• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Video Shows Man Getting Punched by Cop After Resisting Arrest in Harlem

You do realize the government can arrest you for any reason they dream up, right?

Yeah, I realize that. I once got arrested for telling a cop not to tell me to shut up. This was after an off-duty employee at a fast-food restaurant called the cops when I told her to f-off after she kept interrupting me when I was attempting to voice a complaint with the restaurant manager. Four squad cars, including a police captain, showed up. The captain then threatened to arrest my wife when she asked him not to arrest me. I kid you not. Did I resist after the cop said he was arresting me? No. I learned from that experience that when a cop tells you to keep your trap shut you should probably listen to him. Happily, I've never been arrested since.
 
I think it's kind of telling that when I say I don't consent to being assaulted the statist says I will be assaulted anyway and probably raped in their prison. Yes statists, the way you should defend the state is to support assault and then to support the state failing to protect inmates from rape. I swear you guys couldn't argue your position any worse.

I've been pretty much ignoring your anti-government diatribes up to now, but I'm thinking...what the heck, I'll chime in.

Regardless your hyperbole about being searched or not consenting to laws, it's really not about "statists" at all. It's about society. Ours has set some codified rules and, for the most part, people abide by those rules because it makes life and living together easier for all of us. We also enable members of society to enforce those rules.

Now...that guy in the video resisted the enforcers and they dealt with him in a reasonable manner. That's about all there was to that event.

For you, though, I suspect that, for all your blustery talk here on this forum, you tend to follow the rules society has established. I also suspect you would be quick to scream for the help of the enforcers if you find yourself on the receiving end from someone else who doesn't want to follow our society's rules and decided to take action toward you.

Of course, I might be wrong. Maybe you are a bad-ass who is very capable of kicking some bad guy's ass...or even kicking some cop's ass...when they do something you don't like. But I don't think you are. I think you are all talk.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I realize that. I once got arrested for telling a cop not to tell me to shut up. This was after an off-duty employee at a fast-food restaurant called the cops when I told her to f-off after she kept interrupting me when I was attempting to voice a complaint with the restaurant manager. Four squad cars, including a police captain, showed up. The captain then threatened to arrest my wife when she asked him not to arrest me. I kid you not. Did I resist after the cop said he was arresting me? No. I learned from that experience that when a cop tells you to keep your trap shut you should probably listen to him. Happily, I've never been arrested since.

So you became a good little lap dog after being disciplined. Good for you.
 
I've been pretty much ignoring your anti-government diatribes up to now, but I'm thinking...what the heck, I'll chime in.

Regardless your hyperbole about being searched or not consenting to laws, it's really not about "statists" at all. It's about society. Ours has set some codified rules and, for the most part, people abide by those rules because it makes life and living together easier for all of us. We also enable members of society to enforce those rules.

Now...that guy in the video resisted the enforcers and they dealt with him in a reasonable manner. That's about all there was to that event.

For you, though, I suspect that, for all your blustery talk here on this forum, you tend to follow the rules society has established. I also suspect you would be quick to scream for the help of the enforcers if you find yourself on the receiving end from someone else who doesn't want to follow our society's rules and decided to take action toward you.

Of course, I might be wrong. Maybe you are some individual bad-ass who is very capable of kicking some bad guys's ass...or even kicking some cop's ass...when they do something you don't like. But I don't think you are. I think you are all talk.

You can think whatever you want. Apparently a country can be free even if no one consents to it's government, so I suppose you're free to say whatever you want. Well, unless you somehow violate the rights of someone by speech. I'm not sure how that works, but the government does.
 
As if she had any other choice.

You mean maybe she didn't do anything because the guy was big and she looked like a runt? Like he could have flicked her into the Hudson River with his right pinkie?
 
And I must say I love when conservatives show they have about the same understanding of the difference between society and government that liberals do.
 
You can think whatever you want. Apparently a country can be free even if no one consents to it's government, so I suppose you're free to say whatever you want. Well, unless you somehow violate the rights of someone by speech. I'm not sure how that works, but the government does.

Now you aren't making a lick of sense.

Can you explain to me how a country can be free if no one consents to its government?
 
Now you aren't making a lick of sense.

Can you explain to me how a country can be free if no one consents to its government?

You didn't get that was sarcasm, really? I love sarcasm and if you haven't noticed I use it all the time. It's my favorite service to provide people on this forum.
 


My problem with this is that the arrest was not really justified, at least by the evidence in this video.

Under New York law a citizen is not required to present any document of identification unless he is driving a motor vehicle during a traffic stop. He must only verbally identify himself. Even so, the officer had no right to retain the citizen's identification; he did so in order to keep the citizen there. Note that only after confiscation of the ID, during subsequent conversation, does the officer finally state that he trying to arrest the citizen.

Next, the arrest was for possession of a knife. In New York per Penal Law Section 265.01, it is a Class A misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail to knowingly possess a gravity knife. Per Penal Law Section 265.00[5] a gravity knife is “any knife which has a blade which is released from the handle or sheath thereof by the force of gravity or the application of centrifugal force which, when released, is locked into place by means of a button, spring, lever or other device.” The article about the video indicates the witness who filmed it says the citizen had an ordinary pocket knife.

But in New York City the majority of arrests for "gravity knives" have been for pocket knives (as exemplified by this video). Pocket knives contain blades which fold out of the handle like a Swiss Army knife. You can't just flip them open like a gravity knife, you have to pull them open. They are not against the law, but NYC has interpreted the law to include pocket knives.

HOWEVER, the act of resisting arrest was wrong.

The police officer's use of force is authorized under Penal Law Section 35.05 conduct which would otherwise constitute an offense is justifiable and not criminal when such conduct is performed by a public servant in the reasonable exercise of his official powers, duties or functions. The function, in this situation, was attempting to arrest the citizen.

What should have happened? The citizen should have kept his mouth shut except to identify himself and then ask if he was under arrest. If the answer was no, he should have asked if he was being detained. If the answer was yes, then he should have stayed silent except to repeat asking periodically if he was free to go. If the officer did a Terry frisk and found a pocket knife, no amount of talking would prevent the arrest in NYC, and keeping silent remains the best bet except to immediately ask for a lawyer.

People have been shot for less.

The officer's use of force here was in keeping with the law. Shooting a citizen under these circumstance would NOT have been justified. The citizen did not pose a threat of deadly force, so there was no reason for an office to use deadly force.
 
Last edited:
You mean maybe she didn't do anything because the guy was big and she looked like a runt? Like he could have flicked her into the Hudson River with his right pinkie?

Lets be honest, barring her gun or other device, she'd have her butt handed to her.
 
You didn't get that was sarcasm, really? I love sarcasm and if you haven't noticed I use it all the time. It's my favorite service to provide people on this forum.

Oh...sarcasm...okay. Perhaps you don't know that sarcasm doesn't come through well in a textual format such as an online forum. That's why we have cool little emoticons. You should use them...or maybe use [/s]. That'll work, too.
 
I think that female cop was doing the right thing...staying away from the guy while he was uncontrolled.

I visited a message board supposedly dedicated to letting cops rant anonymously. Of course, I can't verify that any of these people are actually in law enforcement, but the comments were entertaining nonetheless:

The female should be forced to resign for incompetence. What precinct was this?

Good thing the Male Officer is fit and well put together. Knowing he had a useless partner he didn't bring the fight to the ground.

Thank God that female was there to back him up. S M H

I'm very proud of the male officer, who obviously has trained in self defense, simply judging by his footwork and some nice right crosses....I have no comment on his nearly invisible partner.

Male OFFICER did a GREAT job. He kept a good offense going but maintained distance at the same time. He knew he couldn't get into a ground fight with the animal and leave himself exposed to the gang around him, and he also knew he was fighting ALL ALONE

The female officer should be immediately sent to one of Julian's Zumba classes!

The male cop should be brought up on charges for engaging himself when he knew his partner was useless.

What a disgrace, and even the other gals that showed up did NOTHING !

So, fellas, tell us how you really feel about the female partner. :lol: And that was only some of what was on the first page.

VIDEO: Fight between MOS and Perp in THEE RANT Forum
 
My problem with this is that the arrest was not really justified, at least by the evidence in this video.

Okay, so you're relying on the friend's characterization of the knife as a "pocket knife" and not one that was illegal for whatever reason. For you to conclude that the knife was legal, therefore presumably making the initial attempt to arrest the man unjustified, in legal parlance aren't you "assuming facts not in evidence"?
 
Okay, so you're relying on the friend's characterization of the knife as a "pocket knife" and not one that was illegal for whatever reason. For you to conclude that the knife was legal, therefore presumably making the initial arrest unjustified, in legal parlance aren't you "assuming facts not in evidence"?

No, I am relying on what I saw in the video. See?

My problem with this is that the arrest was not really justified, at least by the evidence in this video.
 
I visited a message board supposedly dedicated to letting cops rant anonymously. Of course, I can't verify that any of these people are actually in law enforcement, but the comments were entertaining nonetheless:

















So, fellas, tell us how you really feel about the female partner. :lol: And that was only some of what was on the first page.

VIDEO: Fight between MOS and Perp in THEE RANT Forum

I don't care to get into it about the female cop. That site you linked appears have a lot of statements from seasoned officers and ex-officers. I won't gainsay them. Maybe there was action that female cop could have taken.

The interesting thing for me is from my experiences in the Army when they started allowing female soldiers in a lot of MOS's. I was a mechanic in a trucking unit and I'll never forget seeing one driver manhandle a spare tire that was almost as tall as she was and outweighed her by a factor of at least three.

Some women have it and some don't. Maybe that female cop in the video knew she didn't have it. Maybe it's better she kept out of the way. Maybe that burly cop will request a new partner. They can sort it out.
 
To me, this statement by anyonmus cops is part of the problem.

"Male OFFICER did a GREAT job. He kept a good offense going but maintained distance at the same time. He knew he couldn't get into a ground fight with the animal and leave himself exposed to the gang around him, and he also knew he was fighting ALL ALONE"

For one, why would he refer to this guy as an animal? If a cop thinks the people that he is sworn to protect and serve are animals....he has little to no respect for those same people. Second, what "gang" is he referring to. I only watched the video once but I don't remember seeing a "gang" of people around. Except for the "gang" of cops that showed up.

I feel sorry for the people that are in that anonymous cops beat. I hope they are not black.
 
Okay, so you're relying on the friend's characterization of the knife as a "pocket knife" and not one that was illegal for whatever reason. For you to conclude that the knife was legal, therefore presumably making the initial attempt to arrest the man unjustified, in legal parlance aren't you "assuming facts not in evidence"?

Under the Second Amendment, there is no reason for a knife to be illegal. You have a right to be armed, and nowhere does it say that it must be a firearm.
 
To me, this statement by anyonmus cops is part of the problem.

"Male OFFICER did a GREAT job. He kept a good offense going but maintained distance at the same time. He knew he couldn't get into a ground fight with the animal and leave himself exposed to the gang around him, and he also knew he was fighting ALL ALONE"

For one, why would he refer to this guy as an animal? If a cop thinks the people that he is sworn to protect and serve are animals....he has little to no respect for those same people. Second, what "gang" is he referring to. I only watched the video once but I don't remember seeing a "gang" of people around. Except for the "gang" of cops that showed up.

I feel sorry for the people that are in that anonymous cops beat. I hope they are not black.

Its amazing what you think are the issues here. :doh
 
No, I am relying on what I saw in the video. See?

Okay. Well, I was relying on what you wrote, which was:

The article about the video indicates the witness who filmed it says the citizen had an ordinary pocket knife.

See? ;)

Anyway, I have to admit I must have blinked when the knife appeared in the video. Either that or I need a microscope to see it. How long was it? Did it have a button with a spring by chance?
 
Okay. Well, I was relying on what you wrote, which was:



See? ;)

Anyway, I have to admit I must have blinked when the knife appeared in the video. Either that or I need a microscope to see it. How long was it? Did it have a button with a spring by chance?

Listen to the video and when you get to timeframe 17 - 23 you hear the person shooting the video (identified in the article as a friend walking with the arrestee) raise the issue about a knife. Where is this knife?

If the officer already had possession of it prior to the incident, why didn't he state (as required) that the citizen was under arrest and declare the charge?

The point I made about so many arrests in NYC for pocket knives is a well-known fact to New Yorkers, including myself as a former resident. Don't believe me?

I-Team: Many Knife Arrests in New York City, Few Convictions | NBC New York
 
Under the Second Amendment, there is no reason for a knife to be illegal. You have a right to be armed, and nowhere does it say that it must be a firearm.

Okay, well, I'm guessing if he'd invoked his Second Amendment rights the end result still would have involved him ending up in an ambulance with multiple criminal charges pending.
 
If the officer already had possession of it prior to the incident, why didn't he state (as required) that the citizen was under arrest and declare the charge?

I don't know that he had possession of it. It's possible the officer wants to frisk the guy because he has reason to suspect that he does have a knife but the suspect isn't cooperating in the officer's attempt to frisk him. I just can't tell at this point, but I notice the officer doesn't grab his cuffs until he encounters resistance from the guy. So it's possible the officer didn't make a decision to arrest him until that point. Regardless of whether the cop was within his rights to act as he did, it wasn't wise for the citizen to behave as he did. That's really the only point I want to make with this thread.

The point I made about so many arrests in NYC for pocket knives is a well-known fact to New Yorkers, including myself as a former resident. Don't believe me?

I-Team: Many Knife Arrests in New York City, Few Convictions | NBC New York

No, I believe this kind of thing happens. Whether it did in this case or not I can't say because I don't have all of the facts. But from what I can see the citizen became uncooperative and combative when the cop appeared to request a pat-down search. Big mistake.
 
Back
Top Bottom