Felony?

[NordicHeathenVinlander]

I'm pretty sure what I'm witnessing here is an aggravated battery. Someone please explain to me why I'm wrong.

WARNING: NSFW - LANGUAGE

YouTube - DNC Protests: Police slam CodePink protester to the ground

No charges were filed.
Cop who shoved DNC protester to the ground cleared by Denver DA : Updates : The Rocky Mountain News

Probably a mouthy little girl, who thought she would play in a mans world, using man language.


Women want equality, then dont freaking whine, when they get an equally man sized *** whoppin.

Seriously, Im not going to judge the Officers in question over a 5 second sound byte.

And ESPECIALLY FOR CODE PINK, I'd love to slap a couple code pinkers myself, filthy trash women.

If anything, this guy reminds me of my hero in the Watchmen. Exactly how I would deal with the communist ilk.


And if you are offended by poor language DO NOT WATCH THE FOLLOWING VIDEO, it's bad*ss.

YouTube - Watchmen: BADASS Riot scene UNCUT!

 

[public servant]

Really? Is it not obvious to you that the cameraman is standing just as close to the cops doing the stomp and drag as the woman in question, if not closer?

If that man's explanation isn't obvious evidence that the cop, who appears to me to be behind the cameraman, acted in a manner that was totally unnecessary, nothing will satisfy you guys. If it was so critical that they move the crowd back, the cameraman would have been struck, too.

Do yourself a favor and look at the relevant section of the video more closely as well. The woman's hands weren't anywhere near the baton.

The woman and the cameraman appear to be standing pretty much shoulder to shoulder. The officer's shoulder comes into the video at 1:50. He shoves the woman back at 1:51. Did she at 1:48 or 1:49 grab the baton? Unclear.

If the explanation of the video is being made to lend credibility to any claim from the woman that she didn't grab the baton...then if fails. Because it makes no such claim. The Code Pink media releases make no claim she didn't grab the baton. The woman has made no such claim as of yet. Yet the police claim this was the reason for the officer's actions.

Why do you think this is that no one has claimed that the woman did not grab the baton? My theory is because no one is going to flat out lie for her. And she's not yet made a claim that she's unsure that another video won't prove to be a lie. There were lots of cameras there.

I will concede that none of this should have happened. I still do not have enough evidence to point blame. The same source you point at to prove your point quotes a Code Pink media release of the event placing all blame on the officer. That same source quotes a police explanation that she grabbed the baton. We could each use this media related item to claim we're right. It's the media....I'm not willing to do so. I will need more information to make an educated and informed decision...because I was not there.

You can do as you feel best.

 

[downzero]

Do us a favor and address Public Servant's second paragraph...Mainly this:

And you think reading that compels the outcome that the force was justifiable and defensible?

I don't. Even if that were true (and it probably is), knocking someone down with a baton is totally unnecessary.

Hell, most states' resisting arrest statutes are so broad, that in some instances, she probably could have been arrested for that alone. Doubtful that it'd hold water, though, as the video shows clearly that she wasn't the only one moving back.

 

[PatriotPride]

All I hear is you dodging viable posts.

This is odd how?

 

[hornadylnl]

I'm still trying to figure out why it's ok to deem one entire agency as bad due to the actions of a few and then demonize another person for doing it to another agency.

 

[downzero]

I will concede that none of this should have happened. I still do not have enough evidence to point blame. The same source you point at to prove your point quotes a Code Pink media release of the event placing all blame on the officer. That same source quotes a police explanation that she grabbed the baton. We could each use this media related item to claim we're right. It's the media....I'm not willing to do so. I will need more information to make an educated and informed decision...because I was not there.

Actually I think it's settled right there, if your position is that this never should have happened.

To me, it doesn't matter who was right. It doesn't matter if she did grab the baton or not, although that would paint her in a disfavorable light. The level of force used is utterly unacceptable, to me, for mere words or passive refusal. If they'd fired CS or thrown a CS grenade, I wouldn't have anything to complain about. Using physical violence is a completely different story. I don't expect the cops to fight fair, so if she threw a punch and they swung a baton, oh well, so sad for her. But she didn't. She ran her mouth. And that's a different situation and calls for a different response.

What we have here is a classic case of, "when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail." I wonder if he even thought seriously and critically about what he was doing before he did it. I've been trained in exactly what he's doing before, and I can't honestly say that I'd have much of a thought other than to use the baton in that situation.

That doesn't mean that if I did, it'd be justifiable or defensible. It's not. And we should expect better.

I'm still trying to figure out why it's ok to deem one entire agency as bad due to the actions of a few and then demonize another person for doing it to another agency.

It's even more terrifying to me when you realize that one of these "agencies" is an arm of the state, while the other is a whack-job nonprofit of sorts. I'd imagine any of our founding fathers would have gladly sided with radical citizens over any arm of the state, unless a very high burden was reached.

 

[public servant]

I'm still trying to figure out why it's ok to deem one entire agency as bad due to the actions of a few and then demonize another person for doing it to another agency.

Because it's the internet damnit!!! And I can be as wishy-washy as I want!!!

 

[NordicHeathenVinlander]

The idiot reached for his Baton?

Or egged the cop to "DO IT AGAIN"?


She got what she deserved, and I dont feel sorry for her. When you provoke an attack, dont cry when the dog bites.

 

[public servant]

Actually I think it's settled right there, if your position is that this never should have happened.

That's been my position since my first post in this thread. I'm not sure who's to blame...but someone effed up.

 

[public servant]

When you provoke an attack, dont cry when the dog bites.

Although I wouldn't blame him...it would be a shame to end a career because someone that's not worth it got under his skin.

Never let it get personal.

 

[downzero]

That's been my position since my first post in this thread. I'm not sure who's to blame...but someone effed up.

Well maybe we disagree again, because I don't think just one person effed up. I think both parties did. It's just different because one owes a duty to society, while the other one is just a jackass for effing up.

 

[public servant]

My satisfaction always came from giving them a little wink, a little smile and informing them that I was going home...and they were going to jail.

 

[downzero]

How can you blanket one group of people - proudly, and then cry taboo when those same rules of logic are applied to another.

That's so simple even you'll figure it out. Because "people" generally don't owe anything else to any one else.

Police are not the same. They're being paid, at least while on duty, to protect freedom, not to practice it. The social standard is different because of the duty they owe to us, the public.

The answer to your question has the same answer as to why I could be drunk right now if I wanted to, but we wouldn't tolerate the same conduct from police while on duty. I'm at home and an adult; I can be drunk if I want to be. They have no such right, because they're police officers, on duty, and we all expect them to remain sober for that period of time.

But since I'm so irrational, please enlighten me as to how this is wrong.

 

[hornadylnl]

They've got a long, established record of doing just that.

You sure didn't have faith in the fbi's ability to do so back in March of this year.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...iscussion/83456-fbi_dhs_raiding_militias.html

Posts 17,33,43,104,217 (you specifically mention FBI in this one),285,315,326

 

[Joe Williams]

Thanks for the find. But unfortunately it shows nothing more than the first video concerning the part of the incident in question. I'd really like to see it from another angle...to see if at any point she grabbed the baton. If she did...she shouldn't have. If she didn't...then what happened to her shouldn't have.
snip

This.

DZ, didn't you claim to have been trained in crowd control? If so, I'm certain your training was the same as I received, the same training I had to use on a couple occasions. If someone tried to grab me or my baton, the first use of force was a firm push.

If the cop lost his cool, then he doesn't need to be on the line.

Nothing you've posted, none of it, tells us which happened. As for the last set of links... Suffice to say that your contempt for us showed clearly when you thought we'd buy that crap. Juries are smarter than many people give them credit for. Try something like that in court, and whatever client is unfortunate enough to be saddled with you will be screwed.

 

[Joe Williams]

You sure didn't have faith in the fbi's ability to do so back in March of this year.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...iscussion/83456-fbi_dhs_raiding_militias.html

Posts 17,33,43,104,217 (you specifically mention FBI in this one),285,315,326

That would be because in that one, they screwed the pooch, and acted like crap.

You keep looking for absolutes, and there aren't any. If you aren't smart enough to figure that out, you aren't smart enough to function without supervision.

 

[downzero]

This.

DZ, didn't you claim to have been trained in crowd control? If so, I'm certain your training was the same as I received, the same training I had to use on a couple occasions. If someone tried to grab me or my baton, the first use of force was a firm push.

If the cop lost his cool, then he doesn't need to be on the line.

Nothing you've posted, none of it, tells us which happened. As for the last set of links... Suffice to say that your contempt for us showed clearly when you thought we'd buy that crap. Juries are smarter than many people give them credit for. Try something like that in court, and whatever client is unfortunate enough to be saddled with you will be screwed.

I am not a lawyer. I have said that repeatedly on this forum. No client will be "unfortunate enough to be saddled with..." me.

The video I posted shows exactly what happened. Others are claiming to see something else, but it is obvious to me from watching the video that the woman never grabbed his baton during the short period before she was struck.

I have, indeed, been trained in crowd control. Never in any circumstance would we have allowed a one on one interaction. If they were lined up like they were supposed to be, this whole situation might have been avoided. One would have to be a fool to challenge a whole line of cops doing the stomp and drag. The interesting thing is that the other video, which was shown uncut, shows the cops (finally) doing just that after this woman is dragged away from the scene. Apparently it took them a few minutes to realize that the situation was out of control and get back to their training.

 

[downzero]

Do us a favor and address Public Servant's second paragraph...Mainly this:

Already did. Read the post again. If it was that critical that the woman be "moved back," the police would have been justified in striking the cameraman as well. Why didn't that happen?

 

[Joe Williams]

snip

I have, indeed, been trained in crowd control. Never in any circumstance would we have allowed a one on one interaction. If they were lined up like they were supposed to be, this whole situation might have been avoided. snip.

Yes, because in the real world things always happen in the pretty, neat way they do in training.

I've not only had the training, I've been there, done that. It's not always as orderly as it is in class. Isn't that just a shocker?

 

[downzero]

Yes, because in the real world things always happen in the pretty, neat way they do in training.

I've not only had the training, I've been there, done that. It's not always as orderly as it is in class. Isn't that just a shocker?

You have a legitimate point, and I agree with you.

And that's precisely why the citizens must be vigilant, and the police liable, when they eff up and cause harm to a citizen in consequence.

Attention to detail when you're wielding a deadly weapon isn't optional. That's why these sorts of events must be avoided at all costs.