Exactly this. Weight classes exist for a reason. Inertia is a thing, and smaller people have less of it to throw around. A tiny person will get their shit rocked by a big person, even if the big person is only half-assing their punches. A concussion is when the brain bounces off the inside of the skull, and someone in a higher weight class is much more likely to cause that. Look at how her head snaps back when she gets hit. Now imagine if it was someone her own size, and imagine how much less impact it would have.
Aye, theres something to be said for the added weight of equipment too.
Someone running into you on the street deliver so much more of a whack when they have a bag on their back.
At the very least, someone who has proven they cannot be trusted in a position of power should be removed from that position. The reason why so many people believe that ACAB is because even when cops do stuff that leaves no room for any benefit of the doubt, there are no repercussions.
I have this dislike for Germany because for the last few decades they like to pretend they’re super progressive, free of racism and xenophobia and that every country should be as accepting of diversity as they are. But when I look at the reality, that’s very clearly not the case.
We regressed. After the murderous 90s and the shitty 2000s we had some years up until the pandemic in which racist politics didn't have the same draw it has now.
Just like any country, we did not defeat racism. We let it bubble under the surface and now it's exploding. There are still millions of people who don't think that way. But the majority is now totally fine with racialized politics.
Sometimes I wonder whether what we're seeing is actually a regression, or whether that's just what's easier to believe. As you highlight, this has been bubbling under the surface for a while, so one could argue that it never really went away.
I often think about how the UK likes to pretend it doesn't have a problem with antisemitism. Before WW2, there were plenty of powerful people in Britain who were thinking that Hitler was a sensible chap to be finally addressing "the Jewish problem".
Sure, some of these people were probably horrified when they learned of the mass extermination programme under Nazi Germany, but they were plenty fine with seizing the property of Jewish people and putting them into ghettos. But nooooo, of course we don't have a systemic problem with antisemitism — we beat the Nazis! We're the heroes, don't you know?
I dont think you can "beat" racism. I think its something that comes from growing up and seeing behavior you think is negative from a certain group of people.
Maybe some humans are not built to get along with everyone. We tend to like people who are similar to ourselves.
I havent seen many discussions about why people are racist. Clearly some of them are, and maybe we would be also if we grew up with their experiences.
I dont think you are born a racist. Its something society does to you growing up. Could be low emotional intelligence but seems like a bit too easy to explain it that way. Many very intelligent people are racists also, clearly.
I think its something that comes from growing up and seeing behavior you think is negative from a certain group of people
Thing is, most people don't see any behaviour like this. There was a study that showed 90% of Arabs portrayed in Hollywood movies over the past 50 years were terrorists or radical islamists. Media overblows criminality in regions with immigrants and outright makes up nazi propaganda of there being "police-less ghettos" in Sweden or Germany. Crime rates are the lowest that they've been in Europe's history, the reason why people don't like immigrants is prevalently because of concerted efforts by a group of people with a lot of money to create racial tensions that they can later politically exploit.
Meh, they’re just as racist. Just not publicly or virulently like the US has been. Been going to Germany for 20+ years and sitting down with everyday people you’ll quickly hear about all the problems with immigrants and the like. It’s quite common.
I have a brother in law that moved to Germany. He talks about it like it’s the magical promised land, where everyone is awesome and poverty and racism isnt a thing.
He grew up in wealth and moved to a nice area of Germany so he thinks he knows how it all works
Yeah, it’s pretty universal, but I think the point is that Germany comes across as very progressive when in fact on the ground level it’s got some problems too.
The German police beating Gaza-protesters? That's like their number one hobby. They would never dare treat literal neo-nazis from "Der Dritte Weg" like that.
A mob of people kicking and punching is a lethal threat.
They won’t shoot real bullets as a first resort but escalation is not a viable tactic, especially since protesters are disarmed and can’t legally retaliate against unjustified violence.
Yes, some blood is gonna get spilled. You either die fighting or go quietly into that great night. Revolution is never bloodless. Neither is seizing power, or fighting against injustice. Heads will roll, let's make sure it's the right ones, eh?!
lol who told you that? it's common to surround illegal demonstrations and let people go one by one after taking their personal details. of course they can also take you in if you do stupid shit
No, they wouldn't. There's an ass load more people than cops, if people stop playing nice, even their "crowd control" measures aren't going to stop 2000 people from overwhelming 100 or 200 of them. Basic arithmetic and people need to stop living in fear like you are and realize how much power we have.
The people living under the divine providence of kings thought it was an unmovable system, it wasn't.
Lmfao good one. Seriously, though, I at least associate Nazis more with putting people in camps than "just" punching them. A punch is more vanilla oppression, so to speak.
feddit.org is way to toxic for some reason, it's only extremely narrow politics posts on the feed. it's always CDU and merz (and söder) bashing, nothing else.
really, attack the idea, not the person, otherwise the same idea comes back wearing a different face. i wish more people understood this. it doesn't help to complain about a party or person one doesn't like. one has to give good counter-arguments to the policies itself, only that brings discussion, insight, and progress in the world.
Its a zionist bar, that tries to be leftist politically but is not engaged in any real activism or reads any theory, or really any news other than german state news. Their activism is really only "anti-tankieism", so the only thing they really do is punch left and invite zionists.
Because they are supporting police brutality. Their comment and replies are dripping with the implication that they want context so they can judge the officer when the situation doesn't need explanation at all. It's a tried and true tactic to make bootlicking more acceptable.
Edit: See also: "We need context before we can judge the Israeli Wehrmacht for literally shooting children in the head with a sniper rifle."
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.
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.
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
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
"Content not viewable in your region"
Thanks Keir Starmer, you authoritarian cunt
They block certain imgur videos now? Or all of imgur?
Here is a reupload on catbox: https://files.catbox.moe/bm9z9t.mp4
I think Imgur blocked the UK entirely themselves rather than comply with the online spying act
Well, that was 100% a conscious decision to throw a punch at an unarmed protester...
We need to bring back and eye for an eye, he should get punched by someone with equal force that he used.
He should get punched with someone of the same weight class disparity above him that he had to her.
Exactly this. Weight classes exist for a reason. Inertia is a thing, and smaller people have less of it to throw around. A tiny person will get their shit rocked by a big person, even if the big person is only half-assing their punches. A concussion is when the brain bounces off the inside of the skull, and someone in a higher weight class is much more likely to cause that. Look at how her head snaps back when she gets hit. Now imagine if it was someone her own size, and imagine how much less impact it would have.
Aye, theres something to be said for the added weight of equipment too. Someone running into you on the street deliver so much more of a whack when they have a bag on their back.
itt: lemmy treating illegal protests the same as boxing matches
You've already lost the argument.
Good catch.
https://lemmy.sdf.org/comment/23310884
At the very least, someone who has proven they cannot be trusted in a position of power should be removed from that position. The reason why so many people believe that ACAB is because even when cops do stuff that leaves no room for any benefit of the doubt, there are no repercussions.
Ban police from wearing armor or bearing stopping g force, that'll get them to be peaceful
BE 12211 is a bitch
Afaik that is a unit code, not a personal identifier. But I could be wrong
My bad, 31405 is a bitch
I have this dislike for Germany because for the last few decades they like to pretend they’re super progressive, free of racism and xenophobia and that every country should be as accepting of diversity as they are. But when I look at the reality, that’s very clearly not the case.
We regressed. After the murderous 90s and the shitty 2000s we had some years up until the pandemic in which racist politics didn't have the same draw it has now.
Just like any country, we did not defeat racism. We let it bubble under the surface and now it's exploding. There are still millions of people who don't think that way. But the majority is now totally fine with racialized politics.
Sometimes I wonder whether what we're seeing is actually a regression, or whether that's just what's easier to believe. As you highlight, this has been bubbling under the surface for a while, so one could argue that it never really went away.
I often think about how the UK likes to pretend it doesn't have a problem with antisemitism. Before WW2, there were plenty of powerful people in Britain who were thinking that Hitler was a sensible chap to be finally addressing "the Jewish problem".
Sure, some of these people were probably horrified when they learned of the mass extermination programme under Nazi Germany, but they were plenty fine with seizing the property of Jewish people and putting them into ghettos. But nooooo, of course we don't have a systemic problem with antisemitism — we beat the Nazis! We're the heroes, don't you know?
I dont think you can "beat" racism. I think its something that comes from growing up and seeing behavior you think is negative from a certain group of people.
Maybe some humans are not built to get along with everyone. We tend to like people who are similar to ourselves.
I havent seen many discussions about why people are racist. Clearly some of them are, and maybe we would be also if we grew up with their experiences.
I dont think you are born a racist. Its something society does to you growing up. Could be low emotional intelligence but seems like a bit too easy to explain it that way. Many very intelligent people are racists also, clearly.
You’ve got to be carefully taught.
Thing is, most people don't see any behaviour like this. There was a study that showed 90% of Arabs portrayed in Hollywood movies over the past 50 years were terrorists or radical islamists. Media overblows criminality in regions with immigrants and outright makes up nazi propaganda of there being "police-less ghettos" in Sweden or Germany. Crime rates are the lowest that they've been in Europe's history, the reason why people don't like immigrants is prevalently because of concerted efforts by a group of people with a lot of money to create racial tensions that they can later politically exploit.
I remember this myself. All the movies I watched growing up had muslim terrorists. Or Russian. Because my country is mostly watching American movies.
Meh, they’re just as racist. Just not publicly or virulently like the US has been. Been going to Germany for 20+ years and sitting down with everyday people you’ll quickly hear about all the problems with immigrants and the like. It’s quite common.
I have a brother in law that moved to Germany. He talks about it like it’s the magical promised land, where everyone is awesome and poverty and racism isnt a thing. He grew up in wealth and moved to a nice area of Germany so he thinks he knows how it all works
Probably the case for most well-off people. They have more of a choice to ignore the dirty underside of life.
Is there anywhere this isn't the case? I've heard the same in Central America, Sweden, and the Netherlands, I know the UK is that way too.
Yeah, it’s pretty universal, but I think the point is that Germany comes across as very progressive when in fact on the ground level it’s got some problems too.
I'm not certain what the great filter actually is, but I'm starting to worry that humanity might deserve it.
It’s the light at the end of the tunnel some of us hoped to make it through, except it was the proverbial train.
The German police beating Gaza-protesters? That's like their number one hobby. They would never dare treat literal neo-nazis from "Der Dritte Weg" like that.
When they go for one of you, everyone needs to pile in. They can't take all of you, don't give them even one inch.
They have guns and they're allowed to kill people if they “feel their lives are threatened”. You can't protest with guns anywhere in the EU.
A mob of people kicking and punching is a lethal threat.
They won’t shoot real bullets as a first resort but escalation is not a viable tactic, especially since protesters are disarmed and can’t legally retaliate against unjustified violence.
Don't underetimate people in chaos. Things escalate quick
Yes, some blood is gonna get spilled. You either die fighting or go quietly into that great night. Revolution is never bloodless. Neither is seizing power, or fighting against injustice. Heads will roll, let's make sure it's the right ones, eh?!
lol who told you that? it's common to surround illegal demonstrations and let people go one by one after taking their personal details. of course they can also take you in if you do stupid shit
“Illegal demonstrations” is one of the most fascist-dystopian terms I have ever read.
Yeah that's only if everyone remains civil
sure, if it doesn't remain civil, a few could get away, but the majority would be really fucked
No, they wouldn't. There's an ass load more people than cops, if people stop playing nice, even their "crowd control" measures aren't going to stop 2000 people from overwhelming 100 or 200 of them. Basic arithmetic and people need to stop living in fear like you are and realize how much power we have.
The people living under the divine providence of kings thought it was an unmovable system, it wasn't.
Just a bunch of boot lickers hoping someone else will save them. Thankfully, at least some of us understand how things work.
li'l bro over here trying to start the revolution
anyways, in this specific protest, they would've been fucked
https://nitter.net/pic/orig/media%2FG2r57lUWIAAFqmD.jpg
Never seen 4 or 5 people push over a truck?
Sounds like you work for the police. You probably should.
ACAB
ABSB (Alle Bullen sind Bastarde)
Arbeiter Bunt-Samarita Bund
I see Germany has a gang of coward pigs no fucking better than the violent sounder that plagues the US.
That's why ACAB means ACAB
Riot police in Berlin was always a tad more brutal for no apparent reason. I guess that's the 'perk' for protesting in the capital...
fascism in Germany? can't be
this is actually faceism
That looked personal
His gloves are the type with reinforced knuckles too. Disgusting.
A pallet swap and you'd legit think this was something out of China.
German Nazi police Nazily punches a minority in a country with the highest voting in polls going to a Nazi party:
Lemmitor: "What are we, a bunch of Asians?!?!?!"
Lmfao good one. Seriously, though, I at least associate Nazis more with putting people in camps than "just" punching them. A punch is more vanilla oppression, so to speak.
You're right, Germany famously doesn't segregate children by race in schools.
"What are we, a bunch of Asians?"
You can't protest in china without a tank running you over
Anyone has a link to a more complete version of this video?
You might be able to find the full video under the hashtag #b0710 on twitter.
Thanks!
Now we just need someone with a Twitter account (I don't have one, because... reasons...)
You don’t need a Twitter account.
https://nitter.net/search?f=tweets&q=%23b0710
Thanks!
Didn't know this yet.
But also didn't find any relevant videos besides the one from this post...
If nitter is down, there is also xcancel
smartest comment I've seen so far. there context of what happened before is conveniently missing
And I get banned from feddit.org for pointing out Genocidesmany's complicity. The germans are not ok.
Likewise. Feddit bans everyone pointing out the Nazism of the German government. Their agenda is pretty obvious.
feddit.org is way to toxic for some reason, it's only extremely narrow politics posts on the feed. it's always CDU and merz (and söder) bashing, nothing else.
really, attack the idea, not the person, otherwise the same idea comes back wearing a different face. i wish more people understood this. it doesn't help to complain about a party or person one doesn't like. one has to give good counter-arguments to the policies itself, only that brings discussion, insight, and progress in the world.
Its a zionist bar, that tries to be leftist politically but is not engaged in any real activism or reads any theory, or really any news other than german state news. Their activism is really only "anti-tankieism", so the only thing they really do is punch left and invite zionists.
Does anyone have a proper clip of this or are we just going to sit here and pretend like this explains anything?
This is the proper clip with explanation.
ITT: Anon wonders about context prior to assault. Everyone accuses anon of supporting police brutality.
There is no context which can justify the police punching someone in the face and then walking away.
Because they are supporting police brutality. Their comment and replies are dripping with the implication that they want context so they can judge the officer when the situation doesn't need explanation at all. It's a tried and true tactic to make bootlicking more acceptable.
Edit: See also: "We need context before we can judge the Israeli Wehrmacht for literally shooting children in the head with a sniper rifle."
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
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.
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.
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?
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..
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
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.
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!!!!!!"
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'.)
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
like this policeman?
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
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
your mom begs to differ
You are dumb
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
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...
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.
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.
what about self defense, protecting others, enforcing the law, etc? stop talking about topics you know nothing about
I was talking generally, not case-specific
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
Woman comes at you with a knife, and you'll just take the stabbing to be... polite? lol Cool Story, bro beans.
There is no answer to that question that would make it acceptable. Also you're on c/crazyfuckingvideos, not c/videoessaysoncrazyfuckingvideos.
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.
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.
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)
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?
you don't understand the legal system
cool, now where's the source stating which international treaty is legally binding regarding the unconditional legality of all protests?
No rights are absolute. They are regulated by laws.
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.
Mfw comment is completely unrelated
The video is intentionally cropped to drive a narrative and sow discord.
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 😭 😭 😭
Get the fuck out nazi
The world would be better off without you
Fascism from the fash server who would have guessed