Police abuse

unsung

Shit really amazes me.  Sad.

mace1229

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.

rgambs

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!!

mace1229

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?

rgambs

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.

mace1229

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.

oftenreading

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? 

mace1229

oftenreading 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. 

oftenreading

mace1229 said:

oftenreading 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. 

mace1229

oftenreading said:

mace1229 said:

oftenreading 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. 

oftenreading

mace1229 said:

oftenreading said:

mace1229 said:

oftenreading 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. 

Thirty Bills Unpaid

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?

oftenreading

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. 

mace1229

oftenreading said:

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 Unpaid

Fuks sakes:

https://twitter.com/shaunking/status/994594065919324160?s=21

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Fuks sakes:

https://twitter.com/elly_grande/status/999072581981540354?s=21

OnWis97

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.

KC138045

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Fuks sakes:

https://twitter.com/shaunking/status/994594065919324160?s=21

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.

tbergs

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.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

KC138045 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Fuks sakes:

https://twitter.com/shaunking/status/994594065919324160?s=21

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.