Witnesses are only valued in court Under Oath and under cross-examination which is a VITAL step in detecting what they actually saw without exaggeration, vagueness or bias. When you stick a camera in someone's face and ask the right question you can get the question you want. I've done it myself and even after that I've fallen for it.

When you hang the sword of perjury over people's heads and ask them what they ACTUALLY saw, and you'll find often "not resisting" was really "not resisting enough to deserve getting his head smashed in, in my opinion" but we don't know, these witnesses have not truly had their witness turned into evidence, that is fact.

You know what is going on here: it's trial-by-media

A kangaroo court with no representation operating FAR beyond the learned principals of justice.

I think this should be investigated and evidence gathered for a trial where the evidence can be weighed, NOT for it to be prejudged WITHOUT ALL the evidence being weighed.
Unfortunately, the evidence being weighed is only the statements by the police officer in question and the several other accounts saying the old man didn't try to steal it. Then you have the witness who claims he didn't try to resist.

Also, the police usually are not brought up to code on the "learned principals of justice" either. But, as you say, at this point it is all hearsay, even what the police officer said, up until he put it into his report. And other statements are hearsay, up until it's put into the police reports (seeing as how you are not allowed to lie in that document either). I would imagine, those other witnesses were not actually talked to because small town police tend to be kangaroo forces for justice who get off when they have done bad things because of their position in society.
Hey, I am as much against weighing the police's account as the bystanders' account. I am neither exonerating nor damning the accused.

So I consider it a straw-man argument that "well people are taking the officer's word for it, then I can take bystander's word for it"

Also, the police usually are not brought up to code on the "learned principals of justice" either.
That is why a Jury trial in a court of law presided over by a judge with respective lawyers for defence and prosecution enact make those decisions. There are independent federal bodies to investigate and collect evidence against police officers accused of crimes.

small town police tend to be kangaroo forces for justice
Just like internet forums and media-for-profit. Two (or three) wrongs don't make a right.

Take a step back and look at the whole situation, we should not prejudge this situation. I think the one thing to call for here is for an independent investigation with the power and authority to bring prosecution IF a crime has actually been committed, but not beyond that. We must recognise that we are a mob here, this is not a public debate with all the facts available to everyone or can be fairly presented and decided upon, this is an obscure event in need of structured and controlled investigation. Put down your pitchforks and encourage due process and justice of a trial or inquest. That brings the events into the public, that is one of the purposes of a court or inquest.

The REAL debate here is given the limited facts that are reasonably likely to have actually happened (suspect with a bloody nose), is that enough for there for there to be merely a cursory investigation by a professional review board rather than a full criminal investigation?

But... if there was a full investigation every time someone complained of police abusing powers then 80% of the police force would be on leave being investigated, it's almost inevitable that some suspects will be injured from falling as they are arrested. Especially when a single officer is responsible with detaining a suspect alone, in the UK police almost NEVER work individually but in pairs and often in groups of four they grab a suspect all at once and drag them down, it's effective but costly in manpower. (as a result Police are like buses, for ages you never see any then a load come along at once)

But I understand in America with smaller public-spending budget and the need to patrol a wider area police often patrol singularly, and to take down another man of similar size - even a 50-year old - is something that cannot be done lightly. You must be aggressive and sudden, employing techniques like a judo throw or the cop will get his or her ass kicked badly. Cops have to be everything at once; they have to be physically fit for endurance of long patrols, fit for sprinting with chasing down running suspects and strength with overpowering suspects.

I don't know the full situation or circumstances. Video has deceptive brilliance, it is pixel perfect recollection but only within a narrow field of view and for a relatively brief moment in time, it cannot answer the defence lawyer's question "but what happened before that?" Imagine if a witness refused to give any account of what happened before or after a certain moment.
 

Treblaine

New member
Jul 25, 2008
8,682
0
0
Amnestic said:
Aeonknight said:
Bonemeal said:
Jesus Christ almighty, the police just can't seem to get out of their own way in trying to amass as much bad PR as possible before 2011 is out. Even if he WAS shoplifting, even if he WAS resisting arrest, we're not talking about the fucking Green Goblin here, it's some geezer with a grandkid.
Really doesn't matter dude.

That's how they're trained, any sign of hostility/resistance and they show no hesitation. An old man with a grandkid hiding a knife in his trousers can stab you just as easily as some punk lowlife.

I'm not saying he was armed or anything... but it wouldn't surprise me on Black Friday. Either way, when the cop barks orders... either listen or eat concrete.

But again... dunno if he was resisting at all. Still passive on judgment.
Pick up that can.
*Picks up can, throws at metro-cop's head*

"HA HA HA! I'm beating the system!"

*Metro Cops strikes with electro truncheon*

"Owa! Ah! The system is beating ME... oh the irony hurts as much as the beating! Aaa-ow!"
 

TheDooD

New member
Dec 23, 2010
812
0
0
The uselessness of these dumbass young cops that watched too many 80's movies taking small shit way too seriously, then way too willing to disrespect and harm people. They wonder why most people hate the badge.
 

Eternal_Lament

New member
Sep 23, 2010
559
0
0
(Haven't read all the posts, so maybe someone mentions this)

When I was watching this with my parents last night, the one thing we found odd was why anyone would bring their randson to a Black Friday sale.

We felt sorry for the guy, after all none of us would want that happening to us, but at the same time there is a certain point in which you have to ask yourself "Is this a place where my grandson will be safe?" Even if he didn't end up getting tackled to the ground, we thought it was pretty odd that he would bring his grandson at all. Maybe he couldn't find someone to take care of him and thought it wouldn't be so bad, but if he thought that taking his grandson would be a good idea then that was just irresponsible on his part.

Not saying he deserved what happened, just that he did something irresponsible.
 

The Great JT

New member
Oct 6, 2008
3,721
0
0
So first we had "Grandma Got Run Over By A Reindeer," now we have "Grandpa Got His Face Smashed In By The Police."