[JF.]

Police Brutality Backfires - YouTube

[Gridlock]

Imagine that....a riot breaking out at a soccer game.

[XplicitLuder]

very common actually^ happens in most south american countries were soccer is a big deal

[raven69]

haha good, i hope the cops got hurt

[Bahhbeehhaaaa]

0:40 the cop gets a drop kick !! LOL 0:43 guy in white shirt bails out LOLLL

[XplicitLuder]

lol@thefails, coming from a third world country and seeing these things..ahh what the heck not like you guys would understand anyways :fuckthatshit:

ps : and by "it happens" i meant riots over a soccer game..not cops getting kicked in like that

[nns]

The rioters are just as bad as the cops.

Cops gang up on 1 guy, crowd gangs up on the cops. Not exactly an eye for an eye in either case.

I predict fails my way.

[Redlines_Daily]

lol@thefails, coming from a third world country and seeing these things..ahh what the heck not like you guys would understand anyways :fuckthatshit:

ps : and by "it happens" i meant riots over a soccer game..not cops getting kicked in like that

You got failed because everyone already knows this. Gridlock's comment was sarcasm. :Petting

[Gridlock]

You got failed because everyone already knows this. Gridlock's comment was sarcasm. :Petting

I knew I should have held up my sarcasm sign.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-0LFA32VuNlI/TrL4lIQWYwI/AAAAAAAAAJQ/QUEpWIdM9no/s1600/SarcasmSign.jpg

[Ludepower]

hockey fans have nothing on these crazy soccer fans.
officers did not deserve to get a beatdown though
The fan was resisting arrest.

[Raid3n]

hockey fans have nothing on these crazy soccer fans.
officers did not deserve to get a beatdown though
The fan was resisting arrest.

with 4 cops on him, did they really need to keep hitting him? didn't think so.

thanks for coming out though.

[Ludepower]

with 4 cops on him, did they really need to keep hitting him? didn't think so.

thanks for coming out though.

How do you subdue a person illegally running on a soccer field and resisting arrest? Lets see you and 3 friends stop a crazy fan on an adrenaline rush.

Were they a bit excessive? Yes but still within their grounds.

[unit]

The rioters are just as bad as the cops.

Cops gang up on 1 guy, crowd gangs up on the cops. Not exactly an eye for an eye in either case.

I predict fails my way.

its not supposed to be an eye for an eye. if you do something unfair, you should be punished beyond what you did. if you are caught stealing a million dollars do you simply owe a million back and are let free?

[misteranswer]

with 4 cops on him, did they really need to keep hitting him? didn't think so.

thanks for coming out though.

I suggest you ask 4 friends to try to hold you down while they can't hurt you but you can be as violent as you want against them. Then ask them how "easy" it is.

[xilley]

the guy at 0:37 is just too drunk to do shit LOL

[Redlines_Daily]

I suggest you ask 4 friends to try to hold you down while they can't hurt you but you can be as violent as you want against them. Then ask them how "easy" it is.

Nobody said it was easy, but its their fucking job...and they are trained in physical restraint, so there is no need to strike. I work with special needs adults that have to be restrained all the time, it's difficult and sometimes we get a bruise or two, but it's part of the job. Can you imagine if we used the same philosophy? Should we beat the shit out of patients because it makes it easier to restrain them? Come on...

Also, it's not like the guy had a weapon and was being dangerous..he was just a drunk guy(maybe) running across the field.

[GabAlmighty]

Lol, honestly if TWO cops weren't able to hold him down it would still be sad. Not hard for one cop to hold buddy down while the other puts the cuffs on him... The guy there were trying to cuff looked a solid 150lbs and the cops looked like fairly well built guys.

And yes, 4 of my friends would be able to hold me down no matter how drunk/adrenaline rushed I was. You know how? Cuz they don't fail at life.

[DSHDSH]

Looks like the cop using the riot stick got away while his buddies got stomped

[Psykopathik]

Cops musta watched a YVR security how to video.

[Everymans]

with 4 cops on him, did they really need to keep hitting him? didn't think so.

thanks for coming out though.

Actually, if the prick is resisting arrest then why aren't they allowed to use brutal force? That's like saying if a gunmen isn't putting down his gun they you shouldn't shoot him? If you have 4 cops on you, just give up, if you don't, then expect a beatdown. You can argue your case in court or after your handcuffs. I've watched enough episodes of COPS to understand what doesn't fly when dealing with cops. Trust me, I'm an expert.

[geeknerd]

^ the issue is the LEVEL of force
Let me remind you this is FOUR cops on ONE person. Isnt that a good amount of force to take out one guy? especially if he is already DOWN on the ground with 4 guys ON TOP of him, there is no need to baton strike the guys head.

WIth that logic, then is tasering the streaker ok too? might as well take a non lethal shot with a gun.

aka 4 cops already on top of the guy is enough "brutal force" IMO.
the cops already have the 'force' advantage by being a group of 4, reminding you again that the 4 of them already on top of him.

[$_$]

Actually, if the prick is resisting arrest then why aren't they allowed to use brutal force? That's like saying if a gunmen isn't putting down his gun they you shouldn't shoot him? If you have 4 cops on you, just give up, if you don't, then expect a beatdown. You can argue your case in court or after your handcuffs. I've watched enough episodes of COPS to understand what doesn't fly when dealing with cops. Trust me, I'm an expert.

LOL @ trust me I'm an expert cause i watch cops :badpokerface::facepalm:

EDIT: read some of your other posts regarding DTES and gonna assume you have experience or seen the law first hand, so NVM :).

[Redlines_Daily]

Actually, if the prick is resisting arrest then why aren't they allowed to use brutal force? That's like saying if a gunmen isn't putting down his gun they you shouldn't shoot him? If you have 4 cops on you, just give up, if you don't, then expect a beatdown. You can argue your case in court or after your handcuffs. I've watched enough episodes of COPS to understand what doesn't fly when dealing with cops. Trust me, I'm an expert.

No, its not the same at all. A gunman poses a threat to hurt people around him.

Most people don't think clearly when they are being beaten and adrenaline is pumping. Most people have a natural instinct to resist against someone who is hurting them. Police are trained professionals, there is no excuse to use force beyond what is required by the situation. I'm quite sure the 4 large men could have gotten the runners arms behind his back and cuffed without hitting him, if they only took another 30 seconds.

There are some circumstances where force may be called for if the suspect is a risk to the officers, but in most cases its just a pathetic display of dominance. We don't need cops like this..these guys that use any chance they get to beat on someone, they are cowards and have no business being cops.

[armin.vanb]

Why is there such a large argument with the "force" that the cops used.

The perpetrator commited a crime
The consequences were administrated.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[geeknerd]

Why is there such a large argument with the "force" that the cops used.

The perpetrator commited a crime
The consequences were administrated.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

By perpetrator if you mean the cops and the crime meaning excessive force and the consequences meaning the retaliation of citizens than yes, there shouldnt be an argument.

[XplicitLuder]

i knew i shouldn't have taken anything seriously from gridlock :fuckthatshit: lol jk :concentrate:

[BrRsn]

Who cares the idiot wouldn't have been subjected to police brutality anyhow had he decided not to be an attention whore and go running on the field.

[Gridlock]

Who cares the idiot wouldn't have been subjected to police brutality anyhow had he decided not to be an attention whore and go running on the field.

And that is the single most damaging attitude to general freedoms the world over.

"Who cares if you get randomly searched by police? You have nothing to hide"

[Senna4ever]

Actually, if the prick is resisting arrest then why aren't they allowed to use brutal force? That's like saying if a gunmen isn't putting down his gun they you shouldn't shoot him? If you have 4 cops on you, just give up, if you don't, then expect a beatdown. You can argue your case in court or after your handcuffs. I've watched enough episodes of COPS to understand what doesn't fly when dealing with cops. Trust me, I'm an expert.
Oh, hey, I've watched all of the Karate Kid movies! That means I'm an expert in karate! Sweet!

[AzNightmare]

How about not be a dumbass and stay off the field if you're not a player.

Some people simply deserve to get beat for just being dumbasses.

[Noir]

And that is the single most damaging attitude to general freedoms the world over.

"Who cares if you get randomly searched by police? You have nothing to hide"

Do you mind the inconvenience of random roadside checks for drunk drivers? or do you only mind when you're drunk?

[Gridlock]

Do you mind the inconvenience of random roadside checks for drunk drivers? or do you only mind when you're drunk?

We are not free. We never were free, and we will never be free. Pure freedom is pure chaos.

So we restrict freedoms in ways for the benefit of all. I am not free to go and shoot Taylor(lol jk)

When I posted that, I accept that we are not currently "free" in the purest sense of the word. We accept that with minimal intrusion in our lives, freedoms that we don't need are lost.

So it becomes a statement of what level of intrusion are we willing to accept?

And that is what concerns me. When people feel that they are willing to accept more and more intrusion in the name of protecting society, under the ideal, that "this freedom I have lost does not matter, because I have nothing to hide, or that intrusion isn't so bad"

We accept that stopping to be checked for alcohol while driving is acceptable. Why? Well, we don't have a right to drive. It is a privilege within the grounds of the laws that have been passed.

What I wouldn't accept is the idea that we could stop so many more drunk drivers if we put everyone through a breathalyzer at the roadside checks.

"But Griddy, you aren't drinking, so what does it matter?"

It's an intrusion in my private life. You have no reason to suspect I'm drinking, so I should be left to go on my way.

I think that we should have the minimum amount of laws on a subject, not the maximum. I think personal freedom within societal protection should be the litmus test.

Much like its better to let 10 guilty men go free, than convict one innocent man, it should also be, "let 10 guilty go free, than to infringe upon the innocent to catch them"

That's an idealist statement, and not practical in usage, but should be a thought in the process that may prevent warrantless wiretapping.

But, this post has taken this thread waaaaay OT.

[Great68]

http://assets0.ordienetworks.com/images/GifGuide/clapping/citizen_cane.gif

[Noir]

We are not free. We never were free, and we will never be free. Pure freedom is pure chaos.

So we restrict freedoms in ways for the benefit of all. I am not free to go and shoot Taylor(lol jk)

When I posted that, I accept that we are not currently "free" in the purest sense of the word. We accept that with minimal intrusion in our lives, freedoms that we don't need are lost.

So it becomes a statement of what level of intrusion are we willing to accept?

And that is what concerns me. When people feel that they are willing to accept more and more intrusion in the name of protecting society, under the ideal, that "this freedom I have lost does not matter, because I have nothing to hide, or that intrusion isn't so bad"

We accept that stopping to be checked for alcohol while driving is acceptable. Why? Well, we don't have a right to drive. It is a privilege within the grounds of the laws that have been passed.

What I wouldn't accept is the idea that we could stop so many more drunk drivers if we put everyone through a breathalyzer at the roadside checks.

"But Griddy, you aren't drinking, so what does it matter?"

It's an intrusion in my private life. You have no reason to suspect I'm drinking, so I should be left to go on my way.

I think that we should have the minimum amount of laws on a subject, not the maximum. I think personal freedom within societal protection should be the litmus test.

Much like its better to let 10 guilty men go free, than convict one innocent man, it should also be, "let 10 guilty go free, than to infringe upon the innocent to catch them"

That's an idealist statement, and not practical in usage, but should be a thought in the process that may prevent warrantless wiretapping.

But, this post has taken this thread waaaaay OT.

Nice write-up, but your entire argument hinges on one very crucial factor, and that is what's bolded. You're right, what if there's no reason? However, what if there IS a reason?

What if an individual thinks its within his rights for disorderly conducts and ruin a soccer game for everyone?

What if an individual thinks its within his rights to resist arrest?

[Gridlock]

Nice write-up, but your entire argument hinges on one very crucial factor, and that is what's bolded. You're right, what if there's no reason? However, what if there IS a reason?

What if an individual thinks its within his rights for disorderly conducts and ruin a soccer game for everyone?

What if an individual thinks its within his rights to resist arrest?

I totally agree with you. But the point that I was addressing on my tangent had nothing to do with that. It was:

"Who cares the idiot wouldn't have been subjected to police brutality anyhow had he decided not to be an attention whore and go running on the field."

So, the attitude is, fuck it! he wouldn't have been beaten in the first place if he wasn't there.

Get enough people with that attitude, and we're fucked!

No, I don't support police brutality for people that are in the wrong. Their job is not to give a few extra whacks before the courts get him. Their job is to investigate, detain and hand over to the courts.

Yes, I'm aware I'm taking this thread in an unexpected tangent.

All of the points you made are valid. This dipshit should not have the 'right' to disrupt the game.

What I'm saying is the attitude of not caring about the end result is dangerous. Whether it be:

1. warrant-less wiretapping and surveillance
2. Having everyone line up for a breathalyzer without probable cause
3. 100,000 other examples I could conjure up.

[Everymans]

No, its not the same at all. A gunman poses a threat to hurt people around him.

Most people don't think clearly when they are being beaten and adrenaline is pumping. Most people have a natural instinct to resist against someone who is hurting them. Police are trained professionals, there is no excuse to use force beyond what is required by the situation. I'm quite sure the 4 large men could have gotten the runners arms behind his back and cuffed without hitting him, if they only took another 30 seconds.

There are some circumstances where force may be called for if the suspect is a risk to the officers, but in most cases its just a pathetic display of dominance. We don't need cops like this..these guys that use any chance they get to beat on someone, they are cowards and have no business being cops.

But on the other hand, when someone is intoxicated and doesn't want to be apprehended then they tend to be more violent when being detained. Which could cause the officers harm. In some cases, it is appropriate to beat a guy when he refuses to cooperate, especially if he is in a physical state where he believes he can break free or fight the cops or he is just a naturally violent and abrasive individual who is not willing to give in. I seen this all over the place during the riot, cops try and apprehend a guy for throwing a beer bottle, guy punches cop, cop busts his ass down, guy flails and yells, manages to punch cop again, another officer joins and they use a baton to finally nail the message across. This video is a good example of taking it over the line, the guy was streaking, possibly drunk. He didn't throw a punch at the cops and they could have easily gotten him detained.

I was also joking with my first comment, hence the "I'm an expert" line... Although cops has taught me a lot about how to deal with police and law enforcement.

[JF.]

Video: Caught On Tape: Utica,NY Cops Plants Cocaine On Innocent Man!?

the cop pulls out a bag of coke from his pocket and blames it on the black guy. (1:05)