Children arrested, DNA tested, interrogated and locked up... for playing in a tree

Originally posted by timeless test
Indeed it does, but I am always fascinated by the way in which so many people automatically assume that the police, (or whatever authority is involved), are blatently lying whilst the newspapers speak nothing but the truth.

fair enough.

i happen to find that more often than not, there is exaggeration on both ends - emotional exaggeration by the left, non-authoritarian, and exaggeration of the actual deed by the authoritative parties. so the paper is likely to play on the emotions of its readers to make the maximum amount of fuss out of the situation, while the police are going to defend themselves by stating that children who were doing something they had no idea was wrong are nothing more than common vandals.

middle of the road.

I can not believe there are people that are supporting this at all. Police have gone into overdrive sense their new found power after 911. I guess the people that are supporting this kind of abuse of power are the same ones that say all kids should go strait from school to their home and stay inside. The fact that they were placed in a car is ridiculous. All that had to be done is ask them to stop, noting more. However in my practice i see this all the time. I am a psychologist. During my days at university there were literally tons of cases of police abusing their authority. And a substantial rise has developed sense the adjustment in law due to 911. The first issue i have with police is that none are given blind psychological test to determine weather or not they are capable of handling the type of responsibility they are given. Threw my study there is overwhelming documentation that male police officers are substantially corrupted to some degree by their position of power. Their are literally thousands of cases nation wide where police have sexually assaulted children, threatened, even assaulted children for no other reason but the child or young adult accidentally cross the police path. What is even more disturbing is that out of the thousands of cases that are brought to court at least 90% of them are removed from record and thrown out of court on verbal description by the offending police officer. This is ridiculous it would be the same as if a gangster murderer's case would be thrown out because he said he didn't do it. May of the cases i have read have had eye witness that corraborated the child or adolescents story and yet the majority of the time the information provided by the witness will be stricken from record are simply will not be allowed to testify. There is a thing called the blue wall of silence, I have talked to many officers about this and i have witnessed many officer quite the force because of harassment due to not acknowledging the blue wall of silence. It is recorded that 63% of all police officers start this position to attain power over others. This is recorded in the offices of internal affairs. The large majority of police have been sighted in their personal records for potential towards violence, and anger. And yet these police are almost never removed or questioned at all.

What is so pathetic is that most civilians will not acknowledge the abuse and blatant overstepping of our civil rites by ridiculously under trained gestapo police.

I have two problems with your post leapofdreams.

1. You appear to be basing your judgement on your "experience" of US police forces. Whilst British police certainly suffer some of the same problems and are far from angelic the force does generally operate under a very different culture and to try to apply the same psychological profile must be misleading at best and simply invalid at worst.

2. Like many others you appear to take the newspaper report as gospel. Look again at the headline "Children arrested [...] for playing in a tree". This is a simple untruth. They were arrested, rightly or wrongly, for vandalism of public property. What is the psychology at work when a journalist seeks to exercise power over the population at large through the deliberate distortion of the truth in what he writes?

Yes every case I have studied accrued in the US. I truly can not comment on European police practices. I have very little to no knowledge of the statistical information pertaining to the psychological examination of European police practices or tests.

The journalist in this case would be using psychology based out of marketing practices. By blurring facts to appeal to a larger majority of reader would be considered band wagon marketing practice. It is an attempt to persuade the reader into relating the situation to there children or personal acquaints in mass. By stating information in a vague or openly interpretive manor he or she leaves the reader open to formulate conclusions based on subtle diversionary practices. The subtle diversionary tactics will coax the reader into interpreting the story in the way the publisher prefers. If applied correctly the reader will not be aware of the subtle suggestions that are leading him or her to a dictated conclusion.

timeless test if I had a WATS left for this month, I would have given it to you.

People who want to be outraged, will find things to be outraged about. This thread illustrates just who and how many posters on ATS continue to ignore the facts, or lack-there-of.

That article does not give any one of us enough information to make up our minds either way! We can't say the kids deserved it, and we can't say that they do! Why is that so hard to understand?

I can understand the disdain for authority in general, but to judge their actions as "wrong" simply because they are the Police, < sarcasm > and we all know that all Police are corrupt, so they must be abusing their powers < / sarcasm > , and simply because the parents 'think' they overreacted is a bit frustrating. We don't know the character of the parents. We don't know the character of the children, and we don't know the character of the Police officers. Just because they have authority does not make them automatically wrong. Open your eyes people!

Then there are posters who say "I can't believe they were hauled off to the police station for playing in a tree, or breaking a couple of branches". Had some of you read the article carefully, had some of you actually read the other posts, you'd know that the kids and parents claim only a few "loose" branches were removed, while the Police claim the kids removed every single branch off this cherry tree.

Once again Unless we see a photo of the Cherry tree (preferrably a before and after shot), we won't know who is telling the truth. That article certainly does not provide us with that information!

All I'm asking here is that we not jump to conclusions over an article which doesn't have enough information to give us the opportunity to make judgements. The Police could have been wrong, but they could have acted appropriately as well, based on the situation. It's O.K. to say "We don't know" rather than start pointing fingers based on pure assumptions.
I'm done ranting.

[edit on 4-8-2006 by 2manyquestions]

Swabs.....


Don't know what is wrong with the British authorities, but swabbing for DNA is only used in Phoenix AZ in a felony indictment. From the article, it seems these cops need to go home and headbutt the sidewalk.

These guys could have approached the kids with some constructive ideas to replace what they were doing, like showing them where there is some good junk wood to build their fort. Or giving them some blueprints to build a badass trebuchet...

Cops nowadays have their heads so far up there rectums, they have lost touch with reality... this goes for most of the law enforcement officers I have dealt with. I guess it goes to show you that when you get out of highschool with the mental capacity of a turd, this is how you shine.

But seriously, I must commend the officers for their ability to stay on top of things. I'm sure the residents will be able to sleep at night now with these criminals off the street.

SICK!

A tree on public land belongs to the public. It was their tree! WTF?
If it had happened to me they would have had a reason to arrest me after they told me what they were doing....Even if I saw something like this. The parents should sue!

Not much else to say here!


Sick Sick Sick

Originally posted by 2manyquestions


All I'm asking here is that we not jump to conclusions over an article which doesn't have enough information to give us the opportunity to make judgements. The Police could have been wrong, but they could have acted appropriately as well, based on the situation. It's O.K. to say "We don't know" rather than start pointing fingers based on pure assumptions.
I'm done ranting.

[edit on 4-8-2006 by 2manyquestions]

what you propose would mean the end of ATS as we know it...

the police could have been wrong; they could have been right. aliens could exist, they may not. even the existence or lack thereof of a 757 jet liner at a particular place and time can be a topic of contention featuring two extremely polarized schools of thought.

if we aren't allowed to interpret the available facts and derive our own conclusions from same, then what the hell are we supposed to be doing?

we have less than total knowledge of EVERY situation we read about and discuss on the internet.

our eyes are very much open, and it is both inconsiderate and arrogant of you to decide for yourself (what with your lack of knowledge about our respective characters) that this is otherwise.

Originally posted by Iggnorace_is_bliss
SICK!

A tree on public land belongs to the public. It was their tree! WTF?
If it had happened to me they would have had a reason to arrest me after they told me what they were doing....Even if I saw something like this. The parents should sue!

Not much else to say here!


Sick Sick Sick

Oh, I see! So now because a wall stands on public property, it is O.K. to take out a spray can and deface it..... because, after all,..... it 'belongs' to the taggers too.

News flash for ya,... that tree belonged to the 'public',... which seemed to be fond of the tree if they had enough sense to complain about it being destroyed. It belongs to everyone, not just these kids and their parents. I don't know what you were taught, but I've always been told to respect public and private property equally.

Originally posted by The Parallelogram
what you propose would mean the end of ATS as we know it...

the police could have been wrong; they could have been right. aliens could exist, they may not. even the existence or lack thereof of a 757 jet liner at a particular place and time can be a topic of contention featuring two extremely polarized schools of thought.

I think you're wrong. If you look at the thread pasted on the home-page of ATS titled something to the effect of "757 did crash into the pentagon", you'll notice that the original poster presented pictures, testimony, provided explanations and outside information that made his theory very plausible. He did not simply post an article in itself, and left it at that.

Why would accepting the fact that we can't be 100% certain of something be the end of ATS? The whole point of ATS is to gather all the possible evidence, discuss it's validity, and come to a conclusion after the fact. Just because most posters like to jump to conclusions based on assumptions doesn't mean that's what the site is about.

There is nothing wrong with believing/having faith in things we cannot prove ourselves (such as UFOs, Ghosts, God, etc.). It would only be wrong if the Original Poster posted a particular news story, and said he/she believed in it and so should we, even though the OP didn't provide any evidence for WHY he/she believed it, and why we should also.

if we aren't allowed to interpret the available facts and derive our own conclusions from same, then what the hell are we supposed to be doing?

No one here is saying you're not allowed to derive your own conclusions from the available facts. What I'm saying to you is that it would be very open-minded of you to accept the fact that you can't come to an absolute conclusion on an event for which you don't have enough facts! You can acknowledge this by saying; "I don't know if this is how it happened, but if this information is credible, and if this is all the information that is available, then I feel this or that way about it." Do you see the difference between saying that,... and saying "I can't believe this! The cops are out of line,... these are children who didn't deserve to be treated this way!!" Opinions are absolutely O.K. Feeling a certain way about something is O.K. Judging someone's ability to do their job before you know all the facts is 'wrong' in my opinion.
This example is unrelated to the OP's article, but just imagine if some kid were to come up to you, and punch you in the stomach. Although you ask them to stop, they continue. You defend yourself by restraining them. There were no eye-witnesses, but this kid claims you started the whole thing for no reason. He/she talks to some newspaper about it, fabricates the whole thing, and you come off looking like a complete jerk. The next day someone posts this on a Public message board, and people start judging your actions as unfair, unreasonable, violent, etc. before they ask for your side of the story. Imagine you're a police officer, and just because of your profession, people think you must be abusing your powers over powerless children. How dare you! This kid will be scared for the rest of his life,...all because you restrained them. Of course the mom will claim that this is a good kid, and that she plans on suing you for using excessive force on her child. Does that sound right to you?

we have less than total knowledge of EVERY situation we read about and discuss on the internet.

You're absolutely right. Refer to my reply above.

our eyes are very much open, and it is both inconsiderate and arrogant of you to decide for yourself (what with your lack of knowledge about our respective characters) that this is otherwise.

And it is inconsiderate and arrogant of you to assume you know the truth, when clearly you don't. Some posters here are condeming the Police before they know all the facts. Is that not arrogant? How can you convict someone of a crime before you have all the facts straight? How can you judge someone purely on what the other side 'claims' "really" happened, or based on the fact that they are Police officers? Do you see what I'm saying?
Maybe I came off arrogant and I apologize for that,... but it is difficult trying to reason with people who enjoy crying 'murder' before they learn all the facts.

The arguments about who owns the tree are irrelevant IMHO.

These cops could have simply told the kids "hey cut it out" and chances are they would have found another tree to build their treehouse in.

The issue in question is what kind of morons thought it was necessary to arrest and detain a bunch of little kids for something so entirely inane.

The issue is the creeping demented authoritarian rot that seems to be becoming a fixture of the "free world" - where zero tolerance idiocy has little kids being expelled from school for taking aspirin, or put on sex offender lists for "playing doctor".

The media, in order to make a buck, promotes a constant atmosphere of crisis - "watch our special report at 11, or YOUR KIDS MAY BE EATEN BY CANNIBALS!!!" - which inevitably convinces the public that mayhem is everywhere and crime is soaring. Despite the fact that violent crime, at least here in the US, has been dropping steadily since the 1970's. And this atmosphere provides fertile ground for grandstanding legislators, who pass laws that impose increasingly draconian penalties for minor infractions - thus exploiting the media's constant scare campaigns in order to advance their own careers.

I'm not quite as sure how things are in the UK, but I imagine the dynamic is pretty similar there.

I was busted for being drunk and disorderly at the age of 18. I was living at home, and after the cops picked me up at around midnight, they called my dad and said he could come and get me if he chose.

He laughed and said that he'd much rather stay home, but he'd pick me up at 0800 the next morning. So I was stuck in the drunk tank with some nasty looking individuals and dozed fitfully with my back firmly against the wall.

Well, wonder of wonders. I didn't murder my parents or become a serial rapist or have to undergo mental counseling. Myabe the drunks in suburban Washington DC in 1963 were not really that dangerous, after all. My dad told me afterwards that he thought the evening in the Graybar Hotel might give me a chance to think about getting likkered up and making a fool out of myself -- and whaddayuh know: it did!

If being locked up in the jug as a teenager is your most shameful and frightening experience, 25cents, then you have certainly lived a sheltered life.

Here's hoping you don't have to ever go into the military!

And while you're at it, I suggest you stay where it's safe -- on the west side of Alma School Road. We be mean Mormons in MY town!!

[edit on 4-8-2006 by Off_The_Street]

quote from 2many questions:

And it is inconsiderate and arrogant of you to assume you know the truth, when clearly you don't. Some posters here are condeming the Police before they know all the facts. Is that not arrogant? How can you convict someone of a crime before you have all the facts straight? How can you judge someone purely on what the other side 'claims' "really" happened, or based on the fact that they are Police officers? Do you see what I'm saying?
Maybe I came off arrogant and I apologize for that,... but it is difficult trying to reason with people who enjoy crying 'murder' before they learn all the facts.

-----------------------

We will stop condemning the Police when they stop arresting kids for tearing branches off of trees, and, well, just sodomizing people in general.

And please don't ask for links of the police actually sodomizing people, because I meant that as a metaphore, but I'm sure I can find some, and besides, whats the use?

[edit on 4-8-2006 by tha stillz]

Originally posted by tha stillz
We will stop condemning the Police when they stop arresting kids for tearing branches off of trees, and, well, just sodomizing people in general.

And please don't ask for links of the police actually sodomizing people, because I meant that as a metaphore, but I'm sure I can find some, and besides, whats the use?

[edit on 4-8-2006 by tha stillz]

You are missing the point. We can condemn a Police officer when we know for a fact that he/she is guilty of doing something wrong. There is no evidence in that article that would incriminate these 'particular' Police officers who were involved in the arrest. Based on the missing information we cannot determine beyond a doubt that they did anything wrong, or right for that matter. We don't have the full story.

Certainly there are Police officers out there who use their badge to rob, harrass, kill, abuse, incriminate people,... but just because those particular officers are guilty of a terrible crime does not make every single Police officer in the world a Bad guy. One, or even 20 priests who touch little boys does not make all the priests of the world peadophiles. Do you understand?

I pitty the man or woman who's life might be in the hands of some of the posters here someday, while they're serving Jury duty.

[edit on 4-8-2006 by 2manyquestions]

2manyquestions:

I have understood what you are saying since I was 3. These officers represent what is wrong with law enforcement in general.

How much evidence do you need to realize these officers should be tarred and feathered? They arrested kids. Great way to teach them early on to hate cops! I had to go through D.A.R.E, and get arrested for skateboarding before I realized that law enforcement officers are modern Nazi's, and I say that with confidence, because it takes a certain type of self-rightous, chunky jowled, O'Reilly watching douche bag to be an officer of the law.

You are right though, not all cops get an erection when they smell their own armpits. Some are just misguided pawns. Some realize that incarcerating people for petty crimes is wrong, and then there are the ones who arrest marijuana smokers - these guys really wreak of feces. But the ones who feel they have some fiber of self worth by teaching kids a lesson by scaring them really make my blood boil. Like I said in my previous post, instead of booking these kids, give them the address of the local yard waste dump site, instead of wasting tax money on DNA testing - that is clearly a proportionate reaction, isn't it.... it still makes me laugh how people like you, dude, can sit there with a straight face and condone this.

(sorry for the graphic text, I am just angry)

Originally posted by 2manyquestions

Originally posted by Iggnorace_is_bliss
SICK!

A tree on public land belongs to the public. It was their tree! WTF?
If it had happened to me they would have had a reason to arrest me after they told me what they were doing....Even if I saw something like this. The parents should sue!

Not much else to say here!


Sick Sick Sick

Oh, I see! So now because a wall stands on public property, it is O.K. to take out a spray can and deface it..... because, after all,..... it 'belongs' to the taggers too.

News flash for ya,... that tree belonged to the 'public',... which seemed to be fond of the tree if they had enough sense to complain about it being destroyed. It belongs to everyone, not just these kids and their parents. I don't know what you were taught, but I've always been told to respect public and private property equally.

First of all, I am from Canada and I grew up climbing trees. Sometimes branches break when you climb trees. It's not like in all the years I was climbing trees that I ever deliberately intended to snap branches off while I was climbing. It just happened. Some call this the laws of nature, others call it common sense. What I'm trying to say is, there is a big difference between the kid who climbs a tree and the kid to spray paints his name on somebody's personal property. I would say however, if the kids were spray painting the tree your argument might be relevant. Unfortunately your argument is flawed.

I'm not sure what the laws are in the United States but in Canada you cannot arrest a child under the age of 12 for a non-criminal offense such as a littering ticket or simple vandalism. What is supposed to happen is, the child is to be taken to their home by the officer and the parent is cited to appear in court or issued a fine on behalf of the child. If this law doesn't exist in the United States that's pretty sick and twisted because a child at the age of 12 would be criminally responsible for his own actions in any case. I seriously doubt that being the case, a child at the age of 12 is not allowed to consent to anything legally. So, how is it legal in any way the police to take their information, fingerprints and DNA without parental consent? It's a violation of human rights as well as a violation of your constitutional rights. What reasonable cause did they have to take a DNA sample? NONE

There should be legal repercussions such as jail time for the officers involved in this particular situation. They should be used as an example; so the police don't abuse their power in the future.

Originally posted by tha stillz

How much evidence do you need to realize these officers should be tarred and feathered? They arrested kids. Great way to teach them early on to hate cops!

When I have enough evidence to show me that their actions truly were irrational and completely needless. I would need to know the character of the officers and children. I would need to hear the officers' side of the story. I would need to know whether or not these children mouthed off to the officers upon approach. I would need a photograph of the tree in question. I would need to know whether the kids were treated with respect during their detention. I would need to hear the neighbors opinions of the children, their behavior, and why these neighbors were driven to complain to the cops before confronting these children themselves. Did we go back to the 1600s all of a sudden? Suzy said Jane was a Witch, therefore it must be so. Jane was never liked much by the rest of the villagers, so this must be true. Bring out the tar! No facts, no tarring. That's my policy. I'm sure that if you were on the chopping block, you'd want me on your side.

I had to go through D.A.R.E, and get arrested for skateboarding before I realized that law enforcement officers are modern Nazi's, and I say that with confidence, because it takes a certain type of self-rightous, chunky jowled, O'Reilly watching douche bag to be an officer of the law.

I'm sorry you had a negative experience with a few cops,...yet,... how do you know that your experience is exactly the same as the experience these children had? How do you know these children are a lot like what you were like when you were a child? Why do you assume that these children are always well-behaved? Is it because the article claims that their parents say so? Like I've said before, I've heard parents defend their children after their child had beaten a classmate senseless.

You are right though, not all cops get an erection when they smell their own armpits. Some are just misguided pawns. Some realize that incarcerating people for petty crimes is wrong, and then there are the ones who arrest marijuana smokers - these guys really wreak of feces.

I'm glad we agree at least on one point,..... in a strange and twisted sort of way.

But the ones who feel they have some fiber of self worth by teaching kids a lesson by scaring them really make my blood boil. Like I said in my previous post, instead of booking these kids, give them the address of the local yard waste dump site, instead of wasting tax money on DNA testing - that is clearly a proportionate reaction, isn't it.... it still makes me laugh how people like you, dude, can sit there with a straight face and condone this.

We don't know how these Officers approached these kids, or what was said. We don't know the attitude of either party. Until we know what words were exchanged before the children were detained, we can't make a decision. The words "child" and "Angel" are not synonymous.
The DNA "tests" consisted of nothing more than swabbing the inside of their mouths. Takes a few seconds, and Voila! That's it.

The only reason it seems as if I were condoning the actions of the Officers is, because I am going against all the posters who immediately scream bloody murder when they hear the words "children arrested, DNA tested, iterrogated, and locked up,.....for playing in a tree". That title certainly makes it sound pretty terrible, and I admitt, I was outraged for about five minutes,... until I took the time to read and re-read the article.
I found that the article did not provide enough information for me to decide "fairly" either way.

I'm sure you're familiar with the process that the Jury, Judge and Lawyers must go through before they sentence a man to life in prison. It applies in this case as well. You gather the evidence, you listen to the testimony on both sides, and decide the guilt or innocence of the person accused based on these things. Simple really.

(sorry for the graphic text, I am just angry)

No biggie. This is a heated subject.

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
I was busted for being drunk and disorderly at the age of 18. I was living at home, and after the cops picked me up at around midnight, they called my dad and said he could come and get me if he chose.

He laughed and said that he'd much rather stay home, but he'd pick me up at 0800 the next morning. So I was stuck in the drunk tank with some nasty looking individuals and dozed fitfully with my back firmly against the wall.

Well, wonder of wonders. I didn't murder my parents or become a serial rapist or have to undergo mental counseling. Myabe the drunks in suburban Washington DC in 1963 were not really that dangerous, after all. My dad told me afterwards that he thought the evening in the Graybar Hotel might give me a chance to think about getting likkered up and making a fool out of myself -- and whaddayuh know: it did!

If being locked up in the jug as a teenager is your most shameful and frightening experience, 25cents, then you have certainly lived a sheltered life.

Here's hoping you don't have to ever go into the military!

And while you're at it, I suggest you stay where it's safe -- on the west side of Alma School Road. We be mean Mormons in MY town!!

[edit on 4-8-2006 by Off_The_Street]

i wasn't a teenager. this was only a few weeks ago - and i explained why it was demeaning. it's not so much the people in there, it's the knowledge that i did something deserving of spending the night in jail. trust me, i'm certainly not a sheltered individual, i just hold myself to a higher standard.

Originally posted by Iggnorace_is_bliss
First of all, I am from Canada and I grew up climbing trees. Sometimes branches break when you climb trees. It's not like in all the years I was climbing trees that I ever deliberately intended to snap branches off while I was climbing. It just happened. Some call this the laws of nature, others call it common sense. What I'm trying to say is, there is a big difference between the kid who climbs a tree and the kid to spray paints his name on somebody's personal property. I would say however, if the kids were spray painting the tree your argument might be relevant. Unfortunately your argument is flawed.

Not a single person here is arguing that accidentally breaking a branch off a tree is not O.K. These kids,... as it is written in the article (had you read it carefully, you would have noticed) that they were detained for breaking every single branch off this Cherry tree. That is what the Police claim.

Breaking every single branch off this tree is vandalism just as much as is spray-painting a wall. They are two completely different actions, yet they result in the same thing; defacing/destroying public property.

I'm not sure what the laws are in the United States but in Canada you cannot arrest a child under the age of 12 for a non-criminal offense such as a littering ticket or simple vandalism.

And that's fine,..... as long as we're in the U.S. or Canada. Notice you said "child under the age of 12. These Children happen to be 12 years old. Not that this matters, because it happened in Great Britain! If you want to make your case, cite the laws of Great Britain,.... not U.S. or Canada.

If this law doesn't exist in the United States that's pretty sick and twisted because a child at the age of 12 would be criminally responsible for his own actions in any case.

Once again, it doesn't matter. This is not a U.S. or Canadian case. It happened in Great Britain.

I seriously doubt that being the case, a child at the age of 12 is not allowed to consent to anything legally. So, how is it legal in any way the police to take their information, fingerprints and DNA without parental consent? It's a violation of human rights as well as a violation of your constitutional rights. What reasonable cause did they have to take a DNA sample? NONE

Why don't you help out by looking for British laws concerning children? It would really help put things into perspective. That way we'll know exactly if the rights of these British children were violated. The article doesn't say the children were mistreated. It only says they were detained. For all you or I know, they were treated with respect the entire 2 hours they spent at the Police station. You can be scared and treated properly all at the same time.

There should be legal repercussions such as jail time for the officers involved in this particular situation. They should be used as an example; so the police don't abuse their power in the future.

Well, I'm glad you were here to solve this case. You accomplished this grand achievement all by relating a British case to Canadian and U.S. laws,... and with the use of just one single news article! Have you ever considered a career in law?

2manyqustions:

Congratulations Officers!! Way to be role-models, way to diffuse the situation and keep the peace.

If these cops had to prove how big there sacks are by taking these kids downtown because they were mouthing off, they should really consider turning in their badges. How much does it really mean to have some 12 year old mouth off to you? Officers of the law have an inherent perpensity to irrationally attempt to prove their dominance. This is clearly demonstrated in this case. It would have been easier to try to be cool to the kids, and maybe HELP THEM MAKE A GOOD DECISION - Like I said multiple times, show them where they can obtain wood for their treehouse for instance, It doesn't take the mind of Ghandi to do something that fking simple... Imagine that, helping people... Like I said, these cops were obviously incapable of handling this situation properly, regardless of what dastardly profanities these, at best, 100 IQ mentalities could muster.

It's all about the ego's with these cops, not evidence or behavior, or anything else. That is the reality of it.

Done here.