Grandpa Tastes Concrete Over Videogames

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT
 

Abandon4093:

ZeZZZZevy:
Isn't it shoplifting only if you attempt to leave the store without paying for the item? I was under the impression that you could put it anywhere (within reason) between where it sits and the checkout line.

That's what I was thinking. Until he'd left the store it doesn't matter where he puts the game. There's no intent to shoplift until he's out of the store.

This just sounds like another instance of stupid police doing stupid shit. I'm really finding it hard to defend them lately.

They're hard to defend because only bad cops end up in the news. You hardly(if ever) hear stories about good cops, because bad cops are the only ones reported.

P: "Sir, could you please remove the disc from your pants?"
G: "Why don't you come here and get it yourself"
*after cuffing him policeman tries to get the game from geezers waist"
G: "Mhhhmm that's not a video-game sonny, but you keep trying"
*policeman smashes grandpa's face on concrete floor*

(yes I know I'm going to hell)

All distasteful jokes aside, this cases are becoming quite common all around the globe. Here, we don't have nearly as much of violent crimes as Americans do and policeman rarely get shot/stabbed on duty but recently a 16-year old was taken into police custody and bullied (beaten) for 5 hours. Reason? He was outside after 11 PM without adult escort. Since then, "investigation" was started, official and individual apologies were issued, but no-one was suspended or fired. Now I can somewhat understand police officers are just human beings too; they have a stressful job that keeps them on edge, but having a permission to beat the ever loving shit out of somebody, claim he was "resisting arrest" and just get a unofficial slap on the wrist and be on your merry way is a terrifying thing indeed. But I guess it's common practice for employees (especially government ones) to take their frustrations out on somebody else, but it usually involves yelling, or being snarky, or harassing your assistant, not smashing somebody's face on concrete floor.

wait.

how can the grandpa be accused of shoplifting if he hadnt left the store?

freddi91:
wait.

how can the grandpa be accused of shoplifting if he hadnt left the store?

Depending on where you live you can be arrested for the intent to steal. If you are putting it in your pants or jacket and hiding it, it shows what you are intending to do and you can be arrested, at stores I have worked at in my town dozens have been arrested while I have been on shift for doing that.

Oops, doublepost?

TheBelgianGuy:

TheBelgianGuy:
snip

So what about, "we don't know what happened before they cuffed him" are you failing to grasp? That video starts off with the guy on the ground, cuffed and bleeding. We have no idea what happened before that. For all we know he was going bananas and the cops had to throw him to the ground to get him to stop.

Again, we don;t know everything that lead up to that video starting. If we get the stuff that happened before we can better judge. If it proven the cop was over the line, throw the book at him and fire him from the force. Simple as that. But stop being judgmental when we don't have all the facts.

HAHAHAHAHAHA. So what about, you're the one who doesn't want to read?

"
Jerald Newman, 54, spent Friday night in a Maricopa County jail hours after being arrested.

David Chadd, a CNN iReporter from Las Vegas, was among the crowd shopping for video games set up in the Walmart's grocery section. He said Newman "was not resisting" arrest as he was led away from the crowd by a police officer.

That officer, Chadd said, then suddenly hooked the suspect around the leg, grabbed him and "slammed him face first into the ground."

"It was like a bowling ball hitting the ground, that's how bad it was," he said.
"
Maybe read before you're judging other people for judging FACTS?[/quote]

This Black Friday thing is getting ridiculous, the retail industry needs to end this madness and yes, I am putting this at the feet of the retailers for encouraging almost riot-like situations in their highly competitive sales where stores are so crammed full of people to get sales where there are not enough to go around! Retailing is a subtle art and they cannot expect the police to solve a bad situation, the retailers should work to not let it get that bad in the first place! For example, make Black Friday into Black Weekend and make offers to discounts on orders so even if stock is gone they can still buy at somewhat discount prices to collect later. Just enough of this mad rush with stores so crowded that those RESPONSIBLE lose control of the situation.

As to the OP, I suggest you walk a mile in a man's shoes before you tell him how to do his job. It is VERY HARD to arrest people who are increasingly likely to be armed or have allies who are armed. So many police officers have gone soft on suspects and paid for their kindness with their life or limb.

I read court briefing of a cop who "arrested" a woman and put her in the back seat of his cruiser without handcuffing her, she pulled out a Saturday night special and shot him in the back of the head, later some police officers arrived and found their colleague had died from massive blood loss after trying to crawl for help half paralysed. The suspect was still locked in the back of the cruiser, she had shot the cop to spite it not aiding her escape in any way, she had no real reason to do it but did anyway.

THIS is why cops are so rough with suspects, because in a 40 year career you make the habit of giving them an inch one day someone will take it! I disagree with the term "slamming face into ground" that implies that the arresting officer particularly held the HEAD and pushed the head into the ground. Really, if you resist the police WILL put you down as quickly as they can as if they get into the habit to wrestling in fair terms they will lose the upper hand TOO often. And a likely outcome of that is minor injury. A bleeding nose is very messy when you can't raise your hand to cover it, but unless you suffocate it is not serious.

You are seriously putting yourself in harms way when you try to detain anyone, people over-react and who never have a history of violence panic and do things they might never have done.

And take a look at this from another perspective: this is an old white-guy, traditionally the group that gets a free-pass from the police who supposedly only target young-non-white groups. What would it say if the cops just told-off the older white guy and escorted him away without being given due process (handcuffs, searching, questioning, and then DA sentencing)

"Grandpa grandpa!" the little kid says

Is that supposed to be more shocking than if an old black lady says:

"That's my grandson!" the black lady says to the arresting officer.

Are police supposed to be ashamed of arresting an old white guy? Because "oooh, old white people never commit crimes it's normally ethnic kids, what am I doing?"[/sarc] that's what I detect with the supposed significance of the little white kid exclaiming "grandpa!" in this event. He put a game down his pants, now that might have an innocent explanation but if there isn't he is under arrest till then, and needs to accept he has brought suspicion to be arrested and not resist.

I will give the police officer the benefit of the doubt.

I will doubt "witness testimony". Anyone who has read enough "witness testimony" of UFO sightings should know how unreliable they are, exaggerating Jumbo Jets into alien spaceships. Witnesses are only valuable under thorough cross examination and with corroboration.

Raddra:

Best bet I've ever found with dealing with the cops is to shut up and listen to them.

Even if you fel your rights are being trampled, better to not get face planted or smacked around and dealing with it after the fact.

People tend ot forget the police are pretty much above the law

they can use deadly force if they feel it's needed and it's almost impossible to stop them.

You scare me. That you even accept this and do not question it or seem to disagree with it is utterly terrifying.

I mean, I could see this in Egypt or Libya...

The police are supposed to be there to serve and protect.

That some people are starting to see and accept them as some kind of violent force who can do whatever they want is terrifying in and of itself.

What's more terrifying is you seem to imply it's okay to resist an officers orders or contest them. It's not. They have the court system for that. If you receive a lawful order, you must do it, it's not a choice. That's how the system works.

Wow. All i can say is if you live in the US and you see any kind of event going down involving the police, whip your phone out and start filming. No matter what. That way people can know the truth for sure.

Treblaine:

I will give the police officer the benefit of the doubt.

Why does the officer get the benefit of the doubt but the old man is portray as someone who panicked and had the potential to possibly kill your righteous officer according to the example of what could happen if a policeman lets his guard down.

It's ok being skeptical to both sides but being biased in this way is bullshit.

Think for yourself, question authority.

TheBelgianGuy:

TheBelgianGuy:

TheBelgianGuy:
snip

So what about, "we don't know what happened before they cuffed him" are you failing to grasp? That video starts off with the guy on the ground, cuffed and bleeding. We have no idea what happened before that. For all we know he was going bananas and the cops had to throw him to the ground to get him to stop.

Again, we don;t know everything that lead up to that video starting. If we get the stuff that happened before we can better judge. If it proven the cop was over the line, throw the book at him and fire him from the force. Simple as that. But stop being judgmental when we don't have all the facts.

HAHAHAHAHAHA. So what about, you're the one who doesn't want to read?

"
Jerald Newman, 54, spent Friday night in a Maricopa County jail hours after being arrested.

David Chadd, a CNN iReporter from Las Vegas, was among the crowd shopping for video games set up in the Walmart's grocery section. He said Newman "was not resisting" arrest as he was led away from the crowd by a police officer.

That officer, Chadd said, then suddenly hooked the suspect around the leg, grabbed him and "slammed him face first into the ground."

"It was like a bowling ball hitting the ground, that's how bad it was," he said.
"
Maybe read before you're judging other people for judging FACTS?

Are you really calling a random eye witness "facts"? I mean, seriously? Everyone knows that eye witness statements are the least reliable.

Especially from a reporter who can benefit from more page views from a story. (And if you say "oh but reporters are all unbiased!" you are lieing to yourself and in some kind of denial I have never even heard of.)

So yeah, we dont have any facts other than he ended up on the ground bleeding, beyond that its just one side saying something and the other side saying something different.

Eri:

What's more terrifying is you seem to imply it's okay to resist an officers orders or contest them. It's not. They have the court system for that. If you receive a lawful order, you must do it, it's not a choice. That's how the system works.

Sure lawful order. But police also very often try to trample your rights.

Say filming or photographing in puplic property is perfectly legal, yet there are dozens of videos in youtube where police tries to tell you differently. You are perfectly within your rights to tell them to get lost if they try to insist othervise.

On this op case too, unless Arizona laws are really moronic, you can't be shoplifting unless you leave the store so it really isn't lawful for police to start handguffing people inside shop for possible shoplifting.

Raddra:
You scare me. That you even accept this and do not question it or seem to disagree with it is utterly terrifying.

I mean, I could see this in Egypt or Libya...

The police are supposed to be there to serve and protect.

That some people are starting to see and accept them as some kind of violent force who can do whatever they want is terrifying in and of itself.

Er...yeah, it's all very well to say how they are supposed to be, but people have to deal with them as they are.

Inside the uniform is a human being, with all that implies.

...

Though, it depends on your situation. "Police don't mistreat people" isn't the same as "police don't tend to mistreat people of my socio-economic status".

TheBelgianGuy:

TheBelgianGuy:

TheBelgianGuy:
snip

So what about, "we don't know what happened before they cuffed him" are you failing to grasp? That video starts off with the guy on the ground, cuffed and bleeding. We have no idea what happened before that. For all we know he was going bananas and the cops had to throw him to the ground to get him to stop.

Again, we don;t know everything that lead up to that video starting. If we get the stuff that happened before we can better judge. If it proven the cop was over the line, throw the book at him and fire him from the force. Simple as that. But stop being judgmental when we don't have all the facts.

HAHAHAHAHAHA. So what about, you're the one who doesn't want to read?

"
Jerald Newman, 54, spent Friday night in a Maricopa County jail hours after being arrested.

David Chadd, a CNN iReporter from Las Vegas, was among the crowd shopping for video games set up in the Walmart's grocery section. He said Newman "was not resisting" arrest as he was led away from the crowd by a police officer.

That officer, Chadd said, then suddenly hooked the suspect around the leg, grabbed him and "slammed him face first into the ground."

"It was like a bowling ball hitting the ground, that's how bad it was," he said.
Maybe read before you're judging other people for judging FACTS?

"Witness accounts" are far from facts:

http://www.ufocasebook.com/2009/multiplewitnesses.html

Consider all the spurious "witness account" of UFOs, Bigfoot, the grassy knoll and Elvis sightings and a load of other bollocks that makes up the billion dollar conspiracy industry.

There is a reason Hear-Say is not permitted as evidence in court. Witnesses are only valued in court Under Oath and under cross-examination which is a VITAL step in detecting what they actually saw without exaggeration, vagueness or bias. When you stick a camera in someone's face and ask the right question you can get the question you want. I've done it myself and even after that I've fallen for it.

When you hang the sword of perjury over people's heads and ask them what they ACTUALLY saw, and you'll find often "not resisting" was really "not resisting enough to deserve getting his head smashed in, in my opinion" but we don't know, these witnesses have not truly had their witness turned into evidence, that is fact.

You know what is going on here: it's trial-by-media

A kangaroo court with no representation operating FAR beyond the learned principals of justice.

I think this should be investigated and evidence gathered for a trial where the evidence can be weighed, NOT for it to be prejudged WITHOUT ALL the evidence being weighed.

And here I thought it was an old loony who'd rather eat concrete than play a video game. Either way, it's still messed up.

It's like this, the video does not show the takedown. There is nothing at all inappropriate to taking a person down with a tackle if they flee arrest, in cuffs or not. Injuries are always possible when you tackle someone. The bottom line is that if you flee the police or resist arrest, in cuffs or not, you take your chances.

I think the people commenting in the video miss the point entirely and are a bit sociopathic. Saying that "it's just shoplifting" is kind of warped, since the basic
arguement is that instead of tackling the guy when he fled, they should have left him go.

In a crowd alternatives to a tackle such as trying to tase the guy (if they had that option) would have been inappropriate due to the chance of missing.

From what I'm reading it was 100% appropriate, there probably won't be any issues here at all. I think there is a tendency to villify the police by default and as such people are empathizing with the thief in question when they probably shouldn't.

Now, I'm guessing that he either started to run, or was still flailing around in cuffs. The tackle/body plant is sometimes referred to professionally as "escorting someone to the floor".

Personally, I'd look at it and consider it a deterrant before you try and steal something. If you have the attitude of "oh, it's only shoplifting" then your wrong.

That's my thoughts, I imagine most people are going to disagree with me. Of course then again I've typically been more on the police-end of things. The casinos where I worked were full of stores and we chased thieves and shoplifters around all the time, I have absolutly zero sympathy. As it is I think those in authority in such matters treat these guys far too gently, and as a result it's not like stealing is deterred. Now granted going "Muslim Style" and having Mall Security take his hand off publically with a paper cutter might be excessive, but I'd be tempted to say they should put a picture of the guy's bloody face on the glass doors facing both inward and outward with some clever caption conveying that this is what happens if you try and steal.

We don't know the facts. The police get called out on using unnecessary force a lot, and sometimes they do, but it's not as simple as "BUT HE HAD OFFSPRING WHO HAD OFFSPRING, AND THUS HAS SOME SORT OF CRAZY AUTOMATIC POLICE BRUTALITY CLAUSE IF EVER APPREHENDED FOR ANYTHING!"
Now, see, we don't know what's happened. If he complied with them and got smashed into the floor? Yes, that's unnecessary force. If he actually resisted? No, he got tackled because he was stupid.
It looks bad, I know, it automatically makes you side with the underdog when there's three police on a bleeding old man. But guess what? The point of the police isn't to give anybody a fair fight. The point of the police is to make sure there's going to be minimal injury. It's so very easy to holler "POLICE BRUTALITY!" when things look one-sided and somebody's bleeding, but guess what? If they didn't act fast and decisively in these situations, it might look even uglier, maybe with someone clutching their guts with a knife in the belly. Somebody resists arrest, he's a potential danger to everyone around them. I'm not talking about this situation per se, I'm talking about the big picture. Just remember this: if you resist arrest, you're telling them you're a potential danger and have just agreed to being put in harm's way for the sake of protecting others, including the officers themselves.
Have you seen what can happen in five seconds if somebody's allowed to resist and actually starts really, veritably resisting and manages to pull some shit? The pictures aren't pretty. There's a reason the police utilize force, and the detained is put up against overwhelming odds. It's not about a fair fight, it's about trying to make sure there won't be a fight at all and things won't turn really damn ugly for everybody.

All I'm saying is, we don't know the facts. Eyewitness accounts, as stated, don't mean jack by themselves, without any kind of examiniation. There's no victim here before they can actually prove he wasn't, in fact, "flailing his arms around and resisting arrest", and we should reserve judgement. He might be the victim of unnecessary use of force, he might have gotten it for a reason. I certainly can't say and thus won't.

OldRat:
We don't know the facts. The police get called out on using unnecessary force a lot, and sometimes they do, but it's not as simple as "BUT HE HAD OFFSPRING WHO HAD OFFSPRING, AND THUS HAS SOME SORT OF CRAZY AUTOMATIC POLICE BRUTALITY CLAUSE IF EVER APPREHENDED FOR ANYTHING!"
Now, see, we don't know what's happened. If he complied with them and got smashed into the floor? Yes, that's unnecessary force. If he actually resisted? No, he got tackled because he was stupid.
It looks bad, I know, it automatically makes you side with the underdog when there's three police on a bleeding old man. But guess what? The point of the police isn't to give anybody a fair fight. The point of the police is to make sure there's going to be minimal injury. It's so very easy to holler "POLICE BRUTALITY!" when things look one-sided and somebody's bleeding, but guess what? If they didn't act fast and decisively in these situations, it might look even uglier, maybe with someone clutching their guts with a knife in the belly. Somebody resists arrest, he's a potential danger to everyone around them. I'm not talking about this situation per se, I'm talking about the big picture. Just remember this: if you resist arrest, you're telling them you're a potential danger and have just agreed to being put in harm's way for the sake of protecting others, including the officers themselves.
Have you seen what can happen in five seconds if somebody's allowed to resist and actually starts really, veritably resisting and manages to pull some shit? The pictures aren't pretty. There's a reason the police utilize force, and the detained is put up against overwhelming odds. It's not about a fair fight, it's about trying to make sure there won't be a fight at all and things won't turn really damn ugly for everybody.

All I'm saying is, we don't know the facts. Eyewitness accounts, as stated, don't mean jack by themselves, without any kind of examiniation. There's no victim here before they can actually prove he wasn't, in fact, "flailing his arms around and resisting arrest", and we should reserve judgement. He might be the victim of unnecessary use of force, he might have gotten it for a reason. I certainly can't say and thus won't.

Might I just point out to you that he wasn't actually shoplifting. No really he wasn't since he was still inside the shop. I am sure that is the reason why most people are on his side here.

54 isnt really that old... when you said grampa i imagined a 70 year old.

Fieldy409:
54 isnt really that old... when you said grampa i imagined a 70 year old.

Is that mild disappointment I hear in your tone?

seraphy:

OldRat:
-SNIP-.

Might I just point out to you that he wasn't actually shoplifting. No really he wasn't since he was still inside the shop. I am sure that is the reason why most people are on his side here.

I didn't actually mention shoplifting at any point, but I see your point. But on that note, what he wasn't doing was succeeding in shoplifting. People can and will be prosecuted for trying to fill their pockets with things in stores or otherwise displaying behavior (hell, just having a tinfoil-lined pack with you in a store is grounds to get a shoplifting charge a lot of times if they somehow find out you have one in the store, at least here) that denotes them as trying to shoplift. That's why they have carts and those cumbersome plastic baskets, to make it a lot easier to determine if you're trying to shoplift.

The police saw it fit to take him in for it. They didn't tackle him for it, they tackled him for whatever happened during the arrest itself, whatever that may be. You might be surprised, but the police are actually allowed, by law, to detain anyone at any time. It might turn out to be a wrongly made arrest, and if it was in error, you can go to court about it, but you do actually have to go along with it when they do take you in. You cannot resist it and get away with any sort of legal high ground in the matter, you take it through legal channels if you feel it was in error.
The bottom line is, you don't start resisting arrest no matter what if you don't want to get pain for it.

So the point still stands. He might have resisted arrest, or he might have not, and there's no way to know before some actual, hard evidence like security camera footage of the incident actually surfaces.

Freaky Lou:
I saw this on Destructoid. It's pretty messed up.

With this and the OWS stuff, there's been a disturbing spate of police using completely unnecessary levels of force lately. It's really troubling. I've generally had a lot of respect for police officers because I've never heard any complaints about our local dept. and my personal experience with them has always been good, but now I'm starting to wonder if my area is an exception. There are an awful lot of these types of cases.

It's a vast minority of police officers that are actually bad, the problem is that the rest of the force have this idiotic idea that they have to cover for these guys and so the problem persists and the entire police force looks crap for it.

Couldn't say either way on the rightness of making the old guy eat floor...

However, take it from someone with a bit of a checkered past... there are certain days/events where you simply do no fuck around with cops unless you're ready to face what would normally be a complete overreaction. This is especially true in 'confused' situations where everyone is acting like shitheads and cops get super stressed trying to spot shit kicking off.

Treblaine:
This Black Friday thing is getting ridiculous, the retail industry needs to end this madness and yes, I am putting this at the feet of the retailers for encouraging almost riot-like situations in their highly competitive sales where stores are so crammed full of people to get sales where there are not enough to go around!

Actually, crazy stuff happens in stores all the time. It's really just humanity being humanity, but you recently heard of 4, 5, 6 outstanding incidents (which, really, for a single day is statistically insignificant) because on Black Friday...the media has NOTHING else to report. It's the only day where there's so little going on they have to resort to reporting on shopping.

'LET EM DO THEIR JOB, MYAAN'.
Morons. The guy clearly needed help.

I was curiously reading this until I read the word grandson. Imagine how he will feel for the rest of his life. Good job police.

Wow, the comments on this page are unbelievable.

Interesting fact: in a court of law, several witnesses are enough to convict someone of a crime that could land them in jail for the rest of their life. But not when a police officer is involved. In this case, several witnesses isn't enough to prove a police officer who almost killed someone is actually responsible for a crime that may deserve some punishment.

It's as many have said and I can't help but agree. Police officers are far too undertrained to try and diffuse a situation and actually accomplish some form of serving and/or protecting. I point you to this idea. He was there to stop a crime that he couldn't even be sure was being committed, and that resulted in everyone's shopping experience being ruined by the inclusion of several police (after the fact of course) and paramedics, all because John Rambo had a badge on that day. AND, the police officer harmed someone to the point they had to go the hospital because he was choking on his own blood.

So, if you took the police officer out of the situation, you MAYBE had the theft of a single videogame, and everyone joyously or otherwise went about their miserable shopping day. Think about what got stolen as the stupid cop was busy cleaning up his mess. This is why there is ever growing mistrust in the police forces associated with any US or state governmental body.

Edit: It's morons like this cop who make it harder for good cops to do their jobs. And as long as the retarded ones are protected, it hurts them all.

Based on the information, no one of us can really judge this correctly. The guy could have really been dangerous or the cop could just be an overaggressive idiot, we don't know.
But right now, I'm not in the mood for being rational, so fuck the police!

OldRat:

seraphy:

OldRat:
-SNIP-.

The police saw it fit to take him in for it. They didn't tackle him for it, they tackled him for whatever happened during the arrest itself, whatever that may be. You might be surprised, but the police are actually allowed, by law, to detain anyone at any time.

This is incorrect. They cannot just detain you whenever they want. They need one of the great many reasons that exist to do it. For instance, if you are walking down the street, they can stop and question you, but they cannot just put cuffs on you and put in the back of the car without telling you why they are doing it. They have a reason to be doing it if they are doing something like that and they are obligated to tell you what that is.

The_root_of_all_evil:
The Tabloids likely response?

"PROOF: GAMES CAUSE VIOLENCE".

But let's face it, if the media continually pile on the frenzy, it won't be so long before someone is properly killed over Black Friday (rather than being involved in a gang warfare at Black Friday that's reported as "OMG BLACK FRIDAY. PEOPLE DIE OVER IT."

Given the 4 months leg room that Xmas has, maybe Black Friday could start on a Grey Friday the week before?

Perhaps save some lives?

Just a thought.

(Oh. I don't care if that Guy was stealing a Kinect, faceplanting him is an aggravated assault beyond the parameters of "resisting arrest".)

As far as I know someone was trampled to death in Black Friday a few years ago, a walmart employee (what a tragic job to die for). Or do you mean deliberate-act-of-violence killed?

Aeonknight:

Prof.Beany:

Aeonknight:
You don't know if he was acting the fool or not. So before you fall for yet another inflammatory title this website is known for and make yourself look like a jackass, why not wait until all the facts are present before picking a side?

Pretty sure remaining calm in the face of idiots is something a cop should be quite good at, I mean unless these guys are fro the Jersey shore or something a few aggravating words is in no way a warrant for a face smashing.

It's funny you mention that, because after rereading this little section here:

Grey Carter:
The police tell a slightly different story: they're claiming Newman was flailing his arms and resisting arrest - though you have to wonder exactly how much arrest resisting warrants a man being made into the filling in a cop and concrete sandwich.

It says he flailing his arms around acting like a jackass. If it's true, he deserved what he got. But the video doesn't show anything prior to the police putting him down. So as it is right now, it's a case of he said/she said. I'm sure security footage could give us a pretty clear picture of what happened instead of some gawker's cell phone video, but good luck getting ahold of that...

You CLEARLY do not watch any Police programs on TV do you? I watch them mostly at night, and flailing your arms around is nothing, Police SHOULD be trained to keep calm at all times, and only use physical force if the guy is actually getting physical with them, but FACE PLANTING someone so hard they end up in a pool of blood? Hell no! technically what they did here is physical abuse. He looks frigging 60-70 years old...WHAT HARM COULD HE POSSIBLY DO TO 20-30 YEAR OLD POLICE?!?!

I really feel sorry for that guy, even if he was shoplifting, and had a bit of a mouth on him, he did not deserve that.

SirBryghtside:
Why is it that the main thing I'm confused about in that article is the fact that he was shoplifting on the day with massive sales?

I just don't understand people...

Grey Carter:
I admit, I'm grimly interested in what game sparked the violence. Police brutality over a copy of Skyrim is one thing, but having your face crushed because of a discount copy of Rapala Fishing Frenzy 2009? That would be just awful.

I see what you did there.

The article states that he MAY have been shoplifting, though there were witnesses that said he put the game in his waste line to pick up his grandson so the child didn't get trampled.

Literacy, it's everyone's friend. :p

Treblaine:

TheBelgianGuy:

TheBelgianGuy:

So what about, "we don't know what happened before they cuffed him" are you failing to grasp? That video starts off with the guy on the ground, cuffed and bleeding. We have no idea what happened before that. For all we know he was going bananas and the cops had to throw him to the ground to get him to stop.

Again, we don;t know everything that lead up to that video starting. If we get the stuff that happened before we can better judge. If it proven the cop was over the line, throw the book at him and fire him from the force. Simple as that. But stop being judgmental when we don't have all the facts.

HAHAHAHAHAHA. So what about, you're the one who doesn't want to read?

"
Jerald Newman, 54, spent Friday night in a Maricopa County jail hours after being arrested.

David Chadd, a CNN iReporter from Las Vegas, was among the crowd shopping for video games set up in the Walmart's grocery section. He said Newman "was not resisting" arrest as he was led away from the crowd by a police officer.

That officer, Chadd said, then suddenly hooked the suspect around the leg, grabbed him and "slammed him face first into the ground."

"It was like a bowling ball hitting the ground, that's how bad it was," he said.
Maybe read before you're judging other people for judging FACTS?

"Witness accounts" are far from facts:

http://www.ufocasebook.com/2009/multiplewitnesses.html

Consider all the spurious "witness account" of UFOs, Bigfoot, the grassy knoll and Elvis sightings and a load of other bollocks that makes up the billion dollar conspiracy industry.

There is a reason Hear-Say is not permitted as evidence in court. Witnesses are only valued in court Under Oath and under cross-examination which is a VITAL step in detecting what they actually saw without exaggeration, vagueness or bias. When you stick a camera in someone's face and ask the right question you can get the question you want. I've done it myself and even after that I've fallen for it.

When you hang the sword of perjury over people's heads and ask them what they ACTUALLY saw, and you'll find often "not resisting" was really "not resisting enough to deserve getting his head smashed in, in my opinion" but we don't know, these witnesses have not truly had their witness turned into evidence, that is fact.

You know what is going on here: it's trial-by-media

A kangaroo court with no representation operating FAR beyond the learned principals of justice.

I think this should be investigated and evidence gathered for a trial where the evidence can be weighed, NOT for it to be prejudged WITHOUT ALL the evidence being weighed.

Unfortunately, the evidence being weighed is only the statements by the police officer in question and the several other accounts saying the old man didn't try to steal it. Then you have the witness who claims he didn't try to resist.

Also, the police usually are not brought up to code on the "learned principals of justice" either. But, as you say, at this point it is all hearsay, even what the police officer said, up until he put it into his report. And other statements are hearsay, up until it's put into the police reports (seeing as how you are not allowed to lie in that document either). I would imagine, those other witnesses were not actually talked to because small town police tend to be kangaroo forces for justice who get off when they have done bad things because of their position in society.

Eri:

What's more terrifying is you seem to imply it's okay to resist an officers orders or contest them. It's not. They have the court system for that. If you receive a lawful order, you must do it, it's not a choice. That's how the system works.

Its terrifying to have and stand up for your rights against an increasingly violent force of people wearing police uniforms but not acting like them?

I stand up for real police officers, but police can be wrong. They are human. Standing up and speaking reasonably is an entirely different ballgame than what you see so many do: scream loudly and get physical in their struggles.

Nowhere did I state that it is ok to resist / contest real police officers doing their job in a physical manner: I am not one of the 'f the police' morons. But standing up politically against a corrupt system is something else entirely. This is what needs to happen: lawful solidarity in the face of an increasingly corrupt system whereby yobs in uniforms go off on violent power trips against innocent people.

seraphy:

Eri:

What's more terrifying is you seem to imply it's okay to resist an officers orders or contest them. It's not. They have the court system for that. If you receive a lawful order, you must do it, it's not a choice. That's how the system works.

Sure lawful order. But police also very often try to trample your rights.

Say filming or photographing in puplic property is perfectly legal, yet there are dozens of videos in youtube where police tries to tell you differently. You are perfectly within your rights to tell them to get lost if they try to insist othervise.

On this op case too, unless Arizona laws are really moronic, you can't be shoplifting unless you leave the store so it really isn't lawful for police to start handguffing people inside shop for possible shoplifting.

Well it is the polices' authority to arrest people just to do their duty.

If you think about it, wouldn't the cop be doing the guy a favour arresting him BEFORE he technically broke the law, sending him to the police station and getting a right-good-talking-to but avoiding serving long prison time? Wouldn't it be a major dick move for a cop to see someone in the process of stealing, do nothing to stop it and allow them to cross the line just to fill the overflowing prison system?

Prison sentences are not the only way police operate. It is not illegal nor immoral for police to arrest without the intention of a judicial sentence as the outcome. You should not see police arrest as "for the sole purpose of due process to imprison criminals".

I know that is the way many people justify the imprisonment aspect of arrest, that it is acceptable because the person would be going to prison. But arrest is justified as a way for the police do their policing job, which is to be very diplomatic with warnings and rapprochement. Arrest simply stops who they are dealing with running away and refusing to face burning questions, yet give them time to calm down or sober up and compare statements - the old prisoner's dilemma scenario.

But only 24 hours and with time for a lawyer. It's kinda hard to get a lawyer on the street corner!

Police powers of arrest are just a compromise between liberty and justice, you can't immediately take every suspect from free movement to charged and in jail awaiting trial.

As to arresting people for filming an arrest. That is not acceptable unless they are filming the suspect's face and media laws forbid pre-trial prejudice by the media in which case they'd have good reason to stop you filming so the jury pool doesn't all see it:
"ooh, Mr Smith got arrested by police, he must be the serial killer, and of course I knew this all along because of *insert tawdry tattles here*"

But then America has the 4th amendment, containing the clause of "Probable Cause" as the basis of police actions of arrest and searches, they must be "if it is reasonably suspicious that a crime has been committed by them". So in a way, the cop is forced by the 4th amendment to let a would be shoplifter cross the line of criminality before intercepting if he knows it isn't a crime till he leaves the property. He can hardly just ask the gentleman to take the copy of Black Ops out of his boxers and put it back on the shelves, that's hardly the discouragement of a trip down the yard.

However, 4th amendment is less a legal jeopardy for police, more that it causes cases to be thrown out.

Amnestic:
Pick up that can.

You won the thread here, I didn't really need to continue reading.

---

OT - Stupid amounts of force when for all we know the guy was trying to save his grandson from being trampled. Even if he was intending to shoplift, you don't assault people for a $60 game. Where I'm from being arrested doesn't land you in hospital unless you were trying to land someone else in hospital and had to be stopped.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here