If everything north of minor resisting arrest is called an "assault" on a policeman then the police assaulted (by the same standard) the boy in the story story by:
"They picked him up, slammed him to the ground, dragged him aggressively to their car" for saying something the policeman didn't like.
Not only was the boy assaulted by the cop he was also prosecuted for daring to speak his mind.
The kid resisted arrest. Cops are allowed to use force to arrest someone. The amount of force used is relative to the resister. In this case the kid physically pulled away and when the officer grabbed him after the kid tried again, and the officer took him down. Perfectly reasonable and justifiable.
In my state it is irrelevant whether or not the arrest was legal. You can't resist arrest even if the arrest is illegal.
In this case we don't have all the facts on video. The video does not show the entire event. Maybe the kid just yelled oink oink and that's all that happened. Maybe not. It sounds like more was going on than just that.
We know the video is suspiciously short....we know it shows the defendant resisting arrest. You think that might be because the guy shooting the video edited out anything that might support the officer's story?
How much training do you need to not bring civil court cases against teenagers who joke about you? And we supposedly hold police to a much higher standard.
It's a black kid disrespecting a cop, the police have to act! That's the thinking you have on display, so there will be always be apologism for misconduct. And when police officers are actually threatened by a group of men with guns, it is ignored.Do we really? It seems like they are held to almost no standard at all.
I think that is when they whipped out their phone as the police got serious.
The guy is sitting down. The situation is calm and already diffused.
The event as the police officer had described it is over.
Since no violence has occurred (even the police did not say there was a real physical altercation prior to this point) what are they even arresting him for? Resisting arrest? Saying stuff?
They are beating on the kid and then they made a legal example of him on the thinnest justification possible.
but when police officers are really threatened by domestic terrorists, they remain silent.
It's a black kid disrespecting a cop, the police have to act! That's the thinking you have on display, so there will be always be apologism for misconduct. And when police officers are actually threatened by a group of men with guns, it is ignored.
They scour the Internet looking for black people saying mean things to police officers and treat it like it's a crisis, but when police officers are really threatened by domestic terrorists, they remain silent.
I wouldn’t say Bundy’s actions were ignored by law enforcement, but many of the apologists ignore it. This kid said “oink oink” and he will be given more attention, than to a person that points a weapon at law enforcement. And if this kid goes to trial, there will be a prosecutor and jury that will convict him because a young black teen is just causing trouble. Meanwhile Ammon Bundy participates in a terrorist act and one of his followers dies in a shootout, and they’re acquitted. It’s like even the dead body of the man that said they were taking action and would go down shooting is not enough information for them to process a real threat. America has a problem when free speech is attacked, but terrorism and threats are ignored.To quibble a bit - it wasn't totally ignored, per se - the feds went after all those guys later, though they botched the case pretty badly and most of them got off and/or got very light sentences. The guy in the photo is Eric Parker, who was acquitted of most charges and eventually plead guilty to a misdemeanor and got a year of supervised release.
Bundy standoff - Wikipedia
That said, I don't disagree with your general premise that there's a double standard. When the Bundys get a light touch, but Ferguson & Standing Rock get massive SWAT teams....
If you're interested, NPR put out a podcast last year about the Bundys and the history of their family and their movement. It wasn't too revelatory if you'd paid attention to the news at all, but it did fill in some of the details.
Bundyville
I wouldn’t say Bundy’s actions were ignored by law enforcement, but many of the apologists ignore it.
This is a direct case of free speech, saying something unsavory about the government is protected speech, but none of the “free speechers” will defend this kid. No, they reserve that for someone being racist, then it’s, “Oh, he’s a victim!”
I think that is when they whipped out their phone as the police got serious.
The guy is sitting down. The situation is calm and already diffused. The event as the police officer had described it is over. At this point the "violence" that they feared seems completely past and nothing came of it.
Since no violence has occurred (even the police did not say there was a real physical altercation prior to this point) what are they even arresting him for? Resisting arrest? Saying stuff?
They are beating on the kid and then they made a legal example of him on the thinnest justification possible.
It is bad behavior plain and simple and the various apologist around here have to appeal to what we didn't see to justify what we did. Which is basically just taking the cops word for it.
Sorry no.
I wouldn’t say Bundy’s actions were ignored by law enforcement, but many of the apologists ignore it. This kid said “oink oink” and he will be given more attention, than to a person that points a weapon at law enforcement. And if this kid goes to trial, there will be a prosecutor and jury that will convict him because a young black teen is just causing trouble. Meanwhile Ammon Bundy participates in a terrorist act and one of his followers dies in a shootout, and they’re acquitted. It’s like even the dead body of the man that said they were taking action and would go down shooting is not enough information for them to process a real threat. America has a problem when free speech is attacked, but terrorism and threats are ignored.
This is a direct case of free speech, saying something unsavory about the government is protected speech, but none of the “free speechers” will defend this kid. No, they reserve that for someone being racist, then it’s, “Oh, he’s a victim!”