Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Ars Technica: Game Dev Suffers Broken Teeth, Skull Fracture After Trying To Film Arrest

13»

Comments

  • Solar_ProphetSolar_Prophet Member EpicPosts: 1,960
    If this was a white cop, and not a Hispanic cop...the person behind these accusations I'm 100% sure would have acted like there was no problem at all and would have listened to the cop and been calm. Then there'd have been no drama at all. 

    I'm perfectly okay with racists getting the beat down. Especially if they act in a racist manner (in this case the person attacked the cop) and attack whoever they are afraid of (because racists are actually afraid of whoever they are racist about since they know they are greater than they are)

    The only racist I see here is the person bringing race into a topic where as far as it's known, has absolutely no relevance. 

    I bet if the cop was Hispanic and the 'victim' was black your head would explode trying to figure out who was 'racist', wouldn't it?
    LokeroRexKushmanrojoArcueid

    AN' DERE AIN'T NO SUCH FING AS ENUFF DAKKA, YA GROT! Enuff'z more than ya got an' less than too much an' there ain't no such fing as too much dakka. Say dere is, and me Squiggoff'z eatin' tonight!

    We are born of the blood. Made men by the blood. Undone by the blood. Our eyes are yet to open. FEAR THE OLD BLOOD. 

    #IStandWithVic

  • MightyUncleanMightyUnclean Member EpicPosts: 3,531
    edited August 2018
    Not on topic but related: just recently had a citizen in my city who was shot running from police.  Apparently, the police claim he was "in a position to shoot police".  However, he was struck by the officer's bullet in the back of the head.  Released street camera footage confirms he was shot while running away from the officer.  Literally in broad daylight.

    Tell me, how do you aim using the back of your head?  Or, I guess if we take it as a given that he was looking at the officer (since he was apparently in a position to fire at him), how did the bullet from the officer manage to curve around and hit the back of his head?  And, while considering all this, ask yourself: how do you manage a firing position that leaves the back of your head open to the person you're trying to fire at?  The mind boggles.


    Police procedures need to be reviewed and better training given to officers regarding force response.  While resisting arrest is never advisable, it shouldn't result in escalation to the point of life-threatening harm so often.
    It's not possible to point a gun backwards and fire while running?  An officer or innocent bystander couldn't be hit by a wildly fired bullet?  I would argue that both are possible.  Some people are too stupid to drop the gun when the police shout "drop the gun."  What do they expect to happen?  The police are in a game of life and death every day.  Be a thug with a gun in a confrontation with the police, expect to get shot.  This was understood before idiots started valuing the lives of criminals over those of cops.
    mmolou
  • ScotScot Member LegendaryPosts: 19,912
    Some actual reporting on the arrest, which has got to be more informative than the clown circus this thread quickly devolved into.
    Neither side wants to release video footage, that's where we are now, talk to the lawyers first to make sure the video confirms your "truth".
  • DakeruDakeru Member EpicPosts: 3,802
    The pre-events seem to be interesting:

    Cop's view:

    The officer told Pizer the matter "did not concern her" and that officers "had been out with these two several times before."

    Pizer's view:

    Pizer says she went out to tell the QT employees that the woman was OK and there was no need to call the police. But, she says, the employees had already called police.

    “So I went back in to tell her so she wouldn’t be surprised,” Pizer said. 

    She walked out and said ‘I got to get out of here,’ 


    Still no footage to make things clear but it seems that Pizer got emotionally involved with the crying woman who appears to be an old "client" of the local police.

    Harbinger of Fools
  • PhaserlightPhaserlight Member EpicPosts: 3,056
    Some actual reporting on the arrest, which has got to be more informative than the clown circus this thread quickly devolved into.
    Your link basically reports the same thing as Ars Technica?

    I condemn violence in any form.  This is especially true when it's conducted by those in power against those they are meant to protect.  That's something the courts will have to sort out in this particular instance.

    More generally, police brutality is a real problem in the U.S. especially in the last 10 years or so.  Police are meant to be protective public servants, not the long arm of a brutal government.  When you have entire communities fearing the police more than each other, something is deeply wrong.  It will require drastic social change to correct.
    RexKushman

    "The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
    Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance

  • Panther2103Panther2103 Member EpicPosts: 5,731
    I want footage to come out before making an actual judgement. I think excessive force is unnecessary, but I also think assaulting a cop is a really bad idea. Either way, the amount of force used is pretty intense, and shouldn't be used unless someone is in danger. 
  • PhaserlightPhaserlight Member EpicPosts: 3,056
    I want footage to come out before making an actual judgement. I think excessive force is unnecessary, but I also think assaulting a cop is a really bad idea. Either way, the amount of force used is pretty intense, and shouldn't be used unless someone is in danger. 
    We don't know whether or not she assaulted the officer; as noted in both articles, the accounts do not match.   To mirror another comment up thread, I just don't think a 53 year old ~120 lb woman is a credible threat on an armored, armed, on duty officer trained in martial arts, and the physical outcome speaks for itself.
    mmolou

    "The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
    Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance

  • lahnmirlahnmir Member LegendaryPosts: 4,934
    I want footage to come out before making an actual judgement. I think excessive force is unnecessary, but I also think assaulting a cop is a really bad idea. Either way, the amount of force used is pretty intense, and shouldn't be used unless someone is in danger. 
    We don't know whether or not she assaulted the officer; as noted in both articles, the accounts do not match.   To mirror another comment up thread, I just don't think a 53 year old ~120 lb woman is a credible threat on an armored, armed, on duty officer trained in martial arts, and the physical outcome speaks for itself.
    You'd be surprised. And I am not joking. I have seen people perform incredible feats of strength when high on adrenaline. To add, cops have no way of telling if the angry older lady had a knife, pepperspray, a gun etc. That could make events go 180 easily, they have to take all posibilities into account.

    /Cheers,
    Lahnmir
    Phaserlight
    'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'

    Kyleran on yours sincerely 


    'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'

    Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...



    'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless. 

    It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.

    It is just huge resource waste....'

    Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer

  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    edited August 2018
    Not on topic but related: just recently had a citizen in my city who was shot running from police.  Apparently, the police claim he was "in a position to shoot police".  However, he was struck by the officer's bullet in the back of the head.  Released street camera footage confirms he was shot while running away from the officer.  Literally in broad daylight.

    Tell me, how do you aim using the back of your head?  Or, I guess if we take it as a given that he was looking at the officer (since he was apparently in a position to fire at him), how did the bullet from the officer manage to curve around and hit the back of his head?  And, while considering all this, ask yourself: how do you manage a firing position that leaves the back of your head open to the person you're trying to fire at?  The mind boggles.


    Police procedures need to be reviewed and better training given to officers regarding force response.  While resisting arrest is never advisable, it shouldn't result in escalation to the point of life-threatening harm so often.
    It's not possible to point a gun backwards and fire while running?  An officer or innocent bystander couldn't be hit by a wildly fired bullet?  I would argue that both are possible.  Some people are too stupid to drop the gun when the police shout "drop the gun."  What do they expect to happen?  The police are in a game of life and death every day.  Be a thug with a gun in a confrontation with the police, expect to get shot.  This was understood before idiots started valuing the lives of criminals over those of cops.
    There's no way you react to a weapon being fired and turn your head 180 before it impacts.  He cannot have been aiming at (or even facing) the officer when the officer fired the rounds that struck him, all in the back.

    There were no rounds reported fired by the suspect.  You're injecting what-if to introduce a slippery slope you can then use to justify an officer shooting someone in the back who was clearly fleeing and not threatening the officer.
    Phaserlight

    image
  • MightyUncleanMightyUnclean Member EpicPosts: 3,531
    Not on topic but related: just recently had a citizen in my city who was shot running from police.  Apparently, the police claim he was "in a position to shoot police".  However, he was struck by the officer's bullet in the back of the head.  Released street camera footage confirms he was shot while running away from the officer.  Literally in broad daylight.

    Tell me, how do you aim using the back of your head?  Or, I guess if we take it as a given that he was looking at the officer (since he was apparently in a position to fire at him), how did the bullet from the officer manage to curve around and hit the back of his head?  And, while considering all this, ask yourself: how do you manage a firing position that leaves the back of your head open to the person you're trying to fire at?  The mind boggles.


    Police procedures need to be reviewed and better training given to officers regarding force response.  While resisting arrest is never advisable, it shouldn't result in escalation to the point of life-threatening harm so often.
    It's not possible to point a gun backwards and fire while running?  An officer or innocent bystander couldn't be hit by a wildly fired bullet?  I would argue that both are possible.  Some people are too stupid to drop the gun when the police shout "drop the gun."  What do they expect to happen?  The police are in a game of life and death every day.  Be a thug with a gun in a confrontation with the police, expect to get shot.  This was understood before idiots started valuing the lives of criminals over those of cops.
    There's no way you react to a weapon being fired and turn your head 180 before it impacts.  He cannot have been aiming at (or even facing) the officer when the officer fired the rounds that struck him, all in the back.

    There were no rounds reported fired by the suspect.  You're injecting what-if to introduce a slippery slope you can then use to justify an officer shooting someone in the back who was clearly fleeing and not threatening the officer.
    Right, it's obvious that you have all the facts.
  • HarikenHariken Member EpicPosts: 2,680
    She's a White American woman. I'M sure with her white privilege she will be fine after this. 
  • PhaserlightPhaserlight Member EpicPosts: 3,056
    Hariken said:
    She's a White American woman. I'M sure with her white privilege she will be fine after this. 
    Race shouldn't have anything to do with this; that's part of the change I'm writing about.

    "The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
    Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance

  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    edited August 2018
    Not on topic but related: just recently had a citizen in my city who was shot running from police.  Apparently, the police claim he was "in a position to shoot police".  However, he was struck by the officer's bullet in the back of the head.  Released street camera footage confirms he was shot while running away from the officer.  Literally in broad daylight.

    Tell me, how do you aim using the back of your head?  Or, I guess if we take it as a given that he was looking at the officer (since he was apparently in a position to fire at him), how did the bullet from the officer manage to curve around and hit the back of his head?  And, while considering all this, ask yourself: how do you manage a firing position that leaves the back of your head open to the person you're trying to fire at?  The mind boggles.


    Police procedures need to be reviewed and better training given to officers regarding force response.  While resisting arrest is never advisable, it shouldn't result in escalation to the point of life-threatening harm so often.
    It's not possible to point a gun backwards and fire while running?  An officer or innocent bystander couldn't be hit by a wildly fired bullet?  I would argue that both are possible.  Some people are too stupid to drop the gun when the police shout "drop the gun."  What do they expect to happen?  The police are in a game of life and death every day.  Be a thug with a gun in a confrontation with the police, expect to get shot.  This was understood before idiots started valuing the lives of criminals over those of cops.
    There's no way you react to a weapon being fired and turn your head 180 before it impacts.  He cannot have been aiming at (or even facing) the officer when the officer fired the rounds that struck him, all in the back.

    There were no rounds reported fired by the suspect.  You're injecting what-if to introduce a slippery slope you can then use to justify an officer shooting someone in the back who was clearly fleeing and not threatening the officer.
    Right, it's obvious that you have all the facts.
    All the facts reported.  And a video clearly showing the suspect running away who didn't turn towards the officer nor had arms held up in what appears to be any kind of firing position.

    If you think that makes him a threat worth shooting, then anyone carrying a firearm that's suspected of a crime is a threat worth shooting.  Never know, right?

    image
  • red_cruiserred_cruiser Member UncommonPosts: 486
    You even touch a police officer without their permission let alone splash your drink over them, you've just written them out a blank check.  Sure, they may overstep the law, but good luck making it stick.  In cases like this, a lot of people will just side with the police because they realize it is a dangerous and thankless job; while others will just oppose them for any of a variety of reasons.
  • GeezerGamerGeezerGamer Member EpicPosts: 8,852
    The fact that one of the persons involved happens to be a game developer is incidental. Everything about this thread are political opinions and have nothing to do with gaming, or game development. This thread should be locked.
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    The fact that one of the persons involved happens to be a game developer is incidental. Everything about this thread are political opinions and have nothing to do with gaming, or game development. This thread should be locked.
    While your point is valid, it's becoming very hard to hold up the "no political stuff!" anymore.  With things like legislation on monetization coming into play, political speech groups making waves with platform providers and such, the line is blurring.

    image
  • PhaserlightPhaserlight Member EpicPosts: 3,056
    The fact that one of the persons involved happens to be a game developer is incidental. Everything about this thread are political opinions and have nothing to do with gaming, or game development. This thread should be locked.
    I assure you I have no political motivations, here.  This is a game forum, and it relates to video games as she is a game developer. News involving people in the industry often gets posted either in individual game forums or in "off topic" sections (a mod could move it to a more appropriate place if General Gaming isn't it).

    My only purpose in opening this thread was to highlight a newsworthy item indirectly related to the MMO industry from a source I follow. The unexpected resultant discussions including nonviolence and police reform are good ones, regardless of political affiliation.

    "The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
    Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance

  • PhryPhry Member LegendaryPosts: 11,004
    Scot said:
    Some actual reporting on the arrest, which has got to be more informative than the clown circus this thread quickly devolved into.
    Neither side wants to release video footage, that's where we are now, talk to the lawyers first to make sure the video confirms your "truth".
    Likely the police are not releasing footage because it will be used as evidence in court. The store have probably been advised by corporate lawyers to do the same, and likely for the same reasons. The woman in question is also holding off on releasing the video footage pending their own legal advice. The more you read into events of the day, the worse it looks for the Pizers tbh, they look increasingly guilty as more evidence emerges. :/
  • SiphaedSiphaed Member RarePosts: 1,114
    I want footage to come out before making an actual judgement. I think excessive force is unnecessary, but I also think assaulting a cop is a really bad idea. Either way, the amount of force used is pretty intense, and shouldn't be used unless someone is in danger. 
    We don't know whether or not she assaulted the officer; as noted in both articles, the accounts do not match.   To mirror another comment up thread, I just don't think a 53 year old ~120 lb woman is a credible threat on an armored, armed, on duty officer trained in martial arts, and the physical outcome speaks for itself.
    We do know that she assaulted the officer. The police say in the footage she punched the officer in the head twice and kicked him once.  And when this goes to trial -which she will drag it out because she even got local news involved trying to play the victim card- the footage will be released and show exactly that.   


    She physically assaulted an officer trying to detain her after trying to interrupt an arrest that she had NO CONCERN over.   The officer had dealt with the individuals before and knew to safely handcuff the two originally called over.  She -not knowing anything other than a crying woman- admits to trying to interrupt the cop not once, but 3 times!   And when the Officer told her to leave, she instead stays, opens a phone to record, and starts backtalking the officer while recording after being told to leave. 

     So she's getting arrested for interfering with police work.  But she doesn't see that as an issue and only thinks of herself.  So she throws a drink at the officer, fights back, and then the officer -who had already taken physical abuse- has to tackle her to the ground to actively handcuff her.


    Her weight means nothing when she's physically assaulting an officer.   Her flailing limbs, use of external items as weapon, is a threat to the officer and civilians in the store.   Her attitude of "we don't need the police" interjection to the initial arrest and sequential refusal to follow instructions lead to what could have been a simple detainment with slight situation and/or additional warning.  But instead she decided to resist arrest thinking she's above the law and thusly fought it....  and lost.


  • PhaserlightPhaserlight Member EpicPosts: 3,056
    Siphaed said:
    I want footage to come out before making an actual judgement. I think excessive force is unnecessary, but I also think assaulting a cop is a really bad idea. Either way, the amount of force used is pretty intense, and shouldn't be used unless someone is in danger. 
    We don't know whether or not she assaulted the officer; as noted in both articles, the accounts do not match.   To mirror another comment up thread, I just don't think a 53 year old ~120 lb woman is a credible threat on an armored, armed, on duty officer trained in martial arts, and the physical outcome speaks for itself.
    We do know that she assaulted the officer. The police say in the footage she punched the officer in the head twice and kicked him once.  And when this goes to trial -which she will drag it out because she even got local news involved trying to play the victim card- the footage will be released and show exactly that.   


    She physically assaulted an officer trying to detain her after trying to interrupt an arrest that she had NO CONCERN over.   The officer had dealt with the individuals before and knew to safely handcuff the two originally called over.  She -not knowing anything other than a crying woman- admits to trying to interrupt the cop not once, but 3 times!   And when the Officer told her to leave, she instead stays, opens a phone to record, and starts backtalking the officer while recording after being told to leave. 

     So she's getting arrested for interfering with police work.  But she doesn't see that as an issue and only thinks of herself.  So she throws a drink at the officer, fights back, and then the officer -who had already taken physical abuse- has to tackle her to the ground to actively handcuff her.


    Her weight means nothing when she's physically assaulting an officer.   Her flailing limbs, use of external items as weapon, is a threat to the officer and civilians in the store.   Her attitude of "we don't need the police" interjection to the initial arrest and sequential refusal to follow instructions lead to what could have been a simple detainment with slight situation and/or additional warning.  But instead she decided to resist arrest thinking she's above the law and thusly fought it....  and lost.
    Both her and her husband claim she didn't assault the officer, but rather was tackled from behind as she was walking away filming the arrest in "selfie" mode.  Store cam footage should either corroborate or invalidate their story (which is currently being subpoenaed).

    "The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
    Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance

  • SiphaedSiphaed Member RarePosts: 1,114
    Siphaed said:
    I want footage to come out before making an actual judgement. I think excessive force is unnecessary, but I also think assaulting a cop is a really bad idea. Either way, the amount of force used is pretty intense, and shouldn't be used unless someone is in danger. 
    We don't know whether or not she assaulted the officer; as noted in both articles, the accounts do not match.   To mirror another comment up thread, I just don't think a 53 year old ~120 lb woman is a credible threat on an armored, armed, on duty officer trained in martial arts, and the physical outcome speaks for itself.
    We do know that she assaulted the officer. The police say in the footage she punched the officer in the head twice and kicked him once.  And when this goes to trial -which she will drag it out because she even got local news involved trying to play the victim card- the footage will be released and show exactly that.   


    She physically assaulted an officer trying to detain her after trying to interrupt an arrest that she had NO CONCERN over.   The officer had dealt with the individuals before and knew to safely handcuff the two originally called over.  She -not knowing anything other than a crying woman- admits to trying to interrupt the cop not once, but 3 times!   And when the Officer told her to leave, she instead stays, opens a phone to record, and starts backtalking the officer while recording after being told to leave. 

     So she's getting arrested for interfering with police work.  But she doesn't see that as an issue and only thinks of herself.  So she throws a drink at the officer, fights back, and then the officer -who had already taken physical abuse- has to tackle her to the ground to actively handcuff her.


    Her weight means nothing when she's physically assaulting an officer.   Her flailing limbs, use of external items as weapon, is a threat to the officer and civilians in the store.   Her attitude of "we don't need the police" interjection to the initial arrest and sequential refusal to follow instructions lead to what could have been a simple detainment with slight situation and/or additional warning.  But instead she decided to resist arrest thinking she's above the law and thusly fought it....  and lost.
    Both her and her husband claim she didn't assault the officer, but rather was tackled from behind as she was walking away filming the arrest in "selfie" mode.  Store cam footage should either corroborate or invalidate their story (which is currently being subpoenaed).
    1) Her husband wasn't even at the store. Of course he's going to collaborate his wife's story over the cops'; she's his wife.  So his 'opinion' is kind of moot in this situation right now.

    2) The police commissioner and department reviewed the body cam footage and came out publicly with a statement of her assault against the officer and how the arrest was justified.  A department doesn't do that -with a lawyer in their office too- on the potential of the footage showing in a trial of her arrest as well as the potential of a litigation trial without it being true.  They're openly saying "we have footage, we have seen the footage, you were wrong and we were right.  Fight it in trial or try to sue us, we'll show the footage and you will lose.".


  • PhaserlightPhaserlight Member EpicPosts: 3,056
    Siphaed said:
    Siphaed said:
    I want footage to come out before making an actual judgement. I think excessive force is unnecessary, but I also think assaulting a cop is a really bad idea. Either way, the amount of force used is pretty intense, and shouldn't be used unless someone is in danger. 
    We don't know whether or not she assaulted the officer; as noted in both articles, the accounts do not match.   To mirror another comment up thread, I just don't think a 53 year old ~120 lb woman is a credible threat on an armored, armed, on duty officer trained in martial arts, and the physical outcome speaks for itself.
    We do know that she assaulted the officer. The police say in the footage she punched the officer in the head twice and kicked him once.  And when this goes to trial -which she will drag it out because she even got local news involved trying to play the victim card- the footage will be released and show exactly that.   


    She physically assaulted an officer trying to detain her after trying to interrupt an arrest that she had NO CONCERN over.   The officer had dealt with the individuals before and knew to safely handcuff the two originally called over.  She -not knowing anything other than a crying woman- admits to trying to interrupt the cop not once, but 3 times!   And when the Officer told her to leave, she instead stays, opens a phone to record, and starts backtalking the officer while recording after being told to leave. 

     So she's getting arrested for interfering with police work.  But she doesn't see that as an issue and only thinks of herself.  So she throws a drink at the officer, fights back, and then the officer -who had already taken physical abuse- has to tackle her to the ground to actively handcuff her.


    Her weight means nothing when she's physically assaulting an officer.   Her flailing limbs, use of external items as weapon, is a threat to the officer and civilians in the store.   Her attitude of "we don't need the police" interjection to the initial arrest and sequential refusal to follow instructions lead to what could have been a simple detainment with slight situation and/or additional warning.  But instead she decided to resist arrest thinking she's above the law and thusly fought it....  and lost.
    Both her and her husband claim she didn't assault the officer, but rather was tackled from behind as she was walking away filming the arrest in "selfie" mode.  Store cam footage should either corroborate or invalidate their story (which is currently being subpoenaed).
    1) Her husband wasn't even at the store. Of course he's going to collaborate his wife's story over the cops'; she's his wife.  So his 'opinion' is kind of moot in this situation right now.

    2) The police commissioner and department reviewed the body cam footage and came out publicly with a statement of her assault against the officer and how the arrest was justified.  A department doesn't do that -with a lawyer in their office too- on the potential of the footage showing in a trial of her arrest as well as the potential of a litigation trial without it being true.  They're openly saying "we have footage, we have seen the footage, you were wrong and we were right.  Fight it in trial or try to sue us, we'll show the footage and you will lose.".

    I agree he's not an unbiased witness, but according to Kotaku he was at the store; he arrived later to view the security cam footage which is what his statement was based on.

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/kotaku.com/conflicting-reports-emerge-about-game-developers-arrest-1828393742/amp

    "The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
    Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance

  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    edited August 2018
    Yea, it seems like a boneheaded move to claim a different story as the police department in this day and age.  It's going to be shown somewhere- either online or in court.

    But, that makes it an equally boneheaded move for the dev to claim otherwise, depending upon what the videos actually show.

    image
Sign In or Register to comment.