donairs wrote:
The man came to talk to the police. The man started to back up as the police crowded closer to him. He did not touch any officer. Then the officers pushed him. We do not need police officers like that. They are in the wrong job.
I think I watched the same video as you and see it much differently. Bottom line, it was after curfew and if he needed to speak to one of the Police Officers , why didn't he do it prior to curfew?
this is our moderator wrote:
F*ck you, pigs
and it's those with attitudes and anger like you that get yourself killed by the police for acting irrationally
please apply to volunteer as part of a neighborhood watch group and help the police if you don't like how they handle themselves, or better yet become a real police officer and be the change you want to see
Or just demand that police departments, who we fund, to hold crap policeman like this accountable.
Graffiti Ghost wrote:
this is our moderator wrote:
F*ck you, pigs
and it's those with attitudes and anger like you that get yourself killed by the police for acting irrationally
please apply to volunteer as part of a neighborhood watch group and help the police if you don't like how they handle themselves, or better yet become a real police officer and be the change you want to see
Nah, these cops just pushed an elderly man and then stood by afraid to “break ranks”. One cop even thinks about helping and the other tells him no. We’re those cops acting irrationally? Unfortunately, no. That’s what they do. They’re all pigs. They always have been.
There will be a citizens phone/camera on every arrest after all this. Can’t wait for the firings.
crocodile tears from the left wrote:
Oh NOW your concerned about old white guys. Where was the leftist media when the KNOCK OUT GAME was popular a few Summers ago when over 300 elderly whites were pummelled by blacks at random for 'fun.'.. several died.
Actually, good point. I agree with you.
Looked to me that the second one to look down at him called an EMT.
Again, get off the streets after curfew. Follow the rules and laws and the "pigs" won't bother you, why is that so hard to understand?
answers we need wrote:
There was a 7pm curfew in effect. It was announced to the general public. Anyone remaining present was in violation of that curfew. Police began clearing the area. They moved forward in a slow, uniform wave, loudly announced that people had to disperse, and gave repeated verbal commands to do so. They did not shoot him, they did not strike him with a baton, they did not tase him, they did not pepper spray him
He could see that they were in uniform, duly authorized, enforcing a law enacted by elected officials. What is the expectation here: Do you not want laws enforced? Do you believe in laws at all? How do you expect police to both maintain the laws enacted by your own elected representatives while simultaneously never having to use force during non-compliant transactions? How much more warning could reasonably be provided before you would deem any force acceptable? At what age is it acceptable to protest but not to be subject to laws?
Are citizens who fail to participate in local, state, and federal elections repeatedly over their lifetimes in any way responsible for the elected officials who poorly represent them as a result? Do you believe in democratic processes or do you believe elections are illegitimate when they fail to conform to your particular political stances? If your political representative is elected in the next election cycle and passes laws that you agree with, do you expect law enforcement to enforce those laws or not? How: with force or with no force? Please explain, thank you
1) Enforcing the law would mean arresting him.
2) Shoving him to the ground is not only failing to enforce the law (see point 1), it is breaking the law/assault. The policeman should have been arrested on the spot. As such, it must be asked of you: Do you not want laws enforced? Do you believe in laws at all?
Obvi wrote:
answers we need wrote:
There was a 7pm curfew in effect. It was announced to the general public. Anyone remaining present was in violation of that curfew. Police began clearing the area. They moved forward in a slow, uniform wave, loudly announced that people had to disperse, and gave repeated verbal commands to do so. They did not shoot him, they did not strike him with a baton, they did not tase him, they did not pepper spray him
He could see that they were in uniform, duly authorized, enforcing a law enacted by elected officials. What is the expectation here: Do you not want laws enforced? Do you believe in laws at all? How do you expect police to both maintain the laws enacted by your own elected representatives while simultaneously never having to use force during non-compliant transactions? How much more warning could reasonably be provided before you would deem any force acceptable? At what age is it acceptable to protest but not to be subject to laws?
Are citizens who fail to participate in local, state, and federal elections repeatedly over their lifetimes in any way responsible for the elected officials who poorly represent them as a result? Do you believe in democratic processes or do you believe elections are illegitimate when they fail to conform to your particular political stances? If your political representative is elected in the next election cycle and passes laws that you agree with, do you expect law enforcement to enforce those laws or not? How: with force or with no force? Please explain, thank you
1) Enforcing the law would mean arresting him.
2) Shoving him to the ground is not only failing to enforce the law (see point 1), it is breaking the law/assault. The policeman should have been arrested on the spot. As such, it must be asked of you: Do you not want laws enforced? Do you believe in laws at all?
YES. Boom!
Graffiti Ghost wrote:
Again, so many of these issues result with people not following the rules. Yes, this incident didn't need to happen, but it goes back to those that can't follow a simple directive. Once people start following the rules and laws of this country this country will have less Police related issues, it's that simple!
_______________________________________________________________________________________
A police state is what we need. That would keep those protesters and rioters off the streets. Strictly enforcing all the laws is the answer.
Graffiti Ghost wrote:
Looked to me that the second one to look down at him called an EMT.
Again, get off the streets after curfew. Follow the rules and laws and the "pigs" won't bother you, why is that so hard to understand?
How much are they paying you?
The penalty for breaking the law is getting arrested, not getting pushed to the ground or beaten or murdered. The real problem is that when police break the law, they often get away with it even when there is good evidence.
upthewall wrote:
crocodile tears from the left wrote:
Oh NOW your concerned about old white guys. Where was the leftist media when the KNOCK OUT GAME was popular a few Summers ago when over 300 elderly whites were pummelled by blacks at random for 'fun.'.. several died.
Actually, good point. I agree with you.
Which makes you remarkably stupid.
Show me where exactly the posters on here in any way condoned the knock out game. Because, if you cannot, then you have no point whatsoever. None. Zero. Zip.
Unless of course your point is to demonstrate your complete lack of thinking ability.
old guy 74 wrote:
Graffiti Ghost wrote:
Again, so many of these issues result with people not following the rules. Yes, this incident didn't need to happen, but it goes back to those that can't follow a simple directive. Once people start following the rules and laws of this country this country will have less Police related issues, it's that simple!
_______________________________________________________________________________________
A police state is what we need. That would keep those protesters and rioters off the streets. Strictly enforcing all the laws is the answer.
Ummm . . . uh . . . Sorry, I got nothing. Just speechless.
Obvi wrote:
answers we need wrote:
There was a 7pm curfew in effect. It was announced to the general public. Anyone remaining present was in violation of that curfew. Police began clearing the area. They moved forward in a slow, uniform wave, loudly announced that people had to disperse, and gave repeated verbal commands to do so. They did not shoot him, they did not strike him with a baton, they did not tase him, they did not pepper spray him
He could see that they were in uniform, duly authorized, enforcing a law enacted by elected officials. What is the expectation here: Do you not want laws enforced? Do you believe in laws at all? How do you expect police to both maintain the laws enacted by your own elected representatives while simultaneously never having to use force during non-compliant transactions? How much more warning could reasonably be provided before you would deem any force acceptable? At what age is it acceptable to protest but not to be subject to laws?
Are citizens who fail to participate in local, state, and federal elections repeatedly over their lifetimes in any way responsible for the elected officials who poorly represent them as a result? Do you believe in democratic processes or do you believe elections are illegitimate when they fail to conform to your particular political stances? If your political representative is elected in the next election cycle and passes laws that you agree with, do you expect law enforcement to enforce those laws or not? How: with force or with no force? Please explain, thank you
1) Enforcing the law would mean arresting him.
2) Shoving him to the ground is not only failing to enforce the law (see point 1), it is breaking the law/assault. The policeman should have been arrested on the spot. As such, it must be asked of you: Do you not want laws enforced? Do you believe in laws at all?
It’s that simple.
Obvi wrote:
answers we need wrote:
There was a 7pm curfew in effect. It was announced to the general public. Anyone remaining present was in violation of that curfew. Police began clearing the area. They moved forward in a slow, uniform wave, loudly announced that people had to disperse, and gave repeated verbal commands to do so. They did not shoot him, they did not strike him with a baton, they did not tase him, they did not pepper spray him
He could see that they were in uniform, duly authorized, enforcing a law enacted by elected officials. What is the expectation here: Do you not want laws enforced? Do you believe in laws at all? How do you expect police to both maintain the laws enacted by your own elected representatives while simultaneously never having to use force during non-compliant transactions? How much more warning could reasonably be provided before you would deem any force acceptable? At what age is it acceptable to protest but not to be subject to laws?
Are citizens who fail to participate in local, state, and federal elections repeatedly over their lifetimes in any way responsible for the elected officials who poorly represent them as a result? Do you believe in democratic processes or do you believe elections are illegitimate when they fail to conform to your particular political stances? If your political representative is elected in the next election cycle and passes laws that you agree with, do you expect law enforcement to enforce those laws or not? How: with force or with no force? Please explain, thank you
1) Enforcing the law would mean arresting him.
2) Shoving him to the ground is not only failing to enforce the law (see point 1), it is breaking the law/assault. The policeman should have been arrested on the spot. As such, it must be asked of you: Do you not want laws enforced? Do you believe in laws at all?
So the police should arrest every protester out after curfew? Arrest every protester that "assaults" a police officer?
donairs wrote:
The penalty for breaking the law is getting arrested, not getting pushed to the ground or beaten or murdered. The real problem is that when police break the law, they often get away with it even when there is good evidence.
This is essentially what BLM, the protests, and the riots have been about^^
Do you job correctly. If you do it incorrectly (which usually means hurting/killing someone), you go to jail.
It’s not that difficult.
BUNKER B1TCH wrote:
Obvi wrote:
1) Enforcing the law would mean arresting him.
2) Shoving him to the ground is not only failing to enforce the law (see point 1), it is breaking the law/assault. The policeman should have been arrested on the spot. As such, it must be asked of you: Do you not want laws enforced? Do you believe in laws at all?
It’s that simple.
What specifically are you referring to?
A 7pm curfew should never been put into effect. It was not for safety, it was to repress protests.
These cops weren't out there to enforce safety rules, they were there to forcefully suppress those speaking out against them.
If it was suddenly illegal to film cops and cops started assaulting cameramen, would you support this as "law" "enforcement"?
Street referee wrote:
former West Pointer wrote:
Watch the video. An elderly white man standing nonviolently in front of some police was roughly shoved to the ground by police officers. In falling, the old man smashed the back of his head into the concrete sidewalk. Blood spreads on the sidewalk as the officers continue walking forward without stopping..
Actually I don't have a problem with this one. The old man aggressivly approached the police. He didn't move back and was shoved back.
It's unfortunate that he fell and hurt himself, but is was at his own risk.
Are you kidding me? How was a 75-year old unarmed man a threat to a mob of 100+ fully armed policemen? This was ATTEMPTED MURDER. Exactly the same as Chauvin. Pushing back a 75-year old person and sending them with their back of the head (MMA guys aren't even allowed to punch that region) on concrete is as lethal as it can get.
Not sure if it's 2nd degree or 3rd degree in that state, but it is MURDER just like Floyd was. I'm starting more and more to think this isn't about race, but about police and their training in general. Happens in different states, absolutely no regard for the life of people. The people sworn to protect us are killing us.
this is our moderator wrote:
Graffiti Ghost wrote:
Looked to me that the second one to look down at him called an EMT.
Again, get off the streets after curfew. Follow the rules and laws and the "pigs" won't bother you, why is that so hard to understand?
How much are they paying you?
Posting out of the goodness of my heart trying to understand why people think the way they do...