posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 01:47 PM
I don't understand. This took place inside a synagogue which means private property. Cops don't just walk into random buildings looking for
trespassers so they had a reason for being there. Who called them and why? Where is the person that called? Is this a case of some paranoid person
noticing a homeless man in the building, thinking the worst, and called the police exaggerating the situation? Did this person that called tell the
police he was acting wildly or aggressive? Did they say he was a danger? It seems to me the cops walked into this situation with aggression to begin
with but the question is why?
Cops, in general, ask questions before acting accept in the situation of an attack on their person or the property/persons they have been called too.
So one of 3 things happened, as I see it, this homeless man became aggressive with the person who called the police and gave them a reason for fear,
the person that called jumped to conclusions and made exaggerations when calling the police or the homeless man was known to the cop/s as being
aggressive and/or had a record of being such. Had the cops asked questions first they would have been told that he had permission to be there by the
homeless man which could have been verified and the situation would have been contained.
Why did the caller not call people to find out if he had permission to be there? The homeless man was not wearing shirt or shoes so he obviously had
intention of being there for a while and felt safe in being there. A trespasser would not be so "comfortable" as they may have to flee when
discovered. This, just like a lot of videos out there, raise so many more questions than they answer. Where is the rest of the information? This is
also part of a news cast and it begs me to wonder if the video was cut to where they wanted it to be in order to twist the story to their own agenda
for ratings, jumping on the aggressive cop band wagon that is coming to light.
Now, don't get me wrong, the cop DID take wrong action regardless of the above questions. It is clear his intention was to fight and not to restrain
the man by the way he took a fighting stance in an offensive posture rather than a defensive one. His aggression should have been with the intention
of restraint if that was the intent not throwing punches at a man who clearly was not standing in an aggressive posture. He was standing in a neutral
posture with his arms to his sides. This should have been a simple step in and restrain. Yes, The cop went too far but there are still too many
unknown variables as to why they were there, what information they had, etc. that are being withheld from us the viewer which again makes me wonder,