As many bullets as baseball bats could have stopped the beating. So what? Regardless of whether or not a witness is a CCW permit holder, how many are going to actually intervene and risk going to prison for attempted murder of a police officer?

Seriously, is this a level?

Also, the tiny bit of research I have done on police misconduct (and I readily admit that it is a tiny bit) appears to indicate that the top 5 states for rates of police misconduct are fairly red states with fairly liberal (or is it conservative?) gun laws. So I'm not really sure how CA's gun laws would factor into it at all.

"Police Misconduct" is a big term. Is it that more people are being beaten to death in Montana or Alaska than California, or are we discussing hitting on pretty girls during traffic stops, taking free donuts and coffee and sleeping on duty as well?

That matters.

I think you have a poor view of how people would react to this. If someone's brother or cousin or something is getting their ass kicked, they might risk getting into a gunfight with the cops. If some random homeless dude is getting his ass kicked, 99.8% of people aren't going to risk getting in a shoot out to stop it. I bet significant portion of the population in Oakland is armed anyways despite CA's gun control laws.

DBJ is just trolling.

Unless the event is being video recorded interfering with police is only going to get your own ass kicked and then charged/convicted of a crime. And pulling out a gun is pretty much suicide and the cops will be found justified.

The only tactic that would work is increased surveillance of police and a movement by the people to decrease police milatarism. But that will not happen. So we can cry about it when these videos leak out and you can rest assured that for every one that is videotaped there are 10 that aren't. The one benefit of the surveillance state is that sometimes the surveillance can be used against the state.

Who interacts with the police without creating their own recording anyway? I certainly wouldn't.

elbow picture was just to set up a nexus for his lifetime of disability payments. Most military, police officers, and firemen begin to build such cases as they reach retirement age (~45 give or take 5 years).

video is further demonstration of the government-lover platform's most critical of all elements: guns belong solely in the hands of government agents.

Imagine how relevant your point would be if guns were actually involved in this case.

Funny you don't think guns were involved and I see about 6, possibly 7 clearly visible.

lol

You seriously dont think guns were involved in a police beating? How is that even possible? Maybe its the word "involved" you struggle with. Hint: the police are "guys with guns, backed up by more guys with more guns." Maybe now it becomes easier to see how guns are related to this story.

lol I got a disorderly conduct for telling the police to quit wrenching on my buddies arm for littering a cigarette as they escorted everyone out of a college house party once. Gun drawn on a police officer, automatic felony if you somehow live.

yea in LA and surrounding areas, the policy is pretty much "shoot first, ask questions later." I can't imagine approaching an officer brandishing any kind of weapon in California. They would barely give you a chance to put it down.

There should (maybe there is) be a website/application that lets people stream video upload from their phones to the inet so that no one suppress the evidence by confiscating the phone.

general-purpose live streaming apps: Qik, Ustream. For exactly cops, http://openwatch.net/

I suspect we will fairly soon see a requirement for police to record all interaction with the public just as interviews have to be recorded.

There will have to be privacy rules but apart from that if its use is enforced it will help a lot. They will all have to behave like those nice ones we see on TV shows.

Uhm, interviews don't have to be recorded..

It's YOUR responsibility to record, not the cops.

I refuse to trust a person I don't know with possible crucial evidence. I'll record myself thank you.

The sad thing is that I'm not sure.. This so much. And even if you have more firepower than the cops they'll just find you later and instead of bringing their pistols they'll come to your door with an armored personnel carrier.

Yes, they were "involved," in the same way that the tree in the foreground was "involved" and the police cars were "involved" and the cops' uniforms were "involved;" they were present. The presence of guns didn't seem to preclude hero from being uncooperative from the very beginning, so I fail to see what this silly tangent has to do with anything. As has been pointed out already, any passerby with a gun who decides to break up the melee will find himself charged with a crime, shot, or perhaps both. If hero had had a gun he just gives the police even more reason to beat his ass.

Not saying that it isn't a good idea to record any and all conversations with law enforcement, but it's pretty naive to expect John Q to be savvy enough to walk around with a digital recorder in his pocket at all times on the off chance he might encounter a stop 'n frisk. The only people I'm aware of who do that are, well, law enforcement officers (and the occasional militiatard).

I remember this one female deputy in CA who was suing the department for sexual harassment...she would walk around with a tape recorder in her front pocket at all times and hit "record" every time a supervisor approached. Of course they all got wise to this eventually so they stopped talking to her altogether

o rly

Touche. Plus Siri could probably recommend a good defense attorney once you've been charged with beating the hell out of a cop's fist with your nose.

Sorry I was probably thinking about the free world

still it will come to the USA too. the technology is becoming trivial and the benefits to all, including the cops, too obvious.

No. Not even close. The guns were INTIMATELY involved. CRUCIALLY involved.
Yes. Thank you. This is the role that "guns" plays in encounters such as this. I almost think you are getting it...

Police can't be trusted with guns because they'll use them to oppress citizens!

But citizens should have guns so they can police the police!!

I see literally no problems with any of this.