Grandpa Tastes Concrete Over Videogames

[Thaluikhain]

You scare me. That you even accept this and do not question it or seem to disagree with it is utterly terrifying.

I mean, I could see this in Egypt or Libya...

The police are supposed to be there to serve and protect.

That some people are starting to see and accept them as some kind of violent force who can do whatever they want is terrifying in and of itself.

Er...yeah, it's all very well to say how they are supposed to be, but people have to deal with them as they are.

Inside the uniform is a human being, with all that implies.

...

Though, it depends on your situation. "Police don't mistreat people" isn't the same as "police don't tend to mistreat people of my socio-economic status".

 

[Treblaine]

snip

So what about, "we don't know what happened before they cuffed him" are you failing to grasp? That video starts off with the guy on the ground, cuffed and bleeding. We have no idea what happened before that. For all we know he was going bananas and the cops had to throw him to the ground to get him to stop.

Again, we don;t know everything that lead up to that video starting. If we get the stuff that happened before we can better judge. If it proven the cop was over the line, throw the book at him and fire him from the force. Simple as that. But stop being judgmental when we don't have all the facts.

HAHAHAHAHAHA. So what about, you're the one who doesn't want to read?

"
Jerald Newman, 54, spent Friday night in a Maricopa County jail hours after being arrested.

David Chadd, a CNN iReporter from Las Vegas, was among the crowd shopping for video games set up in the Walmart's grocery section. He said Newman "was not resisting" arrest as he was led away from the crowd by a police officer.

That officer, Chadd said, then suddenly hooked the suspect around the leg, grabbed him and "slammed him face first into the ground."

"It was like a bowling ball hitting the ground, that's how bad it was," he said.
Maybe read before you're judging other people for judging FACTS?

"Witness accounts" are far from facts:

http://www.ufocasebook.com/2009/multiplewitnesses.html

Consider all the spurious "witness account" of UFOs, Bigfoot, the grassy knoll and Elvis sightings and a load of other bollocks that makes up the billion dollar conspiracy industry.

There is a reason Hear-Say is not permitted as evidence in court. Witnesses are only valued in court Under Oath and under cross-examination which is a VITAL step in detecting what they actually saw without exaggeration, vagueness or bias. When you stick a camera in someone's face and ask the right question you can get the question you want. I've done it myself and even after that I've fallen for it.

When you hang the sword of perjury over people's heads and ask them what they ACTUALLY saw, and you'll find often "not resisting" was really "not resisting enough to deserve getting his head smashed in, in my opinion" but we don't know, these witnesses have not truly had their witness turned into evidence, that is fact.

You know what is going on here: it's trial-by-media

A kangaroo court with no representation operating FAR beyond the learned principals of justice.

I think this should be investigated and evidence gathered for a trial where the evidence can be weighed, NOT for it to be prejudged WITHOUT ALL the evidence being weighed.

 

[Badong]

And here I thought it was an old loony who'd rather eat concrete than play a video game. Either way, it's still messed up.

 

[Therumancer]

It's like this, the video does not show the takedown. There is nothing at all inappropriate to taking a person down with a tackle if they flee arrest, in cuffs or not. Injuries are always possible when you tackle someone. The bottom line is that if you flee the police or resist arrest, in cuffs or not, you take your chances.

I think the people commenting in the video miss the point entirely and are a bit sociopathic. Saying that "it's just shoplifting" is kind of warped, since the basic
arguement is that instead of tackling the guy when he fled, they should have left him go.

In a crowd alternatives to a tackle such as trying to tase the guy (if they had that option) would have been inappropriate due to the chance of missing.

From what I'm reading it was 100% appropriate, there probably won't be any issues here at all. I think there is a tendency to villify the police by default and as such people are empathizing with the thief in question when they probably shouldn't.

Now, I'm guessing that he either started to run, or was still flailing around in cuffs. The tackle/body plant is sometimes referred to professionally as "escorting someone to the floor".

Personally, I'd look at it and consider it a deterrant before you try and steal something. If you have the attitude of "oh, it's only shoplifting" then your wrong.

That's my thoughts, I imagine most people are going to disagree with me. Of course then again I've typically been more on the police-end of things. The casinos where I worked were full of stores and we chased thieves and shoplifters around all the time, I have absolutly zero sympathy. As it is I think those in authority in such matters treat these guys far too gently, and as a result it's not like stealing is deterred. Now granted going "Muslim Style" and having Mall Security take his hand off publically with a paper cutter might be excessive, but I'd be tempted to say they should put a picture of the guy's bloody face on the glass doors facing both inward and outward with some clever caption conveying that this is what happens if you try and steal.

 

[OldRat]

We don't know the facts. The police get called out on using unnecessary force a lot, and sometimes they do, but it's not as simple as "BUT HE HAD OFFSPRING WHO HAD OFFSPRING, AND THUS HAS SOME SORT OF CRAZY AUTOMATIC POLICE BRUTALITY CLAUSE IF EVER APPREHENDED FOR ANYTHING!"
Now, see, we don't know what's happened. If he complied with them and got smashed into the floor? Yes, that's unnecessary force. If he actually resisted? No, he got tackled because he was stupid.
It looks bad, I know, it automatically makes you side with the underdog when there's three police on a bleeding old man. But guess what? The point of the police isn't to give anybody a fair fight. The point of the police is to make sure there's going to be minimal injury. It's so very easy to holler "POLICE BRUTALITY!" when things look one-sided and somebody's bleeding, but guess what? If they didn't act fast and decisively in these situations, it might look even uglier, maybe with someone clutching their guts with a knife in the belly. Somebody resists arrest, he's a potential danger to everyone around them. I'm not talking about this situation per se, I'm talking about the big picture. Just remember this: if you resist arrest, you're telling them you're a potential danger and have just agreed to being put in harm's way for the sake of protecting others, including the officers themselves.
Have you seen what can happen in five seconds if somebody's allowed to resist and actually starts really, veritably resisting and manages to pull some shit? The pictures aren't pretty. There's a reason the police utilize force, and the detained is put up against overwhelming odds. It's not about a fair fight, it's about trying to make sure there won't be a fight at all and things won't turn really damn ugly for everybody.

All I'm saying is, we don't know the facts. Eyewitness accounts, as stated, don't mean jack by themselves, without any kind of examiniation. There's no victim here before they can actually prove he wasn't, in fact, "flailing his arms around and resisting arrest", and we should reserve judgement. He might be the victim of unnecessary use of force, he might have gotten it for a reason. I certainly can't say and thus won't.

 

[seraphy]

We don't know the facts. The police get called out on using unnecessary force a lot, and sometimes they do, but it's not as simple as "BUT HE HAD OFFSPRING WHO HAD OFFSPRING, AND THUS HAS SOME SORT OF CRAZY AUTOMATIC POLICE BRUTALITY CLAUSE IF EVER APPREHENDED FOR ANYTHING!"
Now, see, we don't know what's happened. If he complied with them and got smashed into the floor? Yes, that's unnecessary force. If he actually resisted? No, he got tackled because he was stupid.
It looks bad, I know, it automatically makes you side with the underdog when there's three police on a bleeding old man. But guess what? The point of the police isn't to give anybody a fair fight. The point of the police is to make sure there's going to be minimal injury. It's so very easy to holler "POLICE BRUTALITY!" when things look one-sided and somebody's bleeding, but guess what? If they didn't act fast and decisively in these situations, it might look even uglier, maybe with someone clutching their guts with a knife in the belly. Somebody resists arrest, he's a potential danger to everyone around them. I'm not talking about this situation per se, I'm talking about the big picture. Just remember this: if you resist arrest, you're telling them you're a potential danger and have just agreed to being put in harm's way for the sake of protecting others, including the officers themselves.
Have you seen what can happen in five seconds if somebody's allowed to resist and actually starts really, veritably resisting and manages to pull some shit? The pictures aren't pretty. There's a reason the police utilize force, and the detained is put up against overwhelming odds. It's not about a fair fight, it's about trying to make sure there won't be a fight at all and things won't turn really damn ugly for everybody.

All I'm saying is, we don't know the facts. Eyewitness accounts, as stated, don't mean jack by themselves, without any kind of examiniation. There's no victim here before they can actually prove he wasn't, in fact, "flailing his arms around and resisting arrest", and we should reserve judgement. He might be the victim of unnecessary use of force, he might have gotten it for a reason. I certainly can't say and thus won't.

Might I just point out to you that he wasn't actually shoplifting. No really he wasn't since he was still inside the shop. I am sure that is the reason why most people are on his side here.

 

[Fieldy409_v1legacy]

54 isnt really that old... when you said grampa i imagined a 70 year old.

 

[The Wooster]

54 isnt really that old... when you said grampa i imagined a 70 year old.

Is that mild disappointment I hear in your tone?

 

[OldRat]

-SNIP-.

Might I just point out to you that he wasn't actually shoplifting. No really he wasn't since he was still inside the shop. I am sure that is the reason why most people are on his side here.

I didn't actually mention shoplifting at any point, but I see your point. But on that note, what he wasn't doing was succeeding in shoplifting. People can and will be prosecuted for trying to fill their pockets with things in stores or otherwise displaying behavior (hell, just having a tinfoil-lined pack with you in a store is grounds to get a shoplifting charge a lot of times if they somehow find out you have one in the store, at least here) that denotes them as trying to shoplift. That's why they have carts and those cumbersome plastic baskets, to make it a lot easier to determine if you're trying to shoplift.

The police saw it fit to take him in for it. They didn't tackle him for it, they tackled him for whatever happened during the arrest itself, whatever that may be. You might be surprised, but the police are actually allowed, by law, to detain anyone at any time. It might turn out to be a wrongly made arrest, and if it was in error, you can go to court about it, but you do actually have to go along with it when they do take you in. You cannot resist it and get away with any sort of legal high ground in the matter, you take it through legal channels if you feel it was in error.
The bottom line is, you don't start resisting arrest no matter what if you don't want to get pain for it.

So the point still stands. He might have resisted arrest, or he might have not, and there's no way to know before some actual, hard evidence like security camera footage of the incident actually surfaces.

 

[Ickorus]

I saw this on Destructoid. It's pretty messed up.

With this and the OWS stuff, there's been a disturbing spate of police using completely unnecessary levels of force lately. It's really troubling. I've generally had a lot of respect for police officers because I've never heard any complaints about our local dept. and my personal experience with them has always been good, but now I'm starting to wonder if my area is an exception. There are an awful lot of these types of cases.

It's a vast minority of police officers that are actually bad, the problem is that the rest of the force have this idiotic idea that they have to cover for these guys and so the problem persists and the entire police force looks crap for it.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

Couldn't say either way on the rightness of making the old guy eat floor...

However, take it from someone with a bit of a checkered past... there are certain days/events where you simply do no fuck around with cops unless you're ready to face what would normally be a complete overreaction. This is especially true in 'confused' situations where everyone is acting like shitheads and cops get super stressed trying to spot shit kicking off.

 

[Moosejaw]

This Black Friday thing is getting ridiculous, the retail industry needs to end this madness and yes, I am putting this at the feet of the retailers for encouraging almost riot-like situations in their highly competitive sales where stores are so crammed full of people to get sales where there are not enough to go around!

Actually, crazy stuff happens in stores all the time. It's really just humanity being humanity, but you recently heard of 4, 5, 6 outstanding incidents (which, really, for a single day is statistically insignificant) because on Black Friday...the media has NOTHING else to report. It's the only day where there's so little going on they have to resort to reporting on shopping.

 

[Vanguard_Ex]

'LET EM DO THEIR JOB, MYAAN'.
Morons. The guy clearly needed help.

 

[Thetwistedendgame]

I was curiously reading this until I read the word grandson. Imagine how he will feel for the rest of his life. Good job police.

 

[Baresark]

Wow, the comments on this page are unbelievable.

Interesting fact: in a court of law, several witnesses are enough to convict someone of a crime that could land them in jail for the rest of their life. But not when a police officer is involved. In this case, several witnesses isn't enough to prove a police officer who almost killed someone is actually responsible for a crime that may deserve some punishment.

It's as many have said and I can't help but agree. Police officers are far too undertrained to try and diffuse a situation and actually accomplish some form of serving and/or protecting. I point you to this idea. He was there to stop a crime that he couldn't even be sure was being committed, and that resulted in everyone's shopping experience being ruined by the inclusion of several police (after the fact of course) and paramedics, all because John Rambo had a badge on that day. AND, the police officer harmed someone to the point they had to go the hospital because he was choking on his own blood.

So, if you took the police officer out of the situation, you MAYBE had the theft of a single videogame, and everyone joyously or otherwise went about their miserable shopping day. Think about what got stolen as the stupid cop was busy cleaning up his mess. This is why there is ever growing mistrust in the police forces associated with any US or state governmental body.

Edit: It's morons like this cop who make it harder for good cops to do their jobs. And as long as the retarded ones are protected, it hurts them all.

 

[Beryl77]

Based on the information, no one of us can really judge this correctly. The guy could have really been dangerous or the cop could just be an overaggressive idiot, we don't know.
But right now, I'm not in the mood for being rational, so fuck the police!

 

[Baresark]

-SNIP-.

The police saw it fit to take him in for it. They didn't tackle him for it, they tackled him for whatever happened during the arrest itself, whatever that may be. You might be surprised, but the police are actually allowed, by law, to detain anyone at any time.

This is incorrect. They cannot just detain you whenever they want. They need one of the great many reasons that exist to do it. For instance, if you are walking down the street, they can stop and question you, but they cannot just put cuffs on you and put in the back of the car without telling you why they are doing it. They have a reason to be doing it if they are doing something like that and they are obligated to tell you what that is.

 

[Amarok]

The Tabloids likely response?

"PROOF: GAMES CAUSE VIOLENCE".

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."

Given the 4 months leg room that Xmas has, maybe Black Friday could start on a Grey Friday the week before?

Perhaps save some lives?

Just a thought.

(Oh. I don't care if that Guy was stealing a Kinect, faceplanting him is an aggravated assault beyond the parameters of "resisting arrest".)

As far as I know someone was trampled to death in Black Friday a few years ago, a walmart employee (what a tragic job to die for). Or do you mean deliberate-act-of-violence killed?

 

[Buizel91]

You don't know if he was acting the fool or not. So before you fall for yet another inflammatory title this website is known for and make yourself look like a jackass, why not wait until all the facts are present before picking a side?

Pretty sure remaining calm in the face of idiots is something a cop should be quite good at, I mean unless these guys are fro the Jersey shore or something a few aggravating words is in no way a warrant for a face smashing.

It's funny you mention that, because after rereading this little section here:

The police tell a slightly different story: they're claiming Newman was flailing his arms and resisting arrest - though you have to wonder exactly how much arrest resisting warrants a man being made into the filling in a cop and concrete sandwich.

It says he flailing his arms around acting like a jackass. If it's true, he deserved what he got. But the video doesn't show anything prior to the police putting him down. So as it is right now, it's a case of he said/she said. I'm sure security footage could give us a pretty clear picture of what happened instead of some gawker's cell phone video, but good luck getting ahold of that...

You CLEARLY do not watch any Police programs on TV do you? I watch them mostly at night, and flailing your arms around is nothing, Police SHOULD be trained to keep calm at all times, and only use physical force if the guy is actually getting physical with them, but FACE PLANTING someone so hard they end up in a pool of blood? Hell no! technically what they did here is physical abuse. He looks frigging 60-70 years old...WHAT HARM COULD HE POSSIBLY DO TO 20-30 YEAR OLD POLICE?!?!

I really feel sorry for that guy, even if he was shoplifting, and had a bit of a mouth on him, he did not deserve that.

 

[Baresark]

Why is it that the main thing I'm confused about in that article is the fact that he was shoplifting on the day with massive sales?

I just don't understand people...

I admit, I'm grimly interested in what game sparked the violence. Police brutality over a copy of Skyrim is one thing, but having your face crushed because of a discount copy of Rapala Fishing Frenzy 2009? That would be just awful.

[url;=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/comics/critical-miss/7596-Critical-Miss-4]I see what you did there.[/url]

The article states that he MAY have been shoplifting, though there were witnesses that said he put the game in his waste line to pick up his grandson so the child didn't get trampled.

Literacy, it's everyone's friend.