14 Police Officers Take Down a One-Legged Homeless Black Man Outside Twitter HQ(medium.com)
medium.com
14 Police Officers Take Down a One-Legged Homeless Black Man Outside Twitter HQ
https://medium.com/matter/i-watched-14-police-officers-take-down-a-one-legged-homeless-black-man-outside-twitter-hq-1b3a9bf10e0f
9 comments
Police brutality is a real problem in the U.S. But please do not assume that what works in your country will work here. That is basically as tone deaf as Americans thinking they can swoop into another country and readily solve its problems, a character flaw for which we rightly get mocked around the world.
American exceptionalism is an extraordinary claim and needs extraordinary evidence to support it. It is far more likely that that our cops have a third-world standard of aggression than that intimidation and violence are that much more necessary when dealing with Americans.
I in no way said that aggression and intimidation are more necessary when dealing with Americans. I also find it baffling that anyone would feel it is an extraordinary claim that America has differences from other countries. It also seems obvious to me on the face of it that those differences impact in practical terms what is logistically effective.
Some differences I know of off the top of my head:
America is a relatively young country for a world power. It is much, much younger than many European, Asian and Middle Eastern countries.
There is much lower population density in the US than in many other developed countries. It is also huge compared to many other countries. The combibation of low population density and lots of land means, no, you can't just let someone go and then hunt them down later as the OP suggested. They absolutely can disappear on you and can then potentially go to another state or even another country, such as Mexico or Canada.
Unlike Europe or Japan, large parts of America still have large, very dangerous wild animals like bears and moose. Foreigners often decry America as some land of savages for our right to bear arms, something you cannot legally do in some countries, and our propensity for exercising that right. I don't own a gun and never have, but I assure you that if I moved to Alaska I sure as hell would acquire a shotgun and I would store it the way my father stored his shotguns: unloaded but not locked up, with ammo readily available. If a bear gets into your house, you do not have time to unlock a gun case.
Given that we do have a right to bear arms, the police absolutely are dealing with a more dangerous situation here than the police deal with in some countries. That increased danger makes their job riskier and it means failure to contain a threat can have terrible consequences.
I am sure there are a great many other differences, but those seem to be a few very salient ones. If you want a longer list, I imagine you can readily find more with a quick google.
Some differences I know of off the top of my head:
America is a relatively young country for a world power. It is much, much younger than many European, Asian and Middle Eastern countries.
There is much lower population density in the US than in many other developed countries. It is also huge compared to many other countries. The combibation of low population density and lots of land means, no, you can't just let someone go and then hunt them down later as the OP suggested. They absolutely can disappear on you and can then potentially go to another state or even another country, such as Mexico or Canada.
Unlike Europe or Japan, large parts of America still have large, very dangerous wild animals like bears and moose. Foreigners often decry America as some land of savages for our right to bear arms, something you cannot legally do in some countries, and our propensity for exercising that right. I don't own a gun and never have, but I assure you that if I moved to Alaska I sure as hell would acquire a shotgun and I would store it the way my father stored his shotguns: unloaded but not locked up, with ammo readily available. If a bear gets into your house, you do not have time to unlock a gun case.
Given that we do have a right to bear arms, the police absolutely are dealing with a more dangerous situation here than the police deal with in some countries. That increased danger makes their job riskier and it means failure to contain a threat can have terrible consequences.
I am sure there are a great many other differences, but those seem to be a few very salient ones. If you want a longer list, I imagine you can readily find more with a quick google.
On a sidenote: All the points you listed apply to Canada pretty exactly and they hardly need police at all (in the parts that i know very well which is BC and NWT).
Also thinking a shotgun is gonna help you with a grizzly is a major fallacy. What you need is bear spray (most effective), or a .45 magnum and exceptional aim to hit the brain on shot #1. If you shotgun the bear hes gonna live for 3-4 minutes and those will be your last (I encountered a couple of grizzlys in the wild, one fake charged me even from under 20 yards).
Also thinking a shotgun is gonna help you with a grizzly is a major fallacy. What you need is bear spray (most effective), or a .45 magnum and exceptional aim to hit the brain on shot #1. If you shotgun the bear hes gonna live for 3-4 minutes and those will be your last (I encountered a couple of grizzlys in the wild, one fake charged me even from under 20 yards).
We expect our schools to perform as well as European schools. In some places, that actually happens, and we should expect no less. Our police should perform as well, too, especially for what we pay.
> I don't get it why Americans stand for this.
Many of us don't, hence the protests and hundreds of articles that you've been reading. But the truth is most voters don't have encounters the police. People are taught from a very young age that police are the "good guys" keeping the "bad guys" at bay, and so they get whatever protections and defenses they think they need, including immunity from prosecution. But articles like this and the protests over the various recent murders raise awareness that the police are out of control. Change doesn't happen overnight and it doesn't happen from nothing. These articles are Americans refusing to stand for this, and we need to keep it up.
Many of us don't, hence the protests and hundreds of articles that you've been reading. But the truth is most voters don't have encounters the police. People are taught from a very young age that police are the "good guys" keeping the "bad guys" at bay, and so they get whatever protections and defenses they think they need, including immunity from prosecution. But articles like this and the protests over the various recent murders raise awareness that the police are out of control. Change doesn't happen overnight and it doesn't happen from nothing. These articles are Americans refusing to stand for this, and we need to keep it up.
I did not mean to generalize too much, there is plenty of protest in america against this.
No, there is a simple explanation:
There are some unwritten rules, wildly in conflict with US laws and the US Constitution.
In the case of the OP, a relevant rule is, a poor, old, handicapped, black man is not permitted to be on the sidewalks of the high rent business district.
In such a case, the police respond as in the OP and its video clip.
The sentence for violating the rule is to be pinned down, painfully, insulted, humiliated, have some belongings, e.g., crutches, stolen, and generally treated like dirt.
But, with witnesses, smartphone video, and lawyers, the black man may no longer be poor but may get $500,000 from the city of San Francisco. If I were on the jury, he'd win, big time, big enough to make all of SF taxpayers feel the pain.
The whole scene was in wild violation of the US Constitution. The police are guilty as sin, of assault and battery, at least. Toss in false arrest. Add in theft of his crutches. And more. He was guilty of what? Self defense against assault and battery? If he died, and maybe his health was so poor he might have, e.g., he might have had a heart condition or high blood pressure which could yield a fatal stroke, then the police would be guilty of murder -- literally murder. And they should be prosecuted for just that.
Better not ask me to serve on a jury where that poor guy was the plaintiff -- I'd call for the cops to be treated like wild, mad, rabid dogs, enemies of the citizens, making war on the citizens, sadists.
The situation is entirely similar to what the Nazi Brown Shirts did in Hitler's Germany: In that country, some citizens were regarded as unwanted. Then, via the Brown Shirt thugs, those citizens were subject to just whatever, robbery, beatings, murder. Now in SF, some citizens are again regarded as unwanted, and the police act like the Nazi Brown Shirts and rob, beat, and, maybe, murder such citizens. Not much difference.
It's inhumanity of man to man, and it's ugly. We've seen the consequences from Hitler, Stalin, Saddam, ISIS, and more. We don't like it. We have our Constitution to help stop it. We don't want it.
One really good use of smartphones, their video capabilities, the Internet, social media, and the US legal system is, finally, to stop this ugly stuff.
Police: Here's your lesson. Here in the US, that stuff's going to stop. It's going to stop the easy way or the hard way. I have to believe you want the hard way, and it's coming. Net, the power in the US is definitely not in the hands of the police and, instead, is in the hands of the voting citizens. And, each such story, with video, on the Internet creates a lot of votes to stop the ugly stuff, via the hard way if necessary. Cops will be going to jail, for assault and battery, murder, etc., for long terms but likely in prison conditions where they won't last even six months. Blue shirts, you're going to have to stop that Nazi stuff, however much it pains you not to be a thug -- you can't beat the voting citizens with video cameras. Can't happen.
All we have to do is quietly, calmly, privately pull a lever in a voting booth, and you and your Nazi behavior are toast.
There are some unwritten rules, wildly in conflict with US laws and the US Constitution.
In the case of the OP, a relevant rule is, a poor, old, handicapped, black man is not permitted to be on the sidewalks of the high rent business district.
In such a case, the police respond as in the OP and its video clip.
The sentence for violating the rule is to be pinned down, painfully, insulted, humiliated, have some belongings, e.g., crutches, stolen, and generally treated like dirt.
But, with witnesses, smartphone video, and lawyers, the black man may no longer be poor but may get $500,000 from the city of San Francisco. If I were on the jury, he'd win, big time, big enough to make all of SF taxpayers feel the pain.
The whole scene was in wild violation of the US Constitution. The police are guilty as sin, of assault and battery, at least. Toss in false arrest. Add in theft of his crutches. And more. He was guilty of what? Self defense against assault and battery? If he died, and maybe his health was so poor he might have, e.g., he might have had a heart condition or high blood pressure which could yield a fatal stroke, then the police would be guilty of murder -- literally murder. And they should be prosecuted for just that.
Better not ask me to serve on a jury where that poor guy was the plaintiff -- I'd call for the cops to be treated like wild, mad, rabid dogs, enemies of the citizens, making war on the citizens, sadists.
The situation is entirely similar to what the Nazi Brown Shirts did in Hitler's Germany: In that country, some citizens were regarded as unwanted. Then, via the Brown Shirt thugs, those citizens were subject to just whatever, robbery, beatings, murder. Now in SF, some citizens are again regarded as unwanted, and the police act like the Nazi Brown Shirts and rob, beat, and, maybe, murder such citizens. Not much difference.
It's inhumanity of man to man, and it's ugly. We've seen the consequences from Hitler, Stalin, Saddam, ISIS, and more. We don't like it. We have our Constitution to help stop it. We don't want it.
One really good use of smartphones, their video capabilities, the Internet, social media, and the US legal system is, finally, to stop this ugly stuff.
Police: Here's your lesson. Here in the US, that stuff's going to stop. It's going to stop the easy way or the hard way. I have to believe you want the hard way, and it's coming. Net, the power in the US is definitely not in the hands of the police and, instead, is in the hands of the voting citizens. And, each such story, with video, on the Internet creates a lot of votes to stop the ugly stuff, via the hard way if necessary. Cops will be going to jail, for assault and battery, murder, etc., for long terms but likely in prison conditions where they won't last even six months. Blue shirts, you're going to have to stop that Nazi stuff, however much it pains you not to be a thug -- you can't beat the voting citizens with video cameras. Can't happen.
All we have to do is quietly, calmly, privately pull a lever in a voting booth, and you and your Nazi behavior are toast.
The police in the US have always been brown shirts for business interests, but it's gotten quite bad lately-- still not as bad as during the first Gilded Age, but it's getting there. Of course, the other real problem is that a hammer will find a nail, which is why we see people getting slaughtered during traffic stops etc.
Definitely agree about the pigs choosing the hard way-- it's all they know.
Their only strategy is escalate to force, whether in the micro situation of a traffic stop or the macro situation of rioting against police brutality. They just don't get it, and they don't want to get it, because they enjoy smashing heads and being unaccountable.
Voting aint gonna fix it, though-- most local candidates aren't about to make a problem with the cops that they rely on, and most national candidates aren't going to make it a problem because hey, all politics are local politics, so there's nothing to gain. Riots and peaceful protests are the way forward now, which is tough because neither are remotely legitimate or acceptable in the US. Predictably, the police will smash the peaceful protests, causing riots, which will ultimately end in disaster.
We saw a bit of walkback after the Ferguson / Baltimore burnings caught national attention, but there were no formal concessions and certainly no adjustment of police training. The de facto state of affairs is actually worse off than before the riots, since now the police have realized that the public has turned against them. Maybe a few more cities will be wrecked and then there will be some serious reparation. The shit factor here is race relations, which are already being played as hard as possible in order to keep the blacks and the whites separate from each other, leaving the blacks to carry most of the burden of police reform. Obviously, this doesn't work, because the blacks aren't considered to be legitimate political entities when it comes to police reform specifically because they've borne the brunt of the drug war's ravages.
In my pipe dream of police brutality being solved, we'd first need to get our national politicians to effect a formal surrender ending the drug war-- this probably won't happen, because "America never loses a war", but it's no secret that the drug war is lost. Ending the drug war formally would open the door for demilitarization/disarmament of the losers, along with closure of the legal loopholes and abuses that allowed police to raid houses and commit warrantless wiretaps nonstop etc. Once the weapons have been removed and the law patched to revoke the wartime leeway, I think we'd be in much better shape, and could focus on normalization of police-citizen relations via force drawdown, culling of the worst abusers, and retraining of the moderate abusers. We'd have a proper (European style) police force in the next generation or so.
Definitely agree about the pigs choosing the hard way-- it's all they know.
Their only strategy is escalate to force, whether in the micro situation of a traffic stop or the macro situation of rioting against police brutality. They just don't get it, and they don't want to get it, because they enjoy smashing heads and being unaccountable.
Voting aint gonna fix it, though-- most local candidates aren't about to make a problem with the cops that they rely on, and most national candidates aren't going to make it a problem because hey, all politics are local politics, so there's nothing to gain. Riots and peaceful protests are the way forward now, which is tough because neither are remotely legitimate or acceptable in the US. Predictably, the police will smash the peaceful protests, causing riots, which will ultimately end in disaster.
We saw a bit of walkback after the Ferguson / Baltimore burnings caught national attention, but there were no formal concessions and certainly no adjustment of police training. The de facto state of affairs is actually worse off than before the riots, since now the police have realized that the public has turned against them. Maybe a few more cities will be wrecked and then there will be some serious reparation. The shit factor here is race relations, which are already being played as hard as possible in order to keep the blacks and the whites separate from each other, leaving the blacks to carry most of the burden of police reform. Obviously, this doesn't work, because the blacks aren't considered to be legitimate political entities when it comes to police reform specifically because they've borne the brunt of the drug war's ravages.
In my pipe dream of police brutality being solved, we'd first need to get our national politicians to effect a formal surrender ending the drug war-- this probably won't happen, because "America never loses a war", but it's no secret that the drug war is lost. Ending the drug war formally would open the door for demilitarization/disarmament of the losers, along with closure of the legal loopholes and abuses that allowed police to raid houses and commit warrantless wiretaps nonstop etc. Once the weapons have been removed and the law patched to revoke the wartime leeway, I think we'd be in much better shape, and could focus on normalization of police-citizen relations via force drawdown, culling of the worst abusers, and retraining of the moderate abusers. We'd have a proper (European style) police force in the next generation or so.
Lawyers an bring law suits against the
police. My understanding is that there
are a lot of such suits and that they
cost taxpayers a bundle.
If the guy in the OP got a lawyer and won a big judgment, say, $500,000, then voters and, then, politicians would start to take notice. If the SF police keep attacking old guys, then too soon one of them will die, and the law suit could cost SF millions. Then the politicians will start to take positions and the voters to vote.
Sure, one of the reasons the police get away with stop and frisk, etc. is the war on drugs. And if drugs are found often enough, then that in effect justifies the illegal stop and frisk.
But drugs do not have to have any direct relevance: I doubt that the OP was really about drugs. Instead, the cops just got their jollies beating up on a poor, old, handicapped, black guy on the sidewalk in a high end business district -- jollies.
If the guy in the OP got a lawyer and won a big judgment, say, $500,000, then voters and, then, politicians would start to take notice. If the SF police keep attacking old guys, then too soon one of them will die, and the law suit could cost SF millions. Then the politicians will start to take positions and the voters to vote.
Sure, one of the reasons the police get away with stop and frisk, etc. is the war on drugs. And if drugs are found often enough, then that in effect justifies the illegal stop and frisk.
But drugs do not have to have any direct relevance: I doubt that the OP was really about drugs. Instead, the cops just got their jollies beating up on a poor, old, handicapped, black guy on the sidewalk in a high end business district -- jollies.
Care to elaborate why you were in contact with cops multiple times?
edit: didn't think so
edit: didn't think so
Holy crap! It's darned lucky they had so many officers handy!
That dude might have turned his crutches into some sort of martial arts weapon and killed hundreds of people! Hell, they could be some advanced flight system that would have let him ram the TransAmerica building and destroy it!
If that guy'd had both legs, they would have needed twice as many officers, SWAT, and an armored vehicle. I'm thankful the casualty list was so low. Oh, wait... No casualties? Even better!
Thanks, SFPD, for ridding the streets of another deadly terrorist!
/utter disgust.
That dude might have turned his crutches into some sort of martial arts weapon and killed hundreds of people! Hell, they could be some advanced flight system that would have let him ram the TransAmerica building and destroy it!
If that guy'd had both legs, they would have needed twice as many officers, SWAT, and an armored vehicle. I'm thankful the casualty list was so low. Oh, wait... No casualties? Even better!
Thanks, SFPD, for ridding the streets of another deadly terrorist!
/utter disgust.
Obviously my first thought was "Yeah, but we don't know anything about the leg or the militarized prosthetic on the other one.
What if the prosthetic leg had IoT LiPo and SIMD? Freak'n mecha kung fury kicks with TLB page faults!
[deleted]
[deleted]
It is worth taking a step back and recalling how long the problem of police brutality existed BEFORE it became a hot-button issue. For the longest time, raising such issues would incite accusations that one is either sympathetic to criminals or naively on the track to "Escape from NY" levels of crime.
Theodore Roosevelt regretted not having reformed American health care in his time in office. It took this long to get the imperfect ACA. Police brutality as a national issue is no different. Unless there is serious, sustained momentum for change, it simply won't come. This video should be such a reminder.
Theodore Roosevelt regretted not having reformed American health care in his time in office. It took this long to get the imperfect ACA. Police brutality as a national issue is no different. Unless there is serious, sustained momentum for change, it simply won't come. This video should be such a reminder.
Police brutality is in the headlines a lot recently because there are factions that benefit from it politically. When that's no longer true it'll drop out of the headlines regardless of what gets done.
I hope people who are sympathetic to doing something about it realize this. They don't have an unlimited amount of time to come up with reasonable proposals.
I hope people who are sympathetic to doing something about it realize this. They don't have an unlimited amount of time to come up with reasonable proposals.
Correct, and fans of the Voting Rights Act should be there as a reminder that "rights" can be hard lost as they are hard won. There is no inevitably in humanity. The best we can expect is reproduction.
I don't see a problem; he was resisting and refused to comply. And he continued to resist and fight even when he was on the ground. The article's main complaint was that the police held him down.
There are an endless number of unbalanced and sociopathic people in the U.S. who believe they're entitled to [EDIT: resist] the police, wrestle with them, etc. You're not. And the solution to this so-called police "brutality" is to simply be respectful, stop talking, and follow directions.
For sure, perhaps the police could have employed a more clever psychological de-escalation technique. That'd be an interesting training issue to research and borrow from other location that deploy it successfully.
But here was a person who was resisting arrest and disobeying instructions.
There are an endless number of unbalanced and sociopathic people in the U.S. who believe they're entitled to [EDIT: resist] the police, wrestle with them, etc. You're not. And the solution to this so-called police "brutality" is to simply be respectful, stop talking, and follow directions.
For sure, perhaps the police could have employed a more clever psychological de-escalation technique. That'd be an interesting training issue to research and borrow from other location that deploy it successfully.
But here was a person who was resisting arrest and disobeying instructions.
Uh, I hate to be a stickler here, but what about those tens of thousands of videos on youtube of the police threatening/beating/shooting/pepper spraying unarmed people for no real reason?
Like that guy who was recently choked to death for selling loose cigarettes, or the 12 year old who was shot, or the guy shot running away trying to pull his pants up, or the guy shot walking away slowly without any officer commands, or...?
Police brutality is a problem, and the attitude that cops are gods and have complete control over your physical autonomy is also part of the problem. Cops are just people-- frequently bullies or narcissistic people who have anger issues. Police are feared because they have a reputation for being powder kegs with a child's understanding of the world. It shouldn't be this way, and other countries are proof that it doesn't have to be this way.
Cops (as a result of their training and frequently inherent personality flaws) consider a wide range of behaviors "resisting", including not being 100% submissive to them in a conversation. If a cop's soap-bubble-tough ego is threatened in any way (something as trivial as not looking them in the eye 100% of the time, wringing your hands, or trying to say something to defend yourself is enough to violate this) or not stroked sufficiently enough (better call him sir and put on your best "yes massuh" attitude), you're gonna be in for a bad time. It's disgusting, and really we can't say we are free citizens if they can stop us without suspicion and demand our surrender of personal sovereignty.
Like that guy who was recently choked to death for selling loose cigarettes, or the 12 year old who was shot, or the guy shot running away trying to pull his pants up, or the guy shot walking away slowly without any officer commands, or...?
Police brutality is a problem, and the attitude that cops are gods and have complete control over your physical autonomy is also part of the problem. Cops are just people-- frequently bullies or narcissistic people who have anger issues. Police are feared because they have a reputation for being powder kegs with a child's understanding of the world. It shouldn't be this way, and other countries are proof that it doesn't have to be this way.
Cops (as a result of their training and frequently inherent personality flaws) consider a wide range of behaviors "resisting", including not being 100% submissive to them in a conversation. If a cop's soap-bubble-tough ego is threatened in any way (something as trivial as not looking them in the eye 100% of the time, wringing your hands, or trying to say something to defend yourself is enough to violate this) or not stroked sufficiently enough (better call him sir and put on your best "yes massuh" attitude), you're gonna be in for a bad time. It's disgusting, and really we can't say we are free citizens if they can stop us without suspicion and demand our surrender of personal sovereignty.
Let's see you dance to that music after your leg is amputated.
They've had the training already.
Someone was sleeping on the days when descalation was covered. And they were probably on vacation during the in-service stuff, too. <rolling eyes ;-)>
I fully agree that the best policy is to comply with directions, but I can't see any reason for the number of responding officers.
I question why the SFPD allows those fos guys them to patrol without a supervisor.
Why is it that they couldn't calm the guy down? Arrogance? Apathy? Or were they all rookies? They couldn't holler for a detective or a supervisor?
Out-argued by a guy on crutches. What'd they think? He was going to somehow run away from them? Sprout wings?
They've had the training already.
Someone was sleeping on the days when descalation was covered. And they were probably on vacation during the in-service stuff, too. <rolling eyes ;-)>
I fully agree that the best policy is to comply with directions, but I can't see any reason for the number of responding officers.
I question why the SFPD allows those fos guys them to patrol without a supervisor.
Why is it that they couldn't calm the guy down? Arrogance? Apathy? Or were they all rookies? They couldn't holler for a detective or a supervisor?
Out-argued by a guy on crutches. What'd they think? He was going to somehow run away from them? Sprout wings?
> What'd they think?
A principle in law enforcement is that someone who fights with police will be just as aggressive, and more so, with non-police.
A principle in law enforcement is that someone who fights with police will be just as aggressive, and more so, with non-police.
Not relevant. So what? Was that drunk capable of fleeing and attacking anyone? Not likely. Is it hard to pursue a person fleeing on crutches for a few yards until you can kick a crutch out from him? It's not rocket science.
Sure, he was a big damned nuisance and they couldn't let him get whacko. Playing dogpile on a UNARMED disabled guy isn't ever going to be the right answer.
They mishandled that situation.
Sure, he was a big damned nuisance and they couldn't let him get whacko. Playing dogpile on a UNARMED disabled guy isn't ever going to be the right answer.
They mishandled that situation.
> I can't see any reason for the number of responding officers.
That's also mentioned ad nauseum in the blog post. So what?
That's also mentioned ad nauseum in the blog post. So what?
Was he being arrested? If not, he wasn't resisting arrest. Yet the cops decided to go hands on, even though he's got one leg and he's not going anywhere. It is very likely to have been a case of "disrespect of cop." If a cop has such a tiny dick that a one legged homeless man can ding his ego, perhaps a change of line of work is in order.
I understand he wasn't arrested. Is it still resisting arrest if you're not actually under arrest? I suspect that even in the US it's not yet technically a crime to choose to be about your lawful business rather than do whatever a police officer tells you when you're not under arrest.
There are an endless number of unbalanced and sociopathic people in the U.S. who believe they're entitled to argue with the police
There are also an endless number of balanced individuals who are entitled to argue. Everyone is entitled to argue. The police aren't magic. The police aren't gods. The police are (but should not be) above the law.
And the solution to this so-called police "brutality" is to simply be respectful, stop talking, and follow directions.
And the solution to being raped is to stay at home and never go outside? The solution to getting shot is to hide under your bed twenty four hours a day? Or is crime only acceptable from police officers?
There are an endless number of unbalanced and sociopathic people in the U.S. who believe they're entitled to argue with the police
There are also an endless number of balanced individuals who are entitled to argue. Everyone is entitled to argue. The police aren't magic. The police aren't gods. The police are (but should not be) above the law.
And the solution to this so-called police "brutality" is to simply be respectful, stop talking, and follow directions.
And the solution to being raped is to stay at home and never go outside? The solution to getting shot is to hide under your bed twenty four hours a day? Or is crime only acceptable from police officers?
> Everyone is entitled to argue.
I should have been more precise; I meant physically resist, which he was doing.
I should have been more precise; I meant physically resist, which he was doing.
Resist what? A cop going hands-on gratuitously? After all the brutality was done, a dozen cops could not find a reason to arrest him. So it wasn't resisting arrest. He was assaulted by a cop.
> I understand he wasn't arrested. Is it still resisting arrest if you're not actually under arrest?
Actually, yes, it's called a Terry Stop. Whether he _ended up_ in a squad car and brought to jail isn't the issue.
Actually, yes, it's called a Terry Stop. Whether he _ended up_ in a squad car and brought to jail isn't the issue.
A "Terry Stop" relies on reasonable suspicion. A patdown is permitted to check for weaponry.
If this was a Terry Stop, they went so far that they turned it into something else; pinning an unarmed one-legged man to the ground, stamping on his legs, is not a Terry Stop. Reminds me of the bullshit they pull where they pick someone up, mess him around, and then kick him back onto the street whenever they feel like it; because they can say "it wasn't actually an arrest" they get away with it.
If this was not a Terry Stop, then it's all just more bullshit from bullyboys in uniform.
You see the footage. Seriously, how do you perform the mental gymnastics to defend this blatantly unacceptable activity? They're not heroes. They're out of control bullies wearing uniforms, and the longer we let them get away with this sort of nonsense, the worse it's going to get.
If this was a Terry Stop, they went so far that they turned it into something else; pinning an unarmed one-legged man to the ground, stamping on his legs, is not a Terry Stop. Reminds me of the bullshit they pull where they pick someone up, mess him around, and then kick him back onto the street whenever they feel like it; because they can say "it wasn't actually an arrest" they get away with it.
If this was not a Terry Stop, then it's all just more bullshit from bullyboys in uniform.
You see the footage. Seriously, how do you perform the mental gymnastics to defend this blatantly unacceptable activity? They're not heroes. They're out of control bullies wearing uniforms, and the longer we let them get away with this sort of nonsense, the worse it's going to get.
> A "Terry Stop" relies on reasonable suspicion.
Which they had, because of the report and his behavior.
> A patdown is permitted to check for weaponry.
Which they tried to do, but then he resisted, which provided them with Probable Cause for any number of things.
This might not have held up in court, but definitely there's no getting out of the ride downtown once you physically resist.
Source: am a lawyer.
Which they had, because of the report and his behavior.
> A patdown is permitted to check for weaponry.
Which they tried to do, but then he resisted, which provided them with Probable Cause for any number of things.
This might not have held up in court, but definitely there's no getting out of the ride downtown once you physically resist.
Source: am a lawyer.
Are you kidding me? Did you watch the video? This man was not a threat.
I am homeless. I did not read the entire article because the author really does not know what happened yet assumes the worst about the police.
First, as someone who is both homeless and seriously handicapped, I feel the article is offensive and dehumanizing to people like me for its clear assumption that poverty and a handicap makes someone incapable of being a real threat. That is beyond insulting and in no way helps get people like me and our actual problems taken more seriously.
Second, although there is plenty of classicism in the world and this does negatively impact my life, I think I am far more aware if its impact in online forums than IRL. Some people IRL make my life unnecessarily harder with their unfounded conclusions about me. More people online seem to dismiss the possibility that I have a brain and something of value to contribute to the conversation and so on.
Third, it is not uncommon for local cops to be familiar with local homeless people. A high percentage of people on the street have either medical or mental health issues. Many of them are self medicating with drugs or alcohol. Society as a whole needs to come up with better solutions, but, while waiting for those solutions, cops still need to protect the public from sometimes irrational behaviour. If they know this guy and have a long history with him, sending him to a hospital may be the most humane, compassionate answer available.
I was woke up one night by a cop looking for another homeless person who was wanted for violent assault. When I was woke up, it was very aggressive because he was looking for a violent man and prepared for the worst. When he saw who I was, he said "Oh, it's you. I know who you are. You can put your hands down." He then went into social worker mode. I had not interacted directly with the police in that town before but I was recognized and known to be not a troublemaker.
The antidote to racism, sexism, classicism etc is to judge individuals as individuals and take things on a case by case basis. This article is very guilty of not doing that. It makes sweeping judgements of both the cops and the individual they sent to a hospital, without knowing enough about what happened to justify those conclusions.
There are a great many things wrong with how we deal with homelessness in this country and I know racism, classicism, sexism etc are very real and do serious harm to people. But I don't see this article helping in any way to solve that problem.
First, as someone who is both homeless and seriously handicapped, I feel the article is offensive and dehumanizing to people like me for its clear assumption that poverty and a handicap makes someone incapable of being a real threat. That is beyond insulting and in no way helps get people like me and our actual problems taken more seriously.
Second, although there is plenty of classicism in the world and this does negatively impact my life, I think I am far more aware if its impact in online forums than IRL. Some people IRL make my life unnecessarily harder with their unfounded conclusions about me. More people online seem to dismiss the possibility that I have a brain and something of value to contribute to the conversation and so on.
Third, it is not uncommon for local cops to be familiar with local homeless people. A high percentage of people on the street have either medical or mental health issues. Many of them are self medicating with drugs or alcohol. Society as a whole needs to come up with better solutions, but, while waiting for those solutions, cops still need to protect the public from sometimes irrational behaviour. If they know this guy and have a long history with him, sending him to a hospital may be the most humane, compassionate answer available.
I was woke up one night by a cop looking for another homeless person who was wanted for violent assault. When I was woke up, it was very aggressive because he was looking for a violent man and prepared for the worst. When he saw who I was, he said "Oh, it's you. I know who you are. You can put your hands down." He then went into social worker mode. I had not interacted directly with the police in that town before but I was recognized and known to be not a troublemaker.
The antidote to racism, sexism, classicism etc is to judge individuals as individuals and take things on a case by case basis. This article is very guilty of not doing that. It makes sweeping judgements of both the cops and the individual they sent to a hospital, without knowing enough about what happened to justify those conclusions.
There are a great many things wrong with how we deal with homelessness in this country and I know racism, classicism, sexism etc are very real and do serious harm to people. But I don't see this article helping in any way to solve that problem.
Certainly we do not have perfect information here. But while it's possible that three or four cops might be needed to take down someone irrational and strong, there's no indication this was the case with the man in the article (the author was there) and the numbers are way off — more than a dozen officers.
I've worked with folks in situations perhaps similar to yours (I did social work myself) and as part of that I had to work with the police too, and found (like you say) a sort of ecosystem at work there. And knowing that I am more willing to excuse certain behaviors by those on either side.
But did you watch the video? They were stomping on his prosthetic leg, crushing his head into the ground. They weren't trying to take him to the hospital, they were working to send him there.
That said, the way homelessness and mental illness are handled in this country is generally speaking just plain bad. Social services are being cut all over the place and everyone wants to pretend that doesn't have consequences. Not to mention the treatment of vets, societal denial of mental illness, etc.
Anyway. It's a nasty business and never pretty, but what we've seen here is inexcusable — and as others have pointed out, an everyday occurrence.
I've worked with folks in situations perhaps similar to yours (I did social work myself) and as part of that I had to work with the police too, and found (like you say) a sort of ecosystem at work there. And knowing that I am more willing to excuse certain behaviors by those on either side.
But did you watch the video? They were stomping on his prosthetic leg, crushing his head into the ground. They weren't trying to take him to the hospital, they were working to send him there.
That said, the way homelessness and mental illness are handled in this country is generally speaking just plain bad. Social services are being cut all over the place and everyone wants to pretend that doesn't have consequences. Not to mention the treatment of vets, societal denial of mental illness, etc.
Anyway. It's a nasty business and never pretty, but what we've seen here is inexcusable — and as others have pointed out, an everyday occurrence.
But did you watch the video? They were stomping on his prosthetic leg, crushing his head into the ground. They weren't trying to take him to the hospital, they were working to send him there
I watched a portion of the video. That isn't what it looked like to me. It looked to me like they were trying to reduce the odds of him smacking his head on the sidewalk in his struggles. Furthermore, the article itself states that although there were up to 14 police officers, many of them were trying to shield the man from view. It assumes they were doing this for nefarious reasons of covering up police brutality while simultaneously conplaining that the man's butt became exposed and was on view. The author seems to not allow for the possibility that cops were trying to hide the man's half naked state from view, both to protect his privacy and protect passersby from something most people would find offensive.
I have two special needs sons. As a parent, I am abundently familiar with how hard it can be to prevent someone from endangering themselves or others without looking like an abusive asshole in the process. But, then, my father and ex husband were both career army, so I have very little patience with the ignorance of many civilians who have never dealt with genuinely violent situations. There are times when please and thank you simply do not work and stronger methods are required.
I watched a portion of the video. That isn't what it looked like to me. It looked to me like they were trying to reduce the odds of him smacking his head on the sidewalk in his struggles. Furthermore, the article itself states that although there were up to 14 police officers, many of them were trying to shield the man from view. It assumes they were doing this for nefarious reasons of covering up police brutality while simultaneously conplaining that the man's butt became exposed and was on view. The author seems to not allow for the possibility that cops were trying to hide the man's half naked state from view, both to protect his privacy and protect passersby from something most people would find offensive.
I have two special needs sons. As a parent, I am abundently familiar with how hard it can be to prevent someone from endangering themselves or others without looking like an abusive asshole in the process. But, then, my father and ex husband were both career army, so I have very little patience with the ignorance of many civilians who have never dealt with genuinely violent situations. There are times when please and thank you simply do not work and stronger methods are required.
Look, it sounds like you want to give the benefit of the doubt to the cops, when there's a well-established trend of unarmed black men being targeted and brutally suppressed by an overreaching and over-armed police authority. I think it is disingenuous to award the benefit of the doubt to the police in this situation.
Also, it is a long way from "please and thank you" to what we see in this video. Police have a large variety of means at their disposal, as well as the advantage of numbers and implicit authority. The way this man was subdued appears to be way, way over the top.
The only way we can really know for sure is if cops wear cameras. That's the best solution all around.
Also, it is a long way from "please and thank you" to what we see in this video. Police have a large variety of means at their disposal, as well as the advantage of numbers and implicit authority. The way this man was subdued appears to be way, way over the top.
The only way we can really know for sure is if cops wear cameras. That's the best solution all around.
In America, we have this principle called innocent until proven guilty. In my own life, I have found that is a good rubric to apply. Applying anything else makes racism, classicism, sexism, etc. worse, not better. I have had people call me naïve and told me "It looks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, only a fool would believe it is not duck." But that kind of position only deepens problems.
Of course, you are free to be driven by your personal biases. But arguing that "it is a general trend, therefore waiting for actual evidence is foolish" doesn't fly with me. It never has. It never will. I will continue to wait for actual evidence and try to not jump to conclusions.
I am aware it is a hard path to take. It is a path I take regularly and I see payoffs for trying my damnedest to stick to that path, in spite of how hard it legitimately is.
Of course, you are free to be driven by your personal biases. But arguing that "it is a general trend, therefore waiting for actual evidence is foolish" doesn't fly with me. It never has. It never will. I will continue to wait for actual evidence and try to not jump to conclusions.
I am aware it is a hard path to take. It is a path I take regularly and I see payoffs for trying my damnedest to stick to that path, in spite of how hard it legitimately is.
Thank you for your comments. The fact that the author did no real research on what led up to this outrage did jump out at me. It probably still would not justify this level of force but at least there would be some context.
Thank you for explaining very clearly what is wrong with the judgements passed in that article. The entire thing felt wrong in a way i could not articulate, but you managed to articulate it in an amazingly lucid manner. :)
A guy resisting arrest makes front page on hacker news because its near twitter HQ? Seriously?
It's got a lot better, but in years past we've had stories make front page because someone got shot near Facebook, and a serious car accident near Twitter HQ.
Back home our cops #1 priority is deescalation. This does not just happen. There is training for this, a lot of training how to handle other people. For example if someone is fleeing in a car, let him go. They will catch him later, don't drive that dude in a corner in a high speed vehicle with 10 armed people chasing him down in a manhunt. It only endangers people.