Cop vs. Skateboarders

[Nik]

Originally posted by: BUTCH1

Originally posted by: MartyMcFly3
Oh and Nik...

California Misdemeanors...

Another source Many of which are arrestable.

So again, what source are you getting your information from? Or are you confusing misdemeanors with infractions/ordinance violations?

Edit: and NOW i'm going to bed.

BHAAAA-HAAAAA..Mr. Nik, stone-cold BUSTED by Marty!!, PRICELESS!! BHAAAAA-HAAAAAA!! Good night little Nicky!!!!.

This is you. The ugly, pointless, incredibly stupid character that achieves nothing more than becoming a minor irritation to anyone and everyone who has to listen to you squeal.

Do the world a favor and fling yourself off a cliff so the adults can get back to their conversation.

 

[Wheezer]

Originally posted by: JDawg1536

Originally posted by: Wheezer
see the problem here is that we do not know what happened BEFORE the camera started rolling, perhaps this smart ass kid had been pushing the envelope and the officer had been maintaining his cool prior to this kid being a smart ass.

Juniors final comments were the straw that broke the camels back and the officer decided that enough was enough.

He did nothing wrong, as soon ad the officer grabbed him and put his arm behind his back and the kid fought against it, he was resisting arrest....period. The more the kid resisted the more force the officer would apply and therefore possibly breaking the kids arm, so the cop was giving a warning....nothing wrong with that.

The moral of the story: keep your fucking mouth shut, don't be a smart ass and comply with the cops, want to argue your case?...take it to court.

What would the relevance of that be?


Pain was inflicted and it's a natural reaction to fight it. The officer used more force than necessary.



What if a cop put your hand on a hot stove then yelled at you for pulling it away and then you had resisting arrest thrown on top of your charges? Fair, right?

Oh I don't know....facts maybe?

are you seriously that fucking dumb?

ex: Cop shows up at the house of a homicide and automatically arrests the wife for murder, takes no statement, does no interview goes simply based off what he sees when he arrives. Turns out that BEFORE he got there...the husband threatened the wife with a baseball bat and she defended herself with a shotgun.

See, in order to pass judgment and make a call you need ALL the facts not just what your eyes tell you. And because we only saw what the wanna be director showed us, we have no facts to say what provoked this.

And you're assumption that I am only for the cop in this case is wrong...it very well could be the cop started shit for no reason, but we would not know without further evidence now would we? Nor would we know if this is the 1st or 10th run in with these same kids who are there simply to prod this officer into acting and then trying to film some gotcha! moment.

As far as the pain thing goes...there would be no pain if the kid did not fight against the officer, and even if there was...fighting him is still resisting arrest..don't like it?...go to your local city council and change the law and have them ad in a "citizens may not fight officers unless they are in pain" clause.

Seriously you need to pull your head out of your ass and start looking at the whole picture there is more too it than meets the eye and not just what some kid posts on break.com for your eyes to judge.

 

[TurtleCrusher]

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: Scholzpdx
You are just pulling on extremes that just don't matter. Completely unlikely situations that don't relate to what is shown here.

All the cop did was warn him, which is completely fine. Call it overreaction all you want, but it wasn't. The cop was extremely gentle. Have you ever seen an arrest in person? 8 out of 10 times the officer assaults the resisting subject to gain control. That didn't even happen here.

I have NO idea what you expected the cop to do. He seemed polite the entire time. His actions were warranted and actually what I would HOPE a cop would do to me if I was stupid enough to mouth off to a peacekeeper of our city. You just don't understand. That's all there is to it.

Try talking like that to a local cop. Your face would be on the ground in an instant.

It doesn't matter how gentle the officer was. The subject didn't exhibit behavior that legally warranted the officer using physical compliance techniques.

An officer can't just go around roughing people up without proper justification.

He didn't rough him up. Where did this happen? I've watched the video three times.

When did ATOT become a bunch of pansies?

 

[JDawg1536]

Originally posted by: Wheezer
[

Oh I don't know....facts maybe?

are you seriously that fucking dumb?

ex: Cop shows up at the house of a homicide and automatically arrests the wife for murder, takes no statement, does no interview goes simply based off what he sees when he arrives. Turns out that BEFORE he got there...the husband threatened the wife with a baseball bat and she defended herself with a shotgun.

See, in order to pass judgment and make a call you need ALL the facts not just what your eyes tell you. And because we only saw what the wanna be director showed us, we have no facts to say what provoked this.

And you're assumption that I am only for the cop in this case is wrong...it very well could be the cop started shit for no reason, but we would not know without further evidence now would we? Nor would we know if this is the 1st or 10th run in with these same kids who are there simply to prod this officer into acting and then trying to film some gotcha! moment.

As far as the pain thing goes...there would be no pain if the kid did not fight against the officer, and even if there was...fighting him is still resisting arrest..don't like it?...go to your local city council and change the law and have them ad in a "citizens may not fight officers unless they are in pain" clause.

Seriously you need to pull your head out of your ass and start looking at the whole picture there is more too it than meets the eye and not just what some kid posts on break.com for your eyes to judge.

Nope, you are 100% wrong. Read this very carefully - WHEN IT COMES TO USE OF FORCE NONE OF THAT MATTERS. You are giving an example of a wrongful arrest. The issue here is use of force. The thing that matters when evaluating how much force is necessary is all based on subject action at the current moment. Do you understand that?

It doesn't matter if the kid was screaming and calling the cop horrible names and punching him in the face two seconds before the camera went on. At the moment the officer made contact, the kid was being 100% cooperative. Therefore, it was irrelevant whether or not the kid resisted, because it was the officer who already escalated the situation. Do you understand that?

Way to call names and rant like a lunatic. Your conduct alone shows how credible your opinion is.... and that's just what it is... an opinion.

 

[Nik]

Originally posted by: Scholzpdx

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: Scholzpdx
You are just pulling on extremes that just don't matter. Completely unlikely situations that don't relate to what is shown here.

All the cop did was warn him, which is completely fine. Call it overreaction all you want, but it wasn't. The cop was extremely gentle. Have you ever seen an arrest in person? 8 out of 10 times the officer assaults the resisting subject to gain control. That didn't even happen here.

I have NO idea what you expected the cop to do. He seemed polite the entire time. His actions were warranted and actually what I would HOPE a cop would do to me if I was stupid enough to mouth off to a peacekeeper of our city. You just don't understand. That's all there is to it.

Try talking like that to a local cop. Your face would be on the ground in an instant.

It doesn't matter how gentle the officer was. The subject didn't exhibit behavior that legally warranted the officer using physical compliance techniques.

An officer can't just go around roughing people up without proper justification.

He didn't rough him up. Where did this happen? I've watched the video three times.

When did ATOT become a bunch of pansies?

Don't pretend to be so thick headed.

Also, read the post right below this one.

 

[JDawg1536]

Originally posted by: Wheezer


And you're assumption that I am only for the cop in this case is wrong...it very well could be the cop started shit for no reason, but we would not know without further evidence now would we? Nor would we know if this is the 1st or 10th run in with these same kids who are there simply to prod this officer into acting and then trying to film some gotcha! moment.

.

And whether it was the 1st, 10th, or 10000th run in with the same kids, they still have the same rights. The officer is still held to a higher standard and should remain professional at all times. Do you disagree?

 

[TurtleCrusher]

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: Scholzpdx

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: Scholzpdx
You are just pulling on extremes that just don't matter. Completely unlikely situations that don't relate to what is shown here.

All the cop did was warn him, which is completely fine. Call it overreaction all you want, but it wasn't. The cop was extremely gentle. Have you ever seen an arrest in person? 8 out of 10 times the officer assaults the resisting subject to gain control. That didn't even happen here.

I have NO idea what you expected the cop to do. He seemed polite the entire time. His actions were warranted and actually what I would HOPE a cop would do to me if I was stupid enough to mouth off to a peacekeeper of our city. You just don't understand. That's all there is to it.

Try talking like that to a local cop. Your face would be on the ground in an instant.

It doesn't matter how gentle the officer was. The subject didn't exhibit behavior that legally warranted the officer using physical compliance techniques.

An officer can't just go around roughing people up without proper justification.

He didn't rough him up. Where did this happen? I've watched the video three times.

When did ATOT become a bunch of pansies?

Don't pretend to be so thick headed.

Also, read the post right below this one.

You both have got to be kidding.

There was NO FORCE involved. It's called a resisted arrest.

Do you really want criminals out on the streets, fucking everything up because a police officer isn't allowed to detain someone against their will?

Neither of you make ANY sense.

Edit: Jdawg, in the post above this, according to your own scale of whatever the fuck you think you are talking about, the subject was a level 2 as well. Not cooperating. You are wrong in your own made-up scale.

I've never heard of that on-paper scale of who is right and wrong.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: JDawg1536

Originally posted by: JD50
The cop didn't do anything wrong, this thread fails.

The cop did everything wrong. He did not handle the situation properly at all. All this talk about "he was being nice, he was cutting them a break, the kid mouthed off, blah blah bullshit" is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT! Here in the United States of America, all law enforcement officers are trained to follow the same rules. Sometimes called the "Use of Force Model" or "Escalation of Force Model", this chart dictates how an officer can react to a certain situation depending on the suspects actions. Basically the only time an officer is allowed do anything to the suspect is when the SUSPECT FIRST ESCALATES THE SITUATION. An officer may never escalate his use of force first. Never. There are five levels to the model. There are many variations to the model but they all mean the same thing. The levels on the suspect action side will go something like this : 1. Cooperative- self explanatory 2. Resistant Passive- "no sir I won't put my hands behind my back 3. Resistant Active- moving away from an arrest attempt or locking arms 4. Assaultive- attempting to hit the officer 5. Serious Bodily Harm or Death to the Officer or Others- assault using weapons.

Now tell me, what level was the skateboarder? Answer: Level 1.

On the officer side of the model are the following five levels: 1. Cooperation Controls- verbal control 2. Contact Controls- placing hands on the suspect, joint manipulation, pressure points 3. Compliance techniques- stun gun, chemical spray, low risk of injury to suspect 4. Defensive tactics- baton, stun gun, chemical spray, neck restraints 5. Lethal- guns

What level was the officer? Answer: 2

Black and white, cut and dry, clear as day..... The officer was wrong. The fact that it was a 13 year old boy who weighs less than my dog only makes it look worse. The officer may always use a lower level of force, but never higher. Think of it as a math equation. Suspect action minus officer response may never be less than ZERO. Suspect was cooperative = 1. Officer used contact controls = 2....... 1-2 = -1.... = OFFICER WAS WRONG

I'm sorry, you're right. The cop should have given the handcuffs to the kid and had him cuff himself. What a piece of shit cop, putting his hands on someone to arrest them.

 

[JDawg1536]

Originally posted by: Scholzpdx


You both have got to be kidding.

There was NO FORCE involved. It's called a resisted arrest.

Do you really want criminals out on the streets, fucking everything up because a police officer isn't allowed to detain someone against their will?

Neither of you make ANY sense.

Did you not watch the video, not take physics, or not have any feeling from the neck down. Let me do to you what the cop did to the skateboarder, then tell me no force was involved. When a 220 pound cop puts a 110 pound kid in a joint manipulation, there is force involved.

The kid was already being detained. The ability to be detained is completely irrelevant and has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

What is a "resisted arrest"?

Can you elaborate on how criminals would "fuck everything up"?

 

[TurtleCrusher]

Originally posted by: JDawg1536

Originally posted by: Scholzpdx


You both have got to be kidding.

There was NO FORCE involved. It's called a resisted arrest.

Do you really want criminals out on the streets, fucking everything up because a police officer isn't allowed to detain someone against their will?

Neither of you make ANY sense.

Did you not watch the video, not take physics, or not have any feeling from the neck down. Let me do to you what the cop did to the skateboarder, then tell me no force was involved. When a 220 pound cop puts a 110 pound kid in a joint manipulation, there is force involved.

The kid was already being detained. The ability to be detained is completely irrelevant and has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

What is a "resisted arrest"?

Can you elaborate on how criminals would "fuck everything up"?

The kid wasn't even in position to get his arm broken, so don't even try that argument.

The kid must have pulled away from the police officer. You can even see it when the officer tries to turn him around. the officer didn't hurt him at all.

When a subject resists an officers attempt in any way for detainment with reason (which the cop credibly has) it becomes a misdemeanor crime in EVERY STATE. By resisting, you are in the wrong and the subject waived his right to equal and fair treatment. The officer then has the duty to detain the subject as necessary. It is not something he should do, it is his job to use any force needed to detain the subject. He DIDN'T even use force, so your complaint means nothing. Do you understand?

If you just let criminals walk away from crimes without punishment, it will keep happening. The would wreck havoc on society if you didn't arrest them. Do you not understand that either?

 

[JDawg1536]

Originally posted by: Scholzpdx

Originally posted by: JDawg1536

Originally posted by: Scholzpdx


You both have got to be kidding.

There was NO FORCE involved. It's called a resisted arrest.

Do you really want criminals out on the streets, fucking everything up because a police officer isn't allowed to detain someone against their will?

Neither of you make ANY sense.

Did you not watch the video, not take physics, or not have any feeling from the neck down. Let me do to you what the cop did to the skateboarder, then tell me no force was involved. When a 220 pound cop puts a 110 pound kid in a joint manipulation, there is force involved.

The kid was already being detained. The ability to be detained is completely irrelevant and has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

What is a "resisted arrest"?

Can you elaborate on how criminals would "fuck everything up"?

The kid wasn't even in position to get his arm broken, so don't even try that argument.

The kid must have pulled away from the police officer. You can even see it when the officer tries to turn him around. the officer didn't hurt him at all.

When a subject resists an officers attempt in any way for detainment with reason (which the cop credibly has) it becomes a misdemeanor crime in EVERY STATE. By resisting, you are in the wrong and the subject waived his right to equal and fair treatment. The officer then has the duty to detain the subject as necessary. It is not something he should do, it is his job to use any force needed to detain the subject. He DIDN'T even use force, so your complaint means nothing. Do you understand?

If you just let criminals walk away from crimes without punishment, it will keep happening. The would wreck havoc on society if you didn't arrest them. Do you not understand that either?

Do you understand that the kid was already being detained? Handcuffs do not = detainment.

It doesn't matter if he was resisting. That would have been after the fact anyway.

I think you need to go to the dictionary and look up the word "force".

 

[MartyMcFly3]

A 110 pound drunk person is creating a problem in a bar, refusing to leave and just mouthing off to staff. The staff want him removed from the property. He refuses to leave so the 220 pound police officer puts him in an armbar to gain compliance and escorts him out.

Nothing wrong with the officer's actions in the above scenario. Weight of people involved doesn't mean anything. With the right buttons pushed and mix in adrenaline, a 110 pound person CAN be tough to handle. An armbar is an effective way to gain compliance for someone offering resistance. Simple as that.

 

[TurtleCrusher]

Originally posted by: JDawg1536

Originally posted by: Scholzpdx

Originally posted by: JDawg1536

Originally posted by: Scholzpdx


You both have got to be kidding.

There was NO FORCE involved. It's called a resisted arrest.

Do you really want criminals out on the streets, fucking everything up because a police officer isn't allowed to detain someone against their will?

Neither of you make ANY sense.

Did you not watch the video, not take physics, or not have any feeling from the neck down. Let me do to you what the cop did to the skateboarder, then tell me no force was involved. When a 220 pound cop puts a 110 pound kid in a joint manipulation, there is force involved.

The kid was already being detained. The ability to be detained is completely irrelevant and has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

What is a "resisted arrest"?

Can you elaborate on how criminals would "fuck everything up"?

The kid wasn't even in position to get his arm broken, so don't even try that argument.

The kid must have pulled away from the police officer. You can even see it when the officer tries to turn him around. the officer didn't hurt him at all.

When a subject resists an officers attempt in any way for detainment with reason (which the cop credibly has) it becomes a misdemeanor crime in EVERY STATE. By resisting, you are in the wrong and the subject waived his right to equal and fair treatment. The officer then has the duty to detain the subject as necessary. It is not something he should do, it is his job to use any force needed to detain the subject. He DIDN'T even use force, so your complaint means nothing. Do you understand?

If you just let criminals walk away from crimes without punishment, it will keep happening. The would wreck havoc on society if you didn't arrest them. Do you not understand that either?

[1]Do you understand that the kid was already being detained? Handcuffs do not = detainment.

[2]It doesn't matter if he was resisting. That would have been after the fact anyway.

[3]I think you need to go to the dictionary and look up the word "force".

1, YES! what the hell is your point? He actually wasn't arrested at that point though. He was just sitting there. What are you even getting at?

2, What do you mean it doesn't matter if he wasn't resisting? A crime was committed. An officer used his judgment (which is entirely justified) to arrest and the subject resisted. It's mind boggling to think someone can not even comprehend what is going on there. It's a FUCKING CRIMINAL OFFENCE!!!!!!!!!

Yeah guys, fuck the law! It doesn't matter if he was resisting. :roll:

3 doesn't even need a response. No force was used anyway.

Edit: Look one post up. Same thing, but force was applied there. It was NOT in this case.

 

[JDawg1536]

Originally posted by: MartyMcFly3
A 110 pound drunk person is creating a problem in a bar, refusing to leave and just mouthing off to staff. The staff want him removed from the property. He refuses to leave so the 220 pound police officer puts him in an armbar to gain compliance and escorts him out.

Nothing wrong with the officer's actions in the above scenario. Weight of people involved doesn't mean anything. With the right buttons pushed and mix in adrenaline, a 110 pound person CAN be tough to handle. An armbar is an effective way to gain compliance for someone offering resistance. Simple as that.

A drunk person refusing to leave is being resistant, therefore this "armbar" you speak of is an appropriate level of force.


And size/age/condition do mean something.

 

[Nik]

Originally posted by: Scholzpdx
There was NO FORCE involved. It's called a resisted arrest.

How was he resisting arrest? Did the officer ask him to comply and give him a chance to comply before physically assaulting the subject? No, he didn't. The subject wasn't resisting arrest because he wasn't under arrest at the point the officer decided to skip several steps, break protocol, break the law, and assault the guy.

Originally posted by: MartyMcFly3
A 110 pound drunk person is creating a problem in a bar, refusing to leave and just mouthing off to staff. The staff want him removed from the property. He refuses to leave so the 220 pound police officer puts him in an armbar to gain compliance and escorts him out.

Nothing wrong with the officer's actions in the above scenario. Weight of people involved doesn't mean anything. With the right buttons pushed and mix in adrenaline, a 110 pound person CAN be tough to handle. An armbar is an effective way to gain compliance for someone offering resistance. Simple as that.

Apples != oranges

Originally posted by: Scholzpdx
1, YES! what the hell is your point? He actually wasn't arrested at that point though. He was just sitting there. What are you even getting at?

2, What do you mean it doesn't matter if he wasn't resisting? A crime was committed. An officer used his judgment (which is entirely justified) to arrest and the subject resisted. It's mind boggling to think someone can not even comprehend what is going on there. It's a FUCKING CRIMINAL OFFENCE!!!!!!!!!

Yeah guys, fuck the law! It doesn't matter if he was resisting. :roll:

3 doesn't even need a response. No force was used anyway.

Edit: Look one post up. Same thing, but force was applied there. It was NOT in this case.

1) The kid was just sitting there; he was not giving the officer any reason to escalate compliance techniques but the officer did so anyway.

2) You're one of the few who don't seem to grasp the concepts at hand, here.

3) If a police officer has his weapon drawn and pointed at you, force is being used even though they're not touching you and they're not harming you in any way. In the realm of law enforcement, kinetic energy is not required to exhibit force on a subject. It doesn't matter how gentle the officer was, he didn't have precedent to assault the skateboarder.

 

[JDawg1536]

Originally posted by: Scholzpdx

1, YES! what the hell is your point? He actually wasn't arrested at that point though. He was just sitting there. What are you even getting at?

2, What do you mean it doesn't matter if he wasn't resisting? A crime was committed. An officer used his judgment (which is entirely justified) to arrest and the subject resisted. It's mind boggling to think someone can not even comprehend what is going on there. It's a FUCKING CRIMINAL OFFENCE!!!!!!!!!

Yeah guys, fuck the law! It doesn't matter if he was resisting. :roll:

3 doesn't even need a response. No force was used anyway.

Edit: Look one post up. Same thing, but force was applied there. It was NOT in this case.

Dude, there is ALWAYS force being used. It's not just some term to use when you punch someone. The officer talking to the kid is a level of force.



And as for the problem you have comprehending the whole detaining issue, here is what you said- "When a subject resists an officers attempt in any way for detainment"

I am saying that did not happen here. The kid was ALREADY being detained while sitting on the ground. You have the definitions of "detained" and "force" a little mixed up.

 

[TurtleCrusher]

I know what is reasonable and what is not. I know exactly what is legal in my profession as a citizen and I know a great deal what a police officer can and can not do. As a citizen I have more rights to force as a police officer, but what is shown in this video is nothing. Seriously, it's nothing. You guys are bitching over nothing. I'm done because you both just don't understand me.

My advice is for both of you to exercise your rights as legal U.S. citizens to do a ride along with a city police officer, assuming you both are in the U.S. It would change your view on this completely.

 

[Wheezer]

Originally posted by: JDawg1536

Originally posted by: Wheezer


And you're assumption that I am only for the cop in this case is wrong...it very well could be the cop started shit for no reason, but we would not know without further evidence now would we? Nor would we know if this is the 1st or 10th run in with these same kids who are there simply to prod this officer into acting and then trying to film some gotcha! moment.

.

And whether it was the 1st, 10th, or 10000th run in with the same kids, they still have the same rights. The officer is still held to a higher standard and should remain professional at all times. Do you disagree?

no...you are right, but uhhh....he did nothing unprofessional.

 

[CZroe]

Originally posted by: astroidea

Originally posted by: CZroe
My twin brother doesn't even skate and yet he suffered the wrath of cop vs. skateboarder. He took a couple friends to an empty parking lot that they often skated in after-hours. The officer that was usually there (and OK with it) was not there. Instead, this douche was. He told my brother's two friends that they couldn't skate and had to leave. My brother never saw the cop, was never skating, and was never told to leave. He was in the car using the laptop the whole time.

His two friends got in the car and told him that they had to leave, which he did. After getting some fast food or something he later decided that he would go back and talk to the officer himself, explaining that they were normally allowed to skate there and that they apologize for any misunderstanding. Because they were told to leave, this made my brother's two friends in the car uncomfortable but he assured them that the officer had never even seen him and that there was nothing wrong with him returning to talk to the officer.

My brother drove the car through the lot looking for the officer, spotted at him, waved, and then realized that the officer was now beckoning him and pointing, commanding that he come there and stop the car (as if that wasn't where he was already heading).

The officer flipped out. Patting him down, threatening to arrest, calling in other officers, demanding that he answer personal questions about his family ("Who's your father?!" - "I've never met him. I don't have a father." - "What?! Were you hatched or somethin'?!"). He eventually told my brother to get in the back of the squad car so he finally talked back saying "Why? You can't arrest me. I haven't done anything." Don't ever tell a cop that he can't arrest you. After that, he threw the cuffs on and had another officer take him. The other officer looked totally confused with a "do you really plan to go through with this power-trip and arrest this guy?" look on his face, but he put my brother in anyway without reading him his rights (probably thought they were just going to let him go after scaring him).

That was just before midnight on his birthday so he spent the first several hours of his birthday in jail (stayed the night). We couldn't get him out until late morning. The charge? Prowling and loitering. Why would a prowler SEEK OUT a cop if he were truly prowling?! How does one loiter in a MOVING car?! We couldn't get his answers to these questions because he didn't show up in court. The case was thrown out. The officer was excused because he was supposedly in the hospital in a full-body cast but we saw him shopping at Wal-Mart the next week.

wow that sucks
Why did the officer flip out though? Doesn't make sense.

He saw their return as a challenge to his authority, though he had never spoken to my brother prior to that. Also, I forgot to mention that they were offering a plea bargain-community service-only a day before he was supposed to be in-court. HA! Fat chance. My brother wanted his day in court and they did everything they could to get out of it. "Full body cast" my ass.

 

[MartyMcFly3]

Originally posted by: JDawg1536

Originally posted by: MartyMcFly3
A 110 pound drunk person is creating a problem in a bar, refusing to leave and just mouthing off to staff. The staff want him removed from the property. He refuses to leave so the 220 pound police officer puts him in an armbar to gain compliance and escorts him out.

Nothing wrong with the officer's actions in the above scenario. Weight of people involved doesn't mean anything. With the right buttons pushed and mix in adrenaline, a 110 pound person CAN be tough to handle. An armbar is an effective way to gain compliance for someone offering resistance. Simple as that.

A drunk person refusing to leave is being resistant, therefore this "armbar" you speak of is an appropriate level of force.


And size/age/condition do mean something.

Not allowing the officer to handcuff you is resisting... "Armbar" is effective and appropriate to gain compliance to allow the officer finish handcuffing the suspect.

 

[JDawg1536]

Originally posted by: Wheezer

Originally posted by: JDawg1536

Originally posted by: Wheezer


And you're assumption that I am only for the cop in this case is wrong...it very well could be the cop started shit for no reason, but we would not know without further evidence now would we? Nor would we know if this is the 1st or 10th run in with these same kids who are there simply to prod this officer into acting and then trying to film some gotcha! moment.

.

And whether it was the 1st, 10th, or 10000th run in with the same kids, they still have the same rights. The officer is still held to a higher standard and should remain professional at all times. Do you disagree?

no...you are right, but uhhh....he did nothing unprofessional.

I guess using profanity and yelling is professional then. He lost his composure with everyone in the video.

 

[JDawg1536]

Originally posted by: MartyMcFly3

Originally posted by: JDawg1536

Originally posted by: MartyMcFly3
A 110 pound drunk person is creating a problem in a bar, refusing to leave and just mouthing off to staff. The staff want him removed from the property. He refuses to leave so the 220 pound police officer puts him in an armbar to gain compliance and escorts him out.

Nothing wrong with the officer's actions in the above scenario. Weight of people involved doesn't mean anything. With the right buttons pushed and mix in adrenaline, a 110 pound person CAN be tough to handle. An armbar is an effective way to gain compliance for someone offering resistance. Simple as that.

A drunk person refusing to leave is being resistant, therefore this "armbar" you speak of is an appropriate level of force.


And size/age/condition do mean something.

Not allowing the officer to handcuff you is resisting... "Armbar" is effective and appropriate to gain compliance to allow the officer finish handcuffing the suspect.

So then what is the point of comparing escorting someone out of a building to handcuffing a kid? Handcuffing techniques and escort techniques are very different.

 

[Whisper]

Originally posted by: JDawg1536

Originally posted by: Wheezer

Originally posted by: JDawg1536

Originally posted by: Wheezer


And you're assumption that I am only for the cop in this case is wrong...it very well could be the cop started shit for no reason, but we would not know without further evidence now would we? Nor would we know if this is the 1st or 10th run in with these same kids who are there simply to prod this officer into acting and then trying to film some gotcha! moment.

.

And whether it was the 1st, 10th, or 10000th run in with the same kids, they still have the same rights. The officer is still held to a higher standard and should remain professional at all times. Do you disagree?

no...you are right, but uhhh....he did nothing unprofessional.

I guess using profanity and yelling is professional then. He lost his composure with everyone in the video.

He did lose his composure in that he shouldn't have tried to justify what he was doing with the passersby (or whoever it was that was yelling off-camera after the skateboarder had been arrested).

However, I can understand why, if this has been a trend in the area, he'd be frustrated. I didn't see him doing anything wrong, but unfortunately, some people get their own "power trip" by attempting to inappropriately question authority figures (and by inappropriately, I mean the questions asked, where they were asked, and how they were asked more so than the act of questioning itself).

 

[MartyMcFly3]

Originally posted by: JDawg1536

Originally posted by: MartyMcFly3

Originally posted by: JDawg1536

Originally posted by: MartyMcFly3
A 110 pound drunk person is creating a problem in a bar, refusing to leave and just mouthing off to staff. The staff want him removed from the property. He refuses to leave so the 220 pound police officer puts him in an armbar to gain compliance and escorts him out.

Nothing wrong with the officer's actions in the above scenario. Weight of people involved doesn't mean anything. With the right buttons pushed and mix in adrenaline, a 110 pound person CAN be tough to handle. An armbar is an effective way to gain compliance for someone offering resistance. Simple as that.

A drunk person refusing to leave is being resistant, therefore this "armbar" you speak of is an appropriate level of force.


And size/age/condition do mean something.

Not allowing the officer to handcuff you is resisting... "Armbar" is effective and appropriate to gain compliance to allow the officer finish handcuffing the suspect.

So then what is the point of comparing escorting someone out of a building to handcuffing a kid? Handcuffing techniques and escort techniques are very different.

I was just showing a different example of using the same technique for resisting. And yes I know there's a difference between handcuffing/escorting, but armbars are effective for both...

Edit: Gotta work now so won't be able to keep up with this thread.

 

[Phoenix86]

@ everyone defending the cop.

What changed from the time that the cop decided a warning was suitable to the time where he needed to arrest him?