Black privilege: threaten people with a knife, resist arrest, spit on police, no charges

[untermensche]

So responding to a woman threatening a store employee with a knife is "police intrusion"?

Possibly. If the claim was unfounded then assaulting somebody over it is unfounded.

The job of the police is to investigate and respectfully deal with the public.

Not to hand out punishment in the street.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Here's a video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K71H5_jutTA

 

[laughing dog]

So, perhaps there was a tacit deal - restorative justice for no lawsuit.

 

[Derec]

So, perhaps there was a tacit deal - restorative justice for no lawsuit.

I see nothing actionable in her arrest. She was combative and police have to use force in such a case.

 

[untermensche]

Here's a video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K71H5_jutTA

Those police assaulted her.

They committed a crime. They are not above the law. Or at least they should not be.

Only in a police state can the police commit clear crimes in the open and get away with it.

 

[Derec]

Possibly. If the claim was unfounded then assaulting somebody over it is unfounded.

Arresting somebody is not assault even if that person were innocent (the Marilyn Mosby fallacy). And nobody is denying that this woman threatened the store employee with a knife.

The job of the police is to investigate and respectfully deal with the public.

Not to hand out punishment in the street.

Dealing respectfully does not mean that police have to keep their "hands off black women" like the activists are demanding. If the suspect is resisting and even spitting on police, use of force is justified. This woman should have let them take her into custody without resisting.

 

[Derec]

Those police assaulted her.

No they did not.

They committed a crime.

No they did not. Use of physical force in the process of arresting a combative suspect is not a cirme. Threatening people with a knife, resisting arrest and spitting on police however, are crimes and should be treated as such.

They are not above the law. Or at least they should not be.

Neither should black 18 year old women be. Apparently in Madison, WI they are.

Only in a police state can the police commit clear crimes in the open and get away with it.

You are not fooling anybody. Using physical force to arrest combative suspects is not a crime.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

was that something on her head in the video?

was that what Derec is calling privilege because I haven't seen that before.

 

[laughing dog]

So, perhaps there was a tacit deal - restorative justice for no lawsuit.

I see nothing actionable in her arrest. She was combative and police have to use force in such a case.

If there was such a deal, the DA and the police and the city probably have a better and less biased view than you on the expenses and likelihood of a judgment.

"Combative" does not necessarily require kneeing, punching and tasering. If (and, again, I don't know there was one, just making a conjecture) there was a deal, I can see why.

 

[Derec]

You may be right, but it still looks like they caved to the demands of the activists. Charging decisions should not be subject to the heckler veto.
Also "restorative justice" is normally applied to minor crimes, which does not apply to this girl. Spitting on police is normally quite serious, as is threatening people with a deadly weapon.

This article indicates I was right.

While the Community Restorative Court is reserved for young offenders in South Madison facing misdemeanor charges, Ozanne said he made an exception for Laird after consulting with Madison Police Chief Mike Koval, who endorsed the move.

I.e. she is not normally eligible for the program because she was facing felony charges, but they made an exception. And why did they make an exception?

“I think it is especially necessary in light of the community interest and attention which has surrounded this matter,” Ozanne said.

In other words, heckler's veto by race-baiter activists with bullhorns.
Genele Laird won't be charged; referred to alternative restorative justice program

By the way, these are the charges she was facing

If she fails to complete the program, Ozanne said he has already written a criminal complaint that would charge her with a mix of felonies and misdemeanors, including discharging bodily fluids at a police officer, battery to a police officer, resisting an officer causing soft-tissue injury, obstructing an officer and disorderly conduct while armed.

If you "discharge bodily fluids" at police and cause them "soft-tissue injury" while resisting arrest then forcible arrest including use of tasers is not police brutality or in any way inappropriate or even criminal.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Whatever happened to Derec's innocent until proven guilty mantra? I thought it applied to everyone, not just white men with power.

I mean, this was some kind of deal with a lawyer that included no charge and some kind of therapy. So shouldn't one expect Derec to be proclaiming she's as innocent as the Duke Lacrosse team and George Zimmerman?

 

[Derec]

"Combative" does not necessarily require kneeing, punching and tasering. If (and, again, I don't know there was one, just making a conjecture) there was a deal, I can see why.

She committed battery against the officers causing them "soft-tissue injury" in addition to spitting on them. What should the police have done? Let her injure them more? Retreat and let her go?

 

[Derec]

Whatever happened to Derec's innocent until proven guilty mantra? I thought it applied to everyone, not just white men with power.

I never said she doesn't deserve due process, including presumption of innocence. But she should have faced a criminal trial. However, presumption of innocence is a bit academic when the suspects seems to admit guilt

After speaking with Laird’s attorneys, Ozanne said, he believes she accepts responsibility for what happened and understands “that it was her conduct toward fellow community members, including officers involved, that caused this incident.”

Also presumption of innocence does not mean police are not allowed to use physical force to subdue a violent and combative suspect, especially one that might be armed.

So shouldn't one expect Derec to be proclaiming she's as innocent as the Duke Lacrosse team and George Zimmerman?

Duke Lacrosse players were factually innocent and victims of prosecutorial misconduct. Z was triad and acquitted.
Nobody, not even her supporters, are claiming she is not guilty of what is alleged against her. Yet she is not even being charged at this time.

 

[untermensche]

No they did not.

A knee to the abdomen is assault.

Those cops, like cops everyday in the police state known as the US, committed a crime.

But since it is a police state they will not be prosecuted.

 

[Derec]

A knee to the abdomen is assault.

Not necessarily. Police are allowed to use reasonable force to subdue a suspect.

Those cops, like cops everyday in the police state known as the US, committed a crime.

No they did not. This woman, however, committed several crimes, including battery against an officer.

But since it is a police state they will not be prosecuted.

If only Wisconsin had this hero prosecutor.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I never said she doesn't deserve due process, including presumption of innocence.

But you did claim she was guilty in your op and repeated assertions, something you tell others not to do around here.

But she should have faced a criminal trial.
Also presumption of innocence does not mean police are not allowed to use physical force to subdue a violent and combative suspect.

The EXTENT to which police use force needs to be APPROPRIATE to the level of safety for officers and public. Kneeing someone in the mid-section multiple times and punching someone in the facefor allegedly pinching them, squirming, and spitting may not be the appropriate level and definitely risks a lawsuit, regardless of skin color.

So shouldn't one expect Derec to be proclaiming she's as innocent as the Duke Lacrosse team and George Zimmerman?

Duke Lacrosse players were factually innocent and victims of prosecutorial misconduct.

The Duke Lacrosse team was guilty of hiring a prostitute and treating her like shit, the extent of which remains unknown and unproven.

Z was triad and acquitted.

Z was not acquitted of ASSAULTING A POLICE OFFICER. He got ANGER MANAGEMENT THERAPY!

 

[Derec]

But you did claim she was guilty in your op and repeated assertions, something you tell others not to do around here.

That is my opinion, informed by the fact that nobody is claiming she is factually innocent of anything alleged against her.

The EXTENT to which police use force needs to be APPROPRIATE to the level of safety for officers and public. Kneeing someone in the mid-section multiple times and punching someone in the facefor allegedly pinching them, squirming, and spitting may not be the appropriate level and definitely risks a lawsuit, regardless of skin color.

True, the level of force needs to be appropriate. But since police suffered injuries at the hands of this wild hyena hoodrat in addition to her spitting at them I do think force was excessive.

The Duke Lacrosse team was guilty of hiring a prostitute

They hired strippers to strip, which is legal (they were not in the Feminist Republic of Iceland). Just because she was a prostitute as well does not mean the Dukesters were guilty of anything for hiring her.

and treating her like shit, the extent of which remains unknown and unproven.

I.e. the "they treated her badly" is just unsubstantiated claim, nothing more. And in any case, a bad client does not justify inventing bogus claims of having been raped.

Z was not acquitted of ASSAULTING A POLICE OFFICER. He got ANGER MANAGEMENT THERAPY!

A different case. It was an off-duty police officer at a bar. So a bit different.

Note that neither Duke Lacrosse players nor Z violently resisted arrest so I don't know why you are derailing the thread with references to them.

 

[untermensche]

Not necessarily. Police are allowed to use reasonable force to subdue a suspect.

Those cops, like cops everyday in the police state known as the US, committed a crime.

No they did not. This woman, however, committed several crimes, including battery against an officer.

But since it is a police state they will not be prosecuted.

If only Wisconsin had this hero prosecutor.

It is a crime to assault somebody.

There is no need to knee anybody in the abdomen.

That was clearly excessive force and a crime.

It may seem to some it wasn't excessive because it was just some black woman, not a real person.

 

[Derec]

It is a crime to assault somebody.

True. Like this girl assaulting police officer trying to arrest her.

There is no need to knee anybody in the abdomen.

Wrong. Sometimes it is necessary.

That was clearly excessive force and a crime.

Not so clearly, otherwise they would have been charged.

It may seem to some it wasn't excessive because it was just some black woman, not a real person.

Obviously nonsense. But thanks for playing.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No they did not.

A knee to the abdomen is assault.

Those cops, like cops everyday in the police state known as the US, committed a crime.

But since it is a police state they will not be prosecuted.

No--the police are allowed to use force if necessary to accomplish their job.