Police Brutality, Lost Respect for the Police

[QUOTE="superfluidity"]

Why wouldn't handcuffs have done the trick?

airshocker

We have a use of force model that dictates most of our actions. Non-compliance with issued orders is resistant active.

As you can see on the Use of Force model, we're authorized to use compliance techniques when the subject(s) are resistant active.

Handcuffs are used when the situation is under control.

You don't have to like it, but this is the model that most police departments and federal LEOs use.

Their behavior was basically the definition of "Resistant (Passive)".

Their behavior was basically the definition of "Resistant (Passive)".

superfluidity

No. The definition of Resistant Passive is used for those who are drunk/stoned, or who are too young or disturbed to realize what their actions are doing.

Resistant Active is knowingly disobeying the orders of a Police officer.

[QUOTE="superfluidity"]

Their behavior was basically the definition of "Resistant (Passive)".

airshocker

No. The definition of Resistant Passive is used for those who are drunk/stoned, or who are too young or disturbed to realize what their actions are doing.

Resistant Active is knowingly disobeying the orders of a Police officer.

That makes utterly no sense, there's nothing passive about being drunk or disturbed. Why is the word passive used in that category?

That makes utterly no sense, there's nothing passive about being drunk or disturbed. Why is the word passive used in that category?

superfluidity

Because being drunk or stoned, young or disturbed you don't really know you are resisting the Police. So your actions aren't held against you like they are under Resistant Active.

You have to actively ignore the orders given to you by Police to fall under resistant active. Those people did.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="superfluidity"]

Their behavior was basically the definition of "Resistant (Passive)".

superfluidity

No. The definition of Resistant Passive is used for those who are drunk/stoned, or who are too young or disturbed to realize what their actions are doing.

Resistant Active is knowingly disobeying the orders of a Police officer.

That makes utterly no sense, there's nothing passive about being drunk or disturbed. Why is the word passive used in that category?

[QUOTE="superfluidity"]

That makes utterly no sense, there's nothing passive about being drunk or disturbed. Why is the word passive used in that category?

airshocker

Because being drunk or stoned, young or disturbed you don't really know you are resisting the Police. So your actions aren't held against you like they are under Resistant Active.

You have to actively ignore the orders given to you by Police to fall under resistant active. Those people did.

If that's true it's a bizarre way of categorizing things because of what passive resistance has historically meant.

In any case, are you saying that officers just automatically go to the highest level of force available to them with no personal judgement?

There's a story about 2 cops that were racing and they hit two kids who were driving around and both died. The cops said the two kids hit them, that they were doing drugs, their names got dragged through the mud, and the families suffered greatly. Then they found the police tapes a year or so later.

I respect the people that serve, but they need to be watched just as closely as the rest of us because many of their actions are not lawful or unfair.

The police do a lot of bad things, they are important to our society, and they definitely do more good things, but we should not turn and look the other way from police brutality either. They are not selfless and they are not perfect, I respect them, but they shouldn't be given the authority to behave however they choose and they should be monitered so that these incidents are much more isolated.

If that's true it's a bizarre way of categorizing things because of what passive resistance has historically meant.

In any case, are you saying that officers just automatically go to the highest level of force available to them with no personal judgement?

superfluidity

I don't think you are in any position to make that determination, unless you've been a cop or any kind of law enforcement?

No, of course not. They were repeatedly ordered to move. Their actions(the subject actions) determined what level on the UoF model the officer was justified in using.

[QUOTE="superfluidity"]

If that's true it's a bizarre way of categorizing things because of what passive resistance has historically meant.

In any case, are you saying that officers just automatically go to the highest level of force available to them with no personal judgement?

airshocker

I don't think you are in any position to make that determination, unless you've been a cop or any kind of law enforcement?

No, of course not. They were repeatedly ordered to move. Their actions(the subject actions) determined what level on the UoF model the officer was justified in using.

If the model really is what you're saying it is, then it's incredibly flawed.

Nonviolent resistance should never be met with violence of any form. It's morally bankrupt to physcially harm someone if it isn't necessary to protect the safety of others.

If the model really is what you're saying it is, then it's incredibly flawed.

Nonviolent resistance should never be met with violence of any form. It's morally bankrupt to physcially harm someone if it isn't necessary to protect the safety of others.

superfluidity

Says you. It's been serving law enforcement well since it's inception in '97.

I disagree that it's violent to pepper-spray someone. But to each their own.

You saw a video you didn't like and now every cop is stupid and violent. Makes sense.cheese_game619

[QUOTE="superfluidity"]

If the model really is what you're saying it is, then it's incredibly flawed.

Nonviolent resistance should never be met with violence of any form. It's morally bankrupt to physcially harm someone if it isn't necessary to protect the safety of others.

airshocker

Says you. It's been serving law enforcement well since it's inception in '97.

I disagree that it's violent to pepper-spray someone. But to each their own.

It isn't violent to inflict severe pain upon another person?

cause we all know that any group can be generalized by the actions of a few.

generalizations ftl.

[QUOTE="D3nnyCrane"]A cop has to deal with s hit day in, day out, the likes of which would blow your mind (my cousin is a cop and I hear all the stories) - and you're telling me they're the bad guys for cracking under the pressure? You're either a saint or not walking a mile in their shoes.infinite884

It isn't violent to inflict severe pain upon another person?

superfluidity

No. Pepper spray doesn't injure, it merely hurts. Same with a taser. An ASP baton strike, on the other hand, is violent and can injure.

[QUOTE="superfluidity"]

It isn't violent to inflict severe pain upon another person?

airshocker

No. Pepper spray doesn't injure, it merely hurts. Same with a taser. An ASP baton strike, on the other hand, is violent and can injure.

Inflicting pain is certainly an act of violence. If that wasn't the case we would have torture as a form of legal punishment.

Inflicting pain is certainly an act of violence. If that wasn't the case we would have torture as a form of legal punishment.

superfluidity

I disagree. So does the definition of violence.

[QUOTE="superfluidity"]

Inflicting pain is certainly an act of violence. If that wasn't the case we would have torture as a form of legal punishment.

airshocker

I disagree. So does the definition of violence.

In your opinion, slapping someone without causing injury is not an act of violence. Fantastic.

So you watch a few police brutality videos on youtube and judge the entire police force on that. Then you go on to say that basically police officers are unintelligent. Have you looked in the mirror lately?

SpartanMSU

If you read more carefully, you would realize that in my post, I never said all are, I said some police undertake actions like this, and that imo that these are not simply isolated incidents. I stated that the police should be watched and held accountable just as much as a regular individual because, at the end of the day, they are human, and therefore posses all the short comings associated with being human. They can still be violent, corrupt, selfish, and etc, and that they should be held up to the same standards as everyone else.

As for their education, if you take a look at the requirements of being hired as an officer, in many places, you only need an HS diploma, and in some, you only need an Associates degree (or 60 college credits) with a GPA of 2.0. Now two things. a) A CGPA of 2.0 is a D, that is one hell of a low requirement. I stated that some police officers are uneducated simply based on what I have personally seen, as well as based on the abnormally low requirements (n terms of level of education) of becoming an officer of the law.

As for your comment about Uni. grads, most are very intelligent and capable individuals. Not all, but the majority are, but obviously you cant just base someones level of intelligence if they have a degree (given that anyone can get a degree) but more so based on the institution they attended (top 50 world for example) and what their GPA was. Its also possible that your friends that were morons were from MSU, MSU admits almost everyone that applies (70% acceptance rate) (3 friends from my year, got rejected from every school they applied to except MSU...which I agree is an isolated incident and could be because MSU was hoping to get their 1st year tuition and kick them out if they were not up to par, but still...)

In your opinion, slapping someone without causing injury is not an act of violence. Fantastic.

superfluidity

I guess if you're going to start putting words in my mouth I'm pretty much done talking to you.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="superfluidity"]

Inflicting pain is certainly an act of violence. If that wasn't the case we would have torture as a form of legal punishment.

superfluidity

I disagree. So does the definition of violence.

In your opinion, slapping someone without causing injury is not an act of violence. Fantastic.

[QUOTE="superfluidity"]

In your opinion, slapping someone without causing injury is not an act of violence. Fantastic.

airshocker

I guess if you're going to start putting words in my mouth I'm pretty much done talking to you.

Yeah man **** tha police. Gonna go listen to that song after watching this crap.

alot of cops think they are above the law and top **** we need to stop stroking there egos. For example calling them New Yorks finest, haha yeah right!

There are some examples on youtube of good respectful cops, unfortunately they are out numbered by the power trip cops imo.

There's a reason the slang term "pigs" is so popular.

Not all police are like that and police forces are a necessity. However in a lot of cases, especially in police states like New York (where cops are notorious for being belligerent, rights-ignoring asshats - just take a look at the whole Muslim community thing in NYC), there's a serious issue. The "bad" police are the ones that are blatantly afraid of your rights since they impede their crude actions, and they try to obstruct them in any way possible. You can ask for their badge ID and name and record them if they do infringe on your rights. However a lot of the time these kinds of cops will get angry, issue threats, or possibly beat you. I've seen the former two happen a few times, although I've only heard about the latter...

I do feel like police education needs to be stepped up. Too often are the police so dense and ignorant that it often makes the situation worse. It's a problem when the lowest common denominator can become an officer of the law without any knowledge of the law.

EDIT: And the blatant fear-mongering in the US over nonexistent terrorism makes people think that the police need more power. There's a strong correlation between most of the "anti-terrorism" acts passed in the last ten years and police violence and law breaking on the enforcers' parts.

Saturos3091

The two clips in that video thatI found disturbing is the kid on the motorcycle getting accosted by someone who didn't identify himself as police and pulling a gun on him just because he had a camera strapped to his head, and the last clip they showed of reporters on public property getting shoved into the middle of the street then getting arrested for not being on public property.

All the other clips it seemed as though the people getting beat down either partly or completely to blame, like the guy who got launched from the car? Yea it sucks but if you have 5 cop cars chasing you then you either stole a car or the car looks the same as a stolen car, either way getting into a high speed chase isn't the best course of action.

Right because the actions of one or a few cops=the entire force.

This is why just not recognizing the police's tainted authority isn't enough. They'll still just bully the f*** outta you because they can. All recording stuff does is spread dissent. But US citizens are probly the most dormant in the world and won't do s*** no matter how pissed they are. Such a sad society. That's why I say you gotta fight back, in the most efficient way you can. I'm all for the right to own guns. Many of the fathers of the constitution said they felt the common man's firepower should outnumber that of those in charge. Different times but still rings true.

If you see a cop abusing their authority, don't just record it, fight back.

Don't see whats wrong with pummeling any punk-ass, daddy issue, abusive f***head cop you see tbh...

This is why just not recognizing the police's tainted authority isn't enough. They'll still just bully the f*** outta you because they can. All recording stuff does is spread dissent. But US citizens are probly the most dormant in the world and won't do s*** no matter how pissed they are. Such a sad society. That's why I say you gotta fight back, in the most efficient way you can. I'm all for the right to own guns. Many of the fathers of the constitution said they felt the common man's firepower should outnumber that of those in charge. Different times but still rings true.

If you see a cop abusing their authority, don't just record it, fight back.

Pummel any punk-ass, daddy issue, abusive f***head cop you see. NO ONE will miss them...

DaJuicyMan

[QUOTE="superfluidity"]

In your opinion, slapping someone without causing injury is not an act of violence. Fantastic.

airshocker

I guess if you're going to start putting words in my mouth I'm pretty much done talking to you.

"I was given an example of how inflicting pain is clearly violence. I'll just put my fingers in my ears and scream until the logic goes away."

[QUOTE="superfluidity"]

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

I disagree. So does the definition of violence.

LJS9502_basic

In your opinion, slapping someone without causing injury is not an act of violence. Fantastic.

Of course there are consequences. The point is that there's no need for the consequence to be the infliction of pain. Only a callous government uses pain as a form of enforcement when it is not necessary. This isn't North Korea.

[QUOTE="DaJuicyMan"]

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="superfluidity"]

Inflicting pain is certainly an act of violence. If that wasn't the case we would have torture as a form of legal punishment.

airshocker

I disagree. So does the definition of violence.

When people start respecting law enforcement than you can come back and talk about how the police need to relax. I have seen first hand people treating cops like garbage and wonder why they were in cuffs 20 minutes later.