Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
As Brock stepped out of his car, Deputy Joseph Benza approached and told him: “I just stopped you,” offering no explanation as to why.
Confused, Brock replied, “No, you didn’t.”
“Yeah, I did,” the deputy said. Then he grabbed Brock’s arm and forced him to the ground.
Still unsure what he’d done, Brock said, he began to scream. “What — what are you doing? Oh, my god. What the f— is happening?"
For the next three minutes, Brock struggled and screamed as the deputy held him down and punched him in the head.
“You're going to kill me,” Brock told him. “You're going to f–-ing kill me. Help! Help! Help! I'm not resisting!”
His mind raced, turning over thoughts of all the things he’d never get to do in life: Finish grad school. Be a father. Become a professor.
“Help! Help! Help! I’m not resisting!”
At one point, the deputy ordered him to put his arms behind his back — but Brock's arms were already pinned under his chest.
“Even when I did get them out the way he wanted, he continued to punch me,” Brock told The Times. “He just kept saying, ‘Stop resisting, stop resisting.’ I didn’t understand why he was shouting that because I wasn’t resisting.”
Four days later, he lost his job after state authorities notified the school of his pending charges.
When the incident went through the department’s normal force review process, officials cleared Benza of wrongdoing. One sergeant wrote that Brock was assaultive “with threat of serious bodily injury.” Another sergeant, listed as the watch commander, concurred, saying the incident was within policy and the force used was “objectively reasonable.”
The sergeant also checked “no” on the paperwork next to the question: “Could officer safety, tactical communication, or de-escalation techniques have been improved?”
The station captain agreed with the two sergeants below him. Only once the matter went up to the division commander did the report note room for improvement.
That month, Brock had his first court appearance. Though he’d been booked on three felonies and a misdemeanor, prosecutors ultimately decided to move forward with two misdemeanor charges: resisting arrest and battery on an officer.
The battery on the officer is for the injury that the officer sustained to his fist by punching the victim in the head over and over. That was the only recorded injury the officer had.
Every day another incident like this, and we only here about the ones caught on camera. Cops just do whatever the fuck they want. And there just isn't any oversight. Two sergeants deciding that "there is no room for improvement" there. The person who suffers the most legal consequences is the guy they beat up. And he also loses his job just from the accusations alone. Innocent until proven guilty my ass. A cop can just go and ruin someones live on a whim. No one can do anything about it, and the cop will not suffer any consequences either.
On July 24 2023 05:49 Magic Powers wrote: "Christel faces up to 65 days in juvenile detention." (50m 15s in the YT video) What for? For not going to school.
I'm not saying I know what would be the right way to do it, but for clarity's sake - it's wasn't for skipping the school. It was for violent assault and resisting arrest, which was replaced with home sentence on a condition she needs to go to school - a condition she agreed upon and then broke almost immediately, thus reverting back to original sentence.
Again, I'm not saying it's a correct thing to do, as I'm not an expert. And I don't even know whether resisting arrest meant actually that or "she looked at me wrong way" which happens sometimes. But for clarity's sake - skipping the school wasn't her "crime", violent assault and resisting arrest were (officially, at least).
As this video is 2 years old, I hope she was able to overcome whatever problems she had and not end up in trouble again.
On July 24 2023 05:49 Magic Powers wrote: "Christel faces up to 65 days in juvenile detention." (50m 15s in the YT video) What for? For not going to school.
I'm not saying I know what would be the right way to do it, but for clarity's sake - it's wasn't for skipping the school. It was for violent assault and resisting arrest, which was replaced with home sentence on a condition she needs to go to school - a condition she agreed upon and then broke almost immediately, thus reverting back to original sentence.
Again, I'm not saying it's a correct thing to do, as I'm not an expert. And I don't even know whether resisting arrest meant actually that or "she looked at me wrong way" which happens sometimes. But for clarity's sake - skipping the school wasn't her "crime", violent assault and resisting arrest were (officially, at least).
As this video is 2 years old, I hope she was able to overcome whatever problems she had and not end up in trouble again.
In the case of Christel: no, it was in fact for skipping school. You must've accidentally mixed up two different cases. Christel at some point also received a charge for resisting arrest after a classroom fight, but that's not the reason why she was in juvenile detention for 65 days. That punishment was specifically for truancy, i.e. skipping school. Her mother Rose was in danger of receiving a charge. Why? Because as her mother she's liable. Instead Christel was locked up so that didn't happen.
On July 24 2023 05:49 Magic Powers wrote: "Christel faces up to 65 days in juvenile detention." (50m 15s in the YT video) What for? For not going to school.
I'm not saying I know what would be the right way to do it, but for clarity's sake - it's wasn't for skipping the school. It was for violent assault and resisting arrest, which was replaced with home sentence on a condition she needs to go to school - a condition she agreed upon and then broke almost immediately, thus reverting back to original sentence.
Again, I'm not saying it's a correct thing to do, as I'm not an expert. And I don't even know whether resisting arrest meant actually that or "she looked at me wrong way" which happens sometimes. But for clarity's sake - skipping the school wasn't her "crime", violent assault and resisting arrest were (officially, at least).
As this video is 2 years old, I hope she was able to overcome whatever problems she had and not end up in trouble again.
In the case of Christel: no, it was in fact for skipping school. You must've accidentally mixed up two different cases. Christel at some point also received a charge for resisting arrest after a classroom fight, but that's not the reason why she was in juvenile detention for 65 days. That punishment was specifically for truancy, i.e. skipping school. Her mother Rose was in danger of receiving a charge. Why? Because as her mother she's liable. Instead Christel was locked up so that didn't happen.
Kind of seems like you're making things up. Here's the video from your own source which tells specifically her story:
She accepted a plea deal for resisting arrest which entailed 20 days of home incarceration and a condition that she doesn't skip school. 3 days later she skipped school and the video cuts to her being processed in a detention center and the subtitle says she "faces 65 days in juvenile detention." Then it goes back to the courtroom where the judge sentences her back to home incarceration with additional probation. The narrator in your original video even says "The judge has decided to give Crystal one last chance."
So maybe she spent 1-2 days in detention before the judge sentenced her to go back home. We don't really know because the video isn't very clear. Either way, your narrative that she spent 65 days in juvenile detention for truancy seems completely baseless according to the evidence you've presented.
On July 24 2023 05:49 Magic Powers wrote: "Christel faces up to 65 days in juvenile detention." (50m 15s in the YT video) What for? For not going to school.
I'm not saying I know what would be the right way to do it, but for clarity's sake - it's wasn't for skipping the school. It was for violent assault and resisting arrest, which was replaced with home sentence on a condition she needs to go to school - a condition she agreed upon and then broke almost immediately, thus reverting back to original sentence.
Again, I'm not saying it's a correct thing to do, as I'm not an expert. And I don't even know whether resisting arrest meant actually that or "she looked at me wrong way" which happens sometimes. But for clarity's sake - skipping the school wasn't her "crime", violent assault and resisting arrest were (officially, at least).
As this video is 2 years old, I hope she was able to overcome whatever problems she had and not end up in trouble again.
In the case of Christel: no, it was in fact for skipping school. You must've accidentally mixed up two different cases. Christel at some point also received a charge for resisting arrest after a classroom fight, but that's not the reason why she was in juvenile detention for 65 days. That punishment was specifically for truancy, i.e. skipping school. Her mother Rose was in danger of receiving a charge. Why? Because as her mother she's liable. Instead Christel was locked up so that didn't happen.
She accepted a plea deal for resisting arrest which entailed 20 days of home incarceration and a condition that she doesn't skip school. 3 days later she skipped school and the video cuts to her being processed in a detention center and the subtitle says she "faces 65 days in juvenile detention." Then it goes back to the courtroom where the judge sentences her back to home incarceration with additional probation. The narrator in your original video even says "The judge has decided to give Crystal one last chance."
So maybe she spent 1-2 days in detention before the judge sentenced her to go back home. We don't really know because the video isn't very clear. Either way, your narrative that she spent 65 days in juvenile detention for truancy seems completely baseless according to the evidence you've presented.
No, Christel was awaiting an additional charge of resisting arrest, which came later. Truancy came first. The reason why the judge later reduces her sentence is due to prison reforms at that specific point in time in that specific area. I'm not misrepresenting anything.
On July 24 2023 05:49 Magic Powers wrote: "Christel faces up to 65 days in juvenile detention." (50m 15s in the YT video) What for? For not going to school.
I'm not saying I know what would be the right way to do it, but for clarity's sake - it's wasn't for skipping the school. It was for violent assault and resisting arrest, which was replaced with home sentence on a condition she needs to go to school - a condition she agreed upon and then broke almost immediately, thus reverting back to original sentence.
Again, I'm not saying it's a correct thing to do, as I'm not an expert. And I don't even know whether resisting arrest meant actually that or "she looked at me wrong way" which happens sometimes. But for clarity's sake - skipping the school wasn't her "crime", violent assault and resisting arrest were (officially, at least).
As this video is 2 years old, I hope she was able to overcome whatever problems she had and not end up in trouble again.
In the case of Christel: no, it was in fact for skipping school. You must've accidentally mixed up two different cases. Christel at some point also received a charge for resisting arrest after a classroom fight, but that's not the reason why she was in juvenile detention for 65 days. That punishment was specifically for truancy, i.e. skipping school. Her mother Rose was in danger of receiving a charge. Why? Because as her mother she's liable. Instead Christel was locked up so that didn't happen.
She accepted a plea deal for resisting arrest which entailed 20 days of home incarceration and a condition that she doesn't skip school. 3 days later she skipped school and the video cuts to her being processed in a detention center and the subtitle says she "faces 65 days in juvenile detention." Then it goes back to the courtroom where the judge sentences her back to home incarceration with additional probation. The narrator in your original video even says "The judge has decided to give Crystal one last chance."
So maybe she spent 1-2 days in detention before the judge sentenced her to go back home. We don't really know because the video isn't very clear. Either way, your narrative that she spent 65 days in juvenile detention for truancy seems completely baseless according to the evidence you've presented.
No, Christel was awaiting an additional charge of resisting arrest, which came later. Truancy came first. The reason why the judge later reduces her sentence is due to prison reforms at that specific point in time in that specific area. I'm not misrepresenting anything.
??
Time stamp 3:40 in your video
Christel: What are the 4 charges again? Public Defender: Well you have the truancy charges back here, but right now it's the disorderly conduct resisting arrest. Their offer is to plead guilty to the resisting arrest and they would ask that you go on home incarceration.
4:13
Judge: how do you plead to the charge of resisting arrest, guilty or not guilty? Christel: guilty Judge: the sentence for that today is 20 days of home incarceration and you are to attend school daily with no unexcused absences.
The truancy charges are clearly irrelevant here, regardless if they were committed first or second. What's complicated about this?
As Brock stepped out of his car, Deputy Joseph Benza approached and told him: “I just stopped you,” offering no explanation as to why.
Confused, Brock replied, “No, you didn’t.”
“Yeah, I did,” the deputy said. Then he grabbed Brock’s arm and forced him to the ground.
Still unsure what he’d done, Brock said, he began to scream. “What — what are you doing? Oh, my god. What the f— is happening?"
For the next three minutes, Brock struggled and screamed as the deputy held him down and punched him in the head.
“You're going to kill me,” Brock told him. “You're going to f–-ing kill me. Help! Help! Help! I'm not resisting!”
His mind raced, turning over thoughts of all the things he’d never get to do in life: Finish grad school. Be a father. Become a professor.
“Help! Help! Help! I’m not resisting!”
At one point, the deputy ordered him to put his arms behind his back — but Brock's arms were already pinned under his chest.
“Even when I did get them out the way he wanted, he continued to punch me,” Brock told The Times. “He just kept saying, ‘Stop resisting, stop resisting.’ I didn’t understand why he was shouting that because I wasn’t resisting.”
Four days later, he lost his job after state authorities notified the school of his pending charges.
When the incident went through the department’s normal force review process, officials cleared Benza of wrongdoing. One sergeant wrote that Brock was assaultive “with threat of serious bodily injury.” Another sergeant, listed as the watch commander, concurred, saying the incident was within policy and the force used was “objectively reasonable.”
The sergeant also checked “no” on the paperwork next to the question: “Could officer safety, tactical communication, or de-escalation techniques have been improved?”
The station captain agreed with the two sergeants below him. Only once the matter went up to the division commander did the report note room for improvement.
That month, Brock had his first court appearance. Though he’d been booked on three felonies and a misdemeanor, prosecutors ultimately decided to move forward with two misdemeanor charges: resisting arrest and battery on an officer.
The battery on the officer is for the injury that the officer sustained to his fist by punching the victim in the head over and over. That was the only recorded injury the officer had.
It's incredible how police get away with lies so easily, even when there's a recording of the key altercation. The officer told Brock "I stopped you" only a second before assaulting him (Brock denied the stop and attempted to walk away, which is a technicality that makes his case more difficult). That will no doubt be Benza's defense in court for why he was allowed to resort to aggressive action, as in tackling, subduing and beating Brock. The legality is that detained/stopped individuals are not free to go for a period of time. Officers have to make the detainment clear to individuals, and after doing so they have to provide their reasoning, as in for example suspecting a crime in the process. They can only detain individuals who are suspected of a crime, so if they can't provide a reasoning the individuals are free to go. Problem is the situation escalated before Benza was able to provide a reasoning to Brock.
It's absurd that Benza could get away with bending the law just because he follows a technicality and Brock didn't. One second of Brock denying the stop and walking away should not be enough to justify such a level of aggression.
On July 24 2023 05:49 Magic Powers wrote: "Christel faces up to 65 days in juvenile detention." (50m 15s in the YT video) What for? For not going to school.
I'm not saying I know what would be the right way to do it, but for clarity's sake - it's wasn't for skipping the school. It was for violent assault and resisting arrest, which was replaced with home sentence on a condition she needs to go to school - a condition she agreed upon and then broke almost immediately, thus reverting back to original sentence.
Again, I'm not saying it's a correct thing to do, as I'm not an expert. And I don't even know whether resisting arrest meant actually that or "she looked at me wrong way" which happens sometimes. But for clarity's sake - skipping the school wasn't her "crime", violent assault and resisting arrest were (officially, at least).
As this video is 2 years old, I hope she was able to overcome whatever problems she had and not end up in trouble again.
In the case of Christel: no, it was in fact for skipping school. You must've accidentally mixed up two different cases. Christel at some point also received a charge for resisting arrest after a classroom fight, but that's not the reason why she was in juvenile detention for 65 days. That punishment was specifically for truancy, i.e. skipping school. Her mother Rose was in danger of receiving a charge. Why? Because as her mother she's liable. Instead Christel was locked up so that didn't happen.
She accepted a plea deal for resisting arrest which entailed 20 days of home incarceration and a condition that she doesn't skip school. 3 days later she skipped school and the video cuts to her being processed in a detention center and the subtitle says she "faces 65 days in juvenile detention." Then it goes back to the courtroom where the judge sentences her back to home incarceration with additional probation. The narrator in your original video even says "The judge has decided to give Crystal one last chance."
So maybe she spent 1-2 days in detention before the judge sentenced her to go back home. We don't really know because the video isn't very clear. Either way, your narrative that she spent 65 days in juvenile detention for truancy seems completely baseless according to the evidence you've presented.
No, Christel was awaiting an additional charge of resisting arrest, which came later. Truancy came first. The reason why the judge later reduces her sentence is due to prison reforms at that specific point in time in that specific area. I'm not misrepresenting anything.
??
Time stamp 3:40 in your video
Christel: What are the 4 charges again? Public Defender: Well you have the truancy charges back here, but right now it's the disorderly conduct resisting arrest. Their offer is to plead guilty to the resisting arrest and they would ask that you go on home incarceration.
4:13
Judge: how do you plead to the charge of resisting arrest, guilty or not guilty? Christel: guilty Judge: the sentence for that today is 20 days of home incarceration and you are to attend school daily with no unexcused absences.
The truancy charges are clearly irrelevant here, regardless if they were committed first or second. What's complicated about this?
On July 24 2023 05:49 Magic Powers wrote: "Christel faces up to 65 days in juvenile detention." (50m 15s in the YT video) What for? For not going to school.
I'm not saying I know what would be the right way to do it, but for clarity's sake - it's wasn't for skipping the school. It was for violent assault and resisting arrest, which was replaced with home sentence on a condition she needs to go to school - a condition she agreed upon and then broke almost immediately, thus reverting back to original sentence.
Again, I'm not saying it's a correct thing to do, as I'm not an expert. And I don't even know whether resisting arrest meant actually that or "she looked at me wrong way" which happens sometimes. But for clarity's sake - skipping the school wasn't her "crime", violent assault and resisting arrest were (officially, at least).
As this video is 2 years old, I hope she was able to overcome whatever problems she had and not end up in trouble again.
In the case of Christel: no, it was in fact for skipping school. You must've accidentally mixed up two different cases. Christel at some point also received a charge for resisting arrest after a classroom fight, but that's not the reason why she was in juvenile detention for 65 days. That punishment was specifically for truancy, i.e. skipping school. Her mother Rose was in danger of receiving a charge. Why? Because as her mother she's liable. Instead Christel was locked up so that didn't happen.
She accepted a plea deal for resisting arrest which entailed 20 days of home incarceration and a condition that she doesn't skip school. 3 days later she skipped school and the video cuts to her being processed in a detention center and the subtitle says she "faces 65 days in juvenile detention." Then it goes back to the courtroom where the judge sentences her back to home incarceration with additional probation. The narrator in your original video even says "The judge has decided to give Crystal one last chance."
So maybe she spent 1-2 days in detention before the judge sentenced her to go back home. We don't really know because the video isn't very clear. Either way, your narrative that she spent 65 days in juvenile detention for truancy seems completely baseless according to the evidence you've presented.
No, Christel was awaiting an additional charge of resisting arrest, which came later. Truancy came first. The reason why the judge later reduces her sentence is due to prison reforms at that specific point in time in that specific area. I'm not misrepresenting anything.
??
Time stamp 3:40 in your video
Christel: What are the 4 charges again? Public Defender: Well you have the truancy charges back here, but right now it's the disorderly conduct resisting arrest. Their offer is to plead guilty to the resisting arrest and they would ask that you go on home incarceration.
4:13
Judge: how do you plead to the charge of resisting arrest, guilty or not guilty? Christel: guilty Judge: the sentence for that today is 20 days of home incarceration and you are to attend school daily with no unexcused absences.
The truancy charges are clearly irrelevant here, regardless if they were committed first or second. What's complicated about this?
That's not Christel.
What are you talking about? Jesus, what a waste of time
Ok something must've gotten mixed up in the subtitles to the video, there's no way. Because these are two different individuals or the subtitles are messed up.
Edit: And again, it's being explained that Christel faces juvenile detention not for arrest, but for truancy. I'm NOT making that up. That's one of the reasons why I kept thinking this can't be the same person. The other reason being the visibly different behaviors of Christel in some clips and other clips. She's calm and collected in some clips and completely out of her mind in others. The third reason being that she looks very different in many of the clips, switching back and forth.
Edit2: Oh and fourth reason, I almost forgot. The assault of that one girl took place on her aunt, as it was mentioned. The aunt doesn't want to see her at the funeral, which is why she can't get out of detention. That's the girl with bipolar disorder iirc. The other girl had an assault charge pending against an officer after a fight in the classroom.
Dude, I'm not making this up. These are different people.
OK now I know what's going on. The link BJ posted is only about Christel. If you watch the full documentary, it is explained that her mother had to get a "beyond control warrant" to legally protect herself from Christel's truancy (timestamped link below). She WAS in fact sent to juvenile detention for truancy. I'm NOT making this up, thank you very much.
The other girl in the full documentary is Demetria, she's the one who got diagnosed with bipolar disorder and who assaulted her own aunt. Her mother is deceased.
Weird - to me subtitles match what Christel and the judge say in the video, and this is what BJ posted.
If you watch from 45:00 or so - at 45:04 they say "her court date for resisting arrest and truancy..."
- at 45:16 it mentions "still up to 4 charges... truancy, beyond the control... but right now it's disorderly conduct resisting arrest... their offer is to plead guilty for the resisting arrest." And it's clearly Christel.
- at 46:18, the judge asks "do you plead guilty to the charge of resisting arrest?", Christel pleads guilty, for which she's being sentenced to 20 days of HIP.
These are words from the video, no subs, it's Christel on the video and the judge speaks to her and about her. Unless I massively misunderstood something, she got 20 days of HIP for resisting arrest, and then when she broke the condition, she got what she would get otherwise.
On July 24 2023 21:08 ZeroByte13 wrote: Weird - to me subtitles match what Christel and the judge say in the video, and this is what BJ posted.
If you watch from 45:00 or so - at 45:04 they say "her court date for resisting arrest and truancy..."
- at 45:16 it mentions "still up to 4 charges... truancy, beyond the control... but right now it's disorderly conduct resisting arrest... their offer is to plead guilty for the resisting arrest." And it's clearly Christel.
- at 46:18, the judge asks "do you plead guilty to the charge of resisting arrest?", Christel pleads guilty, for which she's being sentenced to 20 days of HIP.
These are words from the video, no subs, it's Christel on the video and the judge speaks to her and about her. Unless I massively misunderstood something, she got 20 days of HIP for resisting arrest, and then when she broke the condition, she got what she would get otherwise.
That's a later part of Christel's case. The initial charge was just truancy. Her mother made sure of that to legally protect herself. The additional charge that came later was resisting arrest.
I falsely thought you were confusing the two cases because it was Demetria, and not Christel, who was initially facing an assault charge against her aunt (but not resisting arrest). But you weren't actually confused about that. Instead you falsely thought that Christel's story started with resisting arrest. In reality it started with truancy.
Then came BJ and he claimed that I'm "making things up", which I clearly wasn't. I was right in that Christel was in detention for truancy, and not for any other charges. Resisting arrest was later added to the list of charges. They were separate cases for Christel. Later she was sent back to court for violating a condition of her probation (not allowed to skip school), but the documentary didn't make the greatest effort distinguishing between these two cases, which would explain some of the confusion between you, myself and BJ.
Since BJ falsely claimed and insisted that I was making things up, and because he posted a different link that only showed Christel's case (which I didn't realize initially), I got confused and falsely concluded that something must be wrong with the video. So because he was insisting on truancy not being Christel's initial charge, therefore I thought he must be confusing her case with Demetria's, and that's why I falsely claimed that's not Christel. I didn't realize that he was mixing up the order of events, and not mixing up individuals, which is because I remembered that Demetria faced one similar charge and my best conclusion was that that caused BJ to mix up their two stories. He didn't mix them up, he only incorrectly represented the timeline of Christel's case and proceeded to falsely accuse me of making things up. It makes no sense to accuse me of that, because the documentary is clear about the initial timeline in Christel's case. It would be the documentary's fault, not mine.
As Brock stepped out of his car, Deputy Joseph Benza approached and told him: “I just stopped you,” offering no explanation as to why.
Confused, Brock replied, “No, you didn’t.”
“Yeah, I did,” the deputy said. Then he grabbed Brock’s arm and forced him to the ground.
Still unsure what he’d done, Brock said, he began to scream. “What — what are you doing? Oh, my god. What the f— is happening?"
For the next three minutes, Brock struggled and screamed as the deputy held him down and punched him in the head.
“You're going to kill me,” Brock told him. “You're going to f–-ing kill me. Help! Help! Help! I'm not resisting!”
His mind raced, turning over thoughts of all the things he’d never get to do in life: Finish grad school. Be a father. Become a professor.
“Help! Help! Help! I’m not resisting!”
At one point, the deputy ordered him to put his arms behind his back — but Brock's arms were already pinned under his chest.
“Even when I did get them out the way he wanted, he continued to punch me,” Brock told The Times. “He just kept saying, ‘Stop resisting, stop resisting.’ I didn’t understand why he was shouting that because I wasn’t resisting.”
Four days later, he lost his job after state authorities notified the school of his pending charges.
When the incident went through the department’s normal force review process, officials cleared Benza of wrongdoing. One sergeant wrote that Brock was assaultive “with threat of serious bodily injury.” Another sergeant, listed as the watch commander, concurred, saying the incident was within policy and the force used was “objectively reasonable.”
The sergeant also checked “no” on the paperwork next to the question: “Could officer safety, tactical communication, or de-escalation techniques have been improved?”
The station captain agreed with the two sergeants below him. Only once the matter went up to the division commander did the report note room for improvement.
That month, Brock had his first court appearance. Though he’d been booked on three felonies and a misdemeanor, prosecutors ultimately decided to move forward with two misdemeanor charges: resisting arrest and battery on an officer.
The battery on the officer is for the injury that the officer sustained to his fist by punching the victim in the head over and over. That was the only recorded injury the officer had.
It's incredible how police get away with lies so easily, even when there's a recording of the key altercation. The officer told Brock "I stopped you" only a second before assaulting him (Brock denied the stop and attempted to walk away, which is a technicality that makes his case more difficult). That will no doubt be Benza's defense in court for why he was allowed to resort to aggressive action, as in tackling, subduing and beating Brock. The legality is that detained/stopped individuals are not free to go for a period of time. Officers have to make the detainment clear to individuals, and after doing so they have to provide their reasoning, as in for example suspecting a crime in the process. They can only detain individuals who are suspected of a crime, so if they can't provide a reasoning the individuals are free to go. Problem is the situation escalated before Benza was able to provide a reasoning to Brock.
It's absurd that Benza could get away with bending the law just because he follows a technicality and Brock didn't. One second of Brock denying the stop and walking away should not be enough to justify such a level of aggression.
The cop didn’t pull him over. He tailed him without sirens or anything for long enough for Benza to get concerned and call 911 only to get given the run around. Then when Benza stopped to buy a drink the cop pulled up, got out, and said “do you know why I pulled you over”.
Eh, sometimes these outlets present a story in such a confusing matter that I wonder if the reporters themselves skipped school. You know, where they teach you the who, what, when, where, why (and sometimes how)? Some of them can't even get the first two right.
Just the other day I was watching the news about the woman who kidnapped herself, when they found her on the highway. I asked a family member did they get the story, and they were just as confused as I was. The reporters and witnesses were either talking about a missing woman that was just found, or a kidnapped toddler that happened to be walking on the highway by herself, or both (woman crashed her car on the highway and the toddler walked out of the car from the back seat). Either way, she should pay the consequences of initiating a false Amber alert and wasting everybody's time and resources in her quest for fame.
As Brock stepped out of his car, Deputy Joseph Benza approached and told him: “I just stopped you,” offering no explanation as to why.
Confused, Brock replied, “No, you didn’t.”
“Yeah, I did,” the deputy said. Then he grabbed Brock’s arm and forced him to the ground.
Still unsure what he’d done, Brock said, he began to scream. “What — what are you doing? Oh, my god. What the f— is happening?"
For the next three minutes, Brock struggled and screamed as the deputy held him down and punched him in the head.
“You're going to kill me,” Brock told him. “You're going to f–-ing kill me. Help! Help! Help! I'm not resisting!”
His mind raced, turning over thoughts of all the things he’d never get to do in life: Finish grad school. Be a father. Become a professor.
“Help! Help! Help! I’m not resisting!”
At one point, the deputy ordered him to put his arms behind his back — but Brock's arms were already pinned under his chest.
“Even when I did get them out the way he wanted, he continued to punch me,” Brock told The Times. “He just kept saying, ‘Stop resisting, stop resisting.’ I didn’t understand why he was shouting that because I wasn’t resisting.”
Four days later, he lost his job after state authorities notified the school of his pending charges.
When the incident went through the department’s normal force review process, officials cleared Benza of wrongdoing. One sergeant wrote that Brock was assaultive “with threat of serious bodily injury.” Another sergeant, listed as the watch commander, concurred, saying the incident was within policy and the force used was “objectively reasonable.”
The sergeant also checked “no” on the paperwork next to the question: “Could officer safety, tactical communication, or de-escalation techniques have been improved?”
The station captain agreed with the two sergeants below him. Only once the matter went up to the division commander did the report note room for improvement.
That month, Brock had his first court appearance. Though he’d been booked on three felonies and a misdemeanor, prosecutors ultimately decided to move forward with two misdemeanor charges: resisting arrest and battery on an officer.
The battery on the officer is for the injury that the officer sustained to his fist by punching the victim in the head over and over. That was the only recorded injury the officer had.
It's incredible how police get away with lies so easily, even when there's a recording of the key altercation. The officer told Brock "I stopped you" only a second before assaulting him (Brock denied the stop and attempted to walk away, which is a technicality that makes his case more difficult). That will no doubt be Benza's defense in court for why he was allowed to resort to aggressive action, as in tackling, subduing and beating Brock. The legality is that detained/stopped individuals are not free to go for a period of time. Officers have to make the detainment clear to individuals, and after doing so they have to provide their reasoning, as in for example suspecting a crime in the process. They can only detain individuals who are suspected of a crime, so if they can't provide a reasoning the individuals are free to go. Problem is the situation escalated before Benza was able to provide a reasoning to Brock.
It's absurd that Benza could get away with bending the law just because he follows a technicality and Brock didn't. One second of Brock denying the stop and walking away should not be enough to justify such a level of aggression.
The cop didn’t pull him over. He tailed him without sirens or anything for long enough for Benza to get concerned and call 911 only to get given the run around. Then when Benza stopped to buy a drink the cop pulled up, got out, and said “do you know why I pulled you over”.
That's right, and I'm completely on Brock's side. I just think Benza is likely to get away on a technicality. Corrupt cops like to protect their asses with technicalities. Benza was setting Brock up, designing a scenario in which he can falsely accuse him of a small delict and escalate the situation at the first sign of a refusal to cooperate. If Brock hadn't walked off, Benza would've pestered him for as long as legally possible in the most annoying manner possible, hoping for Brock to lose his cool at some point. Benza would've continuously accused Brock of "provocation" and several other things (I've seen that precise scenario unfold many times during detainment).
On July 24 2023 21:08 ZeroByte13 wrote: Weird - to me subtitles match what Christel and the judge say in the video, and this is what BJ posted.
If you watch from 45:00 or so - at 45:04 they say "her court date for resisting arrest and truancy..."
- at 45:16 it mentions "still up to 4 charges... truancy, beyond the control... but right now it's disorderly conduct resisting arrest... their offer is to plead guilty for the resisting arrest." And it's clearly Christel.
- at 46:18, the judge asks "do you plead guilty to the charge of resisting arrest?", Christel pleads guilty, for which she's being sentenced to 20 days of HIP.
These are words from the video, no subs, it's Christel on the video and the judge speaks to her and about her. Unless I massively misunderstood something, she got 20 days of HIP for resisting arrest, and then when she broke the condition, she got what she would get otherwise.
That's a later part of Christel's case. The initial charge was just truancy. Her mother made sure of that to legally protect herself. The additional charge that came later was resisting arrest.
I falsely thought you were confusing the two cases because it was Demetria, and not Christel, who was initially facing an assault charge against her aunt (but not resisting arrest). But you weren't actually confused about that. Instead you falsely thought that Christel's story started with resisting arrest. In reality it started with truancy.
Then came BJ and he claimed that I'm "making things up", which I clearly wasn't. I was right in that Christel was in detention for truancy, and not for any other charges. Resisting arrest was later added to the list of charges. They were separate cases for Christel. Later she was sent back to court for violating a condition of her probation (not allowed to skip school), but the documentary didn't make the greatest effort distinguishing between these two cases, which would explain some of the confusion between you, myself and BJ.
Since BJ falsely claimed and insisted that I was making things up, and because he posted a different link that only showed Christel's case (which I didn't realize initially), I got confused and falsely concluded that something must be wrong with the video. So because he was insisting on truancy not being Christel's initial charge, therefore I thought he must be confusing her case with Demetria's, and that's why I falsely claimed that's not Christel. I didn't realize that he was mixing up the order of events, and not mixing up individuals, which is because I remembered that Demetria faced one similar charge and my best conclusion was that that caused BJ to mix up their two stories. He didn't mix them up, he only incorrectly represented the timeline of Christel's case and proceeded to falsely accuse me of making things up. It makes no sense to accuse me of that, because the documentary is clear about the initial timeline in Christel's case. It would be the documentary's fault, not mine.
I hope this clarifies everything.
Except you were making things up. You said she spent 65 days in Juvenile detention for truancy. The truth was she "faced up to 65 days in juvenile detention" for violating the terms of her resisting arrest charge before the judge decided to cut her one more break and return her to house arrest.
I don't understand what the problem is here. ZeroByte and I even went the extra mile to transcribe the relevant portions of your video word for word and yet you just ignore it and insist on your own version of reality. So many conversations needlessly turn to crap in this thread because everyone feels entitled to their own set of facts or their own definitions for words. It's really unfortunate.
On July 24 2023 21:08 ZeroByte13 wrote: Weird - to me subtitles match what Christel and the judge say in the video, and this is what BJ posted.
If you watch from 45:00 or so - at 45:04 they say "her court date for resisting arrest and truancy..."
- at 45:16 it mentions "still up to 4 charges... truancy, beyond the control... but right now it's disorderly conduct resisting arrest... their offer is to plead guilty for the resisting arrest." And it's clearly Christel.
- at 46:18, the judge asks "do you plead guilty to the charge of resisting arrest?", Christel pleads guilty, for which she's being sentenced to 20 days of HIP.
These are words from the video, no subs, it's Christel on the video and the judge speaks to her and about her. Unless I massively misunderstood something, she got 20 days of HIP for resisting arrest, and then when she broke the condition, she got what she would get otherwise.
That's a later part of Christel's case. The initial charge was just truancy. Her mother made sure of that to legally protect herself. The additional charge that came later was resisting arrest.
I falsely thought you were confusing the two cases because it was Demetria, and not Christel, who was initially facing an assault charge against her aunt (but not resisting arrest). But you weren't actually confused about that. Instead you falsely thought that Christel's story started with resisting arrest. In reality it started with truancy.
Then came BJ and he claimed that I'm "making things up", which I clearly wasn't. I was right in that Christel was in detention for truancy, and not for any other charges. Resisting arrest was later added to the list of charges. They were separate cases for Christel. Later she was sent back to court for violating a condition of her probation (not allowed to skip school), but the documentary didn't make the greatest effort distinguishing between these two cases, which would explain some of the confusion between you, myself and BJ.
Since BJ falsely claimed and insisted that I was making things up, and because he posted a different link that only showed Christel's case (which I didn't realize initially), I got confused and falsely concluded that something must be wrong with the video. So because he was insisting on truancy not being Christel's initial charge, therefore I thought he must be confusing her case with Demetria's, and that's why I falsely claimed that's not Christel. I didn't realize that he was mixing up the order of events, and not mixing up individuals, which is because I remembered that Demetria faced one similar charge and my best conclusion was that that caused BJ to mix up their two stories. He didn't mix them up, he only incorrectly represented the timeline of Christel's case and proceeded to falsely accuse me of making things up. It makes no sense to accuse me of that, because the documentary is clear about the initial timeline in Christel's case. It would be the documentary's fault, not mine.
I hope this clarifies everything.
Except you were making things up. You said she spent 65 days in Juvenile detention for truancy. The truth was she "faced up to 65 days in juvenile detention" for violating the terms of her resisting arrest charge before the judge decided to cut her one more break and return her to house arrest.
I don't understand what the problem is here. ZeroByte and I even went the extra mile to transcribe the relevant portions of your video word for word and yet you just ignore it and insist on your own version of reality. So many conversations needlessly turn to crap in this thread because everyone feels entitled to their own set of facts or their own definitions for words. It's really unfortunate.
You did not explain it this way in your original response. You falsely claimed:
"She accepted a plea deal for resisting arrest which entailed 20 days of home incarceration and a condition that she doesn't skip school."
This didn't happen in that order. She was in detention for truancy, not for resisting arrest. The arrest charge came later. The rest of your rebuttal therefore didn't matter to me anymore, because you already started it off on the wrong premise.
It also doesn't help that you started your comment by antagonistically accusing me of making things up.
EPT
