Phoenix Police Pummel a Deaf Man, Months After the Justice Department Found Widespread Civil Rights Violations

Tyron McAlpin's lawyers say he couldn't hear the commands of the officers when they jumped out of a police cruiser and immediately attacked him.

Video footage of Phoenix police officers beating and tasing a deaf black man with cerebral palsy has led to an internal investigation and widespread media coverage—and it couldn't come at a worse time for the city. This summer the Justice Department (DOJ) released a scathing report accusing the police department of systemically violating the civil rights of vulnerable residents.

Local TV news outlet ABC15 first published footage last week showing the violent arrest on August 19 of Tyron McAlpin, who is now facing felony aggravated assault and resisting arrest charges as a result of the incident.

According to reports filed by the officers, they were responding to a man trespassing at a Circle K. That man told the officers he'd been assaulted by McAlpin, pointing him out. Officers leaped out of their car and immediately began a physical confrontation with McAlpin, who could not hear their commands.

In their incident reports and court testimony, the two officers said McAlpin took a fighting stance and repeatedly punched them. One of the officers claims McAlpin bit him on the wrist.

In June, the Justice Department released the findings of an investigation into civil rights abuses by the Phoenix Police Department. That report concluded that the Phoenix police routinely use excessive force and illegally retaliate against residents, violating their First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

The investigators documented incidents where Phoenix police fabricated incident reports, needlessly used physical force and dangerous restraints, illegally detained homeless people and destroyed their property, delayed medical aid to wounded suspects, and assaulted people for criticizing or filming them.

Among the report's findings was that Phoenix police officers "use unreasonable force to rapidly dominate encounters, often within the first few moments of an encounter."

The Justice Department is pushing the city to enter into a court-enforced consent decree to overhaul its policing practices, a move the city is resisting. But it will be harder to make the argument that Phoenix can police itself when videos of arrests like McAlpin's are coming out.

"It's hard for me to see how the city can come out and say with [a] straight face that it is meeting the DOJ report head-on when this man is being charged with assault on police officers for this incident," Jesse Showalter, one of McAlpin's attorney, told ABC 15.

Arizona civil rights groups and disability advocates are calling for the charges against McAlpin to be dropped.

"Disgust is probably the best way I can say it," Sarah Tyree, president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People's Arizona conference, told KNXV. "It's just another stark reminder of where we are."

The Phoenix Police Department launched an internal review of the incident on August 30, and Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell announced that she is personally reviewing the case as well because it "merits additional scrutiny."

Not everyone thinks the charges against McAlpin's deserve a closer look, though.

"While some in the media are making this incident about race and discrimination, it is really about 2 police officers in full Phoenix Police uniform driving fully marked police cars coming under immediate attack by someone who was alleged to have committed a crime," Phoenix Law Enforcement Association (PLEA) President Darrell Kriplean said in a statement to local media. "Our officers have the right to defend themselves against attack by utilizing reasonable and necessary force based on the circumstances presented at the time.

In the body cam footage of McAlpin's arrest, McAlpin's girlfriend arrives on the scene and can be heard telling officers, "Apparently you tasered him, and he has cerebral palsy. Good job."

"Yeah well, he bit me," one officer responds.

"Don't even bother with that ho," a female officer says.

None of the incident reports filed by officers mention McAlpin's disabilities.

The Justice Department will have its hands full.

Comments

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Unless they knew this guy personally from previous encounters, it's hard to see how they can justify jumping on him like that.

I'm sure AT will enlighten me.

[AT]

Why would I? Cop clearly came out hot for a takedown. Far as I can tell, there's nothing legitimate that would have warranted that level of force without having first exchanged words - however futile that may have been in this case. And then they kept escalating the force. Now, granted, at this point he's fighting back - but still. Cops were pretty clearly instigated this one.

They were there on a trespass call with allegations of assault. No indication of being armed (though always assume a suspect is), but they gave him zero time to comply with a lawful order. That's a bad call, and based on my review for whatever that's worth, those cops should be held accountable for it.

That said, man - you just do NOT hate journalists enough. Every source is making hay about the vic being deaf and having cerebral palsy. Who cares. Totally irrelevant, especially in this particular case. Based on how fast the cops flew into that takedown, it's irrelevant whether or not he could/would have complied. He wasn't given the chance to. Simple as that. So, why are we even talking about it? That's trying to gin up sympathy for the victim and rage against the cops - meaning there's a narrative running instead of objective reporting. Not cool.

[Get To Da Chippah]

What? Just as ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking the law, ignorance of the commands the cops were shouting is no excuse for not following them, right? Surely also charging this scum for having a maliciously thick skull against which the domestic hero's fist was broken is completely appropriate.

AT, if you're reading this, I sincerely hope you get your account back soon.

[AT]

See, this is what I was talking about below. Your ACAB takes over that simple, low-functioning lizard brain and you still can't stand it even when we're in agreement.

Because it's not about whether the situation was right or wrong, legal or illegal, good or bad for you ACABs - it's just about the pure unadulterated bigoted hatred towards cops. The same sort of thing that makes anti-Semites go, "I would rather side with baby-butchering terrorists than consider even one thing positive or sympathetic about Israel." It's like it's some idiot mantra that was drummed into your head, probably at the behest of a public university, and now you're incapable of individual rational thought on the subject.

That's all ACAB is. Just reliable, obedient, pre-programmed NPCs.

[Get To Da Chippah]

Wrong again. There are indeed times when lethal force is appropriate for police officers. The folks like you with closets full of thin blue line swag just think they're far more common than I do, and justify that belief by putting the blame on the people with whom police interact rather than the individuals who we keep being told are trained professionals who know how to defuse tense situations. And if you believe it's fair to call anyone who disagrees with your positions some ACAB backer, then it's just as fair to characterize you as someone who believes the police can do no wrong, and to mock your support for the cops even when you claim they're in the wrong.

I saw a recent bodycam video of an officer answering an apartment door and greeted with a woman who came right out swinging a knife at him. He dodged and moved backwards, drawing his gun and warned her repeatedly to put the knife down. She came at him and swung again and he dodged again without shooting. Only after she approached him a third time did he shoot. IMO he could have justifiably fired his weapon in self defense much sooner, and it's to the officer's credit that he remained calm and waited as long as he did before pulling the trigger.

Compare and contrast that to some of the recent incidents wherein you ardently defend the professionals and blame the people who were beaten and/or killed, and then maybe you'll understand why I find it hard to believe you would support letting this particular individual get away with being deaf as an excuse for not following the cops' lawful orders. If you let that slide, then thugs will start running around with earplugs in so they can ignore the police, right?

[AT]

by putting the blame on the people with whom police interact rather than the individuals who we keep being told are trained professionals who know how to defuse tense situations.

Often times, the blame IS on the people with whom police interact. Especially if they obviously just committed a crime, or are drunk/high, or are needlessly escalating a situation instead of helping de-escalate it - which they usually only do when they're trying to prevent the discovery of a crime.

There is NO good reason for ANY person to escalate a police confrontation. None. Doesn't matter if they have the wrong guy. Doesn't matter if they think their Lives Matter more than other people. Doesn't matter if the cop is being the most obnoxious prick possible. Every single police confrontation - every. single. one. - is one where the cop might die. That's what he walks into every time. Doesn't matter if he's pulling over Carpool Cathy or doing a welfare check and happening across Billy Bench Warrants. You seem to think cops should have this magical ability to just let down their guard because they're "trained professionals" - and that it's exclusively their responsibility to do the diffusing.

Neither is true.

I love this video (and have posted it before) because it's truth in comedy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj0mtxXEGE8

Cue it up to 1:51 especially. Those two simple words - that's often the difference between escalation and de-escalation.

I saw a recent bodycam video of an officer answering an apartment door and greeted with a woman who came right out swinging a knife at him.

Yea, I saw that too. You missed three important facts when you described it - A) he didn't dodge, he took a slash to the forehead; and B) he fired the third time because he had been backed into a dead-end, and C) he was there on a wellness check that went from zero to crazy in a split second. I repeat: Every single police confrontation - every. single. one. - is one where the cop might die. That's what he walks into every time.

Also, I saw an even better video where a knife-wielder kept approaching on an open road, and the cops backtracked for blocks with their firearms online. And not just to avoid shooting him, but because... well, 4th Rule. Ultimately they DID shoot him (and if you ask me, they should have shot him a lot earlier than they finally did), because A) exactly how long are they supposed to keep backtracking while the guy is menacing; and B) the goal is to control and contain the scene. Let me show you another video, where a BLM activist undergoes Use of Force training:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfi3Ndh3n-g

It's that fast. Seven rounds. One second.

And even the BLM dude gets it in the end: "I didn't realize how important compliance is."

That's it man. That's on the people. It's one of our basic civic duties. It's not the cops' job to "diffuse" your non-compliance. It's to control the scene and subdue the suspect/belligerent.

If you run, he's going to chase you. If you fight, he's almost certainly going to win. If you even hint at putting his or anyone else's life in imminent danger, he's going to drop you. It's that simple. If you disagree with any of those three things, then you're not being reasonable.

(ps. wait until you see who one of the Fox10 anchors is in that clip. :D)

then it’s just as fair to characterize you as someone who believes the police can do no wrong

No it's not, because I don't believe that. And I've made it very clear, repeatedly, that I don't believe that.

When the cop is wrong, I side against the cop. When the cop is reasonable under the circumstances, or better yet justified, I side against the perp. It's that simple.

But ACAB's don't want to hear any argument as to why it might be reasonable/justified if it's remotely in question.

I made it perfectly clear here. The cops were obviously wrong because they didn't even give this dude a chance to comply. In most of the ACAB stories that get posted, they do and the perp refuses.

[Get To Da Chippah]

Every single police confrontation – every. single. one. – is one where the cop might die. That’s what he walks into every time.

So they keep reminding themselves on a daily basis. That’s a great way to keep oneself on edge, which would seem to be a counterproductive thing to do when having to deal with the public.

By extension, every interaction someone else has with a cop is one in which the member of the public might die. But if it’s acceptable for cops to immediately go into lethal force mode because “every interaction is one where they might die”, it should be just as acceptable for the public to do so. Especially if you’ve done nothing wrong. Yet the people who’ve been granted additional powers seem to rarely be held to a higher standard of conduct when using them. The rules of engagement for police in America are far less stringent than those for soldiers operating in combat zones, which seems curiously backwards to me.

I love this video (and have posted it before) because it’s truth in comedy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj0mtxXEGE8

Cue it up to 1:51 especially. Those two simple words – that’s often the difference between escalation and de-escalation.

Yes, it’s funny. Which of those rules did Philando Castille break? And what happened to the cop who killed him?

Let me show you another video, where a BLM activist undergoes Use of Force training:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfi3Ndh3n-g

It’s that fast. Seven rounds. One second.

And even the BLM dude gets it in the end: “I didn’t realize how important compliance is.”

Oh, gee, I guess it’s okay for the police to shoot first at any time then, yup yup.

It sort of proves my point though. First interaction the activist gets shot, so his next interaction is to overcorrect and kill someone quickly. Which is the better solution?

Nobody said being a cop is easy or safe. It’s not. Don’t want to undertake the risks? Go be a plumber. Once again, soldiers operate under more strict ROEs. If the cops operated under those rules and were reliably held accountable when they violate them, then many of my objections would go away.

[AT]

which would seem to be a counterproductive thing to do when having to deal with the public.

No, it's really not. And yes, they should be on edge - especially in a society that has become so virulently anti-cop and been led to believe that non-compliance is a lottery ticket.

By extension, every interaction someone else has with a cop is one in which the member of the public might die.

And how did you strain to extend that, exactly?

But if it’s acceptable for cops to immediately go into lethal force mode because “every interaction is one where they might die”

You disingenuous ACAB punk. You disgusting despicable liar. Quote me where I said that it's acceptable to immediately go into lethal force mode.

Yet the people who’ve been granted additional powers seem to rarely be held to a higher standard of conduct when using them.

You don't even understand what the police are insofar as a Constitutional democratic republic is, do you.

Do you understand, even slightly, that the cops have - by very intentional design - a legal monopoly on the use of force? They get to use force, AND YOU DON'T. If you don't get that, then this is a critical failing of your understanding of basic American civics.

For them, it's a necessity to enforce rule of law. For you, it's an affirmative defense you can make. And you clearly do not understand the difference between those two things.

And no, that doesn't mean it's a license to go out thumping skulls as they see fit. Which I know is what you want to believe any time you hear a cop story - but that's not the reality of it.

You are an ACAB tool NPC, Chip. You don't have an independent brain. I'm very sorry for that, but I'm done pretending you can be reasoned with. Your objections will never go away. Because you're a stupid ignorant bigot. Programmed and carrying out said programming.

[Get To Da Chippah]

By extension, every interaction someone else has with a cop is one in which the member of the public might die.

And how did you strain to extend that, exactly?

No strain involved whatsoever, dingus. It's simply using the exact same logic that the police use to justify their assertion that every interaction with the public could be their last. Mathematically there's a greater than absolute zero chance of any encounter between the police and the public turning fatal, right? That's certainly what the cops believe, right? If so, then how does it NOT hold true for the police as well as for those with whom they interact?

But we don't want to examine those odds too closely, because we might learn that being a logger or roofer is mathematically far more dangerous than being a police officer when it comes to on-the-job fatalities.

https://advisorsmith.com/data/most-dangerous-jobs/

Statistically speaking, it's more dangerous to be a crossing guard or garbage collector than a cop. SYHTFOTW

Do you understand, even slightly, that the cops have – by very intentional design – a legal monopoly on the use of force? They get to use force, AND YOU DON’T. If you don’t get that, then this is a critical failing of your understanding of basic American civics.

This is demonstrably false, and it comes as no surprise to me that you don't know this, copsucking scum. Look up the case of Andrew Coffee IV and how he was cleared of murder charges after cops invaded his home in the dead of night.

You are an ACAB tool NPC, Chip. You don’t have an independent brain. I’m very sorry for that, but I’m done pretending you can be reasoned with. Your objections will never go away. Because you’re a stupid ignorant bigot. Programmed and carrying out said programming.

Nope, I just want cops to operate under the same rules of engagement as soldiers do in war zones, and I want them to be reliably held accountable when they fail to follow those rules. I can't help but notice how you steadfastly disregard this blatant difference time and time again, by the way. I don't blame you for dodging, as even someone as dense as you must know there's no acceptable reason for this glaring difference. But I can understand why someone as blindly loyal to the thin blue line would not want to acknowledge it.

Part of the reason for the difference is the existence of police unions whose job is to defend even the most egregious misconduct by dues-paying members as possible. Eliminating police unions will go a long way to correcting this disgusting imbalance. Making settlements come out of the police retirement fund rather than taxpayers who have nothing to do with the actions of the police would motivate police forces to clean house.

[AT]

Mathematically there’s a greater than absolute zero chance of any encounter between the police and the public turning fatal, right?

Ahh, so you're going with a statistical argument that relies on an extreme minority in order to rationalize a sweeping conclusion that is in no way reflective of the actual incident rate of fatalities in compliant suspects.

Kinda like "we gotta be able to kill ALL the babies in the name of the highly unlikely and extremely rare incestuous rape-based pregnancy where the mom's life is in danger."

You mentioned Tamir Rice and Ryan Whitaker. So you've got two examples of your statistic. How many police confrontations are there per day where compliant citizens meet the fate of a Tamir Rice or Ryan Whitaker? Go ahead and crunch the numbers. I'll wait.

Gonna derp that one, Chip. Derp.

But we don’t want to examine those odds too closely, because we might learn that being a logger or roofer is mathematically far more dangerous than being a police officer when it comes to on-the-job fatalities.

LOL. I mean, what's your argument here? Every time a roofer gets on a roof, he's in mortal peril - and roofers spend time on roofs more than cops confront non-compliant suspects? Do you NOT see how counterproductive to your own idiot ACAB position that is? You just unintentionally advocated for compliance in police confrontations - MY position on the subject. It immediately reduces, if not eliminates, the risk of harm to both cop and citizen.

Does that not illustrate for you how ACAB is based far more in hatred and ignorance than it is reason and logic? You just shot your own argument in the foot.

I guess we're at Double-Derp here.

This is demonstrably false

OK, so you don't actually understand the terms "legal monopoly on the use of force" and "affirmative defense" do you.

Wow. No wonder you go with ACAB. It's easier than thinking, isn't it.

I just want cops to operate under the same rules of engagement as soldiers do in war zones

Seriously? You want the cops, armed with military hardware, acting on the presumption that EVERYONE AROUND THEM is a hostile insurgent?

and I want them to be reliably held accountable when they fail to follow those rules.

THEY ARE. You literally just pointed out the case of AJ Coffee.

Seriously. The ACAB. It's bad NPC programming.

Eliminating police unions will go a long way to correcting this disgusting imbalance.

I don't have a problem with that. (Except for the term "disgusting imbalance" - because the media glorified cases where things go sideways are FAR less in frequency across America than in the daily policing you don't even notice because it's completely harmless and without incident.)

Making settlements come out of the police retirement fund rather than taxpayers who have nothing to do with the actions of the police would motivate police forces to clean house.

That's dumb. That's punishing good cops for the actions of bad/dumb ones. Like saying that a hospital should be shut down if even a single health care worker commits malpractice, intentional or otherwise. Don't be dumb. That's your ACAB talking.

[Get To Da Chippah]

Ahh, so you’re going with a statistical argument that relies on an extreme minority in order to rationalize a sweeping conclusion that is in no way reflective of the actual incident rate of fatalities in compliant suspects.

Yes. JUST LIKE THE POLICE DO.

You mentioned Tamir Rice and Ryan Whitaker. So you’ve got two examples of your statistic. How many police confrontations are there per day where compliant citizens meet the fate of a Tamir Rice or Ryan Whitaker? Go ahead and crunch the numbers. I’ll wait.

More than there ought to be. More than there would be if cops operated under the same ROEs as soldiers and were reliably held accountable when they failed to do so. More than there would be if the consequences for failure incentivized cops to police each other.

Seriously? You want the cops, armed with military hardware, acting on the presumption that EVERYONE AROUND THEM is a hostile insurgent?

This is what the cops already do, nitwit. AnY TrAfFiC StOp CoUlD bE yOuR LaSt!

This also shows how little you know of the ROEs in a combat zone. It’s actually quite the opposite. Soldiers are not free to run around killing anything they presume might be dangerous. Soldiers need to have proof of a hostile act or hostile intent, rather than the presumption of such. “I thought he had a weapon” will not save your ass from a court martial if you cause an international incident. If the police had to follow military ROEs, it means the police may face more danger in the field, but that’s part of what they’re paid for.

THEY ARE. You literally just pointed out the case of AJ Coffee.

Seriously. The ACAB. It’s bad NPC programming.

THEY ARE NOT. You glided right over the term RELIABLY. The police are not RELIABLY held accountable for their misdeeds. It may be more accurate to say that police unions, qualified immunity, systemic issues within police departments, and other factors RELIABLY see to it that the police are not RELIABLY held accountable, despite copsuckers like you pretending that they’re held to some higher standard of conduct.

That’s dumb. That’s punishing good cops for the actions of bad/dumb ones.

That’s how you get good cops to help get rid of bad cops. Police officers should police their own as much as they do anyone else.

[AT]

Yes. JUST LIKE THE POLICE DO.

Are you even listening to yourself at this point, NPC?

Actual. Incident. Rate. Of. Fatalities. In. Compliant. Suspects.

Martha, are you listening to yourself?

Cops have far more to be worried about from a confrontation than citizens do. The numbers do not deny this. YOU deny this, because of your broken ACAP programming, NPC.

More than there ought to be.

How many ought there be?

More than there would be if the consequences for failure incentivized cops to police each other.

They do. It's called internal affairs.

This is what the cops already do, nitwit.

Only in your ACAB fever dreams.

AnY TrAfFiC StOp CoUlD bE yOuR LaSt!

Almendarez, Darren; Arkell, Stephen; Beasley, James; Bolton, Sean; Brotherson, Cody; Buechner, William; Burrell, Kevin; Chesna, Michael; Clardy, Thomas; Coates, Mark; Copeland, Kenneth; Dees, Nicholas; DeGuzman, Jonathan; Ellis, Daniel; Faulkner, Daniel; Foerster, Werner; Fox, Brad; French, Ella; Glaze, Dan; Goforth, Darren; Goodding, Jason; Gumm, Heath; Hopkins, Jack; Irvine Jr., Charles; Jarrott, Darian; Jones, Tim; Kilcullen, Chris; Lasater, Larry; Leahy, William; Louviere, Michael; Lunsford, Darrell; Moore, Brian; Moszer, Jason; Oberheim, Chris; Olinger, Kyle; Pagerly, Kyle; Richey, Paul; Rittner, Matthew; Russell, Glenn; Sanchez, Moises; Sepulveda, Crystal; Shaw, Brian; Sherrard, David; Skelly, Matt; Terney, Justin; Thyne, Katie; Tuder, Sean; Vega, Jose; Webster, Daniel; Zerebny, Lesley.

Cops killed by suspects during routine patrolling. Look 'em up.

You gave me two. I gave you FIFTY. And I can give you fifty more, and fifty plus that, and fifty plus that, and I can keep on lining up cop graves. You stupid ACAB punk. You stupid, ignorant, NPC moron. You don't have even the slightest clue what you're talking about.

You just hate cops like the KKK hates blacks and like the Democrats hate Jews. Because that's ALL your position is. Unbridled bigotry based on unapologetic ignorance.

This also shows how little you know of the ROEs in a combat zone.

Actually, it shows how little you know of them. Soldiers are sent out on missions. Recon this, secure that, pacify this area, guard that convoy, and so forth. They're operators. You seem to be confusing this with patrolmen charged with keeping the peace.

I am 100% convinced that, not only are you an ACAB NPC, you also watch WAY too much television. Your position is based on fantasy and fiction. Not on anything real.

Again, NPC.

Soldiers are not free to run around killing anything they presume might be dangerous.

Nor are cops.

The police are not RELIABLY held accountable for their misdeeds.

Yes, they are. Maybe not in a way you deem sufficient, but that sounds like a personal problem borne of bigotry and ignorance. Especially given literally everything you've said to date.

Just say you want anarchy. You LOLertarians are always all the same. We both know it's what you're really after. So, quit pretending like you have a reasonable stance here and just advocate for the anarchy your masters have programmed you to desire.

[Get To Da Chippah]

You gave me two. I gave you FIFTY. And I can give you fifty more, and fifty plus that, and fifty plus that, and I can keep on lining up cop graves.

And it would still be less than trash collectors over the same time period. Not that I'm happy about cops being killed in the line of duty, mind you, but none of them were conscripted into the job, and they all knew there were risks involved.

Actually, it shows how little you know of them. Soldiers are sent out on missions. Recon this, secure that, pacify this area, guard that convoy, and so forth. They’re operators. You seem to be confusing this with patrolmen charged with keeping the peace.

Seriously? When police are sent by dispatch to some kind of scene or call, what is that if not a mission, dimwit? Even when on patrol they're on a general mission to observe activity and react if they believe something illegal may be taking place.

Soldiers in combat zones literally operate in hostile territory yet are expected to affirmatively identify friend from foe before engaging. Killing a non-combatant because the soldier only thought the non-com was armed is not going to save a soldier from consequences. By contrast, that's a standard 'get out of jail free' card for cops. "Whoopsie-doodle, I though the suspect's cell phone was a weapon so I mag-dumped" is generally all it takes for cops to avoid consequences, stencil another Punisher skull on their duty belt, and engage in a round of congratulatory high-fives from their comrades.

The police are not RELIABLY held accountable for their misdeeds.

Yes, they are.

ORLY?! Then riddle me this, copsucker. Or allow me to laugh when you dodge these questions like you've done so many others. We agree the cops in this article were in the wrong, so:

- What consequences do you think these cops should face for their actions? I'm talking specifics here, not vague garbage like "whatever the local department's policies indicate".

- What consequences do you think they will face for their actions? Same qualifiers as above.

If those two answers are at all different, why would that be the case and how can it be said they're reliably held accountable?
Lastly, and AGAIN, if cops are RELIABLY held accountable, what happened to the cops who killed Tamir Rice, Ryan Whitaker, Daniel Shaver, Jose Guerreno, Philando Castille, John Crawford III, Thomas Kelley, Zachary Hammond, etc. (You may notice I've leaving out some prominent ones like Michael Brown, which was a good shoot, IMO. So much for me hating cops like the KKK hates blacks.)

[AT]

Not that I’m happy about cops being killed in the line of duty, mind you, but none of them were conscripted into the job, and they all knew there were risks involved.

Then why don't you defend them - or even try to understand it from their perspective - when they did everything right, and the suspect is the one who refused to comply or worse became an perceived active threat?

Your position seems to be - correct me if I'm wrong - that suspects should able to act in a threatening manner or refuse lawful orders, and that the cop should hold back until the very last second. The problem with that is, the "very last second" is almost certainly a fatal one for them (or someone else).

Seven shots, remember? Dude pulled a blaster and put seven shots into that BLM dude in the Use of Force drill.

Soldiers in combat zones literally operate in hostile territory yet are expected to affirmatively identify friend from foe before engaging.

Is the cop's patrol to put down insurgents in American society on a hostile active battlefield? Is the military's job to maintain law and order of a combative region? No. It's the other way around.

It's the reason you see "Protect and Serve" on the cop's car, but not on the military vehicle. Because the military is there to defeat, by force, a declared enemy. If citizens were planning active campaigns against the police, you might have an argument. But they're not, are they.

But I'll tell you what. Let's meet in the middle. We'll hold cops to military ROE standards like you want, and in return we'll give them the same levels of civilian oversight and legal accountability. We'll make them an active combat force against the American citizenry, declare that citizens are to be considered the equal of insurgents, and the police need no longer apply to the same Constitutional requirements (regarding detention, search and seizure, interrogation, etc.) when dealing with those American "insurgents." Fair?

Or insane?

(See how ACAB always circles back to the insanity it begins with yet?)

– What consequences do you think these cops should face for their actions? I’m talking specifics here, not vague garbage like “whatever the local department’s policies indicate”.

– What consequences do you think they will face for their actions? Same qualifiers as above.

I don't know why you separated the questions, the answer is the same: I don't know.

Innocent until proven guilty, remember? And as I researched the incident outside of this article, it's my understanding that the matter is still pending investigation.

What you're asking me to determine is essentially like asking me what sentence Rex Heuermann will get, as opposed to what he "should" get. It's a question that can't be answered, because he hasn't been found guilty of anything yet.

If you're asking for my gut feeling, then feel free to laugh. And when you do, let me know so I can have a good chuckle at your expense when you effectively admit that you're operating on emotional outrage instead of objective reasoning.

Lastly, and AGAIN, if cops are RELIABLY held accountable, what happened to the cops who killed Tamir Rice, Ryan Whitaker

Tamir Rice was a tragic accident, and the minimal reprisal on the cops appropriately reflected that.

Ryan Whitaker was poorly handled, and the cop was fired. On appeal, a civilian review board decided to reinstate him. I don't know the details why, but apparently a board of non-cops decided his value as an officer was greater than his one instance of poor judgment.

If you really want me to go looking up the rest of them, I suppose I can - but I had already done the review of Rice and Whitaker from your prior question, and had the answers handy. I hope that suffices.

So, now why do you think they should face MORE accountability than they deserved/got?

[Get To Da Chippah]

Then why don’t you defend them – or even try to understand it from their perspective – when they did everything right, and the suspect is the one who refused to comply or worse became an perceived active threat?

You mean like Michael Brown, who I specifically mentioned was a good shoot on the part of the cop?

Your position seems to be – correct me if I’m wrong – that suspects should able to act in a threatening manner or refuse lawful orders, and that the cop should hold back until the very last second. The problem with that is, the “very last second” is almost certainly a fatal one for them (or someone else).

I expect the police to be the professionals, to be the ones trained to identify threats reliably, and to respond to true threats with proportionate force. But that actually gets you fired from the police.

https://usmclife.com/usmc-veteran-fired-police-department-not-shooting-armed-man/

This Marine sued the department and won a $175k settlement — from taxpayers who had nothing to do with the decision. What consequences did the actual officers and city officials face? Uncertain, but it seems they didn’t lose their jobs like the Marine did.

I don’t know why you separated the questions, the answer is the same: I don’t know.

Intellectual cowardice noted. I specifically asked you what you thought they should and will face, not what you know they should and will face. Chalk up more instances of you not answering questions I ask.

Tamir Rice was a tragic accident, and the minimal reprisal on the cops appropriately reflected that.

Ryan Whitaker was poorly handled, and the cop was fired. On appeal, a civilian review board decided to reinstate him. I don’t know the details why, but apparently a board of non-cops decided his value as an officer was greater than his one instance of poor judgment.

Yeah, copsucker, you could tell in the video of the Tamir Rice killing that the cop ACCIDENTALLY drew his gun, ACCIDENTALLY aimed it at the kid and ACCIDENTALLY pulled the trigger, yup yup.

And the cop who killed Whitaker lost his job temporarily, but was reinstated, which usually means with back pay as well. Horrors! He lost … basically nothing. What incentive is there for the cop to do anything different? You won’t answer this question, so I’ll do it for you: There is no incentive.

Totally proportionate consequences compared to the damage done, right? Let me know when a board of non-cops reinstates Whitaker’s life, which is apparently less valuable than the cop’s value as an officer, right? Oh, wait, except the city paid $3 million to the family (punishing the taxpayers again), so the cop’s value as an officer was greater than the three mil the city paid out?

Keep on lying about how cops are reliably held accountable, scum.

[Get To Da Chippah]

And let me address this as well before you call me out.

But I’ll tell you what. Let’s meet in the middle. We’ll hold cops to military ROE standards like you want, and in return we’ll give them the same levels of civilian oversight and legal accountability. We’ll make them an active combat force against the American citizenry, declare that citizens are to be considered the equal of insurgents, and the police need no longer apply to the same Constitutional requirements (regarding detention, search and seizure, interrogation, etc.) when dealing with those American “insurgents.” Fair?

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/False-Dilemma

That's not how the military acts in a combat zone. Like I said over and over, they have to affirmatively identify enemy combatants from non-combatants and react accordingly. They are not allowed to gun down anyone they see.

[AT]

You mean like Michael Brown, who I specifically mentioned was a good shoot on the part of the cop?

Is this kinda like the, "I'm not a racist. See, I have this one black friend here!"

I've pointed out many instances where it was a good shoot. Or, at least, a justifiable one. And I've been fair, such as in the present case, where the conduct wasn't good. Problem for you is that you don't want to consider "justifiable" situations where you take into account things from the perspective of the cop.

That's the ACAB NPC programming interfering with your rational brain.

I expect the police to be the professionals, to be the ones trained to identify threats reliably

They do.

Yeah, copsucker, you could tell in the video of the Tamir Rice killing that the cop ACCIDENTALLY drew his gun, ACCIDENTALLY aimed it at the kid and ACCIDENTALLY pulled the trigger, yup yup.

Oh my, you'd better go back and re-read what Tamir Rice did first.

And the cop who killed Whitaker lost his job temporarily, but was reinstated

By a civilian oversight board - not cops. By folks like you and me who, at the demand of the public to oversee situations precisely like this, decided he was a fine enough officer to reinstate. Or, do you have a problem with cops AND civilians when you don't get the result you want?

What incentive is there for the cop to do anything different? You won’t answer this question, so I’ll do it for you: There is no incentive.

Take it up with the civilian oversight board.

Let me know when a board of non-cops reinstates Whitaker’s life, which is apparently less valuable than the cop’s value as an officer, right? Oh, wait, except the city paid $3 million to the family (punishing the taxpayers again), so the cop’s value as an officer was greater than the three mil the city paid out?

So, let me get this straight. You're upset because:

A) A cop lost his job.
B) People who aren't cops decided that his history as an officer warranted reinstatement despite a single lapse in judgment.
C) The victim's estate received just compensation.

I mean, what more do you want? At this point you seem like you're just an NPC leftist complaining for the sake of complaining.

That’s not how the military acts in a combat zone.

Sure it is. Soldiers are 100% justified in rounding up people, detaining/arresting/confining them without due process, seizing property, using enhanced interrogation techniques, and so forth. Oh, and let's not add the fact that if they DO shoot insurgents, there's no automatic review of the use of force. It's just assumed it had to be done so long as the victim is confirmed insurgent.

This is what you want for cops too, right?

[Get To Da Chippah]

I’ve pointed out many instances where it was a good shoot. Or, at least, a justifiable one. And I’ve been fair, such as in the present case, where the conduct wasn’t good.

Except you don't want to get into what you think should happen to the cops when 'the conduct wasn't good' vs. what you think will happen. And we know why, copsucker scumbag. Because you damn well know these two Phoenix cops might lose their jobs for awhile and then quietly get reinstated with back pay, while their victim will probably be terrified of the cops for the rest of his life. Yay?

Gerald Goines, with a career littered with false drug buy claims that eventually led to the deaths of two people? He got overcharged, perhaps intentionally, and will later have the conviction overturned on appeal. I have high confidence of this happening, because I have low confidence in cops reliably being held accountable.

If you don't like the idea of UOF settlement payouts coming out of the police retirement fund, what do you think of cops individually or departments collectively having to pay for the equivalent of liability/malpractice insurance policies, which then pay settlements? Any cop that becomes too, ahem, 'accident' prone may become a financial liability to keep on the force.

Problem for you is that you don’t want to consider “justifiable” situations where you take into account things from the perspective of the cop.

Yeah, I generally don't think cowardice is a good reason for a professional member of law enforcement to justify killing someone. It's a real problem alright. I expect the police to correctly identify true threats first. Unlike you, who seems to be fine with the cops saying "Look, I was scared and so I mag-dumped."

I expect the police to be the professionals, to be the ones trained to identify threats reliably

They do.

Again, demonstrably false. Tamir Rice. Walter Scott. Ryan Whitaker. Jose Guerreno. Zachary Hammond. Bounkham Phonesavanh. Daniel Shaver. Thomas Kelley. Justine Diamond. John Crawford III. And on and on.

Yeah, copsucker, you could tell in the video of the Tamir Rice killing that the cop ACCIDENTALLY drew his gun, ACCIDENTALLY aimed it at the kid and ACCIDENTALLY pulled the trigger, yup yup.
Oh my, you’d better go back and re-read what Tamir Rice did first.

Well one of the things he did was apparently instantly age about 8 years, since the cop after shooting him called in saying he had shot a 20-year old black male. Then he and his biddy tackled Rice's 14-year old sister and spent a bunch of time cuffing and stuffing her while Rice bled out on the pavement. Such heroics.

I'm very sure another thing he mentioned in his report was "I reasonably feared for my life," likely using that exact verbiage or very close. It's the magic words cops know that allow them to litter their turf with bodies and stencil more Punisher skulls on their gear. Perversely, admitting to cowardice is job security.

So, let me get this straight. You’re upset because:

A cowardly cop panicked and killed a guy who wasn't a threat, and got a paid vacation out of it, yes. This, to you, is and example of a cop reliably being held accountable.

That’s not how the military acts in a combat zone.

Sure it is. Soldiers are 100% justified in rounding up people, detaining/arresting/confining them without due process, seizing property, using enhanced interrogation techniques, and so forth.

Spoken like someone wholly ignorant of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Oh, and let’s not add the fact that if they DO shoot insurgents, there’s no automatic review of the use of force. It’s just assumed it had to be done so long as the victim is confirmed insurgent.

Rhetorical stolen base detected. Not everyone the military encounters in a combat zone is automatically considered an insurgent or a hostile combatant. As I've repeatedly said, the rules of engagement strictly require soldiers to affirmatively identify people as hostile combatants before using lethal force. A soldier could easily wind up in Leavenworth if they just assume everyone in a village is insurgent and start killing people indiscriminately. And there can still be reviews of how captured combatants are treated if they are subject to other rules like the Geneva Convention.

Maybe it's you who've watched too much TV or movies.

[AT]

Except you don’t want to get into what you think should happen to the cops when ‘the conduct wasn’t good’ vs. what you think will happen.

I don't want to speculate on an open investigation where the only real facts I know are what I saw in a short video. Your problem is that you've pre-decided the outcome without having all the facts. Understandable, folks do it all the time. The Court of Public Opinion can always seem to magically determine the guilt or innocence of a person despite not having reviewed any of the evidence, considered any of the testimony, looked at any disclosures, or even paid attention to the trial.

But that's just prejudice based on narrative (and usually not even your own, but one that's been spoonfed to you). Which is exactly what your ACAB NPC programming is doing here. You watched a few seconds of something happening and decided that's all you needed to know to then act on it. And, as an aside, if the sheer irony of that is lost on you, then you're even more of an NPC than I thought.

I don't mind offering my thoughts on a case like Rice or Whitaker, because in legal parlance those cases are already closed. We have everything we're going to get on them, and thus can put together a reasonable determination.

Or, in your case, a grossly prejudiced one that refuses to consider it objectively.

Because you damn well know these two Phoenix cops might lose their jobs for awhile and then quietly get reinstated with back pay, while their victim will probably be terrified of the cops for the rest of his life.

Maybe, maybe not. Again, you're in 100% speculation-based-on-prejudice land with that.

He got overcharged, perhaps intentionally, and will later have the conviction overturned on appeal.

Makes sense. And something tells me you'd be 100% for it were that to happen to literally anyone other than a cop, right? (Maybe a politician.) Like, if you were criminally accused of something and the prosecution way overcharged you, you'd want that overturned on appeal too right? I wouldn't blame you. I would too.

The only reason you're being a hypocrite about it now, is because you just plain hate cops.

I have high confidence of this happening, because I have low confidence in cops reliably being held accountable.

Dude, the guy just got 60 years in prison for conviction on two murder raps! It doesn't GET more accountable than that. What else could you possibly want? A public stoning? Summary execution?

If he gets that overturned, then don't be angry at him - be angry at the overzealous prosecutor no doubt getting heavily pressured by an ACAB lynch mob.

If you don’t like the idea of UOF settlement payouts coming out of the police retirement fund, what do you think of cops individually or departments collectively having to pay for the equivalent of liability/malpractice insurance policies, which then pay settlements?

That's already a thing. Law Enforcement Liability Insurance is usually departmental, Police Professional Liability Insurance is more individualized.

Any cop that becomes too, ahem, ‘accident’ prone may become a financial liability to keep on the force.

That's also already a thing. Y'know, for someone so passionate on the subject, you're revealing quite a bit of ignorance on it. ACAB NPC programming at work?

*shakes 8 ball* Huh, "signs point to yes." Imagine that.

Anyway, said insurers can and will deny claims or refuse policy renewal absent some pretty strict conditions. If the risk management tips the wrong direction, it can lead to sharply increased premiums for a city, or even that insurer pulling out of it completely.

Incidentally, you'll love this - you know what helps keep those insurance plans in place and affordable? Qualified Immunity. Lowers the exposure, and thus helps keep costs down. Which is something that should matter to you as a taxpayer.

Just saying. 😉

(And, ngl, I always laugh when ACABs start gnashing their teeth at the taxpayers bearing the brunt of large settlements. Because it's just one of those reminders that those idiots don't have the first clue what they're talking about and are just fashionable bigots.)

Yeah, I generally don’t think cowardice is a good reason for a professional member of law enforcement to justify killing someone. It’s a real problem alright. I expect the police to correctly identify true threats first.

And you saw what happened when they failed to. Did you even watch the Use of Force training video? Popopopopopopop. Both the BLM dude and the journalist cosplaying as cops-in-training - dead as a doornail.

Unlike you, who seems to be fine with the cops saying “Look, I was scared and so I mag-dumped.”

Yea, if the situation reasonably called for it. Again, this is why compliance is so important. If a cops says (or screams in profanity-laced terms) "show me your hands" or "keep your hands where I can see them" or "drop what you're holding" - best way to avoid escalating and risking use of force is to do exactly what he says immediately.

Rice failed to do that, but he was just a kid so that's hard to defend. Whitaker was plainly trying to comply, so that's why you've never seen me defend his actions either. Same goes with the dude in this present case.

Again, demonstrably false.

No, prejudicially false. There's a difference.

There's about half to 3/4-million cops in America, not including feds. You've named ten - TEN - instances of questionable behavior. You continue it with "and so on and so on," but something tells me the ratio will never swing your way. And you're only 1 in 5 of catching up to the number of cops harmed/killed for failing to identify/respond to threats properly. And just for grins, I'm not going to deep dive into the nitty gritty particulars, but let's google your cases:

Walter Scott - cop got 20 years.
Jose Guerena - didn't put down the rifle.
Zachary Hammond - tried to run the cop down.
Bounkham Phonesavanh - I thought you wanted the cops to be more like military.
Daniel Shaver - cop was fired.
Justine Diamond - cop got 12 years, reduced to 5.
John Crawford - grand jury (ie. not cops) wouldn't indict.

And most of them got civil damages for the wrongful deaths.

So - the extreme majority don't have issues; the extreme minority do, and when they're genuinely in the wrong there's accountability and civil restitution.

What's your mindless ACAB-bigoted NPC issue with all this again????

Well one of the things he did was apparently instantly age about 8 years, since the cop after shooting him

No no no, before the shoot. What did Tamir Rice do right before the cops shot him? And, what did the cops say to him immediately before that?

Now, again, it's a kid likely without full appreciation of what was happening and the position he put the cops in. Tragic. But that doesn't mean that the cops acted unreasonably after being put in that position. There's a fair complaint for what they did after they realized their horrible mistake - but that doesn't change the fact that it was, in fact, a genuine mistake.

But that's the part you refuse to acknowledge then, isn't it. Because of the ACAB programming.

A cowardly cop panicked and killed a guy who wasn’t a threat, and got a paid vacation out of it, yes.

Do you know he got paid, or are you just assuming that? And if he did get backpay, isn't that something that you should take up with the civilian review board as opposed to just blindly hating any and all cops as a result?

Spoken like someone wholly ignorant of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

You might want to actually read the UCMJ before you begin trying to cite to it. I've got a little surprise for you, NPC - enemy insurgents do not have Constitutional rights. There are NO civil rights violations with them. Maybe some Geneva stuff, but nothing like which American domestic police forces are subject to. If you ram the butt of your military-issued rifle into the jaw of a civilian (male, female, or child - who may or may not be abetting the enemy) while in uniform and in enemy territory because you're not sure if they're friend or foe, especially while under fire, you're not going to have your conduct too closely scrutinized (let alone civilian reviewed). The same is not true for cops.

Now, do you want the cops to be more like military, or are you an ACAB retard?

Rhetorical stolen base detected.

Better check your sensors there, NPC. Incidentally, my favorite part of your programmed response: You make this laughable comparison to "killing people indiscrimately," as if you have even a SINGLE American police example to equate it with.

Gon' derp that, NPC. Derp.

As I’ve repeatedly said, the rules of engagement strictly require soldiers to affirmatively identify people as hostile combatants before using lethal force.

And you've been technically correct - but only technically so - all this time. But if they're under fire and suddenly a civilian bursts onto the scene behind them taking them by surprise, and they mistake him for a hostile, I promise you that not a single charge will be filed under the UCMJ.

But the soldier will probably have some nightmares about it later in life. Same kind the cops have when they make a mistake.

Out of curiosity, do you empathize even slightly with that? Or is your ACAB programming that all-consuming?

[Get To Da Chippah]

Which of those rules in Chris Rock's video did Tamir Rice break? What happened to the cops who killed him?

Which of those rules did Ryan Whitaker break, and what happened to the cops who killed him?

[Get To Da Chippah]

I should keep a running tally of the number of AT's questions I directly quote and answer vs. the number of my questions AT directly quotes and answers. I suspect there might be an imbalance.

[AT]

Yea, in your brain.

[AT]

When have you ever seen me defend the shooting of Tamir Rice or Ryan Whitaker?

[Get To Da Chippah]

Not the questions I asked.

[AT]

I answered your question with a question. For a reason.

The answer was: you haven't.

Because those shooting were unjustified (and one was just a straight up tragic accident - but ACAB intentionally refuses to make those kinds of distinctions because it undermines their/your false narrative). Meaning your questions are irrelevant, because neither are the kinds of situation where willful non-compliance was at issue.

[Minadin]

It's even worse than that - the further details from the (much longer and more in-depth) linked story, regarding the investigation:

"In their police reports and court testimony, the two officers stated McAlpin was going to run, took a fighting stance, threw repeated punches, and wouldn’t comply with commands."
. . . .
"The violent arrest stems from a morning call from Circle K employees who reported that a White man was causing problems and wouldn’t leave the store, records show.

While being trespassed, the man claimed he was assaulted by a Black man and pointed across the street at McAlpin.

Officers Harris and Sue took the man’s claims at face value and left him to go after McAlpin. (The man’s assault claim was later refuted by store employees and surveillance video, records show.)"
. . . .
"In response to a question from the prosecution, Harris said everything could have been avoided if McAlpin just indicated he was deaf.

“I would have had him sit down, made motions with my hand to have him sit down, and then I would have gotten a pen,” Harris testified."

All demonstrably false testimony from the officers in their hearing and in their reports, coupled with the fact that they got distracted by the actual perp going, 'Look, over there, a black guy!'

[Kyfho Myoba]

You seem to misunderstand. The cops were called on a different man - they were interacting with their initial subject who told them, "that guy over there [points] assaulted me" whereupon the pigs raced over to McAlpin and battered him.

[sarcasmic]

The assault charges are because he broke one of the officer’s fists with his face. I'm serious. One of the cops broke his hand while punching the guy in the head like ten times while he was on the ground with two cops on top of him.

[MWAocdoc]

Of course it would be nice to know what the video showed before the suspect struck or bit an officer. It's NEVER a good idea or acceptable for a police officer to rush into a situation without first assessing it! Is the suspect trying to flee the scene? Is he not responding to voice commands because he's deaf and not facing you? Are you sure your suspect is the right person? Are there innocent people in immediate danger from the suspect or from your response? Naw, just jump out of your patrol vehicle and immediately tackle the first person you see - let god sort it out later.

[sarcasmic]

I saw the video on youtube the other day. He walks out of the store staring at his phone where a friend is talking to him in sign language. As he walks through the parking lot the cops pull up, jump out, and immediately start punching him from behind. He doesn’t know what’s happening so he fights back in fear for his life. So the cops keep punching and kicking and tasing until they’ve got him cuffed. The woman he was talking with on the phone shows up and tries to tell them he’s deaf. They just shrug it off. Being unable to hear commands isn’t an excuse. Paramedics show up and completely ignore the guy on the ground bleeding. Instead they focus on one of the cops who says he broke his hand on the guy’s head, asking if he wants to take pictures (to charge the guy with assault for breaking the officer's hand with his face) before wrapping it. Then the video ended. It was altogether disgusting.

[James K. Polk]

What actually happened was the guy was walking parallel to a storefront when the cop car pulled up to cut him off. Upon seeing this marked police cruiser cut off his egress, he turned and started walking parallel to the *marked* police cruiser. When the police officer *in full uniform* exited his car to apprehend the suspect, the suspect looked directly at the police officer and assumed a combative stance. As the officer reached out to grab him, he began violently resisting. Of course, the officers had no way of knowing his level of hearing loss or that he has cerebral palsy, nor do I necessarily believe that he couldn't hear them. He might be technically deaf according to some medical or legal standard, but he was not completely deaf. He was wearing AirPods at the time of the encounter. Up to that point, I think everything the officers did was appropriate. I also have no problem with some of the measured punches the officer on his back was using to gain compliance. At some point, the suspect stopped actively resisting and his resistance became passive. At that point, the tasing and punching should have stopped. Instead, the officers continued to tase and punch the suspect, which is when I think they may have crossed the line from appropriate force to excessive force.

[Liberty_Belle]

How are you calling being jumped from the side "a combative stance" ? He didn't turn to face the cop until the cop was already outstretched and grabbing at him. This guy basically did the "oh crap, I'm being attacked !" defense of backing up while turning to face whatever is grabbing at him. There is no excuse for this; no wonder the already found this PD guilty of excessive force before this incident.

[Jerry B.]

Democratic mayor and majority Democratic city council.

Gotta beat those Blacks every once in a while or they’ll stray off the plantation.

[SRG2]

Yeah, because cops notoriously lean Democrat.

[Torguud]

Cops are different from sheriff's deputies. Seriously. Big cities have big unions and Democrat run machines.

[Rossami]

Cop unions do lean notoriously strongly to Democratic.

Individual cops tend to follow their leaders (or are preferentially hired/promoted/retained by them which reaches the same result) and those leaders follow their civilian leaders (mayor, etc) for exactly the same reasons. So, yeah, individual cops in long-term -D-controlled cities do tend to lean D. Not as strongly as the unions but statistically significant.

That said, this culture of police abuse crosses partisan lines. Jerry's comment is nevertheless relevant because that bipartisan observation runs contrary to the claims of a great many D politicians and partisans.

[sarcasmic]

Blaming it on Democrats is no different than race-baiters saying "because he's black".

It’s a red herring that distracts from the real problem, which is police culture.

Comments like that are as productive and as shameful as when BLM ended any chances of police reform a few short years ago by making it all about race.

So please go fuck yourself, or at least sit in the corner for a while with a dunce cap on your brainless head.

[Fire up the Woodchippers! (5-30 Banana Republic Day)]

No, Drunky Brewster. It is different. But we get that you have to reflexively defend all things democrat here.

[NM Dave]

You're exactly right. Police culture overrides all political parties and racial lines. Police view the rest of us, especially the poor of any race as the enemy. They train to be predators and then we are surprised when they act like it.

[Chumby]

Cop Jesse in Az beat the man for not listening to him.

[Eeyore]

Cops never listen.

[Fist of Etiquette]

Disgust is probably the best way I can say it," Sarah Tyree, president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People...

I'm sorry, for the advancement of who???

[Fist of Etiquette]

Our officers have the right to defend themselves against attack by utilizing reasonable and necessary force based on the circumstances presented at the time.

Non sequitur in this case, it appears.

[Gaear Grimsrud]

The video is very clear. The guy is walking across the parking lot looking down at his phone. The cops pull up in front of him and he attempts to walk around the car. The cops immediately attack him. At no point does he instigate any aggression. Once on the ground being beaten and tazed did he struggle to defend himself? Who wouldn't. These motherfuckers should be charged with assault and perjury. The fact that charges against this man have not been dropped reveals how deeply corrupt Maricopa County government is. But I'm sure AT will stop by and explain otherwise.

[Fire up the Woodchippers! (5-30 Banana Republic Day)]

Maybe Reason could do a story about their election peculiarities.

Oh, who am I kidding? That will NEVER happen here. Unless it’s a story that completely dismisses any voter fraud as a MAGA fever dream.

[AT]

*eyeroll*

I always give the situation a fair shake, GG. When the cops are wrong, they're wrong. The problem with an audience like this is they're blinded by their ACAB bigotry, so they go looking for wrong when it's not actually there, in order to affirm their confirmation bias.

That's when they need correcting, and act like petulant children when they're made to realize that their position on the matter is less reason (or Reason), and more irrational prejudice.

Bigots don't like their bigotry being pointed out to them. The fact that they - you - come here anticipating it should really tell you something about yourself.

[n00bdragon]

It sure does get harder and harder to believe the "just a few bad apples" line when stuff like this keeps happening. Good thing it was caught on video or he'd be doing decades in the slammer as a notorious criminal.

[sarcasmic]

It's not a few bad apples. It's nationwide police culture. This is standard practice now. It's time to stop calling it misconduct and call it what it is.

[AT]

Does the same apply to criminal illegal aliens?

[Liberty_Belle]

So the white guy that the store called the police on in the first place ... did they ever arrest him ? Or did they jack the first black guy they saw and called it a day ?