First off I don’t actually think he meant he wants children in handcuffs. Second , I’ve had exchanges about this with a lot of people who do a lot of good in this area. So I was making the point that it’s not really up to the cop if a six year old gets arrested , it’s a systemic issue . In a normal country children aren’t put in handcuffs in the middle of school. But the cop would argue that he’s just following the law, the da would back up the prosecutor and say it’s public order , people in our neighborhood pay us to keep public order that’s why they voted us in. Then he insults me, doesn’t answer my question , but what he does do is say we need to do the opposite. I’m tired of hearing about cops following the law and absolutely nothing done to change the laws.

Why should I ASSUME what he literally said is false when he showed disrespect to me about something I care about?

That’s why instead of calling him an idiot as he did to me I asked him figure what out ? Because I genuinely didn’t know. What is the cop supposed to disobey his superiors and suddenly magically stop arresting the kids he’s paid to arrest? But I asked him and he didn’t answer which would be fine but then Teflon acted like the only thing I said is the one obviously friendly tongue and cheek comment to luckbox and ignoring all my other posts. I felt like I’m being unfairly attacked.

In most countries they have age limits on these sorts of things but America doesn’t, it’s by design so they can arrest kids . That’s why just like slavery , it needs to be in WRITING somewhere.

I get why you would feel attacked; I was just responding to your strange assertion which you have now said you didn't mean literally. OK.

But I really don't get this:

Not having a rule saying that they can't cuff six year olds doesn't mean they have to cuff six year olds. Of course it's up to the cop.

I understand where you're coming from with trying to solve systemic issues. But, we can't rely solely on rules to stop cops from doing things they shouldn't. And there are going to be situations where a black-and-white rule doesn't work. What I got from doorbread's post, and I agree with this, is that there shouldn't be cops who need a rule to tell them that cuffing six year olds isn't cool. In fact, and I say this mostly tongue-in-cheek - maybe this is a good way to find shitty cops! Fire the ones who think it's smart to cuff six year olds.

I remember reading your post at the time and thinking that was a bizarre take, but doorbread had already replied so I didn't other adding on.

His question and I mean this , to me reads like why should we have a rule against slavery , surely the slave holders should have a higher iq to figure this out. You put it in writing so that slaveholders have to stop having slaves. It absolutely should be in writing.

And I should add, it's not like I'm against such a rule. I just don't think that's the key issue in that case.

And I'm ashamed to share the problem isn't unique to the US:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toron...ffed-1.5865322

Why would they fire those cops for arresting a bunch of kids instead of giving them a promotion? The Da, there are good DAs and bad DAs says yay I won another election in my shitty county, my first priority is law and order. The DA gets “tough on crime” , as he campaigned on and he and the prosecutors say we need public order , make sure there aren’t any criminals around doing loitering or even worse truancy. So they say ok boss.

That's a pretty big leap, but I understand your point. I'm not against there being some rules/policy addressing this where there isn't already. But when you say "the problem isn’t that a cop handcuffs a 6 year old", I strongly disagree. That certainly is a problem. A big problem.

It’s a misunderstanding, what I’m saying is and I’ve said this many times the moment of an arrest is not the problem , it’s systemic. So if a particular police officer arrests a 6 year old who is breaking the law, he’s doing police work endorsed by the voters, his tax payers , his states Supreme Court, the companies that profit off the arrest, the DA, the home owners and prosecutors. It’s just good police work and public safety unless you decide to change priorities.

Sure, I can mostly get behind that. But most policing is going to be based on officers' discretion; there will be many outrageous cases where no "rules were broken", but it's clear what happened is wrong. Happens all the time. That doesn't mean that particular work is endorsed by anyone.

Maybe I'm just nitpicking. I agree there are systemic issues and priorities need to be changed.

Low and Behold when you put something in writing it becomes harder to use your discretion to do it. Can I be arrested for consensual sex with another man? In theory some rogue cop could find that out and arrest me on false charges because I’m gay. In that sense I have been arested for being gay.
But the fact that that is now in writing makes that process much more difficult.

Here's a theory: They let Duante stand right in the car door opening, against policy, as they arrested him to try to goad him into fleeing. When they were getting the cuffs on him behind his back, 3 officers had to be tugging on him and handling him, to further try to goad him, panic him, humiliate him, escalate things ... so they could abuse him wide open. The dame with the gun instead of the taser ... we'll never know if it was an honest mistake I don't guess. I know this much, she won't call the family and apologize from the bottom of her heart convincingly, and that screams consciousness of guilt. The problem is a thousand times worse than generally regarded.

She needs to be fired.
I think it was a genuine, tragic mistake but one that can't be let go.
It's like if you're a school bus driver and you accidentally run over and kill one of the kids.
You're fired, end of story.

Let her go try to find another department to hire her.

And that police department is going to owe a shitload of money to the family.

I'll have to watch the video again but first impression I don't feel anything sinister going on. Just your everyday keystone kop level incompetence showing itself again.

LOL

I kind of like that cop. He gave the guy the business then let him go, old school.

Take away line "But no, you had to be a ****ing American....." priceless.

That time that two cops played make believe and one of them got not-shot.

Maybe if saving lives is the goal, they should send USA police to train in the UK*. Our police are far from perfect but they seem to be able to arrest/restrain people without killing quite so many of them.

* Where we do not have mandatary force training in schools (whatever that is)

I don't know about the use of force training in schools. I posted that for the video.

I still find an amazing lefty's demand for compliance when it comes to speech laws/rules/policies, supporting punitive actions for non-compliance, but continue to justify non-compliance when it comes to orders from the police.

I dont demand compliance with anything. Dont know if that helps your amazement.

It wasn't to you.

Yes, I'm sure a great number of things are amazing when you grossly and inaccurately oversimplify everything to black and white situations.

Such a strange and limiting worldview - everyone needs to be in their little box. Right or left. Pro-compliance or anti-compliance. Pro-CRT or anti-CRT.

You should join us out here in the real world one day. It's more complicated, but much more interesting when you stop shoving everyone in boxes and allow for nuance and context.

Oh, are you saying people are not defending, rationalizing, justifying non-compliance with police ITT?

Indeed I would want my kids to survive, and do whatever it took to survive.

But the main thing I could do to try and help my kids and others is stop telling the victims it is up to them to survive while also making sure the cops know 'I got your back if you kill any of them even under the most egregious circumstances, such as a public knee to the next murder'.

You may not realize it but your natural reflexive instinct aligns with what we used to see in the Jim Crow era where regardless of the offense perpetrated on POC they were expected to not get 'uppity'.

It was considered a bigger offense to be an 'uppity ___' than whatever happened to that POC and the expectation was he would remain servile.

Yep, pretty much agreed with Bobo Fett. Itshot seem to consistently return to speaking about sides.

As for the claims earlier in the thread, experts and witnesses from the Minneapolis' own police force testified that Chauvin's use of force was unnecessary. Police Lt. Johnny Mercil from the Minneapolis police department used the terms "unauthorized" and "active aggression".

The chokehold used was also not according to procedure according to testimony, which for chokeholds is vitally important to follow. It is a dangerous move

Excellent post and perfectly inline with what I say above.

IHIV's biggest concern, in all these interactions is by default how 'uppity' the POC got and how to address and fix that. He always sees it as the POC must address their behaviour and not the police need to address theirs.