Grandpa Tastes Concrete Over Videogames

[samsonguy920]

I don't care if it was MW3, $60 doesn't warrant that much force to a geriatric person. There are plenty of punks terrorizing people and pushing crap, and stealing personal stuff from people's homes. The cops can go hog crazy on them. Terrorizing a little boy and incapacitating an old man is unwarranted.
There is getting to be too many bad things like this coming out about the police for me to feel safe around any of them. Since when did the civil police force start reading from the Nazi Stormtrooper manual?

 

[Fiz_The_Toaster]

I'm also a little disgusted that the people there were too busy filming with their phones rather than helping.

Helping? After they'd just seen what happened to the last guy who 'helped the police with their enquiries'?

.

Sorry, I mean to say withhold, didn't re-read what I typed.

They could've grabbed something to wipe the blood off the guy's face, ask the cop if the guy needs medical help. Hell I don't know, other than just standing there like an idiot filming the whole thing, and making stupid comments.

Entirely agree, and my first comment was me being flippant anyways, despite the entire thing just bringing me down. However, yes, maybe there was fear in getting involved after seeing how they were treating the guy. Someone did step forward and start assisting eventually, but often, crowds will just freeze up and watch until one snaps out of it and starts to do something.

Oh no harm no foul, but yeah this is just a situation where you can't help but just be disgusted with the whole thing, so no need to make this into a mudslinging contest.

I'm glad that person did help though, that old guy looked in ruff shape, and I just hope he's not seriously injured. It's such a shame though that it took that long for him to come forward and help, but it did come nonetheless. Such is the mentality of crowds unfortunately.

 

[brainslurper]

If police officers can't properly constrain a grandpa without shattering his face on the floor, then we need to put more money into police training. I don't think it's shoplifting unless you actually try to steal something, putting it somewhere to hold is in no way stealing.

 

[Lilani]

Would it be in poor taste to say "a noticeable taste in blood is not a part of the test?"

In all seriousness, regardless of what the man did or how much of a "threat" the officers thought he might have posed, I'm relatively sure it would have been possible to incapacitate him without causing him to bleed so profusely. I mean, to be bleeding THAT much he had to have broken his nose or lost a few teeth in the process. That is simply unnecessary. And if it was an accident, they simply need to come out and say they didn't mean to do so much damage and fully cover his medical expenses (in fact, the medical expenses should be covered regardless).

 

[UsefulPlayer 1]

I bet that cop was feeling antsy and was waiting to for someone to step out of line.

Because I don't see the "Protect and Serve" idea by slamming gramps into the ground for a video game.

 

[Weaver]

Isn't it shoplifting only if you attempt to leave the store without paying for the item? I was under the impression that you could put it anywhere (within reason) between where it sits and the checkout line.

Don't know if anyone answered this yet, but!

Arizona state law 13-1805: Section A: Subsection 5 states that concealing an item you haven't purchased is considered shoplifting. 13-1805: Section B: Subsection 1 also states that because he did knowingly (As in, wasn't drunk or crazy or anything), force can be used in his arrest.

You don't actually have to leave the store in order for it to be shoplifting.

Isn't it only shop-lifting if he leaves the shop with the item? I didn't realise you could preemptively accuse and punish someone of shop-lifting when they put shopping in something other than a carrier bag or trolley...

It's not preemptive. In Arizona, that's shoplifting. Not conspiracy to shoplift (Which is a thing), but straight up shoplifting. However, without the intent to shoplift, you get a lesser punishment. Not sure how they can prove whether or not what someone's intent is (Maybe they do it based on the person's criminal record), but shoplifting without criminal intent is a minor misdemeanor.

Yes... but you seem to forget that the main section A exists:

13-1805. Shoplifting;
detaining suspect; defense to wrongful detention; civil action by merchant;
public services; classification
A. A person commits shoplifting if, while in an establishment in which
merchandise is displayed for sale, the person knowingly obtains such goods of
another with the intent to deprive that person of such goods by:


This is why you need to arrest shoplifters after they're past the cash register. As, unless the cop is psycic, he didn't know the intent of the person he subdued; and since that can now not be proven he's basically signed up for a losing court case.

 

[Kopikatsu]

Isn't it shoplifting only if you attempt to leave the store without paying for the item? I was under the impression that you could put it anywhere (within reason) between where it sits and the checkout line.

Don't know if anyone answered this yet, but!

Arizona state law 13-1805: Section A: Subsection 5 states that concealing an item you haven't purchased is considered shoplifting. 13-1805: Section B: Subsection 1 also states that because he did knowingly (As in, wasn't drunk or crazy or anything), force can be used in his arrest.

You don't actually have to leave the store in order for it to be shoplifting.

Isn't it only shop-lifting if he leaves the shop with the item? I didn't realise you could preemptively accuse and punish someone of shop-lifting when they put shopping in something other than a carrier bag or trolley...

It's not preemptive. In Arizona, that's shoplifting. Not conspiracy to shoplift (Which is a thing), but straight up shoplifting. However, without the intent to shoplift, you get a lesser punishment. Not sure how they can prove whether or not what someone's intent is (Maybe they do it based on the person's criminal record), but shoplifting without criminal intent is a minor misdemeanor.

Yes... but you seem to forget that the main section A exists:

13-1805. Shoplifting;
detaining suspect; defense to wrongful detention; civil action by merchant;
public services; classification
A. A person commits shoplifting if, while in an establishment in which
merchandise is displayed for sale, the person knowingly obtains such goods of
another with the intent to deprive that person of such goods by:


This is why you need to arrest shoplifters after they're past the cash register. As, unless the cop is psycic, he didn't know the intent of the person he subdued; and since that can now not be proven he's basically signed up for a losing court case.

Depends on the state/jurisdiction. The 'area' in which an act is considered shoplifting is usually determined by the judge preceding over the case. (The only thing that's consistent is that if the person leaves the premises with the stolen goods, then the employees can't stop the shoplifter.)

And you're right. It's impossible to know intent without being psychic. That's why it could just as easily be argued the other way.

 

[Whytewulf]

You know it's incredibly easy to make a cop look bad if you decide to record at the right moment.

Exactly. No one really knows the situation that started this, at this point, they only know the outcome. Cell phones these days, can make everything look bad if they show the one piece.

1. What a biased headline. The article is jaded and already playing on the sympathy by calling him a grandpa, he was 54, not a 75 year old with a walker. And cops suspect anyone from a 12 year old to a 70 year old. The one you casually handle is the one that kills you.

2. Why would you bring your grandkid to such an event. If he is danger, you put the games down, not in your pants.

3. Shoplifting in the US, can be viewed as hiding the material, with the intent not to pay. I don't know why people here would think the cops would ask him if "he was going to pay for it" Is he going to say no, haha. I don't know if he was shoplifting, but don't put items down your pants people, that's not good for anyone.

4. If a suspect is resisting in anyway, the cops usually bring him/her to the ground, where they have control. At this point, the move can bad, and watch a cop do this 1000 times and they don't go face first. They didn't even know he was bleeding until turning him over, then they rendered care..

5. I suspect with the heat of event, the cops probably over-reacted. Maybe not as much as people think, but it was a series of unfortunate events. I don't recommend resisting cops, talk to them yes, but in the end fighting them ends badly. If didn't do those things, then they deserve their fate.

6. The crowd cracks me up. Asking the poice what they are doing, etc. They arne't helping the situation. Like the cop is going to do an interview then.

7. Finally stop bashing the US in these threads. We have a huge freedom of press, technology in the hands of the public and 10000 good arrests no one talks about. I'll take our police force as a whole and our system anyday. We have our faults, but I have seen first hand bad stuff go down in other countries most of which never makes the news.

 

[Sylocat]

Are we surprised? "Not getting on the ground fast enough" has been a felony for a looooong time.

Peter Watts was tackled, pepper-sprayed and beaten for asking why he was supposed to place his hands on his head, and then charged with assaulting one of the border guards who was beating him. And he was convicted. He's now banned from entry into the U.S.

Everyone who is beaten (and that's a lot of people) just gets charged with resisting arrest. It's their word against the cops, and the cops always get the benefit of the doubt. Not just from the judge, but from the authoritarian voting bloc who will not believe that the cops don't have their best interests at heart, because waking up would mean having to think for themselves and make decisions.

Guess what, people: If someone in power has a bad day and decides to take out their frustrations on you, you have NO rights. They can do anything they want to you, and they'll get away with it. And don't kid yourself into thinking it's ever been any other way.

But let's face it, if the media continually pile on the frenzy, it won't be so long before someone is properly killed over Black Friday (rather than being involved in a gang warfare at Black Friday that's reported as "OMG BLACK FRIDAY. PEOPLE DIE OVER IT."

So this [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/29/business/29walmart.html?pagewanted=all] was the result of gang warfare?

 

[LilithSlave]

Agh, as if I needed more material to add to my phobia of the police.

 

[Beautiful End]

Can't add anything else that hasn't been said, but whatever. Here it goes.

That was no way to arrest someone. You know, I'm getting kinda tired of this police brutality and all of us getting used to it. "Oh, that's how they're trained!", "Oh, they don't know what to expect so they have to act fast!" "Oh, you don't know what could have happened if they hadn't knocked him out! Maybe millions of lives were saved!". That's bullshit on a stick.

I'm not saying cops should arrest someone with marshmallows and cotton balls while singing a lullaby. But they should know better than to toss people around like this. Chances are 1 out of 10 people they arrest are actually armed criminals. But does that mean they're entitled to do whatever the fuck they please "for the greater good"? If I go around punching people in the face in the hopes of finding someone who will pull out a gun just to prove that criminals are among us, is it justified?

In this case, like someone filming the thing said, the guy was shoplifting and THIS is how they treat him? Damn, people! Whether that's true or not, that's unacceptable.

Okay, put yourself in the guy's position. Since this is more of a he said-she said situation, let's assume both scenarios:

Scenario A: You're not shoplifting. You're trying to do (Insert favorite activity here), but you've realized your hands are busy with that one game you're gonna buy and you can't let go of it because, well, it's black Friday. You stupidly decide to put it in your trousers. The cops see you and accuse you of shoplifting. Now, at this point, you may or may not decide to do a dance, but at any rate, before you can explain yourself, BOOM! You taste blood and everything goes black. Then you're arrested.

Scenario B: You ARE shoplifting. I mean, one game? It's not like they're gonna miss it or notice it, right? But wait, cops DID notice! Aw, man. Maybe if you leave the game back where it was and forget it all happened, maybe if you just walk away, maybe you can try and talk your way out of thi-- BOOM! You taste blood and everything goes black. Then you're arrested.

Either way, the facts are cops have guns, they should AT LEAST have the brains to analyze the situation (I mean, they were trained for that, right?) and then take the best course of action. In this case, talk to the man and make him pull out the game out of his trousers before doing anything drastic. If he's flailing his arms like an idiot, handcuff him. I mean, it's not like he's waving a gun or as if he could beat all the cops around, 50 or 20 years old.

Of course, we don't know all the facts yet, but it seems the cops overreacted so far. And the worst part? They're probably gonna get away with it because they're cops.

 

[Andothul]

The Police are like America.

Its cool to hate on them until you actually need them and then you are upset that they weren't there sooner.

To quote the late great Paul Harvey
"Less than one half of one percent of Policemen ever misfit their uniform and that is a better average than you find among clergymen"

 

[BehattedWanderer]

Oy. Poor guy. You know, he was probably just tucking it into his pants to head to the checkout line, lest someone swipe if from his basket/cart. Because people do that. If there is ever a day that people are encouraged to abandon all pleasantries, niceties, courtesies, and ownership laws, it is Black Friday. Maybe we should start calling it Red Friday, on account of all the tasing, blood, pepper spray, and blood that happens. Poor guy. I feel for him.

Actually witnesses say it was because he needed his hands free to help his grandkid with something.

I read that, but it makes it no less tragic.

Oh come on it's America, the guy can be happy they didn't gun him down.

>.> It's not that bad. Usually. Just avoid Newark. And hunting ranges. And being ethnic in the deep south.

And having food in Flint. Or a wallet in Detroit....we should move.

What do you think? Canada sound good? I hear they have great medical coverage.

 

[dagens24]

I've put items in my pockets while shopping with the intent of going to the cash to pay for them. How can they accuse you of shoplifting when you haven't even tried to leave the shop. I say in this circumstance the cop should have told him to remove it from his waist band and let him be on his way. Otherwise they should have to follow you until you make a clear attempt at exiting the store then they can detain you.

 

[Krion_Vark]

Can I just point out for all the people who say that he could've had a knife or whatever other reasoning for trying to make out the officer was in the right.

It says he cuffed the man first then brought him to the floor for resisting arrest.

Now if I'm right, or the officer was doing his damn job properly, that would mean the old mans hands were safetly restricted behind his back, away from being able to pull out any weapon on his person. At this point resisting arrest was probably just trying to get his grandson out of the huge crowds that would've killed him at any point without even knowing they had.

It's unacceptable that this happen to anyone

Actually upon watching that video, that's fucking disgusting!

That wasn't police brutality, that was assault, he knocked the guy unconcious then continued to gloat to his co-worker, when asked for someone to "dial 911" the crowd couldn't do anything but record it all on their iPhones and complain about what he did, they're all disgusting too.

That one guy who comes out of the crowd to help the guy, he's a hero, all I gotta say is thank god he was there because that guy could've been killed, choking on his own blood because the general public and the authorities wouldn't do anything to help him.

It makes me sick, it really does!

You can correct me if I am wrong but the first 5 seconds shows them still handcuffing the guy while hes on the ground. Also it makes you sick that people go around taping the shit? Hell EVERYONE tapes the shit that happens now. Or at least all the bad stuff. I mean you could have a spotless clean record then one bad move and you are caught on tape and then you are pretty much black listed for the rest of your life as the brutal cop. Another thing what about the cop that is holding the towel to his face to stop the bleeding you don't make mention of that. There is also the lady towards three quarters the way through that is telling them how to position him so that he doesn't choke on his own blood. When shit goes down there are going to be those that just stop and stare. Hell its been proven that if you yell fire more people will look than if you were to yell rape. The only thing I really find disgusting about the video is the guy who is taping it and his friend and how they keep complaining and do nothing to help.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

But let's face it, if the media continually pile on the frenzy, it won't be so long before someone is properly killed over Black Friday (rather than being involved in a gang warfare at Black Friday that's reported as "OMG BLACK FRIDAY. PEOPLE DIE OVER IT."

So this [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/29/business/29walmart.html?pagewanted=all] was the result of gang warfare?

2/3rds of it was: [http://articles.cnn.com/2008-11-28/us/black.friday.violence_1_wal-mart-worker-fleming-busiest-shopping-days?_s=PM:US]

As I said before though, that was just a guy at the front of a seething crowd. Happened often before [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillsborough_disaster].

This year we nearly got it, in the spectre of Walter Vance [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/27/black-friday-target_n_1115372.html], but again, that was a pre-existed condition.

But if someone was to kill someone over shopping (rather than as an unfortunate side-effect) just think how many more people could be outraged and write stern letters to their local papers. Think how many papers could be sold, and how many chat shows could be staged!

Wouldn't save anyone's lives, of course, and wouldn't increase the amount of staff/preparation it's given ; but it'd justify why the Police HAD to knock a restrained man onto his face.

I mean, we wouldn't want another incident like the one's that happen every year because hype have built something up to a frenzy.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/nov/07/student-dies-northampton-nightclub-stampede
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-15633204
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4252421.stm


Perhaps there should be some Scientific Study on this [http://www.crowdmodelling.com/CrowdDisasters.html]: Oh, 160 dead this year alone by crowd stampedes...

MORE PUPPIES!

You can get them down your local Walmart!

 

[Treblaine]

Okay. One question : If he was already cuffed, then how was he flailing his arms?

#1 where was it stated he was flailing his arms? and
#2 where was it stated he was cuffed before or as he went down?

I usually stay out of topics dealing with American police, but read the CNN article. Assistant Police Chief Larry Hall said that the man began flailing his arms as the officer began to cuff him in his statement to the press. I also suggest you watch the video again. Though is isn't complete, it is clear that at the start of the video there was already at least 1 pair of cuffs (at least partially) on the man. What they were doing was linking a second pair so they could treat the man. Now whether the first pair was on fully or only partially, I don't know as the video doesn't show. It could be that the man did start flailing around when they started to cuff him, hence the partial cuffing.

As for rest of the event, I don't know and I'm not going to speculate further.

On a related note, from the video it looks to me (and frankly, is slightly more concerning to me) that those officers knew shit about basic first aid. For an unconscious patient, those cuffs should have been off and that man put in the recovery position straight away. After checking his airways were clear first, of course. Even if they had to keep him cuffed, they should have rolled him on his side. Anything to keep the blood flowing back into his throat. The paramedics probably weren't pleased with the scenario they arrived at.

The issue was "already cuffed" how arm flailing would be impossible then, but in the process of being cuffed you can still flail and swipe and do whatever with their arms. And this is where exaggeration by the media comes in, as someone could say if he had a handcuff on one wrist as "he was handcuffed" the impression it leaves however is that both wrists were secured behind his back when that is not what they actually saw. Who knows, trial by media, trial by internet forum.

On a related note, it seems you don't know enough about detaining a suspect. The cuffs stay ON until it is absolutely necessary to remove them. The wrist being in front or behind the body don't make a significant difference to airways, breathing or circulation.

I have studied enough first aid to know that "basic first aid" does NOT supersede all other knowledge and expertise, the recovery-position is good to be taught to people with absolute minimal training but it is Not some sort of Gospel. Again, we are second guessing emergency responders giving them no chance to defend or explain themselves, what their considerations were, I'll tell you there are a myriad of circumstances to consider all at the same time while a jeering crowd are antagonising the situation.

 

[Iron Lightning]

Cops are fucking douchebags. This is not new information.