It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Xcathdra
Your post showed just the video with no other info to place it into context. It occurs a lot in these forums, where a video is posted and info is either left our, or specific info is left out, changing the nature of the video being shown.
You linked a video with no info about it. You state the camera captures a crime comitted by the blues, yet fail to say what that crime is or give any info to support the charge claim. You point out how afraid the camerman is, which is actually the camera mans problem and is completely irrelevant aside from trying to paint it to fit the thread here. The implication is the cop will beat him if he sees him recording the incident, which is unfounded.
So please, again, when you post footage, please provide information if possible, and dont editorialize and insert your opinions and try to pass them off as fact.
You hear from all cop defenders.. lol. What you did in your post is what you accuse the cops of doing. Lieing to change the story. So yeah, when I say please show the entire story, its meant jsut as that. The entire story and not your added statements that never occured.
Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by PsykoOps
This is my point. The video does not speak for itself. It does not show anything prior to contact by the Officer. It does not show the disturbance. It does not show any type of exchange between the Officer and the driver, except for the moment the driver is removed from the vehicle. It does not show what occured once the guy was on the ground aside from the officer hitting the guy with a collapsible baton.
It does not show what occured after the officer stopped, other than people leaving the area. The guy recording the incident can be paranoid all he wants, but the fact there were people outside the vehicle, standing feet away from the officer watching the incident, with absolutely no action taken against them for witnessing it, leads the camaeraman to be nothing but paranoid of being assaulted with no actual evidence to support that. A fact you seized on to portray the camerman as being scared he would be beat, which is never even suggested in the video itself.
At no point did you ever make an attempt to set the video up for people who were going to view it. You made no effort to find news articles to place it in context. You made no effort at all to show any other side of the story other than the one you wanted to portray, and when you did that, the statements were misleading.
If we want to use your cavalier attitude of the video speaks for itself attitude we can.
What I saw was a person refusing lawful verbal commands from a law enforcement officer. The officer had to escalate the use of force to remove an unwilling and resisting individual from a vehicle, and in the process the driver resisted a lawful detention / arrest by failing to comply with further verbal commands, going to the ground to assume a non compliant position. While on the ground the individual took action that made the officer in fear of his life, who took defensive action to stop the threat and regain control of the situation.
You buy my version of opinionated events as much as I buy yours.
The video does NOT speak for itself. Further proof of that is the fact that you, and I, had to interpret the video.edit on 5-1-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)edit on 5-1-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)edit on 5-1-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)edit on 5-1-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Mastermook
The guy was handcuffed and sitting on the ground,
Originally posted by Mastermook
Even if he had touched the officers ankle, how does that warrant a beat down with a nightstick?
The convenience store owner, Joel Platke, says the officer was off-duty working security at the store when the young man came in and caused a disturbance. He says what the video doesn't show is the young man grabbing at the officer's ankles. Platke says he believes the officer did nothing wrong.
Originally posted by Mastermook
Did he accidentally hit the ankle, did he intentionally hit the ankle? Was he really going to cause damage by hitting the ankle with his finger or hand?
Originally posted by Mastermook
Talk about comment sense here. That cop should be sued and relieved of duty pending investigation. That was uncalled for. You can get assault charges for telling a cop to shut up? Come on. If that cop felt his life was in danger at that moment, maybe he isn't fit to be an officer.
Originally posted by Mastermook
Possible reason no one did anything?? Again, because if you say anything to a cop, He'll most likely tell you to screw off and not tell him how to do his job, or 2 detain or arrest you for interfering.
The Supreme Court has ruled that, depending on the circumstances, if an offender resists arrest, police officers may use as much force as is reasonably required to overcome the resistance. Whether the force is reasonable is determined by the judgment of a reasonable officer at the scene, rather than by hindsight. Because police officers can find themselves in dangerous or rapidly changing situations where split second decisions are necessary, the judgment of someone at the scene is vital when looking back at the actions of a police officer.
The Supreme Court has defined the "objective reasonableness" standard as a balance between the rights of the person being arrested and the government interests that allow the use of force. The Fourth Amendment protects U.S. citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures, the category into which an arrest falls. The Supreme Court has said that a search and seizure is reasonable if it is based on probable cause and if it does not unreasonably intrude on the rights and privacy of the individual. This standard does not question a police officer's intent or motivation for using deadly force during an arrest; it only looks at the situation as it has happened.
For deadly force to be constitutional when an arrest is taking place, it must be the reasonable choice under all the circumstances at the time. Therefore, deadly force should be looked at as an option that is used when it is believed that no other action will succeed. The Model Penal Code, although not adopted in all states, restricts police action regarding deadly force. According to the code, officers should not use deadly force unless the action will not endanger innocent bystanders, the suspect used deadly force in committing the crime, or the officers believe a delay in arrest may result in injury or death to other people.
Circumstances that are taken into consideration are the severity of the offense, how much of a threat the suspect poses, and the suspect's attempts to resist or flee the police officer. When arresting someone for a misdemeanor, the police have the right to shoot the alleged offender only in self-defense. If an officer shoots a suspect accused of a misdemeanor for a reason other than self-defense, the officer can be held liable for criminal charges and damages for injuries to the suspect. This standard was demonstrated in the Iowa case of Klinkel v. Saddler, 211 Iowa 368, 233 N.W. 538 (1930), where a sheriff faced a wrongful death lawsuit because he had killed a misdemeanor suspect during an arrest. The sheriff said he had used deadly force to defend himself, and the court ruled in his favor.
When police officers are arresting someone for a felony, the courts have given them a little more leeway. The police may use all the force that is necessary to overcome resistance, even if that means killing the person they are trying to arrest. However, if it is proved that an officer used more force than was necessary, the officer can be held criminally and civilly liable. In Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 105 S. Ct. 1694, 85 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1985), the Supreme Court ruled that it is a violation of the Fourth Amendment for police officers to use deadly force to stop fleeing felony suspects who are nonviolent and unarmed. The decision, with an opinion written by Justice Byron R. White, said, in part, "We conclude that such force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."
When deadly force is used by a private citizen, the reasonableness rule does not apply. The citizen must be able to prove that a felony occurred or was being attempted, and that the felony threatened death or bodily harm. Mere suspicion of a felony is considered an insufficient ground for a private citizen to use deadly force.
Originally posted by Mastermook
I would like to hear honestly, from the cops or ex cops on this forum. Would you give somebody a hard time for videotaping you, during an incident, though not interfering.
Originally posted by Mastermook
Watch the video again:
Where is the suspect resisting arrest??
Originally posted by Mastermook
www.youtube.com...
He was thrown onto the ground, he did not move, he was then struck i counted 7 times in the back.
Still not moving, he was then pepper sprayed and detained
Originally posted by Mastermook
flexyourrights.org...
It is not illegal, but if the police see you videotaping them, they will usually respond aggressively, and quite often arrest you.
Originally posted by Mastermook
I would like to hear honestly, from the cops or ex cops on this forum. Would you give somebody a hard time for videotaping you, during an incident, though not interfering.
Originally posted by Exuberant1
Originally posted by Mastermook
I would like to hear honestly, from the cops or ex cops on this forum. Would you give somebody a hard time for videotaping you, during an incident, though not interfering.
Xcathdra is a cop.
Read his posts and see if they inspire any confidence.
Originally posted by Badgered1
Remember the death of Ian Tomlinson at the G20 in London?
I'd predicted on these pages that 'some' official surveillance cameras in London would be out of commission that day, or footage would be 'lost.'
Strangely, the ones near the Tomlinson incident we not working. Had there not been civilian footage of his treatment his death would have been swept under the rug and little said about it.