Police abuse

1100101102103104106»

Comments

  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 7,959
    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: 14,606
    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: 7,959
    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: 2,506
    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: 14,606
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • Thirty Bills UnpaidThirty Bills Unpaid Posts: 14,606
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • OnWis97OnWis97 St. Paul, MNPosts: 919
    Back the blue.  Always back the blue.  

    http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2018/06/video_of_marion_county_deputy.html

    He should have complied. There must be more to this story. Uhh...what else...um...the cops feared for their lives...he had a, uh, thing, that looked like a, um, gun.
    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
  • KC138045KC138045 Columbus, OHPosts: 2,544
    This is a couple months old and the tweet does not give the whole story per usual.  The cops were called because this guy and his sister and friends started an argument with the waitress.  It s been a while since I read the the story so I don't remember all the details.
    Columbus-2000
    Columbus-2003
    Cincinnati-2006
    Columbus-2010
    Wrigley-2013
    Cincinnati-2014
    Lexington-2016
    Wrigley 1 & 2-2018
  • tbergstbergs Posts: 4,518
    OnWis97 said:
    Back the blue.  Always back the blue.  

    http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2018/06/video_of_marion_county_deputy.html

    He should have complied. There must be more to this story. Uhh...what else...um...the cops feared for their lives...he had a, uh, thing, that looked like a, um, gun.
    It appears there was one deputy who decided that punching in the back of the head repeatedly was a defensive tactic. Pretty horseshit and I would suspect that officer will face discipline. The other officers seemed to be mostly trying to get him under control the entire time to handcuff him. Obviously the male also has some severe mental health issues and was carrying a large buck knife, which would be a big concern for safety. The article also mentioned that he had already been asked multiple times to leave the area based on his interference with another incident.
    It's a hopeless situation...
  • Thirty Bills UnpaidThirty Bills Unpaid Posts: 14,606
    KC138045 said:
    This is a couple months old and the tweet does not give the whole story per usual.  The cops were called because this guy and his sister and friends started an argument with the waitress.  It s been a while since I read the the story so I don't remember all the details.

    There typically is more to the story.

    It just seems excessive- like that one above where the deputy is punching that weird guy repeatedly in the back of the head.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 1,819
    Take away the cops guns, pepper spray etc and see how brave they really are...
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 11,054
    It would be a human rights violation to send American police out to do their job without the weapons and tools they absolutely need to survive.
    Besides, it isn't the weaponry that makes shithead cops let their shit shine, it's the impunity.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • Here's the story that lends evidence to the notion that police must be given the latitude to defend themselves when threatened:

    https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2018/07/15/weymouth-police-officer-michael-chesna-fatally-shot

    If the situation had a different outcome, meaning the suspect was shot dead after hurling rocks at the fallen officer, this forum would be alive with people crying 'back the blue' and all the other classics.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • tbergstbergs Posts: 4,518
    edited July 16
    Here's the story that lends evidence to the notion that police must be given the latitude to defend themselves when threatened:

    https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2018/07/15/weymouth-police-officer-michael-chesna-fatally-shot

    If the situation had a different outcome, meaning the suspect was shot dead after hurling rocks at the fallen officer, this forum would be alive with people crying 'back the blue' and all the other classics.
    Damn. What a despicable piece of crap the killer is. Hit the officer in the head with a rock, took his gun once he was down and then shot him in the head and chest multiple times. Fuck. There's a 4 and 9 year old who probably can't even see their dad one last time because of that asshole. And then on top of that, some innocent old woman in her home takes a stray bullet and dies. What a terrible incident.

    As to what you mentioned TB, I think you are right. It's hard for a normal citizen to understand the complexities of situations like this and how one mistake could mean an officer is incapacitated and unable to stop someone from taking their own weapon and using it against them or someone else. In another reality, there is public outcry for an officer shooting a man holding a rock. I really believe that all of the criticizing and scrutiny can affect an officer in the heat of the moment to reconsider whether their is justification for using deadly force and in this case, that cost two people's lives.


    It's a hopeless situation...
Sign In or Register to comment.