here's a police brutality deal for real

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know why he wasn't allowed in, there are numerous valid reasons. Do you know that there wasn't a reason? Did you read this somewhere? If so where?

I do understand the difference, but there is a difference between the two scenerios you set up. Comparing the cops trying to enter your own private property without consent or a warrent is completely different than being restricted access to a public hearing.

[/ QUOTE ]

ok, you go to your local city hearing, you wait in line to get in, you get to the door, and the police say, i'm sorry, you can't go in. what do you do? you say why not? they don't answer or give you some dumb answer and start letting in people behind you. what do you do? do expect to be tackled if you don't get out of there immediately? do you think that is american or free society?

also, it should be public record why he was denied entry. if there's no reason then that is a black mark against the cops. I mean, if there's no reason he as denied entry, then the cops tackled him for no reason , right?

[PLOlover]

http://www.democracynow.org/article..../09/13/1445202

[ QUOTE ]
nd so, me and Colonel Ann Wright looked at each other and said, “Why can't we get in?” He said, “You can't get in.” And so, we went up forward, and we kept walking to the front of the line and said, “Why are we being denied?” “You just can't get in.” And so, somebody came and passed one of the blue post-it notes to Colonel Wright and put it in her hand. And she showed it to him. “I didn't give you that.” She said, “I know. Why can't we get in?” He said, “Well, OK, you can get in.” And she said, “What about Reverend Yearwood?” He said, “No, he can't get in.”

And that’s when it started. I said, “Why are you singling me out? What is going on?” It’s important to know. We have this huge rally at the White House, and a march to the Capitol is coming Saturday. And I know my picture is on the flier. But regardless, I asked, “Why are you singling me out?”

At that point in time, they became to be aggressive, and they got around me. And I said that -- “You’re going to be arrested.” I said, “What am I going to be arrested for? What have I done? I just want to go inside and hear the hearing for myself.” At that point in time, one came behind me, said, “You’re going to be arrested.” And then somebody grabbed me on my shoulder. And I kind of turned. Amy, by the time I turned, I was on the ground. And I actually just felt myself going headfirst into the concrete.

[/ QUOTE ]

what you think, good, bad, doubleplusgood, what?

I think a very interesting point is that one person is told they can't go in, they question it, get it reversed so they can go in, then the second person who is told they can't go in quesitons it, and they are assaulted.

[qwnu]

[ QUOTE ]
well my main point is that the cops had no reason to escort him out. none.

now if they can coerce him into voluntarily leaving, that is legal. but you do not have to consent to being coerced.

[/ QUOTE ]

But questions about whether police authority is justified can only be answered in retrospect. Obviously the police asserted their authority to escort him out. At that point, I think he does have to "consent to being coerced." He can seek redress later if he really thinks they have overstepped their authority, but you're just not going to get very far telling a cop who is arresting you that you don't accept his authority to arrest you.

You may eventually (with the help of lawyers and judges) win the war, but you're going to lose the battle.

[Money2Burn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't know why he wasn't allowed in, there are numerous valid reasons. Do you know that there wasn't a reason? Did you read this somewhere? If so where?

I do understand the difference, but there is a difference between the two scenerios you set up. Comparing the cops trying to enter your own private property without consent or a warrent is completely different than being restricted access to a public hearing.

[/ QUOTE ]

ok, you go to your local city hearing, you wait in line to get in, you get to the door, and the police say, i'm sorry, you can't go in. what do you do? you say why not? they don't answer or give you some dumb answer and start letting in people behind you. what do you do? do expect to be tackled if you don't get out of there immediately? do you think that is american or free society?

also, it should be public record why he was denied entry. if there's no reason then that is a black mark against the cops. I mean, if there's no reason he as denied entry, then the cops tackled him for no reason , right?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you expect to be tackled once they begin to escort you away and you physically resist them. Once again he didn't get tackled for no reason, he got tackled because of his resistance. It's simple.

Once again, I'll ask you. Do you know that there was no reason that they denied him entry or are you just assuming there wasn't? If there was absolutely no legitimate reason for them denying him entry then I agree with you thre was no reason for them to escort him away.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]

But questions about whether police authority is justified can only be answered in retrospect. Obviously the police asserted their authority to escort him out. At that point, I think he does have to "consent to being coerced." He can seek redress later if he really thinks they have overstepped their authority, but you're just not going to get very far telling a cop who is arresting you that you don't accept his authority to arrest you.

You may eventually (with the help of lawyers and judges) win the war, but you're going to lose the battle.

[/ QUOTE ]

not really. once you consent it's over. I mean just watch tv show cops, they knock on someones door and say, let us search or we'll have to get a warrant and if we have to do that it will be really bad for you. if you consent to this you can't claim later it was duress or whatever.

but I agree with you the cops seem to not understand the difference. they even tell him, leave voluntarily or you will be arrested. when he asked what for? they don't tell him.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
If there was absolutely no legitimate reason for them denying him entry then I agree with you thre was no reason for them to escort him away.

[/ QUOTE ]

don't you think it is up to the police to provide a reason for denying him, not up to the guy to prove that the police didn't not have a reason? come on.

of course the best evidence is that the woman he was with was told no, she argued, got it changed to yes. so he had direct evidence that his being denied entry was simply a suggestion.

do you see why people hate the cops? they are trained liars backed up by force.

[Money2Burn]

It's not as simple as he is saying. If you listen in the beginning of the video, it seems that the conflict arose because the revrend got out of line and then tried to get back in line right at the entrance. Aparently the rules do not allow this and the police were telling him he had to get to the back of the line or leave. He refused and aresisted and they took action to get him out. I gotta eat lunch ill be back later

[W brad]

[ QUOTE ]
it seems that the conflict arose because the revrend got out of line and then tried to get back in line right at the entrance. Aparently the rules do not allow this

[/ QUOTE ]

Reverends don't have to follow the rules. They be entitled. Fight the power!!1!

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
It's not as simple as he is saying. If you listen in the beginning of the video, it seems that the conflict arose because the revrend got out of line and then tried to get back in line right at the entrance. Aparently the rules do not allow this and the police were telling him he had to get to the back of the line or leave. He refused and aresisted and they took action to get him out. I gotta eat lunch ill be back later

[/ QUOTE ]

what about the woman? she was told no then yes. did she get out of line? also the black guy said he asked permission to get out of line and come back. also he said he got back into line in middle or in back, he didn't come back right in front.

also if that is the case was he told this, or is this something the police made up after the fact? if they told him this was the reason and he said hey I asked permission and <whoever> said it was ok, and then the police checked with <whoever>, isn't that the way civilized people act?

[swingdoc]

WOw, this is really disappointing. I was expecting a Rodney King style beat down and got ... well, nothing that I could really describe as brutality. Here's what we know for a fact as we can see it on the video.

<ul type="square">[*]Police deny the rev immediate access to the hearing but tell him that he needs to go to the back of the line.[*]Rev says no, I already waited through the line, I am in line, let me in.[*]Policeman says, you are not in line, go to the back of the line.[*]"Everybody says I was in line. I have a right as a citizen to be in line." etc. [*]Policaman gives him an ultimatum. Go to the back of the line or leave or you will be arrested.[*]More arguing with rev getting louder.[*]Police attempt to escort rev out of the building.[*]Rev makes a Ladamian Tomlinson style dive for the doorway. Police defensive line holds up and takes rev down.[*]Rev is subdued, not pepper sprayed, not tased.[*]Police try to get rev up and he says "my leg is broken"[*]Police call for a wheelchair.[/list]To be blunt, of course the rev is going to make this into a bigger deal (i.e. conspiracy) than it was. Once the argument got going, I don't see any real other choice the police had. They handled it remarkably well, first trying to de-escalate the issue, offering the rev the option of returning to the back of the line, trying to reason with him, trying to convince him to leave or go to the back of the line.