Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Udie on July 08, 2002, 04:15:48 PM
-
sigh.....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38541-2002Jul8.html
I saw the video on msnbc this morning. I wonder if these cops ever read the constitution? I Know they have tough jobs, but come on man this is freakin rediculous. Slammed the boy's head on the car then that big dude popped him in the face.
I know we have police officers that read this board and play the game. I respect you guys for the job you do. But you know it's this kind of roadkille that makes me wonder if we should have people with this much power over other citizens. I know deep down in my soul that most police officers are doing what they think is best for their community, well at least I hope so.
What do you police type folks think of when you see this kind of stuff? What if you saw it on the job, would you say or do anything to stop it while it was happening? Is this just a job to you or do you look at it like you are actually protecting civilian citizens? This young man was neither protected or served IMO....
Let me say that this is not ment to piss off a cop :) You guys do have it tough out there, I know I grew up in Houston......
-
1. Its the post.
2. What sells papers?
3. My wife lived in L.A. for 4 years. Its where she learned to be afraid of the police.
I'd actually like to see the film. I'd hope there was also audio. I don't know that someone can actually say something that merrits being punched while handcuffed... but I'd like to hear it regardless.
I find it curious that the passenger was handcuffed at all. I wonder if the film shows things leading up to that point.
AKDejaVu
-
He obviously didn't heed this PSA (http://www.beerlovercam.com/movies/chrisrock.asf).
-
Originally posted by AKDejaVu
1. Its the post.
2. What sells papers?
3. My wife lived in L.A. for 4 years. Its where she learned to be afraid of the police.
I'd actually like to see the film. I'd hope there was also audio. I don't know that someone can actually say something that merrits being punched while handcuffed... but I'd like to hear it regardless.
I find it curious that the passenger was handcuffed at all. I wonder if the film shows things leading up to that point.
AKDejaVu
the part I saw started off with the perp (a little police lingo for ya there :D) face down on the ground already cuffed. They then lifted him up off the ground and SLAMMED him on the trunk or hood (couldn't tell which) then one cop makes a fist over his face, holds it there a couple of seconds and then pops him right in the face. It was a big dude too!!! I don't know what led up to him being cuffed in the first place, but I don't care! Nobody deservse that treatment once te cuffs are on.
Let me ask you this, I've always wondered this.... Let's say I get arrested. I'm a peaceful type guy I doubt I would resist in any way. But I'm also skinny and stuff hurts my arms easy, cause I got no muscles there to cushin the blow... So let's say that while they are putting the cuffs on me it scrapes the bone on my arm and I flinch in pain, am I now "resisting" arrest? Could that get me clobbered or sat on? I watch cops alot and am always amazed at how rough the cops are with people. I can understand after a car chase or foot chase that the cop's nerves will be rattled and the adrinaline will be up, but once the cuffs are on I can see no justification for this type of action.
Again this isn't pointed at all or even most cops, just the bad ones that give you guys a bad name.
-
I tend to agree Udie... once the cuffs are on... I just can't see it being merrited. I think I said that above.
I'd still like to see and hear all of what happened.
AKDejaVu
-
I saw it, and I was waiting to hear the cops side of the story before commenting. The film is very damning to say the least. I think the cop that body slams the kid is the same one that hits him. You can see him kind of shaking out his fist after hitting the kid (he hurt his knuckles). This was a stop for expired plates IIRC and the kid got belligerent. Never saw the Post article, don't think sensationalism is too much of a factor in this story DJ.
-
Whoa, slow down. This is not LAPD.
It's Inglewood PD. There are valid concerns I'm sure, even though I havn't seen the tape.
Remember, we weren't there either. Lets get all the facts.
Edit: Didn't want to kill the thread. As someone who investigates these kinds of incidents, if it took place post-handcuffing, that is a pretty good sign that the Inglewood PD officer in the video has some 'splaining to do. There would be criminal charges of misdemeanor battery at least.
I can't imagine circumstances that would warrant hitting someone after they've been handcuffed. :(
Must add, in the "cop culture" around where I am, that act would be considered a sick and "popsicle" thing to do.
-
Well, most know my law enforcement background, so I'll add my piece.
Don't care what the kid did. Once the cuffs were on, thats the end of it. IMO, total mis-use of force.
I've been there, many times when an officer was assaulted, cut, shot, etc. Not our place to carry out judgements.
-
Don't know anything about this situation, but had I just pulled the skinny perp off a little girl, I would pound him with the cuffs on.
Just an example of a situation.
-
Originally posted by Gadfly
Don't know anything about this situation, but had I just pulled the skinny perp off a little girl, I would pound him with the cuffs on.
Just an example of a situation.
Are you/have you been a police officer?
-
That's a bit extremem gadfly and has little to do with what is being talked about here.
I agree with you Apache and respect your experience on the subject. But that's the reason I'd never have considered being a police officer... I couldn't deal with some people in a reasonable manner. The thing is... some of the cops out there suffer from the same dillema.
I'm still curious as to what pushed this one over the edge.
AKDejaVu
-
Gotta agree that there's no reason to hit somebody once the cuffs are on (or once he's under control with or without cuffs). If I hit someone who says something I don't like. That’s battery plain and simple, I go to jail.
If a cop can't control himself in a stressful situation, he should find another line of work.
Growing up I met a lot of cops (I'm sure they where not the majority but they where the ones that made the most contact with kids) who if they where not cops they would be in prison before their mid 20's. They where nothing but thugs who became cops because 'they get to kick bellybutton and get away with it.' (Actual quote from a cop I overheard in a restaurant).
A lot of the problems cops have are brought on because they protect this type of sleaze instead of coming forward and testifying against them.
When I was a kid I hated cops, and all my friends hated them too. And it was the cops who looked at us and decided we where a problem without knowing anything about us and hassled us; they set the tone for how I felt about cops for at least the next 10 years.
And it hasn't changed in the last 20+ years. I see the same thing happen with my son. They see the skateboard, the weird hair, and punk music, all on a 17 year old kid.
So every time he's out and he runs into a cop there's no courtesy, no 'hi I'm officer xxx, how's it going?"
He’s more likely to get stopped when skating to a friends house with "what are you running from" or "what kind of drugs do you got on ya" or other crap like that, constantly making every contact with him confrontational.
And when I try to tell him they aren't his enemy I look like a handsomehunk because they've been teaching him that they are his enemy.
So my honor student who I raised to be responsible in his community, carry his own weight in society, respect the laws and other peoples rights and property, the kid who voluntarily takes care of lawns for widows in our church, free of charge, volunteers at the church nursery so mothers can attend service, and mentors grade school kids in the neighbor hood teaching them to skate while talking to them about doing their part at home and in school. He goes out on the street and these love muffines in uniform use a few minutes contact to put the lie to all the things that I try to teach him.
Because on the street the cops are the symbol, they represent the law. And if they can't follow the law, why should he try?
Btw at this point I'm 36 years old and never once in my life have I ever heard myself or anyone else say, "cool the cops are here"
-
Anybody seen what happened before the video started? Who was there to see what started it? Do we have ALL the facts?
My department rule is that once the cuffs are on and control is achieved, all forceful physical control contact must stop.
Now, what ensued to elevate the adrenaline level of the officer? Was an officer's life threatened?
-
I can't see as it really matters what happened before the video. if the cuffs are on and they guy is getting hit, that prety much tells the story.
what happened before may help you understand what triggered the action from the cop (if he even needs a trigger) but it wont excuse it.
-
Well I've said it and heard it capt.
The local PD's in So. Calif. differ a great deal. In my home town, they are known for being curteous and decent. They are still this way AFAIK, because my former HS & College friend is now the Chief.
OTOH the cops in the town where I live now (10 miles away) are not quite the same. I have had some good experiences with them recently, but overall they are just unhelpful and surly. There has been some nationally broadcast problems with them actually (Riverside County Sherrifs). You all may recall the girl that was shot while she was sleeping in her car. Had a gun on her lap, and the cops got itchy when she was startled awake. Then there was the truckload of illegals that 2 local deputies stopped after a chase and proceded to kick the crap out of whoever they could catch. I guess they forgot about the local news chopper overhead.. recording everything.
Inglewood is an almost completely minority community and it looked like at least 3 or 4 of the cops in the video were white. I wonder how long before the race card will be played in this one?
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
I can't see as it really matters what happened before the video. if the cuffs are on and they guy is getting hit, that prety much tells the story.
Ever have a job and get in situations where you said to yourself:
“Oh toejam! I'm going die!” ?
How much courtesy would you give that person that was willing to kill you just seconds ago.
Hey, I’m the last person who makes excuses for Public Safety personnel who really screwed up!
I’m just saying, let’s get the truth before we fry him.
-
Here in Regina SK Canada where i live we had a situation simliar to this about 2 years ago.
A person was pulled over downtown and it was found that the gentleman had an outstanding warrant for his arrest. (if i recall the charges werent that serious and there was no reason to think this man was violent.)
There were at least 4 officers present.
The man was handcuffed and searched leaning over the hood of his truck. He was then turned around. The officer then kicked the man in the shin.
From my knowledge of acceptable police intervention tactics (relatively slim, but there is knowledge :) ) This is not an effective or common method of dealing with a person. Especially use on one who is not resisting arrest.
The person that was under arrest then spit on the officer (which is assault.) The officer then dealt out several closed handed blows to the man's face. Under Canadian police standards this is not warranted, as an officer can only deliver a reaction equal to or one level above to the action recieved.
Here the officer would have been permitted to use a grappling or restraint method or a an open handed blow.
Anyway the officer also roughed the guy up on the way to the police car and the man was knocked against the roof of the car before being placed in the back seat.
The result:
The officer was suspend WITH pay until his trial. He was eventually dismissed as were the two other officers that tried to cover for him.
My feelings: As public servants and representatives of the crown, police officers must be very careful of what they do when it comes to a physical altercation.
The guidelines are there, the training is there, the rules are there. Every officer knows them and knows they must respect and follow them. I understand that policing is a very stressful job and things do happen, and people heat up and boil over. BUT....policing is a job where a person cant allow this to happen.
The abuse of authority, especially physical should be condemned and severely punished by all law enforcement agencies.
In this day and age, with budget cutbacks, fewer officers, more legal red tape, and a general feeling of the "us against them" attitude that is directed to any form of civic authority at any level, the police must establish and maintain a bond of trust and mutual agreement with the public. The police are there to help you, and you are there to help them. Community policing, neighbourhood watches, police/social programs, neighbourhood/commercial area "beat cop" programs, and overall police/public consensus related to "real concerns" is paramount to the future of policing. Occurances such as this only drive a wedge between the community and law enforcement.
This is just my opinion, and i know it is just that, but i dont see the attitudes of the "jurassic pork" being feasible in the future. I have 3 years of justice related university level education and my dad was in the RCMP for ten years..and i have heard many a story and have many a thought on what policing is/should be. But they are just that, my thoughts.
Sir Robert Peel: The police are the public and the public is the police."
-
My father was CHP, they put up with alot of crap you don't hear about. Spit on, being lied to their face constantly ,disrespected daily ect, the bs builds up. Anyone that especially assults a cop should expect retaliation. Maybe this will be a lesson to the criminals.
-
Yup, what happened seconds before matters a great deal. It may not excuse the behavior, but it might explain it.
-
Originally posted by Ozark
Ever have a job and get in situations where you said to yourself:
“Oh toejam! I'm going die!” ?
How much courtesy would you give that person that was willing to kill you just seconds ago.
Hey, I’m the last person who makes excuses for Public Safety personnel who really screwed up!
I’m just saying, let’s get the truth before we fry him.
Yep, since 1980.
Courtesy? Not on your life. Excessive force "after" the arrest? Not justified.
-
Originally posted by Gadfly
Don't know anything about this situation, but had I just pulled the skinny perp off a little girl, I would pound him with the cuffs on.
Just an example of a situation.
If it was my daughter you pulled him off I'd thank you and shake your hand.
Just sayin....
-
You can see the video Here (http://www.msnbc.com/news/777480.asp?0dm=C13NN). "Images from the gas station’s surveillance cameras will be viewed to determine what happened" ............ Does it matter?
-
that video makes me want to puke. there is no defense for such and act. I dont care what happened before that and who it was done to.
every cop in that film outweighed that kid by at least two times. the guy who heroically punched him at least 3.
use of force LAWS and regulations do not exist after an incident. even if that KID was brandishing a knife or other weapon (including a firearm.) once he is in custody there is no "after the fact" face punching privledges.
as for those of you who say he had it coming for whatever he did....retribution is not justice.
i dont know what that poor KID did, but:
a tooth for a tooth and an eye for an eye, and in the end....the whole world ends up blind
-
The only positive aspect was that the officer was not able to deliver a second blow... another officer had his arm.
AKDejaVu
-
Police officers are trained human beings.
Enough negative feedback and/or stress will defeat training eventually, no matter how good said training is.
I haven't seen this tape. What was described doesn't sound right to me. But I'm not the person to judge him - other police, etc. - sure. They have 'been there and done that'. I have not.
I could never be a police officer - the first time I walked in on a 2 year old with broken arms because he spilled a beer on the joint...well let's just say you'd all be sending me brownies in prison for 25 years to life.
Your average police officer has had to show massive restraint in dozens of situations that no one but him, his partner, and some amazinhunk will ever know about.
My gut instinct nowadays is (sadly) to mistrust any initial press report re: police misconduct. Rodney King was not a 'black motorist' - he was a convicted felon driving at 100+ MPH hopped up on very illegal and unstable drugs. The other occupants of the car listened to the police officers and they didn't get a scratch. It may not have been right - what happened to him. But don't tell me he didn't partially create the situation himself.
It's wrong if this kid got slammed - but I gurantee that he didn't stop when told to stop, act calmly, etc. He didn't get stopped on the sidewalk walking home from church at noon with a can of orange soda in one hand and a bible in the other hand and get beaten out of the blue for no possible reason whatsoever.
Anyone reading this who is or was a police officer - .
Mike/wulfie
-
Cops aren't perfect. They're just like the rest of us. You gotta check the whole picture before you pass judgement on this guy.
Lets put it in perspective huh... http://www.stuff.co.nz/inl/index/0,1008,1262249a10,FF.html
-
Sort of off topic to the thread, but I thought I'd post it anyway.
In my experience, sure, cops have a tough job, but a lot of the crap and disrespect they get from civvies, they bring on themselves.
I was on my way to work on night at a hotel about 40 minutes drive from my place, I was running a bit late, and was driving at about 10 or 12 kms over the speed limit.
I get pulled up by this copper, who books me for speeding, fair enough, I was speeding, that part didnt worry me...what pissed me off was the fact that he was taking forever, wanted to look in the boot, under the bonnet, checked all the tyres etc, so I said " C'mon mate, I was speeding because I'm late for work, can we hurry things up a bit?"
He stops doing everything, looks at me, and says " #1, I'm no mate of yours and #2, I can take as long as I damn well like to do this" and continues doing whatever roadkill he was doing for another ten minutes, then hands me a ticket.
I got to work 20 minutes late, and pissed off.
the funny thing was, there was an enourmous brawl in the bar that night, and the publican rang the cops to come and help us sort it out....guess who they sent? :)
So, 10 minutes later this cop has his hands REALLY full with this big Samoan bloke, and quite frankly, was getting his arse kicked.....he looks around frantically for the security guys, and spots one...me, helping out a little bloke that had his nose broken in the fight......and says "Give us a hand here would ya mate?"
Lol...I enjoyed seeing at least another 5 or 6 VERY solid left hooks land on the cop's ribs before I decided to lend him a hand.
Any other cop, and he wouldnt have had to ask for assistance, it would have been a given, but this salamander was no mate of mine. :)
-
Well, this is probably gonna freak you out pretty bad, (considering my line of work) but I'm gonna post it anyway.
Cops are people who risk their lives to make the world safer for the rest of us. Sometimes it might be hard for someone living a normal life to realize exactly what kind of work they have to do. But if you imagine all the stuff that you really really dont want to do yourself, then you have a pretty good picture of what cops do for a living. They are the first ones on the scene when there has been a traffic accident, they are the ones who gets to clean up all sorts of gooey suicides, and they are the ones who gets to wrestle with HIV ridden drug abusers, just so that the rest of us wont have to.
While they are doing this, they get toejam thrown at them from all directions. Always. Nothing seems more populart than squeak and complain over what cops have done, or what they havent done. The media and some liberal types have created standards for cops that are impossible to live up to. And for some reason unbeknownst to me, journalists and liberals seems to hate cops.
Members of the Police, the fire department, paramedics and the military have my deepest respect. They are all heros in my book. Because all of them are risking their lives to keep the rest of us safe. They are the ones standing on a wall.
That means anyone belonging to that category will have an enormous amount of slack when dealing with me. Sure there are bad cops, after all they are just human, and there are bad apples anywhere you look.
My philosphy: be nice to a police officer and he will be nice to you. I have never had any problems with the law or with any cop, and I never will. Because I will always be polite towards a cop, and I will always do what he tells me.
So this cop hit a guy. Yeah, that is bad, and it is against the law. But that guy probably had it coming for some reason. After all, cops just dont go around hitting people for the heck of it. Lesson here: be polite towards cops, and stuff like this wont happen.
-
I think the cop just lost it and whacked the guy. As far as the body slam?... seen worse on "Cops".
Years ago, when I was still an SP in the USAF, my boss at the time told me about an incident in which he was a participant. He and another guy (early 80's) responded to a Domestic. They show'd up, no answer at the door so they walk in. They go upstairs and find a young woman (wife) beat bloody and unconsious. They find a toddler in the same condition (which later died). They found the wonderful hubby drunk off his butt sitting on his bed. They arrested him... and upon taking him downstairs he somehow fell, so of course they took him back up to try again. Apparently it took 3 or 4 tries to get all the way down stairs without falling all before the ambulance show'd up.. and then the idiot couldn't get into the patrol car without smacking his head on the roof.. 3 or 4 times.
Do any good? Course not.
Did he have it coming? I think so.
Was it right? Hell no!
Feel good? Damn straight!
It's not right, but sometimes people lose it, far too often they get away with it too. I don't think any one person can back up the statement "I would never do that" over the long run. But I think those that do, and get caught better be ready to accept the consequences of thier actions.
Personally? I feel bad for the kid in the video. I also feel bad for the cop. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying he should get away with what he did. However, I would "think" that he's a good cop that got pushed past his breaking point a long time ago. Punish the cop, but blame it on crime and judicial leniency.
-
Ever have a job and get in situations where you said to yourself: “Oh toejam! I'm going die!” ?
ya, that comes up every now and then. the difference is when we are crippled or killed on the job we get no parade's and the news doesn't petition the public to start funds to feed our widows or put our kids through college. not that the cops and fireman who die in the line of duty don't deserve it but you'd think they are the only ones who face danger at work. when I'd bet money if we could sit down and count men lost per man-hour worked, being a cop would be fairly safe compared to what I and many americans do every day. and nobody jumps up to deffend us if we lose our temper and hit someone(even if they just reciently endangered our life), they just take us to jail.
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
ya, that comes up every now and then. the difference is when we are crippled or killed on the job we get no parade's and the news doesn't petition the public to start funds to feed our widows or put our kids through college. not that the cops and fireman who die in the line of duty don't deserve it but you'd think they are the only ones who face danger at work. when I'd bet money if we could sit down and count men lost per man-hour worked, being a cop would be fairly safe compared to what I and many americans do every day. and nobody jumps up to deffend us if we lose our temper and hit someone(even if they just reciently endangered our life), they just take us to jail.
What do you do?
-
I work in construction. Building and repairing powerplants and the like. I haven't heard any recent statistics, but when I started doing this 14 yrs ago, the statistic being thrown around was that the average guy lived long enough to draw 2 pension checks. Many guys, like my father, have lived 20+ years past retirement, so how many never make it?
And like I said before, it's not that I don't respect the danger and assorted crap that cops put up with. But why is it they only seem to be willing to testify against each other when somebody has it on video. Are people really foolish enough to think this only happens on the few times when a camera is rolling?
If they can look the other way while another cop beats a defenseless prisoner, why can't they look the other way when my car drifts past the speed limit?
And as far as the statements above about whether or not the guy 'had it coming', last I checked cops where to 'serve and protect', apprehend suspects , and gather evidence. Determining guilt and dishing out punishment isn't really in the job description.
-
Cut 'em some slack will you...they've earned it.
-
If that was my kid, he'd be begging to go back to the police station five minutes after he got home
What the cops did was wrong, what got the kid in the situation was wronger <- is that a word :) and it was wronger first :)
screw the punk
-
Originally posted by loser
a tooth for a tooth and an eye for an eye, and in the end....the whole world ends up blind
and gumming their food;)
-
This wasn't a "Rodney King" scenario, that was much worse...if I was his commanding officer (whatever they call the boss in the Police force) I'd have him give a public apology statement, visit the kid and/or his parents and apologize, and give him a month off without pay. They should patch any hard feelings up. The last thing we need are the neighborhoods in Inglewood burning down their own businesses again like in LA ;)
-
The officer had a bleeding wound to the head, which can clearly be seen at the end of the video over his left ear. It doesn't give the officer the right to punch a suspect that is handcuffed and being held by antother officer, but you can prolly guess what is going through his mind at the time.
I am anxious to see the gas station video.
-
Jeeez. What the kid did was mouth off to a cop who was harrassing him for being the passenger in a parked car with expired tags. There is no excuse for the cops behavior. NONE!
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Jeeez. What the kid did was mouth off to a cop who was harrassing him for being the passenger in a parked car with expired tags. There is no excuse for the cops behavior. NONE!
Hey, the guy should have renewed his plates, and not driven with a suspended license if he didn't want his son beat down.
No really, I can't see anything so far that makes this understandable. Especially in the LA area, where the police are under a microscope.
-Sikboy
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Cut 'em some slack will you...they've earned it.
Wrong! he hasn't earned anything but a court date as far as I'm concerned. Cops should bbq this guy for giving them a bad name. These people are there to protect citizens not beat them. You a judge of all people should realize this. I hope we don't have very many judges here that think the way you do about this type of situation. This whole thing does nothing but hurt good cops and will probably be run through the race machine before it's all over with. Because he was pissed at a guy for mouthing off? A KID at that.
We trust cops to protect us, we give them "extra" power to do this. When they abuse it they should be held to a higher standard of punishment. I understand emotions can get high and tempers can soar, but if you can't control your emotions then you have no business having the power of life or death over anybody!
-
Prolly another one of them stoners. I usually tip a cop at least $20 when I see them pound a stoner, there's just something too funny about it.
-
If I'm not mistaken, once the suspect is apprehended, as in they have cuffs on the suspect, then a punch to the jaw while he's bent over the back of a car restrained by another officer then it becomes police brutality.
-SW
-
Never mind Udie. Horty is just excersizing his arguement muscle. He likes to do this at least once a week to keep himself in shape for the really major traffic violations he has to deal with at work. ;)
-
Originally posted by AKSWulfe
If I'm not mistaken, once the suspect is apprehended, as in they have cuffs on the suspect, then a punch to the jaw while he's bent over the back of a car restrained by another officer then it becomes police brutality.
-SW
Yep. I don't think theres one person in this thread that thinks the cop in this case was justified.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Jeeez. What the kid did was mouth off to a cop who was harrassing him for being the passenger in a parked car with expired tags. There is no excuse for the cops behavior. NONE!
"The passenger, whose name was being withheld, was booked for investigation of assault on a police officer."
Was there another article that I missed? This is the only reference I could find about what the kid may have done in the Post article.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Jeeez. What the kid did was mouth off to a cop who was harrassing him for being the passenger in a parked car with expired tags. There is no excuse for the cops behavior. NONE!
C'mon Midnight, since when does mouthing off result in a cut over the officer's ear? that kid did a little more than mouth off.
-
Sharp tongue, Nate.
-
Reports on the local news today say the very same cop beat a guy unconscious just a couple weeks ago and put him in the hospital. The guy was interviewed by local TV, so if he was a hardened criminal he wasn't in custody. I think we got a bad cop here, and probably a racist (both victims happened to be black).
-
Guess we oughta leave the judging to the judge and/or jury, they'll likely have more facts than us.
While I'm not and have never been a cop, nor have I ever worn handcuffs, except maybe in bed that time, ;) I don't believe they incapacitate someone. You can still kick, bite, headbutt, etc... I'm sure Cops are well trained in this regard but if someone is totally flipped out they might still be very hard to handle, even in cuffs.
-
Anyone here ever arrested a cop killer?
I have. Didn't bounce him off a car hood either, or smack him around. God, I wanted to, but didn't. The cop was a kid, 22 yoa and a sweetheart of a guy.
If this Inglewood cop worked for me, he'd be flippin' burgers tomorrow.
-
Originally posted by NATEDOG
C'mon Midnight, since when does mouthing off result in a cut over the officer's ear? that kid did a little more than mouth off.
You are correct, however the point I was trying to make was that this wasn't a "heat of the chase" type of arrest. The car was parked in a gas station when the police decided to question the occupants regarding expired tags. No doubt the kid acted stupidly, but there is still NO EXCUSE. The kid and his Dad were DWB.
-
Originally posted by Apache
Anyone here ever arrested a cop killer?
I have. Didn't bounce him off a car hood either, or smack him around. God, I wanted to, but didn't. The cop was a kid, 22 yoa and a sweetheart of a guy.
If this Inglewood cop worked for me, he'd be flippin' burgers tomorrow.
You have my respect Apache, for that and the job you do day to day. I could never muster up that much self control.
What do you do when someone refuses to cooperate, even after cuffs are on? What if they are really wired and fight tooth and nail? Ever had to subdue someone like that?
-
Originally posted by Apache
Anyone here ever arrested a cop killer?
I have. Didn't bounce him off a car hood either, or smack him around. God, I wanted to, but didn't. The cop was a kid, 22 yoa and a sweetheart of a guy.
If this Inglewood cop worked for me, he'd be flippin' burgers tomorrow.
Have to respect you for that man! That must have been very tough not to take out your own "justice" on the guy, hopefuly he got what he deserved in the court system.
I hope I'm not coming across as a cop hater in this thread, nothing could be further from true. I just hate seeing stuff like what happened in the video. You dudes have a tough job to do. I don't think I'd have it in me to protect somebody who hates me or just tried to kill/hurt me.
S! Apache....
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
The kid and his Dad were DWB.
"Victim" route again eh? Gets real old. Think "Expired tabs" son.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I think we got a bad cop here, and probably a racist (both victims happened to be black).
Yep, a bad cop
A racist because both were black :rolleyes:
Maybe the majority of the crimes committed in that area are committed by blacks, jeez what a concept ... to me it's an odds thing. He needs his cop arse kicked, fired but to label hima racist based on info you listed sounds like lawyer talk :)
-
Apache,
, I wish my kid ran into more cops like you instead of the other kind.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
You have my respect Apache, for that and the job you do day to day. I could never muster up that much self control.
What do you do when someone refuses to cooperate, even after cuffs are on? What if they are really wired and fight tooth and nail? Ever had to subdue someone like that?
Yes AKIron, many, many times. We are taught, in SC anyway, to use techniques to restrain these types of persons thru the use of pressure point, restraining devices or numbers, which ever is necessary at the time.
Brutaility is not one of them. It is our duty to "protect" that individual once he/she is in our custody. Hard to swallow some times, especially when you get rapped up side the head but, it goes with the territory.
Guys, there are tons of cops out there who are "on the wall' so to speak everyday. They are the ones you don't hear about that have to live with the stigma this jerk just put on us. He won't have to worry about it, working at Burger King.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
snip
So this cop hit a guy. Yeah, that is bad, and it is against the law. But that guy probably had it coming for some reason. After all, cops just dont go around hitting people for the heck of it. Lesson here: be polite towards cops, and stuff like this wont happen.
Steve, before I say this .... who on this board is your best buddy? Me of course!
Now doesn't this strike you as just a little hypocritical?
On the one hand you are quick to condemn the allies for terror bombing during the war. You feel that the perpetrators should be treated the same based on the fact that it is the same crime. No extenuating circumstances, like "They had it coming".
On the other hand we have a 16 yr old kid, handcuffed and slammed and slugged. But he "had it coming". You might want to rethink this one sir.
-
Originally posted by Udie
Have to respect you for that man! That must have been very tough not to take out your own "justice" on the guy, hopefuly he got what he deserved in the court system.
I hope I'm not coming across as a cop hater in this thread, nothing could be further from true. I just hate seeing stuff like what happened in the video. You dudes have a tough job to do. I don't think I'd have it in me to protect somebody who hates me or just tried to kill/hurt me.
S! Apache....
You don't sound like a cop hater at all Udie. I understand what you're saying.
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
Apache,
, I wish my kid ran into more cops like you instead of the other kind.
Thanks Capt. They're out there, believe me.
-
You got cops that are on a power trip, which tends to mean they are bad cops... then you got the good cops, the ones who just do their job how their supposed to.
You rarely hear about the latter, but always about the former.
In this case, it was the former.
Cops keep the street safe.. I just don't like 'em when they get me. ;)
-SW
-
Never woulda happened if he'd followed these simple instructions:
How not to get your bellybutton kicked (http://www.redneck.org/chrisrock_1.asf)
Know someone already posted this somewhere but funny enough to watch again. :D
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Never woulda happened if he'd followed these simple instructions:
How not to get your bellybutton kicked (http://www.redneck.org/chrisrock_1.asf)
Know someone already posted this somewhere but funny enough to watch again. :D
Now, if[/i] a white guy on a white mans show made that video.... :eek: :eek:
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
"Victim" route again eh? Gets real old. Think "Expired tabs" son.
Since when does the passenger in a car get questioned for "expired tags"? C'mon! Victim's do exist no matter how you want to phrase it.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Well, this is probably gonna freak you out pretty bad, (considering my line of work) but I'm gonna post it anyway.
* * *
So this cop hit a guy. Yeah, that is bad, and it is against the law. But that guy probably had it coming for some reason. After all, cops just dont go around hitting people for the heck of it. Lesson here: be polite towards cops, and stuff like this wont happen.
Hortlund, Hortlund, Hortlund.....
You are so....so....so young, I guess. But you will learn.
AND: You should learn FIRST not to write things like this back in Sweden, or it's instant recusal city for you.
- oldman
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Since when does the passenger in a car get questioned for "expired tags"? C'mon! Victim's do exist no matter how you want to phrase it.
Dunno how the passenger gets questioned... and I tend to think you don't either.
I think those saying he deserved it are too quick to label as are those that say he didn't. Victim or criminal? Based on what we've read? come on.
One thing is clear... the cop was out of line. Wether instigated or not. We all know it... those working with the cop at the time know it. No reason to expand on it farther than that since there is no real information to indicate what happened.
AKDejaVu
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Steve, before I say this .... who on this board is your best buddy? Me of course!
Now doesn't this strike you as just a little hypocritical?
On the one hand you are quick to condemn the allies for terror bombing during the war. You feel that the perpetrators should be treated the same based on the fact that it is the same crime. No extenuating circumstances, like "They had it coming".
On the other hand we have a 16 yr old kid, handcuffed and slammed and slugged. But he "had it coming". You might want to rethink this one sir.
Yeah yeah I know. I suppose you have a point in there somewhere. But this is my heart talking remember...
Problem is I know alot of cops, and I have been together with some on patrol on a couple of occations (if you are working inside the legal system in Sweden, the cops let you ride along in the police cars if you want) and the amount of toejam these guys take from every direction is bloody amazing. EVERYONE will throw toejam on a cop it seems, because everyone knows that a cop is (in almost all cases) a good decent guy/girl, who will do his/her best to follow the law. It's like some people think insulting cops is fair game or something. When I was riding with those cops, I saw guys spit at them, I saw guys trying to knee them in the croutch when in handcuffs, I heard them threat the cops and their families, you name it. All that stuff didnt even go on report because the cops knows it's futile (something I dont like with the Swedish legal system is the crime and punishment -part).
These same cops were out an hour later picking up the remnants of some family who bought it in a head on collision with a truck (I stayed well clear of that carwreck though, frankly I think I would have passed out or something if I had walked over there)
Bottom line is this, the amount of toejam these guys get from every direction is insane, despite that they still keep doing the best damn job I have ever seen. In my book, that earns them a mile of slack if they should lose their temper one day. Personally I could never be a cop, first day on the job I would probably shoot someone :)
I will always do my best to look the other way if a cop oversteps his boundaries, and I know alot of prosecutors and judges who feel the same way. But sometimes it is impossible for various reasons, and in those occations, (most often in the blinding media light) the cop will be hit by the full force of the law.
-
Cops still have to abide by the laws and regulations here in America Hortlund. AFAIK, you can not beat a suspect in custody unless they are resisting arrest... at the point that video begins, it doesn't appear as tho he's resisting arrest.
But anyway, I don't want to make an issue out of that... however, "I will always do my best to look the other way if a cop oversteps his boundaries"
So if the same cop comes up before you multiple times in court with charges of assualt on a suspect in custody... you continue to look the other way?
-SW
-
I'm not sayin that gave the cop a good excuse....... the cop shouldn't have hit him except in self-defence, and clearly the kid had cuffs on and was no longer a threat........ but you were sayin the kid didn't do anything, and I'm sayin he did.
I also don't think this had anything to do with race...... notice the black cop didn't seem to mind the injured cop hittin this kid. I think this situation was taken further than it should have been. The cop and the kid got into a scuffle, the cop got injured, got upset, emotions got the best of him, and he hit this kid. did the kid deserve it, who knows, does the cop deserve disipline, yes. But I'm also willing to bet that if that kid would have respected the cop in the first place, none of this would have happen.
-
Kinda OT, but why does the south, particularly Alabama always get pinned as the mecca for racism? Seems every year or two we get these stories of racial unrest from California, few years ago Philadelphia (that NFL stars nephew beaten to death by cops), in the early nineties there was a big stink about the Boston police being racist. Saw a piece about a year ago on a news magazine show about some Colorado small town police force beating the snot out of some homeless dude daily til he finally died. But us southerners are the big racists? Somebody 'splain that one to me! ;)
(without going back over 30 years)
-
George Wallace .... oops you said not to go back 30 years :)
-
Originally posted by AKSWulfe
Cops still have to abide by the laws and regulations here in America Hortlund. AFAIK, you can not beat a suspect in custody unless they are resisting arrest... at the point that video begins, it doesn't appear as tho he's resisting arrest.
But anyway, I don't want to make an issue out of that... however, "I will always do my best to look the other way if a cop oversteps his boundaries"
So if the same cop comes up before you multiple times in court with charges of assualt on a suspect in custody... you continue to look the other way?
-SW
SW, guess what, cops still have to abide by the laws and regulations here in Sweden too...imagine that.
Im not trying to say that what that cop did was legal, what I am saying is that I'm willing to look the other way. Once. What I am saying is that I'm gonna cut them some slack I would not give others.
If the same cop comes back several times he will be hit by the full force and fury of the law. Im not saying that all cops should have a "get out of jail"-card. I dont want to see corrupt cops anymore than anyone else.
-
cc Hortlund, I just wanted it clarified. :)
-SW
-
Ya know...there was more than one crime committed in that film. The cop that lost control is one of them but to have other cops not take immediate action when a violent crime is committed in front of their face is possibly an even worse crime. If there wasn't a video of this incident I suspect there would be NO case since none of those other cops would have come forward IMO. The time has come to change the culture of this nations police forces in order to rid them of the good 'ol boy network. Stings should be run to weed out the ones who will turn their backs to the abuses that happen all to often.
-
Sorry.. I disagree MrLars. Other cops grabbed his arm to stop him from swinging away. It just didn't happen in time to prevent the first swing.
AKDejaVu
-
Originally posted by AKDejaVu
Sorry.. I disagree MrLars. Other cops grabbed his arm to stop him from swinging away. It just didn't happen in time to prevent the first swing.
AKDejaVu [/QUOTE
Sure they stoped him...are you sure they would have reported the incident if there weren't any video tape?
-
I think we got a bad cop here, and probably a racist (both victims happened to be black).
Probably a racist. Hehe, it's always about race isn't it?
:rolleyes:
If the perp was white, I wonder if this would even be news.
-
Originally posted by koala
Probably a racist. Hehe, it's always about race isn't it?
:rolleyes:
If the perp was white, I wonder if this would even be news.
Heh, are you kidding? Hell no! Chaos is cash to the news folks.
-
Originally posted by MrLars
Sure they stoped him...are you sure they would have reported the incident if there weren't any video tape?
MrLars, you have moved from what the did into the realm of hypothetical. I have no idea what they would have reported... nor do you. All any of us have are a few seconds of edited video footage.
Yet... the conclusions that are being drawn are simply astounding.
"The cop that lost control is one of them but to have other cops not take immediate action when a violent crime is committed in front of their face is possibly an even worse crime." They stopped him with immediate action. Read into it what you want... but don't overlook what really happened.
AKDejaVu
-
Anyone wanna bet that a 16 year old that resists arrest, fights with an officer, will become a model citizen?
Or would you bet as I do, this won't be his last run in with the law?
As far as that goes, what is his criminal record to date, anyone know?
The tape tells half the story, all the media & lawyers want to hear
-
Originally posted by koala
Probably a racist. Hehe, it's always about race isn't it?
:rolleyes:
If the perp was white, I wonder if this would even be news.
Are you kidding? It would be even bigger news! Black kids in the LA area have a complete lack of trust in the police, and not without some good reason. This invariably leads to the type of confrontations that just happened to get caught on this video. Yea, the kid probably mouthed off, and may even have caused the injury to the officer. But it is the us vs. them attitude perpetuating the problem. It is on both sides of the badge, and hot headed cops don't help the problem.
AKdj, speculation is what we do on this BBS. We are not bound by the rules of the court, and luckily neither do we have any power over the situation. If we did this would be one scary world! :eek:
-
Originally posted by Eagler
Anyone wanna bet that a 16 year old that resists arrest, fights with an officer, will become a model citizen?
Or would you bet as I do, this won't be his last run in with the law?
As far as that goes, what is his criminal record to date, anyone know?
The tape tells half the story, all the media & lawyers want to hear
Oh my God! Are you implying that it was OK because he will screw up in the future? Or even that it was OK because his criminal record is bad? :rolleyes:
Nothing makes hitting or abusing a handcuffed person OK! Nothing!
-
Originally posted by Eagler
Anyone wanna bet that a 16 year old that resists arrest, fights with an officer, will become a model citizen?
Or would you bet as I do, this won't be his last run in with the law?
As far as that goes, what is his criminal record to date, anyone know?
The tape tells half the story, all the media & lawyers want to hear
Inocent until proven guilty. How do we know the cop didn't start the whole thing? Maybe the door hit him in the head when it was opened and it cut him (I've seen this happen though not to a cop :) ). In the video I see a 16 year old KID yeah he may be a punk but I'd be a lot of us here were punks at that age. He's limp on the ground and gets lifed up 1 to 2 feet over the trunk and body slammed on it. I'm sorry that right there gives him all the right in the world to DEFEND himself against an attack. But oops he's cuffed he can only squirm (is that further resistance?). The cop has a strangle hold on him and then punches him full force in the face. After this he may not have to worry about going straight if he's crooked in the first place. He's got a big fat payday coming soon....
-
Originally posted by Eagler
Anyone wanna bet that a 16 year old that resists arrest, fights with an officer, will become a model citizen?
Or would you bet as I do, this won't be his last run in with the law?
As far as that goes, what is his criminal record to date, anyone know?
The tape tells half the story, all the media & lawyers want to hear
Answer me this. Based upon the law, what justified the officer slamming a handcuffed person onto the hood of his car with sufficient force that his head bounced off of the hood? Additionally, what justified the officer to strike the handcuffed suspect in the head with his fist?
-
Originally posted by hblair
Kinda OT, but why does the south, particularly Alabama always get pinned as the mecca for racism? Seems every year or two we get these stories of racial unrest from California, few years ago Philadelphia (that NFL stars nephew beaten to death by cops), in the early nineties there was a big stink about the Boston police being racist. Saw a piece about a year ago on a news magazine show about some Colorado small town police force beating the snot out of some homeless dude daily til he finally died. But us southerners are the big racists? Somebody 'splain that one to me! ;)
(without going back over 30 years)
Heh heh. "Without going back [more than] 30 years" is the key here, I think. It took you folks a couple of hundred years to acquire the reputation; pretty tough to lose it in a few decades.
BTW, wasn't it just a few years back that Mississippi finally officially outlawed slavery?
- oldman
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
AKdj, speculation is what we do on this BBS. We are not bound by the rules of the court, and luckily neither do we have any power over the situation. If we did this would be one scary world! :eek:
Speculation? Umm.. no. Try ignoring what was right in front of you and making up a different version.
Unfortunately... that's what many do here on this bbs too.
And its not a matter of being bound by the rules of the court. Its a matter of making something up and then using that as support for an argument. This tactic is quite hilarious actually.
AKDjeaVu
-
Originally posted by AKDejaVu
Yet... the conclusions that are being drawn are simply astounding.
Conclusions drawn on this one particular incident are a bit interesting to say the least. My comments are directed at the accepted culture in the law enforcement ranks...that of protecting their fellow officers from the rule of law.
[/B]They stopped him with immediate action. Read into it what you want... but don't overlook what really happened. [/B]
Once again, sure he stopped, but I for one am 99% damn sure that if it weren't for the video tape the only news heard about this would be because of a lawsuit brought against the city by the victim and not because a fellow officer saw the law broken in his presence.
-
you guys are wimps
I got worse for a bad report card at his age
no, the cop is scum (as I stated in earlier post) but I bet the the kid is too - wanna bet?
Wouldn't make as good as news if it the punk has a rap sheet longer than his arm...
-
Eagler, that ain't the point.
Cops just ain't supposed to hit/beat/slam around anyone when they are subdued and in cuffs.
-SW
-
I understand that.
Does anyone understand this punk arse's own actions got him in that position to start with?
The stupid cop should be fired, the punk should go to jail.
Instead the cop will be fired and the punk will walk away with a huge cash settlement... and the justice there??? :rolleyes:
-
Ah, I see what you mean Eagler...
It's unfortunate, but since we are a society of lawsuits and lawyers.... stuff like what you mentioned can and will happen. :(
-SW
-
Originally posted by MrLars
Once again, sure he stopped
That's called a fact.I for one am 99% damn sure that if it weren't for the video tape the only news heard about this would be because of a lawsuit brought against the city by the victim and not because a fellow officer saw the law broken in his presence.
That's called an assumption. If you believe there is a problem with police officers not reporting this kind of activity, then you are going to assume that they would not report it. What you've seen in this situation does nothing to enforce or deter from that belief.
Maybe the cop hit the guy because he knew that if it weren't for the handcuffs... the "perp" would be taking a swing at him.
See how attacking someone based on what they'd have done if things had been different can be totally bogus?
AKDejaVu
-
Originally posted by Oldman731
Heh heh. "Without going back [more than] 30 years" is the key here, I think. It took you folks a couple of hundred years to acquire the reputation; pretty tough to lose it in a few decades.
Progressive racial thought didn't take place in the mainstream til well into the 20th century anywhere in the U.S. The armed forces weren't even integrated until after WWII were they not? Lemme guess, it was those ignorant southerners ! :)
My point is that racism's everywhere. Whether we want to admit it or not. Not just those ignorant tobacco chewing rednecks down south. I used to run around with a fella from Michigan. He used the N word a lot. It was embarrassing. He was a real smooth talker though. He knew when and where to be a racist without the wrong people finding out how he was. Still a racist tho.
Originally posted by Oldman731
BTW, wasn't it just a few years back that Mississippi finally officially outlawed slavery?
- oldman
I've never met any slaves from Mississippi have you? ;)
BTW, I stood in the place where Lincoln delivered the Emancipation Proclamtion at Gettysburg a few weeks ago. Pretty cool.
-
"Cops just ain't supposed to hit/beat/slam around anyone when they are subdued and in cuffs. "
Indeed. If these cops were smart, they would have arrested these guys for something and while transporting them back to the station a "mysterious dog" would run out in front of their cruiser, forcing them to jam on the brakes really hard.....that cage hurts when someone's face whacks into it :)
J_A_B
-
Maybe the cop hit the guy because he knew that if it weren't for the handcuffs... the "perp" would be taking a swing at him.
See how attacking someone based on what they'd have done if things had been different can be totally bogus?
Now that is a very good analogy.
I wonder how often this kind of thing happens without being recorded. If I were to believe friends from the South Central and Compton areas (near Inglewood), it happens all too often.
And I am convinced this is about race. Scoff all you want, but this watermelon just ain't happenin in white suburbia. If this kid smarted off to the officer, ask yourself why. What is different in his life experience that makes smarting off to an officer of the law seem ok? Could it be that he has experienced unfair treatment in the past? Maybe he was frustrated for being hassled when all he was was a passenger in a car with expired tags? You all say that what the kid did caused the problems. Maybe the kid was reacting to what the cop did! Then it was the cop that caused the problem wasn't it?
-
Originally posted by hblair
I've never met any slaves from Mississippi have you? ;)
BTW, I stood in the place where Lincoln delivered the Emancipation Proclamtion at Gettysburg a few weeks ago. Pretty cool.
I think you mean the Gettysburg Address......but then you are a Southerner
-
I have a friend that got the toejam kicked out of him by 3 cops, right here in Dallas......... He got kicked out of a club, found a way back in, got kicked out again, both times for drinking underage...... this time the bouncers got the cops involved, my friend talked alot of toejam, they put him in handcuffs, they had trouble getting him in the car, took him down the block, turned into an alley, took him out of the car and kicked the toejam out of him, then took him to the hospital, and dropped him off. no charges, no nothing...... just an bellybutton beating. This happened in 96, I ask him about it today, why he never sued, why nothing happened, and he says, " It was my fault. ya know, it's funny, I never had a problem with a cop that I was polite to. sometimes it's hard to be polite, sometimes you just have to grin and bare it............ you can talk your toejam after they leave."
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
And I am convinced this is about race. Scoff all you want, but this watermelon just ain't happenin in white suburbia. If this kid smarted off to the officer, ask yourself why. What is different in his life experience that makes smarting off to an officer of the law seem ok? Could it be that he has experienced unfair treatment in the past? Maybe he was frustrated for being hassled when all he was was a passenger in a car with expired tags? You all say that what the kid did caused the problems. Maybe the kid was reacting to what the cop did! Then it was the cop that caused the problem wasn't it?
Why is it important what affected the kid's decission to assault the officer... but not important what affected the officer's decision to strike the kid.
Two kids growing up with very similar backgrounds might have made very dissimilar decisions here.
To be honest... its no less racist to sit here and make assumptions or inferances about the past history of someone you saw in video footage based solely on the fact that he was black and scuffled with a police officer.
Its also racist to assume that because a police officer is white and the victim was black that the cop did it because of race.
Seemed something happened that caused a cut over the officer's ear. I wonder if the fact that someone cut him had him so pissed? I think everyone can agree that would be the case. How much that rage was enhanced by the fact that it was a black man that did it? We can all agree that nobody will ever know.
AKDejaVu
-
Originally posted by AKDejaVu
That's called an assumption. If you believe there is a problem with police officers not reporting this kind of activity, then you are going to assume that they would not report it.
You're right, that was/is my assumption of what possibly would have happened.
Kind of hard for me not to draw that kind of picture since I was a victim of police brutality once in the early '70s. My only crime was having long hair and riding a hawg ...in Eufala county Oklahoma.
-
Originally posted by Fatty
Prolly another one of them stoners. I usually tip a cop at least $20 when I see them pound a stoner, there's just something too funny about it.
ROTFL!
-
I'd like to make a couple of points here on this subject.
First I haven't seen the whole tape or looked at all the reports. None here has either. Saying that, the actions I saw were not justified and merit punishment. Now the severity of the punishment is likely to be more than the kid would have gotten for the same actions to a civilian.
There is no clear logical LEGAL justification for striking a prisoner who is not STILL ACTIVELY fighting. Caps for those times for those under arrest who don't know you are supposed to stop fighting at that time. Unfortunately quite a few arrestess fall in that category. That is why you are trained to use leg hobbles and restrain ALL appendages of the suspect.
As for what the rest of cops think of this.... Frankly in my jurisdiction we tell the fellow officer that screwed up that he did in fact screw up. Most of us would line up to hold the door open to allow the chief to kick his butt outa the station. The "legal system" will add all the other additional punishment that the conduct deserves, and then some with all the law suits. Remember some places the legal protection stops if you are found in violation "grievously" of you departments policies and in violation of law. That means his home is likely gone as well and any other property he had as a result of the suit.
This type of situation makes it harder for the rest of us to do our job.
Last take on this type of situation. Cops ARE people first and last. All the foibles that the rest of humanity have are present. Some can handle it and do the job and others can't. That's a fact of life. The simple fact is the reason that this is SUCH a sensation is that it isn't the norm. This is not the example of the majority of what happens, no matter what the claims of some "wounded cows" that have posted on the board.
It has been my experiance in a career on the street that most people get along ok. There are groups that don't and cops are convenient targets.
I have been shot at, stabbed, hit, kicked, run into by a car and spit upon. I have been subjected to a tremendous amount of verbal abuse by the same people who called me to the situation in the first place just because they didn't get their way. (like a traffic ticket) Sometimes it's kind of hard to adress someone as "sir" or "maam" after they have used language towards you, threatened your home, wife and family directly as well as tried to hurt you physically. You still have to do it though.
Before you cast this cop in the darkest dungeon in the land walk a bit in our shoes and see what it's like. You might be amased at the difference.
PS on the basis of what little I saw he WAS wrong.
-
Originally posted by NATEDOG
I have a friend that got the toejam kicked out of him by 3 cops, right here in Dallas......... He got kicked out of a club, found a way back in, got kicked out again, both times for drinking underage...... this time the bouncers got the cops involved, my friend talked alot of toejam, they put him in handcuffs, they had trouble getting him in the car, took him down the block, turned into an alley, took him out of the car and kicked the toejam out of him, then took him to the hospital, and dropped him off. no charges, no nothing...... just an bellybutton beating. This happened in 96, I ask him about it today, why he never sued, why nothing happened, and he says, " It was my fault. ya know, it's funny, I never had a problem with a cop that I was polite to. sometimes it's hard to be polite, sometimes you just have to grin and bare it............ you can talk your toejam after they leave."
Great story Natedog. If it came down to an asskickin' or a year in jail I'd take the asskickin' every time. Some folks just need to have their tulips kicked every now and then. :D
-
Originally posted by hblair
Kinda OT, but why does the south, particularly Alabama always get pinned as the mecca for racism? Seems every year or two we get these stories of racial unrest from California
More video cameras.
Really.
-Sikboy
-
you all talk about the suspect being under control when handcuffs... you dont really think somone is not a threat when in cuffs do you?
a good friend of mine is an officer and i know of a few times a cuffed suspect caused major trouble. my bud's partner got kicked in the balls by a cuffed prep while reading his rights to him. my bud got spit on numerous times once by an HIV positive hooker. 1 time a dude even headbutted him and cut open his skin a bit. you think an officer is safe from dangerous people just because they have cuffs on.. think again. as stated earlier in this thread you need to know what the suspect did before what we see in the video.
-
This may have been posted already, I got tired of looking. But did anyone hear that the kid was mildly retarded? I was watching some show today while working out at lunch and heard them discussing this. I dont know if it has been confirmed or not, but oh toejam if he was.
And another note, and again probably answered somehwere in this thread, do we know what the kid was doing? I couldnt agree more with Apache's comments. Police officers are to protect people in custody unless they themselves are in danger. How could you possibly be in danger from a kid in handcuffs when you have about 5 other cops with you?
Outrageous conduct. I hope all of those involved are fired, fined and suffer. I hope the kid and family sue the piss out of the PD and win. I hope you guys realize this goes on everday, all across the nation. Tragic ... but true.
Nim
-
Originally posted by Maverick
I'd like to make a couple of points here on this subject.
First I haven't seen the whole tape or looked at all the reports. None here has either. Saying that, the actions I saw were not justified and merit punishment. Now the severity of the punishment is likely to be more than the kid would have gotten for the same actions to a civilian.
There is no clear logical LEGAL justification for striking a prisoner who is not STILL ACTIVELY fighting. Caps for those times for those under arrest who don't know you are supposed to stop fighting at that time. Unfortunately quite a few arrestess fall in that category. That is why you are trained to use leg hobbles and restrain ALL appendages of the suspect.
As for what the rest of cops think of this.... Frankly in my jurisdiction we tell the fellow officer that screwed up that he did in fact screw up. Most of us would line up to hold the door open to allow the chief to kick his butt outa the station. The "legal system" will add all the other additional punishment that the conduct deserves, and then some with all the law suits. Remember some places the legal protection stops if you are found in violation "grievously" of you departments policies and in violation of law. That means his home is likely gone as well and any other property he had as a result of the suit.
This type of situation makes it harder for the rest of us to do our job.
Last take on this type of situation. Cops ARE people first and last. All the foibles that the rest of humanity have are present. Some can handle it and do the job and others can't. That's a fact of life. The simple fact is the reason that this is SUCH a sensation is that it isn't the norm. This is not the example of the majority of what happens, no matter what the claims of some "wounded cows" that have posted on the board.
It has been my experiance in a career on the street that most people get along ok. There are groups that don't and cops are convenient targets.
I have been shot at, stabbed, hit, kicked, run into by a car and spit upon. I have been subjected to a tremendous amount of verbal abuse by the same people who called me to the situation in the first place just because they didn't get their way. (like a traffic ticket) Sometimes it's kind of hard to adress someone as "sir" or "maam" after they have used language towards you, threatened your home, wife and family directly as well as tried to hurt you physically. You still have to do it though.
Before you cast this cop in the darkest dungeon in the land walk a bit in our shoes and see what it's like. You might be amased at the difference.
PS on the basis of what little I saw he WAS wrong.
Mav
-
Originally posted by aknimitz
I hope the kid and family sue the piss out of the PD and win.
Nim
What is it that you do for a living again Nim? :p
-
Originally posted by aknimitz
. I hope the kid and family sue the piss out of the PD and win. I hope you guys realize this goes on everday, all across the nation. Tragic ... but true.
Nim
Nim, you chosen profession aside (hint to all others....it's called "the oldest profession"...hehe), suing the piss out of someone, even this cop, is way beyond the degree of the offense.
That is what's wrong with the litigious aspect of this country. The sue the crap out of him no matter if the offense doesn't merit that kind of suit.
Tragic....no. Getting killed, maimed, all sorts of other horrible things are tragic. This, while wrong and stupid, does not reach the tragic scale in the slightest.
Cobra
-
I respectfully disagree Cob :) Law suits that result over this type of behavior that result in verdicts in the 7 figures against police departments greatly increases the departments awareness of what is going on within its department. Deterrence, that is what a large verdit would accomplish. Way beyond the degree of the offense? If this had been your son, physically assaulted by POLICE [the people that are supposed to protect us] - perhaps you might view this differently.
And I do believe this is tragic. A tragedy is defined as simply a disastrous event. While death or great bodily injury often is involved in a tragedy, moral and racial underlings can also weigh in. What makes it tragic is the fact that many people even here attempt to denounce it as a justifiable action. That police everday all over the country get away with this is tragic in my eyes. I wonder if the police involved in this have ever had a complaint filed against them before? I wonder if the kid had been white if the same treatment would have resulted?
I am aware that cops have a tough go of it. And I am all for cops protecting themselves, even erring on the side of using too much force in certain situations. However, when you have a young male, handcuffed, surrounded by what 7 cops ... there is absolutely no need for force.
Nim
-
Originally posted by aknimitz
I respectfully disagree Cob :) Law suits that result over this type of behavior that result in verdicts in the 7 figures against police departments greatly increases the departments awareness of what is going on within its department.
Nim
And immediately puts severe strain on that Cities budget, severely hampers the ability to hire more officers, procure good equipment, and ultimately, degrades that depts ability to actually do their job better. Worse off, these BS lawsuites ultimately get paid for by YOU in the form of higher crime and higher taxes. Money is not a cure all. A cop got out of line and smacked a kid... I'm very sorry for the kid but it's hardly worth a 7 figure judgement. It will probably happen... because people are greedy and selfish. Why not just punish the COP in a manner fitting the offense? The public will hold that cop to a MUCH HIGHER STANDARD THAN ANY CRIMINAL.... just watch, the stupidity hasn't even begun yet.
-
Anyone wanna bet that a 16 year old that resists arrest, fights with an officer, will become a model citizen?
you're probibly right. it's likely he'll be in trouble again. it's also likely that he resisted arest because he's met that cop or another like him before and decided not to take the beating without a fight this time.
as I see it amazinhunks like this put their fellow officers in danger, by making people less co-operative and making witnesses not want any involvement with police
-
Tumor:
Good points [some of them]. However, I for one dont mind higher taxes if it means I am going to have cops that arent beating kids. Maybe you [and Cobra] are right. Maybe this cop just had a toejamty day, snapped and did something stupid. To permit a seven figure lawsuit to develop over that does seem a bit excessive.
Cobra:
I've thought it over a bit more and I do think I am inclined to pull off my initial reaction. A lawsuit will result over this, most certainly. Tragedy perhaps is a bit strong, but I, like many others, had flashes of Rodney King when I saw this video. If you will recall, the King assailants were acquitted.
*shrug*
I dunno. I do know that lawsuits can bring a lot of pain to people. But Tumor's point is well taken. But again, I dont mind increased taxes if it means our police departments are stronger and better. And I doubt if a $1,000,000 verdict would actually result in any increase in taxes or higher crime. Oh well ... we'll see what happens.
-
Unfortunately the occupation of being a law enforcer is attractive to some unsavory characters for the wrong reasons (empowerment) . This problem could probably be corrected by employing personality evaluation and selection exams maybe similar to those used in the US Army's Special Forces selection process . HOWEVER, this would exacerbate the current problem we have of understaffed and over worked police forces . What we've seen is I believe a result of balancing the need to fill the ranks and personnel quality .
Criminal behavior perpetrated by police as seen in the video should be prosecuted with emphasized vigor .
-
Originally posted by aknimitz
If you will recall, the King assailants were acquitted.
What's your take on that Nim? Do you believe it justified all the rioting, looting, and murder afterwards?
-
I'll leave the last post but I don't want to imply you would allow those after actions to be justified Nim. Was a stupid question.
-
The young man in the video is nothing more that a ‘puppy’ that needs to be housebroken. Unfortunately our society doesn’t provide an easy way to ‘stick his nose in it’ when he gets caught making a ‘mess’ The Police seem to be trying to provide him with a little Negative Reinforcement when it will do the most good.
-
1. Police have as much right to judge or punish as the citizen in the handcuffs, that is to say none.
2.You're condoning physical violence against a man in bonds because of words he had spoken.
3.If your Idea of negative reinforcement is brutalizing somone into hospitalization then I fear for your children .
-
2.You're condoning physical violence against a man in bonds because of words he had spoken.
What makes you privvy to the reason the cop did what he did? Or are you just jumping to conclusions like so many others in this thread?
-
Btw at this point I'm 36 years old and never once in my life have I ever heard myself or anyone else say, "cool the cops are here"
Capt. Apathy,
I can think of at least one time. I patrol a very remote part of West Texas. I was dispatched to the scene of a "minor" accident.
When I arrived a man was trapped inside of his vehicle and it was on fire. I called for the fire dept but I knew that they were at a minimum of 30 min away. Myself and a few of the people who had stopped to help tried to put out the fire with no luck. I took the sledge hammer and crow bar out of my trunk and we beat the driver's door down. Once I got my head down in the car past the smoke I found that his foot was trapped under the seat. At that point fire was coming into the cab of the vehicle and I was running out of options. I had to take my boot knife out and cut the most of the guys foot off to get him free. We removed him and laid him on the ground. He died five minutes later of internal injuries.
The bottom line is that no one wants us around until they are in the fire, then we can't get there quick enough.
I don't know where you live or if you will ever travel to Texas, but if you do I invite you to come ride with me and see the other side of the coin.
Cody Cory
Trooper
Texas Highway Patrol
-
Sorry nimmitz... but I have to disagree with you and you feelings on a law suit.
Seems to me that you are finding ways to reward people for provoking a cop. can't say I believe in that.
Also seems that there wasn't much physical damage. Do a little research and find out how much money has been awarded to people that only have a bruise to show for something.
Rodney King was not in the same situation. He deserved the settlement and the cops deserved to go to jail.
Its just not that cut and dry for all situations... this one included.
AKDejaVu
-
Originally posted by aknimitz
Tragedy perhaps is a bit strong, but I, like many others, had flashes of Rodney King when I saw this video. If you will recall, the King assailants were acquitted.
What conclusions do you draw from that?
-
Not "jumping" to conclusions, the facts are clear in the video . He was in cuffs, and not resisting . So the officer either assaulted him for something he said, or just assaulted him . If you're implying that he is assaulting the man in response to his resistance prior to being subdued does that make the police officers criminal behavior any more acceptable ? No.
BTW I've seen the video a few times now and I don't see any of the other cops intervening and grabbing the cop's arm .
-
Im a Cop. Different Country, 12 years working the road. Looking at the video ive seen, the Cop looks like he is in the wrong. Tho I dont know what happened before the film started. If the Cop crossed a line then he goes down for it. Harder than many of you would should you have been walking along the street and with a few drinks under your belt, swung a punch, catching him on the jaw. Cross the line and you go under. Tho noone has satisfied me with the entire story yet to say he is wrong.
Your entire system there in the states seems to be bogged down with Civil Litigation which cripples you and makes me have to drink luke warm McDonalds Coffee some 13,000.00. Kms away.
I dont like Lawyers. Ive yet to meet one I found worthwhile and a necessary part of ensuring a better world. I lump them all together and make hissing noises whilst making the sign of the cross with my fingers. Theres good ones and bad ones. Every single one of them will sell you their grandmother for a dollar.
Is that the sort of mental imagery, you all get when you think of Cops? Only takes 1 in our business to screw up for all of us to get it in the neck. Now we know that Lawyers are complete B*stards. Noone disagrees with that. But why is it that the community sinks an entire sphere of employment, such as the Police Force over the idiot mistakes or intentions of a few?
Everyone seemingly loves to hate Cops when they arent in need of them. Cops dont necessarily like many of you either. Most maintain a professional distance on whatever feelings they may have whilst the community can say and do, often whatever they please. A luxury you have.
Ive often thought it would be interesting, if for just 24 hours, one day a year, all cops all over the world stopped working and the Crime hunting season was closed.
Criminals of all sizes could practise their trade at will for 24 hours and those of you who were spitting at Cops the day before can deal with them yourselves.
Only positive sides to that other than people learning the hardway is that I dare say the Criminals would take the time to do a little Lawyer culling.
Might even be worth it in the end :)
-
Originally posted by Apache
Anyone here ever arrested a cop killer?
I have. Didn't bounce him off a car hood either, or smack him around. God, I wanted to, but didn't. The cop was a kid, 22 yoa and a sweetheart of a guy.
If this Inglewood cop worked for me, he'd be flippin' burgers tomorrow.
I hope you're not the exception Apache.
-
Originally posted by Samm
Not "jumping" to conclusions, the facts are clear in the video . He was in cuffs, and not resisting . So the officer either assaulted him for something he said, or just assaulted him . If you're implying that he is assaulting the man in response to his resistance prior to being subdued does that make the police officers criminal behavior any more acceptable ? No.
BTW I've seen the video a few times now and I don't see any of the other cops intervening and grabbing the cop's arm .
What did you see in the Rodney King video? How did that trial end? Apparently what those cops did was not against the law...Personally I'd say that the King video looks a thousand times worse than this one.
Two observations:
1) The media does not always give the full, unbiased, correct picture
2) innocent until proven guilty ...anyone?
-
I think your inattention to the complete thread lead you to believe I was replying to you :)
I was replying to the person who had replied to me .
-
Originally posted by scspook
I dont like Lawyers. Ive yet to meet one I found worthwhile and a necessary part of ensuring a better world. I lump them all together and make hissing noises whilst making the sign of the cross with my fingers. Theres good ones and bad ones. Every single one of them will sell you their grandmother for a dollar.
...Now we know that Lawyers are complete B*stards. Noone disagrees with that.
Im feeling a bit emotional now...
-
Originally posted by Samm
I think your inattention to the complete thread lead you to believe I was replying to you :)
I was replying to the person who had replied to me .
Actually...
I have read the complete thread. I was not aware that I was not allowed to speak to you unless you have spoken to me before though...sorry
I was trying to point out the fact though, that it doesnt really matter what the video shows. There might be more to this story than we know. And we really shouldnt trust the media to bring us the full truth. Media is motivated by self interest more than anyting else.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Actually...
I have read the complete thread. I was not aware that I was not allowed to speak to you unless you have spoken to me before though...sorry
Could you be anymore dramatic ? You thought that I was talking about Rodney King in response to you . Not only do you have trouble admiting such a stupid triviality but you get defensive and sarcastic .
-
Originally posted by Samm
Could you be anymore dramatic ? You thought that I was talking about Rodney King in response to you . Not only do you have trouble admiting such a stupid triviality but you get defensive and sarcastic .
Are you on drugs or something? Why are you of the impression that you somehow know what I'm thinking?
So brainey, what am I thinking now?
-
OK guys I've examed the video and come to the following conclusions.
1) the kid had magnetic plate in his head. The cop involved did not in fact slam him into the car, he merely lost his grip and the kids head was overwhelmingly attracted the the car.
2) the cop did not punch the kid. If you examine the video closely you will in fact see a fly landing on the kids head. Fearing the kids health was at risk from an obviously filthy a germ ridden fly the cop proceeded to exterminate said pest. Senior police officials have praised his actions and ability to solve the problem without having to shoot the fly.
:D
-
Probably thinking of how you can perpetuate the denial of how you missunderstood me to be replying to you about the Rodney King video without looking even stupider .
For those of you joining us in progress I replied to Otto and Hort thought that I was replying to him in reference to the rodney king discourse he was involved in . Now he's denying that he mistakenly thought that I was talking to him .
But don't take my word for it, judge for yourselves .
-
Seriously, why do you think anyone would be even remotely interested in that? You are really weird.
-
Well becuase when I was polite you became insolent instead of just reciprocating in kind with an "oops my bad" . Now you are backtracking "who would be interested in that" in hopes that nobody will notice how you behaved .
-
LOL :D
You are weird and funny.
You should see some of my other posts if you think I behaved bad in this one.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Im feeling a bit emotional now...
Thats gonna cost me $400US an hour now isnt it. :( I figure if I lick the stamp on the envelope myself, that'll save me $50.00 right?
-
Originally posted by scspook
Thats gonna cost me $400US an hour now isnt it. :( I figure if I lick the stamp on the envelope myself, that'll save me $50.00 right?
Nah, dont worry, in Sweden we dont have that kind of lawsuits. The concept of punitative damage is unknown here, and the basic philosophy around here is that anyone liable to pay damages, should do just that..pay for damages, and not some rediculous amount on top of that.
Take the woman who burned herself on a cup of coffe at McD. If she had come to a court in sweden asking for compensation for that, the judge would have said something along the lines of "next time you should be more careful when handling cups of hot coffee".
The highest damage ever awarded in a Swedish court was in a criminal case where some forigner raped a Swedish woman and infected her with hiv at the same time. She got SEK 650 000 in damages for that (roughly USD 65 000).
So you are safe. I would stay well clear of AKNimitz if I were you though.
-
I think some of you should sign up for the jury, maybe the kids family will split the "winnings" with ya :rolleyes:
fire the cop, jail the punk arse - case solved.
What's so hard about that?
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Nah, dont worry, in Sweden we dont have that kind of lawsuits. The concept of punitative damage is unknown here, and the basic philosophy around here is that anyone liable to pay damages, should do just that..pay for damages, and not some rediculous amount on top of that.
Hortlund, how tough are your immigration laws? ;)
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I think you mean the Gettysburg Address......but then you are a Southerner
lol, you're right. We don't keep up much with yankee history. ;).
-
Originally posted by Eagler
I think some of you should sign up for the jury, maybe the kids family will split the "winnings" with ya :rolleyes:
fire the cop, jail the punk arse - case solved.
What's so hard about that?
Eagler's all over it!
-
Interesting threat, to be sure. Brings up a few memories.
Did the cop cross the line? Oh Hell Yeah!
Should there be a 7digit settlement for kid? Oh Hell No!
Do I hate cops? Some of them, damn right!
And don't go spewing any crap about deterrence Nim.
Originally posted by AKDejaVu
Also seems that there wasn't much physical damage. Do a little research and find out how much money has been awarded to people that only have a bruise to show for something.
Not alot, I can attest to that first hand.
Many years ago a friend of mine and I were showing some friends around some caves in north GA. It's night, we're walking out of the woods, and suddenly a real bright flashlight is shining in our faces from pretty close. My bud says "How about gettin the light outta my eyes boy." Next thing a guy says "I ain't yer boy, son", a sherriff's deputy uniform flashes by me, and you hear the resounding crack of a maglite slamming against my bud's hardhat and smashing the light mounted on it. For the next 15minute or so this cop proceeded to beat my friend senseless, and damn near killed him.
Then we hear the cop calling on the radio for backup, officer needs assistance and an ambulance.
Then it was my turn. Told to put my hands on a tree so I do. Get frisked, get cuffed, get slammed in the back of the head and eat dirt. Kick to the ribs, get flipped over, and get his 9mm jammed in my face. The muzzel on those things look big enough to drive a KW through in that situation.
So the cop says "ok, I got some questions for ya Sparky. That's your name, right? Sparky?" Sometimes it's better to just agree with folks, but I didn't this time, and earned 4-5 shots to the ribs for it. Then he asks me about his niece who has apparently run away (for the second time) and I tell'im what I know (which was about the first time she ran off, a week or so before). I get popped a couple more times and he pulls the 9 again, lays it against my forehead, and tells me he's gonna blow my brains out if I don't tell'im what he wants to know. I accept the fact I was about to die at the hand of a love muffin that needs a clue.
The 'calvary' arrives at this moment, in the form of the backup he called for. So my friend is loaded into the ambulance, I'm loaded into one the cars that has just arrived, and the cop puts the 3 folks who saw it all into his car to haul'em to the station.
So, I spend a night in jail (charge: assaulting an officer), get some bruises and bruised ribs, and end up with broken glasses. My friend's lawyer asked me if I'd like him to represent me also, but he didna think I'd get much. I said sure and didna expect much. I get the bills for the doc to tell me my ribs are bruised and not fractured paid, a new pair of glasses, and don't make it to 5 digits. It was so little that the lawyer (and this surprised me!) said he wasn't going to charge me the fee, so I got the whole settlement for my part. My guess is he got more than he expected for my friend.
The cop was suspended w/ pay a day or two after the incident. Less than a week later it's changed to suspended w/o pay. Roughly a month later he was fired (right after the settlement). Last I heard he was working in a chicken plant gutting chickens. But that was over a decade ago.
What started it was about two weeks before this happened the guys niece had runaway, and my friend and I were the unwitting fools who gave her a ride to a friend's place in the next county. When we discovered what she was doing we talked her out of it, she called her grandmother to come get her, and we sat there til her grandmother showed up. The grandmother even thanked us for helping. Then a week later she up and runs off again, so my friend and I are the first ones looked at.
And I've no idea when I bothered to tell this tale, save it's been buggin me since this threat started I guess.
Oh, my friend. Don't know the amount, we never discussed it, but he was verra well off. But I wouldna be surprised if he made it well into 7 digits. Broken ribs, fractured arm, permanent damage to his left eye, over a week in the hospital. They thought he wasn't gonna make it through the first night. And all that agravated some condition he already had.
-
Take the woman who burned herself on a cup of coffe at McD. If she had come to a court in sweden asking for compensation for that, the judge would have said something along the lines of "next time you should be more careful when handling cups of hot coffee".
This is often cited as a cause for more common sense in the legal system. I suggest you look into it further. McD's was not only aware of the "excessively" hot coffee they were serving, they knew it was dangerous and tried to cover it up. While there are many frivilous lawsuits out there, this isn't one of them.
You should see some of my other posts if you think I behaved bad in this one.
Boy Howdy, got that right! :D
What did you see in the Rodney King video? How did that trial end? Apparently what those cops did was not against the law...Personally I'd say that the King video looks a thousand times worse than this one.
Steve, an all white jury aquitted those police officers, which set off almost a week of rioting in LA. This was not justice and even the Federal Government agreed. Those same officers were later tried in a federal court and found guilty of denying King his civil rights. They all did time.
-
Don't break the frickin law and you don't have to worry about it. Seems simple to me.
-
Concho,
I definitely get your statement, and appreciate the offer. And as I’ve stated before I doubt that all or even most cops behave in the negative ways
The point I was trying to make with my original statement was that while I have to believe that the cops who-
1. Use their badge as an excuse to cover bad behavior
2. Lack the basic self control expected from the rest of us
3. Think that the badge and gun alone should guarantee them respect without any demands on their own conduct to earn it.
4. Lie to get convictions, or any of the other bad behavior seen out there
Are in the minority (God I sure hope so, anyway), they sure make their presence known.
Basically I'm hoping that the reason I see more of them is that if I'm not causing any trouble and I don't call for help, the good cop doesn't have any real reason to stop and have contact with me, he just drives by.
While the love muffin type might just be bored, or whatever his motivation is, but he doesn't need a reason for contact.
And when I call them the ones who show are just the ‘luck of the draw’ I could get either one.
And while I'm sure if I was ever in real need of them showing up, I'd be glad if they did. Up to now it hasn't came up. So far as I've seen when they are called in this area it can be a long wait, and when they do show they always seem to have some reason not to do anything. We rarely even call around here anymore. You’ll find people much more likely to run and get a neighbor before they'd think to call the cops; he'll be here sooner and be much more effective.
When my neighbor's burglar alarm went off I waited over 45 minutes for the cops to show, when they did it was one woman cop, who asked if it was a false alarm. When I told her they where at work and the kids at school so I doubted it was a false alarm, she got very nervous and said she couldn't go in and check out the house (back door was standing wide open with the storm door glass busted) because she didn't have back-up. We finally reached a compromise where she let me check out his house while carrying a baseball bat while she waited outside, after I made her promise many times she wouldn't shoot me (I still had my doubts, that girl was shaking like a leaf, I can't believe anyone thought it was a good idea to give her a gun).
Anyway that was over 10 years ago, we don’t bother even calling much anymore, unless you just need a police report for insurance purposes.
So basically if I seem cynical maybe I am, most of the police contact I've had has been negative and in the few times I have needed them they are either absent or ineffective.
Btw, on that 45+ minute wait. We live less than 15 minutes from the county and 20 minutes from the city precincts (if traffic is heavy), in town and 1 minute off the freeway, so it's not like they had a long drive.
It’s amazing how fast the can make the long drive to the rich areas but it takes forever to get to these city areas.
Anyway there have been a lot of changes in our local police since then, the number of people shot by our cops has gone down, and things are getting better. We even had a mayoral (sp?) order banning cops from all donut shops if they are in uniform. I know it’s a tired old cliché but not to may years ago it wasn’t uncommon to see 3 patrol cars parked at the ‘dunkin donuts’ just ½ mile from the 45-minute response times. And about 1 in 3 of the donut shops have gone out of business since this order was inacted.
But just when I think things are getting better my son comes home and he’s dealing with the same crap I dealt with 20 years ago.
-
Originally posted by dBeav
Don't break the frickin law and you don't have to worry about it. Seems simple to me.
You don't seem to get it. With rogue cops, you don't have to break the law to get yer bellybutton whooped. Just take a gander at cavey's post.
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
More video cameras.
Really.
-Sikboy
Everybody I know owns at least one video camera. :)
You ever lived down south? I sense you have a lynching story to tell. ;)
-
Originally posted by Eagler
Anyone wanna bet that a 16 year old that resists arrest, fights with an officer, will become a model citizen?
Or would you bet as I do, this won't be his last run in with the law?
As far as that goes, what is his criminal record to date, anyone know?
The tape tells half the story, all the media & lawyers want to hear
He has no criminal record.
Got any other stupid redneck theories I can wager against?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Steve, an all white jury aquitted those police officers, which set off almost a week of rioting in LA. This was not justice and even the Federal Government agreed. Those same officers were later tried in a federal court and found guilty of denying King his civil rights. They all did time.
Wasn't just LA, I lived in Las Vegas at the time, was rioting there as well including the burning of the Social Security Administration building. Was a scary time, hoping we don't face something like that again over this.
Target, your statement about them all being convicted and doing time didn't quite ring true, found this:
April 17 -- the day of the verdict. Koon and Powell were found guilty; Briseno and Wind were acquitted.
-
Originally posted by Montezuma
He has no criminal record.
Got any other stupid redneck theories I can wager against?
He does now :)
-
BTW,
to Apache, Mav, Concho and all others in this difficult profession.
Like I said before PD's differ.
One of my daughters was a very wild teen. She ran away from home once (with a punk whom I had the pleasure of frightening later, but that is another story). My local PD was no help at all. They suggested I look around. Took a report over the phone, never once sent out an officer.
When I (through personal detective work) found out she was in Boulder Co. I called the PD there. I was treated like a king. The dispatcher actually called me back 3 or 4 times to update me on the situation. When I got a phone call from her (I have caller ID) I called the dispatcher back, and gave them the phone number. He sent out an officer immediately, and caught them still on the phone.
My daughter is fine now 4 years later. Thanks to the Boulder PD. About 6 months later I actually got a call from my local PD. They were wondering if my daughter was still missing. Sheeesh:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Montezuma
He has no criminal record.
Got any other stupid redneck theories I can wager against?
and dumb arse, this was the bet:
Anyone wanna bet that a 16 year old that resists arrest, fights with an officer, will become a model citizen?
redneck, that's funny ... CA homo :)
-
Originally posted by Apache
You don't seem to get it. With rogue cops, you don't have to break the law to get yer bellybutton whooped. Just take a gander at cavey's post.
Oh I get it.
Where's the outrage over a group of punks without a badge that beat people for no reason? No one to sue there so it doesn't matter?
Ya there are cops that are bad. There just people, some are bad some are good. If society as a whole wasn't so fubared to start with we wouldn't need as many cops allowing better screening and training. But since we need a cop on every corner we're gonna have to fill those spots with whoever we can get to do the job. Catch one going too far get rid of him, sure, but don't squeak about the system as a whole. If you go to a doctor that's a hack do you call all doctors hacks? If you find a shady lawyer do you call all lawyers.....ok, that wasn't a good one, but you get my point.
And then there's the whole riot thing, "Oh my, someone I don't know has had an injustice committed to them. I think I will burn my neighbors house and all the businesses in my city because I'm upset." If your that stupid then go ahead. I ain't payin to fix it back up though.
Sorry for all the ranting. (a little)
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
One of my daughters was a very wild teen.
I'm sure that had NOTHING to do with a liberal upbringing...
-
Originally posted by -Concho-
Capt. Apathy,
I can think of at least one time. I patrol a very remote part of West Texas. I was dispatched to the scene of a "minor" accident.
When I arrived a man was trapped inside of his vehicle and it was on fire. I called for the fire dept but I knew that they were at a minimum of 30 min away. Myself and a few of the people who had stopped to help tried to put out the fire with no luck. I took the sledge hammer and crow bar out of my trunk and we beat the driver's door down. Once I got my head down in the car past the smoke I found that his foot was trapped under the seat. At that point fire was coming into the cab of the vehicle and I was running out of options. I had to take my boot knife out and cut the most of the guys foot off to get him free. We removed him and laid him on the ground. He died five minutes later of internal injuries.
The bottom line is that no one wants us around until they are in the fire, then we can't get there quick enough.
I don't know where you live or if you will ever travel to Texas, but if you do I invite you to come ride with me and see the other side of the coin.
Cody Cory
Trooper
Texas Highway Patrol
Concho,
I have to chime in again and say that as a Texan I love the D.P.S. :D and you guys even gave me a ticket once! er... twice! :D I have never met a more professional group of peace officers in my life! Any encounter I have ever had with the DPS has been this way. This is why I got 2 tickets, you guys will NOT be talked out of it ;)
First ticket was for expired tags on Christmas day!!!!! but it was my fault so I deserved it. 2nd was actually kind of fun. I was driving a camero from Houston to Killeen for my roommate. I was between Milano and Caldwell doing about 15-20 mph over the posted limit. I get to the crest of this hill at the exact moment a DPS camero hit the crest coming the other direction. I saw him flip it around and I was on the side of the road before he got his lights on, knew I was busted :)
He ran the plates to verify my story of ownership and we sat there for about 20 minutes talking about camero's! (I think his was faster than mine hehe) Then some guy in another camero sees us and pulls over to talk. The DPS guy didn't like this too much because the conversation ended a couple of minutes after the 3rd camero showed up. He was a very professional and nice guy and I really didn't mind the ticket because of that, afterall I was speeding and I knew it.
If I was ever to be a cop DPS is where I'd go, though I'm sure you guys woulnd't take a dude like me hehe. Thanks for your service to the state and sorry you have to see/do bad stuff to protect and serve us Texans....
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
I'm sure that had NOTHING to do with a liberal upbringing...
Actually yes. There was some of that.
But the main reason was that her mother is a royal biatch who felt drugs and drinking was more important than children. You see I went straight (gave up all drugs) almost 12 years ago (September), and divorced the egg donor because she wouldn't. I also won custody of my children, and raised them without a mother for many years. My daughter had difficulty dealing with the fact that her Mom was more interested in parties than her. No matter what I did as a father, and I was involved, That void was hard to fill. This is why you will never see me advocating legalization.
My daughter is a very beautiful young woman now, living on her own and doing well. Last year she came up to me out of the blue, hugged me and said thank you for everything and apologized for putting me through the grinder 4 years ago. That one moment made all of the sacrifice and heartache worth while.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Actually yes. There was some of that.
But the main reason was that her mother is a royal biatch who felt drugs and drinking was more important than children. You see I went straight (gave up all drugs) almost 12 years ago (September), and divorced the egg donor because she wouldn't. I also won custody of my children, and raised them without a mother for many years. My daughter had difficulty dealing with the fact that her Mom was more interested in parties than her. No matter what I did as a father, and I was involved, That void was hard to fill. This is why you will never see me advocating legalization.
My daughter is a very beautiful young woman now, living on her own and doing well. Last year she came up to me out of the blue, hugged me and said thank you for everything and apologized for putting me through the grinder 4 years ago. That one moment made all of the sacrifice and heartache worth while.
Heh, there was a "G" there, for Grin....actually I don't personally believe that political background has anything to do with upbringing, moral values do though (not necessarily "religious" moral values) and discipline. I had a "Democrat" father and a "Republican" mother. Both now are Repubs (as my father, and father-in-law both say, "I didn't leave the democratic party, they left me!")
Incidently, my mother too was an alcoholic and they divorced during my "Teens"...I went from a straight A honor role student to a partier within a year in my 11th grade. Mostly because I was in denial of feeling ill effects from a violent, nasty divorce. I have the scars (homemade tattoos) to prove it, however I overcame the emotional aspect of it as soon as I left home at age 18.
-
Ya can't always blame upbringing for the choices a person makes. Some have lousy childhoods and turn out fine, others vice versa.
One of my daughters (have 2 daughters and 2 sons) was pretty wild as a teen but has since settled down, become happily married and has three sons she dotes on. A parent can only love, teach by example and hope for the best.
-
I see nothing wrong with what the police did to that criminal. In fact I thougt they exercised a great deal of restraint in an obviously dangerous situation. The fella looked like a mean sonfasqueak....... :rolleyes:
Seriously I don't understand why the Policemen went so out of control, being unproffesional and slamming the kid so hard and especially punching him in the face. I thought this was wrong and uneccesary. However I'm getting pissed that this now becoming another race incident, did the leftist race conflict types not notice the thoroughly multicultural nature of the cops involved?
On the other hand, actually this is the best thing that has ever probably happend to the kid so far in his life- well it will be- financially at least with the upcoming law$uit.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
This is often cited as a cause for more common sense in the legal system. I suggest you look into it further. McD's was not only aware of the "excessively" hot coffee they were serving, they knew it was dangerous and tried to cover it up. While there are many frivilous lawsuits out there, this isn't one of them.
[/b]
Apparently this would justify a million dollar lawsuit? They knew they were serving "dangerous coffee"...because it was too HOT? When I get a cup of coffee, the first thing I do is not pour it all over me, I set it on the table and let it cool down.
Anyway...what happens after the lawsuit midnight? Another classical US warning sign in the class of "caution. HOT, do not pour in knee or over small children", another rant "McD is not responsible for any damages caused by this cup of coffee"? Is that normal to you midnight? I find it f**king retarded.
Stuff like the lawsuits you have in the US wreaks havoc on your economy, and you dont even seem to realize/care. Do you remember a company called Texaco? You dont see that company around much nowadays, do you? Try to find out what happened to that company. (Hint: multi-billion dollar lawsuit over a pissant deal)
I understand that most americans hate lawyers, it is not wonder since 97% of US lawyers behaves like a combination of leeches and rats.
Tell you what, there are two simple things you should do that would get rid of 90% of all your twisted lawsuits.
1) Prohibit lawyers from taking out their pay in form of a percentage of an eventual "win".
2) Make the losing part in a private/civil lawsuit pay the lawyer costs for the winning side.
We have 1 and 2 in Sweden, and guess what, we dont have moronic lawsuits ala "oh, I broke a nail on the dashboard, sue Ford" or "oh I spilled coffee over me, sue McD" (Sue yourself you clumsy squeak).
Steve, an all white jury aquitted those police officers, which set off almost a week of rioting in LA. This was not justice and even the Federal Government agreed. Those same officers were later tried in a federal court and found guilty of denying King his civil rights. They all did time.
[/b]
And an all black jury freed OJ Simpson...but there cant possibly be anything f*cked up with the jury system now can it?
Anyway, you have to make up your mind, either you are innocent until proven guilty, or you are not. What way do you want it? Guilt by media coverage, or guilt (or non-guilt) by verdict in court? Besides, the jury that freed the King-policemen were not all white.
And exactly how f*cked up is it that a federal court finds the policemen guilty of violating his civil rights? In Sweden we dont allow people being tried twice for the same crime (albeit using a different law/rule).
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Ya can't always blame upbringing for the choices a person makes. Some have lousy childhoods and turn out fine, others vice versa.
I find that statement "Ironic" (Excuse the pun :) ) A "Lousy childhood" would be because the parent(s) gave them one, no?
-
First to admit I can be a bit dense sometimes Ripsnort but I don't see the irony. I meant that people make good and bad choices independent of whether they had good or bad parents.
-
Besides, the jury that freed the King-policemen were not all white.
You are correct. There were however, no Blacks on the jury either.
The point you were making however had to do with the video not being significant enough evidence for conviction. I am saying that if the King trial were not held in a white upper middle class community the verdict would probably have been different.
Please look up the McDonald's case... you may be surprised.
"Liebeck, who also underwent debridement
treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds
refused."
The whole story. (http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm)
-
The real problem is that now we're all stuck drinking warm McDonalds coffee. ;)
-
Originally posted by AKIron
The real problem is that now we're all stuck drinking warm McDonalds coffee. ;)
...while SHE is drinking starbucks living high on the hog....Lawsuits in America is by product of the "ME ME ME, I'm the center of the universe" generation aka Liberal left.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Besides, the jury that freed the King-policemen were not all white.
You are correct. There were however, no Blacks on the jury either.
The point you were making however had to do with the video not being significant enough evidence for conviction. I am saying that if the King trial were not held in a white upper middle class community the verdict would probably have been different.
Please look up the McDonald's case... you may be surprised.
"Liebeck, who also underwent debridement
treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds
refused."
The whole story. (http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm)
What..no comment on the rest?
-
Originally posted by dBeav
Oh I get it.
Where's the outrage over a group of punks without a badge that beat people for no reason? No one to sue there so it doesn't matter?
Ya there are cops that are bad. There just people, some are bad some are good. If society as a whole wasn't so fubared to start with we wouldn't need as many cops allowing better screening and training. But since we need a cop on every corner we're gonna have to fill those spots with whoever we can get to do the job. Catch one going too far get rid of him, sure, but don't squeak about the system as a whole. If you go to a doctor that's a hack do you call all doctors hacks? If you find a shady lawyer do you call all lawyers.....ok, that wasn't a good one, but you get my point.
And then there's the whole riot thing, "Oh my, someone I don't know has had an injustice committed to them. I think I will burn my neighbors house and all the businesses in my city because I'm upset." If your that stupid then go ahead. I ain't payin to fix it back up though.
Sorry for all the ranting. (a little)
A group of punks without badges are expected to act with professionalism and courage. A cop with a badge is.
I'm not squeaking about the whole system. Hell, I'm part of the system.
As to riots, I agree with you. I think it may help that the mayor of Inglewood, a black man himself, say's this is not a product of racism but is a rogue cop that needs to go. I believe he is asking for criminal charges.
-
hblair,
Interesting thread. I saw your reference to North and South, and it reminded me of something my friend once told me. He's from Cleveland, OH and black, but he has close family relations in the South and has visited them often. One day I asked him if it sometimes seemed that the South was ironically somehow less stressful wrt race. He thought about and said that in many ways it was more relaxed in the South than up North. We talked about it some more, coming to the conclusion that in the South things are much more up front mostly due to the legacy of slavery - almost like two people who had come to blows and after the fight find a new respect. In contrast, the North is much more in denial of their racism, claiming other more 'justifiable' reasons for their discrimination.
-
Lawsuits are not necessarily bad, just like mosquitos aren stinging insects. :p
Seriously they do lead to changes, some good and some bad. The only REAL thing McDonalds did wrong in the "coffee" suit was to not provide the dumby that burned herself a booklet of rules that educated her on the dangers of placing a cup of coffee between her legs while driving a car. She needed to be told the dangers as she was obviously too stupid to know it on her own. If you mishandle something it is NOT the fualt ot the company of the product you couldn't handle on your own. :rolleyes: (PS my take on that one)
rodney king. The video that was played on the news over and over again was (gasp) not the complete version. It was (gasp) edited and only an excerpt was played by the "unbiased" media. Another thing about that situation was that the jury got more information than was broadcast by the media. As to the jury composition, I believe it is supposed to be a jury of peers of the ACCUSED, not the plaintiff. I don't condone what happened, There were and are better techniques to have been used. I certainly don't condone king's elevation to "victim" and his new wealth either. He had a significant part in that debacle. His activities since are certainly proof of his character.
-
Anyway...what happens after the lawsuit midnight? Another classical US warning sign in the class of "caution. HOT, do not pour in knee or over small children", another rant "McD is not responsible for any damages caused by this cup of coffee"? Is that normal to you midnight? I find it f**king retarded.
Stuff like the lawsuits you have in the US wreaks havoc on your economy, and you dont even seem to realize/care. Do you remember a company called Texaco? You dont see that company around much nowadays, do you? Try to find out what happened to that company. (Hint: multi-billion dollar lawsuit over a pissant deal)
The whole lawsuit issue is a joke in the USA, and people with common sense know it. Unfortunately, fewer and fewer Americans use basic common sense these days. All they care about is $$$ for themselves.
It's a shame, and will be the downfall of our country.
-
Let's not forget that videos have also saved some Officers' careers.
There's been cases where folks have accused police officers of sexually harrassing them and assualting them and gone as far as try to press charges and initiate lawsuits, only to be presented with evidence from the Police cruiser's video showing the entire stop and their claims to be scams.
Cobra
-
What is incredible is that I provide a link to an explanation of the McD lawsuit, and everyone would rather use the Urban legend instead of the facts to make a point. So then here is an exerpt:
Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, New Mexico, was in the passenger seat of
her grandson's car when she was severely burned by McDonalds' coffee in
February 1992. Liebeck, 79 at the time, ordered coffee that was served
in a styrofoam cup at the drivethrough window of a local McDonalds.
After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and
stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her
coffee. (Critics of civil justice, who have pounced on this case, often
charge that Liebeck was driving the car or that the vehicle was in
motion when she spilled the coffee; neither is true.) Liebeck placed
the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from
the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled
into her lap.
The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next
to her skin. A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full
thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body,
including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin
areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she
underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement
treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds
refused.
During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700
claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims
involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This
history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of
this hazard.
McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants
advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to
maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the
safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell
coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is
generally 135 to 140 degrees.
Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company
actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185
degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn
hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above,
and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured
into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn
the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns
would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing
the "holding temperature" of its coffee.
-
stupid people make the world go round, so do greedy ones & their lawyers
the rest of us just have to pay for them & stay out of their way
-
I've bought plenty of "crack lighters" from various places... you know the ones, the flames like 5 inches high.
Sure wish I was dumb enough that I set my head on fire so I could sue both the company that sold me the lighter, and the company that made the lighter.
3rd degree burns.... I guess that lady didn't have the clue bulb over her head to pull her sweats away from her skin.
Just because a tard wins a lawsuit don't mean it's right.
-SW
-
wow.
I guess Micky D isn't responsible even though they had over 700 injuries reported. Or because they were aware of the danger, yet did nothing about it. And did you all read that the car was stopped, and that she wasn't the driver? And did you all read that the temp of the water was hot enough to cause instantaneous burns?
nevermind..... sheesh :rolleyes:
Hortlund, the "double jeopardy" in the King case is a catchall implemented by the Federal govt. as a way to keep the States that were regularly usurping the rights of its citizens in check. This was much more common back in the bad old days of "seperate but equal". Many people were exonerated of crimes against blacks right up to the 60's without repercussion because of the "good old boy" network in the South (sorry Hb) and other parts of the Country. The Federal law allows this "civil rights" trial to keep the States honest. Obviously George Bush Sr. felt that California had not done its job properly.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Hortlund, the "double jeopardy" in the King case is a catchall implemented by the Federal govt. as a way to keep the States that were regularly usurping the rights of its citizens in check. This was much more common back in the bad old days of "seperate but equal". Many people were exonerated of crimes against blacks right up to the 60's without repercussion because of the "good old boy" network in the South (sorry Hb) and other parts of the Country. The Federal law allows this "civil rights" trial to keep the States honest. Obviously George Bush Sr. felt that California had not done its job properly.
Double jeopardy is always wrong, no matter how you try to motivate it.
-
The second trial in the King case was the 'Political' trial. If the 'people' don't get the 'correct' verdict then the Government steps in to make sure they understand the 'errors' of their thinking.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Double jeopardy is always wrong, no matter how you try to motivate it.
So, I guess we should have just let the guilty go free because they were friends of the State prosecutors? (not the King case, but the historical reason for the statute)
C'mon Steve, like you are always saying, It ain't as simple as you think it is.
-
Around here we have a word for 73 year old gramma's that can't take a third degree burn to the ass, theighs and crotch...and the word is popsicle.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
So, I guess we should have just let the guilty go free because they were friends of the State prosecutors? (not the King case, but the historical reason for the statute)
C'mon Steve, like you are always saying, It ain't as simple as you think it is.
Well personaly I think that yes we should let them go. I was always taught that it's better to let 10 guilty men go free than to convict one inocent man. I grew up thinking this was the way our system worked.
I'm going to catch flames for this next comment. BUT :D I was probobly the only person in the USA besides OJ that though he should have been left alone after he was aquitted in criminal court. :eek: To me the civil suit was a perfect example of double jepardy. Same to me with giving jail sentence and a monitary fine for the same crime. Should just be one punishment.
But like everything else in the constitution this too has been turned upside down and re-aranged so that it's nothing like it's supposed to be :(
-
McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees.
That dammed coffee was too hot for me to drink at the time without asking them to add ice every time I ordered it. A few small spill-overs convinced me to either get the ice or wait 15 minutes to drink it, especially when driving. And a product that can fairly easily generate 3rd degree burns on your genitalia over something as common as a spill is a dangerous product. This could easily have happend to you or I by having to slam on the brakes at the wrong time. She wasn't one of these people who have to be told: "don't use the hair dryer in the shower."
There are a lot of BS lawsuits out today (and more than a few ambulance chasers -- you see them on TV commercials and hear them on the radio trying to drum up business), but there are a lot of companies that actively equate the cost of a safety improvement or quality control with the liability costs of not correcting the problem. Some reform is clearly needed, but for a great many companies a potential injury to you or I is part of the cost of doing business. I prefer them to have a rather careful consideration of that cost when they are making those decisions. Hey, it may be your son or daughter getting those skin grafts next time because they were too stoopid to know that a product sold over the counter at a drive through could seriously injure them when being used within acceptable parameters.
As noted above, the concerns of the flavor consultant, who wanted to move more product, were the primary driver behaind overly scalding coffee, but then that is not how you spin it if you're in corporate communications. What you do is spin a carefully developed position of outrage at the injustice, push the right buttons in the target audience and count on few people actually researching the full story beyond a headline or soundbite. Pull another one over on the rubes. That's why I got out of public relations and moved into the high paying field of trade journalism :)
Charon
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
So, I guess we should have just let the guilty go free because they were friends of the State prosecutors? (not the King case, but the historical reason for the statute)
C'mon Steve, like you are always saying, It ain't as simple as you think it is.
I really expected more from you.
Midnight Target, take a long good look in the mirror. You should feel ashamed over what you just wrote.
How on earth can you say "let the guilty go free" when they had just been declared innocent by a jury of their peers?
It is completely irrelevant how that jury reached its decision. But if you want a jury system you will have to accept the consequences of it too.
-
stupid people make the world go round, so do greedy ones & their lawyers
Eagler
Of course, you're talking about corportations I assume :)
Charon
-
And double jeopardy will ALWAYS be wrong. In sweden what happened to OJ or those cops is unthinkable. (note that OJ would have been found guilty in a 2-3 day trial though, instead of the year and a half soap opera you guys got)
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
I really expected more from you.
Midnight Target, take a long good look in the mirror. You should feel ashamed over what you just wrote.
How on earth can you say "let the guilty go free" when they had just been declared innocent by a jury of their peers?
It is completely irrelevant how that jury reached its decision. But if you want a jury system you will have to accept the consequences of it too.
Steve, I really am sorry to see the degeneration of your responses. Even your condescension level is slipping. What I wrote was in full knowledge of the history of the civil rights movement and the reasoning behind the federal civil rights prosecution. I suggest you read up.
Many were set free during this time by a jury of their white peers because black men and women were denied jury duty because they were also being denied voter registration. This was wrong and murderers were walking the streets because of this state of affairs.
Bush Sr. obviously felt that a similar injustice was done in California in 1992.
-
Udie thank you for the knida words. (BTW I have run one of those cameros up to 155mph, the old caprice is a close second :) )
Capt. A I'm sorry that you have to deal with that kind of police force. Around here we fight over who gets to sound the charge :)
Sounds like ya'll need some reform.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Steve, I really am sorry to see the degeneration of your responses. Even your condescension level is slipping. What I wrote was in full knowledge of the history of the civil rights movement and the reasoning behind the federal civil rights prosecution. I suggest you read up.
Many were set free during this time by a jury of their white peers because black men and women were denied jury duty because they were also being denied voter registration. This was wrong and murderers were walking the streets because of this state of affairs.
Bush Sr. obviously felt that a similar injustice was done in California in 1992.
The degeneration of my responses? Actually I have no idea what you are talking about.
Let me just say this. It is always bad to have politicians stick their fingers into the legal machinery.
It seems to me that the only reason you are defending this instance of someone being tried for the same crime twice is because you are of the opinion that they were guilty to a crime. When they were found not guilty by a jury, you feel that the verdict was wrong, and you want them to somehow still get their (in your opinion) just punishment.
What you have described above only points to the weakness of a jury system. Bottom line is, if you want to have the average Joe sit and decide whether some guy is guilty or not, average Joe will bring his emotions and values with him into the courtroom. That might lead to some people being found innocent when they really are guilty and it might lead to some people being convicted even though they are innocent. What exactly is the meaning of the phrase "a jury of their peers" to you? It sounds to me that that is exactly what they got, and guess what, those jurors did not think the suspects should be punished for what they did. Case closed. As I said, it comes with the territory when you want to have a jury system.
Double jeopardy is always always wrong, regardless of what motives you have behind it. It doesnt matter that some guilty ones are left unpunished, that comes with the territory when you have the legal standard we do in the western world. And we really dont want it any other way. It doesnt matter that the civil rights movement "needed it". It is still plain wrong, and I cannot understand that you of all people are defending it.
-
Nevermind, not worth arguing about.
I'll just say this much- you put something you know is going to be hot between your legs instead of on the dashboard or in a cup holder so you can remove the lid... and you know what could possibly happen.
-SW
-
Double jeopardy is always always wrong
I feel like I'm beating my head against a Swedish wall. But then I'm part Swedish too so I guess stubbornness is a genetic trait.
The jury system is fine, but the jury selection system was flawed. Not everyone was given equal access to the protection of the law. You can rant all you want about double jeopardy. The people I'm talking about used the power of racism and jim crow laws to get away with murder. That is always wrong too.
One other point. These guys were never tried for the same crime. They were tried for civil rights violations. The policemen in the King trial were not charged with the same crime twice.
-
I'll just say this much- you put something you know is going to be hot between your legs instead of on the dashboard or in a cup holder so you can remove the lid... and you know what could possibly happen.
Assuming you have a cupholder or dash that will support a cup. I don't in my car, maybe she didn't in the one she was driving in. And if she had knocked her arm accidently and spilled the coffee the result would have been the same. Third degree burns and skin grafts are serious. The last time I saw them i was pulling a drunk from a bonfire made out of burining pallets. That was his fault -- a real darwin candidate. If it was your noodle getting the skin graft because you accidently dropped the cup in your lap when pulling out, then you would probably think the coffee was a bit too hot as well. Frankly, Mc Donalds (or Firestone, or Ford/Pinto) could give a toejam unless you make them pay attention. You are a number, and not a very important one at that except wher sales are concerned.
[edit: in fact, the rejection of her reasonable $20,000 in medical compensation shows just how insignificant you are to a mc donalds]
Charon
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I feel like I'm beating my head against a Swedish wall. But then I'm part Swedish too so I guess stubbornness is a genetic trait.
The jury system is fine, but the jury selection system was flawed. Not everyone was given equal access to the protection of the law. You can rant all you want about double jeopardy. The people I'm talking about used the power of racism and jim crow laws to get away with murder. That is always wrong too.
One other point. These guys were never tried for the same crime. They were tried for civil rights violations. The policemen in the King trial were not charged with the same crime twice.
Double jeopardy is not about the same crime, it is about the same "situation". I dont know how to translate this. But it is the action itself that cannot be tried twice. Otherwise, the prosecutor could just switch to another crime and have a go at it again. "Oh, well, the jury found him not guilty of murder, lets see if I can at least get a conviction for assault". That means in the King case, that after the jury found the police officers not guilty, no other trial can be held against those officers where the assault of King is used as evidence.
As I said, its kinda hard to translate this stuff, and it would be much easier if you learned Swedish or something :)
The Jury system sucks. OJ proved that. The jury system brings aspects into the legal system that has no place there. Stuff like opinions, emotions, predjudices, old scores, hate, love etc etc. As I said, if you want to have a jury system, you will have to deal with its rotten consequences too. King and OJ is a very good example of that. You cant blame what happened on the OJ or King trial on jury selection.
Take a look at the OJ trial. Im not gonna go into great detail here, but among countless of other evidence, OJs blood was found on the scene, and the victims blood was found on his socks. Thats it right there, case closed he was at the scene at the time of the crime. As I said in Sweden the OJ trial would have taken 2-3 days MAX, probably just 1.
Enter slick US type lawyer. "Maybe the cops planted OJ:s blood on the scene. Mark Fuhrman is a cop, he was also at the scene, maybe he planted OJs blood there"
Stupid juror #1 "yeah, we cant trust cops, and look at that Mark Fuhrman, he is a racist, he MUST have planted OJ:s blood on the scene"
Slick US type lawyer "And besides, how do you know it was OJs blood"
Expert witness "Uh..well, we have OJs DNA in the blood"
Slick US type lawyer "but isnt it POSSIBLE that two people might have the same DNA"
Expert witness "Uh..no, not really the odds are astronomical, like 240 million to 1, we have never encountered it, but I suppose it is theortetically possible"
Slick US type lawyer "AHA, so it is possible that it wasnt even OJs blood at the scene, and remember Mark Fuhrman"
Stupid juror #2 "wow, it is so obvious this is a white conspiracy against OJ, they dont even have his blood on the scene"
Is this the type of people you really want deciding over life and death?
-
Nice arguement Steve, except you continue to ignore the reason behind our implementation of Federal civil rights protection.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Nice arguement Steve, except you continue to ignore the reason behind our implementation of Federal civil rights protection.
Yes I am ignoring that reason. Because whatever it is, it doesnt motivate double jeopardy.
A legal system is built on rules. Objective rules. Cold, emotionless, objective rules. Do A and B will happen. There is a very good reason for this. Because as soon as you open the door up to subjectivity, the idea of a fair and impartial trial goes out the window. As soon as you allow emotions, or politics in the courtroom, the idea of a fair trial is out.
-
OK, then I'll try to use someone else's words, even someone who agrees with you on this one:
[How is it that, after generally being acquitted at trial on state criminal charges, the police officers responsible for beating Rodney King were able to be prosecuted again under federal law? In the United States, the courts have applied a "dual sovereignty doctrine" that generally allows a state to prosecute a person under state law after the person has been prosecuted under federal law, or allows the federal government to prosecute a person under federal law after the person has been prosecuted under state law, even though the state or federal violation arises out of the same act and even though the state and federal offences are substantially the same.<187> However, the dual sovereignty doctrine has been limited somewhat by federal policy and by various state statutes.<188>
In the context of federal civil rights prosecutions, this means that there is no constitutional double jeopardy bar to launching a federal criminal prosecution in the event that, at an earlier state trial, an accused was acquitted of the crime charged. There has been criticism of this approach. For example, the American Civil Liberties Union recently voted to oppose as unconstitutional the federal civil rights trial of the officers who beat Rodney King, saying it violates the officers' right not to be tried twice for the same offence.<189>
With the ACLU on your side, you can never go wrong. :)
-
These two cops should and will lose their jobs...Hopefully their pensions too.
-
Originally posted by Cobra
Let's not forget that videos have also saved some Officers' careers.
Cobra
There are many Police Forces in the world who struggle to seek those video camera in the cars some of those in the US carry for that exact reason Cobra. In Australia we are still fighting for video mounts in the Patrol Cars. I believe one state is still conducting a trial. They have had both positive and negative results from them.
My Police Force now carrys video cameras as part of Domestic Violence kits in the boot (trunk for you Yanks) of our cars. Unfortunately they are only good if you have time to get them out and use them. Rarely the case when things go to hell in a hand basket but good for collecting evidence after an incident.
My video story
A Couple of years ago, my partner and I attended a house for a routine Noise Complaint. A loud stereo keeping the neighbours awake. A simple job that normally takes about 2 minutes with a Police request to turn it down more often than not complied with the first time around.
It was about 2am in the morning. The street was dark and the porch unlit. When we arrived in the street, there were drunken youths everywhere and they littered not only the party house but the front lawns of everyone else nearby.
The usual pigsnorts and rhetorical comments followed us getting out of the car walking up to the front door. You ignore it until you get a decent excuse to arrest, depending on your mood at the time. All we wanted to do at the time was get the job done, clean out the drunks and get back in the car.
Knocking at the door, we were met by a 16 year old female who promptly slammed the door back in our face. Knock knock knock again (a little louder this time) Door opens, 3 large males fill the empty doorspace. I look behind us and the steps leading up the porch we were on, had now been filled by a number of drunken teens with more coming across the yard.
We're standing on a cement porch with an iron railing to the front door. Only one way on or off without stepping into the house or jumping the rail. My partner also recognises the danger and asks for the light porch to be turned on. He is informed to "F" off.
Now our simple little job no longer looks like its going to be a quick one. My partner reaches for the lightswitch located just inside the door. His reasoning? We were now in a bad position, outnumbered by a hostile crowd and the mood was decidedly unhealthy. As he does so, he's greeted with a punch to the arm he has extended.
All hell breaks loose. The 3 inside the door charge us. The Crowd on the steps come up and grab at us. Remember now, that we carry firearms along with many other nasties. We have a responsibility to ensure those firearms remain under OUR control at all times. Whenever a Cop is involved in any struggle, his No.1 concern is his firearm. We are now getting blows to the back, back of our heads, legs face etc. My partner and I are moving back to back giving as good as we get. Surrounded and badly outnumbered, we both try to get to our radios to call for backup. No good. 1 hands on our firearms, the other hands assisting our feet in meeting the threat. We are up close and personal with no room to move. You cant swing a cat let alone use a baton, torch or if we had it back then which we didnt, OC Spray.
I see my partner get thrown down the cement steps onto the grass below. The drunken youths are on top of him immediately raining blows down upon him. Im still getting my fair share up above. I jump from the railing and land on the heap below grabbing the first thing in my hand. My Maglite 6 cell torch. No longer is it Mummy and Daddys little boy and girl on the ground who never broke the law before and wouldnt hurt a fly. Now its almost facing a Gun day and someones going to get a hole in them. Swinging this Maglite, I hear thuds and cracks as it meets n greets those on top of my partner. Those who were above on the steps are now down and on me. Those who can get through the maglite :) One minute im on my back covered in scumbags, the next its my partner as we watch each other and attack from side to side dependant on who's getting it worse.
We fought on Adrenalin for somewhere in the vicinity of 5 minutes.
In this time we managed 1 urgent short call to Communications who had no idea what was going on but knew enough to determine it was ugly. We had wooden planks smashed against us, fists and feet smacking us in the head, legs, back etc and the only reason noone got shot that night was because it was safer in our predicament to have the firearm in the holster.
When the Cavalry arrived, lights and sirens blazing, 2 battered and beaten Coppers lay on the deck sucking in air amidst a pile of drunken casualties and a horde of screaming teenagers and adults running in all directions to get away.
It was estimated that there were 100 people at the party. My partner and I were fighting back to back anywhere between 20-30 of them. The others watched and urged their mates on. Noone called Police except the neighbours who didnt want to be involved.
When it all had ended, before the Cavalry even returned back to the Station some 15 minutes away, a bunch of these party dwellers where at the front desk with horrified parents making Police Complaints of Brutality. The nasty 2 that took on 30.
A Couple of months later, im standing in the box at Court whilst the defence mouthpiece for one of the 3 in the doorway is describing the horrible injuries his client had sustained and the awful Police Brutality that took place on that night. The scumbag was standing beside him still sporting a bandage around his head from where I put a tennis ball size hole in the side of his head with my Maglite.
Even I after still being in the box giving evidence some 4 hours after I first stepped into it, thought it sounded bad. Then the Prosecutor steps up to the plate with a video !
"Oh Happy days" im thinking. Who's side are you on!
Turns out that one of the less than helpful neighbours that night video'ed the entire event from start to finish, including Police actions involved in the arrests of some of those responsible.
It was a beautiful thing and clear as day. The peanut (defendant) was found guilty. The rest changed their plea's and the good guys won the day.
The best part of the day, was that the peanut had called one of his mates as a witness. He had sat outside the court all day, giving us smug looks with a face that had just "F"ed the cat and all about how he was going to screw us over and have our jobs.
I Kept silent and waited until after the Court proceedings were over where I approached him and placed him under arrest. His mate had unwittingly presented me a gift. This dweed had been swinging a wooden plank at my face on the night of the party and had clocked my partner over the head with it at one stage. Id been looking for him (no priors or record) ever since :)
For my injuries, I got nothing from Criminal Compensation. I was battered but nothing broken. My partner suffered a broken leg amongst his bruises and recieved a pittance. One of the defence counsels following these matters even sent a letter to the Commish praising our actions on the night in showing restraint where firearms were clearly appropriate.
(Little did he know, that had I been able to get at it safely, there'd be a few less teenagers in the world today :) )
Just 1 instance where Video worked for the Good Guys. :)
As I stated before, I dont want an Angel at my side working the job. Angels have to die to earn their wings. None of the people at the party had Criminal records. All were Angels in mummy and daddys eyes. And no doubt, had that neighour not had the presence of mind to video the whole thing, then they'ed have all still been angels in the eyes of the Courts and You.
-
My hats off to you spook, it would have been very tuff not to kill a few of them except for the fact you stated about the safety of ubholstering in that situation.
again bro,
-
wow,
spook
-
From the Spartanburg(South Carolina)Herald-Journal:
The Associated Press
"CHARLESTON — In a scene becoming all too familiar for law officers in South Carolina, flags have been lowered to half-staff and officers put black bands across their badges after a state trooper was gunned down at a traffic checkpoint.
Since January, four law officers have been shot and killed in South Carolina — the most killed in the line of duty in a year since four officers were killed in 1993. Two more officers were killed this year in traffic accidents on the job.
In comparison, only one law officer was killed in South Carolina last year.
‘‘In my 23 years in law enforcement, I don’t recall this many slayings of law enforcement officers in such a short period,’’ said Beaufort County Sheriff P.J. Tanner, who lost two deputies in January.
On Sunday, Highway Patrol Cpl. Kenneth Johnson, 38, was gunned down at a traffic checkpoint near Goose Creek. Funeral services are set for today.
The shootings in recent months have taken a toll on the law enforcement community.
‘‘It has certainly devastated them,’’ said the Rev. Rob Dewey of the Coastal Crisis Chaplaincy, which provides counseling to crime victims and police.
‘‘They continue to do their job, but it certainly casts a pall,’’ agreed Charleston County Sheriff Al Cannon. ‘‘In a sense, when a police officer is murdered, it is an attack on the institution as well as the individual involved. And that institution serves as a buffer between the good people in our society and those who would prey upon them with violent acts.’’
Berkeley County Chief Deputy Butch Henerey said there seems to be a growing lack of respect for police nationwide, and guns, drugs and alcohol make the problem worse.
‘‘You never know who’s in that vehicle, who’s at that house or what they may have been involved in,’’ he said. ‘‘Most of our calls, most of the time, we don’t know much until we get there and sometimes until it’s too late.’’
That was the case when two Beaufort County deputies were shot and killed when responding to a domestic call Jan. 8. Later that month, a Charleston police officer working off-duty as a private security guard was shot and killed in an incident in which a part-time flight nurse was also killed.
There have been other instances of violence as well.
In February, a North Charleston police officer was attacked and disarmed by an angry crowd during a disturbance at an apartment complex. In May, a gunman fired while a North Charleston officer and a Charleston County deputy fought off an unruly crowd outside a large party.
‘‘It’s been a very unusual year, and we have to remain vigilant to make sure we stay safe,’’ said North Charleston Police Chief Jon Zumalt. ‘‘We tell our officers ‘Just be safe, and don’t take any car stop or any incident for granted because anything can turn into a violent situation.’ ”
On Wednesday, the Charleston police horse patrol will escort Johnson’s casket at his funeral.
‘‘This is just unreal, and it makes you wonder just what is going on out there,’’ said Sgt. Barbara Majeske, horse patrol supervisor. The unit is honored to participate ‘‘but it’s also one of the saddest duties we have to do,’’ she said."
Any of you whining, hand-wringing Liberal-Leftists give a toejam??? Are you gonna "demonstrate" and find some Lefto Ambulance Chasers to make sure "Justice" is done??? Any of you Liberal pukes want to volunteer to confront some stranger on a dark highway somewhere in a country filled with psychos raised with the notion that the Law, Cops, Rules, etc. "suck", and that responsiblity and respect are for "suckers" and "rutabagas"???
The cop shouldn't have punched the kid, but he's human. Who hasn't wanted to smack some amazinhunk upside the head??? If you drive to and from work everyday i bet you have felt like punching somebody's lights out several times a week.
The cop should be punished but this Leftist-Liberal wacko witchhunt is enough to gag a maggot.................
Cabby
-
I've read thru some of the post here, and anyone that is commenting not to rush to judgement, needs a boot in the arse.
My comments below are based on many years as a patrolman.
There's 3 kinds of Police Officers:
A) Those that want to change thier community for the better and do so fairly.
B) Those that want to change thier community for the better but on their terms and are not objective.
C) Those that thinks it's great to have a gun and tell people what to do.
Every area is a bit different across the country, but group A is the smallest group. Officially it isn't but in reality it is. Group A starts out with that attitude, and from their numbers they either become B or they get out of law enforcement when they see that it's overrun with B and C people. An even smaller Group A remains but usually aren't in with the status quo.
In my years I've seen too many, that cannot remain objective in their duties. These people I've worked with are not interested in solving problems in thier communities, thier interested only in arrest. Hell the department I worked for didn't care HOW you handled your cases, they only cared HOW MANY people you arrested and HOW MUCH drugs you confiscated.
If you can't remain objective I personally don't think you have much business being a police officer. And NOTHING this kid did in CA merits slamming his head nor punching him after those cuffs were on. Cops have a ton of tools and techniques at their disposal. Some better than others, but there's enough tools at thier disposal to avoid ever placing thier fist on the badguy.
There's many cops that are B & C folks that would never do anything illegal, but those attitudes will spawn the type that would.
-
And cabby, your attempt to somehow justify his actions make me sick as well. You pull some political witchhunt theory out of your bellybutton when there's no need. He was caught fully on tape and deserves every bit he gets.
-
I'd be interested to know which catergory you would put yourself in Wingnut.. A. B or C.
I neither know you, nor the Department that you state you served with, but I think I know bitter ex-Cops and theres generally more to the story than what your told at first glance. Sorry mate, but you sound bitter. That may or may not be the situation in your case.
Theres a few reasons for it, if it is. Heres 3 amongst many.
1. Wanted or Believed something would happen in your career that didnt.
2. Wasnt popular for any number of reasons in a job that prides itself internally on friendships and unspoken bonds.
3. Left the Police force on terms that werent your own.
I think your wrong on the numbers for those catergorys of yours.
I would put C at the very smallest number and B somewhere inbetween A and C with A having a clear majority. There are bad eggs and the interpretation of Bad eggs, but you state more than 1, and more like an entire Police Department.
When you say something like that, its obvious theres more to the story than what your telling and therefore cannot be used in logical arguement.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
And exactly how f*cked up is it that a federal court finds the policemen guilty of violating his civil rights? In Sweden we dont allow people being tried twice for the same crime (albeit using a different law/rule). [/B]
Hats off to ya. I bet you guys wouldn't have let OJ go on the first pass. :D
BTW... anyone notice that the 16 year old that the cops beat up is "developmentally disabled." Read: RETARDED. :rolleyes:
Hear that sucking sound? It's justa few police officer's careers goin down the toilet fast....
-
spook,
I would consider myself far from bitter. I've seen too much of B & C's and finally had my last straw. Nothing "more" to it. The only thing I would remotely feel bitter about is the prevailing attitude that officers have about not weeding out these types.
And as you want to state it's obvious there's more to my story, I'd find it obvious that your B person. And one that would clearly take no action even if you disagreed with what you see out on the street.
-
Noone wants bad cops on the street Wingnut. Least of all Good Cops. Someone on the take, Someone abusing power. Someone thinking their a Cowboy with a gun. These people do not last long in an Operational area in the Force I serve. They are weeded out early and those that somehow make it through their on road apprenticeship disguised as something else are always found out at some point, at which time, they are history.
One Cop crossing the line tarnishes us all. It makes it harder for us to do our job which relies upon respect to do succesfully and safely.
There is no such thing as a Bad Cop. You have Good Cops and you have Crims. You cross the line and theres no going back.The uniform or badge does not grant you immunity.
Ive seen a lot of Good Cops be called Bad Cops. I've seen it cost them their jobs when those people were desperately needed on the street doing that job. I do not agree with the system currently in place, at least in my country for dealing with allegations against Police. You can put me in B class if you like. I can remember a time when I would have been considered an "A" class cop. Im very cynical of Cops who hunt Cops. More often, those that ive met who excel in this area are far worse than those they hunt. I should know as ive been on the recieving end of the hunt. Tho I neither consider myself a rogue cop or one who has ever or will ever cross the line.
I believe in things that are no longer fashionable in todays society. Honour, Loyalty, Trust. Words often quoted but very rarely lived by. I can count those I trust implicitly on 2 or 3 fingers. I owe loyalty to those I work with. Those who watch my back as I watch theirs. I owe honour to the position of trust, I volunteered for. As much as there are times when I hate my job and hate what it does to me, my family and others I care about, there are times when I wouldnt trade it for a million dollars. (well ...maybe a million :) )
In my humble opinion, society everywhere regardless of country dictates the Police Force they get. If they get a bad one, its a reflection of themselves. Police forces endeavour to give the public what they want. Public Servants and the people dictate Police Forces. Not Police. Those days are long gone. I have never agreed with it and believe that, that is the reason, people like yourself see more bad than good.
Perhaps ive been lucky in that I can count those I would consider Bad Cops that ive come across in 12 years on one hand. Not all from my Police force either. Perhaps im a little more forgiving or..im completely wrong. I will however consider myself lucky, if on the day I leave the job, whatever the reason, I can leave with the fond memories one should take with them after years of Public Service and not have to look back in regret and wish i'd never joined at all.
Its a shame, your experience was not what you expected. Life rarely meets our expectations. There is good in the job and the job has Good people on the whole. I hope your experience doesnt continue to tarnish your opinion on all Police. Your experiences sound like the exception rather than the rule.
I'd find it obvious that your B person. And one that would clearly take no action even if you disagreed with what you see out on the street.
Im a Patrol Supervisor. My people are very important to me. If one of them should screw up and cross the line however. Rest assured, both they and I know, their prettythang is grass. No ifs, buts or maybe's.
-
If cops can't obey laws they are working in wrong side of fence.
-
No one should be bent out of shape. If you would DO ANYTHING like what was shown on the video (not condoning it either). You'd think they would have done this back at the station. However, there is more to this than is being told.
Now, in defense of the police officers. Take Rodney King. EVERY American was disturbed at the video. Yes they were. BUT, what the media left out was that he drove for 20 miles, nearly wrecked 19 times, flipped off the 6 cruisers chasing him at the constant speed of 100mph. Nevermind he was DRUNK and on PCP. Americans were NEVER told that. You only saw the tazers (umm, PCP, yeah those will work).
God why does the media control peoples emotions? LA residents burn their neighborhoods for a drug user. Just another day in America I guess.
Masher
-
aren't all of them?
now trying to stick the Pres & VIP with some sort of accounting fraud as to lump them into an Enron & Worldcom type. <-all in time for 11/2002 :rolleyes:
the left will be the downfall of this nation, the majority will be so brainwashed by then, they won't even realize it :(
-
Preach to me brother Eagler!!!
Masher
-
Originally posted by Wingnut_0
I've read thru some of the post here, and anyone that is commenting not to rush to judgement, needs a boot in the arse.
Rushing to judgment is almost always an emotional response and it just isn't smart. It is never unwise to get all the facts before making a judgement and I'm pretty sure that no one here, you included, have all the facts. Nor do you have the authority to judge, unless you plan to engage in rioting if his department heads and/or courts don't find the way you want.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
What is incredible is that I provide a link to an explanation of the McD lawsuit, and everyone would rather use the Urban legend instead of the facts to make a point. So then here is an exerpt:
Sorry for the late response, in an effor to get more facts I tested my coffee this morning. I usually have one cup in the morning and heat the water for two minutes in the microwave, love those little coffee bags. Two minutes in my microwave heated the water to 175 degrees farenheit. This is exactly how I like it and I can drink it immediately.
How boring will life be if it is made completey safe for everyone?
-
Make sure you properly calibrate that test tool. :)
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Make sure you properly calibrate that test tool. :)
Cooking thermometer, was probably cal'd before we bought it. Assuming good quality, for how long is the calibration good? Are you being facetious? :)
-
Absolutely.
-
OK Iron, step 2.
Heat it to 190, then pour it in your lap. Immediately attempt to save yourself from burning by pulling your pants away from your skin.
Let us all know how this comes out. Thanks
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
And an all black jury freed OJ Simpson...but there cant possibly be anything f*cked up with the jury system now can it?
[/B]
It was the ADA team that failed to get the conviction, the jury had to deleberate on the facts presented. IMO the ADA's screwed up totaly...but then got huge bonuses for doing a terrible job. Yeah, the system has it's weaknesses but, to use an old clechet' it's the best one we have at the moment :/
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
OK Iron, step 2.
Heat it to 190, then pour it in your lap. Immediately attempt to save yourself from burning by pulling your pants away from your skin.
Let us all know how this comes out. Thanks
For how many million? Send me the account number with the cash and I'll start pouring.
-
Target, you ever ride a motorcyle? The chance of losing more than just a bit of your hide is much greater doing that than drinking McDonald's coffee I'd bet. Does that mean that anyone that drives one of those crotch rockets at 130mph into wall should sue the motorcycle manufacturer for making it too fast? Of course it would be the family suing, not the splotch on the wall.
If not, surely you've done something that had an element of risk involved? You want that priviledge taken away? They will be if every time an accident happens we sue for millions or hundreds of thousands and win.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
And an all black jury freed OJ Simpson...but there cant possibly be anything f*cked up with the jury system now can it?
Anyway, you have to make up your mind, either you are innocent until proven guilty, or you are not. What way do you want it? Guilt by media coverage, or guilt (or non-guilt) by verdict in court? Besides, the jury that freed the King-policemen were not all white.
And exactly how f*cked up is it that a federal court finds the policemen guilty of violating his civil rights? In Sweden we dont allow people being tried twice for the same crime (albeit using a different law/rule). [/B]
Having read through this thread, I have to say that you continue to surprise me, Hortlund. One might expect you to be just a bit more reserved in your comments on a foreign legal system with which you have no experience. Since most posters on this board lack your level of familiarity with the system, they've perhaps been at a loss to deal directly with your charges.
I'm not.
Your OJ understanding is flawed. OJ was acquitted by a jury in his criminal action in a state court case. He was held liable for money damages in a federal court case. That is not double jeopardy. You know, as well, that because the burdens of proof are different in the two types of cases (reasonable doubt in criminal, preponderance in civil), the criminal court's finding was not res judicata in the civil case.
Others have provided you with the correct story of the McDonald's coffee trial. No one expects to be served coffee that will cause permanent injury if spilled. McDonald's had been forewarned. Your denigration of the consequent lawsuit seems to me to imply that you think it would be fine for McDonald's to continue to serve the coffee. US law says otherwise.
I am not even going to address your claim that our legal system is throttling our economy. I'm happy to compare our economy with anyone's - including Sweden's.
You don't like contingent fees? OK, then, we can let poor and middle-class people do without lawyers and lawsuits, because that's the only way they can afford them for any case that is going to involve extensive lawyer time. I have no doubt that there are fewer lawsuits in Sweden than America because of this. Frankly, I like the idea of permitting people to have access to a dispute resolution mechanism.
Finally, I understand that you do not like the jury system. Too bad. Believe it or not, it is not something invented in America. It goes back a thousand years in England. It's different from your system, which I have observed, as well (I was in Luxembourg two weeks ago for a proceeding in the EC's Court of First Instance). I express no opinion on which is better; here, we have always thought that community participation in the justice system is a good thing. However, before you trash something that has worked pretty well for a very long time, you ought to know more about it than you evidently do.
Really pretty disappointing.
- oldman
-
Heard the "producer" of the video was jailed as he had an outstanding warrant on him.
Hope the dough he got from the news orgs for his film was enough to bail him out :)
-
Originally posted by Eagler
Heard the "producer" of the video was jailed as he had an outstanding warrant on him.
Hope the dough he got from the news orgs for his film was enough to bail him out :)
kind of strange how he's picked up on 3 yr old warrants less than a week after taping the police dept. beating a civilian :rolleyes:
-or-
Did he get arrested for not showing up to the grand jury?
-
Originally posted by Eagler
Heard the "producer" of the video was jailed as he had an outstanding warrant on him.
Hope the dough he got from the news orgs for his film was enough to bail him out :)
How is this relevant to the Officer's actions caught on the video?
Cobra
-
Oldman, may I ask 2 questions please.
1. If it is not improper to do so, How much do you get an hour on average for any particular matter?
2. Am I correct in thinking (assuming) that you do not see that the propensity for Civil Litigation in your country is not a problem?
and Cobra, its not. But it is one for the good guys :)
-
Originally posted by Oldman731
Having read through this thread, I have to say that you continue to surprise me, Hortlund. One might expect you to be just a bit more reserved in your comments on a foreign legal system with which you have no experience. Since most posters on this board lack your level of familiarity with the system, they've perhaps been at a loss to deal directly with your charges.
I'm not.
Your OJ understanding is flawed. OJ was acquitted by a jury in his criminal action in a state court case. He was held liable for money damages in a federal court case. That is not double jeopardy. You know, as well, that because the burdens of proof are different in the two types of cases (reasonable doubt in criminal, preponderance in civil), the criminal court's finding was not res judicata in the civil case.
[/b]
OJ was tried for the same action twice [killing 2 people]. That is double jeopardy. It matters not that one case was a criminal case and the other one was a "private" case. Especially not since one can argue that punitive damages is a form of punishment, albeit a financial one (and indeed, isnt that the whole point with such damages).
I can honestly say that I do not understand your line of reasoning in this part. Apparently you have a different version of res judicata than we have over here. I find that both curious and somewhat strange. To be honest, I get the feeling that in the US you want to keep that double shot in some cases, so you squeeze it in by changing your definition of res judicata.
In short, the res judicata-model we have over hear means that if something has been examined in one trial, it cannot be used as evidence in another trial. If I try to translate it to US terms, I suppose it would go something like this, the not-guilty verdict in trial #1 would constitute sufficcient evidence in trial #2 to aquit the defendant. This because in trial #2, the plaintiff would not be allowed to use any evidence from trial #1, since the defendant already has been declared not guilty there. The different burdens of proof in a criminal and a private case really has got nothing to do with that.
Others have provided you with the correct story of the McDonald's coffee trial. No one expects to be served coffee that will cause permanent injury if spilled. McDonald's had been forewarned. Your denigration of the consequent lawsuit seems to me to imply that you think it would be fine for McDonald's to continue to serve the coffee. US law says otherwise.
[/b]
I have read the McD story many times, heck we even use it in lawschool here in Sweden (together with that Texaco case...are you familiar with that one? How did it end? $11 billon in damages? Good bye Texaco).
I see that we are approaching the different philosophies in our legal systems here. You say no one expects to be served coffee that will cause permanent injury if spilled. I say everyone knows that coffee is served hot.
In Sweden the idea behind damages is to compensate for damage caused. I really dont know what the philospohy is in the US, but it appears to be more along the lines of "hit them where it hurts" (ie the wallet). In Sweden we take people guilty of criminal negligence to court and put them in jail, we dont take their money. Any culprit in a damages case gets to pay for the damages he caused, but we dont add a rediculous amount of money on top of that so that the hurt party will "feel better" (I dont know the correct translation).
I am not even going to address your claim that our legal system is throttling our economy. I'm happy to compare our economy with anyone's - including Sweden's.
[/b]
See Texaco above. Im pretty sure they think your legal system suck ass.
You don't like contingent fees? OK, then, we can let poor and middle-class people do without lawyers and lawsuits, because that's the only way they can afford them for any case that is going to involve extensive lawyer time. I have no doubt that there are fewer lawsuits in Sweden than America because of this. Frankly, I like the idea of permitting people to have access to a dispute resolution mechanism.
[/b]
Why would the poor and middle class do without lawyers? Dont you see that it is the other way around here?
Swedish method: In certain types of cases (mostly custody cases and in all cases where the government is involved), the government pays for the lawyer costs. Basically, there are rules on how much a lawyer may charge his client in cases where the client has applied for government "funding", you then check the annual income of the client, and based on that income you get percent-figure. After the trial, the government pays the lawyer for his costs, and then the client pays whatever percentage of that sum to the government.
In other types of cases (when the dispute is over something of marginal value, currently less than $2000) each party has to pay his own costs, regardless of the outcome. In these type of cases, you often see people appear before the court without representation...which can be kinda fun/tragic. In such occasions though, the court has a very large responsibility to help both plaintiff and defendant with the trial...as I said, those can be fun/frustrating.
Then you have the "normal" cases where the losing side gets to pay the winning side's lawyer costs. Trust me, there is not a better way to get rid of the ludicrous lawsuits. In the US, many seems to be of the "thats a big company, lets sue..its worth a try"-philosophy... trust me, it would not be as interesting if you knew that you had to pay their bills if you lost.
It is expressly forbidden for Swedish lawyers to take a percentage of the "win", any lawyer caught trying to do that lose his license immideately.
But I can see why a US lawyer would feel reluctant to change the US system. I will not comment on why that is though.
Finally, I understand that you do not like the jury system. Too bad. Believe it or not, it is not something invented in America. It goes back a thousand years in England. It's different from your system, which I have observed, as well (I was in Luxembourg two weeks ago for a proceeding in the EC's Court of First Instance). I express no opinion on which is better; here, we have always thought that community participation in the justice system is a good thing. However, before you trash something that has worked pretty well for a very long time, you ought to know more about it than you evidently do.
Really pretty disappointing.
- oldman
Funny, I thought I knew pretty much all there is to know about the jury system. From how jurors are chosen from the public and then how the 12 jurors in a trial is chosen, and finally what they get to do during the trial. But you are of cource correct, you know more about these things than me.
I am of the opinion however, that complicated legal desicions are better left to professional judges than just some average Joe pulled from the street. There are alot of examples of outrageous results coming from your jury system. OJ and King are only the two most famous ones, those rulings are both embarrasing for you and completely insane. Combine that with the fact that you still have the death penalty, and you might get a hint as to why US law is held in low esteem in Europe.
-
Originally posted by Cobra
How is this relevant to the Officer's actions caught on the video?
Cobra
never said it was
just the stupidity of the move made me laugh
-
Couple things that struck me in the last page of this rather interesting and strangely civil thread. :)
Sandman, The mental capability of the individual in the last scandal is really irrelevent. It's rather hard to do an IQ test in the middle of a situation. It will of course make more sensationalism in the whole circus. I heard Sharpton is already on the case. I wonder why it's taken so long for jj to show up. PS mentally challenged individuals are often among the most dangerous to be around. Pesky folks don't play by the rules ya know... Not that I am rendering an excuse for the officers involved. I don't have all the facts and likely neither of us ever will due to the media frenzy. Now that the circus has started it will be spin doctoring all over the place... on both sides.
The video supplier. He did have 3 year old DUI warrants and also for Hit and Run. Not the average homicide thing that gets to the top burner. You'd be totally amazed how many wanted folks are in the comunities you all live in. The Police get to them as they are found. In this case the dweeb advertized himself on TV. You think it's going to be ignored?!?!?
The video shooter also seems to have skipped out on the grand jury. (According to the morning news) Another warrantable arrest offence. It seems he has also refused to supply the prosecutors the ORIGINAL video. This development could be kinda interesting. Why is he so shy about it? Has it possibly been edited or just sold. If sold, so much for his "civic spirit". His first responsibility was to render it for criminal prosecution, not financial gain.
Last item about this guy. This mornings news commentator said he has a history of negative contact with Police and has been very outspoken before. I'm not sure what it really means, but it kinda explains his histrionics as he was driven away, on camera. Want to bet he tries to play the "vengeance ticket" to get out of his own legal problems???
I just "love" these circus's. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
-
Just read in today's paper that the "kid" had managed to get his hands on the policeman's balls after being cuffed. Certainly explains the policeman's actions, which seem mild, all things considered. The policeman defended himself with a great deal of restraint, imo.
I'm not a cop, but I believe police training here in Mobile involves placing choke holds on subjects resisting arrest. There was a case here a couple years ago, where a 25 year old man was running around the streets downtown naked and under the influence of PCP. He sucessfully fought off five officers for awhile even after being cuffed (this guy was in good shape), and managed to kick one officer in the head, breaking his jaw. Police finally subdued him with a choke hold, but unfortunately, the man would not give up his struggles until he died on the spot.
My point here is someone wearing handcuffs could still be very dangerous and capable of inflicting injury. This kid who grabbed balls made that decision of his own accord, and imo, received relatively lightweight treatment by being face slammed on the hood of a car ( which ain't like being slammed on concrete...the car hood has a lot of "give"), and punched in the face. It may not have been professional of the police to react this way, but probably was a darn sight more humane than using a choke hold, which is professional and could have resulted in the kid's death, especially if he was on something like PCP.
Les
-
I'm not a cop, but I believe police training here in Mobile involves placing choke holds on subjects resisting arrest.
Leslie, I doubt that the choke hold is taught in Mobile.
Choke holds or making somebody do the "funky chicken", are no longer taught in most police jurisdictions for regular street fighting, defense tactics or take downs. Has to do with a death in California about ten years ago, I think. Of course, if lethal force is justified, anything goes...
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
Leslie, I doubt that the choke hold is taught in Mobile.
Choke holds or making somebody do the "funky chicken", are no longer taught in most police jurisdictions for regular street fighting, defense tactics or take downs. Has to do with a death in California about ten years ago, I think. Of course, if lethal force is justified, anything goes...
are you sure about that gunthr? i am sure and have seen police training tactics. The chokehold is still taught as a method of "less lethal force." Right up there with stun guns, rubber mallet launchers and glue guns.
Though it is a less than ideal tactic because the officer wants to keep his distance from the person he/she is dealing with. Think boom and zoom. The further away the officer is from his/her target the more options he/she has.
Lateral neck restraints are a last resort when the subject gets too close to you. And if it gets that close and the cop isnt in control he/she has to have one hand on the subject and one hand keeping his/her side arm from being unholstered. (even with the new funky "two hands to pull" holsters.)
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Sandman, The mental capability of the individual in the last scandal is really irrelevent.
It's somewhat relevant. Observation of people is something that police are trained to do. Certainly, some are better than others, but police are expected to make a judgement to the mental state of the people they encounter. There's a reason why you feel creepy talking to a cop. You're being scrutinized.
FWIW, I'm not a cop. My little brother is. We've discussed this sort of thing.
-
Yeah, Loser, I'm sure, and I refer to the USA. You may be confusing the choke hold with a head lock, or some such.
The choke hold, where you apply pressure to both carotids from behind until the subject loses consciousness, has been the cause of high figure awards in law suits.
Incidently, I am not commenting at all on "the video", or implying that the choke hold was used.
-
Cops in Canada are trained to pull the perps shirt over his head, in order to incapacitate him.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
. There's a reason why you feel creepy talking to a cop. You're being scrutinized.
And a few of you are wondering if they can smell that lefty you just put out :)
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Cops in Canada are trained to pull the perps shirt over his head, in order to incapacitate him.
And then give them the Moe eye-gouge, followed quickly by the Larry hair pull.
Unless, of course, the perp puts his hand in front of his nose to stop the eye-gouge, then the Mounties are to wave one hand in front of the perp shaking it up and down, then make a fist and hold it front of the perp, taunting him to hit it, which he will of course....he's canadian, there-by causing the fist to windmill and land smack on top of the perps head.
This then disorientates the perp enough to begin again with the eye-gouge and so on.....
Unless the perp is from Quebec, then the cops are trained to speak only English to them, which will whip the perp into such a frenzy, he will fall to the ground and turn in a rapid circle barking with a French accent.
Cobra
-
Hehe...also Thrawn not only is that move taught in Canadian Police Academy's, but in any and all Hockey Camps. :)
-
I suppose it would go something like this, the not-guilty verdict in trial #1 would constitute sufficcient evidence in trial #2 to aquit the defendant. This because in trial #2, the plaintiff would not be allowed to use any evidence from trial #1, since the defendant already has been declared not guilty there. The different burdens of proof in a criminal and a private case really has got nothing to do with that.
As Oldman so eloquently pointed out. The burden of proof required in civil and criminal cases makes a great deal of difference. The civil case with it's "lesser" burden could easily have a different verdict than a criminal case. If the cases were reversed in chronological order there indeed would be no need for the criminal procedings. (All trout are fish, but not all fish are trout) There might even be a greater lattitude in evidence allowed by the plaintif, but you lawyer types will have to clarify that one.
-
In Sweden if you have a damages claim that is related to a criminal act, you have to make that claim in the criminal-trial. If the damages claim is very complicated, it can be broken out of the criminal trial to be handled in a separate trial after guilt has been established. But if the criminal trial ends with a not-guilty verdict, the damages claim is dropped for res judicata. If the criminal trial ends with a guilty verdict, the damages trial is held. But in that trial, it has already been decided that the defendant is obligated to pay damages, all that is left is decide how much.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
It's somewhat relevant. Observation of people is something that police are trained to do. Certainly, some are better than others, but police are expected to make a judgement to the mental state of the people they encounter. There's a reason why you feel creepy talking to a cop. You're being scrutinized.
FWIW, I'm not a cop. My little brother is. We've discussed this sort of thing.
I was pretty confident you were not a Police Officer. The idea that you are going to make a determination of mental capacity quickly in a fluid circumstance is at best, naive. It is true that observation is a key skill of Police, but tell me, just what characteristic is it that you look for to determine within a couple seconds that a subject is mentally challenged. Not all mentally retarded folks are mongoloid with easily distinguishing characteristics. Not all folks identified as mentally challenged have that much of a difference between low IQ from the "normal range" of IQ. Remember normal is anything between 80 and 110 in some education circles. The mentally challenged card now being played has a definate range of interpretation. Of course we can expect it to be played to the max now as an influence on any jury. It's already been successful in the trial by media.
If you feel creepy talking to a cop, it's your problem, not the cops. I have never had that feeling. ;)
-
Hortlund,
You make a very convincing argument for the simplicity of the legal system in your country. I didn't know about it, but it is certainly a refreshing change from the situation in the states.
-
I see that we are approaching the different philosophies in our legal systems here. You say no one expects to be served coffee that will cause permanent injury if spilled. I say everyone knows that coffee is served hot.
Like I said Hortlund, don't expect much common sense from your average American these days. The lawsuit is what the average lazy American pursues these days, kind of like the lottery. Ooh, there's some easy money to be made! Let's sue! Then they stand behind some pretense of righteousness, when in the end it's greed pure and simple. If it was about righteousness then the scummy litigators wouldn't go just after the deep pockets now would they?
Oh and Midnight Target, what do you think would have happened if the coffee had been served by some small-time cappucino stand that didn't have more than a few thousand to their name. Do you think granny would have gotten the same lawyer to argue her case?
-
Originally posted by Maverick
It is true that observation is a key skill of Police, but tell me, just what characteristic is it that you look for to determine within a couple seconds that a subject is mentally challenged.
I dunno. I'm wondering what characteristic the cop looked for before he pounded the kid's head into the hood.
If you feel creepy talking to a cop, it's your problem, not the cops. I have never had that feeling.
Never? Not even when you were 22 and out at 3AM with a flashlight pointed at your face? Not with your heart racing as you went through the quick inventory thinking, "What's he looking for? Have I done something wrong? Are the tail lights working? Does my breath smell like beer?"
At 40, the police don't trouble me. I don't fit the profile anymore. :)
-
Fear.
Coulrophobia is the fear of Clowns. Theres no need however to be afraid of Policemen. You can trust us.
How do you kill a clown who has big floppy shoes?
With a big floppy sack of door knobs.
-
of course he was "mentally challenged"
who in their right mind would resist arrest and fight with five cops who wasn't?
sort of like a mass murder pleading innocent because he was temporarily insane :rolleyes: no toejame!
still guilty
-
Originally posted by Maverick
It is true that observation is a key skill of Police, but tell me, just what characteristic is it that you look for to determine within a couple seconds that a subject is mentally challenged.
Are they wearing one of these?
(http://www.gop.com/images/welcome3.gif)
Cobra, our cops also have to train in dropping thier gloves really fast when they go for thier guns. :D
-
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Maverick
It is true that observation is a key skill of Police, but tell me, just what characteristic is it that you look for to determine within a couple seconds that a subject is mentally challenged.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I dunno. I'm wondering what characteristic the cop looked for before he pounded the kid's head into the hood.
Spoken like a true Monday morning quarterback. Perhaps it really is a damn shame that we have to use real people to make cops. I'm sure you'd be happier with artificial life forms, if any existed in that category.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you feel creepy talking to a cop, it's your problem, not the cops. I have never had that feeling.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Never? Not even when you were 22 and out at 3AM with a flashlight pointed at your face? Not with your heart racing as you went through the quick inventory thinking, "What's he looking for? Have I done something wrong? Are the tail lights working? Does my breath smell like beer?"
At 40, the police don't trouble me. I don't fit the profile anymore
Nope. Only time I was scared was when I was stopped at 17 for speeding. I just knew my mom (dad died many years before) would pull my license if I got a ticket and the prom was 2 nights away. :eek: I got a warning,from a Motor Cop no less, and got to keep driving. :D Later on my own the cops never were a problem as there was nothing I was doing that was cause to be scared about. Like I said, your problem, not the cops. :p
Perhaps the fact that I had a couple relatives in Law Enforcement and knew they were people, not ogres was the difference. At least that was what I was taught and my experiance verified that. My first motorcycle ride was from a good friend of te family. He tossed me on the back of his Police bike and drove me around the block. :D I still remember that day. Later I was proud to have a motor assigned to me with the same number as his. I stood as a volunteer honor guard at his funeral many years later.
YMMV
-
I heard on news, the officer's lawyer says the kid was grabbing the officers testicles from within the handcuffs when he was leaning over the car and the officer was behind him.
I dont know if that is true or not, just what the lawyer siad.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Maverick
It is true that observation is a key skill of Police, but tell me, just what characteristic is it that you look for to determine within a couple seconds that a subject is mentally challenged.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I dunno. I'm wondering what characteristic the cop looked for before he pounded the kid's head into the hood.
Spoken like a true Monday morning quarterback.
Just call 'em like I see 'em.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you feel creepy talking to a cop, it's your problem, not the cops. I have never had that feeling.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Never? Not even when you were 22 and out at 3AM with a flashlight pointed at your face? Not with your heart racing as you went through the quick inventory thinking, "What's he looking for? Have I done something wrong? Are the tail lights working? Does my breath smell like beer?"
At 40, the police don't trouble me. I don't fit the profile anymore
Nope. Only time I was scared was when I was stopped at 17 for speeding. I just knew my mom (dad died many years before) would pull my license if I got a ticket and the prom was 2 nights away. :eek: I got a warning,from a Motor Cop no less, and got to keep driving. :D Later on my own the cops never were a problem as there was nothing I was doing that was cause to be scared about. Like I said, your problem, not the cops. :p
YMMV [/B]
Exactly! YMMV.
-
Not all mentally retarded folks are mongoloid with easily distinguishing characteristics.
lol, sometimes it takes several posts by people here for this to be apparent.
-
Originally posted by Creamo
Not all mentally retarded folks are mongoloid with easily distinguishing characteristics.
lol, sometimes it takes several posts by people here for this to be apparent.
Yeah but you make it real easy.............. :p
:D
-
I get the willies ever since I was stopped for being the wheel man in the great "Mr Bubble in the Police Fountain" caper of 1973.
The memories are too horrible to discuss. ;)
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Hortlund,
You make a very convincing argument for the simplicity of the legal system in your country. I didn't know about it, but it is certainly a refreshing change from the situation in the states.
Thanks :)
Personally I like our system better, but on the other hand, our lawyers dont get as rich as the US lawyers... so somehow I doubt there will be any change in the US soon hehe
-
Originally posted by scspook
Oldman, may I ask 2 questions please.
1. If it is not improper to do so, How much do you get an hour on average for any particular matter?
2. Am I correct in thinking (assuming) that you do not see that the propensity for Civil Litigation in your country is not a problem?
SCSpook: I imagine you're more interested in general legal fees, rather than specifically those of yours truly. Here in Philadelphia the hourly fees range from a low of about $100 to a high of about $350. NYC is $50-$100 higher all around, suburbs and boonies are lower. Obviously real people can't afford those fees - only corporations can.
I do not see that the propensity for civil litigation is a problem. It has always been here, as observed by that Frenchman 200 years ago when he traveled the US in 1820 or thereabouts. Actually, the highest incidence of litigiousness was just before our civil war.
- oldman
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
OJ was tried for the same action twice [killing 2 people]. That is double jeopardy.
Not here. Double jeopardy only attaches when the jury has been sworn and evidence has been presented in a criminal case.
It matters not that one case was a criminal case and the other one was a "private" case. Especially not since one can argue that punitive damages is a form of punishment, albeit a financial one (and indeed, isnt that the whole point with such damages).
Here there is a very bright line drawn between criminal and civil cases. Generally this is because the burden of proof is so high in a criminal case. BTW, what is the burden of proof over there?
I can honestly say that I do not understand your line of reasoning in this part. Apparently you have a different version of res judicata than we have over here.
Apparently we do.
I find that both curious and somewhat strange. To be honest, I get the feeling that in the US you want to keep that double shot in some cases, so you squeeze it in by changing your definition of res judicata.
At the risk of being terminally boring, res judicata and collateral estoppel do cross criminal-civil boundaries. OJ in reverse would have applied this, i.e. if OJ had been convicted of the killings, beyond a reasonable doubt, that fact would have been established in any subsequent civil proceeding, where the burden of proof is less. But just because you can't prove a fact beyond a reasonable doubt doesn't mean that you can't prove it by a preponderance - which accounts for the distinction that actually occurred in OJ's litigation.
In short, the res judicata-model we have over hear means that if something has been examined in one trial, it cannot be used as evidence in another trial.
That would apply here, too, if the burdens of proof were the same in the two types of cases.
I have read the McD story many times, heck we even use it in lawschool here in Sweden (together with that Texaco case...are you familiar with that one? How did it end? $11 billon in damages? Good bye Texaco).
Sorry, Texaco is alive and well. They discharged that debt in bankruptcy back in the early 1990s. I have had to deal with that in two cases.
I see that we are approaching the different philosophies in our legal systems here. You say no one expects to be served coffee that will cause permanent injury if spilled. I say everyone knows that coffee is served hot.
Not going to beat this horse anymore.
In Sweden the idea behind damages is to compensate for damage caused. I really dont know what the philospohy is in the US, but it appears to be more along the lines of "hit them where it hurts" (ie the wallet).
Nope, principle is the same.
See Texaco above. Im pretty sure they think your legal system suck ass.
Texaco's lawyers are masters of our legal system. I can hear them laughing at you.
Why would the poor and middle class do without lawyers? Dont you see that it is the other way around here?
Swedish method: In certain types of cases (mostly custody cases and in all cases where the government is involved), the government pays for the lawyer costs.
Socialized law, like socialized medicine, has been adopted by different countries with different subsequent experiences. I doubt that either will be implemented in this country within the foreseeable future, though, so I won't go into it here.
In other types of cases (when the dispute is over something of marginal value, currently less than $2000) each party has to pay his own costs, regardless of the outcome. In these type of cases, you often see people appear before the court without representation...which can be kinda fun/tragic. be fun/frustrating.
Yup. Tell two people they're allowed to have a fight, and the one who brings the gun is likely to prevail over the one who brings a knife.
Then you have the "normal" cases where the losing side gets to pay the winning side's lawyer costs. Trust me, there is not a better way to get rid of the ludicrous lawsuits. In the US, many seems to be of the "thats a big company, lets sue..its worth a try"-philosophy... trust me, it would not be as interesting if you knew that you had to pay their bills if you lost.
There was a trend toward this perhaps 20 years ago, which petered out when corporations found that they were being held liable to pay huge consumer legal fees. "Winner pays all" is a big incentive to bring an insignificant, but meritorious, case.
It is expressly forbidden for Swedish lawyers to take a percentage of the "win", any lawyer caught trying to do that lose his license immideately.
Contingent fees actually help restrict baseless suits. As a lawyer, you don't want to invest your time and money in pursuing a case that has a slim chance of success. If you're getting paid hourly, this is not a concern.
But I can see why a US lawyer would feel reluctant to change the US system. I will not comment on why that is though.
Nice snide comment. I can see why Swedish lawyers commit suicide at rates higher than elsewhere. I will not comment on why that is, though.
Funny, I thought I knew pretty much all there is to know about the jury system. From how jurors are chosen from the public and then how the 12 jurors in a trial is chosen, and finally what they get to do during the trial. But you are of cource correct, you know more about these things than me.
I suspect that I have had more jury trials than you have.
I am of the opinion however, that complicated legal desicions are better left to professional judges than just some average Joe pulled from the street. There are alot of examples of outrageous results coming from your jury system. OJ and King are only the two most famous ones, those rulings are both embarrasing for you and completely insane.
I understand the theory. English common law systems think that twelve heads - even if "just average Joes pulled from the street" - are more likely to come up with the correct result than one professional head. We actually get both types of trials here, because most cases are bench trials, i.e. tried to a judge, not a jury. Like most everything else, you're sort of dependent on the quality of the fact finder - and being a professional jurist is no guarantee that you're a wise person. As to OJ and King: If you're going to take unusual cases, and treat them as representative cases, then you will likely reach wrong conclusions.
Combine that with the fact that you still have the death penalty, and you might get a hint as to why US law is held in low esteem in Europe.
Yes, well, life with the savages, you know. I don't know how I'll manage to sleep now, having learned that the Europeans hold US law in low esteem.
- oldman
-
Oldman,
Back in the early 90's I did some work for a PI Attorney. He said some attorneys use the "Big Mac" rule, basing their fee on the current price of the Big Mac times 100. Old wives tale?
ie. Big Mac was 1.50 fees were $150/hr etc.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Oldman,
Back in the early 90's I did some work for a PI Attorney. He said some attorneys use the "Big Mac" rule, basing their fee on the current price of the Big Mac times 100. Old wives tale?
ie. Big Mac was 1.50 fees were $150/hr etc.
First time I've heard it, but who knows? The market works in strange and mysterious ways.
- oldman