Author Topic: CC W/ DM  (Read 120 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Dale Eastman

  • Owner of myself and this website
  • Administrator
  • Promiscuous Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,691
  • Reputation 0
  • This space for rent
    • Synaptic Sparks
CC W/ DM
« on: September 16, 2020, 08:19:50 AM »
Quote
Bodycam footage of Two Tulsa officers getting shot after they attacked a peaceful man in his car.

The man in the car showed a great amount of restraint in my opinion.  He gave them every opportunity to walk away.  He asked them to leave him alone.  He even said he'd take a ticket they give him and leave, but that wasn't enough for these cops.  They chose to escalate and initiate force (although if we're honest, the cops were threatening deadly force the moment they flashed their lights and forced this man off the road).

He didn't open fire until after the cops initiated the attack on him with a taser, then sprayed pepper-spray in his eyes, then violently ripped him out of his car and started wrestling with him, at which point he (righteously) pulled a firearm and shot these two violent thugs.

May they rot in hell.  There is NEVER an excuse to initiate force against a peaceful individual without their consent, not even if you're enforcing the opinions of popularity-contest winners at gunpoint (aka "enforcing the law").

NOTE: This link is disturbing. Admin.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSa2EomQAbA&feature=youtu.be

https://techywhale.com/bypass-youtube-age-restrictions/

Quote
I explained what happened in an accompanying comment I shared along with the video. The officers chose to insert themselves into the situation. The motorist clearly didn't want them there, didn't ask them to be there, didn't force them to be there, yet there they were, and of their own choosing no less. They could have left at any time. The motorist was not being violent, had not harmed anyone as far as the officers were aware. The motorist asked them to leave multiple times, and even offered to accept a ticket if they would just leave him be. He gave them multiple chances to walk away, but the officers refused to leave him in peace. The officers attacked a peaceful man in his motor-vehicle. The officers started a fight they weren't ready for, and the motorist finished it. The motorist was in the right, and would have been in the right had both of the officers he shot, died.
The motorist should not have been attacked. The first people to initiate harm were the two cops, and they:
1. Shot a taser at the motorist // an escalation of force (against someone who was being peaceful).
2. Forced the motorist's vehicle car door open against his consent (and the motorist was still being peaceful) // an additional escalation of force (and the motorist remains peaceful)
2. Sprayed pepper-spray into his eyes // continued use of force against a peaceful person (and the motorist remains peaceful still)
3. Pulled him out of his car by his arm // continued use of force against a peaceful person (and the motorist remains peaceful still)
4. Sprayed pepper-spray into his eyes again // continued use of force against a peaceful person (and the motorist remains peaceful still)
5. Pulled him out of his car again and tackled him // continued use of force against a peaceful person (and the motorist remains peaceful still)
It was only after ALL of those things were done to the peaceful motorist before he lifted a finger against the officers. It's embarrassingly obvious that the motorist did not get himself into the situation, did not want to be involved in the situation, did not ask the officers to get involved, explicitly asked the officers to just give him a ticket and leave (this was for a minor traffic infraction, mind you)... but the officers decided to attack him anyway, because he wasn't obeying them.
I assume you don't disagree with me up to this point, but likely you think that the motorist's refusal to submit to the officers was just reason for the officers to attack him repeatedly, tasering, pepper-spraying him (twice), tackling and attempting to kidnap ("legally", called "arrest" aka "politician-approved kidnapping") him. My question for you, David, is whether or not you think that refusing to obey cops gives them the right to attack you and more specifically, why you think that to be true? Where does somebody get the right to initiate an attack against a peaceful person?
Quote
Consider the situation, but instead let's say the person in the car is a cop in a cop car and the two people questioning him are civilians and they are angry and concerned with the officer's wreckless driving (cops are some of the most reckless and dangerous drivers on the road, if you're not aware, and routinely drive WAY above the speed limit, cause traffic backups when they sit on the side of the road during rush hour, etc). Would you think that in that situation, the civilians would have been right to taser, pepper-spray (TWICE), tackle and attempt to kidnap the officer in his car when the officer refused to submit to the civilian's commands to exit the vehicle, let the civilians handcuff him and drag him away to put in a cage?
Quote
If you think the officers have the right to do to that motorist what the motorist does NOT have the right to do to an officer, then there is a contradiction within your mind that you should work to resolve.
Quote
Another really interesting question to ponder is this: If the officers had known what all would happen that night, known they would both be shot (one of them fatally shot).... would the officers have left him alone, or would they have pulled him over and had their guns drawn, shooting him dead after he existed the vehicle (because they, in this fictitious scenario, KNOW what is going to happen when they pull him out of that car)?
I'd bet all the money I have that they'd have still pulled him over and probably even shot this guy dead if they could have seen the future. They'd have done that knowing things would escalate, and all over a petty traffic infraction. Why? Because they imagine not only that they have the right to attack peaceful people who disobey them, but because they imagine that they have the duty to attack peaceful people who disobey them.
Quote
Officers are always asking themselves: "Am I authorized to do this?" What they should be asking is: "Is it wrong for me to do this?"
What I see in a lot of cops (such as the two in this video) is that they are constantly looking for excuses to use force against people who don't do as the politicians say (aka "obey the law"), and they are constantly reminding themselves and their victims that they are "authorized" to use force against them.
The only people whose authorization you need in order to have the right to attack a peaceful person, is the peaceful person you wish to attack.
They are literally trying to absolve themselves of culpability for their actions when they do that. They aren't asking themselves if it would be wrong for them to attack a peaceful (and disobedient) person to get them to submit. They're looking for excuses to attack them. That is their mentality.
Natural Law Matters