Police abuse

1100101102103104106»

Comments

  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 7,258
    mace1229 said:
    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. 
    “Resisting arrest” and “assault peace officer” go together like bacon and eggs. Even so much as pulling forcefully away can be considered assault, and if you make contact at all while you flail or push, then it’s a certainty. 
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • Thirty Bills UnpaidThirty Bills Unpaid Posts: 13,532
    Is the expectation of police officers to refrain from using any force until things get 'really physical'... or until they are in 'real danger'?

    In other words, can police proactively ward off the escalation of intense physical resistance to arrest or detainment by definitively and actively taking action to ensure things do not escalate to the point where they are in danger?

    When the cops are there... the gig is up. Don't resist. What good can come of resisting?
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 7,258
    I just read comments from a police officer in our local newspaper online. The context is different - he's talking about whether there should be an expectation that police have photographic evidence of acts such as texting and driving for a finding of guilt (if the driver disputes a ticket and takes it to court). Apparently there are new scopes that can allow officers to see and photograph drivers from more than 650 metres away.

    The officer argues that the court should not expect photographic evidence because his word is enough - "because I’m a sworn officer, I’m sworn to tell the truth." He goes on to say “If every traffic cop gets one, it becomes unaffordable. I’m better off with my $99 scope and the court trusting what I saw.”

    So essentially he is arguing that the court should accept the word of police officers for conviction even when there is no other evidence. This is a fairly minor crime, of course, but if the principle is valid then it holds for major crimes, too. It's not a principle I can agree with, knowing what we know simply about the inherent errors in eyewitness testimony, let alone all other factors.

    I also note the phrasing of his argument - "I'm better off.....". Of course the officer is better off if his or her word isn't questioned, but that's not really the point of the legal system. 
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 2,292
    I just read comments from a police officer in our local newspaper online. The context is different - he's talking about whether there should be an expectation that police have photographic evidence of acts such as texting and driving for a finding of guilt (if the driver disputes a ticket and takes it to court). Apparently there are new scopes that can allow officers to see and photograph drivers from more than 650 metres away.

    The officer argues that the court should not expect photographic evidence because his word is enough - "because I’m a sworn officer, I’m sworn to tell the truth." He goes on to say “If every traffic cop gets one, it becomes unaffordable. I’m better off with my $99 scope and the court trusting what I saw.”

    So essentially he is arguing that the court should accept the word of police officers for conviction even when there is no other evidence. This is a fairly minor crime, of course, but if the principle is valid then it holds for major crimes, too. It's not a principle I can agree with, knowing what we know simply about the inherent errors in eyewitness testimony, let alone all other factors.

    I also note the phrasing of his argument - "I'm better off.....". Of course the officer is better off if his or her word isn't questioned, but that's not really the point of the legal system. 
    That has pretty much always been the case.
    I can see both sides of this argument. It is frustrating that it is sometimes just his word and I would have to prove my innocence. I've received a ticket I didn't deserve. I fought it and won, but it was more of a clerical error on the part of the DMV why I won rather than me proving my case. 
    On the other side, if photographic evidence was needed to give a ticket, there wouldn't be any tickets and therefore really no enforcement of traffic laws. If a cop needed a video of me running a stop sign to give me a ticket for it, it would become nearly impossible to enforce that.

    So then my question is how do you enforce basic traffic laws if the cop's testimony is not enough? Even though sometimes they are enforced for revenue, they are all written for safety. Stop signs, speed limits etc are all there for safety, so enforcing them is saving saving lives.
  • Thirty Bills UnpaidThirty Bills Unpaid Posts: 13,532
    "My brain's a good brain!"
Sign In or Register to comment.