So… what the context? Why did he punch her? Why did they come back mob handed to drag her out of there? I hate videos that only start with the assault, but nothing that leads up to it.
In Germany, police are held to a high standard because their education is comparatively rigorous. That was not crowd control or de-escalation, it was police brutality. What preceded this is not entirely relevant to the officer’s action.
No, they just get their sentence dismissed per default. Nothing will happen to the guy in the video, they’d rather prosecute the woman for interfering with his hand while he was at work.
I mentioned nothing about fascism. I agree context matters, especially involving police escalations. But I also believe that there is a line police should not cross, especially when they train for years.
You didnt, others who agree with you did. Context matters, theres no * on that. It matters. Videos that start with the incident, but not that build up, are selling you outrage. Even if its totally what it appears to be, police brutality, we still need to see the context of WHY the police acted like that. Was it something she said? Something she did or didnt do? Was it someone else, and they made a mistake zeroing in on her? Who the fuck knows, because the video only wants to get you all rage baited and clicking.
The idea of being pissed off at me for wanting more information, is fucking weird and everything that is wrong with the internet.
I’m not pissed off, though? I just know police in Germany train for much longer than in the US and in other countries. So, even if I had context that the woman punched an officer, for example, I still think it’s police brutality for the officer to punch her.
There are more efficient ways to de-escalate or to subdue than to punch someone, especially since there were multiple officers with armor equipped.
Again, you may not be. But others sure as fuck are.
But, lets play your game. Someone spits in your face. What do you do? Someone has a weapon. What do you do? Someone grabs your dick/your girlfriends pussy. What do you do? If the answer to any of these isnt “punch them in the fucking face”, I really dont know what to tell you.
I am not an Officer of the Law. I hold police to higher standards than I do regular people because of their training. I really don’t know what to tell you.
It’s literally a crime for any of those reasons to assault anyone in countries I’m at least a bit familiar with, for any cop or private citizen.
Someone who spits in you face should be persecuted.
Someone who punches someone should be prosecuted.
These are the basics of law.
Otherwise it would be justified to punch a cop back in the face bcs they punched me in the face (bcs I spit in their face). It doesn’t end. The legal system is there literally to prevent that endless cycle of violence (unless in prefect anarchy with diligent participants, but nobody is arguing that here since “a cop” existing voids that theoretical case).
So you just think that there are circumstances where police can punch someone in the face that isn’t actively attacking them with overwhelming force?
That’s fascist af.
A face punch should immediately be prosecuted in court & ofc the fine include a ban from law enforcement.
Even in Europe that’s is an extreme for police, next to UK.
Tho water cannons on protesters of any kind has just become a staple in recent decade or so. And we just let that be the case instead of revolting.
When I was 20, I booted utter fuck out of a guy. The bouncers in the club, didnt know the context. They just saw me walk up to a dude and start punch him in the face, down him, and then start booting into his skull. I was the asshole in their view. What they didnt know, was that moments earlier that guy had stuck his hand down the back of my girlfriends jeans and tried to finger her arsehole.
If there was a problem, why didn’t he arrest her then? Is there an offense that is legally repaid by the cop being allowed one punch to the offenders face? I agree context matters, but there’s no context where this cops behavior is justified to me.
I dont know… because the context is missing. Am I not saying it right? God you people are fucking weird. Arguing for LESS information. Utterly fucking bizarre people.
But my question also stands: is there a circumstance where that’s acceptable, even theoretically? Why would a punch suffice and not arrest them? That’s the official legal remedy for an infraction?
You keep dodging the question, you obviously don’t have a good answer. Likely because there simply isn’t one. But hey, feel free to start slinging personal insults when you can’t win
Still a literal crime (assault) for the spat-on police officer to punch the perp.
That’s why people get the huge settlements from courts (more USA than Germany tho), there just is no legal basis for such cop actions.
There’s a difference between the position that something can be determined unacceptable with the given context and arguing against wanting more context
That is the one thing that starts to enrage me about the fediverse; once the local hivemind decided something no amount of discussion or information is allowed. No more critical thinking even though most likely we would reach the same conclusions…
Did the hive mind really decide cops should in no context go to an individual & punch them in the face, or is that just an universal logical thought known to the majority about public servants?
The law doesn’t mandate face-punching.
If someone breaks the law, there are other prescribed procedural consequences (literal procedures in law that describe what law enforcement needs to do). Not some sadistic ronin desperado impersonating justice as they individually see fit outside the context of law.
If someone is guiltily of something, "a slap on the wrist’ is a metaphor, not a literal means of dispensing justice directly by the law enforcement on the spot.
(Also reserved for those with power & who massively break the law, but that is another convo.)
Without going into technicalities there’s the notion of reasonable force and proportional response and all that which is literally bound to the context of an event.
But you miss my point; I’m not discussing the event depicted here specifically. I’m criticising the lack of critical thinking and openness to arguments.
Reaching the conclusion that this cop mustn’t have punched that particular person for the exact context should not be taboo. We should be, in full understanding of the situation, condemning it.
Person has a bomb in a public place. Cop punches that person in the face, and takes control of the bomb. That would be one example of context in which a cop punching someone would be valid.
This is why context is important, because taking a snap shot of something is never the whole picture. If the cop is in the wrong, I want the whole picture. Not just the part you say is relevant. For example, did the cop punch anyone else before or after punching her?
No, thats just the story you need to tell yourself because youre too fucking stupid to understand rage bait when you see it. You cant argue that more information is bad, so instead you make it about me. Cos youre that fucking stupid.
You (in that instance in your 20s) weren’t a cop on duty I assume (horrible situation tho). Neither was the bouncer. You were just four people that should present your testimony to the court.
If I go, finger a cop (non-consensually), & then step back, they still are not allowed, under no circumstances, to punch me in the face if I’m not an active threat. That is just literally the law. The excuse for the punching would be anything other than a direct consequence (bcs we do not have retaliation enshrined in law, bcs “civilised” and whatnot). They would be guilty of punching (and me guilty of fingering).
(Morally justified on their part & unimaginably horrendous on my part - just to be ultra clear.)
Would the face-punching be justified?
Absolutely (and much, much more).
Would it be legal?
No.
“Eye for an eye” is not an anarchistic mandate, it’s a procedural event where a third party decides on face-punch distribution (“legally”).
(Not that I’m saying what op posted falls under that, that is just sadistic tendencies being allowed en masse for political goals. It’s too well documented & officially commented by govs in question to be overall misunderstood as anything but that.)
Nobody is saying context doesn’t matter.
The argument is that for a law enforcement/cop to “legally punch” someone there is all the context necessary already present in the vid - the person was standing there.
Folk will ask for additional context on vids of cops punching (and even killing) someone handcuffed on the ground. Sure there is context, from breakfast food to horoscope. Still legally not allowed to punch.
If a cop catches me speeding they don’t decide between (the illegal option of) two face-punches or a (legal option of a) monetary fine.
Solving violence with violence is what we seek to avoid when we want to advance civilisation.
(Again, the OPs vids imho shows only violence, not even ‘violence hoping to solve anything’.)
“Whoever argues against my argument is wrong” isn’t much of an argument tho.
Not even you will provide what possible context could legally excuse a face-punch by a cop to someone ‘standing there’.
Not that anyone here was arguing for less context. That is just you claiming that we said that. Context is good. Still a crime to punch someone in the face tho.
I suggest you stop this line of inquiry before you embarrass yourself. No one with an ounce of self-respect or awareness has ever attempted to employ horseshoe theory reasoning with zero irony.
why are you so focused on women? in the name of equality between men and women, I suggest you try to be more feministic. your gender-focused toxicity has no place in the world
Well, actually there is in a self-defense scenario.
So the question of the thread starter is legit: what happened in the seconds before the punch?
Video cutting looks very selective to me. Ragebait instead of solid police violence documentation one could work with…
Police is required to use the minimum necessary force to an eminent attack . There is no way you can convince me that the punch was the right actions. Simply restraining her would have worked
And without context we will never know if this is the case or not.
I read the reports on the event. This in general has not been a peaceful anti-war demonstration. There have been attacks on policemen, one got hurt.
The video could be connected to that.
And without further context and the deliberate video cutting, every relevant party (meaning press and state prosecutor) will assume that.
So: Where is the full video, so that this action may have actual consequences?
You can easily know when a video is off. With you same dumb logic, we don’t have context about why the policeman was hurt. There is justification to punch the protestor just like there is no justification for that policeman to be hurt. I always hear about that context bs only when it comes to gaza and when a context is provided showing the anti genocide person is not at fault. No excuses are provided and the people like you vanish
Part of the problems is, they have not been anti-genocide persons. The date of demonstration might give a hint what they have been celebrating instead.
An actual anti-genocide demo a few days later would not have been forbidden in the first place and also would have had a positive effect.
This demonstration as it was organized and happened on the other hand was a real field day for right-wing media and significantly fueled anti-palestinian ressentiments.
I hate that.
Are you fucking kidding me? If felt endangered by her he wouldn’t have punched her and just left, he’d have arrested her or left the situation entirely. Ergo it’s not self-defense, ergo he had no reason to legal or moral reason to punch her. The fact that he just left means he could’ve done that from the start.
So if this is the case, why is the video cut in such a selective way?
And why is she tackled down by half a dozen policemen afterwards?
I read the reports on the event. They let the majority of the people just go home after some time. With the exception of those that commited criminal offenses. Like attacking policemen.
We just don’t know, because a crucial part of the video is missing.
Find me the rest and I will happily personnaly alert the state attorney to this incident.
But in this form, the evidence just is too thin.
So, anyone: Give me more! I want the raw data!
I just explained why we can make a judgement without the context and you’re there not addressing anything I said. You haven’t shown why we need to care about the context.
So if this is the case, why is the video cut in such a selective way?
And why is she tackled down by half a dozen policemen afterwards?
Don’t know, don’t care. Probably to declutter the video. Again, the only thing justifying such an action would be a credible threat of death or injury that he couldn’t disengage from, and we can plainly see that was not the case, because we literally see him fucking disengaging right after. Context is only necessary to resolve ambiguity, and there is nothing ambiguous here.
With the exception of those that commited criminal offenses. Like attacking policemen.
Well forgive me for not trusting the words of riot police out of all people.
But in this form, the evidence just is too thin.
We can see an instance of assault by a police officer on video but it’s “just too thin,” right…
You haven’t shown why we need to care about the context.
Why we need to care:
With context, the video might be sufficient to raise a charge against the policemen by the state prosecution.
Without, it is basically worthless.
They let the majority of the people just go home after some time. With the exception of those that commited criminal offenses. Like attacking policemen.
If a cop gets a hangnail while beating a protestor, they’ll say it was the protestor’s fault and charge them with assaulting an officer. They have charged people for breaking a cop’s hand, after the cop punched them in the face. I remember when I heard an old retired cop say that he and his buddies would knee someone in the balls, then refer to it in their reports as “the suspect violently groined my knee”.
There are many. Police can use violence to enforce compliance, prevent harm, and other reasons. Protests and protestors have to follow the law, and they don’t always.
If you listen to the video, there‘s a German police voice instructing the protestors to follow police instructions. Sadly the video is cut in a way, where you don’t get to hear the actual police instructions.
There is no context, so it’s impossible to say if this was legal or not.
The context after the punch tells you everything you need to know. If the protester had done something for which physical violence was appropriate police response, the immediate step right after the physical violence logically is detention and arrest.
Think about it, if a cop legitimately needs to say tackle somebody, tase somebody, shoot at somebody, the next thing the cop does is arrest, not walk away. It would be truly bizarre to see a cop tase a person and then casually walk away.
Same logic applies here: if the punch was called for, arrest was also called for. But this motherfucker calmly walks away.
No it doesnt. And you all need to stop making excuses the heavily edited video. If theres nothing to hide, theres no reason not to show the whole thing. Stop making excuses for rage bait.
Good, I hope that is what I sound like. Because “I just saw a heavily edited video, and made my mind up on the spot” would make me sound like you. A fucking moron.
This was likely part of an illegal pro Hamas protest on October 7th. The article says police went into the crowd repeatedly in order to arrest offenders and leaders. Protestors attempted to free prisoners and set fire to a police vehicle. There were almost 200 arrests because of participation in an illegal protest, rioting, attacking police, hate speech, and incitement.
You might be able to find the full video under the hashtag #b0710 on twitter.
more often than not, these treaties are more like a gesture of goodwill or moral views to state your intention with no actual legal binding. but maybe you can point out your source, being smarter than the entire German judicial system?
There are laws around protests, yes. Like you can’t commit violent acts, need to announce it, can’t incite, no hate speech, etc. Pro Palestine protests happen legally all the time. This one was against the law.
I don’t know what happened with that punch or what happened before. I can’t say if it was legal or not, as I don’t know enough.
Well I’ve been on Lemmy much longer and concur - you’re a piece of shit bootlicker.
The only reason that punch could possibly have been deserved was she was a violent threat/danger, which she clearly isn’t because they bastard coward just walk away after punching.
He’s just some undisciplined goon who got pissed off for being on the wrong side of what’s just and his cognitive dissonance lashed out as a punch best case scenario. Worst case he’s a loser racist that actually thinks these people don’t matter and got tired of pretending for a moment there because no one can beat his chicken ass back legally.
So… what the context? Why did he punch her? Why did they come back mob handed to drag her out of there? I hate videos that only start with the assault, but nothing that leads up to it.
In Germany, police are held to a high standard because their education is comparatively rigorous. That was not crowd control or de-escalation, it was police brutality. What preceded this is not entirely relevant to the officer’s action.
Are they really held to a higher standard though? Unless we see this cop face serious consequences, that’s just not true
No, they just get their sentence dismissed per default. Nothing will happen to the guy in the video, they’d rather prosecute the woman for interfering with his hand while he was at work.
Context will always matter, and no amount of “only a fascist would say that” is going to make that not true.
I mentioned nothing about fascism. I agree context matters, especially involving police escalations. But I also believe that there is a line police should not cross, especially when they train for years.
You didnt, others who agree with you did. Context matters, theres no * on that. It matters. Videos that start with the incident, but not that build up, are selling you outrage. Even if its totally what it appears to be, police brutality, we still need to see the context of WHY the police acted like that. Was it something she said? Something she did or didnt do? Was it someone else, and they made a mistake zeroing in on her? Who the fuck knows, because the video only wants to get you all rage baited and clicking.
The idea of being pissed off at me for wanting more information, is fucking weird and everything that is wrong with the internet.
I’m not pissed off, though? I just know police in Germany train for much longer than in the US and in other countries. So, even if I had context that the woman punched an officer, for example, I still think it’s police brutality for the officer to punch her.
There are more efficient ways to de-escalate or to subdue than to punch someone, especially since there were multiple officers with armor equipped.
Again, you may not be. But others sure as fuck are.
But, lets play your game. Someone spits in your face. What do you do? Someone has a weapon. What do you do? Someone grabs your dick/your girlfriends pussy. What do you do? If the answer to any of these isnt “punch them in the fucking face”, I really dont know what to tell you.
I am not an Officer of the Law. I hold police to higher standards than I do regular people because of their training. I really don’t know what to tell you.
Youve already told me.
It’s literally a crime for any of those reasons to assault anyone in countries I’m at least a bit familiar with, for any cop or private citizen.
Someone who spits in you face should be persecuted.
Someone who punches someone should be prosecuted.
These are the basics of law.
Otherwise it would be justified to punch a cop back in the face bcs they punched me in the face (bcs I spit in their face). It doesn’t end. The legal system is there literally to prevent that endless cycle of violence (unless in prefect anarchy with diligent participants, but nobody is arguing that here since “a cop” existing voids that theoretical case).
Dude, why are you punching a cop in the face??? Are you unhinged???
See how I removed the context there, and what happened? Context, my good chap. IT FUCKING MATTERS!
Removed by mod
So you just think that there are circumstances where police can punch someone in the face that isn’t actively attacking them with overwhelming force?
That’s fascist af.
A face punch should immediately be prosecuted in court & ofc the fine include a ban from law enforcement.
Even in Europe that’s is an extreme for police, next to UK.
Tho water cannons on protesters of any kind has just become a staple in recent decade or so. And we just let that be the case instead of revolting.
Thats kinda the point of context, isnt it?
When I was 20, I booted utter fuck out of a guy. The bouncers in the club, didnt know the context. They just saw me walk up to a dude and start punch him in the face, down him, and then start booting into his skull. I was the asshole in their view. What they didnt know, was that moments earlier that guy had stuck his hand down the back of my girlfriends jeans and tried to finger her arsehole.
Context matters.
If there was a problem, why didn’t he arrest her then? Is there an offense that is legally repaid by the cop being allowed one punch to the offenders face? I agree context matters, but there’s no context where this cops behavior is justified to me.
I dont know… because the context is missing. Am I not saying it right? God you people are fucking weird. Arguing for LESS information. Utterly fucking bizarre people.
But my question also stands: is there a circumstance where that’s acceptable, even theoretically? Why would a punch suffice and not arrest them? That’s the official legal remedy for an infraction?
deleted by creator
You keep dodging the question, you obviously don’t have a good answer. Likely because there simply isn’t one. But hey, feel free to start slinging personal insults when you can’t win
You don’t know the context and can’t find a context where a police can punch someone yet here you are justifying police brutality
What is the person spat on them? What if the person had a weapon? What if, what if, what if.
The utter fucking state of all of you arguing against knowing what actually happened…
Still a literal crime (assault) for the spat-on police officer to punch the perp.
That’s why people get the huge settlements from courts (more USA than Germany tho), there just is no legal basis for such cop actions.
deleted by creator
I can’t believe that you think spitting on a police is a valid reason to punch someone. If a person has a weapon to restraint him and take his weapon
Dude, if you spat on me, Id much fucking worse.
Then you arrest the person and not punch them, then let them go.
Nobody here argued for less information
“Whats the context?”
Downvotes, and personal attacks and name calling. Yeah, sure thing, buddy.
There’s a difference between the position that something can be determined unacceptable with the given context and arguing against wanting more context
That is the one thing that starts to enrage me about the fediverse; once the local hivemind decided something no amount of discussion or information is allowed. No more critical thinking even though most likely we would reach the same conclusions…
Did the hive mind really decide cops should in no context go to an individual & punch them in the face, or is that just an universal logical thought known to the majority about public servants?
The law doesn’t mandate face-punching.
If someone breaks the law, there are other prescribed procedural consequences (literal procedures in law that describe what law enforcement needs to do). Not some sadistic ronin desperado impersonating justice as they individually see fit outside the context of law.
If someone is guiltily of something, "a slap on the wrist’ is a metaphor, not a literal means of dispensing justice directly by the law enforcement on the spot.
(Also reserved for those with power & who massively break the law, but that is another convo.)
Without going into technicalities there’s the notion of reasonable force and proportional response and all that which is literally bound to the context of an event. But you miss my point; I’m not discussing the event depicted here specifically. I’m criticising the lack of critical thinking and openness to arguments. Reaching the conclusion that this cop mustn’t have punched that particular person for the exact context should not be taboo. We should be, in full understanding of the situation, condemning it.
Person has a bomb in a public place. Cop punches that person in the face, and takes control of the bomb. That would be one example of context in which a cop punching someone would be valid.
This is why context is important, because taking a snap shot of something is never the whole picture. If the cop is in the wrong, I want the whole picture. Not just the part you say is relevant. For example, did the cop punch anyone else before or after punching her?
But no, just “ThErE iS nO cOnTeXt!!!”
I don’t think you know what a bomb is.
You’re not looking for more information, you duplicitous shit. You’re looking for a reason to justify a Muslim woman being brutalized by the police.
No, thats just the story you need to tell yourself because youre too fucking stupid to understand rage bait when you see it. You cant argue that more information is bad, so instead you make it about me. Cos youre that fucking stupid.
Lol.
You (in that instance in your 20s) weren’t a cop on duty I assume (horrible situation tho). Neither was the bouncer. You were just four people that should present your testimony to the court.
If I go, finger a cop (non-consensually), & then step back, they still are not allowed, under no circumstances, to punch me in the face if I’m not an active threat. That is just literally the law. The excuse for the punching would be anything other than a direct consequence (bcs we do not have retaliation enshrined in law, bcs “civilised” and whatnot). They would be guilty of punching (and me guilty of fingering).
(Morally justified on their part & unimaginably horrendous on my part - just to be ultra clear.)
Would the face-punching be justified?
Absolutely (and much, much more).
Would it be legal?
No.
“Eye for an eye” is not an anarchistic mandate, it’s a procedural event where a third party decides on face-punch distribution (“legally”).
(Not that I’m saying what op posted falls under that, that is just sadistic tendencies being allowed en masse for political goals. It’s too well documented & officially commented by govs in question to be overall misunderstood as anything but that.)
Nobody is saying context doesn’t matter.
The argument is that for a law enforcement/cop to “legally punch” someone there is all the context necessary already present in the vid - the person was standing there.
Folk will ask for additional context on vids of cops punching (and even killing) someone handcuffed on the ground. Sure there is context, from breakfast food to horoscope. Still legally not allowed to punch.
If a cop catches me speeding they don’t decide between (the illegal option of) two face-punches or a (legal option of a) monetary fine.
Solving violence with violence is what we seek to avoid when we want to advance civilisation.
(Again, the OPs vids imho shows only violence, not even ‘violence hoping to solve anything’.)
Who I am/was, wasnt the fucking point. Jesus christ.
And yes, everyone who downvotes or argues against me, is arguing AGAINST seeing/knowing the context.
“Whoever argues against my argument is wrong” isn’t much of an argument tho.
Not even you will provide what possible context could legally excuse a face-punch by a cop to someone ‘standing there’.
Not that anyone here was arguing for less context. That is just you claiming that we said that. Context is good. Still a crime to punch someone in the face tho.
Stop justfying police brutality, it is never justified to punch people
I think punching fascists is pretty neat.
like this policeman?
I suggest you stop this line of inquiry before you embarrass yourself. No one with an ounce of self-respect or awareness has ever attempted to employ horseshoe theory reasoning with zero irony.
Fascists leaders has two tools surveillance tech and police . I do not support attacking police like my first comment said
you’re either very uncreative or dumb
Removed by mod
why are you so focused on women? in the name of equality between men and women, I suggest you try to be more feministic. your gender-focused toxicity has no place in the world
Removed by mod
your mom begs to differ
Removed by mod
I mean your biological mother who didn’t want you, not the one who adopted you. sad to see you never got to know your biological mother
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
You are dumb
deleted by creator
There is literally no legal reason for a policeman to punch a protestor
Well, actually there is in a self-defense scenario.
So the question of the thread starter is legit: what happened in the seconds before the punch?
Video cutting looks very selective to me. Ragebait instead of solid police violence documentation one could work with…
Police is required to use the minimum necessary force to an eminent attack . There is no way you can convince me that the punch was the right actions. Simply restraining her would have worked
And without context we will never know if this is the case or not.
I read the reports on the event. This in general has not been a peaceful anti-war demonstration. There have been attacks on policemen, one got hurt.
The video could be connected to that.
And without further context and the deliberate video cutting, every relevant party (meaning press and state prosecutor) will assume that.
So: Where is the full video, so that this action may have actual consequences?
You can easily know when a video is off. With you same dumb logic, we don’t have context about why the policeman was hurt. There is justification to punch the protestor just like there is no justification for that policeman to be hurt. I always hear about that context bs only when it comes to gaza and when a context is provided showing the anti genocide person is not at fault. No excuses are provided and the people like you vanish
Part of the problems is, they have not been anti-genocide persons. The date of demonstration might give a hint what they have been celebrating instead.
An actual anti-genocide demo a few days later would not have been forbidden in the first place and also would have had a positive effect.
This demonstration as it was organized and happened on the other hand was a real field day for right-wing media and significantly fueled anti-palestinian ressentiments.
I hate that.
Are you fucking kidding me? If felt endangered by her he wouldn’t have punched her and just left, he’d have arrested her or left the situation entirely. Ergo it’s not self-defense, ergo he had no reason to legal or moral reason to punch her. The fact that he just left means he could’ve done that from the start.
So if this is the case, why is the video cut in such a selective way?
And why is she tackled down by half a dozen policemen afterwards?
I read the reports on the event. They let the majority of the people just go home after some time. With the exception of those that commited criminal offenses. Like attacking policemen.
We just don’t know, because a crucial part of the video is missing.
Find me the rest and I will happily personnaly alert the state attorney to this incident.
But in this form, the evidence just is too thin.
So, anyone: Give me more! I want the raw data!
I just explained why we can make a judgement without the context and you’re there not addressing anything I said. You haven’t shown why we need to care about the context.
Don’t know, don’t care. Probably to declutter the video. Again, the only thing justifying such an action would be a credible threat of death or injury that he couldn’t disengage from, and we can plainly see that was not the case, because we literally see him fucking disengaging right after. Context is only necessary to resolve ambiguity, and there is nothing ambiguous here.
Well forgive me for not trusting the words of riot police out of all people.
We can see an instance of assault by a police officer on video but it’s “just too thin,” right…
Why we need to care:
With context, the video might be sufficient to raise a charge against the policemen by the state prosecution.
Without, it is basically worthless.
If a cop gets a hangnail while beating a protestor, they’ll say it was the protestor’s fault and charge them with assaulting an officer. They have charged people for breaking a cop’s hand, after the cop punched them in the face. I remember when I heard an old retired cop say that he and his buddies would knee someone in the balls, then refer to it in their reports as “the suspect violently groined my knee”.
what about self defense, protecting others, enforcing the law, etc? stop talking about topics you know nothing about
Removed by mod
I was talking generally, not case-specific
There are many. Police can use violence to enforce compliance, prevent harm, and other reasons. Protests and protestors have to follow the law, and they don’t always.
If you listen to the video, there‘s a German police voice instructing the protestors to follow police instructions. Sadly the video is cut in a way, where you don’t get to hear the actual police instructions.
There is no context, so it’s impossible to say if this was legal or not.
Nobody is arguing that force cannot be used. It should simply not be excessive, and punching is clearly is
You were literally making that argument, just now! You deeply unserious person.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Then showing the context shouldnt be an issue then, should it?
Yes and no amount of context will justify the punch
But perhaps justify an actual prosecution and consequences. That’s the crucial point here.
Without, state attorney will just believe the policeman’s statement and close the case.
Don’t you see the issue. Police are believed no matter what till there is evidence other. No wonder why Germany is famous for it
My point exactly.
So, dear video uploader:
Give us this evidence!
Removed by mod
Woman comes at you with a knife, and you’ll just take the stabbing to be… polite? lol Cool Story, bro beans.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
There is no answer to that question that would make it acceptable. Also you’re on c/crazyfuckingvideos, not c/videoessaysoncrazyfuckingvideos.
The context after the punch tells you everything you need to know. If the protester had done something for which physical violence was appropriate police response, the immediate step right after the physical violence logically is detention and arrest.
Think about it, if a cop legitimately needs to say tackle somebody, tase somebody, shoot at somebody, the next thing the cop does is arrest, not walk away. It would be truly bizarre to see a cop tase a person and then casually walk away.
Same logic applies here: if the punch was called for, arrest was also called for. But this motherfucker calmly walks away.
No it doesnt. And you all need to stop making excuses the heavily edited video. If theres nothing to hide, theres no reason not to show the whole thing. Stop making excuses for rage bait.
That’s the entirety of your counter argument. Well, my answer to that is “yes it does”. What a fantastic, fruitful exchange.
“Before we jump to any conclusions, we need to know the context in which this woman was punched by an armed and armored cop nearly twice her size.”
That’s what you sound like.
Good, I hope that is what I sound like. Because “I just saw a heavily edited video, and made my mind up on the spot” would make me sound like you. A fucking moron.
You already proved you’re a fucking moron, so no worries there bro.
I don’t have the full context.
This was likely part of an illegal pro Hamas protest on October 7th. The article says police went into the crowd repeatedly in order to arrest offenders and leaders. Protestors attempted to free prisoners and set fire to a police vehicle. There were almost 200 arrests because of participation in an illegal protest, rioting, attacking police, hate speech, and incitement.
You might be able to find the full video under the hashtag #b0710 on twitter.
Removed by mod
In germany you need to tell the authorities when you want to start a protest
in Germany protests can be illegal (Art. 8 II GG; additional VersammlG (Bund), VersFG BE)
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
more often than not, these treaties are more like a gesture of goodwill or moral views to state your intention with no actual legal binding. but maybe you can point out your source, being smarter than the entire German judicial system?
Removed by mod
cool, now where’s the source stating which international treaty is legally binding regarding the unconditional legality of all protests?
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
you don’t understand the legal system
No rights are absolute. They are regulated by laws.
Removed by mod
There are laws around protests, yes. Like you can’t commit violent acts, need to announce it, can’t incite, no hate speech, etc. Pro Palestine protests happen legally all the time. This one was against the law.
I don’t know what happened with that punch or what happened before. I can’t say if it was legal or not, as I don’t know enough.
Removed by mod
Mfw comment is completely unrelated
The video is intentionally cropped to drive a narrative and sow discord.
Removed by mod
What are you on about? Don’t project your words, into my mouth.
Also making an account 6 hours ago just to attack people? Exactly what I’d expect of someone trying to sow discord.
Well I’ve been on Lemmy much longer and concur - you’re a piece of shit bootlicker.
The only reason that punch could possibly have been deserved was she was a violent threat/danger, which she clearly isn’t because they bastard coward just walk away after punching.
He’s just some undisciplined goon who got pissed off for being on the wrong side of what’s just and his cognitive dissonance lashed out as a punch best case scenario. Worst case he’s a loser racist that actually thinks these people don’t matter and got tired of pretending for a moment there because no one can beat his chicken ass back legally.
Touch grass. If the roles were reversed I would be still saying the same thing because this video is intentionally cropped for whatever reason.
I ask for more context and you fly off the rails. Touch grass you 🤡
Ah yes, the best counter argument. I’m not surprised basic logic is “off the rails” for a moron like you.
I literally cri, shi, throwing up rn, why would you would say that to me 😭 😭 😭