Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

That video doesn't really show much. I think its a cop that's on him when he's on the ground, but I can't really tell.

The fallout of that moral is kinda fascinating. The phrasing is a little weird, because asking isn't really the right verb. But still, interesting fallout.

It shows a whole lot more than the edited viral video shows.

It shows the struggle I spoke about, and was asked to provide. It shows the resisting arrest (on a warrant) I spoke about, and was asked to provide.

It was probably started after the tazing was done. That's my assumption.

If the neighbors weren't trying to help the guy, we'd be able to see better.

Lots of people don't respect police anymore. We may not need to worry about that because not a lot of people want to be police right now. Of course, we need to worry about that.

We've seen an overall degradation of respect for a variety of institutions. I'd assume much of it has to do with understanding those institutions and their flaws better. 

And you're right, it's a hard job for sure. Harder still when stricter standards of lawfulness are asked for by some. I'll be interested to see if some of that, and the entitlement that comes with it can be stamped out in later generations. I hope so. (It becomes interesting. Law enforcement has been allowed to slide on certain standards for so long, and yet some other standards get raised to impossible levels)

To me- it boils down to the question nobody seems to want to answer;

When you’re engaged in any situation with a law-enforcement officer, and they ask you to either submit, or to put your hands behind your back to be cuffed, or to stand and be still so they can settled the situation etc.,
Are citizens obligated to obey their requests.   If not- then the implications are enormous.   A person can simply get in their car and drive away from a crime scene or from being arrested.

If yes- then those who do not subject themselves to the use of force.  

The use of force is not an exact science.  It is dynamic, difficult to measure while being applied and risky as to how it ends. Especially when law-enforcement is dealing with a repeat offender with open warrants, a history of violence, and often times substantially under the influence of some kind of substance.

When these situations arise why is it always ignored that the person dealing with law-enforcement has not only completely refused to obey their directives but has in so many cases turned violent themselves.

I think it's a question of using force to subdue a person and what is excessive force?

taking someone's life while kneeling on their neck to subdue them and/or shooting someone 7 times in the back trying to keep someone from retrieving a weapon from an automobile

Well obviously. But that’s the problem. In a dynamic situation with only split seconds for everything to unfold what is excessive force? Kneeling on someone’s neck for 8.46 minutes is not in question here.

when you have tased someone multiple times and they are clearly not affected because they are under the influence of something, and there’s a warrant out for their arrest for third degree sexual assault as well as other Felonise, and they have a history of violence, and they go to their car open the door and lean into the front, not as if to try to get in but to reach for something, what is excessive force at that juncture?
police are shot and killed every single day in this country. They try to subdue people verbally first and then physically second. If that doesn’t work what do they have left?
Why is the responsibility to obey the directives always ignored? When you ignore their directives you basically illuminate the shirt is that goes with compliance and open the door to the unsureness that force brings into play.

To me- it boils down to the question nobody seems to want to answer;

When you’re engaged in any situation with a law-enforcement officer, and they ask you to either submit, or to put your hands behind your back to be cuffed, or to stand and be still so they can settled the situation etc.,

Are citizens obligated to obey their requests.  If not- then the implications are enormous.  A person can simply get in their car and drive away from a crime scene or from being arrested.

If yes- then those who do not subject themselves to the use of force. 

The use of force is not an exact science.  It is dynamic, difficult to measure while being applied and risky as to how it ends. Especially when law-enforcement is dealing with a repeat offender with open warrants, a history of violence, and often times substantially under the influence of some kind of substance.

When these situations arise why is it always ignored that the person dealing with law-enforcement has not only completely refused to obey their directives but has in so many cases turned violent themselves.

Whether citizens are obligated to obey their requests "in any situation with a law-enforcement officer" is not an open-and-shut case either. If you are being detained or arrested, you are obligated to comply. When you're not, it's a "voluntary interaction" and you can leave at any time.

https://www.halt.org/am-i-being-detained-6-questions-you-should-ask-during-interactions-with-the-police/

Granted, in this case there was a domestic disturbance complaint, so I guarantee Blake was not in a "voluntary interaction" situation. In that case the smart policy is to comply and let your lawyer sort out the rest. However, being "dumb" shouldn't be a death sentence unless you pose a clear and imminent threat to the health and safety of the officers or other citizens. (Note: I haven't followed the Blake situation enough to offer an opinion either way on whether he posed a clear an imminent threat.)

Whether citizens are obligated to obey their requests "in any situation with a law-enforcement officer" is not an open-and-shut case either. If you are being detained or arrested, you are obligated to comply. When you're not, it's a "voluntary interaction" and you can leave at any time.

https://www.halt.org/am-i-being-detained-6-questions-you-should-ask-during-interactions-with-the-police/

Granted, in this case there was a domestic disturbance complaint, so I guarantee Blake was not in a "voluntary interaction" situation. In that case the smart policy is to comply and let your lawyer sort out the rest. However, being "dumb" shouldn't be a death sentence unless you pose a clear and imminent threat to the health and safety of the officers or other citizens. (Note: I haven't followed the Blake situation enough to offer an opinion either way on whether he posed a clear an imminent threat.)

He was being arrested for sexual assault and 2 other warrants.

To me- it boils down to the question nobody seems to want to answer;

When you’re engaged in any situation with a law-enforcement officer, and they ask you to either submit, or to put your hands behind your back to be cuffed, or to stand and be still so they can settled the situation etc.,
Are citizens obligated to obey their requests.  If not- then the implications are enormous.  A person can simply get in their car and drive away from a crime scene or from being arrested.

If yes- then those who do not subject themselves to the use of force. 

The use of force is not an exact science.  It is dynamic, difficult to measure while being applied and risky as to how it ends. Especially when law-enforcement is dealing with a repeat offender with open warrants, a history of violence, and often times substantially under the influence of some kind of substance.

When these situations arise why is it always ignored that the person dealing with law-enforcement has not only completely refused to obey their directives but has in so many cases turned violent themselves.

I think this range is basically where we're at. We'd like people to generally follow the commands of law enforcement. But we argue about the specifics. If a drunk person starts walking away from an officer, what kind of force does this lead to? If I wriggle around like an eel while getting cuffed, I'm literally resisting arrest, but does that mean I should get my teeth taken out with a boot? 

What level of disobeying means you should end up catching a bullet? In some views, it's most levels of disobeying. In some it's almost none. The answer probably falls in that sticky middle. 

The other issue is that people by nature are mostly morons. They're unpredictable. Sometimes they get antsy or scared. In most of these situations, the burden falls on the citizen to tiptoe. Don't reach too fast for your wallet. Don't do anything interrupting the LEO's feeling of control. LEOs sometimes seem have trouble navigating those waters. Not that it's easy, but in all these interactions, the responsibility seems to often fall on the moron citizen. 

(Then there's the flip side that cops are still people and oft fallible in their own ways. They might have a history of violence and bad acts, but those are protected. They work for the people, but in some ways are not accountable to said people. Their organizations are interestingly very good at public relations by and large, owing to some quirks in the media landscape)

I hope we get some level of concrete closure in this Kenosha case. Hopefully we have those body cameras running and they generate some kind of account that's told in a clear manner that can get most folks on close to the same page.