"Honest Cops"...don't resist them!

[heavenlyboy34]

Such valliant heroes...If only mundanes would stop resisting, things would be so much easier...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f23CPcTdY2M#t=100
And the YT comments: SMH. Full of fail.

[aGameOfThrones]

only 5% bad.

[Ronin Truth]

I most usually make it a policy and a practice to not resist anyone wearing or carrying a gun. My goal is to end the transaction as quickly and peacefully as possible.

So far, so good. :)

[heavenlyboy34]

only 5% bad.
Ah, okay. I only skimmed them. :o The UK based forum I found this on were full of failed comments, like:


That's one spoiled brat that needs a slap! The officer could do with getting fitter but they did what they had to

She reminded me of a toddler throwing a temper tantrum, even had the same fake crying! SMH.

[osan]

Wow. With any luck they will both be killed in the "line of duty" by next Friday.

One can hope, anyhow.

Filth.

[pcosmar]

Why was she being arrested,,, before she resisted arrest..?


Because a human being has a RIGHT to resist an unlawful arrest.

And an arrest without a valid arrest warrant is an unlawful arrest.

[Suzanimal]

Why was she being arrested,,, before she resisted arrest..?


Because a human being has a RIGHT to resist an unlawful arrest.

And an arrest without a valid arrest warrant is an unlawful arrest.

I read about people being charged with resisting arrest with no other charges on a fairly regular basis, I wonder if those charges actually stick. It seems really stupid.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

You guys will probably roast me, but assuming the arrest was lawful, I'd say that guy is top 5% of cops. I think he did the right thing by speaking with bystanders, and I think he did the right thing by not divulging details of "the accused." Most cops would have done neither. I'm not cool with secrecy, but if someone is only accused of something, many of us have a problem with cops and prosecutors badmouthing the arrested like we usually see. I thought he showed some tact.

The female cop was run of the mill.

[Christian Liberty]

Why was she being arrested,,, before she resisted arrest..?


Because a human being has a RIGHT to resist an unlawful arrest.

And an arrest without a valid arrest warrant is an unlawful arrest.

Yeah, that's what I want to know.

The officer implied that there was a victim to her action. Perhaps that's BS. Maybe it was drug possession, tax evasion, or something else that didn't have a real victim. If that's the case, than of course she had the right to resist. I do not know if she actually was trying to resist either. My observational skills aren't very good, but it didn't seem like she was resisting to me. She seemed to simply have no idea why she was being resisted. That was the perception I got, but maybe it was wrong.

That said, the officer in that case seemed to at least have a certain level of professionalism. He knew he was on video, but he didn't try to power trip and force them to delete the video, nor does it seem like he physically harmed anyone. Not saying that's "Good", again, its very possible that she didn't deserve to be arrested. But it seems likely to me that this guy falls more under the more general "Doing his job, whether good or bad, but no more than required" category rather than the deliberately sociopathic.

[Christian Liberty]

You guys will probably roast me, but assuming the arrest was lawful, I'd say that guy is top 5% of cops. I think he did the right thing by speaking with bystanders, and I think he did the right thing by not divulging details of "the accused." Most cops would have done neither. I'm not cool with secrecy, but if someone is only accused of something, many of us have a problem with cops and prosecutors badmouthing the arrested like we usually see. I thought he showed some tact.

The female cop was run of the mill.

Nope, I agree with you.

I mean, I don't personally have any statistics with regards to the percentage, but I think he was fairly professional about it. I don't know what she was being arrested for. If it was a victimless crime ,the officers are wrong, period. I don't know for sure if she was actually trying to slip out of the cuffs or not, and if not, I don't know why the officer believed that she was. And if its a victimless crime, it might have been pragmatically unwise, but not a violation of the NAP, for her to resist. On the other hand, obviously if there actually was a victim, the cop would have had a moral right to arrest her. And, as you said, he actually talked to the people and he didn't try to prevent them from taking a video. At the very least, I don't think he was deliberately abusing power here. And honestly, I think the people who were talking to him were a little rude. I could understand that if they KNEW it was a BS arrest, but frankly, they didn't know, and they weren't really letting the cop try to explain, so I can understand him getting a little frustrated.

[heavenlyboy34]

Nope, I agree with you.

I mean, I don't personally have any statistics with regards to the percentage, but I think he was fairly professional about it. I don't know what she was being arrested for. If it was a victimless crime ,the officers are wrong, period. I don't know for sure if she was actually trying to slip out of the cuffs or not, and if not, I don't know why the officer believed that she was. And if its a victimless crime, it might have been pragmatically unwise, but not a violation of the NAP, for her to resist. On the other hand, obviously if there actually was a victim, the cop would have had a moral right to arrest her. And, as you said, he actually talked to the people and he didn't try to prevent them from taking a video. At the very least, I don't think he was deliberately abusing power here. And honestly, I think the people who were talking to him were a little rude. I could understand that if they KNEW it was a BS arrest, but frankly, they didn't know, and they weren't really letting the cop try to explain, so I can understand him getting a little frustrated.
How so? There is no raitonal or even Constitutional reason for cops to exist at all.

[Christian Liberty]

How so? There is no raitonal or even Constitutional reason for cops to exist at all.

I didn't say they should exist, I'm not sure how you derived that I said that (Although, if you want to talk about the constitution, not sure why police at the state level would not be constitutional...). I certainly don't support any GOVERNMENT police existing. Would there be private police on the free market? Who knows.

But, while that's the system we have, there's nothing wrong with a cop (Or anyone else, for that matter) arresting someone for whom there is strong evidence has committed an actual act of aggression against another person. Now, even in those cases the sentences are usually messed up, but that's on the judges and perhaps the juries, not the cop. The responsibility of a person making an arrest is to avoid exercising that power on those who are not criminals.

[bolil]

I went to the petting zoo and saw a pig. It grunted, and I was surprized.
I asked it, 'why, pig, why do you grunt?"
Some guy standing next to me told me to, "respect the animal." He was eating a BLT.
The pig continued grunting like it couldn't help it. Others joined, some human some bacon.

Fuck the police.

"Screaming 187 on a mother fucking cop."

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

I don't know what she was being arrested for.


Shoplifting, I think. Not sure how I know, as this was a topic in another forum, and I have no source.

Anyhow, they were very bad at arresting her. His willingness to discuss it, and care about concerned citizens' opinions is something I rarely see. Never, really. Without knowing more details, this is one of the best "good cop" videos I've seen in years, and I'm generally not very forgiving in that area.

[heavenlyboy34]

I didn't say they should exist, I'm not sure how you derived that I said that (Although, if you want to talk about the constitution, not sure why police at the state level would not be constitutional...). I certainly don't support any GOVERNMENT police existing. Would there be private police on the free market? Who knows.

But, while that's the system we have, there's nothing wrong with a cop (Or anyone else, for that matter) arresting someone for whom there is strong evidence has committed an actual act of aggression against another person. Now, even in those cases the sentences are usually messed up, but that's on the judges and perhaps the juries, not the cop. The responsibility of a person making an arrest is to avoid exercising that power on those who are not criminals.
I haven't read them all, but I don't think any state constitution provides for cops. It's a city/local thing.

It is not the job of cops to gather evidence and act on it-even presupposing the current horrid state of affairs. Technically, a cop has to get a warrant or at least prove Probable Cause. This process is all too frequently ignored. Just what you should expect from government cops.

[Christian Liberty]

I haven't read them all, but I don't think any state constitution provides for cops. It's a city/local thing.

I don't know that the state constitutions do either. But the US Constitution wouldn't prohibit state level law enforcement, to my understanding.

That wasn't my point though. I wasn't supporting government police. But I was saying... if government police is the system you have, and a cop arrests someone for committing a crime (As in an actual crime, with an actual victim) he isn't doing anything wrong. This is kind of like saying that public schools shouldn't exist but that a public school teacher is only inherently immoral if they deliberately infect their students with government propaganda. Make of that whatever you want.


It is not the job of cops to gather evidence and act on it-even presupposing the current horrid state of affairs. Technically, a cop has to get a warrant or at least prove Probable Cause. This process is all too frequently ignored. Just what you should expect from government cops.

Well, yeah. I don't know if that process was followed here or not. I don't know how I could know. I like the fact that he at least seemed to care about what people thought about what he was doing. That doesn't seem like its normally the case. I think there are many cops that would have tasered or even killed her if she really did resist. I think many cops would have illegally threatened the citizens and instructed them not to videotape the arrest. He didn't do that. Does this cop do things that rare wrong as part of his job? No doubt. I'm not denying that. But he at least seems to care about the people he should care about, and that's a good sign.


Shoplifting, I think. Not sure how I know, as this was a topic in another forum, and I have no source.

Assuming that's the case, and assuming there was either a warrant or probable cause, he had a right to arrest her.




Anyhow, they were very bad at arresting her. His willingness to discuss it, and care about concerned citizens' opinions is something I rarely see. Never, really. Without knowing more details, this is one of the best "good cop" videos I've seen in years, and I'm generally not very forgiving in that area.

I agree with you.

[Cutlerzzz]

Wow. With any luck they will both be killed in the "line of duty" by next Friday.

One can hope, anyhow.

Filth.

I don't hope they get killed. That's kind of messed up.

[Cutlerzzz]

Double post.

[pcosmar]

I didn't say they should exist, I'm not sure how you derived that I said that (Although, if you want to talk about the constitution, not sure why police at the state level would not be constitutional...). I certainly don't support any GOVERNMENT police existing. Would there be private police on the free market? Who knows.


Replace "police" with CONTROL Enforcers. (that is what they are)
And where do you get the idea that people need to be controlled by the government?

Oh,, and the constitution is quite clear.


The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

Now,, without a valid warrant there is no legal arrest.
If you see someone actually commit a real crime (Murder, Theft, Assault, Rape) you have a duty to stop (arrest) them.
This applies to any and all,, no special badge required.

http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm

[Neil Desmond]

I don't hope they get killed. That's kind of messed up.

Yeah it is messed up, but it is freedom of speech. I guess there's always going to be one person out there who would hope such messed up things and post them on a forum such as this one, perhaps for the purpose of making all of us look messed up. I don't know who's side they're really on, Ron Paul libertarians or against us.

[kcchiefs6465]

Yeah it is messed up, but it is freedom of speech. I guess there's always going to be one person out there who would hope such messed up things and post them on a forum such as this one, perhaps for the purpose of making all of us look messed up. I don't know who's side they're really on, Ron Paul libertarians or against us.
Hell, always at least two.

It's a shame there aren't more in average America. Maybe a lightning bolt would actually find target. Sigh.

Do you know the case of the woman who was being unlawfully arrested, a bystander asked what she was being arrested for and the cop threatened him as well; he shot and killed the arresting officer and shot and wounded the officer's partner. The case went to the SCOTUS and it was reaffirmed that one has every Right to resist an unlawful arrest up to and including using force to repel the aggressors? He was freed.

I forgot the name of the case but am confident that that is the general story behind it. (I read about it a while ago so I apologize if it is slightly off) Do you know what I am referring to?

[pcosmar]

Hell, always at least two.

It's a shame there aren't more in average America. Maybe a lightning bolt would actually find target. Sigh.

Do you know the case of the woman who was being unlawfully arrested, a bystander asked what she was being arrested for and the cop threatened him as well; he shot and killed the arresting officer and shot and wounded the officer's partner. The case went to the SCOTUS and it was reaffirmed that one has every Right to resist an unlawful arrest up to and including using force to repel the aggressors? He was freed.

I forgot the name of the case but am confident that that is the general story behind it. (I read about it a while ago so I apologize if it is slightly off) Do you know what I am referring to?

Perhaps this one.
http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/defunlaw.htm



“One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance.” (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).

[JK/SEA]

Nice collar. I mean, look at her...a cute small blond, screaming she's being hurt....man, thats a wet dream for cops who love to think their 'all that'...

Could this behaviour be sexually stimulating for cops?...abusing male and female perps seems to be a pattern of some kind. and in my opinion looks like some kind of weird orgy for them....

[osan]

Perhaps this one.
http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/defunlaw.htm

OK, question: does this cite apply to the state of GA only or to the realm?

[osan]

Could this behaviour be sexually stimulating for cops?...abusing male and female perps seems to be a pattern of some kind. and in my opinion looks like some kind of weird orgy for them....

I bet you are not terribly far from truth here.

BTW, the term "collar" bears notice. To what original purpose was the physical collar put? To control an animal or a slave.

Is it not interesting that police use this term as they do? I think it is very telling of the underlying mindset.

[pcosmar]

OK, question: does this cite apply to the state of GA only or to the realm?

I am unsure it applies anywhere.

But those are Supreme court decisions on past cases. (precedents)

[osan]

I don't hope they get killed. That's kind of messed up.

Perehaps, but short of this what do you believe will put ends to this sort of thing? I mean REALLY put ends to it such that these types of events become unheard of? How do you envision in a step-wise manner that this come to a practically complete end? Or are you resigned to accept it as "just the way it is"?

Pardon me if I am not in a forgiving mood on such matters. Those cops are adults and are thereby responsible for the things they do regardless of what "authority" they claim to wield. Unless that tiny wisp of a girl committed a crime, and let me be clear that I mean a REAL crime such as theft, murder, etc. and not some bullshit made-up crime like "contempt of cop" or "frustration of cop because cop cannot have the hottie", these two vermin committed a capital offense against her. They kidnapped her under color of law. They assaulted her, falsely arrested her, and injured her up to and including (if her claim was truthful) breaking one of her teeth.

I will make no apology for my position that I would find some satisfaction in learning of their untimely demise. Unless it is your contention that what they did to that young woman was OK, then what they did was rankly evil. I contend that doing nothing in the face of such evil is tantamount to consent and I DO NOT CONSENT.

I ask again: given the assumption she committed no true crime and thereby the blatantly criminal actions of those cops and the fact that such agents of the state are almost never called to account for their behavior, what do you propose I wish for them? Gumdrop kisses and a hand job?

You label my sentiment as "messed up", but the absence of a justification for that assessment would seem to indicate to me that you have not considered the deeper truths behind the events in the video. Perhaps I am equally guilty in my original post for not having made explicit my reasons underpinning the opinion, but I make up for it here. If you can counter this righteously, please do so that I may learn something and amend my opinion. I do not often wish such things on people for the sheer purpose of venting my displeasures and did not do so in this case. There is a principled reason behind it, which I give here, as well as a practical one.

I do not believe in forgiveness of the unrepentant. I believe in the justice of retribution. Either we are responsible for our actions or we are not. We are either bound by a small handful of primitive principles derivative of the equal claims to life held by all or we fool ourselves into believing that order is some inherent good in a world actually governed by nihilism. If the former, then there must wait at the end of the road of violation the just consequences resulting therefrom. Principle means NOTHING - is absolutely and completely invalid - if violation does not result in just correction. If there is no price to pay, there is no bedrock reason to respect.

So which is it? Is there a principled reason to assess that what those cops did was grieveously wrong or is nihilism the truer law of the land? If the former, those cops need to suffer the consequences of their actions and I submit that those consequences must by necessity be grave in the extreme because our true valuation of the rights to which we claim title fall off exponentially as we move away from the hardest consequence of all for bad behavior, which is death. If they do not merit such stern punishment for their crimes, why does the burglar merit it when encountered in your study, uninvited at 2AM? Immediacy and degree of threat? I would call the threat those cops posed equally immediate and if my assumption that the young miss had not committed a true crime holds, then I stand on very firm ground when I assess that the threat they posed to her was equal to or greater than that of the burglar. I will add that the obscenity of their actions far outstrips that of the typical home breaker because they commit their crimes under the mantle of not only the public trust but colored and presumably unchallengeable authority and to that I say BULLSHIT. The proper outcome would have been for a collection of people to shoot both of the kidnappers dead where they stood, free the victim, and be of good cheer that the earth had been cleansed of a profound evil.

But if you disagree, I again entreat you to demonstrate how I am in error that I might be corrected. I fully accept the possibility that I may be wrong in my opinion, but until I am so demonstrated in convincing style, I will have to remain fast to my assessment.

EDIT: I will add one last thing about the sentiment and why it is not "messed up". If you agree that what they did was criminal, all else equal, then wishing anything less starts to smell a lot like tacit consent. More to the point, who can say how many other times they have done it in the past and even more saliently, what of the future? What if next time they go "too far" (har har har...) and maim or kill their victim?

The underlying sentiment in my expression is not that they be killed per se, but that they be permanently disabled from ever being able to do this to another. In these affairs you get ONE chance to fuck up and no more. It is empirically clear that they will not be held to account, which means they are free to act again and that is NOT TOLERABLE in the least epsilon. Death, however, will guarantee they never stray against another in the future.

[PaulConventionWV]

I most usually make it a policy and a practice to not resist anyone wearing or carrying a gun. My goal is to end the transaction as quickly and peacefully as possible.

So far, so good. :)

I don't think transaction means what you think it means. You were probably referring to "interaction."

[Neil Desmond]

Hell, always at least two.

It's a shame there aren't more in average America. Maybe a lightning bolt would actually find target. Sigh.

Do you know the case of the woman who was being unlawfully arrested, a bystander asked what she was being arrested for and the cop threatened him as well; he shot and killed the arresting officer and shot and wounded the officer's partner. The case went to the SCOTUS and it was reaffirmed that one has every Right to resist an unlawful arrest up to and including using force to repel the aggressors? He was freed.

I forgot the name of the case but am confident that that is the general story behind it. (I read about it a while ago so I apologize if it is slightly off) Do you know what I am referring to?
What you're bringing up here is not a case of a bystander who was saying something like that he hoped they would be killed by some day of the week.

In this case this bystander qualifies as a hero for putting a stop to what can in effect be described as an attempted kidnapping, that at the time he probably didn't know if it really was police officers or police impersonators (or maybe he did, but unlawful arrest is just as bad as impersonating and kidnapping), which would have led to who knows what, the sexual assault, battery, or rape of the woman being unlawfully arrested?

How is a hero bystander the same as someone saying they hope people get killed?

[osan]

I am unsure it applies anywhere.

But those are Supreme court decisions on past cases. (precedents)

Ah OK, thanks. Now please indulge my shameful ignorance once again: in what way are you unsure it applies "anywhere" - in principle? Practically speaking? Both? Some other way? Forgive my vast stupidity, but are not these decisions supposed to serve as case-specific elucidations on the application of the Law of the Land? If so, why would they not apply?

[PaulConventionWV]

How so? There is no raitonal or even Constitutional reason for cops to exist at all.

Arrests can be made without police.

[pcosmar]

Ah OK, thanks. Now please indulge my shameful ignorance once again: in what way are you unsure it applies "anywhere" - in principle? Practically speaking? Both? Some other way? Forgive my vast stupidity, but are not these decisions supposed to serve as case-specific elucidations on the application of the Law of the Land? If so, why would they not apply?
I mean in our present reality. The system that rules.

The same system the came to the decisions once,, but far more corrupted in our present day. (not that it was perfect then)

In principle,, it should remain true. I say I am unsure,, because Principle is not the guideline of the corrupt.

[osan]

Arrests can be made without police.

Exactly, as can defense of all human rights pursuant to the principles of proper human relations.

[osan]

I mean in our present reality. The system that rules.

The same system the came to the decisions once,, but far more corrupted in our present day. (not that it was perfect then)

In principle,, it should remain true. I say I am unsure,, because Principle is not the guideline of the corrupt.


OK, this is the clarification I sought. Thanks much.

EDIT: one other thing: I am apt to proceed based on principle and not positive reality. It may be a failing of mine, but I have never been one to abide the brands of evil we so commonly find today. If they say I am able, then I am able and if we end up in a courtroom I will wave the word before them. I hope to avoid this at any reasonable cost, but that appears to become more challenging by the hour anymore.

[osan]

I haven't read them all, but I don't think any state constitution provides for cops. It's a city/local thing.

If this is true and if I am correct in the belief that the county sheriff is the highest authority in a given locale, does onus not rest with said sheriff to ensure that unconstitutional (state) actions my local government be stopped and prosecuted? Would onus not dictate that the moment a municipality established a police force that said department be forcibly dissolved and those responsible for forming it arrested, charged, and imprisoned?

Barring that, is it not the sheriff's duty to monitor the police and to arrest, have charged, and imprison those agents who violate the rights of the people who put the sheriff into office, pay his salary, and to whom he swore and oath of duty?

What am I missing, beyond the blatant ingnorance and corruption upon which this land now operates?

[Neil Desmond]

Arrests can be made without police.

In most states that's true, I think. I've heard that in North Carolina they don't have citizen's arrest.

Personally, I don't think that police ought to exist except for perhaps something like a college campus or other such small/localized areas or facilities, and maybe also traffic enforcement and highway patrol. I personally think that only a sheriff and deputies with the backing and support of a posse ought to be enforcing the law. The problem with having a police force is not only that knowledge, understanding, and interpretation of the law is so lopsided that way, but society decays into this crime-plagued environment with countless laws, and backwards things like laws restricting and banning firearms and other weapons.

Maybe not all, but many people who become police officers are decent people. To many it's what they chose as a day job. It's after they get in that they're either warped or become corrupted; and they spoil it for the entire system. They only serve to further demonstrate that it's a failed or flawed system.

These two police officers in this OP don't strike me as examples of the warped and corrupt ones. I don't get the impression that it was an unlawful arrest, and I don't know if they had a warrant or not, or if one is legally necessary for it to be a lawful arrest. Maybe it was an unlawful arrest, and maybe they are warped and corrupt. I don't know, but until then I'm not going to assume or presume such things.

They can claim she's resisting arrest, and I can say she's probably protesting arrest. But one thing I just don't get is what's the point of her behaving the way she did crying and making herself miserable the way she was? Unless, she knows exactly why she's being arrested (so maybe it's still protesting).

If it is truly an unlawful arrest, then she can sue. I would think that if I were to ever get arrested unlawfully I would just remain polite and quiet knowing that I can sue and get millions to compensate for damages. I'm not interested in hearing that I wouldn't succeed, because that requires being able to predict the future. If things don't go the way I expect, or they don't make sense, or they don't add up, or whatever, then I'll cross such a bridge when I get to it.

The one thing I do have a problem with how the police are handling things is in regard to them not telling the public (i.e., the witnesses standing around and taking a video of it) what the charge is, but they are saying it's for privacy of the person being arrested as well as for some victim who's involved. Unless she's a minor, I'm not sure how they have a right to privacy. How are they going to hold her trial? Are they going to do it in secrecy? If she's an adult, I don't like this idea of secret courts.

[Contumacious]

Why was she being arrested,,, before she resisted arrest..?


Because a human being has a RIGHT to resist an unlawful arrest.

And an arrest without a valid arrest warrant is an unlawful arrest.

The RIGHT Way to Handle a Police Stop (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDJrQBwJpqk)

.

[Czolgosz]

Perehaps, but short of this what do you believe will put ends to this sort of thing? I mean REALLY put ends to it such that these types of events become unheard of? How do you envision in a step-wise manner that this come to a practically complete end? Or are you resigned to accept it as "just the way it is"?



In 1776 strongly worded letters (™) to King George brought him to his senses, the same method should still be viable.