He tripped. He didn't do a commando barrel roll like some donkey in a Seth Rogan movie. Geezuz man.
I'm starting to think some here feel that the moment cops come to any tricky situations... they should tuck their tail between their legs and whimper off. The cops showed incredible restraint as that gaggle of idiots grabbed at their gear multiple times as they were trying to gain control of the situation.
"They're just kids..." Yah. So what? They're not exactly toddlers and are they too stupid to understand things have escalated to a point where the police have been called sooo... party over? Move along... just like me and my friends did back in our day when the cops were called by someone needing their assistance.
I guess the police should have ignored the call and allowed the party to run its course? Is this what you are saying? Maybe you are saying the police should have come in and called everyone over for a nice talk about respecting people's property and offered all the kids rides home? I'm sure the kids would have responded very well to that tactic.
You seem downright desperate to defend cops. Nobody grabbed at his gear until he assaulted a teenage girl for no reason. Power tripping asshole. She was walking away, he told them to disperse and they were complying, but because he didn't approve of her use of free speech he decided to assault her. He's lucky he didn't get knocked out. I don't care who you are, I am swinging at your face hard if you lay hands on a woman without provocation.
Look in the mirror. You seem downright desperate to condemn cops. I have been critical of cops when criticism has been warranted. In this situation, nobody was hurthurt and a situation was handled.
I notice you never said how you thought this situation should have been handled? Ignore the call? Say "pretty please" to get their gear given back to them after the children took it off them when they were performing their duties? As soon as the children became belligerent, scuttle into the cars and drive away? Call the children in for a fireside chat?
Can you please tell us the way these incompetents should have handled this in a way that produced results for the homeowners that called for their assistance?
These are the police. Someone earlier said it- they are not parents. When they are on the scene, things have gone too far. Time to grab your towels and move along- not taunt them, try and steal the equipment attached to their belt, or lunge at them.
He tripped. He didn't do a commando barrel roll like some donkey in a Seth Rogan movie. Geezuz man.
I'm starting to think some here feel that the moment cops come to any tricky situations... they should tuck their tail between their legs and whimper off. The cops showed incredible restraint as that gaggle of idiots grabbed at their gear multiple times as they were trying to gain control of the situation.
"They're just kids..." Yah. So what? They're not exactly toddlers and are they too stupid to understand things have escalated to a point where the police have been called sooo... party over? Move along... just like me and my friends did back in our day when the cops were called by someone needing their assistance.
I guess the police should have ignored the call and allowed the party to run its course? Is this what you are saying? Maybe you are saying the police should have come in and called everyone over for a nice talk about respecting people's property and offered all the kids rides home? I'm sure the kids would have responded very well to that tactic.
You seem downright desperate to defend cops. Nobody grabbed at his gear until he assaulted a teenage girl for no reason. Power tripping asshole. She was walking away, he told them to disperse and they were complying, but because he didn't approve of her use of free speech he decided to assault her. He's lucky he didn't get knocked out. I don't care who you are, I am swinging at your face hard if you lay hands on a woman without provocation.
Look in the mirror. You seem downright desperate to condemn cops. I have been critical of cops when criticism has been warranted. In this situation, nobody was hurthurt and a situation was handled.
I notice you never said how you thought this situation should have been handled? Ignore the call? Say "pretty please" to get their gear given back to them after the children took it off them when they were performing their duties? As soon as the children became belligerent, scuttle into the cars and drive away? Call the children in for a fireside chat?
Can you please tell us the way these incompetents should have handled this in a way that produced results for the homeowners that called for their assistance?
These are the police. Someone earlier said it- they are not parents. When they are on the scene, things have gone too far. Time to grab your towels and move along- not taunt them, try and steal the equipment attached to their belt, or lunge at them.
Unfreakingbelievable.
Where is this stealing of the equipment you are talking about? I didn't see anything of the sort.
You want to know how I think the situation should have been handled? It should be handled exactly as it was by all the officers on scene but the one who was on a power trip. The situation was handled well, they responded with necessary force and calmed the situation until this jagaloon got everyone worked up with his unwarranted violence.
He tripped. He didn't do a commando barrel roll like some donkey in a Seth Rogan movie. Geezuz man.
I'm starting to think some here feel that the moment cops come to any tricky situations... they should tuck their tail between their legs and whimper off. The cops showed incredible restraint as that gaggle of idiots grabbed at their gear multiple times as they were trying to gain control of the situation.
"They're just kids..." Yah. So what? They're not exactly toddlers and are they too stupid to understand things have escalated to a point where the police have been called sooo... party over? Move along... just like me and my friends did back in our day when the cops were called by someone needing their assistance.
I guess the police should have ignored the call and allowed the party to run its course? Is this what you are saying? Maybe you are saying the police should have come in and called everyone over for a nice talk about respecting people's property and offered all the kids rides home? I'm sure the kids would have responded very well to that tactic.
You seem downright desperate to defend cops. Nobody grabbed at his gear until he assaulted a teenage girl for no reason. Power tripping asshole. She was walking away, he told them to disperse and they were complying, but because he didn't approve of her use of free speech he decided to assault her. He's lucky he didn't get knocked out. I don't care who you are, I am swinging at your face hard if you lay hands on a woman without provocation.
Look in the mirror. You seem downright desperate to condemn cops. I have been critical of cops when criticism has been warranted. In this situation, nobody was hurthurt and a situation was handled.
I notice you never said how you thought this situation should have been handled? Ignore the call? Say "pretty please" to get their gear given back to them after the children took it off them when they were performing their duties? As soon as the children became belligerent, scuttle into the cars and drive away? Call the children in for a fireside chat?
Can you please tell us the way these incompetents should have handled this in a way that produced results for the homeowners that called for their assistance?
These are the police. Someone earlier said it- they are not parents. When they are on the scene, things have gone too far. Time to grab your towels and move along- not taunt them, try and steal the equipment attached to their belt, or lunge at them.
Unfreakingbelievable.
Where is this stealing of the equipment you are talking about? I didn't see anything of the sort.
You want to know how I think the situation should have been handled? It should be handled exactly as it was by all the officers on scene but the one who was on a power trip. The situation was handled well, they responded with necessary force and calmed the situation until this jagaloon got everyone worked up with his unwarranted violence.
It's hard to tell from the video, but the initial chase seemed to be two cops running after a kid who had one of the cop's flashlights. The professional officer is handed an item that he had lost- I think that might have been from when he tripped (or performed his action war zone roll as one member frothing at the mouth described).
At the 50 minute mark (or so), one of the cops (the jagaloon I believe) is wrestling his flashlight from the hands of one of the children.
It's really hard to tell what started the 'buzz'. Are you sure the 'jagaloon' jumped out of the car and roared around fanning the flames in what should have been a piece of cake? Is it possible, before you drop him from the ledge, that things got shitty because they were trying to deal with the situation in a calm manner that was met with resistance and belligerence? And things got tenser as a result?
I was tailgating a Browns game one year when a 15-20 man brawl broke out, none of the responding officers acted like this asshole. Through all the shouting and crowds, the bloody noses and unruly drunks, the officers kept their cool and de-escalated the situation. That's the difference between exemplary police work and a power tripping asshole who deserves a fist to the jaw.
it's much easier to sit behind a computer and 'suggest' how someone would react in a tense situation. this cop may be an asshole but he didn't do anything criminal in this case. why is this a big story?
I was tailgating a Browns game one year when a 15-20 man brawl broke out, none of the responding officers acted like this asshole. Through all the shouting and crowds, the bloody noses and unruly drunks, the officers kept their cool and de-escalated the situation. That's the difference between exemplary police work and a power tripping asshole who deserves a fist to the jaw.
it's much easier to sit behind a computer and 'suggest' how someone would react in a tense situation. this cop may be an asshole but he didn't do anything criminal in this case. why is this a big story?
If it was your sister/wife/GF/mother/cousin/friend would you still be dismissing it as no big deal? Would you still think she got what she deserved for crashing a pool?
He tripped. He didn't do a commando barrel roll like some donkey in a Seth Rogan movie. Geezuz man.
I'm starting to think some here feel that the moment cops come to any tricky situations... they should tuck their tail between their legs and whimper off. The cops showed incredible restraint as that gaggle of idiots grabbed at their gear multiple times as they were trying to gain control of the situation.
"They're just kids..." Yah. So what? They're not exactly toddlers and are they too stupid to understand things have escalated to a point where the police have been called sooo... party over? Move along... just like me and my friends did back in our day when the cops were called by someone needing their assistance.
I guess the police should have ignored the call and allowed the party to run its course? Is this what you are saying? Maybe you are saying the police should have come in and called everyone over for a nice talk about respecting people's property and offered all the kids rides home? I'm sure the kids would have responded very well to that tactic.
You seem downright desperate to defend cops. Nobody grabbed at his gear until he assaulted a teenage girl for no reason. Power tripping asshole. She was walking away, he told them to disperse and they were complying, but because he didn't approve of her use of free speech he decided to assault her. He's lucky he didn't get knocked out. I don't care who you are, I am swinging at your face hard if you lay hands on a woman without provocation.
Look in the mirror. You seem downright desperate to condemn cops. I have been critical of cops when criticism has been warranted. In this situation, nobody was hurthurt and a situation was handled.
I notice you never said how you thought this situation should have been handled? Ignore the call? Say "pretty please" to get their gear given back to them after the children took it off them when they were performing their duties? As soon as the children became belligerent, scuttle into the cars and drive away? Call the children in for a fireside chat?
Can you please tell us the way these incompetents should have handled this in a way that produced results for the homeowners that called for their assistance?
These are the police. Someone earlier said it- they are not parents. When they are on the scene, things have gone too far. Time to grab your towels and move along- not taunt them, try and steal the equipment attached to their belt, or lunge at them.
Unfreakingbelievable.
Where is this stealing of the equipment you are talking about? I didn't see anything of the sort.
You want to know how I think the situation should have been handled? It should be handled exactly as it was by all the officers on scene but the one who was on a power trip. The situation was handled well, they responded with necessary force and calmed the situation until this jagaloon got everyone worked up with his unwarranted violence.
It's hard to tell from the video, but the initial chase seemed to be two cops running after a kid who had one of the cop's flashlights. The professional officer is handed an item that he had lost- I think that might have been from when he tripped (or performed his action war zone roll as one member frothing at the mouth described).
At the 50 minute mark (or so), one of the cops (the jagaloon I believe) is wrestling his flashlight from the hands of one of the children.
It's really hard to tell what started the 'buzz'. Are you sure the 'jagaloon' jumped out of the car and roared around fanning the flames in what should have been a piece of cake? Is it possible, before you drop him from the ledge, that things got shitty because they were trying to deal with the situation in a calm manner that was met with resistance and belligerence? And things got tenser as a result?
I didn't make it to the 50 minute Mark, so I missed that. I did see the camera kid give him back the one he dropped.
I saw dozens of calm people and one who was fanning the flames. I don't see how you can justify assault on a teenage girl just because things are tense. That's ridiculous. He went after her to prove a point, not because he was being threatened. Sticks and stones. Words are nevet justification for violence, some cops need to learn that kindergarten lesson.
If a father had done what this maniac cop did to his daughter, dyfus or whatever they're called would've been called and the father would be getting blasted. Or if someone flung a dog/cat like that, the whole animal loving community would be up in arms. Heard this on one of the news channels yesterday.
I was tailgating a Browns game one year when a 15-20 man brawl broke out, none of the responding officers acted like this asshole. Through all the shouting and crowds, the bloody noses and unruly drunks, the officers kept their cool and de-escalated the situation. That's the difference between exemplary police work and a power tripping asshole who deserves a fist to the jaw.
it's much easier to sit behind a computer and 'suggest' how someone would react in a tense situation. this cop may be an asshole but he didn't do anything criminal in this case. why is this a big story?
If it was your sister/wife/GF/mother/cousin/friend would you still be dismissing it as no big deal? Would you still think she got what she deserved for crashing a pool?
was it criminal? her actions were criminal, not his. she was trespassing at a party she wasn't supposed to be at.
What happened to that girl didn't happen because she crashed a pool party. It happened because she refused to obey a police officer in the midst of a situation that was spiraling out of control. Had she simply walked away she would have not been tackled or detained. The cop overreacted, but we shouldn't pretend that this girl did nothing but trespass at a pool party.
He tripped. He didn't do a commando barrel roll like some donkey in a Seth Rogan movie. Geezuz man.
I'm starting to think some here feel that the moment cops come to any tricky situations... they should tuck their tail between their legs and whimper off. The cops showed incredible restraint as that gaggle of idiots grabbed at their gear multiple times as they were trying to gain control of the situation.
"They're just kids..." Yah. So what? They're not exactly toddlers and are they too stupid to understand things have escalated to a point where the police have been called sooo... party over? Move along... just like me and my friends did back in our day when the cops were called by someone needing their assistance.
I guess the police should have ignored the call and allowed the party to run its course? Is this what you are saying? Maybe you are saying the police should have come in and called everyone over for a nice talk about respecting people's property and offered all the kids rides home? I'm sure the kids would have responded very well to that tactic.
You seem downright desperate to defend cops. Nobody grabbed at his gear until he assaulted a teenage girl for no reason. Power tripping asshole. She was walking away, he told them to disperse and they were complying, but because he didn't approve of her use of free speech he decided to assault her. He's lucky he didn't get knocked out. I don't care who you are, I am swinging at your face hard if you lay hands on a woman without provocation.
Look in the mirror. You seem downright desperate to condemn cops. I have been critical of cops when criticism has been warranted. In this situation, nobody was hurthurt and a situation was handled.
I notice you never said how you thought this situation should have been handled? Ignore the call? Say "pretty please" to get their gear given back to them after the children took it off them when they were performing their duties? As soon as the children became belligerent, scuttle into the cars and drive away? Call the children in for a fireside chat?
Can you please tell us the way these incompetents should have handled this in a way that produced results for the homeowners that called for their assistance?
These are the police. Someone earlier said it- they are not parents. When they are on the scene, things have gone too far. Time to grab your towels and move along- not taunt them, try and steal the equipment attached to their belt, or lunge at them.
Unfreakingbelievable.
Where is this stealing of the equipment you are talking about? I didn't see anything of the sort.
You want to know how I think the situation should have been handled? It should be handled exactly as it was by all the officers on scene but the one who was on a power trip. The situation was handled well, they responded with necessary force and calmed the situation until this jagaloon got everyone worked up with his unwarranted violence.
It's hard to tell from the video, but the initial chase seemed to be two cops running after a kid who had one of the cop's flashlights. The professional officer is handed an item that he had lost- I think that might have been from when he tripped (or performed his action war zone roll as one member frothing at the mouth described).
At the 50 minute mark (or so), one of the cops (the jagaloon I believe) is wrestling his flashlight from the hands of one of the children.
Frothing at the mouth? I was making fun of this Rambo cop thirty. It's a joke. It seems like you're taking my comments personally and then try to insult as a result. If that's your game, fine, but it's childish and adds nothing to a debate. You have a habit of doing that.
And what video were you watching that was 50 minutes long and had people wrestling for a flashlight?
I was tailgating a Browns game one year when a 15-20 man brawl broke out, none of the responding officers acted like this asshole. Through all the shouting and crowds, the bloody noses and unruly drunks, the officers kept their cool and de-escalated the situation. That's the difference between exemplary police work and a power tripping asshole who deserves a fist to the jaw.
it's much easier to sit behind a computer and 'suggest' how someone would react in a tense situation. this cop may be an asshole but he didn't do anything criminal in this case. why is this a big story?
If it was your sister/wife/GF/mother/cousin/friend would you still be dismissing it as no big deal? Would you still think she got what she deserved for crashing a pool?
was it criminal? her actions were criminal, not his. she was trespassing at a party she wasn't supposed to be at.
From her account, she was invited to the party. Hardly criminal.
I was tailgating a Browns game one year when a 15-20 man brawl broke out, none of the responding officers acted like this asshole. Through all the shouting and crowds, the bloody noses and unruly drunks, the officers kept their cool and de-escalated the situation. That's the difference between exemplary police work and a power tripping asshole who deserves a fist to the jaw.
it's much easier to sit behind a computer and 'suggest' how someone would react in a tense situation. this cop may be an asshole but he didn't do anything criminal in this case. why is this a big story?
If it was your sister/wife/GF/mother/cousin/friend would you still be dismissing it as no big deal? Would you still think she got what she deserved for crashing a pool?
was it criminal? her actions were criminal, not his. she was trespassing at a party she wasn't supposed to be at.
So if it was your daughter you would still be approving the officers behavior? SheShe crashed a pool so shove her face in the sort officer, she deserves it.
Cops have to be able to protect themselves. When the cop tried to subdue the girl he had two guys come up from behind. Sorry but his life was in danger and he rightfully needed to take evasive actions. He didn't shoot anyone. He didn't beat anyone up. We created this society with our gun happy culture. This is what happens. Also don't feel this has anything to do with race.
Cops where called to assist security guard that was over matched by twitter party invite violating pool rules of guests per tenant. Police came to assist and sure if the teens left we wouldn't be hearing of this.
There's a balance to this and I'm very critical of police and recent events. This though may be going to far.
As to racist comment like to hear more details.
The problem is that the cop had no reason to "subdue" the girl in the first place. He wasn't responding to a dangerous situation, that's bullshit, he was CREATING a dangerous situation.
Why can't these kids just listen to the cops? The girl that was tackled was running her mouth and not complying to the officers demands. It all boils down to one thing: COMPLY WITH THE POLICE.
Damn her and her exercise of free speech in the face of authority. Inexcusable. Looked like she was complying to me considering he had to run over to her as she walked away.
It's great that this society is all for creating dangerous situations by exercising their freedom of speech in the face of authority.
What happened to that girl didn't happen because she crashed a pool party. It happened because she refused to obey a police officer in the midst of a situation that was spiraling out of control. Had she simply walked away she would have not been tackled or detained. The cop overreacted, but we shouldn't pretend that this girl did nothing but trespass at a pool party.
I don't see any difference between the logic and reason of that statement and this one: "If she wouldn't have gone back to his house for a drink he couldn't have raped her. What he did was wrong but we shouldn't pretend she did nothing that contributed to her assault."
What happened to that girl didn't happen because she crashed a pool party. It happened because she refused to obey a police officer in the midst of a situation that was spiraling out of control. Had she simply walked away she would have not been tackled or detained. The cop overreacted, but we shouldn't pretend that this girl did nothing but trespass at a pool party.
I don't see any difference between the logic and reason of that statement and this one: "If she wouldn't have gone back to his house for a drink he couldn't have raped her. What he did was wrong but we shouldn't pretend she did nothing that contributed to her assault."
For whatever reason you refuse to admit she contributed in any way to the predicament she found herself in. That just isn't credible based on the video evidence we have.
And if you truly don't see any difference between what I posted and the rapist comparison you just made...wow. Refusing to obey a police officer is not akin to unknowingly having a drink with a rapist. The logic is not the same, nor is the situation. Honestly, I'm embarrassed that I even have to make this point. And so should you be.
What happened to that girl didn't happen because she crashed a pool party. It happened because she refused to obey a police officer in the midst of a situation that was spiraling out of control. Had she simply walked away she would have not been tackled or detained. The cop overreacted, but we shouldn't pretend that this girl did nothing but trespass at a pool party.
I don't see any difference between the logic and reason of that statement and this one: "If she wouldn't have gone back to his house for a drink he couldn't have raped her. What he did was wrong but we shouldn't pretend she did nothing that contributed to her assault."
For whatever reason you refuse to admit she contributed in any way to the predicament she found herself in. That just isn't credible based on the video evidence we have.
And if you truly don't see any difference between what I posted and the rapist comparison you just made...wow. Refusing to obey a police officer is not akin to unknowingly having a drink with a rapist. The logic is not the same, nor is the situation. Honestly, I'm embarrassed that I even have to make this point. And so should you be.
Of course she contributed, I haven't disputed that!
I think you should be embarrassed that you don't see how the logic and reason are the same. Just because you don't like it doesn't matter, it doesn't change. The details are different but the underlying principles are the same. In both scenarios there is a person doing something that is admittedly wrong, but the responsibility is at least partially pushed onto the victim for doing something that was admittedly stupid which contributed to their victimisation.
Now explain the difference. Not that it's relevant, but she was complying with the officers orders, she was just doing so with a loud mouth.
He tripped. He didn't do a commando barrel roll like some donkey in a Seth Rogan movie. Geezuz man.
I'm starting to think some here feel that the moment cops come to any tricky situations... they should tuck their tail between their legs and whimper off. The cops showed incredible restraint as that gaggle of idiots grabbed at their gear multiple times as they were trying to gain control of the situation.
"They're just kids..." Yah. So what? They're not exactly toddlers and are they too stupid to understand things have escalated to a point where the police have been called sooo... party over? Move along... just like me and my friends did back in our day when the cops were called by someone needing their assistance.
I guess the police should have ignored the call and allowed the party to run its course? Is this what you are saying? Maybe you are saying the police should have come in and called everyone over for a nice talk about respecting people's property and offered all the kids rides home? I'm sure the kids would have responded very well to that tactic.
You seem downright desperate to defend cops. Nobody grabbed at his gear until he assaulted a teenage girl for no reason. Power tripping asshole. She was walking away, he told them to disperse and they were complying, but because he didn't approve of her use of free speech he decided to assault her. He's lucky he didn't get knocked out. I don't care who you are, I am swinging at your face hard if you lay hands on a woman without provocation.
Look in the mirror. You seem downright desperate to condemn cops. I have been critical of cops when criticism has been warranted. In this situation, nobody was hurthurt and a situation was handled.
I notice you never said how you thought this situation should have been handled? Ignore the call? Say "pretty please" to get their gear given back to them after the children took it off them when they were performing their duties? As soon as the children became belligerent, scuttle into the cars and drive away? Call the children in for a fireside chat?
Can you please tell us the way these incompetents should have handled this in a way that produced results for the homeowners that called for their assistance?
These are the police. Someone earlier said it- they are not parents. When they are on the scene, things have gone too far. Time to grab your towels and move along- not taunt them, try and steal the equipment attached to their belt, or lunge at them.
Unfreakingbelievable.
Where is this stealing of the equipment you are talking about? I didn't see anything of the sort.
You want to know how I think the situation should have been handled? It should be handled exactly as it was by all the officers on scene but the one who was on a power trip. The situation was handled well, they responded with necessary force and calmed the situation until this jagaloon got everyone worked up with his unwarranted violence.
It's hard to tell from the video, but the initial chase seemed to be two cops running after a kid who had one of the cop's flashlights. The professional officer is handed an item that he had lost- I think that might have been from when he tripped (or performed his action war zone roll as one member frothing at the mouth described).
At the 50 minute mark (or so), one of the cops (the jagaloon I believe) is wrestling his flashlight from the hands of one of the children.
Frothing at the mouth? I was making fun of this Rambo cop thirty. It's a joke. It seems like you're taking my comments personally and then try to insult as a result. If that's your game, fine, but it's childish and adds nothing to a debate. You have a habit of doing that.
And what video were you watching that was 50 minutes long and had people wrestling for a flashlight?
What happened to that girl didn't happen because she crashed a pool party. It happened because she refused to obey a police officer in the midst of a situation that was spiraling out of control. Had she simply walked away she would have not been tackled or detained. The cop overreacted, but we shouldn't pretend that this girl did nothing but trespass at a pool party.
I don't see any difference between the logic and reason of that statement and this one: "If she wouldn't have gone back to his house for a drink he couldn't have raped her. What he did was wrong but we shouldn't pretend she did nothing that contributed to her assault."
For whatever reason you refuse to admit she contributed in any way to the predicament she found herself in. That just isn't credible based on the video evidence we have.
And if you truly don't see any difference between what I posted and the rapist comparison you just made...wow. Refusing to obey a police officer is not akin to unknowingly having a drink with a rapist. The logic is not the same, nor is the situation. Honestly, I'm embarrassed that I even have to make this point. And so should you be.
Of course she contributed, I haven't disputed that!
I think you should be embarrassed that you don't see how the logic and reason are the same. Just because you don't like it doesn't matter, it doesn't change. The details are different but the underlying principles are the same. In both scenarios there is a person doing something that is admittedly wrong, but the responsibility is at least partially pushed onto the victim for doing something that was admittedly stupid which contributed to their victimisation.
Now explain the difference. Not that it's relevant, but she was complying with the officers orders, she was just doing so with a loud mouth.
Good, I'm glad you can admit that this girl's behavior contributed to the situation she found herself in.
The girl going back to a guy's house isn't stupid, nor is it wrong, nor does it mean a rape is about to occur. It happens all the time in cities and towns all over the world. It doesn't share any "principle" with not obeying a police officer. There is no equivalency there.
Embarrassing that this is what the debate has been lowered to. Cops, rapists, all the same apparently.
What happened to that girl didn't happen because she crashed a pool party. It happened because she refused to obey a police officer in the midst of a situation that was spiraling out of control. Had she simply walked away she would have not been tackled or detained. The cop overreacted, but we shouldn't pretend that this girl did nothing but trespass at a pool party.
I don't see any difference between the logic and reason of that statement and this one: "If she wouldn't have gone back to his house for a drink he couldn't have raped her. What he did was wrong but we shouldn't pretend she did nothing that contributed to her assault."
For whatever reason you refuse to admit she contributed in any way to the predicament she found herself in. That just isn't credible based on the video evidence we have.
And if you truly don't see any difference between what I posted and the rapist comparison you just made...wow. Refusing to obey a police officer is not akin to unknowingly having a drink with a rapist. The logic is not the same, nor is the situation. Honestly, I'm embarrassed that I even have to make this point. And so should you be.
Of course she contributed, I haven't disputed that!
I think you should be embarrassed that you don't see how the logic and reason are the same. Just because you don't like it doesn't matter, it doesn't change. The details are different but the underlying principles are the same. In both scenarios there is a person doing something that is admittedly wrong, but the responsibility is at least partially pushed onto the victim for doing something that was admittedly stupid which contributed to their victimisation.
Now explain the difference. Not that it's relevant, but she was complying with the officers orders, she was just doing so with a loud mouth.
Going back to a person's house for a drink is not doing anything wrong, therefore the victim of under these circumstances cannot be responsible to any degree for getting raped.
Rebuffing an officer of the law's requests as he attempts to manage a scene is wrong, therefore by refusing basic directions from a person granted the authority to do so by society... the person has directly contributed to their fate. Which, in this case, was detained and handcuffed: she was hardly a victim of violence the way I typically speak of 'victims of violence'.
People see what they want to see when it comes to police videos. Here in Boston we are dealing with the case of Usaamah Rahim, who was alleged to have embarked on a plot to behead police officers before being killed by police during a failed arrest attempt. The police are adamant this video shows they acted properly. The victim's family insists it shows they were the aggressors. Rahim's brother has claimed it shows it shows him being shot in the back.
Personally, I don't think it shows any of those things. Too far away, too rainy, and far from clear what is happening. But the debate rages just the same.
What happened to that girl didn't happen because she crashed a pool party. It happened because she refused to obey a police officer in the midst of a situation that was spiraling out of control. Had she simply walked away she would have not been tackled or detained. The cop overreacted, but we shouldn't pretend that this girl did nothing but trespass at a pool party.
I don't see any difference between the logic and reason of that statement and this one: "If she wouldn't have gone back to his house for a drink he couldn't have raped her. What he did was wrong but we shouldn't pretend she did nothing that contributed to her assault."
For whatever reason you refuse to admit she contributed in any way to the predicament she found herself in. That just isn't credible based on the video evidence we have.
And if you truly don't see any difference between what I posted and the rapist comparison you just made...wow. Refusing to obey a police officer is not akin to unknowingly having a drink with a rapist. The logic is not the same, nor is the situation. Honestly, I'm embarrassed that I even have to make this point. And so should you be.
Of course she contributed, I haven't disputed that!
I think you should be embarrassed that you don't see how the logic and reason are the same. Just because you don't like it doesn't matter, it doesn't change. The details are different but the underlying principles are the same. In both scenarios there is a person doing something that is admittedly wrong, but the responsibility is at least partially pushed onto the victim for doing something that was admittedly stupid which contributed to their victimisation.
Now explain the difference. Not that it's relevant, but she was complying with the officers orders, she was just doing so with a loud mouth.
Good, I'm glad you can admit that this girl's behavior contributed to the situation she found herself in.
The girl going back to a guy's house isn't stupid, nor is it wrong, nor does it mean a rape is about to occur. It happens all the time in cities and towns all over the world. It doesn't share any "principle" with not obeying a police officer. There is no equivalency there.
Embarrassing that this is what the debate has been lowered to. Cops, rapists, all the same apparently.
Oh now come the fuck on, that isn't anything close to what I was saying and you know it.
What happened to that girl didn't happen because she crashed a pool party. It happened because she refused to obey a police officer in the midst of a situation that was spiraling out of control. Had she simply walked away she would have not been tackled or detained. The cop overreacted, but we shouldn't pretend that this girl did nothing but trespass at a pool party.
I don't see any difference between the logic and reason of that statement and this one: "If she wouldn't have gone back to his house for a drink he couldn't have raped her. What he did was wrong but we shouldn't pretend she did nothing that contributed to her assault."
For whatever reason you refuse to admit she contributed in any way to the predicament she found herself in. That just isn't credible based on the video evidence we have.
And if you truly don't see any difference between what I posted and the rapist comparison you just made...wow. Refusing to obey a police officer is not akin to unknowingly having a drink with a rapist. The logic is not the same, nor is the situation. Honestly, I'm embarrassed that I even have to make this point. And so should you be.
Of course she contributed, I haven't disputed that!
I think you should be embarrassed that you don't see how the logic and reason are the same. Just because you don't like it doesn't matter, it doesn't change. The details are different but the underlying principles are the same. In both scenarios there is a person doing something that is admittedly wrong, but the responsibility is at least partially pushed onto the victim for doing something that was admittedly stupid which contributed to their victimisation.
Now explain the difference. Not that it's relevant, but she was complying with the officers orders, she was just doing so with a loud mouth.
Going back to a person's house for a drink is not doing anything wrong, therefore the victim of under these circumstances cannot be responsible to any degree for getting raped.
Rebuffing an officer of the law's requests as he attempts to manage a scene is wrong, therefore by refusing basic directions from a person granted the authority to do so by society... the person has directly contributed to their fate. Which, in this case, was detained and handcuffed: she was hardly a victim of violence the way I typically speak of 'victims of violence'.
This has not been your best effort, RG.
If you can't see past your nose, it's not my efforts to blame. Going home with a stranger IS stupid. Doesn't matter how many millions of women do it, it is a stupid thing to do. Is it wrong? No. Is it wrong to mouth off to an officer? I guess we disagree on that one. I believe in total freedom of speech.
If she was your daughter you wouldn't consider her a victim of violence?
What happened to that girl didn't happen because she crashed a pool party. It happened because she refused to obey a police officer in the midst of a situation that was spiraling out of control. Had she simply walked away she would have not been tackled or detained. The cop overreacted, but we shouldn't pretend that this girl did nothing but trespass at a pool party.
I don't see any difference between the logic and reason of that statement and this one: "If she wouldn't have gone back to his house for a drink he couldn't have raped her. What he did was wrong but we shouldn't pretend she did nothing that contributed to her assault."
For whatever reason you refuse to admit she contributed in any way to the predicament she found herself in. That just isn't credible based on the video evidence we have.
And if you truly don't see any difference between what I posted and the rapist comparison you just made...wow. Refusing to obey a police officer is not akin to unknowingly having a drink with a rapist. The logic is not the same, nor is the situation. Honestly, I'm embarrassed that I even have to make this point. And so should you be.
Of course she contributed, I haven't disputed that!
I think you should be embarrassed that you don't see how the logic and reason are the same. Just because you don't like it doesn't matter, it doesn't change. The details are different but the underlying principles are the same. In both scenarios there is a person doing something that is admittedly wrong, but the responsibility is at least partially pushed onto the victim for doing something that was admittedly stupid which contributed to their victimisation.
Now explain the difference. Not that it's relevant, but she was complying with the officers orders, she was just doing so with a loud mouth.
Good, I'm glad you can admit that this girl's behavior contributed to the situation she found herself in.
The girl going back to a guy's house isn't stupid, nor is it wrong, nor does it mean a rape is about to occur. It happens all the time in cities and towns all over the world. It doesn't share any "principle" with not obeying a police officer. There is no equivalency there.
Embarrassing that this is what the debate has been lowered to. Cops, rapists, all the same apparently.
Oh now come the fuck on, that isn't anything close to what I was saying and you know it.
Except I don't, because what you said is very close to that. A girl going back to a guy's house is not remotely comparable to a girl refusing to obey a police officer...yet that is the exact comparison you made.
I don't see any difference between the logic and reason of that statement and this one: "If she wouldn't have gone back to his house for a drink he couldn't have raped her. What he did was wrong but we shouldn't pretend she did nothing that contributed to her assault."
If she was my daughter, I'd be saying, "What the fuck were you doing? Cops arrive... get the hell out of there. At a minimum, don't agitate."
Then I'd go pour myself a drink, sit on my couch, and think to myself... "My what a shitty job I have done raising my child. How she has ever come to a point in her life where she feels it is appropriate to challenge the authority at such a level is beyond me."
* And can you point out to us where you said this girl was going for a drink to a stranger's house? I think the comment was (quoted from your post): "If she wouldn't have gone back to his house for a drink he couldn't have raped her. What he did was wrong but we shouldn't pretend she did nothing that contributed to her assault."
It seems as if the playing field has just changed somewhat.
What happened to that girl didn't happen because she crashed a pool party. It happened because she refused to obey a police officer in the midst of a situation that was spiraling out of control. Had she simply walked away she would have not been tackled or detained. The cop overreacted, but we shouldn't pretend that this girl did nothing but trespass at a pool party.
I don't see any difference between the logic and reason of that statement and this one: "If she wouldn't have gone back to his house for a drink he couldn't have raped her. What he did was wrong but we shouldn't pretend she did nothing that contributed to her assault."
For whatever reason you refuse to admit she contributed in any way to the predicament she found herself in. That just isn't credible based on the video evidence we have.
And if you truly don't see any difference between what I posted and the rapist comparison you just made...wow. Refusing to obey a police officer is not akin to unknowingly having a drink with a rapist. The logic is not the same, nor is the situation. Honestly, I'm embarrassed that I even have to make this point. And so should you be.
Of course she contributed, I haven't disputed that!
I think you should be embarrassed that you don't see how the logic and reason are the same. Just because you don't like it doesn't matter, it doesn't change. The details are different but the underlying principles are the same. In both scenarios there is a person doing something that is admittedly wrong, but the responsibility is at least partially pushed onto the victim for doing something that was admittedly stupid which contributed to their victimisation.
Now explain the difference. Not that it's relevant, but she was complying with the officers orders, she was just doing so with a loud mouth.
Going back to a person's house for a drink is not doing anything wrong, therefore the victim of under these circumstances cannot be responsible to any degree for getting raped.
Rebuffing an officer of the law's requests as he attempts to manage a scene is wrong, therefore by refusing basic directions from a person granted the authority to do so by society... the person has directly contributed to their fate. Which, in this case, was detained and handcuffed: she was hardly a victim of violence the way I typically speak of 'victims of violence'.
This has not been your best effort, RG.
If you can't see past your nose, it's not my efforts to blame. Going home with a stranger IS stupid. Doesn't matter how many millions of women do it, it is a stupid thing to do. Is it wrong? No. Is it wrong to mouth off to an officer? I guess we disagree on that one. I believe in total freedom of speech.
If she was your daughter you wouldn't consider her a victim of violence?
And really????
Total freedom of speech? So, cops enforcing the law we pay them to enforce aside, kids in classrooms should freely mouth off to teachers whenever the mood hits them? Kids mouth their parents off? Pay no respect to anyone if you don't feel like you want to because you want to use the moment to exercise total freedom of speech?
I think you need to place a bit more thought into this line of thinking.
What happened to that girl didn't happen because she crashed a pool party. It happened because she refused to obey a police officer in the midst of a situation that was spiraling out of control. Had she simply walked away she would have not been tackled or detained. The cop overreacted, but we shouldn't pretend that this girl did nothing but trespass at a pool party.
I don't see any difference between the logic and reason of that statement and this one: "If she wouldn't have gone back to his house for a drink he couldn't have raped her. What he did was wrong but we shouldn't pretend she did nothing that contributed to her assault."
For whatever reason you refuse to admit she contributed in any way to the predicament she found herself in. That just isn't credible based on the video evidence we have.
And if you truly don't see any difference between what I posted and the rapist comparison you just made...wow. Refusing to obey a police officer is not akin to unknowingly having a drink with a rapist. The logic is not the same, nor is the situation. Honestly, I'm embarrassed that I even have to make this point. And so should you be.
Of course she contributed, I haven't disputed that!
I think you should be embarrassed that you don't see how the logic and reason are the same. Just because you don't like it doesn't matter, it doesn't change. The details are different but the underlying principles are the same. In both scenarios there is a person doing something that is admittedly wrong, but the responsibility is at least partially pushed onto the victim for doing something that was admittedly stupid which contributed to their victimisation.
Now explain the difference. Not that it's relevant, but she was complying with the officers orders, she was just doing so with a loud mouth.
Going back to a person's house for a drink is not doing anything wrong, therefore the victim of under these circumstances cannot be responsible to any degree for getting raped.
Rebuffing an officer of the law's requests as he attempts to manage a scene is wrong, therefore by refusing basic directions from a person granted the authority to do so by society... the person has directly contributed to their fate. Which, in this case, was detained and handcuffed: she was hardly a victim of violence the way I typically speak of 'victims of violence'.
This has not been your best effort, RG.
If you can't see past your nose, it's not my efforts to blame. Going home with a stranger IS stupid. Doesn't matter how many millions of women do it, it is a stupid thing to do. Is it wrong? No. Is it wrong to mouth off to an officer? I guess we disagree on that one. I believe in total freedom of speech.
If she was your daughter you wouldn't consider her a victim of violence?
And really????
Total freedom of speech? So, cops enforcing the law we pay them to enforce aside, kids in classrooms should freely mouth off to teachers whenever the mood hits them? Kids mouth their parents off? Pay no respect to anyone if you don't feel like you want to because you want to use the moment to exercise total freedom of speech?
I think you need to place a bit more thought into this line of thinking.
* And don't call me big nose LOL!
So mouthing someone off is an excuse for violence? If a kid was mouthing off to a teacher the teacher can throw the student around? My kid is giving me backtalk I throw him/her around? You really need to access where you stand on this.
You are so way out to lunch if you didn't think this cop overreacted. Police abuse, plain and simple.
Still, nobody has addressed the fact that the kid recording the video was white and completely ignored by the cop. While his black friends were being detained all around him by Napoleon cop.
What happened to that girl didn't happen because she crashed a pool party. It happened because she refused to obey a police officer in the midst of a situation that was spiraling out of control. Had she simply walked away she would have not been tackled or detained. The cop overreacted, but we shouldn't pretend that this girl did nothing but trespass at a pool party.
I don't see any difference between the logic and reason of that statement and this one: "If she wouldn't have gone back to his house for a drink he couldn't have raped her. What he did was wrong but we shouldn't pretend she did nothing that contributed to her assault."
For whatever reason you refuse to admit she contributed in any way to the predicament she found herself in. That just isn't credible based on the video evidence we have.
And if you truly don't see any difference between what I posted and the rapist comparison you just made...wow. Refusing to obey a police officer is not akin to unknowingly having a drink with a rapist. The logic is not the same, nor is the situation. Honestly, I'm embarrassed that I even have to make this point. And so should you be.
Of course she contributed, I haven't disputed that!
I think you should be embarrassed that you don't see how the logic and reason are the same. Just because you don't like it doesn't matter, it doesn't change. The details are different but the underlying principles are the same. In both scenarios there is a person doing something that is admittedly wrong, but the responsibility is at least partially pushed onto the victim for doing something that was admittedly stupid which contributed to their victimisation.
Now explain the difference. Not that it's relevant, but she was complying with the officers orders, she was just doing so with a loud mouth.
Going back to a person's house for a drink is not doing anything wrong, therefore the victim of under these circumstances cannot be responsible to any degree for getting raped.
Rebuffing an officer of the law's requests as he attempts to manage a scene is wrong, therefore by refusing basic directions from a person granted the authority to do so by society... the person has directly contributed to their fate. Which, in this case, was detained and handcuffed: she was hardly a victim of violence the way I typically speak of 'victims of violence'.
This has not been your best effort, RG.
If you can't see past your nose, it's not my efforts to blame. Going home with a stranger IS stupid. Doesn't matter how many millions of women do it, it is a stupid thing to do. Is it wrong? No. Is it wrong to mouth off to an officer? I guess we disagree on that one. I believe in total freedom of speech.
If she was your daughter you wouldn't consider her a victim of violence?
And really????
Total freedom of speech? So, cops enforcing the law we pay them to enforce aside, kids in classrooms should freely mouth off to teachers whenever the mood hits them? Kids mouth their parents off? Pay no respect to anyone if you don't feel like you want to because you want to use the moment to exercise total freedom of speech?
I think you need to place a bit more thought into this line of thinking.
* And don't call me big nose LOL!
So mouthing someone off is an excuse for violence? If a kid was mouthing off to a teacher the teacher can throw the student around? My kid is giving me backtalk I throw him/her around? You really need to access where you stand on this.
You are so way out to lunch if you didn't think this cop overreacted. Police abuse, plain and simple.
Still, nobody has addressed the fact that the kid recording the video was white and completely ignored by the cop. While his black friends were being detained all around him by Napoleon cop.
No. You've missed the point. I was speaking to 'total freedom of speech' and how, in some situations, 'total freedom of speech' is inappropriate. Do you think it is appropriate for kids to say whatever they think they want to say in any setting to whomever they please?
And teachers aren't sanctioned to use force- this is why they don't have handcuffs, mace, pepper spray, batons, and guns. So, no. I don't think it is cool for a teacher to throw a kid around.
Police on the other hand have a license to use force when they deem it necessary. This is why even a moron should be able to figure out it is not a good idea to provoke and cajole them. A cop says "move along"... then move along. Why resist that? If a cop says "kiss me"... fair enough, but why would one feel like they should stand their ground because they don't feel like dispersing with the rest of the people when a mob has created a problem? Not smart. Not smart at all.
Yah. All the shaky evidence we see points to the obvious- these cops are extreme racists.
The video starts with the police already chasing someone. They run right by the kid filming - he isn't the one they were after. That they continue to ignore him isn't that surprising. Maybe it was racially motivated, sure, but maybe it wasn't.
Comments
I notice you never said how you thought this situation should have been handled? Ignore the call? Say "pretty please" to get their gear given back to them after the children took it off them when they were performing their duties? As soon as the children became belligerent, scuttle into the cars and drive away? Call the children in for a fireside chat?
Can you please tell us the way these incompetents should have handled this in a way that produced results for the homeowners that called for their assistance?
These are the police. Someone earlier said it- they are not parents. When they are on the scene, things have gone too far. Time to grab your towels and move along- not taunt them, try and steal the equipment attached to their belt, or lunge at them.
Unfreakingbelievable.
You want to know how I think the situation should have been handled?
It should be handled exactly as it was by all the officers on scene but the one who was on a power trip. The situation was handled well, they responded with necessary force and calmed the situation until this jagaloon got everyone worked up with his unwarranted violence.
At the 50 minute mark (or so), one of the cops (the jagaloon I believe) is wrestling his flashlight from the hands of one of the children.
It's really hard to tell what started the 'buzz'. Are you sure the 'jagaloon' jumped out of the car and roared around fanning the flames in what should have been a piece of cake? Is it possible, before you drop him from the ledge, that things got shitty because they were trying to deal with the situation in a calm manner that was met with resistance and belligerence? And things got tenser as a result?
I saw dozens of calm people and one who was fanning the flames. I don't see how you can justify assault on a teenage girl just because things are tense. That's ridiculous. He went after her to prove a point, not because he was being threatened.
Sticks and stones. Words are nevet justification for violence, some cops need to learn that kindergarten lesson.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
And what video were you watching that was 50 minutes long and had people wrestling for a flashlight?
You never crashed anything before?
"If she wouldn't have gone back to his house for a drink he couldn't have raped her. What he did was wrong but we shouldn't pretend she did nothing that contributed to her assault."
And if you truly don't see any difference between what I posted and the rapist comparison you just made...wow. Refusing to obey a police officer is not akin to unknowingly having a drink with a rapist. The logic is not the same, nor is the situation. Honestly, I'm embarrassed that I even have to make this point. And so should you be.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
I think you should be embarrassed that you don't see how the logic and reason are the same. Just because you don't like it doesn't matter, it doesn't change. The details are different but the underlying principles are the same.
In both scenarios there is a person doing something that is admittedly wrong, but the responsibility is at least partially pushed onto the victim for doing something that was admittedly stupid which contributed to their victimisation.
Now explain the difference. Not that it's relevant, but she was complying with the officers orders, she was just doing so with a loud mouth.
You're the only one that can exaggerate.
I meant 50 seconds. Sorry.
The girl going back to a guy's house isn't stupid, nor is it wrong, nor does it mean a rape is about to occur. It happens all the time in cities and towns all over the world. It doesn't share any "principle" with not obeying a police officer. There is no equivalency there.
Embarrassing that this is what the debate has been lowered to. Cops, rapists, all the same apparently.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Rebuffing an officer of the law's requests as he attempts to manage a scene is wrong, therefore by refusing basic directions from a person granted the authority to do so by society... the person has directly contributed to their fate. Which, in this case, was detained and handcuffed: she was hardly a victim of violence the way I typically speak of 'victims of violence'.
This has not been your best effort, RG.
Personally, I don't think it shows any of those things. Too far away, too rainy, and far from clear what is happening. But the debate rages just the same.
http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2015/06/family_video_shows_cops_as_aggressors
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Going home with a stranger IS stupid. Doesn't matter how many millions of women do it, it is a stupid thing to do.
Is it wrong? No.
Is it wrong to mouth off to an officer? I guess we disagree on that one. I believe in total freedom of speech.
If she was your daughter you wouldn't consider her a victim of violence?
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Then I'd go pour myself a drink, sit on my couch, and think to myself... "My what a shitty job I have done raising my child. How she has ever come to a point in her life where she feels it is appropriate to challenge the authority at such a level is beyond me."
* And can you point out to us where you said this girl was going for a drink to a stranger's house? I think the comment was (quoted from your post): "If she wouldn't have gone back to his house for a drink he couldn't have raped her. What he did was wrong but we shouldn't pretend she did nothing that contributed to her assault."
It seems as if the playing field has just changed somewhat.
Total freedom of speech? So, cops enforcing the law we pay them to enforce aside, kids in classrooms should freely mouth off to teachers whenever the mood hits them? Kids mouth their parents off? Pay no respect to anyone if you don't feel like you want to because you want to use the moment to exercise total freedom of speech?
I think you need to place a bit more thought into this line of thinking.
* And don't call me big nose LOL!
Oh TB has a big nose.
You are so way out to lunch if you didn't think this cop overreacted. Police abuse, plain and simple.
Still, nobody has addressed the fact that the kid recording the video was white and completely ignored by the cop. While his black friends were being detained all around him by Napoleon cop.
And teachers aren't sanctioned to use force- this is why they don't have handcuffs, mace, pepper spray, batons, and guns. So, no. I don't think it is cool for a teacher to throw a kid around.
Police on the other hand have a license to use force when they deem it necessary. This is why even a moron should be able to figure out it is not a good idea to provoke and cajole them. A cop says "move along"... then move along. Why resist that? If a cop says "kiss me"... fair enough, but why would one feel like they should stand their ground because they don't feel like dispersing with the rest of the people when a mob has created a problem? Not smart. Not smart at all.
Yah. All the shaky evidence we see points to the obvious- these cops are extreme racists.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."