5 ms·

So confident in your statement you made a new account. Would you care to link some of the incidents that feel are not even close to police brutality? You could

So confident in your statement you made a new account. Would you care to link some of the incidents that feel are not even close to police brutality? You could also make a PR to remove those.

mtgp1000 6y ago
How about the incident where the old man toppled over and smashed his head when the cops nudged him out of the way? Yes, at first glance it's hard to watch, but if you stifle your emotions and look objectively at the situation, a man's age does not give him license to block police who have given orders to disperse, and the officer who pushes him clearly does so with restraint - if the man had been 20 years younger his stumble would not have resulted in a fall. Meanwhile this briefly became yet another (false) rallying cry for protestors. Where's the media covering this fairly, for me to link? Why would you expect such a thing when almost every major news network has come out in support of "peaceful protests" against literal backdrops of burning cities? Edit: why is this flagged? Honestly? Is this not literal suppression? I stated my point of view like everyone else has done. This is the other perspective and it's sorely needed if we want to minimize the radicalization we are witnessing nationwide.
- jakelazaroff 6y ago
  > a man's age does not give him license to block police who have given orders to disperse Giving orders to disperse to does not give police a license to physically assault civilians without provocation. > if the man had been 20 years younger his stumble would not have resulted in a fall Is this supposed to be exculpatory? If I throw peanuts on someone with a peanut allergy, is "they would have been fine had they not been allergic" an acceptable defense?
  - mtgp1000 6y ago
    >Giving orders to disperse to does not give police a license to physically assault civilians without provocation Do you expect police to just stand around and wait until people feel like following lawful orders? Should they carry around lollipops to hand out for people who follow directions? >Is this supposed to be exculpatory? If I throw peanuts on someone with a peanut allergy, is "they would have been fine had they not been allergic" an acceptable defense If you have a peanut allergy you shouldn't be hanging around in peanut factories looking for trouble (as the old guy was on video laughing earlier that day) Edit: by the way, that bit about him trying to return a helmet was nonsense, earlier photos/videos show that it was his.
    - monocasa 6y ago
      > Do you expect police to just stand around and wait until people feel like following lawful orders? I expect them to not shove the elderly onto concrete and then walk away as blood flows out of their ears. That's not a high bar.
    - jakelazaroff 6y ago
      > Do you expect police to just stand around and wait until people feel like following lawful orders? If he was breaking the law, why did they assault him rather than arresting him? Also, how do we know the orders were lawful? > If you have a peanut allergy you shouldn't be hanging around in peanut factories looking for trouble (as the old guy was on video laughing earlier that day) How is it relevant that he was laughing earlier? The point is that it's incumbent on the police to determine the appropriate amount of force to use, not on civilians to retreat based on a worst–case scenario of what the police can do to them. They exist to serve us, not the other way around.
    - nalllar 6y ago
      > Do you expect police to just stand around and wait until people feel like following lawful orders? Yes? If they're incapable of enforcing their orders without hurting people they should not be trying to enforce them. It's bloody alien seeing Americans arguing over this sort of thing as if there's a context that makes hurting the people you're sworn to protect okay. The rest of the world seems to understand what the point of police is.
      - monocasa 6y ago
        Well, one point is that police here aren't in fact sworn to protect members of the populace. The case law in federal court is that the police don't owe any individual a specific duty to protect them, and that "protect and serve" is a toothless slogan with no basis in law.
    - jessaustin 6y ago
      ...lawful orders... This is a null category. Free people don't take orders from their employees.
peroporque 6y ago
In this day and age, it's a wise move to make a new account and protect your identity. Nobody wants their live destroyed ("canceled") for a comment. That's what it has become, and it will only get worse.

So confident in your statement you made a new account. Would you care to link some of the incidents that feel are not even close to police brutality? You could also make a PR to remove those.

mtgp1000 6y ago

How about the incident where the old man toppled over and smashed his head when the cops nudged him out of the way? Yes, at first glance it's hard to watch, but if you stifle your emotions and look objectively at the situation, a man's age does not give him license to block police who have given orders to disperse, and the officer who pushes him clearly does so with restraint - if the man had been 20 years younger his stumble would not have resulted in a fall. Meanwhile this briefly became yet another (false) rallying cry for protestors. Where's the media covering this fairly, for me to link? Why would you expect such a thing when almost every major news network has come out in support of "peaceful protests" against literal backdrops of burning cities? Edit: why is this flagged? Honestly? Is this not literal suppression? I stated my point of view like everyone else has done. This is the other perspective and it's sorely needed if we want to minimize the radicalization we are witnessing nationwide.

jakelazaroff 6y ago
> a man's age does not give him license to block police who have given orders to disperse Giving orders to disperse to does not give police a license to physically assault civilians without provocation. > if the man had been 20 years younger his stumble would not have resulted in a fall Is this supposed to be exculpatory? If I throw peanuts on someone with a peanut allergy, is "they would have been fine had they not been allergic" an acceptable defense?
- mtgp1000 6y ago
  >Giving orders to disperse to does not give police a license to physically assault civilians without provocation Do you expect police to just stand around and wait until people feel like following lawful orders? Should they carry around lollipops to hand out for people who follow directions? >Is this supposed to be exculpatory? If I throw peanuts on someone with a peanut allergy, is "they would have been fine had they not been allergic" an acceptable defense If you have a peanut allergy you shouldn't be hanging around in peanut factories looking for trouble (as the old guy was on video laughing earlier that day) Edit: by the way, that bit about him trying to return a helmet was nonsense, earlier photos/videos show that it was his.
  - monocasa 6y ago
    > Do you expect police to just stand around and wait until people feel like following lawful orders? I expect them to not shove the elderly onto concrete and then walk away as blood flows out of their ears. That's not a high bar.
  - jakelazaroff 6y ago
    > Do you expect police to just stand around and wait until people feel like following lawful orders? If he was breaking the law, why did they assault him rather than arresting him? Also, how do we know the orders were lawful? > If you have a peanut allergy you shouldn't be hanging around in peanut factories looking for trouble (as the old guy was on video laughing earlier that day) How is it relevant that he was laughing earlier? The point is that it's incumbent on the police to determine the appropriate amount of force to use, not on civilians to retreat based on a worst–case scenario of what the police can do to them. They exist to serve us, not the other way around.
  - nalllar 6y ago
    > Do you expect police to just stand around and wait until people feel like following lawful orders? Yes? If they're incapable of enforcing their orders without hurting people they should not be trying to enforce them. It's bloody alien seeing Americans arguing over this sort of thing as if there's a context that makes hurting the people you're sworn to protect okay. The rest of the world seems to understand what the point of police is.
    - monocasa 6y ago
      Well, one point is that police here aren't in fact sworn to protect members of the populace. The case law in federal court is that the police don't owe any individual a specific duty to protect them, and that "protect and serve" is a toothless slogan with no basis in law.
  - jessaustin 6y ago
    ...lawful orders... This is a null category. Free people don't take orders from their employees.

peroporque 6y ago

In this day and age, it's a wise move to make a new account and protect your identity. Nobody wants their live destroyed ("canceled") for a comment. That's what it has become, and it will only get worse.