Gang Assault on Black Man by NYPD in Their Feelings b/c He Said "Fuck the Police" and Disobeyed Commands to Get Off Train [Most Laws are Backed by the Threat of Violence in System Based on Violence]

From [HERE] and [HERE] Police body cam footage was released late Wednesday showing what led up to an incident involving fare evasion that led to a Black man being assaulted, piled on and tased by a large group NYPD officers who swarmed onto the subway to enforce disobedience of their orders to get off the train.

The video shows an Eric Garner style gang of cops run onto the he train and surround Crowell, attempting to handcuff him. Crowell again tells the officers that he paid his fare, before attempting to push them away. As the officers assault and pike on him and prepare to handcuff his arms behind his back, one of the officers deploys a Taser, shooting Croswell in the back and causing him to fall to the floor.

The NYPD tweeted video showing what happened leading up to a confrontation between police and a man at the 116th Street and Lenox Avenue station in Harlem on July 6. The man, identified as David Crowell, can be seen on the bodycam footage cursing at officers and refusing to leave the 2 train.

Police said the incident started after Crowell, who paid his fare, opened the emergency gate for someone else. When officers approached, that other man apologized and paid up, but police said that Crowell then started taunting officers. A criminal complaint stated that he threatened police with fists raised, saying "I'm going to rush you. F--- the police."

However, said statement by police is not accurate and the video speaks for itself. While the cops are on the platform the cops order him to get off the train and Crowell, who is standing in the middle of a subway car over 20 feet from the cops, says “suck my dick” and “fuck the police.” Crowell then, in so many words he tells them he will defend himself if they put their hands on him. He said ‘if you come in here to get me I am going to rush you.’ Under the circumstances it is reasonable to conclude that Cromwell thought the subway door was getting ready to close and the train was getting to leave the station, taking him out of there. Any alleged criminal threat case would be weak because the statements under the circumstances to the cop do not appear to put the cop in imminent fear of serious bodily injury and the statement is not a threat if he is merely saying he will defend himself if cops initiate violence against him. The “threat” is used as justification for making an arrest, making cops look like victims or maintaining false relations with the law abiding citizenry. He was under arrest for failure to obey their orders and/or fare evasion and they put their hands on him because he disobeyed their commands. Watch the video for yourself and never believe anything cops say where you can easily verify.

Also the sensitive, self-righteous NYPD cops were in their feelings because he called them names. As noted by Larken Rose ‘law enforcers quickly become angry, even violent, when an average citizen simply speaks to the “officer” as an equal, instead of assuming the tone and demeanor of a subjugated underling. Again, this reaction is precisely the same – and has the same cause – as the reaction a slave master would have to an “uppity” slave speaking to him as an equal. . .They often resort to open violence, simply because someone they approached spoke to them as one adult would speak to another instead of speaking as a subject would speak to a master. Cops refer to this lack of groveling as someone having an “attitude.” In their eyes, someone treating them as mere mortals, as if they are on the same level as everyone else, amounts to showing disrespect for their alleged “authority.’

In general courts have recognized that police officers are trained to be more patient than the average person in the face of hostile words: police officers are trained to deal with unruly and uncooperative members of the public. A police officer is expected to have a greater tolerance for verbal assaults, . . . and because the police are especially trained to resist provocation, we expect them to remain peaceful in the face of verbal abuse that might provoke or offend the ordinary citizen.’ In re W.H.L., 743 A.2d 1226, 1228 (D.C. 2000).

Liberal statists have misunderstood this incident as simply being an over the top reaction by cops. In reality most laws regardless of whether they be minor or serious are backed by the threat of violence - violation of law may require arrest or it carries a punishment of physical detention or payment of a fine and detention if you fail to pay the fine. Also, all commands by police are backed by the threat of violence. Your compliance will either be voluntary or involuntary in a legal system anchored in physical harm or violence. It is a false choice, you can either obey or go to jail. In our legal system cops are authorized to use violence to force compliance whenever they deem it necessary. Here, cops ordered the black man to do something and when he didn’t they forced him to. Don’t bullshit yourself, that is the way a society based on physical coercion operates.

If you ordered someone off the train and they disobeyed you could you drag them off? If all government power comes from the people by way of delegation, then where did get cops acquire their special powers to initiate violence? Clearly, it couldn’t from the people, right?

FUNKTIONARY states “All so-called "authority" is based in unilateral coercion“ and “At its root, government is based on violence and coercion.” Dr. Blynd also explains, “Ignoring or belittling authority does not mean people are either good or bad, whether or not they are punished for their insubordination. Healthy people do not need authority figures to tell them what to do, but only the knowledge of themselves.” “There is no freedom in the presence of so-called authority.” [MORE] Undeceiver Michael Huemer explains:

Government is a coercive institution. Generally speaking, when the state makes a law, the law carries with it a punishment to be imposed upon violators. It is possible to have a law with no specified punishment for violation, but all actual governments attach punishments to nearly all laws.  Not everyone who breaks the law will in fact be punished, but the state will generally make a reasonable effort at punishing violators and will generally punish a fair number of them, typically with fines or imprisonment. These punishments are intended to harm lawbreakers, and they generally succeed in doing so.

     Direct physical violence is rarely used as a punishment. Nevertheless, violence plays a crucial role in the system, because without the threat of violence, lawbreakers could simply choose not to suffer punishment. For example, the government commands that drivers stop before all red lights. If you violate this rule, you might be punished with a $200 fine. But this is simply another command. If you didn’t obey the command to stop before all red lights, why would you obey the command to pay $200 to the government? Perhaps the second command will be enforced by a third command: the government may threaten to revoke your driver’s license if you do not pay the fine. In other words, they may command you to stop driving. But if you violated the first two commands, why would you follow the third? Well, the command to stop driving may be enforced by a threat of imprisonment if you continue to drive without a license. As these examples illustrate, commands are often enforced with threats to issue further commands, yet that cannot be all there is to it. At the end of the chain must come a threat that the violator literally cannot defy. The system as a whole must be anchored by a non-voluntary intervention, a harm that the state can impose regardless of the individual’s choices.

     That anchor is provided by physical force. Even the threat of imprisonment requires enforcement: how can the state ensure that the criminal goes to the prison? The answer lies in coercion, involving actual or threatened bodily injury, or at a minimum, physical pushing or pulling of the individual’s body to the location of imprisonment. This is the final intervention that the individual cannot choose to defy. One can choose not to pay a fine, one can choose to drive without a license, and one can even choose not to walk to a police car to be taken away. But one cannot choose not to be subjected to physical force if the agents of the state decide to impose it.

     Thus, the legal system is founded on intentional, harmful coercion. To justify a law, one must justify imposition of that law on the population through a threat of harm, including the coercive imposition of actual harm on those who are caught violating the law. In common sense morality, the threat or actual coercive imposition of harm is normally wrong. This is not to say that it cannot be justified; it is only to say that coercion requires a justification. This may be because of the way in which coercion disrespects persons, seeking to bypass their reason and manipulate them through fear, or the way in which it seems to deny the autonomy and equality of other persons. [MORE]