Police brutality or dumbass student

[mtthwsttr]

This is pretty clear cut the cop did too much. For a cell phone? Yikes man, this guy must have some real demons in him if he is trying to slam a person for bullshit like not putting away a phone.

[mongobillione]

such nice work of the police officer yea boy

[deleted_user0]

Turns out metis condones unjustified murder as well. Curiouser and curiouser.

Would you please stop the trolling, its getting old. The report said nothing about the kid getting killed. Also, back then a lot of these "kids" were six-foot farm boys. If the teacher had not pulled his gun he probably would have been dead.

If some teachers, with the proper training, were armed in todays schools then you wouldnt see any of these mass school shootings. In my day, guns on school property were no problem and every pickup had a couple in the gun rack, there still was a draft, and hunters safety shooting courses were taught at school. Then, a nutjob bent on shooting up the school would have found himself faced by two-dozen armed students and veteran teachers in about two minutes.

the report doesnt say it, but the boy did get killed, and im pretty sure you knew that too ')

[Metis]

the report doesnt say it, but the boy did get killed, and im pretty sure you knew that too ')

Not a given. In 1909, a teacher was probably carrying a .32 pocket pistol. Ive seen someone take six rounds from a .32 then get up and walk to the ambulance.

[Mr. Pecksniff]

the report doesnt say it, but the boy did get killed, and im pretty sure you knew that too ')

Not a given. In 1909, a teacher was probably carrying a .32 pocket pistol. Ive seen someone take six rounds from a .32 then get up and walk to the ambulance.

Or he couldve been carrying a shotgun.

[deleted_user0]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_a ... ry_schools

[Metis]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attacks_related_to_primary_schools

Ok then, 1 dead. Would you have rather it had been the teacher?

Here is a recent story from the UK, where handguns are pretty much banned.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... -flee.html

[arkz]

The cop clearly overreacted lol... How can you guys believe he just "does his job" ?? Did you see how hard he slammed her ? Wtf. He could have took her out of the class in a much softer way, 100% sure. Plus she''s a teenage girl lol...

I guess you can''t be sure whether this was or not linked to her skin colour. The problem is there is on average a lot of overreaction from cops towards black people, so ofc now everytime medias spot this kind of case they link it to colour skin. But then why do the cops carry on doing this ? If they are just always more rude towards black people they can''t except not to be considered as racists in every single case where they overreact with black people, whether the overreaction was linked to racism or not...

Good to see that there are some normal people here. (To be fair, ofc some others here showed the correct reaction, too.)
I mean, srsly, don''t you think it is creepy how many posters here downplayed the action of that psycho?

Also, just acting as if racism could be ruled out is a joke. There is a reason why newspapers in the us seemingly printed that story. It is relevant because it is an evident source of totally unjustified power abuse of a cop and possibly an evident source of power abuse of a racist cop.

I''m really not the guy for polemic anti-americanism. On the contrary the history (people came there from everywhere, full of hope, expectations, wild west), the narrative (american dream etc.) and the popular culture (especially movies and all the associations and impressions one gets about the us) fascinate me, however, incidents like this actually make me incredibly glad that i don''t live there. Besides many other things that are wrong with that country the simple fact that the citizens can''t really feel safe of the institution - the police - which is supposed to protect them just goes beyond words...

[Kaiserklein]

The cop clearly overreacted lol... How can you guys believe he just "does his job" ?? Did you see how hard he slammed her ? Wtf. He could have took her out of the class in a much softer way, 100% sure. Plus shes a teenage girl lol...

I guess you cant be sure whether this was or not linked to her skin colour. The problem is there is on average a lot of overreaction from cops towards black people, so ofc now everytime medias spot this kind of case they link it to colour skin. But then why do the cops carry on doing this ? If they are just always more rude towards black people they cant except not to be considered as racists in every single case where they overreact with black people, whether the overreaction was linked to racism or not...

Good to see that there are some normal people here. (To be fair, ofc some others here showed the correct reaction, too.)
I mean, srsly, dont you think it is creepy how many posters here downplayed the action of that psycho?

Also, just acting as if racism could be ruled out is a joke. There is a reason why newspapers in the us seemingly printed that story. It is relevant because it is an evident source of totally unjustified power abuse of a cop and possibly an evident source of power abuse of a racist cop.

Im really not the guy for polemic anti-americanism. On the contrary the history (people came there from everywhere, full of hope, expectations, wild west), the narrative (american dream etc.) and the popular culture (especially movies and all the associations and impressions one gets about the us) fascinate me, however, incidents like this actually make me incredibly glad that i dont live there. Besides many other things that are wrong with that country the simple fact that the citizens cant really feel safe of the institution - the police - which is supposed to protect them just goes beyond words...

Right, to me america often seems mitigated. Some aspects of it are really awesome, lets say the entrepreneurship and the way the different states are together while still different, but on the other hand they sometimes seem so old-fashioned... Death penalty, guns, wtf ?

[Metis]

but on the other hand they [Americans] sometimes seem so old-fashioned... Death penalty, guns, wtf ?

Many Americans think certain Europeans'' anti-gun stance somewhat quaint, as we, with our guns, have fought for and protected you for over a century. My uncles and cousins fought, with their American guns, to liberate your country in WWII. My father and I spent many a cold night along Europe''s eastern border, with our guns, helping to keep the Soviets from coming in and annexing your entire continent.

[Kaiserklein]

but on the other hand they [Americans] sometimes seem so old-fashioned... Death penalty, guns, wtf ?

Many Americans think certain Europeans anti-gun stance somewhat quaint, as we, with our guns, have fought for and protected you for over a century. My uncles and cousins fought, with their American guns, to liberate your country in WWII. My father and I spent many a cold night along Europes eastern border, with our guns, helping to keep the Soviets from coming in and annexing your entire continent.

Man the guns youre talking about are those of US army. We also have an army lol... Dont tell me its thanks to the right to bear arms for citizens in the US that Europe was freed of nazis/soviets. Every country has an army, the debate is about whether citizens should be allowed to get guns. Imo they shouldnt, tho im lazy to explain again why I believe so.

Yet dont get me wrong, Im really grateful the US helped us in WW II (and WW I as well btw).

[spanky4ever]

but on the other hand they [Americans] sometimes seem so old-fashioned... Death penalty, guns, wtf ?

Many Americans think certain Europeans anti-gun stance somewhat quaint, as we, with our guns, have fought for and protected you for over a century. My uncles and cousins fought, with their American guns, to liberate your country in WWII. My father and I spent many a cold night along Europes eastern border, with our guns, helping to keep the Soviets from coming in and annexing your entire continent.

To be correct: I live in Norway and it was the russians who liberated most of Norway after germans: "burnt land tacktic and burnt down most of northern Norway". USA came in to the war desember 1941 after being attacked by Japan. Before that USA tryed to stay neutral. Well the turning point for the Nazi conquest was when there Russian allies broke away from Germany and became enemies. Russia lost most millitary and civilpop then any other country. It took a long time before US fired the first shot (which they wouldnt do until Operation Torch in Africa in November 1942).

[deleted_user0]

but on the other hand they [Americans] sometimes seem so old-fashioned... Death penalty, guns, wtf ?

Many Americans think certain Europeans anti-gun stance somewhat quaint, as we, with our guns, have fought for and protected you for over a century. My uncles and cousins fought, with their American guns, to liberate your country in WWII. My father and I spent many a cold night along Europes eastern border, with our guns, helping to keep the Soviets from coming in and annexing your entire continent.

please sit down, we will line up and suck your cock.

[Metis]

Unlike most countries, the right to keep and bear arms is not only written into the US Constitution it also is written into most state constitutions. Only a few states are rabidly anti-gun and even they allow long guns for hunting.

One reason for ensuring that citizens could have guns was that the citizen militia was needed at the time of the country's founding as there was no standing army. However, another reason was to ensure that, were there a standing army, the citizens could defend themselves against it if necessary.

The oath that every US soldier takes is to defend the Constitution of the US, against all enemies both foreign and domestic. This means defending the principles outlined in the Constitution against the government itself if necessary. It would be nearly impossible for a junta to occur in the US as it now stands because there are 25 million trained veterans and over 300 million guns, essentially a gun for every person in the country. However, were all guns outside the military and federal police banned it would be relatively easy for the military to take control.

"The fiercest serpent may be overcome by a swarm of ants." -- Isoroku Yamamoto

"We knew that probably every second home in your country contained firearms. We knew that your country actually had state championships for private citizens shooting military rifles. We were not fools to set foot in such quicksand." -- Japanese WWII military commander pers. comm. to Commander Robert Menard, USN as to why Japan never attempted to invade the US mainland.

[deleted_user0]

Unlike most countries, the right to keep and bear arms is not only written into the US Constitution it also is written into most state constitutions. Only a few states are rabidly anti-gun and even they allow long guns for hunting.

One reason for ensuring that citizens could have guns was that the citizen militia was needed at the time of the country''s founding as there was no standing army. However, another reason was to ensure that, were there a standing army, the citizens could defend themselves against it if necessary.

The oath that every US soldier takes is to defend the Constitution of the US, against all enemies both foreign and domestic. This means defending its principles outlined in the Constitution against the government itself if necessary. It would be nearly impossible for a junta to occur in the US as it now stands because there are 25 million trained veterans and over 300 million guns, essentially a gun for every person in the country. However, were all guns outside the military and federal police banned it would be relatively easy for the military to take control of the country.

"The fiercest serpent may be overcome by a swarm of ants." -- Isoroku Yamamoto

"We knew that probably every second home in your country contained firearms. We knew that your country actually had state championships for private citizens shooting military rifles. We were not fools to set foot in such quicksand." -- Japanese WWII military commander pers. comm. to Commander Robert Menard, USN as to why Japan never attempted to invade the US mainland.

dont be ridiculous. if a president declares himself president for life and he is backed the usa army, he wont be stopped by those veterans. cool that you have experience riding a tank, but when you dont actually have one, it doesnt really mean much.

[Metis]

It took a long time before US fired the first shot (which they wouldnt do until Operation Torch in Africa in November 1942).

The US fired the fired the first "official" shot on December 1941. Remember that this was a world war, not just a war in Europe.

There were laws that prevented the US president from sending troops or direct aid Europe in 1939. Not only this, but at the time it really did look like Germany was just going to roll over Britain and that Japan was going to do the same with China. The US, therefore, was hesitant to send materials that would just fall immediately in the hands of the Nazis and instead started ramping up military production in preparation for a defense of the Western Hemisphere. In 1940, FDR started sending war and support materials to Britain and other countries, By the end of the war the US had given aid worth over $650 billon in todays dollars.

Japan attacked an American gunboat in 1937, even before the war in Europe began.

Even though it was illegal for Americans to fight for another country, several Americans went to Canada, changed their citizenship and went to Britain anyway. An American pilot was killed during the Battle of Britain.

Americans sent a defense force to Iceland in the summer of 1941, relieving the British soldiers stationed there.

The first American hostile action against Axis forces was on 10 April 1941, when the destroyer USS Niblack picked up three boatloads of survivors from a torpedoed Dutch merchantman and then attacked the German U-boat that had just sunk the unarmed ship.


Several American merchant ships carrying material to Britain were attacked in 1941, as well as two warships. The American destroyer Ruben James was sunk.

[Metis]

dont be ridiculous. if a president declares himself president for life and he is backed the usa army, he wont be stopped by those veterans. cool that you have experience riding a tank, but when you dont actually have one, it doesnt really mean much.

You do not know much about America do you? If the US President declared himself "president for life" his own secret service would arrest him. US soldiers are not just blind automatons, they are the sons and daughters of Americans who have been raised with American values and, like I said, they are not sworn to protect or blindly follow orders but to defend the principles upon which the US was founded.

If you think that a guerilla army cant defeat a standing army then you either have never served in the military or dont watch the news. A standing army might not be immediately defeated by guerilla tactics but it eventually will.

However, it would never get that far. Every state in the US has its own army and air force, the National Guard. While the National Guard is under the command of the President when nationally mobilized, at all other times it is under the command of the state governor. A few state national guards could defeat any military division that a rogue president was able to sway to his side. However, this would never occur. Quite obviously you have never served. If the commander of any division ordered it to follow the president in a junta the division would immediately take him out too, not to mention that the US has separate military services, the Air Force, Army, Marines and Navy just for this reason -- a juntas control of any one branch of the service would be met by an attack by the remaining three branches.

[spanky4ever]

i guess all thats right Metis. And sure we are greatfull for the material help during the war- and the Marchall help (loans) after the war to rebuild Europa. But what you are mentioning here - is more like antbites. When you enterd the battle is still North Africa late 1942.

[arkz]

Remember that this was a word war

Nah, you mean world war.

The word war is here and you''re getting perforated.

[Metis]

Remember that this was a word war

Nah, you mean world war.

The word war is here and youre getting perforated.

Thanks for discovering the typographical error, it has been corrected.

[legion]

You know, kids in school actually have the power. They can do whatever they want. My mom was in charge of a school which had many kids misbehave really badly (doing physical assualts on teachers and stuff) and she barely managed to remove a few of them from school. If a teacher lays even a finger on the kid he''s fired, he can''t do anything. So if the kids want to, they can terrorize the school.

I 100% agree with this, I have personally known someone who annoyed a teacher to the point of breaking and when the teacher put a hand around his arm (lightly) to remove him, he knee''d the teacher and ran out of the room and scratched his arm with a stick and went to the principal''s office. That teacher was put on 6 months no-paid leave or deducted pay or something for "scratching the kid''s arm when grabbing him".

[Metis]

i guess all thats right Metis. And sure we are greatfull for the material help during the war- and the Marchall help (loans) after the war to rebuild Europa. But what you are mentioning here - is more like antbites. When you enterd the battle is still North Africa late 1942.

It takes some time to train, mobilize, and transport troops. The US didn''t just have a huge army ready to go in 1939. In fact, it had a tiny army -- it ranked 19th in the world, smaller than even the army of Portugal. This army had not fought for decades either. If the US had just sent them over not only wouldn''t they have not done much good, they would have left the US undefended. It takes at least a year to train a soldier to a level of even basic proficiency. Even at the height of the conflict units would train for a year or more before being deployed. Also, the oceans were full of Japanese and German submarines. It took time to build the transports and warships needed to start sending troops over. Remember that at the time we didn''t have planes that could fly nonstop all around the globe or fighter jets that could escort them. Plus we were fighting a war in the Pacific and defending our own hemisphere as well after 1941.

Now, I will admit that he US doesn''t always do the right thing. However, for the most part we do have good intentions. I think that this can be seen by how we treat our defeated enemies. The US worked hard to help rebuild Japan and Germany after WW II.

[deleted_user0]

dont be ridiculous. if a president declares himself president for life and he is backed the usa army, he wont be stopped by those veterans. cool that you have experience riding a tank, but when you dont actually have one, it doesnt really mean much.

You do not know much about America do you? If the US President declared himself "president for life" his own secret service would arrest him. US soldiers are not just blind automatons, they are the sons and daughters of Americans who have been raised with American values and, like I said, they are not sworn to protect or blindly follow orders but to defend the principles upon which the US was founded.

you seem to misunderstand. a president calling himself out to be a dictator obviously will be backed by his secret service and if he is also backed by the army, im saying there is little those veterans will do. im not saying its likely to happen.

If you think that a guerilla army cant defeat a standing army then you either have never served in the military or dont watch the news. A standing army might not be immediately defeated by guerilla tactics but it eventually will.

obviously an army can be defeated by a guerilla army... whats new metis gosh...

However, it would never get that far. Every state in the US has its own army and air force, the National Guard. While the National Guard is under the command of the President when nationally mobilized, at all other times it is under the command of the state governor. A few state national guards could defeat any military division that a rogue president was able to sway to his side. However, this would never occur. Quite obviously you have never served. If the commander of any division ordered it to follow the president in a junta the division would immediately take him out too, not to mention that the US has separate military services, the Air Force, Army, Marines and Navy just for this reason -- a juntas control of any one branch of the service would be met by an attack by the remaining three branches.

people also believed auschwitz wouldnt happen. you are just being hopelessly [strike]brainwashed [/strike]idealistic. its not like germany didnt have a division of air force, army and marines, yet this didnt stop hitler at all, it only slowed him down a little.


but sure, lets turn it around, lets say that the president is a mere puppet of the forces, backed by the cia/fbi whatever else you got. you are naive to think that this can happen in any country in the world, except the usa... honestly... such typical bs

[deleted_user0]

It took a long time before US fired the first shot (which they wouldnt do until Operation Torch in Africa in November 1942).

The US fired the fired the first "official" shot on December 1941. Remember that this was a world war, not just a war in Europe.

There were laws that prevented the US president from sending troops or direct aid Europe in 1939. Not only this, but at the time it really did look like Germany was just going to roll over Britain and that Japan was going to do the same with China. The US, therefore, was hesitant to send materials that would just fall immediately in the hands of the Nazis and instead started ramping up military production in preparation for a defense of the Western Hemisphere. In 1940, FDR started sending war and support materials to Britain and other countries, By the end of the war the US had given aid worth over $650 billon in todays dollars.

Japan attacked an American gunboat in 1937, even before the war in Europe began.

Even though it was illegal for Americans to fight for another country, several Americans went to Canada, changed their citizenship and went to Britain anyway. An American pilot was killed during the Battle of Britain.

Americans sent a defense force to Iceland in the summer of 1941, relieving the British soldiers stationed there.

The first American hostile action against Axis forces was on 10 April 1941, when the destroyer USS Niblack picked up three boatloads of survivors from a torpedoed Dutch merchantman and then attacked the German U-boat that had just sunk the unarmed ship.


Several American merchant ships carrying material to Britain were attacked in 1941, as well as two warships. The American destroyer Ruben James was sunk.

whats the point of all this metis? what are you trying to prove?

both world wars usa only went to war in europe out of commercial self interest and fear for a different political ideology. and both wars in europe their actual military presence came too late to actually influence the outcome of the war beyond shortening it.

[Metis]

whats the point of all this metis? what are you trying to prove?

Not responding to you in that post so you need not worry about it.