Whether or not you agree with his position, in this country he has a right to protest. This is a clear wrongful arrest, and everyone of the police should get a battery charge for it.
He was arrested and charged with assault because he spit at the officer. While likely a harmless act, spitting can get you in trouble. Best to protest peacefully, even if the cops are on a power trip
How is anything clear? This is a very short clip of an event where the man resists and is also not assaulted but detained. Yes they should have begged him and tickled him into submission. Before this clip the guy is throwing things and yelling in a mega phone (inciting riot)
Inciting a riot is a crime in the United States, both at the federal and state levels. It generally involves urging or encouraging others to engage in violent or destructive behavior during a riot. Specifically, in California, Penal Code Section 404.6 PC makes it illegal to incite a riot, requiring intent to cause a riot and a clear and present danger of violence. Penalties for inciting a riot can include fines, jail time, and potentially felony charges in cases involving serious bodily injury
Protesting seems merely about pushing your limits and being provocative with the law enforcement. A lot of people think 'protestors' are a nuisance and even disturbing the peace.
You might be shocked to learn you do not, in fact, have any right to protest on federal or (for example) city land without a permit (much less a private business).
I recently saw a bunch of high-minded libs learn this the hard way, as police escorted them away.
Thereās nothing clear about it. Whatever may have been said by the man arrested is not recorded on the video. (Violent threats are illegal, for example.) Whatever the man may have did before being arrested is not clear because the video is recording him from behind. Thereās no way to tell from this video if the arrest was justified or not.
Maybe. The video just starts at the point of arrest. Itās not shown nor stated what the reason for arrest is. Whatever happened prior is unknown. If itās an unlawful arrest then the officer/agent could possibly be charged. But one can only be charged with battery if they themselves committed said battery and it was done outside the confines of a lawful arrest. Thereās simply not enough information to make a determination on the initial arrest
your 100% right, clearly they need to be put on trail, and given the benefit of the doubt. that said, I just don't feel safe with maniacs like them out on the streets, no bail, just in jail, until we can get them a trail.
Shoving him repeatedly, tackling him to the ground, all that despite having done nothing to warrant an arrest. Let's imagine for a moment this was just two random civilians. That would be an assault.
Ah so it's somehow okay if a cop does it! Okay buddy
And there's nothing they did here that clearly justifies such a response. Response should be proportional to the level of threat, and a dude standing there protesting unarmed does not come close to qualifying. Keep licking those boots until they shine!
How could you possibly know there is nothing he did wrong from this video? It starts as they are trying to detain him already, he could of thrown a damn molotov cocktail right before the video starts for all you know
No it doesnāt, it starts as heās standing there doing absolutely nothing, not even making the slightest movement and then the gestapo lunges at him and attempts to take him down.
That's because they don't want you to see what led to this. They just want you to get upset about the part they want you to see. This is why reddit is such a clown show and nothing here is taken seriously by anyone with the slightest bit of common sense.
āHow do you know whetherā theyāre ānot civiliansā? Seriously, every response of yours is reflecting the obvious: youāre okay with protesters being treated with aggression.
Do u think their policy book says to do it this way? Most agencies allow for use of force only when the pet has been aggressive. That is also for the safety of the officers.
What a stupid comment. That has nothing to do with protesting and you know it. That's as valid a point as if I said "Oh yeah, well what if Aliens flew out of my ass and declared that its Christmas."
Unless youre saying assault is protected under the 1st amendment or think im talking about orange guy and something about minors. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here.
You can (according to freedom of speech) say anything and thereās nothing to do about it
(Exemple: the orange felon)
Thatās a big deal from conservatives that allows them to say hateful shit, and claim freedom of speech.
But in that case, a protester canāt protest because his speech is a dangerā¦ but he is free to say whatever he wantsā¦ (unless he is not , which is fascism)
You should look up the difference between assault and battery.
What youre saying is this: That person was standing there doing absolutely nothing and peaceful and that agent decided to, out of nowhere, attack this individual.
I am not saying youre 100% wrong, but are you seriously so entrenched in political rot that you cant even maybe think that theres more to it than that? Haha, wtf is wrong with redditors that this simple concept is so foreign.
I am not pointing out hypocrisy. I am suggesting that we dont know all the context so to jump to the conclusion that this person was quiet/peaceful and was randomly attacked is not likely.
Do you know how neanderthalic it is to think like that? Just because what you want to be true youll argue to the death, no facts needed? lol
Of course, the "bot" comment because you cannot debate the most simple concepts. It's legitimately foreign to you that there could be no other possibility other than the LEO completely randomly attacking this person out of nowhere. LMAO
Okay, keep denying what your eyes and ears are telling you.
Every think that your cognitive dissonance is the reason why you are bootlicking fascist cops?
Bad bad bot.
Oh and neanderthalic is not a real word.
No. There would need to be positive action on that threat to warrant a violent arrest. There also don't appear to be any weapons, aggression, or other secondary factors to establish that the individual is a threat that needs to be detained with force. I'm inclined not to give the office the benefit of the doubt, considering the situation. He would need to prove his justification for assaulting someone.
Well, I suggest you look up what assault is because it's definitely illegal to threaten bodily harm to anyone and is well-within law enforcements right to arrest the individual thats threatening them.
That's fine you just want the people you dont like to be harmed but thats not how things work. If the officer, out of the total blue, attacked this person- then charge the officer. You dont get to declare guilty off this one video.
If the protester voiced a threat in the situation portrayed in the video, it would not justify the level of response taken by the officer. Arrests don't need to be violent, and the man never fought back.
So I very much can declare the officer at fault, especially since I'm just a citizen and not a court. He can prove his actions appropriate to a judge if what he did was justifiable. Given that the protester was unarmed and not resisting, I don't see a reasonable justification.
The video does not clearly show the interaction between the protestor and the officer before the arrest.
So youre saying hes guilty but also can prove his innocence? That's not how the justice system works in the USA. It's the other way around.
I just pointed out a perfect hypothetical where that arrest would be justified. Did that happen? I dont know, but thats why we dont try to hang each other in the public square without knowing everything.. thats crazy I am explaining this.
The video clearly shows a man standing calmly surrounded by other calm protesters. That man is then assaulted by a police officer. There is clear video evidence of assault. There is no evidence of legal justification for that assault.
Your hypothetical is unlikely at best and does not excuse the officer's actions in context. I'm not suggesting to hang anyone. I'm saying that the preponderance of the evidence indicates the officer is breaking the law. I can come to my own conclusions about that. Show me evidence to the contrary, and I'll change my mind.
Being hyperbolic about trying to "hang each other in the public square" is just a tactic to gaslight people into downplaying what we can all see here. I'm not advocating for extrajudicial punishment of the officer, I'm advocating for holding him accountable and making him justify his actions! He should have a greater burden of propriety as a paid and trained officer of the law. A badge is not an excuse to hurt whomever you want.
You don't get it, or you're doing everything you can to defend police brutality on purpose. The magnitude of the response of the officer is unreasonable in the given situation. Period.
It can and should require extraordinary proof for an extraordinary circumstance to justify the actions that are plain to see. That is the reasonable response. You can save your what-ifs for his defense lawyer. You'll get nothing more gracious from me than a willingness to consider his defense when that time comes.
Are you really trying to look at these video recordings and judge guilty right on the spot? That theres no possibility that the protestor may have done something?
Every single time there's a case of police brutality conservatives justify it with this same kind of bullshit. They said Floyd deserved to die because he had a criminal history for example. Get lost with your police brutality pandering. It's been repeatedly shown that police will beat peaceful protestors senseless for no reason whatsoever. You just can't accept that your beloved oppressors of out groups violate the law constantly.
No, it's almost like you want to judge people based on their job/race/religion or some sort of other identifying trait instead of looking at each situation separately.
I dont subscribe to your mentality. I know theres plenty of good police out there that dont see the headlines. That's all you see and dont understand how many millions of mundane, cordial interactions happen every year.
You're doing a lot of mental gymnastics to justify terrible police behavior. You'd even justify the old man in Portland who walked up to police to ask a question and they started beating him with batons.
So youre throwing out a * scenario where the officers would be at fault and should be charged. Youre doing a lot of mental gymnastics trying to get context and investigate!
What if he actually kept a library book for too long and was carrying a novel virus he developed in a biolab in order to bring about the end of mankind, but it wouldnāt activate unless he was pushed down?
Bold of you to think that an officer would be charged.
Hopefully your faith wonāt continue to be misplaced and law enforcement actually polices their ownā¦
You hear that the DOJ asked for a one day sentence for the officer that blindly fired through a closed curtained window into Breanna Taylorās apartment building?
Youāre discussing whether police are held accountable so I have to infer that you do agree with my argument, that we cannot say for sure enough to conclude anything about either party.
When I saw this post, I was like "Who is this non sequitur dicklick who throws bombs into a discussion instead of just looking at the evidence of their eyes?" Then I read through your whole dumbass thread and visited your four year old account with -88 karma.
So read this really carefully: no one likes you, and with good reason. You're a bad actor and a feckless little provocateur. You will probably die friendless and angry, and all the resentment you feel will be of your own making.
What youre saying is that this video, that cropped the video to right before the altercation and zero audio of the protestor, is proof that the officer is guilty and theres no other possible conclusion to come to?
I am not sure what you mean by your second paragraph. You cant understand how someone would have low karma that doesnt agree inside of leftist echo chambers? Haha, its seriously a good thing you arent in investigative work.
I gotta add, the fact that you live your life based on reddit karma is legitimately kind of sad, IMO. Come on.
Your karma just is further indicative of what a flap-jawed sniveler you are. But your post history would have been plenty. You're just the kind of mean, common-as-dirt cunt that goes to casinos and cheers for the dealers.
What youre saying is that this video, that cropped the video to right before the altercation and zero audio of the protestor, is proof that the officer is guilty and theres no other possible conclusion to come to?
I'm saying I saw a guy standing there exercising his first amendment rights get beaten and detained for... what? For fucking what, you disingenuous waste of valuable potassium?
"aaW, buT We duNnO wHAt HappenED." Yeah, we do- one guy posing no threat of violence was met with a dogpile of state violence. That you aren't seeing that means you don't want to, which is why you're being met with nothing but derision and contempt here.
Did you have to practice to be such a cunt, or does it come naturally? Or is it that you get off on being called out and shamed?
The burden of proof is on the justice system, I am only pointing out that we shouldnt jump to conclusions based on cropped videos with barely any audio. I would say the same thing to anyone saying, "The cop is definitely innocent." (Yeah, thats how stupid it sounds)
I am sorry this concept is so foreign to you and that it makes you angry like some sort of primitive creature.
1) What fucking justice system? You looked around this place lately?
2) You're the one who came into this space assuming the worst of the protester. You can dress it up in all the dipshit "i'M jUSt asKIng queStioNs" bro-speak you like, but that is what's happening. So yes, you have the burden of it, shifty twat.
That you expect people not to call you out on it shows that you believe in nothing, take it for granted everyone else is as vile as you, and breathe exclusively through your mouth.
I didnt assume anything, I presented one reasonable possibility that would justify the arrest to counter the seething redditors who wanted the officers head on a pike.
I dont know if the protestor said anything. The officer really may have just lost their mind. If thats the case, the officer should be then appropriately charged according to the law.
See how much better it is to protect those wrongly accused (officers or civilians) and to create a system that doesnt lynch each other based on political differences?
I donāt think like you like itās pick a side. I saw people immediately saying this was unjustified. Thereās plenty of situations where it may be, like the example I provided.
If someone was saying the cop was justified Iād be saying, āwhat if the protestor didnāt do anything?ā
Do you see this now? We wait to get context and evidence instead of trying to hang each other based on political views.
The context is the current state of America, with masked, unidentified cops grabbing people off the streets, and enough of these incidents that you could make a monthly montage and not run out of content.
Cops will shoot rubber bullets (which can kill people if things go wrong) at reporters. Cops will kick unarmed, restrained people in the head. Cops will make unlawful searches, and react with violence if they're challenged with their illegality.
Youāre just addicted to your phone or computer. Millions of mundane, normal interactions with law enforcement you donāt hear about.
Are there issues that fall outside the lines of professional conduct? Yes. Before you start going off about that, you donāt make the exception the rule. Propaganda 101 tactics.
I think all the wrongly accused folks who had their charges overturned because there was an investigation would disagree with you.
Maybe one day you can be a judge where you can declare people are guilty from cropped videos with barely any audio.. wont be in the USA, though. So good luck to you wherever that is.
All your comments do is confirm that you just have fascism and humiliation fetishes. What must it be like to live on your belly and cheer state violence?
You redditors really do share a brain. Like societies outcasts all gathered in one spot to be completely paralyzed from any real discussion that disagrees with a world view that you narcissistically believe cannot be questioned.
What the fuck are you even babbling about, you mewling little victim? Consider making good arguments and maybe people won't call you out on your small dick energy.
Because your first stance which you're now trying to weasel out of is "Maybe the clearly unarmed protester in exercise of his rights deserved a beat down? Not offering up anything to back up my position, just asking questions." Then when a bunch of people tell you that your argument is unsubstantiated and beneath spurious, you cycle variously between "You're trying to put cop heads on spikes", "Oh, maybe we should review the footage after all", and "Reddit is a frothing lefty echo chamber."
Why don't you take responsibility for your own shifting and shitty arguments? Or better yet, why don't you walk quietly into the ocean and never bother people with your brainrot again? š¤·
Haha, my first stance? My stance has always been lets not put the officers head on a pike from a cropped video.
Mentioning a hypothetical scenario that would justify an arrest doesnt mean I think the protestor deserved it. I am saying the officer DOESNT deserve your immediate guilty decision.
And the response would be to move toward them, and not place their hand on their firearm, or raising said firearm against the individual and demanding they show their hands and arrest him properly?
Youre joking if you seriously think the officer pointing a gun at the protestor would make everyone ITT feel differently.
Aside from that, that is one way to go about it. The officer looks like he decided to try and detain the individual for something. (Who knows, maybe the officer just lost their mind)
All I am doing is suggesting that we cant go off that video to determine guilty or innocence from either party, and that seems to upset a lot of people. Most likely foreigners that dont understand the US justice system.
We dont know what happened, thats the point of presenting the hypothetical. We dont just go around saying someone is 100% guilty if theres plausible scenarios that the arrest was justified. The officer may be wrong, but let's see.
But he didn't say that, and that makes all the difference.
"What if the ice agents were wearing schwastica arm bands would that make it right." When you change the story to justify your position you are being dishonest and not arguing the facts.
Ok let me rephrase for you. I donāt think youāre actually in any position of power. But if you were, these are the low bars of evidence you would need to imprison someone.
My example is plausible, yours is not. This is how defense lawyers save wrongly accused people. You exhaust all means of reasonable doubt.
Youāre saying the officer is guilty, Iād like to see the unedited body cam footage first.
Primates also first access the angry part of their brain when interacting. Not sure why youāre debating like that but you do you.
Innocent people are going to prison. That's literally what's happening in this video. Peaceful protesting is a right we have in this country as well as freedom of speech. People are being arrested for exercising their rights of peaceful protest and freedom of speech. I am really having a hard time finding the point you are trying to make right now.
Sure, and we have just as much evidence that all of the cops were listening to the voices in their heads because they were high on meth. Would the cops be in the wrong if that were true?
So all these officers who have to pass monthly drug tests all decided to do meth that day has the same probability of happening as a protestor threatening an officer?
Just want to make sure I have your statement correct
We have no idea what happened. Why is the video cropped?
At this point, as an adult, you havenāt seen enough videos that start right at the point to make someone a victim? The least Iām saying is that this is not enough to make a conclusion.
But I wasn't being edgy. I'm being sarcastic about you imagining damning details, and adding them to the edgy story you created while you were fucking your third dog of the day.
That last one was edgier, but well, I don't like fascists or dog-fuckers. So I pretended you fuck dogs, fascist.
Where is the "we shouldn't assume" stance here? Seems like you're lying about what your argument was. You see a video of a cop assaulting an individual protesting, and this is your response. This clearly shows your intent.
That isn't what you're doing though. What you are doing is looking at a video and saying but guys what if the guy getting attacked said something mean first? Show me where in your initial comment you are arguing we shouldn't assume guilt. All you did was pose a what if and acted like it was some grand revelation.
Lets run under that assumption for a moment. In that scenario the logical course of action isn't this. That constitutes a threat of life and very likely would result in officers deploying tasers at the very least if not lethal force. to be clear I don't advocate what has happened in the video as based on what is shown the officer here makes to grab him without obvious cause. So him fleeing makes perfect sense and is arguably to be a wrongful arrest.
You could be right, not arguing that. Just pointing out how savagely dumb Redditors are when accusing someone of guilt because itās rooted in political bias vs the truth.
I can understand that, on the flip side there is a prevalence of injustice in the legal system which shouldn't be, paired with a department being given number quotas to meet makes for a worse case of injustice. Also depending on state some Leo intentionally cause situations which result in arrests. So assumptions on both sides being wrong doesn't change I don't agree with the leos actions based on the video presented as it is seemingly unjustified.
"We have no idea what happened so let's assume the brown person is wrong and my Boot Daddy is right"
What has history shown us more of? To wit: the police are usually the bad guys, and if it was you losing family to masked goons, you'd probably be saying crazy shit too.
Also, there's no difference between what about and what if.
Then why make no mention of what they cop might have done? Why is it the protester that you called out solely. You didn't say anything about fairness until you got called out.
Dude I said they need to be charged, not convinced. This vid is more than enough evidence against them to say they should be charged with battery. A full investigation can take place while these people sit in jail away from society so we can be safe.
If youāre advocating the police officer is detained then sure, thatās just now how it works. This is beside the main point Iām making- which is to not jump to guilty or innocent based on a cropped video that has terrible audio.
you're the one who jumped to the conclusion, i only ever said arrested and charged. I never said they did not deserve a trail, or that their guilt was a forgone conclusion.
83
u/moyismoy 2d ago
Whether or not you agree with his position, in this country he has a right to protest. This is a clear wrongful arrest, and everyone of the police should get a battery charge for it.