Texas Cops Brutally Beat Teen Girl On the Side of the Road

originally posted by: Bloodydagger

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Bloodydagger

Using your own logic, what age isn't a threat? 1 year old? new born? Fetus?

You can't put an age on it.

I rest my case. And you call me ignorant?

Wait....you're the one saying she isn't a threat because she's 15. Correct?

Now you're contradicting yourself.

Wow, I almost can't keep up with the police brutality threads from the US.
I know the US is 5 or 6 times the population of the UK but heck when was the last UK police brutality thread on ATS? Anyone remember?
Very sad.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Bloodydagger

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Bloodydagger

Using your own logic, what age isn't a threat? 1 year old? new born? Fetus?

You can't put an age on it.

I rest my case. And you call me ignorant?

Wait....you're the one saying she isn't a threat because she's 15. Correct?

Now you're contradicting yourself.

Nope, you said you can't put an age on a threat. That implies that ANY age, 1-100 is a threat.

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: real_one

You've done a fine job at derailing this thread. I think you owe the OP an apology.

Personally I think you and the OP owe Abe an apology... seeing as how he was right and ya'll fell for this clickbait... hook, line, and sinker.

Did you bother to read the whole thread? Or are you just parroting what someone else said by saying "clickbait"?

abc13.com...

^ read that.

a reply to: abe froman

You miss the point.

I'm trained in jeet kune do, so perhaps I'm projecting my abilities to subdue anyone regardless of their physical stature and whatever weapons they come with. Shucks, any grown man, whether they are trained or not would admit that they too can subdue someone, especially a teenage girl. I assume law enforcement in the States may not necessarily possess the exact same self defence skills despite billy clubs, tasers, pepper spray and guns at their disposal, yet still are well trained in how to subdue a person without extreme force. All I see in these videos is incompetent behaviour; the inability to handle situations like law enforcement in other first world nations. You cannot see the forest for the trees....

Whether the video is edited or not is a moot point. That is extreme force. Just like the officer slamming a teenage girl in a bathing suit face first into the ground in that Texas pool incident. Just like that cop who rolled up and shot a 12 year old boy in the face for playing alone (I find that sad by itself - a child entertaining himself in a park alone). Who gives a f&*% about the causes....? Police in the States need to handle their business better.

Any baboon can become an officer in the U.S. That is a huge problem that many seem to miss. I have not met one police officer here in Canada, Netherlands or the U.K without a college degree....tons exist in the States tho. In fact, 75% of the U.S police force are not formally educated. The U.S hands one of the most important jobs in society to people who lack mental fortitude. In other words: 9/10 police officers in the states would fail grade.9 math horribly.

Toronto police earn on average of $100 000/yr because they are educated. You pay for what you get, I suppose.

Anybody that possesses critical thinking skills will not give a flying fig about whether a video is edited or not. The situation that presented itself in the video is brute force. American police seem to display over and over incompetent behaviour and its people like you who continue to push back the goal post on the matter perpetuate this nonsense.

Yes, wait for the edited video....to do so is to miss the point entirely.

Did everyone here check their critical thinking at the door?

...the audacity. Un-freakin-believable.

originally posted by: Bloodydagger

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Bloodydagger

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Bloodydagger

Using your own logic, what age isn't a threat? 1 year old? new born? Fetus?

You can't put an age on it.

I rest my case. And you call me ignorant?

Wait....you're the one saying she isn't a threat because she's 15. Correct?

Now you're contradicting yourself.

Nope, you said you can't put an age on it. That implies that ANY age, 1-100 is a threat.

Ok, well. Saying that you cannot put an age on when someone becomes a threat, and equating that to babies and 100 year old people is absolutely absurd. It's hard to have a reasonable discussion if those are the sorts of idiotic extremes one has to go to in an attempt to make a point.

Not only is it laughable, but it's quite disingenuous on your part.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Bloodydagger

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Bloodydagger

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Bloodydagger

Using your own logic, what age isn't a threat? 1 year old? new born? Fetus?

You can't put an age on it.

I rest my case. And you call me ignorant?

Wait....you're the one saying she isn't a threat because she's 15. Correct?

Now you're contradicting yourself.

Nope, you said you can't put an age on it. That implies that ANY age, 1-100 is a threat.

Ok, well. Saying that you cannot put an age on when someone becomes a threat, and equating that to babies and 100 year old people is absolutely absurd. It's hard to have a reasonable discussion if those are the sorts of idiotic extremes one has to go to in an attempt to make a point.

Not only is it laughable, but it's quite disingenuous on your part.

You're the who said you cannot put an age on a threat, not me. I'm just replying to what you said. So maybe next time, watch what you say. Absurd statements like that deserve absurd retorts.

originally posted by: Bloodydagger

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Bloodydagger

And I guess you believe that weightlifting = great at combat/fighting or something? Is that what you're implying there? roflmao

When you get off the floor, please tell me how much the 15 year old in question weighed.
Thanks in advance.

I lift brah, I can beat you up because of it.

It's OK, I missed the point once too. Looked stupid for a bit, but I got over it. You will too.

a reply to: Involutionist

I'm trained in jeet kune do, so perhaps I'm projecting my abilities to subdue anyone regardless of their physical stature and whatever weapons they come with

Anyone? Well, in those Jeet kune do classes they must teach Bruce Lee's most defining characteristic....his arrogance.

a reply to: Bloodydagger

You're correct. I should watch what I say. Sometimes I forget that this is the internet and people will go to unreasonable and idiotic extremes so that they appear to be "right".

Let me know the next time you have to use your badass school yard fighting skills against a toddler.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Bloodydagger

You're correct. I should watch what I say. Sometimes I forget that this is the internet and people will go to unreasonable and idiotic extremes so that they appear to be "right".

Let me know the next time you have to use your badass school yard fighting skills against a toddler.

Whether you realize it or not, your reply of "You can't put an age on a threat" is such a broad and sweeping statement that is left open to interpretation. So maybe be clear next time. As I said, absurd statements deserve absurd replies.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Bloodydagger

You're correct. I should watch what I say. Sometimes I forget that this is the internet and people will go to unreasonable and idiotic extremes so that they appear to be "right".

Let me know the next time you have to use your badass school yard fighting skills against a toddler.

I even asked you straight up at what age stops being a threat. Your reply?: "You can't put an age on it"

So yes, that is a broad and sweeping statement. It can mean anything. You wasn't being specific when answering my question.

a reply to: Bloodydagger

Yes, it is a broad and sweeping statement because you cannot put a set age on when someone is or is not a threat, but only the intentionally obtuse would interpret it to mean 1 year old children or 100 year old seniors.

It seems to me that at first you tried to play the bad ass route and say that no 15 year old could get the best of you, and when you were called-out on that uninformed and baseless position, you decided to take the fast track to La La Land.

I'll concede on this debate because it appears that reasonable is not part of your lexicon.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Bloodydagger

1 year old children or 100 year old seniors.

If you don't want it to mean that, then be more specific. I asked you a very specific question and you gave me a sweeping answer in return that seems absurd on the surface. So you got an absurd retort in return.

"You can't put an age on this or that" can mean any age, literally. I'm just saying it how I see it.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Bloodydagger

What if a 5 year old child jumped on an officers back and started choking him? Is he/she a threat to the officers life in that situation?

And you accuse me of using hyperbole?

Like I said, don't take my word for it. It's hard to convince people when this sort of thing can only belearned through experience. It's quite obvious to me that you don't have that experience to inform you Perhaps you have a few school yard brawls under your belt, but that is hardly experience.

I find the bolded above quite funny coming from someone named "introvert". You seem to know a lot about these things and have a lot of experiences and are an expert on this entire subject, but your name here is introvert? Oh the irony.

a reply to: introvert

Anyone? Well, in those Jeet kune do classes they must teach Bruce Lee's most defining characteristic....his arrogance.

Do you have anything intelligent to say concerning the OP or any other points I made?

Btw, I'm extremely arrogant. Always have been.

originally posted by: buster2010
I cannot believe that fat pig defending this beating. He says he finds it disturbing that people just sat back and taped this but didn't come to the aid of the officer? He has the girl on the ground beating her and he needs help? If this pig is so useless that he needs help beating a girl he should never have been given the job in the first place.

I believe that "fat pig" (as you so eloquently put it) was referring to the female officer on the ground getting choked before backup arrived.

I'm completely baffled as to why your post hasn't been removed yet.

Then again no... no I'm not. Its painfully apparent that certain forms of hate speech are more than welcome here.

originally posted by: real_one
a reply to: Martin75

Let's just take the department for its word for argument sake. If this was your drunk 15 year old daughter, would you still say this is justified?

If that were my 15 year old daughter, she'd rather go home with that cop than go home with me.

a reply to: Bone75

If that were my 15 year old daughter, she'd rather go home with that cop than go home with me.

Please expound on the above.

What would be the consequences if she did go home with you instead of that officer? How would you deal with her...? Would you deal with her in an eloquent manner?

originally posted by: Bloodydagger

Did you bother to read the whole thread? Or are you just parroting what someone else said by saying "clickbait"?

abc13.com...

^ read that.

Please don't insult my intelligence again. I have no desire to make you look any more stupid than you've already done to yourself.

What happened to that girl is YOUR fault.