25 votes

Police beat teen and K9 mauls him VIDEO disgusting...

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Never mind this

What about Miley Cyrus???


Bad attitude, lack of respect, failure to obey authority

The farm! (quote from A Boy and His Dog). Today, any interaction with the police is a life threatening experience. Is this America?


The police chief should be fired ...

The police chief should be fired for saying he saw nothing wrong in the video. He apparently thinks its appropriate to let dogs attack the necks of unarmed teenagers completely bound by the weight of 5 police officers. Then they charge him with some sort of assault for choking the police dog after the police holding him down get out of the way of the dog? Who wouldn't grab a dog that was biting their neck? That would be a survival reflex and may have saved his life. Are you supposed to twiddle your thumbs when a gang of overly brutal people let dogs eat you alive? Complete nonsense.

this is why

I laugh at fools who think cops or our military folks wont use force against americans to round them up in the future.

Jackson County Georgia

War is an instrument entirely inefficient toward redressing wrong; and multiplies, instead of indemnifying losses.
Thomas Jefferson

Corrupted cops arent

Corrupted cops arent corrupted cops, corrupted cops are the ideal candidate for the ideal employee

Does anyone here "feel" like they've given even just a liitle effort to fighting inner corruption, so blinded by their own personal selfisness, that they cant see the dangers of letting this fester, the decissions and actions made by these folks in the position they are in.....is it any wonder that folks will always be mistrustfull of them, if they continue to ignore it, let alone surpress thoughts of the possibilities, posibilities that end up coming true with the video evidence to prove.......case in point.........the whole system needs scrubbing

John Locke #8 - #16 - #23 State of War and Slavery.

John Locke - 2nd Treatise on Civil Government: LESSON.

In Full: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/Locke_Civil_Government/lo...

#8. "And thus, in the state of Nature, one man comes by a power over another, but yet "NO ABSOLUTE OR ARBITRARY POWER TO USE A CRIMINAL", when he has "got him in his hands", according to the "passionate heats or boundless extravagancy" of his OWN WILL, but only to retribute to him so far as "CALM REASON" and conscience dictate, what is "proportionate to his transgression", which is so much as may serve for reparation and restraint. "


When the police seen in this video exceeded these bounds, then they themselves fell into these next categories as the aggressor and criminal described by Locke:


Chapter 3: Of the State of War

16. The state of war is a state of enmity and destruction; and therefore declaring by "word or action", not a passionate and hasty, but sedate, settled design upon another man's life puts him in a "state of war" with him against whom he has declared such an intention, and so has "exposed his life" to the other's power "to be taken away by him", "or any one that joins with him in his defence", and espouses his quarrel; it "being reasonable and just" I should have a "right to destroy" that "which threatens me with destruction"; for by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred, and one may destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has discovered an enmity to his being, for the same reason that he may kill a wolf or a lion, because they are not under the ties of the common law of reason, have no other rule but that of force and violence, and so "may be treated as a beast of prey", those dangerous and noxious creatures that will be sure to destroy him "whenever he falls into their power".

17. And hence it is that "he who attempts to get another man into his absolute power" does thereby put himself into a "State of War" with him; it being to be understood as a declaration of a "design upon his life".

For I have reason to conclude that he who would get me into his power "without my consent" would use me as he pleased when he had got me there, and "destroy me too when he had a fancy to it";

for nobody can desire to have me in his absolute power unless it be to compel me by force to that which is against the right of my freedom -- i.e. "make me a slave".

To be free from such force is the only security of my preservation, and reason bids me look on him as an enemy to my preservation who would take away that freedom which is the fence to it; so that he who makes an attempt to enslave me thereby puts himself into a state of war with me. He that in the state of Nature would take away the freedom that belongs to any one in that state must necessarily be supposed to have a design to take away everything else, that freedom being the foundation of all the rest; as he that in the state of society would take away the freedom belonging to those of that society or commonwealth must be supposed to design to take away from them everything else, and so be looked on as in a state of war.

18. This makes it lawful for a man to kill a thief who has not in the least hurt him, nor declared any design upon his life, any farther than "by the use of force", so to get him in his power as to take away his money, or what he pleases, from him;

because using force, where he has no right to get me into his power, "let his pretence be what it will", I have no reason to suppose that he who would take away my liberty would not, when he had me in his power, "take away everything else".

And, therefore, it is lawful for me to treat him as one who has put himself into a state of war with me -- i.e., "kill him if I can"; for to that hazard does he "justly expose himself" whoever introduces a state of war, and is aggressor in it.

19. And here we have the plain difference between the state of Nature and the state of war, which however some men have confounded, are as far distant as a state of peace, goodwill, mutual assistance, and preservation; and a state of enmity, malice, violence and mutual destruction are one from another. Men living together according to reason without a common superior on earth, with authority to judge between them, is properly the state of Nature. But force, or a declared design of force upon the person of another, where there is no common superior on earth to appeal to for relief, is the state of war; and it is the want of such an appeal gives a man the "right of war" even against an aggressor, though he be in society and a fellow-subject.

Thus, a thief whom I cannot harm, but by appeal to the law, for having stolen all that I am worth, "I may kill" when he sets on me to rob me but of my horse or coat, because the law, "which was made for my preservation", where it cannot interpose to secure my life from "present force", which if lost is capable of "no reparation", "permits me my own defence" and the "right of war", a "liberty to kill" the aggressor, because the "aggressor allows not time to appeal" to our common judge, nor the decision of the law, for remedy in a case where the mischief may be irreparable.

Want of a common judge with authority "puts all men in a state of Nature"; "force without right upon a man's person" makes a "state of war" both where there "is, and is not, a common judge".

20. But when the actual force is over, the state of war ceases between those that are in society and are equally on both sides subject to the judge; and, therefore, in such controversies, where the question is put, "Who shall be judge?" it cannot be meant who shall decide the controversy; every one knows what Jephtha here tells us, that "the Lord the Judge" shall judge. Where there is no judge on earth the appeal lies to God in Heaven. That question then cannot mean who shall judge, whether another hath put himself in a state of war with me, and whether I may, as Jephtha did, appeal to Heaven in it? Of that I myself can only judge in my own conscience, as I will answer it at the great day to the Supreme Judge of all men.

Chapter 4: Of Slavery

21. The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but to have only the law of Nature for his rule. (APP Note: See this exact wording in the Rights of the Colonists) The liberty of man in society is to be under no other legislative power but that established by consent in the commonwealth, nor under the dominion of any will, or restraint of any law, but what that legislative shall enact according to the trust put in it. Freedom, then, IS NOT what Sir Robert Filmer tells us: "A liberty for every one to do what he lists (WANTS), to live as he pleases, and not to be tied by any laws"; but freedom of men under government is to have a standing rule to live by, common to every one of that society, and made by the legislative power erected in it. A liberty to follow my own will in all things where that rule prescribes not, not to be subject to the inconstant, uncertain, unknown, arbitrary will of another man, as freedom of nature is to be under no other restraint but the "law of Nature".

22. This freedom from absolute, arbitrary power is so necessary to, and closely joined with, a man's preservation, that he cannot part with it but by what forfeits his preservation and life together. For a man, not having the power of his own life, "CANNOT BY COMPACT" or his "OWN CONSENT" enslave himself to ANY ONE, nor put himself under the absolute, arbitrary power of another to take away his life when he pleases.

Nobody can give more power than he has himself, and he that cannot take away his own life CANNOT GIVE another "power over it". Indeed, having by his fault forfeited his own life by some act that deserves death, he to whom he has forfeited it may, when he has him in his power, delay to take it, and make use of him to his own service; and he does him no injury by it. For, whenever he finds the hardship of his slavery outweigh the value of his life, it is in his power, by resisting the will of his master, to draw on himself the death he desires.

23. This is the perfect condition of slavery, which is nothing else but the state of war continued between a lawful conqueror and a captive, for if once compact enter between them, and make an agreement for a limited power on the one side, and obedience on the other, the state of war and slavery ceases as long as the compact endures; for, as has been said, no man can by agreement pass over to another that which he hath not in himself -- "a power over his own life"."...


American Patriot Party.CC

Educate Yourself. Educate Others.

APP Daily Paul Articles: http://www.dailypaul.com/user/14674

On Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/American-Patriot-Party-CC-Nat...

RichardTaylorAPP - Chair - American Patriot Party.CC

John Locke #201, 202, 212 to 232; Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions 1798; Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788; Rights of the Colonists 1772.

Foolishly, I used to think it best to call cops

when there was a problem. Not no more. Those days are long gone.

UPDATE : Officer Wheaten

Has 5 outstanding Federal law suits against him plus one the tax payers just settled http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Several-Brutality-...

How does he still have a job?

How do you spell police corruption?

The Cheif needs the union support to keep his job although he is not in the union himself. The police union is why an officer with FIVE lawsuits against him is not only still employed but feels completely empowered to assault anyone he pleases.


Liberty = Responsibility

from what I see, cops should

from what I see, cops should of been shot on site first, ask questions later...


How is it even possible for you to sit still and "cooperate" while 6 dudes beat the crap out of you and with a dog biting you???

These gangs with fake badges are starting war not the citizens...

shouting at you

while choking you, twisting your arms and beating you with a club...STOP RESISTING!! STOP RESISTING!!

Daughter of 1776 American Revolutionists


These videos feel like they just get worse and worse. These officers should be on trial for aggravated assault. When they had this kid in cuffs and face down on the ground, that should have been the end (though in absolutely no way were the officers justified to even attack this kid in the first place for mouthing off). That they kept pounding him after he was zero "threat" is just plain assault. Add the whole canine thing to the mix puts this off the charts.

To that idiot who is defending these cops (saying the kid "asked for it and got it"), how in the world can you consider defending such behavior. Even if you think it was okay for the cops to attack him for mouthing off, how can you defend them beating him while face down on the pavement while in cuffs? And several orders of magnitude higher, how can you defend the canine thing? This is just pure police brutality. How the eff were these guys not immediately suspended?!? Every one of those guys should be on trial. That was absolutely disgraceful.

if it was my kid

they would be facing far worse than suspension!

Our founding fathers are rolling in their graves...the land of liberty needs a regime change!

Have you ever worked as a prison guard or a cop?

I have.

And I can tell you the way it works is you can always back off from a strong posture.

But if you let people like this kid walk on you good luck trying to regain any position of authority.

Yes they went overboard.

But this case is not the best one to pick on because the kid provoked the whole thing.

Any normal kid who tried to go gamble in a casino and got caught and thrown out would have been thankful to just be able to leave without arrest.

This genius decided to "ask for it" and "he got it".

"prison guard or a cop"

>implying that there's still a difference between the two.

Oh wait, there is! Cops are heavily armed and armored. I feel safer already!

A signature used to be here!

that is about the worst..

rational for assault by police officer I've ever heard.. he asked for it and he got it??? Any officer or gang of officers who lose their collective minds when someone is "yelling' at them.. doesn't matter what is being yelled.. is in the wrong wrong WRONG line of work. They tossed away every shred of professionalism and don't deserve a shred of respect.

Maybe that's how they can play it a prison with a captive audience but this was out on the street with a regular person. Totally out of line.

Daughter of 1776 American Revolutionists

Give Me A Break

And I can tell you the way it works is you can always back off from a strong posture.

But if you let people like this kid walk on you good luck trying to regain any position of authority.

Maybe there's truth to your comment inside the prison system but this event took place outside a casino w/ a 20 year old kid. You really think that if the cops didn't attack that kid after he mouthed off that they couldn't have "regained authority"??? They all carry a gun, nightstick and a taser. Oh and there were like 6 of them. Plus they could've called for backup if they wanted to.

Probably your prison guard background has warped your thinking on this topic. Keep in mind that posse commitatus (in theory) prevents the military from policing domestically. The reason is that they have the "attack/kill" mindset rather than "peace officer". I think something similar is going on w/ you and your prison guard background.

How about this: You are paid

How about this: You are paid to be a PEACE officer. You promote PEACE at all costs, even when an immature juvenile "mouths off" to you.

No , but I have been beaten

by a cop!!!!!!

how about,,,,

this was your kid and this happened, and some phaggot cop sympathizer said that, im sure you would be like "oh yah you are right, what was I thinking, he deserved that! kill yourself please!

Our founding fathers are rolling in their graves...the land of liberty needs a regime change!

I worked as a security guard

I worked as a security guard before and had kids mouth off to me from time to time, some just like this kid.

However, instead of losing my head and kicking the shit out of them I de-escalated the situation by talking to them and explained what was wrong and what expectations they had to follow. If you dont go around power tripping and do your job professionally you actually earn people's respect and it makes the job much easier. You know, being a functional PART of the community and not at WAR with the community like these cops think they are.

All the cops had to do was walk up and say "Listen kid, it sucks you got thrown out but trust me they just saved you a bunch of money you would have lost in there anyway. Why dont you just go home kid. If you continue this, we are going to have to forcibly remove you but we dont want that and you definitely dont want that..."

We all share this eternally evolving present moment- The past and future only exist as inconsequential mental fabrications.

All five officer need to be

All five officers need to be fired and put on trial for assault and battery charges with use of a deadly weapon (Canine).

It's time! Rand Paul 2016!

"Truth, Justice, and the American Way!"

The more videos I see like this, the more I fear

At some point, people will turn against police and it will create a very dangerous situation. When police act like an occupying military force and treat the public like the enemy, the public will eventually become their enemy. I don't want to be in the middle of that type of society. That is the type of society we created in Baghdad. That is what goes on in some South American countries. I just don't understand why the police do not see that they are creating an ever more dangerous situation for everyone by acting this way.

Woot ...

I don't need to worry about it because it will never happen to me!

I haven't heard the explanation coming from the police...

and I don't mind calling certain officers sh%$birds when the situation warrants. On the other hand, the public by and large has no idea what is going on inside local and state police departments. The fusion center crap pushed by the Southern Poverty Law Center is unbelievable. Eventually, everyone is a terrorist, and people here at the Daily Paul have been exposed to this nonsense. Libertarians, people who support Ron Paul, the Gadsden Flag are all signs of domestic terrorists so be careful Mr. Police Officer, you never know when those Tea Party people are going to strike. Problem, Reaction, Solution.

Problem: Local and state police are getting too aggressive with the general public.

Reaction: People are up in arms with the aggressive attitudes and actions of the local and state police.

Solution: Laws are passed in Washington dissolving local and state police departments and making all police departments federal.

I, for one, don't want this to happen. If anyone thinks this is a good idea, I would ask them to watch the videos of the ATF, FBI, military siege at Waco over and over until they get the point. The Feds can be far more aggressive and dangerous than local or state police. They have access to military equipment (tanks and helicopters), CS gas, flash bang grenades, millions of rounds of bullets, and an unlimited budget to burn your house down killing everyone in it, and NEVER be held responsible. In fact, it will be your fault. Innocent people will be spending time in prison while the federal law enforcement alphabet walk away feeling perfectly justified, having been found not to have violated "policy."

When Chuck Schumer proclaimed in a Senate hearing on Waco, that a flash bang grenade is not an incendiary, keep in mind this is the level of intelligence or inhuman deception we're dealing with...in the end, as happens in so many cases, there will be no justice.

Problems with local and state law enforcement need to be worked out on the local and state level, allowing the feds to take over will make a bad situation worse.

Group therapy

The kid is busted for under-age gambling.
Get's kicked out of the casino
His Daddy is a lawyer
But then he has the balls to mouth off to cops who aren't saying a word to him or harrassing him
He got some discipline is all
Nothing to see here.
Daddy will get a tax payer funded settlement for his kid being
an a-s-s-h-o-l-e.

Mouthing off to police isn't a crime

Being rude to a police officer should not be a death sentence, or even jail time.

Then go out there and knock your

stupid self out.

If I pay an armed guard to protect an area or asset, I don't expect him to take s-h-i-t from people who want to provoke him.

What would you do if you were the cops?