A collection of videos of police killing people, while displaying the qualities of a hunting party, added as they are noticed online.
Hunting parties have been a human activity since pre history.
Policing, like modern military soldiering, involves taking people without experience in something and then training them to pretend they have experience without actually giving them any experience since the training is a group activity not an individual experience. What you end up with is a mass of people with a veneer of 'policing' or 'soldiering' which washes away when the training environment, the choreographed environment, is gone. The 'training' evolves into 'how to camouflage one's motives' rather than whatever it pretends to be.
In the Weltanschauungskrieg section because in each case 'police' i.e., an artificial alliance, not an archetypal group, are acting as a hunting party which is an archetypal group. They have been assembled into a group under contrived authority, essentially 'gang power', and the only requirement of their alliance is that they pretend to have 'civilized' motives which they do not have.
This could have been put in a 'behaviorism' section if there were one, but there isn't. Behaviorism is the study of behavior rather than the analysis of internal processes. In these cases there is a) hunting party behavior as well as b) camouflage speech designed to hide the real motives. The camouflage speech is part of the 'we are good people doing this to help you' ruse. If the police said 'we like the gang power of forcing ourselves on people' then their gang would not succeed.
Notice that in each case the police are aware they are being filmed and go overboard in pretending that their goal is to help their victim. In many or most cases the police believe their own acting, something that will lead to a sort of dissociation among them later on.
One of the core values of policing everywhere, but to an extreme in the United States, is that vulnerable people are mainly targeted. Police are trained to specifically target those who do not have the ability to defend themselves, and to tolerate 'crimes' by those who have power. The root of this is simple human nature and also probably the hierarchical nature of policing organizations. A 'higher level' police officer e.g. an administrator, a chief, etc, can more easily control those under him or her by giving them easy wins.
This sort of ruse then sets the stage for false 'federal' melting pot control entities to step in and take the power which is being relinquished by misbehaving local police https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/04/28/victor-hill-sheriff-georgia-charged/
Of course false federal entities are much worse offenders than local police gangs, in fact they are the origin of the 'local' problem.
A person should be aware that there is such a thing as a genuine federating influence, which involves federating power between tribal interests, but in places like the United States 'federating' is simply an ever evolving ruse to keep colonial power within the original colonizing force.
1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBJnToNolHw A police officer is compressing the upper right chest of a severely overweight person. He and his partner are putting a lot of force into their control despite there never having been any evidence of any threat from the individual. It isn't clear what crime the police are pretending he committed, perhaps shoplifting alcohol or trespassing in a park. Their victim appears to have diminished capacity, both from alcohol and from past use, probably involuntary, of psychiatric meds. Notice that the second officer approaches as a hunter confident in his ability to overpower the victim as part of a group, rather than as an individual trying to address a situation. Both officers are playing to the camera, trying to pretend they are acting on decent motives.
2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53x1VR3FX9A Chicago police shoot a person because they cannot outrun him. Like many or most people in that area, including the police, he has a gun. Having a gun and using it are two different things. He most likely would not have used the gun in that situation unlike the police. Does he have some kind of criminal record? He probably does not get a big paycheck like the police, and the basis for an industrialized society is training people to get money by any means. Smart people who do not have the means to get high paying jobs usually sell drugs. Did he need a gun? His gun was the only thing that gave him a chance to survive an attack like that. His hesitancy to use it cost him his life. Most situations are different, but that is the case in this situation.
The United States is not the only country where authorities hunt in packs.
"Troopers initially told Greene’s family he died on impact after crashing into a tree during the chase."
"Gov. John Bel Edwards allowed Greene’s family to view the same body camera footage last year and pledged to release it to the public after the federal investigation runs its course."
Why wasn't it released for about two years?
"...his death was ruled accidental and attributed to cardiac arrest..."
Nobody does coverups better than the feds. There are probably thousands of videos from the past decades that are 'waiting for the federal investigation to run its course'.
Police arrested a 73 year old woman with dementia who had walked out of a store without paying for ~$13 worth of items. They gave her "a dislocated shoulder, broken arm and sprained wrist".
This was one of the rare cases where the police were held accountable, to some extent, very quickly, because there was publicity.
Unfortunately though this is pretty normal conduct for police. They were not doing something most police would not do. Police are hired, above all else, for obedience. If police believe their job is to prey on the vulnerable and protect the powerful, and even most cops would describe their job that way if you gave them truth serum, then that is what they are obedient to.
Here is a cop charged with murder, aggravated kidnapping, tampering with evidence, abuse of a corpse, official misconduct and official oppression. Like most police, he used his uniform as cover to live out his darker tendencies. In this case though he was not committing his crimes under official cover, so he may spend a while in jail unless he can afford a good lawyer.
At the 2:00 minute point on this video is a ridiculous example of a cop who is obviously wanting to shoot somebody. He evidently forgot that his body camera was on, or perhaps he was posturing for supporters, i.e., if he was aware that the video was on then it indicates he works within a subculture which he was hamming to, he was playing out some role that he expected to be defended by his buddies.
He goads the man in a way intended to get him to be defensive, but the man still never presents an offensive threat. The victim responds with something like 'touch me and find out', in other words 'I am not pushing myself on you, you are pushing yourself on me, and I will bite if I have to'. The cop then shoots him, evidently based on the 'threatening language' that the cop himself forced out of the victim.
This video is important among recent police shootings videos because it shows the context of the hostility that police use to justify their attacks. Everybody is aggressive towards somebody or some thing. People kill millions of chickens a year, for example, with the chickens having no idea why they are killed. Both the killer and the killed in this video are hostile to people not in their specific groups, but the cop was the only one in this video who deliberately uses 'external power', in this case a gun, to kill a vulnerable member of another group simply because he could.
That officer, and many more like him, believe that their gun, or the fact that they have been 'authorized' to use a gun as part of their job, make them like a person who is authorized to kill a chicken by virtue of being smarter or better armed than the chicken.
That story is in the news today because it is the second person who that highly paid cop in a wealthy area has shot in ~3 years https://apnews.com/article/george-floyd-california-shootings-business-race-and-ethnicity-6575c33bb3a0335f1aabfdc0ff5ea55f
Most police shootings that hit the front of a person's body are similar to that, a cop, or group of cops, are eager to kill vulnerable prey in a canned hunt, but cognizant that they have to pretend to have other motives.
Here is a similar example from several months ago of an officer who clearly wants to shoot somebody because he knows it is an easy win.
In this case his target is a young woman with a knife, and he is obviously trying to goad her into a position where shooting her will appear 'justifiable' to his colleagues.
Another example from 2 months ago of an officer killing a woman with a knife, though there may not be video in this case.
Here is the officer in that case trying to pretend he is a hero https://nypost.com/2021/05/28/cop-fired-for-mocking-lebron-james-blames-cancel-culture/ He seems to not realize he is paid to do good deeds. He pretends that he is a decent guy out doing decent deeds on his own, rather than simply a person being paid specifically to do things properly. If a person who is not paid to do good deeds is punished for doing bad deeds, why would a person being paid to do good deeds not be punished for bad deeds?
And another example of cops killing the 'woman with a knife' which does have video available.
In that case a teenage girl who was engaged in agonistic behaviour https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agonistic_behaviour 'posturing' with the knife, trying to look tough as she pretended to be about to stab. She had been doing that for a while, police were called, and police killed her. Agonistic behaviour is common among people in crowded areas.
Another example of a highly suspicious police killing of 'a woman with a knife' and no body camera.
An example of an older case, from 2017, shows how media bends over backwards to support the police version in these killings.
First, here is a fairly straightforward article.
"Woman Killed By Seattle Police Had Called 911 To Report Burglary" "Charleena Lyles, 30, a mother of four, was killed inside a housing complex in Seattle after allegedly confronting officers with a knife."
There were some protests, so the local news station stepped in and tried to portray themselves as presenting both sides, when their article clearly is meant to defend the police and demonize the victim.
"Seattle police shooting kills armed 30-year-old woman; read both sides here"
Notice the link to the original story starts "woman-injured", so police first told the public that she had been injured. She was shot seven times by police, so she was probably pretty dead before she hit the ground.
No video of that shooting, but notice in the audio clip at 1 minute 40 seconds she was complaining that the officers were not going to leave. Then she said that she had a scissors to protect herself, apparently she perceived the officers as a threat, wanted them to leave her home, they refused, she said she had a scissors and may have made threatening gestures, then they killed her.
It has always been common for police to kill women in their homes, for whatever reason. Almost 40 years ago the shooting of Eleanor Bumpurs led to protests.
Protests by a few people for a few weeks is the norm, followed by the media 'teaching' the public why the police needed to shoot a minimally armed or unarmed person who was no credible threat. The 'hunting party' aspect, the fact that the police want to shoot somebody because they are vulnerable, is not part of the media coverage.
During the era in which Eleanor Bumpurs was killed there is not one single example of police giving factual information to the public about a dubious killing, unless there were witnesses or others threatening to expose the police. You will not find an 'improper shooting' from that era, not one, in which the police voluntarily admitted a grossly improper killing without pressure from witnesses or the media.
Here is a much more recent case, from 2016, in which an elderly black woman was killed by police in her apartment a few miles from where Eleanor Bumpurs was killed. Notice that the Wikipedia page tries to spin the story to minimize the appearance of police miscobduct.
What was the truth?
"A mentally ill woman fatally shot by a police sergeant in her Bronx apartment had put down a pair of scissors and was talking with an emergency medical technician when several officers rushed her, the technician testified on Thursday."
There are other details in that killing that were never even examined, perhaps as a favor to police. Several police said they were in her apartment, but not present when she was shot. Where were they? What were they doing in another part of the apartment?
After being acquitted of the murder, the shooter was in the news a short time later when he was up for promotion https://nypost.com/2018/06/02/cop-acquitted-in-bronx-womans-shhoting-now-up-for-promotion/
An interesting case. An indigenous American from Latin America tried to surrender fully to the U.S., a little bit too fully, and it didn't get him far. Notice that he appeals to other people who were involved in the Vietnam invasion, since there is a lot of social pressure in the U.S. to support soldiers, even when they fight aggressive colonial wars. Should participating in any crime, including an inappropriate attack on another country whose 'crime' was wanting to be free from colonizers, form the basis for a status group?
His basic argument is "I surrendered my indigenous identity, supported the U.S., and even participated in one of its worst foreign wars, then I became a cop and helped subdue people who would not surrender, and therefore I am part of the gang and need to be treated with respect."
He worked specifically for U.S. border patrol. So he was helping the U.S. government work against his own indigenous people who are no longer able to travel freely in North America.
His position is completely understandable. Most, or all, people surrender to a powerful group at some point to get money, power or other benefits.
But he spent years doing to his own people, on behalf of those who conquered his people, what was done to him by strangers, and then uses that as a basis for why he deserves to be treated well?
A better argument from him would have been "I spent years doing what was done to me, and now I understand it was wrong." If he also wanted to study history a bit he would learn that no matter what legal or political games are played, his descendants for the next thousand years would never get the respect he tried to buy by surrendering.
Another hunting party in the news today, this one for a 2017 killing.
This is an ambiguous case with two distinct elements and questions.
The police are trying to promote the question of whether the officer was justified in killing the young man at the moment he did, and most people would say he was. The victim was driving with the officer as an unwilling passenger and there wasn't an easy way to escape.
But the question that precedes that one is whether the police had the right to jump in his car.
Here is a rough sequential timeline.
a) Somebody calls police about a stranger asleep in their car.
b) A hunting party forms and the police later acknowledged that they planned to attack the man despite the only crime being he had been sleeping in his car.
c) Police approach the car and wake him up. Then they start to yank him out of the car. He still has not committed any crime. The attack is simply a 'because we feel like it' attack.
d) Although they never identified themselves as police and were not wearing regular uniforms, he probably knew they were police. Generally a person is not safe in the custody of police officers who commit attacks like that, so driving off, on his part, was the right move if he thought he could get away. A miscalculation on his part.
e) Once the two men are alone in the car, a new situation starts independent of the previous misconduct by police. At this point the police officer has several options, and killing the driver is understandable.
f) Neither of the police dashcams were on, and that police department 'allows' its officers to purchase bodycams, but does not provide them, so none of the cops had a bodycam.
g) After the killing the police claimed that he was a drug dealer who they had been planning to arrest, but that looks like cop fiction.
A different, much more common, kind of hunting party.
A guy complains that somebody was shooting at him. It's possible he was the one who called police. He seems calm and helpful and initially his main concern is whether his car has bullet holes. The police are reasonably polite. Everything looks normal so far.
They ask him if he has anything illegal in his car. He says just some marijuana. Not really a crime in most places unless it weighs more than a certain weight. They 'detain' him then search his car.
Then the cops tell him they found meth or ecstasy, which he knows he did not have. He now realizes that they are going to arrest him for possessing something he did not have. This is pretty common, and he resigns himself to it since there is nothing he can do. He asks to see the meth or ecstasy they found. As if it were a joke video on Youtube, they show him the tiny urn containing his daughter's ashes, and tell him it tested positive for meth.
At some point the police realize that they got caught falsifying drug test results and the circumstances, pretending a child's ashes were meth, are problematic.
The video shows the calculations the hunting party used among themselves to justify falsifying the evidence. One cop complained that a previous arrest involving a certain amount of marijuana had not been strong, with the implication being somebody needed to beef up the charges. All very normal police work, if they hadn't declared that a baby's ashes tested positive for meth.
Despite the video being public, most media will pretend the cops did nothing wrong.
This killing from last year in the news today because police are being pressured to bring charges, after numerous people disputed the police version of events.
Clearly a 'hunting party' attack. He was targeted for his vulnerability, and not for anything else. The police coverup was extensive, but will not be investigated as a separate issue. In most cases when an investigation of a coverup is threatened a compromise is reached. Some low level officers are charged with a crime in exchange for the release from accountability of higher level officers.
One thing that differentiates this case is that it is an older style police abuse case. there is no dashcam or bodycam, and videos are limited, so the bottom level police agency started a coverup, then their coverup was built on by a higher level coverup by another agency. Normally, in the past, the witnesses would be neutralized by police, arrested or otherwise have their credibility challenged and their views silenced. Because there was a small amount of video in this case that did not happen, and now even the federal government is being forced to address the misconduct despite the coverup having involved several layers of law enforcement.
This kind of attack is very common in the United States, but does not usually draw media attention unless there is a death and the media is forced by social media to report the details.
An interesting exception was the Oregon beating of a homeless man by a deputy who also worked as school resource officer at a school for indigenous Americans.
In that case the video was publicized by a media outlet itself without anybody having put pressure on them to publish it, and a token punishment was given temporarily to the officer until publicity died down.
In that case too, the victim was targeted for his vulnerability, and not for any other reason.