Virginia teen was detained and prosecuted for saying 'OINK OINK' to cop

[rjs330]

I wonder if a body cam will be released.

 

[rjs330]

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.

 

[variant]

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.

I don't care about the legal niceties we use to protect police doing their job, they get used when police aren't doing their job too.

The force used to arrest someone is only reasonable if the arrest is reasonable. Further, using an undue amount of force is a good way to provoke people to fight back so you can then charge them with more crimes.

In this case he got into a verbal altercation with someone and then chose to arrest and then physically harass them.

The thinnest justification for this act is used and it is not to be taken seriously.

He beat the kid up over his hurt feelings.

 

[variant]

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?

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.

 

[variant]

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.

Do we really? It seems like they are held to almost no standard at all.

 

[SummerMadness]

Do we really? It seems like they are held to almost no standard at all.

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.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I think that is when they whipped out their phone as the police got serious.

Maybe...no real way of knowing.

The guy is sitting down. The situation is calm and already diffused.

Sorry no...the article doesn't specify why the cops were there. It's possible they were just driving through the mall parking lot, or it's possible they were responding to a call about a group of teens loitering and harassing people entering the mall.

The event as the police officer had described it is over.

Nope. There's no real telling what is going on off camera.

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?

Like I said....they could be there for any number of legitimate reasons, malls aren't public property.

They are beating on the kid and then they made a legal example of him on the thinnest justification possible.

He resisted arrest. That's why the cop put his hands on him. I don't recall any beating...but it has been awhile since I watched the video. What times on the video are you referring to?

 

[Ana the Ist]

but when police officers are really threatened by domestic terrorists, they remain silent.

Start a thread about it. I can't comment on about things that are off topic. You shouldn't either.

 

[iluvatar5150]

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.

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

 

[PeachyKeane]

Execute him!

 

[SummerMadness]

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 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!”

 

[Ringo84]

I was just waiting for a chance to use this cartoon: Imgur
Ringo

 

[Ana the Ist]

I wouldn’t say Bundy’s actions were ignored by law enforcement, but many of the apologists ignore it.

I don't remember my exact words during that incident, but they were along the lines of "should be arrested or shot".

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 don't have a problem with his speech. The police didn't arrest him for his speech.

I don't understand this view of "I can say whatever I want and the cops have to put up with it ". I get that they can't arrest you for it...but that doesn't mean they can't arrest or fine you for something else.

If you're going to talk trash to a cop....be certain you aren't breaking any laws or codes. Cops let a hundred things slide every day from loitering, to jaywalking, to illegal lane changes. You know who they don't let slide? People harassing or mocking them.

If this kid had complied with the officer and given him ID and calmly stood up and placed his hands behind his back and he was charged with anything other than loitering....I'd have a problem with it. That's not what happened though.

 

[rjs330]

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.

Beating? I don't recall any beating. I do recall the officer grabbing the kid and the kid jerking away out of the officers grip. That's resisting arrest. When you resist arrest the courts are very clear on the officer being able to use reasonable force to affect the arrest. Beating the kid would usually not be reasonable. Throwing him onto the ground and handcuffing him is reasonable to his physical act of resisting. That kind of action in response to someone physically resisting arrest has not been found by any court to be unreasonable.

 

[rjs330]

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!”

I'm one of those free speechers. And if all the kid said was oink oink then he had a right to do so.

This is another one of those cases where people LOVE to jump to conclusions without all the facts. If all that happened was that the kid said oink oink, the cop should not have arrested him.

If the cop is wrong here then prove it in court where you can share all the facts in the case. The kid is innocent until proven guilty. But don't resist arrest. In my state you can't resist arrest even if the arrest is unlawful.

Sue the cops for violating your rights later.