100 Seattle Cops File Lawsuit Saying They Have CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT To Brutalize Innocent Citizens!

These PIGS don't seem to understand THEY made the choice to become police officers. People do not choose to be attacked and oppressed by these slobs.

Their safety is a FAR second to the safety of the civilians they interact with, because once again, THEY are making that CHOICE.

A message to you cops out there, you ever think maybe you should start POLICING YOUR OWN?

Ever watch V for Vendetta, the scene with the fingermen killing the kid, and the people getting fed up?

That is in our immediate future, for better or worse, because you can only commit evil for so long before good stands up and sends you to hell.

Cops are scared. They are scared because THEY KNOW that THEY ARE WRONG. They know they are hurting people, they know they are there to generate revenue and terrorize the population. They know this. Yet still become cops. And they know, potentially soon, the atmosphere around them that allowed their vile actions to continue will fade away, and THEY will be left holding the ball to answer for the evil of them and their "brothers in blue"

Like all animals, pigs (or wild boar) are most dangerous when they are scared and facing the music.

originally posted by: dfens

originally posted by: Deemo Diablo
a reply to: Swills



I think it's pretty lame that they hide behind ''their safety'' and how it will be compromised. They usually operate at a minimum 3:1 ratio when there is a disturbance. Now they just get a few toys taken away, and now all sorts of constitutional rights are violated? I think their rights are a little different due to the occupation, so the constitution doesn't stand for much. Ain't that how it goes?

It seems to be a joke from this website that added this clip to youtube or something. The color of the letters are different, and seems to be CG'D in afterwards. I could be wrong.

I think this is a farce. The DOJ will simply renig this whole policy once an officer supposedly gets hurt by some "violent, blood thirsty" criminal. They hav no intention of changing the use of force policy at all. If this is not a frac, will officers be held truly liable for the evil crap they pull on people? I think not.

Sorry to be so negative.

edit on 5/30/2014 by bigfatfurrytexan because: remove offensive image

a reply to: bigman88

You're probably right about the video and the whole scheme. Throw a bone just to get them to shut up for a bit. It's probably just lawsuit prevention anyway. Some suits in Washington had to justify their existence for whatever reason. Tricky bastards.

a reply to: Swills

How about the entire country follow this basic police policy. Police cannot use deadly force nor can they physically assault or harass an unarmed civilian. If they do, they will face the same consequences as the general public and be removed from the police force. Maybe than, they would think twice before beating an unarmed civilian.

100% agree with the OP and what appears to be 80% of this thread. Awww. Poor cops they have to be accountable now.

Laughing my ass off at 1:32. that is brilliant. if thats the real acronym then Holy dog balls!!! if that what the news labeled him then Awesome and right on!!!

a reply to: Swills

Make them wear cameras every last one of them. And then hold them all to the same laws they enforce. Also they have become a for profit company. This has to stop.


In the past I have been very vocal in support of the police. I have come to believe something is very wrong across this country and has to be fixed before we become a police state.

I just wanted to post this link. it really needs its own discussion, maybe i'll do that.

KRCR TV - Family Members Speak Out On Deputy Invloved Shooting

a reply to: WeRpeons

What's ironic is that Seattle's new force policy is based on other police force policies nationally.

This coupled with the NYPD massive march/protest for their 'professional privilege' should be more than enough evidence that ALL COPS ARE BAD.

What's one good guy working as a cop in an institution that promotes and fights for bad behaviors worth? Not much.

When the union does bad things and promotes bad things and actively sues for bad things why should I take one cops word that he's a 'good' one?

Sure, I went to their school, took their training, spend 60 hours a week with them, hang out with them after work, attend their meetings, pay their dues, but really I'm not like them at all. I swear!

Yeah.

a reply to: Swills

The new use of force policy in no way hinders an officer's ability to protect themselves, it just must be reported, ah therein lies the rub. If all use of force must be reported and a review board reviews all use force in a period, its possible that abusive officers could lose there jobs, oh the humanity.

Also civilian complaints of police brutality will now be compared against the officer's use of force reports and too many discrepancies may mean your'e out. Again, oh the humanity. Too bad SPD, the public has had enough of your abuses.
I hope the judge summarily dismisses it.

a reply to: Swills

This is interesting news, and this could be something good for our corrupt police force. Thanks Swills!!

This city needs jobs and I'm sure there's plenty of qualified people to replace the aggressive cops that abuse power. But like a few other posters mentioned, it may be a ruse for something else (idk). Seattle is the most passive/aggressive city I know in the US, so hard to convince people of anything here. So might it not be a good place to experiment with police policy?

Again, I'm just speculating. But what reason do I have to trust the DOJ? Justice in this country is just a word, that's all.

But still, on the bright side this could amount to some of our lousy cops having to look for new jobs. I hear Google, Amazon and Starbucks are all hiring.

a reply to: Aliquandro

Now if ONLY there was a way to make it where these officers actions reported were scrutinized by a CIVILIAN panel, and they had to decide whether he was justifiable or not!


Oh wait, we have that, its called a jury..........

To bad most of the bad LOE's never see the inside of one.......

a reply to: Swills
I live here in Seattle, and while I haven't heard/seen anything in local news about this, I can say that the looks I get from police officers are a little colder than other police people I have shared glances with in the past. I'm a white dude btw, so its not a race thing. There are however some pretty crazy people up here that these officers have to deal with, as well as meth addicts. Also there is gang activity down in South Seattle, as well as prostitute activity near Aurora. Lots of coc aine for sure in club scene which they barely touch. I don't think they care so much about that.

But yeah, there is def violent gang activity that happens in South Seattle, and I think this may be what they are referencing. Up here in North Seattle, its pretty calm, especially near Shoreline, and there is just prostitutes near Aurora. West seattle you get some stealing going on, but besides that, in my book, violence begets violence, and the key to this country is criminalizing private prisons, preventing criminal history from going on permanent background(when you do the time, erase the crime), and extend length of time jailed for convicted judgements by jury of peers. After all, how can a person with a criminal history even get a place to stay these days, or even a good job? How can they show society they have changed when a civilian background check pulls everything up, all arrest records, all judgements, everything, even if you were ruled not guilty. Seems pretty #ty to me. Of course police officers should be able to see background information, but I think privacy is essential, even for past criminals to allow them to focus on legal activities(domain of civilians) and allow police officers to enforce illegal activities with few constraints.

If you piss off a police officer, and he beats the # out of you, that is your own damn fault. Be respectful, as he is putting his ass on the line every day preventing murders and #. If Arizona and New Mexico had that mindset, there wouldn't be a "Silver or Lead" policy of cartels and police people going on. Of course, beatings because of race differences is wrong, but if you start badmouthing a police officer, you are asking for it. They no longer have patience, and they are not meant to have patience. They are meant to deal with crime when it occurs. If you get caught in the crossfire, explain cheerfully and calmly that they have got the wrong man. When they find this out, get a written letter from the officer to excuse you in that case, and so you can give to your employer if you got held up and couldn't get to work, or your landlord as to why you didn't bring them rent, and all is well. But they will only do that if you've been kind, respectful, cheerful, and following directions. Also, there won't be a next time, as if they find you again, you will again be kind, respectful ,cheerful, and following directions, and many will see that on previous record, and not bother you anymore.

In short, make a good impression on local police folk, and they won't taser you. They will merely ask you questions, which you have a right to not say anything about(where were you going? Is it ok if I exercise my right to remain silent? Yes, ok, 30 minutes later-length of time they can legally detain you without a warrant or arrest, you are free to go. case closed).

You have nothing to fear if you are completely lawful at that point in time while a cop detains you.

_Silver

a reply to: Swills

To the whiny Seattle Cops and cops in general today: don't like it... then quit. simple. either quit or STFU. It's a risky job just like being a soldier. You knew it going in and chose to do it. Don't whine about YOUR decisions now.

a reply to: Swills

While I sympathize, to some degree, with police since they, all to often, see the worst that humanity has to offer I cannot condone the "beat first, ask questions later" type of mentality.

Personally I would never want the job...I think that too much is expected of them at all times. They are human and prone to error as much as the rest of us. I know that given some trash a$$hat acting up would likely piss me off beyond the point of control that I would proceed to beat some a$$ myself. lol

a reply to: Swills

-Inappropriate to use force: to punish or retaliate; against individuals who only verbally confront them; against handcuffed or restrained individuals.

Other than this, I would have hoped they were already doing all the things being asked of them by the DOJ. Obviously I don't think retaliation or punishment is acceptable, but someone getting in a cops face and berating them, threatening them and what have you may need a time out. It's a fine line where I think some should be cuffed because it's obviously going to escalate and protecting peoples right to be obnoxious.

I also take issue with the no use of force if someone is in cuffs. People in cuffs can still fight, kick, bite, spit, run... I don't want to see it escalate beyond restraining or perhaps taking someone to the ground (as in no batons or mace or body strikes) but an outright ban on using force is too much (depending on what they mean by force I suppose).

I really feel that it's time all cops wear body cameras. I almost guarantee it would save money, and not even in the long run. Cameras are so cheap now it's ridiculous. Would also help justify police action and throw out frivolous lawsuits and brutality claims, keep more cops honest reducing legit lawsuits. One small lawsuit avoided would pay for the cameras, regardless of if it kept an innocent cop innocent or kept a douchebag from using too much force. If your department can justify keeping up with the times and outfitting people with ARs, they can justify a few hundred bucks for cameras.

Um.....the rules the police lived under just a few years ago were a little more forceful, with all violence or force having to be logged, with many rules about what you could do, no tasers ,and they are not a short cut as they are also a dangerous weapon, you don't use them left right and center, but only to prevent using the gun, and the gun was highly controlled as to its use.

And misuse of violence went up before tribunals.

And those days were never allowed to go away, that is the only decent police force that would ever be tolerated by us, as we employ those guys, they're OUR MINIONS. OUR EMPLOYEES. INVESTED IN OUR WELL BEING. IF NOT, CONFESS YOUR CRIMES MR POlICE OFFICER AND GO TO JAIL. FOR ANYTHING ELSE IS ILLEGAL.

I've had enough of this. Its illegal and a crime to enforce any unlawful legislation, anything that violates the constitution is null and void at conception. They need some advanced training themselves.

The constitution is a restraint for the government not the free people.

a reply to: Unity_99
Every police officer should wear a tamper proof camera and the cameras should download all their information to a sealed central computer. This information could then be used by a court of law as evidence. This would help enormously in getting correct decisions as to whether a person is guilty or not. As a trade of for the seattle police excepting these laws every police car should also carry a small drone helicopter with a camera fitted. If a situation was deemed dangerous the helicopter could be sent up to observe the situation so the policeperson/s did not have to put their life/s in danger in the first place as well as removing the public from danger Eg removing potential hostages . These could be used to track criminals running away and determined whether a suspect was armed and the suspects frame of mind as well as their location. A microphone could also be attached to the helicopter to use to comunicate with the suspect and preferably get their compliance before moving in and arresting them. The helicopter would remove policepersons from a lot of situation where force might have otherwise been used. Force should only be used when absolutely neccesary. Nobody that is already restained should be tasered or beaten.

a reply to: Qspeedyrock

Interesting idea here.