Cop Arrested for Beating Child Rapist, Good Cop or Bad Cop?

If the family member who SAW the incident put the beat down the guy then I think that is okay.

Because the cop DID NOT see the incident himself, he only has the description of the event by a third party. He is NOT allowed to beat the person down himself.

Hence due justice in the courts should have been meted out. The cop was in the wrong.

And I'm generally a cop supporter who will give the benefit of the doubt to any cop (because we know what kind of douchebags are walking the streets) until given evidence that they erred.

Originally posted by VaterOrlaag

Originally posted by mwood
reply to post by tanda7

 

I say AFTER the trial and he is found GUILTY then let everybody have a turn in a closed room with him.

Till he is proven guilty I assume he is innocent and he should not be touched.

What if it turns out he didn't do it ???????

Mob justice is not justice.

Cops are sworn to uphold the laws, not take them into their own hands.

They can't just go beating people willy nilly just because they don't like what that person supposedly did.

That's why we live in America.

Some people just don't get it.... until its their turn.

Originally posted by Josephus
Reminds me of what was going on at Penn state, that guy that walked on Sandusky raping a kid and felt tattling to Paterno was a sufficient response.

off-Topic. but... YEAH.... even worse that guy didn't even 'tattle to paterno'. he merely consulted his father via phone, in case it might negatively impact his 'career'. it was his father that contacted Joe Pa. :shk:

reply to post by tanda7
he's not a good cop,he's a great cop.finally a news article of a law and JUSTICE enforcer.

Originally posted by Sharingan
reply to post by LittleBlackEagle

 

Dude, it was the 70s in the worst part of Dallas. They couldve killed him if they wanted to and gotten away with it.
I think he showed pretty good restraint, considering it took them a couple of hours to find all of the pieces of the girl he ran over.
So, yea. He was a good cop and he proved it many times over his 30 year career.

many people can kill if they so choose, the "good" ones know how things work and how things don't work and what your dad did was wrong and he should be in jail for it. your dad broke the law like every other criminal, i'm unsure where the discussion is at on that. if i break into your home looking for food to feed my poor little children and i happen to beat down you and your family would that be okay since i was just feeding my poor little children?

yeah you get the picture but choose to paint your dad as a good guy when in fact he chose to break the law just like the ilk he arrests or "beats down", no difference since the end doesn't justify the means, although many wish it did, like hitler and lennon and mao and obama the drone king.

do you think obama lies in bed at night and feels all warm n fuzzy about the hundreds of innocent people he murders with drone strikes? he thinks he's a good man too, but just because someone says he's a good man don't mean a hill of beans.

Definitely not cool. Look what this has now caused. The accused is now a victim, and the father & cop are now the accused. So the true victim (the juvenile being raped) has more trauma added to the mix. Justice for him will be diluted by his accuser having rights thrown in everyone's face that normally would not have been brought to attention.

I want to know how the perp escaped. If dad walked in and saw this the rapist must have been fast (but an officer caught him so not that fast). I'm sure he tended to his son but if he would have assaulted in his residence it would be considered justified.

I've known officers who have walked into horrific scenes (not heresay but directly caught in the act), and the reason for high burn out, explained to me, is the inability to do more than send into the justice system. Depression can set in, which greatly contributes to burn out. That's why police forces have psychological services and why some have routines that provode an outlet for that pent up aggression. They have to resist the natural human instinct to fight back but their training is clear - you can't beat people up.

what i,ve read is some family member accused him of sexual assault.so the cops heard 1 side of the story and took it in his own hands to dish out justice.

fair enough if he actually knew it was the truth but he has no way of knowing that until its investigated

its a scary thought that they would take justice into there own hands without looking into whats been accused first,imagine if he had just took out the weapon first and asked questions later.

reply to post by VaterOrlaag

What kind of stupid question is this?

Is it stupid? If it is, please excuse me for insulting your intelligence.
The question was meant to stimulate a discussion.
Let's look at some stats for this thread so far.

replies 64
different members 45
including 1 site admin. and 1 moderator, both answering the question, not spanking trollz
rude comments 1 (yours)

good cop 8
bad cop 29
other 8


average member stats from the first page

W 79
K 42
applause 19

Ever hear of "innocent until proven guilty"?

Speaking of stupid questions.
Don't assume you know my position on this issue.

I'll give you a pass on your first thread since it was a Board Question. Go write us a thread asking a smart question and show me how it's done.
Knock em' dead kid.

Originally posted by pstrron
He was caught in the act, there is no assumption of guilt, it's a fact, guilty. Where I live, he wouldn't be seeing his 20th birthday. Now all the bleeding hearts here can defend him and talk all kinds of BS of how he is innocent until proven guilty, he was caught in the act.

1-

He wasn't "caught in the act" by a judge and a jury, or even a cop.

So let me ask-- if this kind of thing should be permitted... if I truly hate someone and want to send them through a world of crap including a legally sanctioned (and publicly approved) beat down, all I have to do is get them over my house, call the cops, and say I found them molesting my kid?

Because for all we know, that's exactly what happened.


NO, I don't actually believe this. I'm just trying to make a point. The system is set up the way it is for a reason. Checks and balances. While part of me feels I can definitely understand this man's actions, I don't think this is the way things should be done.




2-

I also have to say I find the "Bad Cop, Good Person" comments to be amusing on a level. Specifically, the level where they illustrate potentially faulty logic, and not only the mistake of making assumptions, but also knee-jerk reactive judgments (aka "snap" judgments)... which actually kind of ties this in with the first part of my post nicely.



Officer arrested for hitting suspect has troubled career.

Sheriff Jason Ard said he fired Dipuma six months ago for conduct unbecoming of an officer, but wouldn't go into specifics about that conduct. In 2009 Dipuma resigned from the East Baton Rouge Sheriff's Office after an incident where a suspect was injured while in his custody. He was also suspended in 2005 and reassigned after admitting that he put his foot on a suspect's neck and head to hold them down, and also kicked the suspect in the head.

Who knows... maybe he was like a Dexter-- where he knows he has an impulsive violence issue, so he tries to only hurt "bad guys." Or maybe this guy just likes to hit people, and being a cop was his way to vent. Maybe he's the same kind of cop you see in every other "excessive force" story. Maybe he really does have some type of anger / impulse control issue. I'd say it seems likely, from the above. "Good person" may begin to seem like more of a stretch.

And I'm not trying to crucify him, or really even put him down... but rather proving a point about judgments, and another about our system. Maybe this guy does have a really good heart, and he's just a good guy who gets upset at perceived injustice, and feels like he needs to do "a little extra." But he had better be one super, hyper ultra observant, mega intelligent guy-- to be able to decide so easily when a person is truly "guilty" and exactly what level of excess force they are deserving of.....


Have you ever had a cop get a little extra rough with you because he thought you were "deserving" for some reason? Nevermind if you intend to answer that this would never happen, because you're a perfect law abiding citizen. It's not always that black and white. That's why we have the word "suspect" and terms like "probable cause" and "reasonable suspicion."


What he did was understandable. But it can not be allowed. There are good reasons for this.

That cop deserves to be in a jail full of people he's arrested, hopefully with a few cop killers too.

Cops have no right to dispense justice, that falls squarely on judges and juries. The person he has arrested is legally innocent until proven guilty, the cop has a duty to prevent any violence aimed at the suspect. It might be tough for a family to sit by and not assault someone that they believe just molested their child, but the family doesn't have all the facts at that moment, and is acting on impulse and very much in the moment. As long as he's not an imminent threat, the family has no right to touch him.

Back to the subject of the cop, cops get certain legal privileges, most notably being that their word is worth more than another persons in court. They're given this on the premise that they're the best in society and trustworthy which allows them to be an authority figure. It's pretty well established among legal punishments that when someone in authority abuses a person below them, the punishment is supposed to be greater. It should be no different with cops. This cop abused his authority, he should be in jail.

the cop should say the pedo was already beaten up before he made the arrest, im sure they would belive the cop over this scum.

reply to post by Helious


Having been a cop, and investigated things like this. I stand by my statement.

reply to post by Sharingan


Actually that makes your dad a bad, crooked cop, and a criminal. The difference between him and the guy he beat was that your dad intentionally hurt someone whereas the other guy proba ly disnt mean to hit the girl

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


Well vic, im sure if you had to witness pieces of a girl scooped off the street because a degenerate decides to drink and drive, your emotions wouldnt get the better of you, right?
Yea, he didnt mean to im sure.
He didnt mean to drink, drive, run up on the sidewalk, hit this kid and then drag her body a few hundred feet and leave.
You must be a lawyer

reply to post by tanda7



Bad cop but a decent human being.

Letting the family member hit the guy was good too.

Unless it turns out the guy is innocent of course!!

reply to post by Sharingan


So he has to live with itand likely had to go to jail. The beating wasnt necessary and happened not for justicw but because two copa wanted to beat someone and they could probably get away with beating aomeone that accidentally killed a kid. If a cop would do that you can et that wasnt the extent of thw corruption. You don't start with kidnapping and assault as your first act of corruption, believe that.

Originally posted by th3onetruth
reply to post by TheLieWeLive

 

btw, it is two cents, as in money. But I agree, letting the family have a whack at him doesn't bother me as much. Maybe the cop shouldn't have beat him, but maybe he should have.

Lol. Yea i noticed that minutes after I posted but decided it was a harmless mistake and really not worth editing...or perhaps I was just being lazy at the time.

I'm not saying the cop was horribly wrong for hitting the perp but he probably messed up the whole arrest process doing so. That is what infuriates me the most about this. This rapist might just walk free after a court battle because of an emotional outburst that the officer should be trained to control.

I kind of imagined the cop saying" You have the right to remain silent" and then he punches the perp square in the mouth.

The parents beating him is expected and I praise them for getting a few hits in but the officer should know better. His actions just may have worsened the situation and help place the 'trash' back into our society.

My two "sense" worth because God knows I only have a little sense.

Originally posted by Wookiep
reply to post by Glass

 

Dogs don't get to present their case before a judge and jury. People do. That's the difference.

edit on 2-8-2013 by Wookiep because: (no reason given)

Because the dogs are dead,

That's the difference unless the cops shot elderly people going out for a smoke at night in their own drive way.

reply to post by supremecommander

That said, I applaud his behavior. I would have wanted to put a bullet in the pedo's head.

So you condone someone putting a bullet in one of your love ones heads for being accused of a crime?

Would you blow your brains out because you get accused of a crime?

reply to post by tanda7


Hard call. The police officer did a stupid thing. This guy will probably walk now.

It is illegal, what the officer did, but, IMO, the rapist got off easy. If a death penalty is warranted in any case, the rape of a child should be one. And a painful death at that.

The police officer should have "left the room" and let the family have their go. The family would never see a jail cell and the perv would end up in jail.