This Video, As Presented, Infuriates Me

[Perknose]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1286196314632527872

^^^ I got it from this Philly Inquirer article:

Video of officers arresting man buying bike at Walmart goes viral, prompts protests

He may well have been loud and "uppity" when reprimanded about test-driving the bike, but in the end, he paid for the damn thing and was leaving . . . when the cops decided to forcibly put him in handcuffs and arrest him?

Ugh.

 

[Mr.IncrediblyBored]

It should infuriate everybody. There will be the usual folks suggesting something happened before filming started to get arrested. Which of course will be bullshit.

 

[ivwshane]

If the reporting is true and he was riding around the store yelling obscenities then I don’t see what the problem is. Could it have been handled better? Of course.

I have not seen any video prior to the arrest so my opinion is based purely on the inquirer’s reporting which could be complete shit.

 

[sandorski]

nm

 

[sandorski]

If the reporting is true and he was riding around the store yelling obscenities then I don’t see what the problem is. Could it have been handled better? Of course.

I have not seen any video prior to the arrest so my opinion is based purely on the inquirer’s reporting which could be complete shit.

Oh, well that changes things.

 

[HomerJS]

If the reporting is true and he was riding around the store yelling obscenities then I don’t see what the problem is. Could it have been handled better? Of course.

I have not seen any video prior to the arrest so my opinion is based purely on the inquirer’s reporting which could be complete shit.

Considering his calm and polite interaction with cops cursing at other shoppers is suspect.

We need to see more information

 

[fskimospy]

If the reporting is true and he was riding around the store yelling obscenities then I don’t see what the problem is. Could it have been handled better? Of course.

I have not seen any video prior to the arrest so my opinion is based purely on the inquirer’s reporting which could be complete shit.

From last I heard, and maybe things changed, Walmart claimed this but would not release the video that would prove it.

 

[GoodRevrnd]

If the reporting is true and he was riding around the store yelling obscenities then I don’t see what the problem is. Could it have been handled better? Of course.

I have not seen any video prior to the arrest so my opinion is based purely on the inquirer’s reporting which could be complete shit.

Sounds like the real issue is he committed trespass after refusing to leave. They had the right to detain him at that point, although he was on his way out, and I guess Walmart still wanted to formally trespass/ban him (but not press charges?) and he refused to identify? All assuming the Walmart account is accurate.

 

[HomerJS]

Sounds like the real issue is he committed trespass after refusing to leave. They had the right to detain him at that point, although he was on his way out, and I guess Walmart still wanted to formally trespass/ban him (but not press charges?) and he refused to identify? All assuming the Walmart account is accurate.

He didn't refuse to leave. He already purchased the bike and wanted to leave. He said "I have the receipt". If Walmart release release recordings of him cursing at other shoppers while riding the bike this is just another "Let's call the cops on a black man and get him injured"

 

[SmCaudata]

Why do people care what happened in the store? If when the police arrived he was cooperative, then the police should investigate by working with the store, interviewing people, and reviewing video. Then the store can press charges and some prosecuter can look at the case. In absence of evidence, the only crime is harassment by police.

Our justice system is innocent until proven guilty not guilty until you can prove yourself innocent.

 

[HomerJS]

Why do people care what happened in the store? If when the police arrived he was cooperative, then the police should investigate by working with the store, interviewing people, and reviewing video. Then the store can press charges and some prosecuter can look at the case. In absence of evidence, the only crime is harassment by police.

Our justice system is innocent until proven guilty not guilty until you can prove yourself innocent.

If you omit one important variable...

 

[ivwshane]

Why do people care what happened in the store? If when the police arrived he was cooperative, then the police should investigate by working with the store, interviewing people, and reviewing video. Then the store can press charges and some prosecuter can look at the case. In absence of evidence, the only crime is harassment by police.

Our justice system is innocent until proven guilty not guilty until you can prove yourself innocent.

It very much matters what happened in the store.

If the police were called to a store because an African American was carrying a weapon walking up and down the isles and they killed because he wasn't responding to their orders, one might think that the shooting was justified.

Now if instead we see an African American in a store picks up a toy gun or a bee bee gun that that store sells and is walking up and down the isles while talking on the phone carrying the gun casually and police enter the store and shoot the man upon site in the back, well, I think most would say that was not justified.

So context does matter, especially if we are to move forward and to create a better more effective police force.

In this particular video and in the context given by walmart or the police, they appear to have acted appropriately.

However, if it turns out this guy was just looking at bikes and road it around a couple of isles and was never spoken to by the staff, then the fact that the police were called is already an issue and the fact that he was arrested is an even bigger problem.

The context matters because that changes the appropriateness of the reactions and it changes how we move forward and how to improve things or address the issues.

 

[SmCaudata]

It very much matters what happened in the store.

If the police were called to a store because an African American was carrying a weapon walking up and down the isles and they killed because he wasn't responding to their orders, one might think that the shooting was justified.

Now if instead we see an African American in a store picks up a toy gun or a bee bee gun that that store sells and is walking up and down the isles while talking on the phone carrying the gun casually and police enter the store and shoot the man upon site in the back, well, I think most would say that was not justified.

So context does matter, especially if we are to move forward and to create a better more effective police force.

In this particular video and in the context given by walmart or the police, they appear to have acted appropriately.

However, if it turns out this guy was just looking at bikes and road it around a couple of isles and was never spoken to by the staff, then the fact that the police were called is already an issue and the fact that he was arrested is an even bigger problem.

The context matters because that changes the appropriateness of the reactions and it changes how we move forward and how to improve things or address the issues.

Except, police acting on verbal claims without proof is how we get children shot while holding bb guns, or a guy killed because someone claimed he had a counterfeit bill.

The police aren't detectives. They aren't a jury. If when the police showed up he was actively trespassing and refusing to leave, they should arrest. It doesnt matter how restrained they were here, the reality is they effectively arrested someone based on hearsay. If you can't see the problem with that....

Again, I'm not saying this guy didn't do anything wrong. I'm saying that the police didnt seem to have any proof of that when they arrested him. It's like breaking into someone's house for evidence before a warrant issued. Reasonable evidence should exist before the police decide to violate someone's rights.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Sounds like the real issue is he committed trespass after refusing to leave. They had the right to detain him at that point, although he was on his way out, and I guess Walmart still wanted to formally trespass/ban him (but not press charges?) and he refused to identify? All assuming the Walmart account is accurate.

Dude you know nothing about trespass laws! If the man was on his way out after being asked to leave the cops made an unlawful arrest!

 

[SmCaudata]

Dude you know nothing about trespass laws! If the man was on his way out after being asked to leave the cops made an unlawful arrest!

Right? And their explanation that they wanted his identity to help Walmart enforce the no trespass order is also bulshit. If some guy was on my lawn screaming obscenities but left when the police arrived, it would be my responsibility to go to the police station and request an OFP or something. Its shocking to me how many in this country seem to believe that it is our civic duty to obey police, no questions asked. They are there to protect and serve us, not to rule and oppress.

 

[ivwshane]

Except, police acting on verbal claims without proof is how we get children shot while holding bb guns, or a guy killed because someone claimed he had a counterfeit bill.

The police aren't detectives. They aren't a jury. If when the police showed up he was actively trespassing and refusing to leave, they should arrest. It doesnt matter how restrained they were here, the reality is they effectively arrested someone based on hearsay. If you can't see the problem with that....

Again, I'm not saying this guy didn't do anything wrong. I'm saying that the police didnt seem to have any proof of that when they arrested him. It's like breaking into someone's house for evidence before a warrant issued. Reasonable evidence should exist before the police decide to violate someone's rights.

You've effectively tied the hands of the police to respond to anything. Are they to investigate first or take action first with such a call? Their first action is to secure the suspect and/or the premises and then to investigate and act accordingly.

Almost all police calls are based on hearsay by the way.

 

[ivwshane]

Right? And their explanation that they wanted his identity to help Walmart enforce the no trespass order is also bulshit. If some guy was on my lawn screaming obscenities but left when the police arrived, it would be my responsibility to go to the police station and request an OFP or something. Its shocking to me how many in this country seem to believe that it is our civic duty to obey police, no questions asked. They are there to protect and serve us, not to rule and oppress.

So if someone is in your garage attempting to steal something and you call the cops and the suspect leaves, it's your opinion that as long as he didn't steal anything and he left, it's all good and its up to you to not only figure out who the suspect was but also to file some sort of restraining order? That's ridiculous.


And it is also required that all people are required to obey a peace officers lawful orders. I'm not sure where you came up with it not being a requirement.

 

[SmCaudata]

You've effectively tied the hands of the police to respond to anything. Are they to investigate first or take action first with such a call? Their first action is to secure the suspect and/or the premises and then to investigate and act accordingly.

Almost all police calls are based on hearsay by the way.

Yep. And then they should take statements. But until evidence is present that guy should be free to leave.

When they arrived he was waiting to pay for a bike.. he walked out of the sore on his own. Why did he need "securing?"

Someone needs to be actively doing something wrong, or there needs to be a high likelihood that the public is in danger to apprehend first. Yelling obscenities is hardly dangerous to society. As you say, most of the time police are responding to hearsay, and most of the time, they do nothing because they can't in abscence of proof.

Your arguments sound like the type that people use to dismiss swatting victims as collateral damage by saying that the police were just responding to a reported threat. This act without proof mentality is behind the vast majority of the cases we see on the news.

 

[cytg111]

You never know what kind of cop you gonna get. Comply comply comply... Yes mister officer. Then file complain afterwards if warrented. I understand its emotional and all, you just cant.

 

[ivwshane]

Yep. And then they should take statements. But until evidence is present that guy should be free to leave.

When they arrived he was waiting to pay for a bike.. he walked out of the sore on his own. Why did he need "securing?"

Someone needs to be actively doing something wrong, or there needs to be a high likelihood that the public is in danger to apprehend first. Yelling obscenities is hardly dangerous to society. As you say, most of the time police are responding to hearsay, and most of the time, they do nothing because they can't in abscence of proof.

Your arguments sound like the type that people use to dismiss swatting victims as collateral damage by saying that the police were just responding to a reported threat. This act without proof mentality is behind the vast majority of the cases we see on the news.

How do you take statements if the suspect is free to leave?

Your swatting example is horrible as its certainly not necessary to bust down a door and begin firing without assessing the situation first that and the fact that it describes an extremely rare situation.

 

[SmCaudata]

So if someone is in your garage attempting to steal something and you call the cops and the suspect leaves, it's your opinion that as long as he didn't steal anything and he left, it's all good and its up to you to not only figure out who the suspect was but also to file some sort of restraining order? That's ridiculous.


And it is also required that all people are required to obey a peace officers lawful orders. I'm not sure where you came up with it not being a requirement.

Where was it reported that this guy was stealing anything? Nice false equivalence.

Also, you do not have to obey all requests.

Know Your Rights | Stopped by Police | ACLU

Being stopped by police is a stressful experience that can go bad quickly. Here we describe what the law requires and also offer strategies for handling police encounters. We want to be clear: The burden of de-escalation does not fall on private citizens — it falls on police officers. However...

www.aclu.org

I admittedly do not know if PA requires someone to identify themselves.

 

[SmCaudata]

How do you take statements if the suspect is free to leave?

Your swatting example is horrible as its certainly not necessary to bust down a door and begin firing without assessing the situation and the premises first that and the fact that it describes an extremely rare situation.

You used the words secure the suspect... im still trying to figure out what he did that required securing.

The fact is that we've allowed the police to overreach so long, we don't even recognize it.

 

[ivwshane]

You never know what kind of cop you gonna get. Comply comply comply... Yes mister officer. Then file complain afterwards if warrented. I understand its emotional and all, you just cant.

While that's true, part of what the blm movement is all about is that even if black people comply they could still potentially lose their life. That's also assuming they are even given the chance to comply in the first place (see tamir rice).

Remember that story a few years back where a black man was pulled over in a gas station and was shot when he reached for his ID that the officer asked for?

 

[ivwshane]

Where was it reported that this guy was stealing anything? Nice false equivalence.

Also, you do not have to obey all requests.

Know Your Rights | Stopped by Police | ACLU

Being stopped by police is a stressful experience that can go bad quickly. Here we describe what the law requires and also offer strategies for handling police encounters. We want to be clear: The burden of de-escalation does not fall on private citizens — it falls on police officers. However...

www.aclu.org

I admittedly do not know if PA requires someone to identify themselves.

If someone was in your garage that you didn't know, what do you think they are doing? I guess they could be there trying to figure out how to murder you but I guess that doesn't matter to you and you'd be perfectly fine trying to figure it all out on your own, including trying to figure out who the person was.

 

[cytg111]

While that's true, part of what the blm movement is all about is that even if black people comply they could still potentially lose their life. That's also assuming they are even given the chance to comply in the first place (see tamir rice).

Remember that story a few years back where a black man was pulled over in a gas station and was shot when he reached for his ID that the officer asked for?

Yup. Still. You can be vocal and still not resist. If I was black in the US I would carry a small usb stick recording device at all times.. the one I have records 72 hours straight before running full needs a recharge. You just never know when that shit comes in handy.