Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Wednesday October 07 2015, @08:37AM   Printer-friendly
from the not-the-brightest-of-the-bunch dept.

A Florida cop has been fired for repeatedly using an electroshock weapon on a shoplifting suspect who was inside a residence with hands raised. The officer's police report said the suspect "refused to show his hands," according to local media.

Police authorities in Zephyrhills, Florida announced the firing of 10-year veteran officer Tim Claussen on Friday. The footage of Claussen tasering Lester Brown, who complained of shoulder aches and dizziness after he was arrested, was captured on the video camera attached to the officer's Taser.

"Come outside now, or you're about to get tased," Claussen said on the video. "This is the last time." Suddenly, Brown is shocked, and shortly afterward he's seen falling to the ground in the footage. According to the city attorney's office, "the deployment of the Taser was unjustified."


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by mendax on Wednesday October 07 2015, @08:44AM

    by mendax (2840) on Wednesday October 07 2015, @08:44AM (#246382)

    Well, the dust of infamy and shame, in addition to the lawsuit that will be winging its way to him. Hopefully, the city will leave him hanging out to dry. However, I wonder where the police union is in this case. Police and prison guard unions seem to defend their own even when they have committed the worst offenses.

    --
    It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by LoRdTAW on Wednesday October 07 2015, @02:49PM

      by LoRdTAW (3755) on Wednesday October 07 2015, @02:49PM (#246456) Journal

      However, I wonder where the police union is in this case. Police and prison guard unions seem to defend their own even when they have committed the worst offenses.

      Most likely because there is damning evidence that proves the officer did in fact behave unprofessionally. Defending him would be a PR nightmare. If there was no body cam footage you can bet they would come out swinging.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by PinkyGigglebrain on Wednesday October 07 2015, @09:25AM

    by PinkyGigglebrain (4458) on Wednesday October 07 2015, @09:25AM (#246386)

    If it wasn't for his badge he would be sitting in jail right now awaiting trial for assault.

    The DA better file charges against this son of a bitch.

    Of course even if the DA did prosecute there wouldn't be a conviction.

    --
    "Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
    • (Score: 3, Informative) by pkrasimirov on Wednesday October 07 2015, @11:04AM

      by pkrasimirov (3358) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday October 07 2015, @11:04AM (#246401)

      > trial for assault.
      Battery [wikipedia.org].

      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 07 2015, @01:12PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 07 2015, @01:12PM (#246428)

        Battery is a criminal offense involving unlawful physical contact, distinct from assault which is the act of creating apprehension of such contact.

        Screaming at an unarmed person to leave their house or get shot with the less-lethal weapon currently pointed at them isn't creating apprehension of unlawful physical contact?

        • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday October 07 2015, @04:25PM

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday October 07 2015, @04:25PM (#246493) Journal

          I threaten to punch you in the nose. I've committed assault.

          I then punch you in the noxe. I've committed battery.

          Now, which is the more serious charge? If you have to choose whether to see me convicted of assault, or battery, which would you go with? I suspect that you'll forget about the assault, and charge me with battery. In actuality, I would probably be charged with "assault and battery". The assault part of that charge helps to establish that I didn't just accidentally bump your nose while putting on a jacket or something - I did threaten you before battering you. But, it's the battery that will get me some jail time, not the simple assault.

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by hemocyanin on Wednesday October 07 2015, @03:07PM

        by hemocyanin (186) on Wednesday October 07 2015, @03:07PM (#246462) Journal

        That distinction between assault and battery is not universal and varies between states. For example, in Washington State, there is only the crime of assault and if you look at the definitions, assault in WA is what you are calling battery.

        http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.36.011 [wa.gov]

        (1) A person is guilty of assault in the first degree if he or she, with intent to inflict great bodily harm:
                  (a) Assaults another with a firearm or any deadly weapon or by any force or means likely to produce great bodily harm or death; or
                  (b) Administers, exposes, or transmits to or causes to be taken by another, poison, the human immunodeficiency virus as defined in chapter 70.24 RCW, or any other destructive or noxious substance; or
                  (c) Assaults another and inflicts great bodily harm. [note: this is what you call battery, but here called assault]
                  (2) Assault in the first degree is a class A felony

  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Entropy on Wednesday October 07 2015, @09:43AM

    by Entropy (4228) on Wednesday October 07 2015, @09:43AM (#246389)

    The cop REPEATEDLY tells him to come outside now. REPEATEDLY.... The guy resists. The cop tases him, and the guy runs away...eventually falling. The cop is screaming for the guy to comply by putting his hands behind his back and when the guy complies he stops getting tased...What's the problem, exactly? That the guy is black I guess.

    There's some myth that cops have to put hands on a "unarmed" person. This guy is a huge black guy, in his own house, perhaps armed and IS A SUSPECT IN A DEATH INVESTIGATION...So maybe he killed someone. He's refusing to come outside after being ask several times. Do you want to go in and tackle him? Be my guest... Or just tase him.

    • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 07 2015, @09:59AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 07 2015, @09:59AM (#246394)
      Where does it say death or other homicide investigation? All I see is "shoplifting".
    • (Score: 5, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 07 2015, @10:10AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 07 2015, @10:10AM (#246395)

      NICE USE OF ALL-CAPS! HOWEVER, I'M CURIOUS WHY YOU SPELL "SHOPLIFTING" D-E-A-T-H?

    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 07 2015, @11:17AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 07 2015, @11:17AM (#246404)

      FTFA: "Brown, 42, was arrested for allegedly shoplifting earlier in the day, as police said they found stolen clothing in the suspect's house and car. Local prosecutors dropped the retail-theft charge at the request of the police department." Where'd the "death investigation" part come from?!

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 07 2015, @12:41PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 07 2015, @12:41PM (#246422)

      People like Entropy are a part of the problem, always willing to ignore these cases of excessive force and borderline fascism until the day it's their turn against the wall.

      • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Thexalon on Wednesday October 07 2015, @02:17PM

        by Thexalon (636) on Wednesday October 07 2015, @02:17PM (#246448)

        It's probably for the reason that Martin Niemöller explained so eloquently:
        "First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out — because I was not a socialist.
        Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out — because I was not a trade unionist.
        Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out — because I was not a Jew.
        Then they came for me — and there was no one left to speak for me."

        In this case, the group that Entropy probably sees Mr Brown as being part of that he is not part of is black people.

        He probably believes that the kind of stuff that police do to black people every day in the US either doesn't matter to him or even benefits him, because he's not black and a lot of white people see black people not as their fellow citizens but as a threat to their life and property that must be contained and targeted with regular oppression to ensure they don't get "out of control" and start demanding the same sorts of rights that white people take for granted. That's the kind of position police officers, politicians, and media personalities take all the time, and it's why white people rioting over pumpkins [vice.com] is called "unruly behavior" while black people marching and chanting over police shootings, no matter how peacefully, is called a "riot". Oh, and it's why roughly 20% of Americans still believe that Barack Obama isn't a US citizen, and why Cliven Bundy decided that the federal government no longer legitimately held power in the US.

        this article [cracked.com] gives a pretty good idea of the mindset, how people end up in it, and how damaging it is. Yes, I know, Cracked.com, but it's pretty good writing nonetheless.

        --
        The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
        • (Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Wednesday October 07 2015, @02:25PM

          by dyingtolive (952) on Wednesday October 07 2015, @02:25PM (#246451)

          I hadn't heard of the pumpkin riot thing. What a bunch of mindless thugs.

          --
          Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 07 2015, @07:11PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 07 2015, @07:11PM (#246556)

          >2014+(lim x->infinity (10^x-1)/(10^x))
          >unironically linking to Cracked

          I seriously hope you guys don't shiggy diggy do this.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 07 2015, @09:13PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 07 2015, @09:13PM (#246605)

          this article gives a pretty good idea of the mindset, how people end up in it, and how damaging it is. Yes, I know, Cracked.com, but it's pretty good writing nonetheless.

          TL;DR - racism is a habit, one you may not even be aware of having. Like all habits, it takes a conscious, dedicated effort to change it. The real bigots are the ones who make a dedicated effort to stay racist instead of trying to get rid of it.

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Wednesday October 07 2015, @03:12PM

      by hemocyanin (186) on Wednesday October 07 2015, @03:12PM (#246464) Journal

      Wow -- did we watch the same video?

      Number one -- did the pig have a warrant to enter the house (why do you think he keeps demanding the guy come outside)? Did the pig have a warrant to arrest or detain any person in the house? Are you so fucking stupid that you can't comprehend how one's body responds uncontrollably when being zapped by 50k volts or whatever the taser does? Are you such a moron that you can't see that the only reason the pig lied about the situation was so that he could make an excuse for exigent circumstances, thus ignore the 4th Amendment, and enter the house? Please -- why don't you stop posting here and confine yourself to some racist pig cock sucking forum. Seriously, go the fuck away.

    • (Score: 0, Troll) by TheGratefulNet on Wednesday October 07 2015, @03:57PM

      by TheGratefulNet (659) on Wednesday October 07 2015, @03:57PM (#246482)

      FOAD entroy.

      just fuck off and leave this forum. bootlickers like you are not needed or wanted here.

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday October 07 2015, @04:21PM

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday October 07 2015, @04:21PM (#246491) Journal

      Castle doctrine. You can't come into my house unless you have a WARRANT. Doesn't matter who the fuck you are, if you come through my door uninvited, I get to play host, along with Sam Colt. Here - have a nice lead sandwich.

      The ONLY people in this nation who have been "authorized" to enter your home without a warrant, are game wardens. One game warden suggested that he would like to search my home. I suggested right back that he get a search warrant first. He reminded me of his special "authorization". I flat out told him that he better bring a lot of backup if he came to my house without a warrant, because I intended to shoot him in the head, and dump his dumb ass in the freezer that he wanted to search so badly.

      The badass with a gun and a badge never came to my house. I guess he decided that getting a warrant was to much of a hassle, and he didn't want to push his luck.

      Castle doctrine. A mans house is his castle. No exceptions. That special little thing that the game wardens have is totally unconstitutional, and they know it. No patrol cop has even the pretense of special authorization.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 07 2015, @09:28PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 07 2015, @09:28PM (#246613)

        Never heard of that game warden thing, but if they weren't looking for evidence of a crime and could not get police involved even if you had pounds of cocaine lying out on the table then there'd be no problem with them entering without a warrant. Problems is the same problem we see with Terry stops: [wikipedia.org] a Terry stop is only supposed to be a superficial patdown for weapons which could be used to injure the officer, but they're used as a bullshit excuse to rifle through people's pockets and conduct full-on, unconstitutional searches; if Terry stops were only used as quick weapons patdowns and not used to unconstitutionally search people, then game warden's un-warranted entry of homes would be acceptable too, but all those in authority have repeatedly proven they can't be trusted with even the tiniest bit of leniency. Believing a game warden's claims that he'd only be looking for fish or wildlife violations would be just as stupid as believing a cop when he says he'll only pat you down to check for weapons.

      • (Score: 1) by number11 on Wednesday October 07 2015, @10:19PM

        by number11 (1170) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday October 07 2015, @10:19PM (#246633)

        Castle doctrine. You can't come into my house unless you have a WARRANT. Doesn't matter who the fuck you are, if you come through my door uninvited, I get to play host, along with Sam Colt. Here - have a nice lead sandwich.

        That's big talk, but you do realize that collectively cops have a lot more firepower than you do, and they will use it. Right or wrong does not enter into the equation. You won't prevail in court with any "castle doctrine" because you won't survive long enough to try.

        Reality is a bitch.

  • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 07 2015, @12:52PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 07 2015, @12:52PM (#246423)

    during the first 5 seconds of the video. Perhaps the cop was temporarily blinded by the spare tire in a bikini.

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 07 2015, @12:58PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 07 2015, @12:58PM (#246424)

    What I'm most surprised at is that the officer's video footage wasn't "lost" or "damaged" or that "the camera wasn't recording". Who screwed up?

  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Bethany.Saint on Wednesday October 07 2015, @01:11PM

    by Bethany.Saint (5900) on Wednesday October 07 2015, @01:11PM (#246427)

    I don't know, the cop repeatedly tells the man to come outside and he refuses. What should the cop have done ... just gone away? At what point does disregarding a cop's demand allow him to use force? I think this incident was right at that line. Certainly it's not as clear cut as the article makes it appear.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Wednesday October 07 2015, @03:26PM

      by hemocyanin (186) on Wednesday October 07 2015, @03:26PM (#246468) Journal

      The only circumstance in which the pig had a right to demand the person exit the home is in the context of a warrant, or in the context of exigent circumstances where people's lives are in danger.

      You need to remove this idea from your head that you must do anything a cop demands. That's unAmerican.

      People do recognize however, like the "law of gross tonnage [woodenboat.com] (*)", that sometimes you go along with unlawful orders for practical reasons. That still is no reason to cast blame on the guy who got tazed. Everything about this situation was created by the pig's unlawful demands. He should be fired, prosecuted criminally, and bankrupted civilly.

      (*) technically, sail boats under sail but not under machine power have the right of way over power boats as long as there are no physical restrictions on the power boat's maneuverability. Practically, you have to be totally insane to do what the guy did in those photos.

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday October 07 2015, @03:49PM

        by Phoenix666 (552) on Wednesday October 07 2015, @03:49PM (#246478) Journal

        You need to remove this idea from your head that you must do anything a cop demands. That's unAmerican.

        Yes, it is un-American. And across the wash of stories on murderous cops and official whitewashing of cop crimes it's been astonishing to watch the posturing and craven facility with which so many have tried to reconcile their hatred of authority and love of guns with hatred of poor and minorities, and deep, deep-seated aversion to walking the walk they talk. It is a textbook moment of memic indeterminacy.

        Story: Cops bust down door of innocent civilians and shoot poor uncle Harry in the leg.
        Reaction: Pick one:

        1. "Let 'em try that at mah place and they'll be sayin' hello to the double barrels of mah shotgun herp derp"
        2. "Oh, um, they're black? Then they probably had it comin' hummina hummina"
        3. "Cops should be cracking more heads!! grrr growl growl"
        4. "Me, do something about it? Umm, yeah more people should vote er something. Demonrats! Trump! argle bargle"

        But you're right that it is un-American. There is a fundamental disconnect between citizens who still consider themselves to be co-equal beings with inalienable rights and a power structure from top to bottom that has grown to arrogate to itself absolute authority There is only one solution, and it is for them to be brutally and totally disabused of that hubris.

        --
        Washington DC delenda est.
    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday October 07 2015, @04:31PM

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday October 07 2015, @04:31PM (#246498) Journal

      You are not obligated to obey an unlawful command, from anyone. There was no mention of a warrant in the video. If there were a warrant, I'm pretty sure that some mention would have been made of that warrant. I do NOT have to step outside to talk to a cop. Nor do I have to allow him in my home. Unless he produces a warrant, properly signed by a judge, he has little authority. Yes, you hit it right. The cop should have just gone away.

      A cop can use force if he actually witnesses a violation of the law for which he must make an arrest. This cop did not witness the retail theft to which he alludes. That much is pretty clear cut.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 08 2015, @03:01AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 08 2015, @03:01AM (#246713)

        A big man is ripping your ears off Percy. I'd do as he says

        This is the quote I think of when people say things like you are. You are right. However the big man is about to KILL you. What do you do? The big man may be a cop. But he is about to KILL you. Do you stand up for your rights or do you live and then sue the pants off him and make sure he does not do it again? Sometimes it is worth playing the long game.

    • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Thursday October 08 2015, @02:51PM

      by urza9814 (3954) on Thursday October 08 2015, @02:51PM (#246879) Journal

      You're seriously going to say that lethal force is justified against someone who just doesn't want to leave their house?

      Lethal force is only justified if a life is in danger. There is absolutely no other circumstance that justifies this. None.

  • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by linkdude64 on Wednesday October 07 2015, @01:43PM

    by linkdude64 (5482) on Wednesday October 07 2015, @01:43PM (#246432)

    Tell me that firearms don't have any purpose outside of sporting. Tell me how the 2nd Amendment is deprecated. Tell me how comfortable your chains are.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by dyingtolive on Wednesday October 07 2015, @01:58PM

      by dyingtolive (952) on Wednesday October 07 2015, @01:58PM (#246440)

      That's a little tangential as no guns were involved in this and, unfortunately, no matter how provably justified shooting a cop is, I suspect you would not like the outcome if you were to try it.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
      • (Score: 0, Offtopic) by linkdude64 on Friday October 09 2015, @09:15AM

        by linkdude64 (5482) on Friday October 09 2015, @09:15AM (#247320)

        No guns were involved in this incident, but a man's personal sense of Liberty was taken away from him by an authoritative body, and that effect will ripple through his family and those nearby, because of the abuses he suffered. "Black Lives Matter," for example. Weapons are self defense, and self-defense is Liberty. Your immediate association of the Second Amendment with "Shooting cops" is very telling to me; the undeniable fact that shooting a cop in a provably justifiable situation would have a bad result for me - probably my violent and painful death - is perfectly and totally illustrative of the necessity of the Second Amendment as stated. Please think about that for a second, and you may realize that you are exactly the unpaid anti-freedom shill I was hoping to hear from.

        • (Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Friday October 09 2015, @02:30PM

          by dyingtolive (952) on Friday October 09 2015, @02:30PM (#247431)

          My "immediate association" was my merely trying to desperately find some way to relate your off topic rant about guns to the actual topic at hand.

          You seem like you have an axe to grind against anyone who doesn't just roll their eyes and ignore you. Good day.

          --
          Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
          • (Score: 1) by linkdude64 on Saturday October 10 2015, @06:50AM

            by linkdude64 (5482) on Saturday October 10 2015, @06:50AM (#247713)

            Your lack of understanding that the prevention of abuse by violent oppressors is why the second exists explains your viewpoint perfectly. The police have no legal obligation to protect citizens. Your lack of knowledge, especially where freedom is concerned, again, explains your viewpoint perfectly. It is entirely reasonable, based on what limited information you have; I can at least thank you for expressing it honestly. See you around.

    • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 07 2015, @02:03PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 07 2015, @02:03PM (#246443)

      Please illuminate us as to which reply you are expecting and we will gladly supply it to ensure your view of reality is confirmed.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 07 2015, @09:18PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 07 2015, @09:18PM (#246607)

      So why aren't all you "sekund amendmunt!" nutters out enforcing vigilante justice against the police state and oppressive, tyrannical government? Y'all are constantly claiming that's the entire point of the second, so c'mon, show us all that you're not just spewing bullshit and put your bullets where your mouths are.

      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 07 2015, @10:04PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 07 2015, @10:04PM (#246625)

        > So why aren't all you "sekund amendmunt!" nutters out enforcing vigilante justice against the police state and oppressive, tyrannical government?

        They are: [thenewcivilrightsmovement.com]
          . Clive Bundy
          . Ferguson
          . Kim Davis

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 08 2015, @02:43AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 08 2015, @02:43AM (#246709)

          The poster did not say "bitch to TV cameras and try to turn the US into a theocracy".

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by zafiro17 on Wednesday October 07 2015, @02:07PM

    by zafiro17 (234) on Wednesday October 07 2015, @02:07PM (#246445) Homepage

    The fact that everyone was so hurried to release video here shows it's going to be more complicated than that and, as usual, the courts will have to sort it out. Maybe this cop overreacted; maybe this perp was being uncooperative and belligerent. What do you want the cop to do? Go in and manhandle him? That would get him on the news too, these days.

    I'm not justifying the cop's actions - there is far too much white cop on black crim violence these days. But why did this asshole have to go out and shoplift, too?

    --
    Dad always thought laughter was the best medicine, which I guess is why several of us died of tuberculosis - Jack Handey
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 07 2015, @03:27PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 07 2015, @03:27PM (#246469)

      But why did this asshole have to go out and shoplift, too?

      That's completely irrelevant to how the cop handled the situation. The guy chose to shoplift, and the cop chose how to respond to the situation he was in. Everyone should be personally responsible for their own actions, not the actions of others. So the whole 'He shouldn't have committed the crime!' nonsense is completely irrelevant, because people are discussing whether or not the cop used an appropriate amount of force.

      • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday October 07 2015, @11:28PM

        by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday October 07 2015, @11:28PM (#246657) Journal

        More to the point, it has been asserted that the guy chose to shoplift. The cop didn't witness it, or if so it was not so reported, and the assault was not carried out at the purported store that was supposed to have been shoplifted from. So he had no right to entrance without a warrant. And he had no right to demand that the guy leave his home without a warrant.

        So this was just unjustified illegal assault with a weapon that's not usually deadly...but has been known to be so.

        --
        Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
    • (Score: 3, Touché) by hemocyanin on Wednesday October 07 2015, @03:31PM

      by hemocyanin (186) on Wednesday October 07 2015, @03:31PM (#246473) Journal

      You assume without evidence, indeed contrary evidence (police asked prosecutor to dismiss shoplifting charges), that he engaged in shoplifting.

      Secondly, why is there no scaled response? Should a pig shoot a jaywalker for jaywalking? Sure it's a crime, but the response should match the level of the crime. To make everything a capital offense to be prosecuted and executed street-justice-wise, is to make cops lives far more dangerous because it informs jaywalkers that they need to use extreme force to protect themselves.

      • (Score: 2) by jasassin on Wednesday October 07 2015, @08:39PM

        by jasassin (3566) <jasassin@gmail.com> on Wednesday October 07 2015, @08:39PM (#246590) Homepage Journal

        Did you see the story about the two cops who manhandled a black guy riding his bike down the sidewalk? The guy shot both cops giving them permanent painful disabilities. The two cops are now trying to sue the place that sold the gun to some friend of him who bought the gun for him (he couldn't pass the background check). They could've just asked him to get off the sidewalk, but no. The two rush up tackle him off his bike and start the jamming the head against the wall bullshit! Now they are on TV wanting people to feel sorry for them. Did they get what they deserved? Well, every day they suffer they can think to themselves "At least there's one less black guy riding their bike on the sidewalk."

        http://fox6now.com/2015/10/01/is-gun-shop-liable-after-two-mpd-officers-were-shot-badger-guns-salesman-who-sold-gun-first-to-testify/ [fox6now.com]

        --
        jasassin@gmail.com GPG Key ID: 0xE6462C68A9A3DB5A
        • (Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Wednesday October 07 2015, @09:29PM

          by hemocyanin (186) on Wednesday October 07 2015, @09:29PM (#246614) Journal

          Wow. So it is happening. Sad part is that the cops are still collecting pay.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Whoever on Wednesday October 07 2015, @03:54PM

      by Whoever (4524) on Wednesday October 07 2015, @03:54PM (#246481) Journal

      What do you want the cop to do? Go in and manhandle him? That would get him on the news too, these days.

      Yes, because, without a warrant, that would be illegal. The police cannot simply enter a house to arrest someone.

      It's people like you that are responsible for violence conducted by the police: people who support or are merely silent on police misconduct allow the police to continue being violent thugs.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday October 07 2015, @04:36PM

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday October 07 2015, @04:36PM (#246501) Journal

      " What do you want the cop to do?"

      Go away. Use the radio to inform dispatch that this guy isn't coming in cooperatively, or willingly. Dispatch will likely advise the cop to get a warrant. Then the cop can return with the warrant, and some backup. "Sir, I have a warrant, signed by Judge Jones, that says you must come with me to answer questions regarding a retail theft. As you can see, the warrant is all in order, and I've got five other gorilla sized cops with me. You can come peacefully, or we can break you up badly while we get the handcuffs on you. Your call, Sir."

    • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Thursday October 08 2015, @02:56PM

      by urza9814 (3954) on Thursday October 08 2015, @02:56PM (#246883) Journal

      What do you want the cop to do? Go in and manhandle him? That would get him on the news too, these days.

      That still beats *SHOOTING HIM*!

      Tasers are not non-lethal, they are *less* lethal. Less lethal than a gun. They're intended to be used when an officer would otherwise use his firearm. They're intended to be used only where lethal force is justified -- because they *are* lethal force.

      If they have a legitimate, legal reason to force this guy to leave and he refuses, they can go cuff him and carry him out. That's nothing the local nightclub bouncer doesn't manage a few times a night. If he grabs a knife and threatens them with it, *then* they can go for the taser.