Police gang criminals in America

Looks like there are gangs of police criminals in America who can just beat up people without stopping each other:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8e1_1315087047

And this guy gets 75 years for filming one of those:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1ce_1314832958

 

New video shows weapon in hand

http://edmonton.ctv.ca/servlet/an/l...edm_beatvid_110903/20110903/?hub=EdmontonHome





I was under the impression that civilian elected lawmakers make the laws, and civilian prosecutors prosecute lawbreakers. I'm against the laws myself, but I don't blame the police for them either.

_

 

That's a still shot and, are you saying video of him without no "weapon" near the cops the "weapon" was edited out?

 

Did you read the article? It's a still shot from a second video that shows the man with a weapon. He lied about being unarmed.

 

I'm either confused or I'm missing something: if I walk around now with a frying pan, and then few minutes later I am near the police unarmed, it can still be claimed that I was armed as the surveilance video from my kitchen shows? the man with a stick is in another place, same clothes, but when he approached the police he did not have any stick in his hand.

 

Read thru the article, IMO the police should pay him $2000 each out of their pocket (not tax payers) and that's it. that's my judgement

 

No, the law clearly states: If you have ever held anything that could be considered a weapon by any approximation ever, or if your ancestors have ever held something considered a weapon, you are armed and dangerous. Who gives a (*)(*)(*)(*) if you did not hold it in your hand at the time, humanity still exists thus you must be a dangerously armed criminal.

 

How true. The biggest disgrace for the Denver pd was when they shot a man with a pop can in his hand.... After they raided the wrong house. Disgusting.

 

Ok, the police were called by a citizen to investigate a threatening man with a weapon. (The man has lied about being armed to the Canadian people in the press.) He may have still been armed with a concealed weapon, when the police arrived. For everyone's safety, police generally search and/or handcuff a possible armed suspect. This liar turned away and began to walk away from officers. There is no audio at this time, but it is highly likely he was ordered to stop. He continued and was taken to the ground. He didn't submit for handcuffing, and force was used to gain compliance.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. It happens every night on "Cops". Perhaps, the CBC should start filming the arrest of Canadian wife-beaters and drunk drivers to educate the public?

_

_

 

You are wrong: there is no audio but seing the man turn around and not running indicates he was ordered to turn around and did what he was told to do.
3 cops with guns, one unarmed 60 year old man turns around, and gets kicked and beaten by cops while lying down. the rest is a bunch of BS to defend the cops that need to be beaten senslessly, lose their children, their homes, and be sent to Iraq. there is no justification for what they did. if that old man was my father I would likely get a gun and shoot those cops. I would be hurt, and I am hurt now watching this done to another man. And I don't think he as a store owner went around attacking people with a weapon for not buying his stuff.

 

How people can defend cops is disgusting. I find it funny when its called "tragic" when a cop is killed on the job. Its more like justice.

 

I don't agree with you there, I am sure there are good cops fighting bad guys also, although often it is easier to harass someone for drug posession rather then be brave enough to fight crime, however, that man who got 75 year prison sentence for video taping police beating someone, that is appaling, but we have to be able to distinguish between the two, it's like someone would say all blacks are scum because some blacks raped a white woman or vice verse. I do not agree with your statement.

 

Because they're not relying on hindsight. We know he was the shop owner, we know he (probably) wasn't armed, we know he wasn't a significant threat to the officers. At the time, the officers knew none of this.

In such situations with all those unknowns, they need to control the individual in case they are a threat. If that individual struggles and refuses to comply (such as keeping their hands hidden under their body), the police have to use a level of physical force.

There is a legitimate question of how much force they should have used in that situation but we don't have enough information to honestly judge that here. That's why there is an investigation ongoing.

You might to assume "police officer = guilty" but that's your issue to deal with. An honest, sensible, non-police-hating person will approach it with a little more balance.

 

Politicians and media people are PROFESSIONAL BALANCERS, but honesty is also important. in this particular video I believe it is dishonest to defend the police that maybe they did not know something, here is the list of facts as I see them as I review this tape again, let me know if I am missing something:

1. Store owner comes up to police without weapon and in non aggressive manner, as if being called, not in an attack mode. his hang guestures suggests he is explaining something but not being aggressive.
2. Store owner raises his hands obviously in compliance, then turns around also almost certainly in compliance
3. Police pull out a gun on him. does not run. police often order suspect to "turn around and put your hands behind your back" both commands at the same time, especialy to someone who is absolutely innocent can be shocking and confusing.
4. Based on the fact that the store owner raises his hands and turns around to me indicates that they were giving him all these commands one after another and he did two, and I suspect he didnt react to the third which I suspect was "put your hands behind your back"...
5. they sease the opportunity and beat a 60 year old man. to defend these cops in my opinion is disguisting. as for the media and the professional politicians balancing act, there is nothing honest about it, when you see a crime you have to be able to identify it.

Now let me ask you, what do you think about this 75 year sentence? (no balancing acts please)
And this guy gets 75 years for filming one of those:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1ce_1314832958

 

No they're not, they're professional seekers of self-interest. Politicians and the media will generally take whatever posistion makes them most popular with the public to win votes and customers respectively. Honestly doesn't come in to it in either case.

First, there is a difference between defending "the police" (when, for example, they're all being painted as criminal thugs because of the actions of a few) and defending these specific officers. There is also a difference between not assuming they're automatically guilty and assuming they're perfectly innocent.

We're mainly missing the sound and a whole load of context (what exactly had the officers had reported to them for example).

Specifically looking at the video, the man only briefly put his hands up, dropping them again. He also looked back around after turning. That, along with whatever he was saying (and how he was saying it) was presumably the reason he was taken to the ground. It appears he was struck once on the ground because he had his hands (and thus anything which could have been in them) hidden under his body. As it happens, it does seem that the officer with his back to the camera tossed something away after the mans hands were finally pulled out, though I've no idea what it was.

Now, for a man who turns out to be innocent that would be heavy handed but for a dangerous criminal it wouldn't be. The classic problem is that the officers on the ground, in the firing line, between the criminals and you and me, didn't know which he was. I hold with the concept that the police need to be agressive and strict in such situations because the short term suffering of inncoent people held outweights the prevention of the dangerous criminals prevented from breaking free with a knife or a gun.

I still accept that there is a reasonable question about the level of force used in this incident and, especially given a complaint form the man himself (though it's worth rembering he remains a suspect in a related crime) it should be fully investigated. I don't accept that a conclusion to such an investigation can be made by you or me after reading a news report and watching a short video clip.

 

I'm having a hard time understanding why a person with three grown men on top of him would need to be kicked and beaten on the back.

Three physically fit young men can't get control of a fat elderly man's arm that is lying face down without violently striking him?

 

LOL! that is exactly the problem: they began beating an unarmed man who is complying based on what was REPORTED to them!!!!!!! I can relate to that very much and it is explained why in my bio when I was arrested 11 years ago for robbery, when a drug addict accused me of robbing her, and I got arrested from my house based on what she reported and spent 3 days in prison. this is probably primary reason I've been vocal in politics last 10 years or so.

I don't like to be quick on making conclusions or judgements, but in this case to me it is evident that a QUICK CONCLUSION WAS MADE BY COPS:
The unarmed man was complying, he came up as he was asked, he raised his hands he turned around and they jumped him. And it all happened in a matter of seconds.

No, there was absolutely no time for a whole load of context and what we are missing is this:

 

He wasn't complying though. He dropped his hands almost immediately after raising them and turned back as the officer approached him. We obviously don't know what he was saying or how he was saying it. Once he was on the ground, he kept his hands (and anything in them) hidden under his body. It appears the officers struck him to get him to bring his arms out.

They're in a life-and-death situation, we're not. The concluded that they needed to secure the suspect and they did so. They concluded that they needed to use a level of force to achieve that safely and securely.

They could have pulled his arms out but that would have greater risk of injury to him and greater risk to the officers (and anyone else around) if he did have some kind of weapon. Striking a struggling suspect to make them comply is not unusual. The only question is the judgement call regarding the extent and it is that which is, perfectly legitimately, under investigation.

 

Looking at the video it seems to me that he turned around because he was ordered to do so by the cops.

As for looking back over his shoulder, that seems perfectly justified since he did get jumped from behind.

 

People turn around to run. did he run? NO. do police officers order suspects to turn around? YES. dropped his hand? do people get confused when given too many orders by a bunch of armed men yelling at you in a short time? YES. is it obvious the officers WERE yelling at him? based on everything else there how they drew their weapons at a calm and unarmed man, and beat him, YES/
Turned back? it's hard not to turn back when someone behind you is aiming a gun at you.

So was this guy:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLlUgilKqms"]Austin Powers 1- Stoooooooooooooooop! - YouTube[/ame]

 

I never suggested it was an unnatural reaction, only that the officers couldn't know if it was the reaction of an innocent man or a dangerous criminal. They can't take the risk, with their safety or anyone else's, so need to use a reasonable element of force to secure a suspect.

Until you're willing to accept this basic fact, you're in no position to engage in a reasonable discussion about the legitimacy of the actions in this case.

Does this childish misdirection mean you just don't want to admit that police officers are regularly in life-and-death situations or that you're secretly glad they are but don't want to admit it?

 

If that gives them the right to beat up old unarmed people then by your logic it gives people the right to shoot police officers who try to question or arrest them, because those people are regularly being beaten up by police unless they can fight back.

I do not believe in such, but that is exactly where you are trying to lead this.

 

No it doesn't and I never said it did.

Try actualy reading what I'm writing rather than what your ignorant biases are feeding you. There is a fundamental difference between "beating someone up" and using a reasonable level of force to secure the arrest of a suspect.

That the anyone who puts on a police uniform doesn't automatically turn in to a violent thug. That most police officers don't beat people up. Ultimately, that there are not "gangs of police criminals in America who can just beat up people without stopping each other".

 

Proof? Link?

Again, proof, link??

 

Finally we agree!