Maybe an elephant gun would have worked?!
Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
BertDawg,people who speed aren’t hurting anybody… until they hurt somebody. That’s what fines are for, to get you to slow down to a safe speed. If you don’t think the limits are reasonable, lobby to have them changed. Until then I suggest you follow the rules so that everyone is on the same page. It’s not the ones who are following the speed limits that are causing all the accidents. It’s the hot heads with no patience and little regard for anyone else but their precious few seconds that do.
This be discrimination.
The man is just holding da people down.
We should give da people more free money so dey can buy da crack cocaine and better rap music.
Power to da people, baby.
Sometimes a cigar is nothing more than a cigar, said Freud. I think this is a video of a cop getting his a** kicked by a suspect. Even when someone is pulled over for “DWB: does that give him/her cause to kick the shit out of the cop?
Wonder what the backup did?
Wonder how much “dust” or other intoxicant the suspect had ingested?
this is what happens when you hire short-statured people for a position that requires a big-beefy guy – you know, someone w/ arms the size of your legs…
too bad all those guys are working private security or as bouncers (since cops dont make shit for money)
#34, Whatever records the trainer has access to is irrelevant. There is no requirement that the material in the training course be accurate. That is what disqualifies it from consideration as factual.
Just because we don’t know what occurred to set the guy off is no reason to form conjecture. Watching the video there is nothing the driver has done to warrant being frisked. If you wish to add to the video then please let’s have something like both the police report AND the driver’s lawyer comments. Who knows, the cop might have told the driver he was about to fuck his ass.
Making excuses for the cop doesn’t wash. He got his ass kicked. No, I am not defending that aspect of it and that was assault. Assault is a crime and should be treated as such. That, however, does not diminish what happened before. The prior actions by the cop might mitigate what happened afterwards though.
When we as a society put our blind faith in the police and accept their every word as true and faithful then we have lost out rights as a society to police ourselves. Police must be held to a higher standard then we are. So many people have looked at this video and automatically assumed the worst about the driver without any further evidence. Why? Simply because it was a white cop pulling over a big bad black guy who is guilty. Just because the cop pulled him over.
This is the same attitude that George Bush has been spewing for the past five years; trust us, we know how to deal with terrorists, we’re experts and if we bust them then they are automatically guilty. Driving While Black is a problem in this country. Police abuse against all minorities is a problem. Pretending it doesn’t happen is just as wrong as those who abuse the law enforcement ideals the police are sworn to uphold.
#35 Adam, I’ll even add a 3rd lesson learned: insist on better video editing before broadcast release. As per RBG’s comment, it appears that a significant portion of the video ended up on the cutting room floor, and if the policeman’s account is accurate, this missing chunk would make his side of the story more credible and possibly even obvious, since it might give a sense of probable cause for the frisking. If we were able to see that video, this discussion might be much shorter, which I would consider merciful đ
Ah, bad editing happens all the time. In this case, although the narration clearly shows sympathy for the cop, the editing serves to diminish that effect, assuming his story is truthful (an assumption that always needs close examination).
Firstly, the primary lesson this cop should learn is why policeman used to use revolvers instead of automatics: they never jam. This is exactly why cops should be packing a .357 for a sidearm instead of a 9mm. Keep the uber-capacity guns in the trunk if all hell breaks loose. If you are in a situation where you need your sidearm, you absolutely want one that will work 100% of the time.
Second, I see no justification for the perpetratorâs action. If he was frisked unlawfully, then bring it up in court. If he felt that he was being discriminated against, then bring it up in court. If he felt the cop was giving him a raw deal, then bring it up in court. Hitting or threatening a cop will get you no where but jail. Attacking a cop such that he/she feels he had to resort to pepper spray and pulling and shooting his gun will definitely not get you anywhere.
This image doesn’t load in Opera, the fastest browser on the internet.
38. “So many people have looked at this video and automatically assumed the worst about the driver without any further evidence.”
Trying to kill a cop is usually enough in most places.
38. “This is the same attitude that George Bush has been spewing for the past five years.”
No, obviously it’s more like Monica Lewinsky under Clinton’s desk while he leaves Bin Laden free to develop terrorist camps.
RBG
38. âSo many people have looked at this video and automatically assumed the worst about the driver without any further evidence.â
You’re right, it’s better to assume the worst about the officer without any further evidence.
#41, There is zero evidence that this is a DWB, and some evidence that it isnât.
then provide your evidence. In #39, Gary makes a most astute comment. The narrator is obviously pro cop, but the video was edited to remove or obscure the mitigating crime. The only thing we may objectively judge is the video presented.
Who pretended it doesnât happen? By looking at this one event and claiming that the admittedly incomplete evidence points away from DWB isnât claiming that it doesnât happen. Claiming things are racial abuse when you have no evidence to support it is also wrong. You are and did. There is no reason in the video for the cop to pull the driver from the car. There is no reason in the video for the cop to search the driver. There is no reason in the video for the cop to push the driver down onto the hood of the car. There is no reason in the video for the cop to spray pepper spray in the driver’s face. Without any probable cause then please explain why this would not be considered the most common cause for blacks being pulled over.
Now unless you have some evidence that is better then a Law and Order script I suggest you relax.
45. Your reasoning is as nonsensical as saying the cop pulled him out of the car because, clearly, the video that we see shows the driver not able to produce a drivers license.
Maybe the driver forgot to pay a troll… toll, I meant to say toll. Don’t know what I was thinking.
RBG
I get a little peeved looking at what others put up when it assumes the officer is wrong. Sorry, but we have to assume the officer is in the right.
If you are in that situation, right or wrong, you shut up, put your hands on the car, and work out the details later. The man has a gun, pepper spray, a camera, a nightstick, and the law on his side. If you just stand still and do what the man says, you will be o.k. If you argue or fight, almost certainly you will end up worse off.
You respect the law and the officers responsible for enforcing it. End. Of. Story.
Mr Fusion; I believe you lack some understanding of police policies and procedures. Regardless of whether or not the cop was justified in pulling the man out of the car, which I believe he was (see all of Adam’s comments for evidence); as soon as the suspect takes a step towards the cop while disregarding the officer’s instructions the officer is justified in using force, beginning with pepper spray.
In regards to evidence of the suspect being intoxicated, all you need to do is witness his reaction to the pepper spray and being shot. Any officer you talk to will tell you that sober people don’t continue fighting after being pepper sprayed. And no Mr Fusion, that is not proof. It is however, the accumulated experience of countless numbers of officers who interact with people that are drunk and high every week, and it should not be dismissed lightly. The fact that the man had absolutely no reaction to the pepper spray should be very strong evidence that he was under the influence of something.
One more thing. In post #38 you state “When we as a society put our blind faith in the police and accept their every word as true and faithful then we have lost out rights as a society to police ourselves.” However, in the post about the ex convict wearing his prison suit on Halloween, you seemed to be saying that we should trust the police to use discretion in enforcing the law. So which is it? Should we trust the police or not? Is your stance truly that inconsistent, or are you merely being a troll? Or perhaps you’re playing the devil’s advocate for the purpose of stimulating discussion? I would truly like to know.
33 This be discrimination.
What a classy post!! Your ignorance is only outdone by your bigotry.
It remains the same, even if said in jest
I suffer fools poorly.
Adam, you put up a training course and expect the world to accept that as evidence that what happened is justified. I’m truly sorry, but your argument has no legs and you really don’t know how to present an argument.
Joeblow42, you are confusing two different trains of thought. In the previous Halloween post I stated that the police have the obligation to show some discretion. I believe it was you that stated they MUST enforce the law 100% without regard to the circumstances.
If the cop did in this video did as you suggest, then he would have asked the driver for his license. We don’t see that happening. Because we didn’t see it happening, it is only logical to assume it didn’t. To assume he did ask is conjecture.
You state that because of his reaction to the pepper spray and being shot is evidence of his being intoxicated. Intoxicated on what? You’re right, it isn’t proof, it is conjecture. The same as when the cop told the driver he was going to fuck him up the ass.
Your conjecture is allowing you to see things that are not there. To make an assumption based on no evidence will usually fall flat. Just because there are years of experience by cops handling certain people does not mean that that is the case here.
The years of experience of being falsely pulled over for no reason or fabricated reasons has yielded enough evidence that DWB happens. Yet the trolls like Adam, that have no argument other then the cop has to be in the right, still deny it. It only takes one bad cop to tarnish a whole force. It only takes a bunch of citizens to think cops are infallible to ruin a democracy. It is almost impossible to prove DWB. It is just one of those dirty little secrets that happen.
I worked for the the local Sheriff elect on his campaign; we have been family friends for years. Although not well, we also know the current Sheriff. My uncle was a big city cop until he retired. My two door down neighbor is a Deputy. My wife’s uncle is a retired state trooper. I only say all this to show I am not on an anti cop binge. Nor am I playing devil’s advocate. All of these men honestly believe in the professionalism of their respective forces. Although our county is 99.5% white, neither the current or incoming Sheriff would tolerate the lack of professionalism seen in this video. This Deputy would be very quickly looking for a new job.
Now, can you or anyone else show me a law that says if you take a step towards a cop he is now entitled to use pepper spray or shoot you? Fuck police policy, can you show me a LAW that allows a cop to shoot someone if he takes a step towards him. You all know damn well there isn’t one. The cop must have reasonable cause to believe he is being attacked before he may shoot or pepper spray anyone. The fact that it happens frequently and cops are not disciplined for it is not a valid excuse. That is not evidence in this case, it is perspective.
Here are 19,800,000 Google hits for you to peruse re the right to self defence.
http://tinyurl.com/yc4xdz
See, it ain’t the step that is the problem, it’s everything else that accompanies that step. Ask a beaten boxer about that one for further clarification. Or, similarly, distinctly and unmistakably, in the video above.
RBG
> We donât see that happening. Because we didnât see it
> happening, it is only logical to assume it didnât. To
> assume he did ask is conjecture.
How do you come to this conclusion? For all we know he DID ask for the guy’s driver’s license and they guy told him to pound sand. I would say that it is more logical that the conversation never got to the point of the officer asking for the guy’s driver’s license because the guy was being an asshole. Regardless, both assumptions (that he did ask, that he didn’t ask) are conjecture because we cannot hear the exact conversation that took place.
Where is the actual evidence that this incident was racially motivated? Are you basing this solely on the fact that the officer was white and the suspect was black? Does that mean that if the officer had been black and the suspect had been white you would still think it was racially motivated? Sorry, Mr. Confusion, there is no evidence of race playing a part here.
> Now, can you or anyone else show me a law that says if you
> take a step towards a cop he is now entitled to use pepper
> spray or shoot you?
There is substantial case law and formal law that states that law enforcement officers are permitted to use non-lethal force such as pepper spray to subdue uncooperative assailants. In addition, officers are justified in using lethal force in self-defense.
The suspect broke out of a frisk and moved towards the officer in a threatening way. The suspect did not listen to verbal direction and thus IMO the officer was justified in using pepper spray.
Then the suspect attacked the officer and at that point the officer was most definitely justified in shooting the suspect especially since the suspect went for the officer’s gun.
Try showing this video to your apparently numerous police friends. See if they think it was racially motivated. See if they think the officer was justified.
There is absolutely no circumstance under which this suspect’s actions are justified. None. Furthermore, until you provide actual evidence of racial motivation, beyond the fact that the two people are of a different race, none of us will accept that it was racially motivated.
#53, Thomas, the best reasoned argument yet. I accept that there is no evidence that there is DWB. Just as there is no evidence that the driver was speeding, was asked for his license and registration, or was about to get fucked up the ass. DWB happens every day and the only way to prove it is to use statistics. I won’t ask you to prove it wasn’t the case, but someone much smarter then I could probably make a better case.
> Now, can you or anyone else show me a law that says if you
> take a step towards a cop he is now entitled to use pepper
> spray or shoot you?
There is substantial case law and formal law that states that law enforcement officers are permitted to use non-lethal force such as pepper spray to subdue uncooperative assailants. In addition, officers are justified in using lethal force in self-defense.
Yes, police may use force, but they do not have a blanket immunity to use it as they see fit. Your answer that they may use it for uncooperative assailants is only partly correct. The person must be actively resisting arrest or the lethal force must be in defense of the Officer or another person. Just because someone sits in a street during a protest and goes limp does not authorize the cop to pepper spray, beat, or shoot the protester. The force used must be minimal though and fit the circumstance, such as an unarmed person being shot 47 times by several cops doesn’t count as justified. And the case law didn’t help the cops charged with beating Rodney King even though the LA Police Force tried to show it was policy.
Now, can you name that STATUTE LAW that allows police to shoot citizens for taking a step? Or even a case law that justifies it? I am not talking about discretion or the smartest thing to do, but because several people have stated that because he took a step the cop was justified in pepper spraying him.
As for breaking out of the frisk, the cop is only allowed to search if the driver is under arrest. If he was under arrest then the cop should have handcuffed him first. The cop is only allowed to pat down the outside of his clothes for weapons otherwise. There is no law that states he must comply with an illegal search.
Or can you name the STATUTE LAW that states a citizen must allow the cop to illegally search him? Again, we are not talking about discretion, I am asking someone to produce a Statute that allows police to search someone or force a citizen not under arrest to submit to a search. (HINT, read the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution)
The suspect did not listen to verbal direction and thus IMO the officer was justified in using pepper spray.
Where is the verbal direction? I listened to the video several times. I can hear grunting but I didn’t hear any verbal commands. I heard shots, but no verbal orders. Not there? Then he didn’t give any.
My final comment, this must have been some piss poor fighter if he couldn’t put the cop down after all those hits. He was wrong to hit the cop. All that is suggested; the intoxication, excessive speeding, running red lights, etc. may all be very true. But because we have not been presented with the evidence we can not guess that that is the case.
Mr. Fusion, do they come more biased and cynical than you do? I quote: “All that is suggested; the intoxication, excessive speeding, running red lights, etc. may all be very true. So, because we have not presented with the evidence we cannot guess that that is the case”… but it is OK for YOU to guess otherwise and defend it all the way. Because YOU don’t have the evidence, it is OK for YOU to assume automatically that this sounds like DWB case.
Really, do people come more intellectually dishonest than you do? I wonder?
I hate racist people, but I think I hate even more people who are always shouting “racism” even when it isn’t, or might not be, just because one of the intervinients is black. Isn’t that some form of racism as well?
The driver does a pretty good job of reading the cop’s mind to get out of the car (and also submit to a search) if you say there were no verbal directions given.
Anything else you have to say is misdirection and irrelevant to the above since all “steps” that prompted the police retaliation were accompanied with threatening action by the driver. You think personal defence requires a prior verbal direction? And there is no evidence of an illegal search other than the wishful-thinking kind.
It’s the defence of these kinds of cases that do great disservice to those who might be subject to real DWB.
RBG
Cripes!
#29 (RBG said) “You only perform an edit to compress time for reasons that there just isnât anything visually interesting going on.”
You might also perform an edit to hide something that you don’t want seen…
But that’s beside the point. This video is devoid of context and info. In fact, it looks staged to me.
My gut reaction is that Mr. Fuzion is right… this was a Driving While Black incident… And as I hail from a law enforcement family, I’ll declare myself immune to accusation of being anti-cop… But who can tell? There simply isn’t any information here.
And Fuzion… You know you are like a brother to me, but I can’t just sit back and let you use the highly tenuious “short man syndrome” explanation. There just isn’t any evidence of any kind to support the notion that this highly suspect and likely non-existant “syndrome” is at play here.
And finally… Never attack a cop… It doesn’t matter who is right… The cops will always win in the end…. Just do not do it… Ever…
#56 I hate racist people, but I think I hate even more people who are always shouting âracismâ even when it isnât, or might not be, just because one of the intervinients is black. Isnât that some form of racism as well?
Comment by Miguel Correia â 11/13/2006 @ 1:15 pm
No. It isn’t a form of racism.
Racism is when one hates a certain race for no logical or rational reason at all. It’s just blind hatred.
You’ll find if you were intellectually honest that blacks are routinely stopped for driving while black… or working while black, or walking while black, or just being black. In the 21st Century, the persecution of the poor at the hands of the rich is far more impactful on society than the persecuation of the black by the white, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t still happen, or that it doesn’t happen every day.
Racism is irrational hatred. It isn’t irrational to hate those who persecute you.
I don’t know what is up in this video. This video is useless for drawing conclusions of any kind… especially by all us untrained armchair quarterbacks who are just writing because we like the look of our words… But generally, of racism, no… Whites can only fuck over blacks so many times before they lose the right to call foul when blacks point out racism.
If all humans looked alike and there was no disparity in wealth, I wonder what stupid reasons we’d invent to hate each other?
59. Except these edits happen exactly where a TV program would want them. Besides, what do you think is being hidden by the police before the cop walks to the the car and before he calmly helps the man out of the car?
58. Yes John, this topic should have been exhausted scores of posts ago.
RBG
“Youâll find if you were intellectually honest that blacks are routinely stopped for driving while black⌠or working while black, or walking while black, or just being black. In the 21st Century, the persecution of the poor at the hands of the rich is far more impactful on society than the persecuation of the black by the white, but that doesnât mean it doesnât still happen, or that it doesnât happen every day.”
So it is automatically to be assumed this is what happened in this video, inspite of not much information being available to us. Interesting trains of thought you people have, indeed.
Chris Rock teaches you how to not get your ass kicked by the police
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8069189796598912031&q=chris+rock&hl=en
#62 – “So it is automatically to be assumed this is what happened in this video, inspite of not much information being available to us. Interesting trains of thought you people have, indeed.
No. No. No.
That’s why I very clearly said that this video has no value. It doesn’t tell us anything at all. We can draw no conclusions about this video.
But if I implied that is what is happening quite often in many different situations… well, okay… I’ll stand by that. Racism is still a huge issue whether or not it actually has bearing on what we saw in this video…
#61 Yes John, this topic should have been exhausted scores of posts ago.
RBG
Well I came late to the party… Sorry… It seems I’m on a slightly different scedule than everyone else… I either post first or last… Often missing the chance to be in the middle of it.
Mr Fusion,
Here’s CA Jury Instruction Code 5.30
“It is lawful for a person who is being assaulted to defend himself/herself from attack, if, as a reasonable person s/he has grounds for believing and does believe that bodily injury is about to be inflicted upon him/her. In doing so, that person must use all force and means which s/he believes to be reasonably necessary and which would appear to a reasonable person, in the same or similar circumstances, to be necessary to prevent the injury which appears to be imminent.”
First the officer used pepper spray, a non-lethal force, in order to get Wilson to comply with this order to stop (which can be heard on the video). In a more detailed account, we find out that Wilson yelled at Mitchell to hit him. Next, during the attack, Wilson went for Mtichell’s gun. That along with being wailed upon would justify Mitchell’s use of his firearm.
Then of course there is:
CA Penal Code Section 148(a)(1)
“Every person who willfully resists, delays, or obstructs any public officer, peace officer,…”
CA Penal Code Section 148.10
“Every person who willfully resists a peace officer in the discharge or attempt to discharge any duty of his or her office or employment and whose willful resistance proximately causes death or serious bodily injury to a peace officer
Demostrators are narrowly excluded when it comes to these resist statutes so your analogy does not apply.
#64, The discussion was about this incident and not racism in general.