Home / Badge Abuse / DASHCAM: Cops Beat, Arrest Innocent Man After Accusing Him of Stealing His OWN CAR

DASHCAM: Cops Beat, Arrest Innocent Man After Accusing Him of Stealing His OWN CAR

Evanston, IL — All too often, those who blindly support authority without question will say,  ‘If you don’t want to get beat up by police, don’t break the law.’ However, time after time after time, they are proven wrong — often in the worst way. Lawrence Crosby is the latest proof that not breaking the law is no protection against getting hurt by police as he was beaten and arrested by cops who thought he’d stolen his own car.

Although this scenario unfolded on October 10, 2015, the infuriating and brutal dashcam video wasn’t released until this week. What it shows is nothing short of incompetence, brutality, and the viciousness of more than a half-dozen of Evanston’s finest.

Crosby is not a criminal. In fact, he’s an upstanding citizen and accomplished engineering student who was on his way to night school to complete his doctorate at Northwestern University that night. However, in today’s see something, say something society, not even innocent doctoral candidates are safe from police abuse.

At around 7:00 pm that night, Crosby was working on his car when a woman drove by. Seeing a black man working on his car was enough to trigger this do-gooder into calling the cops and then apparently following him.

“Hi somebody’s trying to break into, somebody’s trying to break into a car,” the woman told the dispatcher. ”I think the person just got into the car.”

Not knowing that he’d just been reported for stealing his own car, Crosby began his drive to campus from his apartment. However, as his own private dashcam shows, Crosby quickly noticed something fishy and he began heading to the police station to report the fact that someone, most likely the woman who reported him, was following him.

READ MORE:  TSA Agents Unscrewed Urn Dumped Ashes of Man's Deceased Mother In His Luggage During Search

However, he did not make it to the station. Cops pulled Crosby over in a church parking lot and all hell broke loose.

“On the ground… on the ground… down on the ground… down on the ground…turn around,” the cops yelled.

Confused and afraid, Crosby did not immediately fall to the ground, so almost as soon as cops gave the command, they pounced on him.

“I’m cooperating…sir, you’re on video… that’s an FYI,” Crosby said to the abusive cops.

Believing they had a car thief, cops held no punches as the blue gang swarmed the innocent man doling out blow after blow. During the melee, Crosby can be heard telling police that he had only moved and hesitated so he could get in front of his own cameras.

Crosby, knowing he did absolutely nothing wrong, tells the officers that he is the owner of the car. Within less than a minute after they beat him, cops were entirely aware that Crosby was indeed the owner of the car and they had no reason to stop him. However, they weren’t about to let this stop go to waste.

Knowing they had no legitimate crime to charge him with, officers began telling Crosby that he resisted and did not cooperate.

Instead of an apology, Crosby was kidnapped and charged with resisting arrest and disobeying officers.

“I understand being a police officer is a tough job, but we need them to exercise judgment in their day to day operations. And in this situation, within ten seconds of Mr. Crosby getting out of his car with his hands in the air, he was tackled, he was kneed while he was standing up, then he was punched repeatedly by multiple officers, for allegedly stealing his own car. Our police officers need to be better than that,” Alderman Brian Miller said.

READ MORE:  BREAKING: If You Work for the Govt, You've Been Hacked, Cyber Attack Hits "Every Federal Employee"

Luckily for Crosby, after reviewing the video, a judge threw out the charges. However, not one of the cops who savagely beat an innocent man that night has faced any discipline. In fact, Evanston Police found the use of force justified.

Want to know why there is so much divide in America today between the police and the policed? Watch the video below.

Below is the entire video with all audio and video from both Crosby’s dashcam and the police dashcam.

Matt Agorist is an honorably discharged veteran of the USMC and former intelligence operator directly tasked by the NSA. This prior experience gives him unique insight into the world of government corruption and the American police state. Agorist has been an independent journalist for over a decade and has been featured on mainstream networks around the world. and now on Steemit

  • doucyet

    I once had officers on each side of my vehicle pointing weapons right at me, you know how long it took me to get my hands on the wheel like I was told………about one second. I didn’t try to re-position my camera, ask what’s up, finish my coffee, reach for my wallet. I simply put my hands on the wheel. I was cuffed and put into the patrol car. When the shop owner (who I worked for) arrived, I was set free and all is well. Pretty simple huh!

    This guy had 7 seconds to get his ass on the ground like he was being told. Being the smart university student that he is, that’s a simple command and it takes about 2 seconds at most the to execute it. OH but wait…..I want to walk around to the front of my car so I can get this on video……….wrong move. More click bait……

    • The Cat’s Vagina

      I wholeheartedly disagree. Had he not made sure the interaction was being filmed, the officers would have probably beat his anyway and then lied their fucking asses off about what actually happened. And with no video, guess who’s going to be believed and who’s going to jail?

      • doucyet

        Without going back and reading it again, I believe the dash cam video we’re viewing is from the officers car.

        • Mike

          The victim also had a dash camera, as should all of us, as police lie all the time!

        • The Cat’s Vagina

          That hardly matters. The reason he didn’t drop to the ground and let them have their way with him was because he wanted to be in front of a camera, which is why he’s not still sitting in jail with a kicked ass and a public defender urging him to plead guilty so they’ll drop the exorbitant bail and let him go home on probation. “You can stay in here another few weeks, or you can stay in here for the year or two it’ll take them to get around to trying you.”

          • doucyet

            He started to make a move around to the front of his car, the police no doubt thought he was running, that’s when they jumped on him. Watch the clip again.

    • IceTrey

      Aren’t cops supposed to investigate before making an arrest? Stop the car. Run the plates to get the owners name. Walk up to the window and check his DL. He didn’t try to run which is what a car thief would do. They based their actions on a call that they had no idea was true or false.

      • doucyet

        I think it depends on the call or stop and situations that arise. If they’re stopping a person for a traffic violation they’re a little more at ease than stopping say a robbery suspect. If they feel the suspect could be violent (robber, car thief, burglar, assault) they secure the person before they investigate. Perfectly legal.

        • IceTrey

          Why would they think a car thief who immediately stopped might be violent? Hell if they had ran his plates they could have just asked him his name when he got out.

          • doucyet

            Car thief’s are not the most friendly group towards police when stopped I imagine. They did what they did and the kid did what he did, I can’t tell you why. All I know is that the kid didn’t comply, and that’s always when the trouble starts.

          • IceTrey

            Right they did what they did, treat him like a car thief, even though they had no idea whether he was or wasn’t. Like I said run the plates, get the owners name, ask him his name. Done. Everyone goes about their business. It was poor policing no matter his actions.

          • doucyet

            Would if he had been a car thief packing a weapon? Those clips never get posted here.

          • IceTrey

            I imagine he would not have stopped immediately and came out with his hands up.

          • doucyet

            All conjecture. Just like trying second guess what should and should not have been done.

          • avelworldcreator

            No conjecture about it. The police broke the law – period. Check plates. Get image of owner’s DL image. “Oh! That’s him getting out of the car. Sorry, sir!” Those cops were already racing out of their cars pumped on adrenaline and not acting rationally. The were “going to get themselves a car thief” and to hell with due process or probable cause.

          • doucyet

            You got it!

          • avelworldcreator

            And that’s the problem in a nutshell. There was no lawful reason for those officers to have acted like they did. They were under oath to support the Constitution of the U.S. The made a promise to the people of their community and the people of the United States to not act like the thugs they did.

          • IceTrey

            No more conjecture than what if he had been a thief with a gun. We know what should be done. The cops should first establish reasonable suspicion. They didn’t do that.

          • doucyet

            Perhaps they should invite them over for tea and talk about the weather.

          • IceTrey

            Why not, he didn’t commit any crime.

          • doucyet

            Sounds good, Chaitea?

          • IceTrey

            What am I some douchebag hipster? Earl Gray.

          • doucyet

            There ya go!

          • The Cat’s Vagina

            *pulls out a flask and offers it around*

          • doucyet

            Johnnie Walker Black

          • avelworldcreator

            Perhaps they should invite them over for tea and talk about the weather.

            Who should invite whom? Do you understand basic American English grammar?

          • doucyet

            You’ll figure it out I’m sure.

          • avelworldcreator

            Oh, I guess you mean the cops should invite the neighborhood for tea then given that you used two plural nouns. The man they unlawfully arrested was a single person, not a group so you couldn’t possibly meant him.

          • doucyet

            He’s invited in the group. It’s a town hall meeting to ask the thugs to behave so the police can treat everyone as friendlies when they are stopped.

          • avelworldcreator

            Probably one of the better suggestions. :p Actually cops are supposed to treat everyone as “friendlies” until given some sign otherwise. Unfortunately some years back we began to train our police to treat everyone as criminal suspects and to lie – literally. This was the consequence. Rather than being defensive in their approaches to people they’ve become offensive to the point of unprovoked aggression.

          • The Cat’s Vagina

            psst, they’re pronouns.

          • avelworldcreator

            Yep. Thanks. I’ll edit. Appreciated. 😀

          • doucyet

            A bit. But I seem to use text, email and a snail mail combinations when on these sites.

          • The Cat’s Vagina

            Yeah, it’s sort of an unspoken rule that you’re supposed to clarify ambiguous pronouns. I think he was too wrapped up in trying to come up with a sarcastic zinger. Swingandamiss.

          • The Cat’s Vagina

            Precisely what you’re doing, which will come to be known as “pulling a Trump.” (Hypocritical projection, that is.)

          • doucyet

            Pretty cool huh! Pulling an Obama.

          • avelworldcreator

            The did not even run his plates before attacking him. He got out with his hands in the air showing he was unarmed. They had absolutely no cause to demand that he “get on the ground”. “Get on the ground” means they were detaining him. They were detaining him without having first established that a crime had occurred. They must investigate first. THEY BROKE THE LAW. That is why the judge immediately threw out the charges when he saw the evidence. They even tried stalling releasing the video. They knew they had done wrong.

          • The Cat’s Vagina

            Then we need braver cops, period. To just assume from a simple phone call (and ZERO other evidence) that he was a car thief who needed and deserved some frightening humiliation is both stupid AND chickenshit cowardly.

          • The Cat’s Vagina

            Right. Because this site has a theme, if you’ll notice, and it’s not “let’s have a round of sympathy and applause for our good friends, the POLICE.”

          • doucyet

            The theme seems to be, lets sit in our comfortable living rooms and critique the police never having faced bad guy other than on TV. I recognized it right away.

          • avelworldcreator

            I have faced the “bad guy”. It’s not fun. But I still had to be accountable for my conduct.

          • doucyet

            So were they!

          • avelworldcreator

            No they were not. That’s the problem. They failed to establish grounds for an arrest first, to establish it as an arrest second. Until they did that they could not issue orders or even touch the man. The arrested the vehicle but that does not mean the driver has been arrested.

          • doucyet

            Yes they were too.

          • avelworldcreator

            They failed to show that they had grounds for arrest. That is the initial stage of accountability for a police officer. They acted on hearsay, not personal observation. Correct procedure would have been to run the car’s plate’s first. Running the owner would have come back that it was a black male. That single fact would have weakened probable cause substantially. And if they followed the driver to his destination – the police station – this would have cast ever greater doubt on the correctness of the witness. Follow him into the station and found out his ID then. Oops! The guy was the owner of the car. But because they were so anxious to “catch a thief” they jumped the gun. Patience is deemed a virtue for a reason.

          • doucyet

            Do you think in this reply you have mentioned anything that hasn’t been said already?

          • avelworldcreator

            Yes, I’ve said several things that were different.

          • doucyet

            You read the entire dialog so fast……….you are good!

          • avelworldcreator

            I’ve been reading since I was 3 1/2 and I’m 50 now. I also read over 400 words per minute. Most of this thread is short posts of mostly one or paragraphs. I’m pretty sure I can read the entire thing very easily and quickly.

          • doucyet

            Good job! You get a gold start Johnny! Or would you rather have a trophy?

          • avelworldcreator

            Resorting to sarcasm? Sounds like you know you can’t defend your crappy arguments to me.

          • doucyet

            I was simply recognizing your achievements.

          • avelworldcreator

            I rather doubt it.

          • The Cat’s Vagina

            I doubt it. When appalling police abuse happens, the cops who committed it usually aren’t even FIRED, much less arrested. Their victim gets a quiet little settlement (often with non-disclosure orders attached) out of taxpayer money and nobody is ever really called to account and face consequences.

          • The Cat’s Vagina

            It was aggressive, mean-spirited laziness. It was both easier AND more fun to play SWAT Force Commando with all their buddies.

          • Rizzo

            But he was not a car thief that’s the point you’re missing. You can’t go around controlling and brutalizing people over hearsay people are getting tired of it. If you want someone Dead all you have to do is call the police and say they have a gun this is bullshit and needs to stop.

          • doucyet

            Damned if they do and damned if they don’t. It’s a tough deal and shitty job and we’re all armchair quarterbacks.

          • avelworldcreator

            I’ve been a Federal officer and I’m still under oath. I also have legal training (I’m a peer reviewed Constitutional scholar whos work is used in civics instruction). I’m FAR from an “armchair quarterback”.

          • doucyet

            Good deal. Then you should be able to introduce the necessary changes to make everyone happy.

          • avelworldcreator

            People are responsible for their own happiness. And I’m already working on things as best I am able. I know my responsibilities unlike the police in this story.

          • doucyet

            Well, there ya go.

          • The Cat’s Vagina

            No, they wouldn’t have been the least bit damned to have walked up to his car, guns holstered, and said “sir, could you step out of the vehicle and show us your license, please.” They can hold the butt of the gun if they’re a-skeert.

          • avelworldcreator

            You nailed it. They had begun to arrest him on hearsay not probable cause.

          • The Cat’s Vagina

            Especially if that person is ANY combination of poor/minority/mentally ill.

          • The Cat’s Vagina

            A group of people who steal are thieves, dear, not the possession of a single thief.

          • doucyet

            Oops!

          • The Cat’s Vagina

            Yeah, no worries. I do it to everybody. I’m one of those weirdos. Take it as a compliment – I wouldn’t bother if I thought you were a twat who didn’t care.

      • avelworldcreator

        They ARE supposed to do that. Not just jump out of their cars hollering orders. He was not under arrest when he and they got out of their respective vehicles. They cannot give lawful orders except when an arrest or detention has be properly effected.

    • Mike

      So if a cop told you to get down on your knees while he unzipped his pants, you would just do it. America was founded on fighting for your rights and not blindly obeying orders. Under your logic, we would still be under British rule! I hope and pray that every cop involved ends up dead in the gutter like the POS trash they truly are!

      • doucyet

        That’s a really idiotic “example” that people throw around a lot. You want to fight the cops to try to prove you have something when you’re being questioned for whatever reason…….go ahead, be my guest. Let me know how that works out for ya. You hope they end up dead…………that’s brilliant!

        • Mike

          This guy did not even have a chance to ask what he was being stopped for, they just jumped him and started wailing on him. Cops need to change, otherwise citizens will jump in and start killing more cops. My method may not work, but by just complying and letting cops trample on your constitutional rights will only make the cops abuse you even more. Cops are just thugs with badges, a gang, I don’t shed a tear when a cop gets killed, because most of the time they deserve it!

          • doucyet

            He had 7 seconds to get on the ground, how long should it take? Go ahead try it. They were being aggressive because he was a suspected car thief. Could ask all of the questions he wanted after complying? This is not a request when your told to do something, it’s not an invitation for conversation.

          • Mike

            And that is the difference between you and I. You are a sheep that is bound for slaughter as you just do what you are told, ignoring the constitutional rights that many Americans have fought and died for. 7 seconds is not a lot of time, considering he thought he was just being pulled over for a traffic ticket, they did not even give him time to react. Everyone of these cops should be arrested for assault and fired. I personally hope they all end up murdered! Lets face it, the cops are racist and if this guy was white, they probably would not have gang mugged him. I hope he sues them all and I hope they take it personally from the cops and not the taxpayers!

          • doucyet

            Constitutional rights and condoning murdering cops in the same paragraph. Like I said………brilliant.

          • The Cat’s Vagina

            Except for that one bit, he’s right about the rest.

          • doucyet

            What about the bigoted “cops are raciest” part?

          • The Cat’s Vagina

            You don’t think police are racist… which is actually what he wrote? ‘Cause if you don’t, I’m cuing up the exit music because I don’t feel like hollering up your ass to be heard.

          • doucyet

            The white cops or the black cops?

          • The Cat’s Vagina

            Either/both… against people who aren’t white. Yes, black cops can be racist toward black people. The ones who are desperate for approval and acceptance among their fair-skinned Brothers In Blue are probably worse, just to prove whose side they’re on. Just like if you see a white guy standing among his black gangbanger buddies, looking for trouble… be most afraid of HIM, because he’s got something to prove.

          • doucyet

            Blacks can’t be raciest against whites?

          • avelworldcreator

            It’s what stopped me from possibly upvoting him though. I had some pretty mixed feelings about that one.

          • The Cat’s Vagina

            I gave him one and then took it back, because Doucyet had a point.

          • Mike

            Thank you, I think I am pretty smart too. The founding fathers gave us the second amendment for self protection, knowing that governments get corrupt as well as the people that enforce that government’s laws, and that sometimes you need to overthrow the corrupt people by force or by legal means.

          • The Cat’s Vagina

            Psst… it’s “between you and me.” (Sorry, it’s a compulsion sometimes.) The way to remember is that “I” goes before the verb and “me” goes after. Even if you don’t give a rat’s limp dick, there are other people watching and I am dedicated to improving everyone’s understanding of their own language. Again, sorry… I know some people find it obnoxious.

          • avelworldcreator

            Correct my grammar all you want; I won’t take offense. In fact I rather welcome it.

          • avelworldcreator

            He had all the time he wanted. The cops had not issued a lawful order. I’d love to be on the law team taking these corrupt cops to task.

          • The Cat’s Vagina

            Since when is a car thief someone to be treated with aggression? Just because someone may have committed a crime (ESPECIALLY a non-violent crime) doesn’t make it OK for cops to surround a person and scream at them for seven seconds before just dogpiling him for no other reason than “he didn’t obey us.” You’re pissing me off, to the point where I’m ready to shred every post you’ve made in this conversation. No hard feelings, but I MUST dismantle this bullshit notion you’ve got. I think you’re a smart, reasonable with whom I have half a chance of reaching common ground and I’m pretty sure I’ve seen you appreciate my own intelligence.

            Those cops were wrong, man. If you’ve got any decency in you, you’ll agree with me on that much, even if we disagree as to whether or not their VICTIM provoked them into wronging him with their wrongness. Just wrong, man! Say it with me, the cops who beat up an innocent man merely for not complying within seven seconds of their surrounding him with guns drawn, screaming orders were… what? (Choose one.)

            □ Right
            □ Wrong
            □ Turkey Sandwich

          • doucyet

            I like horseradish.

          • The Cat’s Vagina

            Checkmate.

          • The Cat’s Vagina

            I gave you the opportunity to take the high road here and still blame the victim. Having forced me to conclude that you do NOT, in fact, have a shred of decency in you where abusive cops are concerned (obviously, you’re a fan) I have no choice but to give you one of these.

            http://reactiongifs.me/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/martina-hill-middle-finger.gif

          • doucyet

            Oh, that hurts me so deeply! I’ll never recover..

          • The Cat’s Vagina

            *chuckles* I’m sure you will, since I have no intention of letting this contaminate any other conversations we might have. I like you, but you’re wrong here… about something that’s pretty important to me, so it pisses me off a little.

          • doucyet

            Look on the bright side, the traffic secures advertisers.

          • The Cat’s Vagina

            *smiles amiably* Plus, you gave me NUMEROUS opportunities to stand up for what I believe in. I thank you for that. Good exercise.

          • doucyet

            As we all should…..

        • Rizzo

          basically what you’re saying is you would joyfully get on your knees if instructed by the police officer. I won’t say dead in the gutter but I don’t need the pigs maybe you do I’m more than capable of taking care of myself. the man wasn’t doing anything wrong he has a right to move around freely in his vehicle without being tackled buy a group of swans.

          • doucyet

            Basically what I’m saying is you should challenge the cops to a knife fight. Read it again.

          • Rizzo

            No I would rather not go up against a tyrannical gang that has unlimited resources and Military capabilities. I realize I have to kiss their ass or I will be brutalized or killed doesn’t mean I like doing it.

          • doucyet

            I don’t like it either, but I like bubba even less.

          • The Cat’s Vagina

            Hey, leave Bubba out of this… he ain’t done SHIT here! 😉

          • doucyet

            OK. I have to go blow up some gophers now. See you boys and girls later.

          • The Cat’s Vagina

            Watch out for Bubba! I heard gopher-blasting is one of his favorite hobbies.

        • The Cat’s Vagina

          You’re forgetting something. This is an innocent black man who’s suddenly surrounded by cops who are screaming at him and brandishing guns. If I were him, I would ABSOLUTELY want to get myself in front of a camera… or maybe I’d fucking panic and get my ass shot off. For the record, even though you passed their little “comply or die” spot check, it is absolutely NOT OK for cops to just approach people pointing their guns without a DAMN good reason. The way you’re talking suggests that because you were a “good boy” and didn’t get in any trouble, you didn’t feel violated and horrified by the experience. The fact that you’re not tells me that I’ve probably got sour cream in the back of my fridge ain’t as white as you are.

          • doucyet

            I was friggin pissed! But later on it was explained to me that my vehicle fit the description of a suspects vehicle wanted in a burglary….. I was still pissed, but I understood.

          • avelworldcreator

            Still didn’t justify them having guns drawn and pointed at you. The police had not clearly established you as the suspect. Cars are made on an assembly line and are pretty generic unless the owners have done something to them to make them substantially unique. All it would have taken was one officer being incautious and you wouldn’t have simply been angry; you’d have been dead. You had grounds to sue the officers who did that to you.

          • doucyet

            Tell that to the officer’s family after that walks up to a vehicle and gets his face blown off by a real bad guy that insists he not going back to jail! Because after all, we don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings.

          • avelworldcreator

            It’s part of the risks of the job and what you choose to face when you take your service oath. That oath encapsulates the responsibilities you’ve accepted. It doesn’t have anything to do with feelings but your promise to the public and your community.

          • doucyet

            Firemen have risks as well, and they use all of the tools afforded them to stay safe.

          • avelworldcreator

            Yes, but their risks are very different, nor do they use their tools in a reckless and dangerous manner that puts other members of the community at risk.

          • doucyet

            Lives are risk either way, and they use every tool afforded them to stay safe.

          • avelworldcreator

            Cops job is NOT to protect their lives by threating others without cause. And using guns to threaten is not self-defense; it’s an act of aggression. Period.

          • doucyet

            Says the guy with a pen and a phone.

          • avelworldcreator

            I’ve been trained on the proper handling of firearms. I’ve been a gun owner. I’ve been a Federal officer. I’ve even faced armed criminals and gotten hurt. Wan’t to stick your foot deeper in your mouth? You don’t point a gun at a person unless you intend to shoot them. That’s basic gun safety. Same with every other weapon out there. Brandishing weapons is an act of aggression; not a defensive stance.

          • doucyet

            Bla bla bla. They intended on shooting him, then found it wasn’t necessary. Kinda like if you draw on a guy with a knife and he drops it. Oh Mr. I’ve done it all and I’m very impotent……..or important. You pick.

          • avelworldcreator

            The drew on you without ANY cause to do show. The ad homimens don’t exactly support your argument.

          • doucyet

            It’s opinion. I have mine and you all have yours. I just happen to be outnumbered by a bunch of do nothings that demand change.

          • The Cat’s Vagina

            May you ALWAYS be (heavily) outnumbered by people who think that the cops were wrong here. You call them us”do nothings,” but doesn’t change have to start with people saying “naw, man – this shit is WRONG.” When people talk about it, and find out that they outnumber the people who are OK with it, that’s when the REAL “reform” begins. Problem is, tyrants don’t like turning loose of their tyrannical power and impunity, so it’s going to be a struggle and they’re going to resist. Just be aware once you take a side that your support will NOT save you from having your life destroyed when/if one of the more vicious ones happens to take a dislike to you. There are cops out there who have flung people to the ground and ground a knee in their back (or had their buddies dogpile them, like here) just for asking fucking QUESTIONS about why they’re being stopped and hassled. It’s not OK and you’re taking the side of monstrosity. I don’t know if you really believe the cops weren’t wrong in this case, or if you’re just being a conversation-stimulating gadfly, but your unwillingness to concede that it’s not OK for cops to act like that is genuinely disappointing.

          • doucyet

            OK, now I have a headache. Got Tylenol?

          • The Cat’s Vagina

            Just a raggedy-looking “cigarette” that smells nothing like tobacco. *offers it*

    • Bill Manus

      Know what’s worse than a bad cop?
      Assholes who defend bad cops!

      • doucyet

        A bad listener! And an asshole that makes excuses for them.

        • The Cat’s Vagina

          Man, you might just want to drop this and slink away. You’re FAR more likely to make yourself look like a fascist jackass than you are to change anyone’s mind.

          • doucyet

            I know Cat. But all to often people don’t see things from the cops perspective. Yea they fuck from time to time, but many times their aggressive behavior probably saves their lives. It’s a tough deal.

          • avelworldcreator

            Just let people know you are trying to play “devil’s advocate”. Taking on the role of the other side keeps forums like this from becoming echo chambers but if you don’t inform your audience they may not realize you are trying to establish a more balanced conversation. Good on you if that’s what you were doing.

          • doucyet

            Don’t tell anyone……

          • Josh Cairns

            How was he posing absolutely any threat whatsoever to those policeman? It’s funny how 99% of these videos pop up in only one country… The way you excuse their behavior of acting like any and every suspect could be a gun wielding psychopath out to kill cops is absolutely fucking ridiculous. In 99% of countries the man would have escaped this situation without a bruise or scratch on him… You really seem to lap up this culture of fear that’s bred so deeply within Americans. Claim it’s the land of the free, yet support an innocent, unarmed, surrendering man being beaten by those who’s literal motto is ‘serve and protect’

          • Josh Cairns

            … and not just escape the situation unharmed. probably never cuffed in the first place and left with a sincere apology. because how fucking hard is it to grab some ID and a registration to check ownership of the car!

          • doucyet

            You add nothing new…….keep up!

          • doucyet

            Asked and answered…

    • Rizzo

      the state has taught you well. They get you in school at a young age force you to respect authority regardless if that respect is deserved or not indoctrinate you to kiss anyone’s ass that has a badge or the state says has Authority. You were indoctrinated quite well by the government good job son.

      • doucyet

        I suggest you jump out of your car the next time your stopped and start waving a knife around.

        • avelworldcreator

          I know better than to “Jump out of a car” when the cops have stopped me. They stopped you with guns drawn? Seriously? I doubt they were pulling you over for a traffic ticket. In the context you show all the conformist traits (yes, that’s right, conformist) traits I’ve observed in criminal personalities (as defined by Dr.’s Yochelson and Samenow). In context I suspect you have a bit of a history.

          • doucyet

            That’s what this kid in the clip did, jumped out of the car when the cops had their guns drawn.

          • avelworldcreator

            That he did. And he also immediately raised his hands in the air to show he was unarmed and cooperating. If he started reaching down towards his pants afterwards the cops would have had some reason to warn him they would shoot if he didn’t keep his hands in the air, but they could not lawfully order him to the ground until it was established he was being arrested – and arrested on something other than hearsay.

          • doucyet

            He also made a move to get around his door to get in front of his vehicle because he had a dash camera that he wanted the stop recorded on. Bad move. That’s when they “jumped” him.

            Anyhow……..have a good one.

          • avelworldcreator

            Not a bad move. It protected him in court when they gave unlawful orders and illegally assaulted him. He took an educated risk. That’s how problems get solved – people taking risks. Likewise.

        • Rizzo

          Like the guy in this video did right? Just because he didn’t drop to his knees and say yes sir yes sir let me kiss your ass that’s what you have to do when you get stopped. I think people are getting a little tired of it that’s all.

        • The Cat’s Vagina

          Stop that shit! It’s beneath you and you know it.

          • doucyet

            I do not!

          • doucyet

            You’re absolutely correct! Your last sentence.

    • Abdullah Akbar Allahmean

      So basically what you’re saying is that he was wrong, period. So let me ask you this genius…he was arrested for “resisting arrest”, what was he originally being arrested for? Also, is there a LEGITIMATE reason he was treated worst than Dylann Roof?

      • doucyet

        Alley Snackbar.

        • Abdullah Akbar Allahmean

          So thats the best you could come up with? Adorable!

          • doucyet

            Thanks, I thought so! Go back and read the dialog you won’t come with anything new.

          • The Cat’s Vagina

            You’re right, ya know. Several people have already SHREDDED your argument in every possible way. If Mr. Allahmean feels strongly about your wrongness, he should enjoy reading the thread.

          • Abdullah Akbar Allahmean

            Just read it again & its still garbage! Your so called logic is that of retarded infant.

          • doucyet

            Oops, now you know retarded infants will take offense at that. And there’s a bunch of them here!

          • Abdullah Akbar Allahmean

            Yeah you would know wouldn’t you! The leader of the pack.

          • doucyet

            Hardly, I’m all by myself here. The pack is well represented, but I don’t who the leader is.

  • The Cat’s Vagina

    “Disobeying officers” is a crime in Indiana? Also, any judge worth a tenth of their salary should throw this out of court with EXTREME prejudice. There are some (though not enough by far) jurisdictions in this country that actually don’t allow police to arrest people JUST for resisting arrest. The logic goes, lacking legitimate cause to arrest someone actually gives them the RIGHT to resist.

  • Richard Ott

    the woman who call should be arrested for file false report

    • The Cat’s Vagina

      They’re not going to do that, because it would strongly discourage their “see something, say something” mentality. They WANT us to be a nation of tattletales – makes their jobs just SO MUCH easier!

      • avelworldcreator

        It wasn’t even a false report. The reporter fully expected the police to conduct an investigation which she was obviously not able to do. You can even hear the cops realize that any charges they filed would not stick (“Fruit of the poison tree” comment there). No, we WANT people to report suspicious (stop with that bullshit “snitch” or “tattletale” crap – someone sees someone possibly breaking into my home or car, or even doing something to my family, you are damn right I want them to do what they can to help out!). The cops were crooked control freaks who didn’t not follow the law; THAT is what went wrong.

        • The Cat’s Vagina

          I’m sorry, but calling the cops just because you saw a black man working on a car and then driving off in it is the VERY definition of “tattletaling.” What was he doing that she found suspicious, apart from being black? Most likely, nothing, just… “well, it was a bad neighborhood, OK! I am not a racist because I gave a black guy a hand job that one time and liked it!”

          http://cos.h-cdn.co/assets/15/32/1438829389-eye-roll-3.gif

          • Look at following information to understand how a single parent was able to acquire $89,844/year in her spare time on her laptop computer without selling anything>>>
            -> START WORKING IMMEDIATELY!!!! <-

          • Mikabezon

            Fuck you!

          • avelworldcreator

            I don’t know what she exactly saw. He was saying in his video that “he was working on the roof of his car”. And she thought she saw some kind of long tool (given your comment that’s kind of ironic). It was late at night. A “tattletale” is malicious. They are seeking to control others. The women here was trying to be helpful. Again, she’s as much a victim here as the car owner. She trusted that the cops would do a proper investigation or she’d probably not said anything at. The officers in this story were reckless and out of control. If you attack a person for actually trying to do the right, constructive, thing they are less likely to do so in the future. If you thank them but point out their error? They are more likely to be more attentive and cautious, but still be willing to help. We don’t know if the guys race was a factor in her choice to report what she saw or not. We know she was uncomfortable with using his race in her description of him. It was a necessary part of the description (gender, race, etc.) so unavoidable. But she was conscious of what she was saying and the potential consequences to people. Recap: We have two complete strangers here both trying to be responsible (the woman and the car owner) and a group of police officers who didn’t give a crap about due process or reasonable search and seizure. It’s them who should be the focus of our ire and not innocent bystander witnesses. I’ve had to deal with an actual “tattletale” and the consequences of it, including a crooked cop – and I’m a white male. I’m still in the middle of civil rights activity against my state because of that and connected officials (I was also a major crime victim at the same time).

          • Look over following information to learn the way an individual mommy was able to acquire $89,844/year in her spare time on her laptop or computer without selling anything>>>
            -> START WORKING IMMEDIATELY!!!! <-

          • dgfvfghghdrefew

          • Take a look at following report to determine how an individual mommy was able to acquire $89,844/year in her free time on her personal pc without selling anything>>>
            -> START WORKING IMMEDIATELY!!!! <-

          • Hubert Harrison

            I like how you say that “we don’t know if the guys race was a factor in her choice to report what she saw or not”, when she clearly told the cops that she hope she wasn’t “racial profiling”. Yes, we do know that race was a factor in calling the police and following him. She is not a victim in this event, in any sense. That lady saw a black man, a car, and a crowbar and immediately thought robbery.

          • avelworldcreator

            You are still making an assumption. I know what she said. We all know what was said but we have absolutely no data for determining thoughts and beliefs here. None. Conjecture is NOT the same thing as actual knowledge. Note she did not say he WAS robbing the car only that he MIGHT have been robbing the car. SHE knew the difference – the cops making the stop apparently didn’t. She was a victim just as the driver was. Deal with and stop looking for scapegoats in people who were trying to act responsibly.

          • Look over following report to learn the way an individual mommy was able to make $89,844/year in her spare time on her laptop or computer without selling anything>>>
            -> START WORKING IMMEDIATELY!!!! <-

          • Hubert Harrison

            “We have absolutely no data for determining thoughts and belief here”, the topic here is wether race was a factor. You’re employing a straw man fallacy by mischaaracterizing that topic. By her own words, she admitted race was a factor because, she said “I hope I wasn’t racial profiling”. That’s not conjecture to repeat her words and state the implications of her statements, that race was a factor in calling the police and following the guy. The problem is people like you that dismiss the obvious and resort to logical fallacies by bringing up irrelevant points to the discussion. She isn’t a victim in no fucking sense of the word. You need to deal with the fact that race was a factor and she isn’t a victim.

          • avelworldcreator

            I’m quite aware what a “straw man” fallacy is. I did not misrepresent your argument. You made specific claims and I directly rebutted them.

            Claim 1: The woman in the story made several conclusions and decisions with respect to the race of another person. Among these was the belief that the person was engaging in theft.
            Argument: “That lady saw a black man, a car, and a crowbar and immediately thought robbery.”
            Rebuttal: No objective data exists that supports such claim. Several statements made by her contradict this claim and argument. Among these is a definite denial of certainty as to what she observed. We can also conclude she was familiar with certain racial stereotypes, that she found them reprehensible, and that she was worried that having to report the subject’s race as a necessary identifying information would reinforce those stereotypes. Could she have been “racial profiling”? Yes, but her actual thought processes are not available to us in sufficient degree to make a definite conclusion. Given you accused her of thinking that a robbery was taking place bringing up contradictory information is relevant. If she had said to the police “There is this black man breaking into a car.” then we can safely conclude that race was likely a factor, but her statements went more like “I think someone is trying to break into a car. He’s a black man…”. She began with describing her impressions about the activity and not the person. The characteristics of the person were only secondary in her thoughts and that is based on objective evidence. There are no “facts” for me to “deal” with as no “facts” have been presented. All that has been presented is assertions without supporting fact or argument.

            Victimization can take several forms. Physical, psychological, sexual. If a man robs a bank and goes to prison over it his family is a victim of his conduct. These are known as “secondary victims”. They are just as much victims as any primary ones but the source of victimization isn’t as immediate. In this case the woman trusted the police to do a lawful investigation. By going outside the law they violated that trust. Not only her trust but the trust of the community they worked for. That is why this site goes out of its way to report these kinds of incidents because of the severe betrayal crooked cops do by acting like this.

            You accuse me of logical fallacies yet you end your posting with an ad hominem (“Stop being a little bitch”). Seriously? What irony.

          • Hubert Harrison

            Again this a straw man fallacy that is not my fucking claim. I clearly stated my claim, that race was a factor. My evidence for that claim is her own words. Stick with my actual claim dim witted fool and you won’t make an ass out of yourself. I repeat for the third time my claim is that race was a factor in her calling the police and following the guy. My evidence for that claim is her own fucking words, “I hope I’m not racially profiling”. You didn’t rebutted my claim because you didn’t addressed it, therefore that’s a straw man fallacy. Stop being stupid.

          • avelworldcreator

            To accuse me of making a fallacy you have to detail the fallacy. You haven’t done that. You made a claim that “race was a factor” but I find nothing in her words at the time she originally called the police that suggests it was racially motivated. Accusing me of being “dim witted” just because I don’t accept your claim is simply ad hominem. That is because it’s an attack on me personally rather than the content of my argument. And you made a claim other than just “race was a factor”. You made a specific claim about the contents of her thoughts. Just because you don’t pay attention to the claims you are making does not make my addressing them a straw man fallacy. I even quoted your words where you made that claim. I’ll repeat it again in case you don’t remember what is in plain view in this public thread – “That lady saw a black man, a car, and a crowbar and immediately thought robbery.” You made the claim that the lady “immediately thought robbery”. Denying that you made a claim when it is on public record is really absurd.

            As for her actual statements I worked from uncertain memory. I did not try to listen to the track again (I listened to the entire video as before even commenting in this forum the first time) before replying but your transcribing it supports my original assertion. Her first observation was about the activity. Then she described the person engaged in the activity. The phrase “I think” prefacing a statement in the English language establishes the speaker is uncertain about what follows.

            You have no knowledge of a person’s actual thoughts outside of what they describe of them. That’s a basic characteristic of the world we live in. To describe a complete stranger’s thoughts, feelings, etc. when they are not stated requires assumption and conjecture.

            Read what I say after the next statement because it might sound insulting but the rest of the paragraph doesn’t end that way. You are sounding like a petulant child and and it doesn’t help you that you have multiple grammar errors; rather glaring ones at that. Somewhere you picked up a few phrases related to logical argument and fallacy but you exhibit no evidence that you’ve had any training in the usage. At least you are making a better effort that most at such. Any thoughts of going into law or politics? You still need some work, but I suspect you are motivated enough. I’d find an attorney to intern with for either as you are a bit weak on rules of evidence but you still have a good ear/eye for details. Go to your public library and see if they have programs for adults to improve their grammar and such. … I just checked your profile and one of your frequent sites suggests that you might be black yourself. This would explain your concern about any racism in the story. Wouldn’t blame you one bit. I hope you take me seriously about that career in law an politics though. If you do take that path and want any help I’d be more than willing to assist (though I don’t blame you if you don’t care for me much. :p )

          • Hubert Harrison

            You committed the straw man fallacy for the fourth time now. What is a Strawman Fallacy: “You misrepresented someone’s argument to make it easier to attack.” For example, my argument is that race was a factor that made the lady called the cops and follow the man. Instead of rebutting that claim, race was not a factor, you misrepresent my argument in talking about whether she said “that he might be committing a robbery”.

            I called you a dim witted fool not because you didn’t accepted my claim but, because you misrepresented my claim, you dim witted fool.

            This is your comment that I took issue with and made my counter claim that race was a factor: “we don’t know if the guys race was a factor in her choice to report what she saw or not”.

            This is my first entire comment: “I like how you say that “we don’t know if the guys race was a factor in her choice to report what she saw or not”, when she clearly told the cops that she hope she wasn’t “racial profiling”. Yes, we do know that race was a factor in calling the police and following him. She is not a victim in this event, in any sense. That lady saw a black man, a car, and a crowbar and immediately thought robbery.”

            By dishonestly selecting a sentence that didn’t accurately represented my argument, you committed the Strawman fallacy.

            “Just because you don’t pay attention to the claims you are making does not make my addressing them a straw man fallacy. I even quoted your words where you made that claim. I’ll repeat it again in case you don’t remember what is in plain view in this public thread – “That lady saw a black man, a car, and a crowbar and immediately thought robbery.” You made the claim that the lady “immediately thought robbery”. Denying that you made a claim when it is on public record is really absurd.”

            1.) You didn’t made paid any attention to my argument because, you clearly misrepresented my claim.
            2.) If you was being intellectually honest you would quote my entire comment and not one sentence that you mispresenting and tried to attack, i.e. Strawman fallacy.
            3.) If she didn’t thought the guy was robbing the car then, why did she call the cops and follow the guy? Because she did thought the guy was robbing the car.

            “As for her actual statements I worked from uncertain memory. I did not try to listen to the track again (I listened to the entire video as before even commenting in this forum the first time) before replying but your transcribing it supports my original assertion. Her first observation was about the activity. Then she described the person engaged in the activity. The phrase “I think” prefacing a statement in the English language establishes the speaker is uncertain about what follows.”

            1.) You didn’t listen to 911 call to know what she said.
            2.) In the video, the first words out her mouth was that “I hope I’m not racial profiling”. How does that support your original assertion, that race wasn’t a factor? It doesn’t support your original assertion, stop being stupid.

            “You have no knowledge of a person’s actual thoughts outside of what they describe of them. That’s a basic characteristic of the world we live in. To describe a complete stranger’s thoughts, feelings, etc. when they are not stated requires assumption and conjecture.”

            1.) Like how you assume that: “then we can safely conclude that race was likely a factor, but her statements went more like “I think someone is trying to break into a car. He’s a black man…” Without actually listening to the 911 call, talk about an contradiction.

            2.) In the video her thoughts and feelings was public and I based my argument on that fact, that race was a factor. I repeat for the fourth time her words, “I hope I’m not racially profiling”.

          • Hubert Harrison

            This article has two videos, in the second video there is the 911 call. In your Strawman argument you still are fucking wrong, four minutes into the video and your argument is demolish. Her words “someone is trying to break into a car”. After the black man got into his car and drove off she said “he got into the car”, establishing the fact that she thought he “immediately robbed the car”.

            I should of watched that second video before making all of these posts because, you’re Strawman argument is still wrong. She did saw a black man, a crow bar, and immediately thought robbery. Go watch the second video that has the 911 call in which she stated “someone is trying to break into a car”.

            YOU’RE A DIM WITTED FOOL.

          • Hubert Harrison

            “then we can safely conclude that race was likely a factor, but her statements went more like “I think someone is trying to break into a car. He’s a black man…”

            I know you didn’t listen to the police call, so how do you know that her statements went like that? By speculating. You just contradicted yourself, you accuse me of making assumptions and conjectures (even though I didn’t I relied on her recorded words) and here you are making assumptions on what she actually said. Dude, you’re pitiful. Stop being stupid.

            “All that has been presented is assertions without supporting fact or argument.”

            The irony is sweet here.

    • doucyet

      That’s a big part of the problem. An old man was killed here in Ca recently partially because the caller told the 911 operator that he had a gun. The cops of course show up ready for a showdown. No gun was ever found.

      • IceTrey

        Don’t forget when dispatch didn’t tell the cops the caller said he thought Tamir Rice’s gun was fake.

    • Rizzo

      That’s smart. anytime someone believes a crime is being committed they will not call the police let’s say a child is being abducted they’ll think maybe that’s a relative I’ll stay out of it. truthfully I do believe people should get better at minding their own business.

      • avelworldcreator

        The “I’m not my brother’s keeper” defense? “I won’t help others because it’s none of my business?”

        • Rizzo

          If you read what I wrote you would see I laid out a scenario of the importance of people helping one another. But yes I do believe as Americans we could do a better job of minding their own business. Like disciplining your child with a simple spanking you will get the police called on you none of your business even if you don’t agree with spanking. Or getting in your car late at night and getting the police called on you like in this case.

          • avelworldcreator

            He didn’t just “get in his car”. It was dark and the woman saw a man doing something that looked like a person trying to break into a car (he was fixing something on the roof of the car, probably near the driver’s door). And your “simple spanking” argument lost me right there. If I believe you are abusing any person, adult or child, in a manner that is prosecutable damned right I’ll intervene. Children are not personal property. That’s a holdover from the code of Justinian (where sons were a form of chattel property and had to buy their freedom from their fathers and the daughters simply got sold to their future husbands). If you were doing whatever to your personal property? I don’t give a shit. Unlike in ancient Rome, people in the U.S. are full citizens from birth or naturalization with EQUAL protection of the law. My oath was to support the U.S. Constitution and not some crappy laws that violate it (like those that allow spanking or other forms of physical assault). It’s odd that an adult cannot be subject to “corporal” punishment but a child who is less able to defend themselves can? Hypocrite.

          • The Cat’s Vagina

            I was ready to give you hell about suggesting that a man fixing his own car at night should be viewed as suspicious enough to warrant a call to the cops and FOLLOWING him like she’s Lois Fucking Lane or something. I despise people who take it upon themselves to play gumshoe like that – it’s EXTREMELY dangerous. Just ask Trayvon Martin’s mother!

            Then you said that stuff about looking out for kids, and we were cool again. I’ll call this one a wash!

          • avelworldcreator

            Very dangerous. But the difference between her and Trayvon Martin was the police asked her to find landmarks and get further information. The guy who shot Trayvon had been advised to not follow or do anything more.

            But I became a crime victim when I tried to find out if a child was being abused. The guy who I suspected wound up doing some serious harm to me. The difference, again, is I’m under oath and I knowingly accepted the risks that came with that oath and took time to learn how to conduct myself. Unfortunately I was cut off and isolated at the time. Would I do it again? Yes. But it can be a hard call for a private person to determine how far they should go to report on threats to person or property or to otherwise help out. Unless we were in their place it’s difficult to condemn their efforts when the outcome isn’t the best. For me the scars still exist – literally – and the nightmares have only recently begun to fade.

          • The Cat’s Vagina

            The police asked her to follow a criminal who they thought was so dangerous, they couldn’t leave him unbeaten for TEN seconds? I think not!

          • avelworldcreator

            Nope. They only asked her to get a street adress or a license plate number. After that she should have stopped. She may have kept following to get that license number though. But if the cops thought the guy was so potentially dangerous why’d they even go that far? Yeah, that town’s finest really had their shit together didn’t they? Let’s put an innocent witness at risk and beat the hell out of a person we haven’t even established as being a criminal suspect. The only one’s to blame in this mess and how it came out are the cops.

          • The Cat’s Vagina

            Look, I’m going to stop arguing with you because there’s a good chance you’re right and the lady did mean well. Just because it’s not 100% doesn’t mean I should come down on her without knowing for sure. So long as we can agree who the REAL villains are here, high five?

          • avelworldcreator

            High five 😀 That’s all I was concerned about. Being a victim tends to make one sensitive to victim blaming. I suspect you might have some insight there yourself.

          • The Cat’s Vagina

            As you can probably imagine, I make a terrible victim because I don’t trust the cops. If someone wrongs me, I feel challenged to handle it in a way that will both suck for Captain Assclown and NOT land me in jail. Once, I even resorted to witchcraft and it worked well enough to scare the hell out of me.

          • Blaine

            This is it. I hesitate to call the cops for what might be a property crime. A physical crime I might get involved in directly if I believe I can do any good (being armed helps). This is the only time I’ll call it in.

            It isn’t just a question of my brother’s keeper, I might endanger my brother by calling the cops into a situation where they are entirely capable of causing more harm than otherwise might have happened.

            Well intentioned or not I’d share some of the blame – it isn’t like we don’t have more than enough examples of cops making things worse or behaving unlawfully. A stolen car is a matter for the insurance co anyway, especially when the surrounding circumstances are so unclear.

          • avelworldcreator

            Stealing property is still an attack against the owner. Their livelihood, even their lives, may depend on immediate access. No, you would not share ANY blame. A person is NOT accountable for the irresponsible conduct of others unless they specifically acted with the purpose to induce or support such activity. And “the insurance will cover it” is an even crappier excuse. That’s part of why we pay higher prices often due to the increasing insurance cost against theft. The “but this bad thing might happen if I try to help someone else” is a just another dodge. Life’s a risk. Live with it.

          • Blaine

            Stealing property directly from someone is an attack against the owner – robbery. Stealing something unattended is larceny. If their lives directly depend on something then they should take more responsibility for safeguarding it.

            This isn’t like seeing someone breaking into a house, it is an unoccupied car and as it stands, the idiot didn’t see what they thought they saw. Malicious or not their negligence almost got an innocent man killed. ANd you say they share no blame? What country do you live in, surely not one where cops kill about 4 people every day and whoop the crap out of who knows how many others that don’t have it coming. YOU CALL THE COPS ONLY WHEN A SITUATION IS SO BAD YOU LITERALLY CANNOT MAKE IT WORSE. Otherwise you’re asking for a load of trouble for all involved.

            And yes, insurance is for stuff you can’t live without but also cannot guarantee in an absolute sense (like life insurance!). Easy to say “Live with the risk” when you’re putting someone else’s butt on the line. My motto might even be the same verbiage -“life’s a risk, live with it” as I take a risk that I’m not seeing someone breaking into a car, but actually working on their own vehicle. Maybe a totality of the circumstance needs to be assessed –

            Question -“why would someone break into a car in plain sight of any doofus driving by?”
            Answer – “they probably wouldn’t”
            Conclusion – “mind my own business before I make things worse”

          • avelworldcreator

            Look up the word “larceny”. Theft is theft. You might come of with names for differing kinds of theft but they are ALL attacks on the owner. They are direct violations of their personal boundaries – just like a direct assault on their immediate person is. Try using “weasel words” with someone who isn’t familiar with that type of bullshit. “Take more responsibility for safeguarding it”? Seriously? You sure go out of your way to blame victims. The only person responsible for a crime is the one committing it.

            The woman was not an “idiot”. You did not see what she saw. She was intelligent enough to know that her impressions of the situation could be incorrect – and she said so. She was also intelligent enough to not try to investigate the situation directly herself outside of any source of professional guidance. Negligence requires the person to ignore hazardous conditions that a reasonable person of average intelligence would consider based on their personal experience and training. Did she have ANY personal reason to suspect that the police force in her area had corrupt officers? No. More than likely any contact she previously had with the police was professional and courteous – just like the officer she was speaking to on the phone. And your command of statistics is pathetic and slanted. The number of people killed by police in 2016 is around a thousand people. If you did something as simplistic as dividing that number by the number of days in that year you do come with a number around four. How many cops does it take to kill one person? One. How many police officers are there in the U.S? Hell of a lot more than a thousand. In fact nearly 800,000. That means less than 1% of police officers killed someone. This site covers issues of bad cops, and they exist, but the majority of them are not killers – and the average person knows it. So stop with with the theatrics. If someone is stealing a car? Then the situation is already so bad that nothing can make it worse. That’s a major crime. If you are a criminal then the cops being called in will make the situation worse – for you.

            Insurance costs money and not everyone can readily afford replacement level insurance. Even if they could any theft would raise their rates and the replacement often isn’t immediate either. But, again, this is an evasive attempt on your part to minimize the consequence of theft. In fact you’ve been spouting ALL the justifications habitual criminals use to justify stealing.

            Question: “Would a thief steal a car in plain view of anyone?”
            Answer: Yes, and often. Why? Because they expect any doofus who spots them doing it to use the “minding my own business” stupidity instead of taking any constructive action. They even do it with people being assaulted and murdered.

            You have clearly next ZERO training in statistics and even less training in criminology but you definitely fall into the known patterns of criminal thinking.
            Good job!

          • Blaine

            Divide the total number of reported and logged cop killings from last year and you get over 3 per day. But is also widely understood that many go unreported or misreported. 4 per is not an outrageous estimate.

            Look up the difference between robbery, larceny, burglary and get an education. There IS a difference, maybe not in your simplistic fantasy land where Sheriff Taylor shows up when you call the cops, but in the real world of police response and courts and judges and insurance companies and justified use of force there is a world of difference.

            I’ll also add you have probably NEVER had to call the police in a hot situation or even a warm one or you wouldn’t be spouting your “call the cops first, worry about the consequences later” BS – you’d personally know better!

            That’s how people and pets get killed for no good reason within seconds of LE showing up on the scene. I’m Anglo and have had enough poor interaction with LE in my limited experience, if you’ve ever worked with or around a lot of black people you would not believe the stories they have relating to interaction with PD. I have not worked with a single black male that hasn’t had LE point a firearm at them at some point in their lives, and a surprising number of females report the same. These are people that have attended college, many with no record of any kind.

            Again, if the woman that called the cops on this innocent man has not a pang of guilt or sense of responsibility she’s as morally clueless as you are. Maybe after you get someone killed for changing a flat or fixing their mailbox you’ll finally get your wake up call. Might not be as easy to rationalize it away when its on your dime.

          • avelworldcreator

            And you give the misleading impression that police were killing at least four people every day and hiding data clusters or other distributions. They were not. You dodged the “less than 1% of the police forces of the U.S. ever participate in a killing” part. I gathered the statistical data and computed that all on my own. Compared to some of the non-linear calculus and statics work I’ve done over the years this was mind-numbingly simple. I even went so far as to limit my “back of the hand” calculations to just the sworn officers and not the entire staff of law enforcement agencies (that numbers in the millions). The worst the average encounter with the police results in is a ticket. It varies by jurisdiction of course, and some cops are corrupt as hell, but the average police officer is not going out of his way to be an asshole. More than a few are actually out their to serve their communities. This site only doubles down on those that violate their public trust and become thugs.

            I’m actually trained in law and I’m even a peer-reviewed scholar in the U.S. Constitutional whose work is used in education as well as a legal and technical compliance certification expert with respect to U.S. and international law. . I am aware of the differences between the terms you’ve listed. All are forms of theft and the only difference between them is the methodology. Theft is still theft – the unlawful taking of another person’s property. It’s still a direct violation of a person’s boundaries – that makes it a violation of the person by definition. But as far as the justified use of force? Try reading Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution where states can actually form a full military force during such times that the threat to “life or property does not admit delay.” The courts, as a matter of fact, have justified the use of lethal force to arrest theft as it is occurring. In fact it’s been justified by SCOTUS rulings.

            And, again, your assumptions about my legal history are very far off. I HAVE had to call the police in a “hot situation”. I’ve even had them called on me during a domestic dispute. And the cops in the last case calmed both of us down instead of arresting us like they could have. I’ve had bad encounters with cops and good ones. I’ve been arrested; in fact over the last one I’m in the middle of a civil rights case concerning it. I’ve also been a major crime victim as well.

            LE has a horrible track record of killing pets – and the most recent court case concerning it wound up just supporting this form of criminal trespass just because the people doing it are cops, but as far as killing people? The results have been mixed, but the average encounter with a cop rarely results in the death of a human being – even in the U.S.. I’ve even worked with, and around, black people. Can I believe cops have racist tendencies? Yep. About them unnecessarily pointing guns at people? Yep. But do I automatically assume every cop is that way? Not even close. Every large group has more than its share of shitheads and just by the law of averages their tendencies will out. A group with the level of power of cops have? At around 800K people? And less than 1% have killed another human being in the past year? I’m not exactly worried.

            No, the woman should feel anger that the police violated her trust in them that they would have conducted their investigation professionally and responsibly. She has absolutely no reason to feel guilt or any sense of responsibility for what other people did outside of her control. Don’t try to pull your lying guilt tactics on me or try using bullshit hypotheticals either. Find a softer target for your slime; it doesn’t work here.

          • Blaine

            You are out of your mind. You might be a “Constitutional Scholar” but you don’t know jack about the penal code. Lethal force can only be used to terminate a theft if it is in the form of a robbery, or a burglary in progress of a dwelling or attached structure, and in some states the curtilage as well. As a private citizen, shoot someone for a simple larceny and see how fast you get arrested and charged.

            Thank you for verifying my impression you’re not black, or if you’d actually had that many interactions with LE you wouldn’t have such a Pollyanna view. These aren’t “bullshit hypotheticals” BTW, this entire conversation is a result of a real man really getting the crap knocked out of him due to behavior from a third party you openly advocate. Your version of “better safe than sorry” might get someone killed, mine won’t.

            In your own words, ” the woman should feel anger that the police violated her trust in them”, yet this was entirely predictable. Beware unintended consequences/the road to hell is paved with good intentions etc etc etc…

          • avelworldcreator

            I’m aware of the details of the penal code (which varies by jurisdiction). And there was case law where a guy was shot running away carrying a TV. He was well outside of any curtilage. SCOTUS case. The use of lethal force was found to be justified. It’s in standard legal textbooks. The “Castle Doctrine” can also apply. You say “penal code” and I counter with “U.S. Constitution” and “SCOTUS rulings”. Guess which prevails in open court? My legal arguments have won court cases; how about you?

            Actually I haven’t indicated my race at all – not even indirectly. There you go assuming again. You have zero knowledge of my personal legal history beyond what I’ve directly mentioned or how many encounters I’ve had with LE. I have had a lot of negative ones as a matter of fact – at least five. Even had one where I knew the deputies were breaking the law, and when I mentioned some attorney instructions they started reaching for their holsters. Said later they were about to taze me for being “belligerent”. No fists raised. No raised voice. I’m all of 5’3″ and was completely unarmed and just doing legal paperwork. I’ve had to deal with a case of entrapment (with the officers doing it actually admitting to it later!). My complications with the law came from a pathological liar who, unfortunately, was a CI for the county I was living in at the time. In the time I dealt with the dude I found he had a power trip from setting people up for the cops – then he did it to me. So I’ve seen a corrupt legal system and been beaten beyond the point of submission. Maybe we should talk about that large knife wound by my heart? But I’ve also found the system is only corrupt in certain places and not across the board. It’s called “hoping for the best and preparing for the worst”. When I said “bullshit hypotheticals” I knew exactly what I was saying. I know what a real “snitch” is.

            Just this morning I spoke to a friend who is black, knows how the police are quite well, (I’m a mostly-European mestizo by the way), and described the story here. He has a family and a son about the the man in the story’s age. He said the woman did right. If you ask the young man directly he probably wouldn’t complain about the woman – only about the cops actions. They were the only ones who did wrong. They have taken an oath to protect and serve the law – and not beat the fuck out of members of the community on flimsy pretext.

            The behavior of the cops was not “entirely predictable” unless you are a hateful, paranoid idiot. Let’s use dumbass thinking based entirely on emotion and anecdote:
            All cops are bad.
            Cops always do bad things to people every time they get involved, especially if the people are black.
            If you call cops on black people they will have bad things done to them by the cops.

            Now to use logic and fact:
            The majority of police officers feel strongly about protecting and serving their community though there are enough of them that by the law of averages you will have “bad apples” among them.
            Statistically, the worst of the police forces tend to be quite racist.
            The consequence of this is that the instantaneous probability of an encounter between an officer and a black person turning out badly is better than chance (> 50%) but substantially less than an absolute certainty (<< 100%).
            Applying the binomial distribution over time the probability rapidly approaches chance (= 50%) unless dynamic controls are put in place to shift the probability to less the chance (< 50%)
            Controls are being proposed, implemented, tested, and improved over the course of time especially when there is public outcry.
            Conclusion: If you make a report to the police the probability of a negative outcome is uncertain but increasingly unlikely to be greater than chance regardless of ethnic background. The outcome is not "entirely predictable".

            Pithy platitudes like "The way to Hell is paved with good intention" is just manipulative emotional argument.

          • Blaine

            You are so full of crap you’re floating away…

            Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)[2], is a civil case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that, under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, he or she may not use deadly force to prevent escape unless “the officer has probable cause
            to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or
            serious physical injury to the officer or others.” It was found that use
            of deadly force to prevent escape is an unreasonable seizure under the
            Fourth Amendment, in the absence of probable cause that the fleeing
            suspect posed a physical danger.

            I’d recommend you NOT teach use of force at any CCW classes…

          • avelworldcreator

            Wikipedia, huh? This is the kind of stuff I read:
            http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6811&context=jclc
            The paper is from 1994, only 9 years after Garner
            You might actually read the article you cited on Wikipedia at the very end. The Court substantially modified its previous opinion. Citing article headline and summaries without providing sources is a bad practice in legal research and accountability.
            The case you missed was:
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_v._Connor
            That would be: Graham v. Connor, 490 US 386 (1989)
            I would recommend that you not try to teach any law classes at all. Care to stick your foot even deeper into your mouth?

          • Blaine

            Thanks for the link to “the kind of stuff you read”. Maybe you should actually read it instead of just tossing it out there, as it does nothing to bolster your argument.

            —-Even though Memphis’ policy before Garner was consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision,the police restricted the policy even further after the decision. In fact, the policy after Garner emphasized “that deadly force should be used only as a last resort to protect life, not merely to apprehend fleeing dangerous felons.”—–

            And from the Illinois Penal Code —-(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to
            the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to
            defend himself or another against such other’s imminent use of unlawful
            force. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or
            likely to cause death or great bodily harm ONLY IF HE REASONABLY BELIEVES THAT SUCH FORCE IS NECESSARY TO PREVENT IMMINENT DEATH OR GREAT BODILY HARM TO HIMSELF OR ANOTHER, OR THE COMMISSION OF A FORCIBLE FELONY.—-

            The above is consistent with every state with few exceptions – eg Texas allows for shooting a fleeing burglar (of a dwelling) between sunset and sunrise.

            Don’t get yourself a carry handgun any time soon…or better yet maybe you should. Being an eminent scholar you might undertake to understand your rights instead of spouting off.

            All of this is irrelevant to the conversation anyway. Boiled free of all the BS. you argue for calling the cops on the flimsiest of pretense and letting the chips fall where they may with an unencumbered conscience, and I’m suggesting one should have a better idea before involving folks who are empowered to use all manner of force with virtually no oversight. I go further and assert one has some (not all) responsibility for the outcome should the call be in error. And in context of a specific and very real situation where the outcome almost got a man killed. Whether Crosby himself absolved the woman is not even relevant. I’ll bet its the last time she calls 911 without knowing s**t from Shinola.

          • avelworldcreator

            I read the document. And I started off by mentioning the varies according by jurisdiction. Throwing Illinois and Texas at me doesn’t prove any point. After pointing out a scholarly article with research showing that the SCOTUS case you threw at me didn’t do crap as far as police conduct I then pointed out case law cited in the very same article you used as your source (right down to copy/pasting the [2] for the footnote reference!) that a subsequent SCOTUS case substantially modified the ruling making it mostly of none effect.

            I wasn’t calling the cops in the story above. if that’s what you saying. The women did and “flimsiest of pretense” (what was she pretending? I suspect you meant “pretexts”) is quite subjective. If someone spots someone else possibly breaking into my home or car I want them to call – even if it is me. This is the idea behind a “neighborhood watch” – and they work.But the fact that you are railing so hard against members of the community watching for signs of criminal activity and trying to do something constructive about it reveals much about you. That you can’t separate mentally the responsible conduct of others from the irresponsible conduct reactions to that conduct from those is a position of great public trust says even more. No oversight? The ancient question Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? In the U.S. we’ve come up with the answer. The police have oversight – and it is us. The public is finally waking up to the problem and it will take time to be corrected, but it WILL be corrected. People are only responsible for the outcome of their direct actions. The cops here are the only ones to blame for their criminal conduct. They even realized it at the end. The judge that saw the video also called them on their bullshit. Everyone else knows who the blame fell – in its entirety and that was on the officers; not the reporting party. And given that she only learned the outcome of her call, if ever, only long after the event happened I really doubt what occurred affected any of her future actions. With your loosely associative thinking you definitely don’t know shit from Shinola (this is an adult conversation and I’m not worried about censoring my words).

          • Blaine

            The document you linked to verified that Tenn/ Garner still sets the legal standard. Your footnote reference does not detail anything that overturns that decision or even weakens it to any meaningful degree. As a private citizen, kill someone to terminate a larceny and you’ll go to prison. LE will walk anyway.

            In this case, which forms the context for the entire discussion, the judge didn’t call them out and there was no effective oversight. Their use of force was justified and the only justice served (if you can call it that) is an innocent man was not charged with stealing his own car or resisting arrest by allowing his face to collide with their fists.

            “…It will take time to be corrected, but WILL be corrected…” is nothing but words that will lead to nothing as long as people continue to view LE as the fix-it for every unclear situation they come across, and then exonerate them for their actions when it goes South. Where’s the correction for Crosby?

            The fix is for people to change how they view LE and the conditions under which they decide to call them. I’d be amazed if learning of the actions following her call, she doesn’t view LE with a more discerning eye. But then in this day and age it seems many are all too comfortable avoiding responsibility for their actions. You’re probably correct and she couldn’t care less – not my fault, not my problem.

            Crime rates have fallen yet police violence continues apace. If public oversight (your fellow citizens) are your answer to a check on police overreach and criminality then you haven’t been paying attention – citizens don’t have a seat at the table. Even most citizen review boards lack any sort of binding decision making. When involved in the process in form of a jury, your fellow citizens consistently rule in favor of LE even when the facts are obvious, and then judges often fail to hold them to account on the rare instances they are convicted.

            I’ve said my piece and heard yours. I still think you’re wrong, and especially in context of this story. You can rely solely on LE discretion to produce a fair outcome when instance after instance shows this to be a dodgy bet. If I involve the cops it will be a genuine emergency and yes, being fully informed of the possibilities, I will take my share of responsibility for the outcome. To look at it any other way is infantile.

          • Cee Jay

            She also gave them a plate at the start of the video how come they didn’t pull up his plate and see oh a black man own this car….

          • avelworldcreator

            Yeah, I mentioned this earlier. Yet the cops don’t bother to run the plate until after they’ve got the poor guy on the ground.

  • Zikina Dinastija

    I MEAN THIS IS WAY WE PAYING TAXES FOR THIS THEY CAN US KILL AND BEATING TO DEAD ,THIS NEED STOP ,THEY ARE NOT POLICE

  • David Hall

    What a POS bitch, nosy MF should be in jail along with all the cops. What a joke America has become, the bad part is all the snitches calling in all the time are getting people killed because of their fucking lies. Just like happened to the guy in Walmart in Ohio. After they rushed in and killed in, the POS guy finally admitted he had lied to say he was pointed a gun at people and loading ammo into it. It was a BB gun that he was buying from Walmart. This shit is what happens when assholes like him and this bitch call the cops. Knowing if cops are called someone will probably be murdered by the SS.

  • Rizzo

    Just pigs being pigs.

  • Butch Taylor

    Those dicks swarmed on him poking and gouging like he was the last piece of pussy on earth. For him it was a traffic stop. He’s a young black man, out of the car with his hands in the air and according to protocol he has the shit beat out of him. As with all racial profiled cases in America these days the DA and Chief of idiots found no unwarranted use of excessive force. Just another nigger fucked up by whitey.

  • Ed

    All Cops can’t keep saying “stop resisting” to justify assaulting someone. We must let a jury of their peers decide in each and every case, the prosecutors will have to work to Free a Cop! I can’t see how we let Prosecutors decide without a legal explanation!

  • Badcopwatch

    The police are the most dangerous gang in the country and should be treated as such by all members of the public.

  • Kountry Bumpkin

    This is what happens when you look for people who have the psychological profile of a mass murdered, who’s dumb as a brick, completely ignore all their signs of PTSD and/or drug addiction, give them military style training, then give them a gun, badge, license to kill and no accountability, where could it possibly go wrong.

  • Badcopwatch

    Check this out:

    Police Are More Dangerous To The Public Than Are Criminals — Paul Craig Roberts

    http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2013/09/16/police-are-more-dangerous-to-the-public-than-are-criminals-paul-craig-roberts/

  • The Cat’s Vagina

    Hey, he came out lucky! At least the lady who called 911 didn’t shoot him in “self defense.” Apparently, we’re cool with people doing that these days… creeping up on somebody and blowing them away when confronted about it with even the vaguest hint of hostility.

  • Doug Finlay

    Ahhh, the American system. If it moves or makes a sound, kill it. Thankfully there were enough officers to hold the innocent man down before someone was retarded enough to pull their gun. SHOCKING!

  • yLordy

    America, the land of the free, as long as you are white or a cop!!

  • Ibcamn

    corrupt criminals,cops are criminals,all cops….and that nosey snowflake that called it in,should be sued by this guy too and have her ass handed to her in court for being the racist feminist she must be,hating a man,a black man so much she accused a man of something he didn’t do,and im guessing she is no expert on how someone steals a car……fucking nosey bitches[man or women]fu’k thes kind of people,sticking your nose in where it don’t belong….and those cops need to be taken down in the same manner,eye for an eye….

  • Ibcamn

    she lied to justify her shitty actions….i hope someone some day calls the cops on her and say that she was breaking into a house and it looked like she had a bar and was jimming the door open,and the cops tackle the bitch and arrest her just to find out,it is her own house,and that she is arrested in front of all the niehbors and friends…she deserves that at least if not more……..nosy cunt.

  • 6thsense79

    I am grateful that cameras are exposing cops. At least now when people report that an officer acted inappropriately we have cameras showing exactly what occurred and their defenders are left trying to justify things that most people with common sense knows can’t be justified.

    Also from the video the young man had guns drawn on him and was bum rushed and assaulted a few seconds after getting out the car.

    Now if an officer feels a suspect is armed or dangerous they will not bum rush him which is stupid and puts them in even more harm. What they will do is either taz him or shoot him.

    This assault occurred because the cops wanted to beat him for not immediately following their stupidity. They then found out they beat down a man who did nothing wrong and were worried about a lawsuit or complaint so instead of just apologizing and letting him go they charged him with b.s. crimes. This is freaking madness.

    • avelworldcreator

      Cops and prosecutors are still slow to get that message yet though. The fact the police department (as have several others) was reluctant to release their own video is telling. As long as the public is continuing to record even that pathetic attempt at hiding the evidence will eventually bite them in the ass.

  • Diane

    Do you realize this man could have been killed? He came very close to becoming a statistic! This man could have been my husband!
    Not only did they use excessive force on a citizen who was not resisting arrest, (see the one wearing a red shirt punching him while he is on the floor??!!!) but after they understood that it was his own car, they arrested him anyway! And all this only because he is African-American! THIS HAS TO BE STOPPED!