I watched some of the video, he doesn't appear to be resisting arrest, he doesn't appear to be violent, so why do 5 cops kick and punch and beat this poor guy up who screams for his mum. Absolutely disgusting behaviour from those cops. Tyres poor mother was in bits on our news stations here, how could she ever get over this. RIP Tyre, god bless you and your family.
I heard on our news that the videos had to be released to prevent even more protests, people could think it's being covered up if videos aren't released.
I don't know who produced the one I watched Beth put up, but I guess every picture tells a different story.
I think that’s got a lot of truth. I could never be a cop. I have a slow burn fuse but it has just popped on me at times and I’ve almost always regretted it afterwards. It is simply not a job I could do. People seem to be coming unglued.
After signing in and agreeing to several warnings, I finally watched the entire 26-minute video. I have slightly changed my opinion that the officers were thugs, but not entirely. Tyre had no reason to run and then when brought back, resist arrest, and get beaten based on the video. There is just too much we don't know. I want to see some cam footage of his reckless driving for one thing and info on how many officers and cars were involved when he was first spotted driving recklessly. If it was just one patrol car, then that changes things as compared to why 3 cars with 5 officers might have all seen this reckless driving all at the same time and been in hot pursuit. How many miles and time elapsed before he stopped? Why were more than 2 or 3 officers at the scene at that time? Why isn't the cam footage of all this released? My opinion is that many necessary elements of this event are purposely being withheld and the emphasis on the beating after he fled and was brought back, is what is being touted on the news repeatedly. Why? To create a biased narrative for political gain? Is this another case of getting the public to try the case before they know all the facts? A call for justice before we know what we as a public jury should know before rendering a verdict? Was it really 2nd-degree murder or just manslaughter? Can it be established that all 5 officers intended to kill him? It seems suspicious that the FBI is appalled by this but wasn't by the guy that shot a retired black officer working as a guard point-blank back when the false social racial justice narrative was being spewed highlighting certain events but covering up others. I don't trust the news anymore as they all have an agenda. Hopefully, the jury will hear the facts and be unbiased. Is that possible after such national news coverage? How many more times will cases be tainted by the inability to find an unbiased jury due to national news media presenting only the narrative that is approved by politicians and their agendas?
Watch the entire 26-minute video on YouTube. Sadly it doesn't include footage of the reckless driving or the pursuit which raises questions in my mind.
I've thought a whole lot about what police, as we know them in the US, actually are, and how the institution of police/sheriff depts came about. Here is the US, as little as 200 years ago, and in many cases in the west less, communities were settled, and often by immigrants from nations that had long been "civilized" and were of relatively uniform social expectancies; they basically came from nations where the rule of law was a long established tradition. So coming to Nebraska, e.g., to homestead, and maybe join up with others of their kind, they tended to act with a degree of social restraint. Then the US Civil war happened, and very many of the vets, now inured to carnage, and used to forceful, direct action to get what they desired, drifted into these areas, or were already there, knocking about, and on top of this were the earlier miners/trappers/buffalo hunters. None of these types really understood anything other than direct confrontation. They did not operate by rule of law. Soon this group of chaotic, anarchic types were outnumbered by settlers who came from a rule-of-law background. They collided, and the settlers felt threatened--often for good reason--by the lawless types. They sometimes banded together for protection but they could not always do this, being widely distributed (except when in for town, and not regularly), so often the townspeople collaboratively hired someone to enforce the local laws, such as they were. The men hired by necessity had to be just as hard, or harder, then the lawless types. They were, basically, thugs, but they were "our thugs". The enforcement arm of the local society were basically thugs who promised only to be brutal with the lawless. This is basically the lineage of all police forces in the US, and it is a good idea to understand this. Without this thuggish component, they are ineffective against modern lawless types, who pretty much only understand superior force as an arbitrator. This is why it is becoming increasingly common to see news stories in which lawbreakers fail to pull over, or otherwise refuse cooperation with increasing energy as compared to times when we were younger. Now in nations with a more peaceful, law-abidding, and perhaps more docile, population, you don't need thugs. Monitors, like in grade school, will suffice: Japan comes quickly to mind. But that won't, and hasn't, worked here, because--face it--this tends to be a violent and self-centered culture. And this, folks, is what we've got with the US police. I don't excuse the excesses, and I, too, have watched, and watched, and re-watched almost every noted video instance of police brutality, and read actual police reports whenever available, and it is good to note that in almost every case the victim is resisting or attempt to run away, or at lease is not cooperating: there are exceptions, but they are not the rule. People need to understand that many of the police are very physical in nature, and in spite of training, their personal natures are such that they become physically responsive much more quickly than people like us, dear readers. So basically you are taking your life in your hands if you fail to cooperate, even, and actually resisting raises the stakes yet higher. It is like teasing a fenced pitbull. It's a paradox: to effectively combat criminals, the police need to be selected from tough, thuggish people who themselves are often only a step or two away from lawlessness ("our thugs"). But they also often go off too easily in situations of physical confrontation--it's deep within their core natures. It's a balance, a trade off--and ask yourself: do you think that the police are effective where you live, and if not, would selecting softer, more accommodating people as police improve their effectiveness?
Thanks Faye I'll watch that one later when I think I can take another one. I sure don't need to watch it late in the evening.
Honestly, I didn't get much definitive information from watching, either. I find that the news reports and headlines *tell* me what I'm supposed to be seeing.
As to Floyd, oh hell yeah. There's a storefront on the way to my gym. It had been a high end cocktail lounge until broken into repeatedly in the aftermath of the Floyd incident by opportunistic young white people, who like to feign outrage and feel justified thereby to go out of an evening and break things. Anyway, to ward off this type of merrymaking, the owner had the plywood covering painted with a mural of Floyd, with a benign and saintly smile (all he'd need would be a halo) that he may have never actually had in real life. Myth-making in the 21st Century, boys and girls...
If we don't see major protests, as in George Floyd, what will that mean? That releasing the Floyd video immediately would have headed off the riots? Do you think so?