Man Arrested & Punched for Sitting on His Front Porch

a reply to: TrueAmerican

It's no wonder cops get a bad rep

No need at all to mention race for this, it's simply a case of a poorly trained/bad cop mishandling an innocent situation

The cops should be fined to be honest at the bare minimum, resigning just shows their admission of guilt

"After Yourse was in custody, Cole and Jackson discovered two active warrants for his arrest. It was also discovered Yourse was charged with breaking and entering into his mother’s house, 2 Mistywood Court, twice in the past."

Link

Hmm, so what would people have said if the cops left, then he did in fact break into the house. It was still quite possible for him to break in if the cops left and then yet again the cops would be blamed for not tackling the situation properly. Whatever happened it's not clear cut at all and it's obviously a difficult situation to be in.

Obviously the cops (in particular the guy that snatched the phone) did mishandle the situation but it's quite unclear to me what they could have done to stop the potential robber from actually robbing the place if that was his intention.

Maybe the cop overstepped it but I always have to wonder in each and every one of these cases, why do they have to resist in the first place?

originally posted by: iTruthSeeker
...why do they have to resist in the first place?

Because the cop overstepped it?

And knew it, I'd say, as they quit and ran for it when they got caught out.

Look, I know it's standard issue to say "Oh, just do whatever, put up with whatever, let them beat the crap out of you, take your belongings, steal the occasional apple, search without a warrant, snatch your cell and erase it, tell you to pick up someone else's garbage with your bare hands used condoms and all, just do it and comply, because the cop is always right and you can sue them later IF you have enough money and IF you have more evidence than you vs me" but it's not always a great course to take. I'm sure it makes LEO jobs easier and lets the crap ones get away with whatever they'd like, status quo.

The less it's put up with and the more the political side has to kiss the electorate's ass over it, the less "boys will be boys" you will get and the more come to Jesus there will be. The pendulum's on the swing.

originally posted by: DodgyDawg
"After Yourse was in custody, Cole and Jackson discovered two active warrants for his arrest. It was also discovered Yourse was charged with breaking and entering into his mother’s house, 2 Mistywood Court, twice in the past."

Link

Hmm, so what would people have said if the cops left, then he did in fact break into the house. It was still quite possible for him to break in if the cops left and then yet again the cops would be blamed for not tackling the situation properly. Whatever happened it's not clear cut at all and it's obviously a difficult situation to be in.

Obviously the cops (in particular the guy that snatched the phone) did mishandle the situation but it's quite unclear to me what they could have done to stop the potential robber from actually robbing the place if that was his intention.

And there we have it. Good job on the Officers. They knew something didn't add up.

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: iTruthSeeker
...why do they have to resist in the first place?

Because the cop overstepped it?

And knew it, I'd say, as they quit and ran for it when they got caught out.

Look, I know it's standard issue to say "Oh, just do whatever, put up with whatever, let them beat the crap out of you, take your belongings, steal the occasional apple, search without a warrant, snatch your cell and erase it, tell you to pick up someone else's garbage with your bare hands used condoms and all, just do it and comply, because the cop is always right and you can sue them later IF you have enough money and IF you have more evidence than you vs me" but it's not always a great course to take. I'm sure it makes LEO jobs easier and lets the crap ones get away with whatever they'd like, status quo.

The less it's put up with and the more the political side has to kiss the electorate's ass over it, the less "boys will be boys" you will get and the more come to Jesus there will be. The pendulum's on the swing.

He resisted because he knew he was about to go to jail for his warrants and for breaking into his mothers house AGAIN.

That Dolphin-Tale 2 Rule might need to go mainstream.

originally posted by: DodgyDawg
"After Yourse was in custody, Cole and Jackson discovered two active warrants for his arrest. It was also discovered Yourse was charged with breaking and entering into his mother’s house, 2 Mistywood Court, twice in the past."

Link

Hmm, so what would people have said if the cops left, then he did in fact break into the house. It was still quite possible for him to break in if the cops left and then yet again the cops would be blamed for not tackling the situation properly. Whatever happened it's not clear cut at all and it's obviously a difficult situation to be in.

Obviously the cops (in particular the guy that snatched the phone) did mishandle the situation but it's quite unclear to me what they could have done to stop the potential robber from actually robbing the place if that was his intention.

Yeah, read the link.

These cops smelled something wrong in the encounter and turns out were doing exactly the right thing.

Case closed.

ETA and lets be honest. If the guy had been white, we would never had heard of this.

So discovering warrants after assaulting him makes the assault justified...

Gotcha.

originally posted by: Urantia1111

originally posted by: DodgyDawg
"After Yourse was in custody, Cole and Jackson discovered two active warrants for his arrest. It was also discovered Yourse was charged with breaking and entering into his mother’s house, 2 Mistywood Court, twice in the past."

Link

Hmm, so what would people have said if the cops left, then he did in fact break into the house. It was still quite possible for him to break in if the cops left and then yet again the cops would be blamed for not tackling the situation properly. Whatever happened it's not clear cut at all and it's obviously a difficult situation to be in.

Obviously the cops (in particular the guy that snatched the phone) did mishandle the situation but it's quite unclear to me what they could have done to stop the potential robber from actually robbing the place if that was his intention.

Yeah, read the link.

These cops smelled something wrong in the encounter and turns out were doing exactly the right thing.

Case closed.

So what you take away from a unanimous agreement to revoke him as an officer, and hint at him trying to sue the city in response, is that they all agreed it was the black mans fault?

originally posted by: MiddleInitial
a reply to: imjack

I disagree that education (or lack thereof) is a primary factor in why people become police officers. I think it has more to do with personalities that seek out positions of authority.

I am "uneducated", but I am not a police officer.

But I tend to agree with you about irrational fear of the "other".

Yeah well I was intent on being a dick, to summarize what you said, even though that fits much better.

Authority positions are one thing, others are clearly compensating for failures in their own lives with brute force in the justice system. And I associate that with them basically smashing criminal face to get their 'feels' out. These people I find to be uneducated.

originally posted by: imjack

originally posted by: Urantia1111

originally posted by: DodgyDawg
"After Yourse was in custody, Cole and Jackson discovered two active warrants for his arrest. It was also discovered Yourse was charged with breaking and entering into his mother’s house, 2 Mistywood Court, twice in the past."

Link

Hmm, so what would people have said if the cops left, then he did in fact break into the house. It was still quite possible for him to break in if the cops left and then yet again the cops would be blamed for not tackling the situation properly. Whatever happened it's not clear cut at all and it's obviously a difficult situation to be in.

Obviously the cops (in particular the guy that snatched the phone) did mishandle the situation but it's quite unclear to me what they could have done to stop the potential robber from actually robbing the place if that was his intention.

Yeah, read the link.

These cops smelled something wrong in the encounter and turns out were doing exactly the right thing.

Case closed.

So what you take away from a unanimous agreement to revoke him as an officer, and hint at him trying to sue the city in response, is that they all agreed it was the black mans fault?

Im saying the line of BS he was doling out didnt pass muster with the officer.

Officer was doing his job by detaining suspect who, as it so happens, has burglarized this very same house before.

Twice.

Which said perp KNEW would be revealed as soon as his ID was checked.

Panicked. Resisted.

The fact that it was his mom's house is skewing peoples' assessment of the incident.

So arresting a person before a crime is the new normal.

The previous problems might explain the no answer for his mother's cellular phone.

originally posted by: roadgravel
So arresting a person before a crime is the new normal.

The previous problems might explain the no answer for his mother's cellular phone.

Before the same crime is perpetrated for a third time in this case.

And they arrested him for resisting during the detention.

He was hoping by claiming he lived there and had no ID theyd just leave. When they didnt, he knew he was done.

He realized having no ID was even more suspicious so decided he did have it suddenly.

The cop knew something was up.

Id say they transferred the officer involved so their station didnt get burned down.

originally posted by: Urantia1111


The fact that it was his mom's house is skewing peoples' assessment of the incident.

Really? I thought it was his ID having the address he was standing on.

This "ID address" apparently means nothing to our system. Why am I required to even put an address? It obviously doesn't protect you from police on the property it's associated with. What exactly(other than the house keys I suppose) is better formal proof that he lives there than his ID having the address? Am I going to need to carry the deed to my house when I walk through the front lawn?

I actually have a personal story that's unbelievable with very similar circumstances.

I walked home from a Concert one night, because I was drunk and didn't want to drive. The person I went to the concert with drove home. When I got home, my door was locked, and the person I went with, was inside. We got into an argument, and physically fought at the door. I was left unconscious outside, until Police arrived. He called the Police, and telling them HE lived there, that I came and attacked him on his property. He told them ALL OF THIS while I was UNCONSCIOUS. And wouldn't you know it, I am the one to wake up in handcuffs, and even taken away without them even remotely investigating who lived there. It was purely contrived from his demeanor at the time verses mine, and I had lost.

To finish the story with the glory of our justice system, it still had not been concluded by police what had really happened until I spent an entire day in a cell, and saw a judge the next day. I mentioned numerous times I was on the lease, he was not, and they even noticed my ID and doubted me. He was gone from my apartment when I finally made it out of jail two days later, helping himself to my food, and any of my possessions if he had wished.

To be frank, with my experience, FCK NO, should police have ANYTHING THAT RESEMBLES these rights, or actions on the property of home owners.

What ever happened to real evidence first.

He talked about neighbors, but they blew it off. (attitude showing). Neighbors may have mentioned to something leading to real cause although the police didn't seem to be doing anything but arguing with the man.

Detaining a person for no reason other than hunch is BS.

originally posted by: roadgravel
What ever happened to real evidence first.

He talked about neighbors, but they blew it off. (attitude showing). Neighbors may have mentioned to something leading to real cause although the police didn't seem to be doing anything but arguing with the man.

Detaining a person for no reason other than hunch is BS.

It wasnt a hunch.

They were responding to someone spotting a guy prying open a garage door with a shovel.

Which the guy not only admitted to, but demonstrated.

Wonder how many times that had worked in the past.

originally posted by: Urantia1111

originally posted by: roadgravel
What ever happened to real evidence first.

He talked about neighbors, but they blew it off. (attitude showing). Neighbors may have mentioned to something leading to real cause although the police didn't seem to be doing anything but arguing with the man.

Detaining a person for no reason other than hunch is BS.

It wasnt a hunch.

They were responding to someone spotting a guy prying open a garage door with a shovel.

Which the guy not only admitted to, but demonstrated.

Wonder how many times that had worked in the past.

He demonstrated he could open the door with the shovel? Or wedge it 2 inches?

a reply to: imjack

He may very well have gained entry using that method before. Its a common enough criminal strategy.

Perhaps mom upgraded her garage door after the first two burglaries?

originally posted by: Urantia1111
a reply to: imjack

He may very well have gained entry using that method before. Its a common enough criminal strategy.

Perhaps mom upgraded her garage door after the first two burglaries?

Or perhaps it was to see if his dog was there like he had said?

The bias in the narrative is clear, as the REPORTER claims he said he opened the door, and SO DOES THE ARTICLE, even though in the video he clearly describes himself as "Checking for if the dog is there" not "opening the door" or "gaining entry".

He seemed pretty content in waiting there until reasonable access was granted. Something many kids probably have gone through waiting for their parents to be home when the house is locked.