It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Cops pull over & beat 64yo obviously deaf man for 7 minutes
page: 3share:
Xcathdra
hopenotfeariswhatweneed
reply to post by Xcathdra
i realise there needs to be an investigation.....bit i still cannot understand why the old man needed to be manhandled...by two officers..........would a 12 year old child need the same treatment?...regardless of him being belligerent(if he was we dont know) they are grown men and should be able to exercise restraint
Did the officers know the person age at the time of encounter?
This is an example of what im talking about when I say totality of circumstances and hindsight 20/20 not being allowed to be used to review actions.
Age is not a relevant factor to consider since the age was not established until after the fact.
Being deaf is not a relevant factor to consider since it was not known until after the fact.
To answer your question though yes, I have seen people take on several officers. To assume a person is not dangerous based on their age or appearance leads to complacency and can lead to an officer not going home at the end of the night. I would rather go hands on with a 6'3 250 pound body builder than go hands on with a 25 year old female who weighs 110 pounds.
The mindset of guys being more dangerous than women is also one of those preconceptions that can get an officer killed.
Does the use of force need to be reviewed? Absolutely.
However it needs to be reviewed by using proper procedure and not what other people think should be considered, like age or disabilities. We only know this guys age and disability "after" the fact.
it takes a special kind of person to do the job....in my veiw more training is in order (and i say that from my experience on the other side of the fence)
as far as the mindset of guys and girls...i agree ...im 6ft 3 and have spent many years learning martial arts and my 5ft ex crazy woman landed me in hospital with 12 stitches in my head ...damn near killed me....
hopenotfeariswhatweneed
it takes a special kind of person to do the job....in my veiw more training is in order (and i say that from my experience on the other side of the fence)
I couldn't agree more and am a firm believer in continuing education in the law enforcement field. However, that education does no good when the people who entrust us with their authority don't bother to educate themselves on the laws / topics / issues either.
Training and communication is a 2 way road from both sides of the fence.
It does no good to send an officer to a police academy only to claim they did not do their jobs correctly by people who don't know / understand the law. That is by far a huge issue as well that needs to be corrected. How exactly can the citizens hold police accountable if they are not knowledgeable on the law?
Question - Would you or anyone else want to be arrested charged, tried, convicted and sentenced by people who have no formal training / education in the legal side of the fence? People in this thread have no issues spouting off about how the police should be dealt with yet I guarantee their position would quickly change if "uninformed" civilians demand they be arrested and punished for something that they don't agree with.
hopenotfeariswhatweneed
as far as the mindset of guys and girls...i agree ...im 6ft 3 and have spent many years learning martial arts and my 5ft ex crazy woman landed me in hospital with 12 stitches in my head ...damn near killed me....
This lesson is one officers tend to learn the hard way. Simply because we are taught all our lives you don't hit members of the opposite sex. There is a lot about law enforcement that contradicts the typical mind set / morals one receives while growing up.
Hence the reason we use laws / case law instead of personal opinions / morals when we do this job. again I guarantee there will be people who don't think their morals are problematic and will have issues when someone else with their own morals tells them otherwise.
Its also the reason law enforcement is not part of the judicial branch of government and one of the main reason Lady Justice is holding even scales while wearing a blindfold and her sword pointed down.
edit on 20-1-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)
reply to post by Xcathdra
in answer to your question ...that is a resounding no!..the training is by far the most important part of the whole story
.. as i finished with the court process and i asked my lawyer how could this could have happened.....he simply answered me..."c'mon you know the court is not about the truth"
so perhaps there needs to be a rethink for the whole system which is corrupt ...but hey when you have ex police becoming police prosecutors moving on to be lawyers,and the waiting in line to become judges....in my view that is a massive fail
when i was a young fellow i used to clean houses ,one of these was owned by a high court judge who used beat his son and wife,i can attest to this by the bruises on their faces...it was a weekly clean and i was privy to his alcohol consumption via the case of scotch he used to down on a weekly basis,often he would down more than 12 bottles in a week,the cases were in the kitchen cupboard and i used to count them having no real idea at the time what i was witnessing''''...i even had the privilege of hearing some of his rants....often he would be drinking in the mornings telling us if he got anyone for drugs he was going to make an example of them...\
so my personal experiences have not given me a whole lot of faith in the entire system...
in answer to your question ...that is a resounding no!..the training is by far the most important part of the whole story
.. as i finished with the court process and i asked my lawyer how could this could have happened.....he simply answered me..."c'mon you know the court is not about the truth"
so perhaps there needs to be a rethink for the whole system which is corrupt ...but hey when you have ex police becoming police prosecutors moving on to be lawyers,and the waiting in line to become judges....in my view that is a massive fail
when i was a young fellow i used to clean houses ,one of these was owned by a high court judge who used beat his son and wife,i can attest to this by the bruises on their faces...it was a weekly clean and i was privy to his alcohol consumption via the case of scotch he used to down on a weekly basis,often he would down more than 12 bottles in a week,the cases were in the kitchen cupboard and i used to count them having no real idea at the time what i was witnessing''''...i even had the privilege of hearing some of his rants....often he would be drinking in the mornings telling us if he got anyone for drugs he was going to make an example of them...\
so my personal experiences have not given me a whole lot of faith in the entire system...
reply to post by Xcathdra
I think the main problem with the general public is that they see their car ticketed for illegal parking (I realize this isn't by police services in some places but others it is) or they get pulled over for speeding or driving infractions, and are handed tickets… But then, if their home is broken into they are told to wait for a couple hours because the matter isn't pressing.
This has nothing to do with LEOs on the ground, it has to do with the machine. How police services can be used to generate revenue.
(I don't know if this example is applicable to everywhere but I do know police services have revenue generating income streams and requests that are costly and their urgency is managed by mandates and policies which do not always seem to be "protecting the public", and I do believe other examples are out there.)
Below is a study that showed a higher speed limit was safer.
There was a better study I know of, which I can't find, but if I remember correctly it showed that safety speed limits in many places were actually 5-10mph under what was the safest speed to travel on various stretches of roads. Which begs the question, are the limits there for safety or for revenue?
**note** It also showed that going under the speed limit was equally unsafe. Similar to the above.
Another thing to add is the "3 felonies a day" argument. That people unknowingly (statically speaking) commit about 3 felonies a day.
My caveat about the above one, is that the author (a civil rights lawyer) is also selling a book, so his estimates may simply be a result of his eagerness to sell copies and his bias in his field.
However!
Consider the following penal code:
Hearing or knowing about a crime, makes you guilty of one. And considering that:
…I get the feeling with the numbers that high (no pun intended) for just one year (10%) that over the lifetime a very high % of people either experiment or use something illegal. And everything involved with that makes me consider that the civil rights lawyer might very well be very close.
Tight knit families are not going to turn in their children the first chance they get.
SO…
In conclusion, ignorance of the law is kind of a given in the US, under the current judicial system. There is no sense to many of the laws on the books. Many laws are not moral nor do they bring about a moral society. (Given the incarceration %'s and the effects of the system).
The hypocrisy is the problem.
For people to feel they "entrust us with their authority" means that people need to feel like it was actually them, doing the entrusting. Not some political machine that manipulates the law to their needs with business interest or corruption making the calls in some room that no one will ever hear the conversation from.
In respect to the OP, I think the points I've laid out, play into the psyche of the average person and their knee-jerk reaction towards law enforcement.
*Also, sorry for off quoting you so much, I only do so to present another side for debate. I'm not trying to pick on you.
I couldn't agree more and am a firm believer in continuing education in the law enforcement field. However, that education does no good when the people who entrust us with their authority don't bother to educate themselves on the laws / topics / issues either.
Training and communication is a 2 way road from both sides of the fence.
I think the main problem with the general public is that they see their car ticketed for illegal parking (I realize this isn't by police services in some places but others it is) or they get pulled over for speeding or driving infractions, and are handed tickets… But then, if their home is broken into they are told to wait for a couple hours because the matter isn't pressing.
This has nothing to do with LEOs on the ground, it has to do with the machine. How police services can be used to generate revenue.
(I don't know if this example is applicable to everywhere but I do know police services have revenue generating income streams and requests that are costly and their urgency is managed by mandates and policies which do not always seem to be "protecting the public", and I do believe other examples are out there.)
Below is a study that showed a higher speed limit was safer.
*
Comparing the group of limit-raising states and the group of unchanged states, the study demonstrated that fatality rates dropped in both groups, essentially equally. Raising speed limits did not affect overall safety. The study examined fatality rates on all roads in each state, so that the expected usage shifts from less-safe undivided highways to safer and faster freeways were accounted for, helping to explain the favorable safety results associated with higher freeway limits.
There was a better study I know of, which I can't find, but if I remember correctly it showed that safety speed limits in many places were actually 5-10mph under what was the safest speed to travel on various stretches of roads. Which begs the question, are the limits there for safety or for revenue?
**note** It also showed that going under the speed limit was equally unsafe. Similar to the above.
Another thing to add is the "3 felonies a day" argument. That people unknowingly (statically speaking) commit about 3 felonies a day.
*
Boston civil-liberties lawyer Harvey Silverglate calls his new book "Three Felonies a Day," referring to the number of crimes he estimates the average American now unwittingly commits because of vague laws. New technology adds its own complexity, making innocent activity potentially criminal.
My caveat about the above one, is that the author (a civil rights lawyer) is also selling a book, so his estimates may simply be a result of his eagerness to sell copies and his bias in his field.
However!
Consider the following penal code:
*
Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
Hearing or knowing about a crime, makes you guilty of one. And considering that:
*
According to the latest surveys, cited by the DEA themselves, there are about 12.7 million people who have used some illegal drug in the last month and perhaps 30 to 40 million who have used some illegal drug within the last year.
…I get the feeling with the numbers that high (no pun intended) for just one year (10%) that over the lifetime a very high % of people either experiment or use something illegal. And everything involved with that makes me consider that the civil rights lawyer might very well be very close.
Tight knit families are not going to turn in their children the first chance they get.
SO…
In conclusion, ignorance of the law is kind of a given in the US, under the current judicial system. There is no sense to many of the laws on the books. Many laws are not moral nor do they bring about a moral society. (Given the incarceration %'s and the effects of the system).
The hypocrisy is the problem.
For people to feel they "entrust us with their authority" means that people need to feel like it was actually them, doing the entrusting. Not some political machine that manipulates the law to their needs with business interest or corruption making the calls in some room that no one will ever hear the conversation from.
In respect to the OP, I think the points I've laid out, play into the psyche of the average person and their knee-jerk reaction towards law enforcement.
*Also, sorry for off quoting you so much, I only do so to present another side for debate. I'm not trying to pick on you.
edit on 20-1-2014
by boncho because: (no reason given)
On both sides of the fence....
hopenotfeariswhatweneed
in answer to your question ...that is a resounding no!..the training is by far the most important part of the whole story
hopenotfeariswhatweneed
.. as i finished with the court process and i asked my lawyer how could this could have happened.....he simply answered me..."c'mon you know the court is not about the truth"
Then my question would be why didn't you file an ethics complaint with the bar?
hopenotfeariswhatweneed
so perhaps there needs to be a rethink for the whole system which is corrupt ...but hey when you have ex police becoming police prosecutors moving on to be lawyers,and the waiting in line to become judges....in my view that is a massive fail
Trying to continue to blame police by suggesting they move into the judicial side of things holds no water - respectfully. To me that is just an effort to blame police for something you couldn't blame them for as officers.
By and far the 2 professions could not be farther apart from each other. Constantly having cases plead down to misdemeanor / infraction charges does not sit well with law enforcement. Its on of the main reasons we are taught to not be concerned with case outcomes. Being 95% of cases are plea bargained out, concerning yourself with the outcomes is a quick way to get burned out on doing law enforcement.
Secondly Law Enforcement's function is not to support the Prosecution no more than it is to support the Defense. That argument is left to the 2 attorneys and how persuasive of an argument they can make based on the available info / evidence.
hopenotfeariswhatweneed
when i was a young fellow i used to clean houses ,one of these was owned by a high court judge who used beat his son and wife,i can attest to this by the bruises on their faces...it was a weekly clean and i was privy to his alcohol consumption via the case of scotch he used to down on a weekly basis,often he would down more than 12 bottles in a week,the cases were in the kitchen cupboard and i used to count them having no real idea at the time what i was witnessing''''...i even had the privilege of hearing some of his rants....often he would be drinking in the mornings telling us if he got anyone for drugs he was going to make an example of them...\
so my personal experiences have not given me a whole lot of faith in the entire system...
Did you do anything to stop the beatings?
Did you contact local authorities?
When you found out about his abuse how long did you continue to remain employed with him?
If you did none of the above and you voluntarily remained employed then, respectfully, the system did not fail - You failed the system.
reply to post by Xcathdra
i was in no shape to be fighting the system after what i had been through....i had enough of being in a court room and would happily never see one again......i lost everything i owned,beaten almost to death and lost my kids...by far the lowest point of my life......going to the barr at that point would have been like beating my own head against a wall...all i can say is sometimes it is not all black and white
as far as the judge is concerned i had no life experience at that point and had no clue as to how to handle the situation,maybe had i had some legal knowledge i would have known what to do but seriously as a 20 year old going down to the local police to rag on a huge authority figure do you really believe i could have made a difference.?.....if the wife and son were not making complaints who would have believed me?...corruption is ripe within this system and i could have just as easily dissapeared into a deep ditch to be never heard of again...
as far as continuing working for him yes i did ...i was not the boss i simply did as i was told if i wanted to eat and pay rent...it is as simple as that...anyways i will happily take this conversation up with u in the morning
i was in no shape to be fighting the system after what i had been through....i had enough of being in a court room and would happily never see one again......i lost everything i owned,beaten almost to death and lost my kids...by far the lowest point of my life......going to the barr at that point would have been like beating my own head against a wall...all i can say is sometimes it is not all black and white
as far as the judge is concerned i had no life experience at that point and had no clue as to how to handle the situation,maybe had i had some legal knowledge i would have known what to do but seriously as a 20 year old going down to the local police to rag on a huge authority figure do you really believe i could have made a difference.?.....if the wife and son were not making complaints who would have believed me?...corruption is ripe within this system and i could have just as easily dissapeared into a deep ditch to be never heard of again...
as far as continuing working for him yes i did ...i was not the boss i simply did as i was told if i wanted to eat and pay rent...it is as simple as that...anyways i will happily take this conversation up with u in the morning
boncho
I think the main problem with the general public is that they see their car ticketed for illegal parking (I realize this isn't by police services in some places but others it is) or they get pulled over for speeding or driving infractions, and are handed tickets… But then, if their home is broken into they are told to wait for a couple hours because the matter isn't pressing.
Please show me an instance where an officer continued to perform traffic stops while they were enroute to a burglary call. If you do find one please tell me if their agency requires patrol to work those investigations or just take the initial report. Secondly there is a huge difference between the 2, since for traffic the violation is directly involved where as a burglary is generally not.
The other factor to consider is the size of the department and what people are responsible for criminal investigations, whether it be major crimes or property crimes. My agency has detective squads that deal with property crimes. We respond and do a basic report and forward it on to their division for assignment and follow up. Also there are departments who have dedicated traffic divisions which do nothing but work accidents and look for traffic violations. Just because you see a police car with someone pulled over does not mean other areas of the city are being ignored. Its also the very reason you will see a cop ignore a traffic violation. If its not the area they are assigned to they are not going to spend to much focus on it.
So before we go down the road of a blanket statement, we should take into account those factors people choose to ignore.
boncho
This has nothing to do with LEOs on the ground, it has to do with the machine. How police services can be used to generate revenue.
(I don't know if this example is applicable to everywhere but I do know police services have revenue generating income streams and requests that are costly and their urgency is managed by mandates and policies which do not always seem to be "protecting the public", and I do believe other examples are out there.)
I see this argument used a lot and what people refuse to take into account is Law Enforcement does not generate revenue. The court system does that when they find a person guilty and assign a fine as punishment. The legislature does that when they draft a criminal offense and assign a classification to it (Felony / misdemeanor / infraction).
Secondly, those fines do not go into law enforcements budget, they go into general revenue, as required by almost all state laws. In Missouri a police department is restricted when it comes to how much funding can be assigned that come from fines
(For more info research Mack's Creek). If we issue state citations we see none of the fines (either the department or the city).
boncho
Below is a study that showed a higher speed limit was safer.
*
Comparing the group of limit-raising states and the group of unchanged states, the study demonstrated that fatality rates dropped in both groups, essentially equally. Raising speed limits did not affect overall safety. The study examined fatality rates on all roads in each state, so that the expected usage shifts from less-safe undivided highways to safer and faster freeways were accounted for, helping to explain the favorable safety results associated with higher freeway limits.
There was a better study I know of, which I can't find, but if I remember correctly it showed that safety speed limits in many places were actually 5-10mph under what was the safest speed to travel on various stretches of roads. Which begs the question, are the limits there for safety or for revenue?
**note** It also showed that going under the speed limit was equally unsafe. Similar to the above.
Speed limits are established based on construction, line of sight distance, residential / school versus commercial zoning, etc. As an example when you exit a highway you see a yellow speed sign. Those are recommended engineering suggestions on what they think a safe speed would be based on the various criteria. Even though the yellow says 25 mph, there is no law violation if a person continues doing 70 on the off ramp. It only becomes an issue if an accident results from the speed.
As an example Springfield Missouri conducted a study of their intersections and found in some areas they needed to lower the limit while in others they actually raised the limits.
The main question is - as a whole and not as an individual, is this speed limit appropriate. They take into account that not everyone is going to be safe behind the wheel and do their best to find a happy medium. How much havoc would be created if we allowed people to drive at the level they think they are capable of? We know first hand that some people think their skills are better than others when in reality they shouldn't be allowed to drive a gocart on a closed track, let alone a real car on a public road.
boncho
Another thing to add is the "3 felonies a day" argument. That people unknowingly (statically speaking) c.......
My caveat about the above one, is that the author (a civil rights lawyer) is also selling a book, so his estimates may simply be a result of his eagerness to sell copies and his bias in his field.
Im sure his stats are based on his experience in Boston, which compared with other crime stats will either be higher or lower. trying to compare state laws to each other is not easy.
boncho
However!
Consider the following penal code:
*
Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
Hearing or knowing about a crime, makes you guilty of one. And considering that:
*
According to the latest surveys, cited by the DEA themselves, there are about 12.7 million people who have used some illegal drug in the last month and perhaps 30 to 40 million who have used some illegal drug within the last year.
The problem with the above crime, and I see this a lot from people, is it is Federal and not State. As a municipal officer I cannot enforce Federal Criminal Law, no more than they can enforce State / Local / city law / ordinances. Some exceptions exist (joint task forces etc).
So singling out a crime without placing it in proper context can and does lead to confusion and misunderstanding. Hence my constant argument on people needing to learn how their government works, at all levels, and how those levels interact with each other, and how people fit into the picture.
boncho
…I get the feeling with the numbers that high (no pun intended) for just one year (10%) that over the lifetime a very high % of people either experiment or use something illegal. And everything involved with that makes me consider that the civil rights lawyer might very well be very close.
Tight knit families are not going to turn in their children the first chance they get.
Again, trying to make a blanket example does not work in this case. The laws in Florida are different than the laws in Missouri are different than the laws in New York are different than the laws in California are different than federal laws.
In conclusion, ignorance of the law is kind of a given in the US, under the current judicial system. There is no sense to many of the laws on the books. Many laws are not moral nor do they bring about a moral society. (Given the incarceration %'s and the effects of the system).
All laws are available for people to research. For those who don't wish to educate themselves are in fact willfully ignorant. Just because a person does not know does not make them non responsible for their actions.
boncho
The hypocrisy is the problem.
Willful ignorance is the problem, not hypocrisy.
boncho
For people to feel they "entrust us with their authority" means that people need to feel like it was actually them, doing the entrusting. Not some political machine that manipulates the law to their needs with business interest or corruption making the calls in some room that no one will ever hear the conversation from.
Then get involved in government and vote. Engage your elected officials and hold them accountable. Understand that just because law enforcement does something you don't like or agree with does not mean all law enforcement are corrupt and it does not mean they are enforcing questionable laws. Law Enforcement does not make the laws, your elected reps do.
People lay the entire blame on Law Enforcement because they don't understand how government works. Law Enforcement does not make the laws, the legislative branch does. Law enforcement does not establish fines, the legislative does. Law Enforcement does not determine guilt or innocence, the courts do. Law Enforcement does not charge anyone, the PA's office does.
The issues raised are created by entities other than law enforcement. Reinforcing what ive stated already, not understanding how things work results in people being pissed because they blame / cite the wrong area. Don't like a law, petition to have it repealed / changed / modified. Don't like a fine, petition to have it changed / repealed / modified.
boncho
In respect to the OP, I think the points I've laid out, play into the psyche of the average person and their knee-jerk reaction towards law enforcement.
*Also, sorry for off quoting you so much, I only do so to present another side for debate. I'm not trying to pick on you.edit on 20-1-2014 by boncho because: (no reason given)
Your fine man - no worries. You are one of the few people I enjoy debating / conversing with. Pick away - I don't take it personally. I view these threads as an opportunity to try and educate people on the "why" questions. Whether or not they agree with it, I hope they at least take away some useful info. If they do then I feel I served a purpose.
As for the OP and article, sensationalizing a topic that is not supported by the facts (not to mention a TnC violation by not using the exact article title) is my irritation. Law Enforcement is automatically guilty and people ignore any and all info . laws that are taken into account if it supports law enforcement.
The very argument people make against the police are in turn used by those people doing the complaining.
Example - Ive asked and no one can answer me - How does a person look "obviously deaf"?
I have no issues holding law enforcement accountable or to a higher standard. I just take exception when people wish to apply standards / issues that cannot be taken into account. For those people to constantly complain while ignoring the fact is also a part of the overall "problem".
sorry for my lengthy response.
reply to post by gardener
You have to judge this on the premise of the statements, as we know, when you have two policemen as the only witnesses, and the victim or alleged perpetrator of a minor hit and run as they describe it.
Statements are written after the fact and most people know, if you are a witness and make a statement, you will more than likely be cross examined or at least the accounts will be compared between both witnesses, you can expect that if the " ooops we effed moment ever entered either of the officers minds " you best believe that there is possibly some stretching the truth that might be found in any statement.
You have an elderly deaf person, beaten very seriously about the head area and only because of his complexion and the bruising, you can't really see the full punishment dealt out, but the only telling detail of serious force is the blood in the eyes, that is another story, there are far too many hot heads that have badges and have no idea of using the correct amount of force and if they did see a sign that said the gentleman was deaf displayed they really betrayed their own training and professionalism by how they proceeded, to me anyone outside of playing devils advocate, that cannot see that the wrong procedure was applied I am not sure what to say about that reasoning, what they did is ball their fists up and proceeded like a couple of street thugs committing battery.
At the very least the officers probably did use excessive force and their main goal should have been to restrain, cuff, then detain and transport, if the suspect needed medical attention they should have also called for paramedics or some medical care and also someone that could communicate with a deaf person.
Many balls were dropped here, and honestly neither of these police should be wearing badges, getting taxpayer dollars and most importantly they should not have the privilege of being considered public servants in their mishandling and abusive treatment of an elderly deaf person and beating him about his head and neck area repeatedly and more than likely his entire body, IMHO I say, no excuses, throw the book at them.
If the gentleman fled the scene, he needs to be held accountable for that as well if there is no plausible explanation, that is in all fairness.
You have to judge this on the premise of the statements, as we know, when you have two policemen as the only witnesses, and the victim or alleged perpetrator of a minor hit and run as they describe it.
Statements are written after the fact and most people know, if you are a witness and make a statement, you will more than likely be cross examined or at least the accounts will be compared between both witnesses, you can expect that if the " ooops we effed moment ever entered either of the officers minds " you best believe that there is possibly some stretching the truth that might be found in any statement.
You have an elderly deaf person, beaten very seriously about the head area and only because of his complexion and the bruising, you can't really see the full punishment dealt out, but the only telling detail of serious force is the blood in the eyes, that is another story, there are far too many hot heads that have badges and have no idea of using the correct amount of force and if they did see a sign that said the gentleman was deaf displayed they really betrayed their own training and professionalism by how they proceeded, to me anyone outside of playing devils advocate, that cannot see that the wrong procedure was applied I am not sure what to say about that reasoning, what they did is ball their fists up and proceeded like a couple of street thugs committing battery.
At the very least the officers probably did use excessive force and their main goal should have been to restrain, cuff, then detain and transport, if the suspect needed medical attention they should have also called for paramedics or some medical care and also someone that could communicate with a deaf person.
Many balls were dropped here, and honestly neither of these police should be wearing badges, getting taxpayer dollars and most importantly they should not have the privilege of being considered public servants in their mishandling and abusive treatment of an elderly deaf person and beating him about his head and neck area repeatedly and more than likely his entire body, IMHO I say, no excuses, throw the book at them.
If the gentleman fled the scene, he needs to be held accountable for that as well if there is no plausible explanation, that is in all fairness.
edit on 20-1-2014 by phinubian because: (no reason given)
reply to post by tamusan
In an ideal world the public passing or driving by would have themselves arrested the police.
Police, are not allowed or given authority under law to beat the public up, they are allowed to physically restrain, place on the ground and securely hold them and actions of that nature...but not beat them with abandon, and certainly not like a couple of wild animals savaging a weakened prey.
THAT is in an ideal world...it rarely is though is it.
In an ideal world the public passing or driving by would have themselves arrested the police.
Police, are not allowed or given authority under law to beat the public up, they are allowed to physically restrain, place on the ground and securely hold them and actions of that nature...but not beat them with abandon, and certainly not like a couple of wild animals savaging a weakened prey.
THAT is in an ideal world...it rarely is though is it.
reply to post by Xcathdra
I understand this. My position is not that police are clearly violating any current law in most circumstances. My position is that the laws need to be changed to protect the public from excessive force from the police. Currently, it seems the law is in favor of protecting the police from most liabilities for their actions. I may be wrong, and I respect the opinions of others, but I will maintain my position that the American police are often using excessive force. In the end, I choose to accept and follow the laws of every country I go to.
I believe that all police actions need to be more closely scrutinized, and the mandatory use of the absolute minimum required force should be strictly enforced. This should be stricty enforced and violations should be heavily punished. I also believe that excessive penalties should exist for law enforcement who are found to willfully use excessive force. I do not believe an unarmed man should be subdued with a taser. I do not believe it should be acceptable for a handcuffed individual to be beaten. I do not believe that "Duh, I thought he had a gun" should ever be an acceptable excuse, for shooting an unarmed individual, regardless of what the suspect is doing. I do not believe that it should be acceptable for police to accidentally shoot innocent bystanders or passersby. In both of those cases, the officers should at least be found unfit for further law enforcement duty. If they can't hit their target, they should not be allowed use of a gun.
I agree with you that no one can look deaf. The article has led me to belief that the suspect car had a label indicating the driver was deaf. If that is true, then the officers involved should not be allowed to continue any career in law enforcement. A great attention to detail should be expected from law enforcement officers.
I believe it is time to stop asserting that the word of law enforcement is the absolute truth, and that a suspect is always a liar. It is time for all police officers and their vehicles to constantly record the full 360 degrees of their environment. This video should be transmitted, in real time, to an independent agency tasked to monitor police actions.
From the given information, I am not even able to agree that the suspect was involved in an accident. Law enforcement allege that he was in an accident.
These are just examples of what I believe, and I do not expect that my beliefs should be law. I do expect that the beliefs of the majority should be the law in the United States of America. I do not claim that my belief is shared by the majority. I am just hoping people take an interest in how they can try to legally change what they do not like.
Please do not assume that I consider all law enforcement officers in the United States to be bad. I believe that many law enforcement officers exhibit an impeccable degree of integrity. I feel sadness for the families of fallen officers, and also wounded officers. Also, understand that my anger and hatred for criminals is something usually missing from my comments. I just expect that law enforcement should do whatever it takes to deliver an undamaged suspect to their trial. My negative opinion of cons and ex-cons is even greater than my negative opinon for improper police actions. I follow laws that I don't want to like, and I expect others to do the same. Breaking a law does not help to change the law. I blame the criminals for the police having gained a general justification to use what I deem to be excessive force.
In the end, I don't care too much about the future of the United States, because I spend as little time here as possible. After my parents pass away, I will probably stay away permanently, and will also stop paying attention to what happens here. I still hope that civilian-police relations will improve, and citizens are free from excessive force and treated with respect by all law enforcement.
And whether or not an officer's actions are lawful is also up to a court of law and not peoples personal opinions. A position several of the posters above my post here are demonstrating quite well.
I understand this. My position is not that police are clearly violating any current law in most circumstances. My position is that the laws need to be changed to protect the public from excessive force from the police. Currently, it seems the law is in favor of protecting the police from most liabilities for their actions. I may be wrong, and I respect the opinions of others, but I will maintain my position that the American police are often using excessive force. In the end, I choose to accept and follow the laws of every country I go to.
An officer is allowed to use necessary force to overcome the level of resistance offered. The requirement set forth by scotus requires an officer to de-escalate force as soon as safely possible to do so. The other requirement set by the court is an officer's actions must be viewed in the context they took place in and not use 20/20 hindsight.
I believe that all police actions need to be more closely scrutinized, and the mandatory use of the absolute minimum required force should be strictly enforced. This should be stricty enforced and violations should be heavily punished. I also believe that excessive penalties should exist for law enforcement who are found to willfully use excessive force. I do not believe an unarmed man should be subdued with a taser. I do not believe it should be acceptable for a handcuffed individual to be beaten. I do not believe that "Duh, I thought he had a gun" should ever be an acceptable excuse, for shooting an unarmed individual, regardless of what the suspect is doing. I do not believe that it should be acceptable for police to accidentally shoot innocent bystanders or passersby. In both of those cases, the officers should at least be found unfit for further law enforcement duty. If they can't hit their target, they should not be allowed use of a gun.
Again, one of the reasons I have asked how someone can look "obviously deaf".
I agree with you that no one can look deaf. The article has led me to belief that the suspect car had a label indicating the driver was deaf. If that is true, then the officers involved should not be allowed to continue any career in law enforcement. A great attention to detail should be expected from law enforcement officers.
The other issue is we are getting the details from the victim / suspect in this case. The Law Enforcement side wont be released until the investigations are concluded, so once again we have half a story in which people are basing their positions on.
I believe it is time to stop asserting that the word of law enforcement is the absolute truth, and that a suspect is always a liar. It is time for all police officers and their vehicles to constantly record the full 360 degrees of their environment. This video should be transmitted, in real time, to an independent agency tasked to monitor police actions.
How bad was the accident?
Why did the guy flee the accident scene?
How long did it take for him to stop for law enforcement?
What were his actions when he was contacted by law enforcement?
From the given information, I am not even able to agree that the suspect was involved in an accident. Law enforcement allege that he was in an accident.
These are just examples of what I believe, and I do not expect that my beliefs should be law. I do expect that the beliefs of the majority should be the law in the United States of America. I do not claim that my belief is shared by the majority. I am just hoping people take an interest in how they can try to legally change what they do not like.
Please do not assume that I consider all law enforcement officers in the United States to be bad. I believe that many law enforcement officers exhibit an impeccable degree of integrity. I feel sadness for the families of fallen officers, and also wounded officers. Also, understand that my anger and hatred for criminals is something usually missing from my comments. I just expect that law enforcement should do whatever it takes to deliver an undamaged suspect to their trial. My negative opinion of cons and ex-cons is even greater than my negative opinon for improper police actions. I follow laws that I don't want to like, and I expect others to do the same. Breaking a law does not help to change the law. I blame the criminals for the police having gained a general justification to use what I deem to be excessive force.
In the end, I don't care too much about the future of the United States, because I spend as little time here as possible. After my parents pass away, I will probably stay away permanently, and will also stop paying attention to what happens here. I still hope that civilian-police relations will improve, and citizens are free from excessive force and treated with respect by all law enforcement.
edit on 20-1-2014 by tamusan because: (no reason given)
hopenotfeariswhatweneed
i was in no shape to be fighting the system after what i had been through....i had enough of being in a court room and would happily never see one again......i lost everything i owned,beaten almost to death and lost my kids...by far the lowest point of my life......going to the barr at that point would have been like beating my own head against a wall...all i can say is sometimes it is not all black and white
I am well aware of how things are not black and white. As for the rest it kind of goes to my point about having all relevant information. I don't know your background and based my opinion on the only info present. As we can see sometimes that info can change the entire view. Something people need to think about before going on an accusation spree (not you).
hopenotfeariswhatweneed
as far as the judge is concerned i had no life experience at that point and had no clue as to how to handle the situation,maybe had i had some legal knowledge i would have known what to do but seriously as a 20 year old going down to the local police to rag on a huge authority figure do you really believe i could have made a difference.?.....if the wife and son were not making complaints who would have believed me?...corruption is ripe within this system and i could have just as easily dissapeared into a deep ditch to be never heard of again...
I could draw several observations on this point but I wont because it will come across as me attacking you personally (which is not my intent and my bad if im coming across that way).
What I will say is the example goes to show how easy it is for people to not get involved in something important. You cold not possibly know what type of outcome would have occurred. To assume only one outcome is possible and then using that to rationalize why you didn't come forward is a perfect example of what I have been trying to say.
By assuming to know the outcome and failing to act because of that only reinforces the perception that the system does not work. If you don't at least try on each case, then how can one claim the system is corrupt? By not acting, it reinforces the incorrect assumption that all law enforcement is corrupt.
Making that assumption is no more valid than police arguing that since they stopped one driver who was intoxicated, all drivers on the road are therefore intoxicated.
Does the system need to be cleaned up - absolutely. There will always be room for improvement.
Can the system be cleaned up if people only complain but fail to take action? Nope.
hopenotfeariswhatweneed
as far as continuing working for him yes i did ...i was not the boss i simply did as i was told if i wanted to eat and pay rent...it is as simple as that...anyways i will happily take this conversation up with u in the morning
Your reasons are your own and since I wasn't there I will defer to your info on that subject.
One of the most difficult things to do in any Democracy is for the citizen to actively participate in it. It has to be more than just complaining about this or that being broke. It has to be more than a person arguing why a law is unconstitutional.
It has to result in the citizen making the changes they want expect. To blame the system is like yelling at the sky because its raining out. You either take action by coming in out of the rain or you can stand there and be wet while complaining the weather is broke.
As for continuing the conversation im all for that but understand if you want to move on to other things. My responses are at times (to many time in fact) overly lengthy.
again if I have said something offensive it was not my intent so my apologies. Thanks for the civil debate.
reply to post by MysterX
I understand this is not an ideal world. I only speak in terms of why this is not an ideal world. I expect things to become worse than they are, not get any better. That doesn't mean that I should not try to inspire someone to take action to bring us closer to that ideal world.
THAT is in an ideal world...it rarely is though is it.
I understand this is not an ideal world. I only speak in terms of why this is not an ideal world. I expect things to become worse than they are, not get any better. That doesn't mean that I should not try to inspire someone to take action to bring us closer to that ideal world.
reply to post by Xcathdra
But surely that's what the driving examination / test is for?
Combined with insurance claimjs made against a driver, this is the litmus test for what is a safe or unsafe driver.
You don't like blanket statements, and i understand that, but saying that some drivers shouldn't be allowed to drive go kart let alone a car, is a failure of the licensing authorities and not the majority of drivers isn't it?
Other countries have speed limits that are trusted to the judgement of those who use them. It works well too.
Florida is looking at increasing speed limits using German models as a guide.
Orlando Sentinel
People ought to be trusted more, and patronised less i think.
If America (or anywhere for that matter) has a lot of drivers that ought not to be in control of even a Go-Kart, the fault lies with the driving examination authority for being too lax in their standards and passing people as fit to drive when they shouldn't.
Punitive measures for all drivers, because licenses are given out to those not ready or safe to drive, are not in anyones interest.
We know first hand that some people think their skills are better than others when in reality they shouldn't be allowed to drive a gocart on a closed track, let alone a real car on a public road.
But surely that's what the driving examination / test is for?
Combined with insurance claimjs made against a driver, this is the litmus test for what is a safe or unsafe driver.
You don't like blanket statements, and i understand that, but saying that some drivers shouldn't be allowed to drive go kart let alone a car, is a failure of the licensing authorities and not the majority of drivers isn't it?
Other countries have speed limits that are trusted to the judgement of those who use them. It works well too.
Florida is looking at increasing speed limits using German models as a guide.
..traversing Florida’s arterial roadways might get a bit quicker under a proposal gaining steam in the Legislature to boost speed limits on highways throughout the state.
The idea is already sparking comparisons in the Capitol to the German federal highway system with no speed limits.
The “high speed” bill passed out of the Senate Transportation Committee on Thursday, but not before highway safety groups and some lawmakers fretted the higher speeds could fuel road-rage and make highways less safe. The bill would allow the Florida Department of Transportation to boost maximum speed limits on four-lane Interstate highways from 70 miles per hour to 75 mph. Highways with 65-mph and 60-mph limits could also get five-mile-per-hour bumps if the Department of Transportation deems it necessary to help with traffic snarls.
Orlando Sentinel
People ought to be trusted more, and patronised less i think.
If America (or anywhere for that matter) has a lot of drivers that ought not to be in control of even a Go-Kart, the fault lies with the driving examination authority for being too lax in their standards and passing people as fit to drive when they shouldn't.
Punitive measures for all drivers, because licenses are given out to those not ready or safe to drive, are not in anyones interest.
tamusan
reply to post by MysterX
THAT is in an ideal world...it rarely is though is it.
I understand this is not an ideal world. I only speak in terms of why this is not an ideal world. I expect things to become worse than they are, not get any better. That doesn't mean that I should not try to inspire someone to take action to bring us closer to that ideal world.
Absolutely.
I totally agree...to throw our hands up or bury our heads in the sand and accept injustice as an inevitable fact of life is certainly not what i was saying.
reply to post by Xcathdra
I wasn't speaking in that sense. I rarely (if ever) speak about individual officers action with generalizations.
Yes, exactly. In many places though I question who is in charge of designating who does what, how much and how often. At the same time, I will not deny that many cities have great police forces.
Well, I guess it depends on how you look at it. If "general revenue" was being sent to Africa for children in poverty I would agree with the sentiment, but because a police force issues fines or lays charges (which will result in fines) which do go back to the city, and the people in charge are responsible for funding, etc. It's a bit of a big circle. Also, whether its a city fine, a state case, or federal case, in some way one of the three are getting something out of it. Don't forget asset seizure as well.
(Disclosure, the above was done I believe during hard economic times for Chicago, or budget cuts, something like that.)
chicago.cbslocal.com...
www.dallasnews.com...
Keep in mind both are extreme examples. The problem though is things like this is not unheard of. I believe quite a few more examples could be found. And whether you are a city officer, state or fed, LEOs tend to get painted with the same brush. So even if your agency is on the up and up, another one can bring you down in public perception.
Also, with the internet, each story that's posted some treat it like it's happening in their backyard. Personally, I can debate and talk about whatever happening a hundred or a million miles away, but unless it's in my own area I rarely find it emotionally involved. A lot of people, not so much.
I do not doubt that many places still have good law enforcement. I'm not familiar with Missouri though. I am speaking generalized and also on the issue as a whole.
If that's the case it doesn't apply to what I'm talking about. I know that when you travel state to state though you do notice that speeding is treated much differently in different regions, also city to city. So the example I gave does not apply to everywhere. (Which I should have probably stated.)
I totally agree with you here. And it's ironic because someone is probably a dick to a one cop, they might take it out on one that does't even enforce the same laws, and the cycle continues. Just like one guy might be a real dick to a decent cop, and a dick cop might be nice to a decent person.
The main problem with public/police relations though is there are no boundaries between agencies or even individual officers for most people. So they see anyone in uniform, and they are all the same in their mind. Same type of thinking can happen on the other side as well. Profiling. Which is ironic because people are mad about profiling but then profile the same.
I see both gripes between law enforcement and anti-law enforcement usually involves the exact same king of thinking. Which is why I also chalk it up to something way above the heads of both parties.
Maybe but you can't tell me you know every law off by heart.
Yes I agree. Everything I said in last post was on public perception. And I lay blame specifically with the people at the top.
In summary, although it's unfair, I think the point I was trying to make was that what one agency does, the others have to live with the image and perception. My generalizations are not "all of them are like this", it's more than "all are seen like this."
And corruption, cronyism, and protectionism is a part of the culture in politics which trickles down to other government groups. Something that we see everyday, throughout history.
Please show me an instance where an officer continued to perform traffic stops while they were enroute to a burglary call.
I wasn't speaking in that sense. I rarely (if ever) speak about individual officers action with generalizations.
The other factor to consider is the size of the department and what people are responsible for criminal investigations, whether it be major crimes or property crimes. My agency has detective squads that deal with property crimes. We respond and do a basic report and forward it on to their division for assignment and follow up. Also there are departments who have dedicated traffic divisions which do nothing but work accidents and look for traffic violations.
Yes, exactly. In many places though I question who is in charge of designating who does what, how much and how often. At the same time, I will not deny that many cities have great police forces.
I see this argument used a lot and what people refuse to take into account is Law Enforcement does not generate revenue. The court system does that when they find a person guilty and assign a fine as punishment. The legislature does that when they draft a criminal offense and assign a classification to it (Felony / misdemeanor / infraction).
Secondly, those fines do not go into law enforcements budget, they go into general revenue, as required by almost all state laws.
Well, I guess it depends on how you look at it. If "general revenue" was being sent to Africa for children in poverty I would agree with the sentiment, but because a police force issues fines or lays charges (which will result in fines) which do go back to the city, and the people in charge are responsible for funding, etc. It's a bit of a big circle. Also, whether its a city fine, a state case, or federal case, in some way one of the three are getting something out of it. Don't forget asset seizure as well.
CHICAGO (CBS) – Starting this week, Chicago police are changing their responses to 911 calls. They’ll no longer come right away to reports of things like criminal damage to property, vehicle thefts, garage burglaries, or other crimes in which the suspect is no longer on the scene, and the victim isn’t in immediate danger.
The move will free up the equivalent of 44 police officers a day for patrol duties.
(Disclosure, the above was done I believe during hard economic times for Chicago, or budget cuts, something like that.)
chicago.cbslocal.com...
Under the Texas law aimed at funding law enforcement and hitting criminals where it hurts — their wallets — people can have their property confiscated even if they’re never charged with a crime.
Such laws are widely accepted around the nation as a way to fight crime by depriving suspected criminals of ill-gotten gains. Every year, cars, cellphones, computers, cash and even real estate, are seized from people connected to crimes and the proceeds given to local law enforcement.
But a 2008 report by the Texas Senate Committee on Criminal Justice declared that the crime fighting tool has “become a profit-making, personal account for some law enforcement officials.”
Across the state, some district attorneys have been accused of using forfeited funds to pay for casino outings, trips to Hawaii and alcohol at staff parties.
Sometimes, those who have had funds seized may have been innocent, as in Tenaha, Texas, where about 140 drivers were stopped for minor or nonexistent traffic violations between 2006 and 2008. Officers confiscated property such as cash or jewelry, while allegedly threatening drivers with money laundering charges if they didn’t immediately give up their rights to the items.
www.dallasnews.com...
Keep in mind both are extreme examples. The problem though is things like this is not unheard of. I believe quite a few more examples could be found. And whether you are a city officer, state or fed, LEOs tend to get painted with the same brush. So even if your agency is on the up and up, another one can bring you down in public perception.
Also, with the internet, each story that's posted some treat it like it's happening in their backyard. Personally, I can debate and talk about whatever happening a hundred or a million miles away, but unless it's in my own area I rarely find it emotionally involved. A lot of people, not so much.
In Missouri a police department is restricted when it comes to how much funding can be assigned that come from fines
(For more info research Mack's Creek). If we issue state citations we see none of the fines (either the department or the city).
I do not doubt that many places still have good law enforcement. I'm not familiar with Missouri though. I am speaking generalized and also on the issue as a whole.
As an example Springfield Missouri conducted a study of their intersections and found in some areas they needed to lower the limit while in others they actually raised the limits.
If that's the case it doesn't apply to what I'm talking about. I know that when you travel state to state though you do notice that speeding is treated much differently in different regions, also city to city. So the example I gave does not apply to everywhere. (Which I should have probably stated.)
The problem with the above crime, and I see this a lot from people, is it is Federal and not State. As a municipal officer I cannot enforce Federal Criminal Law, no more than they can enforce State / Local / city law / ordinances. Some exceptions exist (joint task forces etc).
So singling out a crime without placing it in proper context can and does lead to confusion and misunderstanding. Hence my constant argument on people needing to learn how their government works, at all levels, and how those levels interact with each other, and how people fit into the picture.
I totally agree with you here. And it's ironic because someone is probably a dick to a one cop, they might take it out on one that does't even enforce the same laws, and the cycle continues. Just like one guy might be a real dick to a decent cop, and a dick cop might be nice to a decent person.
The main problem with public/police relations though is there are no boundaries between agencies or even individual officers for most people. So they see anyone in uniform, and they are all the same in their mind. Same type of thinking can happen on the other side as well. Profiling. Which is ironic because people are mad about profiling but then profile the same.
I see both gripes between law enforcement and anti-law enforcement usually involves the exact same king of thinking. Which is why I also chalk it up to something way above the heads of both parties.
Willful ignorance is the problem, not hypocrisy.
Maybe but you can't tell me you know every law off by heart.
People lay the entire blame on Law Enforcement because they don't understand how government works. Law Enforcement does not make the laws, the legislative branch does. Law enforcement does not establish fines, the legislative does. Law Enforcement does not determine guilt or innocence, the courts do. Law Enforcement does not charge anyone, the PA's office does
Yes I agree. Everything I said in last post was on public perception. And I lay blame specifically with the people at the top.
In summary, although it's unfair, I think the point I was trying to make was that what one agency does, the others have to live with the image and perception. My generalizations are not "all of them are like this", it's more than "all are seen like this."
And corruption, cronyism, and protectionism is a part of the culture in politics which trickles down to other government groups. Something that we see everyday, throughout history.
tamusan
I understand this. My position is not that police are clearly violating any current law in most circumstances. My position is that the laws need to be changed to protect the public from excessive force from the police. Currently, it seems the law is in favor of protecting the police from most liabilities for there actions. I may be wrong, and I respect the opinions of others, but I will maintain my position that the American police are often using excessive force. In the end, I choose to accept and follow the laws of every country I go to.
In addition to laws like assault, which apply to everyone, most places also have separate laws for excessive use of force by the police. Use of force is one of the harder topics to understand with law enforcement. Law Enforcement is capable of using force to overcome resistance, which means they are able to escalate over the level of force being used against them. That means law enforcement will be perceived as overly aggressive when in fact they are within the law.
As for protections - They exist in carious forms.
In my state an officer is immune to civil lawsuits because of their actions. However, it only applies when the actions are lawful and the officer is within departmental policy. Just because an action is lawful does not mean their actions did not violate policy.
If a policy violation occurred the officer can not only be terminated, the city can disassociate themselves from the officer. That in turn places almost all civil liability on the officer, including fine judgments. The prosecuting attorneys here are immune from lawsuits, unless they acted illegally or violated ethics standards.
Why? Can you imagine how tied up law enforcement and prosecutors would be if any person can file a lawsuit for any reason? Both entities would become professional witnesses full time since they would spend all their time in court.
tamusan
I believe that all police actions need to be more closely scrutinized, and the mandatory use of the absolute minimum required force.
They are - Anytime use of force occurs a report is done. I have yet to come across and agency that does not have that type of requirement (although they most likely exist however I have not found one).
The absolute minimum is a supreme court standard. Officers are required to de-escalate the use of force at the earliest possible moment.
tamusan
This should be stricty enforced and violations should be heavily punished.
They are enforced.. The issue comes from people imposing their own moral standards into the situation rather than using the legal standards established. This results in a, imo, biased view on the part of civilians.
tamusan
I also believe that excessive penalties should exist for law enforcement who are found to willfully use excessive force. I do not believe an unarmed man should be subdued with a taser. I do not believe it should be acceptable for a handcuffed individual to be beaten. I do not believe that "Duh, I thought he had a gun" should ever be an acceptable excuse, for shooting an unarmed individual, regardless of what the suspect is doing. I do not believe that it should be acceptable for police to accidentally shoot innocent bystanders or passersby. In both of those cases, the officers should at least be found unfit for further law enforcement duty. If they can't hit their target, they should not be allowed use of a gun.
This post here is a perfect example of what im talking about. I respect your position - however your moral standards you just described above are not going to be the same moral standards other people have. this is why we fall back to the law instead of personal opinion. Its why, in part, courts exist.
tamusan
I agree with you that no one can look deaf. The article has led me to belief that the suspect car had a label indicating the driver was deaf. If that is true, then the officers involved should not be allowed to continue any career in law enforcement. A great attention to detail should be expected from law enforcement officers.
Your view point on the deaf sticker is whats called a leap of logic. Just because the sticker exists does not mean it was placed there by the car owner. It does not mean the driver is deaf either. Did he steal the car? Is it a friends car? Is he deaf?
Ignoring those questions, again, sets you up in the position of not liking law enforcement because you think they should have behaved in a certain matter.
tamusan
I believe it is time to stop asserting that the word of law enforcement is the absolute truth, and that a suspect is always a liar. It is time for all police officers and their vehicles to constantly record the full 360 degrees of their environment. This video should be transmitted, in real time, to an independent agency tasked to monitor police actions.
Unrealistic expectation as well as officer safety issues with the constant live stream.
As for absolute truth - Officers are considered expert witness's in court (in general). They are open to cross examination by either the prosecution or defense. So again, its a court issue and not law enforcement issue.
tamusan
From the given information, I am not even able to agree that the suspect was involved in an accident. Law enforcement allege that he was in an accident.
Which is why the incident is under investigation. Do we know what he hit / who he hit?
tamusan
In the end, I don't care too much about the future of the United States, because I spend as little time here as possible. After my parents pass away, I will probably stay away permanently, and will also stop paying attention to what happens here. I still hope that civilian-police relations will improve, and citizens are free from excessive force and treated with respect by all law enforcement.
they will improve when people and police communicate with each other. they will improve when people get involved in government and participate.
However, when people jump to conclusions and ignore information that might support officer actions, it becomes difficult to communicate when people refuse to listen / understand.
As for leaving that your thing. All I can say is I would rather work to be a part of the solution rather than complain and runaway. Apathy is a massive issue and will remain so until people get involved.
I will come back later on tonight and address the 2 posts made. Im short on time and want to make sure I have enough time to answer the posts
completely.
reply to post by Xcathdra
Thank you for sharing your knowledge of the justice system. I think provided a great description of how the justice system is supposed to work. I actually feel like I've learned a few things.
You've brought some of the focus off of law enforcement officers specifically, and placed it onto all of the players in the criminal justice system. It is my suspicion that the criminal justice system is sabotaged by corruption at every level. I have a hard time convincing myself that corruption has not tainted every facet of the justice system.
Normally, my posts do not reflect my core moral values. I'm an inherently evil person who chooses to follow the law and practice what is acceptable to society. I try to force myself to interpret the the law and to also correctly identify the suspects actions versus law enforcement. I've watched every video that's been available, which captured law enforcement apprehending a suspect , and have base my viewpoints on what I have seen. I look at if a suspect resists or not, and when a resisting suspect stops resisting. I compare that with how much force the police use, and take note of what the suspect is doing during those times. My own personal actions and viewpoints are always in line with my understand of the law. My real moral values do not always parallel my actions and given viewpoints. For example, all that I have stated, in this thread, is based on my interpretation of the law and my beliefs of what our society accepts as fair. My suppressed moral beliefs would have me preaching eugenics and population control to reduce police violence. I admit that eugenics and population control are illegal and against our societies beliefs. That is why I try to make my viewpoints and actions reflect our law and society.
It's seems logical to at least assume the individual could be deaf and incapable of hearing the barking of commands by the police officers. I have many law enforcement officers in my extended family. Some of them are good cops, and some of them are bad cops. Perhaps the good and bad is better described as an intelligence gap. Some of my relatives would see the sign, and test the theory of deafness, before jacking up the suspect. Some of my relatives would likely not see the sign at all, and some would skip straight to the beating. The rest of them would see the sign and care, because they would just like to get to the beating part. The only thing that kept me from being a law enforcement officer is myself, as I am otherwise qualified. I know I would not be a good cop, and would put my safety over that of the suspect. Maybe I am flawed for seeing a suspect as innocent until proven guilty.
I disagree that livestream is unrealistic, or is a threat to officers safety. Cameras and transmitters have become smaller and smaller. For the past 2 years, I always have these practically unnoticeable cameras on my person and vehicles. Everything captured by these cameras is transmitted away. I won't volunteer this information if I have an encounter with law enforcement It will be up to them to discover and deactivate the system. Retrieval of these recordings, if they show misconduct, will require international cooperation. The images would likely find themselves on the news before the diplomacy is sorted out. All of of that is pointless for me to mention and probably careless as well. I need to justify why I do not find the idea of cameras to be unrealistic or a safety issue. Unless the safety issue is that an officer could not hide their actions. If the government isn't capable of putting a system together, I'll take a low bid government contract to set it up for them.
As far as officers and absolute truth. I've had them lie to me on innumerable occasions. For example, I have been pulled over while driving, handcuffed, and, my car ripped apart. I have no idea why, because I know the officer lied when he stated "A car like yours was reported stolen in this area". I know that of the 637 cars manufactured like the one I was driving, none of them are registered within 200 miles of where I was pulled over. I have many more examples, but not the time to list them. I also know that checking the VIN would have been better than cuffing me and ripping my beloved automobile apart. I'm not bitter about that, because everything was made better than good by the employers of the officer.
Yes, I admit that I can see how I jumped to conclusions, without all of the facts. However, I do not believe I am wrong to assume that the suspect was probably beaten by a pack of cops for at least a few minutes, despite being flat on the ground. Video would be the only thing that could make me believe otherwise.
I fully comply with any instruction given to me by a law enforcement officer. However, I will not speak back to them about anything other than the most basic information. Even though I am most likely to be abiding all laws, I do not feel it is wise to freely discussed anything with officers, without my lawyer in the middle.
I strongly agree that the best thing to do is comply with the officers commands. I have been approached by law enforcement enough to know that this is the best route. I take it on faith that the officers are going to act with integrity. However, I do resent any attitude from the officer which implies they are better than I am. I consider myself their equal, as I do any other citizen. I do not see the officer and their authority as one in the same. I will always respect their authority, but their actions determine if I actually respect them.
I'm not leaving for any reasons given in this thread. It's more simple than that. My wife is a foreigner who has always believed it is better to live in her country. Just like any other married man, I can only be happy if my wife is happy.
Thank you for the education and debate. I imagine that you have the better argument. Either way, I enjoyed it.
You mentioned that people need to get involved for things to change. I only post stuff to try to get other people involved and thinking, even if thinking about it makes them disagree with me. Like I said, I have never had a probem with police, and I likely never will. I just want to make sure that all citizens are equally treated well, and treated innocent until proven guilty.
Thank you for sharing your knowledge of the justice system. I think provided a great description of how the justice system is supposed to work. I actually feel like I've learned a few things.
You've brought some of the focus off of law enforcement officers specifically, and placed it onto all of the players in the criminal justice system. It is my suspicion that the criminal justice system is sabotaged by corruption at every level. I have a hard time convincing myself that corruption has not tainted every facet of the justice system.
This post here is a perfect example of what im talking about. I respect your position - however your moral standards you just described above are not going to be the same moral standards other people have. this is why we fall back to the law instead of personal opinion. Its why, in part, courts exist.
Normally, my posts do not reflect my core moral values. I'm an inherently evil person who chooses to follow the law and practice what is acceptable to society. I try to force myself to interpret the the law and to also correctly identify the suspects actions versus law enforcement. I've watched every video that's been available, which captured law enforcement apprehending a suspect , and have base my viewpoints on what I have seen. I look at if a suspect resists or not, and when a resisting suspect stops resisting. I compare that with how much force the police use, and take note of what the suspect is doing during those times. My own personal actions and viewpoints are always in line with my understand of the law. My real moral values do not always parallel my actions and given viewpoints. For example, all that I have stated, in this thread, is based on my interpretation of the law and my beliefs of what our society accepts as fair. My suppressed moral beliefs would have me preaching eugenics and population control to reduce police violence. I admit that eugenics and population control are illegal and against our societies beliefs. That is why I try to make my viewpoints and actions reflect our law and society.
Your view point on the deaf sticker is whats called a leap of logic. Just because the sticker exists does not mean it was placed there by the car owner. It does not mean the driver is deaf either. Did he steal the car? Is it a friends car? Is he deaf?
Ignoring those questions, again, sets you up in the position of not liking law enforcement because you think they should have behaved in a certain matter.
It's seems logical to at least assume the individual could be deaf and incapable of hearing the barking of commands by the police officers. I have many law enforcement officers in my extended family. Some of them are good cops, and some of them are bad cops. Perhaps the good and bad is better described as an intelligence gap. Some of my relatives would see the sign, and test the theory of deafness, before jacking up the suspect. Some of my relatives would likely not see the sign at all, and some would skip straight to the beating. The rest of them would see the sign and care, because they would just like to get to the beating part. The only thing that kept me from being a law enforcement officer is myself, as I am otherwise qualified. I know I would not be a good cop, and would put my safety over that of the suspect. Maybe I am flawed for seeing a suspect as innocent until proven guilty.
Unrealistic expectation as well as officer safety issues with the constant live stream.
As for absolute truth - Officers are considered expert witness's in court (in general). They are open to cross examination by either the prosecution or defense. So again, its a court issue and not law enforcement issue.
I disagree that livestream is unrealistic, or is a threat to officers safety. Cameras and transmitters have become smaller and smaller. For the past 2 years, I always have these practically unnoticeable cameras on my person and vehicles. Everything captured by these cameras is transmitted away. I won't volunteer this information if I have an encounter with law enforcement It will be up to them to discover and deactivate the system. Retrieval of these recordings, if they show misconduct, will require international cooperation. The images would likely find themselves on the news before the diplomacy is sorted out. All of of that is pointless for me to mention and probably careless as well. I need to justify why I do not find the idea of cameras to be unrealistic or a safety issue. Unless the safety issue is that an officer could not hide their actions. If the government isn't capable of putting a system together, I'll take a low bid government contract to set it up for them.
As far as officers and absolute truth. I've had them lie to me on innumerable occasions. For example, I have been pulled over while driving, handcuffed, and, my car ripped apart. I have no idea why, because I know the officer lied when he stated "A car like yours was reported stolen in this area". I know that of the 637 cars manufactured like the one I was driving, none of them are registered within 200 miles of where I was pulled over. I have many more examples, but not the time to list them. I also know that checking the VIN would have been better than cuffing me and ripping my beloved automobile apart. I'm not bitter about that, because everything was made better than good by the employers of the officer.
Which is why the incident is under investigation. Do we know what he hit / who he hit?
Yes, I admit that I can see how I jumped to conclusions, without all of the facts. However, I do not believe I am wrong to assume that the suspect was probably beaten by a pack of cops for at least a few minutes, despite being flat on the ground. Video would be the only thing that could make me believe otherwise.
they will improve when people and police communicate with each other. they will improve when people get involved in government and participate.
However, when people jump to conclusions and ignore information that might support officer actions, it becomes difficult to communicate when people refuse to listen / understand.
I fully comply with any instruction given to me by a law enforcement officer. However, I will not speak back to them about anything other than the most basic information. Even though I am most likely to be abiding all laws, I do not feel it is wise to freely discussed anything with officers, without my lawyer in the middle.
I strongly agree that the best thing to do is comply with the officers commands. I have been approached by law enforcement enough to know that this is the best route. I take it on faith that the officers are going to act with integrity. However, I do resent any attitude from the officer which implies they are better than I am. I consider myself their equal, as I do any other citizen. I do not see the officer and their authority as one in the same. I will always respect their authority, but their actions determine if I actually respect them.
As for leaving that your thing. All I can say is I would rather work to be a part of the solution rather than complain and runaway. Apathy is a massive issue and will remain so until people get involved.
I'm not leaving for any reasons given in this thread. It's more simple than that. My wife is a foreigner who has always believed it is better to live in her country. Just like any other married man, I can only be happy if my wife is happy.
Thank you for the education and debate. I imagine that you have the better argument. Either way, I enjoyed it.
You mentioned that people need to get involved for things to change. I only post stuff to try to get other people involved and thinking, even if thinking about it makes them disagree with me. Like I said, I have never had a probem with police, and I likely never will. I just want to make sure that all citizens are equally treated well, and treated innocent until proven guilty.
reply to post by gardener
Evaluations for police officers should include literacy assessments as well as psychological testing to weed out the psychotics, sociopaths and garden variety power-trippers.
Evaluations for police officers should include literacy assessments as well as psychological testing to weed out the psychotics, sociopaths and garden variety power-trippers.
reply to post by gardener
90% of the population believe that police should have unequal rights. That is to say, a police is a higher class of citizen that should have rights, protections, and responsibilities that other people don't have. For example, a cop gets the right to pull you over, but you don't have a right to pull the cop over. That is unequal rights and elitism. This very solid foundation and totally entrenched foundation of unequal rights results in a country falling apart.
The only reason people had freedom in America is because governments simply didn't have the logistical resources to implement tyranny. We don't get freedom again unless at least a pocket of humanity changes. There is no real option to fight tyranny violently because you are fighting the 90%... the vast majority. They are the ones who enable it.
Cops protect their own, because they are the elite class and they treat one another specially. When you tell cops they must be equal to everyone else and their job is to protect their community, the attitude changes. By protecting one of their own, they would be protecting people in their community instead of people inside their thin blue line. This is why if you visit Iceland you'll either never or almost never be beat up by a cop unlike like the million or so people abused by cops each year in the US.
The option for freedom is to fight philosophically. Ultimately its a PR war and any violence involved is merely a symptom of a problem and has nothing to do with real solutions. That is why studies of revolutions show peaceful ones are more successful. Personally I have moved to the freedom capital of the world... New Hampshire and help with intentional communities. New Hampshire is the only place where a significant number of people really believe in equal rights and I recommend everyone who does to move there.
90% of the population believe that police should have unequal rights. That is to say, a police is a higher class of citizen that should have rights, protections, and responsibilities that other people don't have. For example, a cop gets the right to pull you over, but you don't have a right to pull the cop over. That is unequal rights and elitism. This very solid foundation and totally entrenched foundation of unequal rights results in a country falling apart.
The only reason people had freedom in America is because governments simply didn't have the logistical resources to implement tyranny. We don't get freedom again unless at least a pocket of humanity changes. There is no real option to fight tyranny violently because you are fighting the 90%... the vast majority. They are the ones who enable it.
Cops protect their own, because they are the elite class and they treat one another specially. When you tell cops they must be equal to everyone else and their job is to protect their community, the attitude changes. By protecting one of their own, they would be protecting people in their community instead of people inside their thin blue line. This is why if you visit Iceland you'll either never or almost never be beat up by a cop unlike like the million or so people abused by cops each year in the US.
The option for freedom is to fight philosophically. Ultimately its a PR war and any violence involved is merely a symptom of a problem and has nothing to do with real solutions. That is why studies of revolutions show peaceful ones are more successful. Personally I have moved to the freedom capital of the world... New Hampshire and help with intentional communities. New Hampshire is the only place where a significant number of people really believe in equal rights and I recommend everyone who does to move there.
new topics
-
BIDEN Admin Begins Planning For January 2025 Transition to a New President - Today is 4.26.2024.
2024 Elections: 2 hours ago -
Big Storms
Fragile Earth: 4 hours ago -
Where should Trump hold his next rally
2024 Elections: 7 hours ago -
Shocking Number of Voters are Open to Committing Election Fraud
US Political Madness: 7 hours ago -
Gov Kristi Noem Shot and Killed "Less Than Worthless Dog" and a 'Smelly Goat
2024 Elections: 8 hours ago -
Falkville Robot-Man
Aliens and UFOs: 8 hours ago -
James O’Keefe: I have evidence that exposes the CIA, and it’s on camera.
Whistle Blowers and Leaked Documents: 9 hours ago -
Australian PM says the quiet part out loud - "free speech is a threat to democratic dicourse"...?!
New World Order: 10 hours ago -
Ireland VS Globalists
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 10 hours ago -
Biden "Happy To Debate Trump"
2024 Elections: 11 hours ago
top topics
-
James O’Keefe: I have evidence that exposes the CIA, and it’s on camera.
Whistle Blowers and Leaked Documents: 9 hours ago, 17 flags -
Australian PM says the quiet part out loud - "free speech is a threat to democratic dicourse"...?!
New World Order: 10 hours ago, 15 flags -
Blast from the past: ATS Review Podcast, 2006: With All Three Amigos
Member PODcasts: 13 hours ago, 13 flags -
Biden "Happy To Debate Trump"
2024 Elections: 11 hours ago, 13 flags -
Ireland VS Globalists
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 10 hours ago, 9 flags -
Mike Pinder The Moody Blues R.I.P.
Music: 13 hours ago, 8 flags -
BIDEN Admin Begins Planning For January 2025 Transition to a New President - Today is 4.26.2024.
2024 Elections: 2 hours ago, 7 flags -
What is the white pill?
Philosophy and Metaphysics: 13 hours ago, 6 flags -
Shocking Number of Voters are Open to Committing Election Fraud
US Political Madness: 7 hours ago, 6 flags -
RAAF airbase in Roswell, New Mexico is on fire
Aliens and UFOs: 11 hours ago, 5 flags
active topics
-
BIDEN Admin Begins Planning For January 2025 Transition to a New President - Today is 4.26.2024.
2024 Elections • 18 • : rickymouse -
RAAF airbase in Roswell, New Mexico is on fire
Aliens and UFOs • 12 • : pianopraze -
A Warning to America: 25 Ways the US is Being Destroyed
New World Order • 29 • : 19Bones79 -
Big Storms
Fragile Earth • 15 • : Caver78 -
What is the white pill?
Philosophy and Metaphysics • 22 • : AlexandrosOMegas -
University of Texas Instantly Shuts Down Anti Israel Protests
Education and Media • 315 • : CriticalStinker -
Gov Kristi Noem Shot and Killed "Less Than Worthless Dog" and a 'Smelly Goat
2024 Elections • 58 • : cherokeetroy -
Biden "Happy To Debate Trump"
2024 Elections • 51 • : rickymouse -
Hate makes for strange bedfellows
US Political Madness • 53 • : 19Bones79 -
SETI chief says US has no evidence for alien technology. 'And we never have'
Aliens and UFOs • 79 • : SchrodingersRat