Virginia Police Caught Assaulting Teens, Video Deletion Fails(revolution-news.com)
revolution-news.com
Virginia Police Caught Assaulting Teens, Video Deletion Fails
http://revolution-news.com/virginia-police-caught-assaulting-teens-video-deletion-fails/
8 comments
One simple trained motion of an officer's hand and a dog will go into frantic, "there must be drugs in the car" mode. Probable cause is created. Several videos have caught cops triggering dogs.
Wars on drugs are abysmal entirely. Among many primary sources of havoc and waste on earth that such law creates, arguably the most reaching is its impetus to imbalance power and destroy individual rights and expectations of everyone. Mentality snowballs. A large portion of society is trained to accept increased authority and violation. They laugh at people who attempt to peacefully resist and exercise any remaining rights they have left in the face of 'deletion.'
Wars on drugs are abysmal entirely. Among many primary sources of havoc and waste on earth that such law creates, arguably the most reaching is its impetus to imbalance power and destroy individual rights and expectations of everyone. Mentality snowballs. A large portion of society is trained to accept increased authority and violation. They laugh at people who attempt to peacefully resist and exercise any remaining rights they have left in the face of 'deletion.'
The war on drugs is a jobs program. Period, end of story. It reduces the labor supply by keeping a large segment of society behind bars, and it provides employment in enforcement for a segment of the population who we really, really don't want unemployed (veterans and other folks who are too versed in the application of force to live a quiet civilian life.)
It's not good, but I'm not sure the alternative is better.
It's not good, but I'm not sure the alternative is better.
The war on drugs is many things to many people. It's certainly a jobs program in the industries of prison, military, surveillance, gangs, and distribution. Interests become powerful and wealthy through misery and exploitation. That's usual. Entire local economies now form around prisons alone, and in some cases prison labor.
> It's not good, but I'm not sure the alternative is better.
I prefer the alternative of not abusing people. I prefer an alternative of not stripping away choice and any remaining sovereignty people have. The alternative strives for peace in reality. Undoubtedly, calling a drug war a "jobs program" will sell its violence. There are many ways to package sadism.
> It's not good, but I'm not sure the alternative is better.
I prefer the alternative of not abusing people. I prefer an alternative of not stripping away choice and any remaining sovereignty people have. The alternative strives for peace in reality. Undoubtedly, calling a drug war a "jobs program" will sell its violence. There are many ways to package sadism.
Yeah, I was just thinking that there really should be a legal device that detects the chemicals, so the "strength" of the marijuana smell can be audited and it's not just a subjective way for an officer to justify gut assumptions in escalating
The scary part is:
“The Virginia Beach Police Department immediately began investigating this incident based on the officer’s self-reported Use of Force Report and video captured from the officer’s TASER camera submitted the night of the incident. The department was previously unaware of the citizens recorded video until TODAY” [1]. (note the 'incident' happened in January).
Police brutality will only stop when all officers are forced to wear head-mounted camera, 24x7. No dash-cam, taser-cam; Google Glass-like-cam, recording everything they say or do.
In the meantime, the only solution is for citizens to do what the young woman rightly did: try to record - and hope evidence is not tempered with.
[1] https://www.facebook.com/VirginiaBeachPD
“The Virginia Beach Police Department immediately began investigating this incident based on the officer’s self-reported Use of Force Report and video captured from the officer’s TASER camera submitted the night of the incident. The department was previously unaware of the citizens recorded video until TODAY” [1]. (note the 'incident' happened in January).
Police brutality will only stop when all officers are forced to wear head-mounted camera, 24x7. No dash-cam, taser-cam; Google Glass-like-cam, recording everything they say or do.
In the meantime, the only solution is for citizens to do what the young woman rightly did: try to record - and hope evidence is not tempered with.
[1] https://www.facebook.com/VirginiaBeachPD
Note: I believe that calling it a "TASER camera" is simply using the name brand of the device. It's not a camera literally mounted on a electrical weapon, but rather a body mounted camera made by the company TASER. Say what you will about uninformed writers repeating catch phrases verbatim without understanding their meaning, or fat public contracts consistently going to the same vendors. Frankly, I'd rather have the body mounted cameras made by a company that doesn't also make weapons... seems like all too cozy a situation between the methods of force (weapons) and the tools used to keep that force in check (body mounted cameras and video storage and retrieval systems).
Indeed:
https://www.taser.com/products/on-officer-video
It seems pretty good, in fact. Very much in line with what was suggested above.
It seems pretty good, in fact. Very much in line with what was suggested above.
Asking cops to become full-time streaming surveillance cameras is also not the right answer. Surveillance state++.
There's got to be some reasonable legal restriction to be placed on officers that prevents their use of unnecessary force.
There's got to be some reasonable legal restriction to be placed on officers that prevents their use of unnecessary force.
Respectfully disagree. I'm personally entirely comfortable with the authorized force-wielding parties in my society also being localized units of high surveillance. This does not greatly affect my privacy, but rather my moments where I am least concerned with privacy (ie. the interactions of maximum likeliness for me to get legally injured or have my longterm rights revoked)
I'm all for it but the police force should not be the recording agency. Their cameras tend to malfunction when you need them most.
So, with the infrastructure we have in place, the idea of "localized" high surveillance is one map-reduce job away from being a joke. There won't be such a thing as "oh, this is the video database just for your local officers and nobody else". The data is going to be mined by other companies, used for other purposes--basically, all kinds of shit that is currently infeasible only because of the overall lack of installed mobile cameras that are dependable (mobile could've gone this way, but didn't).
Also, as far as longterm-rights being revoked, this is a step down the road towards that revocation.
Lastly, the big issue here is that, while you might be comfortable ceding your rights here, it doesn't just impact you: anybody else in camera frame is having their privacy violated. I don't care that you are willing to cede your rights, but don't go support something that'll harm others.
Also, as far as longterm-rights being revoked, this is a step down the road towards that revocation.
Lastly, the big issue here is that, while you might be comfortable ceding your rights here, it doesn't just impact you: anybody else in camera frame is having their privacy violated. I don't care that you are willing to cede your rights, but don't go support something that'll harm others.
Localized, as in it only monitors the direct vicinity of officers. Something that doesn't expand exponentially more than manpower.
I hope the smartphone industry will eventually go on a trend of making the cameras with bigger and bigger zoom capabilities. That should make it much easier (and safer) for other people to film from a distance what's going on - even from their own homes, at high quality.
[deleted]
According to the article, three kids are stopped by the police over a broken license plate light, then one of them, apparently without any reason, is pepper sprayed twice and tasered four times, and finally they're arrested (one of them will be in jail till July), not before the cops have tried to delete the recordings of the whole scene from one of the boys' phone.
Well, the first comment to the story (via Facebook) reads: "It's unbelievable that people actually justify these kids behavior!! I guess maybe it's because my parents raised me to respect police officers. They knew that camera was on them and they added fuel to the fire because of it. Just get out of the car, no taser, no spray...".
The comment has 100 likes so far. What the hell is going on in the USA?
Well, the first comment to the story (via Facebook) reads: "It's unbelievable that people actually justify these kids behavior!! I guess maybe it's because my parents raised me to respect police officers. They knew that camera was on them and they added fuel to the fire because of it. Just get out of the car, no taser, no spray...".
The comment has 100 likes so far. What the hell is going on in the USA?
> What the hell is going on in the USA?
The people have been conditioned to accepting a totalitarian/authoritarian police state, whether they like it or not. Militaristic behavior is considered worthy of respect, and aggression from authorities is tolerated - because of the conditioning.
That conditioning consists of repeated propaganda about what happens to you when you don't obey - i.e. news reports, daily, about who got shot today. Who got brutalized today. Who got put away, today. All because they did not obey.
But the real question is, why do you expect more from the country that has 25% of the worlds imprisoned population within its borders? What conditioning have you accepted that makes you think things should be any different in the USA today? Because that is the other half of the dialetic materialist campaign that is conditioning us all into acceptance/denial.
The people have been conditioned to accepting a totalitarian/authoritarian police state, whether they like it or not. Militaristic behavior is considered worthy of respect, and aggression from authorities is tolerated - because of the conditioning.
That conditioning consists of repeated propaganda about what happens to you when you don't obey - i.e. news reports, daily, about who got shot today. Who got brutalized today. Who got put away, today. All because they did not obey.
But the real question is, why do you expect more from the country that has 25% of the worlds imprisoned population within its borders? What conditioning have you accepted that makes you think things should be any different in the USA today? Because that is the other half of the dialetic materialist campaign that is conditioning us all into acceptance/denial.
They have a great game going here. Reminds me of `A Clockwork Orange` and the recruitment of thugs to the police.
At some level, imo, everyone is perfectly aware as to what is really going on, but repressing the awareness. They are not exactly being subtle, these days.
At some level, imo, everyone is perfectly aware as to what is really going on, but repressing the awareness. They are not exactly being subtle, these days.
These are not the most sympathetic victims so people shit on them. Welcome to the USA. It's a real shame because the escalation of force there was entirely unnecessary. Some comments even sarcastically ask, what should the police have done with the kid who refused to get out? Just leave?
Obviously not. But the kid wasn't going anywhere and they could have waited for a legal guardian or negotiated further before escalating with the use of force. Not to mention the gratuitous use of TASER when the kid was attempting to comply.
Unfortunately, my ultimate take away is that people who object to police abuse are in the minority. If someone is perceived as a punk or criminal, it is open season. Democracy at its finest.
I'd really like to hear from a European counterpart how they think this scenario would have gone down across the pond. Not like this, I am sure.
What good are cameras and recordings if the citizens are OK with what they see?
Obviously not. But the kid wasn't going anywhere and they could have waited for a legal guardian or negotiated further before escalating with the use of force. Not to mention the gratuitous use of TASER when the kid was attempting to comply.
Unfortunately, my ultimate take away is that people who object to police abuse are in the minority. If someone is perceived as a punk or criminal, it is open season. Democracy at its finest.
I'd really like to hear from a European counterpart how they think this scenario would have gone down across the pond. Not like this, I am sure.
What good are cameras and recordings if the citizens are OK with what they see?
>I'd really like to hear from a European counterpart how they think this scenario would have gone down across the pond. Not like this, I am sure.
I've been pulled over twice in the UK. The first time was a fair time back when I had a cheap old Saab. I was out very late near Hampstead Heath and I overtook a car, definitely exceeding the speed limit. As I did that I spotted a police panda ( car ) parked on the side, and I thought I was in for some kind of penalty. I went back to the speed limit and he caught me up. He kindly explained that my number plate wasn't to the most recent regulations and that I should have them replaced. I thanked him very much and was on my way. That's the nice end of town.
The other time I was visiting a friend who lived in the opposite side of the fence, near Brixton, an area known for trouble sometimes. I saw a police car behind me but was near his estate so pulled over and turned off the engine to call him to let him know I was downstairs and waiting. A sergeant knocked on my window and I was surrounded by four police. I explained that I was calling my friend, and the sergeant said that I should finish my call and I should wait. Took a few seconds, and then I hopped out if the car. They kept their distance. Apparently they thought my behaviour was suspicious because I'd pulled in and turned off my lights and engine. I explained to the police that within the past two days the law had changed so that it had become illegal to talk on a mobile phone while the engine is on. They said that they didn't know that, and we wished each other good night and my friend and I went to the pub.
Oh one more. My Peugeot 205 had an issue with the spare wheel being accessible to thieves. I walked up to my car and was shocked to see my spare wheel inside on the back seat. At first I thought a thief was playing tricks. It was a walking Bobbie who'd disturbed someone trying to make off with it apparently, and who had kindly broken into my car, put the wheel in and then locked it up for me.
Peel chose blue for the police so as to distinguish them from the red of the military, who were armed and not well trusted. Police were not armed for the same general reason, to be part of the community.
[edit punctuation]
I've been pulled over twice in the UK. The first time was a fair time back when I had a cheap old Saab. I was out very late near Hampstead Heath and I overtook a car, definitely exceeding the speed limit. As I did that I spotted a police panda ( car ) parked on the side, and I thought I was in for some kind of penalty. I went back to the speed limit and he caught me up. He kindly explained that my number plate wasn't to the most recent regulations and that I should have them replaced. I thanked him very much and was on my way. That's the nice end of town.
The other time I was visiting a friend who lived in the opposite side of the fence, near Brixton, an area known for trouble sometimes. I saw a police car behind me but was near his estate so pulled over and turned off the engine to call him to let him know I was downstairs and waiting. A sergeant knocked on my window and I was surrounded by four police. I explained that I was calling my friend, and the sergeant said that I should finish my call and I should wait. Took a few seconds, and then I hopped out if the car. They kept their distance. Apparently they thought my behaviour was suspicious because I'd pulled in and turned off my lights and engine. I explained to the police that within the past two days the law had changed so that it had become illegal to talk on a mobile phone while the engine is on. They said that they didn't know that, and we wished each other good night and my friend and I went to the pub.
Oh one more. My Peugeot 205 had an issue with the spare wheel being accessible to thieves. I walked up to my car and was shocked to see my spare wheel inside on the back seat. At first I thought a thief was playing tricks. It was a walking Bobbie who'd disturbed someone trying to make off with it apparently, and who had kindly broken into my car, put the wheel in and then locked it up for me.
Peel chose blue for the police so as to distinguish them from the red of the military, who were armed and not well trusted. Police were not armed for the same general reason, to be part of the community.
[edit punctuation]
I was talking to a cop in London about this today. They had a stall in the local shopping, doing a "Cuppa with a Coppa" campaign.
When I came to the UK 12 years ago I was shocked to discover a police force that seemed interested in keeping everyone safe and happy. Since then, every single interaction I've had with the police here has been overwhelmingly positive.
I once ran a red light on my bike in a really stupid way and came very close to getting myself killed. Cop on a motorbike pulled next to me and said "I think you'd better pull over, sunshine" (literally, I thought it was so brilliant I still remember the words). Instead of being a dick about it he said something along the lines of, you know that was stupid, just be more careful out here because we don't want you getting hurt.
Back in NZ, not so much.
I was once tripped from behind and bundled against the wall by police for not walking fast enough. There was a protest march and the cop said that I wasn't allowed to walk at the same pace if I was on the footpath. Told her I lived on the street (which I did) and was going to follow along with the march until my house.
At that point she tapped my foot as I walked so I would fall over. I was a bit surprised, then she did it again. After 2 or 3 attempts I hit the ground and was then bundled against the wall. There were tv cameras there so they gathered around and I was released after she tried justifying it to her superior officer.
It's not like I was hurt or anything, but you have to ask yourself, what's the point? How does that in any way help you in your role of keeping people safe?
That's not even a bad story as it goes (I have plenty of others from my, and my friend's interactions).
There's a stark difference in the cultures. In the UK, if a cop can diffuse a situation, they've done a good job (one better if they get people screaming with joy [0]). In NZ they seem to like the power trip (I know that's a total generalisation).
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-E_tikSXfc
When I came to the UK 12 years ago I was shocked to discover a police force that seemed interested in keeping everyone safe and happy. Since then, every single interaction I've had with the police here has been overwhelmingly positive.
I once ran a red light on my bike in a really stupid way and came very close to getting myself killed. Cop on a motorbike pulled next to me and said "I think you'd better pull over, sunshine" (literally, I thought it was so brilliant I still remember the words). Instead of being a dick about it he said something along the lines of, you know that was stupid, just be more careful out here because we don't want you getting hurt.
Back in NZ, not so much.
I was once tripped from behind and bundled against the wall by police for not walking fast enough. There was a protest march and the cop said that I wasn't allowed to walk at the same pace if I was on the footpath. Told her I lived on the street (which I did) and was going to follow along with the march until my house.
At that point she tapped my foot as I walked so I would fall over. I was a bit surprised, then she did it again. After 2 or 3 attempts I hit the ground and was then bundled against the wall. There were tv cameras there so they gathered around and I was released after she tried justifying it to her superior officer.
It's not like I was hurt or anything, but you have to ask yourself, what's the point? How does that in any way help you in your role of keeping people safe?
That's not even a bad story as it goes (I have plenty of others from my, and my friend's interactions).
There's a stark difference in the cultures. In the UK, if a cop can diffuse a situation, they've done a good job (one better if they get people screaming with joy [0]). In NZ they seem to like the power trip (I know that's a total generalisation).
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-E_tikSXfc
Nice anecdotes (I really mean that, not being ironic). I am pretty sure most of Europe is a little less crazy than many parys of the US; but lets not forget that London police shot a guy for the crime of running with a backpack not that long ago[1]. Granted, the justification was terrorism - but it's not as if you can't be abused by police in Europe.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menez...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menez...
I don't and won't forget that event. It was part of a tendency to hysteria that prevailed at the time. I read the report on it, and there were many flaws in organisation, communication and action, from the commander level down. There's certainly a thin blue line, and crossing it can lead to trouble. But not trouble with weapons usually.
Occasionally when a police officer is shot the tabloids and even the public can be more inclined towards arming the police. Perhaps counter intuitively, it is the police themselves that decline the offer. The reason for that is that policing requires the cooperation of the public to be better effective, according to those police who find the Peel approach effective.
I was only sharing an anecdote or two. Just to show that getting along helps to keep things civil. It becomes even enjoyable.
Occasionally when a police officer is shot the tabloids and even the public can be more inclined towards arming the police. Perhaps counter intuitively, it is the police themselves that decline the offer. The reason for that is that policing requires the cooperation of the public to be better effective, according to those police who find the Peel approach effective.
I was only sharing an anecdote or two. Just to show that getting along helps to keep things civil. It becomes even enjoyable.
>I'd really like to hear from a European counterpart how they think this scenario would have gone down across the pond. Not like this, I am sure.
In Germany I'm quite sure the police would have waited politely and patiently until the parents arrived.
(Well, I'm also pretty sure they wouldn't have stopped and attempted violent arrest of someone for having a broken light above their license plate...)
In Germany I'm quite sure the police would have waited politely and patiently until the parents arrived.
(Well, I'm also pretty sure they wouldn't have stopped and attempted violent arrest of someone for having a broken light above their license plate...)
I'm guessing that your views prevent you from seeing this situation for what it was.
No one was being violently arrested for having a broken light. They were arrested because they refused to step out of the car, and put up a fight when the officer tried to get them to come out of the car.
The officer claimed to have smelled marijuana, and so had probable cause to ask the person to step out of the car and perform a search. The driver of the car was previously arrested for marijuana possession, so perhaps it was possible that the officer was telling the truth, and did smell marijuana?
You may disagree with marijuana prohibition (I do), and the idea that a smell implies probable cause, but that is the law as it is today. You don't have a right to refuse that, or demand that the officer must wait until your mother shows up. Even so, we have no idea how long it would take the mother to show up. How long should an officer wait before being allowed to ask a 17 year old to step out of a car for probable cause?
No one was being violently arrested for having a broken light. They were arrested because they refused to step out of the car, and put up a fight when the officer tried to get them to come out of the car.
The officer claimed to have smelled marijuana, and so had probable cause to ask the person to step out of the car and perform a search. The driver of the car was previously arrested for marijuana possession, so perhaps it was possible that the officer was telling the truth, and did smell marijuana?
You may disagree with marijuana prohibition (I do), and the idea that a smell implies probable cause, but that is the law as it is today. You don't have a right to refuse that, or demand that the officer must wait until your mother shows up. Even so, we have no idea how long it would take the mother to show up. How long should an officer wait before being allowed to ask a 17 year old to step out of a car for probable cause?
These folks were not being arrested, they were being detained while the officers determined if there was probable cause - only because the officers claimed they smelled marijuana coming from the car.
Any officer can make that claim, its a BS claim that is used to justify aggressive force and to try to trip up a suspect into doing something stupid that would warrant further application of force. And that is precisely what happened here.
> perhaps it was possible that the officer was telling the truth, and did smell marijuana?
Innocent until proven guilty. Lots of things smell like marijuana. Hot rubber tires can sometimes give off a similar odor. Maybe it was some other car that drove by, and the officers were being prejudiced because they recognized her from a previous arrest? We can play the 'maybe' game an infinite number of ways - its up to the officers, who are using force, to justify that force.
>How long should an officer wait before being allowed to ask a 17 year old to step out of a car for probable cause?
You have a right to stay in the car until the officer determines probable cause. The smell of marijuana is a tactic used by police to try to upset you and provoke you into doing something that might give them probably cause to arrest you. These people had every right to stay in the car, ask if they were being detained and if they were free to go. The police used the threat of arrest to induce conditions that allowed them to use force - and this is, unfortunately, such a common form of social engineering by the police that people have just come to accept complacency as the only possible 'correct' response.
Stand your ground and know your rights. They're only trying to provoke you into doing something they can then use to justify their force. Know these phrases and use them well:
“AM I FREE TO GO?”
“I DO NOT CONSENT TO ANY SEARCHES,”
“I WANT TO REMAIN SILENT,”
“I WANT A LAWYER.”
Any officer can make that claim, its a BS claim that is used to justify aggressive force and to try to trip up a suspect into doing something stupid that would warrant further application of force. And that is precisely what happened here.
> perhaps it was possible that the officer was telling the truth, and did smell marijuana?
Innocent until proven guilty. Lots of things smell like marijuana. Hot rubber tires can sometimes give off a similar odor. Maybe it was some other car that drove by, and the officers were being prejudiced because they recognized her from a previous arrest? We can play the 'maybe' game an infinite number of ways - its up to the officers, who are using force, to justify that force.
>How long should an officer wait before being allowed to ask a 17 year old to step out of a car for probable cause?
You have a right to stay in the car until the officer determines probable cause. The smell of marijuana is a tactic used by police to try to upset you and provoke you into doing something that might give them probably cause to arrest you. These people had every right to stay in the car, ask if they were being detained and if they were free to go. The police used the threat of arrest to induce conditions that allowed them to use force - and this is, unfortunately, such a common form of social engineering by the police that people have just come to accept complacency as the only possible 'correct' response.
Stand your ground and know your rights. They're only trying to provoke you into doing something they can then use to justify their force. Know these phrases and use them well:
“AM I FREE TO GO?”
“I DO NOT CONSENT TO ANY SEARCHES,”
“I WANT TO REMAIN SILENT,”
“I WANT A LAWYER.”
> These folks were not being arrested, they were being detained
Yes, and you still need to follow lawful orders when being detained. You can't say "I'm not getting out of the car until my mother arrives, understand?". You can't pull back when an officer tries to forcefully remove you from the car, or put up your fists as if you are going to punch the officer. You can't do that 10+ times and imagine that you will not get maced/tased/etc.
> Any officer can make that claim, its a BS claim that is used to justify aggressive force
You know, isn't it weird that the officer had this "BS" claim, and it turns out that the person who was tasered did have marijuana on him, and was charged with possession and intent to sell? Source: http://washington.cbslocal.com/2015/04/10/virginia-police-in...
> Innocent until proven guilty
It was a reasonable search because there was probable cause.
> its up to the officers, who are using force, to justify that force.
The officers didn't use force until the person started resisting their orders. If he would have just stepped out of the car, and let the cops search him(where they would eventually find the marijuana he was planning on selling), no force would have been necessary. He would have just been arrested and charged with intent to sell. Now he has resisting arrest on his record too.
> The smell of marijuana is a tactic used by police to try to upset you
Or, you know, the officer did actually smell marijuana. I agree with you that a cop can make up the reason, but that cops can never smell weed, and it doesn't seem to be the case here since there actually was marijuana in the car.
> These people had every right to stay in the car
No, they didn't. Probable cause was established and the officers were within their rights to ask them to step out of the car so a search could be performed.
> They're only trying to provoke you into doing something they can then use to justify their force
No. They did not provoke the kid to refuse to get out of the car, and they did not provoke him to pull away multiple times when pulling him out of the car.
Yes, and you still need to follow lawful orders when being detained. You can't say "I'm not getting out of the car until my mother arrives, understand?". You can't pull back when an officer tries to forcefully remove you from the car, or put up your fists as if you are going to punch the officer. You can't do that 10+ times and imagine that you will not get maced/tased/etc.
> Any officer can make that claim, its a BS claim that is used to justify aggressive force
You know, isn't it weird that the officer had this "BS" claim, and it turns out that the person who was tasered did have marijuana on him, and was charged with possession and intent to sell? Source: http://washington.cbslocal.com/2015/04/10/virginia-police-in...
> Innocent until proven guilty
It was a reasonable search because there was probable cause.
> its up to the officers, who are using force, to justify that force.
The officers didn't use force until the person started resisting their orders. If he would have just stepped out of the car, and let the cops search him(where they would eventually find the marijuana he was planning on selling), no force would have been necessary. He would have just been arrested and charged with intent to sell. Now he has resisting arrest on his record too.
> The smell of marijuana is a tactic used by police to try to upset you
Or, you know, the officer did actually smell marijuana. I agree with you that a cop can make up the reason, but that cops can never smell weed, and it doesn't seem to be the case here since there actually was marijuana in the car.
> These people had every right to stay in the car
No, they didn't. Probable cause was established and the officers were within their rights to ask them to step out of the car so a search could be performed.
> They're only trying to provoke you into doing something they can then use to justify their force
No. They did not provoke the kid to refuse to get out of the car, and they did not provoke him to pull away multiple times when pulling him out of the car.
Seems like this is the issue in the US. Police are no longer tactful and use the same techniques that might make sense on someone drugged out or of a threat or danger to someone or the officer. They need to be retrained in civil duties, and respect of more typical citizens or non-violent situations. I personally have had a few instances growing up back in the 90's (Southern California), as a white and this is not a racist thing (most of the times), it is a power thing that has been a problem for years. Many people are scared of cops and that's because some don't respect us. I believe that these two teens are legitimately scared of what will happen to them away from the camera, and based on the officers excessive use of force, their instincts where correct.
People in Europe (Western Europe, unfortunately not all police forces are equal in this respect) are generally less afraid of being physically abused by the police which is why they'd have much less of a problem to do things like getting out of the car (a young person might feel safer in their car than out of it when confronting a police officer from a police force they do not trust).
In Denmark it would be a major disaster, people would get fired, hearings would be held, and media discussion would ensue.
As a comparison: In 2012 (the latest year I could find data for) Danish police fired a total of 49 shots over the year.
As a comparison: In 2012 (the latest year I could find data for) Danish police fired a total of 49 shots over the year.
"Danish Police Beating Unarmed, Disengaged, Kneeling Civilians"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4xlfiEzx14
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4xlfiEzx14
> Danish police fired a total of 49 shots over the year
A few points to consider:
1) Denmark population 5.7 million. USA population 320 million. The USA has a number of metropolitan areas with more people than the entire country of Denmark.
2) Denmark is probably a lot more homogenous than the USA. The USA has been a "melting pot" for immigrants (legal, illegal, former slave, religious zealot, etc) for hundreds of years. Things are going to be a little "rowdier" here than in the "old world".
A few points to consider:
1) Denmark population 5.7 million. USA population 320 million. The USA has a number of metropolitan areas with more people than the entire country of Denmark.
2) Denmark is probably a lot more homogenous than the USA. The USA has been a "melting pot" for immigrants (legal, illegal, former slave, religious zealot, etc) for hundreds of years. Things are going to be a little "rowdier" here than in the "old world".
"female and male police officers arresting a black guy in Denmark"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXDExhjrMd4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXDExhjrMd4
I don't think so. If a Danish police officer tells somebody to leave the car and that person refuses - do you think they will back down and call it a night?
Does the officer need to wait for a legal guardian if the person is 17?
No, they do not.
The officer should have made that clear to the 17 year old, part of the problem seems to be that the kid thinks he's protected by the fact that his mother isn't present. This leads to resistance which could be seen as justification for the escalation.
You would hope that the police officer was fully aware of the kids rights and part of their job should be to calmly explain the situation and try to defuse any possible conflict. Regardless of any law breaking here by either side (not going to pass judgement on that) this police officer is really bad at his job.
The officer should have made that clear to the 17 year old, part of the problem seems to be that the kid thinks he's protected by the fact that his mother isn't present. This leads to resistance which could be seen as justification for the escalation.
You would hope that the police officer was fully aware of the kids rights and part of their job should be to calmly explain the situation and try to defuse any possible conflict. Regardless of any law breaking here by either side (not going to pass judgement on that) this police officer is really bad at his job.
The answer is: yes.
You are completely incorrect, and you should research your claims before posting on the internet. Minors have a right to access to their legal guardians when they are under arrest, not when they are being detained.
Clearly, he was being arrested. Or did you think that a tasing and handcuffing were just standard practice for detainment?
You have a right to the presence of your legal guardian once you are under arrest, and the process is not immediate. You can't demand your mothers presence in the back seat of a cop car. You can at the station though, for example.
You don't have the right when you are in the process of being arrested, especially if you are actively resisting arrest.
You don't have the right when you are in the process of being arrested, especially if you are actively resisting arrest.
[deleted]
Did you watch the video? The officer asks the person in the back to get out of the car. He refuses. Then the officer tries to pull him out of the car, he struggles and puts his hands up like he is going to punch the officer. The officer tries to get him multiple times out of the car, then the person gets pepper sprayed, and is still combative and resisting about 10 attempts to grab him and get him out of the car. Then he gets tased twice and gets pulled out of the car.
If an officer demands that you get out of your car, get out of your car. If an officer puts his hands on you to get you out of the car, DEFINITELY do not pull away, put your hands up to fight, and repeatedly try to get away from the officer.
If an officer demands that you get out of your car, get out of your car. If an officer puts his hands on you to get you out of the car, DEFINITELY do not pull away, put your hands up to fight, and repeatedly try to get away from the officer.
Similarly, for a police officer, do not escalate a situation to violence unless it's absolutely necessary.
One of the two people here is a paid professional in this field. I don't understand why people always heap criticism on the other guy and give the professional a pass.
One of the two people here is a paid professional in this field. I don't understand why people always heap criticism on the other guy and give the professional a pass.
Piece of advice: never assert a belief that you could potentially become a victim of later.
What could I be a victim of? I would, and presumably always will, follow lawful orders from a police officer. Maybe I'm just crazy.
rantanplan(2)
It's the same mindset of people who blame rape victims for using tight clothes. "She was asking for it".
There's a difference between dressing how you want, and actively resisting a lawful order coming from a police officer. It's pretty offensive that you could even remotely compare this situation to rape.
I'm not comparing this situation to rape; I'm comparing the mindset of the people mentioned by the parent on Facebook. People who blame the victim for the abuses they suffered.
In this particular case, the use of force was absolutelly unnecessary. And tampering with evidence - or even turning off the recording on the phone - is a serious offense. So blaming the two for the escalation of force is ludicrous.
In this particular case, the use of force was absolutelly unnecessary. And tampering with evidence - or even turning off the recording on the phone - is a serious offense. So blaming the two for the escalation of force is ludicrous.
Fuck the lawful orders of abusive, child-torturers.
Lawful != Ethical
Lawful != Ethical
You sound reasonable.
I am sorry for not having a huge hard-on for men in uniform that drag teens,
by tasers and pepper sprays, out of their cars while they're not being a threat
to anyone.
For what reason? Ah right, he smelled pot.
Bravo officer of the law! Everyone feels safer now. His family would be so proud.
This looks like something I'd see in a movie about a 3rd world country with a corrupt government and a police state. Not in a country that touts democracy, freedom, justice and equality.
For what reason? Ah right, he smelled pot.
Bravo officer of the law! Everyone feels safer now. His family would be so proud.
This looks like something I'd see in a movie about a 3rd world country with a corrupt government and a police state. Not in a country that touts democracy, freedom, justice and equality.
He didn't need to be dragged out - he was asked multiple times to get out, and it was only after he flailed around and resisted the officers orders that he was maced/tased.
And guess what: maybe the reason the person didn't want to get out of the car, and resisted a lawful order multiple times is because he actually had pot on him, and he had enough to be classified as intent to sell. Which is exactly the case.
I'm fine with you if you think that marijuana laws are bullshit(I'd be on your side then), but while they are on the book, it would be good if officers actually enforce the laws that they are sworn under an oath to enforce.
And guess what: maybe the reason the person didn't want to get out of the car, and resisted a lawful order multiple times is because he actually had pot on him, and he had enough to be classified as intent to sell. Which is exactly the case.
I'm fine with you if you think that marijuana laws are bullshit(I'd be on your side then), but while they are on the book, it would be good if officers actually enforce the laws that they are sworn under an oath to enforce.
Yeah so it's not going to get through your thick skull that he's a teenager. A stupid
teenager. We don't care if you weren't arrested when you were at his age, maybe you
were clever. I was never arrested either.
The problem is that societies are built to protect the clever and stupid people alike.
Societies are not built to enforce and uphold the letter of the law. Only lawyers and misanthropes care about that. If the laws lead to videos like the one in this article, then the laws need to change.
People who see this video and don't feel sick to their stomachs are sociopaths. No way around it, sorry. And I guess I have to sleep at night knowing I walk on the same planet with people like you. Well that's life I guess.
In any case in a country where it has this problem http://thefreethoughtproject.com/american-cops-killed-people..., if its citizens don't understand that less(not more) police is the solution, then I guess you can talk about your precious fucking law and I can just continue to feel sick to my stomach.
The problem is that societies are built to protect the clever and stupid people alike.
Societies are not built to enforce and uphold the letter of the law. Only lawyers and misanthropes care about that. If the laws lead to videos like the one in this article, then the laws need to change.
People who see this video and don't feel sick to their stomachs are sociopaths. No way around it, sorry. And I guess I have to sleep at night knowing I walk on the same planet with people like you. Well that's life I guess.
In any case in a country where it has this problem http://thefreethoughtproject.com/american-cops-killed-people..., if its citizens don't understand that less(not more) police is the solution, then I guess you can talk about your precious fucking law and I can just continue to feel sick to my stomach.
> The problem is that societies are built to protect the clever and stupid people alike.
Sure. And police officers deserve to be protected too. How much can a person actively resist a lawful order before it's okay to mace/tase them? Traffic stops are incredibly stressful for police officers - not because they love stress, because it's very easy for a weapon to be concealed on a person and for a routine traffic stop to turn into a violent confrontation.
> And I guess I have to sleep at night knowing I walk on the same planet with people like you. Well that's life I guess.
Again, you sound like a really reasonable person here.
> In any case in a country where it has this problem http://thefreethoughtproject.com/american-cops-killed-people...,
Part of the problem here is that you have a general idea of a very big problem, and you are taking a specific instance of something and imputing that this specific instance is part of the general problem. I can agree with you that there is a general problem of police violence in the country, but I don't think that this was an actual instance of it.
For example, imagine you cared very deeply about child abuse, and you thought that it was a huge problem in this country. Then, someone posts a video of a parent lightly spanking their child for bad behavior. You think that this represents the child abuse in the country and it is an outrageous act. I just see it as a light, deserved spanking. I guess that makes me a sociopath though.
Sure. And police officers deserve to be protected too. How much can a person actively resist a lawful order before it's okay to mace/tase them? Traffic stops are incredibly stressful for police officers - not because they love stress, because it's very easy for a weapon to be concealed on a person and for a routine traffic stop to turn into a violent confrontation.
> And I guess I have to sleep at night knowing I walk on the same planet with people like you. Well that's life I guess.
Again, you sound like a really reasonable person here.
> In any case in a country where it has this problem http://thefreethoughtproject.com/american-cops-killed-people...,
Part of the problem here is that you have a general idea of a very big problem, and you are taking a specific instance of something and imputing that this specific instance is part of the general problem. I can agree with you that there is a general problem of police violence in the country, but I don't think that this was an actual instance of it.
For example, imagine you cared very deeply about child abuse, and you thought that it was a huge problem in this country. Then, someone posts a video of a parent lightly spanking their child for bad behavior. You think that this represents the child abuse in the country and it is an outrageous act. I just see it as a light, deserved spanking. I guess that makes me a sociopath though.
Light spanking?
Please search for the dangers of tasers and cardiac arrest.
Ok so you weren't a sociopath, I take it back. It didn't cross my mind you were so ignorant.
I liked that about the "specific instance of something". That's always the excuse "this was an isolated and unrelated incindent!"
Yeah right. No this was police brutality just not taken in the extreme(i.e. not killing).
You don't build societies by tasing kids, I can guarantee you that much.
Please search for the dangers of tasers and cardiac arrest.
Ok so you weren't a sociopath, I take it back. It didn't cross my mind you were so ignorant.
I liked that about the "specific instance of something". That's always the excuse "this was an isolated and unrelated incindent!"
Yeah right. No this was police brutality just not taken in the extreme(i.e. not killing).
You don't build societies by tasing kids, I can guarantee you that much.
> Please search for the dangers of tasers and cardiac arrest.
It was an analogy. I was not comparing a taser to a spanking.
It was an analogy. I was not comparing a taser to a spanking.
So you made an analogy between spanking which causes.... nothing(?) and
tasing which might cause... cardiac arrest. Your words right?
>> I guess that makes me a sociopath though.
Sociopath, psycopath or the bad analogy guy. I really don't know, I'll let others decide on that.
What you aren't though, is the voice of reason.
Let's leave it at that and call it a day. Have a nice day.
>> I guess that makes me a sociopath though.
Sociopath, psycopath or the bad analogy guy. I really don't know, I'll let others decide on that.
What you aren't though, is the voice of reason.
Let's leave it at that and call it a day. Have a nice day.
revolution-news doesn't seem like a particularly unbiased source. A lot of news stations have reported on it, why not link to them instead if we want to talk about this story?
My favorite sentence from the article: "the sensible young woman requests a sergeant be present to avoid her rights being further infringed."
My favorite sentence from the article: "the sensible young woman requests a sergeant be present to avoid her rights being further infringed."
I see the big offense not in forcibly removing the kid from the car (the police are probably within their rights as far as that goes), but in attempting to delete evidence. That's the real crime for which someone should be fired and possibly prosecuted as well.
Agreed. I'm interested in hearing how this plays out. I hope they can prove chain of custody of the phone and determine if the video was deleted at all, and if it was, if it was deleted when in the hands of an officer. Right now we just have it from the driver that the file was deleted. But this was the same driver that said "I wouldn't allow marijuana in my car", and the guy in the back seat ended up being busted for possession and intent to sell marijuana based off of that stop. I hope there is good evidence one way or the other if the file was deleted, and the officer is punished if it was in fact deleted while in an officers custody.
I'm leaning towards the fact that it was not deleted while in the officers custody, but I'd love to see the forensic evidence. My reasons:
1) The driver already was caught lying
2) It's convenient that the driver had the technical know how to get undeleted files off of her device
3) The officer was already recording the entire course of events on his body cam.
I'm leaning towards the fact that it was not deleted while in the officers custody, but I'd love to see the forensic evidence. My reasons:
1) The driver already was caught lying
2) It's convenient that the driver had the technical know how to get undeleted files off of her device
3) The officer was already recording the entire course of events on his body cam.
This corner of Virginia is plagued by disgusting behavior of police and other officials. Neither you nor your family are safe if you happen to be in Virginia Beach, Chesapeake, Norfolk, or Portsmouth. The police departments and commonwealths attorneys in these jurisdictions have a disgusting perversion of the concept of 'equal protection of the laws,' they simply decide that some individuals deserve to be abused and the perpetrators of crimes against them shall be unsanctioned, free to roam the streets and able to possess firearms. Certain people in the community are free to commit crimes due to their political or social connections, and they are protected and permitted to hold government jobs within various agencies of these cities such as the police departments and school boards.
I'm sorry to say, but looking from Europe America looks more and more like a policestate.
I'm so not moving to the US ever now!
On one hand Paul Graham's "the only place to be is Bay Area" gig, on other hand is this and similar stories. One can find a lot of unsafe places without changing continents.
One more entry for my "rather kill myself than live there" list. Incidentally, the other one is where I currently reside.
On one hand Paul Graham's "the only place to be is Bay Area" gig, on other hand is this and similar stories. One can find a lot of unsafe places without changing continents.
One more entry for my "rather kill myself than live there" list. Incidentally, the other one is where I currently reside.
Then again ... if a cop tells you to leave the car and you then start to argue and to fight back instead of following the order.
What kind of reaction do you expect?
This would happen in any country.
What kind of reaction do you expect?
This would happen in any country.
As an extension of this, the existence of drug dogs is extremely irritating to me. It's been seen more than a few times that they're commonly trained to react to a cue rather than genuinely detecting illegal substance. Dogs aren't conscious, and they don't have a sense of morality. I have a huge problem with them being used by police and that their 'opinion', if you want to call it that, is respected in a court of law. A dog cannot testify in court. A dog doesn't realize it is lying. It's insulting to the legal system.