Conquer Club

So Ellen DeGeneres, patron saint of puppies and kittens, challenged her viewers to go out and spread some Christmas cheer by surprise dancing behind strangers in public. YouTuber Alexander Bok took her up on it and got harassed by the police for his trouble.

That's why the boys in blue get shot. Look at them. Like a pack of dogs on that dude.

Yeah, the guy was just dancing and spreading Christmas cheer. It's not like police should fear people that sneak up on them or start dancing at irrational times...

show

Yeah I see no difference between a dancing fool and a guy who charged a cop then went back to his truck to get his gun. So am I justified for attacking a person who dances like an idiot around me? Or is it just cops that can do that?

I can easily see how a lot of people who don't know what's going on behind their back might get the impression someone is trying to pick their pocket or some other nefarious activity, or just dancing behind a person who has a migraine headache, just got fired, lost a loved one, or intense menstrual cramps might just haul off and deck ya in the face, not to mention it really is an invasion of other people's space. There are a lot of people who try not to let people get close enough to them without first having a chance to gauge their intentions.....for example a conceal n carry person or an off duty/undercover cop. I get the fun holiday dancing thing, but it would be a lot better if this didn't screw with other people's business in a way they don't know what the heck your'e doing.

per the potential different police reactions, pretty sure anything no matter how innocent that requires sneaking up extremely close to people and trying not to be seen is gonna blip on a few radars. Or least least pick a better time than right now, but is there ever really a good time to sneak up on a police officer? Sounds like a common sense no-no

Phatscotty wrote:I can easily see how a lot of people who don't know what's going on behind their back might get the impression someone is trying to pick their pocket or some other nefarious activity, or just dancing behind a person who has a migraine headache, just got fired, lost a loved one, or intense menstrual cramps might just haul off and deck ya in the face, not to mention it really is an invasion of other people's space. There are a lot of people who try not to let people get close enough to them without first having a chance to gauge their intentions.....for example a conceal n carry person or an off duty/undercover cop. I get the fun holiday dancing thing, but it would be a lot better if this didn't screw with other people's business in a way they don't know what the heck your'e doing.

per the potential different police reactions, pretty sure anything no matter how innocent that requires sneaking up extremely close to people and trying not to be seen is gonna blip on a few radars. Or least least pick a better time than right now, but is there ever really a good time to sneak up on a police officer? Sounds like a common sense no-no

I understand the police in the first video stopping the dancing fool and asking him what he's doing. I don't understand pushing him initially and then tossing him to the ground without an apology. What I saw in the first video was a group of three or more men, wearing weapons, bullying someone who was by himself and had no weapons and had committed no crime. I fail to see how anyone could find the first video to be a reasonable police response from beginning to end.

Yes: the guy may have been a fool for dancing behind the cop- if the cop had lashed out as he saw something suspicious from his peripheral vision,he might have had an excuse. But they questioned him,determined he had committed no crime, THEN called him a fucking asshole and threw him to the ground.

jonesthecurl wrote:Yes: the guy may have been a fool for dancing behind the cop- if the cop had lashed out as he saw something suspicious from his peripheral vision,he might have had an excuse. But they questioned him,determined he had committed no crime, THEN called him a fucking asshole and threw him to the ground.

That's not funny, what's going on here??

Stupid of that kid to do that. I assume he was hoping for good video so people could bash cops.....idiot.

Someone freaking out DIRECTLY behind me, waving their hands all around my face, I'm gonna throw em on the ground too.....do it to a fat bastard in a train station absorbed in his phone? Funny on film, I guess.....sneak up behind a fucking NY cop, on high alert 100% of the time....get close enough he can grap the dude's gun?? Again, just fucking dumb.

Being initially skeptical of his motives? Sure. I can see that. It's the continued harassment that gets me.

Leads me to believe he was being a smart ass to them.

KoolBak wrote:Stupid of that kid to do that. I assume he was hoping for good video so people could bash cops.....idiot.

Someone freaking out DIRECTLY behind me, waving their hands all around my face, I'm gonna throw em on the ground too.....do it to a fat bastard in a train station absorbed in his phone? Funny on film, I guess.....sneak up behind a fucking NY cop, on high alert 100% of the time....get close enough he can grap the dude's gun?? Again, just fucking dumb.

Again, from beginning to end, how can you possibly, in good conscience, believe that the police response was reasonable? The officers didn't see him, immediately grab him, and throw him to the ground. That is absolutely, without question, NOT what happened. What happened was the officers saw him, pushed him up against the vehicle, searched him, talked with him, then threw him to the ground.

Your "I'm gonna throw em on the ground too" is not an appropriate response for YOU to make. If someone is dancing behind you and you grab him and throw him on the ground, you are guilty of battery and will go to prison. I suppose you could have a defense in that you thought you were acting in self defense.

If you did what the cops did, you would be guilty of multiple counts of battery and probably assault (I don't know what they said to him). Plus you would have no defense at all that you were acting in self-defense because you would have had many minutes to search the dancer and push him around a little and then toss him to the ground.

Nevermind that, if you were like the cops, you would be armed with deadly weapons and surrounded by a few of your buddies when you committed battery. And nevermind that if you are the police you should be held to a higher standard because you carry deadly weapons and receive training.

While this is a disgusting display of police bullying, I'm as disgusted by the defense of the police in this thread. You guys should be ashamed of yourselves. Seriously.

thegreekdog wrote:If someone is dancing behind you and you grab him and throw him on the ground, you are guilty of battery and will go to prison.

Land of the free.

KoolBak wrote:Leads me to believe he was being a smart ass to them.

Which obviously justifies three or four police officers with guns throwing him to the ground.

TGD is absolutely right. The cops acted like common thugs. If any of us regular people had done that we'd be going to jail, rightfully so.

thegreekdog wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:I can easily see how a lot of people who don't know what's going on behind their back might get the impression someone is trying to pick their pocket or some other nefarious activity, or just dancing behind a person who has a migraine headache, just got fired, lost a loved one, or intense menstrual cramps might just haul off and deck ya in the face, not to mention it really is an invasion of other people's space. There are a lot of people who try not to let people get close enough to them without first having a chance to gauge their intentions.....for example a conceal n carry person or an off duty/undercover cop. I get the fun holiday dancing thing, but it would be a lot better if this didn't screw with other people's business in a way they don't know what the heck your'e doing.

per the potential different police reactions, pretty sure anything no matter how innocent that requires sneaking up extremely close to people and trying not to be seen is gonna blip on a few radars. Or least least pick a better time than right now, but is there ever really a good time to sneak up on a police officer? Sounds like a common sense no-no

I understand the police in the first video stopping the dancing fool and asking him what he's doing. I don't understand pushing him initially and then tossing him to the ground without an apology. What I saw in the first video was a group of three or more men, wearing weapons, bullying someone who was by himself and had no weapons and had committed no crime. I fail to see how anyone could find the first video to be a reasonable police response from beginning to end.

I don't see that the police threw him at all. The video certainly doesn't show that...

I see a clip of someone with an obvious case of narcissistic personality disorder sneaking up and making furtive gestures behind a police officer. This is happening during a period when police are facing the greatest criticism against them and threat against their person's safety in several decades (probably since the 1970s), in a jurisdiction where people residing both inside and outside the city have attempted to kill officers in the preceding months, several attempts of which have been successful.

I've watched the above scene several times, and I can't see that the officers did actually "throw" him as the camera pans away from a complete view after the text stating "THEY THREW ME ON THE GROUND" is shown. I do see limited hand movement from the officers but nothing that indicates an excessive degree of force was used. Quite the contrary, their hands move straight forward at moderately slow speed, not in an underhand or overhand manner which would cause someone to fall down, or indicate pushing with undue force.

It's also interesting that the moment where he falls and hits the ground isn't shown, which begs the question of whether the man tripping is a dramatic over response to a limited physical contact made by the officers, or that he possibly fell on purpose because he intended to edit the video to show the police in a negative light from the beginning.

Is it possible that this person who is obviously making a video to garner attention for himself, who snuck up behind officers in uniform while making furtive gestures, all the while recording the incident during a period of heightened criticism and violence against police, had planned to elicit a response from those officers, and has edited the video in a dishonest or misleading fashion?

And for the record, they could have, and probably should have arrested him for disorderly conduct and confiscated the video as evidence.

It's also notable that the text states "AFTER EXPLAINING WHAT WE WERE DOING THEY KEPT GOING, INSULTING ME..." indicating that the officers were informed that another party was present filming them, but that there is no movement towards this second person.

The officer's lack of response to the suggestion that there is a second party recording them, and lack of questioning this person, indicates that they were unaware that there was another party involved with the incident, and hence that the subject in the video is being fundamentally dishonest.

Are you a clone?

GabonX wrote:Is it possible that this person who is obviously making a video to garner attention for himself, who snuck up behind officers in uniform while making furtive gestures, all the while recording the incident during a period of heightened criticism and violence against police, had planned to elicit a response from those officers, and has edited the video in a dishonest or misleading fashion?

Sure.

GabonX wrote:So the next time you decide it's a good idea to sneak up and play pranks on the police, maybe you should consider that their actions are based on a very different awareness and set of experiences than yours.

I'll also say "Sure" to this one.

But, and bear with me on this one for a second, is it possible that the police, who have training, guns, and (at least in this video) travel in groups and are aware that there is increased scrutiny on police violance overreacted to a person making furtive gestures subsequent to ensuring that he was not going to cause the officers any harm? I don't see any problem with stopping the dancer, asking him what he's doing, and asking him to move on. I have a major problem with everything else that happened, regardless of whether the video was edited or the dancer tried to elicit a response. I don't know enough about this guy to understand whether his goal was to elicit a response from the police, but even if that was his goal, the response was out of proportion to the... well, I was going to say "crime" but he didn't do anything wrong so I'll say... activity.

Again, the video doesn't show that police did what the subject said they did in throwing him or using excessive force. It is however edited to make the viewer think they saw things they didn't, complete with scraping static noise added at the moment of impact, cuts away from the scene at critical moments, a shift to minor music when the police respond to him, and the subject walking with an overemphasized limp supposedly after just leaving the police (unclear because it's just after another camera cut).

The clear indications of manipulation in the editing of this video coupled with the outright deception in claiming he informed the officers what he was doing when he didn't leaves the subject with no credibility.

And to be honest, even if the police did over react I sympathize with them. The guy was out harassing people and obviously had an agenda in regards to the police. I'm not saying the police here did anything wrong as the video doesn't show that to be the case and there's at least a preponderance of evidence to the contrary, but even if they were slightly rough with the guy he was clearly looking for that kind of reaction.

If they weren't police this would be called entrapment.

GabonX wrote:Again, the video doesn't show that police did what the subject said they did in throwing him or using excessive force. It is however edited to make the viewer think they saw things they didn't, complete with scraping static noise added at the moment of impact, cuts away from the scene at critical moments, a shift to minor music when the police respond to him, and the subject walking with an overemphasized limp supposedly after just leaving the police (unclear because it's just after another camera cut).

The clear indications of manipulation in the editing of this video coupled with the outright deception in claiming he informed the officers what he was doing when he didn't leaves the subject with no credibility.

Hmm... did we watch the same video? In the interest of full disclosure, I did not listen with the volume on so I didn't hear the scraping static noise or minor music (I did see the overemphasized limp and made the same conclusion you did - that it was overemphasized). I'm also not sure how you came to the conclusion that he did not inform the officers of what he was doing.

In any event, do you find it anywhere remotely concerning what the video shows regarding police officers who (obviously I cannot emphasize this enough) are travelling in a group, with guns, and training?

Until this point, I have not asked, but, ignoring this video, do you think police are subject to adequate oversight (whether judicial or otherwise) relative to violence or other matters involving non-police? In the interest of further full disclosure, while I appreciate the service that police provide and acknowledge that it is something I would never want to do, I do not feel that police are subject to sufficient oversight or accountability for their actions and I've seen enough (both anecdotally and not) to be concerned with the violent direction our police forces are headed with the lack of sufficient oversight and accountability. So those thoughts obviously inform my observations regarding this video.

GabonX wrote:If they weren't police this would be called entrapment.

I don't think entrapment is a defense to battery. "He was being annoying" is also not a defense to battery.

GabonX wrote:the guy he was clearly looking for that kind of reaction.

Again, I don't know enough about the guy's history. All I know is that the first 3/4ths of the video was about him dancing annoyingly around people (including traffic cops in one of the first scenes who happened to not grab him, push him up against the car, ask him questions, and then push him on his way). So I can make a reasonable assumption that the guy is an annoying dancer guy and has no agenda with respect to the police (or maybe I should ascribe to him an agenda with respect to the police because he's black?).

I think those coppers went to far but he was in NY he's lucky someone didn't murder him. Poor judgement at least.