Police Officer slaps U.S. Soldier NOW WITH MORE POLE. - Page 12

General » General Discussion

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Police Officer slaps U.S. Soldier NOW WITH MORE POLE. (Page 12 of 24)

Posted: 2/7/2013 8:34:54 PM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:

Quoted:

That guy decided to be a dick about the response time which I'm sure was not actually 45 minutes. Once he started acting like a dick the cop stepped forward in what I'll assume was him positioning himself for a takedown in case the guy got any more belligerent, which he quickly did. Once the guy started pulling the "I'm a US Soldier, know who you're talking to" he became a threat and the officers took him down and held him down until he calmed down. I skipped through parts of the video after that and I believe they didn't even charge the guy.

Cops didn't escalate shit and I probably would have done the same exact thing they did. That guy decided to act like a hardass and got put in his place for it.

I see. Kinda like this.

http://www.trbimg.com/img-511416e3/turbine/la-dorner400x225b-20130207/600

So you justify beating someone if they don't bow and scrape in your presence.

So anyone who doesn't kiss your ass is a threat.

I sure hope the 'officers' who shot up this 'dangerous' newspaper delivery truck, made it home safely.

How in the hell are those two incidents even remotely related other than the fact that police officers were involved? All you accomplished with that post is basically just outing yourself as a cop basher.

At what point was that douchebag "beaten?" He was taken down and held until he calmed down. Then the officers helped him up and didn't even charge him.

You sound like a democrat when you start the name calling.

If I need to connect the dots for you...

Cop did escalate.

You justify physical violence because of an assumed threat based on someone's lack of 'respect'.

The 'force continuum', justifies any action that a police officer takes.

Nobody wins the us vs them...We are all Americans.

And there it is, the "democrat / DU troll / Obama voter" card. Big surprise there.

Posted: 2/7/2013 8:35:43 PM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
The cop in that video? I'll bet anything that he's some tough-guy asshole that escalates every situation that he rolls into. I've met that type many times, and they're about as useful on the street as a dick on a doorknob.

T.I. ?

Posted: 2/7/2013 8:39:39 PM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
*snip*

Sorry but the cop was in the right. Once douchebag started cussing the officers he became a threat and was taken down/held down until he cooled off. The officers could have jacked him up, tased him, charged/arrested him, etc. Instead they helped him up, didn't charge him, and were holding a normal convo with him towards the end of the video. Of course since they were officers and this guy was a soldier at some point, the usual suspects aren't happy about it. Officers should have given the guy praise and handjobs for being so hardcore.

Profanity is not probable cause for preemptive violence. The JBT escalated the situation, and the JBT assaulted the guy, plain and simple.

Military affiliation is irrelevant.

Posted: 2/7/2013 8:43:26 PM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
So the watch commander tells him to fuck off, he's waiting 45 minutes with people in his home that have assaulted him, and then rambo shows up and beats on him more and acts like a fucking prick and postures the whole time, threatening arrest for a made up crime. Why call the police anymore?

The cop knew what he was doing and did a little tapdance to make sure he could get away with it.

nicely stated

Posted: 2/7/2013 8:44:14 PM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:

Quoted:

*snip*

Sorry but the cop was in the right. Once douchebag started cussing the officers he became a threat and was taken down/held down until he cooled off. The officers could have jacked him up, tased him, charged/arrested him, etc. Instead they helped him up, didn't charge him, and were holding a normal convo with him towards the end of the video. Of course since they were officers and this guy was a soldier at some point, the usual suspects aren't happy about it. Officers should have given the guy praise and handjobs for being so hardcore.

Profanity is not probable cause for preemptive violence. The JBT escalated the situation, and the JBT assaulted the guy, plain and simple.

Military affiliation is irrelevant.

As you can see from the video, and my recap, we know/don't know the following...

-How close the officer was to the douchebag. Based on our perception of the distance between them and movement we can only safely conclude that the officer took 2 steps towards the guy. We do not know distance.

-What the douchebag did in that second or two prior to the takedown. Due to the camera angle we don't know if he stepped toward the officer or made any sort of threatening movement. We only have their words to go on. ANYTHING could have happened in that second and if you were listening to the officer he was trying to talk to the guy, and said he was trying to talk.

Need more details before we can definitely say who was in the wrong. Based on the evidence provided I'm siding with the officer. Based on the evidence provided you're siding with the other guy.

Posted: 2/7/2013 8:44:32 PM EDT

[#6]

I would have played dead after he hit me.... that cop would have shit his pants

Posted: 2/7/2013 8:45:51 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:

00:28 - Douchebag finishes his quick version of what happened and brings up the officer's response time.

00:30 - Officer state's they aren't on douchebag's "time watch".

00:34 - Officer tries to continue speaking and the douchebag starts acting belligerent. Starts pointing at the officer while cussing. At this point any officer would start thinking "Ok, this guy is starting to act like an ass and may become a problem.

00:37 - Officer continues to finish what he was saying, takes 1-2 steps forward. We can only assume how close the officer got because we are looking through a camera on his person. Assumption and what's being said are all we have to go on.

00:38 - At this point douchebag says "US soldier bro, know who you're talking to." He made the decision to square off with a police officer at this point. He is now a possible threat to the officer.

00:41 - Officer asks douchebag if he's getting in his face. Douchebag argues that the officer got in his face first. Officer says he is trying to talk to him, twice if I recall correctly.

00:45 - Takedown occurs. At this point you can't see much due to camera angle so we don't know if the guy stepped forward at the officer, or made any sort of threatening move. All we know is that the guy was becoming more belligerent over the last 10 seconds or so, they argued, then the officer took him down.

From that point on the douchebag was held down and repeatedly asked if he was calmed down yet. The officer eventually helped him up, eventually uncuffed him, and near the end of the video they were having an normal conversation.

Sorry but the cop was in the right. Once douchebag started cussing the officers he became a threat and was taken down/held down until he cooled off. The officers could have jacked him up, tased him, charged/arrested him, etc. Instead they helped him up, didn't charge him, and were holding a normal convo with him towards the end of the video. Of course since they were officers and this guy was a soldier at some point, the usual suspects aren't happy about it. Officers should have given the guy praise and handjobs for being so hardcore.

Free speech justifies use of force? Oh my, I guess next Arfcommers' houses are going to get blown up by drones for saying FBHO.

So sweet of the police not to charge him for, uh, trying to deface the asphalt with his head.

Posted: 2/7/2013 8:47:25 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:

Quoted:

*snip*

Sorry but the cop was in the right. Once douchebag started cussing the officers he became a threat and was taken down/held down until he cooled off. The officers could have jacked him up, tased him, charged/arrested him, etc. Instead they helped him up, didn't charge him, and were holding a normal convo with him towards the end of the video. Of course since they were officers and this guy was a soldier at some point, the usual suspects aren't happy about it. Officers should have given the guy praise and handjobs for being so hardcore.

Profanity is not probable cause for preemptive violence. The JBT escalated the situation, and the JBT assaulted the guy, plain and simple.

Military affiliation is irrelevant.

As you can see from the video, and my recap, we know/don't know the following...

-How close the officer was to the douchebag. Based on our perception of the distance between them and movement we can only safely conclude that the officer took 2 steps towards the guy. We do not know distance.

-What the douchebag did in that second or two prior to the takedown. Due to the camera angle we don't know if he stepped toward the officer or made any sort of threatening movement. We only have their words to go on. ANYTHING could have happened in that second and if you were listening to the officer he was trying to talk to the guy, and said he was trying to talk.

Need more details before we can definitely say who was in the wrong. Based on the evidence provided I'm siding with the officer. Based on the evidence provided you're siding with the other guy.

You're missing the point. You are saying that police are justified in using physical force in response to free speech.

Posted: 2/7/2013 8:49:22 PM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:

Quoted:

*snip*

Sorry but the cop was in the right. Once douchebag started cussing the officers he became a threat and was taken down/held down until he cooled off. The officers could have jacked him up, tased him, charged/arrested him, etc. Instead they helped him up, didn't charge him, and were holding a normal convo with him towards the end of the video. Of course since they were officers and this guy was a soldier at some point, the usual suspects aren't happy about it. Officers should have given the guy praise and handjobs for being so hardcore.

Profanity is not probable cause for preemptive violence. The JBT escalated the situation, and the JBT assaulted the guy, plain and simple.

Military affiliation is irrelevant.

As you can see from the video, and my recap, we know/don't know the following...

-How close the officer was to the douchebag. Based on our perception of the distance between them and movement we can only safely conclude that the officer took 2 steps towards the guy. We do not know distance.

-What the douchebag did in that second or two prior to the takedown. Due to the camera angle we don't know if he stepped toward the officer or made any sort of threatening movement. We only have their words to go on. ANYTHING could have happened in that second and if you were listening to the officer he was trying to talk to the guy, and said he was trying to talk.

Need more details before we can definitely say who was in the wrong. Based on the evidence provided I'm siding with the officer. Based on the evidence provided you're siding with the other guy.

You're missing the point. You are saying that police are justified in using physical force in response to free speech.

You're missing the "-What the douchebag did in that second or two prior to the takedown.
Due to the camera angle we don't know if he stepped toward the officer
or made any sort of threatening movement. We only have their words to
go on. ANYTHING could have happened in that second and if you were
listening to the officer he was trying to talk to the guy, and said he
was trying to talk."

In that second prior to the takedown anything could have happened.

Posted: 2/7/2013 8:50:17 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
The cop needs prison time.

Posted: 2/7/2013 8:51:49 PM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:

You're missing the "-What the douchebag did in that second or two prior to the takedown. Due to the camera angle we don't know if he stepped toward the officer or made any sort of threatening movement. We only have their words to go on. ANYTHING could have happened in that second and if you were listening to the officer he was trying to talk to the guy, and said he was trying to talk."

In that second prior to the takedown anything could have happened.

Nope, I'm not missing anything. You think that it's ok for the police to use physical force in response to profanity. That's what I'm commenting on. That's what my reply to you was about. It had nothing to do with the second or two before takedown, and everything to do with what you said.

Posted: 2/7/2013 8:53:02 PM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:

You're missing the "-What the douchebag did in that second or two prior to the takedown. Due to the camera angle we don't know if he stepped toward the officer or made any sort of threatening movement. We only have their words to go on. ANYTHING could have happened in that second and if you were listening to the officer he was trying to talk to the guy, and said he was trying to talk."

In that second prior to the takedown anything could have happened.

Odd, the cop didn't say why he did it. One would think that had he somehow have been threatening copy would have said "that was for...whatever". He didn't.

This argument is silly, there aren't two sides there is exactly one side and the cop should be fired.

It was also a fat pussy move, if the kid had gotten up and beat his old fat ass then the kid would go to jail, but cop doesn't have that issue. So it's like a man beating up a woman - she can't fight back.

I believe I just proved that fat pussy cop is a wife beater.

Posted: 2/7/2013 8:53:16 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:

Quoted:
You're missing the "-What the douchebag did in that second or two prior to the takedown. Due to the camera angle we don't know if he stepped toward the officer or made any sort of threatening movement. We only have their words to go on. ANYTHING could have happened in that second and if you were listening to the officer he was trying to talk to the guy, and said he was trying to talk."

In that second prior to the takedown anything could have happened.

Nope, I'm not missing anything. You think that it's ok for the police to use physical force in response to profanity. That's what I'm commenting on. That's what my reply to you was about. It had nothing to do with the second or two before takedown, and everything to do with what you said.

But you don't KNOW what may have happened that you can't see. The guy may have pulled a det switch to an IED out, so that totally allows the cop to do whatever he wants. Because he might have, we don't know.

Posted: 2/7/2013 8:57:06 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:

[/div][div]It was also a fat pussy move, if the kid had gotten up and beat his old fat ass then the kid would go to jail, but cop doesn't have that issue. So it's like a man beating up a woman - she can't fight back.[/div][div]
[/div][div]I believe I just proved that fat pussy cop is a wife beater.[/div]

Never get in a fight with your sister. If you win, they'll say it's because she was a girl. If you lose, they say you lost to a girl.

Unless you are a cop, then you say that her posture told you she was about to commit a crime, Then, according to the Dept. of Pre-Crime, you are allowed to use pre-emptive force.

This editor fucking sucks. I am just too tired to delete all the extra divs. Not my fault.
I also had to add a /quote above.

Posted: 2/7/2013 8:57:58 PM EDT

[#15]

We are not allowed to slap people for being jackasses. Its not 1950 anymore. Cop was out of line.

Posted: 2/7/2013 8:58:11 PM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Good bitch slap.

Shocking post by you.

Why would you say that?

There are certain posters who I could make money on betting that they would immediately take the side of the LEO in any story posted on ARFCOM.

You are one of them.

Ol boy lives in the home of "stop and frisk." They love some ever-expanding executive branch with no accountability in that blue state yonder.

Posted: 2/7/2013 8:59:25 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:

Quoted:

You're missing the "-What the douchebag did in that second or two prior to the takedown. Due to the camera angle we don't know if he stepped toward the officer or made any sort of threatening movement. We only have their words to go on. ANYTHING could have happened in that second and if you were listening to the officer he was trying to talk to the guy, and said he was trying to talk."

In that second prior to the takedown anything could have happened.

Nope, I'm not missing anything. You think that it's ok for the police to use physical force in response to profanity. That's what I'm commenting on. That's what my reply to you was about. It had nothing to do with the second or two before takedown, and everything to do with what you said.

But you don't KNOW what may have happened that you can't see. The guy may have pulled a det switch to an IED out, so that totally allows the cop to do whatever he wants. Because he might have, we don't know.

I know, right? But hey, if he pulled at detonator, or a knife, or a gun, then I'll side with 'good takedown' right away when that evidence is presented.

I still wouldn't agree with johnny.exe that profanity justifies physical force. Surely he would have no problem with the SS showing up at his house after saying FBO and using enhanced interrogation on him...

Posted: 2/7/2013 9:00:19 PM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Here's another thing to consider. The cop rolls up and this guy starts getting belligerent. The cop doesn't know if the guy is angry, crazy, on drugs or just what. The guy is yelling and swearing then squares off.

Now what would all you armchair cops have done? Maybe apologize while bath salt boy is chewing on your face?

As for 45 minute response time, there might have been higher priority calls that had to be taken before this one.

HOLY FUCK!!! There is some common sense in here!

Well if you're that concerned that someone is possibly dangerous and you're that unsure about what their next move might be, you sure as shit don't move closer to them and yell in their face. You keep your distance while assessing the situation. This cops only concern was his own ego.

Really?

How many years do you have dealing with shitheads on the streets?

At some point you have to go hands on with shitheads. In my experience the longer you wait the worse it is. Most of the time you get the situation under control RIGHT NOW and it saves injuries on both sides. In some cases it even saves the asshole from having to go to jail.

Posted: 2/7/2013 9:01:27 PM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:

He deserves to be slapped. "U.S. Soldier know who you are talking to?" My Marine friends are not kidding when they say that the Army has lowered its standards. He needs to learn some very severe lessons in composing himself with a professional attitude. His status as a Soldier does not warrant him any special treatment.

Yes everyone knows only LEOs get special treatment

Posted: 2/7/2013 9:01:31 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:

Quoted:
*snip*

Sorry but the cop was in the right. Once douchebag started cussing the officers he became a threat and was taken down/held down until he cooled off. The officers could have jacked him up, tased him, charged/arrested him, etc. Instead they helped him up, didn't charge him, and were holding a normal convo with him towards the end of the video. Of course since they were officers and this guy was a soldier at some point, the usual suspects aren't happy about it. Officers should have given the guy praise and handjobs for being so hardcore.

Profanity is not probable cause for preemptive violence. The JBT escalated the situation, and the JBT assaulted the guy, plain and simple.

Military affiliation is irrelevant.

As you can see from the video, and my recap, we know/don't know the following...

-How close the officer was to the douchebag. Based on our perception of the distance between them and movement we can only safely conclude that the officer took 2 steps towards the guy. We do not know distance.

-What the douchebag did in that second or two prior to the takedown. Due to the camera angle we don't know if he stepped toward the officer or made any sort of threatening movement. We only have their words to go on. ANYTHING could have happened in that second and if you were listening to the officer he was trying to talk to the guy, and said he was trying to talk.

Need more details before we can definitely say who was in the wrong. Based on the evidence provided I'm siding with the officer. Based on the evidence provided you're siding with the other guy.

The exact distance is irrelevant. The cop moved in on the guy and turned up the heat. That is an all around bad move. There was no good reason to move in on the guy, and there was no reason to exacerbate a distraught and frustrated subject.

Posted: 2/7/2013 9:01:35 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Here's another thing to consider. The cop rolls up and this guy starts getting belligerent. The cop doesn't know if the guy is angry, crazy, on drugs or just what. The guy is yelling and swearing then squares off.

Now what would all you armchair cops have done? Maybe apologize while bath salt boy is chewing on your face?

As for 45 minute response time, there might have been higher priority calls that had to be taken before this one.

HOLY FUCK!!! There is some common sense in here!

Well if you're that concerned that someone is possibly dangerous and you're that unsure about what their next move might be, you sure as shit don't move closer to them and yell in their face. You keep your distance while assessing the situation. This cops only concern was his own ego.

Really?

How many years do you have dealing with shitheads on the streets?

At some point you have to go hands on with shitheads. In my experience the longer you wait the worse it is. Most of the time you get the situation under control RIGHT NOW and it saves injuries on both sides. In some cases it even saves the asshole from having to go to jail.

All of our cops should act like the security guard that was posted. Pull out your batons and start screaming 'Come at me $*#$# n%&%& pu55y!'

Posted: 2/7/2013 9:03:40 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:

Quoted:

You're missing the "-What the douchebag did in that second or two prior to the takedown. Due to the camera angle we don't know if he stepped toward the officer or made any sort of threatening movement. We only have their words to go on. ANYTHING could have happened in that second and if you were listening to the officer he was trying to talk to the guy, and said he was trying to talk."

In that second prior to the takedown anything could have happened.

Nope, I'm not missing anything. You think that it's ok for the police to use physical force in response to profanity. That's what I'm commenting on. That's what my reply to you was about. It had nothing to do with the second or two before takedown, and everything to do with what you said.

You're still missing the point and continuing to put words in my mouth.

He bitched about response time, the officer said he doesn't run on that dude's watch, the guy escalated his bitching and also started cussing, officer stepped forward, guy squared off with the officer by stating "US soldier bro, know who you're talking to," words were exchanged, the officer kept trying to talk to him, 1-2 seconds of possible vital information are left out, then the guy is taken down. This could go either way depending on what took place in those 1-2 seconds.

Based on the evidence, and assuming the guy made any sort of move in that 1-2 seconds, I vote good takedown but I also acknowledge the fact I may be wrong depending on what took place immediately prior to the takedown. If nothing significant happened in those 1-2 seconds and the officer went from trying to talk to just randomly taking the guy down, then yes, I would consider that excessive force.

Do I think the officer shouldn't have "gotten in the guy's face?" I can't say because as I've pointed out several times already we don't know that as fact. All we know is that the officer took several steps forward. We do not know the distance between them. If he did literally step up in to the guy's face, this being prior to the "US soldier bro" shit, then I would consider that unnecessary escalation.

Do I think the officer should have argued back about response time? Well I surely don't believe the officer should have just stood there with his thumb up his ass as this douchebag decided to start acting belligerent. Officers aren't mind readers or fortune tellers.

Posted: 2/7/2013 9:05:03 PM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:

Quoted:

You're missing the "-What the douchebag did in that second or two prior to the takedown. Due to the camera angle we don't know if he stepped toward the officer or made any sort of threatening movement. We only have their words to go on. ANYTHING could have happened in that second and if you were listening to the officer he was trying to talk to the guy, and said he was trying to talk."

In that second prior to the takedown anything could have happened.

Odd, the cop didn't say why he did it. One would think that had he somehow have been threatening copy would have said "that was for...whatever". He didn't.

This argument is silly, there aren't two sides there is exactly one side and the cop should be fired.

It was also a fat pussy move, if the kid had gotten up and beat his old fat ass then the kid would go to jail, but cop doesn't have that issue. So it's like a man beating up a woman - she can't fight back.

I believe I just proved that fat pussy cop is a wife beater.

So you're basing your decision on what could have happened but didn't actually happen? Ok, noted.

Posted: 2/7/2013 9:07:22 PM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:

Quoted:

You're missing the "-What the douchebag did in that second or two prior to the takedown. Due to the camera angle we don't know if he stepped toward the officer or made any sort of threatening movement. We only have their words to go on. ANYTHING could have happened in that second and if you were listening to the officer he was trying to talk to the guy, and said he was trying to talk."

In that second prior to the takedown anything could have happened.

Nope, I'm not missing anything. You think that it's ok for the police to use physical force in response to profanity. That's what I'm commenting on. That's what my reply to you was about. It had nothing to do with the second or two before takedown, and everything to do with what you said.

But you don't KNOW what may have happened that you can't see. The guy may have pulled a det switch to an IED out, so that totally allows the cop to do whatever he wants. Because he might have, we don't know.

I know, right? But hey, if he pulled at detonator, or a knife, or a gun, then I'll side with 'good takedown' right away when that evidence is presented.

I still wouldn't agree with johnny.exe that profanity justifies physical force. Surely he would have no problem with the SS showing up at his house after saying FBO and using enhanced interrogation on him...

And again you're putting words in my mouth. As I've stated already I'm basing my decision off the evidence provided and the assumption that the guy did something to warrant being taken down in that 1-2 seconds prior to the takedown. My apologies if that is too hard for you to understand and that you're incapable of arguing at an adult level.

Posted: 2/7/2013 9:09:47 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:

Quoted:

You're missing the "-What the douchebag did in that second or two prior to the takedown. Due to the camera angle we don't know if he stepped toward the officer or made any sort of threatening movement. We only have their words to go on. ANYTHING could have happened in that second and if you were listening to the officer he was trying to talk to the guy, and said he was trying to talk."

In that second prior to the takedown anything could have happened.

Nope, I'm not missing anything. You think that it's ok for the police to use physical force in response to profanity. That's what I'm commenting on. That's what my reply to you was about. It had nothing to do with the second or two before takedown, and everything to do with what you said.

You're still missing the point and continuing to put words in my mouth.

He bitched about response time, the officer said he doesn't run on that dude's watch, the guy escalated his bitching and also started cussing, officer stepped forward, guy squared off with the officer by stating "US soldier bro, know who you're talking to," words were exchanged, the officer kept trying to talk to him, 1-2 seconds of possible vital information are left out, then the guy is taken down. This could go either way depending on what took place in those 1-2 seconds.

Based on the evidence, and assuming the guy made any sort of move in that 1-2 seconds, I vote good takedown but I also acknowledge the fact I may be wrong depending on what took place immediately prior to the takedown. If nothing significant happened in those 1-2 seconds and the officer went from trying to talk to just randomly taking the guy down, then yes, I would consider that excessive force.

Do I think the officer shouldn't have "gotten in the guy's face?" I can't say because as I've pointed out several times already we don't know that as fact. All we know is that the officer took several steps forward. We do not know the distance between them. If he did literally step up in to the guy's face, this being prior to the "US soldier bro" shit, then I would consider that unnecessary escalation.

Do I think the officer should have argued back about response time? Well I surely don't believe the officer should have just stood there with his thumb up his ass as this douchebag decided to start acting belligerent. Officers aren't mind readers or fortune tellers.

Slow down and read what I'm posting.

I get what you're saying, there could be other influences we don't know about. I get that. Read my posts again, I'm not talking about the situation on the video.

Read my posts again. I'm talking about what you said:

Quoted:

Once douchebag started cussing the officers he became a threat and was taken down/held down until he cooled off.

Cussing at an officer means you are a threat and should be taken down with physical force... according to you. That's what I'm addressing, your idea of what justifies use of force. Read my posts, I'm not talking about whether or not we have all the information for this scenario. Can you understand the difference?

And sorry, I think that an officer should try to de-escalate a situation.

Posted: 2/7/2013 9:09:54 PM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Funny how GD forgets the "cop" is a former Marine. For GD all it matters is that he is a cop, so he must be wrong...

I agree and the fact he assaulted someone had nothing to do with it

Police can lawfully use force. He did assault somebody. But it was justified under law.

We can also kill people. THE HORROR!!

Please explain why he was justified? Because the other guy was rude?

His body language threatened violence.

We don't have to wait to be attacked.

I really don't know how to put it any more simply.

Horseshit. The cop stepped up to the victim...THE FUCKING GUY WHO CALLED FOR HELP...in a threatening manner.

Unless you are retarded or blatantly trying to defend the "brothers in blue" you can see who escalated the situation and initiated the violence.

No fucking wonder people hate cops. Protect and serve my fucking ass.

Dude, you are so narrow minded on this one. Seriously. The LEO stepped forward and what did the loudmouth do??? Stepped right at him in return. Backing up to the beginning, the attitude and demeanor of the "soldier" as soon as the LEO's stepped out of the car was offensive in manner. So loudmouth took the first official "step".

You need a good lesson in how psychology works. Better yet, why dont you try wearing the uniform and see how well you do. For me, I've been in that exact situation and how I dealt with it was by bringing the cockhead down from his "fight" mode to my level, I stayed very conversational-ish and just asked questions and engaging him to help me and not fight me. I did the "cant help me arriving late, I've had many other calls to deal with other than this one", etc, etc. With that said, I dont blame the LEO for sluggin the loudmouth because it took control of the situation and it ended the threat. The "hands on" in a viable option if the LEO deems fit.

So back off your tirade and relax a bit, Francis.

Posted: 2/7/2013 9:11:49 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:

Slow down and read what I'm posting.

I get what you're saying, there could be other influences we don't know about. I get that. Read my posts again, I'm not talking about the situation on the video.

Read my posts again. I'm talking about what you said:

Quoted:

Once douchebag started cussing the officers he became a threat and was taken down/held down until he cooled off.

Cussing at an officer means you are a threat and should be taken down with physical force... according to you. That's what I'm addressing, your idea of what justifies use of force. Read my posts, I'm not talking about whether or not we have all the information for this scenario. Can you understand the difference?

And sorry, I think that an officer should try to de-escalate a situation.

You're picking out one line I posted earlier, before my re-watch and event breakdown of the video, to come up with what you think I meant when I've repeatedly explained since then what I really meant.

Posted: 2/7/2013 9:11:56 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:

Quoted:

You're missing the "-What the douchebag did in that second or two prior to the takedown. Due to the camera angle we don't know if he stepped toward the officer or made any sort of threatening movement. We only have their words to go on. ANYTHING could have happened in that second and if you were listening to the officer he was trying to talk to the guy, and said he was trying to talk."

In that second prior to the takedown anything could have happened.

Nope, I'm not missing anything. You think that it's ok for the police to use physical force in response to profanity. That's what I'm commenting on. That's what my reply to you was about. It had nothing to do with the second or two before takedown, and everything to do with what you said.

But you don't KNOW what may have happened that you can't see. The guy may have pulled a det switch to an IED out, so that totally allows the cop to do whatever he wants. Because he might have, we don't know.

I know, right? But hey, if he pulled at detonator, or a knife, or a gun, then I'll side with 'good takedown' right away when that evidence is presented.

I still wouldn't agree with johnny.exe that profanity justifies physical force. Surely he would have no problem with the SS showing up at his house after saying FBO and using enhanced interrogation on him...

And again you're putting words in my mouth. As I've stated already I'm basing my decision off the evidence provided and the assumption that the guy did something to warrant being taken down in that 1-2 seconds prior to the takedown. My apologies if that is too hard for you to understand and that you're incapable of arguing at an adult level.

I'm not putting words in your mouth. I QUOTED YOU.

Before you start insulting me(CoC violation), why don't you pay attention to the part that I quoted(bold), quoted(bold), quoted(red+yellow+bold+font size). You said that.

Once again, you have completely ignored everything I have said. Once again, I was responding to your reasoning, not the specific situation. Once again, can you tell the difference between the two?

Posted: 2/7/2013 9:14:27 PM EDT

[#29]

Uncalled for. Dude was obviously upset and pissed off. Cop should have done a better job of calming him down instead of pulling out his dick and tape measure.

Posted: 2/7/2013 9:15:13 PM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:

I'm not putting words in your mouth. I QUOTED YOU.

Before you start insulting me(CoC violation), why don't you pay attention to the part that I quoted(bold), quoted(bold), quoted(red+yellow+bold+font size). You said that.

Once again, you have completely ignored everything I have said. Once again, I was responding to your reasoning, not the specific situation. Once again, can you tell the difference between the two?

If you believe I've committed any sort of CoC violation then we have a report function here and you're welcome to use it.

Refer to my last reply. If you want to continue thinking I meant something other than what I actually meant, then that's your problem. I don't care to explain it 9 more times just for you.

Posted: 2/7/2013 9:15:51 PM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
Dude, you are so narrow minded on this one. Seriously. The LEO stepped forward and what did the loudmouth do??? Stepped right at him in return. Backing up to the beginning, the attitude and demeanor of the "soldier" as soon as the LEO's stepped out of the car was offensive in manner. So loudmouth took the first official "step".

You need a good lesson in how psychology works. Better yet, why dont you try wearing the uniform and see how well you do. For me, I've been in that exact situation and how I dealt with it was by bringing the cockhead down from his "fight" mode to my level, I stayed very conversational-ish and just asked questions and engaging him to help me and not fight me. I did the "cant help me arriving late, I've had many other calls to deal with other than this one", etc, etc. With that said, I dont blame the LEO for sluggin the loudmouth because it took control of the situation and it ended the threat. The "hands on" in a viable option if the LEO deems fit.

So back off your tirade and relax a bit, Francis.

So the movie Stripes taught you psychology, did it?

Amazing, Francis.

Posted: 2/7/2013 9:15:54 PM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:

You're picking out one line I posted earlier, before my re-watch and event breakdown of the video, to come up with what you think I meant when I've repeatedly explained since then what I really meant.

I'm picking out one line. Yes. Exactly. One line that shows what you think is reasonable justification for use of force. The video doesn't matter. If the guy pulled a gun on the cop, that wouldn't change the reasoning that I am talking about one. single. bit.

Did you also change your mind about what justifies use of force after re-watching?

I am not saying what I think you meant. You keep ignoring most of what I say, I'm not talking about the situation in the video.

Here's an example to help you out. Say we read a story of a bank robber who pulls a gun on a cop and gets shot. You say 'He cut in line at the teller, so the cop was justified in shooting him'. I can disagree with your reasoning, even while agreeing that it's a good shoot. Do you understand yet?

Posted: 2/7/2013 9:17:37 PM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:

Quoted:

I'm not putting words in your mouth. I QUOTED YOU.

Before you start insulting me(CoC violation), why don't you pay attention to the part that I quoted(bold), quoted(bold), quoted(red+yellow+bold+font size). You said that.

Once again, you have completely ignored everything I have said. Once again, I was responding to your reasoning, not the specific situation. Once again, can you tell the difference between the two?

If you believe I've committed any sort of CoC violation then we have a report function here and you're welcome to use it.

Refer to my last reply. If you want to continue thinking I meant something other than what I actually meant, then that's your problem. I don't care to explain it 9 more times just for you.

I was just making a suggestion, I would hate for someone to get in trouble over something like this.

Please, please, please, go back and read my posts. Every. Single. Post. has been about your reasoning for use of force, not to do with this situation. Nothing you say about the video has anything to do with what I have been saying. The only thing that is relevant is whether or not you still think that cussing at a cop is justification for use of force.

Posted: 2/7/2013 9:17:46 PM EDT

[#34]

I dunno what should happen to these guys, but Marine guy doesn't wanna hear army guy demanding respect....not gonna happen when the guy is in douche mode.

Posted: 2/7/2013 9:17:55 PM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Cop vs shithead, Soldier vs Marine.

This thread is going places.

http://cache.blippitt.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Popcorn-03-Scarlett-Johanssen.gif

I like to watch her eat. What was this thread about again?

Posted: 2/7/2013 9:18:36 PM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:

And again you're putting words in my mouth. As I've stated already I'm basing my decision off the evidence provided and the assumption that the guy did something to warrant being taken down in that 1-2 seconds prior to the takedown. My apologies if that is too hard for you to understand and that you're incapable of arguing at an adult level.
[/div]

No, we get it. Really.
You absolutely believe and will argue the cop was right unless there is absolute proof otherwise, even if the 99% of the story we have indicates he was out of line..

We get it.
Really.

Posted: 2/7/2013 9:22:01 PM EDT

[#37]

I voted

Posted: 2/7/2013 9:22:39 PM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:
Dude, you are so narrow minded on this one. Seriously. The LEO stepped forward and what did the loudmouth do??? Stepped right at him in return. Backing up to the beginning, the attitude and demeanor of the "soldier" as soon as the LEO's stepped out of the car was offensive in manner. So loudmouth took the first official "step".

You need a good lesson in how psychology works. Better yet, why dont you try wearing the uniform and see how well you do. For me, I've been in that exact situation and how I dealt with it was by bringing the cockhead down from his "fight" mode to my level, I stayed very conversational-ish and just asked questions and engaging him to help me and not fight me. I did the "cant help me arriving late, I've had many other calls to deal with other than this one", etc, etc. With that said, I dont blame the LEO for sluggin the loudmouth because it took control of the situation and it ended the threat. The "hands on" in a viable option if the LEO deems fit.

So back off your tirade and relax a bit, Francis.

So, you admit that it could have been handled better, because you have in the past.
BUT, the soldier deserved the beat-down for disrespecting the officer.

And you argue that beating a citizen is OK as long as the officer "deems fit" it's OK.

Beating a civilian because it works is all that's needed to make it OK.

Seriously, that's Nazi Germany/Argentine shit.

Posted: 2/7/2013 9:24:33 PM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:

Quoted:

You're picking out one line I posted earlier, before my re-watch and event breakdown of the video, to come up with what you think I meant when I've repeatedly explained since then what I really meant.

I'm picking out one line. Yes. Exactly. One line that shows what you think is reasonable justification for use of force. The video doesn't matter. If the guy pulled a gun on the cop, that wouldn't change the reasoning that I am talking about one. single. bit.

Did you also change your mind about what justifies use of force after re-watching?

I am not saying what I think you meant. You keep ignoring most of what I say, I'm not talking about the situation in the video.

Here's an example to help you out. Say we read a story of a bank robber who pulls a gun on a cop and gets shot. You say 'He cut in line at the teller, so the cop was justified in shooting him'. I can disagree with your reasoning, even while agreeing that it's a good shoot. Do you understand yet?

The guy was becoming increasingly agitated and IMHO caused the initial escalation when he pulled the soldier card. Based on that, and my assumption that he made some sort of threatening move in that 1-2 second information blackout, I have decided that he deserved the takedown. The fact that the officers helped him up, uncuffed him, and were more than nice to him later in the video confirm my theory that they weren't the big mean abusive cops some people are trying to paint them to be.

If you think that the cop escalated the situation by stepping forward, without knowing actual distance which is relevant because that camera could have been zoomed in or any number of other factors, then that's your take on the situation.

If you think that the cop escalated the situation by saying "we're not on your time watch," then that's your take on the situation.

Posted: 2/7/2013 9:25:19 PM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:
So, you admit that it could have been handled better, because you have in the past.
BUT, the soldier deserved the beat-down for disrespecting the officer.

And you argue that beating a citizen is OK as long as the officer "deems fit" it's OK.

Beating a civilian because it works is all that's needed to make it OK.

Seriously, that's Nazi Germany/Argentine shit.

But he called you Francis. That means he wins.

Posted: 2/7/2013 9:25:27 PM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:

Quoted:

*snip*

Sorry but the cop was in the right. Once douchebag started cussing the officers he became a threat and was taken down/held down until he cooled off. The officers could have jacked him up, tased him, charged/arrested him, etc. Instead they helped him up, didn't charge him, and were holding a normal convo with him towards the end of the video. Of course since they were officers and this guy was a soldier at some point, the usual suspects aren't happy about it. Officers should have given the guy praise and handjobs for being so hardcore.

Profanity is not probable cause for preemptive violence. The JBT escalated the situation, and the JBT assaulted the guy, plain and simple.

Military affiliation is irrelevant.

Posted: 2/7/2013 9:27:01 PM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:

No, we get it. Really.

You absolutely believe and will argue the cop was right unless there is absolute proof otherwise, even if the 99% of the story we have indicates he was out of line..

We get it.

Really.

That's the way you choose to process the evidence.

"I'm right, you're wrong, therefore I'm going to hold my breath, stomp my feet, and use sarcasm to prove you wrong." - Arguing in GD 101.

Posted: 2/7/2013 9:28:07 PM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:

The guy was becoming increasingly agitated and IMHO caused the initial escalation when he pulled the soldier card. Based on that, and my assumption that he made some sort of threatening move in that 1-2 second information blackout, I have decided that he deserved the takedown. The fact that the officers helped him up, uncuffed him, and were more than nice to him later in the video confirm my theory that they weren't the big mean abusive cops some people are trying to paint them to be.

If you think that the cop escalated the situation by stepping forward, without knowing actual distance which is relevant because that camera could have been zoomed in or any number of other factors, then that's your take on the situation.

If you think that the cop escalated the situation by saying "we're not on your time watch," then that's your take on the situation.

Can you read?

Seriously, can you? Can you understand the words that are coming out of my keyboard?

You're either illiterate or deliberately ignoring what I'm saying.

Posted: 2/7/2013 9:29:11 PM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:

Quoted:

No, we get it. Really.

You absolutely believe and will argue the cop was right unless there is absolute proof otherwise, even if the 99% of the story we have indicates he was out of line..

We get it.

Really.

That's the way you choose to process the evidence.

"I'm right, you're wrong, therefore I'm going to hold my breath, stomp my feet, and use sarcasm to prove you wrong." - Arguing in GD 101.

How about "I'm right, you're wrong, therefore I'm going to ignore everything you are actually saying, and argue against something you have never said, and pretend like that's the only thing saying, even though you've actually said the same thing as what I'm saying."?

Posted: 2/7/2013 9:29:46 PM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The guy was becoming increasingly agitated and IMHO caused the initial escalation when he pulled the soldier card. Based on that, and my assumption that he made some sort of threatening move in that 1-2 second information blackout, I have decided that he deserved the takedown. The fact that the officers helped him up, uncuffed him, and were more than nice to him later in the video confirm my theory that they weren't the big mean abusive cops some people are trying to paint them to be.

If you think that the cop escalated the situation by stepping forward, without knowing actual distance which is relevant because that camera could have been zoomed in or any number of other factors, then that's your take on the situation.

If you think that the cop escalated the situation by saying "we're not on your time watch," then that's your take on the situation.

Can you read?

Seriously, can you? Can you understand the words that are coming out of my keyboard?

You're either illiterate or deliberately ignoring what I'm saying.

I see you mention something about your reasoning and the video being irrelevant. Considering this is a thread about the video and what took place in the video that is what I'm talking about. Not sure what you want me to say?

I also see you ask me if I think it's ok that police use physical force in response to profanity, and outright accuse me of saying that, which I said no in response to and even explained several times that that's not what I meant.

Posted: 2/7/2013 9:30:12 PM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:

Quoted:

You're missing the "-What the douchebag did in that second or two prior to the takedown. Due to the camera angle we don't know if he stepped toward the officer or made any sort of threatening movement. We only have their words to go on. ANYTHING could have happened in that second and if you were listening to the officer he was trying to talk to the guy, and said he was trying to talk."

In that second prior to the takedown anything could have happened.

Odd, the cop didn't say why he did it. One would think that had he somehow have been threatening copy would have said "that was for...whatever". He didn't.

This argument is silly, there aren't two sides there is exactly one side and the cop should be fired.

It was also a fat pussy move, if the kid had gotten up and beat his old fat ass then the kid would go to jail, but cop doesn't have that issue. So it's like a man beating up a woman - she can't fight back.

I believe I just proved that fat pussy cop is a wife beater.

So you're basing your decision on what could have happened but didn't actually happen? Ok, noted.

Not at all. I'm basing it on exactly what happened. A person of authority attacked a man for "getting lippy with him" when said man could not fight back without going to prison.

Unclear how that didn't happen.

Posted: 2/7/2013 9:33:50 PM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:

Quoted:

The guy was becoming increasingly agitated and IMHO caused the initial escalation when he pulled the soldier card. Based on that, and my assumption that he made some sort of threatening move in that 1-2 second information blackout, I have decided that he deserved the takedown. The fact that the officers helped him up, uncuffed him, and were more than nice to him later in the video confirm my theory that they weren't the big mean abusive cops some people are trying to paint them to be.

If you think that the cop escalated the situation by stepping forward, without knowing actual distance which is relevant because that camera could have been zoomed in or any number of other factors, then that's your take on the situation.

If you think that the cop escalated the situation by saying "we're not on your time watch," then that's your take on the situation.

Can you read?

Seriously, can you? Can you understand the words that are coming out of my keyboard?

You're either illiterate or deliberately ignoring what I'm saying.

I see you mention something about your reasoning and the video being irrelevant. Considering this is a thread about the video and what took place in the video that is what I'm talking about. Not sure what you want me to say?

No, I'm talking about your reasoning. I already explained how two people can disagree on the reasoning for justification, but agree on the outcome(but you ignored that too).

I thought I made it pretty clear what I'm asking you, you know, with the question that I've asked you a half a dozen times, and you have ignored every single time. Maybe it's just me, but when I post a question I think it's pretty clear that the question is the question.

Posted: 2/7/2013 9:35:36 PM EDT

[#48]

Let's try this again johnny, too many sentences seem to confuse you.

Quoted:

Once douchebag started cussing the officers he became a threat and was taken down/held down until he cooled off.

You seem to suggest that both cussing at an officer, and being upset, are justification for an officer to use physical force on a civilian. Are you still standing behind those assertions?

Posted: 2/7/2013 9:36:17 PM EDT

[#49]

Quoted:

Quoted:
So, you admit that it could have been handled better, because you have in the past.
BUT, the soldier deserved the beat-down for disrespecting the officer.

And you argue that beating a citizen is OK as long as the officer "deems fit" it's OK.

Beating a civilian because it works is all that's needed to make it OK.

Seriously, that's Nazi Germany/Argentine shit.

But he called you Francis. That means he wins.

No, go back and read the quotes again.

Posted: 2/7/2013 9:36:19 PM EDT

[#50]

Quoted:

No, I'm talking about your
reasoning. I already explained how two people can disagree on the
reasoning for justification, but agree on the outcome(but you ignored
that too).

I thought I made it pretty clear what
I'm asking you, you know, with the question that I've asked you a half a
dozen times, and you have ignored every single time. Maybe it's just
me, but when I post a question I think it's pretty clear that the
question is the question.

See my edit to the post you quoted...

Quoted:

I see you mention something about your reasoning and the video being
irrelevant. Considering this is a thread about the video and what took
place in the video that is what I'm talking about. Not sure what you
want me to say?

I
also see you ask me if I think it's ok that police use physical force
in response to profanity, and outright accuse me of saying that, which I
said no in response to and even explained several times that that's not
what I meant.

If that's what you're talking about then I have responded to it several times. If that's not what you're talking about then maybe explain what you're tying to say instead of continually referring to it.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Police Officer slaps U.S. Soldier NOW WITH MORE POLE. (Page 12 of 24)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us