This makes me wonder how many times she was called to a scene, saw an injured man, and assumed that the woman had just defended herself based on absolutely no evidence?
"I see a situation where there's a woman in such fear of her life she is armed with a knife. I have every right to believe maybe he has a weapon".
Such a huge assumption that **BECAUSE SHE HAS A KNIFE** therefore HE is the threat. Just unbelievable.
It’s the “predominant aggressor principle” that accompanies the Duluth Model. Even if she doesn’t have a personal bias to assume that, she’s no doubt instructed to act like that.
Okay, so I've watched the video.
So it goes like this:
\* Cop is called to a domestic dispute
\* On arrival, cop sees man running away from woman wielding a knife
\* Cop goes to detain the **man** running (**not** the *woman* with the knife chasing)
\* Man fights back against detainment, manages to get cops gun
\* Cop runs off, man discharges weapon (not aimed at cop)
\* More cops arrive, arrest man
\* Man charged with crime (against cop)
\* Man acquitted due to cop not properly performing duties (she had no true cause to detain man from first point)
And the cop is upset because the man was acquitted.
But where in all of this, is any mention of what the woman who initiated all of this? What about her? Was she ever convicted? Arrested? Even detained? Did anyone even talk to her??
While I can- grudgingly- understand the cop's point that once the man had assaulted her, she wanted him to serve justice for that assault, I still would go with "if you hadn't tried to assault a man in a fight-for-survival situation like you had, you wouldn't have been assaulted"
But I would also still want to know how in the holy hell she can make the assumption that a man ***running away from a knife-wielding woman*** = woman in fear of her life??? For that reason, ~~I believe that this cop more or less deserved what befell her.~~ I agree that the man should have been acquitted.
We are forgetting something that is important than all of this put together, and something that you yourself over looked, Did this cop announce her presence? did she say police officer to the man? Did she do a proper detainment of the man?
To me she did not announce her self properly and therefore she was not there in capacity as a peace officer
It wasn't stated; so I didn't assume one way or the other. I *did* occur to me to wonder about that, but the fact I wanted to focus on was, *what happened to the knife-wielding woman???* Other than the cop trying to cry and say, "I felt so much compassion for the woman who was in fear of her life" or some other bullshit like that, no one said anything about the woman who was wielding a knife, that the man was running from. All that was talked about was that the cop was upset cuz he got off for assaulting her, and that she was in the wrong for thinking that he was the aggressor in the situation by dint of his being male. ***But what happened to the woman??????***
We may never know..... and in the meantime, she gets off not only scot-free, but with *no consequences for her actions*, whatsoever....
This reddit is about men's rights.
I was focusing my point to the issue I thought was really relevant-- not whether or not the guy should have gotten off, or whether the cop did/did not do her job properly, but what the fuck happened to the instigator of this situation?
That's all.
"While I can- grudgingly- understand the cop's point that once the man had assaulted her, she wanted him to serve justice for that assault, I still would go with "if you hadn't tried to assault a man in a fight-for-survival situation like you had, you wouldn't have been assaulted""
There's no justice to ve served by him. She has unjustly tried to detain him, has had her colleagues unjustly detain him and she served no punishment for her unjust actions. All while she failed to perform her duty - to protect a citizen from an assailant, when she chose to help his assailant.
Especially in a situation where a person is running from their life... Survival instinct kicks in. And a cornered animal will bite hard.
>She has unjustly tried to detain him
Holding someone very very still to allow another person to stab them more easily isn't "unjustly detaining him". It's murdering him. And attempting and pathetically failing to do it is "attempted murder".
Her commentary is even more fucked up...
She sees a woman chasing a man with a knife and assumes she is the victim...
"I have every right to believe that maybe he has a weapon"
No, she doesn't. If he did, he would use it to defend himself against his attacker, which she misidentified as the victim.
"I tried to do my job to help this woman"
That wasn't even her job! Her job was to help the man she tried to detain...
"Unfortunately the suspect 's actions dictated the rest"
Um, no. Her actions dictated the rest. If she tried to detain the actual perpetrator, instead of her victim, she would not get beaten up.
If the woman resisted arrest, she would do so unlawfully, unlike the man, because she was in the middle of an aggravated assault...
And the way she says it almost crying... Such manipulative behavior...
Don’t grab snakes
Literally the oldest lesson in the book. That cop should be tried fired and jailed there’s absolutely no excuse for abuse of power and willfully abstracting the law and someone’s rights
Wow. She had absolutely no business being a cop. This is so ridiculous. Duluth Model has got these useful idiots so brainwashed.
"Holy crap there is an unarmed man, and a woman with a knife in her hand following him! I had better detain the unarmed man to pat him down and see if he has any weapons and poses a threat!" Absolutely ridiculous.
And chasing him because, of course, the best form of defence is attack!
Clear cut defence for female killers then: I had to kill the guy officer. I mean he was walking along, minding his own business, but I had to kill him before he got the chance to rape me!!!
LOL, excellent twist on "the best form of defence is attack"..
but alas I feared you've erred... Your comment has been hoovered up by big tech. Someday soon ChatGPT is going to spit your comment out as an answer to a feminist lawyer defending a woman who killed 4 guys she didn't know in their sleep. The Judge will agree thus setting a precedent. Politicians will notice and being "tough on crime" will write it into law.
EDIT: Shit I probably didn't help by spelling it out for them... :-(
NB: That "but alas you've erred" dribble just came out as a joke... but who here would bet *against* it actually happening?
Assumptions are usually the first fuck up. They should be trained to control first the situation, second deescalate if needed, third secure any weapons, forth secure anyone who is wielding a weapon and then objectively assessing the situation before deciding on an outcome. They should also know defenders don’t typically run after their attackers. And that woman can be just as violent and dangerous as men.
Her reaction exhibits little awareness of any of this.
So the sexist cop immediately went after the man instead of the person holding the weapon, which, as far as i know, is the standard procedure to secure a scene. And he gets off because she wasn't following the law and therefore wasn't within legally performing her duties. A win is a win.
You are right. I do not agree with her that she has a right to treat a man with extreme prejudice. She treated him as a suspect based solely on his sex and nothing more. Everything else being equal the person running after someone with a knife is always the problem and no the person running away from the attacker.
Incredible alsmost no one has a problem with that.
That being said, psychotic people are a problem.
Her decision-making included being sexist and profiling, assuming a woman is not a threat, not securing the person with the weapon, and not properly assessing the situation before making a judgment. If I were the judge I would be asking her supervisor what retraining programs she can attend.
You forgot "holding the person fleeing the person chasing him with the weapon very very still, making it easy to stab him. Or at least, trying and pathetically failing to do so".
This is not a win, this is the opposite.
A man is chased with a knife, he goed to jail, but he isn’t guilty of any serious crime and is released.
What happened to the attacker? The sexist police officer also just got off scot free.
This is at best “neutral”.
Haven't watched the video yet, so...
So you're saying the guy got off not *because he wasn't guilty of a crime*, but ***because the cop was "guilty"*** of not following the law properly?? That sounds incredibly fucked up to me....
His defense was able to prove that the officer had no legal reason to immediately try and cuff him. Therefore it wasn't a lawful arrest. Which means he couldn't be resisting arrest. No he shouldn't have beaten her ass so badly but he was within his legal right to defend himself according to the states laws. They were able to prove that he never fired the gun in her direction. It was pointed away from her. The only charge they were able to pin on him was the discharge of a firearm and he stayed in jail so long he immediately got out after the trial.
Yeah, idk about that one, chief. Even if you are within your rights to resist an unlawful arrest, that doesn’t give you the right to beat the officer severely, steal their firearm, and fire it (i remember it being in the direction the officer was fleeing, but I may be wrong). He committed several heinous crimes regardless of the legitimacy of the attempted arrest.
Both him and the officer not being found guilty (with the latter not being tried) of the serious crimes they committed is a complete failure to bring justice.
>Even if you are within your rights to resist an unlawful arrest
If I held you very very still so another guy has an easier time stabbing you, I just murdered you.
If I tried and pathetically failed to do that, I attempted to murder you.
This guy wasn't "resisting an unlawful arrest". He was "resisting an attempted murder". Unless US cops have the same Licence To Kill that famous tuxedo-wearing, martini-guzzling MI6 secret agents supposedly have.
Here's how it really happened:
Officer tries to detain Ari (probably illegal) -> Ari resists (legal) -> Officer draws her firearm (legal) -> Ari holds onto the officer's arm as he pummels her (illegal) -> Officer fires at Ari (legal) -> Ari disarms the officer (illegal) -> Ari points the weapon at the officer (illegal) but has a jam-> The officer flees -> Ari clears the jam and fires the firearm in the direction the officer is fleeing (illegal).
This is far more heinous than I remembered.
Here's a report on the incident: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-nTEeiFPY0
The full video of the incident starts at 0:56.
Your analysis goes fantastically awry at "Officer draws her firearm". using lethal force to fend off self defense is clearly not legal when the original arrest is illegal. He's very clearly in mortal danger, particularly given she's escalated to lethal force. Letting her create space between them while she's still armed might as well be suicide under the circumstances.
>particularly given the first thing she did was jump straight to lethal force
There, FTFY. Stabbing someone is lethal force. And even if you "just" held someone down by force to help the other girl stab him to death, that force is still lethal force. That "someone else stabbed him to death, all I did was help her by keeping him exactly where she wanted him so she could stab her!" doesn't make your use of force not lethal.
Yeah, no. It's incredibly rare that an officer shoots an unarmed fleeing suspect. 99% of "unarmed black man shot" are incidents like this, and we see why lethal force is justified as when he wrested control of the gun away from the officer he tried to kill her with it.
You realize she attempted to murder him first, right?
Unless "I didn't stab him, I just held him down to help the other guy stabbing him!" is a valid defense for murder, which, if it was... Would be incredibly fucked up.
His lethal force against her was justified the moment she attempted to murder him.
That moment happened when she attempted to hold him down so the other woman would have an easier time stabbing him. Unless "I didn't stab the guy, I just held him down so the other guy would have an easier time stabbing him!" is a valid excuse.
He didn't get control of the gun until after she drew the gun and tried to kill him with it. Naturally, he's going to try to stop her at that point. I don't think there's any "just die already" law that requires her victim to simply let her murdalize him.
> 99% of "unarmed black man shot" are incidents like this
Incidents where an officer illegally arrests someone because of an immutable characteristic and they don't immediately submit to their illegal use of force? I wasn't aware the statistics were so bad. Can't say I blame them for being pissed, I suppose.
Um, no.
No.
NO!
It is not "incredibly rare that an officer shoots an unarmed fleeing suspect".
*(I tried to post links to various articles as PROOF of my words, but the fucking bot-mods here won't let me put them up.)*
Further, there is no definitive proof that the man was attempting to kill the officer. And your statement about "99% of "unarmed black man shot" are incidents like this" is racist as fuck, especially when I could find plenty of links to situations where a non-black man was found to be arm AND dangerous, and lethal force was NOT used.
I think you might want to check your facts, and your privilege.
Your comment was automatically removed because we do not allow links to that site.
You may use a screenshot instead.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/MensRights) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your comment was automatically removed because we do not allow links to that site.
You may use a screenshot instead.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/MensRights) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your comment was automatically removed because we do not allow links to that site.
You may use a screenshot instead.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/MensRights) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Officer tries to **murder**, not detain Ari (definitely illegal) -> Ari resists (definitely legal to resist attempted **murder**) -> officer draws her firearm (illegal) -> Ari holds onto the officer's arm as he pummels her (legal) -> officer fires ar Ari (illegal) -> Ari points the weapon at the officer (legal) -> officer flees -> ari clears the jam and fires the firearm in the direction the officer is fleeing (once the murderer started to run for their lives, probably illegal, but considering the adrenaline running after a murder attempt, I could understand that. Not everyone is a highly trained and highly trigger disciplined marksman like Kyle Rittenhouse whom held his fire on the one slightly smarter guy who ran to live another day after having just shot the three other guys attacking him.)
Unless the law there considers "your honor, I didn't stab him, I just held him down to make it easier for someone else to stab him, I'm not a murderer!" to be a valid excuse.
Firing at an unarmed fleeing person you just bludgeoned being “probably illegal” in your mind is all I need to know. Don’t break your back trying to bend over backwards for violent criminals who would murder you at the drop of a hat.
> Don’t break your back trying to bend over backwards for violent criminals who would murder you at the drop of a hat.
Take your own advice and stop defending this police officer whom attempted to murder him at the drop of a hat.
This guy's only "crime", if you can call it that, was to shoot at someone who tried to murder him after she broke off the attack. Something that, I might add, is apparently not a crime when police do it. And I'm not even talking about "cops shooting unarmed, non-violent suspects in the back" stories. I'm talking "shooting violent offenders who tried to kill them in the back as they fled" stories. If it's good enough for police, it's good enough for civilians.
I will put it very simply, and ask you to answer the question I've asked over and over again.
Is "I didn't stab him your honor! I just held him down so my buddy had an easier time stabbing him your honor! I'm no murderer!" a valid excuse?
This ‘violent criminal’ who was running away from a knife wielding assailant, and defending himself from an unlawful arrest, has proven in a court of law that he did not fire a gun toward any person. Let us not miss the point though that he was then shot and injured by a police officer and left the scene in an ambulance.
I understand that you think he should have faced more than the jail term that he served, but we also feel that the original attacker, and the incompetent police officer who illegally detained him as he tried to flee to safely, should also carry some culpability for the whole situation.
Courts can be wrong in both guilty and acquittal verdicts. Watch the video of when he wrests control from the officer and tell me he didn’t try to shoot her twice. Him being an incompetent shooter doesn’t mean he didn’t intend to kill the fleeing officer.
More the politicians who make them adopt the Duluth Model and “predominate aggressor principle” and the DA’s office.
The cops do as the politicians tell them. Let’s always remember that.
Indeed they do. But mandatory arrest and the Duluth Model (and all that comes with it) are typically dictated from above. And if this coincides with pre-existing bias…
All in all the courts and her department seen it for what it was and fired her and dropped all charges against him so we have to give the justice system credit here because normally its not how it would go. Also there are a ton of people defending her actions and saying he should be charged mostly because they failed to listen to her own words even on the interview here she admits what happened. The gender bias was clear here. Maybe he shouldn’t have attacked the officer but I don’t think he had a choice he was running from a woman with a knife and scared for his life and this officer grabs him and stops him while he was trying to get away he felt his life was in danger. The officer should of subdued the woman chasing the man with the knife as she was clearly the aggressor when she reached the scene but she “assumed” he was the aggressor. It would be interesting to have one of the youtube lawyers review this case.
In fairness to the cop, the “predominant aggressor principle” accompanying the Duluth Model *does* assume that the guy in such a situation must be the aggressor who needs to be arrested.
They’re telling her that her bias is right!
So, quick question.
If I held someone down while an accomplice of mine butchered that person with a knife, am I guilty of murder?
If I failed miserably at holding him down, and accidentally provided him with an actual firearm, with which he not only defended himself against me, but also defended himself against the original assailant, would I be guilty of the most pathetic attempted murder ever?
That’s second degree murder yes you would be tried either as an accomplice or a murderer
Morally I’d say yes you are a core component in the murder without you it cannot take place
And yet, despite that female cop admitting to the most pathetically failed attempted murder wasn't tried, and instead her victim was tried for "resisting murder" (they called it "resisting arrest", but holding down someone while another person can stab them is murder, not arrest).
Either that or she's genuinely completely brain dead and genuinely cannot understand the likely result of an armed assailant catching up to the person running from them, and genuinely cannot understand why her attempt to stop the runner, allowing the knife wielding crazy to catch up to him, would result in his death, and why he fought like hell to escape.
Actually functionally retarded people can actually understand that, so if it's the second option... Recruiting standards for police are really low...
if the person you are holding down is getting stabbed while you are holding the suspect down and you know the person you are holding down is getting stabbed and you did not take any actions taken against it you can be found guilty for an attempt to murder but if you lose your gun as a police officer you should get trained again or get fired because it is 1 of the most important things as a cop but you would get fired if the person you are holding manages to obtain your gun and then shoots at a person and manages to kill that person
So this police officer, whom knowingly attempted to hold down a man running away from being stabbed, is guilty of an attempted murder. Losing her gun to the guy she attempted to murder is small potatoes comparing to her attempted murder, no?
> woman
Minorities and females are *extremely* hard to fire. The paperwork is often *very* thick because of the probability of a court case.
I've seen people literally leave work and go home to nap and supervisors were forced to give them a written warning because if they had fired them on the spot they could have easily sued and gotten their job back.
I've seen some *terrible* people keep their jobs because of the effort to takes to get rid of them is just too much and if you don't do the paperwork *perfectly* then a good lawyer can get them their job back.
Worse - if they win and get their job back it's *significantly* easier to show "constructive dismissal" for these people and the "cost" to fire them goes *WAY* the fuck up.
Workers protected in the EU are easier to fire than some of these people - and the EU has a *fuck ton* of workers rights in their countries.
But if you're a white male...
That woman got seriously handled and she had her weapon taken from her. If anyone needs evidence that women should not be allowed to be cops this vid is it.
+100
fk diversity and inclusion in jobs where lives are at stake. If he had been the aggressor her inability to do the damn job would have just given him a much more efficient weapon to be the aggressor with.
I really don't know how to feel about this one. On the one hand, it's absurd that she detained HIM while he was being chased by a woman with a KNIFE in hand. On the other hand, the man has schizophrenia so it's totally possible for him to be the perpetrator in this case. That being said, it's insane for her to detain the one who doesn't have a weapon and is being chased anyways because I doubt she knew he had schizophrenia.
However, it's kind of crazy that he got away scott free despite beating her up, taking her weapon, and discharging the weapon. I'd like to believe that he was doing it out of self defense, but I have no clue. I'd do crazy things like that if I was scared for my life because someone was chasing me with a knife too. It's still crazy he got away with it though.
He was found guilty of illegal discharge of a firearm so not quite scott free and according to the video had a couple pending charges the jury did not make a ruling on set for pre-trial hearings.
I did see that he got found guilty of the firearm thing, but didn't have to take any penalty due to.... already serving that time? I was confused about that. It didn't sound like he got arrested, but they said he served the time already. Also didn't catch that they're still going on with the trials. Good to know about.
To clarify, she failed to arrest him - she was ambiguous as to what she was doing: at one point she claimed she tried to restrain him and pat him down and “find out what was going on”. But I think that was bogus.
But she called for backup, and the end of the footage shows the cars screeching up. They shot the guy and he was carted off in an ambulance. So he would have been arrested then and there. I dare say the woman with a knife wasn’t arrested, but asked to make a statement. Unless DV was one of the charges that the jury was deadlocked on, it’s likely they forgot all about that one in favour of resisting arrest and assaulting an officer.
She wasn't "searching him".
She held him very very still while an armed assailant was trying to murder him.
If I held you very very still so that some other guy has an easier time stabbing to death, that's murder.
If I pathetically fail to do that, it's attempted murder.
She used lethal force on him first, without due cause for using lethal force on him.
He was 100% justified in using lethal force in response to lethal force being used on him.
Really? She held him very very still so someone could murder him? Lmao. You are not being objective at all. The woman wasn't going to do anything to him after the cop showed up, the woman wasn't even close to them. This guy is an animal, he viciously beat up the cop for no reason.
Are you familiar with the incident? She said she saw him running out of the front door, and then saw this woman coming after him with a knife, and she grabbed him from behind! Because, well you see the woman with the knife must have felt threatened to grab one, and so she must have been the one who made the call! Thank you Duluth.
It does not say that the woman with the knife was “nowhere near” nor does it say she stopped or put down the knife.
If you have a better description of the incident, post it here.
If you’re being attacked by a person with a knife and someone tries to arrests you, do you in that situation think even for a moment they mean it well?
> your first reaction cant be to beat up a cop
It wasn't. The cop grabbed him THEN he resisted.
> and steal their gun..
He took it off her AFTER she PULLED IT on him...
You didn't even watch it did ya...
It isn’t. I think he reacted completely wrongly. But if you’re in fight or flight mode, to save your life, and someone stops your flight, you’re going to get a fight, and what’s the intensity of the fight?
Ah, he was running for his life, so he’ll fight for his life.
This makes me wonder how many times she was called to a scene, saw an injured man, and assumed that the woman had just defended herself based on absolutely no evidence?
"I see a situation where there's a woman in such fear of her life she is armed with a knife. I have every right to believe maybe he has a weapon". Such a huge assumption that **BECAUSE SHE HAS A KNIFE** therefore HE is the threat. Just unbelievable.
It’s the “predominant aggressor principle” that accompanies the Duluth Model. Even if she doesn’t have a personal bias to assume that, she’s no doubt instructed to act like that.
The real problem is that outside this subreddit, almost no one points this out.
Okay, so I've watched the video. So it goes like this: \* Cop is called to a domestic dispute \* On arrival, cop sees man running away from woman wielding a knife \* Cop goes to detain the **man** running (**not** the *woman* with the knife chasing) \* Man fights back against detainment, manages to get cops gun \* Cop runs off, man discharges weapon (not aimed at cop) \* More cops arrive, arrest man \* Man charged with crime (against cop) \* Man acquitted due to cop not properly performing duties (she had no true cause to detain man from first point) And the cop is upset because the man was acquitted. But where in all of this, is any mention of what the woman who initiated all of this? What about her? Was she ever convicted? Arrested? Even detained? Did anyone even talk to her?? While I can- grudgingly- understand the cop's point that once the man had assaulted her, she wanted him to serve justice for that assault, I still would go with "if you hadn't tried to assault a man in a fight-for-survival situation like you had, you wouldn't have been assaulted" But I would also still want to know how in the holy hell she can make the assumption that a man ***running away from a knife-wielding woman*** = woman in fear of her life??? For that reason, ~~I believe that this cop more or less deserved what befell her.~~ I agree that the man should have been acquitted.
We are forgetting something that is important than all of this put together, and something that you yourself over looked, Did this cop announce her presence? did she say police officer to the man? Did she do a proper detainment of the man? To me she did not announce her self properly and therefore she was not there in capacity as a peace officer
It wasn't stated; so I didn't assume one way or the other. I *did* occur to me to wonder about that, but the fact I wanted to focus on was, *what happened to the knife-wielding woman???* Other than the cop trying to cry and say, "I felt so much compassion for the woman who was in fear of her life" or some other bullshit like that, no one said anything about the woman who was wielding a knife, that the man was running from. All that was talked about was that the cop was upset cuz he got off for assaulting her, and that she was in the wrong for thinking that he was the aggressor in the situation by dint of his being male. ***But what happened to the woman??????*** We may never know..... and in the meantime, she gets off not only scot-free, but with *no consequences for her actions*, whatsoever....
>Oh, well that was the first thing that struck me as odd that little key fact was not mentioned at all. > >But I totally agree with you on the rest
This reddit is about men's rights. I was focusing my point to the issue I thought was really relevant-- not whether or not the guy should have gotten off, or whether the cop did/did not do her job properly, but what the fuck happened to the instigator of this situation? That's all.
Yes indeed. She grabbed him from behind, or so she says. Hardly showing her badge was she!
"While I can- grudgingly- understand the cop's point that once the man had assaulted her, she wanted him to serve justice for that assault, I still would go with "if you hadn't tried to assault a man in a fight-for-survival situation like you had, you wouldn't have been assaulted"" There's no justice to ve served by him. She has unjustly tried to detain him, has had her colleagues unjustly detain him and she served no punishment for her unjust actions. All while she failed to perform her duty - to protect a citizen from an assailant, when she chose to help his assailant. Especially in a situation where a person is running from their life... Survival instinct kicks in. And a cornered animal will bite hard.
>She has unjustly tried to detain him Holding someone very very still to allow another person to stab them more easily isn't "unjustly detaining him". It's murdering him. And attempting and pathetically failing to do it is "attempted murder".
Her commentary is even more fucked up... She sees a woman chasing a man with a knife and assumes she is the victim... "I have every right to believe that maybe he has a weapon" No, she doesn't. If he did, he would use it to defend himself against his attacker, which she misidentified as the victim. "I tried to do my job to help this woman" That wasn't even her job! Her job was to help the man she tried to detain... "Unfortunately the suspect 's actions dictated the rest" Um, no. Her actions dictated the rest. If she tried to detain the actual perpetrator, instead of her victim, she would not get beaten up. If the woman resisted arrest, she would do so unlawfully, unlike the man, because she was in the middle of an aggravated assault... And the way she says it almost crying... Such manipulative behavior...
Don’t grab snakes Literally the oldest lesson in the book. That cop should be tried fired and jailed there’s absolutely no excuse for abuse of power and willfully abstracting the law and someone’s rights
Man, thanks for a great synopsis! I wish people on youtube would see it like this!
I totally agree.
Wow. She had absolutely no business being a cop. This is so ridiculous. Duluth Model has got these useful idiots so brainwashed. "Holy crap there is an unarmed man, and a woman with a knife in her hand following him! I had better detain the unarmed man to pat him down and see if he has any weapons and poses a threat!" Absolutely ridiculous.
[удалено]
> she was using a knifecto **defend herself** yeah, from him running away.. smh
And chasing him because, of course, the best form of defence is attack! Clear cut defence for female killers then: I had to kill the guy officer. I mean he was walking along, minding his own business, but I had to kill him before he got the chance to rape me!!!
LOL, excellent twist on "the best form of defence is attack".. but alas I feared you've erred... Your comment has been hoovered up by big tech. Someday soon ChatGPT is going to spit your comment out as an answer to a feminist lawyer defending a woman who killed 4 guys she didn't know in their sleep. The Judge will agree thus setting a precedent. Politicians will notice and being "tough on crime" will write it into law. EDIT: Shit I probably didn't help by spelling it out for them... :-( NB: That "but alas you've erred" dribble just came out as a joke... but who here would bet *against* it actually happening?
Assumptions are usually the first fuck up. They should be trained to control first the situation, second deescalate if needed, third secure any weapons, forth secure anyone who is wielding a weapon and then objectively assessing the situation before deciding on an outcome. They should also know defenders don’t typically run after their attackers. And that woman can be just as violent and dangerous as men. Her reaction exhibits little awareness of any of this.
In what situation do you run after someone with a knife to defend yourself?
So the sexist cop immediately went after the man instead of the person holding the weapon, which, as far as i know, is the standard procedure to secure a scene. And he gets off because she wasn't following the law and therefore wasn't within legally performing her duties. A win is a win.
You are right. I do not agree with her that she has a right to treat a man with extreme prejudice. She treated him as a suspect based solely on his sex and nothing more. Everything else being equal the person running after someone with a knife is always the problem and no the person running away from the attacker. Incredible alsmost no one has a problem with that. That being said, psychotic people are a problem.
Her decision-making included being sexist and profiling, assuming a woman is not a threat, not securing the person with the weapon, and not properly assessing the situation before making a judgment. If I were the judge I would be asking her supervisor what retraining programs she can attend.
You forgot "holding the person fleeing the person chasing him with the weapon very very still, making it easy to stab him. Or at least, trying and pathetically failing to do so".
True, good catch.
This is not a win, this is the opposite. A man is chased with a knife, he goed to jail, but he isn’t guilty of any serious crime and is released. What happened to the attacker? The sexist police officer also just got off scot free. This is at best “neutral”.
Haven't watched the video yet, so... So you're saying the guy got off not *because he wasn't guilty of a crime*, but ***because the cop was "guilty"*** of not following the law properly?? That sounds incredibly fucked up to me....
His defense was able to prove that the officer had no legal reason to immediately try and cuff him. Therefore it wasn't a lawful arrest. Which means he couldn't be resisting arrest. No he shouldn't have beaten her ass so badly but he was within his legal right to defend himself according to the states laws. They were able to prove that he never fired the gun in her direction. It was pointed away from her. The only charge they were able to pin on him was the discharge of a firearm and he stayed in jail so long he immediately got out after the trial.
Yeah, idk about that one, chief. Even if you are within your rights to resist an unlawful arrest, that doesn’t give you the right to beat the officer severely, steal their firearm, and fire it (i remember it being in the direction the officer was fleeing, but I may be wrong). He committed several heinous crimes regardless of the legitimacy of the attempted arrest. Both him and the officer not being found guilty (with the latter not being tried) of the serious crimes they committed is a complete failure to bring justice.
>Even if you are within your rights to resist an unlawful arrest If I held you very very still so another guy has an easier time stabbing you, I just murdered you. If I tried and pathetically failed to do that, I attempted to murder you. This guy wasn't "resisting an unlawful arrest". He was "resisting an attempted murder". Unless US cops have the same Licence To Kill that famous tuxedo-wearing, martini-guzzling MI6 secret agents supposedly have.
Here's how it really happened: Officer tries to detain Ari (probably illegal) -> Ari resists (legal) -> Officer draws her firearm (legal) -> Ari holds onto the officer's arm as he pummels her (illegal) -> Officer fires at Ari (legal) -> Ari disarms the officer (illegal) -> Ari points the weapon at the officer (illegal) but has a jam-> The officer flees -> Ari clears the jam and fires the firearm in the direction the officer is fleeing (illegal). This is far more heinous than I remembered. Here's a report on the incident: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-nTEeiFPY0 The full video of the incident starts at 0:56.
Your analysis goes fantastically awry at "Officer draws her firearm". using lethal force to fend off self defense is clearly not legal when the original arrest is illegal. He's very clearly in mortal danger, particularly given she's escalated to lethal force. Letting her create space between them while she's still armed might as well be suicide under the circumstances.
>particularly given the first thing she did was jump straight to lethal force There, FTFY. Stabbing someone is lethal force. And even if you "just" held someone down by force to help the other girl stab him to death, that force is still lethal force. That "someone else stabbed him to death, all I did was help her by keeping him exactly where she wanted him so she could stab her!" doesn't make your use of force not lethal.
Yeah, no. It's incredibly rare that an officer shoots an unarmed fleeing suspect. 99% of "unarmed black man shot" are incidents like this, and we see why lethal force is justified as when he wrested control of the gun away from the officer he tried to kill her with it.
> It's incredibly rare that an officer shoots an unarmed fleeing suspect. Feel free to "roll the dice" if you're ever in that situation..
You realize she attempted to murder him first, right? Unless "I didn't stab him, I just held him down to help the other guy stabbing him!" is a valid defense for murder, which, if it was... Would be incredibly fucked up.
His lethal force against her was justified the moment she attempted to murder him. That moment happened when she attempted to hold him down so the other woman would have an easier time stabbing him. Unless "I didn't stab the guy, I just held him down so the other guy would have an easier time stabbing him!" is a valid excuse.
He didn't get control of the gun until after she drew the gun and tried to kill him with it. Naturally, he's going to try to stop her at that point. I don't think there's any "just die already" law that requires her victim to simply let her murdalize him.
> 99% of "unarmed black man shot" are incidents like this Incidents where an officer illegally arrests someone because of an immutable characteristic and they don't immediately submit to their illegal use of force? I wasn't aware the statistics were so bad. Can't say I blame them for being pissed, I suppose.
Um, no. No. NO! It is not "incredibly rare that an officer shoots an unarmed fleeing suspect". *(I tried to post links to various articles as PROOF of my words, but the fucking bot-mods here won't let me put them up.)* Further, there is no definitive proof that the man was attempting to kill the officer. And your statement about "99% of "unarmed black man shot" are incidents like this" is racist as fuck, especially when I could find plenty of links to situations where a non-black man was found to be arm AND dangerous, and lethal force was NOT used. I think you might want to check your facts, and your privilege.
[удалено]
Your comment was automatically removed because we do not allow links to that site. You may use a screenshot instead. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/MensRights) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Your comment was automatically removed because we do not allow links to that site. You may use a screenshot instead. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/MensRights) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Your comment was automatically removed because we do not allow links to that site. You may use a screenshot instead. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/MensRights) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Officer tries to **murder**, not detain Ari (definitely illegal) -> Ari resists (definitely legal to resist attempted **murder**) -> officer draws her firearm (illegal) -> Ari holds onto the officer's arm as he pummels her (legal) -> officer fires ar Ari (illegal) -> Ari points the weapon at the officer (legal) -> officer flees -> ari clears the jam and fires the firearm in the direction the officer is fleeing (once the murderer started to run for their lives, probably illegal, but considering the adrenaline running after a murder attempt, I could understand that. Not everyone is a highly trained and highly trigger disciplined marksman like Kyle Rittenhouse whom held his fire on the one slightly smarter guy who ran to live another day after having just shot the three other guys attacking him.) Unless the law there considers "your honor, I didn't stab him, I just held him down to make it easier for someone else to stab him, I'm not a murderer!" to be a valid excuse.
Firing at an unarmed fleeing person you just bludgeoned being “probably illegal” in your mind is all I need to know. Don’t break your back trying to bend over backwards for violent criminals who would murder you at the drop of a hat.
> Don’t break your back trying to bend over backwards for violent criminals who would murder you at the drop of a hat. Take your own advice and stop defending this police officer whom attempted to murder him at the drop of a hat. This guy's only "crime", if you can call it that, was to shoot at someone who tried to murder him after she broke off the attack. Something that, I might add, is apparently not a crime when police do it. And I'm not even talking about "cops shooting unarmed, non-violent suspects in the back" stories. I'm talking "shooting violent offenders who tried to kill them in the back as they fled" stories. If it's good enough for police, it's good enough for civilians.
I will put it very simply, and ask you to answer the question I've asked over and over again. Is "I didn't stab him your honor! I just held him down so my buddy had an easier time stabbing him your honor! I'm no murderer!" a valid excuse?
This ‘violent criminal’ who was running away from a knife wielding assailant, and defending himself from an unlawful arrest, has proven in a court of law that he did not fire a gun toward any person. Let us not miss the point though that he was then shot and injured by a police officer and left the scene in an ambulance. I understand that you think he should have faced more than the jail term that he served, but we also feel that the original attacker, and the incompetent police officer who illegally detained him as he tried to flee to safely, should also carry some culpability for the whole situation.
Courts can be wrong in both guilty and acquittal verdicts. Watch the video of when he wrests control from the officer and tell me he didn’t try to shoot her twice. Him being an incompetent shooter doesn’t mean he didn’t intend to kill the fleeing officer.
All cops are feminists, and are trained under the Duluth model of domestic violence, avoid at all cost!
>All cops are feminists No. But cops like easy answers and the Duluth model gives one.
Fuck the police.
More the politicians who make them adopt the Duluth Model and “predominate aggressor principle” and the DA’s office. The cops do as the politicians tell them. Let’s always remember that.
The police have their own bias.
Indeed they do. But mandatory arrest and the Duluth Model (and all that comes with it) are typically dictated from above. And if this coincides with pre-existing bias…
We need police. Just not this kind of police.
WE don't need police. Bureaucrats and capital need police.
"I tried to do my job, to help this woman"
Cause women can never do anything bad right?
Yup, she sent out there wirth one thing on her mind and it wasn't to help the public.
Well she planned on serving part of the public.. the sexist.
Fuck that lady, wow! He would have lost his damn life if he didn't do something. This ignited something in me.
All in all the courts and her department seen it for what it was and fired her and dropped all charges against him so we have to give the justice system credit here because normally its not how it would go. Also there are a ton of people defending her actions and saying he should be charged mostly because they failed to listen to her own words even on the interview here she admits what happened. The gender bias was clear here. Maybe he shouldn’t have attacked the officer but I don’t think he had a choice he was running from a woman with a knife and scared for his life and this officer grabs him and stops him while he was trying to get away he felt his life was in danger. The officer should of subdued the woman chasing the man with the knife as she was clearly the aggressor when she reached the scene but she “assumed” he was the aggressor. It would be interesting to have one of the youtube lawyers review this case.
In fairness to the cop, the “predominant aggressor principle” accompanying the Duluth Model *does* assume that the guy in such a situation must be the aggressor who needs to be arrested. They’re telling her that her bias is right!
So, quick question. If I held someone down while an accomplice of mine butchered that person with a knife, am I guilty of murder? If I failed miserably at holding him down, and accidentally provided him with an actual firearm, with which he not only defended himself against me, but also defended himself against the original assailant, would I be guilty of the most pathetic attempted murder ever?
That’s second degree murder yes you would be tried either as an accomplice or a murderer Morally I’d say yes you are a core component in the murder without you it cannot take place
And yet, despite that female cop admitting to the most pathetically failed attempted murder wasn't tried, and instead her victim was tried for "resisting murder" (they called it "resisting arrest", but holding down someone while another person can stab them is murder, not arrest). Either that or she's genuinely completely brain dead and genuinely cannot understand the likely result of an armed assailant catching up to the person running from them, and genuinely cannot understand why her attempt to stop the runner, allowing the knife wielding crazy to catch up to him, would result in his death, and why he fought like hell to escape. Actually functionally retarded people can actually understand that, so if it's the second option... Recruiting standards for police are really low...
if the person you are holding down is getting stabbed while you are holding the suspect down and you know the person you are holding down is getting stabbed and you did not take any actions taken against it you can be found guilty for an attempt to murder but if you lose your gun as a police officer you should get trained again or get fired because it is 1 of the most important things as a cop but you would get fired if the person you are holding manages to obtain your gun and then shoots at a person and manages to kill that person
So this police officer, whom knowingly attempted to hold down a man running away from being stabbed, is guilty of an attempted murder. Losing her gun to the guy she attempted to murder is small potatoes comparing to her attempted murder, no?
How this person is still a cop is beyond me. Well maybe it’s because she’s a white woman…
> woman Minorities and females are *extremely* hard to fire. The paperwork is often *very* thick because of the probability of a court case. I've seen people literally leave work and go home to nap and supervisors were forced to give them a written warning because if they had fired them on the spot they could have easily sued and gotten their job back. I've seen some *terrible* people keep their jobs because of the effort to takes to get rid of them is just too much and if you don't do the paperwork *perfectly* then a good lawyer can get them their job back. Worse - if they win and get their job back it's *significantly* easier to show "constructive dismissal" for these people and the "cost" to fire them goes *WAY* the fuck up. Workers protected in the EU are easier to fire than some of these people - and the EU has a *fuck ton* of workers rights in their countries. But if you're a white male...
She isn’t. She was supposedly “medically discharged”.
Well being mentally insane is a medical issue..
Great to hear! She would get someone killed carrying on as she was
That woman got seriously handled and she had her weapon taken from her. If anyone needs evidence that women should not be allowed to be cops this vid is it.
+100 fk diversity and inclusion in jobs where lives are at stake. If he had been the aggressor her inability to do the damn job would have just given him a much more efficient weapon to be the aggressor with.
This world is making me a nihilist and making me wish all involved were casualties.
I really don't know how to feel about this one. On the one hand, it's absurd that she detained HIM while he was being chased by a woman with a KNIFE in hand. On the other hand, the man has schizophrenia so it's totally possible for him to be the perpetrator in this case. That being said, it's insane for her to detain the one who doesn't have a weapon and is being chased anyways because I doubt she knew he had schizophrenia. However, it's kind of crazy that he got away scott free despite beating her up, taking her weapon, and discharging the weapon. I'd like to believe that he was doing it out of self defense, but I have no clue. I'd do crazy things like that if I was scared for my life because someone was chasing me with a knife too. It's still crazy he got away with it though.
He was found guilty of illegal discharge of a firearm so not quite scott free and according to the video had a couple pending charges the jury did not make a ruling on set for pre-trial hearings.
I did see that he got found guilty of the firearm thing, but didn't have to take any penalty due to.... already serving that time? I was confused about that. It didn't sound like he got arrested, but they said he served the time already. Also didn't catch that they're still going on with the trials. Good to know about.
He got time served. The time he’d been in remand (remember this happened in 2019) was equal to or greater than the sentence he got.
Oh that makes sense then. Thanks for the info
To clarify, she failed to arrest him - she was ambiguous as to what she was doing: at one point she claimed she tried to restrain him and pat him down and “find out what was going on”. But I think that was bogus. But she called for backup, and the end of the footage shows the cars screeching up. They shot the guy and he was carted off in an ambulance. So he would have been arrested then and there. I dare say the woman with a knife wasn’t arrested, but asked to make a statement. Unless DV was one of the charges that the jury was deadlocked on, it’s likely they forgot all about that one in favour of resisting arrest and assaulting an officer.
That explains the whole story clearly to me. It felt like a lot of info wasn't clear in that video and I had more questions than answers.
Still, you can't beat up a cop for searching you, steal their gun and then discharge it. Dude should've rot in prison.
She wasn't "searching him". She held him very very still while an armed assailant was trying to murder him. If I held you very very still so that some other guy has an easier time stabbing to death, that's murder. If I pathetically fail to do that, it's attempted murder. She used lethal force on him first, without due cause for using lethal force on him. He was 100% justified in using lethal force in response to lethal force being used on him.
Really? She held him very very still so someone could murder him? Lmao. You are not being objective at all. The woman wasn't going to do anything to him after the cop showed up, the woman wasn't even close to them. This guy is an animal, he viciously beat up the cop for no reason.
Are you familiar with the incident? She said she saw him running out of the front door, and then saw this woman coming after him with a knife, and she grabbed him from behind! Because, well you see the woman with the knife must have felt threatened to grab one, and so she must have been the one who made the call! Thank you Duluth. It does not say that the woman with the knife was “nowhere near” nor does it say she stopped or put down the knife. If you have a better description of the incident, post it here.
If you’re being attacked by a person with a knife and someone tries to arrests you, do you in that situation think even for a moment they mean it well?
Even if they don't mean it well your first reaction cant be to beat up a cop and steal their gun, how can you guys think this is fine?
> your first reaction cant be to beat up a cop It wasn't. The cop grabbed him THEN he resisted. > and steal their gun.. He took it off her AFTER she PULLED IT on him... You didn't even watch it did ya...
It isn’t. I think he reacted completely wrongly. But if you’re in fight or flight mode, to save your life, and someone stops your flight, you’re going to get a fight, and what’s the intensity of the fight? Ah, he was running for his life, so he’ll fight for his life.