1,900 people died while being arrested in 2015. Two-thirds were intentionally killed.

originally posted by: Boadicea
Let's start here: When she chose to walk away from the cop, she did so of herself and by herself and for herself, without needing anything of anyone -- including that cop. That was her self-evident INALIENABLE right to do so.

So if police stopped someone who robbed a store, if they walk away from the police the police are not allowed to stop them....

You really have not actually thought this through!

a reply to: hellobruce

So if police stopped someone who robbed a store, if they walk away from the police the police are not allowed to stop them....

You really have not actually thought this through!

Yes, I did think it through:

He did not use that force to protect himself or anyone else. She was not a threat to him or anyone else. He used that force to impose his will and the will of the "state" on that woman in a brutal and potentially lethal manner. That was a gross violation of her INALIENABLE rights.

This lady was not suspected of robbing anyone and was not detained for suspicion of robbery -- much less armed robbery -- which would be a violation of someone else's rights, and which would in fact and in deed give the officer reason to suspect that she might be a threat to someone's person or property -- their inalienable rights.

originally posted by: Boadicea
No, attempting to leave is not a threat. One can imagine whatever one likes; but it doesn't make it true.

Right--and since your opinion is a belief and your reading skills are a bit underwhelming (I said "potential threat"), your imagination doesn't make your opinion true as well. The reality is that fleeing an officer who is placing you under arrest is against the law--your imagination doesn't make that untrue.

Abnormal? I don't know about that. I have been asked to get out of my vehicle twice by officers when pulled over -- once when I was driving, once when my husband was driving. I have no idea why they asked us to exit the vehicle; but neither time were we doing anything "suspicious" beyond traffic violations. Both times, we had all our paperwork in order and readily accessible. Both times we were given warnings, but no citation.

Maybe that depends on the police department's SOP for traffic stops, then--maybe on busier roads with faster-moving traffic, they have people exit for their own safety (assuming that they had you move to the shoulder-side of the vehicle).

I, however, have been stopped a couple times for traffic violations, both on an interstate and city roads, and I have never been asked to exit a vehicle unless they suspected something more than just the traffic infraction (mainly during my teenage years).

Anyone? No. This woman? Yes. It's not illegal -- nor should it be -- to act belligerently. As for her walking away, he had all her information and there are other and better ways to enforce the law.

This is a tired and ignorant assumption. You don't know if the woman was possibly under the influence, or had a warrant out for her arrest, or any of that. You are assuming that it would be safe to just let her go.

It would do you well to fully understand the dangers of letting a belligerent, oppositional, angry person just go access the cab of their vehicle during a traffic stop. YouTube has plenty of examples of why that is a terrible idea--but, you know, since you can just imagine that it is perfectly fine to do, then I guess it's okay.

/sarc

As for the rest of your comments about how the law applies to people and how their inalienable rights (I know the definition, thank you...I'm quite certain that my career in the legal field outweighs your apparent laymen understanding of how laws actually are applied versus how you think that they should be applied), you have some decent ideals concerning the metrics of how legislation should be written and applied, but it's just not the way that the real world works, and that's the approach that I'm taking, here. I'm viewing this through the eyes of how America is, not how I wish it would be. I wish that laws were written via the approach that if there is no obvious, actual victim, then it shouldn't be illegal--but again, that's not real life as it exists right now.

Asserting ideals in a manner as if they are factual reality does not reinforce your argument, it weakens it. I think that you and I probably have similar ideologies, but that's not what I'm arguing and pointing out in this thread--I'm dealing with the way that things are, not how they should be.

originally posted by: RAY1990
In comparison to the UK, a country that has about 1/5 to 1/6 of the population of the USA. The numbers are still dreadful. Why can't you see that.

Two countries with vastly different rights of the people (particularly, the right to keep and bear arms) and vastly different types of law enforcement (who deal with a population that has a dramatic difference in probable ability to use deadly force).

Why can't you see that? (well, I guess you do note it in your comment, but you disregard it as if doing so makes the comparison okay) This tired and ill-conceived attempt to compare two nations' stats who are so blatantly different is a logical fallacy, plain and simple.

And comparing the U.S. to Venezuela makes us look like damn angels...again, though, that's an ill-conceived comparison.

Do you want to know how many deaths in custody or related to arrests here in the same year? 34

Yes, 34.

Deaths in custody, UK

Yes, well, according to your government (and the dating of the years are odd, but it's all that I have to go on), there were 950,000 arrests reported in the year ending in March of 2015.

Also reported by your government's IPCC (and after scouring through the report to ensure that I didn't include numbers that didn't seem to correspond to how the FBI accumulated and reported its numbers), there was actually 102 deaths (including suicides) that were direct results of police interaction or detention of individuals in the UK, not 43 as reported by your non-governmental source.

So, using those numbers, we get a death percentage of 0.01% of police interactions (arrest, attempted apprehensions, searches, detentions, etc.). I must say, that's not so exponentially better than the US's 0.035% that you really should be riding some high horse on a moral high ground--and that's in a country where the vast majority of citizens don't own guns, certainly don't carry firearms on their person (legally), and where most LEOs are without firearms.

If you were to ask me--and let's pretend that you did--that's actually a much worse number than our own, given all of the variables I just mentioned.

In terms of "risk assessment" it would appear that US LEOs are fairly more dangerous than police officers anywhere else in the Western world, quite possibly a good portion of the whole world.

This is opinion, plain and simple, but I agree (and have noted multiple times) that all LEOs in the U.S. could be better trained in non-lethal tactics, but trying to compare the UK (vast majority of officer only have non-lethal means) and the US (most, if not all, carry lethal means) is an ignorant way to try and make a point.

You don't have to like the way that we do things over here, but the point stands that a death rate of .035% of arrests, in a nation that is potentially always armed (citizenry and officers) does not quite reflect your view that we have LEOs who "are fairly more dangerous than police officers anywhere else in ... a good portion of the whole world."

You (and others on here) can pretend that 0.035% of arrests resulting in a death is a major problem, and that America is a country with out-of-control police that lead most of the world in deaths by police, but unless you actually research every. single. country. in. the. world, you can't make that claim with any--ANY--factual foundation on which you base that opinion.

I'm not saying that the numbers shouldn't be lower, but I am saying that comparing incomparable countries' statistics, and doing so poorly, is a terrible way to try and make America out to be the world's big scary monster.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I am 40. I have three kids. I teach kids wrestling. Teenagers to be exact.

Okay. I am assistant instructor in Krav Maga now--what's your point?

I think you need to think through this 72 year old situation?

Right, because I always just throw my comments out there without thought, insight into the legal system, or based solely on ideological hopes and dreams.

Can a police office tell you to do anything? In that video what did the woman do? Is she forced to sign a ticket? So now you are restraining a woman for not taking a ticket that goes into the system regardless? The whole scenario is to assert that officers authority. When you start punishing people with force for not "respecting your authority" and nothing else your treading into tyranny.

How about you provide a link to all of the points that you just make, because I have already noted multiple times in this thread that, since the imbedded video doesn't start from the beginning, it's impossible to know the reason that the lady was out of the car and why the officer was so agitated with her (and why she was being so belligerent to the officer).

This is where the ignorance to law really shines in threads like these--if you are being placed under arrest, which this lady was, then at that point, it's not about "respecting your authority," it's about following the law. If you are being placed under arrest, you must comply, because at that point, you are being arrested as a suspect in some sort of criminal activity. An officer has full legal authority and justification to use reasonable force in order to get you to comply with being arrested. Hell, the officer doesn't even have to legally tell you why you are being arrested (at least in some/most states...not sure about all).

Of course an officer can tell you to do things, but not all of which are always legally enforceable, and as a human being, you always have the right to ignore said direction, but you must understand that if they are legally enforceable commands, there may be negative results to your noncompliance. This is where people really need to research the laws in their own states and municipalities, as they do differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

If the woman struck the officer while he tried to restrain her for actually doing something wrong not ignoring the officer, he has every right to restrain her even if she breaks a hip, if the guy pushes the situation because his feelings are hurt and escalates the situation it's his fault. He should be fired.

You, like others on here, are speaking based on a foundation of your ideological reality versus actual reality. See my response above this quote--you don't have to like it, but it's fact. Someone does NOT have to assault an officer to be resisting arrest. From where did you get that idea, and can we please stop perpetuating such falsehoods?

And a taser is pretty much chance deadly force on an ederly person.

Again, unless you provide stats and proof, this is just opinion. Of course, I would agree that you're straddling a potentially deadly fence when deciding to use a taser on an elderly individual, but I have no hardcore proof of it. Theoretically, these are supposed to be safe for use on all human beings, but we all know that's not the case, but the fact that she obviously survived shows that it's not unheard of.

Of course, at 72 years old, acting like an asshat on the side of an interstate and resisting arrest and daring a LEO to taze you isn't exactly a great way to remain safe, either. Let's not forget that we can't disregard her own actions in this instance.

How about divert the effort to people harming society to begin with.

I don't think that it will be feasible to get all of society's criminals to go in for training, so we'll just have to focus on the police, whose schedules can be controlled.

Police were not meant to use their authority whenever they feel disrespected which is exactly what the court saw in that case.

You have a link to the reasoning/opinion written by the court in this case, or is that just speculation? You seem to be focused on the LEO's 'hurt feelings' or 'feelings of disrespect,' but as I've noted earlier and as the law backs me up, it's not the hurting of a LEO's feelings or disrespect that gets one tazed, and that's not what happened in this video--her own jackassery and illegal actions got her tazed. Whether or not you or others on here agree with the "illegal actions" part of that statement is inconsequential to reality.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Me:

No, attempting to leave is not a threat. One can imagine whatever one likes; but it doesn't make it true.

You:

Right--and since your opinion is a belief and your reading skills are a bit underwhelming (I said "potential threat"), your imagination doesn't make your opinion true as well.

What opinion? That attempting to leave is not a threat? Or that because someone imagines something it doesn't make it true? Those are not opinions, those are facts.

po·ten·tial
pəˈten(t)SHəl/
adjective
adjective: potential 1. having or showing the capacity to become or develop into something in the future.

Anyone and everyone has the potential to be anything, especially in someone's beliefs and or imaginings. Potential is a future possibility -- not yet realized, nor is that realization guaranteed, and therefore not reality.

The reality is that fleeing an officer who is placing you under arrest is against the law--your imagination doesn't make that untrue.

I never claimed otherwise. In fact, I did say that I understand what should be is not what is. At most, I said it was a bad law and a violation of inalienable rights. I will now take it further to say that therefore it is done under color of law, because the legislation violates natural law, and therefore our organic law.

Maybe that depends on the police department's SOP for traffic stops, then--

Maybe. And maybe someone more informed and familiar with policing protocols will chime in and educate us both. In any event, I am not the one who presumed it was "abnormal," and then used that presumption to assume the worst about this woman.
---------------------------------------------------------

Me:

As for her walking away, he had all her information and there are other and better ways to enforce the law.

You:

This is a tired and ignorant assumption. You don't know if the woman was possibly under the influence, or had a warrant out for her arrest, or any of that. You are assuming that it would be safe to just let her go.

So is "innocent until proven guilty" also a tired and ignorant assumption?

No, I don't know if the woman was under the influence, or if there was a warrant out for her arrest, or "any of that." But I do know that no one, including the officer, never made such claims... not even the suspicion of such claims. If you have other information, please share. I will rely on my underwhelming reading skills and the reported facts at hand which say otherwise.

It would do you well to fully understand the dangers of letting a belligerent, oppositional, angry person just go access the cab of their vehicle during a traffic stop. YouTube has plenty of examples of why that is a terrible idea--but, you know, since you can just imagine that it is perfectly fine to do, then I guess it's okay.

And it would do us all even better to fully understand the dangers of letting belligerent, oppositional, angry officers of the law to create and escalate such unnecessary situations. Youtube has plenty of examples of why that is a terrible idea -- but, you know, since you seem to imagine that it is perfectly fine to do so, we have these situations.

As for the rest of your comments about how the law applies to people and how their inalienable rights (I know the definition, thank you...I'm quite certain that my career in the legal field outweighs your apparent laymen understanding of how laws actually are applied versus how you think that they should be applied)...

Again, I fully recognize that what should be is not what is. In other words, how laws actually are applied is not in accordance or conformance with how they should be applied.

... you have some decent ideals concerning the metrics of how legislation should be written and applied...

Of course you know that these are not "my" ideals, but the very heart and soul of our Constitution and the law of the land, what with your career in the legal field outweighing my apparently layman understanding.

... but it's just not the way that the real world works, and that's the approach that I'm taking, here. I'm viewing this through the eyes of how America is, not how I wish it would be.

So your approach is to accept the violation of our natural rights and the corruption of our penal code because... why? America is what we make of it. Someone changed the rules, someone can change it back.

I wish that laws were written via the approach that if there is no obvious, actual victim, then it shouldn't be illegal--but again, that's not real life as it exists right now.

So why accept it and -- worse! -- argue for it? Absolutely nothing demands that it remains this way.

Asserting ideals in a manner as if they are factual reality does not reinforce your argument, it weakens it.

Certainly, with all your knowledge and experience of the law, you know that these "ideals" are the principles established in the Declaration of Independence, part of our organic law. You must also certainly know that any law which violates those principles are in fact a violation of our organic law. The very heart and soul of our Constitution and the law of the land. This is the factual reality.

Accepting these violations and abuses only reinforces the such abuses by the same authorities charged with protecting us from such abuses.

I think that you and I probably have similar ideologies, but that's not what I'm arguing and pointing out in this thread--I'm dealing with the way that things are, not how they should be.

Yes, you are supporting and arguing for what is... gross violations of our natural inalienable rights under color of law.

I am supporting and arguing for what should be... the protection of our natural inalienable rights under the law of the land.

I think that you and I probably have similar ideologies, but that's not what I'm arguing and pointing out in this thread--I'm dealing with the way that things are, not how they should be.

If your ideology is similar, then why are arguing for the corruption and abuses, and not arguing for what you know should be?

originally posted by: Boadicea
What opinion? That attempting to leave is not a threat? Or that because someone imagines something it doesn't make it true? Those are not opinions, those are facts.

Your comment about leaving not being a threat was a direct response to me saying that her attempt to leave absolutely could be a potential threat. You are speaking in absolutes, and I am not--your absolute is not always true, therefore, it's not a fact. Someone being placed under arrest, but refusing, resisting, and attempting to make it back to their vehicle and pulling out of the grasp of the LEO absolutely should be considered a potential threat, and absolutely opens the door for non-lethal force to be used to subdue the individual.

Here's an interesting approach to this discussion--you disagree with me, and I disagree with you. Let's agree to disagree, because I don't like having these types of conversations with my teenage son, but I have to because he's my son and I have that obligation. I don't have that obligation here.

I never claimed otherwise. In fact, I did say that I understand what should be is not what is. At most, I said it was a bad law and a violation of inalienable rights. I will now take it further to say that therefore it is done under color of law, because the legislation violates natural law, and therefore our organic law.

And, again, the courts and our legal system see it differently. While I agree to a point with your ideology on that (like I already said), it's not the reality in which we live, therefore I'm just going to agree to disagree and end this branch of discussion, too.

Maybe. And maybe someone more informed and familiar with policing protocols will chime in and educate us both. In any event, I am not the one who presumed it was "abnormal," and then used that presumption to assume the worst about this woman.

I'm not assuming anything--it's right in plain view in the video as to how she was acting and the fact that she was resisting arrest. I would love to know the reasoning behind having her out of her vehicle, but in the end concerning the argument of resisting arrest AND the LEO's justification of non-lethal force to subdue her, it doesn't matter why she was out of her vehicle at that point.

So is "innocent until proven guilty" also a tired and ignorant assumption?

No, but "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't equate to being able to resist arrest and presumably attempt to flee the scene of your arrest.

And it would do us all even better to fully understand the dangers of letting belligerent, oppositional, angry officers of the law to create and escalate such unnecessary situations. Youtube has plenty of examples of why that is a terrible idea -- but, you know, since you seem to imagine that it is perfectly fine to do so, we have these situations.

Stop forcing your ignorant assessment of what I believe on me. You are mischaracterizing the officer, or at the very least, absolving the woman of her wrongdoing in order to make the officer seem belligerent, oppositional, and angry. If you understand anything about LEO interactions, he gave her way more warnings than necessary, and was more patient than necessary, before forcing her to the ground with non-lethal means.

Grandma needed to pull her head out of her ass or it wouldn't have escalate. SHE is the one that escalated it in that video, not the officer. When he first said that he was arresting her, she should have calmed down, been taken downtown, and sorted it out there. Her behavior is uncalled for, whether or not you care to admit it.


This is another agree to disagree--this is a tired merry-go-round.

Again, I fully recognize that what should be is not what is. In other words, how laws actually are applied is not in accordance or conformance with how they should be applied in my personal opinion based on my personal ideology.

There, I fixed your comment so that it was more accurate to reality. And like I said, I share some of your concerns, but I'm intelligent enough to understand that just because I think that something should be a certain way doesn't mean that it is the end-all opinion on the topic.

Of course you know that these are not "my" ideals, but the very heart and soul of our Constitution and the law of the land, what with your career in the legal field outweighing my apparently layman understanding.

Passive-aggressive belittling of my experience in a court room or in support of trials doesn't make you appear more intelligent.

Sadly, the justice system has become a place of opinions and interpretations, and many of the actual meanings and goals of the Constitution have been bastardized over time. But, sadly, this is what we get with a central government that grows too big and powerful, and acts like the 10th Amendment, and others like the 2nd and 4th, need only apply if they like the way in which the application is noted by law.

So why accept it and -- worse! -- argue for it? Absolutely nothing demands that it remains this way.

I'm neither arguing for nor against the application of the laws, just that it is the law and that someone was within legal guidelines with their actions and someone was not.

How I petition my congressman, or protest certain things in our society, is irrelevant to this thread and discussion. Hell, our whole discussion is a derailing of this thread, honestly.

Certainly, with all your knowledge and experience of the law, you know that these "ideals" are the principles established in the Declaration of Independence, part of our organic law. You must also certainly know that any law which violates those principles are in fact a violation of our organic law. The very heart and soul of our Constitution and the law of the land. This is the factual reality.

Again with the passive-aggressive belittling. But, everyone has their opinions.


The main point that you need to note in your response is, "... the principles established in the Declaration of Independence." Do you realize that the DoI, while a mission statement, per se, of our country, is not part of the Constitution or the rule of law in our nation? It. is. not. our. law. Therefore, your claim about violations of "organic law" is not factual reality--at least, not as it applies to our national laws. Yes, it is a violation of the spirit of our nation's founding, but it violated no enforceable laws.

Enforceable laws are what matters in this specific thread and conversation. If you want me to comment on what should be, start and thread and I'll gladly participate.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

And like I said, I share some of your concerns, but I'm intelligent enough to understand that just because I think that something should be a certain way doesn't mean that it is the end-all opinion on the topic.

And I am not only intelligent enough to understand that just because something is a certain way that it doesn't make it right, but that our current reality is not what it should be.

Yes, we shall agree to disagree, but let's be clear on what we are disagreeing on: You know I am correct in that our current reality violates the natural law and natural rights upon which our nation was founded. Our disagreement is only about what to do about it. You can protect and defend and rationalize these abuses any way you choose. I shall call them out for what they are.

a reply to: loam
(quoted areas from Loam's link)
My first glaring problem with this report….

That estimation was based on media reports and police reports for June, July and August of 2015.

They are using the media as a source? Um, I think we know how the media tells the news.

Of those deaths in June, July and August, 64 percent were homicides, defined as willful killing of another, 18 percent were suicides and 11 percent were accidents, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Homicides include those ruled justifiable, such as in cases of self-defense.

So they are counting self-defense shootings in with the reset of their homicides, that should paint a pretty picture.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics projected the 1,900 arrest-related deaths for 2015 by relying on media reports and assuming the 12 percent difference across the year.

So they took reports from June, July, and August and just assumed that every month will be exactly the same!?!

I agree there are some things that need to be looked at but this is nothing more than click bait! Loam I usually agree with your post but this is make believe!

a reply to: Boadicea

Jesus--you're not even getting what I'm saying correct. I'm not saying to do anything about anything in this thread, I'm just pointing out that what has happened in the video was not, under current law, illegal.

That's what I've been saying this whole time. You're the one that turned it into me having some sort of narrative about things that we should and shouldn't do based on this or that ideology.

But, have fun calling them out. Like I said, start a thread where spouting off opinion is relevant to the OP, and I'll join in if I have the time. Then you can actually see what I think should and shouldn't be, but your attempts to deduce my ideology because I discuss the actual law has been wholly irrelevant to the OP, and what I've been baited into arguing about since yesterday. And I'm done, as it appears that you are as well.

Best regards.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Wow. I actually forgot that this thread wasn't about this woman's particular case or the particular issues we were arguing. Thank you for that.

If you would ever like to continue the discussion, and express your thoughts further, we can dredge up this old thread of mine: Nature's Law: Inalienable Rights vs Civil Rights; Constitutional Republic vs Democracy. You are welcome to derail as much or as little as you need to say what you want to say!

My best regards right back atcha

a reply to: loam

I apologize for derailing your thread -- and an important thread. Very bad form on my part and totally out of line. It won't happen again.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

My point was you were implying I didn't understand the human condition. You said I must not have children. Not only do I have three kids I teach highschool wrestling.

I think we just will never see eye to eye. My degree is in philosphy. I focused on cosmology but, I greatly understand the fore father's. I have read Locke, Roseau, Voltaire, Hume..I have an understanding of the social contract and where the fore father's ideas came from. I wrote many papers on it. Debated it formally.

You are suggesting that this reality of state laws implies justice or philosophical reason. It doesn't.


When an officer disrespects a person as badly as in that case and imposes physical harm on a person for the sole reason of lack of respect it's tyranny. If it wasn't how would the woman receive money? Do you know how hard it is to sue the police because of qualified immunity? They settled almost immediately.

Houston has a problem with Leo's and has for a while. Austin has been cleaning up the dept. They get pretty good training because college kids were getting tased and it didn't go over well with mommy and daddy.

Again because a law exists does not make it just.

This woman was pulled over for speeding. It's already there for you to read. If this were some states or Europe there wouldn't even be an officer involved in the ticket. This would have never happened. What does that tell you?

Do you think if I say go f yourself to a cop after he gives me a ticket I deserve to be tased?

From the earlier article.

Texas woman who was Tasered during a traffic stop when she dared a deputy constable to use the stun gun said Tuesday that if she got pulled over again she would say nothing.


Try using reason man. Instead of defending tyranny.

Was she dumb sure. Cops shouldn't have the power to escalate a traffic stop to tasing without other warrants or assault. Period. End of story. No assault, no tasing. Traffic ticket without reckless endangerment no arrest period throw the max fine at them, and littering for leaving the ticket. Fine.

Police should not be set up to be a god that can't be questioned.

The lady was 4'11" by the way.

Maybe next time I am at sxsw I should flying armbar a guy who tells me to f off to show how tough I am. Or maybe a good harai goshi on the cement.

Or I could use common sense and understand his words are not going to kill me but the harai may kill him.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I think we just will never see eye to eye. My degree is in philosphy.

Now it's all making sense. I can absolutely see your argument coming from a philosophical point of view.

But, yes, we will just have to agree to disagree, because I think that you are diagnosing the wrong problem in the video (hurt feelings) and attributing the wrong argument to me.

Best regards, and I hope that you had a Merry Christmas, if you celebrate it.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Well I saw the whole video which you can find on YouTube at about 9 minutes in length.

The cop is without a doubt to me in the wrong.

I completely apreciate your dialogue though and sometimes typing and forums just don't come across the same as live dialogue. So I meant no disrespect. I think your a smart dude and have plenty to say, my typing can come across as rude and I need to work on that.

Merry Christmas.