4 ms·
Found this cyclists full youtube video, it has some extra recording that's not in the news broadcast - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vf-ia2QhVU https://www.y
by michaelbuddy 11y ago
Found this cyclists full youtube video, it has some extra recording that's not in the news broadcast - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vf-ia2QhVU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vf-ia2QhVU
I definitely have complaints on both sides of this. Mostly toward the cop. Where I understand the cops strong desire to get ID from people, vet them, they really need to pick their battles wisely when they can't get what they want, especially for piddly shit. When you're in a big city, this piddly shit is worthless. You just know that at that same time, a 911 call came in for something significant such as a stolen vehicle and the dispatch probably said "we'll have somebody there in an hour" while 3 cop cars roll up for a biker using a cell phone and refusing to identify.
In the audio the cop is talking about taking the guy to jail for using his phone on a bike. Even if it were illegal, it's a misdemeanor traffic infraction at best. A traffic violation isn't something you go to jail for. And the cop is willing to do an unlawful search. I guess I see the cops point of view. Sometimes these stops yield people with warrants. Letting go a guy who might have a felony warrant is not good either. But nobody with a felony warrant is going to make an easy time for you.
My complaint about the delivery guy is why doesn't he give his name and get it all over with? And later why does he resist the cops, kicking his feet etc. Clearly he's getting detained at that point. Why would he put up a fight, like he's going to win? Does anyone ever really get away from the cops? Not so much. Heck these days you risk getting shot in the back too. If the cops were more evil, all they'd have to do is shoot the kid and say the he was going for their gun.
Once the other cops get the cyclist wrangled, Out of breath, the cop runs to the cyclists delivery partner friend across the street. The friend asks the cop why he did that and the cop said "All I wanted was his name, Do you know his name" and the friend says "yes" After that brief exchange the cop goes back across the street saying "everything I did was lawful"
Hmm, not sure about that. If I were his chief, he'd be on 2 week unpaid leave and in 16 hours of scenario training paid out of his own pocket. Of course the union would fuck that up somehow, because that's what unions do.
- forgotpwtomain 11y ago> Found this cyclists full youtube video, it has some extra recording that's not in the news broadcast - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vf-ia2QhVU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vf-ia2QhVU > I definitely have complaints on both sides of this. I don't know which video you're watching (I'm watching the very one that you linked). But I'm listening a guy screaming in pain on the ground held down by three officers, while a third is hitting him with a baton. There is no absolutely no reasonable complaint on the other side of this. This is assault and battery of a defenseless man.
- hitekker 11y agoAgreed. I would caution against taking the poster seriously. >... A traffic violation isn't something you go to jail for. And the cop is willing to do an unlawful search. I guess I see the cops point of view. Sometimes these stops yield people with warrants. Letting go a guy who might have a felony warrant is not good either. But nobody with a felony warrant is going to make an easy time for you The incoherency of this statement is a classic example of trying to introduce doubt where none exists. > If I were his chief, he'd be on 2 week unpaid leave and in 16 hours of scenario training paid out of his own pocket. Of course the union would fuck that up somehow, because that's what unions do. A handslap for beating people to a pulp. How quaint. The mental gymnastics for excusing cruelty are pretty rote. Start by saying that X was slightly less culpable for a crime against Q, X's victims, even though 99% of historians or experts say X was completely culpable for it. Keep chiseling away at everything about and surrounding the crime. Perhaps by saying that X was under the influence of Y, or that maybe there was Z situation that caused X to do it... and once your audience agrees with every small twist logic along the way: say X did nothing wrong. And then say Q, the victims, deserved what X did. And then say that we should all do what X did to Q, again. And again. And again... This is the mentality of an apologist, a revisionist, and of course, a monster.