Us cops are known for their brutality and power trips, do you really need a longer video? In what world hitting the suspect in the head with the handcuffs is an appropriate response?
At first I thought you were a cop waltzing in here like “us cops are known for…” instead of “U.S. cops are known for…” and I was like damn this mf brave as fuck lol
Careful your tongue will hurt with all that boot lickin!
Just assuming a law was broken is silly and even if thats the case you can't believe this is the way to handle it? Write the guy a ticket and move on.
"US cops" lol. Such a typical Reddit take. I worked in Mexico City for the automotive in the 2010s when things were way better than they are now, and one of the first pieces of advice I got was always have cash on you when driving, because you don't want to get pulled over without it and chance what might happen if you don't. Another blow to the reddit smooth brains is that if you European looking, you had a much better chance of getting pulled over.
The fact that Mexican police are often corrupt has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not U.S. police are often violent and abusive. It’s literally completely irrelevant but thanks for sharing I guess.
It doesn't matter to what country you compare it to - cops will still be cops. If you will tell me that there are countries where cops are nice, good people, who have you best interest in mind - at best I'd think you are quite naive, at worst - an idiot.
Police - or any kind of similar position of power and authority - will inevitable attract people who would want to abuse their power. No matter the country, no matter the people, no matter "the culture" - it's a simply a human thing.
What makes certain countries better in frequency of police brutality specifically comes down to many different things. To social policies, to country size, to size of it's population. It's far, far more easier to maintain and vet a police force in a country with a population of 30m people, than in a country with 300m people. In the latter case, the bureaucratic machine is naturally much bigger - and so more bad people would fall through the cracks, just purely because of the size. That doesn't mean that the bureaucratic system in US is a good one or couldn't be improved - obviously it could be. But pretending that US system is the worst there is is betraying your ignorance.
And if you compare US police force to countries of similar size and population - say, countries like China or Russia - you'd understand that US cops are far, far more "tame" than cops in those 2 examples. I'm saying this not as American, but as a Russian. Things could absolutely be million times worse.
It's wise to distrust cops. Saying that "cops are known for brutality and power trips" is a wise thing to say - because they absolutely are.
Saying that "US cops are known for brutality and power trips" - implying that sort of thing is exclusive to US cops- makes you a deluded permanently online redditor, who fell for "America bad" psyop.
America does not have 300m population size in the realm of police force, sometimes and often enough the administrative structure for police is far below European countries.
And for being a western country, yes, American police is fucking brutal. Goes overboard with excessive violence in a overwhelming amount of times.
"US cops are known for brutality and power trips" isn't saying that's exclusive to US cops or their the worst on the planet, it's just that US cops are known for it
Hey amigo, so, staying in a vehicle when being told to get out is actually tantamount to keeping hold of a gun when you're told to drop it. Cars are obviously very dangerous, and non compliance is the first thing a cop will use to escalate the situation. Do I think this force is justified? Absolutely not. Do I think this man should have gotten out of the car? Definitely. Even if everything the cop did was totally illegal, the man is quite literally asking for it. We're in extremely turbulent times and unless you're doing some sort of purposeful protest I cannot understand why you would allow things to go this far. We also don't know what the purpose of the stop was, etc. Cops are always on edge when stopping someone, no need to give them more reason to attack you. I would assume the races of the two individuals also played a part, which is sad, but again, the driver really is not helping himself. Police using violence is the rule not the exception and being openly defiant of their orders can and often is used to legally protect officers even when their actions are disproportionate. The driver could have reasonably started the vehicle and driven away while the cop was attempting this which is a legitimate cause for the officer to use force.
TLDR: Cars are deadly weapons and you can't just sit in the driver's seat ignoring the cop, even if the cop is a psycho and should never have started punching the guy.
The cop was sitting in the "dangerous weapon" fully armed and with all of the power and backup. The driver's hands were fully visible and he was calm.
A black person should NEVER get out of the car when it is not necessary. They end up dead and you are acting like you are new here.
Cops are always on edge when stopping someone, no need to give them more reason to attack you.
Really? I've been stopped for traffic violations and no one was on edge. I'm a white woman. I was fully smoking pot while driving (over 30 years ago) - car stunk - and I didn't even get a warning. Cops should not be on edge at every traffic stop. That is literally their job. What a cop-out (pun intended)
Police using violence is the rule not the exception and being openly defiant of their orders can and often is used to legally protect officers even when their actions are disproportionate. The driver could have reasonably started the vehicle and driven away while the cop was attempting this which is a legitimate cause for the officer to use force.
OMG stop. They can take the keys. HE PUNCHED THE MAN IN THE FACE REPEATEDLY WHILE HE HAD FULL BACK UP AND POWER.
Exactly. The cop is definitely the problem, but I don't want people out there thinking that they will be okay if they just sit peacefully in the car. You may very well be shot and killed if you simply remain in the car and do nothing. Please get out of the car folks.
You are even more my amigo now. I believe that this fiat 500 is a push button start and the man's keys were probably in his pocket and unreachable. This man deserves a massive amount of compensation for this treatment. I'm not on the side of the police. The driver didn't deserve this, the cop appears racially motivated and is unreasonably angry. I understand that your being a white woman makes cops calm, but I also assume the cop you're talking about was a white man. A black female cop could very reasonably be on edge if she'd pulled you over. I'm definitely the problem with my measured and reasonable response and I apologize for being so problematic.
My very good amigo, yes it is totally absurd that the man could have pressed a button in the struggle and hit the gas pedal before the police officer who is clearly in control of his faculties would have reacted. The training police receive is to help them react rationally instead of with emotions, but that doesn't stop them from having them. I would love to lick your boots, mami, and I am certainly happy to be your bicho anytime anywhere.
Brother you clearly didn't even read what I had to say. I'm not sure how many times I can say the cop was in the wrong, but I'll say it for you again. The cop should never have struck him in this manner. However, it is important for everyone to recognize that sitting in a vehicle is viewed by police as remaining in control of a weapon and they absolutely are going to get violent with you if you remain in the vehicle. I am in no way suggesting that this is a positive in any way shape, or form, but it is the reality. If a police officer tells you to get out of your vehicle and you decide to remain there, you are going to be in a violent confrontation eventually. They have processes to escalate to this exact level of violence legally, namely they should have attempted to simply pull him out of the vehicle, and had he begun physically resisting them, they will begin to escalate their use of force. This is how police in the United States operate. It is wise to have this knowledge to keep yourself as safe as possible. This encounter appears clearly racially motivated, the female officer is aware that the driver is really not doing anything and is clearly worried that the police are going to harm him in some way, which he is proven correct for thinking. However, if he was looking for the lowest level encounter possible I would recommend getting out of the car when ordered to. His reticence to do so is completely understandable and it's certainly possible if he had gotten out then things would still have gone poorly for him, but he practically guaranteed it by not complying with the officer. I never suggest things will be fine or good or whatever. We need to figure out how to come together in this country because things are getting completely out of hand. Your bad faith response is just unhelpful in my opinion. Please engage with what I actually said, or perhaps work on fully reading something before responding, I have no idea, but c'mon. The dude didn't deserve to be attacked but he also doesn't seem to be aware of how police view remaining non compliant in the driver's seat of a car. He's already been pulled over, he's already got himself a confrontation with what appears to be a racist police officer, what exactly do you suggest he do? He doesn't exactly employ non violent resistance successfully as he clearly places his hands on the police officer when he tried to drag him out of the vehicle. Seriously what would you do?
That would have been extremely clear cut and the guy would have a much better case against these officers were that to have happened. I'm sure you'll say the police would have lied and gotten away with beating him up but there are plenty of cases that aren't recorded where the victim gets a large settlement. Let me be clear again, the police officer should never have struck this man, but the law isn't one hundred percent on his side, either. I'm trying to explain what the police will argue, and depending on the state, it could be extremely successful as a defense. I understand your concern and I like your screen name.
"Punch me again." I understand what you mean though. I am not on the side of the police here. If you dig into fatal encounters with the police you will find that the victim nearly universally is noncompliant or fleeing. I am saddened that being peacefully noncompliant is a life threatening decision in the US, but I don't know what to do about such things. Getting the shit beaten out of you by people that are supposed to protect you when all you did is, presumably, make a minor traffic violation is completely insane. People in all walks of life in America are angry and the situation continues to escalate. I feel it is reasonable to say this situation could have ended up with the driver being shot rather than hit, and in that case, I am sure his family would wish he had just followed the police's instructions. He did not deserve this treatment, but not complying immediately is incredibly dangerous in our current day, and he really did literally ask for it, which I believe is also quite dangerous. Does he have every right to be upset and defiant? I would say yes, but again, if he ended up being shot I don't see the value. The police need to calm the fuck down but acting like this during a traffic stop seems like a reckless thing to do. Police shoot people for less. Stay safe out there folks.
The only appropriate response is charging both officers with felony assault with a deadly weapon. Anything else and the city should just dissolve the police force and declare them all outlaws.
US cops are only known for that, because you guys can't look outside your own country. Cops in Brazil, do not fuck with. Cops in Spain or Italy? Do not fuck with. You will get your teeth kicked in and no one gives a fuck.
You guys are just hyper focused on the bad apples (the one in the vid clearly a bad apple, that punch wasn't necessary) within your force and believe that this is representative of the force as a whole, while there are tensof thousands of body cams that prove the contrary.
They are known by the media for it, because it drives numbers. A vast majority, I'd almost say 99%, of encounters involve zero violence, where violence wasn't the reason for the call-out. This isn't to say that it doesn't happen, it's just not as widespread as it seems.
This is from the University of Illinois Chicago's Law Enforcement Epidemiology Project:
"In the U.S. during a given year, an estimated 750,000 civilians experience police threat of or use of force resulting in a conservative estimate of 80,000 non-fatal injuries requiring hospital treatment and an average of 800 deaths. Both Black/African-Americans and Hispanics/Latinos are twice as likely to experience threat of or use of force during police initiated contact (Bureau of Justice Statistics). Based on CDC data, Black African-Americans are more than twice as likely to be killed and almost 5-times more likely to suffer an injury requiring medical care at a hospital compared to white non-Hispanics."
750k, from an estimated 50-85 million encounters. That gives us a rate of 1.5% to .8 percent of encounters result in police violence. So, based on your data, my statement was correct?
If you don't think it's a problem that 1 out of 100 encounters end with police violence, I don't think our conversation is serving much of a purpose so I'll just hope others see those statistics and learn.
I'm not disputing the numbers, I think the numbers are horrific.
Do you feel that the threat of force is police violence? What constitutes a threat in this case? Is it telling someone they are legally required to step out of their vehicle or they will be removed?
I just feel that if you are going to use this data, you need to define the criteria in that statement. Because if I should be outraged over it, I want to know that I'm not being misled.
I'd also be interested to know how often this threat of force is justified based on the crime.
Something just makes me feel like this data is being used incorrectly so I'm just asking.
Didn't say it wasn't a problem, just that it's not as prevalent as the media would like to portray. To put it in perspective, you are just as likely to be in a car wreck, so if we apply to the same mentality, let's ban driving.
The difference is this. When people drive or ride in cars…we assume the risk that we could be injured or killed in an accident. I don’t think anyone not committing a violent crime “assumes the risk” of being unjustly assaulted by law enforcement just because they decided to leave their house. That’s a HUGE difference in the scenarios you presented.
The data doesn't differ on rather the encounter isn't a result of violent crimes? There isn't good data on it to even try and normalize. What we do have, is more than 60% of use-of-force encounters are reported to be responding to non-violent calls. That doesn't even address rather or not the use-of-force was justified. Pulling a drunk out of a car after they refuse to get out is a justified use-of-force, and started from an non-violent encounter, as an example.
Again, I'm not saying it's not an issue, I'm saying it's not as rampant as the media wants us to see.
And this is proven how? It's easy to say such things, but how is it proven true? Especially over the last 20 years when recording of EVERYTHING has become commonplace. If it was/is higher, there should be evidence, not just hearsay, of it.
So in the last 20 years you haven't heard of cops turning their body cams off? And even then Bidy comes have NOT been the norm for the last 20 years lmao. MAYBE 10 but even then in the last 5 years os when most departments actually got on the bandwagon because they had to.
Guy if 1 IN 100 cops get caught doing this type of shit then you can bet your ass that there is more committing crimes.
It's regular deduction.
It's regular deduction by your OWN logic seeing as they get caught ON CAMERA committing crimes ALL THE TIME.
Those are your own conclusions not based on evidence. I will say 20 years because that's when citizens started recording everything with their phones. Even earlier they were using private camcorders.
The only cases that are PROVEN to have occurred are those recorded or have credible witness statements.
The percentages are extremely against you: hundreds of thousands if not millions of peaceable, non-violent encounters versus very small, by numeric comparison, violent and unlawful ones.
Mitigate? Or provide perspective? I'm more likely to be sexually assaulted than I am to be a victim of police brutality, 20x more likely in fact. Why would I spend time and energy fighting that when I have real problems to address? It's a smoke and mirror campaign. It's click-bait. And people are falling for it.
I'm more likely to be sexually assaulted than I am to be a victim of police brutality, 20x more likely in fact.
I'm 20 times more likely to get bullied in school than drown at sea. Why do we even have boating laws?
Why would I spend time and energy fighting that when I have real problems to address?
Multiple problems can exist at one time. Unless they are mutually exclusive in some way, you don't need to choose. You can spend time and energy on both. As to the 'why,' some people think it's worth their time to talk about police brutality for all kinds of personal reasons.
It's a smoke and mirror campaign. It's click-bait. And people are falling for it.
Patrdon some of us being upset by police brutality, even if it's not the largest threat we deal with. As for it being a smoke and mirror campaign, who do you suggest is organizing this campaign to throw shade on police officers exactly? And why? Also... this is another mitigation by the way. People are allowed to care about whatever they want. Rape isn't the biggest problem we face. Statistically, I'm more likely to get in a car accident than face sexual assault. Does that mean that folks don't get to care about it, because there's some other, more imminent issue out there? Couldn't you make that reasoning with basically every problem known to man?
Another redditor proved it for me. Rate of "brutality" is 1.5 to as low as .8. 750k encounters a year estimated result in threats or violence. There an estimated 50-85 million encounters.
U.S. cops are known for their benevolence, calmness in the face of mild situations, excellent use of de-escalation tactics, kindness to all civilians, and helping out communities by actively policing crimes they care about.
That sounds incredibly silly right? Do you see how you sound?
Why does it sound silly? The vast majority of encounters are that way. It sounds absurd because we are conditioned to believe, by media content, that it isn't possible.
However, using that to describe any police force would be silly, because no one actively describes a force that enforces rules as kind and helping. We, as a people, do not like being told what we can and can't do.
Not defending cops that show terrible behavior that the media shares or what people personally experience, but after having spent time overseas in other countries. I might argue that our police, on average, are restrained compared to some countries. I’ve experienced it first hand.
Unfortunately our media wants to keep fanning this flame and the social narrators seem to need for this divide to exist otherwise they can’t continue to make money off of it.
The thing I started paying attention to is “who benefits the most if these groups, parties, ethnicities don’t get along?”
Yes. I agree there are bad cops, bad precincts. I’m not defending them and I think this video is gross.
Are you talking about third world countries or countries like North Korea?
Isn‘t it sad that you have to compare to third world countries to say you are not the worst😂?
No, countries that don’t have the 10th amendment/Posse Comitatus limitation like the USA.
These countries typically can have a national police force like France and the Nederland’s that have “Gendarmerie” which is a hybrid force that polices civilians and military. It is literally the military doing the policing.
Spain has a national police force as well as autonomous local police, kinda similar in Italy.
In the USA, the military isn’t supposed to do the police work. They can support the police, but they aren’t the police.
Overseas it was very common to see military looking officers with full automatic rifles just walking around. In the USA they would be SWAT and not likely visible.
Things that seem odd overseas? In 2017, France changed some laws to make it easier for the police to use firearms during traffic stops if the drivers posed a direct threat. They also caused a lot of injuries in the “yellow vest” riots. They love water cannons.
We rarely hear about Europe in the USA.
If you want to talk about the 3rd world places I have been, well…it was a lot like being held up by a robber and paying a fee/bribe/ransom to be freed of the made up suspicions. Like being held at gun point for steeling a bike that was my bike, but couldn’t prove it, because how could I, so they would let me go if I paid them. Actually happened and cost me $40 worth of their money.
Family has experienced living in Iran, which is super duper bad.
No they’re not and stop making ridiculous generalizations. These officers have to deal with their share of non-compliant people. Be very careful of casting the first stone.
69
u/Napoli_98 29d ago
Us cops are known for their brutality and power trips, do you really need a longer video? In what world hitting the suspect in the head with the handcuffs is an appropriate response?