People acting foolish with police officers needs to stop.

[PureCocainePureCocaine]

Shpleck

PureCocainePureCocaine

Shpleck

PureCocainePureCocaine

Shpleck

My goodness that video was hard to watch. Pretending to know that law does seem to be trending doesn't it?
I applaud that Officer for not putting up with childish BS, reciting the law correctly to them, and acting accordingly when the person shows 0 cooperation.

Aren't chokeholds supposed to be illegal? Christ, when did the Alliance of American Patriots for a Security State show up?

Have you have tried to handcuff someone who is resisting?

No, and I don't care how hard it is. If it's too hard to do it without damaging them, and they're not an axe murdering psycho or something, let it ******** go.

Quote:

It's not easy. the hold he had on her was made to drop the person to the ground and subdue quickly, not to choke. if you had a full view you would have seen his leg wrapping to the front of hers to trip to the ground. I am fully aware that their are too many cops who are power hungry and violent. This video does not show this, it shows an officer citing the law, and making an arrest when the subject refused to comply.

He could have just been pissed off.

******** complying, I should not have to comply.

You cannot be serious, you are aware of what a police officer's job is yes?

******** a police officer.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

PureCocainePureCocaine

Suicidesoldier#1

PureCocainePureCocaine

Suicidesoldier#1

PureCocainePureCocaine

Why so aggressive?

Some people resist arrest, idk. xp

Y'all arresting too much.

Maybe, maybe not, but when people commit arrestable crimes it's not like you can just ignore it.

Yeah, that would mean losing out on some money, right.

It really probably costs more money to put criminals in prison or jail than to just let them back out on the street. xp

[sitting cow]

Henrika

I think the officer handled that well actually.

i don't. police should remain calm, not be confrontational, and then be able to recite most laws w/o being so argumentative. regardless of how a civilian is acting, for the most part. just because a civilian is arguing or even insulting the officer, doesn't mean they just should lose their composure and start putting people in handcuffs.

the civilian in this case didn't know the law, and was arguing and legitimately thought s/he was correct. and then the officer came over and didn't really give a convincing argument. so the civilian continued to protest. maybe the officer should have been more clear. so the problem here is that, the civilian needed to show id, but the problem is that the officer didn't really ask for it in a clear way.

i mean, how do you handle someone who is breaking a law but doesn't know they are? and it's such a small law to break anyways...okay so this guy didn't know he was doing any wrong and also...failed to show his ID...so you handcuff him? so police are gonna start handcuffing people who speed? that's ridiculous.

and anyways, it doesn't even look like he (the officer) knew the law, he was just making it up and hoping it would be correct.



i compare it to me who works as a teacher. when kids are misbehaving i try to always be calm and give them benefit of the doubt and such.

i give kids multiple warnings before sending them to time out. and i try not to have too many rules in general.


one day we are gonna look back and see that we never really ended slavery and handcuffs are the new chains, no, actually they are literally chaining people and taking them away as they did similarly w/ slaves.

[Silent Mule Man]

sitting cow

i don't. police should remain calm, not be confrontational, and then be able to recite most laws w/o being so argumentative. regardless of how a civilian is acting, for the most part. just because a civilian is arguing or even insulting the officer, doesn't mean they just should lose their composure and start putting people in handcuffs.

the civilian in this case didn't know the law, and was arguing and legitimately thought s/he was correct. and then the officer came over and didn't really give a convincing argument. so the civilian continued to protest. maybe the officer should have been more clear. so the problem here is that, the civilian needed to show id, but the problem is that the officer didn't really ask for it in a clear way.

I don't understand this criticism. I had no problem understanding what the officer was saying.

sitting cow

i mean, how do you handle someone who is breaking a law but doesn't know they are? and it's such a small law to break anyways...okay so this guy didn't know he was doing any wrong and also...failed to show his ID...so you handcuff him? so police are gonna start handcuffing people who speed? that's ridiculous.

She was a witness to a crime. She chose not to identify herself, and by doing so intentionally interfered with the officer's investigation, and for that she was arrested.

[sitting cow]

Silvia Crow

I don't understand this. If you're innocent of a crime, have no outstanding warrants, and in general have nothing on you that would cause the police to stop you or arrest you, why wouldn't you be compliant? I mean ********, it takes less than a minute to fish your wallet out of your pocket/purse/whatever you keep it in and get out an ID.

b/c ******** the police

[Silvia Crow]

sitting cow

Silvia Crow

I don't understand this. If you're innocent of a crime, have no outstanding warrants, and in general have nothing on you that would cause the police to stop you or arrest you, why wouldn't you be compliant? I mean ********, it takes less than a minute to fish your wallet out of your pocket/purse/whatever you keep it in and get out an ID.

b/c ******** the police

And it's that sort of mentality that gets people shot. Or at least forcibly restrained and handcuffed.

[Yoshpet]

PureCocainePureCocaine

Yoshpet

PureCocainePureCocaine

No, and I don't care how hard it is. If it's too hard to do it without damaging them, and they're not an axe murdering psycho or something, let it ******** go.

You're suggesting that police should just allow people who struggle to go free so that they don't harm them? If that were allowed then everyone would put up a huge struggle and no one would ever be arrested, even axe-murdering pyschos.

Holy crap, you don't know how okay I am with this.

Why would that be justifiable?

[sitting cow]

Silent Mule Man

sitting cow

i don't. police should remain calm, not be confrontational, and then be able to recite most laws w/o being so argumentative. regardless of how a civilian is acting, for the most part. just because a civilian is arguing or even insulting the officer, doesn't mean they just should lose their composure and start putting people in handcuffs.

the civilian in this case didn't know the law, and was arguing and legitimately thought s/he was correct. and then the officer came over and didn't really give a convincing argument. so the civilian continued to protest. maybe the officer should have been more clear. so the problem here is that, the civilian needed to show id, but the problem is that the officer didn't really ask for it in a clear way.

I don't understand this criticism. I had no problem understanding what the officer was saying.

there are many more others who think the officer was being unclear.

here's what he said:
"there's probable cause for us to be out here. i want to know who you are. so i'm requesting your id. you fail to id, i'm gonna take you into jail. and that's law.
....you're not being charged with anything. you're involved in an investigation. you wanna interfere with an investigation? you're going to jail for interfering with police officer performance investigation. do you understand that?"

here's how he should have been more clear:
"there's probable cause for us to be out here. i want to know who you are. "

okay he doesn't cite the law here. he said "i want to know who you are" ...how is that supposed to convince someone who is arguing about what the law is. what police officer says he wants is irrelevant.

"so i'm requesting your id. you fail to id, i'm gonna take you into jail. and that's law."

you fail to id? ... and that's law? if a civilian said something like this they'd be accused of being drunk or on drugs. obviously that is poor communication. i don't really need to explain that.

"....you're not being charged with anything. you're involved in an investigation. you wanna interfere with an investigation? you're going to jail for interfering with police officer performance investigation. do you understand that?"

actually it looked like the civilian did not want to interfere with the investigation, or wanted any part in it...that's why, yknow, the officer had to pester him for id.

didn't the officer mean to say the exact opposite of this? lol

and it's not so much the poor communication in and of itself i have a problem with. it's the poor communication then arresting someone for failing to understand what you have to say, when you're just shitty at communicating.

Quote:

sitting cow

i mean, how do you handle someone who is breaking a law but doesn't know they are? and it's such a small law to break anyways...okay so this guy didn't know he was doing any wrong and also...failed to show his ID...so you handcuff him? so police are gonna start handcuffing people who speed? that's ridiculous.

She was a witness to a crime. She chose not to identify herself, and by doing so intentionally interfered with the officer's investigation, and for that she was arrested.

actually it was unintentionally. and actually she didn't interfere. she was literally doing the exact opposite of that. lol.

and yeah...i know? i just think it's a stupid law to arrest someone over.

[sitting cow]

Silvia Crow

sitting cow

Silvia Crow

I don't understand this. If you're innocent of a crime, have no outstanding warrants, and in general have nothing on you that would cause the police to stop you or arrest you, why wouldn't you be compliant? I mean ********, it takes less than a minute to fish your wallet out of your pocket/purse/whatever you keep it in and get out an ID.

b/c ******** the police

And it's that sort of mentality that gets people shot. Or at least forcibly restrained and handcuffed.

a mentality is reason enough to shoot and forcibly restrain others? seriously? thoughts are crimes now? and you don't see a problem with it?

[Silent Mule Man]

sitting cow

"there's probable cause for us to be out here. i want to know who you are. "

okay he doesn't cite the law here. he said "i want to know who you are" ...how is that supposed to convince someone who is arguing about what the law is.

He goes on to explain further. To criticize him for that here because he didn't get around to it yet is just stupid.

sitting cow

"so i'm requesting your id. you fail to id, i'm gonna take you into jail. and that's law."

you fail to id? ... and that's law? if a civilian said something like this they'd be accused of being drunk or on drugs. obviously that is poor communication.

A civilian isn't a cop, and they can't lawfully detain someone for the reasons this cop was going to detain her. Kind of makes sense, right? Civilians aren't cops, so you wouldn't expect them to do certain things or say certain things that cops might say or do. Like how you wouldn't expect a civilian to perform a surgery, cause they're not a doctor.

As for it being poor communication, it was a rather straight forward comment; identify yourself or I'm taking you to jail, and by the way I am legally allowed to do just that.

sitting cow

"....you're not being charged with anything. you're involved in an investigation. you wanna interfere with an investigation? you're going to jail for interfering with police officer performance investigation. do you understand that?"

actually it looked like the civilian did not want to interfere with the investigation, or wanted any part in it...that's why, yknow, the officer had to pester him for id.

I noticed earlier you said something along the lines of, "who cares what the officer wants"? Well who cares what she wants? Like it or not, she played a pivotal role in what happened, so like it or not she is without a doubt involved in the investigation, so if she's then going to refuse to cooperate she is in fact interfering with their investigation by withholding crucial information that she possesses concerning the events that transpired there.

See? Figuring out what he meant wasn't that hard. You just hard to look at the whole thing and actually ******** think about it.

sitting cow

actually it was unintentionally. and actually she didn't interfere. she was literally doing the exact opposite of that. lol.

and yeah...i know? i just think it's a stupid law to arrest someone over.

She was there when the crime occurred. She witnessed it happen. Who she was, what she was doing there, and what she saw were all crucial to the investigation of this crime. So when she refused to identify herself, she interfered with the investigation. This s**t really isn't that hard, really.

[Silvia Crow]

sitting cow

Silvia Crow

sitting cow

Silvia Crow

I don't understand this. If you're innocent of a crime, have no outstanding warrants, and in general have nothing on you that would cause the police to stop you or arrest you, why wouldn't you be compliant? I mean ********, it takes less than a minute to fish your wallet out of your pocket/purse/whatever you keep it in and get out an ID.

b/c ******** the police

And it's that sort of mentality that gets people shot. Or at least forcibly restrained and handcuffed.

a mentality is reason enough to shoot and forcibly restrain others? seriously? thoughts are crimes now? and you don't see a problem with it?

I was getting at the lack of respect towards police officers that the "******** the police" mentality entails.

If a cop asks you to keep your hands where they can see them, and you reply with "******** the police" and a general uncooperativeness, don't be surprised when you get your a** beat.

[sitting cow]

Silent Mule Man

sitting cow

"there's probable cause for us to be out here. i want to know who you are. "

okay he doesn't cite the law here. he said "i want to know who you are" ...how is that supposed to convince someone who is arguing about what the law is.

He goes on to explain further. To criticize him for that here because he didn't get around to it yet is just stupid.

no not really. he never cites the law in any coherent way. he stumbles over himself then gets mad that others don't understand him.

and i'm not saying he never got around to it there. i'm saying that entire statement was irrelevant and hostile sounding and dumb. it's like if he said 'i'm hungry' or something random in the middle of all this.

Quote:

sitting cow

"so i'm requesting your id. you fail to id, i'm gonna take you into jail. and that's law."

you fail to id? ... and that's law? if a civilian said something like this they'd be accused of being drunk or on drugs. obviously that is poor communication.

A civilian isn't a cop, and they can't lawfully detain someone for the reasons this cop was going to detain her. Kind of makes sense, right? Civilians aren't cops, so you wouldn't expect them to do certain things or say certain things that cops might say or do. Like how you wouldn't expect a civilian to perform a surgery, cause they're not a doctor.

okay? i'm not sure what your argument here is. if anything a cop has more responsibility and should be held under more scrutiny by that argument. thanks for proving my point.

Quote:

As for it being poor communication, it was a rather straight forward comment; identify yourself or I'm taking you to jail, and by the way I am legally allowed to do just that.

how does someone "id"? how do you "id"?

Quote:

sitting cow

"....you're not being charged with anything. you're involved in an investigation. you wanna interfere with an investigation? you're going to jail for interfering with police officer performance investigation. do you understand that?"

actually it looked like the civilian did not want to interfere with the investigation, or wanted any part in it...that's why, yknow, the officer had to pester him for id.

I noticed earlier you said something along the lines of, "who cares what the officer wants"? Well who cares what she wants?

well it's a good thing i never said that, otherwise you might have a point. but you still manage to say nothing of value.

Quote:

sitting cow

actually it was unintentionally. and actually she didn't interfere. she was literally doing the exact opposite of that. lol.

and yeah...i know? i just think it's a stupid law to arrest someone over.

She was there when the crime occurred. She witnessed it happen. Who she was, what she was doing there, and what she saw were all crucial to the investigation of this crime. So when she refused to identify herself, she interfered with the investigation. This s**t really isn't that hard, really.

how is not getting involved interfering? it's not.

[Silent Mule Man]

sitting cow

Silent Mule Man

sitting cow

"there's probable cause for us to be out here. i want to know who you are. "

okay he doesn't cite the law here. he said "i want to know who you are" ...how is that supposed to convince someone who is arguing about what the law is.

He goes on to explain further. To criticize him for that here because he didn't get around to it yet is just stupid.

no not really. he never cites the law in any coherent way. he stumbles over himself then gets mad that others don't understand him.

and i'm not saying he never got around to it there. i'm saying that entire statement was irrelevant and hostile sounding and dumb. it's like if he said 'i'm hungry' or something random in the middle of all this.

Quote:

sitting cow

"so i'm requesting your id. you fail to id, i'm gonna take you into jail. and that's law."

you fail to id? ... and that's law? if a civilian said something like this they'd be accused of being drunk or on drugs. obviously that is poor communication.

A civilian isn't a cop, and they can't lawfully detain someone for the reasons this cop was going to detain her. Kind of makes sense, right? Civilians aren't cops, so you wouldn't expect them to do certain things or say certain things that cops might say or do. Like how you wouldn't expect a civilian to perform a surgery, cause they're not a doctor.

okay? i'm not sure what your argument here is. if anything a cop has more responsibility and should be held under more scrutiny by that argument. thanks for proving my point.

Quote:

As for it being poor communication, it was a rather straight forward comment; identify yourself or I'm taking you to jail, and by the way I am legally allowed to do just that.

how does someone "id"? how do you "id"?

Quote:

sitting cow

"....you're not being charged with anything. you're involved in an investigation. you wanna interfere with an investigation? you're going to jail for interfering with police officer performance investigation. do you understand that?"

actually it looked like the civilian did not want to interfere with the investigation, or wanted any part in it...that's why, yknow, the officer had to pester him for id.

I noticed earlier you said something along the lines of, "who cares what the officer wants"? Well who cares what she wants?

well it's a good thing i never said that, otherwise you might have a point. but you still manage to say nothing of value.

Quote:

sitting cow

actually it was unintentionally. and actually she didn't interfere. she was literally doing the exact opposite of that. lol.

and yeah...i know? i just think it's a stupid law to arrest someone over.

She was there when the crime occurred. She witnessed it happen. Who she was, what she was doing there, and what she saw were all crucial to the investigation of this crime. So when she refused to identify herself, she interfered with the investigation. This s**t really isn't that hard, really.

how is not getting involved interfering? it's not.

You're mad he didn't quote a book? Is that it?

"Id" as in "I.D.", as in identification. Anyone could've figured that one out.

sitting cow

what police officer says he wants is irrelevant.

Eh, close enough to work.

She's already involved. She's been involved since before the cops even showed up. Now she's just refusing to cooperate.

[PureCocainePureCocaine]

Silent Mule Man

sitting cow

Silent Mule Man

sitting cow

"there's probable cause for us to be out here. i want to know who you are. "

okay he doesn't cite the law here. he said "i want to know who you are" ...how is that supposed to convince someone who is arguing about what the law is.

He goes on to explain further. To criticize him for that here because he didn't get around to it yet is just stupid.

no not really. he never cites the law in any coherent way. he stumbles over himself then gets mad that others don't understand him.

and i'm not saying he never got around to it there. i'm saying that entire statement was irrelevant and hostile sounding and dumb. it's like if he said 'i'm hungry' or something random in the middle of all this.

Quote:

sitting cow

"so i'm requesting your id. you fail to id, i'm gonna take you into jail. and that's law."

you fail to id? ... and that's law? if a civilian said something like this they'd be accused of being drunk or on drugs. obviously that is poor communication.

A civilian isn't a cop, and they can't lawfully detain someone for the reasons this cop was going to detain her. Kind of makes sense, right? Civilians aren't cops, so you wouldn't expect them to do certain things or say certain things that cops might say or do. Like how you wouldn't expect a civilian to perform a surgery, cause they're not a doctor.

okay? i'm not sure what your argument here is. if anything a cop has more responsibility and should be held under more scrutiny by that argument. thanks for proving my point.

Quote:

As for it being poor communication, it was a rather straight forward comment; identify yourself or I'm taking you to jail, and by the way I am legally allowed to do just that.

how does someone "id"? how do you "id"?

Quote:

sitting cow

"....you're not being charged with anything. you're involved in an investigation. you wanna interfere with an investigation? you're going to jail for interfering with police officer performance investigation. do you understand that?"

actually it looked like the civilian did not want to interfere with the investigation, or wanted any part in it...that's why, yknow, the officer had to pester him for id.

I noticed earlier you said something along the lines of, "who cares what the officer wants"? Well who cares what she wants?

well it's a good thing i never said that, otherwise you might have a point. but you still manage to say nothing of value.

Quote:

sitting cow

actually it was unintentionally. and actually she didn't interfere. she was literally doing the exact opposite of that. lol.

and yeah...i know? i just think it's a stupid law to arrest someone over.

She was there when the crime occurred. She witnessed it happen. Who she was, what she was doing there, and what she saw were all crucial to the investigation of this crime. So when she refused to identify herself, she interfered with the investigation. This s**t really isn't that hard, really.

how is not getting involved interfering? it's not.

You're mad he didn't quote a book? Is that it?

"Id" as in "I.D.", as in identification. Anyone could've figured that one out.

sitting cow

what police officer says he wants is irrelevant.

Eh, close enough to work.

She's already involved. She's been involved since before the cops even showed up. Now she's just refusing to cooperate.

So what? You can't arrest people for not snitchin'.

[Silent Mule Man]

PureCocainePureCocaine

So what? You can't arrest people for not snitchin'.

Edit: Having reread the OP and the link itself, I've completely changed my mind.