Riot Police batter Iraq war vet (rupture his spleen) - Caught on camera

Originally posted by HandyDandy

Originally posted by studio500
If he wasn't doing what he was doing the incident wouldn't have happened. No point crying after the event.

So when the first cop gets killed (and you know it's coming)

Yes I do and I can't wait.

Originally posted by mr-lizard
www.guardian.co.uk...

It just gets worse and worse - these armed, uniformed cowards who are defending the corporations think very little of beating up journalists, old women, war vets, students, protesters and the hundreds of other types of people who are lawfully demonstrating their right to protest.

The link included contains a video.

It contains bad language and can be considered quite shocking. (Unless of course you actively enjoy seeing unarmed people beaten up).

Protester and three-tour American veteran Kayvan Sabehgi was beaten by Oakland police during the Occupy protest's general strike on 2 November. Sabehgi, who was 'completely peaceful', according to witnesses, was left with a lacerated spleen

Kudos to the lady at the end and the camera guy.

'Are you going to shoot me whilst i'm filming you?'

'Did any of you want to deliberately hurt the war vet?'

I can not even bring myself to watch this video....certainly not what I want to start my day off with. Maybe tonight when I get home I'll go through this. Soldiers hold a special place in my heart, and I don't have the details...nope not starting my day like this.

reply to post by morder1

You know... this was once a free nation... no one is deserving of getting beaten for standing still in a public place

There has NEVER been a time in this Nation's history were a person could wilfully and openly defy the police. The People intsituted the government, and empowered it to hire police to enforce the laws made by representatives of The People. Effectively, We The People took appropriate action against one who chose to defy a direct police order. He got what he deserved.

Originally posted by studio500
I'm sorry but that "dude" got treated correctly by what is considered to be robust policing.

He was told to move several times and remained defiant. What did he expect was going to happen?
Did he think he was going to be handed a bunch of flowers, a handshake and a "it's ok friend, we're only playing" apology from the Police!

If he wasn't doing what he was doing the incident wouldn't have happened. No point crying after the event.

He was on a public street which his tax dollars helped pay for. There was no traffic. Why should he have to move??

Video like this just pisses me off. It's disgusting to see ANYONE treated in the manner that man was. There was absolutely no reason for that "officer" (if you can even call him that!) to strike an unarmed person REPEATEDLY. It's bull$hit and that cop needs to be in JAIL!!!!

reply to post by DJDigitalGem

Why should he have to move??

Because the police asked him to move. The police are authorized by We The People to enforce the law with force if necessary. There is no reason to defy the police. This has been the case throughout history in all Nations. Why would it be different in this case?

Another matter: The vet took an Oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. If we was throwing his lot in with the OWS people, he was joining people who have clearly indicated that they hope to replace the current government with a socialist/communist government where people's wealth are distrubuted in a manner pleasing to the OWS people. He violated his oath.

Some people just LOVE their enslavement.
Stockholm syndrome is a curious thing for sure.

They roll around in their enslavement like a pig in #.

Defenders of the Matrix.
It may have been a movie but 1984 was just a book.......wasn't it?

reply to post by Screwed

Some people just LOVE their enslavement.

Some people don't know what they've got 'till its gone.

Man, that gets the heart pumpin. Enough is enough, protesters need their own riot gear.

reply to post by Kali74


Well, I am not a ATS cop nor is anyone else who works in Law Enforcement but from a LEO point of view I can tell you I have mixed feelings on the matter. I would have handled it different, but not entirely different. It is my opinion that so much force was not needed. He should have been subdued and taken to the ground as swiftly and securely as possible and pulled behind the line. Some force would have been required. I cannot comment much more than that as I am not fully aware of the entire situation based on some video footage. Just a brief assessment on what I have seen which is limited.

reply to post by PrimalRed


Your an idiot.
I suppose you support North Korea also.
Maybe Iran?
There was no sense in beating him.

reply to post by standrkm


I feel the exact same way.
I can't believe there are people on here who really believe,
that the police should beat someone up who is protesting!
I think he is a brave soul, who stands up for something he believes in!

reply to post by studio500


I was an officer for a short time till I realized this hypocrisy knows no bounds. Those were not typical strong police actions. The marching and shouting "MOVE!" yes, but the vet should have been simply apprehended with an appropriate level of force and handcuffed. The officer hurt the vet in order to scare him and all the nearby protesters into compliance. Intimidation is not a valid cause to use potentially deadly force. That cop set a precedence where he got away with hurting an innocent person when he had NO legal right to. Now other cops are more likely to do the same without facing consequences.

Another thing we all need to remember is that the constitution does not give COPS more rights than everyone else. They have no authority over other people. Every American citizen in good standing (not convicted criminals) has the same authority as law enforcement officers, according to the constitution. The only difference between cops and normal people is that cops get PAID to use force to enforce the law. These cops have become mercenaries in law enforcement clothing.

Follow the money!!!

reply to post by My.mind.is.mine


One thousand stars to you!
I agree one hundred percent!

Originally posted by LifeIsPeculiar
reply to post by morder1

 

You know... this was once a free nation... no one is deserving of getting beaten for standing still in a public place

There has NEVER been a time in this Nation's history were a person could wilfully and openly defy the police. The People intsituted the government, and empowered it to hire police to enforce the laws made by representatives of The People. Effectively, We The People took appropriate action against one who chose to defy a direct police order. He got what he deserved.

“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”

“An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter.” Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.

“When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified.” Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.

“These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.” Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.

“An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.” (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).

“Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense.” (State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).

“One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance.” (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).

“Story affirmed the right of self-defense by persons held illegally. In his own writings, he had admitted that ‘a situation could arise in which the checks-and-balances principle ceased to work and the various branches of government concurred in a gross usurpation.’ There would be no usual remedy by changing the law or passing an amendment to the Constitution, should the oppressed party be a minority. Story concluded, ‘If there be any remedy at all ... it is a remedy never provided for by human institutions.’ That was the ‘ultimate right of all human beings in extreme cases to resist oppression, and to apply force against ruinous injustice.’” (From Mutiny on the Amistad by Howard Jones, Oxford University Press, 1987, an account of the reading of the decision in the case by Justice Joseph Story of the Supreme Court.

As for grounds for arrest: “The carrying of arms in a quiet, peaceable, and orderly manner, concealed on or about the person, is not a breach of the peace. Nor does such an act of itself, lead to a breach of the peace.” (Wharton’s Criminal and Civil Procedure, 12th Ed., Vol.2: Judy v. Lashley, 5 W. Va. 628, 41 S.E. 197)

www.constitution.org...

This is a FREE nation. You sir are wrong.

Originally posted by HandyDandy

Originally posted by studio500
If he wasn't doing what he was doing the incident wouldn't have happened. No point crying after the event.

So when the first cop gets killed (and you know it's coming) we can just say " If he wasn't doing what he was doing the incident wouldn't have happened. No point crying after the event."

Good. I'll remember to say that when it does happen.

So will I. You won't see me crying about it, either.

reply to post by e11888

This is a FREE nation. You sir are wrong.

He wasn't resisting arrest. He refused to follow a cop's orders. With that act, he broke the law.
He should be ashamed of himself, since he was in violation of his oath. If he was standing in solidarity with the OWS people, he was standing in solidarity with communists.

Originally posted by LifeIsPeculiar
reply to post by e11888

 

This is a FREE nation. You sir are wrong.

He wasn't resisting arrest. He refused to follow a cop's orders. With that act, he broke the law.
He should be ashamed of himself, since he was in violation of his oath. If he was standing in solidarity with the OWS people, he was standing in solidarity with communists.

Arent you the guy who thinks voting actually makes a difference? LOL Nope not when 99% of candidates are hand picked by TPTB!

On to the subject the protestor did not warrant a beating. The guy was not threatening in any way. This guy could have been subdued without the use of a baton and multiple strikes. It was a prime example of excessive force.

I bounced for a few years in a college town and you could see a big difference in how certain bouncers handled a situation, same as with cops. Some were hot headed and looking for a excuse to put their hands on someone and throw their authority around without exhausting verbal options first. It didn't take much for some bouncers to snap someone off the ground or throw a rnc on them and get them out the door before exhausting less hands on methods. Their is a point were you can not reason with someone and they are violent and you know when its gonna get ugly so its gotta be hands on, but on the flip side their are people who do not exhaust other ways to resolve the situation first and want a altercation to get their rocks off. Some clubs in my area had actually been sued over ths problem and shut down over the years.

This cop did not exhaust his options, he went right for the beat down im gonna lose my cool mode.

Guy was unarmed, he was moving backwards, cop had a dozen other buddies in riot gear. The beating was not needed or warranted from what was video taped. It is just a prime example of a hot head wanting to show his authority and inflict pain to make him feel better about himself. That night at the Dunkin Donuts he probably bragged about it to his friends. Hey bro you see how I man handled than vet? haha.

Glad im not protesting cause I couldn't let someone beat me like that, i woulda slammed that cop and been jumped by a few of them and probably be in a coma cause one couldn't handle me.




That is all.

reply to post by ker2010

Arent you the guy who thinks voting actually makes a difference?

Why, yes, that is correct. The trouble is, people like you don't vote or keep voting for the people who got us to where we now are. Just turn Congress out on its ear and install representatives who pledge to represent you. It is indeed possible to raise candidates from the "grass roots".

I can assure you, things are the way the are simply because people don't give much thought when the vote.

By the way, do you "Buy American", or buy the Chinese stuff? One employs Americans, and the other doesn't. That one little insignificant issue has a great deal to do with out current state of affairs.

Do you know the name of your representative? Have you ever contacted your representative? Mine told me that one of the reasons they legislate the way the do is that so few people actually contact them about the issues. So, they just "wing it".

Dont give up hope.
but dont Fight back.
all the world see this.
peoples feeling are what you will win with.
you will get all of them behind you.
it just takes time and ...
Heros.