I saw a white man with a gun. I heard a policeman saying, "Place the weapon down on the ground, ple

@FBM,

At 0:42, the camera user shouldn't have been creeping behind them like that.

It's their fault for upsetting them.

The people with the camera should have stayed back, instead of doing that.

1 Reply

@One Eyed Mind,

The story is that he was on his own property, excercising his 1st amendment right. They approached him, not the other way around.

In any event, they said that they were serving a search warrant. In full military combat gear and armorned personnel carriers. This is what a military state looks like.

1 Reply

@FBM,

They were walking away... After they approached the first time.

The camera user was lurking behind men trained in dangerous situations. Sneaking behind them like that makes the camera user an idiot.

1 Reply

@One Eyed Mind,

How is standing up in the open in your own yard "sneaking"? And there's their overwhelming, violent response to an unarmed, unthreatening citizen excercising his constitutional rights. And there's still the SWAT team in full military gear and the APC's deemed appropriate for simply serving a search warrant these days.

1 Reply

@FBM,

Watch 0:42. The camera holder was walking closer to them, while their backs were turned. He did not have to move to capture with the camera. He moved because he was being an immature fool that did not respect the boundaries of men who are risking their life with their job. He moved because he was saying in his head, "Haha! I got the camera and you can't do anything about it!". It's foolish and childish.

1 Reply

@One Eyed Mind,

If he was still on his property or even on public property, it wouldn't matter. It's not illegal to be a whiny jerk. He obviously was not threatening or interfering in any way. Certainly not in a way that would justify an aggressive, violent, overwhelming take-down by two people in full military combat gear.

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM, you do not walk behind someone's back like that. Especially when you're living a dangerous life where anyone can jump on you with a weapon.

They had no incentive to walk behind the men as they did. They got what was coming to them. They should have stayed where they were, instead of mocking the men as they did by walking behind them like "I'm behind you guys, look at me, I'm a child that needs to grow up instead of picking on men trying to do their job, while I sit here with a camera in my hands not understanding the serious protocol before my premature eyes."

So yes, none of this would of happened if he stayed where he was, instead of antagonizing two grizzly bears that were walking away.

1 Reply

@One Eyed Mind,

He looked to be 30~40 feet away. He was not up behind their backs, not a threat, not interfering in any way. They spoke to him first. He was in his own yard, he can legally walk around in it. Most of the time he was standing still. He took a couple of steps briefly, but most of the time he was standing still, and never threatening anybody. They threatened him with arrest before he ever spoke or moved.

1 Reply

@FBM,

Quote:

I'd rather them not perform their duty as long as they think their duty includes beating the **** out of everybody who looks twice at them. I'd rather them not perform their duty as long as their duty includes killing innocent people and getting a paid vacation, followed by a promotion

A purely emotional and irrational response. Who are you going to call when some G-Boys are doing a home invasion on your house?

1 Reply

@FBM,

The officer is trained to control the situation to insure his and others saftey. He doesnt know the camerman. He can not allow him to be behind him because the officer will have to focus his attention on the camerman to insure that he is not a threat; Attention that should be focused on the target house.
You do not get to exercise your rights in every situation, i.e you dont have the right of free speech to yell fire in a crowded theater. This was clearly interferring with a police operation. If the cameraman was hit by a stray bullet during a shootout and the officer had not made him go inside guess who's ass it would have been?

0 Replies

@FBM,

No, he was walking towards them. He even looked down, as he was walking. If you cannot see that the grass was moving, as he was, then you're not being honest with yourself, FMB. I understand you live in fear and are caught up in all these videos about police brutality, but let's be honest with our selves - these men were doing their job; this kid was patronizing the men with no regard to their job's protocol and they don't even have the brain to think "wow, I'm out here on the front lawn more worried about bugging cops so I can get people on my side on the internet, instead of getting into my house just in case a shootout breaks out."

I'm sorry, FBM. There is violence everywhere in this world, but frankly the real violence that is truly existent is not on people's radars right now - anything that people easily believe in and follow, is a sign that it's a lie, it's emotional and it's going to lead you down a dark path of fear mongering and hatred.

1 Reply

@giujohn,

giujohn wrote:

I'd rather them not perform their duty as long as they think their duty includes beating the **** out of everybody who looks twice at them. I'd rather them not perform their duty as long as their duty includes killing innocent people and getting a paid vacation, followed by a promotion

A purely emotional and irrational response. Who are you going to call when some G-Boys are doing a home invasion on your house?
[/quote]

FTFY.

1 Reply

@One Eyed Mind,

If you think he did anything that was threatening or interfering with their heavily militarized operation, then maybe you're not being intellectually honest. On the other hand, if you think that his mere presence deserved the beat-down that he got, then maybe you should consider buying a pair of jackboots and join the force. We have constitutional freedoms that trump any department's policies and procedures. Their policies and procedures do not come first. Inalienable rights do.

1 Reply

@FBM,

I watched it.

My father watched it.

He went through it - he knows what it's like having some kid that you do not know at all walking behind you. The men were threatened - the kid should have stood still instead of mocking the men doing their job. Hell, they should not have been out there picking on people who was securing a drug call. That could have become a bloody mess, and the kid could have gotten shot, and I guarantee you the men would have rushed him to safety.

Please, get off the fear train - you only see what you see because you're taking it out of context emotionally. You just want to see violence and you don't see anything else but that. The kid walked behind the men, when they were walking away - it was utterly stupid. The End. Enough with your "we have rights" hyperbole. We have rights, but so do these men - sneaking behind them like that was a stupid move and he deserved the tackle for threatening men doing their job.

1 Reply

@One Eyed Mind,

They engaged him, not the other way around. He wasn't in the way; he was never close enough to them to be in the way. This is an example of how the military mindset of overwheming force has been adopted by the police who are supposed to be there to protect and serve. You still haven't responded to the fact that they were in full military combat gear, complete with APC's for nothing but the simple act of serving a warrant. If you think so little of our constitutional rights, then maybe you should bone up on constitutional law a little.

2 Replies

@FBM,

The first time they engaged him, but I told you 0:42, so you shouldn't be typing this in the first place, as specifically at 0:42, the men are walking away, while the camera man is walking towards the men, when their backs are turned, which is extremely stupid because they could capture everything where they were standing, but they had to antagonize them even more - there's no if's, and's or but's. No "rights" - the kid screwed up and you're taking this on an emotional level. The evidence is right there - you don't walk behind people like that and think you won't get tackled for it.

Again, please stop turning your brain into a slave. Why would you ever - EVER - submit it to this hatred you fill it with on the internet? These people are making money off of people like you that get addicted to violence - even violence that doesn't exist no further than your imagination, as of right now. The kid messed up - there's no "rights", "police brutality on a sweeping generalization level" hyperbole - he shouldn't have been walking up behind them like that.

End of your story, FBM.

1 Reply

@One Eyed Mind,

I couldn't be less emotional about it. You seem to be getting pretty wound up, however. Yes, he was being a dickhead, but no, that doesn't give them the right to violate his constitutional rights. He wasn't sneaking. You're just resorting to emotive rhetoric there. How about let's just agree to disagree. I don't think police should be beating people down for non-violent behavior and you think they should.

0 Replies

@FBM,

Quote:

This is an example of how the military mindset of overwheming force has been adopted by the police

the police have always had a military mindset. The problem is that the feds set them up with actual military hardware and they decided that now that they had the firepower now they could become the occupying force.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

They didn't have a military mindset like this when I was young. Maybe where you grew up, but I'm from a small town. The dramatic increase in SWAT team raids over the past 2 decades is well documented.

But I agree about the militarization.
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/san-diego-school-police-mine-resistant-military-vehicle-pentagon/#m7VDyoEZ35Z3CoLK.99

Quote:

San Diego School Police Given Mine-Resistant Military Vehicle By Pentagon

The militarization of police in the US is now even extending into school police departments, as San Diego Unified School District Police are to receive a Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicle as part of the Federal Government’s program to hand down military equipment to domestic law enforcement.

NBC San Diego reports that the School police department has been granted permission to take the military vehicle, worth $733,000 in taxpayer money. The MRAP was designed to be used in war zones such as Iraq and Afghanistan to protect troops from improvised explosive devices.

SDUSD Police Capt. Joseph Florentino stated that the department intends to use the MRAP as a “Victim Rescue Vehicle,” claiming that the move does not represent a militarization of policing.

“We recognize the public concern over perceived ‘militarization of law enforcement,’ but nothing could be further from the truth for School Police,” Florentino noted in a statement.

Citing the 1999 Columbine High School massacre, the police Captain argued that the vehicle is needed in case of a school shooting or other hostile event. Florentino suggested that in such an event, the MRAP would be used to transport paramedics into “warm/hot zones”, having the capability to literally drive through walls.

“It’ll be designed for us to get into any hostile situation and pull kids out,” said Florentino. “We can fit about a full elementary class into the back of vehicle.”

He also noted that the armored vehicle could be used to help firefighters or other law enforcement departments in emergencies.

This is certainly not an isolated incident as far as schools receiving military equipment under the Defense Department’s 1033 program, otherwise known as the Excess Property program.

Law enforcement units policing public schools in Texas have acquired tons of used military gear, including M16 rifles, armored vehicles and scores of “high capacity magazines,” all in alleged efforts to keep students safe.

Data released by the Pentagon in the wake of the recent uprising and huge police reaction in Ferguson, shows that the government has transferred nearly 80,000 rifles and 1,718 shotguns to counties throughout the US.

All in all, it is estimated that $5.1 billion worth of excess military gear has been transferred to domestic law enforcement agencies, and that doesn’t even include similar programs run by the Department of Homeland Security and the Justice Department.
...

Said vehicle:

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/MRAP.jpg

0 Replies

I saw a white man with a gun. I heard a policeman saying, "Place the weapon down on the ground, ple

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know