It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by detachedindividual
reply to post by alyosha1981
I'm going to say it as it is...
You are completely wrong.
What you support is a police state, a dictatorship.
The system of law is in place for a reason, it is not the responsibility of any cop to meter out punishment of any kind.
I agree with you that the perp is scum, he could have killed someone. But that DOESN'T EVER justify a cop taking vigilante justice into his own hands.
It's an emotive subject to see a person acting in such a way, and knee-jerk response is "he deserved it". But the people also deserve a system where cops cannot get away with making such judgments themselves.
Again, if you support a democratic society you would have to say that the officer was wrong. To support that officer goes against the foundations of law and order, the very basic principles of a democratic and just society.
Once you allow cops to act like this and get away with it, you are one step close to a failed democracy.
I believe that the actions of the officers involved were on point and I don't see any reason for believing otherwise. The guy got a swift kick in the head, so what? now he'll be rewarded by going on a vacation where he'll be given three meals a day, free health care, access to cable t.v, and a warm bed to sleep in, all inclusive at the tax payer's expense.
Originally posted by veterator
Several years ago my parent's house was burglarized. The intruder was injured in the process. He filed against my parent's insurance claiming that unsafe conditions in my father's workshop had caused his injuries. He even tried to file a suit for damages! Where do these guys get off thinking they should get anything except hard-time?
And now we have an assertion and defense from the place-kicking cop's union lawyer that defies belief:
"The kick to the head delivered by an El Monte police officer to a car-chase suspect lying on the ground at the end of a televised high-speed pursuit was a legally justified “distraction blow," an attorney for the police union said today."
It's true that distraction techniques are taught to police. From the National Institute of Justice's "Citizen Review of Police Approaches & Implementation":
"Botsko and the advisers also noticed that a number of incident reports referred to officers' use of a "distraction blow" without explaining its purpose. After inquiring about the behavior, Botsko learned that the police bureau training department taught the distraction principle (e.g., pushing the driver's head while prying his or her hands off the steering wheel)-but not a blow-as a means of diverting someone's attention. Indeed, the bureau considers a blow to be a use of force that requires explanation in the incident report. It turned out that some officers had learned the distraction blow technique at the State training academy. As a result, the bureau agreed to explain during inservice training that officers always have to explain in their reports why they struck someone and refrain from using incorrect terminology."