Virginia Police Caught Assaulting Teens, Video Deletion Fails
revolution-news.com
revolution-news.com
As an extension of this, the existence of drug dogs is extremely irritating to me. It's been seen more than a few times that they're commonly trained to react to a cue rather than genuinely detecting illegal substance. Dogs aren't conscious, and they don't have a sense of morality. I have a huge problem with them being used by police and that their 'opinion', if you want to call it that, is respected in a court of law. A dog cannot testify in court. A dog doesn't realize it is lying. It's insulting to the legal system.
Wars on drugs are abysmal entirely. Among many primary sources of havoc and waste on earth that such law creates, arguably the most reaching is its impetus to imbalance power and destroy individual rights and expectations of everyone. Mentality snowballs. A large portion of society is trained to accept increased authority and violation. They laugh at people who attempt to peacefully resist and exercise any remaining rights they have left in the face of 'deletion.'
It's not good, but I'm not sure the alternative is better.
> It's not good, but I'm not sure the alternative is better.
I prefer the alternative of not abusing people. I prefer an alternative of not stripping away choice and any remaining sovereignty people have. The alternative strives for peace in reality. Undoubtedly, calling a drug war a "jobs program" will sell its violence. There are many ways to package sadism.
“The Virginia Beach Police Department immediately began investigating this incident based on the officer’s self-reported Use of Force Report and video captured from the officer’s TASER camera submitted the night of the incident. The department was previously unaware of the citizens recorded video until TODAY” [1]. (note the 'incident' happened in January).
Police brutality will only stop when all officers are forced to wear head-mounted camera, 24x7. No dash-cam, taser-cam; Google Glass-like-cam, recording everything they say or do.
In the meantime, the only solution is for citizens to do what the young woman rightly did: try to record - and hope evidence is not tempered with.
It seems pretty good, in fact. Very much in line with what was suggested above.
There's got to be some reasonable legal restriction to be placed on officers that prevents their use of unnecessary force.
Also, as far as longterm-rights being revoked, this is a step down the road towards that revocation.
Lastly, the big issue here is that, while you might be comfortable ceding your rights here, it doesn't just impact you: anybody else in camera frame is having their privacy violated. I don't care that you are willing to cede your rights, but don't go support something that'll harm others.
Well, the first comment to the story (via Facebook) reads: "It's unbelievable that people actually justify these kids behavior!! I guess maybe it's because my parents raised me to respect police officers. They knew that camera was on them and they added fuel to the fire because of it. Just get out of the car, no taser, no spray...".
The comment has 100 likes so far. What the hell is going on in the USA?
Obviously not. But the kid wasn't going anywhere and they could have waited for a legal guardian or negotiated further before escalating with the use of force. Not to mention the gratuitous use of TASER when the kid was attempting to comply.
Unfortunately, my ultimate take away is that people who object to police abuse are in the minority. If someone is perceived as a punk or criminal, it is open season. Democracy at its finest.
I'd really like to hear from a European counterpart how they think this scenario would have gone down across the pond. Not like this, I am sure.
What good are cameras and recordings if the citizens are OK with what they see?
You don't have the right when you are in the process of being arrested, especially if you are actively resisting arrest.
The officer should have made that clear to the 17 year old, part of the problem seems to be that the kid thinks he's protected by the fact that his mother isn't present. This leads to resistance which could be seen as justification for the escalation.
You would hope that the police officer was fully aware of the kids rights and part of their job should be to calmly explain the situation and try to defuse any possible conflict. Regardless of any law breaking here by either side (not going to pass judgement on that) this police officer is really bad at his job.
In Germany I'm quite sure the police would have waited politely and patiently until the parents arrived.
(Well, I'm also pretty sure they wouldn't have stopped and attempted violent arrest of someone for having a broken light above their license plate...)
No one was being violently arrested for having a broken light. They were arrested because they refused to step out of the car, and put up a fight when the officer tried to get them to come out of the car.
The officer claimed to have smelled marijuana, and so had probable cause to ask the person to step out of the car and perform a search. The driver of the car was previously arrested for marijuana possession, so perhaps it was possible that the officer was telling the truth, and did smell marijuana?
You may disagree with marijuana prohibition (I do), and the idea that a smell implies probable cause, but that is the law as it is today. You don't have a right to refuse that, or demand that the officer must wait until your mother shows up. Even so, we have no idea how long it would take the mother to show up. How long should an officer wait before being allowed to ask a 17 year old to step out of a car for probable cause?
Any officer can make that claim, its a BS claim that is used to justify aggressive force and to try to trip up a suspect into doing something stupid that would warrant further application of force. And that is precisely what happened here.
> perhaps it was possible that the officer was telling the truth, and did smell marijuana?
Innocent until proven guilty. Lots of things smell like marijuana. Hot rubber tires can sometimes give off a similar odor. Maybe it was some other car that drove by, and the officers were being prejudiced because they recognized her from a previous arrest? We can play the 'maybe' game an infinite number of ways - its up to the officers, who are using force, to justify that force.
>How long should an officer wait before being allowed to ask a 17 year old to step out of a car for probable cause?
You have a right to stay in the car until the officer determines probable cause. The smell of marijuana is a tactic used by police to try to upset you and provoke you into doing something that might give them probably cause to arrest you. These people had every right to stay in the car, ask if they were being detained and if they were free to go. The police used the threat of arrest to induce conditions that allowed them to use force - and this is, unfortunately, such a common form of social engineering by the police that people have just come to accept complacency as the only possible 'correct' response.
Stand your ground and know your rights. They're only trying to provoke you into doing something they can then use to justify their force. Know these phrases and use them well:
“AM I FREE TO GO?”
“I DO NOT CONSENT TO ANY SEARCHES,”
“I WANT TO REMAIN SILENT,”
“I WANT A LAWYER.”
Yes, and you still need to follow lawful orders when being detained. You can't say "I'm not getting out of the car until my mother arrives, understand?". You can't pull back when an officer tries to forcefully remove you from the car, or put up your fists as if you are going to punch the officer. You can't do that 10+ times and imagine that you will not get maced/tased/etc.
> Any officer can make that claim, its a BS claim that is used to justify aggressive force
You know, isn't it weird that the officer had this "BS" claim, and it turns out that the person who was tasered did have marijuana on him, and was charged with possession and intent to sell? Source: http://washington.cbslocal.com/2015/04/10/virginia-police-in...
> Innocent until proven guilty
It was a reasonable search because there was probable cause.
> its up to the officers, who are using force, to justify that force.
The officers didn't use force until the person started resisting their orders. If he would have just stepped out of the car, and let the cops search him(where they would eventually find the marijuana he was planning on selling), no force would have been necessary. He would have just been arrested and charged with intent to sell. Now he has resisting arrest on his record too.
> The smell of marijuana is a tactic used by police to try to upset you
Or, you know, the officer did actually smell marijuana. I agree with you that a cop can make up the reason, but that cops can never smell weed, and it doesn't seem to be the case here since there actually was marijuana in the car.
> These people had every right to stay in the car
No, they didn't. Probable cause was established and the officers were within their rights to ask them to step out of the car so a search could be performed.
> They're only trying to provoke you into doing something they can then use to justify their force
No. They did not provoke the kid to refuse to get out of the car, and they did not provoke him to pull away multiple times when pulling him out of the car.
As a comparison: In 2012 (the latest year I could find data for) Danish police fired a total of 49 shots over the year.
A few points to consider:
1) Denmark population 5.7 million. USA population 320 million. The USA has a number of metropolitan areas with more people than the entire country of Denmark.
2) Denmark is probably a lot more homogenous than the USA. The USA has been a "melting pot" for immigrants (legal, illegal, former slave, religious zealot, etc) for hundreds of years. Things are going to be a little "rowdier" here than in the "old world".
I've been pulled over twice in the UK. The first time was a fair time back when I had a cheap old Saab. I was out very late near Hampstead Heath and I overtook a car, definitely exceeding the speed limit. As I did that I spotted a police panda ( car ) parked on the side, and I thought I was in for some kind of penalty. I went back to the speed limit and he caught me up. He kindly explained that my number plate wasn't to the most recent regulations and that I should have them replaced. I thanked him very much and was on my way. That's the nice end of town.
The other time I was visiting a friend who lived in the opposite side of the fence, near Brixton, an area known for trouble sometimes. I saw a police car behind me but was near his estate so pulled over and turned off the engine to call him to let him know I was downstairs and waiting. A sergeant knocked on my window and I was surrounded by four police. I explained that I was calling my friend, and the sergeant said that I should finish my call and I should wait. Took a few seconds, and then I hopped out if the car. They kept their distance. Apparently they thought my behaviour was suspicious because I'd pulled in and turned off my lights and engine. I explained to the police that within the past two days the law had changed so that it had become illegal to talk on a mobile phone while the engine is on. They said that they didn't know that, and we wished each other good night and my friend and I went to the pub.
Oh one more. My Peugeot 205 had an issue with the spare wheel being accessible to thieves. I walked up to my car and was shocked to see my spare wheel inside on the back seat. At first I thought a thief was playing tricks. It was a walking Bobbie who'd disturbed someone trying to make off with it apparently, and who had kindly broken into my car, put the wheel in and then locked it up for me.
Peel chose blue for the police so as to distinguish them from the red of the military, who were armed and not well trusted. Police were not armed for the same general reason, to be part of the community.
[edit punctuation]
When I came to the UK 12 years ago I was shocked to discover a police force that seemed interested in keeping everyone safe and happy. Since then, every single interaction I've had with the police here has been overwhelmingly positive.
I once ran a red light on my bike in a really stupid way and came very close to getting myself killed. Cop on a motorbike pulled next to me and said "I think you'd better pull over, sunshine" (literally, I thought it was so brilliant I still remember the words). Instead of being a dick about it he said something along the lines of, you know that was stupid, just be more careful out here because we don't want you getting hurt.
Back in NZ, not so much.
I was once tripped from behind and bundled against the wall by police for not walking fast enough. There was a protest march and the cop said that I wasn't allowed to walk at the same pace if I was on the footpath. Told her I lived on the street (which I did) and was going to follow along with the march until my house.
At that point she tapped my foot as I walked so I would fall over. I was a bit surprised, then she did it again. After 2 or 3 attempts I hit the ground and was then bundled against the wall. There were tv cameras there so they gathered around and I was released after she tried justifying it to her superior officer.
It's not like I was hurt or anything, but you have to ask yourself, what's the point? How does that in any way help you in your role of keeping people safe?
That's not even a bad story as it goes (I have plenty of others from my, and my friend's interactions).
There's a stark difference in the cultures. In the UK, if a cop can diffuse a situation, they've done a good job (one better if they get people screaming with joy [0]). In NZ they seem to like the power trip (I know that's a total generalisation).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menez...
Occasionally when a police officer is shot the tabloids and even the public can be more inclined towards arming the police. Perhaps counter intuitively, it is the police themselves that decline the offer. The reason for that is that policing requires the cooperation of the public to be better effective, according to those police who find the Peel approach effective.
I was only sharing an anecdote or two. Just to show that getting along helps to keep things civil. It becomes even enjoyable.
Lawful != Ethical
For what reason? Ah right, he smelled pot.
Bravo officer of the law! Everyone feels safer now. His family would be so proud.
This looks like something I'd see in a movie about a 3rd world country with a corrupt government and a police state. Not in a country that touts democracy, freedom, justice and equality.
And guess what: maybe the reason the person didn't want to get out of the car, and resisted a lawful order multiple times is because he actually had pot on him, and he had enough to be classified as intent to sell. Which is exactly the case.
I'm fine with you if you think that marijuana laws are bullshit(I'd be on your side then), but while they are on the book, it would be good if officers actually enforce the laws that they are sworn under an oath to enforce.
The problem is that societies are built to protect the clever and stupid people alike.
Societies are not built to enforce and uphold the letter of the law. Only lawyers and misanthropes care about that. If the laws lead to videos like the one in this article, then the laws need to change.
People who see this video and don't feel sick to their stomachs are sociopaths. No way around it, sorry. And I guess I have to sleep at night knowing I walk on the same planet with people like you. Well that's life I guess.
In any case in a country where it has this problem http://thefreethoughtproject.com/american-cops-killed-people..., if its citizens don't understand that less(not more) police is the solution, then I guess you can talk about your precious fucking law and I can just continue to feel sick to my stomach.
Sure. And police officers deserve to be protected too. How much can a person actively resist a lawful order before it's okay to mace/tase them? Traffic stops are incredibly stressful for police officers - not because they love stress, because it's very easy for a weapon to be concealed on a person and for a routine traffic stop to turn into a violent confrontation.
> And I guess I have to sleep at night knowing I walk on the same planet with people like you. Well that's life I guess.
Again, you sound like a really reasonable person here.
> In any case in a country where it has this problem http://thefreethoughtproject.com/american-cops-killed-people...,
Part of the problem here is that you have a general idea of a very big problem, and you are taking a specific instance of something and imputing that this specific instance is part of the general problem. I can agree with you that there is a general problem of police violence in the country, but I don't think that this was an actual instance of it.
For example, imagine you cared very deeply about child abuse, and you thought that it was a huge problem in this country. Then, someone posts a video of a parent lightly spanking their child for bad behavior. You think that this represents the child abuse in the country and it is an outrageous act. I just see it as a light, deserved spanking. I guess that makes me a sociopath though.
Please search for the dangers of tasers and cardiac arrest.
Ok so you weren't a sociopath, I take it back. It didn't cross my mind you were so ignorant.
I liked that about the "specific instance of something". That's always the excuse "this was an isolated and unrelated incindent!"
Yeah right. No this was police brutality just not taken in the extreme(i.e. not killing).
You don't build societies by tasing kids, I can guarantee you that much.
It was an analogy. I was not comparing a taser to a spanking.
>> I guess that makes me a sociopath though.
Sociopath, psycopath or the bad analogy guy. I really don't know, I'll let others decide on that.
What you aren't though, is the voice of reason.
Let's leave it at that and call it a day. Have a nice day.
Your argument is like saying someone is stupid for saying "You are as pretty as a flower" because the subject certainly doesn't have any stems or pedals, nor are they the reproductive structure of a type of plant. Please learn the how to analyze analogies. I even set it up with an exact explanation of what the analogy was about:
> Part of the problem here is that you have a general idea of a very big problem, and you are taking a specific instance of something and imputing that this specific instance is part of the general problem. I can agree with you that there is a general problem of police violence in the country, but I don't think that this was an actual instance of it.
"a comparison between one thing and another, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification" (Google)
So basically an analogy must be either equivalent, or proportional or comparable with the matter at hand.
I think I can analyze analogies pretty well. The problem is what I've already explained; I can't see the analogy in any way, shape or form when we're talking about something like spanking, which has no ramifications, to tasing which can have serious ramifications. Especially when we're talking about teenagers.
I've reached my limit on how much better I can explain myself to be honest.
As for the "general idea of a very big problem", is hard to understand how you can see so distant and detached "analogies" and yet you refuse to accept this instance as part of that big problem.
Police brutality simply means(in my simple mind): "instances where officers of the law use excessive and disproportionate force to deal with a situation at hand".
This ranges from unwarranted verbal attacks, physical abuse or even killing someone.
Risking a teenager's life, when said teenager posed no threat to anyone, is the definition of excessive and disproportionate force.
In this particular case, the use of force was absolutelly unnecessary. And tampering with evidence - or even turning off the recording on the phone - is a serious offense. So blaming the two for the escalation of force is ludicrous.
The people have been conditioned to accepting a totalitarian/authoritarian police state, whether they like it or not. Militaristic behavior is considered worthy of respect, and aggression from authorities is tolerated - because of the conditioning.
That conditioning consists of repeated propaganda about what happens to you when you don't obey - i.e. news reports, daily, about who got shot today. Who got brutalized today. Who got put away, today. All because they did not obey.
But the real question is, why do you expect more from the country that has 25% of the worlds imprisoned population within its borders? What conditioning have you accepted that makes you think things should be any different in the USA today? Because that is the other half of the dialetic materialist campaign that is conditioning us all into acceptance/denial.
At some level, imo, everyone is perfectly aware as to what is really going on, but repressing the awareness. They are not exactly being subtle, these days.
If an officer demands that you get out of your car, get out of your car. If an officer puts his hands on you to get you out of the car, DEFINITELY do not pull away, put your hands up to fight, and repeatedly try to get away from the officer.
One of the two people here is a paid professional in this field. I don't understand why people always heap criticism on the other guy and give the professional a pass.
My favorite sentence from the article: "the sensible young woman requests a sergeant be present to avoid her rights being further infringed."
I'm leaning towards the fact that it was not deleted while in the officers custody, but I'd love to see the forensic evidence. My reasons:
1) The driver already was caught lying
2) It's convenient that the driver had the technical know how to get undeleted files off of her device
3) The officer was already recording the entire course of events on his body cam.
On one hand Paul Graham's "the only place to be is Bay Area" gig, on other hand is this and similar stories. One can find a lot of unsafe places without changing continents.
One more entry for my "rather kill myself than live there" list. Incidentally, the other one is where I currently reside.
What kind of reaction do you expect?
This would happen in any country.