Police Abuse

Viral Videos Show Georgia Deputies Beating a Passenger for Not Having a Driver's License

Roderick Walker told deputies that he didn't need an ID since he wasn't driving.

|

Viral videos from over the weekend captured Georgia deputies using force on a passenger after he told them that he didn't have identification on him.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports that Roderick Walker and his girlfriend were passengers in an SUV. The incident began when Clayton County deputies stopped the vehicle because of a broken tail light. Shean Williams, Walker's attorney, told the paper that when deputies asked Walker for his driver's license, he informed the officers that he didn't have his identification and didn't need one since he wasn't driving the vehicle.

Williams said the deputies told Walker to exit the vehicle and says that they used excessive force while arresting him.

Separate videos from various angles show one deputy striking Walker while he's pinned to the ground. A woman screams in distress in the background.

Sheriff Victor Hill gave a statement about the incident on Saturday, saying that the unnamed deputy who struck Walker was placed on administrative leave without pay pending an internal investigation. In a follow-up statement on Sunday, Hill announced that the still-unnamed deputy had been terminated "for excessive use of force" and that the Clayton County District Attorney's Office would take over the investigation.

Walker was charged and arrested for obstructing law enforcement officers and battery. Because Walker has a felony probation warrant in another Georgia county, his lawyers must resolve separate legal issues before they can secure his release, per Hill's Sunday statement.

Gerald A. Griggs, another attorney representing Walker, tweeted in support of his release over the weekend, arguing on Monday morning that the traffic stop charges against Walker, which are unrelated to his prior warrant, should be dropped.

Law enforcement in Clayton County recently faced scrutiny for another incident where an officer pulled a gun on five teenagers while bystanders spoke out.

Advertisement

NEXT: Court OKs Deportation of Hundreds of Thousands of Immigrants, Another Says Homeland Security's Head Might Have No Legal Authority

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. That thin blue lines keeps American citizens safe from anarchy.
    God bless the policemen of America!

    1. Agreed. I have a police officer in my own family, who I am very proud of. Some of my neighbors are retired police officers.

      Having said that, if this stop went down as described, would you agree that this officer’s behavior was wrong?

        1. Google easily work and google pays me every hour and every week just $5K to $8K for doing online work from home. I am a universty student and I work on my part time just 2 to 3 hours a day easily from home. Now every one can earn extra cash for doing online home system and make a good life by just open this website and follow instructions on this page…………. CashApp

    2. Yeah by being tyrants.

    3. Start earning today from $600 to $754 easily by working online from home. Last month i have generated and received $19663 from this job by giving this only maximum 2 hours a day of my life. Easiest job in the world and earning from this job are just awesome. Everybody can now get this job and start earning cash online right now by just follow instructions click on this link and vist tabs( Home, Media, Tech ) for more details thanks………Only this Read More

  2. Cop tactic, whereby they position their weapons as close to the subject as possible, then claim that he was reaching for their weapon. Boom. A variation on cops yelling ‘stop resisting’ while beating someone senseless or suffocating them into unconsciousness.

    1. How would you recruit police officers when one mistake can mistake during an arrest can lead to financial ruin. Are the best and brightest lining up at the police academy? Should we increase salaries? How about benefits? Should we reduce qualifications?

      1. Agreed that instead of “defund the police” a lot of police departments need more funds to be able to pay more, attract better quality officers, and afford training.

        The “defund the police” is a vague slogan, though, almost to the point of meaninglessness. So, it sometimes means more funding for mental health services or all kinds of other proposals.

        1. a lot of police departments need more funds to be able to pay more, attract better quality officers, and afford training.

          There is no rational argument that law enforcement, when considering the sum total of their compensation, are underpaid. The problems are the personality type law enforcement atracts, the public sector unions that protect their criminal behavior, the fellow officers that protect their criminal behavior, and the profound inability for those in law enforcement to understand who works for who.

          1. Collectively, police are well paid, but that doesn’t mean every department in every jurisdiction across the country pays well.

            1. And obviously this is why police in New York and L.A. are never in the news for pulling shit on minorities. They’re so well paid it never occurred to them to stop and frisk.

        2. Or, and this might be crazy talk, maybe stop excluding smart people from police academies because they might ‘get bored’ on the job?

      2. Reduce the qualifications?

        The *current* qualifications seem to me limited to:

        * Must weight less than one metric ton.
        * Must be able to run the 40 in less than two minutes.
        * Must be an elementary school graduate. (You need to be able to read and write in order to make out all those tickets.)
        * Must not drink more than 750ml of alcohol on the job per shift.
        * Must have enough self-control to limit themselves to less than half a dozen felonies per shift. (Some jurisdictions relax that standard to “half a dozen felonies per shift that are actually witnessed by non-arestees.)
        * Do not get reported for beating your wife/kids more than once per week, and for DUI more than once per month. (Both requirements have been known to be flexible here in Colorado.)
        * Must join the union.

        I guess we could relax the felony limit. And go with voice recognition software so that the reading and writing at an elementary school level isn’t necessarily mandatory.

      3. “How would you recruit police officers when one mistake can mistake during an arrest can lead to financial ruin.”

        The same can happen to doctors, lawyers, civil engineers, and it’s been true for them for decades.

        How would you recruit people for those fields?

      4. One qualification is a maximum IQ of 105.

  3. Reason continues its support of felons while smearing the police.

    1. Yes, and? Was he committing any crime when this incident happened? There are too many felonies that shouldn’t be criminal at all.
      Sometimes bad is bad and sometimes it’s the cops.

      1. Police can ask you to identify yourself. If you can’t identify yourself, they can detain you to determine your identity. If you resist or try to get away, they can use force to stop you. It sounds like this is what happened here. Which part of that do you have a problem with, and what alternative do you propose?

        1. >>If you can’t identify yourself, they can detain you to determine your identity.

          can’t believe it matters so much who I am I can be beaten over it.

        2. That varies from state to state. In some you have a duty to identify, while in others they need probable cause. I’m not sure what the laws are where this occurred. But if it was the latter then the cops, and you, are in the wrong.

          1. “That varies from state to state”

            Post the statutes please.

              1. From your link, (which is less helpful and a bit more snotty than the link I will provide below) I was nevertheless able to find the relevant statue in Georgia, which is as follows:

                “(a) A person commits the offense of loitering or
                prowling when he is in a place at a time or in a
                manner not usual for law-abiding individuals
                under circumstances that warrant a justifiable and
                reasonable alarm or immediate concern for the
                safety of persons or property in the vicinity.
                (b) Among the circumstances which may be
                considered in determining whether alarm is
                warranted is the fact that the person takes flight
                upon the appearance of a law enforcement officer,
                refuses to identify himself, or manifestly
                endeavors to conceal himself or any object. Unless
                flight by the person or other circumstances make it
                impracticable, a law enforcement officer shall,
                prior to any arrest for an offense under this Code
                section, afford the person an opportunity to dispel
                any alarm or immediate concern which would
                otherwise be warranted by requesting the person to
                identify himself and explain his presence and
                conduct. No person shall be convicted of an
                offense under this Code section if the law
                enforcement officer failed to comply with the
                foregoing procedure or if it appears at trial that the
                explanation given by the person was true and
                would have dispelled the alarm or immediate
                concern.
                (c) A person committing the offense of loitering or
                prowling shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
                (d) This Code section shall not be deemed or
                construed to affect or limit the powers of counties
                or municipal corporations to adopt ordinances or
                resolutions prohibiting loitering or prowling within
                their respective limits”

                So, from a state law basis, I don’t think that they have the ability to ask a backseat Lyft passenger for identification, or otherwise require him / her to identify themselves, when pulling over a Lyft driver for a broken tail light.

                Relevant text for Georgia and other states found here:
                https://www.ilrc.org/sites/default/files/resources/stop_identify_statutes_in_us-lg-20180201v3.pdf

                1. I am now making extra $19k or more every month from home by doing very simple and easy job online from home.VFd I have received exactly $20845 last month from this home job. Join now this job and start making extra cash online by follow instruction on the given website.

                  This is what I do………………….. CashApp

          2. As far as I know, even if a state does have some kind of duty to identify they still need probable cause of a crime in order to use those statutes.

            In short, they would need to suspect this man in particular of having committed a particular crime. What was that crime is the question we’d need to resolve.

            1. I’m pretty sure even that varies from state to state.

              1. No it does not. It varies if they have such a law at all, but the one’s that do all require reasonable suspicion of a crime. The one’s who don’t have such a law at all are obviously moot.

                1. See: “Terry stop”

          3. Wasn’t there a supreme court case that Reason covered a few years ago that upheld the Terry stop identification requirement?

          4. Yeah, the Hiibel case.

            Constitutional and criminal law experts are now coming forward to defend the Hiibel ruling, arguing that the decision is “narrow” and does not grant the police the power to approach any pedestrian and to demand identification. That is only true in a very technical, legal sense. The awful truth is that the police have now acquired the de-facto power to demand identification from just about anyone. With the Hiibel precedent on the books, here is the legal situation for anyone who might consider rebuffing a cop’s demand for identification.

            2004. Jesus I’ve been here too long.

            1. Pertinent Qualifier from Linked Article:

              A Terry stop is a situation where a police officer has “reasonable suspicion” that a crime has occurred. The officer can briefly detain or stop a person to investigate.

              A terry stop in particular is one where there is reasonable suspicion that a crime occurred. So why does that apply here, when there is no apparent reasonable suspicion of any particular crime?

              The article you linked does go into detail on other problems that are obviously very real, but they don’t seem to be pertinent to this particular situation either.

              1. I guess that depends on how well the officers can coordinate their stories to indicate they believed a crime had occurred.

                1. Pretty much. It’s become apparent that the ‘reasonable suspicion’ bit is far too big of a loophole.

          5. Didn’t SCOTUS deal with this a while back? Hibol, I think?

            The conclusion was that if you were specifically suspected of being involved in a crime, the police can require that you provide ID. Aside from that, they can not just walk down the street demanding ID’s.

            This one seems to be in the middle, but, the stop sounds pretextual to begin with, so I gotta give the point to Walker in this case.

        3. I don’t believe Georgia law grants police authority to detain people without reasonable suspicion that a crime is being or has been committed. The only obligation to identify in Georgia law requires connection to a complaint of loitering or prowling. Merely refusing to show identification is insufficient for reasonable suspicion.

          It’s possible the officers didn’t know this, which goes to training.

          1. “I don’t believe ”

            Cool.

          2. No state has such a law. They all require reasonable suspicion of a crime to invoke those statutes. That said, mileage on ‘reasonable suspicion’ may vary.

            1. I looked it up and he’s correct about Georgia.

              1. He’s correct about it everywhere in the United States, in fact.

        4. I have a big problem with police being allowed to demand that you identify yourself if they have no specific reason to need to know who you are. If they have no specific suspicion of criminal activity, they have no business demanding that you identify yourself.
          I have an even bigger problem with police being able to detain you solely because you decline to identify yourself.

        5. OMG, this is so wrong.

          No, police can’t just stop you and demand you identify yourself. No, stopping a driver for a traffic violation – most traffic violations aren’t even crimes – does not mean the cops can then demand all the other people in the vehicle provide identification.

          And its not universal that cops can demand id on a stop. In most of the country that is reserved solely for traffic stops where a driver must provide a driver’s license on demand – still doesn’t apply to the rest of the passengers.

          It sounds like this is what happened here. Which part of that do you have a problem with, and what alternative do you propose?

          1. It doesn’t sound like that is what happened here.

          2. My alternative is this – if a cop doesn’t have probable cause to detain you then he leaves you the fuck alone.

        6. You are wrong.

          They can only detain you if they have suspicion of a crime. Not having ID is not a crime. The moment they try to detain you (or otherwise use force or the threat of force to stop you from leaving), it’s a ‘seizure’, and they must have reasonable suspicion to do so. Not having ID does not create reasonable suspicion, because it’s not evidence of a crime. The moment they ordered him out of the vehicle, the cops were in violation of the constitution (4th amendment), and performing an illegal seizure.

          There’s also no evidence I’ve seen that he resisted at all after they illegally detained him.

      2. Was he committing any crime when this incident happened?

        Yes.

        Or did you miss the sentence that read–

        “…Walker has a felony probation warrant in another Georgia county,…”

        That’s an indicator that someone is wanted.

        Yes, there are too many felonies that shouldn’t be criminal at all. But, until I know that this was one of them, I’ll reserve judgement.

        1. Of course, what are the odd’s they recognized this particular man as having a warrant when they planted him on the asphalt? It sounds more like they got lucky vs. they knew who he was or what he had done.

          1. How do you know they didn’t know who he was? They get notifications about arrest warrants and often get briefed on known associates.

            The fact is that Walker was the subject of a felony arrest warrant, he was required by law to identify himself to police as someone on probation, and he didn’t. While the officer’s behavior was likely excessive (and the sheriff’s department immediately fired him for it, so they apparently agree), it doesn’t change the fact that the arrest itself was legitimate and that Walker committed a crime by refusing to identify himself to police.

        2. OK, I asked the wrong question. Did they have any reason to believe that he was committing any crime or had warrants? Unless they knew who he was and that he had warrants, they should leave him alone. It’s possible that they did recognize him. If that comes out, then I could change my position on this particular case.

          1. Of course, the obvious problem is that now that they know he has a felony warrant of course they’ll say they recognized him from the database or something. Prove they didn’t, after all.

            1. Yeah, and I suppose they could just use that as an excuse to demand IDs from people. Well, he looked like the guy with a warrant out.
              In this case, I’d say that if they didn’t mention anything about warrants in the report of the initial incident, then assume they were full of shit.

              1. “Matched the description of a suspect” is the usual catch-all. And that’s one of the issues we want reformed as well; we don’t want police detaining anyone they like and demanding to see their papers.

                1. It would be nice if callers into police stations didn’t just use the descriptor of ‘it was a black guy in a jersey’ when describing who robbed them, but then again when I was robbed at gunpoint that was about all I could tell them about the guy myself. Black male with black hair and brown eyes and about 5’9 doesn’t narrow shit down at all, if we’re being honest.

                  1. People can usually at least clarify a few other general details. It’s still going to be extremely vague, but you can talk about his clothing, what color his shirt was. Was he wearing pants or shorts? Was he bearded or clean-shaven? Bald? Short hair or long? That can all still prove less than helpful, but it’s better than the broadest of details.

                    It should require more than the most general and generic descriptions of people to justify some detainment.

      3. Yes, if you’re on probation or parole you must identify yourself to cops if they ask you.

      4. Yes, he was. He was the subject of an arrest warrant for a felony probation violation for first degree child cruelty.

  4. Good grief.

  5. So….the cop who beat this guy got fired. Isn’t that what is supposed to happen when a cop abuses your rights?

    1. I’d prefer he be immediately arrested and charged with battery.

    2. No, XY. And here’s why. Firing an officer for using force to make an arrest on a suspect with a felony warrant, gives the officers every incentive to never get involved and do only the bare minimum of driving around.

      Ask the questions of why is the officer trying to make an arrest here. It isn’t because some guy doesn’t have ID, contrary to the headline. Then ask if that force used to help make the arrest, was unreasonable and excessive. Hyping videos like this, gives the idea to cops that any force needed to make an arrest will be found unreasonable.

      So fuck it, don’t stop anyone who looks like they might try to resist an arrest.

      Bad cops need to go. This article doesn’t come close for me, yet—certainly facts can come out that make the officer’s actions easily seen as unreasonable—to showing to me that this guy is a bad cop.

      Use of force, even legitimate, objectively reasonable force in light of the circumstances, is always ugly.

      1. It’s reasonable to punch a guy in the face repeatedly when he is already on the ground with two cops on top of him? There is absolutely no excuse for that.

        1. Yeah, that’s the thing. Justification for use of force doesn’t mean that everything is now fair game. Use of force needs to be the minimum necessary to control the person. Anything beyond that is, by definition, excessive force.

          1. So you think it’s like wrestling where you pin someone to the ground and (nonexistent) ref counts to three, thus everything is settled?

            You can advocate against unjustified force without advocating that all force is unjustified. Indeed, that’s the only way you can effectively advocate for it.

            Punching a guy whose still resisting while pinned is hardly de facto unjustified

            1. I in no way said that all force is unjustified.

        2. They were trying to get handcuffs on him. He was fighting to prevent that. They can’t just keep him pinned to the ground because then they will be accused of attempting to suffocate him, so they need to get this done quickly. So what do you think should have happened? What should they have done?

          1. It would be nice if we could start by understanding what the justification is for needing to arrest and cuff him. You can’t handcuff someone merely for refusing to show ID.

            I don’t think anyone has said you can’t pin people to the ground, either. Floyd was a different case because he was already handcuffed, and there was no need to keep a knee to his neck for that whole period he was restrained, and for refusing to move him when he stopped responding. Almost everyone, including police officers, objected to the use of the knee-to-the-neck restraint on a cuffed suspect.

            This guy was not cuffed, and there’s no reason they couldn’t simply have attempted to keep him down until he was cuffed, assuming they had a legitimate cause to effect an arrest.

            1. “You can’t handcuff someone merely for refusing to show ID.”

              Considering that you said you don’t know the law in another post I’ll just assume you’re bloviating with that.

              1. No, that is actually the law. Are you too dense to type ‘stop and identify statutes’ into Google?

                1. No, that is actually the law. Are you too dense to type ‘stop and identify statutes’ into Google?

                  Since you’re not smart enough to read, I’ll help

                   Izzy
                  September.15.2020 at 12:31 pm
                  “You can’t handcuff someone merely for refusing to show ID.”

                  Considering that you said you don’t know the law in another post I’ll just assume you’re bloviating with that.

                  As anyone who isn’t a cousin humping retard can see, I was pointing out that HE WAS TOO DENSE TO USE GOOGLE.

                  Try reading. You’ll fuck up less. You’ll still be a moron however.

                  1. lotta bold and caps in that post SQRL… excuss me…”izzy”…

                  2. Bloviating or not, they were right. And they were succinct, so maybe don’t use big words you don’t understand?

                    1. Hey! You realized you fucked up!

                    2. The idiot BYODB calls this succinct!

                      A Thinking Mind
                      September.15.2020 at 12:03 pm
                      It would be nice if we could start by understanding what the justification is for needing to arrest and cuff him. You can’t handcuff someone merely for refusing to show ID.

                      I don’t think anyone has said you can’t pin people to the ground, either. Floyd was a different case because he was already handcuffed, and there was no need to keep a knee to his neck for that whole period he was restrained, and for refusing to move him when he stopped responding. Almost everyone, including police officers, objected to the use of the knee-to-the-neck restraint on a cuffed suspect.

                      This guy was not cuffed, and there’s no reason they couldn’t simply have attempted to keep him down until he was cuffed, assuming they had a legitimate cause to effect an arrest

                      The idiot BYODB is just pissy because I made him look like a dunce!

                    3. And I actually did search google. I merely hedged my words because I am not an expert or a lawyer and don’t want to pretend like my understanding is perfect based on the information I can find online. I’m perfectly open to being corrected if someone points out an error.

                      People who say I don’t know what I’m talking about without offering any insight of their own are the ones who are bloviating.

                    4. They were baiting all along. I guess this is the time when the resident nutjobs wake up.

                  3. Well, Izzy, the important thing is that you got to be a dick to someone on the internet. Good job!

          2. What should have been done is one cop maintains mount while the other one grabs his hands and puts cuffs on them.

            1. I mean, if you’re into that sort of thing.

      2. I’ll go along with that = Ask the questions of why is the officer trying to make an arrest here. It isn’t because some guy doesn’t have ID, contrary to the headline. Then ask if that force used to help make the arrest, was unreasonable and excessive.

    3. So….the cop who beat this guy got fired. Isn’t that what is supposed to happen when a cop abuses your rights?

      Slow down, we haven’t seen the results of the union arbitration yet. That can take two years.

  6. Someone trying to report, instead of propagandize, might ask why the cops arrested Walker in the first place. Riding in a vehicle without ID is not a crime.

    I doubt the cops knew about Walker’s felony warrant when they arrested him. Though if they did, that would be a sufficient reason to arrest Walker, provided they had probable cause they both knew he was Walker, and there was an valid felony warrant.

    Resisting that arrest may catch you a beating, if a beating was needed to make the arrest. But not because he didn’t have ID.

    Just garbage reporting. And Ms. Davis was doing better before this article too.

    1. All young black males have felony arrest warrants out for them… THAT is the problem here! For things like selling “loosie” cigarettes, and for blowing on cheap plastic flutes w/o permiSSion! From the SS!!!

      To find precise details on what NOT to do, to avoid the flute police, please see http://www.churchofsqrls.com/DONT_DO_THIS/ … This has been a pubic service, courtesy of the Church of SQRLS!

      1. All young black males have felony arrest warrants out for them…

        Not “all”, just many.

        THAT is the problem here! For things like selling “loosie” cigarettes, and for blowing on cheap plastic flutes w/o permiSSion! From the SS!!!

        Actually, those are unusual causes. The usual ones are theft, burglary, assault, burglary, robbery, domestic violence, drug dealing.

        1. Don’t forget murder. Black males are 6% of the population but commit 50% of homicides. But they’re killing other blacks, so … ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

          1. Man, fuck off with that shit. Every comment I’ve ever seen from you is using cherry picked stats to justify some bullshit racist comment. That shit is not libertarian, and it’s not welcome here.

            1. You no likey facts?

    2. might ask why the cops arrested Walker in the first place. Riding in a vehicle without ID is not a crime

      Yes, not having an ID is not a crime. But if you don’t, police can detain you for the purpose of identifying you, and resisting detention or fleeing from detention is treated like resisting arrest; it’s a crime in and of itself.

      1. Papers please… Noyb2 shows the admiration for the NAZIs! Cops can arbitrarily stop anyone, at any time, “for the purpose of identifying you”, any any lolly-gagging or back-talking gets your face smeared into the pavement… All OK by authoritarians like Noyb2!

        1. Beautiful strawman.

        2. SQRLSY One
          July.2.2020 at 5:11 pm
          Port-a-potties ARE buffets

          LOL

      2. I would never vote to convict for resisting arrest. It’s morally vague at best to make it a crime.

      3. Not without reasonable suspicion to detain you in the first place. Random ID checks are not constitutional.

        You are mistating the law, after multiple people here corrected you. Maybe you should stop.

      4. No, they can’t detain you for the purpose of identifying you, unless they have proba le cause for believing that you have committed a crime. Despite what a lot of cops seem to think, being black does not constitute probable cause.

  7. “Walker was charged and arrested for obstructing law enforcement officers and battery. ”

    Obstructing what? The officer’s fist with his face?

    1. He also battered the officer’s fist with his face.

  8. Right-wing fascist nut-jobs have now taken over most of the comments on these pages! They will now explain to us all, how even a 1/16th-black-blooded person should be forced to wear a black star of Kwanzaa, and ALL such low-lives should be required to carry their papers (and respectfully produce them while bowing and scraping, to any uniformed “pubic servant”, upon request), at all times! Papers please, citizen!

    Darkee had it coming to him, all the fascists will now say! Citizen, lick my boots, while I stamp your face in!

    1. You, nut-job, have now taken over most of the late Hihn’s comments on these pages!

      1. Do you recall the awesome enchanter named “Tim”, in “Monty Python and the Search for the Holy Grail”? The one who could “summon fire without flint or tinder”? Well, you remind me of Tim… You are an enchanter who can summon persuasion without facts or logic!

        So I discussed your awesome talents with some dear personal friends on the Reason staff… Accordingly…

        Reason staff has asked me to convey the following message to you:

        Hi Fantastically Talented Author:

        Obviously, you are a silver-tongued orator, and you also know how to translate your spectacular talents to the written word! We at Reason have need for writers like you, who have near-magical persuasive powers, without having to write at great, tedious length, or resorting to boring facts and citations.

        At Reason, we pay above-market-band salaries to permanent staff, or above-market-band per-word-based fees to freelancers, at your choice. To both permanent staff, and to free-lancers, we provide excellent health, dental, and vision benefits. We also provide FREE unlimited access to nubile young groupies, although we do firmly stipulate that persuasion, not coercion, MUST be applied when taking advantage of said nubile young groupies.

        Please send your resume, and another sample of your writings, along with your salary or fee demands, to ReasonNeedsBrilliantlyPersuasiveWriters@Reason.com .

        Thank You! -Reason Staff

        1. I told you to leave me out of your rantings.

    2. Just for the record, fascism is a left wing economic system.

    3. Right-wing fascist nut-jobs have now taken over most of the comments on these pages!

      Indeed: just look at that nasty little fascist and racist who goes by the handle “SQRLSY One”.

      1. Just look at Government-Almighty boot-lickers like Noyb2!

    4. The comments on the Reason Roundup every morning are like an alt-right group therapy session. “Go ahead. It’s safe here. Let your real feelings out about how much you hate Democrats, and Reason, and immigrants. You can say you love Trump; it’s OK.”

      1. This isn’t your therapistas office Mike.

        1. It has turned into the therapist’s office for right-wing nut jobs, who no one else cares to listen to. That was White Knight’s point.

          Can you read and think, instead of PRETEND to read, and then stink, Tulpa?

          1. SQRLSY One
            July.2.2020 at 5:11 pm
            Port-a-potties ARE buffets

            LOL

          2. “instead of PRETEND[sic] to read”

            lolololololololololol

            1. That was perfectly good English, moron!

              “…your therapistas…” Moron (pretend grammar NAZI) should go see it’s therapistas!!!

      2. That’s a pretty good description of the Reason Roundup. I try to stay away from those threads and give them their safe space.

        1. I bet it’s really discouraging to spend your whole life begging for leftist approval with ignorant, shallow bigotry and yet still be despised by all.

          Eunuch is the kind of dude who suicide hotline operators tell to stop being a pussy and just pull the trigger.

          1. Nadless Nardless and Shitsy Shitler, drinking Shitsy’s Kool-Aid in a spiraling vortex of darkness, cannot or will not see the Light… It’s a VERY sad song! Kinda like this…

            He’s a real Kool-Aid Man,
            Sitting in his Kool-Aid Land,
            Playing with his Kool-Aid Gland,
            Has no thoughts that help the people,
            He wants to turn them all to sheeple!
            On the sheeple, his Master would feast,
            Master? A disaster! Just the nastiest Beast!
            Kool-Aid man, please listen,
            You don’t know, what you’re missin’,
            Kool-Aid man, better thoughts are at hand,
            The Beast, to LEAVE, you must COMMAND!

            A helpful book is to be found here: M. Scott Peck, Glimpses of the Devil
            https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1439167265/reasonmagazinea-20/

            Hey Nadless Nardless…
            If EVERYONE who makes you look bad, by being smarter and better-looking than you, killed themselves, per your wishes, then there would be NO ONE left!
            Who would feed you? Who’s tits would you suck at, to make a living? WHO would change your perpetually-smelly DIAPERS?!!?
            You’d better come up with a better plan, Stan!

              1. You are flat-out EVIL! ***IF*** I have no value, then I am like a vacuum. You, being EVIL, are like poison, like finely ground plutonium scattered across the landscape! Spreading hate and death-lust everywhere!

    5. He’s on probation which means he’s required to ID himself to cops whenever they ask.

  9. I’m so used to being given a distorted narrative that, at this point, I’m wondering what I’m not being told.

    That said, seeing that little bit of video of having him pinned to the ground and repeatedly punching him looks really bad. I’m not surprised the officer has already been terminated.

    1. It would be good to know what happened immediately before the video.
      But this should have ended when he said he didn’t have ID. He wasn’t driving. The police had no business with him at all and asking him for ID was already inappropriate.

      1. Well that’s why I’m suspicious about the missing information. I suspect something else happened before we get to the moment of seeing him pinned down on the ground. I don’t think he simply said he had no ID, then got immediately yanked out of the car and thrown to the ground.

        But yeah, pinning a guy to the ground and punching him repeatedly is bullshit. I don’t know what effect punching him while he’s pinned down is supposed to achieve. If he’s resisting arrest, you’re not going to make him resist less by punching his face unless you’re trying to knock him out. So get this cop and let’s see some charges levied here.

        1. My bet is it went something like this:

          Officer: Do you have ID?
          Passenger: Fuck no.
          Officer: Oh really? Well I’m detaining you until I can ascertain your identity.

          At the end of the day, the bar is very low for a police officer to detain you for a brief amount of time. He could say he smells weed, or whatever. But likely what happened is the passenger failed to show him the appropriate amount of respect that the law man felt was his due.

          I have seen cops do this all the time- black, white, brown, no matter. If you don’t show them loving respect, they have all sorts of tricks to ultimately ruin your day. And they will use those tricks because, why not? They are getting paid whether they are sitting in a car with a speed gun, or sitting you on the curb side waiting for some numbers to be checked.

      2. “The police had no business with him at all and asking him for ID was already inappropriate.”

        AFAIK, the 9th in 2019 agreed with you. See, U.S. v Landeros, 17-10217. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/17-10217/17-10217-2019-01-11.html

        They ruled that the police needed RS on the passenger in order to prolong the traffic stop to investigate any potential criminality by that passenger.

        Should the police not be even allowed to ask of the identification of people in the car? I’m not saying allowed to demand ID, I’m asking if you all think the cops should be barred from even asking about passenger ID.

        1. It may come as a surprise to you, but Georgia cops don’t much give a damn about ninth circuit decisions.
          Ninth circuit is the court of appeal for these;
          District of Alaska
          District of Arizona
          Central District of California
          Eastern District of California
          Northern District of California
          Southern District of California
          District of Hawaii
          District of Idaho
          District of Montana
          District of Nevada
          District of Oregon
          Eastern District of Washington
          Western District of Washington

        2. They can ask about passenger ID if they suspect that the passenger is wanted for something. If the passenger doesn’t have ID, they can detain to identify. If the passenger resists detention, that’s a crime.

          That’s the way it is. There are other ways of handling this (e.g., we can make the carrying of ID mandatory). But if people don’t like the current laws, they need to propose workable alternatives, not merely point out the bad consequences of current law.

          1. You should always have the right to keep your mouth shut and be left alone absent evidence that you are committing a crime.

          2. The simple test is what did they suspect the passenger of, in particular? These are either super cops with photographic memories, or lucky bastards. Since intelligence is purposefully weeded out of police academies, I know which one seems more likely.

            1. Depending on the size of the town I’d believe the cops knew who the guy was before asking for ID and may have suspected he had warrants. It’s usually the same few guys causing all the problems, so the cops get to know the frequent flyers pretty quickly.

              I’m not saying that’s what happened here, the cops may have never seen this guy before, but it’s within the realm of possibility that they knew who this guy was. That doesn’t excuse beating him while detained, but it would explain why they wanted to check him out to begin with.

              1. I’d be more likely to believe that if the warrant was in their jurisdiction. Apparently it was from another county entirely.

                1. If that’s the case, yeah, pretty hard to believe they’d know about it. In general though if it’s a relatively small jurisdiction I’d buy that a cop could look at a passenger in a Lyft and go “I’m pretty sure I saw a warrant for that dude earlier” and decide he wants to check it out.

                  Even in that case though, if you ask for ID and he refuses, and you ask if he’s the guy you’re looking for and he denies it, how much force do you get to use? Is it reasonable to yank people out of cars if you’re just acting on a fuzzy memory of the warrant papers you may or may not have seen earlier?

                  Further down the rabbit hole, I wonder if jurisdictions could force the Lyft driver to hand over the ID of his passenger. Lyft has some info about the guy who booked the ride, could a state say “if you wanna do business here your drivers gotta turn that over when asked”?

                  1. They all have computers in their cars. Pull up the photo and descriptions of the guy with the warrant.

                  2. It’s Clayton county. It’s not the biggest county, but it’s the Atlanta suburbs, with a population over 200k. It’s less than 15 minutes from Hartsfield Airport to Riverdale, assuming traffic isn’t deadlocked. I’d say unless this was a habital offender with a very lengthy record, it’s unlikely random deputies would recognize him on a traffic stop.

        3. Yes, cops should not even be allowed to ask for passenger ID without reasonable individualized suspicion of a crime.

      3. Im very suspicious about the missing info as well, especially in the light of the Blake incident, which of course the media spun as hard as they possibly could and left out extremely pertinent info.

        It’s unfortunate at this point, but they have done it so much I think they have everyone to the point that they wont believe the mainstream narrative until much more video comes out. But they do deserve that skepticism after all the spinning they have done.

  10. Fascists say all black men abused by cops are always in the wrong… Because they are black men! The fascists usually don’t say the latter part out loud, is all.

    Black men (in their eyes) deserve to be treated like this:

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36859305
    Florida policeman shoots autistic man’s unarmed black therapist

    1. Bringing race into everything makes you a racist. And you put your racism on display for everybody to see. Again and again.

      1. Oh, and the abusive cops and the abusive system (which largely exists for extracting money out of poor people, and blacks are disproportionately poor) are NOT being racist?

        How about the decades-long racism of the drug war? We’re supposed to ignore that, like GOOD little Government-Almighty toadies?

        https://www.drugpolicy.org/issues/race-and-drug-war
        Race and the Drug War

        1. More racist drivel from you. Crawl back into the hole you came from.

          1. I didn’t invent racism… Racists (like YOU) who go running and crying to Government Almighty, to enforce their petty biases, are the ones who keep on re-inventing racism every day!

            1. SQRLSY goes full racist.

              SQRLSY One
              September.15.2020 at 11:14 am
              All young black males have felony arrest warrants out for them…

              SQRLSY is such a gross racist.

              1. All young black males have felony arrest warrants out for them… NOT in ANY way because of SQRLSY One! It is because all of the young black men stared with great disgust, at the yeast-infected and maggot-laden secretions from the twat of Tulp, and Tulpa was offended by their stares, and so Tulpa went full Karen on them, and called the cops, to come and beat them up! And then Tulpa beat off her twat while watching the beatings and the killings!

                1. SQRLSY goes full racist.

                  SQRLSY One
                  September.15.2020 at 11:14 am
                  All young black males have felony arrest warrants out for them…

                  SQRLSY is such a gross racist

                2. SQRLSY doubles down on his gross racism

                  SQRLSY One
                  September.15.2020 at 12:45 pm
                  All young black males have felony arrest warrants out for them…

                  After putting his gross racsim on full display already

                  SQRLSY One
                  September.15.2020 at 11:14 am
                  All young black males have felony arrest warrants out for them…

                  SQRLSY is such a gross racist

                3. A broken record player is WAAAAY smarter than Tulpa!

                  But then again, even an infected-twat-juice-slimed ROCK is smarter than Tulpa!

                  1. SQRLSY doubles down on his gross racism

                    SQRLSY One
                    September.15.2020 at 12:45 pm
                    All young black males have felony arrest warrants out for them…

                    After putting his gross racsim on full display already

                    SQRLSY One
                    September.15.2020 at 11:14 am
                    All young black males have felony arrest warrants out for them…

                    SQRLSY is such a gross racist, that it’s easy to forget his weird sexual fantasies until he posts them…

  11. Well, aktually, under Georgia law you are required to show your driver’s license to a law enforcement officer upon demand. It doesn’t say anything about what if you don’t have a driver’s license.

    Besides which, “everybody knows” you have to show a cop your ID when he asks for it, so even if there isn’t any such law, ignorance of the law is a perfectly cromulent excuse for a cop, as anybody familiar with Heien v North Carolina can tell you.

    1. See anything about a driver’s license in here?
      Georgia Title 16-11-36
      (a) A person commits the offense of loitering or prowling when he is in a place at a time or in a manner not usual for law-abiding individuals under circumstances that warrant a justifiable and reasonable alarm or immediate concern for the safety of persons or property in the vicinity.
      (b) Among the circumstances which may be considered in determining whether alarm is warranted is the fact that the person takes flight upon the appearance of a law enforcement officer, refuses to identify himself, or manifestly endeavors to conceal himself or any object. Unless flight by the person or other circumstances make it impracticable, a law enforcement officer shall, prior to any arrest for an offense under this Code section, afford the person an opportunity to dispel any alarm or immediate concern which would otherwise be warranted by requesting the person to identify himself and explain his presence and conduct. No person shall be convicted of an offense under this Code section if the law enforcement officer failed to comply with the foregoing procedure or if it appears at trial that the explanation given by the person was true and would have dispelled the alarm or immediate concern.
      (c) A person committing the offense of loitering or prowling shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
      (d) This Code section shall not be deemed or construed to affect or limit the powers of counties or municipal corporations to adopt ordinances or resolutions prohibiting loitering or prowling within their respective limits.

    2. Well, aktually . . .

      https://tinyurl.com/y2fpds4h

      (a) A person commits the offense of loitering or prowling when he is in a place at a time or in a manner not usual for law-abiding individuals under circumstances that warrant a justifiable and reasonable alarm or immediate concern for the safety of persons or property in the vicinity.
      (b) Among the circumstances which may be considered in determining whether alarm is warranted is the fact that the person takes flight upon the appearance of a law enforcement officer, refuses to identify himself, or manifestly endeavors to conceal himself or any object. Unless flight by the person or other circumstances make it impracticable, a law enforcement officer shall, prior to any arrest for an offense under this Code section, afford the person an opportunity to dispel any alarm or immediate concern which would otherwise be warranted by REQUESTING the person to identify himself and explain his presence and conduct.

      You’ll notice that

      1. This applies specifically to loitering.

      2. There is no actual requirement to identify yourself. A cop is required *to give you an opportunity to identify yourself* – if its practical given the circumstances – but you are not required to do so.

      There is otherwise no requirement to identify yourself in Georgia law.

  12. Need more info, but looks bad. They better have a damn good excuse other than “he didn’t have a license”.

    This is further evidence though that some have said, and I agree with, that all cops should be at least purple belts / have ongoing martial arts training. I think so much of this comes from them being scared as soon as they are in a hand to hand or body to body fight, they panic and start in-artfully bludgeoning people (or worse, just shooting).

    2 guys that look bigger and buffer than the suspect struggling to restrain one guy to the point they have to have one sitting on him the other beating his face until he goes limp. Either one of them should have the confidence and no-how to subdue someone, and this is all too common. They probably haven’t had hand to hand combat training in ages (or practiced it anyways), dont have the confidence, so as soon as the situation comes up they panic and this stuff happens.

    1. Belt color means nothing. There are no accepted standards for issuing a belt.

      Anyone can come around and say ‘you’re a purple belt now’.

      1. OK fine, they should be at a standard that a purple belt *should* be at, if judged by a number of actual pros that you find sufficient. And if you put a legit jiu jitsu purple belt up against any joe schmoe on the street that thinks they can hang…they cant, its usually over quick and uneventfully.

        So I am arguing for them to have that level of skill. Frankly the situation is they tend to be big guys who as their career goes on, continue to lift weights, do some cardio, and some range time…but minimal hand to hand. They get nervous and this is what happens, because they honestly cant hang without numbers or weaponry when it comes down to it; they panic, they lash out.

        When you get to a certain point in martial arts, you not only have a different sense of appropriateness of force, but a confidence and poise that allows you to think/act/respond in a superior fashion. Think of a boxer in good shape fighting off a joe schmoe at the local bar…he can honestly even toy with them and see almost everything 3 steps in advance, because he has the skill, the training, the muscle memory. Modern day cops have almost none of that but they do have numbers and the right to use deadly force…and this is what happens when that is the skill set you rely on.

        While you may be technically correct, you completely missed the point.

        1. I didn’t miss the point. You simply can’t mandate a certain level of skill simply because there is no possible way to certify that your certifiers know what they’re doing.

          Its pointless and agencies will simply gravitate towards certifiers that give out certificates at the right price regardless of actual proficiency attained.

          Any cop who’s serious about it will seek out real training on his own – the rest will take their diploma mill cert, hang it on the wall, and proceed as they always have been.

  13. Reason’s article seems to be mainly based on the attorney’s statements. That passes for journalism?

    1. It would be so much easier and make for better articles to avoid quoting Ben Crump. He’s got a vested interest in spinning a narrative and getting as much exposure for that narrative as possible. He’s always going to say the same things whether or not he’s right about an individual case.

      The only time his words might be valuable is if there’s a story specifically talking about the status of a pending lawsuit, and his words are factual information about what the status of the suit is.

      1. The opposite of quoting Ben Crump would be quoting the head of the Fraternal Order of Police in every story. It’s someone else who will have a vested interest in spinning a narrative.

        1. Sullum quoted the head of the police union quite extensively in his articles on the Tuttle / Nicholas shooting by those rogue cops in Houston. Of course, I found that to be entirely appropriate, since he was using the quotes as a basis to point out their extreme error.

          There’s a big difference between quoting someone and taking their word for it uncritically.

          1. Right. It’s fine if you want to quote someone who is spinning a story because you want to point out their spin. It’s wrong when you quote someone who has a vested interest in spinning a story as if they’re presenting facts, especially when they’re not a witness to the events.

            Even if Crump had a sterling record of being open and forthright (he doesn’t), he still has a vested interest in spinning the events in this story and his words are not to be presented uncritically.

            1. And this is the problem with Reason’s coverage.
              They lie and obfuscate so often that I’m inclined to assume that they’re lying and bullshitting when they want me to be outraged by something a taget of their bigotry did.
              So who knows.
              But cry wolf enough, run cover for rioters enough, and I’m going to be skeptical of everything you introduce into your narrative.

  14. There is not enough context in these videos and the witness statements to determine whether the cops behaved appropriately or not. The fact one of the cops involved has been fired for excessive use of force suggests they were not. What say we until the District Atty completes their investigation before passing judgement?

    1. We have sufficient information to pass judgement on these cops. The man was a passenger and did not need identification. He was told to exit the vehicle for not having identification. Even though he was just a passenger. He was not arrested for any crime known at the time. He was for all intents and purposes arrested for not having identification.

      I don’t give a shit if he mouthed off the cops, that’s not an offense warranting arrest. And there’s no evidence he did.

      He was arrested for not having papers on him. Then charged with obstructing officers (ei. resisting arrest) and battery (ei. resisting arrest). The arrest was illegal because he was under no suspicion of any crime at the time of the incident, and thus should never have been asked to leave the vehicle.

      All because of a broken tail light.

      You sir, are an ass.

      1. “You sir, are an ass.”

        That little cherry really wrapped up your argument well.

        1. It’s SQRLSY, he eats poo, what did you expect.

          1. So many socks here!

    2. The fact that the cops harassed the passenger by demanding he provide identification even though they had no authority to do so is enough evidence of misconduct for me.

      Everything the cops did after that point was illegal, everything the guy did to defend himself or flee them was justified.

  15. Under the concept that gun manufacturers are liable for harm done by illegal use of their product, the root cause of this tragedy is the universally known failure of the tail light.
    Roderick Walker should sue the vehicle manufacturer for all damages and injuries, plus triple punitive damages, plus a pony.
    Until car manufacturers own up to their responsibility to make cars with damage proof taillights, these unfortunate incidents will continue.

    1. Honestly, I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s a lawsuit against Lyft, assuming this guy was a Lyft driver.

  16. Way too many fucktards defending this. Fucking racists. The only reason this guy got beaten is because he was Black. Shit like this does NOT happen to Asians and Whites. It is NOT a crime to not have identification on ones person. Not in this country. Maybe in Nazi Germany but not here.

    The excuse that BLM is socialist is utterly irrelevant. Just something the racists mouth whenever a Black gets beaten by the cops.

    1. “Shit like this does NOT happen to Asians and Whites.”

      Google Tony Timpa.

      More whites and Hispanics die from police homicides than blacks; 12% of white and Hispanic homicide deaths were due to police officers, while only 4% of black homicide deaths were the result of police officers.

      Also, blacks are eight times more likely to resist arrest.

      But don’t let facts get in the way of your racist narrative.

      1. How are homicide deaths relevant here?

        1. They show actual countable crimes with identifiable victims that can be definitively counted and are extremely difficult to fudge.

          They are a direct counter to the argument that “blacks are targeted by police more and so stats for black crimes are unreliable because racism.”

          With a murder, the cops can’t ( generally) just fabricate a crime from nothing that relies only on their testimony, so the old arguments that ignore racial disparities “because racism!” don’t apply.

          1. But homicides by police are very rarely the result of a police interaction. I don’t think it is reasonable to extrapolate from stats on such a relatively rare event to treatment of different groups by police in general.

            1. Take it up with the OP who falsely acclaimed that this shit doesn’t happen to whites and Asians and then went all Godwin.

      2. White passengers without identification and no reasonable suspicion get asked to step out of the vehicle for routine traffic stops, and then beaten and arrested for no discernible reason? References please. References.

    2. If you ever need the proof that SQRLSY and Brandybuck are the same person.

      1. That’s such a Leftist argument to shut down discussion. Blame the other as a sockpuppet. Fuck you leftie.

        1. Holy shit, the fucking imbecile who cries “raycisss!” wants to bitch about shutting down discussion.
          Lol.

          And note: it doesn’t make other people or things racist just because YOU prioritize race in YOUR interpretation of the world

    3. The story reads like police brutality porn.

      You know what pornography is–it’s sex for the sake of sex. The sex isn’t integral to the plot. There may not even be a plot. It isn’t trying to communicate anything. It’s just there to be provocative.

      What’s the point of this police brutality story–other than to provoke extreme feelings?

    4. “Shit like this does NOT happen to Asians and Whites.”

      Almost the exact same thing happened to a friend of mine, who was white, when we were younger (mid 20s). Four or five of us were walking up on the sidewalk one night, and the police pulled over to hassle us. They demanded we show ID, and he refused. The officer grabbed him, walked him behind the car and held him there for 20 mins or so as he repeatedly asked if he was free to go, and the officer demanded he provide ID. Finally the cop gave up and let him go.

      Had my friend resisted getting man-handled to the back of the car, very likely the exact same thing would have happened. He’d have been beaten and arrested for obstruction.

      This has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with people failing to show fealty to police and police having inordinate power to keep escalating things until you either comply with their authority or you do something stupid and get yourself arrested.

    5. Keep crying that the racist sky is falling.
      It’s totes persuasive

  17. Did I miss the Reason article about the black who attempted to assassinate two deputies in Compton? I looked but couldn’t find one on Reason. Weird.

    1. L.A. Sheriff’s Deputies Assault Reporter, Then Attempt To Mislead Public About It
      Tensions are high over the weekend shooting of two deputies.

      SCOTT SHACKFORD | 9.14.2020 2:05 PM

      Shackford thought it was significant enough to criticize other deputies about it.

      1. Hmm. Yeah. That headline really is deceptive.

        1. So sorry it wasn’t sufficiently racist enough for you.

          1. Ah, yes, facts are racist. In your diseased mind.

  18. maybe “Subduing One Guy” should be emphasized more at the Police Academy before there are badges involved.

  19. Everyone’s against police brutality like everyone is against armed robbery and everyone is against human rights abuses in Syria.

    At some point, listing every act of armed robbery and every human rights abuse starts to play like you want us to repeal the Second Amendment or invade Syria.

    The solution to armed robberies is to prosecute criminals. I don’t know what the solution to human rights abuses in Syria is, but if you kept listing them as they happen until I supported a US invasion of Syria, you’d be listing them forever.

    What do you want us to do about police brutality in Georgia?

    Are we supposed to vote for Biden or defund the police?

    Should Georgia’s voters choose some other candidate to renegotiate the local government’s contract with the police?

    Maybe you’re trying to evoke feelings of anger and compassion? Are you throwing this kerosene on the fire just because? Do you imagine that the rest of us wouldn’t be against police brutality if you weren’t here to tell us how to feel?

    1. There’s probably several things worth taking from this story, though, if you delve into it. It seems like the initial confrontation stems from an unreasonable search. If police think they can detain anyone who just happens to be in a vehicle without ID on them, that’s an issue for training. If that’s the effective policy under Georgia law, it warrants a legal challenge.

      Additionally, holding police accountable means we should hold them to the standard of a private citizen, which means this man should likely be facing battery charges; barring the possibility of some bombshell that explains why he was punching him (though I can’t think of what would qualify).

      1. And there are legitimate cases of armed robbery, too.

        And Assad really has perpetrated human rights violations.

        What are we supposed to do about this act of police brutality?

        In the terms of this piece, it seems to be all about what we’re supposed to feel.

        1. What are we supposed to do about this act of police brutality Keep the pressure on until either charges are pressed on the officer, or we find a reasonable justification for not pressing charges.

          Yes, it’s a local story, but sometimes it’s perfectly acceptable to shine national attention on local stories to increase the pressure on the locals to act.

        2. He’s been fired, which is basically the only form of discipline you could reasonably expect to happen this quickly.

          They won’t bring charges until they’re confident they’ll win. Prosecutors hate losing cases, and they really hate burning the local PD while losing one. If they’re gonna burn the PD they’ve gotta be sure it’s a winning case, and a popular one at that.

          1. He hasn’t been fired. He’s been temporarily unemployed until his department or another are forced to hire him back.

        3. Yeah, it’s a nut punch. It’s been a part of Reason’s output forever, though less so since Balko left. You know that.

          1. Theoretically, they could point towards a possible solution–one that doesn’t involve violating the Second Amendment, invading Syria, or whatever it is they want us to do to stop this kind of crime from ever happening in the future.

            Otherwise, it’s just porn.

        4. News is reporting what happened. Knowing what happened allows for the formulation of policy responses (or declining to do so), but proposing solutions is *not news*. (Describing a proposed solution when someone proposes such a solution is news because of the fact it happened, not because it’s a proposed solution).

          This is a news article. It tells us about something that happened. What you choose to feel about it is your own business.

    2. I think this objection rings a bit hollow to me. Not even 5 years ago, this sort of thing would result in a bunch of mealy-mouthed disavowal type stuff. But in this case, the officer was terminated, right?

      Bringing these up is important, because as near as I can tell *this* is one of the big areas where there are racial disparities- not in killings but in these sorts of casual abuses of power.

      Even more, in this case, it highlights the areas in which we as citizens are ultimately expected to give in to whatever the petty demands of our Knight class.

    3. We all know that at the end of the day, these stories always come down to compliance. Regardless of the reason for the stop, a cop sees or hears disrespect and, for some reason or no reason at all, escalates the tension, in this case asking a passenger for ID. The cop demands obedience, the passenger questions a “lawful order”, and is quickly abused of the notion that there is any such thing as an unlawful order.

      The real question is: how do you react to any question from a police officer that is not suspicious. In their world, asserting your rights is suspicious. So is being too quick to comply. So is complying, but after hesitating. So is offering information they didn’t request. So is any other reaction.

      Their training is not sound. It certainly doesn’t weed out trainees who can’t handle disrespect, frustration or fear, even though dealing with people having their worst day is almost the entirety of their job. Peaceful non-compliance should be presented as the expectation, not the exception.

      1. Peaceful non-compliance should be presented as the expectation, not the exception.

        Yes, this needs to be central to police training. They also need to be constantly reminded that for most people, official interactions with police are very rare and people may not know how they are expected to behave in such situations. Being detained by police is confusing and upsetting, particularly if you haven’t done anything to warrant their attention. You can’t expect everyone to behave sensibly in a situation like that.

  20. ✔✔✔✔ Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing j0bs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8894 a month. I’ve started this j0b and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…
    ++++++++++++++➤➤ReadMore.

  21. Gee what a surprise. A shit-ton of right-wing cop apologists making excuses for beating someone for the “crime” of not having the correct papers.

    At this point what is the difference between the Reason comment section and the Breitbart comment section? Not as much QAnon nonsense? Oh wait Nardz has that angle covered.

    1. Reason’s bias against cops is the issue. They, like MSM, cherry pick incidents to try to show police systemic racism, which doesn’t exist. The defensive comments are a predictable result.


    2. At this point what is the difference between the Reason comment section and the Breitbart comment section?

      You tell us, since apparently you’re one of the few people here who spend a lot of time on Brietbart. I haven’t gone to that website since Andrew dropped dead.

      1. Baby Jeffy’s signature moves are the goal post shift and ad hominem attack, usually at the same time.

        “You are all a bunch of alt-right racist white supremacist Trump humpers conspiring to kill poor black persons of colors by not wearing masks. QAnon herpes DeRp Nardz nazi Tulpa cookies, i’m so fat, sob!”

  22. every one says about this post but i ask…READ MORE

  23. Walker had a warrant for his arrest for probation violation on a first-degree child cruelty charge and weapons counts.

    From the relevant statute:

    2014 Georgia Code
    Title 16 – CRIMES AND OFFENSES
    Chapter 5 – CRIMES AGAINST THE PERSON
    Article 5 – CRUELTY TO CHILDREN
    § 16-5-70 – Cruelty to children
    Universal Citation: GA Code § 16-5-70 (2014)
    (a) A parent, guardian, or other person supervising the welfare of or having immediate charge or custody of a child under the age of 18 commits the offense of cruelty to children in the first degree when such person willfully deprives the child of necessary sustenance to the extent that the child’s health or well-being is jeopardized.

    (b) Any person commits the offense of cruelty to children in the first degree when such person maliciously causes a child under the age of 18 cruel or excessive physical or mental pain.

    Karma’s a bitch for people who victimize children.

    https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/clayton-county-da-makes-statement-regarding-investigation-into-roderick-walkers-arrest

  24. Incidentally, the Clayton County Sheriff, Victor Hill, is black. So I doubt it’s the “systemic racism” issue that the leftists are trying to make it out to be.

    He’s also a Democrat.

  25. I’m just wondering when these police academies are going to start teaching the actual goddamn constitution and not how to bash down doors and shoot people. How is it that the people charged with enforcing the law, does not understand the Fourth Amendment? Even a Terry stop requires reasonable suspicion. Even I know that and I’m just some dude in my jammies eating fruit loops…

    1. I’m just wondering when these police academies are going to start teaching the actual goddamn constitution and not how to bash down doors and shoot people.

      You realize that’s not at all what happened in this story, right? The guy was the subject of a felony arrest warrant. He refused to identify himself to police, as was required by law as someone on probation.

      Even a Terry stop requires reasonable suspicion.

      Under Georgia law, O.C.G.A. § 16-11-36, refusing to identify yourself to a police officer constitutes reasonable suspicion for detaining a suspect.

      (a) A person commits the offense of loitering or prowling when he is in a place at a time or in a manner not usual for law-abiding individuals under circumstances that warrant a justifiable and reasonable alarm or immediate concern for the safety of persons or property in the vicinity.
      (b) Among the circumstances which may be considered in determining whether alarm is warranted is the fact that the person takes flight upon the appearance of a law enforcement officer, refuses to identify himself, or manifestly endeavors to conceal himself or any object. Unless flight by the person or other circumstances make it impracticable, a law enforcement officer shall, prior to any arrest for an offense under this Code section, afford the person an opportunity to dispel any alarm or immediate concern which would otherwise be warranted by requesting the person to identify himself and explain his presence and conduct. No person shall be convicted of an offense under this Code section if the law enforcement officer failed to comply with the foregoing procedure or if it appears at trial that the explanation given by the person was true and would have dispelled the alarm or immediate concern.

      So it appears that the officers did indeed act within the proper grounds of both Georgia law and the 4th Amendment. You should probably have looked that up before criticizing the legality of the search.

  26. The best remedy is to sue the local police that encourage this kind of behavior, while acting like they don’t. After these police departments go bankrupt a few times, they might just think of warning their officers that they aren’t allowed to grab people just because they look guilty and refuse to supply ID. I am amazed at the facists on this comments board who think this kind of behavior by police is ok.

  27. Dumbass reporter makes judgement based on the END of the video. As we’ve seen in almost every single incident, this is an asinine way of determining guilt. Why didn’t the driver have ID (as required by law)? And what happened after that? Did the cops try to detain him, he resisted, possibly kicked and punched them? Maybe just used the “I’m not resisting” line while stiffening his arms so they can’t cuff him? I’m getting very close to removing Reason from my read list because of stupid takes like this. If you’re going to write a stupid article like this before you even have evidence, at least show journalistic impartiality. You know, like it’s your job.

  28. Making Cash more than $15k to $18k consistently just by doing basic online work. I have gotten $18376 a month ago just by working on the web. Its a simple and basic occupation to do from home and its profit are greatly improved than customary office work. Each individual can join this activity now just by pursue this link……..go to this site home media tech tab for more detail support your hear HERE….……Click For Full Detail.

Please to post comments