Police abuse

1100101102103105

Comments

  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 10,702
    edited April 28
    That American Classic that violates every possible interpretation of the Constitution and civilized behaviour, "arrested for resisting arrest".

    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • rgambs said:
    rgambs said:
    mace1229 said:
    rgambs said:
    tbergs said:
    rgambs said:
    Just another "rare incident" caught on camera.

    You believe that unconscious bit?That's an interesting video and a half-assed "I'm unsconcious" job by the suspect, but I call bullshit. The cop's hand doesn't go over his throat or windpipe, it's on the area between the should/neck and being applied to keep him under control. He was resisting the entire time. Speaking from experience, I had someone go as far as pretending they were unconscious to where they made us carry him to the back of the squad and lay him on the seat. He then took it one step further and rolled off the seat on purpose and we had to unwedge him from between the cage and the seat. That's where a sternum rub comes in handy.
    I think it was the safest move he could make to protect his life from these assholes.

    Maybe if Eric Garner had done some pretending he would still be alive.
    Eric Garner died of a heart attack. The media liked the hype of reporting it as being choked though.
    I never heard it reported as choked to death.  I always heard it reported accurately as heart attack due to chokehold.

    Heart attack due to chokehold? I never realized the chokehold was one of the risk factors for a heart attack.

    As for the recent video you posted... I'd like to see a bit of context as well. It looks bad, but some context might help.

    Police need to be reasonable, but I'm hoping people here aren't expecting police to treat criminals like kindergarten children that need timeouts.
    You are clearly not a medical professional.

    I expect police not to be thugs.  You expect them to "rough them up a little" like Trump does.  Sad.
    The stress of the situation exacerbated his underlying conditions and he had a heart attack? Is this what you are saying? As a medical professional, you're not trying to say this was a perfectly healthy male and that the police interaction was the direct cause of an unforeseen heart attack are you?

    I expect police not to be thugs too. You expect them to treat criminals 'like little misdirected children that need encouragement' just like people who can't understand the inherent challenges associated with a police arrest. Funny.

    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • rgambs said:
    ThirtyBills and Trump, like minds?


    Remember when you got mad that those cops shot that guy who was wielding a knife and menacingly charged the officers who were called to the scene by concerned citizens needing police help?

    Remember when you added that the cops should have ran away and gotten into the car to let the maniac 'cool down' for a while?

    You're trying to paint me as extreme which simply isn't true. I definitely lean more to the police cause with all things being equal... but let's be honest with you as well: the police can't win for trying in any situation. The 'extreme' quality rests with you, RG. You'd do well to recognize it.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 10,702
    rgambs said:
    rgambs said:
    mace1229 said:
    rgambs said:
    tbergs said:
    rgambs said:
    Just another "rare incident" caught on camera.

    You believe that unconscious bit?That's an interesting video and a half-assed "I'm unsconcious" job by the suspect, but I call bullshit. The cop's hand doesn't go over his throat or windpipe, it's on the area between the should/neck and being applied to keep him under control. He was resisting the entire time. Speaking from experience, I had someone go as far as pretending they were unconscious to where they made us carry him to the back of the squad and lay him on the seat. He then took it one step further and rolled off the seat on purpose and we had to unwedge him from between the cage and the seat. That's where a sternum rub comes in handy.
    I think it was the safest move he could make to protect his life from these assholes.

    Maybe if Eric Garner had done some pretending he would still be alive.
    Eric Garner died of a heart attack. The media liked the hype of reporting it as being choked though.
    I never heard it reported as choked to death.  I always heard it reported accurately as heart attack due to chokehold.

    Heart attack due to chokehold? I never realized the chokehold was one of the risk factors for a heart attack.

    As for the recent video you posted... I'd like to see a bit of context as well. It looks bad, but some context might help.

    Police need to be reasonable, but I'm hoping people here aren't expecting police to treat criminals like kindergarten children that need timeouts.
    You are clearly not a medical professional.

    I expect police not to be thugs.  You expect them to "rough them up a little" like Trump does.  Sad.
    The stress of the situation exacerbated his underlying conditions and he had a heart attack? Is this what you are saying? As a medical professional, you're not trying to say this was a perfectly healthy male and that the police interaction was the direct cause of an unforeseen heart attack are you?

    I expect police not to be thugs too. You expect them to treat criminals 'like little misdirected children that need encouragement' just like people who can't understand the inherent challenges associated with a police arrest. Funny.

    "Rough them up a bit"

    They are only teeth, they will grow back, and everyone knows that the definitive medical consensus is that there are no lasting effects of concussion.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 10,702
    rgambs said:
    ThirtyBills and Trump, like minds?


    Remember when you got mad that those cops shot that guy who was wielding a knife and menacingly charged the officers who were called to the scene by concerned citizens needing police help?

    Remember when you added that the cops should have ran away and gotten into the car to let the maniac 'cool down' for a while?

    You're trying to paint me as extreme which simply isn't true. I definitely lean more to the police cause with all things being equal... but let's be honest with you as well: the police can't win for trying in any situation. The 'extreme' quality rests with you, RG. You'd do well to recognize it.
    You've twisted that conversation beyond recognition and you ignored several posts in which I pointed out the SLC "giving ground" policy and training to you.  But, I suppose I understand why, if you had acknowledged them then you wouldn't be able to mock me as effectively.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • Thirty Bills UnpaidThirty Bills Unpaid Posts: 13,541
    edited April 28
    rgambs said:
    rgambs said:
    ThirtyBills and Trump, like minds?


    Remember when you got mad that those cops shot that guy who was wielding a knife and menacingly charged the officers who were called to the scene by concerned citizens needing police help?

    Remember when you added that the cops should have ran away and gotten into the car to let the maniac 'cool down' for a while?

    You're trying to paint me as extreme which simply isn't true. I definitely lean more to the police cause with all things being equal... but let's be honest with you as well: the police can't win for trying in any situation. The 'extreme' quality rests with you, RG. You'd do well to recognize it.
    You've twisted that conversation beyond recognition and you ignored several posts in which I pointed out the SLC "giving ground" policy and training to you.  But, I suppose I understand why, if you had acknowledged them then you wouldn't be able to mock me as effectively.

    No. I haven't twisted it very much at all. When I initially challenged you on it, you still defended it and claimed that such a maneuver would be a 'tactical retreat' which would have demonstrated solid policing. You're still of the extreme variety RG.

    And the gloves are off at the moment because you're slinging mud at me for my comment suggesting the police aren't the counsellors in the process: when they're called to the scene... they aren't there to coo nice things to people that need to be arrested. The detainment doesn't occur on the criminal's timeline.

    And to this case... I think a little context would be good. It looks bad, but it would be nice to know what events took place prior to that incident so we might be able to understand the heightened police intensity.

    Edit: And come on, man. Talk about mockery... you're drawing parallels between Donald Trump and myself. That's a low blow.
    Post edited by Thirty Bills Unpaid on
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 2,310
    rgambs said:
    mace1229 said:
    rgambs said:
    mace1229 said:
    rgambs said:
    mace1229 said:

    rgambs said:
    Just another "rare incident" caught on camera.

    This impartial video does nothing for me. If I had the rest of the story I could form an opinion on this incident. But I have no idea of the cops were called because he was a violent threat and refused orders to lay on the ground, or if he was just J-walking. One case I’d say it’s justified and the other the cops should be fired and looked into for assault.
    He was handcuffed and presenting no reasonable semblance of a threat.  What else matters?
    I just need more. I can’t defend or condemn what the cops did without knowing more. There would be circumstances where what the cops did was justified, and many where it was not. I’m just not a fan of partial videos without any story and creating a judgement from that.
    What circumstances?  Please explain to me the circumstances that lead to a handcuffed individual who isn't resisting needing to be slammed on their head.  If he was a violent threat he wouldn't have been handcuffed on his feet, he would be on the ground and he would go directly into the cruiser.

    But we don’t know any of that. Maybe he was handucced on the ground and got up. Who knows what happened. You and I certainly don’t, we’re only given a clip that begins about 2 seconds before he was slammed and nothing that lead up to that, but we’re asked to make judgements anyway.
    Quite the burden of proof you are laying on a citizen with the right to due process.  
    It comes off like desperation, just dying to find a way to excuse the behavior and then copping out with a refusal to pass judgement when that fails.

    I'm willing to admit there are extremely unlikely circumstances that warranted this use of force, but those circumstances could only arise from poor police work.  If he was a violent threat he should have been handled properly, but that's quite a stretch given that he wasn't charged with any crime that occurred prior to his confrontation with police.  Every sign points to police who felt disrespected and sought to put this black man in his place.  Classic story supported by the available facts and any other concoction is a stretch that shows bias.  
    I’m not excusing the behavior or defending it.
    indint know why it sounds so unreasonable to you to want more information than an incomplete video.
    if you want to call me desperate for wanting the whole story, then that’s fine. 
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 10,702
    edited April 28
    rgambs said:
    rgambs said:
    ThirtyBills and Trump, like minds?


    Remember when you got mad that those cops shot that guy who was wielding a knife and menacingly charged the officers who were called to the scene by concerned citizens needing police help?

    Remember when you added that the cops should have ran away and gotten into the car to let the maniac 'cool down' for a while?

    You're trying to paint me as extreme which simply isn't true. I definitely lean more to the police cause with all things being equal... but let's be honest with you as well: the police can't win for trying in any situation. The 'extreme' quality rests with you, RG. You'd do well to recognize it.
    You've twisted that conversation beyond recognition and you ignored several posts in which I pointed out the SLC "giving ground" policy and training to you.  But, I suppose I understand why, if you had acknowledged them then you wouldn't be able to mock me as effectively.

    No. I haven't twisted it very much at all. When I initially challenged you on it, you still defended it and claimed that such a maneuver would be a 'tactical retreat' which would have demonstrated solid policing. You're still of the extreme variety RG.

    And the gloves are off at the moment because you're slinging mud at me for my comment suggesting the police aren't the counsellors in the process: when they're called to the scene... they aren't there to coo nice things to people that need to be arrested. The detainment doesn't occur on the criminal's timeline.

    And to this case... I think a little context would be good. It looks bad, but it would be nice to know what events took place prior to that incident so we might be able to understand the heightened police intensity.

    Edit: And come on, man. Talk about mockery... you're drawing parallels between Donald Trump and myself. That's a low blow.
    And it's a blow that's been quite a long time coming, as you've been mocking me for years on this issue.  
    If my contention that police shouldn't slam people who aren't presenting a threat on their heads equates to "coo(ing) nice things" or treating criminals "like little misdirected children that need encouragement", then it's fair to equate your comments with Trump's rhetoric.
    Since you are engaged now and don't have an excuse to ignore it this time, I wonder what you think of this almost identical situation in which the cops are celebrated for doing exactly as I suggested??

    Cops In This City Haven't Killed Anyone Since 2015. Here's One Reason Why ...
    Instead of shooting suspects, Utah police are training to ... - The Salt Lake Tribune
    archive.sltrib.com › article
    Fox 13 Exclusive: when police can use deadly force, but don't | fox13now.com
    fox13now.com › 2017/05/16

    Post edited by rgambs on
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 10,702
    mace1229 said:
    rgambs said:
    mace1229 said:
    rgambs said:
    mace1229 said:
    rgambs said:
    mace1229 said:

    rgambs said:
    Just another "rare incident" caught on camera.

    This impartial video does nothing for me. If I had the rest of the story I could form an opinion on this incident. But I have no idea of the cops were called because he was a violent threat and refused orders to lay on the ground, or if he was just J-walking. One case I’d say it’s justified and the other the cops should be fired and looked into for assault.
    He was handcuffed and presenting no reasonable semblance of a threat.  What else matters?
    I just need more. I can’t defend or condemn what the cops did without knowing more. There would be circumstances where what the cops did was justified, and many where it was not. I’m just not a fan of partial videos without any story and creating a judgement from that.
    What circumstances?  Please explain to me the circumstances that lead to a handcuffed individual who isn't resisting needing to be slammed on their head.  If he was a violent threat he wouldn't have been handcuffed on his feet, he would be on the ground and he would go directly into the cruiser.

    But we don’t know any of that. Maybe he was handucced on the ground and got up. Who knows what happened. You and I certainly don’t, we’re only given a clip that begins about 2 seconds before he was slammed and nothing that lead up to that, but we’re asked to make judgements anyway.
    Quite the burden of proof you are laying on a citizen with the right to due process.  
    It comes off like desperation, just dying to find a way to excuse the behavior and then copping out with a refusal to pass judgement when that fails.

    I'm willing to admit there are extremely unlikely circumstances that warranted this use of force, but those circumstances could only arise from poor police work.  If he was a violent threat he should have been handled properly, but that's quite a stretch given that he wasn't charged with any crime that occurred prior to his confrontation with police.  Every sign points to police who felt disrespected and sought to put this black man in his place.  Classic story supported by the available facts and any other concoction is a stretch that shows bias.  
    I’m not excusing the behavior or defending it.
    indint know why it sounds so unreasonable to you to want more information than an incomplete video.
    if you want to call me desperate for wanting the whole story, then that’s fine. 
    On the surface that is appropriate, but a closer look at the policing situation in America shows that the court of public opinion (with all of it's flaws and false rushing to judgement) is the only factor that exists to hold police accountable.  Entirely internal investigation practices in combination with a "thin blue line" culture in which police commonly and openly admit that they will back their brothers over the rule of law have created a situation in which complacency like yours enables police abuse on a large scale.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • rgambs said:
    rgambs said:
    rgambs said:
    ThirtyBills and Trump, like minds?


    Remember when you got mad that those cops shot that guy who was wielding a knife and menacingly charged the officers who were called to the scene by concerned citizens needing police help?

    Remember when you added that the cops should have ran away and gotten into the car to let the maniac 'cool down' for a while?

    You're trying to paint me as extreme which simply isn't true. I definitely lean more to the police cause with all things being equal... but let's be honest with you as well: the police can't win for trying in any situation. The 'extreme' quality rests with you, RG. You'd do well to recognize it.
    You've twisted that conversation beyond recognition and you ignored several posts in which I pointed out the SLC "giving ground" policy and training to you.  But, I suppose I understand why, if you had acknowledged them then you wouldn't be able to mock me as effectively.

    No. I haven't twisted it very much at all. When I initially challenged you on it, you still defended it and claimed that such a maneuver would be a 'tactical retreat' which would have demonstrated solid policing. You're still of the extreme variety RG.

    And the gloves are off at the moment because you're slinging mud at me for my comment suggesting the police aren't the counsellors in the process: when they're called to the scene... they aren't there to coo nice things to people that need to be arrested. The detainment doesn't occur on the criminal's timeline.

    And to this case... I think a little context would be good. It looks bad, but it would be nice to know what events took place prior to that incident so we might be able to understand the heightened police intensity.

    Edit: And come on, man. Talk about mockery... you're drawing parallels between Donald Trump and myself. That's a low blow.
    And it's a blow that's been quite a long time coming, as you've been mocking me for years on this issue.  
    If my contention that police shouldn't slam people who aren't presenting a threat on their heads equates to "coo(ing) nice things" or treating criminals "like little misdirected children that need encouragement, then it's fair to equate your comments with Trump's rhetoric.
    Since you are engaged now and don't have an excuse to ignore it this time, I wonder what you think of this almost identical situation in which the cops are celebrated for doing exactly as I suggested??

    Cops In This City Haven't Killed Anyone Since 2015. Here's One Reason Why ...
    Instead of shooting suspects, Utah police are training to ... - The Salt Lake Tribune
    archive.sltrib.com › article
    Fox 13 Exclusive: when police can use deadly force, but don't | fox13now.com
    fox13now.com › 2017/05/16


    RG...

    I haven't always been fantastic to you in this thread, but don't confuse 'my way' with a lack of respect: I think you're a great guy. To be fair, you've been sharp with me at times too (you're not exactly a helpless victim in our heated exchanges).

    The police acted very well in my country recently as you are probably aware. The Toronto van mass murderer basically demanded to be shot and a calm, cool, collected officer apprehended him without incident. As much as I would like to have seen the prick put down at the moment for what he did... I was impressed with the steeled nerves and professionalism of the officer. 

    I'm of the opinion that there are incidents of police abuse in the US. There's no denying this. I think the debate is regarding what level this abuse occurs at and what abuse actually looks like when we are presented unique cases. In the case of the knife wielding guy (not to drudge up the incident too much)... we disagreed on what abuse actually looks like. In this recent case... we might agree that abuse has occurred, but like others, I'd like to have some context before agreeing with you. 
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 10,702
    rgambs said:
    rgambs said:
    rgambs said:
    ThirtyBills and Trump, like minds?


    Remember when you got mad that those cops shot that guy who was wielding a knife and menacingly charged the officers who were called to the scene by concerned citizens needing police help?

    Remember when you added that the cops should have ran away and gotten into the car to let the maniac 'cool down' for a while?

    You're trying to paint me as extreme which simply isn't true. I definitely lean more to the police cause with all things being equal... but let's be honest with you as well: the police can't win for trying in any situation. The 'extreme' quality rests with you, RG. You'd do well to recognize it.
    You've twisted that conversation beyond recognition and you ignored several posts in which I pointed out the SLC "giving ground" policy and training to you.  But, I suppose I understand why, if you had acknowledged them then you wouldn't be able to mock me as effectively.

    No. I haven't twisted it very much at all. When I initially challenged you on it, you still defended it and claimed that such a maneuver would be a 'tactical retreat' which would have demonstrated solid policing. You're still of the extreme variety RG.

    And the gloves are off at the moment because you're slinging mud at me for my comment suggesting the police aren't the counsellors in the process: when they're called to the scene... they aren't there to coo nice things to people that need to be arrested. The detainment doesn't occur on the criminal's timeline.

    And to this case... I think a little context would be good. It looks bad, but it would be nice to know what events took place prior to that incident so we might be able to understand the heightened police intensity.

    Edit: And come on, man. Talk about mockery... you're drawing parallels between Donald Trump and myself. That's a low blow.
    And it's a blow that's been quite a long time coming, as you've been mocking me for years on this issue.  
    If my contention that police shouldn't slam people who aren't presenting a threat on their heads equates to "coo(ing) nice things" or treating criminals "like little misdirected children that need encouragement, then it's fair to equate your comments with Trump's rhetoric.
    Since you are engaged now and don't have an excuse to ignore it this time, I wonder what you think of this almost identical situation in which the cops are celebrated for doing exactly as I suggested??

    Cops In This City Haven't Killed Anyone Since 2015. Here's One Reason Why ...
    Instead of shooting suspects, Utah police are training to ... - The Salt Lake Tribune
    archive.sltrib.com › article
    Fox 13 Exclusive: when police can use deadly force, but don't | fox13now.com
    fox13now.com › 2017/05/16


    RG...

    I haven't always been fantastic to you in this thread, but don't confuse 'my way' with a lack of respect: I think you're a great guy. To be fair, you've been sharp with me at times too (you're not exactly a helpless victim in our heated exchanges).

    The police acted very well in my country recently as you are probably aware. The Toronto van mass murderer basically demanded to be shot and a calm, cool, collected officer apprehended him without incident. As much as I would like to have seen the prick put down at the moment for what he did... I was impressed with the steeled nerves and professionalism of the officer. 

    I'm of the opinion that there are incidents of police abuse in the US. There's no denying this. I think the debate is regarding what level this abuse occurs at and what abuse actually looks like when we are presented unique cases. In the case of the knife wielding guy (not to drudge up the incident too much)... we disagreed on what abuse actually looks like. In this recent case... we might agree that abuse has occurred, but like others, I'd like to have some context before agreeing with you. 
    I respect you too Del and I don't take your tactics to heart either. 
    We get heated, we both like it lol
    It's like sparring in the gym, it's worth it to get hit when you get to hit back and still walk away friends.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • rgambs said:
    rgambs said:
    rgambs said:
    rgambs said:
    ThirtyBills and Trump, like minds?


    Remember when you got mad that those cops shot that guy who was wielding a knife and menacingly charged the officers who were called to the scene by concerned citizens needing police help?

    Remember when you added that the cops should have ran away and gotten into the car to let the maniac 'cool down' for a while?

    You're trying to paint me as extreme which simply isn't true. I definitely lean more to the police cause with all things being equal... but let's be honest with you as well: the police can't win for trying in any situation. The 'extreme' quality rests with you, RG. You'd do well to recognize it.
    You've twisted that conversation beyond recognition and you ignored several posts in which I pointed out the SLC "giving ground" policy and training to you.  But, I suppose I understand why, if you had acknowledged them then you wouldn't be able to mock me as effectively.

    No. I haven't twisted it very much at all. When I initially challenged you on it, you still defended it and claimed that such a maneuver would be a 'tactical retreat' which would have demonstrated solid policing. You're still of the extreme variety RG.

    And the gloves are off at the moment because you're slinging mud at me for my comment suggesting the police aren't the counsellors in the process: when they're called to the scene... they aren't there to coo nice things to people that need to be arrested. The detainment doesn't occur on the criminal's timeline.

    And to this case... I think a little context would be good. It looks bad, but it would be nice to know what events took place prior to that incident so we might be able to understand the heightened police intensity.

    Edit: And come on, man. Talk about mockery... you're drawing parallels between Donald Trump and myself. That's a low blow.
    And it's a blow that's been quite a long time coming, as you've been mocking me for years on this issue.  
    If my contention that police shouldn't slam people who aren't presenting a threat on their heads equates to "coo(ing) nice things" or treating criminals "like little misdirected children that need encouragement, then it's fair to equate your comments with Trump's rhetoric.
    Since you are engaged now and don't have an excuse to ignore it this time, I wonder what you think of this almost identical situation in which the cops are celebrated for doing exactly as I suggested??

    Cops In This City Haven't Killed Anyone Since 2015. Here's One Reason Why ...
    Instead of shooting suspects, Utah police are training to ... - The Salt Lake Tribune
    archive.sltrib.com › article
    Fox 13 Exclusive: when police can use deadly force, but don't | fox13now.com
    fox13now.com › 2017/05/16


    RG...

    I haven't always been fantastic to you in this thread, but don't confuse 'my way' with a lack of respect: I think you're a great guy. To be fair, you've been sharp with me at times too (you're not exactly a helpless victim in our heated exchanges).

    The police acted very well in my country recently as you are probably aware. The Toronto van mass murderer basically demanded to be shot and a calm, cool, collected officer apprehended him without incident. As much as I would like to have seen the prick put down at the moment for what he did... I was impressed with the steeled nerves and professionalism of the officer. 

    I'm of the opinion that there are incidents of police abuse in the US. There's no denying this. I think the debate is regarding what level this abuse occurs at and what abuse actually looks like when we are presented unique cases. In the case of the knife wielding guy (not to drudge up the incident too much)... we disagreed on what abuse actually looks like. In this recent case... we might agree that abuse has occurred, but like others, I'd like to have some context before agreeing with you. 
    I respect you too Del and I don't take your tactics to heart either. 
    We get heated, we both like it lol
    It's like sparring in the gym, it's worth it to get hit when you get to hit back and still walk away friends.

    Cheers.

    Get out and enjoy your Saturday! I'll be getting on my new Specialized and biking up a mountain in a few hours. It's going to be a blast- can't wait!
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 10,702
    rgambs said:
    rgambs said:
    rgambs said:
    rgambs said:
    ThirtyBills and Trump, like minds?


    Remember when you got mad that those cops shot that guy who was wielding a knife and menacingly charged the officers who were called to the scene by concerned citizens needing police help?

    Remember when you added that the cops should have ran away and gotten into the car to let the maniac 'cool down' for a while?

    You're trying to paint me as extreme which simply isn't true. I definitely lean more to the police cause with all things being equal... but let's be honest with you as well: the police can't win for trying in any situation. The 'extreme' quality rests with you, RG. You'd do well to recognize it.
    You've twisted that conversation beyond recognition and you ignored several posts in which I pointed out the SLC "giving ground" policy and training to you.  But, I suppose I understand why, if you had acknowledged them then you wouldn't be able to mock me as effectively.

    No. I haven't twisted it very much at all. When I initially challenged you on it, you still defended it and claimed that such a maneuver would be a 'tactical retreat' which would have demonstrated solid policing. You're still of the extreme variety RG.

    And the gloves are off at the moment because you're slinging mud at me for my comment suggesting the police aren't the counsellors in the process: when they're called to the scene... they aren't there to coo nice things to people that need to be arrested. The detainment doesn't occur on the criminal's timeline.

    And to this case... I think a little context would be good. It looks bad, but it would be nice to know what events took place prior to that incident so we might be able to understand the heightened police intensity.

    Edit: And come on, man. Talk about mockery... you're drawing parallels between Donald Trump and myself. That's a low blow.
    And it's a blow that's been quite a long time coming, as you've been mocking me for years on this issue.  
    If my contention that police shouldn't slam people who aren't presenting a threat on their heads equates to "coo(ing) nice things" or treating criminals "like little misdirected children that need encouragement, then it's fair to equate your comments with Trump's rhetoric.
    Since you are engaged now and don't have an excuse to ignore it this time, I wonder what you think of this almost identical situation in which the cops are celebrated for doing exactly as I suggested??

    Cops In This City Haven't Killed Anyone Since 2015. Here's One Reason Why ...
    Instead of shooting suspects, Utah police are training to ... - The Salt Lake Tribune
    archive.sltrib.com › article
    Fox 13 Exclusive: when police can use deadly force, but don't | fox13now.com
    fox13now.com › 2017/05/16


    RG...

    I haven't always been fantastic to you in this thread, but don't confuse 'my way' with a lack of respect: I think you're a great guy. To be fair, you've been sharp with me at times too (you're not exactly a helpless victim in our heated exchanges).

    The police acted very well in my country recently as you are probably aware. The Toronto van mass murderer basically demanded to be shot and a calm, cool, collected officer apprehended him without incident. As much as I would like to have seen the prick put down at the moment for what he did... I was impressed with the steeled nerves and professionalism of the officer. 

    I'm of the opinion that there are incidents of police abuse in the US. There's no denying this. I think the debate is regarding what level this abuse occurs at and what abuse actually looks like when we are presented unique cases. In the case of the knife wielding guy (not to drudge up the incident too much)... we disagreed on what abuse actually looks like. In this recent case... we might agree that abuse has occurred, but like others, I'd like to have some context before agreeing with you. 
    I respect you too Del and I don't take your tactics to heart either. 
    We get heated, we both like it lol
    It's like sparring in the gym, it's worth it to get hit when you get to hit back and still walk away friends.

    Cheers.

    Get out and enjoy your Saturday! I'll be getting on my new Specialized and biking up a mountain in a few hours. It's going to be a blast- can't wait!
    Oh fuck yeah that sounds excellent!  I'm jealous of your proximity to mountains.
    I am putting off putting up fencing to expand the chicken yard.  I've been "getting dressed" for a half hour lol
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • Here's a bit of context (I can't verify its legitimacy or not):


    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • cutzcutz Posts: 7,168
    By Phil Gianficaro 
    Columnist 
    Posted at 6:00 AM
      

    When a New Jersey State Police Trooper nearly undresses a suspect during a body search for marijuana on the side of a busy Burlington County roadway, it raises a question: Why?

    I don’t know if Jack Levine had recently sparked up a doobie, shared a bong, or auditioned for a bit part in a revival of the Cheech and Chong stoner classic, “Up in Smoke.”

    Nor do I know for certain if Levine smelled like marijuana because he’d recently been in the company of a buddy ‘bogarting’ a joint.

    What I do know is the zeal with which New Jersey State Police Trooper Joseph Drew frantically body-searched Levine for the smallest amount of pot on the side of Route 206 in Southampton 13 months ago crossed into the ridiculous and bordered on creepy.

    Levine was pulled over for tailgating. Troopers Drew and Andrew Whitmore contend they detected marijuana odor on the 23-year-old Toms River resident. Levine, who was handcuffed behind his back, repeatedly denied he was holding the drug. What commenced was an intense prolonged search. On the 24-minute police dash camera and body camera videos, Trooper Drew begins searching Levine’s person. He reached into Levine’s pockets. Checked his socks. Repeatedly pulled at and peered inside the waistband of his trousers. Pulled up the suspect’s shirt and hooded sweatshirt.

    Later, Drew snapped on blue latex gloves and began reaching down inside Levine’s pants, into his briefs, and around his genitals and buttocks in search of marijuana. As Drew’s hand drove deeper down the back of Levine’s pants, the suspect shouted, “He’s raping me! He’s raping me!” Drew then unsnapped the waistband of Levine’s pants and continued to search. Really, does it take that long to feel for a Ziploc bag? Drew shook Levine’s pants legs, ostensibly to free a dime bag that he hoped might slide out. Ridiculous. The trooper found nothing, just as Levine had assured him.

    At one point early during the search, and as Levine continued complaining about the troopers’ reasons for the search and Drew’s hands reaching down where they didn’t belong, Drew told him, “If you think this is the worst thing I’m going to do to you, you’ve got another thing coming, my friend.”

    What did Drew mean by that? Was it a veiled threat, that unless Levine complied he might be in for something worse? Because they smelled marijuana, which is, like, 20 minutes from being legal in the state? Wouldn’t it have made more sense for the troopers to take Levine to a barracks to be searched, instead of practically undressing him near a roadway where two law enforcement vehicles attracted the eyes of passing motorists? Shouldn’t our state police focus on more pressing matters than on someone who looks like he could’ve been an extra in a Wayne’s World skit on “Saturday Night Live” years ago? All this for some weed? New Jersey’s finest pulled over a long-hair with a sassy lip and treated him like he was Pablo Escobar.

    And the only reason the public has seen the dash/body cam videos is because John Paff, of the New Jersey Libertarians for Transparency, stumbled upon the legal filing, filed an open public request in January, and posted the video on his website earlier this month.

    Levine has filed a sexual assault lawsuit, which is weaving its way through the legal system.

    This whole thing stinks, from the over-zealous body search, to a state police spokesman refusing to discuss the incident or release the department’s policy on such searches, to the troopers’ apparent violation of the state attorney general’s policy mandating such searches not be performed in public.

    It’s understood law enforcement has a necessary and difficult job to do. But why did these troopers choose to take this one on to such an extreme?

    Search me.

    Columnist Phil Gianficaro can be reached at 215-345-3078, pgianficaro@theintell.com, and @philgianficaro on Twitter.

     And here's the video:   
  • i_lov_iti_lov_it Perth, Western AustraliaPosts: 3,876
    edited April 30

    Does the US have Mandatory sentencing for assaulting a Police Officer?...here in Australia they do well atleast in Western Australia...

    By Law here Police officers can not cover their face even when being filmed also they have to say their name when asked...

    Post edited by i_lov_it on
    E.V. - "Music is a Weapon of Mass Construction"
    Perth-20th March 1998
    Perth-23rd February 2003
    Perth-25th November 2006
    Perth-14th November 2009
    E.V. - Perth-31st March, 1st April 2011
  • OnWis97OnWis97 St. Paul, MNPosts: 747
    1995 Milwaukee
    1998 Alpine, Alpine
    2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston
    2004 Boston, Boston
    2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty)
    2011 Alpine, Alpine
    2013 Wrigley
    2014 St. Paul
    2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley
  • unsungunsung Posts: 8,519
    edited May 8
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 10,702
    I saw that, what the fuck was that guy thinking?

    Obviously shouldn't be carrying a gun in service of the law.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 2,310
    unsung said:
    The cop was clearly giving orders for the groundhog to leave the road and return to the field. A perfect example of if the groundhog had just complied he'd still be alive.
  • unsungunsung Posts: 8,519
    Shit really amazes me.  Sad.
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 2,310
    edited May 9
    i_lov_it said:

    Does the US have Mandatory sentencing for assaulting a Police Officer?...here in Australia they do well atleast in Western Australia...

    By Law here Police officers can not cover their face even when being filmed also they have to say their name when asked...

    I don't know exactly what you mean by mandatory sentencing, but if you assault a cop you are definitely getting arrested, and usually the judge passes down a stiffer sentence than if you just assault your neighbor. 
    I saw this morning that there is a federal law being proposed that would make assaulting a cop a hate crime. I agree with that, if you assault someone because of their color or seuality its a hate crime, if you assault them because of their uniform or job I think it should be too. They said that would be a a mandatory sentence of 10 years if it becomes law. 
    They also said this is in part response to the increased attacks on cops, including 28 shot ( I think they said shot and killed, but cant remember for sure) so far in 2018.
    Post edited by mace1229 on
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 10,702
    mace1229 said:
    i_lov_it said:

    Does the US have Mandatory sentencing for assaulting a Police Officer?...here in Australia they do well atleast in Western Australia...

    By Law here Police officers can not cover their face even when being filmed also they have to say their name when asked...

    I don't know exactly what you mean by mandatory sentencing, but if you assault a cop you are definitely getting arrested, and usually the judge passes down a stiffer sentence than if you just assault your neighbor. 
    I saw this morning that there is a federal law being proposed that would make assaulting a cop a hate crime. I agree with that, if you assault someone because of their color or seuality its a hate crime, if you assault them because of their uniform or job I think it should be too. They said that would be a a mandatory sentence of 10 years if it becomes law. 
    Jumping Jesus that's scary!! 
    If you trip and fall near a cop it's grounds for assault.
    Seriously though, terrible idea.  
    You can't make a crime with literally no burden of proof a hate crime punishable with 10 years in prison, that's ridiculous!!
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 2,310
    rgambs said:
    mace1229 said:
    i_lov_it said:

    Does the US have Mandatory sentencing for assaulting a Police Officer?...here in Australia they do well atleast in Western Australia...

    By Law here Police officers can not cover their face even when being filmed also they have to say their name when asked...

    I don't know exactly what you mean by mandatory sentencing, but if you assault a cop you are definitely getting arrested, and usually the judge passes down a stiffer sentence than if you just assault your neighbor. 
    I saw this morning that there is a federal law being proposed that would make assaulting a cop a hate crime. I agree with that, if you assault someone because of their color or seuality its a hate crime, if you assault them because of their uniform or job I think it should be too. They said that would be a a mandatory sentence of 10 years if it becomes law. 
    Jumping Jesus that's scary!! 
    If you trip and fall near a cop it's grounds for assault.
    Seriously though, terrible idea.  
    You can't make a crime with literally no burden of proof a hate crime punishable with 10 years in prison, that's ridiculous!!
    It takes a lot more than tripping to assault a cop. Proving it was assault still has the same burden of proof. This just means if you target a cop it qualifies as a hate crime, doesn't mean when you accidentally bump into one on the street you're thrown in jail for 10 years. 
    Why is it ridiculous? Assaulting someone because of their sexual preference has the same punishment? Why shouldn't assaulting someone because of their job be the same?
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 10,702
    mace1229 said:
    rgambs said:
    mace1229 said:
    i_lov_it said:

    Does the US have Mandatory sentencing for assaulting a Police Officer?...here in Australia they do well atleast in Western Australia...

    By Law here Police officers can not cover their face even when being filmed also they have to say their name when asked...

    I don't know exactly what you mean by mandatory sentencing, but if you assault a cop you are definitely getting arrested, and usually the judge passes down a stiffer sentence than if you just assault your neighbor. 
    I saw this morning that there is a federal law being proposed that would make assaulting a cop a hate crime. I agree with that, if you assault someone because of their color or seuality its a hate crime, if you assault them because of their uniform or job I think it should be too. They said that would be a a mandatory sentence of 10 years if it becomes law. 
    Jumping Jesus that's scary!! 
    If you trip and fall near a cop it's grounds for assault.
    Seriously though, terrible idea.  
    You can't make a crime with literally no burden of proof a hate crime punishable with 10 years in prison, that's ridiculous!!
    It takes a lot more than tripping to assault a cop. Proving it was assault still has the same burden of proof. This just means if you target a cop it qualifies as a hate crime, doesn't mean when you accidentally bump into one on the street you're thrown in jail for 10 years. 
    Why is it ridiculous? Assaulting someone because of their sexual preference has the same punishment? Why shouldn't assaulting someone because of their job be the same?
    The only burden of proof for assaulting an officer is an accusation.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 2,310
    edited May 9
    definitely not true. They have trial cases with a jury and lawyers all the same. It takes more than just a cop saying he was assaulted for someone to be thrown into jail.
    Now you can argue that a jury is more likely to believe a cop than some guy with a criminal record. That may be true, but still takes more than just an accusation.  The case would still have to present evidence, and without visible bruises or injuries or something to support the claim I seriously doubt there'd be a guilty verdict for assault. Especially if the jury knows 10 years may be on the line.
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 7,268
    So if assaulting someone because of their job is grounds to be considered a hate crime, does that apply to every job? Does it apply to health care workers, for instance? 
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 2,310
    So if assaulting someone because of their job is grounds to be considered a hate crime, does that apply to every job? Does it apply to health care workers, for instance? 
    I would be up for that.
    If you could determine the reason for assault and it was because of their job, sure.
    When a cop is assaulted wearing a uniform I think it is pretty same to come to the conclusion it was because he was a cop. Especially if it was an ambush assault.
    Someone who is pro-life attacks an abortion doctor, lock them up with a hate crime. I'm fine with that. 
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 7,268
    mace1229 said:
    So if assaulting someone because of their job is grounds to be considered a hate crime, does that apply to every job? Does it apply to health care workers, for instance? 
    I would be up for that.
    If you could determine the reason for assault and it was because of their job, sure.
    When a cop is assaulted wearing a uniform I think it is pretty same to come to the conclusion it was because he was a cop. Especially if it was an ambush assault.
    Someone who is pro-life attacks an abortion doctor, lock them up with a hate crime. I'm fine with that. 
    In my experience, the vast majority of what is termed assault on police officers is due to people resisting arrest, and is pretty low-level. Of course you can say it’s because of the job, but only because no one else is legally allowed to detain you. In most of those cases if the officer didn’t forcibly pursue an arrest then there would not have been an assault. I don’t view that as a hate crime at all, and sure don’t see it as worthy of hate crime level incarceration. 
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 2,310
    mace1229 said:
    So if assaulting someone because of their job is grounds to be considered a hate crime, does that apply to every job? Does it apply to health care workers, for instance? 
    I would be up for that.
    If you could determine the reason for assault and it was because of their job, sure.
    When a cop is assaulted wearing a uniform I think it is pretty same to come to the conclusion it was because he was a cop. Especially if it was an ambush assault.
    Someone who is pro-life attacks an abortion doctor, lock them up with a hate crime. I'm fine with that. 
    In my experience, the vast majority of what is termed assault on police officers is due to people resisting arrest, and is pretty low-level. Of course you can say it’s because of the job, but only because no one else is legally allowed to detain you. In most of those cases if the officer didn’t forcibly pursue an arrest then there would not have been an assault. I don’t view that as a hate crime at all, and sure don’t see it as worthy of hate crime level incarceration. 
    I see your point.
    I know it does not take much at all to be considered resisting arrest. I don't think that qualifies as assault though.
    You are probably right that there would still be some small/minor cases that would still qualify. There would probably need to be a strict definition of what qualifies as an assault, or that a certain level of injury occured to the officer. More than just not cooperating, but something that resulted in documentable injuries. 
Sign In or Register to comment.