No, you're ignoring the fact he drew his knees up and refused to lay flat on his stomach. If he was complying from the start he never would have been able to get up and run away with no handcuffs on him. The lack of video of what preceded the stop is not evidence the cops are guilty any more than it's absence is evidence of Tyre's guilt.

Wangchung said:

---

No, you're ignoring the fact he drew his knees up and refused to lay flat on his stomach. If he was complying from the start he never would have been able to get up and run away with no handcuffs on him. The lack of video of what preceded the stop is not evidence the cops are guilty any more than its absence is evidence of Tyre's guilt.

---

That's it? Flat on the stomach? He was on the ****ing ground surrounded by police officers. He had no weapons. He had made no threats, verbal or physical. Gee, I wonder if he might have been concerned about his personal safety with these guys. Nah, he shouldn't have to worry about that…

Show me why he was stopped. Show me why they were aggressive with him from the start when there is no physical threat visible in any way. They are the ones that murdered a man. The burden is on them. Perhaps they should not have turned off their body cameras and removed them.

But hey, Chris Rock!!! (Did I do that right?)

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

No, you're ignoring the fact he drew his knees up and refused to lay flat on his stomach. If he was complying from the start he never would have been able to get up and run away with no handcuffs on him. The lack of video of what preceded the stop is not evidence the cops are guilty any more than its absence is evidence of Tyre's guilt.

---

That's it? Flat on the stomach? He was on the ****ing ground surrounded by police officers. He had no weapons. He had made no threats, verbal or physical. Gee, I wonder if he might have been concerned about his personal safety with these guys. Nah, he shouldn't have to worry about that…

Show me why he was stopped. Show me why they were aggressive with him from the start when there is no physical threat visible in any way. They are the ones that murdered a man. The burden is on them. Perhaps they should not have turned off their body cameras and removed them.

But hey, Chris Rock!!! (Did I do that right?)

---

On the ground squirming and fighting arrest, knees draw up and twisting around to try and argue against his arrest. Doesn't matter if he was calmly stating that he was complying while he was arguing the arrest, because he wasn't complying. Again, no way he is able to get up and run without any handcuffed wrists if he had been complying with the arrest.

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

No, you're ignoring the fact he drew his knees up and refused to lay flat on his stomach. If he was complying from the start he never would have been able to get up and run away with no handcuffs on him. The lack of video of what preceded the stop is not evidence the cops are guilty any more than its absence is evidence of Tyre's guilt.

---

That's it? Flat on the stomach? He was on the ****ing ground surrounded by police officers. He had no weapons. He had made no threats, verbal or physical. Gee, I wonder if he might have been concerned about his personal safety with these guys. Nah, he shouldn't have to worry about that…

Show me why he was stopped. Show me why they were aggressive with him from the start when there is no physical threat visible in any way. They are the ones that murdered a man. The burden is on them. Perhaps they should not have turned off their body cameras and removed them.

But hey, Chris Rock!!! (Did I do that right?)

---

On the ground squirming and fighting arrest, knees draw up and twisting around to try and argue against his arrest. Doesn't matter if he was calmly stating that he was complying while he was arguing the arrest, because he wasn't complying. Again, no way he is able to get up and run without any handcuffed wrists if he had been complying with the arrest.

---

Now it's "squirming"? "Fighting arrest?" Did he punch, kick, hit, bite etc.? Why was he being arrested? Did they tell him?

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

No, you're ignoring the fact he drew his knees up and refused to lay flat on his stomach. If he was complying from the start he never would have been able to get up and run away with no handcuffs on him. The lack of video of what preceded the stop is not evidence the cops are guilty any more than its absence is evidence of Tyre's guilt.

---

That's it? Flat on the stomach? He was on the ****ing ground surrounded by police officers. He had no weapons. He had made no threats, verbal or physical. Gee, I wonder if he might have been concerned about his personal safety with these guys. Nah, he shouldn't have to worry about that…

Show me why he was stopped. Show me why they were aggressive with him from the start when there is no physical threat visible in any way. They are the ones that murdered a man. The burden is on them. Perhaps they should not have turned off their body cameras and removed them.

But hey, Chris Rock!!! (Did I do that right?)

---

On the ground squirming and fighting arrest, knees draw up and twisting around to try and argue against his arrest. Doesn't matter if he was calmly stating that he was complying while he was arguing the arrest, because he wasn't complying. Again, no way he is able to get up and run without any handcuffed wrists if he had been complying with the arrest.

---

Now it's "squirming"? "Fighting arrest?" Did he punch, kick, hit, bite etc.? Why was he being arrested? Did they tell him?

---

Are punching, kicking, hitting and biting the only way a person can resist arrest? If he was cooperating, how was he able to eventually get up and run without being handcuffed?

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

No, you're ignoring the fact he drew his knees up and refused to lay flat on his stomach. If he was complying from the start he never would have been able to get up and run away with no handcuffs on him. The lack of video of what preceded the stop is not evidence the cops are guilty any more than its absence is evidence of Tyre's guilt.

---

That's it? Flat on the stomach? He was on the ****ing ground surrounded by police officers. He had no weapons. He had made no threats, verbal or physical. Gee, I wonder if he might have been concerned about his personal safety with these guys. Nah, he shouldn't have to worry about that…

Show me why he was stopped. Show me why they were aggressive with him from the start when there is no physical threat visible in any way. They are the ones that murdered a man. The burden is on them. Perhaps they should not have turned off their body cameras and removed them.

But hey, Chris Rock!!! (Did I do that right?)

---

On the ground squirming and fighting arrest, knees draw up and twisting around to try and argue against his arrest. Doesn't matter if he was calmly stating that he was complying while he was arguing the arrest, because he wasn't complying. Again, no way he is able to get up and run without any handcuffed wrists if he had been complying with the arrest.

---

Now it's "squirming"? "Fighting arrest?" Did he punch, kick, hit, bite etc.? Why was he being arrested? Did they tell him?

---

Are punching, kicking, hitting and biting the only way a person can resist arrest? If he was cooperating, how was he able to eventually get up and run without being handcuffed?

---

Why was he being arrested? Did they tell him he was being arrested? Or did they just grab him? What exactly was he resisting if he wasn't informed that he was being arrested? Being shoved to the ground with a taser shoved into his leg? Why are they grabbing him? What was the threat? What was the probable cause?

Show me something, anything, that explains why this encounter began the way it did.

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

No, you're ignoring the fact he drew his knees up and refused to lay flat on his stomach. If he was complying from the start he never would have been able to get up and run away with no handcuffs on him. The lack of video of what preceded the stop is not evidence the cops are guilty any more than its absence is evidence of Tyre's guilt.

---

That's it? Flat on the stomach? He was on the ****ing ground surrounded by police officers. He had no weapons. He had made no threats, verbal or physical. Gee, I wonder if he might have been concerned about his personal safety with these guys. Nah, he shouldn't have to worry about that…

Show me why he was stopped. Show me why they were aggressive with him from the start when there is no physical threat visible in any way. They are the ones that murdered a man. The burden is on them. Perhaps they should not have turned off their body cameras and removed them.

But hey, Chris Rock!!! (Did I do that right?)

---

On the ground squirming and fighting arrest, knees draw up and twisting around to try and argue against his arrest. Doesn't matter if he was calmly stating that he was complying while he was arguing the arrest, because he wasn't complying. Again, no way he is able to get up and run without any handcuffed wrists if he had been complying with the arrest.

---

Now it's "squirming"? "Fighting arrest?" Did he punch, kick, hit, bite etc.? Why was he being arrested? Did they tell him?

---

Are punching, kicking, hitting and biting the only way a person can resist arrest? If he was cooperating, how was he able to eventually get up and run without being handcuffed?

---

Why was he being arrested? Did they tell him he was being arrested? Or did they just grab him? What exactly was he resisting if he wasn't informed that he was being arrested? Being shoved to the ground with a taser shoved into his leg? Why are they grabbing him? What was the threat? What was the probable cause?

Show me something, anything, that explains why this encounter began the way it did.

---

As we have discussed, repeatedly, we don't have that video of pre stop but that doesn't mean we get to make up whatever we want in its place. All we have is video of him being pulled from the vehicle, refusing to comply and eventually running, then being caught again and beaten to death. That's it. He DID struggle and refuse commands, which is proven by the fact he was able to get up and run and they hadn't gotten even one hand cuffed. That's not something that can happen if a suspect has been complying with commands.

Waco1947 said:

---

Tyree had no chance to comply with police orders.
"Investigation helps illuminate how that happened.
According to the Times, NYT several police officers gave Nichols 71 commands in 13 minutes many of which were "confusing, conflicting and sometimes even impossible to obey" because of how police were pinning him down.

If you watch the disturbing video of the exchange, you can see how the instructions weren't meant to help Nichols cooperate with the police. Instead, they provided the police with a pretext to further escalate violence.
Video footage shows how the police's behavior was about bullying and striking fear in Nichols more than it was about upholding the law.
The deployment of often-nonsensical instructions underscores a key aspect of how Nichols ended up dead after a traffic stop. According to former law enforcement officials and experts, the police were exhibiting a policing ideology in which cops view dominating suspects as essential to their self-preservation and identity.
An examination of the video footage shows how the police's behavior was about bullying and striking fear in Nichols more than it was about upholding the law. Police swiftly dragged Nichols out of his car during the traffic stop. At one point, while one officer pinned his wrist down, another one told him to place his hands behind his back. Around the same time, he was told to lie down even though he was already on the ground. Moments later, the cops agreed that he should be pepper-sprayed, and he was immediately sprayed in the eyes." MSNBC

---

We are in complete agreement this time. There may have been more to this that we know as well, as at least one of the officers may have been familar with Tyree.

Zero reason for him to die that night.

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

No, you're ignoring the fact he drew his knees up and refused to lay flat on his stomach. If he was complying from the start he never would have been able to get up and run away with no handcuffs on him. The lack of video of what preceded the stop is not evidence the cops are guilty any more than its absence is evidence of Tyre's guilt.

---

That's it? Flat on the stomach? He was on the ****ing ground surrounded by police officers. He had no weapons. He had made no threats, verbal or physical. Gee, I wonder if he might have been concerned about his personal safety with these guys. Nah, he shouldn't have to worry about that…

Show me why he was stopped. Show me why they were aggressive with him from the start when there is no physical threat visible in any way. They are the ones that murdered a man. The burden is on them. Perhaps they should not have turned off their body cameras and removed them.

But hey, Chris Rock!!! (Did I do that right?)

---

On the ground squirming and fighting arrest, knees draw up and twisting around to try and argue against his arrest. Doesn't matter if he was calmly stating that he was complying while he was arguing the arrest, because he wasn't complying. Again, no way he is able to get up and run without any handcuffed wrists if he had been complying with the arrest.

---

Now it's "squirming"? "Fighting arrest?" Did he punch, kick, hit, bite etc.? Why was he being arrested? Did they tell him?

---

Are punching, kicking, hitting and biting the only way a person can resist arrest? If he was cooperating, how was he able to eventually get up and run without being handcuffed?

---

Why was he being arrested? Did they tell him he was being arrested? Or did they just grab him? What exactly was he resisting if he wasn't informed that he was being arrested? Being shoved to the ground with a taser shoved into his leg? Why are they grabbing him? What was the threat? What was the probable cause?

Show me something, anything, that explains why this encounter began the way it did.

---

As we have discussed, repeatedly, we don't have that video of pre stop but that doesn't mean we get to make up whatever we want in its place. All we have is video of him being pulled from the vehicle, refusing to comply and eventually running, then being caught again and beaten to death. That's it. He DID struggle and refuse commands, which is proven by the fact he was able to get up and run and they hadn't gotten even one hand cuffed. That's not something that can happen if a suspect has been complying with commands.

---

The only person I have seen make up something is the police officer that lied and said he heard his partner claim Tyree was grabbing his gun.

What lawful command do you say he refused? Was he lawfully told why he was being pulled over? Was he lawfully told he was being put under arrest?

Did he attempt to run away from being placed under arrest or did he attempt to run away from a beating without cause?

Was he complying when he got pulled out of the car? Was he complying when he went to his knees? Was he complying when he went all the way down to the ground? If he did not comply with commands to roll onto his stomach, was he being lawfully detained and arrested or was was he refusing to comply with commands to get a beating without cause?

You say he was a suspect. What was he suspected of doing?

The problem with this is that it seems to assume everything the officers did was legal up to the point that he ran away. That they had cause to physically grab him and detain him in the manner that they did. Without video evidence that is just as much making up what happened as anything else. I'm sorry if I'm not inclined at the moment to give these 5 officers the benefit of the doubt without further evidence.

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

No, you're ignoring the fact he drew his knees up and refused to lay flat on his stomach. If he was complying from the start he never would have been able to get up and run away with no handcuffs on him. The lack of video of what preceded the stop is not evidence the cops are guilty any more than its absence is evidence of Tyre's guilt.

---

That's it? Flat on the stomach? He was on the ****ing ground surrounded by police officers. He had no weapons. He had made no threats, verbal or physical. Gee, I wonder if he might have been concerned about his personal safety with these guys. Nah, he shouldn't have to worry about that…

Show me why he was stopped. Show me why they were aggressive with him from the start when there is no physical threat visible in any way. They are the ones that murdered a man. The burden is on them. Perhaps they should not have turned off their body cameras and removed them.

But hey, Chris Rock!!! (Did I do that right?)

---

On the ground squirming and fighting arrest, knees draw up and twisting around to try and argue against his arrest. Doesn't matter if he was calmly stating that he was complying while he was arguing the arrest, because he wasn't complying. Again, no way he is able to get up and run without any handcuffed wrists if he had been complying with the arrest.

---

Now it's "squirming"? "Fighting arrest?" Did he punch, kick, hit, bite etc.? Why was he being arrested? Did they tell him?

---

Are punching, kicking, hitting and biting the only way a person can resist arrest? If he was cooperating, how was he able to eventually get up and run without being handcuffed?

---

Why was he being arrested? Did they tell him he was being arrested? Or did they just grab him? What exactly was he resisting if he wasn't informed that he was being arrested? Being shoved to the ground with a taser shoved into his leg? Why are they grabbing him? What was the threat? What was the probable cause?

Show me something, anything, that explains why this encounter began the way it did.

---

As we have discussed, repeatedly, we don't have that video of pre stop but that doesn't mean we get to make up whatever we want in its place. All we have is video of him being pulled from the vehicle, refusing to comply and eventually running, then being caught again and beaten to death. That's it. He DID struggle and refuse commands, which is proven by the fact he was able to get up and run and they hadn't gotten even one hand cuffed. That's not something that can happen if a suspect has been complying with commands.

---

It can if the police are incompetent enough. And these are clearly some of the most incompetent cops ever captured on video.

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

No, you're ignoring the fact he drew his knees up and refused to lay flat on his stomach. If he was complying from the start he never would have been able to get up and run away with no handcuffs on him. The lack of video of what preceded the stop is not evidence the cops are guilty any more than its absence is evidence of Tyre's guilt.

---

That's it? Flat on the stomach? He was on the ****ing ground surrounded by police officers. He had no weapons. He had made no threats, verbal or physical. Gee, I wonder if he might have been concerned about his personal safety with these guys. Nah, he shouldn't have to worry about that…

Show me why he was stopped. Show me why they were aggressive with him from the start when there is no physical threat visible in any way. They are the ones that murdered a man. The burden is on them. Perhaps they should not have turned off their body cameras and removed them.

But hey, Chris Rock!!! (Did I do that right?)

---

On the ground squirming and fighting arrest, knees draw up and twisting around to try and argue against his arrest. Doesn't matter if he was calmly stating that he was complying while he was arguing the arrest, because he wasn't complying. Again, no way he is able to get up and run without any handcuffed wrists if he had been complying with the arrest.

---

Now it's "squirming"? "Fighting arrest?" Did he punch, kick, hit, bite etc.? Why was he being arrested? Did they tell him?

---

Are punching, kicking, hitting and biting the only way a person can resist arrest? If he was cooperating, how was he able to eventually get up and run without being handcuffed?

---

Why was he being arrested? Did they tell him he was being arrested? Or did they just grab him? What exactly was he resisting if he wasn't informed that he was being arrested? Being shoved to the ground with a taser shoved into his leg? Why are they grabbing him? What was the threat? What was the probable cause?

Show me something, anything, that explains why this encounter began the way it did.

---

As we have discussed, repeatedly, we don't have that video of pre stop but that doesn't mean we get to make up whatever we want in its place. All we have is video of him being pulled from the vehicle, refusing to comply and eventually running, then being caught again and beaten to death. That's it. He DID struggle and refuse commands, which is proven by the fact he was able to get up and run and they hadn't gotten even one hand cuffed. That's not something that can happen if a suspect has been complying with commands.

---

The only person I have seen make up something is the police officer that lied and said he heard his partner claim Tyree was grabbing his gun.

What lawful command do you say he refused? Was he lawfully told why he was being pulled over? Was he lawfully told he was being put under arrest?

Did he attempt to run away from being placed under arrest or did he attempt to run away from a beating without cause?

Was he complying when he got pulled out of the car? Was he complying when he went to his knees? Was he complying when he went all the way down to the ground? If he did not comply with commands to roll onto his stomach, was he being lawfully detained and arrested or was was he refusing to comply with commands to get a beating without cause?

You say he was a suspect. What was he suspected of doing?

The problem with this is that it seems to assume everything the officers did was legal up to the point that he ran away. That they had cause to physically grab him and detain him in the manner that they did. Without video evidence that is just as much making up what happened as anything else. I'm sorry if I'm not inclined at the moment to give these 5 officers the benefit of the doubt without further evidence.

---

I notice you've yet again failed to acknowledge that one cannot both comply with police commands and at the same time never get handcuffed until after one gets up and starts running away and later is caught again. You say an entire police department and some EMTs conspired to kill the guy and then followed through.

I say the guy most likely broke the law, ran from cops or drove dangerously and then struggled with police once he was apprehended, played innocent while not complying, jumped up and ran again completely uncuffed thanks to his previous struggling with police, and was murdered by the pissed off police when they caught him a second time. But hey, maybe you're right and an entire police department pulled off a murder of a random black man because racism or cop privilege or something.

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

No, you're ignoring the fact he drew his knees up and refused to lay flat on his stomach. If he was complying from the start he never would have been able to get up and run away with no handcuffs on him. The lack of video of what preceded the stop is not evidence the cops are guilty any more than its absence is evidence of Tyre's guilt.

---

That's it? Flat on the stomach? He was on the ****ing ground surrounded by police officers. He had no weapons. He had made no threats, verbal or physical. Gee, I wonder if he might have been concerned about his personal safety with these guys. Nah, he shouldn't have to worry about that…

Show me why he was stopped. Show me why they were aggressive with him from the start when there is no physical threat visible in any way. They are the ones that murdered a man. The burden is on them. Perhaps they should not have turned off their body cameras and removed them.

But hey, Chris Rock!!! (Did I do that right?)

---

On the ground squirming and fighting arrest, knees draw up and twisting around to try and argue against his arrest. Doesn't matter if he was calmly stating that he was complying while he was arguing the arrest, because he wasn't complying. Again, no way he is able to get up and run without any handcuffed wrists if he had been complying with the arrest.

---

Now it's "squirming"? "Fighting arrest?" Did he punch, kick, hit, bite etc.? Why was he being arrested? Did they tell him?

---

Are punching, kicking, hitting and biting the only way a person can resist arrest? If he was cooperating, how was he able to eventually get up and run without being handcuffed?

---

Why was he being arrested? Did they tell him he was being arrested? Or did they just grab him? What exactly was he resisting if he wasn't informed that he was being arrested? Being shoved to the ground with a taser shoved into his leg? Why are they grabbing him? What was the threat? What was the probable cause?

Show me something, anything, that explains why this encounter began the way it did.

---

As we have discussed, repeatedly, we don't have that video of pre stop but that doesn't mean we get to make up whatever we want in its place. All we have is video of him being pulled from the vehicle, refusing to comply and eventually running, then being caught again and beaten to death. That's it. He DID struggle and refuse commands, which is proven by the fact he was able to get up and run and they hadn't gotten even one hand cuffed. That's not something that can happen if a suspect has been complying with commands.

---

The only person I have seen make up something is the police officer that lied and said he heard his partner claim Tyree was grabbing his gun.

What lawful command do you say he refused? Was he lawfully told why he was being pulled over? Was he lawfully told he was being put under arrest?

Did he attempt to run away from being placed under arrest or did he attempt to run away from a beating without cause?

Was he complying when he got pulled out of the car? Was he complying when he went to his knees? Was he complying when he went all the way down to the ground? If he did not comply with commands to roll onto his stomach, was he being lawfully detained and arrested or was was he refusing to comply with commands to get a beating without cause?

You say he was a suspect. What was he suspected of doing?

The problem with this is that it seems to assume everything the officers did was legal up to the point that he ran away. That they had cause to physically grab him and detain him in the manner that they did. Without video evidence that is just as much making up what happened as anything else. I'm sorry if I'm not inclined at the moment to give these 5 officers the benefit of the doubt without further evidence.

---

I notice you've yet again failed to acknowledge that one cannot both comply with police commands and at the same time never get handcuffed until after one gets up and starts running away and later is caught again. You say an entire police department and some EMTs conspired to kill the guy and then followed through.

I say the guy most likely broke the law, ran from cops or drove dangerously and then struggled with police once he was apprehended, played innocent while not complying, jumped up and ran again completely uncuffed thanks to his previous struggling with police, and was murdered by the pissed off police when they caught him a second time. But hey, maybe you're right and an entire police department pulled off a murder of a random black man because racism or cop privilege or something.

---

The list is long of things you have not acknowledged and questions you have avoided. I have not said anything about any conspiracy. I have said I have seen no reason for the police to begin or carry through the encounter in the manner they did.

Now who is making up scenarios? I have not made one statement about what I think happened because I honestly don't know. I honestly don't know why these officers acted the way they did. Have you ever seen anything like this ever within your lifetime? I have never seen anything like it.

I still agree that would be the most likely scenario and would normally give police the benefit of the doubt. But there is absolutely nothing I have seen to make me give them the benefit of the doubt. I don't look at what happened to that guy and think, "Should have watched Chris Rock." I think, "What in God's name were those officers doing and why were they doing it?"

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

No, you're ignoring the fact he drew his knees up and refused to lay flat on his stomach. If he was complying from the start he never would have been able to get up and run away with no handcuffs on him. The lack of video of what preceded the stop is not evidence the cops are guilty any more than its absence is evidence of Tyre's guilt.

---

That's it? Flat on the stomach? He was on the ****ing ground surrounded by police officers. He had no weapons. He had made no threats, verbal or physical. Gee, I wonder if he might have been concerned about his personal safety with these guys. Nah, he shouldn't have to worry about that…

Show me why he was stopped. Show me why they were aggressive with him from the start when there is no physical threat visible in any way. They are the ones that murdered a man. The burden is on them. Perhaps they should not have turned off their body cameras and removed them.

But hey, Chris Rock!!! (Did I do that right?)

---

On the ground squirming and fighting arrest, knees draw up and twisting around to try and argue against his arrest. Doesn't matter if he was calmly stating that he was complying while he was arguing the arrest, because he wasn't complying. Again, no way he is able to get up and run without any handcuffed wrists if he had been complying with the arrest.

---

Now it's "squirming"? "Fighting arrest?" Did he punch, kick, hit, bite etc.? Why was he being arrested? Did they tell him?

---

Are punching, kicking, hitting and biting the only way a person can resist arrest? If he was cooperating, how was he able to eventually get up and run without being handcuffed?

---

Why was he being arrested? Did they tell him he was being arrested? Or did they just grab him? What exactly was he resisting if he wasn't informed that he was being arrested? Being shoved to the ground with a taser shoved into his leg? Why are they grabbing him? What was the threat? What was the probable cause?

Show me something, anything, that explains why this encounter began the way it did.

---

As we have discussed, repeatedly, we don't have that video of pre stop but that doesn't mean we get to make up whatever we want in its place. All we have is video of him being pulled from the vehicle, refusing to comply and eventually running, then being caught again and beaten to death. That's it. He DID struggle and refuse commands, which is proven by the fact he was able to get up and run and they hadn't gotten even one hand cuffed. That's not something that can happen if a suspect has been complying with commands.

---

The only person I have seen make up something is the police officer that lied and said he heard his partner claim Tyree was grabbing his gun.

What lawful command do you say he refused? Was he lawfully told why he was being pulled over? Was he lawfully told he was being put under arrest?

Did he attempt to run away from being placed under arrest or did he attempt to run away from a beating without cause?

Was he complying when he got pulled out of the car? Was he complying when he went to his knees? Was he complying when he went all the way down to the ground? If he did not comply with commands to roll onto his stomach, was he being lawfully detained and arrested or was was he refusing to comply with commands to get a beating without cause?

You say he was a suspect. What was he suspected of doing?

The problem with this is that it seems to assume everything the officers did was legal up to the point that he ran away. That they had cause to physically grab him and detain him in the manner that they did. Without video evidence that is just as much making up what happened as anything else. I'm sorry if I'm not inclined at the moment to give these 5 officers the benefit of the doubt without further evidence.

---

I notice you've yet again failed to acknowledge that one cannot both comply with police commands and at the same time never get handcuffed until after one gets up and starts running away and later is caught again. You say an entire police department and some EMTs conspired to kill the guy and then followed through.

I say the guy most likely broke the law, ran from cops or drove dangerously and then struggled with police once he was apprehended, played innocent while not complying, jumped up and ran again completely uncuffed thanks to his previous struggling with police, and was murdered by the pissed off police when they caught him a second time. But hey, maybe you're right and an entire police department pulled off a murder of a random black man because racism or cop privilege or something.

---

The list is long of things you have not acknowledged and questions you have avoided. I have not said anything about any conspiracy. I have said I have seen no reason for the police to begin or carry through the encounter in the manner they did.

Now who is making up scenarios? I have not made one statement about what I think happened because I honestly don't know. I honestly don't know why these officers acted the way they did. Have you ever seen anything like this ever within your lifetime? I have never seen anything like it.

I still agree that would be the most likely scenario and would normally give police the benefit of the doubt. But there is absolutely nothing I have seen to make me give them the benefit of the doubt. I don't look at what happened to that guy and think, "Should have watched Chris Rock." I think, "What in God's name were those officers doing and why were they doing it?"

---

Yes, I stopped addressing questions when mine were ignored and if they had already been answered. "He complied so why..." is a flawed premise. But like you said, you and I agree here. The only part where we disagree is I believe "Should have watched Chris Rock." AND, "What in God's name were those officers doing and why were they doing it?" can be true at the same time. There is no justification for the police beating this man to death.

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

No, you're ignoring the fact he drew his knees up and refused to lay flat on his stomach. If he was complying from the start he never would have been able to get up and run away with no handcuffs on him. The lack of video of what preceded the stop is not evidence the cops are guilty any more than its absence is evidence of Tyre's guilt.

---

That's it? Flat on the stomach? He was on the ****ing ground surrounded by police officers. He had no weapons. He had made no threats, verbal or physical. Gee, I wonder if he might have been concerned about his personal safety with these guys. Nah, he shouldn't have to worry about that…

Show me why he was stopped. Show me why they were aggressive with him from the start when there is no physical threat visible in any way. They are the ones that murdered a man. The burden is on them. Perhaps they should not have turned off their body cameras and removed them.

But hey, Chris Rock!!! (Did I do that right?)

---

On the ground squirming and fighting arrest, knees draw up and twisting around to try and argue against his arrest. Doesn't matter if he was calmly stating that he was complying while he was arguing the arrest, because he wasn't complying. Again, no way he is able to get up and run without any handcuffed wrists if he had been complying with the arrest.

---

Now it's "squirming"? "Fighting arrest?" Did he punch, kick, hit, bite etc.? Why was he being arrested? Did they tell him?

---

Are punching, kicking, hitting and biting the only way a person can resist arrest? If he was cooperating, how was he able to eventually get up and run without being handcuffed?

---

Why was he being arrested? Did they tell him he was being arrested? Or did they just grab him? What exactly was he resisting if he wasn't informed that he was being arrested? Being shoved to the ground with a taser shoved into his leg? Why are they grabbing him? What was the threat? What was the probable cause?

Show me something, anything, that explains why this encounter began the way it did.

---

As we have discussed, repeatedly, we don't have that video of pre stop but that doesn't mean we get to make up whatever we want in its place. All we have is video of him being pulled from the vehicle, refusing to comply and eventually running, then being caught again and beaten to death. That's it. He DID struggle and refuse commands, which is proven by the fact he was able to get up and run and they hadn't gotten even one hand cuffed. That's not something that can happen if a suspect has been complying with commands.

---

The only person I have seen make up something is the police officer that lied and said he heard his partner claim Tyree was grabbing his gun.

What lawful command do you say he refused? Was he lawfully told why he was being pulled over? Was he lawfully told he was being put under arrest?

Did he attempt to run away from being placed under arrest or did he attempt to run away from a beating without cause?

Was he complying when he got pulled out of the car? Was he complying when he went to his knees? Was he complying when he went all the way down to the ground? If he did not comply with commands to roll onto his stomach, was he being lawfully detained and arrested or was was he refusing to comply with commands to get a beating without cause?

You say he was a suspect. What was he suspected of doing?

The problem with this is that it seems to assume everything the officers did was legal up to the point that he ran away. That they had cause to physically grab him and detain him in the manner that they did. Without video evidence that is just as much making up what happened as anything else. I'm sorry if I'm not inclined at the moment to give these 5 officers the benefit of the doubt without further evidence.

---

I notice you've yet again failed to acknowledge that one cannot both comply with police commands and at the same time never get handcuffed until after one gets up and starts running away and later is caught again. You say an entire police department and some EMTs conspired to kill the guy and then followed through.

I say the guy most likely broke the law, ran from cops or drove dangerously and then struggled with police once he was apprehended, played innocent while not complying, jumped up and ran again completely uncuffed thanks to his previous struggling with police, and was murdered by the pissed off police when they caught him a second time. But hey, maybe you're right and an entire police department pulled off a murder of a random black man because racism or cop privilege or something.

---

The list is long of things you have not acknowledged and questions you have avoided. I have not said anything about any conspiracy. I have said I have seen no reason for the police to begin or carry through the encounter in the manner they did.

Now who is making up scenarios? I have not made one statement about what I think happened because I honestly don't know. I honestly don't know why these officers acted the way they did. Have you ever seen anything like this ever within your lifetime? I have never seen anything like it.

I still agree that would be the most likely scenario and would normally give police the benefit of the doubt. But there is absolutely nothing I have seen to make me give them the benefit of the doubt. I don't look at what happened to that guy and think, "Should have watched Chris Rock." I think, "What in God's name were those officers doing and why were they doing it?"

---

Yes, I stopped addressing questions when mine were ignored and if they had already been answered. "He complied so why..." is a flawed premise. But like you said, you and I agree here. The only part where we disagree is I believe "Should have watched Chris Rock." AND, "What in God's name were those officers doing and why were they doing it?" can be true at the same time. There is no justification for the police beating this man to death.

---

Can be, yes.

What I say is depending on what led to the officer's handling of the situation, those may not have been legal/lawful/moral whatever commands and that man was not trying to evade arrest because they weren't trying to lawfully arrest him. He was just trying to not get beat.

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

No, you're ignoring the fact he drew his knees up and refused to lay flat on his stomach. If he was complying from the start he never would have been able to get up and run away with no handcuffs on him. The lack of video of what preceded the stop is not evidence the cops are guilty any more than its absence is evidence of Tyre's guilt.

---

That's it? Flat on the stomach? He was on the ****ing ground surrounded by police officers. He had no weapons. He had made no threats, verbal or physical. Gee, I wonder if he might have been concerned about his personal safety with these guys. Nah, he shouldn't have to worry about that…

Show me why he was stopped. Show me why they were aggressive with him from the start when there is no physical threat visible in any way. They are the ones that murdered a man. The burden is on them. Perhaps they should not have turned off their body cameras and removed them.

But hey, Chris Rock!!! (Did I do that right?)

---

On the ground squirming and fighting arrest, knees draw up and twisting around to try and argue against his arrest. Doesn't matter if he was calmly stating that he was complying while he was arguing the arrest, because he wasn't complying. Again, no way he is able to get up and run without any handcuffed wrists if he had been complying with the arrest.

---

Now it's "squirming"? "Fighting arrest?" Did he punch, kick, hit, bite etc.? Why was he being arrested? Did they tell him?

---

Are punching, kicking, hitting and biting the only way a person can resist arrest? If he was cooperating, how was he able to eventually get up and run without being handcuffed?

---

Why was he being arrested? Did they tell him he was being arrested? Or did they just grab him? What exactly was he resisting if he wasn't informed that he was being arrested? Being shoved to the ground with a taser shoved into his leg? Why are they grabbing him? What was the threat? What was the probable cause?

Show me something, anything, that explains why this encounter began the way it did.

---

As we have discussed, repeatedly, we don't have that video of pre stop but that doesn't mean we get to make up whatever we want in its place. All we have is video of him being pulled from the vehicle, refusing to comply and eventually running, then being caught again and beaten to death. That's it. He DID struggle and refuse commands, which is proven by the fact he was able to get up and run and they hadn't gotten even one hand cuffed. That's not something that can happen if a suspect has been complying with commands.

---

The only person I have seen make up something is the police officer that lied and said he heard his partner claim Tyree was grabbing his gun.

What lawful command do you say he refused? Was he lawfully told why he was being pulled over? Was he lawfully told he was being put under arrest?

Did he attempt to run away from being placed under arrest or did he attempt to run away from a beating without cause?

Was he complying when he got pulled out of the car? Was he complying when he went to his knees? Was he complying when he went all the way down to the ground? If he did not comply with commands to roll onto his stomach, was he being lawfully detained and arrested or was was he refusing to comply with commands to get a beating without cause?

You say he was a suspect. What was he suspected of doing?

The problem with this is that it seems to assume everything the officers did was legal up to the point that he ran away. That they had cause to physically grab him and detain him in the manner that they did. Without video evidence that is just as much making up what happened as anything else. I'm sorry if I'm not inclined at the moment to give these 5 officers the benefit of the doubt without further evidence.

---

I notice you've yet again failed to acknowledge that one cannot both comply with police commands and at the same time never get handcuffed until after one gets up and starts running away and later is caught again. You say an entire police department and some EMTs conspired to kill the guy and then followed through.

I say the guy most likely broke the law, ran from cops or drove dangerously and then struggled with police once he was apprehended, played innocent while not complying, jumped up and ran again completely uncuffed thanks to his previous struggling with police, and was murdered by the pissed off police when they caught him a second time. But hey, maybe you're right and an entire police department pulled off a murder of a random black man because racism or cop privilege or something.

---

The list is long of things you have not acknowledged and questions you have avoided. I have not said anything about any conspiracy. I have said I have seen no reason for the police to begin or carry through the encounter in the manner they did.

Now who is making up scenarios? I have not made one statement about what I think happened because I honestly don't know. I honestly don't know why these officers acted the way they did. Have you ever seen anything like this ever within your lifetime? I have never seen anything like it.

I still agree that would be the most likely scenario and would normally give police the benefit of the doubt. But there is absolutely nothing I have seen to make me give them the benefit of the doubt. I don't look at what happened to that guy and think, "Should have watched Chris Rock." I think, "What in God's name were those officers doing and why were they doing it?"

---

Yes, I stopped addressing questions when mine were ignored and if they had already been answered. "He complied so why..." is a flawed premise. But like you said, you and I agree here. The only part where we disagree is I believe "Should have watched Chris Rock." AND, "What in God's name were those officers doing and why were they doing it?" can be true at the same time. There is no justification for the police beating this man to death.

---

Can be, yes.

What I say is depending on what led to the officer's handling of the situation, those may not have been legal/lawful/moral whatever commands and that man was not trying to evade arrest because they weren't trying to lawfully arrest him. He was just trying to not get beat.

---

I think all that's being said here is that 1) did he or did he not resist arrest (it appears he did) and 2) if he had not resisted arrest he would not have been beaten to death. That's all. No one is exonerating the cops for what they did in response to him resisting.

If you acknowledge that the lead up to the arrest is pivotal in determining whether or not the police's demeanor towards him was justified/understandable, why are you being so committal when that is still an unknown?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

No, you're ignoring the fact he drew his knees up and refused to lay flat on his stomach. If he was complying from the start he never would have been able to get up and run away with no handcuffs on him. The lack of video of what preceded the stop is not evidence the cops are guilty any more than its absence is evidence of Tyre's guilt.

---

That's it? Flat on the stomach? He was on the ****ing ground surrounded by police officers. He had no weapons. He had made no threats, verbal or physical. Gee, I wonder if he might have been concerned about his personal safety with these guys. Nah, he shouldn't have to worry about that…

Show me why he was stopped. Show me why they were aggressive with him from the start when there is no physical threat visible in any way. They are the ones that murdered a man. The burden is on them. Perhaps they should not have turned off their body cameras and removed them.

But hey, Chris Rock!!! (Did I do that right?)

---

On the ground squirming and fighting arrest, knees draw up and twisting around to try and argue against his arrest. Doesn't matter if he was calmly stating that he was complying while he was arguing the arrest, because he wasn't complying. Again, no way he is able to get up and run without any handcuffed wrists if he had been complying with the arrest.

---

Now it's "squirming"? "Fighting arrest?" Did he punch, kick, hit, bite etc.? Why was he being arrested? Did they tell him?

---

Are punching, kicking, hitting and biting the only way a person can resist arrest? If he was cooperating, how was he able to eventually get up and run without being handcuffed?

---

Why was he being arrested? Did they tell him he was being arrested? Or did they just grab him? What exactly was he resisting if he wasn't informed that he was being arrested? Being shoved to the ground with a taser shoved into his leg? Why are they grabbing him? What was the threat? What was the probable cause?

Show me something, anything, that explains why this encounter began the way it did.

---

As we have discussed, repeatedly, we don't have that video of pre stop but that doesn't mean we get to make up whatever we want in its place. All we have is video of him being pulled from the vehicle, refusing to comply and eventually running, then being caught again and beaten to death. That's it. He DID struggle and refuse commands, which is proven by the fact he was able to get up and run and they hadn't gotten even one hand cuffed. That's not something that can happen if a suspect has been complying with commands.

---

The only person I have seen make up something is the police officer that lied and said he heard his partner claim Tyree was grabbing his gun.

What lawful command do you say he refused? Was he lawfully told why he was being pulled over? Was he lawfully told he was being put under arrest?

Did he attempt to run away from being placed under arrest or did he attempt to run away from a beating without cause?

Was he complying when he got pulled out of the car? Was he complying when he went to his knees? Was he complying when he went all the way down to the ground? If he did not comply with commands to roll onto his stomach, was he being lawfully detained and arrested or was was he refusing to comply with commands to get a beating without cause?

You say he was a suspect. What was he suspected of doing?

The problem with this is that it seems to assume everything the officers did was legal up to the point that he ran away. That they had cause to physically grab him and detain him in the manner that they did. Without video evidence that is just as much making up what happened as anything else. I'm sorry if I'm not inclined at the moment to give these 5 officers the benefit of the doubt without further evidence.

---

I notice you've yet again failed to acknowledge that one cannot both comply with police commands and at the same time never get handcuffed until after one gets up and starts running away and later is caught again. You say an entire police department and some EMTs conspired to kill the guy and then followed through.

I say the guy most likely broke the law, ran from cops or drove dangerously and then struggled with police once he was apprehended, played innocent while not complying, jumped up and ran again completely uncuffed thanks to his previous struggling with police, and was murdered by the pissed off police when they caught him a second time. But hey, maybe you're right and an entire police department pulled off a murder of a random black man because racism or cop privilege or something.

---

The list is long of things you have not acknowledged and questions you have avoided. I have not said anything about any conspiracy. I have said I have seen no reason for the police to begin or carry through the encounter in the manner they did.

Now who is making up scenarios? I have not made one statement about what I think happened because I honestly don't know. I honestly don't know why these officers acted the way they did. Have you ever seen anything like this ever within your lifetime? I have never seen anything like it.

I still agree that would be the most likely scenario and would normally give police the benefit of the doubt. But there is absolutely nothing I have seen to make me give them the benefit of the doubt. I don't look at what happened to that guy and think, "Should have watched Chris Rock." I think, "What in God's name were those officers doing and why were they doing it?"

---

Yes, I stopped addressing questions when mine were ignored and if they had already been answered. "He complied so why..." is a flawed premise. But like you said, you and I agree here. The only part where we disagree is I believe "Should have watched Chris Rock." AND, "What in God's name were those officers doing and why were they doing it?" can be true at the same time. There is no justification for the police beating this man to death.

---

Can be, yes.

What I say is depending on what led to the officer's handling of the situation, those may not have been legal/lawful/moral whatever commands and that man was not trying to evade arrest because they weren't trying to lawfully arrest him. He was just trying to not get beat.

---

I think all that's being said here is that 1) did he or did he not resist arrest (it appears he did) and 2) if he had not resisted arrest he would not have been beaten to death. That's all. No one is exonerating the cops for what they did in response to him resisting.

If you acknowledge that the lead up to the arrest is pivotal in determining whether or not the police's demeanor towards him was justified/understandable, why are you being so committal when that is still an unknown?

---

I think what seems to be implied here is that the police officers did nothing wrong up until when they beat him to death. Based on the Police Chief's statement that there is no video evidence to support the claim of reckless driving (despite how many officers present?), the police officer lying about the victim grabbing a gun, and the follow-up behavior by the police officers (turning off body cameras or removing them entirely, beating a man to death, taking pictures of his body and sending it to other people) I'm not going to give them the benefit of the doubt at the moment.

So show me what happened. That's what I'm asking for. What did the police officers observe that led them to begin the interaction in the way they did?

What I see on this thread is commitment to a Chris Rock video that never shows police officers starting an incident the way those police officers did. I see posters who seem to be certain in saying, "If he just would have done this he would have been fine." and I don't know if that's true.

Would he he still be alive if he had not run away? Maybe. But you know what that sounds like to me? "If she wouldn't have resisted me raping her, I wouldn't have had to kill her."

So yes, I want to know why they pulled him over and what led to a violent interaction with guns drawn before he ever set foot out of the car and I want to know if they handled this lawfully from the get go because I have seen little to support that claim.

Those Memphis Cops are going to get what they deserve. Total BS to beat him like that. Total dumb s h i t s

Thee University said:

---

90sBear said:

---

I like the Chris Rock video. 99% of the time it is accurate. The difference between me and some posters on this board is that I believe the 1% exists and until I see video of him actually reckless driving and about to kill someone, I say this is part of the 1%.

---

I'll take 99% accuracy all day long when it is nighttime, you don't know who or what is waiting for you to walk up to the driver's side window and nationwide you've seen drivers either speed off, fight you or run off at an alarming increase.

I can't remember a single time where 5 brothers wearing the blue have ganged up on another brother and beat/killed him for no perceived reason. If anything they go extra easy on him and let him go. Something set these officers off. I've NEVER seen a beating like this. White, black, yellow, brown or red.

Follow the Chris Rock instructional video (created for black folks) and you will be just fine no matter what your skin color. 99% !

I still contend that this kid was not doing what the officers told him to do and it quickly escalated to an out of control situation where he eventually took off running (you never outrun the long arm of the law) down the street.

---

about 35 years ago I was working at a grocery store (ghetto B on 12th and Speight) we had off duty PD working security each evening. We caught a shoplifter and the LEO helped us secure him. We called PD and when they got there, they started to bully him and rough him up as they (5) searched him. One would punch him in the kidney and when he recoiled from the punch, the one holding his arm said he was resisting and would take his shot. A third one was doing similar with a leg.

Yes, the shoplifter made a bad choice but he didn't resist, he recoiled in pain to cheap shots.

Once he was in the car, they all had a good laugh reliving the fun.

Some cops are good but remain silent when they shouldn't.

Thee University said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Guns were drawn and pointed at him and yelling that he was going to "get your ass blown the **** off" before he ever got out of the car. Why? Show me where that happens in the Chris Rock video.

You just watched a video where 5 cops killed someone for no perceived reason. Was he armed with a weapon or even something that looked like a weapon? Had he threatened one of them verbally or physically? Had he even yelled or uttered a curse word? So far video evidence says no to all of the above.

Show me video of him recklessly driving and about to kill someone and I will agree with you. Until then - 1%.

---

I stand by my original comment - follow the Chris Rock instructional video!

Had he rolled out of the car and kissed the ground immediately without saying a word he would likely be alive today. How smart was he? 5 officers who were ALL obviously upset with something he had done or did not do against 1 skinny kid? Lay down immediately and play dead.

I am constantly astounded that so many citizens feel like they got disrespected or that rules and laws do not pertain to them and they "challenge" authority and common sense.

Are people this stupid after all we've seen over the past several years?

---

you want to live in utopia where there is no crime. We'll I'm afraid there is crime and people resist. Shouldn't the good guys, the powerful guys be able to control that power.

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

No, you're ignoring the fact he drew his knees up and refused to lay flat on his stomach. If he was complying from the start he never would have been able to get up and run away with no handcuffs on him. The lack of video of what preceded the stop is not evidence the cops are guilty any more than its absence is evidence of Tyre's guilt.

---

That's it? Flat on the stomach? He was on the ****ing ground surrounded by police officers. He had no weapons. He had made no threats, verbal or physical. Gee, I wonder if he might have been concerned about his personal safety with these guys. Nah, he shouldn't have to worry about that…

Show me why he was stopped. Show me why they were aggressive with him from the start when there is no physical threat visible in any way. They are the ones that murdered a man. The burden is on them. Perhaps they should not have turned off their body cameras and removed them.

But hey, Chris Rock!!! (Did I do that right?)

---

On the ground squirming and fighting arrest, knees draw up and twisting around to try and argue against his arrest. Doesn't matter if he was calmly stating that he was complying while he was arguing the arrest, because he wasn't complying. Again, no way he is able to get up and run without any handcuffed wrists if he had been complying with the arrest.

---

Now it's "squirming"? "Fighting arrest?" Did he punch, kick, hit, bite etc.? Why was he being arrested? Did they tell him?

---

Are punching, kicking, hitting and biting the only way a person can resist arrest? If he was cooperating, how was he able to eventually get up and run without being handcuffed?

---

Why was he being arrested? Did they tell him he was being arrested? Or did they just grab him? What exactly was he resisting if he wasn't informed that he was being arrested? Being shoved to the ground with a taser shoved into his leg? Why are they grabbing him? What was the threat? What was the probable cause?

Show me something, anything, that explains why this encounter began the way it did.

---

As we have discussed, repeatedly, we don't have that video of pre stop but that doesn't mean we get to make up whatever we want in its place. All we have is video of him being pulled from the vehicle, refusing to comply and eventually running, then being caught again and beaten to death. That's it. He DID struggle and refuse commands, which is proven by the fact he was able to get up and run and they hadn't gotten even one hand cuffed. That's not something that can happen if a suspect has been complying with commands.

---

The only person I have seen make up something is the police officer that lied and said he heard his partner claim Tyree was grabbing his gun.

What lawful command do you say he refused? Was he lawfully told why he was being pulled over? Was he lawfully told he was being put under arrest?

Did he attempt to run away from being placed under arrest or did he attempt to run away from a beating without cause?

Was he complying when he got pulled out of the car? Was he complying when he went to his knees? Was he complying when he went all the way down to the ground? If he did not comply with commands to roll onto his stomach, was he being lawfully detained and arrested or was was he refusing to comply with commands to get a beating without cause?

You say he was a suspect. What was he suspected of doing?

The problem with this is that it seems to assume everything the officers did was legal up to the point that he ran away. That they had cause to physically grab him and detain him in the manner that they did. Without video evidence that is just as much making up what happened as anything else. I'm sorry if I'm not inclined at the moment to give these 5 officers the benefit of the doubt without further evidence.

---

I notice you've yet again failed to acknowledge that one cannot both comply with police commands and at the same time never get handcuffed until after one gets up and starts running away and later is caught again. You say an entire police department and some EMTs conspired to kill the guy and then followed through.

I say the guy most likely broke the law, ran from cops or drove dangerously and then struggled with police once he was apprehended, played innocent while not complying, jumped up and ran again completely uncuffed thanks to his previous struggling with police, and was murdered by the pissed off police when they caught him a second time. But hey, maybe you're right and an entire police department pulled off a murder of a random black man because racism or cop privilege or something.

---

The list is long of things you have not acknowledged and questions you have avoided. I have not said anything about any conspiracy. I have said I have seen no reason for the police to begin or carry through the encounter in the manner they did.

Now who is making up scenarios? I have not made one statement about what I think happened because I honestly don't know. I honestly don't know why these officers acted the way they did. Have you ever seen anything like this ever within your lifetime? I have never seen anything like it.

I still agree that would be the most likely scenario and would normally give police the benefit of the doubt. But there is absolutely nothing I have seen to make me give them the benefit of the doubt. I don't look at what happened to that guy and think, "Should have watched Chris Rock." I think, "What in God's name were those officers doing and why were they doing it?"

---

Yes, I stopped addressing questions when mine were ignored and if they had already been answered. "He complied so why..." is a flawed premise. But like you said, you and I agree here. The only part where we disagree is I believe "Should have watched Chris Rock." AND, "What in God's name were those officers doing and why were they doing it?" can be true at the same time. There is no justification for the police beating this man to death.

---

Can be, yes.

What I say is depending on what led to the officer's handling of the situation, those may not have been legal/lawful/moral whatever commands and that man was not trying to evade arrest because they weren't trying to lawfully arrest him. He was just trying to not get beat.

---

I think all that's being said here is that 1) did he or did he not resist arrest (it appears he did) and 2) if he had not resisted arrest he would not have been beaten to death. That's all. No one is exonerating the cops for what they did in response to him resisting.

If you acknowledge that the lead up to the arrest is pivotal in determining whether or not the police's demeanor towards him was justified/understandable, why are you being so committal when that is still an unknown?

---

I think what seems to be implied here is that the police officers did nothing wrong up until when they beat him to death. Based on the Police Chief's statement that there is no video evidence to support the claim of reckless driving (despite how many officers present?), the police officer lying about the victim grabbing a gun, and the follow-up behavior by the police officers (turning off body cameras or removing them entirely, beating a man to death, taking pictures of his body and sending it to other people) I'm not going to give them the benefit of the doubt at the moment.

So show me what happened. That's what I'm asking for. What did the police officers observe that led them to begin the interaction in the way they did?

What I see on this thread is commitment to a Chris Rock video that never shows police officers starting an incident the way those police officers did. I see posters who seem to be certain in saying, "If he just would have done this he would have been fine." and I don't know if that's true.

Would he he still be alive if he had not run away? Maybe. But you know what that sounds like to me? "If she wouldn't have resisted me raping her, I wouldn't have had to kill her."

So yes, I want to know why they pulled him over and what led to a violent interaction with guns drawn before he ever set foot out of the car and I want to know if they handled this lawfully from the get go because I have seen little to support that claim.

---

You admit ignorance regarding what led up to the pull over, yet you are committed to the cops' guilt regarding their pullover being unlawful based on speculation. You are free to do that, but in that same vein, so are others in speculating that the pull over was lawful, and that all Nichols had to do was not resist, and he would not have been beaten to death. If you are going to say that he would have still been beaten if he complied, well, that's even more speculation, and pointless at that. And comparing the initial pull over to rape is just ludicrous, especially considering you admit that the cops' behavior during the pull over might be justified depending on the situation leading up to the arrest.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

you want to live in utopia where there is no crime. We'll I'm afraid there is crime and people resist. Shouldn't the good guys, the powerful guys be able to control that power.

---

Yes I do want to live in a Utopia where there is no crime and I am willing to do my part to help create a crime-free world however that is best accomplished. 100% crime free? Never going to happen but I'm willing to do my part to strive for 100%.

Look at the FBI crime stats and a realist can readily see where Utopia might have the best chance to survive. I chose to retire in one of those spots where I believe an unusually large number of folks also believe Utopia might be attained. However, as a crow flies I am only 57 miles from a growing sewer pit where crime and lawlessness is festering and starting to resemble one of Gavin Newsom's crown jewels. It is creeping my way. It has changed. It has grown much more dangerous and while I subscribe to the Chris Rock tutorial on interacting with the police, I carefully plan where I drive and my route to get from Point A to Point B. If stopped, even for no apparent reason, and confronted with yelling, screaming cops and them roughing me up while I comply, I will still hit the ground prone and not move a muscle until told to do differently.

The good guys are weak. Soft. Afraid to be called a convenient yet scary label. The good guys are giving up. The good guys have lost control and lost desire to do what is right.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

No, you're ignoring the fact he drew his knees up and refused to lay flat on his stomach. If he was complying from the start he never would have been able to get up and run away with no handcuffs on him. The lack of video of what preceded the stop is not evidence the cops are guilty any more than its absence is evidence of Tyre's guilt.

---

That's it? Flat on the stomach? He was on the ****ing ground surrounded by police officers. He had no weapons. He had made no threats, verbal or physical. Gee, I wonder if he might have been concerned about his personal safety with these guys. Nah, he shouldn't have to worry about that…

Show me why he was stopped. Show me why they were aggressive with him from the start when there is no physical threat visible in any way. They are the ones that murdered a man. The burden is on them. Perhaps they should not have turned off their body cameras and removed them.

But hey, Chris Rock!!! (Did I do that right?)

---

On the ground squirming and fighting arrest, knees draw up and twisting around to try and argue against his arrest. Doesn't matter if he was calmly stating that he was complying while he was arguing the arrest, because he wasn't complying. Again, no way he is able to get up and run without any handcuffed wrists if he had been complying with the arrest.

---

Now it's "squirming"? "Fighting arrest?" Did he punch, kick, hit, bite etc.? Why was he being arrested? Did they tell him?

---

Are punching, kicking, hitting and biting the only way a person can resist arrest? If he was cooperating, how was he able to eventually get up and run without being handcuffed?

---

Why was he being arrested? Did they tell him he was being arrested? Or did they just grab him? What exactly was he resisting if he wasn't informed that he was being arrested? Being shoved to the ground with a taser shoved into his leg? Why are they grabbing him? What was the threat? What was the probable cause?

Show me something, anything, that explains why this encounter began the way it did.

---

As we have discussed, repeatedly, we don't have that video of pre stop but that doesn't mean we get to make up whatever we want in its place. All we have is video of him being pulled from the vehicle, refusing to comply and eventually running, then being caught again and beaten to death. That's it. He DID struggle and refuse commands, which is proven by the fact he was able to get up and run and they hadn't gotten even one hand cuffed. That's not something that can happen if a suspect has been complying with commands.

---

The only person I have seen make up something is the police officer that lied and said he heard his partner claim Tyree was grabbing his gun.

What lawful command do you say he refused? Was he lawfully told why he was being pulled over? Was he lawfully told he was being put under arrest?

Did he attempt to run away from being placed under arrest or did he attempt to run away from a beating without cause?

Was he complying when he got pulled out of the car? Was he complying when he went to his knees? Was he complying when he went all the way down to the ground? If he did not comply with commands to roll onto his stomach, was he being lawfully detained and arrested or was was he refusing to comply with commands to get a beating without cause?

You say he was a suspect. What was he suspected of doing?

The problem with this is that it seems to assume everything the officers did was legal up to the point that he ran away. That they had cause to physically grab him and detain him in the manner that they did. Without video evidence that is just as much making up what happened as anything else. I'm sorry if I'm not inclined at the moment to give these 5 officers the benefit of the doubt without further evidence.

---

I notice you've yet again failed to acknowledge that one cannot both comply with police commands and at the same time never get handcuffed until after one gets up and starts running away and later is caught again. You say an entire police department and some EMTs conspired to kill the guy and then followed through.

I say the guy most likely broke the law, ran from cops or drove dangerously and then struggled with police once he was apprehended, played innocent while not complying, jumped up and ran again completely uncuffed thanks to his previous struggling with police, and was murdered by the pissed off police when they caught him a second time. But hey, maybe you're right and an entire police department pulled off a murder of a random black man because racism or cop privilege or something.

---

The list is long of things you have not acknowledged and questions you have avoided. I have not said anything about any conspiracy. I have said I have seen no reason for the police to begin or carry through the encounter in the manner they did.

Now who is making up scenarios? I have not made one statement about what I think happened because I honestly don't know. I honestly don't know why these officers acted the way they did. Have you ever seen anything like this ever within your lifetime? I have never seen anything like it.

I still agree that would be the most likely scenario and would normally give police the benefit of the doubt. But there is absolutely nothing I have seen to make me give them the benefit of the doubt. I don't look at what happened to that guy and think, "Should have watched Chris Rock." I think, "What in God's name were those officers doing and why were they doing it?"

---

Yes, I stopped addressing questions when mine were ignored and if they had already been answered. "He complied so why..." is a flawed premise. But like you said, you and I agree here. The only part where we disagree is I believe "Should have watched Chris Rock." AND, "What in God's name were those officers doing and why were they doing it?" can be true at the same time. There is no justification for the police beating this man to death.

---

Can be, yes.

What I say is depending on what led to the officer's handling of the situation, those may not have been legal/lawful/moral whatever commands and that man was not trying to evade arrest because they weren't trying to lawfully arrest him. He was just trying to not get beat.

---

I think all that's being said here is that 1) did he or did he not resist arrest (it appears he did) and 2) if he had not resisted arrest he would not have been beaten to death. That's all. No one is exonerating the cops for what they did in response to him resisting.

If you acknowledge that the lead up to the arrest is pivotal in determining whether or not the police's demeanor towards him was justified/understandable, why are you being so committal when that is still an unknown?

---

I think what seems to be implied here is that the police officers did nothing wrong up until when they beat him to death. Based on the Police Chief's statement that there is no video evidence to support the claim of reckless driving (despite how many officers present?), the police officer lying about the victim grabbing a gun, and the follow-up behavior by the police officers (turning off body cameras or removing them entirely, beating a man to death, taking pictures of his body and sending it to other people) I'm not going to give them the benefit of the doubt at the moment.

So show me what happened. That's what I'm asking for. What did the police officers observe that led them to begin the interaction in the way they did?

What I see on this thread is commitment to a Chris Rock video that never shows police officers starting an incident the way those police officers did. I see posters who seem to be certain in saying, "If he just would have done this he would have been fine." and I don't know if that's true.

Would he he still be alive if he had not run away? Maybe. But you know what that sounds like to me? "If she wouldn't have resisted me raping her, I wouldn't have had to kill her."

So yes, I want to know why they pulled him over and what led to a violent interaction with guns drawn before he ever set foot out of the car and I want to know if they handled this lawfully from the get go because I have seen little to support that claim.

---

You admit ignorance regarding what led up to the pull over, yet you are committed to the cops' guilt regarding their pullover being unlawful based on speculation. You are free to do that, but in that same vein, so are others in speculating that the pull over was lawful, and that all Nichols had to do was not resist, and he would not have been beaten to death. If you are going to say that he would have still been beaten if he complied, well, that's even more speculation, and pointless at that. And comparing the initial pull over to rape is just ludicrous, especially considering you admit that the cops' behavior during the pull over might be justified depending on the situation leading up to the arrest.

---

No, I have said "show me"...repeatedly. I have said, "Tell me what they saw". I have said their subsequent actions cause me to not give them the benefit of the doubt that I would give to the 99% of other LEO's so I would like to see proof one way or the other. Can you do either of those things?

We are all speculating. Because there is reportedly no video evidence available from several of the police officers who are required to activate their body cameras at every encounter. I don't know if he would have been beaten or not, and neither does the dead man. Who was beaten to death. I guess we will have to wait and hear it from the police officers. Who have already lied in their reports.

If you want to believe that the stop was all fine and kosher, that the man clearly presented himself to be dangerous enough to necessitate the response from the officers, ok. Just don't expect everyone else to automatically buy that at face value after what played out and without, so far, any corroborating evidence.

We don't know what the nature of the initial pull over was. No video from that yet either. I do know the first words I heard were the cops threaten to "blow his ass the **** off."

So I have already stated, repeatedly, that if we get evidence that the man was driving recklessly and could have killed someone in the process that I will say, "Well, looks like he is part of the 99% of victims out there that did something grievous and that started all of this in the first place. If only he had listened."

What will others on this board say if there is never any video, eyewitness testimony, anything, that supports the initial report of "reckless driving"?

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

No, you're ignoring the fact he drew his knees up and refused to lay flat on his stomach. If he was complying from the start he never would have been able to get up and run away with no handcuffs on him. The lack of video of what preceded the stop is not evidence the cops are guilty any more than its absence is evidence of Tyre's guilt.

---

That's it? Flat on the stomach? He was on the ****ing ground surrounded by police officers. He had no weapons. He had made no threats, verbal or physical. Gee, I wonder if he might have been concerned about his personal safety with these guys. Nah, he shouldn't have to worry about that…

Show me why he was stopped. Show me why they were aggressive with him from the start when there is no physical threat visible in any way. They are the ones that murdered a man. The burden is on them. Perhaps they should not have turned off their body cameras and removed them.

But hey, Chris Rock!!! (Did I do that right?)

---

On the ground squirming and fighting arrest, knees draw up and twisting around to try and argue against his arrest. Doesn't matter if he was calmly stating that he was complying while he was arguing the arrest, because he wasn't complying. Again, no way he is able to get up and run without any handcuffed wrists if he had been complying with the arrest.

---

Now it's "squirming"? "Fighting arrest?" Did he punch, kick, hit, bite etc.? Why was he being arrested? Did they tell him?

---

Are punching, kicking, hitting and biting the only way a person can resist arrest? If he was cooperating, how was he able to eventually get up and run without being handcuffed?

---

Why was he being arrested? Did they tell him he was being arrested? Or did they just grab him? What exactly was he resisting if he wasn't informed that he was being arrested? Being shoved to the ground with a taser shoved into his leg? Why are they grabbing him? What was the threat? What was the probable cause?

Show me something, anything, that explains why this encounter began the way it did.

---

As we have discussed, repeatedly, we don't have that video of pre stop but that doesn't mean we get to make up whatever we want in its place. All we have is video of him being pulled from the vehicle, refusing to comply and eventually running, then being caught again and beaten to death. That's it. He DID struggle and refuse commands, which is proven by the fact he was able to get up and run and they hadn't gotten even one hand cuffed. That's not something that can happen if a suspect has been complying with commands.

---

The only person I have seen make up something is the police officer that lied and said he heard his partner claim Tyree was grabbing his gun.

What lawful command do you say he refused? Was he lawfully told why he was being pulled over? Was he lawfully told he was being put under arrest?

Did he attempt to run away from being placed under arrest or did he attempt to run away from a beating without cause?

Was he complying when he got pulled out of the car? Was he complying when he went to his knees? Was he complying when he went all the way down to the ground? If he did not comply with commands to roll onto his stomach, was he being lawfully detained and arrested or was was he refusing to comply with commands to get a beating without cause?

You say he was a suspect. What was he suspected of doing?

The problem with this is that it seems to assume everything the officers did was legal up to the point that he ran away. That they had cause to physically grab him and detain him in the manner that they did. Without video evidence that is just as much making up what happened as anything else. I'm sorry if I'm not inclined at the moment to give these 5 officers the benefit of the doubt without further evidence.

---

I notice you've yet again failed to acknowledge that one cannot both comply with police commands and at the same time never get handcuffed until after one gets up and starts running away and later is caught again. You say an entire police department and some EMTs conspired to kill the guy and then followed through.

I say the guy most likely broke the law, ran from cops or drove dangerously and then struggled with police once he was apprehended, played innocent while not complying, jumped up and ran again completely uncuffed thanks to his previous struggling with police, and was murdered by the pissed off police when they caught him a second time. But hey, maybe you're right and an entire police department pulled off a murder of a random black man because racism or cop privilege or something.

---

The list is long of things you have not acknowledged and questions you have avoided. I have not said anything about any conspiracy. I have said I have seen no reason for the police to begin or carry through the encounter in the manner they did.

Now who is making up scenarios? I have not made one statement about what I think happened because I honestly don't know. I honestly don't know why these officers acted the way they did. Have you ever seen anything like this ever within your lifetime? I have never seen anything like it.

I still agree that would be the most likely scenario and would normally give police the benefit of the doubt. But there is absolutely nothing I have seen to make me give them the benefit of the doubt. I don't look at what happened to that guy and think, "Should have watched Chris Rock." I think, "What in God's name were those officers doing and why were they doing it?"

---

Yes, I stopped addressing questions when mine were ignored and if they had already been answered. "He complied so why..." is a flawed premise. But like you said, you and I agree here. The only part where we disagree is I believe "Should have watched Chris Rock." AND, "What in God's name were those officers doing and why were they doing it?" can be true at the same time. There is no justification for the police beating this man to death.

---

Can be, yes.

What I say is depending on what led to the officer's handling of the situation, those may not have been legal/lawful/moral whatever commands and that man was not trying to evade arrest because they weren't trying to lawfully arrest him. He was just trying to not get beat.

---

I think all that's being said here is that 1) did he or did he not resist arrest (it appears he did) and 2) if he had not resisted arrest he would not have been beaten to death. That's all. No one is exonerating the cops for what they did in response to him resisting.

If you acknowledge that the lead up to the arrest is pivotal in determining whether or not the police's demeanor towards him was justified/understandable, why are you being so committal when that is still an unknown?

---

I think what seems to be implied here is that the police officers did nothing wrong up until when they beat him to death. Based on the Police Chief's statement that there is no video evidence to support the claim of reckless driving (despite how many officers present?), the police officer lying about the victim grabbing a gun, and the follow-up behavior by the police officers (turning off body cameras or removing them entirely, beating a man to death, taking pictures of his body and sending it to other people) I'm not going to give them the benefit of the doubt at the moment.

So show me what happened. That's what I'm asking for. What did the police officers observe that led them to begin the interaction in the way they did?

What I see on this thread is commitment to a Chris Rock video that never shows police officers starting an incident the way those police officers did. I see posters who seem to be certain in saying, "If he just would have done this he would have been fine." and I don't know if that's true.

Would he he still be alive if he had not run away? Maybe. But you know what that sounds like to me? "If she wouldn't have resisted me raping her, I wouldn't have had to kill her."

So yes, I want to know why they pulled him over and what led to a violent interaction with guns drawn before he ever set foot out of the car and I want to know if they handled this lawfully from the get go because I have seen little to support that claim.

---

You admit ignorance regarding what led up to the pull over, yet you are committed to the cops' guilt regarding their pullover being unlawful based on speculation. You are free to do that, but in that same vein, so are others in speculating that the pull over was lawful, and that all Nichols had to do was not resist, and he would not have been beaten to death. If you are going to say that he would have still been beaten if he complied, well, that's even more speculation, and pointless at that. And comparing the initial pull over to rape is just ludicrous, especially considering you admit that the cops' behavior during the pull over might be justified depending on the situation leading up to the arrest.

---

No, I have said "show me"...repeatedly. I have said, "Tell me what they saw". I have said their subsequent actions cause me to not give them the benefit of the doubt that I would give to the 99% of other LEO's so I would like to see proof one way or the other. Can you do either of those things?

We are all speculating. Because there is reportedly no video evidence available from several of the police officers who are required to activate their body cameras at every encounter. I don't know if he would have been beaten or not, and neither does the dead man. Who was beaten to death. I guess we will have to wait and hear it from the police officers. Who have already lied in their reports.

If you want to believe that the stop was all fine and kosher, that the man clearly presented himself to be dangerous enough to necessitate the response from the officers, ok. Just don't expect everyone else to automatically buy that at face value after what played out and without, so far, any corroborating evidence.

We don't know what the nature of the initial pull over was. No video from that yet either. I do know the first words I heard were the cops threaten to "blow his ass the **** off."

So I have already stated, repeatedly, that if we get evidence that the man was driving recklessly and could have killed someone in the process that I will say, "Well, looks like he is part of the 99% of victims out there that did something grievous and that started all of this in the first place. If only he had listened."

What will others on this board say if there is never any video, eyewitness testimony, anything, that supports the initial report of "reckless driving"?

---

No, your whole stance was that Nichols was understandably, maybe even justified, in resisting arrest, because he had no idea why the cops were treating him the way they were, and so he "feared for his own safety". But if the lead up to the arrest justified the cops' behavior, then Nichols is NOT justified in resisting arrest, nor does he have the right to claim that he "feared for his own safety" because he darn well would have known why they were treating him that way. So you can't be definitive in exonerating Nichols' attempt to fight and run away without knowing what led up to it. But you were. That's all that's being said.

There should be consequences for resisting. However, death should not have been one of those consequences when an unarmed man resist an overwhelming force.

I've heard many times that rape is not about sex but about control and power. How is this situation different?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

No, you're ignoring the fact he drew his knees up and refused to lay flat on his stomach. If he was complying from the start he never would have been able to get up and run away with no handcuffs on him. The lack of video of what preceded the stop is not evidence the cops are guilty any more than its absence is evidence of Tyre's guilt.

---

That's it? Flat on the stomach? He was on the ****ing ground surrounded by police officers. He had no weapons. He had made no threats, verbal or physical. Gee, I wonder if he might have been concerned about his personal safety with these guys. Nah, he shouldn't have to worry about that…

Show me why he was stopped. Show me why they were aggressive with him from the start when there is no physical threat visible in any way. They are the ones that murdered a man. The burden is on them. Perhaps they should not have turned off their body cameras and removed them.

But hey, Chris Rock!!! (Did I do that right?)

---

On the ground squirming and fighting arrest, knees draw up and twisting around to try and argue against his arrest. Doesn't matter if he was calmly stating that he was complying while he was arguing the arrest, because he wasn't complying. Again, no way he is able to get up and run without any handcuffed wrists if he had been complying with the arrest.

---

Now it's "squirming"? "Fighting arrest?" Did he punch, kick, hit, bite etc.? Why was he being arrested? Did they tell him?

---

Are punching, kicking, hitting and biting the only way a person can resist arrest? If he was cooperating, how was he able to eventually get up and run without being handcuffed?

---

Why was he being arrested? Did they tell him he was being arrested? Or did they just grab him? What exactly was he resisting if he wasn't informed that he was being arrested? Being shoved to the ground with a taser shoved into his leg? Why are they grabbing him? What was the threat? What was the probable cause?

Show me something, anything, that explains why this encounter began the way it did.

---

As we have discussed, repeatedly, we don't have that video of pre stop but that doesn't mean we get to make up whatever we want in its place. All we have is video of him being pulled from the vehicle, refusing to comply and eventually running, then being caught again and beaten to death. That's it. He DID struggle and refuse commands, which is proven by the fact he was able to get up and run and they hadn't gotten even one hand cuffed. That's not something that can happen if a suspect has been complying with commands.

---

The only person I have seen make up something is the police officer that lied and said he heard his partner claim Tyree was grabbing his gun.

What lawful command do you say he refused? Was he lawfully told why he was being pulled over? Was he lawfully told he was being put under arrest?

Did he attempt to run away from being placed under arrest or did he attempt to run away from a beating without cause?

Was he complying when he got pulled out of the car? Was he complying when he went to his knees? Was he complying when he went all the way down to the ground? If he did not comply with commands to roll onto his stomach, was he being lawfully detained and arrested or was was he refusing to comply with commands to get a beating without cause?

You say he was a suspect. What was he suspected of doing?

The problem with this is that it seems to assume everything the officers did was legal up to the point that he ran away. That they had cause to physically grab him and detain him in the manner that they did. Without video evidence that is just as much making up what happened as anything else. I'm sorry if I'm not inclined at the moment to give these 5 officers the benefit of the doubt without further evidence.

---

I notice you've yet again failed to acknowledge that one cannot both comply with police commands and at the same time never get handcuffed until after one gets up and starts running away and later is caught again. You say an entire police department and some EMTs conspired to kill the guy and then followed through.

I say the guy most likely broke the law, ran from cops or drove dangerously and then struggled with police once he was apprehended, played innocent while not complying, jumped up and ran again completely uncuffed thanks to his previous struggling with police, and was murdered by the pissed off police when they caught him a second time. But hey, maybe you're right and an entire police department pulled off a murder of a random black man because racism or cop privilege or something.

---

The list is long of things you have not acknowledged and questions you have avoided. I have not said anything about any conspiracy. I have said I have seen no reason for the police to begin or carry through the encounter in the manner they did.

Now who is making up scenarios? I have not made one statement about what I think happened because I honestly don't know. I honestly don't know why these officers acted the way they did. Have you ever seen anything like this ever within your lifetime? I have never seen anything like it.

I still agree that would be the most likely scenario and would normally give police the benefit of the doubt. But there is absolutely nothing I have seen to make me give them the benefit of the doubt. I don't look at what happened to that guy and think, "Should have watched Chris Rock." I think, "What in God's name were those officers doing and why were they doing it?"

---

Yes, I stopped addressing questions when mine were ignored and if they had already been answered. "He complied so why..." is a flawed premise. But like you said, you and I agree here. The only part where we disagree is I believe "Should have watched Chris Rock." AND, "What in God's name were those officers doing and why were they doing it?" can be true at the same time. There is no justification for the police beating this man to death.

---

Can be, yes.

What I say is depending on what led to the officer's handling of the situation, those may not have been legal/lawful/moral whatever commands and that man was not trying to evade arrest because they weren't trying to lawfully arrest him. He was just trying to not get beat.

---

I think all that's being said here is that 1) did he or did he not resist arrest (it appears he did) and 2) if he had not resisted arrest he would not have been beaten to death. That's all. No one is exonerating the cops for what they did in response to him resisting.

If you acknowledge that the lead up to the arrest is pivotal in determining whether or not the police's demeanor towards him was justified/understandable, why are you being so committal when that is still an unknown?

---

I think what seems to be implied here is that the police officers did nothing wrong up until when they beat him to death. Based on the Police Chief's statement that there is no video evidence to support the claim of reckless driving (despite how many officers present?), the police officer lying about the victim grabbing a gun, and the follow-up behavior by the police officers (turning off body cameras or removing them entirely, beating a man to death, taking pictures of his body and sending it to other people) I'm not going to give them the benefit of the doubt at the moment.

So show me what happened. That's what I'm asking for. What did the police officers observe that led them to begin the interaction in the way they did?

What I see on this thread is commitment to a Chris Rock video that never shows police officers starting an incident the way those police officers did. I see posters who seem to be certain in saying, "If he just would have done this he would have been fine." and I don't know if that's true.

Would he he still be alive if he had not run away? Maybe. But you know what that sounds like to me? "If she wouldn't have resisted me raping her, I wouldn't have had to kill her."

So yes, I want to know why they pulled him over and what led to a violent interaction with guns drawn before he ever set foot out of the car and I want to know if they handled this lawfully from the get go because I have seen little to support that claim.

---

You admit ignorance regarding what led up to the pull over, yet you are committed to the cops' guilt regarding their pullover being unlawful based on speculation. You are free to do that, but in that same vein, so are others in speculating that the pull over was lawful, and that all Nichols had to do was not resist, and he would not have been beaten to death. If you are going to say that he would have still been beaten if he complied, well, that's even more speculation, and pointless at that. And comparing the initial pull over to rape is just ludicrous, especially considering you admit that the cops' behavior during the pull over might be justified depending on the situation leading up to the arrest.

---

No, I have said "show me"...repeatedly. I have said, "Tell me what they saw". I have said their subsequent actions cause me to not give them the benefit of the doubt that I would give to the 99% of other LEO's so I would like to see proof one way or the other. Can you do either of those things?

We are all speculating. Because there is reportedly no video evidence available from several of the police officers who are required to activate their body cameras at every encounter. I don't know if he would have been beaten or not, and neither does the dead man. Who was beaten to death. I guess we will have to wait and hear it from the police officers. Who have already lied in their reports.

If you want to believe that the stop was all fine and kosher, that the man clearly presented himself to be dangerous enough to necessitate the response from the officers, ok. Just don't expect everyone else to automatically buy that at face value after what played out and without, so far, any corroborating evidence.

We don't know what the nature of the initial pull over was. No video from that yet either. I do know the first words I heard were the cops threaten to "blow his ass the **** off."

So I have already stated, repeatedly, that if we get evidence that the man was driving recklessly and could have killed someone in the process that I will say, "Well, looks like he is part of the 99% of victims out there that did something grievous and that started all of this in the first place. If only he had listened."

What will others on this board say if there is never any video, eyewitness testimony, anything, that supports the initial report of "reckless driving"?

---

No, your whole stance was that Nichols was understandably, maybe even justified, in resisting arrest, because he had no idea why the cops were treating him the way they were, and so he "feared for his own safety". But if the lead up to the arrest justified the cops' behavior, then Nichols is NOT justified in resisting arrest, nor does he have the right to claim that he "feared for his own safety" because he darn well would have known why they were treating him that way. So you can't be definitive in exonerating Nichols' attempt to fight and run away without knowing what led up to it. But you were. That's all that's being said.

---

Disagree. This entire thread has been based on the Chris Rock video - ergo the guy did something wrong that lead to a beating. That the police officers handled this correctly from the start is an assumption in itself. The only potentially "wrong" thing I saw him do was run away.

So, again - show me video, eyewitness testimony, additional reports, something. I want to know what happened one way or the other that lead up to how this all started.

What will you say if there is never any video, eyewitness testimony, anything, that supports the initial report of "reckless driving"?

BS! This thread started out with the question of who you would rather take a beating from - white police officers or black police officers. Nobody ever said that the 5 black officers handled this correctly. How did you arrive at that conclusion?

I brought in the Chris Rock video because all of his points in the Rock video are exactly correct and while certainly it was produced as a comedy piece, it is scary accurate and some valuable lessons for blacks, whites, browns and yellows can be learned from it. Particularly blacks as they are for some strange reason the most likely to put themselves into one of these situations.

You keep crying and gnashing your teeth because there is currently no video or witness to support the claim of reckless driving. Calm down and be patient.

Because this is high profile and a catastrophic condemnation of the Black Lives Matter fiasco/fleecing, the case will be thoroughly reviewed. Now, because this is far worse than any white police officer beating, you have to be ready for some @$$ covering to occur. The mainstream media have a narrative to protect and expect them and other activist losers to fight fiercely to toe the line.

Liberal pukes need to circle the wagons.

Thee University said:

---

BS! This thread started out with the question of who you would rather take a beating from - white police officers or black police officers. Nobody ever said that the 5 black officers handled this correctly. How did you arrive at that conclusion?

I brought in the Chris Rock video because all of his points in the Rock video are exactly correct and while certainly it was produced as a comedy piece, it is scary accurate and some valuable lessons for blacks, whites, browns and yellows can be learned from it. Particularly blacks as they are for some strange reason the most likely to put themselves into one of these situations.

You keep crying and gnashing your teeth because there is currently no video or witness to support the claim of reckless driving. Calm down and be patient.

Because this is high profile and a catastrophic condemnation of the Black Lives Matter fiasco/fleecing, the case will be thoroughly reviewed. Now, because this is far worse than any white police officer beating, you have to be ready for some @$$ covering to occur. The mainstream media have a narrative to protect and expect them and other activist losers to fight fiercely to toe the line.

Liberal pukes need to circle the wagons.

---

BS to you - I have never accused anyone of stating that the police officers handled this correctly throughout. Everyone has been clear in that and is in agreement. The officers should be fully prosecuted end of story. We all agree.

My question is if they handled it correctly from the start. Chris Rock video (which, again, I like) shows officers calmly approaching every situation. This one did not start that way. So I'm asking why. Is this part of the 99% or the 1%?

This is an anonymous online chat forum where people are having a conversation, so I honestly don't envision anyone here crying or gnashing their teeth. I picture everyone typing out their opinions and asking questions of each other. I'm perfectly calm here and I'm assuming everyone else is as well.

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

No, you're ignoring the fact he drew his knees up and refused to lay flat on his stomach. If he was complying from the start he never would have been able to get up and run away with no handcuffs on him. The lack of video of what preceded the stop is not evidence the cops are guilty any more than its absence is evidence of Tyre's guilt.

---

That's it? Flat on the stomach? He was on the ****ing ground surrounded by police officers. He had no weapons. He had made no threats, verbal or physical. Gee, I wonder if he might have been concerned about his personal safety with these guys. Nah, he shouldn't have to worry about that…

Show me why he was stopped. Show me why they were aggressive with him from the start when there is no physical threat visible in any way. They are the ones that murdered a man. The burden is on them. Perhaps they should not have turned off their body cameras and removed them.

But hey, Chris Rock!!! (Did I do that right?)

---

On the ground squirming and fighting arrest, knees draw up and twisting around to try and argue against his arrest. Doesn't matter if he was calmly stating that he was complying while he was arguing the arrest, because he wasn't complying. Again, no way he is able to get up and run without any handcuffed wrists if he had been complying with the arrest.

---

Now it's "squirming"? "Fighting arrest?" Did he punch, kick, hit, bite etc.? Why was he being arrested? Did they tell him?

---

Are punching, kicking, hitting and biting the only way a person can resist arrest? If he was cooperating, how was he able to eventually get up and run without being handcuffed?

---

Why was he being arrested? Did they tell him he was being arrested? Or did they just grab him? What exactly was he resisting if he wasn't informed that he was being arrested? Being shoved to the ground with a taser shoved into his leg? Why are they grabbing him? What was the threat? What was the probable cause?

Show me something, anything, that explains why this encounter began the way it did.

---

As we have discussed, repeatedly, we don't have that video of pre stop but that doesn't mean we get to make up whatever we want in its place. All we have is video of him being pulled from the vehicle, refusing to comply and eventually running, then being caught again and beaten to death. That's it. He DID struggle and refuse commands, which is proven by the fact he was able to get up and run and they hadn't gotten even one hand cuffed. That's not something that can happen if a suspect has been complying with commands.

---

The only person I have seen make up something is the police officer that lied and said he heard his partner claim Tyree was grabbing his gun.

What lawful command do you say he refused? Was he lawfully told why he was being pulled over? Was he lawfully told he was being put under arrest?

Did he attempt to run away from being placed under arrest or did he attempt to run away from a beating without cause?

Was he complying when he got pulled out of the car? Was he complying when he went to his knees? Was he complying when he went all the way down to the ground? If he did not comply with commands to roll onto his stomach, was he being lawfully detained and arrested or was was he refusing to comply with commands to get a beating without cause?

You say he was a suspect. What was he suspected of doing?

The problem with this is that it seems to assume everything the officers did was legal up to the point that he ran away. That they had cause to physically grab him and detain him in the manner that they did. Without video evidence that is just as much making up what happened as anything else. I'm sorry if I'm not inclined at the moment to give these 5 officers the benefit of the doubt without further evidence.

---

I notice you've yet again failed to acknowledge that one cannot both comply with police commands and at the same time never get handcuffed until after one gets up and starts running away and later is caught again. You say an entire police department and some EMTs conspired to kill the guy and then followed through.

I say the guy most likely broke the law, ran from cops or drove dangerously and then struggled with police once he was apprehended, played innocent while not complying, jumped up and ran again completely uncuffed thanks to his previous struggling with police, and was murdered by the pissed off police when they caught him a second time. But hey, maybe you're right and an entire police department pulled off a murder of a random black man because racism or cop privilege or something.

---

The list is long of things you have not acknowledged and questions you have avoided. I have not said anything about any conspiracy. I have said I have seen no reason for the police to begin or carry through the encounter in the manner they did.

Now who is making up scenarios? I have not made one statement about what I think happened because I honestly don't know. I honestly don't know why these officers acted the way they did. Have you ever seen anything like this ever within your lifetime? I have never seen anything like it.

I still agree that would be the most likely scenario and would normally give police the benefit of the doubt. But there is absolutely nothing I have seen to make me give them the benefit of the doubt. I don't look at what happened to that guy and think, "Should have watched Chris Rock." I think, "What in God's name were those officers doing and why were they doing it?"

---

Yes, I stopped addressing questions when mine were ignored and if they had already been answered. "He complied so why..." is a flawed premise. But like you said, you and I agree here. The only part where we disagree is I believe "Should have watched Chris Rock." AND, "What in God's name were those officers doing and why were they doing it?" can be true at the same time. There is no justification for the police beating this man to death.

---

Can be, yes.

What I say is depending on what led to the officer's handling of the situation, those may not have been legal/lawful/moral whatever commands and that man was not trying to evade arrest because they weren't trying to lawfully arrest him. He was just trying to not get beat.

---

I think all that's being said here is that 1) did he or did he not resist arrest (it appears he did) and 2) if he had not resisted arrest he would not have been beaten to death. That's all. No one is exonerating the cops for what they did in response to him resisting.

If you acknowledge that the lead up to the arrest is pivotal in determining whether or not the police's demeanor towards him was justified/understandable, why are you being so committal when that is still an unknown?

---

I think what seems to be implied here is that the police officers did nothing wrong up until when they beat him to death. Based on the Police Chief's statement that there is no video evidence to support the claim of reckless driving (despite how many officers present?), the police officer lying about the victim grabbing a gun, and the follow-up behavior by the police officers (turning off body cameras or removing them entirely, beating a man to death, taking pictures of his body and sending it to other people) I'm not going to give them the benefit of the doubt at the moment.

So show me what happened. That's what I'm asking for. What did the police officers observe that led them to begin the interaction in the way they did?

What I see on this thread is commitment to a Chris Rock video that never shows police officers starting an incident the way those police officers did. I see posters who seem to be certain in saying, "If he just would have done this he would have been fine." and I don't know if that's true.

Would he he still be alive if he had not run away? Maybe. But you know what that sounds like to me? "If she wouldn't have resisted me raping her, I wouldn't have had to kill her."

So yes, I want to know why they pulled him over and what led to a violent interaction with guns drawn before he ever set foot out of the car and I want to know if they handled this lawfully from the get go because I have seen little to support that claim.

---

You admit ignorance regarding what led up to the pull over, yet you are committed to the cops' guilt regarding their pullover being unlawful based on speculation. You are free to do that, but in that same vein, so are others in speculating that the pull over was lawful, and that all Nichols had to do was not resist, and he would not have been beaten to death. If you are going to say that he would have still been beaten if he complied, well, that's even more speculation, and pointless at that. And comparing the initial pull over to rape is just ludicrous, especially considering you admit that the cops' behavior during the pull over might be justified depending on the situation leading up to the arrest.

---

No, I have said "show me"...repeatedly. I have said, "Tell me what they saw". I have said their subsequent actions cause me to not give them the benefit of the doubt that I would give to the 99% of other LEO's so I would like to see proof one way or the other. Can you do either of those things?

We are all speculating. Because there is reportedly no video evidence available from several of the police officers who are required to activate their body cameras at every encounter. I don't know if he would have been beaten or not, and neither does the dead man. Who was beaten to death. I guess we will have to wait and hear it from the police officers. Who have already lied in their reports.

If you want to believe that the stop was all fine and kosher, that the man clearly presented himself to be dangerous enough to necessitate the response from the officers, ok. Just don't expect everyone else to automatically buy that at face value after what played out and without, so far, any corroborating evidence.

We don't know what the nature of the initial pull over was. No video from that yet either. I do know the first words I heard were the cops threaten to "blow his ass the **** off."

So I have already stated, repeatedly, that if we get evidence that the man was driving recklessly and could have killed someone in the process that I will say, "Well, looks like he is part of the 99% of victims out there that did something grievous and that started all of this in the first place. If only he had listened."

What will others on this board say if there is never any video, eyewitness testimony, anything, that supports the initial report of "reckless driving"?

---

No, your whole stance was that Nichols was understandably, maybe even justified, in resisting arrest, because he had no idea why the cops were treating him the way they were, and so he "feared for his own safety". But if the lead up to the arrest justified the cops' behavior, then Nichols is NOT justified in resisting arrest, nor does he have the right to claim that he "feared for his own safety" because he darn well would have known why they were treating him that way. So you can't be definitive in exonerating Nichols' attempt to fight and run away without knowing what led up to it. But you were. That's all that's being said.

---

Disagree. This entire thread has been based on the Chris Rock video - ergo the guy did something wrong that lead to a beating. That the police officers handled this correctly from the start is an assumption in itself. The only potentially "wrong" thing I saw him do was run away.

So, again - show me video, eyewitness testimony, additional reports, something. I want to know what happened one way or the other that lead up to how this all started.

What will you say if there is never any video, eyewitness testimony, anything, that supports the initial report of "reckless driving"?

---

This isn't about what the thread is about, or what others are saying, or what you think a Chris Rock comedy video is saying. I'm strictly addressing what YOU are saying on the matter and its flaw, as explained above.

You haven't gotten around these two main points: 1) Nichols was resisting arrest and fled. 2) If he had NOT resisted and fled, he would not have been beaten. That's all that's being said, and it's not wrong. To reiterate the flaw in your take, you believe Nichols' resisting arrest was justified due to the cops' unlawful, aggressive behavior which made him fear for his safety. But that is assuming you KNOW that the pull over was unlawful, and that the cops' behavior was unjustified, which you DON'T at this point.

If no evidence arises that supports the officers' reasons for the arrest, then I will be saying that no evidence supports their claims. Until then, we don't know. What I won't do is what you are doing now, even before we know it, and that is defaulting to a "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" position.

Wangchung said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Thee University said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Review the tape again. He complied, and they immediately started beating him.

---

That depends on your understanding of what complied means.

If I'm told to get down on the ground I'm going to bust my kneecaps doing it.

Hands behind my back? Yes sir!

Hands over my head & palms flat on the ground? Yes sir!

Face down? Yes sir!

The video clearly shows him rolling back up and talking back to the officers. He was NOT following orders.

The inability to understand common English in our country amazes me. The disrespect for law & order amazes me.

This would never have happened had this kid watched and followed Chris Rock's video.

---

Apparently you have not watched the tape

---

So he accurately described the tape through telepathy? He did not watch the tape

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

No, you're ignoring the fact he drew his knees up and refused to lay flat on his stomach. If he was complying from the start he never would have been able to get up and run away with no handcuffs on him. The lack of video of what preceded the stop is not evidence the cops are guilty any more than its absence is evidence of Tyre's guilt.

---

That's it? Flat on the stomach? He was on the ****ing ground surrounded by police officers. He had no weapons. He had made no threats, verbal or physical. Gee, I wonder if he might have been concerned about his personal safety with these guys. Nah, he shouldn't have to worry about that…

Show me why he was stopped. Show me why they were aggressive with him from the start when there is no physical threat visible in any way. They are the ones that murdered a man. The burden is on them. Perhaps they should not have turned off their body cameras and removed them.

But hey, Chris Rock!!! (Did I do that right?)

---

On the ground squirming and fighting arrest, knees draw up and twisting around to try and argue against his arrest. Doesn't matter if he was calmly stating that he was complying while he was arguing the arrest, because he wasn't complying. Again, no way he is able to get up and run without any handcuffed wrists if he had been complying with the arrest.

---

Now it's "squirming"? "Fighting arrest?" Did he punch, kick, hit, bite etc.? Why was he being arrested? Did they tell him?

---

Are punching, kicking, hitting and biting the only way a person can resist arrest? If he was cooperating, how was he able to eventually get up and run without being handcuffed?

---

Why was he being arrested? Did they tell him he was being arrested? Or did they just grab him? What exactly was he resisting if he wasn't informed that he was being arrested? Being shoved to the ground with a taser shoved into his leg? Why are they grabbing him? What was the threat? What was the probable cause?

Show me something, anything, that explains why this encounter began the way it did.

---

As we have discussed, repeatedly, we don't have that video of pre stop but that doesn't mean we get to make up whatever we want in its place. All we have is video of him being pulled from the vehicle, refusing to comply and eventually running, then being caught again and beaten to death. That's it. He DID struggle and refuse commands, which is proven by the fact he was able to get up and run and they hadn't gotten even one hand cuffed. That's not something that can happen if a suspect has been complying with commands.

---

The only person I have seen make up something is the police officer that lied and said he heard his partner claim Tyree was grabbing his gun.

What lawful command do you say he refused? Was he lawfully told why he was being pulled over? Was he lawfully told he was being put under arrest?

Did he attempt to run away from being placed under arrest or did he attempt to run away from a beating without cause?

Was he complying when he got pulled out of the car? Was he complying when he went to his knees? Was he complying when he went all the way down to the ground? If he did not comply with commands to roll onto his stomach, was he being lawfully detained and arrested or was was he refusing to comply with commands to get a beating without cause?

You say he was a suspect. What was he suspected of doing?

The problem with this is that it seems to assume everything the officers did was legal up to the point that he ran away. That they had cause to physically grab him and detain him in the manner that they did. Without video evidence that is just as much making up what happened as anything else. I'm sorry if I'm not inclined at the moment to give these 5 officers the benefit of the doubt without further evidence.

---

I notice you've yet again failed to acknowledge that one cannot both comply with police commands and at the same time never get handcuffed until after one gets up and starts running away and later is caught again. You say an entire police department and some EMTs conspired to kill the guy and then followed through.

I say the guy most likely broke the law, ran from cops or drove dangerously and then struggled with police once he was apprehended, played innocent while not complying, jumped up and ran again completely uncuffed thanks to his previous struggling with police, and was murdered by the pissed off police when they caught him a second time. But hey, maybe you're right and an entire police department pulled off a murder of a random black man because racism or cop privilege or something.

---

The list is long of things you have not acknowledged and questions you have avoided. I have not said anything about any conspiracy. I have said I have seen no reason for the police to begin or carry through the encounter in the manner they did.

Now who is making up scenarios? I have not made one statement about what I think happened because I honestly don't know. I honestly don't know why these officers acted the way they did. Have you ever seen anything like this ever within your lifetime? I have never seen anything like it.

I still agree that would be the most likely scenario and would normally give police the benefit of the doubt. But there is absolutely nothing I have seen to make me give them the benefit of the doubt. I don't look at what happened to that guy and think, "Should have watched Chris Rock." I think, "What in God's name were those officers doing and why were they doing it?"

---

Yes, I stopped addressing questions when mine were ignored and if they had already been answered. "He complied so why..." is a flawed premise. But like you said, you and I agree here. The only part where we disagree is I believe "Should have watched Chris Rock." AND, "What in God's name were those officers doing and why were they doing it?" can be true at the same time. There is no justification for the police beating this man to death.

---

Can be, yes.

What I say is depending on what led to the officer's handling of the situation, those may not have been legal/lawful/moral whatever commands and that man was not trying to evade arrest because they weren't trying to lawfully arrest him. He was just trying to not get beat.

---

I think all that's being said here is that 1) did he or did he not resist arrest (it appears he did) and 2) if he had not resisted arrest he would not have been beaten to death. That's all. No one is exonerating the cops for what they did in response to him resisting.

If you acknowledge that the lead up to the arrest is pivotal in determining whether or not the police's demeanor towards him was justified/understandable, why are you being so committal when that is still an unknown?

---

I think what seems to be implied here is that the police officers did nothing wrong up until when they beat him to death. Based on the Police Chief's statement that there is no video evidence to support the claim of reckless driving (despite how many officers present?), the police officer lying about the victim grabbing a gun, and the follow-up behavior by the police officers (turning off body cameras or removing them entirely, beating a man to death, taking pictures of his body and sending it to other people) I'm not going to give them the benefit of the doubt at the moment.

So show me what happened. That's what I'm asking for. What did the police officers observe that led them to begin the interaction in the way they did?

What I see on this thread is commitment to a Chris Rock video that never shows police officers starting an incident the way those police officers did. I see posters who seem to be certain in saying, "If he just would have done this he would have been fine." and I don't know if that's true.

Would he he still be alive if he had not run away? Maybe. But you know what that sounds like to me? "If she wouldn't have resisted me raping her, I wouldn't have had to kill her."

So yes, I want to know why they pulled him over and what led to a violent interaction with guns drawn before he ever set foot out of the car and I want to know if they handled this lawfully from the get go because I have seen little to support that claim.

---

You admit ignorance regarding what led up to the pull over, yet you are committed to the cops' guilt regarding their pullover being unlawful based on speculation. You are free to do that, but in that same vein, so are others in speculating that the pull over was lawful, and that all Nichols had to do was not resist, and he would not have been beaten to death. If you are going to say that he would have still been beaten if he complied, well, that's even more speculation, and pointless at that. And comparing the initial pull over to rape is just ludicrous, especially considering you admit that the cops' behavior during the pull over might be justified depending on the situation leading up to the arrest.

---

No, I have said "show me"...repeatedly. I have said, "Tell me what they saw". I have said their subsequent actions cause me to not give them the benefit of the doubt that I would give to the 99% of other LEO's so I would like to see proof one way or the other. Can you do either of those things?

We are all speculating. Because there is reportedly no video evidence available from several of the police officers who are required to activate their body cameras at every encounter. I don't know if he would have been beaten or not, and neither does the dead man. Who was beaten to death. I guess we will have to wait and hear it from the police officers. Who have already lied in their reports.

If you want to believe that the stop was all fine and kosher, that the man clearly presented himself to be dangerous enough to necessitate the response from the officers, ok. Just don't expect everyone else to automatically buy that at face value after what played out and without, so far, any corroborating evidence.

We don't know what the nature of the initial pull over was. No video from that yet either. I do know the first words I heard were the cops threaten to "blow his ass the **** off."

So I have already stated, repeatedly, that if we get evidence that the man was driving recklessly and could have killed someone in the process that I will say, "Well, looks like he is part of the 99% of victims out there that did something grievous and that started all of this in the first place. If only he had listened."

What will others on this board say if there is never any video, eyewitness testimony, anything, that supports the initial report of "reckless driving"?

---

No, your whole stance was that Nichols was understandably, maybe even justified, in resisting arrest, because he had no idea why the cops were treating him the way they were, and so he "feared for his own safety". But if the lead up to the arrest justified the cops' behavior, then Nichols is NOT justified in resisting arrest, nor does he have the right to claim that he "feared for his own safety" because he darn well would have known why they were treating him that way. So you can't be definitive in exonerating Nichols' attempt to fight and run away without knowing what led up to it. But you were. That's all that's being said.

---

Disagree. This entire thread has been based on the Chris Rock video - ergo the guy did something wrong that lead to a beating. That the police officers handled this correctly from the start is an assumption in itself. The only potentially "wrong" thing I saw him do was run away.

So, again - show me video, eyewitness testimony, additional reports, something. I want to know what happened one way or the other that lead up to how this all started.

What will you say if there is never any video, eyewitness testimony, anything, that supports the initial report of "reckless driving"?

---

This isn't about what the thread is about, or what others are saying, or what you think a Chris Rock comedy video is saying. I'm strictly addressing what YOU are saying on the matter and its flaw, as explained above.

You haven't gotten around these two main points: 1) Nichols was resisting arrest and fled. 2) If he had NOT resisted and fled, he would not have been beaten. That's all that's being said, and it's not wrong. To reiterate the flaw in your take, you believe Nichols' resisting arrest was justified due to the cops' unlawful, aggressive behavior which made him fear for his safety. But that is assuming you KNOW that the pull over was unlawful, and that the cops' behavior was unjustified, which you DON'T at this point.

If no evidence arises that supports the officers' reasons for the arrest, then I will be saying that no evidence supports their claims. Until then, we don't know. What I won't do is what you are doing now, even before we know it, and that is defaulting to a "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" position.

---

Let me preface responding to your two main points with my opinion that if the police officers did not have proper cause to act as aggressively as they did in the first place, the beating effectively began the moment they pulled him from the car. My responses below include added words in parentheses that go along with that scenario.

1) I agree Nichols resisted and fled. Did he resist and flee from being arrested or from getting a (further) beating? There can be a difference. In his mind was worried that he was going to get arrested or was he just worried that he was going to get beat up?

2) Your statement is an opinion. If he had not resisted and fled, he might not have been beaten (further). You could even add "probably would not have" in there if you want. Your opinion could be right. Here is another opinion that could be right - If the officers had not acted as aggressively as they did towards someone that did not display any threatening behavior at all, he would not have resisted and fled. Is that opinion right? Maybe. Knowing what happened prior to the only video we have so far might help with theorizing on that one.

Like many of you, I agree that 99% of police interactions are handled from the start in a professional manner. You are correct that I stated as of right now I look at this as being part of the 1% and that might not be the best view to have. This one seems to scream BAD and obviously the police actions after he fled do color that perception somewhat.

So I will go with I don't know if the police handled this OK from the start or if they completely ****ed this up from the start. With most other incidents like this if I had to choose, I would always default to the police. This time I can't do that.

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

No, you're ignoring the fact he drew his knees up and refused to lay flat on his stomach. If he was complying from the start he never would have been able to get up and run away with no handcuffs on him. The lack of video of what preceded the stop is not evidence the cops are guilty any more than its absence is evidence of Tyre's guilt.

---

That's it? Flat on the stomach? He was on the ****ing ground surrounded by police officers. He had no weapons. He had made no threats, verbal or physical. Gee, I wonder if he might have been concerned about his personal safety with these guys. Nah, he shouldn't have to worry about that%85

Show me why he was stopped. Show me why they were aggressive with him from the start when there is no physical threat visible in any way. They are the ones that murdered a man. The burden is on them. Perhaps they should not have turned off their body cameras and removed them.

But hey, Chris Rock!!! (Did I do that right?)

---

On the ground squirming and fighting arrest, knees draw up and twisting around to try and argue against his arrest. Doesn't matter if he was calmly stating that he was complying while he was arguing the arrest, because he wasn't complying. Again, no way he is able to get up and run without any handcuffed wrists if he had been complying with the arrest.

---

Now it's "squirming"? "Fighting arrest?" Did he punch, kick, hit, bite etc.? Why was he being arrested? Did they tell him?

---

Are punching, kicking, hitting and biting the only way a person can resist arrest? If he was cooperating, how was he able to eventually get up and run without being handcuffed?

---

Why was he being arrested? Did they tell him he was being arrested? Or did they just grab him? What exactly was he resisting if he wasn't informed that he was being arrested? Being shoved to the ground with a taser shoved into his leg? Why are they grabbing him? What was the threat? What was the probable cause?

Show me something, anything, that explains why this encounter began the way it did.

---

As we have discussed, repeatedly, we don't have that video of pre stop but that doesn't mean we get to make up whatever we want in its place. All we have is video of him being pulled from the vehicle, refusing to comply and eventually running, then being caught again and beaten to death. That's it. He DID struggle and refuse commands, which is proven by the fact he was able to get up and run and they hadn't gotten even one hand cuffed. That's not something that can happen if a suspect has been complying with commands.

---

The only person I have seen make up something is the police officer that lied and said he heard his partner claim Tyree was grabbing his gun.

What lawful command do you say he refused? Was he lawfully told why he was being pulled over? Was he lawfully told he was being put under arrest?

Did he attempt to run away from being placed under arrest or did he attempt to run away from a beating without cause?

Was he complying when he got pulled out of the car? Was he complying when he went to his knees? Was he complying when he went all the way down to the ground? If he did not comply with commands to roll onto his stomach, was he being lawfully detained and arrested or was was he refusing to comply with commands to get a beating without cause?

You say he was a suspect. What was he suspected of doing?

The problem with this is that it seems to assume everything the officers did was legal up to the point that he ran away. That they had cause to physically grab him and detain him in the manner that they did. Without video evidence that is just as much making up what happened as anything else. I'm sorry if I'm not inclined at the moment to give these 5 officers the benefit of the doubt without further evidence.

---

I notice you've yet again failed to acknowledge that one cannot both comply with police commands and at the same time never get handcuffed until after one gets up and starts running away and later is caught again. You say an entire police department and some EMTs conspired to kill the guy and then followed through.

I say the guy most likely broke the law, ran from cops or drove dangerously and then struggled with police once he was apprehended, played innocent while not complying, jumped up and ran again completely uncuffed thanks to his previous struggling with police, and was murdered by the pissed off police when they caught him a second time. But hey, maybe you're right and an entire police department pulled off a murder of a random black man because racism or cop privilege or something.

---

The list is long of things you have not acknowledged and questions you have avoided. I have not said anything about any conspiracy. I have said I have seen no reason for the police to begin or carry through the encounter in the manner they did.

Now who is making up scenarios? I have not made one statement about what I think happened because I honestly don't know. I honestly don't know why these officers acted the way they did. Have you ever seen anything like this ever within your lifetime? I have never seen anything like it.

I still agree that would be the most likely scenario and would normally give police the benefit of the doubt. But there is absolutely nothing I have seen to make me give them the benefit of the doubt. I don't look at what happened to that guy and think, "Should have watched Chris Rock." I think, "What in God's name were those officers doing and why were they doing it?"

---

Yes, I stopped addressing questions when mine were ignored and if they had already been answered. "He complied so why..." is a flawed premise. But like you said, you and I agree here. The only part where we disagree is I believe "Should have watched Chris Rock." AND, "What in God's name were those officers doing and why were they doing it?" can be true at the same time. There is no justification for the police beating this man to death.

---

Can be, yes.

What I say is depending on what led to the officer's handling of the situation, those may not have been legal/lawful/moral whatever commands and that man was not trying to evade arrest because they weren't trying to lawfully arrest him. He was just trying to not get beat.

---

I think all that's being said here is that 1) did he or did he not resist arrest (it appears he did) and 2) if he had not resisted arrest he would not have been beaten to death. That's all. No one is exonerating the cops for what they did in response to him resisting.

If you acknowledge that the lead up to the arrest is pivotal in determining whether or not the police's demeanor towards him was justified/understandable, why are you being so committal when that is still an unknown?

---

I think what seems to be implied here is that the police officers did nothing wrong up until when they beat him to death. Based on the Police Chief's statement that there is no video evidence to support the claim of reckless driving (despite how many officers present?), the police officer lying about the victim grabbing a gun, and the follow-up behavior by the police officers (turning off body cameras or removing them entirely, beating a man to death, taking pictures of his body and sending it to other people) I'm not going to give them the benefit of the doubt at the moment.

So show me what happened. That's what I'm asking for. What did the police officers observe that led them to begin the interaction in the way they did?

What I see on this thread is commitment to a Chris Rock video that never shows police officers starting an incident the way those police officers did. I see posters who seem to be certain in saying, "If he just would have done this he would have been fine." and I don't know if that's true.

Would he he still be alive if he had not run away? Maybe. But you know what that sounds like to me? "If she wouldn't have resisted me raping her, I wouldn't have had to kill her."

So yes, I want to know why they pulled him over and what led to a violent interaction with guns drawn before he ever set foot out of the car and I want to know if they handled this lawfully from the get go because I have seen little to support that claim.

---

You admit ignorance regarding what led up to the pull over, yet you are committed to the cops' guilt regarding their pullover being unlawful based on speculation. You are free to do that, but in that same vein, so are others in speculating that the pull over was lawful, and that all Nichols had to do was not resist, and he would not have been beaten to death. If you are going to say that he would have still been beaten if he complied, well, that's even more speculation, and pointless at that. And comparing the initial pull over to rape is just ludicrous, especially considering you admit that the cops' behavior during the pull over might be justified depending on the situation leading up to the arrest.

---

No, I have said "show me"...repeatedly. I have said, "Tell me what they saw". I have said their subsequent actions cause me to not give them the benefit of the doubt that I would give to the 99% of other LEO's so I would like to see proof one way or the other. Can you do either of those things?

We are all speculating. Because there is reportedly no video evidence available from several of the police officers who are required to activate their body cameras at every encounter. I don't know if he would have been beaten or not, and neither does the dead man. Who was beaten to death. I guess we will have to wait and hear it from the police officers. Who have already lied in their reports.

If you want to believe that the stop was all fine and kosher, that the man clearly presented himself to be dangerous enough to necessitate the response from the officers, ok. Just don't expect everyone else to automatically buy that at face value after what played out and without, so far, any corroborating evidence.

We don't know what the nature of the initial pull over was. No video from that yet either. I do know the first words I heard were the cops threaten to "blow his ass the **** off."

So I have already stated, repeatedly, that if we get evidence that the man was driving recklessly and could have killed someone in the process that I will say, "Well, looks like he is part of the 99% of victims out there that did something grievous and that started all of this in the first place. If only he had listened."

What will others on this board say if there is never any video, eyewitness testimony, anything, that supports the initial report of "reckless driving"?

---

No, your whole stance was that Nichols was understandably, maybe even justified, in resisting arrest, because he had no idea why the cops were treating him the way they were, and so he "feared for his own safety". But if the lead up to the arrest justified the cops' behavior, then Nichols is NOT justified in resisting arrest, nor does he have the right to claim that he "feared for his own safety" because he darn well would have known why they were treating him that way. So you can't be definitive in exonerating Nichols' attempt to fight and run away without knowing what led up to it. But you were. That's all that's being said.

---

Disagree. This entire thread has been based on the Chris Rock video - ergo the guy did something wrong that lead to a beating. That the police officers handled this correctly from the start is an assumption in itself. The only potentially "wrong" thing I saw him do was run away.

So, again - show me video, eyewitness testimony, additional reports, something. I want to know what happened one way or the other that lead up to how this all started.

What will you say if there is never any video, eyewitness testimony, anything, that supports the initial report of "reckless driving"?

---

This isn't about what the thread is about, or what others are saying, or what you think a Chris Rock comedy video is saying. I'm strictly addressing what YOU are saying on the matter and its flaw, as explained above.

You haven't gotten around these two main points: 1) Nichols was resisting arrest and fled. 2) If he had NOT resisted and fled, he would not have been beaten. That's all that's being said, and it's not wrong. To reiterate the flaw in your take, you believe Nichols' resisting arrest was justified due to the cops' unlawful, aggressive behavior which made him fear for his safety. But that is assuming you KNOW that the pull over was unlawful, and that the cops' behavior was unjustified, which you DON'T at this point.

If no evidence arises that supports the officers' reasons for the arrest, then I will be saying that no evidence supports their claims. Until then, we don't know. What I won't do is what you are doing now, even before we know it, and that is defaulting to a "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" position.

---

Let me preface responding to your two main points with my opinion that if the police officers did not have proper cause to act as aggressively as they did in the first place, the beating effectively began the moment they pulled him from the car. My responses below include added words in parentheses that go along with that scenario.

1) I agree Nichols resisted and fled. Did he resist and flee from being arrested or from getting a (further) beating? There can be a difference. In his mind was worried that he was going to get arrested or was he just worried that he was going to get beat up?

2) Your statement is an opinion. If he had not resisted and fled, he might not have been beaten (further). You could even add "probably would not have" in there if you want. Your opinion could be right. Here is another opinion that could be right - If the officers had not acted as aggressively as they did towards someone that did not display any threatening behavior at all, he would not have resisted and fled. Is that opinion right? Maybe. Knowing what happened prior to the only video we have so far might help with theorizing on that one.

Like many of you, I agree that 99% of police interactions are handled from the start in a professional manner. You are correct that I stated as of right now I look at this as being part of the 1% and that might not be the best view to have. This one seems to scream BAD and obviously the police actions after he fled do color that perception somewhat.

So I will go with I don't know if the police handled this OK from the start or if they completely ****ed this up from the start. With most other incidents like this if I had to choose, I would always default to the police. This time I can't do that.

---

A reasonable take. Earlier you seemed committed to the officers' being unjustified for their handling of Nichols at the start, and to Nichols being justified for resisting. You seem to have backed off from that.

Suspects generally do have a limited right to resist excessive force. We also know from the written police report what they claim Nichols was doing before the stop, i.e. driving on the wrong side of the road. That doesn't justify the amount of force used initially, much less a fatal beating. Deadly force can only be used when the suspect poses a threat of death or serious bodily injury.

The cops could help themselves if they came up with video of Nichols driving on the sidewalk and running over pedestrians. Failing that, their dumb asses are going to prison and rightly so.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Suspects generally do have a limited right to resist excessive force. We also know from the written police report what they claim Nichols was doing before the stop, i.e. driving on the wrong side of the road. That doesn't justify the amount of force used initially, much less a fatal beating. Deadly force can only be used when the suspect poses a threat of death or serious bodily injury.

The cops could help themselves if they came up with video of Nichols driving on the sidewalk and running over pedestrians. Failing that, their dumb asses are going to prison and rightly so.

---

So was his initial resisting arrest and running away justified?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Suspects generally do have a limited right to resist excessive force. We also know from the written police report what they claim Nichols was doing before the stop, i.e. driving on the wrong side of the road. That doesn't justify the amount of force used initially, much less a fatal beating. Deadly force can only be used when the suspect poses a threat of death or serious bodily injury.

The cops could help themselves if they came up with video of Nichols driving on the sidewalk and running over pedestrians. Failing that, their dumb asses are going to prison and rightly so.

---

So was his initial resisting arrest and running away justified?

---

I don't know that he was resisting initially. He was pulled from the car before you see anything else happen. At least by the time he ran, I would say it was justified.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Suspects generally do have a limited right to resist excessive force. We also know from the written police report what they claim Nichols was doing before the stop, i.e. driving on the wrong side of the road. That doesn't justify the amount of force used initially, much less a fatal beating. Deadly force can only be used when the suspect poses a threat of death or serious bodily injury.

The cops could help themselves if they came up with video of Nichols driving on the sidewalk and running over pedestrians. Failing that, their dumb asses are going to prison and rightly so.

---

So was his initial resisting arrest and running away justified?

---

I don't know that he was resisting initially. He was pulled from the car before you see anything else happen. At least by the time he ran, I would say it was justified.

---

The key phrase here is "before you see anything else happen" - that's what we've been discussing. It's hard to judge the cops pulling him out of the car either way without seeing what happened before. Could he have been non-compliant with the order to step out?

After that, clearly he resisted. I'll go with what Wangchung has been saying - if he wasn't resisting, how did he run away uncuffed, when that's what the cops were trying to do?

Exactly what did the cops do that makes you think that up until the point he ran away, that resistance was justified?