Arizona police maces an 86 year old protester

a reply to: windword

You didn't know the Fascism trend in America is actually an infiltrated agenda?

We don't even realistically actually have immigration problems. We pretend we do quite a bit, but it's nothing compared to what's going to in other places.

Immigration issues in America is mostly Ahkmed not being able to communicate with the bus driver, and people interpreting his foreign language as Terrorist Battlecries.

a reply to: UKTruth

There was hardly any force. It was a nudge back.

That's enough for an old lady. At that age, a simple fall can break bones.

If I am not mistaken, police are trained to access situations and the age, among many other factors, is to be considered.

The mace used on the other woman was also justified as she made a move towards the policeman.

Really? She bent down to help the woman and then stood up to run her mouth. What threat was she to the officer?

Also, why didn't he mace the man to the left with the cameras that obviously stepped forward when she fell to the ground?

Are old ladies the new terrorist that we must have zero-tolerance for?

Zero tolerance for those that can't abide by the law.

I know. Some will not be satisfied unless skulls are cracked.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth

There was hardly any force. It was a nudge back.

That's enough for an old lady. At that age, a simple fall can break bones.

If I am not mistaken, police are trained to access situations and the age, among many other factors, is to be considered.

The mace used on the other woman was also justified as she made a move towards the policeman.

Really? She bent down to help the woman and then stood up to run her mouth. What threat was she to the officer?

Also, why didn't he mace the man to the left with the cameras that obviously stepped forward when she fell to the ground?

Are old ladies the new terrorist that we must have zero-tolerance for?

Zero tolerance for those that can't abide by the law.

I know. Some will not be satisfied unless skulls are cracked.

If she is too frail to suffer the potential consequences of breaking the law then more fool her for breaking the law.
There is no way for the officer to know what she will do, but there is no room for 'wait and see' in the current environment.

Cracked skulls? The police might just have to get more aggressive. I believe Reagan authorised deadly force when he was governor of California in order to put a stop to the West Coast nonsense of the time. The message soon got through. Perhaps something similar should be applied nationwide.

Ronald Reagan : "If it takes a bloodbath, let's get it over with. No more appeasement."

I think granny might have been a little bit drunk, that`s the only thing that could explain how a little nudge like that could knock her over.

a reply to: UKTruth

If she is too frail to suffer the potential consequences of breaking the law then more fool her for breaking the law.

Judges are the ones appointed to deal out the consequences of breaking the law. What you describe is street justice. That's not how we do things over here.

Let's not forget, all she is guilty of, allegedly, is blocking traffic. If she was deemed a threat or was to be arrested, they could have easily done so without excessive force.

Cracked skulls? The police might just have to get more aggressive. I believe Reagan authorised deadly force when he was governor of California in order to put a stop to the West Coast nonsense of the time. The message soon got through. Perhaps something similar should be applied nationwide.

I guess cracked skulls just aren't enough for some. I got ya.

a reply to: Greven

They're not violating your rights any more than a cop detaining you (where you actually ARE restricted in movement) is violating your rights.

please that's a tried argument. police can detain for any numbers of reasons,and some for none at all. you will have to prove that. if you show your a@@ to much even though it might be thrown out in court, you still wind up spending sometime in jail and spending a lot of time and money.

You could go around.

why should i have to give up my right to travel unencumbered by your right to protest? or go out of my way for your right to protest.you don't own the roads or highways,now if a permit was obtain to occupy said roads, streets. then yes, but any other reason. other than a emergency on your part, you don't own the road,you have no right to block the roads. why should my rights suffer for yours.(well there maybe legit reasons other than a emergency to block the road but i'm sure you get my gest)

You could get out and walk.

again why, just as above the same applies. not only that the chances are some jack leg is going to damage my vehicle. and don't say that doesn't happen, it's reported all the time as happening in so called peaceful protests. or it is towed as a abandoned vechile.why should my rights suffer for yours?

You could wait for them to move.

for the final time why, same as the others above , but lets say i'm wait sitting there minding my business and those jacklegs that are gonna damage my car come up and decide that i'm part of their problem and attacks me. don't say that never happened or not likely, it been shown time and time again on news reports. or lets say i'm going to a job interview and lose it because i had to wait or go around or walk, or going to pick up my child and the cops get called and i'm hassled because i left my child somewhere. or any other everyday things in life that are more important than a protest. again why should my rights suffer for yours.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth

If she is too frail to suffer the potential consequences of breaking the law then more fool her for breaking the law.

Judges are the ones appointed to deal out the consequences of breaking the law. What you describe is street justice. That's not how we do things over here.

Let's not forget, all she is guilty of, allegedly, is blocking traffic. If she was deemed a threat or was to be arrested, they could have easily done so without excessive force.

Cracked skulls? The police might just have to get more aggressive. I believe Reagan authorised deadly force when he was governor of California in order to put a stop to the West Coast nonsense of the time. The message soon got through. Perhaps something similar should be applied nationwide.

I guess cracked skulls just aren't enough for some. I got ya.

Police can use reasonable force. They don't need a judge on scene in order to apply it.

If you are going to break the law then you can't be surprised if a cop in the moment makes a decision to apply force that he or she deems necessary. Judges can sort the mess out afterwards, but granny still ran the risk of that happening and regardless of what a judge may say later, she'll have still been landed on her ass. She put herself at risk by breaking the law. Her fault 100%. It would have never happened if she was peacefully protesting in an area that did not violate others rights and break the law.

a reply to: UKTruth

Police can use reasonable force. They don't need a judge on scene in order to apply it.

To do what...arrest or hand down the consequences of their law-breaking?

If you are going to break the law then you can't be surprised if a cop in the moment makes a decision to apply force that he or she deems necessary.

Part of their training in how and when to use force, and to what degree, involves the age, mental state, etc.

Judges can sort the mess out afterwards, but granny still ran the risk of that happening and regardless of what a judge may say later, she'll have still been landed on her ass. She put herself at risk by breaking the law. Her fault 100%. It would have never happened if she was peacefully protesting in an area that did not violate others rights and break the law.

I can agree. She put herself in that situation.

While she bears that responsibility, that does not change the fact that the officer is responsible for his actions as well.

Is what he did reasonable considering what training he may or may not of had? Did he properly access the situation and act accordingly?

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth

Police can use reasonable force. They don't need a judge on scene in order to apply it.

To do what...arrest or hand down the consequences of their law-breaking?

If you are going to break the law then you can't be surprised if a cop in the moment makes a decision to apply force that he or she deems necessary.

Part of their training in how and when to use force, and to what degree, involves the age, mental state, etc.

Judges can sort the mess out afterwards, but granny still ran the risk of that happening and regardless of what a judge may say later, she'll have still been landed on her ass. She put herself at risk by breaking the law. Her fault 100%. It would have never happened if she was peacefully protesting in an area that did not violate others rights and break the law.

I can agree. She put herself in that situation.

While she bears that responsibility, that does not change the fact that the officer is responsible for his actions as well.

Is what he did reasonable considering what training he may or may not of had? Did he properly access the situation and act accordingly?

I would say in that situation his assessment was wrong. Police officers are human beings and regardless of training individuals can still, in the moment, interpret that training in different ways.
He will likely be punished in some way, but that is not going to change the events that unfolded and these ladies only have themselves to blame.

Tensions are very high right now and I am actually amazed that there have not been quite a few deaths during this recent year or so of 'protests'. I think that is coming if protesters continue to break the law and act aggressively.

86 yrs old. You'd think he was old enough to know better than "protest". Obviously age doesn't necessarily mean wisdom. I hope the cop, at least called him.. "sir" and was respectful. There is a solution to what happened to the elderly gentleman. Don't be where cops spray mace or hang around idiots that attract mace.... To protesters. You want a change? Start rowing or get off the boat.

a reply to: UKTruth

I would say in that situation his assessment was wrong. Police officers are human beings and regardless of training individuals can still, in the moment, interpret that training in different ways.

So then we agree.

He will likely be punished in some way, but that is not going to change the events that unfolded and these ladies only have themselves to blame.

You say that, even though you just admitted his assessment was wrong? Both sides are to blame for their actions, but I find the actions of this officer to be more egregious than that of the old lady.

Tensions are very high right now and I am actually amazed that there have not been quite a few deaths during this recent year or so of 'protests'. I think that is coming if protesters continue to break the law and act aggressively.

Possibly. But we cannot dismiss the idea that deaths also may potentially come at the hand of law enforcement that wrongly access the situation.

a reply to: UKTruth

You don't support or represent the US Constitution. You are the most un-American poster I know here on ATS.

it doesn't matter if you're 13 and walking across a lawn or 86 years old and peacefully protesting, the police are the law!!
i am not even going to pass gas in the presence of a police officer ever again or even worse i get caught jaywalking in this day and age.

I thought age is just a number? Isn't that the rationale that libs use to justify their perverted relationships?

a reply to: Arizonaguy

No that's what Milo (politically incorrect conservative) did to justify his.

This is stupid...
With more than half of these protests becoming physical and in some cases violent. She understood the risks and actively walked into a dangerous situation.
At what time are people accountable for their own actions again?
Oh yeah I forgot modern liberalism did away with accountability when they destroyed the individual...
Sorry forgot.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: UKTruth

You don't support or represent the US Constitution. You are the most un-American poster I know here on ATS.

Really?
I would actually trade 1 UKTruth for half the liberal Americans here.
Personal preference I suppose...
Perhaps you should keep them to yourself?

a reply to: JAY1980

Well, if this is the way you think America should be:

Police should be given licence to use force against any protester who breaks the law.

Then you are just as fascist and un-American as he is.

This is what the world is turning into, what a sad state.

The cops were like gestapo, like mindless drones enforcing laws which are designed to eliminate free speech and take away peoples rights so they can no longer assemble to have their grievances heard,and with the rejoicing i hear in this thread it wont be long until you sickos are calling for the extermination of anyone who doesn't tow the line.

You people condoning this should really try and re-evaluate your stance in this world, your morals are skewed and clearly have lost all compassion.

Takes a very SPECIAL kind of hero to mace an 86 yr old, takes even more of a piece of trash to defend it.