Cop beats 66 year old man with dementia for no reason, page 7
Pages: <<  4    5    6    7  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 33 times


reply posted on 6-2-2012 @ 06:05 AM by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Xcathdra


Yeah, except that isn't what happened. The mentally handicapped guy didn't have a knife. Am I the only one that watched the video? The cop turned off his dashcam before the confrontation.Why do you think he did this? This is another example of you defending an indefensible act perpetrated by a crooked cop.


reply posted on 6-2-2012 @ 06:21 AM by _R4t_
Originally posted by Xcathdra
Originally posted by _R4t_
Your taxes pay so they have a nice little computer in the car to check that stuff out....

How do you know the name and information of the person you have not encountered yet? Your rationale is based on a lack of understanding of how law enforcement works. How do you know the person you are dealing with is giving you the right info and not lying to you? How do you know the people who called 911 arent setting you up to be ambushed and killed? Since he was in the store with a knife, he could have forced any number of people to call 911 and give information that is not correct.

If you were an officer and you were dispatched to a man with knife / gun call, are you going to make contact with him first and demand his name and info so you can run him through the system?

Originally posted by _R4t_
Shoot in the f'ing shoulder the gun will drop... if he pick it up again than use deadly force... you don't have to be a genius to do that neither a marksman...

Supreme Court ruling forbids firing a wounding shot. We shoot to stop the threat, not to woulnd it.


Originally posted by _R4t_
And if your a cop going to a scene where you might get attacked by some guy with a knife isn't the last thing you are going to do is turn off the camera??? So in case stuff happen to you, the camera has it all and TRUE justice can be served...

True justice was served, regardless of the dash cam being on or off.


Originally posted by _R4t_
No this waste of flesh knew damn too well what he was in for and he wanted to have a little fun to boost is still wounded ego from high school.

I didnt realize you were a police officer and worked with this officer during the call. I mean how else could you come to such a clueless and fact lacking conclusion?


Originally posted by _R4t_
I mean who doesn't feel superior and almighty after beating a senior...

Not senior... Man with a weapon.

Based on your rationale and thought process I can see you are not, nor have you ever been, in law enforcement. We refer to people like you as Monday morning quarterbacks. If I have questions about the law, I will ask a fellow officer. If I am feeling suicidal and need ideas on how to end my life through stupid actions, you will be my first call.

Your hatred of the police and the stereotypical manner you present that hatred is preventing you from learning how the profession works. If you want to know, by all means ask. If you want to continue to accuse an show off your ignorance on the topic, more power to you.
edit on 6-2-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)


Primary I have no "hatred" for cops, one of my best friend's a federal agent... Number two it takes cops 20 minutes to get on site and while your on the phone with 911 all they do is question you... They were called for an altercation with the store owner and a client... You have that information in that computer I've seen it so don't try to stray away from that fact.

Secondary I don't have a problem with "the police" I have a problem with full grown men that doesn't even have the balls to stand up to a 66 years old sick man with a knife... There's NO reason this man couldn't of been unarmed quickly... Hell a slap on the wrist and the knife would of flew away..

I have a problem with people that can "turn off the switch" and act like that on a man of this age. Only a psychopath or borderline psychopathic disorder and exhibit such lack of moral standards. And I have a MAJOR problem with full grown man that will repeatedly punch a 66 years old man in the face and tase him after he's on the ground.

If you don't have the balls to walk up to a senior and just take it out his hands WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING IN THE POLICE FORCE IN FIRST PLACE? Aren't you supposed to "protect" the population???

Well I don't exactly feel safe when a man with friggen batman's belt of weapons can't even handle a senior without pushing them and beating the crap out of them...

If you don't see a problem in there you are seriously part of the said problem....


reply posted on 6-2-2012 @ 07:03 AM by _R4t_
Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Xcathdra


Yeah, except that isn't what happened. The mentally handicapped guy didn't have a knife. Am I the only one that watched the video? The cop turned off his dashcam before the confrontation.Why do you think he did this? This is another example of you defending an indefensible act perpetrated by a crooked cop.


I KNOW... Its like they don't see the wrong part and all use "It was reaction" as an excuse... Fly or flight response means the person did scares you... If a 66 years old scares you change of job its as simple as that don't stick in there for the salary.


reply posted on 6-2-2012 @ 09:48 AM by DerepentLEstranger
Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by DerepentLEstranger


You really need to understand how case law works. The court case you referenced does not allow a person to just up and kill a law enforcement officer. The Supreme Court has ruled reasonable amount of force is required.

If you see an officer making an arrest, you have no legal right to shoot and kill that officer. If you see an officer wrestling with a civilian, you do not have a legal right to shoot and kill the officer, let alone use any other deadly force.

If you are going to give legal advice, you may want to understand how the law works. You may also want to understand that each state has differing criteria for a civilians use of deadly force. Some states allow for defense of yourself and others, where other states, like michigan, require a civilian to retreat from a deadly encounter if they can do so.

Having an avenue of retreat and failing to use it will result in charges being filed against that person.

An example for you -
In Tennessee vs. Garner the US Supreme Court ruled that the officer had no justification for shooting a fleeing suspect in the back in order to effect an arrest. That ruling does NOT prohibit that action when the suspect is armed and an imminent danger to the community as a whole.

A court case that ruled on one issued, defining the issue across the nation, allowing for case by case basis. The use of deadly force can only be viewed in the context of what did the officer percieve at the exact moment force was used, because hindsight 20/20 in these cases does not take into account the moment.

That standard applies to law enforcement because of the very nature of our jobs. The standards for a civilians use of force are somewhat less than police, however the qualifiers are more strict.
edit on 5-2-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)


if that's all you found after 16 days of burning the midnight oil in the legal library

did i say anything about killing? a good swift kick or blow to the temple would have put a stop to this abuse immediately, couldn't guarantee the same for partner as he WOULD have pulled a gun [big no no with me]

you should know by now, x, that i have no use for laws other than nature's

The positive testimony of history is that the State invariably had its origin in conquest and confiscation. No primitive State known to history originated in any other manner. On the negative side, it has been proved beyond peradventure that no primitive State could possibly have had any other origins. Moreover, the sole invariable characteristic of the State is the economic exploitation of one class by another. In this sense, every State known to history is a class-State. Oppenheimer defines the State, in respect of its origin, as an institution "forced on a defeated group by a conquering group, with a view only to systematizing the domination of the conquered by the conquerors, and safeguarding itself against insurrection from within and attack from without. This domination had no other final purpose than the economic exploitation of the conquered group by the victorious group."

Thus, the essence of the State is domination, oppression, brutalization and exploitation. This is true even of these glorious and free United States of America, as I discussed in "Concerning the American Change in Management" (the phrase which properly should replace "American Revolution").

From time to time, the State may act in ways that benefit, at least temporarily, those who are not members of the ruling class. It is critical to see that such actions are only another means of control. They are the means of momentarily placating those who might threaten the ruling class's hold on power if events were allowed to run out of control.
powerofnarrative.blogspot.com...
further reading for your education: I snip on The Law

my post is there for others still under the delusion that the law is our friend
after all they would be better off modifying their beliefs somewhat as in : I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6

nice try see ya next time


reply posted on 6-2-2012 @ 01:02 PM by webpirate
Guys..... Please. Everyone take a deep breath and slowly let it out. With no pun intended towards the thread or the people involved we are indeed beating a dead horse in the last few pages.
Please watch the personal attacks.

Now...with that said...I will agree with Xcathdra, that people who post a video with no backing info annoy me too. I did however give info. All from the video at first I know, but it was from an actual TV station news report as well as images from the dash cam. I honestly can't remember why I posted it before I had other written sources to back up the story, but apparently I did feel the story itself along with the dash cam video had enough merit to post while I searched for additional sources. Another member beat me to it and posted 2 articles.

I will also agree with Xcathdra about not shooting to wound. Police are taught to eliminate the threat they are facing. And standard procedure for almost every law enforcement agency I know of is to shoot center mass. You are shooting to stop...not kill, but center mass often does result in a kill. Shooting center mass and being off by 2 inches might result in your hitting the suspects shoulder, but aiming for the shoulder and being off by a couple of inches could result in a miss or hitting something or someone else entirely.

With all of that said though, and knowing by watching the video his backup was only a minute or less away, it might have made better sense for the officer to wait. There was apparently an updated 911 call which stated the 66 year old no longer had the weapon, and the situation had been resolved, however, I do not know if this was passed on to responding officers before they arrived or not. I am only speculating here, and I may get flamed for it, but the actions of the first responding officer to me....make me think he had had prior contact with this individual before. Possibly often and he was now going to "teach him a lesson."

I can think of no other logical reason to turn off the dash cam. Or try to. And the audio. I thought it was fairly apparent there was no knife visible in the video. To answer others questions though, not every officer has pepper spray or a tazer for that matter. But to me, it seems the officer does have what appears to be a weapon on both hips. Which usually means one is a tazer. Additionally, after the initial kick from the officer, the suspect had at least from what I can see had been subdued, and should have been turned over and cuffed. Instead he was continually pummeled. And never once from what we saw did the officer ever attempt to cuff him.

I did read and think I already posted an update where the charges against Mr. Flowers had been dropped, but had not been aware until Xcathdra pointed it out the officer had been "disciplined" by having his patrol area changed. Maybe there was more and department policy forbids releasing personnel issues, but to me this officers actions deserved more than a daily change of scenery...at least to me.

I am not a "cop hater" and do not think all cops are bad. Not even most of them to be honest. But we almost never hear about them. It is usually only something reprehensible like this video shows. Then again...if we actually had the audio from this incident, I might well have sided with the cop. Who knows? He may well have told him 12 times to stop or something, but we don't know. However, when I find a video like this, and do have additional info to back it up, then it becomes quite obvious this is police brutality and becomes worthy of civilized discussion on ATS. Several people have made some good points in the last couple of pages, but please...let's keep it civilized.


reply posted on 6-2-2012 @ 04:03 PM by Xcathdra
reply to post by DerepentLEstranger


Not surprisingly you dont understand the law and based on your response to date you have no desire to learn the facts so have fun with your distorted and wrong interpretation of the law.


reply posted on 6-2-2012 @ 04:26 PM by DerepentLEstranger
reply to post by Xcathdra


not surprisingly you didn't do your homework that i assigned you.
but then some folks would rather break than bend, and none are so blind than those who refuse to see
[or question themselves]

also, unlike you i make no claim to infallibility

that said i've gotten along just fine in the world with my clear vision of what the world [and the law] is.
clean record, no broken bones, never been hit by a bullet, or rodney kinged, or walked all over by authoriteh

this is what your bleating on authority and the law [your bread and butter] sounds like from my POV:


way i see it, you're the one with warped notions

thanks for not taking another 16 days to reply
and don't forget to reply on your syrian agit-prop thread as well

toodles


reply posted on 6-2-2012 @ 04:32 PM by DerepentLEstranger
Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by webpirate


Here is the conclusion -

Reprimanded Melbourne officer assigned new area


I take exception when people just post a youtube video without doing any type of research to place it in context.
edit on 5-2-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)


wowzers
just like what the RCC does to punish
pedophile priests

then again its all about domination, meh


reply posted on 6-2-2012 @ 05:54 PM by v1rtu0s0
Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by _R4t_


A person armed with a knife can traverse 21-26 feet and reach an officer before that officer can draw his duty weapon and fire.



According to my calculations that person is somehow accelerating to 15 MPH within 21-26 feet, which means there on pace to run a 5 second or so 40 yard dash. Wow, that's a fast 66 year old man. He might be the fastest 66 year old man on the planet considering age has nothing to do with it.



reply posted on 6-2-2012 @ 06:05 PM by Xcathdra
Originally posted by v1rtu0s0
Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by _R4t_


A person armed with a knife can traverse 21-26 feet and reach an officer before that officer can draw his duty weapon and fire.



According to my calculations that person is somehow accelerating to 15 MPH within 21-26 feet, which means there on pace to run a 5 second or so 40 yard dash. Wow, that's a fast 66 year old man. He might be the fastest 66 year old man on the planet considering age has nothing to do with it.


Based on my experience and training a person armed with a knife can traverse 21-26 feet in distance before an officer can completely draw his duty weapon to protect himself. Based on years of compiling data / stats from police encounters across the globe, a person armed with a knife can traverse 21-26 feet in distance before an officer can draw his weapon.

Age has nothing to do with it. There are 70 year olds in phenomenal shape that could kick our asses and there are 30 years olds who couldn't run for 10 feet without needing oxygen.

Whether its the 70 year old or the 30 year old, so long as they are armed, they are treated as a threat. What technology, exaclty, do you think law enforcement has to know immediately who we are dealing with and what they are capable of?

70 years or 30 years + armed with a knife / weapon / gun = threat.
edit on 6-2-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



reply posted on 7-2-2012 @ 01:30 AM by _R4t_
Originally posted by Xcathdra
Originally posted by v1rtu0s0
Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by _R4t_


A person armed with a knife can traverse 21-26 feet and reach an officer before that officer can draw his duty weapon and fire.



According to my calculations that person is somehow accelerating to 15 MPH within 21-26 feet, which means there on pace to run a 5 second or so 40 yard dash. Wow, that's a fast 66 year old man. He might be the fastest 66 year old man on the planet considering age has nothing to do with it.


Based on my experience and training a person armed with a knife can traverse 21-26 feet in distance before an officer can completely draw his duty weapon to protect himself. Based on years of compiling data / stats from police encounters across the globe, a person armed with a knife can traverse 21-26 feet in distance before an officer can draw his weapon.

Age has nothing to do with it. There are 70 year olds in phenomenal shape that could kick our asses and there are 30 years olds who couldn't run for 10 feet without needing oxygen.

Whether its the 70 year old or the 30 year old, so long as they are armed, they are treated as a threat. What technology, exaclty, do you think law enforcement has to know immediately who we are dealing with and what they are capable of?

70 years or 30 years + armed with a knife / weapon / gun = threat.
edit on 6-2-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)


I give up, your a perfect police officer, see you on the news.
Pages: <<  4    5    6    7  >>    ^^TOP^^