SC police beat man in Walmart as horrified shoppers beg officers to stop

Administrative leave? AKA paid vacation for wrongdoing. Boy I wish my job were that sweet.

Uf this situation were reversed - it'd be attempted murder if a police offucer and 25 to life. Even more - it'd be accesorry to attempted murder for those doing the restraining.

Just wait for the police sympathizers "he was resisting " "not all cops are bad" .
maybe not but ALL cops havr proven time and time again they are more than.willing to be complacent in their partners' beatings.

Anothee poster nailed iy - it is.not about race the police view us all as serfs blacks whites latinos alike are viewed as serfs.Even more discusting - these beatings are noy limited to males. We have all seen the dozens of vudeos with similar beatings happening to a woman eho simply mouths off.

Screaming 'stop resisting' is no excuse for attempted murder. These actions will cintinue until we the people put a stop to it. The justice dept has failed and every cop knows they are above the law.

I once got stopped by a cop in the middle of the night while delivering newspapers (driving on the other side of the road, as my manager had trained me to do to get closer to the houses from the left-side of the car). He asked me why I was shaking and so nervous, and I told him the truth: "because my mom always drilled into my head to be afraid of cops and getting arrested, because I don't want to go jail." And that answer seemed perfectly reasonable to him, and he dropped the issue.

Now I watch "Cops" (the TV show) and realize most people who are nervous and shaking are hiding something. I realize now how lucky I was that night not to get strip-searched for the drugs he could have thought I had on me had I not been more naive and willing to be honest about my fear.

:/

We should hold off on determining who is at fault until the investigation is done. I for one would like to know what the issue was and ultimately if the person was either having a medical reason for his actions or was it due to that he was either drunk or on something.

While it may seem to be excessive, however, if the person was on something at the time, tazer's may not work to stop the person, or he may not feel the punch's that he took. The problem here ultimately is 2 fold.

The first is that people feel they do not have to comply with officers. They resist, they refuse, they end up making the officers job 10 times harder. What if this person was on something, like meth or drunk, what would be the response if this person attacked, harmed or hit a person in a vehicle?

The second is that the police at times are a bit heavy handed, they are having to do a thankless job, and ultimately, there are times that they have to put their lives on the line, or deal with the most stupid of all calls. They deal with alot of stress about being on the job, and ultimately a few who get high on the power and authority they are given to weld.

Ultimately before we condemn the officer, we should wait for the investigation, including the answer as to why the person was acting the way he was. If he was high or drunk, then this may not be a case of police brutality.

a reply to: abe froman

The great thing about being in control is all control has to do is subtly imply one is a criminal or degenerate of some kind and suddenly all manner of abuse is justified and rational to the average American.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

what would be the response if this person attacked, harmed or hit a person in a vehicle

The only person I saw hitting someone was the cop.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

First, re: "thankless job". I have seen few professions that get more "medals", "honors" and public awards ceremonies than cops. Not to mention being a cop puts you "behind the thin blue line" where you basically cannot get arrested for the same stuff any normal person does. A simple Google of "police corruption" or "police protection" will reveal millions of stories of cops who do drugs, beat their wives and kids, drive drunk, etc, without being looked at the same way. Hell, my own mother-in-law tells a "funny story" about her cousin the cop who was driving so drunk one night he pulled over and slept in his cruiser on the side of the road. The same woman who lost a nephew to a drunk driver. (And yes, I called her out on this story the very first time I heard it, and she uncomfortably made excuses and apologies for him being "such a good guy that risked his life every day".) THAT is how cops are "thanked." Show me the more-than-a-paper-certificate medals and big-bonuses that public school teachers get every day for using their own money for supplies, teaching at-risk youth when they could be working for a rich private school, counseling their students in their unpaid-off-time, not sleeping at night worrying about that student that is falling behind?

Second: punches are never necessary. Punching is unduly harmful to both the suspect and the officer. Punching is not necessary; that's why they have tasers. And batons. A baton hurts a whole lot worse than a fist, because of the concentrated whip-effect. And it does a whole lot less potential brain damage when used on the ribs or arms or legs------you know, largely non-lethal areas.

there.is.no.excuse.for.punching.someone.in.the.. Period.

originally posted by: GoShredAK
Arrrrrrg! Wtf cops!?

I can't wait until one day when TPTB get what's coming to them. This police brutality BS is getting old

Is it just the police? Take in the bigger picture dear readers the police are a symptom of a greater disease. You can see the very fabric of society ripping apart right in front of our disbelieving eyes.


This is what the progressive mindset brings. Irony does not even do it justice. Take a look around and ask yourself what changed? The people have changed and the police are a symptom of the disease that is the progressive mindset. If we continue down this path more and more control will come as the needs of the masses are put in front of the needs of the individual.


This is why individual rights are so important to liberty and freedom. It is also why we are not a democracy but a republic ruled by law. They understood this simple fact 300 years ago.

a reply to: SubTruth

Then why do we tell our military they are fighting for democracy? That was the mantra during my youth and Viet Nam era. Were we not told that nation building and spreading democracy is good for the ME? Another conservative Lie?

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: SubTruth

Then why do we tell our military they are fighting for democracy? That was the mantra during my youth and Viet Nam era. Were we not told that nation building and spreading democracy is good for the ME? Another conservative Lie?

Few people understand why the founding fathers of this country wanted a republic and not a democracy. Democracies put the rights of the masses over the rights of the individual.


The founding fathers wanted individual rights. You mention the conservative lie. Both sides have fallen to the progressive ideals that will collapse this country just like every other country who bought into it.

a reply to: SubTruth

Well, sure, the "progressive mindset" is what brought us the horrors of the end of slavery, then voting rights for black land-owning men, then women's suffrage, then the always-ridiculous Civil Rights Act of 1964. Not to mention the marriage-equality activists that are ripping apart straight marriages at an alarming rate of divorce never seen before.

:/

Seriously? The "progressive mindset" is one of three key ingredients necessary to any sustainable democracy: a strong middle-class, a strong system of public education, and a progressive mindset.

Tell me what "progressive mindset" the middle-east has that's helped it embrace democracy? Tell me how the "progressive mindset" harmed equal rights in the last two centuries?

Seriously? SERIOUSLY?!?!

Society IS ripping itself apart: because the rights of the rich are being placed above the rights of THE PEOPLE. Plutocracy is taking hold. The middle class is being devastated at an alarming rate, by both "republicans" and "democrats" who actually answer to the same master. The public school system is at a dismal rate of failure. Kids are learning more about history and government from Eminem and Dr Dre than they're learning from their schools that are focused on taking tests and not getting the same impassioned lessons about history I got in high school in 1994.

Try again.

originally posted by: SubTruth

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: SubTruth

Then why do we tell our military they are fighting for democracy? That was the mantra during my youth and Viet Nam era. Were we not told that nation building and spreading democracy is good for the ME? Another conservative Lie?

Few people understand why the founding fathers of this country wanted a republic and not a democracy. Democracies put the rights of the masses over the rights of the individual.

Well, too bad we're not a country of white land-owning rich guys anymore. "A republic" would be nice, but we don't all have the luxury of equal representation because we have such a disparate economy that punishes the Little Guy (of ANY color) and rewards the Rich Guy who can buy whatever laws he wants.

a reply to: SubTruth

Wow. It is amazing how you guys are going to rewrite history and people will fall for it. Now democracy is a bad thing, but when I was a kid it was a good thing to go fight for. Wow. I am truly amazed.

George W. Bush
The Struggle for Democracy in Iraq: Speech to the World Affairs Council of Philadelphia
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
December 12, 2005:

"A few blocks from here stands Independence Hall, where our Declaration of Independence was signed and our Constitution was debated. From the perspective of more than two centuries, the success of America's democratic experiment seems almost inevitable. At the time, however, that success didn't seem so obvious or assured."

"It is important to keep this history in mind as we look at the progress of freedom and democracy in Iraq. No nation in history has made the transition to a free society without facing challenges, setbacks, and false starts. The past two-and-a-half years have been a period of difficult struggle in Iraq, yet they've also been a time of great hope and achievement for the Iraqi people."

a reply to: 00nunya00

You have fallen to the dark side of the progressive mindset. It is not about the messenger it is about the message. The progressives want to make it about the messenger because the message will fall with it.



Bottom line this countries founding was revolved around individual rights. This is the only way tyranny is kept in check. Does the race of who came up with this idea really matter. Haters are going to hate.

a reply to: MOMof3

Exactly.

Debate any "terms" you want of what this country is; what it IS NOT is an equally-represented society which places the rights and freedoms of the common-man above the cash-and-lobbyists of the Rich Man.

("Man" meaning people, let's not quibble over genders, lol)

a reply to: MOMof3

Bush is a progressive just like Clinton,Reagan,Carter,Ford,Nixon..................You are going to have to go back a little bit in history before I will listen.



Scum is a harsh so I will take it out.

a reply to: 00nunya00

what is typically labelled as "progressive" is just as caustic as the plutocracy you are talking about.

A welfare state is not a better option. If you want a better option for Americans, then we need to deglobalize our economy. Since THAT genie is out of the bottle....

....there just aren't solutions coming out of capital hill. All they are interested in is created revenue streams for them, their family, and their friends. They all vote on how many ways they can jockey their pockets into position to catch the flow of cash.

I watched a boxing match a few weeks ago where this poor soul was in a corner and getting the snot clobbered out of him. I wonder if, in his mind at the time, he was debating whether the left or the right fist was "better".

originally posted by: SubTruth
a reply to: 00nunya00

You have fallen to the dark side of the progressive mindset. It is not about the messenger it is about the message. The progressives want to make it about the messenger because the message will fall with it.



Bottom line this countries founding was revolved around individual rights. This is the only way tyranny is kept in check. Does the race of who came up with this idea really matter. Haters are going to hate.

Come to the Dark Side; we have cookies.



I think you're falling victim to the feel-good/part-of-a-herd mentality that tells you your rights are NOT being trampled on; that you are "just as important as Bill Gates and George Soros and the Koch brothers" and every other rich-guy/bad-guy Fox News or MSNBC can come up with.

Research. Learn. YOUR rights are spit on by both the "left and the right" combined.

There is no difference between Democrats and Republicans. I identify as "libertarian" with a "little L" and not the "capital L" because even most "Libertarians" are just wolves in sheep's clothing.

I was part of "Stand With Rand." I also voted for Obama in 2008 and got my naive face sucker-punched for it. I am not part of any "mindset" you could want to conveniently put me in.

Trust No One. Not the government, not your favorite Facebooking-politician, not your favorite neighbor who goes off about "liberty" at the neighborhood BBQ.

"Progressive mindset" means we MOVE FORWARD into the future while taking into account that THIS COUNTRY IS NOT WHAT IT USED TO BE. If you can't keep up with the fact that this isn't 1776 anymore, you are doomed to be left in the dust by The Common Man.

Join us. Our cookies are tasty.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I see the progressive agenda for what it really is. The rights of the masses are not more important than the rights of the individual.


Until people see this the police state will continue to grow out of control. What exactly is caustic about this? Spin away.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: 00nunya00

what is typically labelled as "progressive" is just as caustic as the plutocracy you are talking about.

A welfare state is not a better option. If you want a better option for Americans, then we need to deglobalize our economy. Since THAT genie is out of the bottle....

....there just aren't solutions coming out of capital hill. All they are interested in is created revenue streams for them, their family, and their friends. They all vote on how many ways they can jockey their pockets into position to catch the flow of cash.

I watched a boxing match a few weeks ago where this poor soul was in a corner and getting the snot clobbered out of him. I wonder if, in his mind at the time, he was debating whether the left or the right fist was "better".

Agreed, totally, because "progressive" is so often confused with "liberal" or "Democrat".

"Progressive" means to take into account the ever-changing nature of the world. To shape and mold one's ideas and approaches at life with the ever-changing nature of life.

Please don't confuse me for a "Democrat"; I knew enough at 18 to register to vote as "Independent" even in liberal-play-land Eugene, OR during college. The land of medical-ganja.

Progressive is to acknowledge that "today" is not the same day as "yesterday" and adapt to it.

a reply to: alienjuggalo

If you see this this happening and there are a lot of people around and a cop is beating someone.. run up, punt the cop in the head, and keep running.