Cop stomps kids teeth out

[NHHEMI]

Originally Posted By: Trajan
Was the guy under arrest at the time? If yes, then running away is a crime. If no, then it is not.


Sorry but that is incorrect. If the Police approach you to ask a question and you turn and run, and they tell you to stop and you don't, you have committed a crime. This was even affirmed by the US Supreme Court. Running from the Police gives probable cause for arrest was the ruling.

You don't have to be a suspect for this to apply. All that has to happen is to be approached by the Police, you then run away and don't stop when told to, and you have committed a crime.

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle


Either they curb their mad dogs, or suffer the consequences. I would, personally, prefer that bent cops be nailed to crosses and left there until their bones fall apart.



I see...

So, regardless of the magnitude of their offense, all "bent" cops should die horribly.

Are you willing to apply this to the population at large? All criminals, regardless of their crime, should die horribly?

That would make you just a bit Draconian...but it sure would help with the fiscal burdens of social programs and incarceration...

If not, then you're clearly just a police hater who wants to see cops persecuted...not prosecuted and tried fairly, but persecuted and executed in a gruesome manner.

 

[dishdude]

Shouldn't those that enforce the law be held to a higher standard? Yet we somehow turn a blind eye when they break it.

 

[expat]

Originally Posted By: NHHEMI


You don't have to be a suspect for this to apply. All that has to happen is to be approached by the Police, you then run away and don't stop when told to, and you have committed a crime.


Sorry to Split Hairs with you again, but:

In the above, You would be subject to Arrest. The court would determine if you committed a crime.

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted By: dishdude
Shouldn't those that enforce the law be held to a higher standard? Yet we somehow turn a blind eye when they break it.


I would hold them to a higher standard of personal and ethical behavior, just as I am held to that higher standard while in the military.

But that doesn't mean what you and others think it means. It means that I can be held accountable to standards for which you would not be held accountable. The consequences might be career-ending, but they are administrative in nature, not judicial.

As an example, I can lose command for the perception of bias on my part. No proof is required. That dismissal from my position would kill any chance of promotion and, therefore, forces an early retirement. It would cost me personally, professionally, and financially.

But my higher standards, and the accountability, are not judicial in nature. Judicial proceedings are different. I would go to jail for the same length of time that you would for committing the same crime.

That's equal protection under the law. Equal protection. Equal consequences. It's a constitutional principle.

Whether or not you like, or support, the police and the military, the members of those groups are still citizens of the United States. They still have constitutional rights, including equal protection.

 

[dishdude]

Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: dishdude
Shouldn't those that enforce the law be held to a higher standard? Yet we somehow turn a blind eye when they break it.


I would hold them to a higher standard of personal and ethical behavior, just as I am held to that higher standard while in the military.

But that doesn't mean what you and others think it means. It means that I can be held accountable to standards for which you would not be held accountable. The consequences might be career-ending, but they are administrative in nature, not judicial.

As an example, I can lose command for the perception of bias on my part. No proof is required. That dismissal from my position would kill any chance of promotion and, therefore, forces an early retirement. It would cost me personally, professionally, and financially.

But my higher standards, and the accountability, are not judicial in nature. Judicial proceedings are different. I would go to jail for the same length of time that you would for committing the same crime.

That's equal protection under the law. Equal protection. Equal consequences. It's a constitutional principle.

Whether or not you like, or support, the police and the military, the members of those groups are still citizens of the United States. They still have constitutional rights, including equal protection.


Where did I ever say that anyone doesn't have constitutional rights? My whole beef is that it appears that the police are above the law. Time and time again we see them breaking it, abusing the public and not being held accountable.

I would love to see the law applied equally. The cop that knocked this kid's teeth out it not facing criminal charges. If I had done that, I'd be in jail.

 

[Astro14]

dishdude, you and others have implied, or directly stated, that the cop should face greater punishment for his crime because he "should be held to a higher standard".

That's a denial of equal protection.

The crucifixion was a particularly ridiculous example of that.

Further, there is a general rush to judge based on the facts that you've gained only from the press. You've clearly judged this cop based on what facts you know. Without a trial, without evidence, without testimony.

That's a denial of due process.

I advocate a higher standard for public servants, but I do demand that they be granted their constitutional rights, and I am always disappointed to see folks on BITOG rush to judgement before all the facts are in.

I turn no blind eye to anything, I'm just old enough to know that; first reports are always flawed, that the reporters bring their own bias into stories, that agendas are served by presenting the facts in a manner that incites emotion, that eyewitnesses are often unreliable, and that the court of public opinion has never rendered a fair and impartial decision.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Originally Posted By: dishdude
Shouldn't those that enforce the law be held to a higher standard? Yet we somehow turn a blind eye when they break it.


At this point, I would consider holding them to the same standard an improvement!

 

[dishdude]

Originally Posted By: Astro14
dishdude, you and others have implied, or directly stated, that the cop should face greater punishment for his crime because he "should be held to a higher standard".

That's a denial of equal protection.

The crucifixion was a particularly ridiculous example of that.

Further, there is a general rush to judge based on the facts that you've gained only from the press. You've clearly judged this cop based on what facts you know. Without a trial, without evidence, without testimony.

That's a denial of due process.

I advocate a higher standard for public servants, but I do demand that they be granted their constitutional rights, and I am always disappointed to see folks on BITOG rush to judgement before all the facts are in.

I turn no blind eye to anything, I'm just old enough to know that; first reports are always flawed, that the reporters bring their own bias into stories, that agendas are served by presenting the facts in a manner that incites emotion, that eyewitnesses are often unreliable, and that the court of public opinion has never rendered a fair and impartial decision.


I said nothing about punishing cops harsher or greater than anyone else.

We should expect them to uphold and follow the law to a higher standard than the average citizen due to the amount of power and trust we put into them.

Sadly many, many stories have come out that have caused the public to lose this trust and have shown that they have too much power.

 

[dishdude]

Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
Originally Posted By: dishdude
Shouldn't those that enforce the law be held to a higher standard? Yet we somehow turn a blind eye when they break it.


At this point, I would consider holding them to the same standard an improvement!


Holding them to ANY standard would be a huge improvement.

 

[yeti]

Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle


Either they curb their mad dogs, or suffer the consequences. I would, personally, prefer that bent cops be nailed to crosses and left there until their bones fall apart.



I see...

So, regardless of the magnitude of their offense, all "bent" cops should die horribly.

Are you willing to apply this to the population at large? All criminals, regardless of their crime, should die horribly?

That would make you just a bit Draconian...but it sure would help with the fiscal burdens of social programs and incarceration...

If not, then you're clearly just a police hater who wants to see cops persecuted...not prosecuted and tried fairly, but persecuted and executed in a gruesome manner.


astro -- with 2 or 3 on this thread, you might as well be talking to a brick.the same thing over and over and over .....

jaraxle -- some of your recent posts make our conspiracy theorist sound liberal.crucifixon is too fast/too easy. there has to be a worse way to go.at any rate, your post made me laugh.thank you for that.
this thread ran it's course about 4 pages back.
have a good night, all.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: dishdude
Cop got fired and wants his job back. Disgusting display of brutality, he's luck he didn't kill or paralyze this kid with a stomp like this to his neck and back.

http://www.abc15.com/news/region-phoenix...lice-brutality-


Lawsuit ... any lawyer will take this case and win easily. In the video they said some "independent review" said the force was justified. I really don't see how when the guy was getting on the ground face down before the cop even got to him. The cop is making up stories, not knowing a video surveillance camera caught it all.

 

[HTSS_TR]

The video shows non-uniform police detective, not a uniform police. This can be argued in court that this young man didn't obey the first order because he didn't know if this non-uniform detective was a real police officer.

I think this case will not go to trial, the city and/or police dept will settle out of court and pay this young man some money, probably 6-figure. Go to trial is too risky for the city/police dept, the jury may award 7-figure to punish the city and make it an example so that other police officers will not use excessive force in the future, and especially too many wrong doing from police officers lately.

 

[Lapham3]

I just scanned some of the above, but have a few thoughts. It is my feeling that parents often neglect to have 'conversations' with their kids in dealing with 'authority'-and it seems since the Vietnam protest days that there has been a general decline in respect for those authority figures. 'You do not backtalk police/authority and follow their orders-period.' I am a baby boomer and learned by family and early work experince many adult 'life skills' so that by my teens I understood alot more than the generation of kids that we've now raised and failed to give that same learning to. I've seen plenty of college grad 30somethings that are so clueless in many respects. Now the cops that are 'thumpers'=always been there, but my feeling is there are better hiring measures to 'weed' these prospects out than years ago. I do think that policing in today's society is more difficult than ever and the frustration on many levels that cops feel can erupt under stressful conditions. I think that many will easily edit video to delete portions that may show balance as the more inflamatory is more 'newsworthy'or sensational.