Re: The Cops Behaving Badly Thread
Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2014 9:25 am
The Jane's Addiction Discussion Forum
http://www.aintnoright.org/
Here's a brief yet informative article: http://krqe.com/2014/03/21/apd-officer- ... justified/Bandit72 wrote:What were they shooting him with? Rubber bullets? Was he dead?
lol at your selective editing.Larry B. wrote:Here's a brief yet informative article: http://krqe.com/2014/03/21/apd-officer- ... justified/Bandit72 wrote:What were they shooting him with? Rubber bullets? Was he dead?
Apparently, he was a homeless man who decided to sort of "set camp" in the middle of nowhere. He was, thus, "illegally camping." As police arrived to detain him, he allegedly pulled out a knife (I think you can see it in the video... the blade is like 3 inches long, if that.) Even though he didn't made any sudden movements or anything, he was tasered, shot with bean-bag rounds (whatever that is), and then bitten by a police dog.
The events after that are portrayed in the video. In the video, they shoot him with real bullets. As the guy turn his back to the officers, they fucking shot him.
So yeah, the guy was dead. They used the dog to bit him to confirm that he was gone.
"Illegally camping"... fucking hell.
Larry B. wrote:Well, of course I was trying to make a point, just like the police are trying to make theirs by highlighting all the arguments that say "it's ok that they killed him."
I repeat: the guy was camping in the middle of nowhere. The police came to detain him (surely a priority,) and since he pulled out a 3-inch knife and said "I'm going to kill you" (said, not attempted nor even pretended to attempt), when the guy turned his back to the police to walk away, they shot him and killed him. One of the shooters says "boo-yah!", for fucks sake.
I've been vocally threatened a few times in my life ("you wanna die?" and "I'm gonna fucking shoot you", amongst others,) and I've had the logic to assess the situation and realize that their words are not really a threat. If a homeless man is 12 feet away from me, holding a knife that seriously, my limp penis is bigger than that, I just know that he's not a threat. If he starts charging towards me (and we all know how agile and fast homeless people are!), then the situation changes. I can run or counter-attack.
It's not about "if you don't comply with the police you're gonna have a bad time." It's about what the fuck the police are doing in the first place. Everything, any incident can end up with people shooting you, that's not the way to live. The police can shoot you if you don't comply to their demands, and their demands can be ANYTHING beyond reason. It's preposterous and infuriating. The murder of your fellow citizens is not a last resort, it hasn't been for a long time. It's "do as you're told, or you'll be electrocuted/sprayed and then killed. Simple as that."
What's really unsettling is that, as you say, everybody knows that, but the citizens can't do shit about it and politicians won't do shit about it. And since the economic resources of a homeless man living in the middle of nowhere can't really compare with those of a police department, you are not going to get a fair trial if you go to court anyway.wally wrote:I agree with much of what you're saying, it's a sad state of affairs we live in today where many people are afraid of/resentful of the police. But everybody knows you're not going to win an argument with a cop. Court is where you make your arguments.
what about when you're telling someone you're going to kill them if they come any closer and you're holding a knife in each hand?Larry B. wrote:What's really unsettling is that, as you say, everybody knows that, but the citizens can't do shit about it and politicians won't do shit about it. And since the economic resources of a homeless man living in the middle of nowhere can't really compare with those of a police department, you are not going to get a fair trial if you go to court anyway.wally wrote:I agree with much of what you're saying, it's a sad state of affairs we live in today where many people are afraid of/resentful of the police. But everybody knows you're not going to win an argument with a cop. Court is where you make your arguments.
"Comply or die" should only be a choice if you're being taken prisoner in the middle of a battle, not when you are camping illegally or sitting by a sidewalk.
agree that it was likely over the top, disagree about shooting him in the leg. like it or not, cops are trained to shoot to stop the threat, you don't do that by shooting them in the leg. you do that by killing them. it should also be noted that cops (at least in NYC) have between a 20 and 30% hit rate when firing on a suspect, and they aim for center of mass. they simply aren't going to hit someone in the leg.Bandit72 wrote:To be fair, if there is at least four of you (armed with guns) and a dog or two and one of him (some nut bag with a couple of pen knives), I personally think shooting him dead is a bit OTT no matter what he is threatening. He wasn't even near them ffs. Even shooting him in the leg would've done - I imagine you would drop at least one knife if that happened.
Probably because in the bottom of their hearts, they really have no idea what they're doing. They probably have the order that you HAVE to handcuff a detainee. If you can't determine 100% he's dead, beyond all reasonable doubt, you better handcuff him.Bandit72 wrote:Yes, it is true that shooters go for mass, I was in 'movie' mode. But why did they hand cuff him? That's even more bizarre.
"Yes, he's dead"
"CUFF HIM! HE MAY TURN INTO A ZOMBIE AND GRAB YOU"
At least he's not grinding on some chick like a low life in uniform...Artemis wrote:I didn't want to start another cop thread so I'm using this one...
Here's a Toronto cop dancing on duty.
Someone wrote that his motto is to "twerk and protect"
http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/NY ... 44531.html
Cop in Uber Tirade Video Placed on Modified Duty, Blasted by Bratton for "Unacceptable" Behavior
Cop in Viral Uber Rant Video Sorry, Says Emotions Got Best of Him
Updated at 10:48 AM EDT on Thursday, Apr 2, 2015
The police officer seen on video apparently verbally abusing an Uber driver in an at-times xenophobic roadside tirade in the West Village earlier this week has been placed on modified duty and transferred, Police Commissioner Bill Bratton said Wednesday.
"That officer's behavior reflected poorly on everyone who wears our uniform," Bratton said at a news conference before apologizing to the driver and the two passengers.
Officials with the NYPD's detective union said earlier the officer seen in the now viral video is a member of the NYPD's Joint Terrorism Task Force, an elite group that handles counterterrorism cases in the city alongside FBI agents. The union said in a statement that the officer was leaving the hospital, where he was visiting a injured fellow officer, at the time of the rant.
"He really should not be judged by one isolated incident," said Michael Palladino, the president of the union.
The NYPD says its Internal Affairs Bureau is investigating a video that appears to show a man who indicates he is a police officer verbally abusing an Uber driver in an at-times xenophobic tirade in the West Village Monday. (Published Tuesday, Mar 31, 2015)
Bratton disagreed, saying, "In that kind of encounter, anger like that is unacceptable. In any kind of encounter, discourtesy like that and language like that is unacceptable."
"No good cop can watch that without a wince," he said. "All good cops know that the officer just made their jobs a little bit harder."
The altercation, which was captured on video by one of the Uber driver's passengers and has been viewed more than 600,000 times on YouTube, is being investigated by the city's Civilian Complaint Review Board.
The passenger who captured the video, Sanjay Seth, tweeted on Wednesday that he had been interviewed by the body.
According to Seth's YouTube post, his Uber driver honked his car horn at the officer later seen screaming in the video because the officer was trying to park on a Sixth Precinct street in the middle of the afternoon without using any blinkers or hazard lights, and the Uber driver's path to a green light was blocked.
The officer, seen wearing a green tie and blue shirt at points in the passenger video, got out of his unmarked car, which had flashing blue and red lights on the dashboard, and flagged down the Uber driver.
The three-minute video begins as the officer approaches the Uber driver's window and starts yelling at the driver, raising his voice over the Uber driver's muted apologies and efforts to interject.
"Stop it with your mouth, stop it with your, 'For what, sir,'" the officer is heard saying in the video as he curses. "Stop it with that ... and realize the three vehicle and traffic law violations you committed."
"You understand me? I don't know what [epithet] planet you think you're on right now," the officer yells, making fun of the Uber driver's accent.
The officer then slams the hood of the Uber car and walks away; the Uber driver tries to apologize to his passengers, who tell him it was not his fault and inform him a video of the exchange was recorded. One of the passengers said it appeared the officer was on a "power trip"; the other called the man's behavior "really inappropriate."
The officer returns to the Uber car about 90 seconds after slamming the hood and storming off, the video shows, and continues to curse at and belittle the driver. The driver keeps trying to defuse the situation with respectful apologies. Then the officer goes off on him.
"I don't know where you're coming from or where you think you're appropriate in doing that," the man yells, apparently in reference to the car honk from earlier. "That's not the way it works. How long have you been in this country?"
"Almost how long? Two years?" the officer yells after the driver whispers a response. "I got news for you, and use this lesson: Don't ever do that again. The only reason you're not in handcuffs going to jail and getting summonses in the precinct is because I have things to do.
"That's the only reason that's not happening, because this isn't important enough to me, you're not important enough," he says.
The officer turns toward the passengers in the back seat, asks if they are fares and says something about the Uber driver wasting their days, too. The officer hands the driver some kind of piece of paper that looks like a ticket and leaves as the passenger cellphone video pans to the flashing lights on the dashboard of his vehicle, parked behind the Uber car.
Seth posted video of the exchange on multiple social media accounts. On his Facebook page, he wrote, "Our Uber driver, Humayun, was abused by a police officer today in New York. The rage, door slamming, throwing items into the car, threatening arrest without cause was bad enough -- but the officer's remarks at the end really took it to another level."
Seth wrote on Facebook that he reported the exchange to the Civilian Complaint Review Board. According to his profile, Seth works at a nonprofit in the city and used to work for the parks department.
Asked about the exchange by NBC 4 New York, Seth wrote, "This very unfortunate incident is between the driver, Uber, the officer, and the relevant authorities."
Uber called the behavior in the video "wrong" and "unacceptable," and said it appreciated the NYPD investigating.
"We are in touch with our driver-partner who was subjected to this terrible experience and will continue to provide any support he needs," Matthew Wing, a spokesman for the ride share company, said.
Bratton said Wednesday: "I want to extend an apology to the driver of that vehicle and the two passengers in that vehicle for the behavior of that officer."
The CCRB handles complaints about four kinds of alleged police misconduct: force, abuse of authority, discourtesy and offensive language. Bratton said "the actions engaged by the officer based on the video alone would indicate that those fall under the jurisdiction of the CCRB and their particular areas of jurisdiction."
Published at 3:06 PM EDT on Apr 1, 2015
SR wrote:It would have been a case of planted evidence resulting in a grand jury's decision to not prosecute as a good kill.
There's reports on various news outlets alluding to the cop possibly planting "something" like a gun next to the downed victim based on the complete video clip but it actually looks like the cop may have actually tasered the guy (before the filmer got a clear, steady image of the confrontation) and he started running with the taser wires attached to him (or at least his shirt) dragging the taser gun away from the cop behind him. Then the cop calmly takes aim and shoots the guy in the back as he's running away. Maybe that explains why the cop reportedly said the (victim) "took" his taser. It's like with all the similar high profile shit happening just in the past year, you'd think cops would clamp down hard on this kind of clearly unnecessary gunplay but it actually seems to be getting worse.SR wrote:It would have been a case of planted evidence resulting in a grand jury's decision to not prosecute as a good kill.
if that's the case i doubt he would have got away with it video or not. i'm no taser expert but if the guy was tasered he would have marks and you can't easily reload those things can you?Pandemonium wrote:There's reports on various news outlets alluding to the cop possibly planting "something" like a gun next to the downed victim based on the complete video clip but it actually looks like the cop may have actually tasered the guy (before the filmer got a clear, steady image of the confrontation) and he started running with the taser wires attached to him (or at least his shirt) dragging the taser gun away from the cop behind him. Then the cop calmly takes aim and shoots the guy in the back as he's running away. Maybe that explains why the cop reportedly said the (victim) "took" his taser. It's like with all the similar high profile shit happening just in the past year, you'd think cops would clamp down hard on this kind of clearly unnecessary gunplay but it actually seems to be getting worse.SR wrote:It would have been a case of planted evidence resulting in a grand jury's decision to not prosecute as a good kill.