I saw no real effort to handcuff him. It seemed that either they weren't really trying or they had no idea how to go about it. They were just beating him up and shouting a lot of confusing, incoherent "commands." Even with the benefit of hindsight it's hard to tell what they were doing or what they wanted.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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?Sam Lowry said: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.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:So was his initial resisting arrest and running away justified?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.
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?
Who Would You Rather Take A Beating From?
5,260 Views |
101 Replies |
Last: 1 yr ago by BusyTarpDuster2017
I do agree that the arrest appeared disorganized and sloppy. But there were clear orders for him to lie on his stomach - he would not, and he was resisting attempts by the officers to position him that way. There was clearly an effort to grab his hands to cuff him, which was made difficult partly because he would not lie down. There was no clear video of them "beating him up" during the initial stop, up until he struggles to get away, and at that point the camera is too shaky to make out anything. Your viewing of the video seems to be incorrect.Sam Lowry said:I saw no real effort to handcuff him. It seemed that either they weren't really trying or they had no idea how to go about it. They were just beating him up and shouting a lot of confusing, incoherent "commands." Even with the benefit of hindsight it's hard to tell what they were doing or what they wanted.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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?Sam Lowry said: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.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:So was his initial resisting arrest and running away justified?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.
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?
That's an opinion.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:I do agree that the arrest appeared disorganized and sloppy. But there were clear orders for him to lie on his stomach - he would not, and he was resisting attempts by the officers to position him that way. There was clearly an effort to grab his hands to cuff him, which was made difficult partly because he would not lie down. There was no clear video of them "beating him up" during the initial stop, up until he struggles to get away, and at that point the camera is too shaky to make out anything. Your viewing of the video seems to be incorrect.Sam Lowry said:I saw no real effort to handcuff him. It seemed that either they weren't really trying or they had no idea how to go about it. They were just beating him up and shouting a lot of confusing, incoherent "commands." Even with the benefit of hindsight it's hard to tell what they were doing or what they wanted.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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?Sam Lowry said: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.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:So was his initial resisting arrest and running away justified?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.
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?
The "clear order" to lie on his stomach was one of many being yelled as they were on top him of him, wrenching his arm behind his back, and shoving a taser in his leg. I bet it's a lot clearer through your computer speakers from the comfort of your home as opposed to being the person shoved onto the pavement.
You say there was clearly an effort to grab his hands to cuff him. That's an opinion. I heard them threaten to break his arm off. I did not hear them say, "You are under arrest" nor did I see any handcuffs.
They were trying to get him to lie on his stomach, and pulled his hands behind his back - but none of that was to cuff him because you didn't see handcuffs in a single body cam video, or hear someone say "you're under arrest"? Come on, dude.90sBear said:That's an opinion.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:I do agree that the arrest appeared disorganized and sloppy. But there were clear orders for him to lie on his stomach - he would not, and he was resisting attempts by the officers to position him that way. There was clearly an effort to grab his hands to cuff him, which was made difficult partly because he would not lie down. There was no clear video of them "beating him up" during the initial stop, up until he struggles to get away, and at that point the camera is too shaky to make out anything. Your viewing of the video seems to be incorrect.Sam Lowry said:I saw no real effort to handcuff him. It seemed that either they weren't really trying or they had no idea how to go about it. They were just beating him up and shouting a lot of confusing, incoherent "commands." Even with the benefit of hindsight it's hard to tell what they were doing or what they wanted.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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?Sam Lowry said: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.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:So was his initial resisting arrest and running away justified?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.
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?
The "clear order" to lie on his stomach was one of many being yelled as they were on top him of him, wrenching his arm behind his back, and shoving a taser in his leg. I bet it's a lot clearer through your computer speakers from the comfort of your home as opposed to being the person shoved onto the pavement.
You say there was clearly an effort to grab his hands to cuff him. That's an opinion. I heard them threaten to break his arm off. I did not hear them say, "You are under arrest" nor did I see any handcuffs.
Did you see them "beat him up" during the initial stop?
That's the job. Perhaps these officers did not handle this encounter in the best most professional manner.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:They were trying to get him to lie on his stomach, and pulled his hands behind his back - but none of that was to cuff him because you didn't see handcuffs, or hear someone say "you're under arrest"? Come on, dude.90sBear said:That's an opinion.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:I do agree that the arrest appeared disorganized and sloppy. But there were clear orders for him to lie on his stomach - he would not, and he was resisting attempts by the officers to position him that way. There was clearly an effort to grab his hands to cuff him, which was made difficult partly because he would not lie down. There was no clear video of them "beating him up" during the initial stop, up until he struggles to get away, and at that point the camera is too shaky to make out anything. Your viewing of the video seems to be incorrect.Sam Lowry said:I saw no real effort to handcuff him. It seemed that either they weren't really trying or they had no idea how to go about it. They were just beating him up and shouting a lot of confusing, incoherent "commands." Even with the benefit of hindsight it's hard to tell what they were doing or what they wanted.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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?Sam Lowry said: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.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:So was his initial resisting arrest and running away justified?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.
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?
The "clear order" to lie on his stomach was one of many being yelled as they were on top him of him, wrenching his arm behind his back, and shoving a taser in his leg. I bet it's a lot clearer through your computer speakers from the comfort of your home as opposed to being the person shoved onto the pavement.
You say there was clearly an effort to grab his hands to cuff him. That's an opinion. I heard them threaten to break his arm off. I did not hear them say, "You are under arrest" nor did I see any handcuffs.
It's the job to make sure handcuffs are out and readily visible to the bodycam, even before the suspect is in proper position to place them, due to his resisting? It's the job to make sure "you're under arrest" heard on bodycam during the arrest, and not after the suspect is fully detained and under control, like what usually happens?90sBear said:That's the job. Perhaps these officers did not handle this encounter in the best most professional manner.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:They were trying to get him to lie on his stomach, and pulled his hands behind his back - but none of that was to cuff him because you didn't see handcuffs, or hear someone say "you're under arrest"? Come on, dude.90sBear said:That's an opinion.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:I do agree that the arrest appeared disorganized and sloppy. But there were clear orders for him to lie on his stomach - he would not, and he was resisting attempts by the officers to position him that way. There was clearly an effort to grab his hands to cuff him, which was made difficult partly because he would not lie down. There was no clear video of them "beating him up" during the initial stop, up until he struggles to get away, and at that point the camera is too shaky to make out anything. Your viewing of the video seems to be incorrect.Sam Lowry said:I saw no real effort to handcuff him. It seemed that either they weren't really trying or they had no idea how to go about it. They were just beating him up and shouting a lot of confusing, incoherent "commands." Even with the benefit of hindsight it's hard to tell what they were doing or what they wanted.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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?Sam Lowry said: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.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:So was his initial resisting arrest and running away justified?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.
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?
The "clear order" to lie on his stomach was one of many being yelled as they were on top him of him, wrenching his arm behind his back, and shoving a taser in his leg. I bet it's a lot clearer through your computer speakers from the comfort of your home as opposed to being the person shoved onto the pavement.
You say there was clearly an effort to grab his hands to cuff him. That's an opinion. I heard them threaten to break his arm off. I did not hear them say, "You are under arrest" nor did I see any handcuffs.
It was the job of every officer to activate their body cameras from the beginning of the encounter. Many chose not to. It went downhill from there.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:It's the job to make sure handcuffs are out and readily visible to the bodycam, even before the suspect is in proper position to place them, due to his resisting? It's the job to make sure "you're under arrest" heard on bodycam during the arrest, and not after the suspect is fully detained and under control, like what usually happens?90sBear said:That's the job. Perhaps these officers did not handle this encounter in the best most professional manner.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:They were trying to get him to lie on his stomach, and pulled his hands behind his back - but none of that was to cuff him because you didn't see handcuffs, or hear someone say "you're under arrest"? Come on, dude.90sBear said:That's an opinion.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:I do agree that the arrest appeared disorganized and sloppy. But there were clear orders for him to lie on his stomach - he would not, and he was resisting attempts by the officers to position him that way. There was clearly an effort to grab his hands to cuff him, which was made difficult partly because he would not lie down. There was no clear video of them "beating him up" during the initial stop, up until he struggles to get away, and at that point the camera is too shaky to make out anything. Your viewing of the video seems to be incorrect.Sam Lowry said:I saw no real effort to handcuff him. It seemed that either they weren't really trying or they had no idea how to go about it. They were just beating him up and shouting a lot of confusing, incoherent "commands." Even with the benefit of hindsight it's hard to tell what they were doing or what they wanted.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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?Sam Lowry said: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.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:So was his initial resisting arrest and running away justified?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.
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?
The "clear order" to lie on his stomach was one of many being yelled as they were on top him of him, wrenching his arm behind his back, and shoving a taser in his leg. I bet it's a lot clearer through your computer speakers from the comfort of your home as opposed to being the person shoved onto the pavement.
You say there was clearly an effort to grab his hands to cuff him. That's an opinion. I heard them threaten to break his arm off. I did not hear them say, "You are under arrest" nor did I see any handcuffs.
Little about this encounter screams "what usually happens."
That's not what I asked. Your diversion from the point will be taken as concession.90sBear said:It was the job of every officer to activate their body cameras from the beginning of the encounter. Many chose not to. It went downhill from there.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:It's the job to make sure handcuffs are out and readily visible to the bodycam, even before the suspect is in proper position to place them, due to his resisting? It's the job to make sure "you're under arrest" heard on bodycam during the arrest, and not after the suspect is fully detained and under control, like what usually happens?90sBear said:That's the job. Perhaps these officers did not handle this encounter in the best most professional manner.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:They were trying to get him to lie on his stomach, and pulled his hands behind his back - but none of that was to cuff him because you didn't see handcuffs, or hear someone say "you're under arrest"? Come on, dude.90sBear said:That's an opinion.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:I do agree that the arrest appeared disorganized and sloppy. But there were clear orders for him to lie on his stomach - he would not, and he was resisting attempts by the officers to position him that way. There was clearly an effort to grab his hands to cuff him, which was made difficult partly because he would not lie down. There was no clear video of them "beating him up" during the initial stop, up until he struggles to get away, and at that point the camera is too shaky to make out anything. Your viewing of the video seems to be incorrect.Sam Lowry said:I saw no real effort to handcuff him. It seemed that either they weren't really trying or they had no idea how to go about it. They were just beating him up and shouting a lot of confusing, incoherent "commands." Even with the benefit of hindsight it's hard to tell what they were doing or what they wanted.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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?Sam Lowry said: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.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:So was his initial resisting arrest and running away justified?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.
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?
The "clear order" to lie on his stomach was one of many being yelled as they were on top him of him, wrenching his arm behind his back, and shoving a taser in his leg. I bet it's a lot clearer through your computer speakers from the comfort of your home as opposed to being the person shoved onto the pavement.
You say there was clearly an effort to grab his hands to cuff him. That's an opinion. I heard them threaten to break his arm off. I did not hear them say, "You are under arrest" nor did I see any handcuffs.
Little about this encounter screams "what usually happens."
And I agree that little about this is what usually happens. Nichols' resisting arrest included.
They told him to lie down when he was already lying down. Then they told him to lie on his stomach when they were holding him on his side with his arm behind him. The orders were nonsensical and impossible to fully obey.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:I do agree that the arrest appeared disorganized and sloppy. But there were clear orders for him to lie on his stomach - he would not, and he was resisting attempts by the officers to position him that way. There was clearly an effort to grab his hands to cuff him, which was made difficult partly because he would not lie down. There was no clear video of them "beating him up" during the initial stop, up until he struggles to get away, and at that point the camera is too shaky to make out anything. Your viewing of the video seems to be incorrect.Sam Lowry said:I saw no real effort to handcuff him. It seemed that either they weren't really trying or they had no idea how to go about it. They were just beating him up and shouting a lot of confusing, incoherent "commands." Even with the benefit of hindsight it's hard to tell what they were doing or what they wanted.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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?Sam Lowry said: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.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:So was his initial resisting arrest and running away justified?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.
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?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:I do agree that the arrest appeared disorganized and sloppy. But there were clear orders for him to lie on his stomach - he would not, and he was resisting attempts by the officers to position him that way. There was clearly an effort to grab his hands to cuff him, which was made difficult partly because he would not lie down. There was no clear video of them "beating him up" during the initial stop, up until he struggles to get away, and at that point the camera is too shaky to make out anything. Your viewing of the video seems to be incorrect.Sam Lowry said:I saw no real effort to handcuff him. It seemed that either they weren't really trying or they had no idea how to go about it. They were just beating him up and shouting a lot of confusing, incoherent "commands." Even with the benefit of hindsight it's hard to tell what they were doing or what they wanted.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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?Sam Lowry said: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.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:So was his initial resisting arrest and running away justified?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.
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?
The cops gave him 71 orders, many of them contradictory, in 13 minutes. How does one "comply" with that?
You have not answered many questions I have asked. Were you conceding all of those points? I'm not viewing this as a debate competition, so, sorry if you are.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:That's not what I asked. Your diversion from the point will be taken as concession.90sBear said:It was the job of every officer to activate their body cameras from the beginning of the encounter. Many chose not to. It went downhill from there.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:It's the job to make sure handcuffs are out and readily visible to the bodycam, even before the suspect is in proper position to place them, due to his resisting? It's the job to make sure "you're under arrest" heard on bodycam during the arrest, and not after the suspect is fully detained and under control, like what usually happens?90sBear said:That's the job. Perhaps these officers did not handle this encounter in the best most professional manner.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:They were trying to get him to lie on his stomach, and pulled his hands behind his back - but none of that was to cuff him because you didn't see handcuffs, or hear someone say "you're under arrest"? Come on, dude.90sBear said:That's an opinion.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:I do agree that the arrest appeared disorganized and sloppy. But there were clear orders for him to lie on his stomach - he would not, and he was resisting attempts by the officers to position him that way. There was clearly an effort to grab his hands to cuff him, which was made difficult partly because he would not lie down. There was no clear video of them "beating him up" during the initial stop, up until he struggles to get away, and at that point the camera is too shaky to make out anything. Your viewing of the video seems to be incorrect.Sam Lowry said:I saw no real effort to handcuff him. It seemed that either they weren't really trying or they had no idea how to go about it. They were just beating him up and shouting a lot of confusing, incoherent "commands." Even with the benefit of hindsight it's hard to tell what they were doing or what they wanted.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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?Sam Lowry said: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.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:So was his initial resisting arrest and running away justified?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.
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?
The "clear order" to lie on his stomach was one of many being yelled as they were on top him of him, wrenching his arm behind his back, and shoving a taser in his leg. I bet it's a lot clearer through your computer speakers from the comfort of your home as opposed to being the person shoved onto the pavement.
You say there was clearly an effort to grab his hands to cuff him. That's an opinion. I heard them threaten to break his arm off. I did not hear them say, "You are under arrest" nor did I see any handcuffs.
Little about this encounter screams "what usually happens."
And I agree that little about this is what usually happens. Nichols' resisting arrest included.
You stated it was clear that they were attempting to handcuff and arrest him. I saw no handcuffs and I did not hear anyone utter the word "arrest" amidst all the other conflicting commands they were yelling at him at the same time. So exactly how clear that was seems pretty subjective to me.
It is the job of every police officer to handle every encounter as professionally as possible.
Is it their job to activate their body cameras at the start of all encounters and keep them on?
Is it their job to threaten to blow the suspects ass off?
Is it their job to pull a suspect from their vehicle?
Is it their job to shove a suspect into the pavement?
Is it their job to shove their arm behind their back?
Is it their job to threaten to break their arm?
Is it their job to shove a taser into their leg?
Is it their job to communicate clearly?
Is it their job to inform someone that they are being placed under arrest?
Is it their job to attempt to limit physical harm to a suspect?
The answers to all of these questions include a mix of "Yes", "No", and "Sometimes." Some we know they did not do properly, others we don't because we lack additional information.
Everyone knows that everyone cuts corners or doesn't do everything exactly by the book in their professional life. Sometimes it's because the rules just don't fit the exact situation and sometimes it's because they just did a crappy job that time. But we all know that we take the risk of being left without a chair when the music stops if something goes wrong. Well, the music stopped and something went wrong - big time.
My guess is every law enforcement agency and academy is watching every second of that video and trying to find every instance of when this whole thing could have been avoided or gone in a different direction. And yes, it's a whole lot easier to do so from your desk as opposed to being one of those officers in the moment, but that's the job.
I would really like to listen in on an inside law enforcement discussion of that video. I'm curious how many points along the way there are that are pointed at and said, "Had they not done it this way, there's a good chance things would have ended better."
So....he should fight the cops and run away? You said it was justified. I'm just not hearing the part where you explain why. Were they "beating him up" like you said?Sam Lowry said:They told him to lie down when he was already lying down. Then they told him to lie on his stomach when they were holding him on his side with his arm behind him. The orders were nonsensical and impossible to fully obey.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:I do agree that the arrest appeared disorganized and sloppy. But there were clear orders for him to lie on his stomach - he would not, and he was resisting attempts by the officers to position him that way. There was clearly an effort to grab his hands to cuff him, which was made difficult partly because he would not lie down. There was no clear video of them "beating him up" during the initial stop, up until he struggles to get away, and at that point the camera is too shaky to make out anything. Your viewing of the video seems to be incorrect.Sam Lowry said:I saw no real effort to handcuff him. It seemed that either they weren't really trying or they had no idea how to go about it. They were just beating him up and shouting a lot of confusing, incoherent "commands." Even with the benefit of hindsight it's hard to tell what they were doing or what they wanted.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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?Sam Lowry said: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.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:So was his initial resisting arrest and running away justified?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.
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?
And he wasn't already lying down, he was halfway sitting, then when on his side, he would not roll over onto his stomach like he was ordered. And it seemed as if he was resisting them trying to push him onto his stomach. You can try to claim their commands were nonsensical and impossible to obey, but any reasonable person could easily understand what it was the cops wanted him to do, and see that he just wasn't doing it.
71 different orders, or repetitions of the same order? Repeating the same order dozens of times is more of an indicator of noncompliance.JXL said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:I do agree that the arrest appeared disorganized and sloppy. But there were clear orders for him to lie on his stomach - he would not, and he was resisting attempts by the officers to position him that way. There was clearly an effort to grab his hands to cuff him, which was made difficult partly because he would not lie down. There was no clear video of them "beating him up" during the initial stop, up until he struggles to get away, and at that point the camera is too shaky to make out anything. Your viewing of the video seems to be incorrect.Sam Lowry said:I saw no real effort to handcuff him. It seemed that either they weren't really trying or they had no idea how to go about it. They were just beating him up and shouting a lot of confusing, incoherent "commands." Even with the benefit of hindsight it's hard to tell what they were doing or what they wanted.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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?Sam Lowry said: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.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:So was his initial resisting arrest and running away justified?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.
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?
The cops gave him 71 orders, many of them contradictory, in 13 minutes. How does one "comply" with that?
And we're talking about the initial stop. How many orders then?
Question: do you really think it was that impossible to understand and do what the cops wanted?
they dont- thats an absolute failure on law enforcements part. You should have one person in charge conversing.JXL said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:I do agree that the arrest appeared disorganized and sloppy. But there were clear orders for him to lie on his stomach - he would not, and he was resisting attempts by the officers to position him that way. There was clearly an effort to grab his hands to cuff him, which was made difficult partly because he would not lie down. There was no clear video of them "beating him up" during the initial stop, up until he struggles to get away, and at that point the camera is too shaky to make out anything. Your viewing of the video seems to be incorrect.Sam Lowry said:I saw no real effort to handcuff him. It seemed that either they weren't really trying or they had no idea how to go about it. They were just beating him up and shouting a lot of confusing, incoherent "commands." Even with the benefit of hindsight it's hard to tell what they were doing or what they wanted.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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?Sam Lowry said: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.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:So was his initial resisting arrest and running away justified?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.
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?
The cops gave him 71 orders, many of them contradictory, in 13 minutes. How does one "comply" with that?
How is that not a SOP
“Mix a little foolishness with your serious plans. It is lovely to be silly at the right moment.”
–Horace
“Insomnia sharpens your math skills because you spend all night calculating how much sleep you’ll get if you’re able to ‘fall asleep right now.’ “
–Horace
“Insomnia sharpens your math skills because you spend all night calculating how much sleep you’ll get if you’re able to ‘fall asleep right now.’ “
Your questions were like, "where is the video of the pullover? Can you show it to me? Did he bite them? Did he kick them? etc, etc." In other words, non-serious questions that were mainly rhetorical and really didn't have anything to do with my point. So not answering those types of questions wasn't a concession of anything, it was just letting you rant.90sBear said:You have not answered many questions I have asked. Were you conceding all of those points? I'm not viewing this as a debate competition, so, sorry if you are.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:That's not what I asked. Your diversion from the point will be taken as concession.90sBear said:It was the job of every officer to activate their body cameras from the beginning of the encounter. Many chose not to. It went downhill from there.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:It's the job to make sure handcuffs are out and readily visible to the bodycam, even before the suspect is in proper position to place them, due to his resisting? It's the job to make sure "you're under arrest" heard on bodycam during the arrest, and not after the suspect is fully detained and under control, like what usually happens?90sBear said:That's the job. Perhaps these officers did not handle this encounter in the best most professional manner.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:They were trying to get him to lie on his stomach, and pulled his hands behind his back - but none of that was to cuff him because you didn't see handcuffs, or hear someone say "you're under arrest"? Come on, dude.90sBear said:That's an opinion.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:I do agree that the arrest appeared disorganized and sloppy. But there were clear orders for him to lie on his stomach - he would not, and he was resisting attempts by the officers to position him that way. There was clearly an effort to grab his hands to cuff him, which was made difficult partly because he would not lie down. There was no clear video of them "beating him up" during the initial stop, up until he struggles to get away, and at that point the camera is too shaky to make out anything. Your viewing of the video seems to be incorrect.Sam Lowry said:I saw no real effort to handcuff him. It seemed that either they weren't really trying or they had no idea how to go about it. They were just beating him up and shouting a lot of confusing, incoherent "commands." Even with the benefit of hindsight it's hard to tell what they were doing or what they wanted.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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?Sam Lowry said: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.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:So was his initial resisting arrest and running away justified?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.
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?
The "clear order" to lie on his stomach was one of many being yelled as they were on top him of him, wrenching his arm behind his back, and shoving a taser in his leg. I bet it's a lot clearer through your computer speakers from the comfort of your home as opposed to being the person shoved onto the pavement.
You say there was clearly an effort to grab his hands to cuff him. That's an opinion. I heard them threaten to break his arm off. I did not hear them say, "You are under arrest" nor did I see any handcuffs.
Little about this encounter screams "what usually happens."
And I agree that little about this is what usually happens. Nichols' resisting arrest included.
You stated it was clear that they were attempting to handcuff and arrest him. I saw no handcuffs and I did not hear anyone utter the word "arrest" amidst all the other conflicting commands they were yelling at him at the same time. So exactly how clear that was seems pretty subjective to me.
It is the job of every police officer to handle every encounter as professionally as possible.
Is it their job to activate their body cameras at the start of all encounters and keep them on?
Is it their job to threaten to blow the suspects ass off?
Is it their job to pull a suspect from their vehicle?
Is it their job to shove a suspect into the pavement?
Is it their job to shove their arm behind their back?
Is it their job to threaten to break their arm?
Is it their job to shove a taser into their leg?
Is it their job to communicate clearly?
Is it their job to inform someone that they are being placed under arrest?
Is it their job to attempt to limit physical harm to a suspect?
The answers to all of these questions include a mix of "Yes", "No", and "Sometimes." Some we know they did not do properly, others we don't because we lack additional information.
Everyone knows that everyone cuts corners or doesn't do everything exactly by the book in their professional life. Sometimes it's because the rules just don't fit the exact situation and sometimes it's because they just did a crappy job that time. But we all know that we take the risk of being left without a chair when the music stops if something goes wrong. Well, the music stopped and something went wrong - big time.
My guess is every law enforcement agency and academy is watching every second of that video and trying to find every instance of when this whole thing could have been avoided or gone in a different direction. And yes, it's a whole lot easier to do so from your desk as opposed to being one of those officers in the moment, but that's the job.
I would really like to listen in on an inside law enforcement discussion of that video. I'm curious how many points along the way there are that are pointed at and said, "Had they not done it this way, there's a good chance things would have ended better."
You're still not gettng it, are you? You have to actually SEE handcuffs on a nighttime body cam video, even when the suspect isn't under control for them to be able to put them on him, to understand that they were trying to cuff him? I'm glad we're not debating, because you are horrible. You just aren't being objective about this, you just want to rant. And you aren't demonstrating common sense.
And your definitions of "reasonable", "objective", and "common sense" opinions seem to depend solely on whether or not they are equivalent to your opinions.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Your questions were like, "where is the video of the pullover? Can you show it to me? Did he bite them? Did he kick them? etc, etc." In other words, non-serious questions that were mainly rhetorical and really didn't have anything to do with my point. So not answering those types of questions wasn't a concession of anything, it was just letting you rant.90sBear said:You have not answered many questions I have asked. Were you conceding all of those points? I'm not viewing this as a debate competition, so, sorry if you are.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:That's not what I asked. Your diversion from the point will be taken as concession.90sBear said:It was the job of every officer to activate their body cameras from the beginning of the encounter. Many chose not to. It went downhill from there.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:It's the job to make sure handcuffs are out and readily visible to the bodycam, even before the suspect is in proper position to place them, due to his resisting? It's the job to make sure "you're under arrest" heard on bodycam during the arrest, and not after the suspect is fully detained and under control, like what usually happens?90sBear said:That's the job. Perhaps these officers did not handle this encounter in the best most professional manner.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:They were trying to get him to lie on his stomach, and pulled his hands behind his back - but none of that was to cuff him because you didn't see handcuffs, or hear someone say "you're under arrest"? Come on, dude.90sBear said:That's an opinion.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:I do agree that the arrest appeared disorganized and sloppy. But there were clear orders for him to lie on his stomach - he would not, and he was resisting attempts by the officers to position him that way. There was clearly an effort to grab his hands to cuff him, which was made difficult partly because he would not lie down. There was no clear video of them "beating him up" during the initial stop, up until he struggles to get away, and at that point the camera is too shaky to make out anything. Your viewing of the video seems to be incorrect.Sam Lowry said:I saw no real effort to handcuff him. It seemed that either they weren't really trying or they had no idea how to go about it. They were just beating him up and shouting a lot of confusing, incoherent "commands." Even with the benefit of hindsight it's hard to tell what they were doing or what they wanted.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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?Sam Lowry said: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.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:So was his initial resisting arrest and running away justified?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.
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?
The "clear order" to lie on his stomach was one of many being yelled as they were on top him of him, wrenching his arm behind his back, and shoving a taser in his leg. I bet it's a lot clearer through your computer speakers from the comfort of your home as opposed to being the person shoved onto the pavement.
You say there was clearly an effort to grab his hands to cuff him. That's an opinion. I heard them threaten to break his arm off. I did not hear them say, "You are under arrest" nor did I see any handcuffs.
Little about this encounter screams "what usually happens."
And I agree that little about this is what usually happens. Nichols' resisting arrest included.
You stated it was clear that they were attempting to handcuff and arrest him. I saw no handcuffs and I did not hear anyone utter the word "arrest" amidst all the other conflicting commands they were yelling at him at the same time. So exactly how clear that was seems pretty subjective to me.
It is the job of every police officer to handle every encounter as professionally as possible.
Is it their job to activate their body cameras at the start of all encounters and keep them on?
Is it their job to threaten to blow the suspects ass off?
Is it their job to pull a suspect from their vehicle?
Is it their job to shove a suspect into the pavement?
Is it their job to shove their arm behind their back?
Is it their job to threaten to break their arm?
Is it their job to shove a taser into their leg?
Is it their job to communicate clearly?
Is it their job to inform someone that they are being placed under arrest?
Is it their job to attempt to limit physical harm to a suspect?
The answers to all of these questions include a mix of "Yes", "No", and "Sometimes." Some we know they did not do properly, others we don't because we lack additional information.
Everyone knows that everyone cuts corners or doesn't do everything exactly by the book in their professional life. Sometimes it's because the rules just don't fit the exact situation and sometimes it's because they just did a crappy job that time. But we all know that we take the risk of being left without a chair when the music stops if something goes wrong. Well, the music stopped and something went wrong - big time.
My guess is every law enforcement agency and academy is watching every second of that video and trying to find every instance of when this whole thing could have been avoided or gone in a different direction. And yes, it's a whole lot easier to do so from your desk as opposed to being one of those officers in the moment, but that's the job.
I would really like to listen in on an inside law enforcement discussion of that video. I'm curious how many points along the way there are that are pointed at and said, "Had they not done it this way, there's a good chance things would have ended better."
You're still not gettng it, are you? You have to actually SEE handcuffs on a nighttime body cam video, even when the suspect isn't under control for them to be able to put them on him, to understand that they were trying to cuff him? I'm glad we're not debating, because you are horrible. You just aren't being objective about this, and you aren't demonstrating common sense.
That's not how opinions work. Different people will view this video differently and how compliant the guy was and how good of a job the officers did will vary. My guess is it will vary a lot. Just because some of those people's opinions don't line up with yours doesn't necessarily make them unreasonable. In fact, if enough of them don't line up with yours, then by definition those opposing viewpoints are "common sense."
I wonder how many people think those officers did not handle that encounter well from the start, especially other LEO's, or if there are specific points that they would point to and say "This could have been done better."
Example: Would stating "Get out of the ****ing car and lie face down on your stomach with your hands behind your head" have done a better job?
How about, "I'm placing you under arrest, lie down on your stomach and put your hands behind your head."
All said by one officer and not 6.
I've got some bad@$$ friends and former teammates. A few that could easily kill you or me with their bare hands.
Now, not a single one of them would try to fight or escape 5 pipe swinging brothers! Why did this skinny kid try to do it? Lay the F down and do what they say if you are 100% innocent.
Now, not a single one of them would try to fight or escape 5 pipe swinging brothers! Why did this skinny kid try to do it? Lay the F down and do what they say if you are 100% innocent.
"The education of a man is never completed until he dies." - General Robert E. Lee
See? You're not addressing the point. Let me try again. Focus:90sBear said:And your definitions of "reasonable", "objective", and "common sense" opinions seem to depend solely on whether or not they are equivalent to your opinions.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Your questions were like, "where is the video of the pullover? Can you show it to me? Did he bite them? Did he kick them? etc, etc." In other words, non-serious questions that were mainly rhetorical and really didn't have anything to do with my point. So not answering those types of questions wasn't a concession of anything, it was just letting you rant.90sBear said:You have not answered many questions I have asked. Were you conceding all of those points? I'm not viewing this as a debate competition, so, sorry if you are.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:That's not what I asked. Your diversion from the point will be taken as concession.90sBear said:It was the job of every officer to activate their body cameras from the beginning of the encounter. Many chose not to. It went downhill from there.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:It's the job to make sure handcuffs are out and readily visible to the bodycam, even before the suspect is in proper position to place them, due to his resisting? It's the job to make sure "you're under arrest" heard on bodycam during the arrest, and not after the suspect is fully detained and under control, like what usually happens?90sBear said:That's the job. Perhaps these officers did not handle this encounter in the best most professional manner.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:They were trying to get him to lie on his stomach, and pulled his hands behind his back - but none of that was to cuff him because you didn't see handcuffs, or hear someone say "you're under arrest"? Come on, dude.90sBear said:That's an opinion.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:I do agree that the arrest appeared disorganized and sloppy. But there were clear orders for him to lie on his stomach - he would not, and he was resisting attempts by the officers to position him that way. There was clearly an effort to grab his hands to cuff him, which was made difficult partly because he would not lie down. There was no clear video of them "beating him up" during the initial stop, up until he struggles to get away, and at that point the camera is too shaky to make out anything. Your viewing of the video seems to be incorrect.Sam Lowry said:I saw no real effort to handcuff him. It seemed that either they weren't really trying or they had no idea how to go about it. They were just beating him up and shouting a lot of confusing, incoherent "commands." Even with the benefit of hindsight it's hard to tell what they were doing or what they wanted.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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?Sam Lowry said: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.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:So was his initial resisting arrest and running away justified?Sam Lowry said:
.
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?
The "clear order" to lie on his stomach was one of many being yelled as they were on top him of him, wrenching his arm behind his back, and shoving a taser in his leg. I bet it's a lot clearer through your computer speakers from the comfort of your home as opposed to being the person shoved onto the pavement.
You say there was clearly an effort to grab his hands to cuff him. That's an opinion. I heard them threaten to break his arm off. I did not hear them say, "You are under arrest" nor did I see any handcuffs.
Little about this encounter screams "what usually happens."
And I agree that little about this is what usually happens. Nichols' resisting arrest included.
You stated it was clear that they were attempting to handcuff and arrest him. I saw no handcuffs and I did not hear anyone utter the word "arrest" amidst all the other conflicting commands they were yelling at him at the same time. So exactly how clear that was seems pretty subjective to me.
It is the job of every police officer to handle every encounter as professionally as possible.
Is it their job to activate their body cameras at the start of all encounters and keep them on?
Is it their job to threaten to blow the suspects ass off?
Is it their job to pull a suspect from their vehicle?
Is it their job to shove a suspect into the pavement?
Is it their job to shove their arm behind their back?
Is it their job to threaten to break their arm?
Is it their job to shove a taser into their leg?
Is it their job to communicate clearly?
Is it their job to inform someone that they are being placed under arrest?
Is it their job to attempt to limit physical harm to a suspect?
The answers to all of these questions include a mix of "Yes", "No", and "Sometimes." Some we know they did not do properly, others we don't because we lack additional information.
Everyone knows that everyone cuts corners or doesn't do everything exactly by the book in their professional life. Sometimes it's because the rules just don't fit the exact situation and sometimes it's because they just did a crappy job that time. But we all know that we take the risk of being left without a chair when the music stops if something goes wrong. Well, the music stopped and something went wrong - big time.
My guess is every law enforcement agency and academy is watching every second of that video and trying to find every instance of when this whole thing could have been avoided or gone in a different direction. And yes, it's a whole lot easier to do so from your desk as opposed to being one of those officers in the moment, but that's the job.
I would really like to listen in on an inside law enforcement discussion of that video. I'm curious how many points along the way there are that are pointed at and said, "Had they not done it this way, there's a good chance things would have ended better."
You're still not gettng it, are you? You have to actually SEE handcuffs on a nighttime body cam video, even when the suspect isn't under control for them to be able to put them on him, to understand that they were trying to cuff him? I'm glad we're not debating, because you are horrible. You just aren't being objective about this, and you aren't demonstrating common sense.
That's not how opinions work. Different people will view this video differently and how compliant the guy was and how good of a job the officers did will vary. My guess is it will vary a lot. Just because some of those people's opinions don't line up with yours doesn't necessarily make them unreasonable. In fact, if enough of them don't line up with yours, then by definition those opposing viewpoints are "common sense."
I wonder how many people think those officers did not handle that encounter well from the start, especially other LEO's, or if there are specific points that they would point to and say "This could have been done better."
Example: Would stating "Get out of the ****ing car and lie face down on your stomach with your hands behind your head" have done a better job?
How about, "I'm placing you under arrest, lie down on your stomach and put your hands behind your head."
All said by one officer and not 6.
Do you have to actually SEE handcuffs in a nighttime body cam video, and/or HEAR "you're under arrest" to reasonably conclude that by ordering him to lie on his stomach and by holding his arms behind his back, that the officers were trying to cuff him? If you DON'T see and hear that, you are saying it is unreasonable to conclude that? Don't go into a diatribe, just answer the simple question.
And let's say for the sake of the argument that the officers were NOT trying to cuff him but rather they were trying to detain him in a face down position with his arms behind his back. Does that really make a difference with any point being made here?? The point is that if Nichols wasn't resisting, then how did he end up running away, when the intent of the officers was to detain him, cuffed or uncuffed??
When they chased him down after he fled, what....you need to see them hold up their badge and yell, "STOP, IN THE NAME OF THE LAW!!!" as they're running after him, for you to reasonably conclude they wanted to capture and detain him?
Some people think it's reasonable to conclude that he knew he was being arrested so he resisted and ran and I bet some may think it's possible, and reasonable, that he was more scared he was going to get beaten so he resisted and ran away. Again, there can be a difference. Tyre could have feared A, B, or A and B at the same time and different people are going to have opinions about which of those was going on.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:See? You're not addressing the point. Let me try again. Focus:90sBear said:And your definitions of "reasonable", "objective", and "common sense" opinions seem to depend solely on whether or not they are equivalent to your opinions.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Your questions were like, "where is the video of the pullover? Can you show it to me? Did he bite them? Did he kick them? etc, etc." In other words, non-serious questions that were mainly rhetorical and really didn't have anything to do with my point. So not answering those types of questions wasn't a concession of anything, it was just letting you rant.90sBear said:You have not answered many questions I have asked. Were you conceding all of those points? I'm not viewing this as a debate competition, so, sorry if you are.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:That's not what I asked. Your diversion from the point will be taken as concession.90sBear said:It was the job of every officer to activate their body cameras from the beginning of the encounter. Many chose not to. It went downhill from there.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:It's the job to make sure handcuffs are out and readily visible to the bodycam, even before the suspect is in proper position to place them, due to his resisting? It's the job to make sure "you're under arrest" heard on bodycam during the arrest, and not after the suspect is fully detained and under control, like what usually happens?90sBear said:That's the job. Perhaps these officers did not handle this encounter in the best most professional manner.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:They were trying to get him to lie on his stomach, and pulled his hands behind his back - but none of that was to cuff him because you didn't see handcuffs, or hear someone say "you're under arrest"? Come on, dude.90sBear said:That's an opinion.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:I do agree that the arrest appeared disorganized and sloppy. But there were clear orders for him to lie on his stomach - he would not, and he was resisting attempts by the officers to position him that way. There was clearly an effort to grab his hands to cuff him, which was made difficult partly because he would not lie down. There was no clear video of them "beating him up" during the initial stop, up until he struggles to get away, and at that point the camera is too shaky to make out anything. Your viewing of the video seems to be incorrect.Sam Lowry said:I saw no real effort to handcuff him. It seemed that either they weren't really trying or they had no idea how to go about it. They were just beating him up and shouting a lot of confusing, incoherent "commands." Even with the benefit of hindsight it's hard to tell what they were doing or what they wanted.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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?Sam Lowry said: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.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:So was his initial resisting arrest and running away justified?Sam Lowry said:
.
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?
The "clear order" to lie on his stomach was one of many being yelled as they were on top him of him, wrenching his arm behind his back, and shoving a taser in his leg. I bet it's a lot clearer through your computer speakers from the comfort of your home as opposed to being the person shoved onto the pavement.
You say there was clearly an effort to grab his hands to cuff him. That's an opinion. I heard them threaten to break his arm off. I did not hear them say, "You are under arrest" nor did I see any handcuffs.
Little about this encounter screams "what usually happens."
And I agree that little about this is what usually happens. Nichols' resisting arrest included.
You stated it was clear that they were attempting to handcuff and arrest him. I saw no handcuffs and I did not hear anyone utter the word "arrest" amidst all the other conflicting commands they were yelling at him at the same time. So exactly how clear that was seems pretty subjective to me.
It is the job of every police officer to handle every encounter as professionally as possible.
Is it their job to activate their body cameras at the start of all encounters and keep them on?
Is it their job to threaten to blow the suspects ass off?
Is it their job to pull a suspect from their vehicle?
Is it their job to shove a suspect into the pavement?
Is it their job to shove their arm behind their back?
Is it their job to threaten to break their arm?
Is it their job to shove a taser into their leg?
Is it their job to communicate clearly?
Is it their job to inform someone that they are being placed under arrest?
Is it their job to attempt to limit physical harm to a suspect?
The answers to all of these questions include a mix of "Yes", "No", and "Sometimes." Some we know they did not do properly, others we don't because we lack additional information.
Everyone knows that everyone cuts corners or doesn't do everything exactly by the book in their professional life. Sometimes it's because the rules just don't fit the exact situation and sometimes it's because they just did a crappy job that time. But we all know that we take the risk of being left without a chair when the music stops if something goes wrong. Well, the music stopped and something went wrong - big time.
My guess is every law enforcement agency and academy is watching every second of that video and trying to find every instance of when this whole thing could have been avoided or gone in a different direction. And yes, it's a whole lot easier to do so from your desk as opposed to being one of those officers in the moment, but that's the job.
I would really like to listen in on an inside law enforcement discussion of that video. I'm curious how many points along the way there are that are pointed at and said, "Had they not done it this way, there's a good chance things would have ended better."
You're still not gettng it, are you? You have to actually SEE handcuffs on a nighttime body cam video, even when the suspect isn't under control for them to be able to put them on him, to understand that they were trying to cuff him? I'm glad we're not debating, because you are horrible. You just aren't being objective about this, and you aren't demonstrating common sense.
That's not how opinions work. Different people will view this video differently and how compliant the guy was and how good of a job the officers did will vary. My guess is it will vary a lot. Just because some of those people's opinions don't line up with yours doesn't necessarily make them unreasonable. In fact, if enough of them don't line up with yours, then by definition those opposing viewpoints are "common sense."
I wonder how many people think those officers did not handle that encounter well from the start, especially other LEO's, or if there are specific points that they would point to and say "This could have been done better."
Example: Would stating "Get out of the ****ing car and lie face down on your stomach with your hands behind your head" have done a better job?
How about, "I'm placing you under arrest, lie down on your stomach and put your hands behind your head."
All said by one officer and not 6.
Do you have to actually SEE handcuffs in a nighttime body cam video, and/or HEAR "you're under arrest" to reasonably conclude that by ordering him to lie on his stomach and by holding his arms behind his back, that the officers were trying to cuff him? If you DON'T see and hear that, you are saying it is unreasonable to conclude that? Don't go into a diatribe, just answer the simple question.
And let's say for the sake of the argument that the officers were NOT trying to cuff him but rather they were trying to detain him in a face down position with his arms behind his back. Does that really make a difference with any point being made here?? The point is that if Nichols wasn't resisting, then how did he end up running away, when the intent of the officers was to detain him, cuffed or uncuffed??
When they chased him down after he fled, what....you need to see them hold up their badge and yell, "STOP, IN THE NAME OF THE LAW!!!" as they're running after him, for you to reasonably conclude they wanted to capture and detain him?
I already agreed he resisted and ran away a few posts back. What I asked was if in his mind he was resisting being arrested or getting beaten. In your opinion (obviously) he was resisting being arrested and I'm not saying you are wrong. It would have been entirely reasonable for him to assume he was being arrested. I'm also saying I bet plenty of people could watch that video and think it was also possible or just as likely that he was more concerned at the time about getting beaten. The more people that do, the more that opinion could also be viewed as reasonable.
When they were chasing him down after he fled, was he more concerned about being caught and arrested or was he more concerned about being caught and beaten?
I don't know what Tyre was thinking throughout all of this. Do you?
Edit: The reason the difference in state of mind matters is that if the reason he fled in the first place had more to do with fear of getting beaten, then that means it is an area where the police could possibly improve their interaction skills so that something like this may happen less frequently. I am absolutely sure that most people that flee the police are just trying to evade being arrested. However given increasing wariness over police interactions (whether fair or not) I would think they would want to do anything possible to dispel the idea that the police are out there just randomly beating and killing people on a whim.
Here is a question for you - In your opinion could other LEO's watch that video and point to different moments throughout and say, "Had they not done it this way, there's a good chance things would have ended better."? If they could, would they be reasonable?
Okay, I'm gonna try one more time. I repeat:90sBear said:Some people think it's reasonable to conclude that he knew he was being arrested so he resisted and ran and I bet some may think it's possible, and reasonable, that he was more scared he was going to get beaten so he resisted and ran away. Again, there can be a difference. Tyre could have feared A, B, or A and B at the same time and different people are going to have opinions about which of those was going on.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:See? You're not addressing the point. Let me try again. Focus:90sBear said:And your definitions of "reasonable", "objective", and "common sense" opinions seem to depend solely on whether or not they are equivalent to your opinions.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Your questions were like, "where is the video of the pullover? Can you show it to me? Did he bite them? Did he kick them? etc, etc." In other words, non-serious questions that were mainly rhetorical and really didn't have anything to do with my point. So not answering those types of questions wasn't a concession of anything, it was just letting you rant.90sBear said:You have not answered many questions I have asked. Were you conceding all of those points? I'm not viewing this as a debate competition, so, sorry if you are.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:That's not what I asked. Your diversion from the point will be taken as concession.90sBear said:It was the job of every officer to activate their body cameras from the beginning of the encounter. Many chose not to. It went downhill from there.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:It's the job to make sure handcuffs are out and readily visible to the bodycam, even before the suspect is in proper position to place them, due to his resisting? It's the job to make sure "you're under arrest" heard on bodycam during the arrest, and not after the suspect is fully detained and under control, like what usually happens?90sBear said:That's the job. Perhaps these officers did not handle this encounter in the best most professional manner.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:They were trying to get him to lie on his stomach, and pulled his hands behind his back - but none of that was to cuff him because you didn't see handcuffs, or hear someone say "you're under arrest"? Come on, dude.90sBear said:That's an opinion.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:I do agree that the arrest appeared disorganized and sloppy. But there were clear orders for him to lie on his stomach - he would not, and he was resisting attempts by the officers to position him that way. There was clearly an effort to grab his hands to cuff him, which was made difficult partly because he would not lie down. There was no clear video of them "beating him up" during the initial stop, up until he struggles to get away, and at that point the camera is too shaky to make out anything. Your viewing of the video seems to be incorrect.Sam Lowry said:I saw no real effort to handcuff him. It seemed that either they weren't really trying or they had no idea how to go about it. They were just beating him up and shouting a lot of confusing, incoherent "commands." Even with the benefit of hindsight it's hard to tell what they were doing or what they wanted.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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?Sam Lowry said: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.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:So was his initial resisting arrest and running away justified?Sam Lowry said:
.
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?
The "clear order" to lie on his stomach was one of many being yelled as they were on top him of him, wrenching his arm behind his back, and shoving a taser in his leg. I bet it's a lot clearer through your computer speakers from the comfort of your home as opposed to being the person shoved onto the pavement.
You say there was clearly an effort to grab his hands to cuff him. That's an opinion. I heard them threaten to break his arm off. I did not hear them say, "You are under arrest" nor did I see any handcuffs.
Little about this encounter screams "what usually happens."
And I agree that little about this is what usually happens. Nichols' resisting arrest included.
You stated it was clear that they were attempting to handcuff and arrest him. I saw no handcuffs and I did not hear anyone utter the word "arrest" amidst all the other conflicting commands they were yelling at him at the same time. So exactly how clear that was seems pretty subjective to me.
It is the job of every police officer to handle every encounter as professionally as possible.
Is it their job to activate their body cameras at the start of all encounters and keep them on?
Is it their job to threaten to blow the suspects ass off?
Is it their job to pull a suspect from their vehicle?
Is it their job to shove a suspect into the pavement?
Is it their job to shove their arm behind their back?
Is it their job to threaten to break their arm?
Is it their job to shove a taser into their leg?
Is it their job to communicate clearly?
Is it their job to inform someone that they are being placed under arrest?
Is it their job to attempt to limit physical harm to a suspect?
The answers to all of these questions include a mix of "Yes", "No", and "Sometimes." Some we know they did not do properly, others we don't because we lack additional information.
Everyone knows that everyone cuts corners or doesn't do everything exactly by the book in their professional life. Sometimes it's because the rules just don't fit the exact situation and sometimes it's because they just did a crappy job that time. But we all know that we take the risk of being left without a chair when the music stops if something goes wrong. Well, the music stopped and something went wrong - big time.
My guess is every law enforcement agency and academy is watching every second of that video and trying to find every instance of when this whole thing could have been avoided or gone in a different direction. And yes, it's a whole lot easier to do so from your desk as opposed to being one of those officers in the moment, but that's the job.
I would really like to listen in on an inside law enforcement discussion of that video. I'm curious how many points along the way there are that are pointed at and said, "Had they not done it this way, there's a good chance things would have ended better."
You're still not gettng it, are you? You have to actually SEE handcuffs on a nighttime body cam video, even when the suspect isn't under control for them to be able to put them on him, to understand that they were trying to cuff him? I'm glad we're not debating, because you are horrible. You just aren't being objective about this, and you aren't demonstrating common sense.
That's not how opinions work. Different people will view this video differently and how compliant the guy was and how good of a job the officers did will vary. My guess is it will vary a lot. Just because some of those people's opinions don't line up with yours doesn't necessarily make them unreasonable. In fact, if enough of them don't line up with yours, then by definition those opposing viewpoints are "common sense."
I wonder how many people think those officers did not handle that encounter well from the start, especially other LEO's, or if there are specific points that they would point to and say "This could have been done better."
Example: Would stating "Get out of the ****ing car and lie face down on your stomach with your hands behind your head" have done a better job?
How about, "I'm placing you under arrest, lie down on your stomach and put your hands behind your head."
All said by one officer and not 6.
Do you have to actually SEE handcuffs in a nighttime body cam video, and/or HEAR "you're under arrest" to reasonably conclude that by ordering him to lie on his stomach and by holding his arms behind his back, that the officers were trying to cuff him? If you DON'T see and hear that, you are saying it is unreasonable to conclude that? Don't go into a diatribe, just answer the simple question.
And let's say for the sake of the argument that the officers were NOT trying to cuff him but rather they were trying to detain him in a face down position with his arms behind his back. Does that really make a difference with any point being made here?? The point is that if Nichols wasn't resisting, then how did he end up running away, when the intent of the officers was to detain him, cuffed or uncuffed??
When they chased him down after he fled, what....you need to see them hold up their badge and yell, "STOP, IN THE NAME OF THE LAW!!!" as they're running after him, for you to reasonably conclude they wanted to capture and detain him?
I already agreed he resisted and ran away a few posts back. What I asked was if in his mind he was resisting being arrested or getting beaten. In your opinion (obviously) he was resisting being arrested and I'm not saying you are wrong. It would have been entirely reasonable for him to assume he was being arrested. I'm also saying I bet plenty of people could watch that video and think it was also possible or just as likely that he was more concerned at the time about getting beaten. The more people that do, the more that opinion could also be viewed as reasonable.
When they were chasing him down after he fled, was he more concerned about being caught and arrested or was he more concerned about being caught and beaten?
I don't know what Tyre was thinking throughout all of this. Do you?
Edit: The reason the difference in state of mind matters is that if the reason he fled in the first place had more to do with fear of getting beaten, then that means it is an area where the police could possibly improve their interaction skills so that something like this may happen less frequently. I am absolutely sure that most people that flee the police are just trying to evade being arrested. However given increasing wariness over police interactions (whether fair or not) I would think they would want to do anything possible to dispel the idea that the police are out there just randomly beating and killing people on a whim.
Here is a question for you - In your opinion could other LEO's watch that video and point to different moments throughout and say, "Had they not done it this way, there's a good chance things would have ended better."? If they could, would they be reasonable?
Do you have to actually SEE handcuffs in a nighttime body cam video, and/or HEAR "you're under arrest" to reasonably conclude that by ordering him to lie on his stomach and by holding his arms behind his back, that the officers were trying to cuff him? If you DON'T see and hear that, you are saying it is unreasonable to conclude that? Don't go into a diatribe, or divert to another point, just answer the simple question.
If you're not going to extend the courtesy of answering the question, then we're not having a conversation, you just want to rant.
I have bolded where I already answered your question.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Okay, I'm gonna try one more time. I repeat:90sBear said:Some people think it's reasonable to conclude that he knew he was being arrested so he resisted and ran and I bet some may think it's possible, and reasonable, that he was more scared he was going to get beaten so he resisted and ran away. Again, there can be a difference. Tyre could have feared A, B, or A and B at the same time and different people are going to have opinions about which of those was going on.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:See? You're not addressing the point. Let me try again. Focus:90sBear said:And your definitions of "reasonable", "objective", and "common sense" opinions seem to depend solely on whether or not they are equivalent to your opinions.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Your questions were like, "where is the video of the pullover? Can you show it to me? Did he bite them? Did he kick them? etc, etc." In other words, non-serious questions that were mainly rhetorical and really didn't have anything to do with my point. So not answering those types of questions wasn't a concession of anything, it was just letting you rant.90sBear said:You have not answered many questions I have asked. Were you conceding all of those points? I'm not viewing this as a debate competition, so, sorry if you are.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:That's not what I asked. Your diversion from the point will be taken as concession.90sBear said:It was the job of every officer to activate their body cameras from the beginning of the encounter. Many chose not to. It went downhill from there.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:It's the job to make sure handcuffs are out and readily visible to the bodycam, even before the suspect is in proper position to place them, due to his resisting? It's the job to make sure "you're under arrest" heard on bodycam during the arrest, and not after the suspect is fully detained and under control, like what usually happens?90sBear said:That's the job. Perhaps these officers did not handle this encounter in the best most professional manner.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:They were trying to get him to lie on his stomach, and pulled his hands behind his back - but none of that was to cuff him because you didn't see handcuffs, or hear someone say "you're under arrest"? Come on, dude.90sBear said:That's an opinion.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:I do agree that the arrest appeared disorganized and sloppy. But there were clear orders for him to lie on his stomach - he would not, and he was resisting attempts by the officers to position him that way. There was clearly an effort to grab his hands to cuff him, which was made difficult partly because he would not lie down. There was no clear video of them "beating him up" during the initial stop, up until he struggles to get away, and at that point the camera is too shaky to make out anything. Your viewing of the video seems to be incorrect.Sam Lowry said:I saw no real effort to handcuff him. It seemed that either they weren't really trying or they had no idea how to go about it. They were just beating him up and shouting a lot of confusing, incoherent "commands." Even with the benefit of hindsight it's hard to tell what they were doing or what they wanted.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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?Sam Lowry said: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.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:So was his initial resisting arrest and running away justified?Sam Lowry said:
.
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?
The "clear order" to lie on his stomach was one of many being yelled as they were on top him of him, wrenching his arm behind his back, and shoving a taser in his leg. I bet it's a lot clearer through your computer speakers from the comfort of your home as opposed to being the person shoved onto the pavement.
You say there was clearly an effort to grab his hands to cuff him. That's an opinion. I heard them threaten to break his arm off. I did not hear them say, "You are under arrest" nor did I see any handcuffs.
Little about this encounter screams "what usually happens."
And I agree that little about this is what usually happens. Nichols' resisting arrest included.
You stated it was clear that they were attempting to handcuff and arrest him. I saw no handcuffs and I did not hear anyone utter the word "arrest" amidst all the other conflicting commands they were yelling at him at the same time. So exactly how clear that was seems pretty subjective to me.
It is the job of every police officer to handle every encounter as professionally as possible.
Is it their job to activate their body cameras at the start of all encounters and keep them on?
Is it their job to threaten to blow the suspects ass off?
Is it their job to pull a suspect from their vehicle?
Is it their job to shove a suspect into the pavement?
Is it their job to shove their arm behind their back?
Is it their job to threaten to break their arm?
Is it their job to shove a taser into their leg?
Is it their job to communicate clearly?
Is it their job to inform someone that they are being placed under arrest?
Is it their job to attempt to limit physical harm to a suspect?
The answers to all of these questions include a mix of "Yes", "No", and "Sometimes." Some we know they did not do properly, others we don't because we lack additional information.
Everyone knows that everyone cuts corners or doesn't do everything exactly by the book in their professional life. Sometimes it's because the rules just don't fit the exact situation and sometimes it's because they just did a crappy job that time. But we all know that we take the risk of being left without a chair when the music stops if something goes wrong. Well, the music stopped and something went wrong - big time.
My guess is every law enforcement agency and academy is watching every second of that video and trying to find every instance of when this whole thing could have been avoided or gone in a different direction. And yes, it's a whole lot easier to do so from your desk as opposed to being one of those officers in the moment, but that's the job.
I would really like to listen in on an inside law enforcement discussion of that video. I'm curious how many points along the way there are that are pointed at and said, "Had they not done it this way, there's a good chance things would have ended better."
You're still not gettng it, are you? You have to actually SEE handcuffs on a nighttime body cam video, even when the suspect isn't under control for them to be able to put them on him, to understand that they were trying to cuff him? I'm glad we're not debating, because you are horrible. You just aren't being objective about this, and you aren't demonstrating common sense.
That's not how opinions work. Different people will view this video differently and how compliant the guy was and how good of a job the officers did will vary. My guess is it will vary a lot. Just because some of those people's opinions don't line up with yours doesn't necessarily make them unreasonable. In fact, if enough of them don't line up with yours, then by definition those opposing viewpoints are "common sense."
I wonder how many people think those officers did not handle that encounter well from the start, especially other LEO's, or if there are specific points that they would point to and say "This could have been done better."
Example: Would stating "Get out of the ****ing car and lie face down on your stomach with your hands behind your head" have done a better job?
How about, "I'm placing you under arrest, lie down on your stomach and put your hands behind your head."
All said by one officer and not 6.
Do you have to actually SEE handcuffs in a nighttime body cam video, and/or HEAR "you're under arrest" to reasonably conclude that by ordering him to lie on his stomach and by holding his arms behind his back, that the officers were trying to cuff him? If you DON'T see and hear that, you are saying it is unreasonable to conclude that? Don't go into a diatribe, just answer the simple question.
And let's say for the sake of the argument that the officers were NOT trying to cuff him but rather they were trying to detain him in a face down position with his arms behind his back. Does that really make a difference with any point being made here?? The point is that if Nichols wasn't resisting, then how did he end up running away, when the intent of the officers was to detain him, cuffed or uncuffed??
When they chased him down after he fled, what....you need to see them hold up their badge and yell, "STOP, IN THE NAME OF THE LAW!!!" as they're running after him, for you to reasonably conclude they wanted to capture and detain him?
I already agreed he resisted and ran away a few posts back. What I asked was if in his mind he was resisting being arrested or getting beaten. In your opinion (obviously) he was resisting being arrested and I'm not saying you are wrong. It would have been entirely reasonable for him to assume he was being arrested. I'm also saying I bet plenty of people could watch that video and think it was also possible or just as likely that he was more concerned at the time about getting beaten. The more people that do, the more that opinion could also be viewed as reasonable.
When they were chasing him down after he fled, was he more concerned about being caught and arrested or was he more concerned about being caught and beaten?
I don't know what Tyre was thinking throughout all of this. Do you?
Edit: The reason the difference in state of mind matters is that if the reason he fled in the first place had more to do with fear of getting beaten, then that means it is an area where the police could possibly improve their interaction skills so that something like this may happen less frequently. I am absolutely sure that most people that flee the police are just trying to evade being arrested. However given increasing wariness over police interactions (whether fair or not) I would think they would want to do anything possible to dispel the idea that the police are out there just randomly beating and killing people on a whim.
Here is a question for you - In your opinion could other LEO's watch that video and point to different moments throughout and say, "Had they not done it this way, there's a good chance things would have ended better."? If they could, would they be reasonable?
Do you have to actually SEE handcuffs in a nighttime body cam video, and/or HEAR "you're under arrest" to reasonably conclude that by ordering him to lie on his stomach and by holding his arms behind his back, that the officers were trying to cuff him? If you DON'T see and hear that, you are saying it is unreasonable to conclude that? Don't go into a diatribe, or divert to another point, just answer the simple question.
If you're not going to extend the courtesy of answering the question, then we're not having a conversation, you just want to rant.
Here is what the administration report from the Memphis Police's Inspectional Services Bureau stated:
"You never told the driver the purpose of the vehicle stop or that he was under arrest. Audio from a body worn camera did not capture the driver using profanity or displaying any violent threats.'"
Now you can answer mine:
In your opinion could other LEO's watch that video and point to different moments throughout and say, "Had they not done it this way, there's a good chance things would have ended better."? If they could, would they be reasonable?
So, to be clear, you are saying that you DON'T need to see handcuffs and hear "you're under arrest" for you to say it's reasonable to conclude they were trying to arrest him, and position him to cuff him, correct?90sBear said:I have bolded where I already answered your question.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Okay, I'm gonna try one more time. I repeat:90sBear said:Some people think it's reasonable to conclude that he knew he was being arrested so he resisted and ran and I bet some may think it's possible, and reasonable, that he was more scared he was going to get beaten so he resisted and ran away. Again, there can be a difference. Tyre could have feared A, B, or A and B at the same time and different people are going to have opinions about which of those was going on.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:See? You're not addressing the point. Let me try again. Focus:90sBear said:And your definitions of "reasonable", "objective", and "common sense" opinions seem to depend solely on whether or not they are equivalent to your opinions.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Your questions were like, "where is the video of the pullover? Can you show it to me? Did he bite them? Did he kick them? etc, etc." In other words, non-serious questions that were mainly rhetorical and really didn't have anything to do with my point. So not answering those types of questions wasn't a concession of anything, it was just letting you rant.90sBear said:You have not answered many questions I have asked. Were you conceding all of those points? I'm not viewing this as a debate competition, so, sorry if you are.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:That's not what I asked. Your diversion from the point will be taken as concession.90sBear said:It was the job of every officer to activate their body cameras from the beginning of the encounter. Many chose not to. It went downhill from there.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:It's the job to make sure handcuffs are out and readily visible to the bodycam, even before the suspect is in proper position to place them, due to his resisting? It's the job to make sure "you're under arrest" heard on bodycam during the arrest, and not after the suspect is fully detained and under control, like what usually happens?90sBear said:That's the job. Perhaps these officers did not handle this encounter in the best most professional manner.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:They were trying to get him to lie on his stomach, and pulled his hands behind his back - but none of that was to cuff him because you didn't see handcuffs, or hear someone say "you're under arrest"? Come on, dude.90sBear said:That's an opinion.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:I do agree that the arrest appeared disorganized and sloppy. But there were clear orders for him to lie on his stomach - he would not, and he was resisting attempts by the officers to position him that way. There was clearly an effort to grab his hands to cuff him, which was made difficult partly because he would not lie down. There was no clear video of them "beating him up" during the initial stop, up until he struggles to get away, and at that point the camera is too shaky to make out anything. Your viewing of the video seems to be incorrect.Sam Lowry said:I saw no real effort to handcuff him. It seemed that either they weren't really trying or they had no idea how to go about it. They were just beating him up and shouting a lot of confusing, incoherent "commands." Even with the benefit of hindsight it's hard to tell what they were doing or what they wanted.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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?Sam Lowry said: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.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:So was his initial resisting arrest and running away justified?Sam Lowry said:
.
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?
The "clear order" to lie on his stomach was one of many being yelled as they were on top him of him, wrenching his arm behind his back, and shoving a taser in his leg. I bet it's a lot clearer through your computer speakers from the comfort of your home as opposed to being the person shoved onto the pavement.
You say there was clearly an effort to grab his hands to cuff him. That's an opinion. I heard them threaten to break his arm off. I did not hear them say, "You are under arrest" nor did I see any handcuffs.
Little about this encounter screams "what usually happens."
And I agree that little about this is what usually happens. Nichols' resisting arrest included.
You stated it was clear that they were attempting to handcuff and arrest him. I saw no handcuffs and I did not hear anyone utter the word "arrest" amidst all the other conflicting commands they were yelling at him at the same time. So exactly how clear that was seems pretty subjective to me.
It is the job of every police officer to handle every encounter as professionally as possible.
Is it their job to activate their body cameras at the start of all encounters and keep them on?
Is it their job to threaten to blow the suspects ass off?
Is it their job to pull a suspect from their vehicle?
Is it their job to shove a suspect into the pavement?
Is it their job to shove their arm behind their back?
Is it their job to threaten to break their arm?
Is it their job to shove a taser into their leg?
Is it their job to communicate clearly?
Is it their job to inform someone that they are being placed under arrest?
Is it their job to attempt to limit physical harm to a suspect?
The answers to all of these questions include a mix of "Yes", "No", and "Sometimes." Some we know they did not do properly, others we don't because we lack additional information.
Everyone knows that everyone cuts corners or doesn't do everything exactly by the book in their professional life. Sometimes it's because the rules just don't fit the exact situation and sometimes it's because they just did a crappy job that time. But we all know that we take the risk of being left without a chair when the music stops if something goes wrong. Well, the music stopped and something went wrong - big time.
My guess is every law enforcement agency and academy is watching every second of that video and trying to find every instance of when this whole thing could have been avoided or gone in a different direction. And yes, it's a whole lot easier to do so from your desk as opposed to being one of those officers in the moment, but that's the job.
I would really like to listen in on an inside law enforcement discussion of that video. I'm curious how many points along the way there are that are pointed at and said, "Had they not done it this way, there's a good chance things would have ended better."
You're still not gettng it, are you? You have to actually SEE handcuffs on a nighttime body cam video, even when the suspect isn't under control for them to be able to put them on him, to understand that they were trying to cuff him? I'm glad we're not debating, because you are horrible. You just aren't being objective about this, and you aren't demonstrating common sense.
That's not how opinions work. Different people will view this video differently and how compliant the guy was and how good of a job the officers did will vary. My guess is it will vary a lot. Just because some of those people's opinions don't line up with yours doesn't necessarily make them unreasonable. In fact, if enough of them don't line up with yours, then by definition those opposing viewpoints are "common sense."
I wonder how many people think those officers did not handle that encounter well from the start, especially other LEO's, or if there are specific points that they would point to and say "This could have been done better."
Example: Would stating "Get out of the ****ing car and lie face down on your stomach with your hands behind your head" have done a better job?
How about, "I'm placing you under arrest, lie down on your stomach and put your hands behind your head."
All said by one officer and not 6.
Do you have to actually SEE handcuffs in a nighttime body cam video, and/or HEAR "you're under arrest" to reasonably conclude that by ordering him to lie on his stomach and by holding his arms behind his back, that the officers were trying to cuff him? If you DON'T see and hear that, you are saying it is unreasonable to conclude that? Don't go into a diatribe, just answer the simple question.
And let's say for the sake of the argument that the officers were NOT trying to cuff him but rather they were trying to detain him in a face down position with his arms behind his back. Does that really make a difference with any point being made here?? The point is that if Nichols wasn't resisting, then how did he end up running away, when the intent of the officers was to detain him, cuffed or uncuffed??
When they chased him down after he fled, what....you need to see them hold up their badge and yell, "STOP, IN THE NAME OF THE LAW!!!" as they're running after him, for you to reasonably conclude they wanted to capture and detain him?
I already agreed he resisted and ran away a few posts back. What I asked was if in his mind he was resisting being arrested or getting beaten. In your opinion (obviously) he was resisting being arrested and I'm not saying you are wrong. It would have been entirely reasonable for him to assume he was being arrested. I'm also saying I bet plenty of people could watch that video and think it was also possible or just as likely that he was more concerned at the time about getting beaten. The more people that do, the more that opinion could also be viewed as reasonable.
When they were chasing him down after he fled, was he more concerned about being caught and arrested or was he more concerned about being caught and beaten?
I don't know what Tyre was thinking throughout all of this. Do you?
Edit: The reason the difference in state of mind matters is that if the reason he fled in the first place had more to do with fear of getting beaten, then that means it is an area where the police could possibly improve their interaction skills so that something like this may happen less frequently. I am absolutely sure that most people that flee the police are just trying to evade being arrested. However given increasing wariness over police interactions (whether fair or not) I would think they would want to do anything possible to dispel the idea that the police are out there just randomly beating and killing people on a whim.
Here is a question for you - In your opinion could other LEO's watch that video and point to different moments throughout and say, "Had they not done it this way, there's a good chance things would have ended better."? If they could, would they be reasonable?
Do you have to actually SEE handcuffs in a nighttime body cam video, and/or HEAR "you're under arrest" to reasonably conclude that by ordering him to lie on his stomach and by holding his arms behind his back, that the officers were trying to cuff him? If you DON'T see and hear that, you are saying it is unreasonable to conclude that? Don't go into a diatribe, or divert to another point, just answer the simple question.
If you're not going to extend the courtesy of answering the question, then we're not having a conversation, you just want to rant.
Here is what the administration report from the Memphis Police's Inspectional Services Bureau stated:
"You never told the driver the purpose of the vehicle stop or that he was under arrest. Audio from a body worn camera did not capture the driver using profanity or displaying any violent threats.'"
Now you can answer mine:
In your opinion could other LEO's watch that video and point to different moments throughout and say, "Had they not done it this way, there's a good chance things would have ended better."? If they could, would they be reasonable?
But earlier you said that "It's the job" of police to make sure that you do see and hear those things on body camera, in order for us to conclude they are trying to arrest and cuff someone. Here is our exchange:
Quote:
Me: They were trying to get him to lie on his stomach, and pulled his hands behind his back - but none of that was to cuff him because you didn't see handcuffs, or hear someone say "you're under arrest"? Come on, dude.
You: That's the job.
In other words, you are saying that if those things happened OFF camera, away from YOUR view, or that if the handcuffs weren't already in their hands, in full view of the body camera as they were trying to arrest him, then they didn't do their job. Pretty ridiculous take, don't you think?
Regarding the (irrelevant) question you asked - it was already answered in my response to Sam Lowry:
But the topic I've been addressing is not whether the cops behaved perfectly or not, it was whether or not Nichols was justified for resisting arrest due to the cops behavior. NO ONE is saying the cops were perfect.Quote:
I do agree that the arrest appeared disorganized and sloppy. But there were clear orders for him to lie on his stomach - he would not, and he was resisting attempts by the officers to position him that way.
Sam Lowry said he was justified for resisting arrest. Do you agree?
How old are some of you apologists?
These responses are a perfect example of where our society has fallen. I have no confidence our country, as intended and set up by our founding fathers, is going to survive much longer intact.
Obey the law! If you fight the law you are going to lose.
Fighting and not stopping as the situation deteriorates only compounds the likelihood that you are going to get severely injured or even killed. Are people in 2023 this stupid or confrontational?
Obey the law!
These responses are a perfect example of where our society has fallen. I have no confidence our country, as intended and set up by our founding fathers, is going to survive much longer intact.
Obey the law! If you fight the law you are going to lose.
Fighting and not stopping as the situation deteriorates only compounds the likelihood that you are going to get severely injured or even killed. Are people in 2023 this stupid or confrontational?
Obey the law!
"The education of a man is never completed until he dies." - General Robert E. Lee
So, to be clear, you are saying that you DON'T need to see handcuffs and hear "you're under arrest" for you to say it's reasonable to conclude they were trying to arrest him, and position him to cuff him, correct?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:So, to be clear, you are saying that you DON'T need to see handcuffs and hear "you're under arrest" for you to say it's reasonable to conclude they were trying to arrest him, and position him to cuff him, correct?90sBear said:I have bolded where I already answered your question.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Okay, I'm gonna try one more time. I repeat:90sBear said:Some people think it's reasonable to conclude that he knew he was being arrested so he resisted and ran and I bet some may think it's possible, and reasonable, that he was more scared he was going to get beaten so he resisted and ran away. Again, there can be a difference. Tyre could have feared A, B, or A and B at the same time and different people are going to have opinions about which of those was going on.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:See? You're not addressing the point. Let me try again. Focus:90sBear said:And your definitions of "reasonable", "objective", and "common sense" opinions seem to depend solely on whether or not they are equivalent to your opinions.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Your questions were like, "where is the video of the pullover? Can you show it to me? Did he bite them? Did he kick them? etc, etc." In other words, non-serious questions that were mainly rhetorical and really didn't have anything to do with my point. So not answering those types of questions wasn't a concession of anything, it was just letting you rant.90sBear said:You have not answered many questions I have asked. Were you conceding all of those points? I'm not viewing this as a debate competition, so, sorry if you are.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:That's not what I asked. Your diversion from the point will be taken as concession.90sBear said:It was the job of every officer to activate their body cameras from the beginning of the encounter. Many chose not to. It went downhill from there.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:It's the job to make sure handcuffs are out and readily visible to the bodycam, even before the suspect is in proper position to place them, due to his resisting? It's the job to make sure "you're under arrest" heard on bodycam during the arrest, and not after the suspect is fully detained and under control, like what usually happens?90sBear said:That's the job. Perhaps these officers did not handle this encounter in the best most professional manner.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:They were trying to get him to lie on his stomach, and pulled his hands behind his back - but none of that was to cuff him because you didn't see handcuffs, or hear someone say "you're under arrest"? Come on, dude.90sBear said:That's an opinion.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:I do agree that the arrest appeared disorganized and sloppy. But there were clear orders for him to lie on his stomach - he would not, and he was resisting attempts by the officers to position him that way. There was clearly an effort to grab his hands to cuff him, which was made difficult partly because he would not lie down. There was no clear video of them "beating him up" during the initial stop, up until he struggles to get away, and at that point the camera is too shaky to make out anything. Your viewing of the video seems to be incorrect.Sam Lowry said:I saw no real effort to handcuff him. It seemed that either they weren't really trying or they had no idea how to go about it. They were just beating him up and shouting a lot of confusing, incoherent "commands." Even with the benefit of hindsight it's hard to tell what they were doing or what they wanted.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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?Sam Lowry said: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.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:So was his initial resisting arrest and running away justified?Sam Lowry said:
.
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?
The "clear order" to lie on his stomach was one of many being yelled as they were on top him of him, wrenching his arm behind his back, and shoving a taser in his leg. I bet it's a lot clearer through your computer speakers from the comfort of your home as opposed to being the person shoved onto the pavement.
You say there was clearly an effort to grab his hands to cuff him. That's an opinion. I heard them threaten to break his arm off. I did not hear them say, "You are under arrest" nor did I see any handcuffs.
Little about this encounter screams "what usually happens."
And I agree that little about this is what usually happens. Nichols' resisting arrest included.
You stated it was clear that they were attempting to handcuff and arrest him. I saw no handcuffs and I did not hear anyone utter the word "arrest" amidst all the other conflicting commands they were yelling at him at the same time. So exactly how clear that was seems pretty subjective to me.
It is the job of every police officer to handle every encounter as professionally as possible.
Is it their job to activate their body cameras at the start of all encounters and keep them on?
Is it their job to threaten to blow the suspects ass off?
Is it their job to pull a suspect from their vehicle?
Is it their job to shove a suspect into the pavement?
Is it their job to shove their arm behind their back?
Is it their job to threaten to break their arm?
Is it their job to shove a taser into their leg?
Is it their job to communicate clearly?
Is it their job to inform someone that they are being placed under arrest?
Is it their job to attempt to limit physical harm to a suspect?
The answers to all of these questions include a mix of "Yes", "No", and "Sometimes." Some we know they did not do properly, others we don't because we lack additional information.
Everyone knows that everyone cuts corners or doesn't do everything exactly by the book in their professional life. Sometimes it's because the rules just don't fit the exact situation and sometimes it's because they just did a crappy job that time. But we all know that we take the risk of being left without a chair when the music stops if something goes wrong. Well, the music stopped and something went wrong - big time.
My guess is every law enforcement agency and academy is watching every second of that video and trying to find every instance of when this whole thing could have been avoided or gone in a different direction. And yes, it's a whole lot easier to do so from your desk as opposed to being one of those officers in the moment, but that's the job.
I would really like to listen in on an inside law enforcement discussion of that video. I'm curious how many points along the way there are that are pointed at and said, "Had they not done it this way, there's a good chance things would have ended better."
You're still not gettng it, are you? You have to actually SEE handcuffs on a nighttime body cam video, even when the suspect isn't under control for them to be able to put them on him, to understand that they were trying to cuff him? I'm glad we're not debating, because you are horrible. You just aren't being objective about this, and you aren't demonstrating common sense.
That's not how opinions work. Different people will view this video differently and how compliant the guy was and how good of a job the officers did will vary. My guess is it will vary a lot. Just because some of those people's opinions don't line up with yours doesn't necessarily make them unreasonable. In fact, if enough of them don't line up with yours, then by definition those opposing viewpoints are "common sense."
I wonder how many people think those officers did not handle that encounter well from the start, especially other LEO's, or if there are specific points that they would point to and say "This could have been done better."
Example: Would stating "Get out of the ****ing car and lie face down on your stomach with your hands behind your head" have done a better job?
How about, "I'm placing you under arrest, lie down on your stomach and put your hands behind your head."
All said by one officer and not 6.
Do you have to actually SEE handcuffs in a nighttime body cam video, and/or HEAR "you're under arrest" to reasonably conclude that by ordering him to lie on his stomach and by holding his arms behind his back, that the officers were trying to cuff him? If you DON'T see and hear that, you are saying it is unreasonable to conclude that? Don't go into a diatribe, just answer the simple question.
And let's say for the sake of the argument that the officers were NOT trying to cuff him but rather they were trying to detain him in a face down position with his arms behind his back. Does that really make a difference with any point being made here?? The point is that if Nichols wasn't resisting, then how did he end up running away, when the intent of the officers was to detain him, cuffed or uncuffed??
When they chased him down after he fled, what....you need to see them hold up their badge and yell, "STOP, IN THE NAME OF THE LAW!!!" as they're running after him, for you to reasonably conclude they wanted to capture and detain him?
I already agreed he resisted and ran away a few posts back. What I asked was if in his mind he was resisting being arrested or getting beaten. In your opinion (obviously) he was resisting being arrested and I'm not saying you are wrong. It would have been entirely reasonable for him to assume he was being arrested. I'm also saying I bet plenty of people could watch that video and think it was also possible or just as likely that he was more concerned at the time about getting beaten. The more people that do, the more that opinion could also be viewed as reasonable.
When they were chasing him down after he fled, was he more concerned about being caught and arrested or was he more concerned about being caught and beaten?
I don't know what Tyre was thinking throughout all of this. Do you?
Edit: The reason the difference in state of mind matters is that if the reason he fled in the first place had more to do with fear of getting beaten, then that means it is an area where the police could possibly improve their interaction skills so that something like this may happen less frequently. I am absolutely sure that most people that flee the police are just trying to evade being arrested. However given increasing wariness over police interactions (whether fair or not) I would think they would want to do anything possible to dispel the idea that the police are out there just randomly beating and killing people on a whim.
Here is a question for you - In your opinion could other LEO's watch that video and point to different moments throughout and say, "Had they not done it this way, there's a good chance things would have ended better."? If they could, would they be reasonable?
Do you have to actually SEE handcuffs in a nighttime body cam video, and/or HEAR "you're under arrest" to reasonably conclude that by ordering him to lie on his stomach and by holding his arms behind his back, that the officers were trying to cuff him? If you DON'T see and hear that, you are saying it is unreasonable to conclude that? Don't go into a diatribe, or divert to another point, just answer the simple question.
If you're not going to extend the courtesy of answering the question, then we're not having a conversation, you just want to rant.
Here is what the administration report from the Memphis Police's Inspectional Services Bureau stated:
"You never told the driver the purpose of the vehicle stop or that he was under arrest. Audio from a body worn camera did not capture the driver using profanity or displaying any violent threats.'"
Now you can answer mine:
In your opinion could other LEO's watch that video and point to different moments throughout and say, "Had they not done it this way, there's a good chance things would have ended better."? If they could, would they be reasonable?
But earlier you said that "It's the job" of police to make sure that you do see and hear those things on body camera, in order for us to conclude they are trying to arrest and cuff someone. Here is our exchange:Quote:
Me: They were trying to get him to lie on his stomach, and pulled his hands behind his back - but none of that was to cuff him because you didn't see handcuffs, or hear someone say "you're under arrest"? Come on, dude.
You: That's the job.
In other words, you are saying that if those things happened OFF camera, away from YOUR view, or that if the handcuffs weren't already in their hands, in full view of the body camera as they were trying to arrest him, then they didn't do their job. Pretty ridiculous take, don't you think?
Regarding the (irrelevant) question you asked - it was already answered in my response to Sam Lowry:But the topic I've been addressing is not whether the cops behaved perfectly or not, it was whether or not Nichols was justified for resisting arrest due to the cops behavior. NO ONE is saying the cops were perfect.Quote:
I do agree that the arrest appeared disorganized and sloppy. But there were clear orders for him to lie on his stomach - he would not, and he was resisting attempts by the officers to position him that way.
Sam Lowry said he was justified for resisting arrest. Do you agree?
I am saying some people might not need to see them and hear that and that some people might. The police have to deal with both. You can ask me, "If you were in that exact situation what would you think was happening?" And I would say, "I'm being arrested." But you could then ask another person the same question and they might say, "I'm getting beaten and I think I'm about to get beaten even more. ****, I better run!" The police potentially have to deal with both suspects' viewpoints. That's the job.
In other words, you are saying that if those things happened OFF camera, away from YOUR view, or that if the handcuffs weren't already in their hands, in full view of the body camera as they were trying to arrest him, then they didn't do their job. Pretty ridiculous take, don't you think?
Here is what the administration report from the Memphis Police's Inspectional Services Bureau stated:
"You never told the driver the purpose of the vehicle stop OR THAT HE WAS UNDER ARREST. Audio from a body worn camera did not capture the driver using profanity or displaying any violent threats.'"
If the Memphis Police's Inspectional Services Bureau put in their official report that the officers did not do their job properly by not telling him he was under arrest, exactly how ridiculous of a take is that?
Perhaps it is considered a best practice exactly because of potential situations like this.
Sam Lowry said he was justified for resisting arrest. Do you agree?
This question assumes facts not in evidence. Again - in his mind was he resisting arrest or was he resisting getting beaten (further)? All we have is opinions. It's actually worse than that - we are offering opinions on someone else's opinion. And that person can't tell us because he's dead.
- if you needed to actually see handcuffs and hear "you're under arrest" on a nighttime body cam video in order to conclude that the cops' intent was to position him to be arrested and cuffed, then you are either being dishonest, or you are just stupid.
- if you think it's the policeman's job for you(us) to see on video that he has handcuffs and for you to hear "you're under arrest" so that you can understand what the intent was for Nichols, you are either being dishonest, or you're just stupid.
- the Memphis police report may have been referring to what's on the video only, not what may have happened leading up to when the camera started recording. But regardless, see next point.
- Not in every case, must police say "you're under arrest" before the actual arrest. In situations where the cop feels the driver is dangerous, to where they feel it necessary to draw their weapons like they did, control of the suspect comes FIRST - that means out of the car, on the ground, hands clear from being able to reach for a weapon, or even cuffed behind his back - THEN tell them. We've seen it happen like this many, many times.
- I agree, him saying Nichol's resistance was justified was wrong.
- if you think it's the policeman's job for you(us) to see on video that he has handcuffs and for you to hear "you're under arrest" so that you can understand what the intent was for Nichols, you are either being dishonest, or you're just stupid.
- the Memphis police report may have been referring to what's on the video only, not what may have happened leading up to when the camera started recording. But regardless, see next point.
- Not in every case, must police say "you're under arrest" before the actual arrest. In situations where the cop feels the driver is dangerous, to where they feel it necessary to draw their weapons like they did, control of the suspect comes FIRST - that means out of the car, on the ground, hands clear from being able to reach for a weapon, or even cuffed behind his back - THEN tell them. We've seen it happen like this many, many times.
- I agree, him saying Nichol's resistance was justified was wrong.
This post needs to be sent to the Memphis Police Department whose official report stated the officers did not do their job properly by not stating he was under arrest.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
- if you needed to actually see handcuffs and hear "you're under arrest" on a nighttime body cam video in order to conclude that the cops' intent was to position him to be arrested and cuffed, then you are either being dishonest, or you are just stupid.
- if you think it's the policeman's job for you(us) to see on video that he has handcuffs and for you to hear "you're under arrest" so that you can understand what the intent was for Nichols, you are either being honest, or you're just stupid.
- the Memphis police report may have been referring to what's on the video only, not what may have happened leading up to when the camera started recording. But regardless, see next point.
- Not in every case, must police say "you're under arrest" before the actual arrest. In situations where the cop feels the driver is dangerous, to where they feel it necessary to draw their weapons like they did, control of the suspect comes FIRST - that means out of the car, on the ground, hands clear from being able to reach for a weapon, or even cuffed behind his back - THEN tell them. We've seen it happen like this many, many times.
- I agree, him saying Nichol's resistance was justified was wrong.
Take it up with them.
Exactly. What is happening with these folks, is that they are so angry with the cops (and rightfully so for beating Nichols to death), that they are unable to be objective about what Nichols' failed to do correctly at the initial stop. I as well as others have made a good faith attempt at getting them to see things more objectively, but there's just too much bias here.Thee University said:
How old are some of you apologists?
These responses are a perfect example of where our society has fallen. I have no confidence our country, as intended and set up by our founding fathers, is going to survive much longer intact.
Obey the law! If you fight the law you are going to lose.
Fighting and not stopping as the situation deteriorates only compounds the likelihood that you are going to get severely injured or even killed. Are people in 2023 this stupid or confrontational?
Obey the law!
If they wanted to control Nichols FIRST, then tell him, then they were never able to, because Nichols fought and ran away. Yes, I disagree with the Memphis police, and I suspect the policemen's lawyers will too.90sBear said:This post needs to be sent to the Memphis Police Department whose official report stated the officers did not do their job properly by not stating he was under arrest.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
- if you needed to actually see handcuffs and hear "you're under arrest" on a nighttime body cam video in order to conclude that the cops' intent was to position him to be arrested and cuffed, then you are either being dishonest, or you are just stupid.
- if you think it's the policeman's job for you(us) to see on video that he has handcuffs and for you to hear "you're under arrest" so that you can understand what the intent was for Nichols, you are either being honest, or you're just stupid.
- the Memphis police report may have been referring to what's on the video only, not what may have happened leading up to when the camera started recording. But regardless, see next point.
- Not in every case, must police say "you're under arrest" before the actual arrest. In situations where the cop feels the driver is dangerous, to where they feel it necessary to draw their weapons like they did, control of the suspect comes FIRST - that means out of the car, on the ground, hands clear from being able to reach for a weapon, or even cuffed behind his back - THEN tell them. We've seen it happen like this many, many times.
- I agree, him saying Nichol's resistance was justified was wrong.
Take it up with them.
Another flaw with the Memphis police department's statement is the part where they say "Audio from a body worn camera did not capture the driver using profanity or displaying any violent threats.'" The suspect does NOT have to curse and make threats for the cops to forcefully arrest someone. That is completely nonsensical.
https://www.memphistn.gov/government/police-department/BusyTarpDuster2017 said:If they wanted to control Nichols FIRST, then tell him, then they were never able to, because Nichols fought and ran away. Yes, I disagree with the Memphis police, and I suspect the policemen's lawyers will too.90sBear said:This post needs to be sent to the Memphis Police Department whose official report stated the officers did not do their job properly by not stating he was under arrest.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
- if you needed to actually see handcuffs and hear "you're under arrest" on a nighttime body cam video in order to conclude that the cops' intent was to position him to be arrested and cuffed, then you are either being dishonest, or you are just stupid.
- if you think it's the policeman's job for you(us) to see on video that he has handcuffs and for you to hear "you're under arrest" so that you can understand what the intent was for Nichols, you are either being honest, or you're just stupid.
- the Memphis police report may have been referring to what's on the video only, not what may have happened leading up to when the camera started recording. But regardless, see next point.
- Not in every case, must police say "you're under arrest" before the actual arrest. In situations where the cop feels the driver is dangerous, to where they feel it necessary to draw their weapons like they did, control of the suspect comes FIRST - that means out of the car, on the ground, hands clear from being able to reach for a weapon, or even cuffed behind his back - THEN tell them. We've seen it happen like this many, many times.
- I agree, him saying Nichol's resistance was justified was wrong.
Take it up with them.
Another flaw with the Memphis police department's statement is the part where they say "Audio from a body worn camera did not capture the driver using profanity or displaying any violent threats.'" The suspect does NOT have to curse and make threats for the cops to forcefully arrest someone. That is completely nonsensical.
Internal Affairs 901.636.4955
policechief@memphistn.gov
Www.Common_Sense_Objectivity_and_Intellectual_Honesty. com90sBear said:https://www.memphistn.gov/government/police-department/BusyTarpDuster2017 said:If they wanted to control Nichols FIRST, then tell him, then they were never able to, because Nichols fought and ran away. Yes, I disagree with the Memphis police, and I suspect the policemen's lawyers will too.90sBear said:This post needs to be sent to the Memphis Police Department whose official report stated the officers did not do their job properly by not stating he was under arrest.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
- if you needed to actually see handcuffs and hear "you're under arrest" on a nighttime body cam video in order to conclude that the cops' intent was to position him to be arrested and cuffed, then you are either being dishonest, or you are just stupid.
- if you think it's the policeman's job for you(us) to see on video that he has handcuffs and for you to hear "you're under arrest" so that you can understand what the intent was for Nichols, you are either being honest, or you're just stupid.
- the Memphis police report may have been referring to what's on the video only, not what may have happened leading up to when the camera started recording. But regardless, see next point.
- Not in every case, must police say "you're under arrest" before the actual arrest. In situations where the cop feels the driver is dangerous, to where they feel it necessary to draw their weapons like they did, control of the suspect comes FIRST - that means out of the car, on the ground, hands clear from being able to reach for a weapon, or even cuffed behind his back - THEN tell them. We've seen it happen like this many, many times.
- I agree, him saying Nichol's resistance was justified was wrong.
Take it up with them.
Another flaw with the Memphis police department's statement is the part where they say "Audio from a body worn camera did not capture the driver using profanity or displaying any violent threats.'" The suspect does NOT have to curse and make threats for the cops to forcefully arrest someone. That is completely nonsensical.
Internal Affairs 901.636.4955
policechief@memphistn.gov
I recommend you get the 5 year subscription.
I think reasonable people will disagree on that. It's at least unclear that he was resisting.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:So....he should fight the cops and run away? You said it was justified. I'm just not hearing the part where you explain why. Were they "beating him up" like you said?Sam Lowry said:They told him to lie down when he was already lying down. Then they told him to lie on his stomach when they were holding him on his side with his arm behind him. The orders were nonsensical and impossible to fully obey.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:I do agree that the arrest appeared disorganized and sloppy. But there were clear orders for him to lie on his stomach - he would not, and he was resisting attempts by the officers to position him that way. There was clearly an effort to grab his hands to cuff him, which was made difficult partly because he would not lie down. There was no clear video of them "beating him up" during the initial stop, up until he struggles to get away, and at that point the camera is too shaky to make out anything. Your viewing of the video seems to be incorrect.Sam Lowry said:I saw no real effort to handcuff him. It seemed that either they weren't really trying or they had no idea how to go about it. They were just beating him up and shouting a lot of confusing, incoherent "commands." Even with the benefit of hindsight it's hard to tell what they were doing or what they wanted.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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?Sam Lowry said: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.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:So was his initial resisting arrest and running away justified?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.
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?
And he wasn't already lying down, he was halfway sitting, then when on his side, he would not roll over onto his stomach like he was ordered. And it seemed as if he was resisting them trying to push him onto his stomach. You can try to claim their commands were nonsensical and impossible to obey, but any reasonable person could easily understand what it was the cops wanted him to do, and see that he just wasn't doing it.
If point A is the cops physically attempting to restrain him, and point B is him running away, free and uncuffed, then how do you explain getting from point A to point B without there being resistance involved?Sam Lowry said:I think reasonable people will disagree on that. It's at least unclear that he was resisting.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:So....he should fight the cops and run away? You said it was justified. I'm just not hearing the part where you explain why. Were they "beating him up" like you said?Sam Lowry said:They told him to lie down when he was already lying down. Then they told him to lie on his stomach when they were holding him on his side with his arm behind him. The orders were nonsensical and impossible to fully obey.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:I do agree that the arrest appeared disorganized and sloppy. But there were clear orders for him to lie on his stomach - he would not, and he was resisting attempts by the officers to position him that way. There was clearly an effort to grab his hands to cuff him, which was made difficult partly because he would not lie down. There was no clear video of them "beating him up" during the initial stop, up until he struggles to get away, and at that point the camera is too shaky to make out anything. Your viewing of the video seems to be incorrect.Sam Lowry said:I saw no real effort to handcuff him. It seemed that either they weren't really trying or they had no idea how to go about it. They were just beating him up and shouting a lot of confusing, incoherent "commands." Even with the benefit of hindsight it's hard to tell what they were doing or what they wanted.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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?Sam Lowry said: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.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:So was his initial resisting arrest and running away justified?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.
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?
And he wasn't already lying down, he was halfway sitting, then when on his side, he would not roll over onto his stomach like he was ordered. And it seemed as if he was resisting them trying to push him onto his stomach. You can try to claim their commands were nonsensical and impossible to obey, but any reasonable person could easily understand what it was the cops wanted him to do, and see that he just wasn't doing it.