Pixiq

"So you should assume it is not justified instead? How about not condemning the officer automatically?"

As I said, use of force must be justifiable. If we have no evidence that it's justified, we have no reason to believe it is. Based on the evidence we do see, the use of force here is not justified. That's not automatic condemnation.

"How much time should you give someone to comply?"

Probably more than half a second, and that's a generous estimate in this case, as from :48 - :49 the officer goes instantly from command to using force - while he's running.

"Conjecture? Not hardly."

Absolutely conjecture, as nothing in the video indicates the suspect ever made a threatening move. He absolutely does not from what we see.

"Police aren't obligated to wait for a punch in the face."

No one said they were. They are, however, obligated to give a suspect a chance to comply with orders given. Especially if they're undercover and haven't properly ID'ed themselves. If he'd run in at least displaying a badge, that would be one thing. No reasonable person would comply in under a second with an order given by some random person in street clothes.

"Immediate compliance is what is required."

From a uniformed officer, this would make more sense.

"And we don't know if the officer had given any previous commands, if the officer had been assaulted outside, if the suspect had resisted arrest previously, if the officer thought he had a weapon, and on and on and on. My point is we only have a small part of the story."

And you don't know that he did. All conjecture to provide an excuse for something obviously not justified by what we do know.

"It is not enough to condemn this as excessive force."

Excessive? We haven't even gotten to justifiable yet.

"...You have no idea."

And you have nothing but theories to make excuses for the officer. I'm willing to wait for any justification they're willing to offer and consider it, but until then what I see here isn't likely to be justified by police allegations.

"Armchair quarterbacking with an unrealistic understanding of physical encounters."

Holding police accountable based on video evidence, as citizens are allowed and even expected to. If police want to operate without citizen oversight, they should be police in a more appropriate county. China, or North Korea perhaps.

"Yeah yeah yeah. Not a real cop blah blah blah. Sorry Mike but I'm not going to post a copy of my peace officer certification. But if you want to dismiss my comments because of that, go ahead."

I'm not dismissing them; I'm simply refusing to give your comments any extra weight because of your claims.

"You are still a computer repair guy/bike mechanic..."

Though you still think other people's alleged occupations give their comments less weight than yours. You certainly seem willing to dismiss the comments of others based on what you've come to believe their occupation is.

Also, your assertions about my occupation are still incorrect, especially since I haven't claimed they give me any special insight or are relevant to the conversation.

In fact, I've pointed out previously that it's creepy, stalker-like and harassing. You will stop that. You will stop it immediately.

"...trying to act like you would have handled those arrests better."

I make and have made no claims as to my personal ability to make any arrest. I am simply exercising my right to make observations about a public news event as a citizen, just as you are.

"And that is laughable."

What would be laughable is my just taking on faith that you're what you claim to be despite your anonymity. What would I have to gain from that? Should I start believing every anonymous blog commenter on the internet when they claim to be something? Giving extra weight to your comments based on nothing more than your claims of occupation and a screen name - that would be laughable.

In fact:

Who benefits from believing you?

I don't. I only risk being fooled if it ever comes out you're not what you claim.

You would, obviously. You seem to want some sort of extra weight to your opinions and to belittle others' opinion based on theirs. And short of a confession, you have about zero risk of being exposed as a liar.

I suppose Carlos and Pixiq do. Having you as a "police representative" (though all we can verify is that you're a representative of authoritarianism, which is fine) certainly drives comments and thus site traffic. Pixiq benefits. Carlos gets paid, which is obviously good for him.

Of course, as far as we know, you could just be a big cop fan posting from your kitchen table. You could be *any* random person. You could *be Carlos* posting to generate traffic. We have no way of knowing for sure.

This falls under "some of the reasons my journalism profs and editors told me it was a bad idea to rely too much on anonymous sources as a professional media person/organization."

I'm not about to ignore all that just so you can claim a more informed opinion with nothing to back it up. And I'm certainly not going to ignore who benefits from your claims. I know I'm not one of those people.

In any case...

"You are still a computer repair guy/bike mechanic..."

This creepy, stalker-like harassing behavior stops now. This is the last warning I will give you.

Nor can you always dismiss what people are telling you. It must occur to you that if you continually get complaints about officers, there may actually be something to it. That is what I don't like. I don't like my observations to be dismissed because I'm a civilian and the cops are cops. Someone has to be right and, I'm sorry, but it can't always be the cops.

Sorry about the paragraphs. I'm still at the hospital and I need to get home for some sleep, but I get to typing . . .

What Michael is trying to convey is that whether or not we are trained in such a manner cannot preclude our experiences. If someone slams my step father into the concrete in front of me and breaks his cheek bone I don't think it's a matter of me just not understanding how you do business. You come across as believing that all civilians are idiots and we are incapable of making observations that aren't tainted.

I may have mentioned this, but my dad was in federal law enforcement for 30 years before he retired last month,so I'm not all that ignorant and I know how to deal with officers. Years ago I made one apologize for the way he talked to me or he was going to get out of my house. He did apologize. His partner earned my respect by offering file a complaint on him, I declined, but the chief and commissioner still called me in to tell my story. That right there shows he was a problem.

Anyway my dad would tell you that now-a-days these police officers are going overboard. He still bitches all the time about how law enforcement is becoming too militarized, when you all are supposed to be peace officers.

And, yeah, I remember they were called to my house, since I wrote that. That does not give them license to try and wreck it. And I am perfectly capable of discerning whether or not my step father was belligerent. See you have to remember that he's my step-father so I know how he acts. And I also told you that my, well I'll just say it, semi-senile grandma is the one that called the police and I stated that she tends to overreact to things. You should have observed that with those police powers.

And ya know what, there are bad people out there that get into police work to abuse power. You are to protect and serve the public not the thin blue line. As I said, my dad was in LE so I grew up around these guys. Most are good decent people. But even they would admit that there was one in about every bunch that took it too far and had to be reigned in. Oh, yeah, and my ex-step-father was a Texas Ranger before he worked for the FBI. So it's not like I'm some ruffian with no education in the law (1.5 of legal classes before I got sick of it) and no familiarity with LEOs.

But even that doesn't matter. If Michael is a computer repairman, that doesn't make his observations or opinions invalid. Sometimes people can just tell when someone is out of line. And he was right, from the video the kid with his hands up should have been given more than a second to comply. You like to say that we don't have the whole story, well maybe the kid had a bad back and couldn't just drop to the floor. Who knows.
That's is why police should err on the side of caution for the civilian, after all you are paid to be a dangerous line of work, not us. You are supposed to protect us, and if that means protect us from yourself, then so be it. Give the order twice. Don't be so gung ho, you don't have to be an action hero to be a police officer. The best ones I have ever known are the calm and calculating ones that are able to assess a situation and make the best choice without reacting to the adrenaline. From what I have garnered from having a dad in LE and knowing all of these guys (local police, HiPos) is that they are trained to control the adrenaline rushes. In fact that's central to the job, otherwise why even train them? In fact, why weren't you trained in that. You should know that adrenaline isn't an excuse for getting out of control. You wouldn't make it very far at least in a federal position.

Oh and I just glanced and saw the part where you said you seriously doubt that everyone was well behaved. I don't care what your doubts are. The most "resistance" that was provided was a slightly raised voice. And last I checked that's protected.