Clearly, this incident did not occur in San Francisco, where enlightened authorities conscious of social injustice and oppression have grown indifferent to routine retail theft defensible need for basic necessities. Although the "entitled shoplifting" movement has spread everywhere, backwoods law enforcement in many regions is still lagging behind in its cognitive apprehension of these moral upgrades. --> video link
This is what cops have to put up with these days. If you're pulled over, you just walk away from the cop. If you are arrested, just start screaming. When a stranger walks by within ear shot, just yell "Please don't kill me". Complain that you don't like being handcuffed and that your shoulder hurts. When asked if you need the EMS answer "no, yes, no, yes". Scream again when you get to the hospital, get your shoulders x-ray'd , no broken bones and after you have wasted everyone's time you get a $200 bail, a misdemeanor charge repeat over and over until the point where no one wants to be a cop and no cops respond when you call them because...what's the point? Throw "racism" in there somewhere and you have "life in these United States" today.
Is this noticeably different from what cops have had to put up with in days past? Drunks, people affected by drugs, people with mental health issues, etc. Cops should expect these things and they should be appropriately trained to deal with them. I assume you think the penalty that man got was too light. What do you suggest, instead? It's a good question of where the racism fits into this. You chose to make an example of a black man for your rant, for example.
You didn't see my other one apparently, featuring a drunk white woman. Or maybe you just chose to mention the one with the black man? Does his skin color have anything to do with the video? Yes, I think the penalty is too light when it encourages poor behavior. People walk in Target stores now and shoplift right in front of employees knowing that nothing is going to be done. Do you think he should get a lighter sentence? Do you think every person arrested should be able to get a ride to the hospital to waste time even when it's shown that nothing is wrong with them? Should everyone now be advised by their attorney to tell cops "I can't breath" since there is no penalty for doing so? Do you think the problem has more to do with cop training or do you think the criminal has some responsibility?
Seattle: That one wasn't the one you chose to post, though, was it? This is your thread. It was your choice to post what you posted, not mine. Are you confused? Maybe. You were the one who wrote "Throw 'racism' in there somewhere and you have 'life in these United States' today." Why did you write that? You must have had something in mind. I assumed it related to the thread topic that you started. You think his penalty in this case encourages poor behaviour? How so? Why is nothing going to be done, in your opinion? Something was done in the case you posted, was it not? What was his sentence? What was his history of offending? I'm not familiar with all the relevant details that were presented in his court hearing. Are you? I hope so, seeing as you're second-guessing the judge's decision and/or the justice system in general, based on this. I think that, in the litigious environment that has developed in the United States, the police have to be very careful in doing their job. They can't be in the business of just assuming that the guy who says he has a broken shoulder doesn't in fact have a broken shoulder. If they did that, they could be in legal trouble. What do you think the police should have done differently, in the circumstances? Or, are you suggesting that the laws should be changed so that no arrested person gets a ride to hospital, or something? I'm not sure what you're talking about, there. What kind of penalty would you like to see for somebody saying "I can't breathe?" The guy in your video was ultimately charged with obstruction, for instance. Not good enough for you? What problem? You're not being very clear on what you believe the "problem" is, or how you'd like to see it solved, so far.
I did post that second video somewhere and I thought it was somewhere else on this site but maybe not. I mentioned "racism" because the guy the cop stopped threw that out there. Yes, obviously, the cops are having to dance this dance in order to not be sued. That was my point, it's ridiculous. In other words, this is usually who they are dealing with and not people who say "I can't breathe" that actually can't breathe. Yes, I think running away from the cops and doing all this nonsense should result in more than a misdemeanor.
Why did you post this one? Life in these United States, again? You don't think this girl has been punished enough, either?
Are these clips from a TV show you watch regularly? Or a youtube channel? Do you think there is some kind of racist element in this that warrants discussion? If so, can you explain what you're trying to get at? What solution do you propose for this problem of the cops having to dance this dance that you don't want to see them dance? Or haven't you got as far as a solution yet? You're just at the outraged and annoyed stage? Have you considered the possibility that, maybe, the courts take more into account than you do, in sentencing?
It says that it's from YouTube and it's not relevant how frequently I watch it. If you are interested in how often I watch YouTube you should probably start another thread on that subject as it's off topic here. No, I don't think there is. Why do you ask? You seem to see racism everywhere. Do I need to have a solution? I'm at the annoyed stage as this is similar to what Seattle has become. The solution would be a stronger response rather than letting criminals run the place. I'm quite sure they take into account the ineffectual local laws and politics. The outcome isn't good and that is what I'm addressing. You seem OK with this. Why?
Cops have always had to put up with this. We are just seeing the worst of the worst now, because during any arrest there are half a dozen cameras recording it. Perhaps. But better than the olden days, where the same guy would be in jail for ten years for assaulting a cop. As long as he wasn't white, of course.
The old days weren't good but that doesn't make today any better. Although without cameras, I don't think it exactly played out the same way in the past. Some of the nonsense just wasn't tolerated. No need to yell out "Don't kill me" and "Take me to the ER, I can't breathe" when there are no cameras to play to. That is when you can breathe and your shoulder isn't hurt. They also probably didn't have to call 5 additional cops to "escort" a drunken woman into the back seat of a police car. There are also some changes that were, no doubt, well meaning but that also have unintended consequences. In the old days cops knew their neighborhoods, they carried billy clubs and along with the abuses there were also less people shot. There are plenty of videos here in the US (one in Seattle) where a clearly deranged man is shot and killed by police from 15 feet away as he made a threatening move toward them with a machete. There is another video in a similar situation in London and all that happened was more cops (with billy clubs) arrived, surround the guy and when he made a move forward, those behind him just hit him with the billy club, incapacitating him and saving his life. They looked as if it were no big deal. The Seattle cops looked like they were scared to death. There is nuance here. You can have better behavior by cops without turning the whole crime prevention endeavour into a community bad joke.
Unfortunately over your side of the pond and here those days are long gone. We don't see beat coppers on the street any more. Funding has reduced that and times have changed. One issue we don't have is guns thank god. We still have violent crime, knife crime, gangs, and drugs. Enough to keep police busy and not a job I would want.
Not a job I would want either. I also don't really go out of my way to deal with them nor do I especially like them but that's just because of the potential abuses of authority. In general though, I've had mainly decent interaction with them (although not always). However if stopped I comply even if they are rude or in the wrong. If necessary you could always take legal action after the fact. Being abusive to a cop on the street is just stupid since he/she is being paid to maintain control and you aren't going to win that contest. Even in the bad cop scenarios, most of the time (not all) when people get shot and killed, it wouldn't have happened if they had just complied and took it up with the legal system later.
Not everyone has it in them to "just comply"(as a reflex anyway) I remember my first day at "big school" we were all warned of the "ducking ritual" where the year ahead of us collared a new pupil in their first year and ritually put their head in the basin and turned on the tap(faucet). All us new pupils went along with this knowing that it was a ritual and was done in a perfunctory way. We all got out without undue fuss. One of us though refused to submit to the process and ,after a struggle they bigger boys had to give up on their task. Some people just don't submit easily and ,provided it is not overdone that is an admirable trait. That obnoxious woman who wouldn't get out of the car seems to be cut from the same cloth and has learned the tricks of the game as it has evolved with the new technology I am sure at the end of it all some (most)of those police officers will harbour her no resentment even if they cannot say it publicly. They will learn from her carry on and will go home when their hours are up. Another day another dollar. By the way ,the ducking ritual at our school died out more or less the following year as we thought it was pathetic and th chain was broken.
I was pretty much immune from peer pressure during my school years but when the other person has a gun and the laws are all pretty much on their side, I'll go along. I know what you mean though. In junior high one of the smaller boys in the school had a temper and seemed to like to get his a$s beat, every day at lunch, behind the cafeteria. He would pick a fight with the school bully, didn't stand a chance and of course always lost badly. It was so one-sided that eventually the class didn't even gather when someone yelled out "fight" if it involved him. He wasn't even a tough little guy. He was basically a class clown. Skip ahead a few decades and I learned from friends who stayed in the area (I did not) that he is in prison for life or something like that. I don't know the details. I think in the old days, two cops would have been enough to throw the drunk lady into the back of the car and the talking wouldn't have gone on as long.
Seattle: I was just curious as to how you came to watch these videos and why you wanted to post something about them. I'm not that interested in your youtube viewing habits, though, so never mind. Because you brought it up. I guess you did it for no reason at all, then? Just random, was it? I'm not sure how you reached that conclusion. I see it wherever you post about it, obviously. Well, it would be nice to know that you've done more than sit like a couch potato and just let this material wash over you, as a sort of entertainment. It would be good to learn that you've thought beyond what is presented to you. But maybe you haven't done that, in this case. How are criminals running Seattle? Courts are supposed to be separate from politics. Anyway, I don't see how politics really comes into it when we're talking about booking a drunk girl for driving without a licence. Which outcome isn't good? Which outcome are you upset about, and why? You have yet to explain yourself clearly, on that. Also, whose good outcome are you concerned about? Your own? The offenders in these clips? The cops? The city of Seattle? All of the above? When you say I seem OK with this, what are you talking about? What is it you think I'm OK with, exactly? You haven't asked me anything about what I think, yet, you know. You preferred the days when cops could rough up offenders to make them comply, without consequences for the cops? Are you in favour of abolishing body cameras for cops, for this reason, then? Or for other reasons? Or is there some value in them? If I was a cop and saw potential for violence from an offender, I would prefer to have some backup available. Wouldn't you? Were fewer cops shot? Something about the guns goes here, probably. Do you think that abolishing the cameras would help with the better behaviour by cops thing? Sure. Beat her up a bit and she might be more likely to comply, if for no other reason than out of fear for her personal safety. This is what you'd prefer, is it? After all, we can't have mouthy women talking back to cops without physical violence as a consequence, can we? Women - drunk women in particular - need to be taught their proper place. Is that how it goes?
Why does it matter why I brought it up, random or otherwise? Stick to the post and not the poster. Otherwise, start another thread and I'll be glad to take any personal questions you may have. Ok, you're not sure. It might be nice for you to know whether or not I'm a couch potato but it's not germane to the topic. Since, presumably, you aren't a couch potato, what are your thoughts and solutions or are your thoughts only personal ones about me? It's an expression that is used when crime appears to be out of control. Businesses are leaving downtown Seattle because of crime downtown and the seeming inability of the police to do much about it. It started with the "defund the police" policy. That's political. In comes into it in the case of a guy jerking the cops around or locally in Seattle when the City Council instructs the police to be lax regarding enforcement with crime and the homeless. You seem to understand the problem when you ask what my solution is but you suddenly can't understand the problem when I ask what your solution is. The other's who have responded to this thread at least seem to understand the post and also don't seem to be so concerned about the poster. Why is this a problem for you? I preferred the days when offenders couldn't so easily make a mockery of legitimate law enforcement. How about you? No, I'm all for them and for transparency by any authority figure. No. Why? Do you? It seems to be how it goes in your mind. Not in mine. I think the cameras should stay, two cops should be enough to put her in the backseat and if she screams then she screams. If she yells "please don't kill me" or "my shoulder hurts" they would ignore it and the ER trip if there is no evidence to back that up. I think it would be good if more people saw these videos so that next time a cop is on trial, the jury might have a more balanced view of what actually goes on. It's kind of prejudicial if every defendant yells "please don't kill me" anytime they are under arrest since everyone area now things that perhaps the cops were about to kill him/her. You get to have real rights only when everyone isn't abusing those rights. It's like the little boy who called "wolf" or someone who yells "fire" in a movie theater. I think you actually understand this but just like to argue with the poster rather than address the post but that's for another thread if you want another thread. I don't. I didn't even open this thread in this particular sub-forum. You did.[/qUOTE]
