Mike S, you’re having a ‘mare in this thread.
Time to admit you’re wrong and move on.
Time to admit you’re wrong and move on.
Cop in America doing a bad job, again
- Thread starter Sigma
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Liquid tends to dissipate quite nicely into sand.
A lot of misunderstanding on the local laws and what is actually acceptable when someone resists arrest in this thread.
http://prospect.org/article/cops-can-punch-people-even-women
Most people are probably unfamiliar with police procedure manuals, but there's a point at which the use of force is justified. And that point comes sooner than people think. According to most patrol guide rules and legal precedent, officers can use physical force to arrest someone who is physically resisting, and they can use force to subdue someone who has become violent with them. That means officers are allowed to punch people. They're even allowed to punch women. Officers aren't obligated to get pushed around or injured when lawfully arresting someone, even if it turns out those arrests don't hold up in court.
We've decided, as a society, that officers are authorized to use force to keep the peace. We've also decided that they can issue tickets for jaywalking, and then if that situation is escalated for some reason then they can arrest the jaywalker. Arrests are violent things. Women sometimes get arrested. We can't put them in a cocoon. Police departments are usually pretty bad about responding to allegations that they acted inappropriately, but they sometimes have a point in that many people don't understand what an arrest really looks like. Many more don't understand the procedural rules that dictate when and on whom police can use force.
We've decided, as a society, that officers are authorized to use force to keep the peace. We've also decided that they can issue tickets for jaywalking, and then if that situation is escalated for some reason then they can arrest the jaywalker. Arrests are violent things. Women sometimes get arrested. We can't put them in a cocoon. Police departments are usually pretty bad about responding to allegations that they acted inappropriately, but they sometimes have a point in that many people don't understand what an arrest really looks like. Many more don't understand the procedural rules that dictate when and on whom police can use force.
Orwell was well within his rights to shoot the elephant.
Ffs Mike. Give it a rest.
Wouldn't they have been more effective in keeping the peace by not doing what they did?
There is such a thing as sensible policing. This just screams of people who never should have become police having to reaffirm themselves, and quite frankly it is more about a show of authority than a genuine interest to keep the peace.
What a vile and horrible paragraph. Are you even an human being?
I have a question that had me wondering last night: Has it become normal to be breathalyzed for sitting on the beach in the US? (Without doing anything, literally just sitting there). Also how the feck is this pouring away booze standard practice on public beaches? 
Couldnt the officer just confiscate the alcohol and be on his way? Why the demand to pour the alcohol?
Cos it’s the “land of the free”.
http://library.college.police.uk/docs/APPref/use-of-force-principles.pdf
“4. When force is used it shall be exercised with restraint. It shall be the minimum honestly and reasonably judged to be nessecary to attain the law full objective.”
You can read the same thing in all international legislation. This is not the minimum force required to arrest this tiny woman. This was arguably the minimum force required to arrest Tyson Fury.
The 8 year old blog you quoted might disagree (though you left out part of it where it questioned a specific video), but the law is quite clear.
“4. When force is used it shall be exercised with restraint. It shall be the minimum honestly and reasonably judged to be nessecary to attain the law full objective.”
You can read the same thing in all international legislation. This is not the minimum force required to arrest this tiny woman. This was arguably the minimum force required to arrest Tyson Fury.
The 8 year old blog you quoted might disagree (though you left out part of it where it questioned a specific video), but the law is quite clear.
Normally I'm the first to side with the police, the majority of whom do a very difficult and stressful job in a professional and decent manor, but this assbucket is completely out of order and should be facing criminal charges!
its like 30 to 1 with even actual police officers saying the guy crossed the line and mike still insists he is right. impressive in a sick way
Mike is a caricature.
Are we sure he’s not a bot?
Are we sure he’s not a bot?
Bots are smart or at the very least, not dumb.
Bots are predictable surely?
Me, Eboue and Rado have been able to predict what he would do in this thread and others, and despite this he continues to do it
So let me get this straight. American cops have arrested a man for allegedly "defaming" cops on the internet? What the hell?
Has this happened before?
Welcome to the American Stasi.
Land of the free
I have a question that had me wondering last night: Has it become normal to be breathalyzed for sitting on the beach in the US? (Without doing anything, literally just sitting there). Also how the feck is this pouring away booze standard practice on public beaches?
My wife and I were having a picnic up Mount Diablo once. No-one around us, just enjoying the view and sharing food and a great bottle of white wine. A ranger comes up and made me pour it out. They just love being cnuts. Yes I know that it is the law , but a little discretion would be welcome sometimes.
Oh Mike, you utterly ridiculous person, you're beyond parody.
I never realised this went on and have to admit I would find it extremely difficult to live somewhere where this could be done to you. I almost never drink outside of the house or a pub but even so it's just so authoritarian.
If the police here decided em masse to make everyone openly drinking pour out their alcohol we'd need a fecking ark.
How to de-escalate a potentially violent situation:
Step 1 surround individual with armed police and flashing lights
Step 2 charge at man with dog
Step 3 beat the shit out of him (shoot him if not working)
Step 4 get sued
Textbook
same here. Especially with drunk cycling. It’s the only way to get to a pub so even while it’s technically not allowed cops arent fussy about unless you’re disturbing the peace.
You'd think in the hierarchy of potential crimes, drunk cycling and drinking at a beach or in the park would be right near the bottom....
Not in America tho, shit is serious business.
'You're about to be dropped!'
Not in America tho, shit is serious business.
'You're about to be dropped!'
Italy really has been eye-opening for my wife. The freedom here, the friendliness, just people loving life. It's a world away from 'the greatest country on earth.
That was hard to watch. Absolutely disgusting doing that to him when he’s just standing there not being a threat to anyone. Yeah he was standing in the middle of the road and needed to be moved but they didn’t even try and do that in a normal manner. The poor guy has massive bite scars from the dog on his torso and ended up with a broken nose and eye socket from being beaten with flashlights.
It actually depresses me knowing that this shit happens all over America on a daily basis.
Slightly different to the usual abuse of power in this thread. An offduty FBI agent does a backflip while drunk, loses his gun then fires it into someone's leg as he picks it up.
There goes the training argument gun fanciers bring up all the time.
Apparently these guns have a 'safety' that is built in to the handle, so it presses in when you hold it and allows you to pull the trigger. Has to be the worst safety mechanism I've ever heard of.
There goes the training argument gun fanciers bring up all the time.
Apparently these guns have a 'safety' that is built in to the handle, so it presses in when you hold it and allows you to pull the trigger. Has to be the worst safety mechanism I've ever heard of.
Wait, what model is the gun?
That’s the standard issue FBI weapon.
FWIW, It does have a safety, it’s just built into the trigger.
Last edited:
In what way? I'm just going off what someone said on the Reddit thread.
Still seems like a pretty crappy safety.
It's a little like a double trigger, a smaller trigger at the tip of the full trigger that needs a certain amount of pressure, there'll also be an audible click, then you have another small amount of pressure before you'll actually fire.
Obviously it's not a safety 'switch' like most think of, and in that sense, for a drunk back flipping man, is a pretty shit safety.
The Glock has 3 safety mechanisms. A safety built into the trigger than must be depressed for the trigger to be pulled (it cannot he pulled from the side of the trigger), a drop safety to prevent accidental discharge if the gun hits the ground, and a firepin safety which is also to prevent it going off if the gun is hit.
A grip safety (what you described) is used in conjunction with other safeties on all models that they’re used on (1911 and Springfield xD are the most common). The grip + flip safety of the 1911 is an excellently designed safety.
Yep, you are right. Mine doesn’t (at least I don’t think it does, don’t remember, gave it to my father a couple of years back), that’s what I was thinking of.
Sounds better now. Unfortunately not idiot proof though.
Indeed. The best safety is keeping your finger away from the trigger. He definitely failed to do that.
Unprofessional, dangerous, disgraceful and bloody hilarious.