Current Events > A cop tased a man while he was pumping gas and well......

(+) Yeah! (+)

YugiNoob posted...

Stupid as hell decision by the cop, but also stupid as hell decisions by that guy too.

Moving the conversation toward "wellllll what about what the suspect was doing that led to this result?" Is a classic in the cop defense playbook. It's literally the legal justification for suspects getting charged if cops wrongfully shoot someone while going after them

You can't piss on my head and claim it to be rain dude

Gwynevere posted...

Moving the conversation toward "wellllll what about what the suspect was doing that led to this result?" Is a classic in the cop defense playbook. It's literally the legal justification for suspects getting charged if cops wrongfully shoot someone while going after them

You can't piss on my head and claim it to be rain dude

Sorry to disappoint you, but Im not defending the cop. If two drunk dudes get into a car accident and I say driver A was an idiot, as was driver B, am I defending one of them? Is it so difficult to understand that its possible to criticize both sides?

Is it stupid as hell to use a taser when theres a bunch of flammable liquid nearby? Is it stupid as hell to drive the wrong way down a street and on the sidewalk?

Stop trying to look for messages that arent there and putting words in my mouth.

YugiNoob posted...

Sorry to disappoint you, but Im not defending the cop. If two drunk dudes get into a car accident and I say driver A was an idiot, as was driver B, am I defending one of them? Is it so difficult to understand that its possible to criticize both sides?

Is it stupid as hell to use a taser when theres a bunch of flammable liquid nearby? Is it stupid as hell to drive the wrong way down a street and on the sidewalk?

Stop trying to look for messages that arent there and putting words in my mouth.

You said you didn't want to address how much blame is on each person because it's hard to measure - wouldn't agree there are *some* metrics though? If you (or someone) says "we have to look at the other person's actions too", the severity of their actions seems to matter.

To use your two drunk drivers example, one driver might have had a few beers that kept him under the legal limit (buzzed) and going slow while the other had a BAL of .15 and been barreling down the road.

YugiNoob posted...

Is it so difficult to understand that its possible to criticize both sides?

As much so as its possible to say both the union and confederacy were responsible for the american civil war.

Barretos lawyers said that the fireball, caused by the reckless, foolish, unnecessary tasing, left four people injured, among them three deputies. They claim Barreto was cooked alive in the flames.

So not only did the dipshit pig almost kill one guy, he almost killed *three* of his fellow officers as well, with at least one having burns on par with the original victim.

He must be sucking the chief's cock, there's no way they would be defending him otherwise because he's literally a threat to his own precinct *on top* of being a menace to the public.

Florida Man can survive this

Ruvan22 posted...

You said you didn't want to address how much blame is on each person because it's hard to measure - wouldn't agree there are *some* metrics though? If you (or someone) says "we have to look at the other person's actions too", the severity of their actions seems to matter.

To use your two drunk drivers example, one driver might have had a few beers that kept him under the legal limit (buzzed) and going slow while the other had a BAL of .15 and been barreling down the road.

I would say that there are cases where you can measure whos at fault. In the example its easy because one person is far more impaired and acting dangerously. But here, the people are doing different things and dont have a measurement of what is and isnt legal like with BAL.

Nothing the victim may or may not have did justified the recklessly endangerment of firing a fucking Taser near gasoline.

Umbreon posted...

Nothing the victim may or may not have did justified the recklessly endangerment of firing a fucking Taser near gasoline.

This is very much true. One of the main reasons Im not defending the cop.

interesting how the helicopter footage doesn't actually show the burning incident in question. just seems to be following some random jerk on a motorcycle. is it even the same person?

IIRC the full footage was around 30 minutes, and they didnt show it all at that meeting. I dont know if/when they will do so, but I would think that they have some way of verifying that the person in the video was Barreto. If they dont, thatll look really bad on them; especially if its proven to be someone else.

EDIT: it says the chase was 30 minutes. Not sure how long the video is

Wait, theres a video that shows more (and look, not Daily Mail!) and in better quality. It shows him pulling into the gas station and the ignition, so yeah, thats him.

https://www.clickorlando.com/news/local/2022/05/20/watch-body-camera-video-shows-taser-sparked-fire-during-arrest-by-osceola-deputies/

Yeah, I still don't think this guy deserved to go into a coma after having his skin burned off. That's not the law being enforced, that's the police doing whatever fucked up shit they want because they think they're judge, jury and executioner.

Also regarding the Daily Mail discourse - first of all, let's understand that both the Daily Mail and New York Post are reactionary tabloid tags whose main function is to sensationalize news stories to whip their audiences into a frenzy. The fact that CE has delved so deeply into NY Post article sources since I've started posting here is fucking stupid.

Secondly, if we're talking about the veracity of the Daily Mail, I have personal experience with them blowing up a fake story for clicks.

I live in a town with a high Muslim population. At one point, a guy got arrested for designing a missile system for ISIS - one guy who had moved here from Sydney, who was working on technology in his shed, who was arrested by the police thankfully. Fucked up thing to do, absolutely.

We had three news sources reporting on the culture of my town. The first one was A Current Affair, a "gotcha"-type tabloid news program that goes after dole bludgers and dodgy tradies. The second was the Daily Telegraph, a Rupert Murdoch-owned paper that had previously painted my town as a radical extremist shithole where men were selling their daughters into child marriages. And the third was the Daily Mail.

These three news sources came to my town with the express goal of painting our town's Muslim population as a standoffish population who refused to assimilate into the community, and to outright state that tensions were at a tipping point and it felt like violence was going to erupt at any point. At least one of these news sources used the term "race war".

One dirty trick A Current Affair did was they had a man with a camera crew sitting outside a local business that was owned and run by a Muslim man. The crew blocked off the door so no customers would come in, and he kept opening and closing the front door to get the Muslim guy angry. They wanted footage of an angry Muslim man pushing them away and slamming the door in their face - I was working next door to the business, and my boss went over and gave them a piece of her mind.

Another dirty trick, which the Daily Telegraph pulled and which the Daily Mail ripped off for their article, was they put a reporter in the main Street to ask people loaded questions about the Muslim population and how aggressive they were. They were down the street all day, stopping people to ask them about the Muslim population.

And a majority of the people they stopped? The bulk of foot traffic in my town, on a busy weekday afternoon? They said that the Muslim population was fine and that they'd.nevwr had any problems with any Muslim residents of my town.

The sources they used in the article were two people - two elderly people with chips on their shoulders - talking about how there was going to be fighting in the streets because the Muslims weren't assimilating and because they were only getting angrier and more standoffish.

Keep in mind, a ton of Muslim families have lived here for as long as I have, or longer. My family moved here in 1996. These families have settled, they own businesses, I went to school with Muslim children from these families. They are as much a part of this community - perhaps moreso - than I am, or any other white person I know. And the majority of the people interviewed reflected that fact.

But they picked the two people who had something bad to say about Muslims to fluff up their news pieces about how my town was an extremist shithole where Muslims were about to start roving the town in gangs and beating any white person they saw. They painted it as a breeding ground for radicalisation and sharia law. A Current Affair spread that message state-wide, and The Daily Telegraph spread that message nation-wide.

The Daily Mail took that perspective to a global audience.

If you want to stand by the NY Post or the Daily Mail, go ahead. But you have to cop to the fact that both sources are sensationalized tabloids that lie and inflate claims to make an emotionally manipulative point to make you think the world is worse than it actually is, because they know if they can trap you in a worldview where every potential criminal is a gun-toting, child-stabbing monster, you will feel safer when a police officer bowls one of them over, gets gasoline on them and fires a taser that burns their fucking skin off.

I stand by neither, and once again, dislike DM more because thats the site duckbear uses before he twists their articles even more. But I felt that the video on DM was trustworthy as the reckless behavior described on multiple other sites matched the video.

Watching some of the video in the non-DM link, guy shouldnt have been driving the way he did.

Again, nothing the guy did made the cops decision a smart one, endangering so many innocent bystanders for no god damn reason. There was like 3 officers on the guy for fucks sake AND THEY WERE STILL GOING TO TAZER HIM.

Theres literally no reason to bring up anything he did wrt the situation because the cops fucking idiot mistake takes the god damn cake. Theyre lucky no randoms got engulfed or even worse.

Damn, I feel really bad for the guy who got tackled and put in a coma for 6 years before he died in post #24

Dude was literally minding his own business and whatever dreams and aspirations he had was ended with that tackle.

MrMallard posted...

If you want to stand by the NY Post or the Daily Mail, go ahead. But you have to cop to the fact that both sources are sensationalized tabloids that lie and inflate claims to make an emotionally manipulative point to make you think the world is worse than it actually is, because they know if they can trap you in a worldview where every potential criminal is a gun-toting, child-stabbing monster, you will feel safer when a police officer bowls one of them over, gets gasoline on them and fires a taser that burns their fucking skin off.

This was such a well articulated post and super interesting read and I had thought for a moment you had a brilliant first hand look into how all sides of media are complete bullshit and make you want to believe one specific thing.

And then you regurgitated the same narrative the NY article states painting a world where there are no criminals anymore and ACAB

He never said that, and you have a history of defending killer cops so your opinion on what he said means little.

Umbreon posted...

He never said that, and you have a history of defending killer cops so your opinion on what he said means little.

Yeah and you are living up to your tag too. We can play this game all day.

As Im in a quasi law enforcement role, I see law enforcement stories differently from a lot of other people, people who really show how little they understand about specifics about law enforcement, which is on so ways to ignore from an ACAB perspective. Theres a lot more grey are here then people are comfortable talking about, they only want to believe the ACAB narratives, and they refuse to see any other side of any coin.

And while Im writing this I feel the need to reiterate for the class. I believe law enforcement currently has a black eye. I think there is sufficient evidence to absolutely be hesitant of cops, the cops official stories and some evidence that comes to light. I believe bad policing puts that black eye on the entirety of the idea of policing and something needs to change.

But I also believe ACAB is complete and utter horseshit. I believe it has created a society where literally every single action of law enforcement is looked at through a lens or armchair internet wackos critiquing things they dont have the first fucking clue about. When dutifully placed officers, acting soundly and in the scope of their duties, make correct decisions, by every single metric of evidence that comes to light from a case. And you still see the amount of disinformation, spinning, reaching hostility and hatred. That again, I understand and agree completely with where all of that comes from. Its not an excuse to be completely ignorant about law enforcement and feel entitled to be judge jury and executioner yourself, at mass, on the internet. And claiming ACAB is not creating the the world you hope for. You want good police work, you have to be able to understand it when you see it. But the internet doesnt want that. They dont even want to have this conversation.

and if you think this rant is me making a point about this particular incident. Please walk away.

SwayM posted...

This was such a well articulated post and super interesting read and I had thought for a moment you had a brilliant first hand look into how all sides of media are complete bullshit and make you want to believe one specific thing.

And then you regurgitated the same narrative the NY article states painting a world where there are no criminals anymore and ACAB

Of course there are criminals, and those criminals deserve to be caught and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

What I'm saying is that news media like this will drag anything in to make a criminal seem like a movie villain deserving of treatment like this. You can tackle a criminal to the ground like it's an action movie and fuck up so bad that the crook gets set on fire, and it's still okay for the police to do that because they were "neutralising a threat".

One shithead moved to my town and worked on tech he was planning to sell to terrorists. He was arrested and prosecuted. That led to my town being labelled an extremist hotbed where race war was on the verge of boiling over.

You can see it with George Floyd, where prior arrests made it okay for some piece of shit to kneel on his neck until he stopped breathing - even though the stop was because of some funny money, not fentanyl possession or aggravated robbery. You can be killed by a police officer for a non-violent offence because at one point, months ago, you might have been at risk of drug-induced psychosis if confronted.

Rags like the Daily Mail make it seem like the police can shoot, tackle and beat their way through a wave of criminal scum because they're puppy-kicking bank robbers and rapists. And incidents in that vein, where we're too busy discussing the merits of striking first, distract from other crime stats like how many domestic violence claims aren't prosecuted or how many non-violent offences lead to disproportionate prison sentences. Actual facets of crime, in America and abroad, shielded by a schoolyard discussion over whether it's okay for a police officer to come in hot on a person for the sole fact that they broke the law - not based on their actual crime, the sole fact that they broke the law.

In my case? One man's guilt painted an entire demographic of people as violent insurrectionists out to hurt innocent people. In cases like this? The fact that someone committed any crime at all, at any point in history, makes it acceptable for police to behave any way they want.

That's the point I was trying to make. This police officer acted disproportionately, and now a man is in a coma with most of his skin missing. The sole fact that he committed a crime is enough for tabloid rags like the Daily Mail to justify most of his skin being burnt off by police incompetence.

Fackin idgit

MrMallard posted...

What I'm saying is that news media like this will drag anything in to make a criminal seem like a movie villain deserving of treatment like this.

I hear this and Im not saying it doesnt happen, but Im just saying thats not what I see. And I want to clarify. I dont follow the news to a degree. I dont follow particular websites, I definitely dont follow right leaning websites so I dont see any pro cop articles and criminal scum articles. I dont research every story from different sites either though. Its just fed to me through various channels, one such example being CE and a topic like this. I see the story, I take it in and I take the evidence from both sides (suspect/law) with a grain of salt until I see concrete shit. Unedited camera footage is where Ill really dig my heels in and make an opinion one way or another.

However I think its equally important to understand how news articles like the one in the OP are exclusively what Im seeing time and time again these days. Every single one or every single discussion about it, is from the perspective of the person involved. And its written in a way to hide as much fault and criminal actions that may have occurred. Its written with an obvious slant against the police, its written with the goal to rile up readers with and continue the narrative that ACAB. People are convinced cops are lying at all times always these days and will ALWAYS side with the subject, regardless of what crimes they may or may not have committed. And articles like the one in the OP for example show a clear example of a poor police decision. But it far, far, far from tells the whole story.

And I say may or may not have because I still believe in innocent until proven guilty, and I would understand how some may believe that may not exist much anymore in the law enforcement world with some of the stories that have come out.

But dont sit here and spin every person who actually breaks the law as right and just because you got such a hate boner against the police. Its extremely transparent, and just downright baffling what these conversations have turned into.

Man, regardless of how you feel about cops... this is a sheesh kinda move, you get me brothers?

https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/725833900542263341/977671144113053696/2YWNb81.jpg

YugiNoob posted...

I would say that there are cases where you can measure whos at fault. In the example its easy because one person is far more impaired and acting dangerously. But here, the people are doing different things and dont have a measurement of what is and isnt legal like with BAL.

@YugiNoob

I want to make sure I understand your position -
"It is important to consider every party's responsibility for an event, even if we can't determine the degree to which they could have contributed (regardless of appearances ie 95/5 or 60/40)"
(Drawing from your post 78 "'Don't start none, wont be none' should be universally applied"

Please rephrase if I misstated something

No, it is not important to determine each partys responsibility especially when there isnt a solid measurement. Otherwise you end up arguing about it endlessly because people will see it differently.

The Dont start none wont be none was mentioned because thats the mindset that CE usually takes.

And my position is simply both parties are stupid as I initially said. That is all. All this drama has been brought up for no reason.

YugiNoob posted...

No, it is not important to determine each partys responsibility especially when there isnt a solid measurement. Otherwise you end up arguing about it endlessly because people will see it differently.

The Dont start none wont be none was mentioned because thats the mindset that CE usually takes.

And my position is simply both parties are stupid as I initially said. That is all. All this drama has been brought up for no reason.

But why is it important to say "both parties are stupid"? Under your reasoning, EVERY incident would require that title as everybody contributed in some way since you don't want to determine responsibility. Or in other words, it sounds like you saying Dont start none wont be none should be applied to every situation where we can't quantify responsibility..

(Ahmaud Arbery "started some" by running through private property, Fernando Castille "started some" by reaching for his gun registration, Tamir Rice "started some" by waving the non marked toy gun, etc)

@YugiNoob

Ruvan22 posted...

But why is it important to say "both parties are stupid"? Under your reasoning, EVERY incident would require that title as everybody contributed in some way since you don't want to determine responsibility. Or in other words, it sounds like you saying Dont start none wont be none should be applied to every situation where we can't quantify responsibility..

(Ahmaud Arbery "started some" by running through private property, Fernando Castille "started some" by reaching for his gun registration, Tamir Rice "started some" by waving the non marked toy gun, etc)

@YugiNoob

@Ruvan22

Its not important. Or should I ask why its important for you to ask why its important? This is simply a public forum where I gave my two cents. But youre making a much bigger deal out of one persons opinion for some odd reason. Youre being like Gwynevere and looking far too deep for meaning.

YugiNoob posted...

Its not important. Or should I ask why its important for you to ask why its important? This is simply a public forum where I gave my two cents. But youre making a much bigger deal out of one persons opinion for some odd reason. Youre being like Gwynevere and looking far too deep for meaning.

@YugiNoob
It's important for me to understand you placing importance because while this *is* a public forum, you are advocating a position (that both sides are stupid and share blame). You even pointed out something you saw as wrong on CE (post 73) - if you want people to agree with your position you have to "show your work". It's also important to me as the tactic of "well the other person shares some blame too" has often been used to obfuscate things and misdirect attention (not saying you are doing this). Thus far it seems you started with a conclusion and found evidence to support it (or least aren't using the same method to arrive at the conclusion that you use in other scenarios).
@YugiNoob

Sorry everyone got lit on fire and the gas station nearly blew up, but... qualified immunity, so back to chasing dirt bikes on the highway!

Ruvan22 posted...

@YugiNoob
It's important for me to understand you placing importance because while this *is* a public forum, you are advocating a position (that both sides are stupid and share blame). You even pointed out something you saw as wrong on CE (post 73) - if you want people to agree with your position you have to "show your work". It's also important to me as the tactic of "well the other person shares some blame too" has often been used to obfuscate things and misdirect attention (not saying you are doing this). Thus far it seems you started with a conclusion and found evidence to support it (or least aren't using the same method to arrive at the conclusion that you use in other scenarios).
@YugiNoob

@Ruvan22
I didnt start with a conclusion though. I saw the article on Yahoo first which was more in depth, then did more research to clarify, which is why I made my initial post of both people being idiots. I just had to mention what Barreto did because some people were oblivious to his actions since the article in the OP skipped over them. I did, however, find more solid evidence later.

But like I said, youre overthinking this. All thats relevant to my point is as follows:

Is it stupid to use a taser near gas? Is it stupid to drive the wrong way down a street and run red lights through oncoming traffic?

Thats my entire point; my work. Im not trying to get people to agree with me, since my point (Barreto and Crawford were stupid) is my opinion and mine alone. Not that one of them was stupider, not that one was more to blame, etc. I just had to explain the fact that Barreto did stupid stuff because as mentioned, people didnt seem to realize that he did anything before that incident. And without knowing what happened before, people misconstrued my point, as evidenced by literally the very next post. However my explanation of his actions just agitated a bunch of people who either falsely believed that I was defending the cop and justifying what he did, or thought that I was just making it up.