Stupid Pigs (Cops)!

Off Topic
81

[quote]mazilla wrote:
ZEB wrote:

I couldn’t have said it better vroom.

In a free society people need to be assured that they are going to be treated fairly by the Police.

No, all “people” don’t need to be assured they will be treated “fairly”. only people who are not commiting ANY crime need to be assured they will be treated “fairly”. although, what is fair? what’s fair to you is probably not fair to me. i think fair would be to assume that everybody is suspicious until they see otherwise. how can we expect police officers to judge everybody as equal, when our intent is not. i would prefer to be hassled a little to ensure that the criminals are caught. and i get hassled all the time. if they hassle everybody like they hassle me i won’t have to carry my gun anymore. with a permit of course.:wink:

There is never a reason for a Police Officer to use “excessive” force in subduing a suspect.

what the fuck? have you ever dealt with an angry person all fucked up off pcp, or meth. you would be suprised at the amount of force needed to subdue someone in that state.

imagine not knowing when somebody is a fuckin nut and wants to kill you. the min a cop let’s thier guard down, they usually end up hurt or dead. people don’t realize that. wake up. this is not to say that he officers in the video were in ANY kind of danger, but i did not see any blatent abuse. i am slighty concerned about the number of officers though, seems a bit excessive.
[/quote]
I agree with both points of view here. There never is a need or an excuse for excessive force, as Zeb posted. But the scenarios suggested by Manzilla require a need for a higher level of force, which does not make that level of force “excessive”.

If anyone has never been on a police ride-along, you should. I think it would change a lot of opinions about use of force and what is appropriate and what isn’t, and why things can be perceived as inappropriate when maybe they aren’t.

82

[quote]AceQHounddog wrote:
mazilla wrote:
ZEB wrote:

I couldn’t have said it better vroom.

In a free society people need to be assured that they are going to be treated fairly by the Police.

No, all “people” don’t need to be assured they will be treated “fairly”. only people who are not commiting ANY crime need to be assured they will be treated “fairly”. although, what is fair? what’s fair to you is probably not fair to me. i think fair would be to assume that everybody is suspicious until they see otherwise. how can we expect police officers to judge everybody as equal, when our intent is not. i would prefer to be hassled a little to ensure that the criminals are caught. and i get hassled all the time. if they hassle everybody like they hassle me i won’t have to carry my gun anymore. with a permit of course.:wink:

There is never a reason for a Police Officer to use “excessive” force in subduing a suspect.

what the fuck? have you ever dealt with an angry person all fucked up off pcp, or meth. you would be suprised at the amount of force needed to subdue someone in that state.

imagine not knowing when somebody is a fuckin nut and wants to kill you. the min a cop let’s thier guard down, they usually end up hurt or dead. people don’t realize that. wake up. this is not to say that he officers in the video were in ANY kind of danger, but i did not see any blatent abuse. i am slighty concerned about the number of officers though, seems a bit excessive.

I agree with both points of view here. There never is a need or an excuse for excessive force, as Zeb posted. But the scenarios suggested by Manzilla require a need for a higher level of force, which does not make that level of force “excessive”.

If anyone has never been on a police ride-along, you should. I think it would change a lot of opinions about use of force and what is appropriate and what isn’t, and why things can be perceived as inappropriate when maybe they aren’t.

[/quote]

The proper use of force may exceed the “usual” use of force given an above average circumstance.

However, by excessive I mean just enough force to subdue the suspect and not one bit more.

And those who think that every single time a Police Officer uses force it is against someone who is actually guilty better think again!

Police Officers are people and make mistakes just like anyone else. And in this country you are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Hence, an officer might just be using that “excessive force” some love so much to subdue an innocent person. Not good and certainly not tolerable in a free society.

83

[quote]djoh615893 wrote:
Some of you are being first rate fucking retards about this one. A majority of states offer the boot camps as an alternative to kids getting more fucked up in a prison environment. It’s tough. It’s intended that way. It is intended to instill self control, discipline, and some semblence of work ethic. And shit happens too. When I was in boot camp, people died too. Asthma, diabetes, etc killed them because the sudden stress brought it out. You can’t predict that kind of shit and lots of people don’t know what the hell it looks like, especially when kids are always trying to feign sickness or injury to skate by with less effort. Quite your fucking crying. Life is unfair. Deal with it.[/quote]

Wow. You are either lying or seriously fucked up. I suspect the former.

As for the video, I had no idea what the hell was happening. It looked like he may have been abused, but it was pretty unclear (you can’t kill someone by punching them in the arm, and it seems like a strange method of torture). Yes it was weird that they seemed to be fucking around, but they might have already called the ambulance and were trying to get him to come to.

84

[quote]ZEB wrote:
The proper use of force may exceed the “usual” use of force given an above average circumstance.

However, by excessive I mean just enough force to subdue the suspect and not one bit more.

And those who think that every single time a Police Officer uses force it is against someone who is actually guilty better think again!

Police Officers are people and make mistakes just like anyone else. And in this country you are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Hence, an officer might just be using that “excessive force” some love so much to subdue an innocent person. Not good and certainly not tolerable in a free society.

[/quote]

I know I have arrested people who were innocent, especially in a “hot” call where things are happening quickly, suspect descriptions are broadcast and sometimes the wrong person gets stopped. But every innocent person has cooperated and no force was necessary. Those people were subsequently released. An innocent person should not resist arrest physically. If they do, they cease to be innocent (California Penal Code section 148(a)(1)).

If there’s probable cause to stop and detain you for a criminal investigatin and you resist, that is a crime. Whether or not you agree with that, it is the law. Cops don’t make the law, legislators do, and citizens vote on them. Cops don’t hand out verdicts, judges and jury’s do. Cops only do what the people have given them authority to do. So the current practices in this area are held up by all branches of government, and supported by a majority of citizens.

Being arrested isn’t being presumed guilty, either. The fact that you’re presumed innocent does not give someone the right to resist arrest.

85

[quote]AceQHounddog wrote:
ZEB wrote:
The proper use of force may exceed the “usual” use of force given an above average circumstance.

However, by excessive I mean just enough force to subdue the suspect and not one bit more.

And those who think that every single time a Police Officer uses force it is against someone who is actually guilty better think again!

Police Officers are people and make mistakes just like anyone else. And in this country you are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Hence, an officer might just be using that “excessive force” some love so much to subdue an innocent person. Not good and certainly not tolerable in a free society.

I know I have arrested people who were innocent, especially in a “hot” call where things are happening quickly, suspect descriptions are broadcast and sometimes the wrong person gets stopped. But every innocent person has cooperated and no force was necessary. Those people were subsequently released. An innocent person should not resist arrest physically. If they do, they cease to be innocent (California Penal Code section 148(a)(1)).

If there’s probable cause to stop and detain you for a criminal investigatin and you resist, that is a crime. Whether or not you agree with that, it is the law. Cops don’t make the law, legislators do, and citizens vote on them. Cops don’t hand out verdicts, judges and jury’s do. Cops only do what the people have given them authority to do. So the current practices in this area are held up by all branches of government, and supported by a majority of citizens.

Being arrested isn’t being presumed guilty, either. The fact that you’re presumed innocent does not give someone the right to resist arrest.
[/quote]

Well said.

86

[quote]Flop Hat wrote:
Well, I watched the video and quite frankly it was hard to tell what was going on. At first it looked very bad for the officers, but I can not make a decision yet.

A long time ago, at military school, one of my buddies was completely smoked. The heat exaustion combined with no sleep made him completely loopy. At one point the cadre tell him to stop and drink some water.

He flips out thinking they are making him stop the event, which would have meant removal from the course. He hits the cadre with the butt of his rifle and starts trying to run (I’m not sure where he was going). Another cadre jumps in and grabs the rifle, and my buddy starts biting, kicking, and punching. He fought until he passed out. When he did they gave him two IV’s on the spot and brought him to the hospital.

I’m not saying that’s anything like what happened here, just saying things sometimes aren’t what they seem.

I wonder how long it took for the kid to get proper medical care and if the nurse had already notified EMS as this was being filmed? That would probably make the difference in the investigation. I think it would be ok to forcably restrain someone like that to get them to medical care, but not for much else.[/quote]

As a quick hijack, you need to change your avatar, it’s already taken by a better version. :slight_smile:

End hijack. On this topic, anyone who is viewing this as a clear black and white situation(f-ing pigs or bad kid)is wrong. I’m not defending or indicting any of the parties in this incident, just merely stating that rarely are these types of situations as cut and dry as people like to portray them and having an opinion without all of the facts is prejudicial.

DB

87

[quote]Bodyguard wrote:
I reserve judgement, and think it is a major diservice to Law Enforcement to be plastering this all over the media.
[/quote]
You are right it is a disservice. It is a disservice because they messed up and now should have to pay for their ‘mistake’. The disservice is to the community they are responsible to ‘protect and serve’. Accidents happen. Accidents can be avoided–hence the term ‘accident’. This was not an accident. This was a grievous misuse of force and negligence.

88

An autopsy has found taht this kid’s death was not natural.

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/LAW/03/14/bootcamp.death/

89

[quote]k.elkouhen wrote:
An autopsy has found taht this kid’s death was not natural.

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/LAW/03/14/bootcamp.death/
[/quote]

Meanwhile, nearly every officer on the board decided to jump in and defend the cops for their excessive force instead of defend the victim of it. I suppose that says a lot.

90

[quote]Professor X wrote:
k.elkouhen wrote:
An autopsy has found taht this kid’s death was not natural.

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/LAW/03/14/bootcamp.death/

Meanwhile, nearly every officer on the board decided to jump in and defend the cops for their excessive force instead of defend the victim of it. I suppose that says a lot. [/quote]

There hasn’t been a determination that excessive force was used.

91

[quote]doogie wrote:
Professor X wrote:
k.elkouhen wrote:
An autopsy has found taht this kid’s death was not natural.

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/LAW/03/14/bootcamp.death/

Meanwhile, nearly every officer on the board decided to jump in and defend the cops for their excessive force instead of defend the victim of it. I suppose that says a lot.

There hasn’t been a determination that excessive force was used.[/quote]

In the health profession, if a patient died of “unnatural causes”, the hospital or treating doctor is at fault and held liable. How is it cops are different?

92

Fuck the police- Ice Cube

93

[quote]Professor X wrote:
doogie wrote:
Professor X wrote:
k.elkouhen wrote:
An autopsy has found taht this kid’s death was not natural.

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/LAW/03/14/bootcamp.death/

Meanwhile, nearly every officer on the board decided to jump in and defend the cops for their excessive force instead of defend the victim of it. I suppose that says a lot.

There hasn’t been a determination that excessive force was used.

In the health profession, if a patient died of “unnatural causes”, the hospital or treating doctor is at fault and held liable. How is it cops are different?
[/quote]

“Unnatural causes” does not equate to excessive force. That is why the story included this sentence:

“A federal probe into whether Anderson’s civil rights were violated by the use of excessive force is also under way at the request of Anderson’s parents and local leaders, the U.S. attorney’s office said.”

94

[quote]doogie wrote:
“Unnatural causes” does not equate to excessive force. That is why the story included this sentence:

“A federal probe into whether Anderson’s civil rights were violated by the use of excessive force is also under way at the request of Anderson’s parents and local leaders, the U.S. attorney’s office said.”[/quote]

Gee, Doogie, this wass also stated:

That sure sounds like the actions of the innocent. They ignored a potential health problem because they WANTED to believe he was either faking or being uncooperative. Whatever you want to call it, a kid died when he didn’t have to and signs were given that he was in distress. That is the main issue, not some need you apparently have to decrease the impact on those responsible. It can be called neglect if you want…and the end result is still the same.

95

My real concern with this thread, isn’t so much the name calling etc., but more the general attitude against law enforcement. heaven forbid a tragedy occurs, but why not do something about it?

its no big deal, you picked the best of all possible choices:
1.)become a police officer in order to practice what you believe to be true justice.
2.)write letters to political officials repeatedly to clean up officers where problems have occured.
3.)start a revolution!
4.)complain on an internet forum. “Oh! The Injustice!”

Personally, I think it is ridiculous when people complain over and over about how “bad” police officers are. Why don’t you make the world better and be a “saint of a police officer” yourself then. Voila! you’ll have actually made a difference somewhere in the world.

I further disagree with the police in memphis being “ridiculously crooked” sentiments. Sure I get mad when I get a ticket, but they are my best friends when they bust a drunk driver or someone with a serious case of weed red eye. Expecting perfection from anyone, even police is absurd, its working class people doing a job the way they were taught, you think they do a bad job? Complain to the right people, and with a decent argument. Calling the police “pigs” won’t get you very far. In this instance there seems to be a lot of things we don’t know yet, not one of us was there. I guess benefit of the doubt is given to no one these days though.

96

So much here to read, so I hope i am not repeating a post.

If I recall correctly,what the video doesn’t show is what took place before the attack took place. It simply shows the group take the young man down rather forcefuly. Now if you have read my post in the last Law Enforcement article you know what kind of COP I am. I have only had to physically place hands on a person to that degree twice. But with extremely good reason.

I dont agree with how the boy was treated. There are several intermediate weapons taht could have been used such as OC spray or even the TASER which should be in such a dept as MPD. So there is a little light from a COPS perspective.

97

http://cbs5.com/national/topstories_story_048152552.html

Watch the video, the part after the mother says she can’t watch anymore. I don’t remember seeing that in the first video, but maybe I just missed it. One officer is holding the unconscious boy by his collar, and kneeing him twice in the torso so he violently snaps back and forth. I wonder if everything was caught on tape, and if they have released everything.

I would also like to know if his unnatural cause of death was attributed to cerebral hemorrage, which is a common cause of death in shaken baby syndrome, and would explain his stupor. I wish they would release the actual findings of the autopsy, but guess the investigators dont like the sideline quarterbacking, but it will come out at some point.

98

[quote]k.elkouhen wrote:
An autopsy has found taht this kid’s death was not natural.

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/LAW/03/14/bootcamp.death/
[/quote]

Sigh…as I expected people are still going to defend what happened and the cops. Im guessing you dfenders dont think the inital autopsy was a cover up or anything right? No, not at all! How fucking sad…

99

[quote]Kal-El wrote:
I dont agree with how the boy was treated. There are several intermediate weapons taht could have been used such as OC spray or even the TASER which should be in such a dept as MPD. So there is a little light from a COPS perspective.[/quote]

Ummmmmmmmmmmmm the kid didnt weight more than 125lbs soaking wet he was in a controlled environment. There were 7 cops there “restraining” him. If you cannot restrain a kid in BOOTCAMP with 7+ officers without the use of a stungun or pepper spray the is a SERIOUS problem there.

100

[quote]PGA200X wrote:
k.elkouhen wrote:
An autopsy has found taht this kid’s death was not natural.

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/LAW/03/14/bootcamp.death/

Sigh…as I expected people are still going to defend what happened and the cops. Im guessing you dfenders dont think the inital autopsy was a cover up or anything right? No, not at all! How fucking sad…[/quote]

What bothers me is that the original autopsy was done that way so publically and no one is saying anything. It should be bringing into question many of these findings in other cases. What happened to integrity?