MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Watch Glendale Cops Taser a Man 10 Times, Handcuff Him, Pull His Pants Down, and Taser His Groin Area

"I have never seen anything like this before... this is beyond the pale."

GlendaleScreenshot via KSHBA married couple have sued the city of Glendale, Arizona, after police officers tortured the husband, Johnny Wheatcroft, during a routine traffic stop.

Body camera footage of the encounter—released by local news station KSHB—shows cops using a taser on Wheatcroft a total of 11 times, even though the man was neither resisting arrest nor under suspicion of having done anything wrong. Even worse, while Wheatcroft was handcuffed and pinned face-first on the ground of a hotel parking lot, an officer kicked him in the groin, pulled down his gym shorts, and used a taser on his testicles.

This happened while Wheatcroft's two sons—who are 11 and 6—watched in horror from the car.

"I have never seen anything like this before," said Jeff Noble, a former police chief who reviewed the footage for KSHB. "This is just beyond the pale."

The incident took place two years ago, on July 26, 2017. Wheatcroft was in the passenger seat of a car—a male friend was the driver—and his wife, Anya Chapman, and their two children were in the backseat. They had pulled into the parking lot of a Motel 6 when two Glendale police officers, Matt Schneider and Mark Lindsey, approached the car, ostensibly for failing to signal a turn. The officers asked Wheatcroft for identification; he declined to provide it, correctly reasoning that only the driver needed to do so.

Schnider then opened Wheatcroft's door, grabbed the man's arm, and twisted it behind his back, causing considerable wrist pain. The two officers attempted to push Wheatcroft forward, contorting his body into an even more uncomfortable position. Next, they used a taser on him, over and over again. Wheatcroft ended up on the ground outside the car, with his legs still tangled in his seatbelt. The officers then handcuffed Wheatcroft, though this did not end the torture. According to the lawsuit:

Given the temperature of the asphalt, the officers' contorting his body, and the tasing, Plaintiff Johnny Wheatcroft was writhing in pain while his family watched and screamed for the officers to stop. Plaintiff Johnny Wheatcroft was prone and handcuffed on the ground, when Defendant Schneider pulled down Plaintiff's shorts and tased his testicles and perineum, which was significantly and excruciatingly painful.

Defendant Glendale's officers then rolled Plaintiff Johnny Wheatcroft onto his side and began to remove the taser prongs that were embedded into his skin. As the officers began to forcibly remove the prongs, Plaintiff Johnny Wheatcroft screamed in agony and Defendant Schneider placed his taser on Plaintiff Johnny Wheatcroft's penis and screamed, "Keep fighting and you're going to get it again! You want it again? Shut your mouth! I'm done fucking around with you!" At this same time, one of the officers placed a handgun to Plaintiff Johnny Wheatcroft's head.

I would encourage anyone who doubts that this description is accurate to watch the footage. Consider yourself warned: It is extremely disturbing.

Wheatcroft and Chapman were charged with resisting arrest and assaulting an officer—Chapman evidently hit one of the officers in the head with a bag during the confusion—and spent months behind bars because they could not afford bail. Chapman eventually plead guilty to a lesser charge in order to get of jail and reclaim her children.

Prosecutors dropped all charges against Wheatcroft after they reviewed the body cam footage. (Wheatcroft is currently back in prison for committing an unrelated burglary.) The Glendale police gave Schneider a mere three-day suspension: In a statement, the department neglected to mention the use of the taser on the groin, noting only that "a review of the officers' actions has been performed and discipline implemented regarding certain tactics used by one officer."

KSHB's report notes that Schneider is an award-winning police officer who "represented Glendale twice on the TV show Cops." It is appalling that the department still employs a police officer who deliberately used a taser on a restrained man's exposed testicles.

Photo Credit: Screenshot via KSHB

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.

  • Shirley Knott||

    Death penalty for both cops.

  • a ab abc abcd abcde abcdef ahf||

    I would settle for letting their victim repeat the process on them, at a time of his choosing, with surprise and public humiliation being the key.

    Or better yet, charging them with kidnapping, torture, perjury, and lying under color of law. To be judged by a jury of their victims.

  • Quixote||

    Surely this is fake news, and the full story of what actually happened here has been concealed. The article states that the subject was not "under suspicion of having done anything wrong," but I have heard rumors that his attitude was inappropriately ironical. Our nation's leading criminal "parody" case has made it clear that "satire" may be engaged in—as long as it is sufficiently clear and obvious—at certain times and in certain venues, but that it must otherwise be carefully restrained, just as it is in other great nations like Russia and China. See the documentation at:

    https://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/

    In sum, one must always choose one's words, and control one's actions, with the requisite degree of caution. Apparently there was some confusion here because of an unpleasant ironical stance, which it was natural for the authorities to regard as a form of inadmissible resistance.

  • Qsl||

    Always thought damnatio memoriae was appropriate for any public official who abuses their office. Strip them of their citizenship, remove every record of their existence, and cast them into the sea.

    They are no longer worthy of any protections by the state.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    I'm surprised the cops weren't open,y masturbating while they did this.

  • loki||

    That's why the body can wasn't released for so long. It wasn't released until every cop in the station got tired of beating off to it.

  • An Owl Named Dur||

    Nah. Strip them naked. Smear their bodies in Alpo. Then loose starved dogs on them. Be sure to tell the dogs that they're cops. The dogs deserve some payback.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Strip them naked. Smear their bodies in Alpo. Then loose sex starved dogs Reason commenters on them. Be sure to tell the dogs Reason commenters that they're cops sexy Bronx socialists.

  • Morbo||

    GIVE THEM TO STEVE SMITH. STEVE SMITH FIND USEFUL THINGS TO DO WITH THEM.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Make it Brooklyn socialists and you've got yourself a deal.

  • clarkcountycriminalcops||

    Why just "Brooklyn socialists?"

    Are you okay with socialists from Queens, Staten Island or Harlem?
    What about socialists from Ohio, or Colorado?

  • Vernon Depner||

    On the spectrum.

  • clarkcountycriminalcops||

    Thanks for sharing.
    I'm sure you'll still have a very rewarding life/

  • Deep Lurker||

    "...or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death." - 18 US Code 242, deprivation of civil rights under color of law.

    I believe we have kidnapping and aggravated sexual abuse here.

  • FreeRadical||

    Well, I think the first priority would be to protect the families of these dangerous men. Do Matt Schneider or Mark Lindsey have any kids? With fathers who committed violent sexual assault, I think any kids they have would be in danger.

    Surely, someone knows something! We need a brave soul to do the right thing reach out to CPS! People like Matt Schneider and Mark Lindsey must not be allowed to hurt the most vulnerable. We must protect our children!

  • AER1972||

    Seriously? Surely these cops should be fired but death penalty? There is little doubt after watching these people interact that these were a car load of meth-heads with a child which is pretty sad. They just didn't pull these guys over and have 2-3 squad cars over failure to use a turn signal. There had to be some connection the driver/location had to drug dealing. That said the extent they went to to subdue a rather dim witted but passive drug addict was clearly abuse. One look at this car load of unfortunates out to be enough for most Libertarians to think twice about advocating for unfettered use of meth.

  • No Yards Penalty||

    take the salty pig nuts out of your mouth, pig fucker.

  • Whorton||

    Irrespective of the fact that this fellow will never again have to worry about stealing copper for his meth habit, the fact of the matter is that we EXPECT police to be professional in their conduct with the public. The fact that the victim has been guilty of criminal conduct in the past is irrelevant.

    These "officers" are acting more like death camp Capo's after someone stole their beans. If a CRIMINAL is fighting you, use appropriate force, but when someone is no involved in criminal behavior, you are NOT PERMITTED to treat stops as personal grudges to beat and torture people.

    I hope the guy sues the city out of existence,

    This is exactly the sort of behavior that some nut sees on youtube and uses as justification for killing police officers in surprise attacks. This idiot officer may be surprised to find his individual actions do in fact influence the public's response to them. The problem is that we are seeing crap like this every day. It has to stop.

  • Whorton||

    Irrespective of the fact that this fellow will never again have to worry about stealing copper for his meth habit, the fact of the matter is that we EXPECT police to be professional in their conduct with the public. The fact that the victim has been guilty of criminal conduct in the past is irrelevant.

    These "officers" are acting more like death camp Capo's after someone stole their beans. If a CRIMINAL is fighting you, use appropriate force, but when someone is no involved in criminal behavior, you are NOT PERMITTED to treat stops as personal grudges to beat and torture people.

    I hope the guy sues the city out of existence,

    This is exactly the sort of behavior that some nut sees on youtube and uses as justification for killing police officers in surprise attacks. This idiot officer may be surprised to find his individual actions do in fact influence the public's response to them. The problem is that we are seeing crap like this every day. It has to stop.

  • AZ Gunowner||

    Yeah, these people paid a small price for an absolutely essential victory in the "war on (some) drugs".

    Gawd but you are a sad POS.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "The incident took place two years ago, on July 26, 2017."

    If it took place on July 26, 2017, then it happened a year and a half ago. Is there anything to learn from this? Is there some policy we should change because of this incident?

    Are you against tasers? Isn't the cops torturing people already against the law? Do you want to take the discretion to prosecute cops away from the DA because they're beholden to endorsements by the officers' unions and cops they're supposed to prosecute in these cases? Are you against collective bargaining for first responders and the union contracts that protect them?

    If there isn't anything to learn from this story, then it's just porn.

    The cops recovered my motorcycle before I even knew it was stolen.

    There probably isn't anything to learn from that either.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    lol

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Watch Glendale Cops Taser a Man 10 Times, Handcuff Him, Pull His Pants Down, and Taser His Groin Area"

    That headline reads like some sick link you might see advertised on a darkweb site for snuff films. This is a little better than the time he posted the video of the retarded kid getting the shit beat out of him on the subway. That video was in such bad taste, YouTube took it down out of embarrassment.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    That headline reads like some sick link you might see advertised on a darkweb site for snuff films.

    I've never searched the darkweb for snuff films so I will take your word for it.

    This is a little better than the time he posted the video of the retarded kid getting the shit beat out of him on the subway. That video was in such bad taste, YouTube took it down out of embarrassment.

    Ah, I see, The Selectively Morally Superior Outrage Police is back for another wretched episode.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Selectively moral?!

    What do you mean?

  • grb||

    Ken - I'd bet your "It's pointless to report on this outrage" shtick is a special exemption you carve out for cops alone, but whatever. Let's consider the analogy of the Boston Globe reporting on child abuse by the Catholic clergy

    (1) One account of a priest abusing a child may be a single horrible story.
    (2) But if the church covers-up the crime, it's a much, much larger story.
    (3) If the church covers-up these crime repeatedly, everywhere, it's larger still

    Yes, abusive clergy are a small percent of priests. The problem comes when accountability is replaced with dissimulation & whitewash - and in the case of Officer Schneider we're already there. The Glendale PD lies by saying Wheatcroft resisted; their own internal affairs report found otherwise. Their discipline of the officer wasn't even close to adequate for the offense. And we see this same problem repeated countrywide. Like the church, the police don't police themselves with real accountability

    That makes it a big story, yes?.

  • Ken Shultz||

    You making an excellent argument from Robby's material that Robby didn't bother to make does not defend Robby's failure to bother making an argument.

  • marshaul||

    Res ipsa loquitur.

    Nice try, though, at pretending your contribution here is anything more than copsucking.

  • Ray McKigney||

    Harrumph!

  • Ken Shultz||

    You guys may not believe this, but it turns out that Robby is against unnecessarily tazing people's testicles!

    Who knew?

    In all seriousness, Is there some other point being made in this article?

  • Drake||

    LOL. What "point" should he be making? It's a fucking news story about a cop tazing a guy's balls for no fucking reason [other than for kicks, I guess]. It's worth reporting for its own sake! What exactly do you want Robby to do?

  • Ken Shultz||

    And it doesn't seem to have been reported for any particular reason.

    What are we supposed to learn from this?

    Why was this brought to our attention?

    You can draw your own conclusions? Great!

    Are there any points in the piece itself? Otherwise, it's porn.

    "Watch Glendale Cops Taser a Man 10 Times, Handcuff Him, Pull His Pants Down, and Taser His Groin Area"

    Maybe I would, but what would be the point? Why does he want us to watch this?

  • StackOfCoins||

    If no one reported and documented the thousands of times cops abuse their power, there would be no record of their heinous acts.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Can you point to where I said that no one should report the heinous acts of police?

  • clarkcountycriminalcops||

    No, but I can point to where you said there doesn't seem to be a reason to report on this heinous act by police.

    It was right there in the first line, "it doesn't seem to have been reported for any particular reason."

  • Ken Shultz||

    "No, but I can point to where you said there doesn't seem to be a reason to report on this heinous act by police."

    No, you can't.

    My point was, is, and always will be that Robby failed to make a coherent, rational argument about this video. The idea that I said there's no point to watching the video is preposterous. My point was always that there needs to be a reason.

    What are we learning from this? Why should we watch this video?

    That doesn't mean there's no point. That means that Robby failed to provide one--or any context for this argument. And that's a total failure. The whole purpose of this place is to make libertarian arguments using reason, and Robby failed miserably.

    I've provided at least six good reasons. You apparently missed them all. Do you think of yourself as a reasonable person?

  • clarkcountycriminalcops||

    "No, you can't."
    Really? I just did.

    "The idea that I said there's no point to watching the video is preposterous."
    That's why I never claimed you said that.

    "My point was always that there needs to be a reason."
    Your inability to understand that the reason media reports on storied involving government agencies violating the Constitution doesn't mean the reason doesn't exist, just that you lack the ability to understand it,

    "What are we learning from this?"
    Clearly you didn't learn anything. The rest of us learned that police in Glendale, AZ tortured and sexually assaulted someone and then lied about it.

    "Why should we watch this video?"
    To be informed enough to discuss the incident intelligently.

    "That means that Robby failed to provide one--or any context for this argument."
    What argument? This isn't an editorial piece. It's a news report and as such is not supposed to contain an "argument."

    "The whole purpose of this place is to make libertarian arguments using reason."
    Really? That's may be the only thing you want this place to do, but that's not the only thing this site is about.

    "I've provided at least six good reasons. You apparently missed them all."
    I've provided responses to many of them. You apparently missed them all.

  • Mithrandir||

    "No, you can't."

    Poor retard Ken can't even remember what he posts, when it's clearly visible for all to see.

  • Mithrandir||

    This is an incredibly retarded take.

  • Mr. Tibbs||

    Maybe Robby assumed that anyone with half a brain reading Reason would understand some libertarian points without having to be told them, and the point of the story was to show an example of why Reason so often laments the corruption of LEOs. If Robby had listed obvious lessons" of the story you'd probably be lambasting him for stating the obvious.

  • clarkcountycriminalcops||

    "And it doesn't seem to have been reported for any particular reason."

    You're right. Other than informing the public (the media's sole purpose), there's no reason to report on this.

    "What are we supposed to learn from this?"

    You're supposed to learn that police in Glendale, AZ tortured and sexually assaulted someone and then lied about it. I think that's pretty clear.

    "Why was this brought to our attention?"

    That's like asking your waiter why he brought you a plate of food. It's the media's job to bring these things to our attention.

    "Are there any points in the piece itself?"

    Yes.

    "Maybe I would, but what would be the point?"
    So you saw a link to a video of a man being tased by police, followed that link to the video of a man being tased by police, posted several comments about the video of a man being tased by police but you never actually watched the video of a man being tased by police?

    What's the point of doing that?

  • Ray McKigney||

    It's the new "This day in police history" feature.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Yeah, it's a lot like a gun grabber story. Same sort of nonsense assumptions.

    Someone was shot by their spouse today.

    What conclusion is a libertarian supposed to draw from that? Are we going to keep reporting every time someone shoots his or her spouse? Will the gun grabbers keep showing us sensational headlines until we finally realize . . . whatever it is we're supposed to realize?

    Yeah, this cop misbehaved. Tell me what I'm supposed to learn from that. Does Robby want to privatize the police force? I must have listed five or six legitimate libertarian angles in this thread now.

  • Fancylad||

    I'm usually with you Ken, but I'm having a hard time understanding your takeaway here.

    I watched the video and saw a cop lie about why he approached the "suspect", grab him, pull down his pants in front of his kids and taser his nuts, for no purpose other than sadistic torture, then jail him for three months for absolutely nothing.

    I don't think you can over-report a situation like this in a Western democracy. If you think this is old hat or not worth reporting, then the US is fucked. Welcome to Continental Cuba.

    Personally I believe this shit should be screamed about from every rooftop in the country.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    "misbehaved"

    Small children "misbehave" .

    This story is NOT about "misbehavior", it's about another spark for the fire of revolution, you emotionless robot.

  • clarkcountycriminalcops||

    Yeah, this cop misbehaved."

    No! This cop violated the Constitutional rights of someone, tortured him, sexually assaulted him and then lied about it all on the taxpayer's dime.

  • mlwjr||

    If nothing else it's a PSA there is a dangerous asshole still on the police force no?

  • Joe M||

    You're right. Reason should never report on agents of the state torturing and sexually abusing citizens. What's the point?

  • Ken Shultz||

    "You're right. Reason should never report on agents of the state torturing and sexually abusing citizens. What's the point?"

    Can you point to where I said that?

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    "Thank goodness Robby is here to explain these things to us. How would we know what to think otherwise?"

  • Squirrelloid||

    Hmm...

    Discretion taken away from DAs? Yes. All cops accused of misbehavior should prompt a grand jury hearing, at the least. No discretion.

    Against collective bargaining for government employees? YES.

    But the job of the news isn't to editorialize, it's to supply facts so that the public is informed. Documenting government abuse of all kinds is important.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Discretion taken away from DAs? Yes. All cops accused of misbehavior should prompt a grand jury hearing, at the least. No discretion.

    Surely, grand juries must be a big part of the solution.

  • clarkcountycriminalcops||

    "Is there anything to learn from this?"

    Yes, there is.

    "Is there some policy we should change because of this incident?"
    There are many, actually.

    "Are you against tasers?"
    Yes. They were meant to be used a non-lethal means to protect life, not as instruments of compliance and revenge.

    "Do you want to take the discretion to prosecute cops away from the DA because they're beholden to endorsements by the officers' unions and cops they're supposed to prosecute in these cases?"
    Abso-friggen-lutely.

    "Are you against collective bargaining for first responders and the union contracts that protect them?"
    Collective bargaining for all public employees should be eliminated since they are both the workers and the employers and are essentially negotiating with themselves.

    "The cops recovered my motorcycle before I even knew it was stolen.
    There probably isn't anything to learn from that either.
    "

    People doing the job they are paid for don't make the news. When McDonald's gets my order right at the drive through, it don't call the local tv station.
    If there's a severed toe mixed in with my fries, I'm the top story that night.

  • Nuwanda||

    Ken makes the obvious point.

    Are you going to make generalisations about a whole bunch of things based on this particular incident? Sure, let these cops be charged and suffer consequences. They deserve it. But because this is Reason we know we're meant to be dumb enough to believe this is what happens at most stops. If the writer thinks it does I'd love to see the evidence.

    At no point does the writer draw any conclusions, or make a wider point to which his piece is related. Probably because actual journalism is hard. So "porn" is perhaps a reasonable label.

    I might draw an analogy. An illegal immigrant comes into the US with a previous history of murder and embarks upon a killing spree of the most heinous nature. Does this mean Reason suddenly starts endorsing a more restrictive immigration procedure, or a border wall?

    That the cops have become militarised, or that they are enforcing laws that should not even exist, or that authority breeds arrogance and excess, well, we all know that. Is that the point? Gee, you'd think these dumbfucks would understand the function of cameras...

  • marshaul||

    But because this is Reason we know we're meant to be dumb enough to believe this is what happens at most stops. If the writer thinks it does I'd love to see the evidence.

    You're operating on an implicit false dilemma, either that 1. there are only individuals who are corrupt, or 2. every cop is always bad all the time. I'm going with option 3. some cops are/do good, but there are systemic problems with abuse stemming from tactics and training. This may happen only at 0.1% of traffic stops, but given how many traffics stops there are that's still a whole fuckload of abuse, and we can see its regularity in the news.

    At no point does the writer draw any conclusions, or make a wider point to which his piece is related. Probably because actual journalism is hard. So "porn" is perhaps a reasonable label.

    Right, because of this thing we have called the journalistic tradition. What you describe is called an "editorial", and is another thing altogether.

    That the cops have become militarised, or that they are enforcing laws that should not even exist, or that authority breeds arrogance and excess, well, we all know that. Is that the point?

    This article is literally the fuckin' point of mandatory cameras. Punishing one guilty offender doesn't undo abuse, and I would have never cared to support the use of police cameras when I did if the only effect was to occasionally punish abuse which otherwise went on uncurtailed.

  • Nuwanda||

    "some cops are/do good"

    You must mean most cops. If not, where's the evidence? You even speculate about .1% of traffic stops being problematic, so most stops exhibit no problems. That doesn't give a pass to the offending cops but it belies the notion that there's an epidemic of abuse. If the cops weren't enforcing laws that shouldn't exist in the first place there would be even less abuse. But I bet bad cops are active in murder, rape and robbery crimes as well, and they sure as hell are legitimate areas of law.

    Drawing conclusions. Reason doesn't do straight journalism. Never has. Everything it publishes is in the service of a certain perspective. This article is as much about advancing a viewpoint as any editorial. I'm simply pointing out that the writer is opining under the guise of journalistic objectivity.

    Cameras. Yeah, the cops are wearing them, and yet some still can't behave themselves. Hence my point that they are too stupid to keep themselves in check. So they should be punished. But you can sure as hell bet that if the cops as a whole were as evil as painted, these cameras would suddenly be malfunctioning all the time and strangely at times when citizens also made complaints of police brutality.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Instead of writing about Virginia politics the coward is covering this! WHY! WHY COWARD, WHY!

  • JonFrum||

    If the cop had done this in blackface, he'd be gone now.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Yep. Everyone feels emotionally hurt by blackface. When Americans read about this incident, they see it as strange and unjust but not the sort of thing that could ever affect them.

  • Still Curmudgeoned (Nunya)||

    And some feminists are just upset his sack wasn't tased more.

  • clarkcountycriminalcops||

    Really?
    Name one.

  • marshaul||

    The writers over at feministfrequency.com support things like mandatory curfews on men. I'm pretty sure they have a few that would like to see more sack-tasering in this world.

  • You're Kidding||

    If the victim had been black, the whole indicent would have been on the national news.

  • marshaul||

    The first time I heard 'BLM' in the news, I said that the racialization of the police reform movement was going to weaken it by splintering it along tribal identity lines, and removing focus on all the instances where the victim was not "black".

    We really have eliminated institutional racism in (most) modern police departments, but at the same time we've instituted paranoid training which treats giving out traffic tickets and hassling wife-beaters as the practical equivalent of clearing Fallujah. So folks can be forgiven for failing to notice that the causal factor has changed, but changed it has.

    We are now all at risk from rogue cops.

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    Just another day in the police state.

  • majil||

    Cheer when cops are shot in the face

  • Homple||

    If somebody wants to recruit for an American Gestapo or NKVD, the place to look for candidates is any large police department. The worst 5% are capable of anything.

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    They are the American Gestapo.

  • An Owl Named Dur||

    Only the worst 5? You're both generous and naive.

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    I am told by my hyperwoke sister that elbow spiderweb tattoos are secret code for DEFINITELY A NAZI SHITLORD. She also insists every business display a sign outside their premises detailing who they will not serve so her friends in ski masks and Che shirts can deliver beatings, screaming, and bomb threats. She's a self-described "centrist" so I guess she must be pretty reasonable. I'd better check with her if this news is even real because it looks like something made up by the KKKochtopus to undermine the Narrative of Truth that only certain intersectionally validated lives matter.

  • Drake||

    Your sister's pretty stupid, I'm sad to say. Did you ask her where she got that bullshit, by any chance? I imagine you'll just get a blank stare but it's worth a try anyway, haha.

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

    Is she single?

  • vek||

    Who cares? IS SHE EASY is a far better question! If she's single, but makes you work for it, who cares?

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    ALL feminists are easy. They crave strong, masculine attention.

  • You're Kidding||

    Which they get................from dykes!

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Seems criminal.

  • Ray McKigney||

    It's almost as if they don't give a crap about the law they're supposed to enforce.

  • Drake||

    That's because they ARE the law in their minds. The law is whatever they say it is, period, so it's impossible to actually *break* the law in that context. NOW SHUT UP, GET DOWN, JUMP UP, AND PUT YOUR HANDS ABOVE YOUR HEAD AND BEHIND YOUR BACK, NOW!!!

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    During the video the cop wearing the body cam tells one of the sons to get out of the vehicle. The kid clearly disobeys.

    Why was that criminal allowed to live??

  • Drake||

    Yeah, I know, right? Those heroes should've dragged him out, beat him to death, and raped his corpse with wild abandon while his entire family was forced to watch. THAT'LL teach him to disobey!!!

  • vek||

    That would be excessive... But they clearly should have shot him in the face immediately. Hopefully they're real men who use real guns, not those pussy European 9mm weapons, and it would have done some proper damage too!

  • Hank Phillips||

    Oh come off it! OUR First Responders™ would ne-VAH do such a thing. What we need is illiterate men with guns and tasers as warriors to make sure women don't partially abort mongoloid pinhead True Christian™ babies like our Godly President warned against. Let's keep those Lifeboat Ethics in a rational orbit!

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    Meth is a heck of a drug, huh?

  • DenverJ||

    You have issues man. Your brain ain't right. Get help.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Hank jerks off to murdered babies.

  • clarkcountycriminalcops||

    Funny I never gave a moment's thought to what "Hank jerks off to"

    Clearly you've spent far more time than I have thinking about Hank jerking off.

    Whatever floats your boat.

  • Fancylad||

    Every time I think Hank can't get any crazier, he tops himself yet again.

  • Still Curmudgeoned (Nunya)||

    Just because you can say stupid shit doesn't mean that you should. In your case, we here all understand in your case that stupid shit is an imperative.

  • MarkJ-||

    If it is still up, You should see the "explanation" the Glendale PD posted on their face book page. Pure fiction as the bodycam video shows.

    This is a cover-up by Glendale PD. A year and half later they have yet to take this series of crimes seriously.
    And let's be clear, what you see on the body cam video are crimes, including sexual assault.

  • You're Kidding||

    I am aware of a rather agressive and sucessful civil rights lawyer here in Cali that needs to see this.......

  • MarkJ-||

    As of this writing, Glendale PD facebook is still up,, let them know how you feel about the video.

    https://www.facebook.com/GlendaleAZPD/

  • Ken Shultz||

    If there were anything less consequential than a Facebook post, a Facebook post about something that happened a year and a half ago would probably be it!

  • Drake||

    You know, you've got a penchant for ragging on stories about asshole cops and how pointless they are. What's that about? It's a fucking news story. What exactly do you WANT them to do, and why should it be different than any other kind of story Reason does?

    So, what, they shouldn't even write about it if they can't take direct action against it? You could say that about ANYTHING they write about if that's your attitude. Is that the point?

    That said, hey, maybe you're right, practically speaking. Facebook's pretty weak sauce, anyway. Maybe it'd be better if somebody just went in and killed the fuckers, Terminator-style. Now THAT would be doing something, right?

    THAT'S IT, RICO, YOU'RE GOIN' IN!!! GO GET 'EM, RICO SOAVE!!!

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Soave is to police retribution as John Wick is to dog murderers imho

  • Ken Shultz||

    If you don't understand the problem with making the case for libertarianism with nonsensical sensationalist porn, then I don't know what to say.

    Here, maybe Lanny Friedlander can explain it to you

    "When REASON speaks of poverty, racism, the draft, the war, studentpower, politics, and other vital issues, it shall be reasons, not slogans, it gives for conclusions . . . . Proof, not belligerent assertion. Logic, not legends. Coher[e]nce , not contradictions. This is our promise: this is the reason for REASON."

    ----Lanny Friedlander

    Reason Issue #1, 1968

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05.....ander.html

    Do you imagine that Nick Gillespie, Matt Welch, Kerry Howley, Jacob Sullum, Ron Bailey, Tim Cavanaugh, Jesse Walker, Brian Doherty, or Cathy Young write porn like this?

  • Mithrandir||

    R
    E
    T
    A
    R
    D

  • DenverJ||

    I don't know Ken. Sure, it's over a year old, but you know the courts are slow. And, when I watched the first part (I hadto turn it off too disturbing), I was enraged. I think that's the point: get people enraged so that we can reform our police departments.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Whatever impetus we get from rage lasts about a week, about as long as the weekly news cycle. Meanwhile, there isn't anything we should do because we're enraged that we shouldn't do anyway.

    If there's anything we should be doing with public opinion, it's getting people to stop using sheriff's, cops', prison guards' and other law enforcement unions to guide us in figuring out who to vote for as DA. Even in supposedly "liberal" places like California and New York, voters tend to pick DAs based on the endorsement of law enforcement unions. Last I checked, 49 of 50 Chicago Alderman were Democrats, but they had all been endorsed by law enforcement unions, which suggests that law enforcement unions are even better represented on the Chicago city council than the Democratic Party. Even progressives like Kamala Harris in San Francisco, who was sy first antagonistic to the police, eventually made her name by being "tough on crime" and pro-police.

  • Mr. Tibbs||

    And one way to effect change is to educate people on the corruptness of cops. This video is a great example. I hadn't known about this story until this article, and I've forwarded it to a number of people. And I didn't need Robby to spoon feed me the lessons of the article to do that. But congratulations to you for telling us all what we already knew.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "And one way to effect change is to educate people on the corruptness of cops."

    Communism is also change. The solution is not just to effect change.

    "I didn't need Robby to spoon feed me the lessons of the article to do that."

    Right, so when you sent it to people, you used it to make an argument and thereby accomplished what Robby didn't even attempt?

    Why do you think Robby didn't even attempt to make a rational argument for this? One explanation is that he doesn't think rational arguments are important. Another explanation is that he's mostly incapable of making rational arguments. That's a couple of likely explanations there. Maybe there are others. Maybe you can think of some others. Can you think of any that aren't critical of Robby's work here? At best, we're looking at a poor effort. Maybe he checked the box, did his quota, and didn't give a shit that the post is half-baked and half finished. I understand you can get a "C" for that in college these days. Got any other explanations that both a) make Robby look good and b) aren't ridiculous?

  • Mithrandir||

    Ken, that's a lot of words to say, "I'm mentally retarded and have no idea what the fuck I'm talking about."

  • You're Kidding||

    CA here. Money makes the world go round.

    A former city council member here, where I live, will tell you what happens when you do not garner Police union support and/or speak out against their wishes (pension reform in a bankrupt city.)

    The most poignent aspect of her situation is that here husband, a life long resident of this large city, was a retired police lt with thirty years of service. He says the retired officers were willing to give up 10% of thier pensions to save the city from bankruptcy.

    Go figure!

  • Ken Shultz||

    Also, we really should go after public employee unions on stuff like this, and the contracts they negotiate that protect their members when they're accused of misbehavior. Everybody from George Meany (head of the AFL-CIO) to FDR thought collective bargaining with the government was antithetical to democracy and union rights. The legitimate purpose of unions was thought to be to fight for a larger share of company profits. Governments don't have profits. The purpose of government employee unions is to fight for a larger share of the taxpayers' paychecks, but the Constitution says those sorts of considerations belong with the legislature--not unions. Public employees should have no legal right to collectively bargain.

    We should do all this stuff as cool as a cucumber.

  • clarkcountycriminalcops||

    It seems that despite all your whining about not understanding the point og reporting this story, you were able to formulate a pretty sound take away.

    So, what was the point of all your bitching?

  • Ken Shultz||

    "It seems that despite all your whining about not understanding the point og reporting this story, you were able to formulate a pretty sound take away."

    Because I easily did what Robby failed to attempt doesn't excuse Robby's failure to attempt it. Is that really so hard to understand?

    If telling you that the problem is that Robby appears to have failed to make any kind of coherent argument didn't register the first five times, why would it suddenly register the sixth?

    Do you think of yourself as a sane person?

  • clarkcountycriminalcops||

    "Because I easily did what Robby failed to attempt doesn't excuse Robby's failure to attempt it."
    No. What excuses his failure to attempt to do what you've done is that it's not his job to do that in a news report. Is that really so hard to understand?

    "If telling you that the problem is that Robby appears to have failed to make any kind of coherent argument didn't register the first five times, why would it suddenly register the sixth?"
    If telling you that it isn't the writer's job to provide arguments in a news report didn't register the first five times, why would it suddenly register the sixth?

    "Do you think of yourself as a sane person?"
    Compared to you, yes,

  • clarkcountycriminalcops||

    "Because I easily did what Robby failed to attempt doesn't excuse Robby's failure to attempt it."
    No. What excuses his failure to attempt to do what you've done is that it's not his job to do that in a news report. Is that really so hard to understand?

    "If telling you that the problem is that Robby appears to have failed to make any kind of coherent argument didn't register the first five times, why would it suddenly register the sixth?"
    If telling you that it isn't the writer's job to provide arguments in a news report didn't register the first five times, why would it suddenly register the sixth?

    "Do you think of yourself as a sane person?"
    Compared to you, yes,

  • clarkcountycriminalcops||

    "Because I easily did what Robby failed to attempt doesn't excuse Robby's failure to attempt it."
    No. What excuses his failure to attempt to do what you've done is that it's not his job to do that in a news report. Is that really so hard to understand?

    "If telling you that the problem is that Robby appears to have failed to make any kind of coherent argument didn't register the first five times, why would it suddenly register the sixth?"
    If telling you that it isn't the writer's job to provide arguments in a news report didn't register the first five times, why would it suddenly register the sixth?

    "Do you think of yourself as a sane person?"
    Compared to you, yes,

  • clarkcountycriminalcops||

    "Because I easily did what Robby failed to attempt doesn't excuse Robby's failure to attempt it."
    No. What excuses his failure to attempt to do what you've done is that it's not his job to do that in a news report. Is that really so hard to understand?

    "If telling you that the problem is that Robby appears to have failed to make any kind of coherent argument didn't register the first five times, why would it suddenly register the sixth?"
    If telling you that it isn't the writer's job to provide arguments in a news report didn't register the first five times, why would it suddenly register the sixth?

    "Do you think of yourself as a sane person?"
    Compared to you, yes,

  • clarkcountycriminalcops||

    "Because I easily did what Robby failed to attempt doesn't excuse Robby's failure to attempt it."
    No. What excuses his failure to attempt to do what you've done is that it's not his job to do that in a news report. Is that really so hard to understand?

    "If telling you that the problem is that Robby appears to have failed to make any kind of coherent argument didn't register the first five times, why would it suddenly register the sixth?"
    If telling you that it isn't the writer's job to provide arguments in a news report didn't register the first five times, why would it suddenly register the sixth?

    "Do you think of yourself as a sane person?"
    Compared to you, yes,

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    Kelly Thomas' father was on The Independents with Matt Welch. Why, if not just for sensationalist eyeball bait?

  • Ken Shultz||

    I don't know who Kelly Thomas is, and I'm not saying that Matt Welch is perfect.

    Regardless, were Kelly Thomas' father and Matt Welch on there just showing some sensationalist thing--without trying to make a point?

    Were they trying to persuade somebody to do something?

  • Cyto||

    Remember Kelly Thomas.

    "You my fists? .... They are getting ready to fuck you up!"
    -Officer Ramos, moments before beating a cooperative and compliant Thomas to death.

    The state rightly decided that he did nothing wrong, being as he was wearing a badge at the time.

    (if you are not familiar with this case, do not watch the video in its entirety. Nobody needs to know how depraved people are. And definitely don't follow it up by watching the statements from the chief of police, et. al. who reviewed the videos and proclaimed everything to be just fine.)

  • clarkcountycriminalcops||

    "If you don't understand the problem with making the case for libertarianism with nonsensical sensationalist porn, then I don't know what to say."

    I wonder how you would react if, in answer to your question, "What are we supposed to learn from this?" someone posted, "If you don't understand the lesson in a video of cop's violently violating the rights of people, the nearly two-year cover up of the incident and the lack of accountability that resulted, then I don't know what to say."

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    Where would commenting on a 'pointless' and 'pornographic' blog post rate on this scale?

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Where would commenting on a 'pointless' and 'pornographic' blog post rate on this scale?

    Somewhere north of a Facebook comment but somewhere south of MLK marching in Birmingham.

    I wonder, do you think Millennial are more impressed by what MLK did or that he did it without Facebook?

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    So you actually rate bitching to Robby as more impactful than bitching to the police department that continues to employ this sadist.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I think appealing to people's reasoning is persuasive to the point of actually changing policy. That's how pretty much all policy changes. MLK didn't march in the streets because someone in Washington DC changed a law. People in Washington changed the law because MLK changed people's minds. I think that's especially important for libertarians because persuasion is the only means to influence for us. It's not like we're about seizing the reigns of power and inflicting libertarianism on the American people using the coercive power of government. We will only gain power by persuading the American people to want more freedom, and that persuasion happens through reasonable argument. Recreational marijuana didn't become legal through outrage. It became legal because we persuaded enough of the American people to want it that way.

    Not by porn. Porn is mental masturbation.

    Facebook posts are farting into the wind. Twitter posts are farting into the wind even harder.

  • Mr. Tibbs||

    The law was changed as much for people watching cops sick dogs and fire hoses on marchers and for burned bodies being dragged out of the mud as for MLK's words. The American people didn't have to be told why those actoons were wrong. So in your opinion were those videos porn too?

  • Ken Shultz||

    They might have been porn if there weren't arguments made by people like MLK pointing to what the problem was and what we should do about it.

    It matters why the people of Venezuela are suffering from malnutrition. In fact, that outcome was not only foreseeable but also foreseen. Wasn't the fact that we knew it was going to happen and why more important before people started actually suffering from malnutrition? And we certainly knew this would be the result. Isn't it always and for all the same reasons?

    If we want others to avoid the same stupid policies, then why the outcome of people suffering from malnutrition in the wake of nationalization and socialism in Venezuela was likely is certainly more important than the fact that they're suffering from malnutrition now. We already knew that was going to happen!

  • Ken Shultz||

    Meanwhile, pictures of children starving might make people give to the Red Cross, but if we, as libertarian capitalists, want other people to avoid similar mistakes and their consequences, then, yeah, it's a whole lot more important to talk about why that starvation happened. Actually, Isn't that the whole point?

    Otherwise, here's a photo of Venezuelan children suffering from malnutrition--without context or any arguments attached--so enjoy yourself! Yeah, that's porn. Making a pro-communist point about that might be better than just making porn of the starving--because at least a pro-communist argument can be refuted. This is just throwing a bunch of shit on the wall and some people thinking it's great because it means whatever they hope it might mean?

    Fuck that. People at Reason have been devoting their best efforts to combat that kind of stupidity using rational argument since 1968. Lanny called out that kind of shitting thinking in the first issue! People who don't like being called out for being part of the problem should probably try to avoid being part of the problem. It's not that hard trying to make rational arguments--unless you don't really believe in libertarianism at all. If you do, it's better to be wrong than dismissive of rational argument itself.

  • vek||

    "I think that's especially important for libertarians because persuasion is the only means to influence for us. It's not like we're about seizing the reigns of power and inflicting libertarianism on the American people using the coercive power of government. "

    And this is why libertarians of the current ilk will never control policy! People forget that the very libertarian leaning Founding Fathers literally KILLED people who had not directly aggressed against them personally for political ends.

    This is why the less ideologically pure right wing types are the only hope for saving western civilization.

  • Ken Shultz||

    The founding fathers persuaded their contemporaries to fight for their rights.

    They also persuaded their contemporaries of the need for all sorts of principles, like those found in the First and Second Amendments.

    Here's an example:

    "If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens."

    ----Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper #29

    Principles like this one were enshrined in our Constitution and survive in American culture today, and it is not because the founding fathers didn't attempt to persuade or because they didn't bother to use logic and reason to convince the general public.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    This is why the less ideologically pure right wing types are the only hope for saving western civilization.

    Shorter vek: "Where is our Pinochet to save America?"

  • Cyto||

    I'm not entirely confident that normal people respond to rational arguments.

    I'm having a hard time coming up with examples of that tactic working.

    (your MLK example is a prime candidate. You'd think "using government force to oppress people based on race is immoral" would be a sufficient argument. But it took the sight of peaceful protesters being hosed, beaten and attacked by dogs to move the national consciousness. )

  • Ken Shultz||

    The question isn't whether sensational things (spectacles) can be utilized to make arguments and change people's minds. The question isn't even whether significant policy changes (like segregation and recreational marijuana legalization) come about by changing people's minds--that argument is over as far as I'm concerned.

    The question is whether sensational events are somehow persuasive by themselves (as porn) without making arguments and putting them in context.

    Robby is effectively posting porn, and it isn't the first time.

    "Watch Glendale Cops Taser a Man 10 Times, Handcuff Him, Pull His Pants Down, and Taser His Groin Area"

    Why should somebody watch that? I came up with five or six good reasons above. I bet you could come up with more of your own. Did Robby come up with any? Can you show me where?

  • Cyto||

    Yeah, it is a blog post, not a feature article or editorial.

    Sure, there's loads of material in the story for editorializing beyond "this is bad, m'kay". But then again this is the choir - we already have the religion, he just pointed out the song.

    I'd prefer to see a lengthy article with in-depth interviews with the decision makers. I really would love to hear them justify their (in)action.

    You aren't going to get that interview. But I'd love to hear it.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    We will only gain power by persuading the American people to want more freedom, and that persuasion happens through reasonable argument.

    Sorry, Ken. Fear and emotion are a lot stronger motivators than reason. I wish they weren't, but they are.

  • vek||

    You're right for one Jeff!

    Note I'm not saying we shouldn't try to convince people. Or that the founders didn't do that. They did.

    But they NEVER had a solid majority of the population on their side. They convinced a decent minority to join them, MOSTLY after they had already made the decision, and simply announced that a war was going to happen. Then people HAD to choose, and a sizable minority joined them.

    If they were waiting to "take" their freedom until they had 51%, or perhaps even a super majority... It never would have happened.

    Modern American right wingers are far from perfect, but they believe in enough libertarian-ish ideas where they are far and away better than the leftists taking over... But they actually have the possibility of doing something useful IRL. Purist libertarians have ZERO such chance.

    Reason is trumped by emotion and/or personal interests. That's not the way I WANT it to be, but it is the way it is. Reason is to be used to convince the intellectual elite, who will then simply take action, and sheep will or will not follow them depending on circumstances and what they're pitching.

  • vek||

    And yes Jeff, Pinochet V 2.0 WOULD be preferable to Stalin V 2.0.

    That is simply reality.

    I'd prefer George Washington V 2.0, but I don't see that option being on the table in the here and now. Should it become an option, I will certainly pick that one.

    The funny thing is Jeff, somebody like you WOULD call Washington 2.0 Pinochet 2.0, because you're such a brainwashed cuck. You'd spout some nonsense about how he's OBVIOUSLY evil, because he has decided to stand against a tyrannical government, when clearly he should just be trying to get elected into congress to change things... Or some such nonsense.

    Despite the fact that electoral politics have clearly been doing basically zero good for liberty for several decades, and the fact that virtually all the founders themselves directly state that sometimes things have gone too far downhill for such solutions to work, and "other" means might be needed if a people want to be free.

  • You're Kidding||

    Ken:

    I only wish that were so.

    An entire generation, raised on 30 second soundbites, has pretty much made farting on FB and Twitter, the source of all political winds.

  • Ken Shultz||

    The stuff on FB and Twitter doesn't stick because it isn't coherent, rational, or persuasive.

    Meanwhile, uneducated people who have never read The Federalist Papers will say things in defense of the Second Amendment that appear to track Alexander Hamilton's arguments precisely. That is not a coincidence.

    Persuading people is hard. Changing the world depends on persuading people. Keeping those changes for generations depends on making sense to people for generation after generation. Making sense to people over the course of generations requires reason. People change their minds and keep them changed because of reason. That's what we're here to do--change people's minds.

    Few of us were born into families that taught us the fundamentals of libertarianism. Most of us were persuaded. Take heart. We're not so unusual.

  • vek||

    You're excessively optimistic my friend.

    Free countries have basically never existed anywhere on earth, at any time... Not really. Depending on how high you want to set the bar, America was never that free in some respects. Other places like England or whatever that were next closes had VASTLY less freedom than we enjoyed.

    That's because for probably a majority of the population, reason ain't enough to convince enough people to get it done. The ONLY reason America became free is because the early colonial ELITE knew that freedom was awesome, and essentially forced a war most would have preferred to have avoided. And thank god they did! We briefly managed to convince a slight majority of all these lofty ideals, but it has faded more and more with every passing generation.

    There is almost a 0% chance we will not just go down hill from here without some sort of a reset event. That doesn't HAVE to be violent, but it would have to be tumultuous, and people with balls will have to step in and PUSH freedom onto people, even if they don't want it. That's what the founders did!

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Hey MJ. Good to see you around again.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Troo Libertarians don't have Facebook pages, traitor to the cause!

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    They have Gab accounts.

  • Two Buck Chuck||

    ACAB

  • MSimon||

    Collapsing societies have a LOT of trouble with enforcement.

    The Collapse of Complex Societies by Joseph Tainter - pdf. The good stuff starts in Chapter 4.
    https://wtf.tw/ref/tainter.pdf

    https://youtu.be/GzuviYRse3E - about 3 minutes

  • Eddy||

    Huh-huh, Taint-er.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    I like you.

  • LEAPGuyAZ||

    It's called contempt of cop....

    Some people simply should not be in law enforcement. My wife tells me all the time she couldn't be a cop because she knows she would have a bad reaction to some things people do.

    When it comes to the death or abuse of a child It's hard to swallow sometimes, but as well as arresting a someone, it's our job to protect the protect that person, from others, and from themselves.

    When I first started back in the 70's we were peace officers, our job was to keep the peace.
    Somewhere along the way our nations drug policy changed us into law enforcement officers.
    Our job changed from keeping the peace, to make arrests and tracking numbers.....

  • You're Kidding||

    I'm with your wife.

    I've long said I could never be a cop. I just don't have the necessary anger control. Although, based on lifelong experiences, I could never see myself going to the level the officers did here. Never!

    But, as much as I despised the military when I was younger, I've come to realize that I could have made a damn good Marine. ;-(

  • Tony||

    Maybe if cops weren't so fat and bald and stupid they might have less anger,

  • CE||

    you forgot the steroids

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Maybe if you weren't such a deviant chickenhawk sociopath you wouldn't be a slaver.

    And tony, you shouldn't be pointing out stupidity in others. Not a thread you hound be pulling.

  • vek||

    I'm thinking Tony a=has a cop fetish... And is very angry that a higher percentage of them aren't the stacked beefcakes he wants them to be. Because getting pounded by fat balding cops in the ass just doesn't have the same appeal! LOL

  • Still Curmudgeoned (Nunya)||

    That's not how my fantasy goes.

  • CE||

    That's horrific, even for cops. Too bad the taxpayers will have to pay the settlement.
    Too bad the sadistic torturers won't go to jail.

  • Art Gecko||

    If you're ever called for jury duty, and the case involves somebody charged with murdering a cop, vote 'not guilty.' Just on principle.

  • vek||

    Except for most of the time the criminal will be even worse than the cop?

    Both classes are often horrible people... But from life experience I'm going to say that the type of criminal who will kill a cop tends to be an even worse person than the cop they killed.

  • clarkcountycriminalcops||

    "...from life experience I'm going to say that the type of criminal who will kill a cop tends to be an even worse person than the cop they killed."

    Really? How many people do you know that have killed a cop? Cops have killed children playing in their living room. How is killing a cop worse than killing a kid?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Most cops haven't actually done things like that. A lot of them are abusive control freaks, but most of them aren't outright executioners. Now if I were in a jury where the cops executed a no knock warrant against largely harmless people, it probably won't go well for the cops.

  • vek||

    Most cops NEVER shoot anybody, especially not kids. For one. We only hear about the worst things cops do in a nation of over 300 million people... You never hear about the 4,800 legitimate arrests that a cop acted reasonably in during their career, only that one time they fuck up after 30 years on the force.

    For two, criminals tend to kill not only children, but EVERYBODY ELSE, in far higher numbers than cops do.

    So your argument is retarded and incorrect. I'm all for firing and punishing bad cops, but the rabid anti police stuff... I grew out of that kinda shit after I stopped being a stupid teenager.

  • clarkcountycriminalcops||

    "Most cops NEVER shoot anybody, especially not kids."
    Well then it's a good thing I never said they do.

    "You never hear about the 4,800 legitimate arrests that a cop acted reasonably in..."
    Just like you never hear about the millions of 7-Eleven employees who give the right change. People doing their jobs isn't news.

    "For two, criminals tend to kill not only children, but EVERYBODY ELSE, in far higher numbers than cops do."
    Don't think for a second I'm going to ignore you moving the goalposts like that. You weren't talking about all criminals. You were very specific in discussing the "type of criminal who will kill a cop," and the type of people who kill cops don't "kill not only children, but EVERYBODY ELSE, in far higher numbers than cops do."

    "So your argument is retarded and incorrect."
    Your attempt to discredit my argument is riddled with prevarications and logical fallacies.

    "I grew out of that kinda shit after I stopped being a stupid teenager."
    I grew out of being a fan boy during my teens, but when it comes to law enforcement, you haven't.

  • vek||

    WHAT???

    You're seriously trying to argue that somebody who is a COP KILLER is LESS likely to be the type of piece of shit criminal who would hurt others, versus a regular run of the mill criminal...

    You have no logic there. I suppose in your head you're envisioning some sort of vigilante hero running around murdering "bad" cops or something??? When in reality it would be some crack dealer who is in the middle of getting arrested for murdering a competitor or something, THAT is the kind of guy who will likely be killing a cop. Not some moral paragon of society only going after crooked pigs like the guy here.

    As far as the "Who cares if they do their job right 99.99% of the time!" argument... That makes sense in fantasy land. This case is clearly sadistic. But most of the other cops being bad things are more like just giving one or two good kicks in the ass when maybe they shouldn't, even though the thug is being shitty too. How OFTEN this type of stuff happens IS material. Nobody can be perfect all the time, and minor things if they are very rare are to be expected when dealing with situations like cops do day in day out.

    You're too far fucking gone to even try to reason with. Who is this, Hihn or something???

  • Vernon Depner||

    Once again we see the myth of the "routine traffic stop". Routine traffic patrols should be stopped. Once cops come into unexpected contact with citizens like this, the risk for this kind of abuse or even deaths is just too high to be justified by enforcement of petty traffic laws. Let cops stay at the station until someone who needs their help calls them, just like the fire department and the EMTs.

  • MarkJ-||

    "..the myth of the "routine traffic stop"..."

    Tiny infractions and non critical equipment violations are being abused as fishing expeditions, there is nothing random about them anymore.

    No officer is concerned about your "cracked taillight", "failure to signal", or my personal fav,"You weaved in your lane." Those are excuses to get a look at you (DUI or run a warrant check) and a look in your vehicle = fishing expedition.

  • You're Kidding||

    And yet, all my neighbors are screaming for more police and more patrols because the bad guys keep doing shit with impunity in our neighborhood.

    I keep advocating that we don't have a problem that proper gun control couldn't fix: that is, control your swing with your twelve gauge such that you only slighty lead the theif as he runs across your lawn. Proper gun control. Establish a target, aim and fire.

  • JeremyR||

    Lucky the family didn't have a dog in the car for the cops to shoot.

  • vek||

    Who says cops only abuse dirty sub-human brown people? This is proof positive that cops are equal opportunity!

    4serius though, this is pretty outrageous. 90% of the "ZOMG cops are so horrible" videos I have ever seen were anything but... In most cases you have a shit bag person (like this guy apparently was too, since he was subsequently arrested on an additional burglary charge), violently or stupidly resisting reasonable police requests, and reasonable responses to such refusal. This guy wasn't even being snarky, and still got his ass handed to him.

    Nut tasing is pretty hard core no matter what... Nut tasing for literally doing NOTHING is a bit beyond the pale. Clearly they should have saved this kind of treatment for an illegal Mexican or something.

    IN OTHER NEWS, strongly considering moving to Glendale all of a sudden... If they'll treat white trash like this, they must do an AWESOME job of dealing with minorities! LOL

  • Vernon Depner||

    Oh, please. The only reason why you would move is because your Mom moved. I hope her new place in Glendale has a basement for you.

  • vek||

    LOL

    Unfortunately I'm one of those pesky 30 somethings who makes multiple times the average HOUSEHOLD income just on my own... So no basement dwelling needed on my part.

  • Vernon Depner||

    I doubt that. In my experience, racist twits have a strong tendency to be basement and RV dwellers.

  • vek||

    And how am I a racist twit? Because I know how to read statistics, and believe science over feel good mantras that the modern (delusional) left pushes?

    I'm part "dirty brown person" on both sides of my family myself, but reality is what it is, whether I like it or not. It is often NOT favorable for all groups equally in all instances. That is simple fact.

    I am self employed, and have been for over a decade now. I don't make a million bucks a year, but I do make a few times the average household income in most years. Making 6 figures isn't THAT impressive, at least not to me. I've always been rather unimpressed with myself really, and feel I can do much better.

    So believe what you want.

  • Vernon Depner||

    You're a racist twit because you routinely make comments about race that would have gotten eye rolls from educated people in the 1890s. "Science", my ass.

  • vek||

    Well, you clearly haven't actually looked at SHIT ALL of data then.

    The reality is that there are any number of stats that vary widely along ethnic lines... Some of this is obviously cultural issues, but in the real world those should be up for discussing in terms of immigration, welfare benefits, and other things where they're relevant facts.

    Then there are things that are NOT cultural. For instance the MASSIVE IQ gaps between ethnicities.

    IQ is NOT a perfect measure of intelligence, but it is the best predictor of life success we have. PERIOD. It is especially predictive for educational attainment that is possible, income, not to mention crime rates. VERY important things.

    Now, you can argue that the reason some ethnicities have vastly lower IQs lies in some environmental variable that nobody has been able to find yet... Despite countless studies trying to find a way to close the gap, none exists.

    And that's fine. Because even if it IS 100% enviro, it is STILL a relevant point to discuss in matters. The IQ gap explains 100% of the differential in black/white crime stats. So tell me how it is racist to accept a scientific reason that explains half the "unexplainable" things in the world? You can 100% NOT believe there is any genetic component, and still accept that the IQ gap causes all these differences... Which is actually not an unreasonable position.

    Dancing around the issue and pretending it doesn't exist IS NOT a reasonable position... It is just PC nonsense.

  • clarkcountycriminalcops||

    "Who says cops only abuse dirty sub-human brown people?"

    No one says this.

  • Vernon Depner||

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Cops tend to be abusive to the human race. And many of them like executing canines as well.

  • clarkcountycriminalcops||

    To the tune of about 7 dogs a day.

  • clarkcountycriminalcops||

    Not once in that article does anyone claim "cops only abuse dirty sub-human brown people," but thanks for sharing.

  • Vernon Depner||

    On the spectrum?

  • clarkcountycriminalcops||

    What a well-researched, thoughtful, fact based response.
    Be honest.
    You didn't write it all yourself.
    You had help, right?

  • vek||

    Jesus, are you so removed from reality you don't know the things "people" say?

    The whole "cops only harass/kill brown people" is a WIDELY used (bullshit) line from everybody on the left for, uhhhh, decades probably? Despite that many statistics contradict the "it's evil racist cops" narrative.

    I didn't say that the article said it, but anybody with a passing knowledge of crazy leftists stereotypes nowadays would know immediately who I was making fun of.

  • clarkcountycriminalcops||

    "Jesus, are you so removed from reality you don't know the things 'people' say."
    I know the things actual people say. I don't have any idea what the "people" you hear in your head are saying.

    "The whole 'cops only harass/kill brown people' is a WIDELY used (bullshit) line from everybody on the left for, uhhhh, decades probably? "

    Well if so many people have been using it for so many years, I'm sure you can post links to, oh say, three sources where someone is actually saying, "cops only harass/kill brown people."

    I mean that shouldn't be hard, unless you're making this all up or just regurgitating what the voices in your echo chamber have been telling you.

  • vek||

    Jesus, are you so removed from reality you don't know the things "people" say?

    The whole "cops only harass/kill brown people" is a WIDELY used (bullshit) line from everybody on the left for, uhhhh, decades probably? Despite that many statistics contradict the "it's evil racist cops" narrative.

    I didn't say that the article said it, but anybody with a passing knowledge of crazy leftists stereotypes nowadays would know immediately who I was making fun of.

  • clarkcountycriminalcops||

    "Jesus, are you so removed from reality you don't know the things 'people' say."
    I know the things actual people say. I don't have any idea what the "people" you hear in your head are saying.

    "The whole 'cops only harass/kill brown people' is a WIDELY used (bullshit) line from everybody on the left for, uhhhh, decades probably? "

    Well if so many people have been using it for so many years, I'm sure you can post links to, oh say, three sources where someone is actually saying, "cops only harass/kill brown people."

    I mean that shouldn't be hard, unless you're making this all up or just regurgitating what the voices in your echo chamber have been telling you.

  • vek||

    UGH.

    You really are this stupid huh?

    https://www.google.com/search?source= hp&ei=E85iXNHiIpur0PEPkIiH4AU&q= police+target+blacks

    Take out the spaces, and read away moron. Feel free to replace blacks with Hispanic, Muslim, or whatever your stupid ethnic group of fancy is. Anything but white, Jewish, or Asian will probably yield plenty of results.

    This is a widely known tactic of the left. If you're trying to play semantics because they don't say the police literally ONLY kill black people... Fine, you win. But anybody who isn't a moron knows I didn't mean they LITERALLY say only that. But they do lie about statistics frequently, which shows policing is a lot less biased than lefties claim.

    Now kindly fuck off moron.

  • ohdelilah||

    Not sure how representing the department on the TV show "Cops" is in any way something to brag about, either for the show or the department.

  • FreeRadical||

    In order to help monitor the safety of these two violent criminals' children, it would probably be good to know their addresses. That way, concernd citizens can watch or listen for evidence of any violent tendencies towards their families.

    I haven't taken much time, but here are brief searches I did:

    https://www.spokeo.com/Matt-Schneider/California
    https://www.spokeo.com/Mark-Lindsey/2

  • Cyto||

    Ok, this article isn't worded strongly enough. There may not be words that you can use on a mainstream site that are strong enough.

    The story here isn't the jackasses who performed the arrest. The story here is their bosses, and the voters who are not holding them accountable.

    The officers in the video should all be sitting in prison as felons.

    But the real criminals are the police chief and his leaders who didn't immediately fire the officers and recommend charges to the DA.

    And the prosecutors who didn't do so on their own nickel. If it took them more than a week to obtain the video they should have been reprimanded at the least. But letting them sit in jail for months, eventually forcing a plea agreement? Yeah, they should be disbarred. If there was a criminal statute that fit the bill, they should be prosecuted as well.

    Corrupt isn't the right word for the people in the criminal justice system who allow this to go on. Lawyers and Judges are proud of the fact that they put the system above any individual outcome, and are absolutely depraved in their sanguine acceptance of the fact that innocent people sit in jail awaiting the fulfillment of the process.

  • Cyto||

    The guy with the taser is a sick asshole. But at least he has the excuse of being out of control in the moment.

    A prosecutor sitting in his office placidly doing nothing about this sort of evil has no such excuse. The same goes for a police chief who says "3 days leave" is a fitting punishment for this sort of thing.

    You are defective human beings, and the people who allow you to continue working are to blame for this outcome. As long as the voters keep electing people who allow this sort of thing, we'll keep getting more of the same.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    I concur. It's one thing to do a heinous act under high stress and in a rapidly developing environment. Those conditions do not excuse the act, but they help explain it, and can therefore point the direction for future training. It's a far worse thing to examine and exonerate such an act while sitting quietly in an office, with plenty of time on ones hands. The supervisors must be held to a higher standard than their subordinates.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    " it, and can therefore point the direction for future training."

    If by future training, you mean ten years in the general population of a supermax with a banner on your back which reads "COP", sure, that's future training I could get behind.

  • You're Kidding||

    "I could get behind"

    Freudian slip?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    "But the real criminals are the police chief and his leaders who didn't immediately fire the officers and recommend charges to the DA."

    Calm down, ironsides. This is a simple employee employer dispute. The union will work it out.

  • Jason Cavanaugh||

    A prime example of where vigilantism would be appropriate.

  • Vernon Depner||

    Yes, it would have been completely appropriate for an armed bystander to open fire on these pigs in defense of their victim.

  • darkflame||

    So, if you go to their facebook page, Glendale PD has put a post up about this... they don't show the bodycam footage and try and lie about what happened. Makes me wonder about that burglary charge, I mean, they already lied about one thing after all. Atm, though there are about 500 angry posts on it, all of them demanding for that cop's head.

    https://www.facebook.com/GlendaleAZPD/

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    That's part of the problem. Once the cops lie about one significant detail, they have no credibility where anything else is concerned. The prosecutor
    'S office should be having a conniption about this. Knowing full well a defense attorney will make him look ok,e an asshole once he cross examines the cop. I'm not even a lawyer and I could rip this cop apart on the stand, and probably get him to try tase ring me in the nuts right there in the courtroom.

  • Rob Misek||

    My first thought was why someone wearing a body camera would act so illegally?

    The cop must have been confident that no police body camera footage at the scene would ever see the light of day and that the entire police force would cover it up.

    ONLY the video released the innocent victim, and offers the potential for justice.

    These cops will be more careful next time, and there will be a next time.

    Our ONLY protection from corruption is to have the human right to voluntarily record all our personal memories wherever we are.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Pigs gonna oink. So in Glendale, if pigs approach you, looks like you would be justified in shooting them first.

  • Rob Misek||

    Good way to die

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    What's the Union's position on torture?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Why wasn't the race of the victims reported here?

  • Vernon Depner||

    Because The Narrative™.

  • clarkcountycriminalcops||

    The race was reported.
    What's that do to your narrative about "The Narrative™?"

  • Vernon Depner||

    Where was it reported? Do you have a link?

  • clarkcountycriminalcops||

    There's a picture of the victim.

  • Vernon Depner||

    That wasn't the question, was it?

  • clarkcountycriminalcops||

    "That wasn't the question, was it?"
    What, you don't remember your own question?
    Okay. Let me help you out. You asked, "Where was it reported?" and I told you.

    Oh, wait, I get it.
    You don't understand that a photograph is a medium in which information is reported. It's even been said that a picture is worth a thousand words.

  • vek||

    Funny how when it's anybody other than a white guy 70% of the verbiage of the article ends up being about how it was motivated by racism... Yet that doesn't seem to appear on the article when it's a honky... Very strange indeed.

    Especially since I've literally seen the media blame it on racism when a black cop fucks up a black criminal... Yet somehow white on white isn't racism... Or something.

    It must just all be over my head, I'm just not smart enough to understand progressive thought I suppose. LOL

  • clarkcountycriminalcops||

    It was.
    Can you not see what race the victim is in the photo?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    No. He could be Hispanic, or possibly white Hispanic.

  • clarkcountycriminalcops||

    He could be "Hispanic", and if Hispanic" was a "race" then your comment would be relevant.

    It's good to know how you view people though,
    This post (and the one below it) paint a pretty good picture of the kind of person you are.

  • vek||

    LOL

    Well you sure are a retarded SJW.

    I'm part beaner myself, and let me tell ya something... There's a reason we have and use the term "Hispanic" to describe "white" people from Latin America.

    First off many Hispanics are pretty easy to pick out of a lineup of "white people."

    Secondly, THEY like to distinguish themselves as an "other" apart from other white Europeans, who they usually just lump together as Anglos, despite Anglos actually being a smaller percentage of white Americans than other whites in the USA.

    Additionally, they are in fact a mixed race group, which has homogenized to enough of a point where they are a pretty clearly distinguishable ethnic group unto themselves. By typical "scientific" definitions they're not really a "race" per se, but they more or less are for practical intents and purposes.

    So STFU with your SJW whining dude. Or at least go do it over at HuffPo or something and leave us in peace.

  • clarkcountycriminalcops||

    "...Hispanics are pretty easy to pick out of a lineup..."
    Thanks for demonstrating just how inane it was for her to suggest the victim "could be Hispanic."

  • vek||

    Well he COULD BE in the strictest sense... But he wouldn't be a "typical" Hispanic.

    He would be one of the Latin Americans who is overwhelmingly European blooded. There are many millions of them, but they're not the stereotype of what people usually mean when they use the term, even though it is technically correct. My red headed and freckly 3rd grade teacher was straight up Hispanic, but NOT typical in the Americas.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Or Jewish. Or Muslim. Plus there's the one drop theory that we now subscribe to.

  • clarkcountycriminalcops||

    "Or Jewish. Or Muslim."

    Or Christian.
    Or an atheist
    Or Buddhist.

    You're right, we can't tell his religion from the photo, but the question was about race.

  • vek||

    You really don't seem to grasp that leftists always bring up this nonsense, even when it has no relevance, and people here are MOCKING that tendency... Ugh.

  • clarkcountycriminalcops||

    I grasp that you believe that's the case.
    I grasp that people like you misrepresent what people of color actually say about issued of police violence,
    What you don't get is that your preconceived beliefs are not consistent with reality.

  • vek||

    They're pretty consistent with what the fucking media spouts off on the subject all the time.

    And I know/have known plenty of POCs, and obviously they don't all parrot the must dumbed down, short version of the story... But there are lots of people who do. Including the media, and many in academia.

    Every time some black guy gets shot by the police... It IS NOT because of racism. It's usually because the cops got called to the scene of a crime, and a black suspect does something stupid, like attack the cops. That black Harvard researcher found that WHITES are actually more likely to be shot by the police on a per incident basis... So how does that fit with that narrative? And yet that is ALWAYS trotted out, when there are always many other explanations. We're just supposed to believe it's racism every time without proof.

    If this happened 1/100th of the time when there was an actual reason to think that, fine. But they babble that line almost EVERY time just about, and I'm tired of it.

  • Vernon Depner||

    If the victim had been Black, the word Black would have been in the headline. If you don't think so, you haven't been paying attention. The commenters here pay close attention to the problem of police violence. You're not going to succeed in bullshitting us.

  • clarkcountycriminalcops||

    "If the victim had been Black, the word Black would have been in the headline."

    Really? It took me less that three minutes to find this story on Reason.

    "N.C. Mom Says SWAT Team 'Terrorized' Her 6-Year-Old Autistic Son

    Although the child victimized by police is black, the word "black" does not appear in the headline, nor does it appear once in the text of the article.

    Two minutes later I stumbled upon, "Alabama Cop 'Justified' in Killing Innocent Man, Says State Attorney General"

    The "innocent man" killed by police is.....
    ...wait for it
    ...............black.

    Yet, despite "Your Narrative™," the word "black" does not appear in the headline

    Sorry, but facts can be a bïtćh when you're rocking a fiction-based ideology

  • Rob Misek||

    +1

    How stupid to people have to be to make false claims that are so easily disproved.

    Perhaps their false anonymity here emboldens sharing their extreme delusions.

  • Rob Misek||

    It demonstrates worse delusion than the cop in the video who thought his corruption would be covered up.

  • Vernon Depner||

    Why would he even care if it was covered up if he knew there would be no significant consequences? He got a three day suspension for a violent sexual assault. No need for a cover-up.

  • Rob Misek||

    The cop thought any recordings would be contained within his department only. Covered up from the public.

    When the public got a hold of them, so obvious and heinous were his actions, the police department gave him a public slap on the wrist, hoping that would satisfy the mobs perception of justice.

    Has it?

  • Vernon Depner||

    No, of course not, but nothing more will happen to him.

  • Rob Misek||

    If it stays forefront in the mobs perception it could result in revolution.

    But it never does. The games played in the media.

  • Vernon Depner||

    You advocate mob violence as a means to achieve government reform?

  • Rob Misek||

    In an environment of established corruption meaningful change may require violence. A few lynchings can be locally persuasive.

    But that's not my first choice. That's why I advocate for the elimination of corruption through the human right to record memories wherever we are peacefully.

  • vek||

    Reason isn't quite AS BAD as the mainstream media... But that doesn't change the fact that if you did a scientific study, you'd probably find the race/religion of the person is mentioned 92.3% of the time if it's a non white non Christian... And probably 14.5% of the time if it is a honkey. Those are made up numbers obviously, but I wouldn't be surprised if they were half way close to what a real study would find.

    That you would even argue that this isn't the case, generally speaking, is preposterous.

  • Rob Misek||

    Yes racist blacks make everything bad that happens to them about race and racist whites make every issue about race too.

    This article has nothing to do with race.

    Acting like a racist white, doesn't change the hearts and minds of racist blacks.

  • vek||

    Meh. I just made a smart ass comment mocking the left, as did several others, and mister SJW guy who CLEARLY didn't get the joke or whatever came in acting like an idiot. I'm not going to pretend I agree with an idiot like him just to be cordial, it is the internet after all!

  • clarkcountycriminalcops||

    "Reason isn't quite AS BAD as the mainstream media..."
    Well then Vernon shouldn't have claimed that that "If the victim had been Black, the word Black would have been in the headline."

    "But that doesn't change the fact that if you did a scientific study..."
    Do I really have to explain how you can't claim something is a fact and then admit that fact doesn't actually exist?

    "Those are made up numbers obviously."
    Well then you shouldn't have claimed they were "fact," obviously. It confirms your dishonesty.

    "That you would even argue that this isn't the case, generally speaking, is preposterous."
    That you would claim that I argued anything of the sort is preposterous and fallacious.

  • vek||

    Ugh.

    You clearly have no capability of reading between the lines, or understanding how common communication works. People say things that get across an obvious and intended meaning, without meaning them to be taken as an actual 100% accurate verbatim telling of some objectively true fact... That's how speech works.

    If you're going to be a retarded and pretend you don't understand this, please just don't waste peoples time, and don't bother to post! This shouldn't have to be explained to an adult.

  • Vernon Depner||

    It took me less than three seconds to find the link to the original reporting in the Reason article.

    Michael, a sixty-four-year-old African American, opened the door to his house…

    raleigh-swat-team-pointed-rifles-at-six-year-old

    And there's a picture. That seems to be important to you.

  • clarkcountycriminalcops||

    "It took me less than three seconds to find the link to the original reporting in the Reason article."
    Good for you!
    That means you also saw that, despite your claim "If the victim had been Black, the word Black would have been in the headline," even the original report does not have the word "black" in the headline.
    Sadly, something tells me you lack the self awareness to grasp how you just posted a link that directly contradicts your claim.

    Now why don't you give me that pithy "spectrum" comment you love so much.

  • Vernon Depner||

    When you repeatedly take quips, jokes, and obvious sarcasm literally, and insist in on an excruciatingly precise reading of every word and phrase, you can expect people to suspect you have a neurological problem. As vek has already pointed out to you, that is not how normal people communicate. I am being charitable to you by suspecting you have a disorder beyond your control rather than just assuming that you are a childish, tendentious asshole.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    I have more questions to come.

  • spork||

    Well that's just nuts.


    And perineum.

  • Vernon Depner||

    Now that this story is out, it won't just be people who work in nursing homes who know what "perineum" means.

  • jdgalt1||

    I predict #BlackLivesMatter will not say a word about this. Because it shows their narrative of racism is bullshit -- criminal behavior by police is a problem that affects all races.

  • clarkcountycriminalcops||

    You sure you want to go out on a limb and predict that an organization focused on reducing the number of unarmed black people killed by law enforcement won't have something to say about a white guy not being killed by police?

    Here's who I predict will not say a word about this:
    AARP
    NRA
    YMCA
    The Boy Scouts of America
    The Vatican
    AAA
    KKK
    AT&T
    Verizon
    Sprint
    NASCAR
    GM
    Ford

  • Vernon Depner||

    an organization focused on reducing the number of unarmed black people killed by law enforcement

    Why is it that they care only about Black victims of police violence when Americans of all ethnicities are being victimized? Would it make them feel better if more white or Hispanic people were brutalized and killed?

  • clarkcountycriminalcops||

    "Why is it that they care only about Black victims..."

    Why is it that you think the only care about Black victims? Are you only able to care about one issue at a time?

    "Would it make them feel better if more white or Hispanic people were brutalized and killed?"

    How does wanting fewer unarmed blacks killed by police mean that more whites or Hispanics have to be killed by police?
    Do you think police have to kill a certain number of people each year and if the aren't killing blacks then they're going to kills whites or Hispanics instead?

    A better question is why more white people don't care about police victimizing taxpayers of any race?

  • vek||

    "Why is it that you think the only care about Black victims? Are you only able to care about one issue at a time?"

    Well, it would have helped their case if they hadn't got infuriated and cried RACISM over the "All Lives Matter" shirts/stickers/memes etc that went around...

  • Vernon Depner||

    Why is it that you think the only care about Black victims?

    Because that's what they say. It's called "Black Lives Matter". As if police brutalize only Black people, and do so because they're Black. As if police treating Black people as if they matter would stop police violence. I simply assume they mean what they say.

    How does wanting fewer unarmed blacks killed by police mean that more whites or Hispanics have to be killed by police?
    Do you think police have to kill a certain number of people each year and if the aren't killing blacks then they're going to kills whites or Hispanics instead?

    Once again—WHOOSH, right over your head. You must be a blast at parties.

    A better question is why more white people don't care about police victimizing taxpayers of any race?

    Because the average citizen is pathetically ignorant and apathetic about pretty much everything. The people you're conversing with here are an unusual and small minority who actually care about the police violence issue and follow it closely. If more people could be bothered to keep up with current events, more of them would care, and would realize that they themselves are in danger.

  • vek||

    This guy is either REALLY a moron, or trolling in a REALLY annoying way.

    I like funny/smart ass trolls. MUCH more entertaining!

  • Vernon Depner||

    At this point, I have to go with "REALLY a moron", perhaps aggravated by an autism spectrum disorder.

  • clarkcountycriminalcops||

    "Because that's what they say. It's called 'Black Lives Matter.'"
    So if tell you that my daughter matters to me, would you conclude that my wife, son, parents and siblings don't matter to me. Is your mind really that binary?

    "I simply assume they mean what they say."
    Actually you just lied about things you've decided they've said, but that they never said, and then assumed no one would see you lied.

    "Once again—WHOOSH, right over your head. You must be a blast at parties."
    Your inability to answer a simple question was not hidden by your attempt to blame me for your ignorance.

    "Because the average citizen is pathetically ignorant and apathetic about pretty much everything."
    After talking to you I have no doubt that's true.

    "The people you're conversing with here are an unusual and small minority who actually care about the police violence issue and follow it closely."
    Some are, and some are more interested in using this incident of police violence to push their agenda about blacks.

  • Vernon Depner||

    So if tell you that my daughter matters to me, would you conclude that my wife, son, parents and siblings don't matter to me.

    Let's fix that analogy: If your daughter, your wife, your son, and your mother all had Stage 4 cancer, and every time I saw you all you talked about was your daughter's illness and how concerned you were about her, and if you reacted with anger and accused me of not caring about your daughter if I inquired about the health of your other sick family members, then, yes, I would conclude that you only cared about your daughter and not the rest of your family.

  • Vernon Depner||

    some are more interested in using this incident of police violence to push their agenda about blacks.

    No one in this discussion has pushed an "agenda" about "blacks". We have been discussing the way Black Lives Matter and their supporters and the major news media distort the truth about police and prosecutorial abuse of citizens' rights, portraying it as an aggression against Blacks, when in fact people of all ethnicities and social classes are being victimized.

  • vek||

    The analogy about having a family with cancer is actually a very nice way of putting it. And that is exactly the way BLM and the media have handled things.

  • tgrondo||

    "Don't taze my sack, Bro ......

  • awildseaking||

    If police are going to act like this when their authority is rightly challenged, then there must be severe penalties. People are scared to defend their rights when they can be tortured by police like this. Worse yet, if you resist or intervene, you can be murdered. At a minimum, these cops should get severe jail time.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I see this guy making a big deal about race at the bottom of this thread. For all I know, racism may have been a contributing factor. I'm sure the BLM people will be thrilled to point out that racism was probably a contributing factor. There are a million progressives and social justice warriors out there who will then claim that the solution is to fight racism through awareness campaigns, education in schools, diversity training, and electing more law enforcement officials who aren't racists, be it because they're black or because they're progressive, social justice warriors.

    I have no problem with the suggestion that racism might have been a contributing factor here, but regardless of whether it was, I maintain that the solution has to do with a lack of accountability both by the police and by the prosecutors who decide not to prosecute law enforcement officers. That lesson is not demonstrated in the video. The video is porn. That lesson is demonstrated by the fact that the officers' involved do not appear to have been prosecuted for what clearly appears to be a criminal act. The solution is to hold the police accountable when they perpetrate crimes, and the solution has to do with being specific about why that isn't happening.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Part of the explanation has to do with district attorneys depending on the endorsements of law enforcement unions to sway voters. If the district attorney indicts law enforcement personnel, their unions won't endorse them, and for a significant number of voters, that's pretty much all they go by when they decide who to vote for as district attorney. Part of it has to do with the union contracts law enforcement unions negotiate with cities and counties, many of which have clauses that shield law enforcement union members from the same treatment as other people accused of violent crimes.

    Addressing those problems is the solution--regardless of whether racism was a contributing factor to the crime. And making the case for holding the police accountable the way they should be is the appropriate argument for libertarians to make. The police should have been held accountable if it were black officers doing this to a white victim. The police should have been held accountable if it were black officers doing this to a black victim. The police should have been held accountable if it were white officers doing this to a white victim. If the police should be held accountable regardless of the race of the victim and regardless of the race of the police, then race is a distraction from the central issue--which is the lack of accountability by the police.

  • Ken Shultz||

    P.S. Robby's failure to make a coherent argument encourages this kind of irrational confusion, and dispelling this kind of irrational confusion with rational argument is the true purpose of libertarianism.

  • vek||

    And that's the thing: It doesn't matter what race either party is. This was shitty cops being shitty cops, and they should be punished.

    This article didn't even take up the race angle, since it appears to be all honkies as best as I can tell... But that the MSM certainly would of had it been a minority is just showing how tilted the MSM is. Commenters making jokes about that were just taking a cheap jab at the left, as per usual.

  • You're Kidding||

    Improvements on the way..................in CA no less!

    goo.gl/u3qysz

  • Doug1031||

    But wait...we did not see what happened before..right apologist? For all those complaining about Liberal Millennials just remember alot of those Old folks who have the Back The Blue signs in their yard were rooting at Woodstock and dancing away to Country Joe and the Fish doing their best to fight the establishment, pooh poohing the idea they would ever turn into the establishment.

    What is scary is that officers continue this behavior because discipline is usually at most a paid vacation, so there are no consequences. Also, somehow despite all evidence to the contrary, many in society still believe it would not have happened if the victim did not do SOMETHING to deserve it.

    Be warned..abuse of power and force left unrestrained will become a blind entity...you or someone you know may be next. It is a false flag..you CAN BE for Law and Order and against excessive force and unjust shootings and unnecessary warrant militia raids. In fact, ethics and morality insist that we support the idea of safety and protection, yet punish and dismiss those that abuse the power granted to assist a society in its efforts to protect its citizens.

    I am way more afraid of the police than citizens..and I am a 50 year old white guy with a home, a kid in college, a wife, two dogs and a college degree. That's ashamed.

  • Vernon Depner||

    It doesn't matter who you are. Roger Stone is an older upper-middle-class white guy and they sent more SWAT pigs to his house than were sent to nab Bin Laden.

  • clarkcountycriminalcops||

    You're right. They didn't send a single SWAT officer to nab Bin Laden.

    However, they did send more heavily armed Navy Seals to nab Bin Laden than they sent to Stone's house, and Stone fared much better.

  • Vernon Depner||

    I know this is rarely true, but in this case—LOL!

  • Mr. Flanders||

    The funniest part of this comment section is Ken Shultz, agonizing for Reason to tell him what to think because we can't just report on what happened. Instead, it has to tell Ken Shultz what to think. If it doesn't, than it's just "porn."

  • Vernon Depner||

    Obviously he's disturbed by the fact that he was aroused by the video.

  • Freelancelot||

    And the man wasn't even black! Who woulda thought?

  • Arizona_Guy||

    Arizona in the news! Woooooo!

  • Mindscape||

    I'd love to hear how some of you would handle a non-compliant person. How long would you give them to follow your orders? Two minutes? Two hours? Two days? If you try to cuff them and they stiffen their arms, what would you do? What non-violent response is going to convince a stubborn criminal to do what you need them to do? If they are on the ground and kicking you, would you think that was okay? What about when their wife strikes your partner? Let the ideas flow...

  • Vernon Depner||

    Sexual assault would be very low on my list of options in all those cases.

  • Rob Misek||

    Did you see the video evidence.

    The cop rolled up to a family inside a car.

    The cop immediately lied by demanding identification from the passenger who knew his rights.

    This obviously angered the cop who caused and provoked the escalation and committed assault and sexual assault.

    Your concern has nothing to do with this interaction.

  • clarkcountycriminalcops||

    "I'd love to hear how some of you would handle a non-compliant person."
    Well, for starters, I wouldn't try to violate the rights of a taxpayer and give him a reason to be non-compliant.

    "How long would you give them to follow your orders? Two minutes? Two hours? Two days?"
    I would give them the rest of their lives before I used force to make them comply with an illegal order.

    "If you try to cuff them and they stiffen their arms, what would you do?"
    I would take a beat and realize I was unlawfully detaining them, let them go, apologize and call my supervisor for them to make a formal complaint against me.

    "What non-violent response is going to convince a stubborn criminal to do what you need them to do?"
    That's a good question. What non-violent response could the victim here have employed to make the criminal cop do what was needed and stop violating his rights?

    "If they are on the ground and kicking you, would you think that was okay?"
    Absolutely not. SInce I had no reason to detain them in the first place it's not okay that I have them on the ground.

    "What about when their wife strikes your partner?"
    That raised things to a whole new level. If my decision to violate the rights of a taxpayer resulted in a family member injuring my partner in an attempt to defend her husband, I would fully expect to be removed from the force, if not charged for my criminal actions.

    I hope I answered all your questions.

  • Doug1031||

    I know what I and any reasonable heavily armed person with 3 other heavily armed people next to me..pull his pants down and fire 1200 watts of pure power right into his testicles while he is on the ground and restrained. Yeah..that sounds right.

  • Doug1031||

    I know what I and any reasonable heavily armed person with 3 other heavily armed people next to me..pull his pants down and fire 1200 watts of pure power right into his testicles while he is on the ground and restrained. Yeah..that sounds right.

  • AZ Gunowner||

    You DESERVE to be the next victim of the police state that you so obviously support.

  • Vernon Depner||

    Copsuckers just don't get it, that they COULD be the next victim. They seem to think that cops actually care who gets the next beating or bullet, or that they have some sixth sense that tells them who deserves it. For the willfully ignorant about police and prosecutorial abuse, the light doesn't come on until it's THEIR door being broken down in the middle of the night, or THEIR autistic son being beaten to death.

  • Doug1031||

    Hopefully everyone understood the satirical nature of my reply. Of course that violence meted out is more than insane, it's the work of sociopathic criminal.

  • Doug1031||

    Hopefully everyone understood the satirical nature of my reply. Of course that violence meted out is more than insane, it's the work of sociopathic criminal.

  • crufus||

    The guy got the beat down because he asserted his right not to show the cop his ID since he was not driving.

    The cop asserted his right to torture, sexually assault, and arrest the guy for no reason.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online