WATCH Cop Tries to Kill Innocent Unconscious Teen Slamming His Face into Curb

originally posted by: superman2012
Again, "probable cause". It's like Oprah Winfrey with them. You get probable cause, you get probable cause, you all get probable cause.

What does probable cause have to do with the amount your window is rolled down? They are totally unrelated.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: roadgravel

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: roadgravel

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: roadgravel

I didn't disagree with any of that in your post nor did I say the officer was innocent.

I just wanted to reiterate my point.

That's cool. I agree with your points. The police have to deal with a lot a 'choice' people out there.

While I'm not going to downplay that.... We all do, any of us who have to deal with people for a living... Granted I don't have to worry about being killed in my line of work, but I also didn't sign up for that either.

The police a have to detain them if laws are broken. That can make bad attitudes worse, if not dangerous. I can just walk away from people.

So can they, they can quit.

We all have choices in life.

haha. But if all police just stop enforcing law then we are in a poor place. I think tough skin is a requirement for a good officer.

originally posted by: eManym
The cop stopped a car with a warrant attached to it. The driver was a suspect.

Except there was no warrant and he was not a suspect, the article makes it clear he ran the wrong plate number as it came back for a female in another county.

Additionally, the town's officers had been regularly harassing him prior to this stop.

originally posted by: roadgravel

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: roadgravel

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: roadgravel

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: roadgravel

I didn't disagree with any of that in your post nor did I say the officer was innocent.

I just wanted to reiterate my point.

That's cool. I agree with your points. The police have to deal with a lot a 'choice' people out there.

While I'm not going to downplay that.... We all do, any of us who have to deal with people for a living... Granted I don't have to worry about being killed in my line of work, but I also didn't sign up for that either.

The police a have to detain them if laws are broken. That can make bad attitudes worse, if not dangerous. I can just walk away from people.

So can they, they can quit.

We all have choices in life.

haha. But if all police just stop enforcing law then we are in a poor place. I think tough skin is a requirement for a good officer.

No doubt.

Thats why I respect the life longer who do things by the book.

They should get better pay and better pension so we can keep them.

I assumed the cop got fired because he didn't kill the kid.




Go figure...

originally posted by: eManym
The cop stopped a car with a warrant attached to it. The driver was a suspect.

No, you're not paying attention or are missing pertinent details: The warrant was for the same plate number, but for a female, a different car completely, and a plate for a completely different county. Once the officer made contact with the driver, he knew that it wasn't the person that he was looking for, but continued to act the way that he did for a reason that can only be presumed to be because the driver didn't roll the window down further.

The cop said the kid was under arrest and he resisted because he didn't know about the warrant. Cop pacified the suspect for resisting arrest.

The officer said that he was under arrest AFTER breaking into the kid's car without probable cause or need to do so, and after placing hands on the kid trying to drag him out. The cop "pacified" the kid because he was on a power trip.

The officer knew who the kid was...that makes the motives to act this way even worse because he KNEW that the warrant was not for this kid.

This kid was not violating the law in any way when that officer flipped out.

Statist

2nd amendment exist for government tyranny and 4 years is nothing. He will get blue band and put in a PC yard where he will be protected by his buddies and given special treatment

a reply to: Edumakated
I can be a smart ass with UK cops.
Search 'UK cop violence' the results are pretty lame. Mostly guys crying their handcuffs are too tight lol

I don't know anything about the back story just what was written in the OP. It appears the kid was a habitual offender from what you stated.

originally posted by: eManym
I don't know anything about the back story just what was written in the OP. It appears the kid was a habitual offender from what you stated.

Even if you're a habitual offender, it doesn't mean you don't have rights.

Even if the kid didn't momentariy die or get the teeth knocked of him (literally).

You can't just get arrested for nothing pal.

a reply to: notsure1

What a POS cop.

I am glad he got jail. Unfortunately there are many worse than this guy.

There was no need to face-plant that idiot kid other than being a malicious ass (anyone disagree?)

Really surprised he didn't take out his baton and yell "stop resisting'.

a reply to: notsure1

The brain-damaged kid won't live his life the way he wanted to. The money will go fast just trying to have a normal life.

The cop is protected behind bars. He won't get raped, tormented and murdered like the rest of us in jail.

In 2 years he will get out and get a job based off his law enforcement career. Maybe not as a cop, but he will do fine. He will live a normal life after that.

Justice would be 4 years in general population....Or brain damage.

These are the things I think to when a jackass cop is being a jackass to me. We all live in the real world.

Some pretend not to.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: superman2012
Again, "probable cause". It's like Oprah Winfrey with them. You get probable cause, you get probable cause, you all get probable cause.

What does probable cause have to do with the amount your window is rolled down? They are totally unrelated.

You really need me to tell you? It should be quite obvious.

The cop told him to do something. He didn't. The cop can say he had probable cause to insist he leave the vehicle.
He smelled something, thought he saw something, thought the kid looked like someone else that was wanted...etc.
He was acting suspicious by not complying with the cops demands, that alone has got many innocent people killed. When will people learn?

Again, I feel I have to state this over and over because eventually someone will say I said that the kid deserved it. He did not. The cop is a pos and should be spending way more time than that in jail.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: superman2012

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: superman2012

In case you didn't know, Missouri officers don't have a right to enter your vehicle nor yank you out of the vehicle unless they have probable cause to do so, which this officer did not (the warrant was for a female, different car, different county).

Furthermore, vehicles are covered under the "castle doctrine" in Missouri, and I find it hard not to believe that an individual wouldn't have a self-defense claim if they had defended themselves against this officer with deadly force.

Also, this kid could have exercised his right to say nothing at all to the officer--the fact that the officer became infuriated because he claims that he couldn't hear him with the window only partially rolled down (which any human being alive knows is a lie) is irrelevant, and certainly not reason to invade the vehicle and try to manhandle the driver.

I appreciate and applaud the vast majority of police officers and law enforcement, but this ex-officer...f**k him. He probably tortured animals as a kid.

I'm not saying this guy isn't a piece of something, but anyone with half a brain realizes that "probable cause" is the biggest gimmick in their bat-belt.
If the kid would have listened and obeyed, he'd be fine. Again, I am not saying the cop is not blameworthy. He is a monster.

You think the kid would have been fine?

These cops knew him and were after him since he got out of a bust (if you want to call a dimebag that) where they illegally searched him.

They might have beat his ass not in front of the camera.

No, he might not have been fine, we don't know.... All we know is that an adult wearing a badge abused his power and killed (For several minutes) a kid then dropped him on his face and broke some of his teeth and messed his face up.


But what were you going on about again? Did you watch the video or read the full story? Or are you just knee jerk defending cops while low key saying "it's kind of the KID'S fault"?

While playing hypothetical you managed to prove my "prophecy" accurate of someone completely missing the point.
I watched it and read it. There was no defence. Only saying that the kid acted stupidly when told to do something by people we trust to uphold the law. The cop acted illegally in what he did. He broke that trust.

There was no defence. Try reading and critical thinking instead of assuming things because you need your daily confirmation bias.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

I could see a teenager being nervous with a possible first encounter with police.

Me, too, because I was one. But nervous first-timers aren't mouthy like that kid nor do they always repeat, "Am I under arrest? Am I under arrest?"

This kid was coached to that, probably from the same website from which the story is linked. It's a dangerous game to play.

That said, the officer was obviously in the wrong, but has been punished and lost his job and freedom (temporarily), and the kid was compensated for the offensive actions of that officer.

This played out exactly as it should have when an officer oversteps the bounds of use of force and conduct. Luckily, the kid survived this idiot.

Actually the kid was taught from his dad the police officer.
His dad would know the law and what you are allowed to ask.
Otherwise, the dad would not have demanded an investigation and release of the video.

a reply to: superman2012

While playing hypothetical you managed to prove my "prophecy" accurate of someone completely missing the point.

Good job Ms Chleo!

Try reading and critical thinking instead of assuming things because you need your daily confirmation bias.

I only critically stink.

Also, I don't seek confirmation bias around here. If I did I'd join one of the cool clubs, but I don't look good in red or blue.... Womp womp.

Cheers

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
This kid was coached to that, probably from the same website from which the story is linked. It's a dangerous game to play.
.

I would wager it was from his old man who was also a police officer. My father's side of the family is all in law enforcement and gave us plenty of advice on what to do and not to do in police encounters.

My dad was a cop. Told me to just say "Yes, Sir. No, Sir." And then shut the f*ck up in his words. Told me even I am right and think the stop / arrest or whatever is BS, just deal with it AFTERWARDS. Arguing with a cop on the side of the road is an argument you cannot and won't win.

Where did this kid break the law?
You have not answered that?

Also, would you agree to 6 million dollars if someone put you in a coma and brain damage?
I doubt the kid knows even what 6 million dollars is anymore.

originally posted by: superman2012

You really need me to tell you? It should be quite obvious.

The cop told him to do something. He didn't.

That is not 'probable cause'.

The cop can say he had probable cause to insist he leave the vehicle.

But he didn't.
I really think you should stop and learn what probable cause actually means becasue you're doing it wrong.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: superman2012

In case you didn't know, Missouri officers don't have a right to enter your vehicle nor yank you out of the vehicle unless they have probable cause to do so, which this officer did not (the warrant was for a female, different car, different county).

Furthermore, vehicles are covered under the "castle doctrine" in Missouri, and I find it hard not to believe that an individual wouldn't have a self-defense claim if they had defended themselves against this officer with deadly force.

Also, this kid could have exercised his right to say nothing at all to the officer--the fact that the officer became infuriated because he claims that he couldn't hear him with the window only partially rolled down (which any human being alive knows is a lie) is irrelevant, and certainly not reason to invade the vehicle and try to manhandle the driver.

I appreciate and applaud the vast majority of police officers and law enforcement, but this ex-officer...f**k him. He probably tortured animals as a kid.

I heard the kids voice fine from the cops dash cam.
It sounds like the cop was out to get revenge on the police officers son.

a reply to: notsure1

That was disturbing...