Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
swells08

Mugger Punk picks on wrong victim...

Recommended Posts

Round and round, what comes around goes around.

My sig.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got his ass kicked and shot with his own gun.How's he going to explain that in the clink. He must have got his ass punked hard when they put him in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not trying to start a fight, but let's say this fellow was caught by the police during, or after, a robbery and ended up with the same injuries. Would you still say that it was awesome, or would you instead claim police brutality? Just playing a little devil's advocate, to make you think.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Huge difference in cops beating a suspect and a single Man defending himself......but nice try!!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not trying to start a fight, but let's say this fellow was caught by the police during, or after, a robbery and ended up with the same injuries. Would you still say that it was awesome, or would you instead claim police brutality? Just playing a little devil's advocate, to make you think.

If the guy was trying to rob a cop then it would be justified as it is in this case. Otherwise no it would be police brutality, its not their job to deliver justice it is their job to apprehend suspects (without harm) so that the court system can provide justice.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not trying to start a fight, but let's say this fellow was caught by the police during, or after, a robbery and ended up with the same injuries. Would you still say that it was awesome, or would you instead claim police brutality? Just playing a little devil's advocate, to make you think.

If the guy was trying to rob a cop then it would be justified as it is in this case. Otherwise no it would be police brutality, its not their job to deliver justice it is their job to apprehend suspects (without harm) so that the court system can provide justice.

 

Huge difference in cops beating a suspect and a single Man defending himself......but nice try!!

 

Just because someone ends up with injuries during an arrest doesn't mean they were beaten for no reason. People can, and often do, fight during an arrest.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to justify police brutality. As already pointed out, and correctly so, it's not the job of the police to mete out punishment. I am just trying to get you to think before automatically assuming police brutality.

Edited by JamesLi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I assume they will and act accordingly. "Yes Sir, No Sir, Thank you Officer"wink.png

Ive found this to be the best way to keep from getting beat. Its sad but thats how it is.

 

That said if somebody fights with the police than sure they should whoop their ass too but Im talking actually assaulting the police, not this bullshit "he pulled away from me so I cracked his skull with my baton b/c he was resisting" shit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely no problem with a officer defending themselves whatsoever. If a person assaults an officer......well, stupid is as stupid does, and they are in for trouble for sure.

Maybe one reason folks jump to a conclusion about brutality is the seemed loss of reasonable interaction between police and civilians. Police train for, and Assume the Worst from, everyone they interact with in the day. Therefore we seem to have a "Mandatory Compliance" type of interaction instead of a normal and reasonable conversation between an officer and a civilian.

You ask one too many questions, and maybe look at the officer sideways......Out comes the Tazer or pepper spray.

Such is the public perception anyway.

I must add, all of my encounters with the police in Montana have been pleasant, but limited to a couple of traffic stops. Only 1 young officer seemed way out there with his militant attitude. So 3 out of 4 were fine polite folks!

Too bad cops aren't filmed and broadcast on youtube when they are being Cool, I guess.

Edited by RobRez

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely no problem with a officer defending themselves whatsoever. If a person assaults an officer......well, stupid is as stupid does, and they are in for trouble for sure.

Maybe one reason folks jump to a conclusion about brutality is the seemed loss of reasonable interaction between police and civilians. Police train for, and Assume the Worst from, everyone they interact with in the day. Therefore we seem to have a "Mandatory Compliance" type of interaction instead of a normal and reasonable conversation between an officer and a civilian.

You ask one too many questions, and maybe look at the officer sideways......Out comes the Tazer or pepper spray.

Such is the public perception anyway.

 

My interactions with people are the same as it would be out of uniform, that is until they create a situation that calls for a different reaction. I personally love talking with people, be it holding a conversation or just a passing hello while holding a door open. That will change though, when a person's behavior dictates such. I won't lie and say I don't prepare for the worst, but I always hope for the best. I can't attest for all police officers, but most officers I know aren't brutish thugs looking for people to victimize. There are clearly some terrible ones out there. That Ohio officer that lost his damned sense on the CCW holder comes to mind.(At the very least that guy needs to be fired if he hasn't already been.) He's still the exception, though. Not the rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely no problem with a officer defending themselves whatsoever. If a person assaults an officer......well, stupid is as stupid does, and they are in for trouble for sure.

Maybe one reason folks jump to a conclusion about brutality is the seemed loss of reasonable interaction between police and civilians. Police train for, and Assume the Worst from, everyone they interact with in the day. Therefore we seem to have a "Mandatory Compliance" type of interaction instead of a normal and reasonable conversation between an officer and a civilian.

You ask one too many questions, and maybe look at the officer sideways......Out comes the Tazer or pepper spray.

Such is the public perception anyway.

 

My interactions with people are the same as it would be out of uniform, that is until they create a situation that calls for a different reaction. I personally love talking with people, be it holding a conversation or just a passing hello while holding a door open. That will change though, when a person's behavior dictates such. I won't lie and say I don't prepare for the worst, but I always hope for the best. I can't attest for all police officers, but most officers I know aren't brutish thugs looking for people to victimize. There are clearly some terrible ones out there. That Ohio officer that lost his damned sense on the CCW holder comes to mind.(At the very least that guy needs to be fired if he hasn't already been.) He's still the exception, though. Not the rule.

I agree. I think what people are shown on TV or the internet is what they "Stereotype" police to be. Not always based on the reality of their own experience. I have had only 2 really negative experiences with police, and both were times I was not minding my own business, and Many fine pleasant exchanges, such as being pulled over so he could check out my 1954 chevy pick-up. That was a good time.

It is a good point to ask ourselves Why we think What we think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just think it's a shame there wasn't a cop around to protect this guy. What's this country coming to when someone can't pursue their chosen occupation without fear of being assaulted? The story is a sham anyway because it claims he had a gun. Everyone knows guns are illegal in Chicago so I call BS.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just think it's a shame there wasn't a cop around to protect this guy. What's this country coming to when someone can't pursue their chosen occupation without fear of being assaulted? The story is a sham anyway because it claims he had a gun. Everyone knows guns are illegal in Chicago so I call BS.

 

Wow is that sarcasm I taste?...lol I think it might be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just think it's a shame there wasn't a cop around to protect this guy. What's this country coming to when someone can't pursue their chosen occupation without fear of being assaulted? The story is a sham anyway because it claims he had a gun. Everyone knows guns are illegal in Chicago so I call BS.

 

Lol it must be BS because you're right, handguns are illegal in Chicago, therefore there's absolutely no way a bad guy had one. Because that law protects innocent people, of course.

Good for the "victim. "That story made me laugh, he got what he deserved.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

im fine with police brutality in any situation that involves a non complient criminal. if you are too drunk/stoned/stupid to do what you are told by a police officer carrying out his duties then a good tazering or a bit of batton rash should serve as a reminder that you just need to pull your head in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just think it's a shame there wasn't a cop around to protect this guy. What's this country coming to when someone can't pursue their chosen occupation without fear of being assaulted? The story is a sham anyway because it claims he had a gun. Everyone knows guns are illegal in Chicago so I call BS.

 

Wow is that sarcasm I taste?...lol I think it might be.

I just think it's a shame there wasn't a cop around to protect this guy. What's this country coming to when someone can't pursue their chosen occupation without fear of being assaulted? The story is a sham anyway because it claims he had a gun. Everyone knows guns are illegal in Chicago so I call BS.

 

Lol it must be BS because you're right, handguns are illegal in Chicago, therefore there's absolutely no way a bad guy had one. Because that law protects innocent people, of course.

Good for the "victim. "That story made me laugh, he got what he deserved.

 

Alright, maybe there was a tad of sarcasm involved. I guess it showed, huh? It's just strange that as long as handguns have been illegal in Chicago there's no problem with criminals getting them. Just shows what a lie city government is perpetuating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem people have with police is that they sometimes fail at with the choice of their conduct.

 

I understand that cops face very bad people, and maybe that's why they sometimes act the way

they do to good people, but, to the person who was speeding unintentionally and got stopped, that

is their maybe ONE AND ONLY interaction with the police. And, if Joe Uniform starts with the Gestapo

routine, that could make that good citizen despise all police, forever.

 

It's like Joe DiMaggio said, he always played his very best, as someone might be in the stands who

had never seen him play before, and he didn't want to disappoint him. I know I'm mangling the quote,

but that's the point. When someone straps on the uniform, they take on a huge burden that I respect

and admire them for doing so. But, that uniform REQUIRES your best, and if you can't give it,

I have the right to complain about your conduct, as I, and others, pay your salary.

 

To get slowly back on topic, yes, if you don't comply with the police, YOU made the choice, and now

the cop gives you what you mandated. BUT, even if you are a child raping piece of shit, if you give up quietly,

you need to be arrested professionally. I would understand if such a person got smacked into the doorframe

of the cruiser, but I wouldn't approve.

 

Lastly, I am glad this punk got served. But, he picked on the only guy who could have done that to him. This

is why gun rights are so important, it allows ANYONE the chance at defending themselves.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not trying to start a fight, but let's say this fellow was caught by the police during, or after, a robbery and ended up with the same injuries. Would you still say that it was awesome, or would you instead claim police brutality? Just playing a little devil's advocate, to make you think.

If the guy was trying to rob a cop then it would be justified as it is in this case. Otherwise no it would be police brutality, its not their job to deliver justice it is their job to apprehend suspects (without harm) so that the court system can provide justice.

 

Huge difference in cops beating a suspect and a single Man defending himself......but nice try!!

 

Just because someone ends up with injuries during an arrest doesn't mean they were beaten for no reason. People can, and often do, fight during an arrest.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to justify police brutality. As already pointed out, and correctly so, it's not the job of the police to mete out punishment. I am just trying to get you to think before automatically assuming police brutality.

 

There is a huge difference between police brutality and a suspect getting injured during an arrest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cops are people... Civilian people... There is no such thing as cop/civilian. Cops ARE civilians. They have no more rights than anyone else on the street, save that they can cite for misdemeanors.

 

A person is only a "Civilian" when compared with a "Soldier." The word "civilian" goes back to the late 14th Century and is from Old French civilien, "of the civil law". It was used to refer to judges, lawyers, firemen, police, and other civil servants. Civilian is believed to have been used to refer to non-combatants as early as 1829.

 

Their "Rank" carries as much weight as if McDonald's decided to call part-timers Sargent and full timers Lieutenant. In time of war, they are civilians, legally they are civilians. In every way... you get the picture?

 

The bad habit many police have, and the source of the bulk of the resentment felt by the rest of the population, comes from cops who believe they are NOT civilians. They act as if they are outside the society... anyone have friends who were cops who drove drunk regularly? I do. Many in fact. How about speeding and running red lights in or out of the squad car because they feel like it? I do. Flash the badge and "have a nice day." Condescending to their FELLOW AMERICANS by calling them "Civilians" as if they were not... it breeds the "Us vs Them" mentality, and the resentment that logically follows.

 

I have a LOT of friends who happen to be cops... I have dealt with the police on a regular basis for work and living where I do. This is not a criticism of guys who do their best and really care about their community. It IS a criticism of the culture we have created in the community.

 

For those who hate the cops, pull your heads out of your asses and try to relax around the guy/girl in the uniform. If you want to avoid problems, try not being the adversary they are told to expect. I know and joke with our local cops here, even though they had me at barrels end a couple months ago. The CCW goes a long way towards bridging the gap... it makes the conversation two way. "Hello... before we continue... I legally must identify myself"... and then be normal. When both sides are looking for a fight,they are going to find it. And it's going to take effort from both educated people out of uniform, and rational people in uniform to cool this social problem down. If you want more cops to treat people like equals, start acting like it.

 

Oh yeah... I loved the story in the link. I hope we get to a place in this country where EVERYWHERE criminals fear getting shot/beat by their intended victims.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.lvrj.com/...-133243078.html

 

This is my buddies story. You decide if derek did something wrong from the video. I'll comment later.

Typical, I think its so fucking ridiculous how they beat your ass and then charge YOU with assault. Im just glad to hear the department actually acknowledges he was out of line. Killed 2 people in 5 1/2 years!!!?? WTF? He must just have really bad luckunsure.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.lvrj.com/...-133243078.html

 

This is my buddies story. You decide if derek did something wrong from the video. I'll comment later.

Typical, I think its so fucking ridiculous how they beat your ass and then charge YOU with assault. Im just glad to hear the department actually acknowledges he was out of line. Killed 2 people in 5 1/2 years!!!?? WTF? He must just have really bad luckunsure.png

Cop had cause to search, for his protection. Crooks lied about being property owner. suspicious? He did kill 2 people in 2 yrs. both were justified. Bad luck or bad people/part of town? Bad luck or doing his job? Quick to judge?.... This is my dad's opinion:

QUOTE:

 

Well, you can't really see what exactly went down but here are the facts from video and audio leading up to the confrontation and from the audio during the struggle.

 

 

 

It's night time and a guy standing in a driveway with a video camera is suspicious enough to warrant investigation and questioning.

 

 

 

The officer approaches and asks the appropriate question. Do you live here? The reply was "no" which made it reasonable and necessary to further investigate why this person is on private property at night without any apparent reason or explanation. (A reasonable person would lower the camera and give an explanation like, it's my parents house or a friends house etc. The guy was looking for trouble or was looking for a lawsuit).

 

 

 

Now the officer has the right to pat him down for weapons for his own safety while further investigating. He needs the guy to lower the camera, place it on the ground or hand it to the officer since the officer has the right to pat him down and needs the suspects hands empty and free. The camera, even a small camera can be used as a weapon if it's used to strike a blow to the face or head. He refuses to lower the camera and he changes his story so he lied or is now lying about living there. Either way, it's suspicious and his refusal to cooperate is delaying a Peace officer and resisting the officer from performing his duties.

 

 

 

Once the officer grabs the suspect to pat him down, it appears and sounds like there is a struggle. The office warns him to cooperate and from the audio it sounds as though a struggle is continuing and does not sound like a beating. The constant screams for help don't stop when he is ordered to stop. The officer(s) is in serious and immediate risk having a potentially violent and hostile crowd form and attack the officers and linch the suspect. The office needs to control that and they need to get the suspect cuffed, searched and locked in the car immediately which means dragging him kicking and fighting but they need to do it fast.

 

 

 

His injuries look minor and typical of taking a struggling suspect down. I've done way, way worse and it was purely as a result of getting the suspect controlled, down and cuffed.

 

 

 

If I was the IA investigator and based on just the video and audio the officer would be exonerated immediately. The officer was performing his duty, gave verbal lawful and reasonable commands several times which the suspect refused. The suspect lied. Once the officer was in proximity he was placed in the position of having to physically remove the camera in order to conduct a safe pat down for weapons and the brief moment of video indicates that the suspect was did not comply and the audio supports it. My opinion is based on just video and audio and is without, the officers statement, interrogation the suspect, eye witnesses and taking into account back up officers statements, medical report and officers past record for a propensity of excessive force. The suspects injuries look minor and typical of taking a struggling person down. I've done way, way worse and it was purely as a result of getting the suspect controlled, down and cuffed. - ( this is a conversation I had with my dad, who is a former police officer, concerning this incident and this is his response concerning Derek and how he handled this situation ).

 

 

WAITE:

I know Derek very well. He is a very good friend of mine and he doesn't lie. I asked him what happened and he said Crooks reached out to grab him ( just off camera on Crooks left side, with his left arm) and Derek took him down in self defense. He said he never hurt Crooks intentionally. Crooks was hurt when he hit the ground in an lawful arrest, not from police brutality. Derek didn't "beat his ass" as big-j suggests, though Derek very well could have, being, he is a Krav instructor. Things aren't always as they seem, in this case the bad guy, looking to make a buck, got what he was looking for. I wish he would try this shit with me, I wouldn't be as nice if I knew his intentions. smile.png NOTE: Crooks makes his living filming police! He was looking for a lawsuit and always does. Crooks is a Crook!

Edited by Waite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone knows guns are illegal in Chicago so I call BS.

handguns are illegal in Chicago

Not anymore, the Supreme Court overturned the unconstitutional handgun ban in July 2010.

 

I'm sure the attacker had a Chicago handgun permit though ;)

Edited by Snoofer Inc.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.lvrj.com/...-133243078.html

 

This is my buddies story. You decide if derek did something wrong from the video. I'll comment later.

Typical, I think its so fucking ridiculous how they beat your ass and then charge YOU with assault. Im just glad to hear the department actually acknowledges he was out of line. Killed 2 people in 5 1/2 years!!!?? WTF? He must just have really bad luckunsure.png

Cop had cause to search, for his protection. Crooks lied about being property owner. suspicious? He did kill 2 people in 2 yrs. both were justified. Bad luck or bad people/part of town? Bad luck or doing his job? Quick to judge?.... This is my dad's opinion:

QUOTE:

 

Well, you can't really see what exactly went down but here are the facts from video and audio leading up to the confrontation and from the audio during the struggle.

 

 

 

It's night time and a guy standing in a driveway with a video camera is suspicious enough to warrant investigation and questioning.

 

 

 

The officer approaches and asks the appropriate question. Do you live here? The reply was "no" which made it reasonable and necessary to further investigate why this person is on private property at night without any apparent reason or explanation. (A reasonable person would lower the camera and give an explanation like, it's my parents house or a friends house etc. The guy was looking for trouble or was looking for a lawsuit).

 

 

 

Now the officer has the right to pat him down for weapons for his own safety while further investigating. He needs the guy to lower the camera, place it on the ground or hand it to the officer since the officer has the right to pat him down and needs the suspects hands empty and free. The camera, even a small camera can be used as a weapon if it's used to strike a blow to the face or head. He refuses to lower the camera and he changes his story so he lied or is now lying about living there. Either way, it's suspicious and his refusal to cooperate is delaying a Peace officer and resisting the officer from performing his duties.

 

 

 

Once the officer grabs the suspect to pat him down, it appears and sounds like there is a struggle. The office warns him to cooperate and from the audio it sounds as though a struggle is continuing and does not sound like a beating. The constant screams for help don't stop when he is ordered to stop. The officer(s) is in serious and immediate risk having a potentially violent and hostile crowd form and attack the officers and linch the suspect. The office needs to control that and they need to get the suspect cuffed, searched and locked in the car immediately which means dragging him kicking and fighting but they need to do it fast.

 

 

 

His injuries look minor and typical of taking a struggling suspect down. I've done way, way worse and it was purely as a result of getting the suspect controlled, down and cuffed.

 

 

 

If I was the IA investigator and based on just the video and audio the officer would be exonerated immediately. The officer was performing his duty, gave verbal lawful and reasonable commands several times which the suspect refused. The suspect lied. Once the officer was in proximity he was placed in the position of having to physically remove the camera in order to conduct a safe pat down for weapons and the brief moment of video indicates that the suspect was did not comply and the audio supports it. My opinion is based on just video and audio and is without, the officers statement, interrogation the suspect, eye witnesses and taking into account back up officers statements, medical report and officers past record for a propensity of excessive force. The suspects injuries look minor and typical of taking a struggling person down. I've done way, way worse and it was purely as a result of getting the suspect controlled, down and cuffed. - ( this is a conversation I had with my dad, who is a former police officer, concerning this incident and this is his response concerning Derek and how he handled this situation ).

 

 

WAITE:

I know Derek very well. He is a very good friend of mine and he doesn't lie. I asked him what happened and he said Crooks reached out to grab him ( just off camera on Crooks left side, with his left arm) and Derek took him down in self defense. He said he never hurt Crooks intentionally. Crooks was hurt when he hit the ground in an lawful arrest, not from police brutality. Derek didn't "beat his ass" as big-j suggests, though Derek very well could have, being, he is a Krav instructor. Things aren't always as they seem, in this case the bad guy, looking to make a buck, got what he was looking for. I wish he would try this shit with me, I wouldn't be as nice if I knew his intentions. smile.png NOTE: Crooks makes his living filming police! He was looking for a lawsuit and always does. Crooks is a Crook!

A camera isn't a weapon or probable cause for ANYTHING. Your entire case to excuse the officer is screwed right there.

 

He will win his lawsuit, and the taxpayers will foot the bill for this cop acting like this.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A camera isn't a weapon? I could smash your head in with much less than a camera! I've had an officer hand cuff a suspect, once the right hand was cuffed a struggle ensued, the one cuffed hand became a weapon that struck an officers head, resulting in almost a death blow! Stick to shit you know, dude. As far as probable cause the suspect lied to an officer of the law, didn't co-operate and was arrested. simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

Tromix - Lead Delivery Systems
Dinzag Arms
CHAOS, Inc
Mississippi Auto Arms, Inc
Cobra's Custom
Carolina Shooters Supply
R & R Targets
LONE STAR ARMS
SGM Tactical
Mach 1 Arsenal
K-VAR
C&S Metall-Werkes
American Specialty Ammo
Csspecs Magazines
Phoenix Technology
Evlutionz LLC


  • Chatbox

    Load More
    You don't have permission to chat.
×