King Co. deputy assault case

[Violator79]

Re: Does 'unnecessary use of force' exist?

Then my question is, if it is happening, and apparently on more and more of a frequent basis, then what can be done to stop it? Is there no solution to the problem? It is just a permanent part of American society now?
.

Hire intelligent people to start. Anyone who wants to be a cop, should undergo a thorough mental screening to see how they operate under stress. I've said it before and to use George Carlin:

"There should be 2 new requirements for being on the police: intelligence and decency. You never can tell, it might just work, it certainly hasn't been tried yet. No one should ever have anything shoved up their ass that's larger than a fist and less loving as a dildo."

 

[ChefChiTown]

Re: Does 'unnecessary use of force' exist?

Then my question is, if it is happening, and apparently on more and more of a frequent basis, then what can be done to stop it? Is there no solution to the problem? It is just a permanent part of American society now?

The case that I posted above is just one of many. I myself have had similar confrontations. I suppose if it doesn't happen to you, then you don't care if it happens to others, at least not in any sense that you would get up and express more than a shrug of your shoulders in disapproval. It appears to me that much of the people I have met in the U.S. have this same apathy. If it's not my kid, or my wallet, or my refrigerator etc.

It all depends on what your definition of "unnecessary" and excessive force" are as an individual. What you think is unnecessary, I might find to be completely necessary (or vice versa). What you think is excessive force, I might find to be completely appropriate (or vice versa).

Personally, I just think that too many people cry foul when it comes to the police (and mostly for no valid reason) and that you can chalk up to American society. It's popular to hate the police right now, so people are just following along.

 

[Torre82]

Re: Does 'unnecessary use of force' exist?

There are two things that need to be realized: The use of force is always questioned. Sometimes people just need their ass kicked a little bit here and there. Take the fight out of them. Some people flinch, some people cheer, some people cringe and notify the media that a complete fuckhead like Rodney King shouldnt be beaten. No he shouldnt. He should be dead already and not a nationally-known name. Antagonizing someone with a short and long range weapon set and legal immunity is a bad idea. Dont fucking do it.

Second.. if you're going to arrest/beat/forcibly spank with intent to rub the clitty in a circular motion... ANNNND the person is cute and/or female... be very fucking careful about it. Quantify that a dozen times if the offender is pregnant.. retarded.. in a wheelchair.. (and I'm a liberal but goddamit..) the whiny, bleeding heart liberal media will eat that shit up and somehow find offense that a drain on the economy, a waste of life.. a shitstain on the scrolls of humanity is being hurt.

 

[pikachar]

Re: Does 'unnecessary use of force' exist?

Torrie puts out valid info...

Also, I'd add something like this for my view...
"use of force" should be like the DoD "rules of engagement"

I'm talking about, you have reasonable intelligence that someone is a no shit bad guy, yeah no doubt, take him down hard, and deal with it later (drug rings, mobs/gangs, and murderers/rapists/ect ect)...

If you go someone who's posing to be a no-shit-bad-guy, that's where this "grey line" comes into play... so with out a doubt, i'd go non-lethal on their asses, i mean give them flash-bangs, and tazers... nothing more reasonable than that... especially if they are posing to be more dangerous than they are...

For all the special needs my god, kid gloves... don't make an ass out of yourself just for the arrest.

I really think some of these cops now of days need to learn about counter-insurgency, my god. Some of them with their own personal vendettas (if applicable) or inability to use lesser force (if applicable, every situation is different trust me), then they are going to cause public outcry, and eventually create anarchy.

In the end it all comes down to this, what did they do to deserve the hard treatment, and what could the cops done to take them down softer? Remember you aren't in their shoes, and any decision will ultimately come down to this cold statement, Carried by 6 or Judged by 12.

 

[Torre82]

Re: Does 'unnecessary use of force' exist?

I'd like to add that if all the goddamn times my job in retail had some meeting for useless bullshit for that needed to be done otherwise we'd get a shitstorm over us.. UGH.. my god, what the fuck do these non-military people worry about in America? Honestly if this is the excess I protected and worried about.. fuck 'em. Fronting and facing product? Making the most of every minute? That is some laughable shit once you've seen the darker, more violent sides of humanity. I just cant worry about aspects of civilian society. It's.. absurd. When the economy is in shambles and I wonder if I'll have an apartment to live in 3, 6 or 12 months from now.. my thoughts are never on what petty shit I should be doing at a job so much as who wouldnt I kill to keep alive in this crazy world? Civvies have some weird priorities.. sheesh.

So, eh.. cops shouldnt need to worry about it all when the stability of their society is at stake. They should be fair and mildly violent but never questioned or questionable. Use force.

 

[Shindekudasai]

Re: Does 'unnecessary use of force' exist?

It's popular to hate the police right now, so people are just following along.

I mostly agree with what you said.
Just this thing, that's not popular just right now and not just in the US. It's a phenomenon existing in most western states for at least 150 years now.
I know that from my studies. It's a complicated issue. Has to do with perceptions of authority and its meanings within the mindset of modern morality and democratic society. Because the relationship of "inferiors -superiors" are abolished in a democratic society (as they are concepts belonging to authoritarian or totalitarian societies like Nationalsocialism or Stalinism) and replaced with the relationship between equal citizens amongst which some are to protect and the rest are to compensate/recompense them for their services. The perception of what is right and wrong (and what is sufferable and what isn't) shifts and is dictated by law and by moral. Now, if I beat up a 15 year old girl just because she kicks her shoe against my leg, I have violated morals and the law. In a democratic society this also and especially applies to the police as they are the ones installed to protect the citizens. If a policeman brutalizes a girl (as it can be seen on this video) and get's away with it, the foundation of a democratic society is corrupted. As we in a democracy are all part of a system of equals based on morals and the rule of law, most politically aware citizens feel corrupted if the system is corrupted.
Has nothing to do with being a "bleeding heart liberal". Democracy is about control of power and balance of power. If a policeman feels, that he is beyond control and in possession of absolute power, he is a danger to a democratic society, because a) his job should be to protect the law (that means be controlled by it and distribute it properly) and ultimately the citizens of the state and b) in a democracy there is no absolute power.

This case was all over the news here, too. This country is generally very pro-American, but if you'd go around and ask people to name something negative about the US, you can be sure among the things that will be said, every third one you ask will have said "police violence"/"police state" or something like that.

 

[JiDoKwan]

Re: Does 'unnecessary use of force' exist?

There's a real simple solution to this problem - listen & obey when ordered to do something by the cops.
Even if you fell you are in the right, fight it out in the courts not on the streets.

Because odds are if you are dealing with the police is such a scenario....there's more to your story than you're telling or letting on to - lol

 

[Facial_King]

Re: Does 'unnecessary use of force' exist?

Good question, General Warcock.

I was hoping to start a conversation of this sort yesterday....when I posted the same video:

http://board.freeones.com/showthread.php?t=280864

Just sayin'.



Well, shit, I guess Will E beat everyone to The Punch, so to speak...

Sorry, Will E!

 

[Facial_King]

Re: Video Shows Police Deputy Attack (Push, Pull Hair, Throw Down, Punch) Girl in Jai

General Warcock isn't the only one who's bothered by this sort of thing....

 

[Facial_King]

My sister is right when she says that cops are largely just another gang. Just 2 weeks ago I was an eyewitness to my brother-in-law getting pulled over for a completely bogus "speeding" stop (i.e. he wasn't exceeding the limit). The cop had him get out of the car and spread-eagle and then frisked him for no reason whatsoever. My bro-in-law was really humiliated by the whole thing, and he hadn't done a damn thing. This guy is so straight it's laughable. He avoids trouble to an extreme and doesn't just not smoke or drink, he avoids caffeine for his own unique Christian reasons. Anyway, I guess that cop was yet another "bad apple".

 

[Facial_King]

Re: Does 'unnecessary use of force' exist?

It all depends on what your definition of "unnecessary" and excessive force" are as an individual. What you think is unnecessary, I might find to be completely necessary (or vice versa). What you think is excessive force, I might find to be completely appropriate (or vice versa).

Personally, I just think that too many people cry foul when it comes to the police (and mostly for no valid reason) and that you can chalk up to American society. It's popular to hate the police right now, so people are just following along.

Gosh, Chef, I don't want you to think that I'm following you around again, so soon after your return, but here I am feeling fairly disturbed by one of your comments. That you would try to steer THIS thread - which was started with THAT video - into the territory of "it all depends" and "people cry foul when it comes to the police (and mostly for no valid reason)" and golly-gee it's all just so subjective and who can really tell, blah, blah, blah... You really packed a whole lot of b.s. into a relatively short post. Anyway, I've gotta call you on that. That was incredibly :lame:

There's a real simple solution to this problem - listen & obey when ordered to do something by the cops.
Even if you fell you are in the right, fight it out in the courts not on the streets.

Because odds are if you are dealing with the police is such a scenario....there's more to your story than you're telling or letting on to - lol

Oh wow, that's so helpful. Also quite :lame:

 

[Roughneck]

but when you deal with a law enforcement officer especially in the USA, you have to be careful and be on your guards.

See, I have problems with this.

Peace officers are supposed to assist, protect and serve their community. Police are supposed to be counted upon as aides in the general protection of the community - not to be looked at with fear and suspicion.

My opinion?
Police have brought this upon themselves.
And this savage assault on a teenage girl is merely a symptom, not the disease itself.


Decades ago, when I was a young boy I used to object to the term "civillian" when it was used as a descriptive for "individuals other than police" - see, police are just as 'civillian' as Joe Sixpack. It's dangerous to start thinking of police in terms of 'military' - because then the police will behave like the military and start regarding their fellow countrymen not as equal citizens under the law but as a "civillian" population to be subdued.

Think I'm being a conspirationalist? Think this sounds all "black helicopter"-ish?

Ok, let me give you some stories then:
Last year, the Sherrifs office in Richland County California acquired an Armored Personnel Carrier with a turret mounted BMG-2 0.50 caliber machine gun.

The Richland County (S.C.) Sheriff’s Department has acquired an armored personnel carrier complete with a turret-mounted .50-caliber belt-fed machine gun for its Special Response Team.

Sheriff Leon Lott told the Columbia State newspaper that he hoped the vehicle, named “The Peacemaker,” would let the bad guys know that his officers are serious.

“We don’t look at this as a killing machine,” Lott told the paper. “It’s going to keep the peace. We hope the fact that we have this is going to save lives. When something like this rolls up, it’s time to give up.”

An Armored fucking personnel carrier!! Have the local dope dealers started deploying infantry battalions to provide street muscle?


Thanks to The Department of Homeland Security, greater swaths of American law enforcement are being 'militarized' - where departments and sherrif's offices across the land are allowed to purchase surplus military equipment at throwaway prices from the Pentagon. Gone are the jurisdictional constraints that once bound Federal power - thanks to the 'War on Terrah', local and federal agencies are co-operating at unprecedented levels.

A "militarized" police force is no longer a "peace keeping" force - it is an army, and the rest of us are a subject population to be subdued.


Unless these ill tidings are reversed, I see no end to future and ever increasing cases of brutality.

- R.

 

[Will E Worm]

Re: Does 'unnecessary use of force' exist?

I agree with Facial King.

If anyone can watch this video or anything like this and think people are crying foul, they are delusional.

A security video released Friday shows a King County sheriff's deputy purportedly shoving and kicking a 15-year-old girl in a holding cell after her arrest.

The officer in this video should be locked up for a long time.
I'd never let him out if I were the judge.


The fact is all the police programs are to glorify the police and they never show you everything that goes on in these raids that are conducted without proper search warrants and so on.

It's because we are supposed to always side with authority even when they are subverting our rights.

I will never glorify or hold up an law enforcement agent.
They are to do their job and serve the public.

If you take a closer look at this glorification of the police you will see that we are being propelled into a police state. Unless we do something to stop it, like standing up for our rights.

Find this online or buy this CD, L.A. Riots, it will explain everything.

 

[ChefChiTown]

Re: Does 'unnecessary use of force' exist?

Gosh, Chef, I don't want you to think that I'm following you around again, so soon after your return, but here I am feeling fairly disturbed by one of your comments. That you would try to steer THIS thread - which was started with THAT video - into the territory of "it all depends" and "people cry foul when it comes to the police (and mostly for no valid reason)" and golly-gee it's all just so subjective and who can really tell, blah, blah, blah... You really packed a whole lot of b.s. into a relatively short post. Anyway, I've gotta call you on that. That was incredibly :lame:

People DO cry foul when it comes to police officers, every single day. You would be ignorant to deny such a thing.

And, I never once mentioned the video that was in this thread and I never once referenced it as people crying foul.

 

[kfss264]

first off, unecessary/excessive, illegal, or whatever term you choose to use, by the police occurs at a far less frequency than it did in the past. I'm sure there are those who will disagree, but it is pretty hard to argue with math....

Ok, that said, it seems these cops screwed up. For that they should pay, end of story.... This incident should not be used to attack all cops. 99% of cops do a great job under horrible circumstances. Let us not forget there are horrible and dangerous people out there. Of our populace it is believed 12-15% of the cruminal population is responsible for 80% of the crime. That means these people spend nearly all of their available time committing crime. So it no surprise these people do not like the police, and re committed to elluding the police. So, cops have to be prepared and take precautions to ensure their safety. That said, commmon sense must always be used.

As for the use of armored vehicles, you ever been shot at? It is not a good thing, so if equipment can protect cops, they should have it.

 

[thatzeppellin]

75% of statistics are made up on the spot..

 

[Facial_King]

Re: Does 'unnecessary use of force' exist?

People DO cry foul when it comes to police officers, every single day. You would be ignorant to deny such a thing.

And, I never once mentioned the video that was in this thread and I never once referenced it as people crying foul.

Well, now you've watered down your comment to something that is meaninglessly obvious. Yes, of course "people DO cry foul when it comes to police officers every single day." But you ALSO said before that you thought it was "mostly for no valid reason." That's an opinion without supporting facts, without facts that would also be nearly impossible to gather, one way or the other. You further said that it's "popular to hate the police right now, so people are just following along." No, American Idol, Dancing with the Stars, and Britney's new album are popular. People don't develop a mistrust and/or disgust with the institution of police forces just because it's trendy and hip. They do it because they have experiences, learn about similar ones, and find out - via some pretty direct and unambiguous evidence such as this and too much more - that incidents like this are much too common. People are beginning to understand that law enforcement institutions, when left unchecked and allowed to develop an internal culture that lacks restraint and sees itself as an army engaged in battle with its own citizens, pose a real, palpable danger.

It's not that these cops should simply lose their jobs, they should be charged with felonious assault.

 

[ChefChiTown]

Re: Does 'unnecessary use of force' exist?

Well, now you've watered down your comment to something that is meaninglessly obvious. Yes, of course "people DO cry foul when it comes to police officers every single day." But you ALSO said before that you thought it was "mostly for no valid reason." That's an opinion without supporting facts, without facts that would also be nearly impossible to gather, one way or the other.

First of all, I didn't water anything down. People cry foul against the police all the time and, a lot of those times, they just cry foul because they want to cry foul; there isn't always a valid reason for people to stand up and genuinely bitch about police brutality. It's become a completely common thing for people to do and it's because our society has made it a popular thing to bitch about police officers (which I'll get to in a moment).

Secondly, in regards to the highlighted portion, the same can be said about people who bitch about police officers using "unnecessary use of force" on a suspect. It's an opinion; not a fact. Yet, people who think police officers are assholes think that their opinion on police brutality is a fact.

When people read about police brutality on some close-minded website article that they find on the internet or see some 30 second clip of it on YouTube, they come to some instant conclusion on whether the police officer was using "unnecessary use of force" or not. That's their opinion. They don't know what happened before the so-called "unnecessary use of force" that lead to the physical altercation. They don't know what was said by the suspect(s) or the officer(s) in question. They don't know anything except for what some anti-police website or anti-police blogger wants them to know.

You further said that it's "popular to hate the police right now, so people are just following along." No, American Idol, Dancing with the Stars, and Britney's new album are popular. People don't develop a mistrust and/or disgust with the institution of police forces just because it's trendy and hip. They do it because they have experiences, learn about similar ones, and find out - via some pretty direct and unambiguous evidence such as this and too much more - that incidents like this are much too common. People are beginning to understand that law enforcement institutions, when left unchecked and allowed to develop an internal culture that lacks restraint and sees itself as an army engaged in battle with its own citizens, pose a real, palpable danger.

Do you know why American Idol, Dancing with the Stars and Britney's new album are popular? Because, society told them that it's popular, so everybody tagged along for the ride. People see those things on TV and hear (about) them on the radio all the time, so people just follow along and go with it.

"American Idol is one of the most popular shows ever? Sure, I'll watch it. I like American Idol too!"

The same goes for people who bitch about the police. They see 30 second video clips of a police officer beating up some girl in a jail cell that's posted on the internet, read the anti-law enforcement and "FUCK THE POLICE" comments that follow and they automatically come to this conclusion that ALL police officers are like that and that ALL police officers are power hungry assholes who need to be stopped.

It's a trend. People follow trends for one reason; because it's popular at the time. Bellbottoms were a trend once and eeeeeverybody had a pair when they were popular. But, the minute that society moved on and dictated that a different pair of pants were cool, people immediately stopped wearing bellbottoms and picked up the cool, new pair of pants.

If you tell somebody that they're only wearing bellbottoms because it's the cool thing to do, they are obviously going to deny it. It isn't until the trend dies and a new trend has taken it's place that those people can look back and actually be honest about what they were doing...fitting in.

 

[Facial_King]

First of all, I didn't water anything down. People cry foul against the police all the time and, a lot of those times, they just cry foul because they want to cry foul; there isn't always a valid reason for people to stand up and genuinely bitch about police brutality.

Yes, you did water it down. First you said people cry foul "mostly for no valid reason" and then you dropped that phrase claiming their reasons were mostly invalid, simply to say "people cry foul against the police all the time" - which was never a point of contention. Now you're saying "there isn't always a valid reason for people to stand up and genuinely bitch [genuinely bitch?] about police brutality." From "mostly no valid reason" to "isn't always a valid reason". "Mostly no valid" should mean at least 51% of the cry-foul claims are invalid. "Isn't always valid" could mean that 99% of claims are actually valid or .0001% (although the implication is usually that the majority of claims would be valid, but not all are) Once you decide on what you want to state to be the case, can you provide any sort of evidence to back it?

When people read about police brutality on some close-minded website article that they find on the internet or see some 30 second clip of it on YouTube, they come to some instant conclusion on whether the police officer was using "unnecessary use of force" or not. That's their opinion. They don't know what happened before the so-called "unnecessary use of force" that lead to the physical altercation. They don't know what was said by the suspect(s) or the officer(s) in question. They don't know anything except for what some anti-police website or anti-police blogger wants them to know.

What you are saying here is quite vague and unhelpful. I'm sure what you describe above, about "people" and "close-minded website(s)" and the everyday limitations of essentially any media source, apply in plenty of cases. Whenever you read, watch, or listen to any media source, you don't learn anything other than what the author of that material "wants" you to know. Do you have a similar sort of absolute skepticism when you read of an internal police (or, say, Pentagon) investigation of any given wrongdoing?

In the case of this King. Co. incident - that is, after all, the subject of THIS THREAD - what do you think could have possibly occurred before what is seen in the videotape that would make the use of force displayed "necessary"?

Do you know why American Idol, Dancing with the Stars and Britney's new album are popular? Because, society told them that it's popular, so everybody tagged along for the ride. People see those things on TV and hear (about) them on the radio all the time, so people just follow along and go with it.

"American Idol is one of the most popular shows ever? Sure, I'll watch it. I like American Idol too!"

You're being much, much too simplistic. Some things have mass appeal because they have serious, quantifiable and describable qualities that are universally appreciated. Yes, mindless consumption does occur, without a doubt, but that doesn't explain the long-standing appreciation for many things. Star Wars, E.T., The Beatles and The Rolling Stones.... or let's get REAL timeless - Shakespeare, Dickens, Beethoven, Vivaldi, Chopin. Large percentages of people liking these things is not due to just people mindlessly and stupidly following the crowd. Sometimes things are actually popular because large numbers of people happen to share the same opinion about something. Also, there are plenty of popular things that are decidely not "anti-police", but arguably pro-police. FoxNews (and O'Reilly), Rush Limbaugh, and the show "COPS", oh yeah, and don't forget America's Most Wanted - these things enjoy immense popularity and they're generally cheering on America's brave, heroic (etc.) law enforcement officers. Not to mention the huge number of cop dramas. Do these popular shows also attract the sheep which you describe? Why don't these shows stem the tide of invalid claims of police brutality?

In any case, you haven't provided any evidence of how "crying foul" about police brutality has become a "completely common thing for people to do".

The same goes for people who bitch about the police. They see 30 second video clips of a police officer beating up some girl in a jail cell that's posted on the internet, read the anti-law enforcement and "FUCK THE POLICE" comments that follow and they automatically come to this conclusion that ALL police officers are like that and that ALL police officers are power hungry assholes who need to be stopped.

It's a trend.

Haha - what's a trend? Police brutality, or people drawing bad conclusions from the comments section of this particular video on YouTube?
What, is THAT your idea of some sort of empirical research?

First of all, your framing of the issue is faulty. Even if there are people who wrongly think (as is obvious) that "ALL police officers are power hungry assholes who need to be stopped" that doesn't mean that police brutality isn't a problem, or that having even a relatively small percentage of police officers who ARE "power hungry assholes" and who aren't being stopped by their departments creates a spiraling reduction in public confidence in the law enforcement institution(s). Police officers play an important role in civilized society, in keeping it CIVILIZED. People have high standards for them, naturally enough. A cop that screws up has a bigger impact on public opinion than a custodian at city hall screwing up.

People follow trends for one reason; because it's popular at the time. Bellbottoms were a trend once and eeeeeverybody had a pair when they were popular. But, the minute that society moved on and dictated that a different pair of pants were cool, people immediately stopped wearing bellbottoms and picked up the cool, new pair of pants.

If you tell somebody that they're only wearing bellbottoms because it's the cool thing to do, they are obviously going to deny it. It isn't until the trend dies and a new trend has taken it's place that those people can look back and actually be honest about what they were doing...fitting in.

Comparing people claiming police brutality to digging bellbottoms - they're both just popular activities that people got/get swept up in! - is absurd. Also, you're drawing a false equivalency between matters of taste (do you like the look of bellbottoms) with matters of judgment (is the officer yanking the girl by the hair and throwing her to the floor engaging abusing his power and commiting an assault?). But you still take the individual judgment aspect too far. The case of the video in this thread (as well as the one of the guy killed by the cop at the Cali metro station) is a case in point. Determining unnecessary use of force isn't just a task made hopeless by the presence of so many differing viewpoints. There are judgment criteria that can be established that sharply minimize how much a brutality judgment must hinge on any one person's viewpoint. Also, some opinions do border on fact. Saying "Klan lynchings of the early 20th Century were quite brutal" (an opinion, ultimately) is not the same as saying "This cookie tastes good." (also an opinion)

 

[ChefChiTown]

Yes, you did water it down. First you said people cry foul "mostly for no valid reason" and then you dropped that phrase claiming their reasons were mostly invalid, simply to say "people cry foul against the police all the time" - which was never a point of contention.

You're trying to pick apart the definition of each individual word I use and the supposed meaning behind each sentence I write.

People cry foul "mostly for no valid reason" = When people cry foul against the police, it's usually for no other reason than that they don't like police officers. There isn't always a valid reason for them to be bitching or complaining.

"People cry foul against the police all the time" = People bitch about the police every single day.

Once you decide on what you want to state to be the case, can you provide any sort of evidence to back it?

What sort of evidence do you want? It's called common sense. People bitch about police officers each and every day. There's no governmental document or research thesis that says such a thing, but common sense will tell you that it's true.

What you are saying here is quite vague and unhelpful. I'm sure what you describe above, about "people" and "close-minded website(s)" and the everyday limitations of essentially any media source, apply in plenty of cases. Whenever you read, watch, or listen to any media source, you don't learn anything other than what the author of that material "wants" you to know. Do you have a similar sort of absolute skepticism when you read of an internal police (or, say, Pentagon) investigation of any given wrongdoing?

EXACTLY!!! You're right...no matter what source you are getting your information from, you are only learning what the author (reporter, etc) wants you to know.

So then, why is it that when someone reads "Police officer savagely beats woman" or "Police officers with tasers are walking murderers", they automatically take it as a fact?

But, when someone (like me) disputes their "facts" of police brutality and issues of unnecessary use of force, those same people have a hard time admitting that the information they are getting from a particular source might not be the whole story? That it might not be the accurate story? That there might be information that was purposely left out, in order to make the police officer(s) look bad?

In the case of this King. Co. incident - that is, after all, the subject of THIS THREAD - what do you think could have possibly occurred before what is seen in the videotape that would make the use of force displayed "necessary"?

I already addressed the incident in which this thread is about...

That was a little uncalled for. Jesus, I mean...yeah, she kinda kicked her shoe at him, but that doesn't warrant a punch to the face.

It was unnecessary for the police officer (in this individual case) to do what he did and I already stated that.

You're being much, much too simplistic. Some things have mass appeal because they have serious, quantifiable and describable qualities that are universally appreciated. Yes, mindless consumption does occur, without a doubt, but that doesn't explain the long-standing appreciation for many things. Star Wars, E.T., The Beatles and The Rolling Stones.... or let's get REAL timeless - Shakespeare, Dickens, Beethoven, Vivaldi, Chopin. Large percentages of people liking these things is not due to just people mindlessly and stupidly following the crowd. Sometimes things are actually popular because large numbers of people happen to share the same opinion about something. Also, there are plenty of popular things that are decidely not "anti-police", but arguably pro-police. FoxNews (and O'Reilly), Rush Limbaugh, and the show "COPS", oh yeah, and don't forget America's Most Wanted - these things enjoy immense popularity and they're generally cheering on America's brave, heroic (etc.) law enforcement officers. Not to mention the huge number of cop dramas. Do these popular shows also attract the sheep which you describe? Why don't these shows stem the tide of invalid claims of police brutality?

Who says that they don't attract sheep? There are just as many people out there who watch NYPD Blue (is that even a show anymore?) who feel as though they know everything about law enforcement. Obviously, the only thing those people know about law enforcement is what they see on the TV show. That's no different than people with an anti-police mentality knowing nothing about law enforcement other than what they read on anti-police blogs.

It takes an open mind to look outside of their one-way source of information and realize the reality of a situation.

The reality? Not all police officers are crooks. Not all police officers are scumbags. Not all police officers abuse their power. Not all police officers use unnecessary force for some sadistic form of self-pleasure. The incidents that you read about on the internet, see on YouTube and hear about on the news are such a small, SMALL percentage of the whole picture.

If you look at one tiny part of the picture, you will probably see nothing more than an ugly spot of color that doesn't make any sense. But, if you take a step back and look at the whole picture, you just might see something that's not so bad after all.

:2 cents:

n any case, you haven't provided any evidence of how "crying foul" about police brutality has become a "completely common thing for people to do".

I already addressed this. How can you prove common sense? Either you have it, or you don't. If you don't (not you in particular), then I can't help you.

Haha - what's a trend? Police brutality, or people drawing bad conclusions from the comments section of this particular video on YouTube?
What, is THAT your idea of some sort of empirical research?

Once again, I never referenced the individual YouTube clip that was found in this thread.

Just look at FreeOnes alone. The amount of anti-police related threads is absolutely ridiculous. When I first signed up for FreeOnes, I hardly ever saw anti-police related threads at all, but now they're popping up almost every single day.

What kind of research do you want me to do in order to show you that it's common sense? You can't prove common sense, which is why not everybody has it.