Cop Tases Black City Councilman

[AthenaAwakened]

The encounter began when police stopped to question several of Miller's fraternity brothers gathered outside his house Thursday. When Miller attempted to intervene, police ordered him to step back, then tased and arrested him for reportedly interfering with police duties and resisting arrest.

As the confrontation escalated, one of the officers' body cameras fell off. But the zap of the taser and Miller's pained scream were captured. Police released images from a second officer's body camera showing the end of the encounter.

The incident has drawn national attention, coming only three months after the July arrest of Sandra Bland.”*

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Sounds justified. The councilman could have picked up the body camera that was on the ground and beaten the police to death with it. The cops are allowed to use force in cases of self-defence.

 

[ksen]

"Black city councilman"

How did that happen?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Justified. That's what tends to happen when you try to interfere with the police doing their job.

- - - Updated - - -

Sounds justified. The councilman could have picked up the body camera that was on the ground and beaten the police to death with it. The cops are allowed to use force in cases of self-defence.

Taser normally doesn't mean threat, it means non-compliance.

 

[bleubird]

We just need more compliance.That will fix all our problems!

 

[Trausti]

Justified. That's what tends to happen when you try to interfere with the police doing their job.

- - - Updated - - -

Sounds justified. The councilman could have picked up the body camera that was on the ground and beaten the police to death with it. The cops are allowed to use force in cases of self-defence.

Taser normally doesn't mean threat, it means non-compliance.

I dunno. Seems that the police were too causal in tasing the guy. Yeah, he was resisting. But the taser was probably unnecessary. And, at the risk of being flamed , I'll make the observation that if it had been two male police officers, they likely could have arrested him without lazily restoring to the taser.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Justified. That's what tends to happen when you try to interfere with the police doing their job.

- - - Updated - - -



Taser normally doesn't mean threat, it means non-compliance.

I dunno. Seems that the police were too causal in tasing the guy. Yeah, he was resisting. But the taser was probably unnecessary. And, at the risk of being flamed , I'll make the observation that if it had been two male police officers, they likely could have arrested him without lazily restoring to the taser.

Arrested him for what?

 

[Tigers!]

I dunno. Seems that the police were too causal in tasing the guy. Yeah, he was resisting. But the taser was probably unnecessary. And, at the risk of being flamed , I'll make the observation that if it had been two male police officers, they likely could have arrested him without lazily restoring to the taser.

Can I be the first to flame you?

 

[JonA]

I dunno. Seems that the police were too causal in tasing the guy. Yeah, he was resisting. But the taser was probably unnecessary. And, at the risk of being flamed , I'll make the observation that if it had been two male police officers, they likely could have arrested him without lazily restoring to the taser.

Arrested him for what?

Wasn't he interfering in police business?

 

[zorq]

Arrested him for what?

Wasn't he interfering in police business?

Nope. The police were interfering in his business.

The police were on his property. His friends were on his property. He was not breaking any laws. His friends weren't breaking any laws. The police were uninvited. The police were unwelcome. The police had no business being there. The police, trespassing on his property, tell him to retreat from his property. He tries to explain to them that this is his property and the police interpret that as "interfering." So they decide to manhandle the guy despite the guy always keeping his hands to himself. The guy is pushed down to his knees as he explains to the officers that he isn't resisting. He never touches anyone. He never threatens anyone. And in the confusion of several officers shouting at him various things at the same it takes him more than half a second to comply with a command from one of them to put his hands behind his back so ... the officer shoots him with a tazer gun.

If the guy had a heart condition he could be dead right now. Thank goodness he didn't.

But that wouldn't change the mind of the defenders of Authoritarian overreach on this board. Because according to them authority figures never have a bad day and never make mistakes. The victims of authority figures always deserve their fate.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Justified. That's what tends to happen when you try to interfere with the police doing their job.

On his knees? They tasered him because he wouldn't put his arms behind his back, while on his knees. I understand you don't believe in civilian rights when it comes to authoritarian force, and me raising the issue will be a waste of my time.

 

[JonA]

The police were on his property. His friends were on his property.

Not necessarily a defense—maybe in this case; I have not examined it in detail (and I imagine no one really has, since it just happened and there aren't many details yet available)—but not always.

The police had no business being there.

I guess that depends on why the police were there. Do you know why they showed up?

But that wouldn't change the mind of the defenders of Authoritarian overreach on this board. Because according to them authority figures never have a bad day and never make mistakes. The victims of authority figures always deserve their fate.

I'd rather be in the middle: holding off on judgement and constantly pressing for more information until I feel there's enough to take an educated stance on the issue.

 

[Metaphor]

Okay, question here:

Can somebody explain how I've benefitted from this situation? I'm a cis white male, so I must have benefitted. But I also don't have the requisite training or imagination to enable me to understand how I've benefitted.

(I know it's not your job to educate me. Think of it as charity).

 

[Axulus]

Okay, question here:

Can somebody explain how I've benefitted from this situation? I'm a cis white male, so I must have benefitted. But I also don't have the requisite training or imagination to enable me to understand how I've benefitted.

(I know it's not your job to educate me. Think of it as charity).

Your white privilege has so accustomed you to the massive benefits you are receiving from this, that you can no longer think clearly about it, or something.

Stop being so racist.

 

[maxparrish]

He's a politician. You ought to taze him, as much as you like.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Okay, question here:

Can somebody explain how I've benefitted from this situation? I'm a cis white male, so I must have benefitted. But I also don't have the requisite training or imagination to enable me to understand how I've benefitted.

(I know it's not your job to educate me. Think of it as charity).

How do I benefit from a high black unemployment rate?

Answer: I don't. Nobody benefits. It doesn't make my life better that there is a higher black unemployment rate; it makes my life worse.

Touching and heroic and loving of the suffering of black people but not relevant to the discussion at hand. As you said yourself

"Everyone" -- as an average, as a group -- is worse off, but individuals could be better off than they otherwise would have been.

If that is true, then so must this be true

"Everyone" -- as an average, as a group -- is better off, but individuals could be worse off [or unaffected] than they otherwise would have been.

WHICH MEANS NO ONE need show how anything affects you personally in order to be valid in stating generalities about groups.

 

[zorq]

Not necessarily a defense—maybe in this case; I have not examined it in detail (and I imagine no one really has, since it just happened and there aren't many details yet available)—but not always.

There are video recordings of the incident that provide plenty of details.

The police had no business being there.

I guess that depends on why the police were there. Do you know why they showed up?

Allegedly they suspected "drug" activity and because of "little kids." Why? I don't know. There were no little kids or drugs on the property. Do you know why they showed up?

But that wouldn't change the mind of the defenders of Authoritarian overreach on this board. Because according to them authority figures never have a bad day and never make mistakes. The victims of authority figures always deserve their fate.

I'd rather be in the middle: holding off on judgement and constantly pressing for more information until I feel there's enough to take an educated stance on the issue.

I saw the video. That's plenty information for me.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Okay, question here:

Can somebody explain how I've benefitted from this situation? I'm a cis white male, so I must have benefitted. But I also don't have the requisite training or imagination to enable me to understand how I've benefitted.

(I know it's not your job to educate me. Think of it as charity).

Your white privilege has so accustomed you to the massive benefits you are receiving from this, that you can no longer think clearly about it, or something.

Stop being so racist.

Maybe I'm seeing things, but isn't this an example of police using too much force?

 

[skepticalbip]

Your white privilege has so accustomed you to the massive benefits you are receiving from this, that you can no longer think clearly about it, or something.

Stop being so racist.

Maybe I'm seeing things, but isn't this an example of police using too much force?

Not at all. These cops obviously just enjoy seeing the reaction of people when they are tazed. The problem is that they are just playing around when they should be doing their job.

 

[Metaphor]

How do I benefit from a high black unemployment rate?

Answer: I don't. Nobody benefits. It doesn't make my life better that there is a higher black unemployment rate; it makes my life worse.

Touching and heroic and loving of the suffering of black people but not relevant to the discussion at hand. As you said yourself

"Everyone" -- as an average, as a group -- is worse off, but individuals could be better off than they otherwise would have been.

If that is true, then so must this be true

"Everyone" -- as an average, as a group -- is better off, but individuals could be worse off [or unaffected] than they otherwise would have been.

WHICH MEANS NO ONE need show how anything affects you personally in order to be valid in stating generalities about groups.

Okay, I'll make the statement more general, then.

Which individual whites 'benefitted' from this action so that white people as a group also benefitted?

Please note you also must show that no white people were harmed by this action, or at least you must show that the 'total white benefit' was higher than the 'total white harm', if you're going to say white people as a group benefitted.