9 cops detain 1 US teen for refusing to use sidewalk (VIDEO)

[poncho]

A US teenager has been detained with the use of force and hit several times for what witnesses described as jaywalking in Stockton, California. The 16-year-old boy was charged with trespassing and resisting arrest.

Early Tuesday morning, the teen was walking near the city’s bus depot, when a Stockton Police officer saw him. The video of the interaction begins with the cop restraining the young man and then starting to beat him with the baton.

http://www.rt.com/usa/315683-police-teenager-detain-violence/

A Texas sheriff recently lashed out at critics, saying that citizens have a moral obligation to “obey the police” because their “authority comes from God.”

Randy Meeks is the Hunt County sheriff, and he believes Cops

Meeks recently published a guest editorial in the local Herald-Banner. In it, he cited Bible verses that he claims argue that any one the government puts in charge of you must be obeyed.

The article was run in print only, but photographed by our friend Brett Sanders. Check out those images below…

< snip >

Hoping to deal the final blow to his critics, he cited Paul’s letter to the Romans, saying: “Guess where that authority comes from to law enforcement? It comes from God,” Meeks wrote. “Read Romans 13:1 in the Bible. And while you are at it, you folks in Ferguson, Baltimore, Arlington and here, take a Gander at Romans 13:2.”

The sheriff added that anyone who criticizes the police is defying God, and that this is merely “the ignorance of some people.” He urged officers to “hang in there” while Godless citizens criticize them for punching pregnant women in the belly.

Do you agree with the Sheriff and his use of the Bible to justify police brutality?

http://www.infowars.com/texas-sheriff-says-you-have-to-obey-the-police-because-their-authority-comes-from-god/

 

[Rolfe]

The video of the interaction begins with the cop restraining the young man and then starting to beat him with the baton.

If one watches the video, one will see the officer hit the guy twice... during a struggle for control of his baton. Once he regained control of it, he backed off until other officers arrived.

 

[poncho]

If one watches the video, one will see the officer hit the guy twice... during a struggle for control of his baton. Once he regained control of it, he backed off until other officers arrived.

Maybe that's when he realized he was on "candid camera".

I watched a lot of videos of this type. It seems that "resisting arrest" and "assault" in the majority of cases would be considered self defense if the combat boot was on the other foot.

What's your thoughts on this video? http://countercurrentnews.com/2015/04/police-pregnant-woman-texas-over/#

And now . . .

California police in Stockton saw a teenager boy crossing the street, but they noticed he wasn’t using the crosswalk. To teach him a lesson in traffic safety, nine officers swarmed him, beat him, slammed him down on the concrete and finally arrested him for jaywalking… There’s only one problem: jaywalking isn’t an arrestable offense.

In fact, the Stockton police have just admitted to us that jaywalking isn’t even a minor misdemeanor at all. Jaywalking is simply what is called an “infraction,” punishably only by a fine of under $200.

http://countercurrentnews.com/2015/09/california-cops-arrest-teen-for-jaywalking/

 

[righteousdude2]

Wow! Here we go again! Of course, the above folks are on ignore, so I can only assume what they said. I saw the same video, and think the suspect should have simply complied, and hired an attorney upon being bailed out of jail.

 

[poncho]

Of course the reason the above people are on his ignore list is because we disagreed with him. :laugh:

If the above people weren't on his ignore list he would have read that "jaywalking" isn't an arrestable offense and he would have known his opinionated reply had already been refuted before he even typed it.

Ah, the wonderful bliss of having an opinion without having to worry about the pesky little facts and details that might come along and muss it all up.

 

[Zaac]

Wow! Here we go again! Of course, the above folks are on ignore, so I can only assume what they said. I saw the same video, and think the suspect should have simply complied, and hired an attorney upon being bailed out of jail.

Again, this is just DUMB. His parents should file a lawsuit and bankrupt the city of Stockton.

What will it take to prove to these folks that they cannot keep treating folks this way?

What possible reason could 9 police officers have for jumping on a kid because he was jaywalking?

Yet foolish folks seem to think that you need to just roll over and comply? How about officers start using a little common sense in dealing with folks?

 

[Darrell C]

Again, this is just DUMB. His parents should file a lawsuit and bankrupt the city of Stockton.

What a great idea, then the people of Stockton won't have to worry about having those pesky police officers ruining their city anymore...

They won't have those noisy fire trucks waking them up in the middle of the night and making their dogs bark...

They won't have to get up in the morning and send their kids to school...

They won't have to worry about those irritating people fixing the streets interfering with their commute...


God bless.

 

[Zaac]

What a great idea, then the people of Stockton won't have to worry about having those pesky police officers ruining their city anymore...

They won't have those noisy fire trucks waking them up in the middle of the night and making their dogs bark...

They won't have to get up in the morning and send their kids to school...

They won't have to worry about those irritating people fixing the streets interfering with their commute...


God bless.

That's right. And after all those things go away and the town collects a little bit more revenue to move out of bankruptcy, perhaps they'll look into hiring people who can field a police force that acts like it has a bit of sense.

As I said before, if it takes bankrupting some of these places in order to make police forces recognize that they can't just do whatever they want without consequence, then so be it.

 

[righteousdude2]

Again, this is just DUMB?

Again, the expert of hype and insult has ruled. Son, I find your comments to be beyond dumb. TRUMP that :thumbs: BTW-God is love, and that love is what binds us as one. You and I may disagree, however, we are brothers in Him.

 

[Zaac]

Again, the expert of hype and insult has ruled. Son, I find your comments to be beyond dumb. TRUMP that :thumbs: BTW-God is love, and that love is what binds us as one. You and I may disagree, however, we are brothers in Him.

Again old man. My daddy is dead. I'm not your son.

 

[Rolfe]

Maybe that's when he realized he was on "candid camera".

Or...maybe not. Perhaps he saw no need for violence after his baton was secured.

 

[Rolfe]

BTW-God is love, and that love is what binds us as one. You and I may disagree, however, we are brothers in Him.

You forgot to call Zaac "Brother".

 

[Revmitchell]

I did not see that the police officer did anything wrong.

 

[poncho]

Hey Squire I have a question about this situation where a person who has me on their ignore list who admits I was put on that list so he didn't have to read my "radical" nonsense as he put it feels he still has the right to come into threads I have started to make his opinions known to me.

This doesn't seem fair to me. Why isn't there a feature giving the person on the ignore list an option of locking the person who has put them on their ignore list out of threads they've started?

What's to stop the person who has another on his ignore list from "bushwhacking" that person with personal attacks from behind the safety of the ignore feature?

This happened in the past. I reported it. Again and again, and nothing was done about it. Until the other poster finally gave up. Don't get me wrong I think the ignore feature has it's uses but still I have to wonder why a person who doesn't want to hear what I have to say feels I have to hear what he has to say.

What's up with that?

 

[poncho]

Or...maybe not. Perhaps he saw no need for violence after his baton was secured.

Or perhaps he was intimidated and frozen in fear for his life until the other cops got there to gang tackle the kid and throw him on the concrete.

Either way I'll be sure not do any jaywalking in that town. It's to dangerous if the traffic doesn't get ya a gang of 9 cops will.

I can't bring myself to imagine why a cop would call for back up for a jaywalking infraction. Do scrawny school kids really frighten big burly he man cops with no necks that much?

 

[robustheologian]

Again, this is just DUMB. His parents should file a lawsuit and bankrupt the city of Stockton.

Exactly. I like this idea. The success of boycotts in the 50's and 60's has proven that people act right when you empty their pockets.

 

[robustheologian]

Hey Squire I have a question about this situation where a person who has me on their ignore list who admits I was put on that list so he didn't have to read my "radical" nonsense as he put it feels he still has the right to come into threads I have started to make his opinions known to me.

This doesn't seem fair to me. Why isn't there a feature giving the person on the ignore list an option of locking the person who has put them on their ignore list out of threads they've started?

What's to stop the person who has another on his ignore list from "bushwhacking" that person with personal attacks from behind the safety of the ignore feature?

This happened in the past. I reported it. Again and again, and nothing was done about it. Until the other poster finally gave up. Don't get me wrong I think the ignore feature has it's uses but still I have to wonder why a person who doesn't want to hear what I have to say feels I have to hear what he has to say.

What's up with that?

That would make a lot of sense. I though that already existed. I guess that feature missing is the only way to guarantee that anonymity in placing someone on ignore.

 

[Rolfe]

Hey Squire I have a question about this situation where a person who has me on their ignore list who admits I was put on that list so he didn't have to read my "radical" nonsense as he put it feels he still has the right to come into threads I have started to make his opinions known to me.

This doesn't seem fair to me. Why isn't there a feature giving the person on the ignore list an option of locking the person who has put them on their ignore list out of threads they've started?

What's to stop the person who has another on his ignore list from "bushwhacking" that person with personal attacks from behind the safety of the ignore feature?

This happened in the past. I reported it. Again and again, and nothing was done about it. Until the other poster finally gave up. Don't get me wrong I think the ignore feature has it's uses but still I have to wonder why a person who doesn't want to hear what I have to say feels I have to hear what he has to say.

What's up with that?

Apparently I am the other person on his ignore list. A few days ago, I was his "brother ". :laugh:

Frankly, I think it is a bit childish to tell people who are on your ignore list that they are there.

 

[InTheLight]

What's to stop the person who has another on his ignore list from "bushwhacking" that person with personal attacks from behind the safety of the ignore feature?

Apparently I am the other person on his ignore list. A few days ago, I was his "brother ". :laugh:

This silliness again?

There is no such thing as "attacking from the safety of the ignore list". Sheesh. Grow up.

Frankly, I think it is a bit childish to tell people who are on your ignore list that they are there.

OH NO IT ISN'T!!

:laugh::laugh:

 

[Rolfe]

:laugh: