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

> 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 ago
Agreed. 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.

hitekker 11y ago

Agreed. 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.