• 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!

"I'm Not Your Brother," Officer tazes Man in Front of His Children.

again ..i am not speaking of the video, i am speaking of what the cops said....and what they said..... is wrong......you cannot beat people because you think they may fight you.

the benefit of the doubt....is the way law works
He wasn't beaten.

He fled on foot, then he refused a lawfull order, then raised his voice, then phisicaly resisted arrest (for the trespassing which occured before the video), and was tazed in response to his resistance of a lawful arrest.

At no point was he beaten.
 
They get hired as a police officer by other unelected individuals. If it was mutual it would mean I was involved and agreed, but I wasn't involved and I didn't agree.
Police are hired by the Sherrif or Police Chief and yes those are elected positions.

You apperantly don't participate in your local government elections.
 
He wasn't beaten.

He fled on foot, then he refused a lawfull order, then raised his voice, then phisicaly resisted arrest (for the trespassing which occured before the video), and was tazed in response to his resistance of a lawful arrest.

At no point was he beaten.

put aside the video....its not part of my argument

Jerry--here is the argument from me.........what the cops are saying is wrong........you CANNOT use violence [physical harm] on a person because you thought they may on you.

with that kind of emotional based interpretation , cops could use violence at will and justify it by...i thought.
 
Last edited:
Control = ownership. The whole premise of public property is actually flawed for a few different reasons. One of those reasons is that if the government controls the property they are the owner of the property and everyone else is only given permission to use their property at their behest. The fact is "public property" is something that only exists on paper, because in reality all property is private.
Happy tazing :)
 
put aside the video....its not part of my argument

Jerry--here is the argument from me.........what the cops are saying is wrong........you CANNOT use violence on a person because you thought they may on you.

with that kind of emotional based interpretation , cops could use violence at will and justify it by...i thought.
The tazing occured in responce to his phisicaly resisting arrest, watch the video.

At no point was he beaten.

Yes police can use certin reviewed and aproved violent measures to pre-empt someone whom their training and experience leads them to believe is about to flee or fight. There's nothing wrong with that.
 
Your attitude is part of the problem. What investigation? The fact that he was sitting at a mall is reason to have an investigation? Oh, and this BS about obstruction. It is a BS charge that cops use to arrest someone when they have done nothing wrong. I witnessed a man being arrested at a bar. His buddy, unaware of this, coming out of the restroom ask what was going on. This dickhead cop turned to him and said, "You're under arrest." When asked what the charge was the cop said obstruction.

You were a cop, right?

He wasn't in a mall. He was in an employees only area of a bank building. He'd been asked to leave by facility security and was asked again, politely, by the female cop in the video. Instead of being cooperative he chose to get combative.
 
He wasn't in a mall. He was in an employees only area of a bank building. He'd been asked to leave by facility security and was asked again, politely, by the female cop in the video. Instead of being cooperative he chose to get combative.

Ex-cop, right?
 
Well, I guess they should have shot him then. They are good at that also!

If this was a private area, why not ask the man to move and let that be it?

He was asked. He refused to go.

Again and again and again, if you don't want to get thumped by the cops then don't act the fool.
 
The tazing occured in responce to his phisicaly resisting arrest, watch the video.

At no point was he beaten.

Yes police can use certin reviewed and aproved violent measures to pre-empt someone whom their training and experience leads them to believe is about to flee or fight. There's nothing wrong with that.

jerry.....what is wrong here?......i am not discussing the video, or what happened in the video...even this man AT ALL.

i am discussing the premise, that cops believe you can use violence on people because COPS think it may me use it on them.......

cops cannot use violence [harm to a person] if a person is not engaged in violence....the key word the cops used is violent in their statement


vi·o·lent

adjective: violent

using or involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.
 
Last edited:
I can see both sides of this. On the one hand, we have a black person who is exercising his rights and using the tactics pioneered by libertarian activist groups like copwatch.org. For those not familiar with these libertarian groups, they are organizations that promote that you stand up for your constitutional rights by videotaping your interactions with police, refusing to show ID when you are not legally required to do so (as was the case here), and answering only those questions that you are legally required to answer. They also promote things like open carry, and openly recording police while open carrying in order to elicit a response from them, etc. In this case, a black man was using the tactics pioneered by the libertarian groups. It doesn't work out as well for him as it usually does for the (typically white) libertarians who usually use these tactics.

But on the other hand, we have a police officer responding to a call. If you've been in any position of authority, then you know how important it is to be firm and assert your authority early on. If you act timid then you will quickly lose respect and authority over the situation and it will get out of hand and spiral out of control very quickly. So, how do you respond to someone who breaks your rythm, who challenges your authority and threatens to put you into a chaotic situation where no one is clearly in control? Obviously, this cop acted incorrectly and irresponsibly...but are you sure you would react appropriately when put on the spot like that and having only a moment to decide how to react to this and how to take control over the situation again? I really can't blame the officers for what they did. Yet, if you've spent any time in libertarian circles, viewing their youtube videos of interaction with police and the like, then you know that in the vast majority of cases, things do not escalate like this. Which makes you wonder what role race had in it. Not that the cops are knowingly racist, but that perhaps the fact it was a black person who was challenging them and not the typical white libertarian kid, may have affected how they reacted on a more subconscious level.

It's unfortunate that there isn't a clear black or white here. The man clearly was asserting his first and fifth amendment rights. But the cop was in a really bad situation where he had to decide whether to escalate the situation by being even more authoritative (and thus violating the suspect's rights, which he clearly did), or backing down and losing control over the incident. I'm sure people who haven't been in such situations mistakenly believe that the consequence of the cop losing control is losing face, thus the real reason he is reacting the way he is has to do with pride. But that's not it at all, losing authority over the situation means you lose control over it. If you don't lose control, it's a routine investigation; you look at the guy's id, you ask him a few questions, ask him not to lounge around the bench anymore, and go about your day. Once you have lost control though, there is no telling how this ends, now it's a chaotic situation where no one is in control. I can see how the cops lost control of this one and freaked out, leading to the tasing. Yet....shouldn't it be acceptable for you to assert your 1st and 5th amendment rights without cops going nuts?

On a meta-analytical level, I find this thread fascinating. These kinds of activities are typically carried out by white right wing extremists who belong to the libertarian wing of the right. In other forums where videos like this one are shown and the person being tased was a white libertarian activist acting exacltly like this guy did, the kinds of people attacking him are the opposite of the kinds of people attacking the individual on this forum. Likewise, the kinds of people who typically defend these copwatch types are the same kind who are in this forum attacking the black guy who uses the exact same tactics. I wonder how many people will be honest enough to examine their own motivations and think about how they would treat this story if the guy was white and was an activist from a white libertarian forum instead of a black guy. I understand the above doesn't apply to everyone; the person who opened this thread is obviously a (presumably white, based on his avatar) libertarian who buys into the copwatch/copblock mentality and staunchly defends this person, as he should (in order to remain consistent), but it does seem apply to a lot of others.
 
Last edited:
jerry.....what is wrong here?......i am not discussing the video, or what happened in the video...even this man AT ALL.
That's what's wrong. I am discussing the video, this man, and including everything known about this incident. That's the thread topic. I'm not taking one small snipit of the whole pictiure, puting that snipit in a vacume and extrapolating armagedon from it, as you are.

i am discussing the premise, that cops believe you can use violence on people because COPS think it may me use it on them.......
Their use of pre-emptive force was apropriot in this instince. Other cops in other situations might not use force correctly. It all depends on the facts of a given situation.

cops cannot use violence [harm to a person] if a person is not engaged in violence....the key word the cops used is violent in their statement[/I]
Strictly speaking, calmly putting handcufs on a compliant person is "violence", its the use of phisical force even if no one is harmed, so yes "violence" is apropriot to effect an arrest. More violence becomes apropriot as the person resists. This man resisted enough to justify a tazing.
 
Last edited:
It's difficult for you to cross that thin blue line I imagine. It's understandable.

I call 'em like I see 'em. No more no less and if you take the time to look you'll see that I have no problem whatsoever criticizing a cop when I believe he or she was in the wrong.
 
Well, I guess they should have shot him then. They are good at that also!

No one claimed that. Nice try, but your emotional hyperbole is based on your own made up argument.

If this was a private area, why not ask the man to move and let that be it?

He was asked. He chose not to.
 
I call 'em like I see 'em. No more no less and if you take the time to look you'll see that I have no problem whatsoever criticizing a cop when I believe he or she was in the wrong.
Shshhh, you're interupting his talking-points.
 
I can see both sides of this. On the one hand, we have a black person who is exercising his rights and using the tactics pioneered by libertarian activist groups like copwatch.org. For those not familiar with these libertarian groups, they are organizations that promote that you stand up for your constitutional rights by videotaping your interactions with police, refusing to show ID when you are not legally required to do so (as was the case here), and answering only those questions that you are legally required to answer. They also promote things like open carry, and openly recording police while open carrying in order to elicit a response from them, etc. In this case, a black man was using the tactics pioneered by the libertarian groups. It doesn't work out as well for him as it usually does for the (typically white) libertarians who usually use these tactics.

But on the other hand, we have a police officer responding to a call. If you've been in any position of authority, then you know how important it is to be firm and assert your authority early on. If you act timid then you will quickly lose respect and authority over the situation and it will get out of hand and spiral out of control very quickly. So, how do you respond to someone who breaks your rythm, who challenges your authority and threatens to put you into a chaotic situation where no one is clearly in control? Obviously, this cop acted incorrectly and irresponsibly...but are you sure you would react appropriately when put on the spot like that and having only a moment to decide how to react to this and how to take control over the situation again? I really can't blame the officers for what they did. Yet, if you've spent any time in libertarian circles, viewing their youtube videos of interaction with police and the like, then you know that in the vast majority of cases, things do not escalate like this. Which makes you wonder what role race had in it. Not that the cops are knowingly racist, but that perhaps the fact it was a black person who was challenging them and not the typical white libertarian kid, may have affected how they reacted on a more subconscious level.

It's unfortunate that there isn't a clear black or white here. The man clearly was asserting his first and fifth amendment rights. But the cop was in a really bad situation where he had to decide whether to escalate the situation by being even more authoritative (and thus violating the suspect's rights, which he clearly did), or backing down and losing control over the incident. I'm sure people who haven't been in such situations mistakenly believe that the consequence of the cop losing control is losing face, thus the real reason he is reacting the way he is has to do with pride. But that's not it at all, losing authority over the situation means you lose control over it. If you don't lose control, it's a routine investigation; you look at the guy's id, you ask him a few questions, ask him not to lounge around the bench anymore, and go about your day. Once you have lost control though, there is no telling how this ends, now it's a chaotic situation where no one is in control. I can see how the cops lost control of this one and freaked out, leading to the tasing. Yet....shouldn't it be acceptable for you to assert your 1st and 5th amendment rights without cops going nuts?

On a meta-analytical level, I find this thread fascinating. These kinds of activities are typically carried out by white right wing extremists who belong to the libertarian wing of the right. In other forums where videos like this one are shown and the person being tased was a white libertarian activist acting exacltly like this guy did, the kinds of people attacking him are the opposite of the kinds of people attacking the individual on this forum. Likewise, the kinds of people who typically defend these copwatch types are the same kind who are in this forum attacking the black guy who uses the exact same tactics. I wonder how many people will be honest enough to examine their own motivations and think about how they would treat this story if the guy was white and was an activist from a white libertarian forum instead of a black guy. I understand the above doesn't apply to everyone; the person who opened this thread is obviously a (presumably white, based on his avatar) libertarian who buys into the copwatch/copblock mentality and staunchly defends this person, as he should (in order to remain consistent), but it does seem apply to a lot of others.

So you are saying this was a set up only to get the police reaction on video, is that right? Do you think he was lying about having kids in the area?

Just to clarify this man was not asserting any rights as he was on private property and refused to leave. He could have been a bank robber casing the place, and the police had the responsibility to find out who he was.

If somebody refuses to leave a private area, it is for a reason.
 
So you are saying this was a set up only to get the police reaction on video, is that right? Do you think he was lying about having kids in the area?

Just to clarify this man was not asserting any rights as he was on private property and refused to leave. He could have been a bank robber casing the place, and the police had the responsibility to find out who he was.

If somebody refuses to leave a private area, it is for a reason.
The "right" he was asserting is some imagined "right" not to identify yourself to police while being detained.

No such right exists anywhere, but try telling a race-baiter that.
 
Looks like those kids are gonna get a free ride to college.
 
I understand people who don't feel they need to comply with orders by an officer without reasonable suspicion or a warrant. Where I have a problem, is that they are confronting officers ON THE SCENE! This is not the place to resolve the situation. The proper and rational way of dealing with this is to inform the officer that you are against what you feel is an illegal search/detainment. Refuse at first, but if the officer insists, just repeat your refusal and comply with the officers request. Then, after the confrontation is over, file a complaint or take the city to court. THAT IS THE PROPER WAY TO HANDLE THIS. People need to start acting like adults and not spoiled little brat children throwing temper tantrums on the side of the road with an officer. Its not worth your life or the officers time to sit and argue with you. The reason we are not the Middle East is because we resolve our grievences in court rooms and on the floor of congress instead of on the street...
 
I understand people who don't feel they need to comply with orders by an officer without reasonable suspicion or a warrant. Where I have a problem, is that they are confronting officers ON THE SCENE! This is not the place to resolve the situation. The proper and rational way of dealing with this is to inform the officer that you are against what you feel is an illegal search/detainment. Refuse at first, but if the officer insists, just repeat your refusal and comply with the officers request. Then, after the confrontation is over, file a complaint or take the city to court. THAT IS THE PROPER WAY TO HANDLE THIS. People need to start acting like adults and not spoiled little brat children throwing temper tantrums on the side of the road with an officer. Its not worth your life or the officers time to sit and argue with you. The reason we are not the Middle East is because we resolve our grievences in court rooms and on the floor of congress instead of on the street...
Well...that and jihad, yeah. Dirka dirka!
 
So you are saying this was a set up only to get the police reaction on video, is that right? Do you think he was lying about having kids in the area?

Just to clarify this man was not asserting any rights as he was on private property and refused to leave. He could have been a bank robber casing the place, and the police had the responsibility to find out who he was.

If somebody refuses to leave a private area, it is for a reason.
How do you know he was refusing to leave and not just arguing with the bank on his way out? Griping about how they are being mean. Sorta as he was doing with the cop, calmy walking not trying to escape until the cop assaulted him.
 
Back
Top Bottom