Jump to content

[Police brutality] American injustice, yet again.


Ragitsu

Recommended Posts

  • 4 weeks later...

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/559918-florida-teen-repeatedly-tased-in-girlfriends-backyard-by-trooper-who

 

Kid walks into his girlfriend's backyard. A policeman follows him there and tells the kid he's under arrest because walking through the neighborhood then into her back yard is suspicious behavior.

 

The kid has his phone already in hand so he starts to call his girlfriend to come outside to vouch for him.

 

The policeman tazes the kid who drops and hits his head on the patio. The policeman then tazes the kid again while he's rolling on the ground.

 

The house's video surveillance seconds later shows an adult woman (presumably the girlfriend's mom) coming out of the house to see what the noise is about.

 

There's no way the officer could have felt threatened in any manner.

 

The kid spent at least one night in jail, not sure how much beyond that.

 

The policeman is still on the job while the incident is under review.

 

=====

 

When I was a kid, the policeman would have told me to knock on the door.

Then we would have seen who come to the door and whether they'd vouch for me or not.

But I guess escalating directly to arrest and being tazed is equally valid?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Too often these stories read like a cop on a power trip.  To be sure, that's the ones we *hear* about.  Nothing says this was normal in any way.  

 

THAT story has a pointer to THIS video.

If you have ANY doubt that the cop is *totally* out of line, you can watch this.

BUT LET ME WARN YOU...IT WILL ANGER YOU.  It is BAD!!!

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/video/outrage-after-florida-trooper-uses-taser-on-teen/

 

I suspect that the video will force action.  The cop's actions are utterly egregious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for that much clearer video. I couldn't even see in that first video that the kid's head completely dislodged one of the bricks on the firepit.

 

I can't say I'm familiar with the rules of every police department in the country. But approaching an apparently unarmed "suspect" with your weapon drawn then discharging your weapon into him when you are not under any threat from the "suspect" has to violate some kind of rule.

 

But I guess it's extremely easy to be named "Investigator of the Year" in some places?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Suspect is unarmed.  He's not being threatening...uncooperative, ok, but not threatening.  Cop has several feet of separation, and repositions to make it that much harder to be rushed.  Kid has his hands full.

 

I don't know the rules either but from any sensible rules of engagement have to be that firing was NOT warranted.  Then shooting a second time when the kid's on the ground, strikes me as criminal battery.  The first one, perhaps not, but the second tasing justifies charges no matter what.

 

More background here:

https://floridanewstimes.com/did-the-state-police-violate-the-policy/291423/

 

The omissions from the arrest reports are...unfortunately...nothing new.  But...if any more reasons are even needed...the blatantly false reports darn sure look like a deliberate coverup.

 

No new updates that I can find, but the surveillance video hasn't been out for very long yet.  That said, the kid's apparently still in detention, which also strikes me as total BS, but perhaps getting a hearing to order the kid's release can't be scheduled at the drop of a hat.

 

As was noted in at least one report, and archer saw too...the kid hit those bricks HARD, and the mother's concerned that x-rays are needed.  If he's being held and NOT getting that, this could make recovery much trickier.  And if it does, I hope they REAM the state cops in the lawsuit.  (But I'd rather the kid doesn't suffer long-term injury.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, unclevlad said:

Suspect is unarmed.  He's not being threatening...uncooperative, ok, but not threatening.  Cop has several feet of separation, and repositions to make it that much harder to be rushed.  Kid has his hands full.

 

I don't know the rules either but from any sensible rules of engagement have to be that firing was NOT warranted.  Then shooting a second time when the kid's on the ground, strikes me as criminal battery.  The first one, perhaps not, but the second tasing justifies charges no matter what.

 

More background here:

https://floridanewstimes.com/did-the-state-police-violate-the-policy/291423/

 

The omissions from the arrest reports are...unfortunately...nothing new.  But...if any more reasons are even needed...the blatantly false reports darn sure look like a deliberate coverup.

 

No new updates that I can find, but the surveillance video hasn't been out for very long yet.  That said, the kid's apparently still in detention, which also strikes me as total BS, but perhaps getting a hearing to order the kid's release can't be scheduled at the drop of a hat.

 

As was noted in at least one report, and archer saw too...the kid hit those bricks HARD, and the mother's concerned that x-rays are needed.  If he's being held and NOT getting that, this could make recovery much trickier.  And if it does, I hope they REAM the state cops in the lawsuit.  (But I'd rather the kid doesn't suffer long-term injury.)

 

I think a sixth grader wrote that article and that it was published without the editor glancing at it.

 

The family hired Derrick Tyler to fight the arrest. Presumably Tyler is a lawyer but the article never says. Maybe he's a private investigator or a Ghostbuster.

 

As an example of the mess of an article, the reporter quotes Tyler as saying, “We will vigorously defend all charges and vigorously pursue all available legal measures against uneased, unjustified torture received by the officers he was involved in.”

 

So if we're to believe the reporter, the officers received torture from some unidentified individuals and Tyler will be defending the officers. Also Tyler will be defending the charges which the officers are bringing (hey, those charges are completely valid) rather than defending the kid against those charges.

 

Also five times the article refers to the local police as being soldiers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, archer said:

 

I think a sixth grader wrote that article and that it was published without the editor glancing at it.

 

The family hired Derrick Tyler to fight the arrest. Presumably Tyler is a lawyer but the article never says. Maybe he's a private investigator or a Ghostbuster.

 

As an example of the mess of an article, the reporter quotes Tyler as saying, “We will vigorously defend all charges and vigorously pursue all available legal measures against uneased, unjustified torture received by the officers he was involved in.”

 

So if we're to believe the reporter, the officers received torture from some unidentified individuals and Tyler will the defending the officers. Also Tyler will be defending the charges which the officers are bringing (hey, those charges are completely valid) rather than defending the kid against those charges.

 

Also five times the article refers to the local police as being soldiers.

Me am words good!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, archer said:

 

I think a sixth grader wrote that article and that it was published without the editor glancing at it.

 

 

I looked at two other articles by the same person (camilahawking), they both read about the same.  

 

Though that writer doesn't appear to be unique on the Florida News Times.  I looked at another article, but from a different person.  Here's the first sentence of the article:

 

"“Duck Dynasty” Star Kay Robertson After being attacked by his dog, he needed to see a doctor … and the puppy stripped off part of his lips."  

 

(Kay Robertson is a female, by the way.  The rest of the article is similarly bad.)

 

Y'know, I'm not sure the Florida News Times even has an editor.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said:

"It was just a joke" has been the excuse for expression of racist attitudes for generations (along with many others). They don't recognize or acknowledge that the subjects people consider fit for jokes reveals what they really think about them.

 

I understand and sympathize with your point. However...

 

What was the "joke" intended to be?

 

Was it 1) "Ha, ha, you're being hazed by the Klan even here."

 

Or was it 2) "The media and the public are telling us that all cops are a bunch of racists. So I guess that means you're officially inducted into the Klan now. Here's your Klan badge, your hood is still at the tailor's being fitted."

 

I think it's obvious that the targeted officer took it as the first. The mayor was compelled, and rightly so, to assume it was the first and to act because the officer was obviously both offended and concerned.

 

I don't think it's obvious what the chief meant by it. Putting a good joke together is an art which most people don't have. I didn't really realize the art of the joke until I started reading Reddit jokes to repost here, seeing how poorly many of them were constructed, and started figuring out why some jokes are funny while others are not. People often assume the target audience will pick up on unspoken context and connect the dots without being led to the punchline.

 

For example if the chief and the officer had some conversations in passing about how the media and the public view policemen, the chief could easily assume the officer would remember the conversation and put the Klan badge in that specific context.

 

Would that have made the chief "right" in leaving the badge? No, not at all. Because it had the potential to be misunderstood it was always wrong.

 

 

But if that had been the context of the chief's actions, would that show him to be racist? Excellent question.

 

In an alternate world, the white chief and a white officer have a couple of conversations in passing about how the media and the public think the police unnecessarily race around town breaking speed limits and running lights.

 

The chief leaves a badge over the officer's nametag on his uniform which says "Petty".

 

The chief is making an inside joke about how the officer runs around town like the famous NASCAR driver Richard Petty. He's not trying to imply that the officer is petty or in some way is deficient.

 

It's just a joke. It's basically the same joke (except the chief doesn't realize the KKK is a MUCH more sensitive subject if the officer doesn't immediately get the joke).

 

So the question becomes "Is it racist to attempt to demean/diminish the KKK in a joke told to a black person if the joke fails?"

 

That's a much more difficult question to answer.

 

In that scenario, the chief showed extremely poor judgement in attempting to diminish the KKK in an obscure joke to a black person. But whether it definitively showed he was racist....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quite apart from your scenario as to what might have led up to this "joke" being pure speculation, anyone directing KKK symbology at a black American is evoking generations of American history when that was tantamount to a death threat. Assuming the police chief didn't mean it as a death threat, he either knew that fact but didn't take it seriously because it never impacted his white experience, or he's colossally ignorant of what it means to be black in America. Neither case is an excuse for what he did, especially for a person in a position of authority and leadership, who literally needs to know better.

 

This is practically on the level of someone trying to make a joke to a woman about sexual abuse.

 

EDIT: I'm sorry if I came across as harsh to you, Archer. You're not who I'm angry with. I'm neither black nor a woman, but I'm close to enough people in both categories that I have some idea of how raw those wounds remain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

I'm sorry if I came across as harsh to you, Archer. 

 

I made it clear that I wished to discuss a theoretical.

 

You've made it crystal clear that you have no intention of discussing anything.

 

That's an odd position for a discussion forum, but it's not like I can force you into having a discussion which you're adamantly opposed to having.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again, Archer, I apologize that my response offended you. And on this specific topic, you're right, I have no intention of discussing it, as anything more I could say would not be fruitful. If you wish to discuss it with anyone else here who wants to take it up, you'll hear no objection from me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Sorry, Officer Snowflake:

 

Young Black Woman Faces Prison Time and Hate Crime Charge for Defacing ‘Back the Blue’ Sign In Front of Police Officer

 

Poor, poor police officer felt threatened and intimidated by an unarmed Black teenage girl.

 

I can see a whole lot of people who need to be out of a job for this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...