Cop threatens to "taze and beat the fuck" out of citizen

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Certainly relevant to this story my friend. In fact, the persons 'rights' weren't infringed upon. He wasn't touched or forced to do anything he didn't want to do. A few hotheads let their emotions get the best of them. But cooler heads prevailed in the end and the guy walked away still screaming obscenities.
Enjoy your weekend everyone.

- - - Updated - - -



Produce me a video of an officer stating this please.

Once again, Nice Deflection



You made the claim you would be okay with an officer revoking your right to bear arms...I was just asking you to verify that's exactly what you said.

[Allybeboba]

Just to play devils advocate here. He exercised his right to NOT produce his ID. The only reason he didn't get his rights violated is because he didn't LET them get violated.

That said, the guy needed to calm the fuck down and the cop needs a serious reprimand for threatening him like that.

The problem with the video, as in most videos in these cases, we don't get to see the events leading up to before the video started. We have no idea how he was approached. What he was doing. How he was asked. How many times he was asked. How he answered. All we have is this little bit of video.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

The problem with the video, as in most videos in these cases, we don't get to see the events leading up to before the video started. We have no idea how he was approached. What he was doing. How he was asked. How many times he was asked. How he answered. All we have is this little bit of video.

We know the cop threatened to beat the shit out of him as soon as the guy was out of sight of any witnesses. Doesn't really matter how much of an Asshole the guy is...cops don't get to threaten to assault him.

[Allybeboba]

We know the cop threatened to beat the shit out of him as soon as the guy was out of sight of any witnesses. Doesn't really matter how much of an Asshole the guy is...cops don't get to threaten to assault him.

We know they were in a fuel station. There were plenty of witnesses. The fuel station had of plenty of vehicles in it.
From just what I counted on that shakey a$$ video just from the first minute or so there was at least seven. The person had one female and two males with him. There were at least two people at the fuel pumps, at least one person on the sidewalk and at least one person outside in the apartments. There was also the other officer.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

We know they were in a fuel station. There were plenty of witnesses. The fuel station had of plenty of vehicles in it.
From just what I counted on that shakey a$$ video just from the first minute or so there was at least seven. The person had one female and two males with him. There were at least two people at the fuel pumps, at least one person on the sidewalk and at least one person outside in the apartments. There was also the other officer.

Absolutely none of that changes the fact that the officer threatened to drop him, taser him, and beat the shit out of him. All it changes is the amount of witnesses that can testify that the officer did in fact threaten to assault a civilian.

[Katchii]

The problem with the video, as in most videos in these cases, we don't get to see the events leading up to before the video started. We have no idea how he was approached. What he was doing. How he was asked. How many times he was asked. How he answered. All we have is this little bit of video.

While true, it's never a great idea to get that heated with police, it rarely ends well and usually just makes you end up looking like a maniac, whether you're in the right or not.

[Allybeboba]

While true, it's never a great idea to get that heated with police, it rarely ends well and usually just makes you end up looking like a maniac, whether you're in the right or not.

That is correct.

[Deleted]

Well, at least you acknowledge its a threat.

But no...using the threat of waiting until someone is out of sight of any witnesses to assault them is intimidation...not a warning.

A warning would be "If you continue to refuse to cooperate I will be forced to place you under arrest for failure to comply with a police order"

That would be more proffesional yes, but if you refuse to be civilzed to the cop I believe the cop is no longer required to be civilized to you.

[PACOX]

Part of the issue with the job is that they are expected to seamlessly transition from highly stressful calls (armed/combative suspects, grave situations) and then turn around and deal with misdemeanor cases. Imagine if you just deal with 4 "successful" suicides and then had to deal with some ass who wants to argue his speeding ticket when he was clearly going too fast in a residential area. Stress levels are high and you do stupid shit. Instead of protecting and serving the community you work in, everyone becomes a suspect, everyone is against you, out to do you harm if you let them. They develop an irrational attitudes calls.

I didn't watch the video, don't need too. Citizen probably wasn't helping the situation but did nothing illegal, cop is too high strung for the actual situation but was instigated , words were exchanged. There needs to be a mandatory system where cops are rotated after a string of tough calls and/or some sort of mental health support is given, even if its just paid time off for some R&R. Utilizing the cooldown period for mental health also shouldn't be stigmatized. Some departments do offer counseling or whatever but realistically if you use those services you appear weak, request an easier patrol and they say you couldn't cut it (or theres simply no one to rotate out with), you can get some R&R after a series of tough calls but wont get paid for it. Cops working on stressful patrols are prone developing PTSD or related issues but these issues aren't properly being addressed.

[PosPosPos]

Why do alt-righters always want to apologize for police brutality and passing it off as cops being above the law?

[HumbleDuck]

I don't understand the boner some people have for police officers, even if there is more to the story, threatening a civilian is not acceptable.

[NineSpine]

Part of the issue with the job is that they are expected to seamlessly transition from highly stressful calls (armed/combative suspects, grave situations) and then turn around and deal with misdemeanor cases. Imagine if you just deal with 4 "successful" suicides and then had to deal with some ass who wants to argue his speeding ticket when he was clearly going too fast in a residential area. Stress levels are high and you do stupid shit. Instead of protecting and serving the community you work in, everyone becomes a suspect, everyone is against you, out to do you harm if you let them. They develop an irrational attitudes calls.

I didn't watch the video, don't need too. Citizen probably wasn't helping the situation but did nothing illegal, cop is too high strung for the actual situation but was instigated , words were exchanged. There needs to be a mandatory system where cops are rotated after a string of tough calls and/or some sort of mental health support is given, even if its just paid time off for some R&R. Utilizing the cooldown period for mental health also shouldn't be stigmatized. Some departments do offer counseling or whatever but realistically if you use those services you appear weak, request an easier patrol and they say you couldn't cut it (or theres simply no one to rotate out with), you can get some R&R after a series of tough calls but wont get paid for it. Cops working on stressful patrols are prone developing PTSD or related issues but these issues aren't properly being addressed.

Most other developed nations don't have these issues, so clearly there is a way to handle it better. Other countries weed out very aggressive applicants and put a lot of training into stress management and deescalation. We do not.

- - - Updated - - -

The problem with the video, as in most videos in these cases, we don't get to see the events leading up to before the video started. We have no idea how he was approached. What he was doing. How he was asked. How many times he was asked. How he answered. All we have is this little bit of video.

None of that matters. There are only two options here:

1. He was a suspect and the police had a right to identify him, which means that in the end they incompetently allowed a suspect to walk away unidentified.
2. He was not a suspect and the police were illegally lying so that they had an excuse to illegally harass him.

Which is it?

[Wyrt]

Why do alt-righters always want to apologize for police brutality and passing it off as cops being above the law?

They are authoritarians and want to see anyone who defies authority punished.

[Themius]

Should lay off your anti-police crusade OP. Could do you some good.

I find it curious that you are more concerned about an OP maybe being anti-police instead of being appalled at cops saying they're going to taze and fuck people up who are invoking their legal rights

You must be anti citizen, anti constitution.

[Raunchy]

Lotta cop bashing for no reason lol..... libtards

Infracted - Flaming

[Themius]

A threat forecoming an inevitable incident shouldn't the person, that initially refused to cooperate, change his attitude.

No... because what you're saying is cops should force people into doing something that they do not have to and if they invoke their legal rights that they should be punished for it by the upholders of law

- - - Updated - - -

Lotta cop bashing for no reason lol..... libtards

What does this have to do with political affiliation?

A cop is suppose to uphold the law.

The law is you do not have to identify yourself

A cop then threatens to commit assault.

What does liberal or conservative have to do with this?

Are you just so in love with tribalism that you will base everything you say on fucking tribalism?

[Allybeboba]

Most other developed nations don't have these issues, so clearly there is a way to handle it better. Other countries weed out very aggressive applicants and put a lot of training into stress management and deescalation. We do not.

- - - Updated - - -



None of that matters. There are only two options here:

1. He was a suspect and the police had a right to identify him, which means that in the end they incompetently allowed a suspect to walk away unidentified.
2. He was not a suspect and the police were illegally lying so that they had an excuse to illegally harass him.

Which is it?

Explained it a few times. The officer can be seen communicating with someone. It could be with dispatch getting more information on the 'person of interest' or relaying his description. We simply don't know at this point. That is why I stated at the very beginning we need more information before jumping to conclusions like some people already have done which is typical is a case such as this. That is why people start threads such as these and never post in them again. They do it just to get a certain group of people that don't look at situations from all perspectives all riled up. And practically every time those people take the bait.
All I am saying is we should do is wait for more information before condemning this officer for stopping this person. It is obvious in the video that two people let their emotions get the best of them. And as an authority figure the police officer shouldn't have stated what he stated. The person also could have been cited for disorderly conduct if the officer really wanted to do cite him. If his family had been there we don't know what would have happened. He started to walk away then actually turned around and went back to them and his had to drag him away. That guy really has some anger issues.

[Orange Joe]

Explained it a few times. The officer can be seen communicating with someone. It could be with dispatch getting more information on the 'person of interest' or relaying his description. We simply don't know at this point. That is why I stated at the very beginning we need more information before jumping to conclusions like some people already have done which is typical is a case such as this. That is why people start threads such as these and never post in them again. They do it just to get a certain group of people that don't look at situations from all perspectives all riled up. And practically every time those people take the bait.
All I am saying is we should do is wait for more information before condemning this officer for stopping this person. It is obvious in the video that two people let their emotions get the best of them. And as an authority figure the police officer shouldn't have stated what he stated. The person also could have been cited for disorderly conduct if the officer really wanted to do cite him. If his family had been there we don't know what would have happened. He started to walk away then actually turned around and went back to them and his had to drag him away. That guy really has some anger issues.

There is no more info that will justify the threat he gave. None, zero, zilch.

[Karon]

It's not against the law to be rude to the police. It is against the law to hold someone for no reason and threaten them.

- - - Updated - - -



Imagine for a moment this video is just two random civilians, no police. One guy is trying to walk away and be left alone, the other keeps following and physically threatening the other. Do you then say that we are inciting hate against whatever profession the harasser is?

- - - Updated - - -



He should be immediately fired.

Giving police a hard time can justify the police to ID the harrasser, and if the harrasser doesn't comply with this and starts to show aggressive behavior like in the video it's obvious that they could easily see him as a threat to them an others and act accordingly.

They shouldn't be fired you should be banned.

[Allybeboba]

No... because what you're saying is cops should force people into doing something that they do not have to and if they invoke their legal rights that they should be punished for it by the upholders of law

- - - Updated - - -



What does this have to do with political affiliation?

A cop is suppose to uphold the law.

The law is you do not have to identify yourself

A cop then threatens to commit assault.

What does liberal or conservative have to do with this?

Are you just so in love with tribalism that you will base everything you say on fucking tribalism?

I would imagine because the author of that post believes liberals are the ones that bash police.
For the most part he is correct, liberals are less accepting of authority figures. Thus, they tend to fight against them. That is why we see so much 'hate' and 'anti' speech on this forum.