Gyp Rosetti
Banned
Not "is getting." Just is.
Police Brutality
- Thread starter franklin
- Start date
Not "is getting." Just is.
Soapbox incomming! Duck and cover!!
Cowboy justice? What the hell am I reading here? This girl broke how many laws, and THEN tried to run from the police? I'll just dumb it down to it's lowest form, because it's really how I feel deep down: Dumb bitch got what she deserved, that cop should get a medal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MW5iaokgwX4
Being tased is SO deadly, excesive, etc. that our own Chief of Police got one right in the back. Amazing he's still alive, really.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MW5iaokgwX4
Being tased is SO deadly, excesive, etc. that our own Chief of Police got one right in the back. Amazing he's still alive, really.
Obviously I celebrate and put a higher value on life than you do. So does the US constitution as interpreted in the 1985 Tennessee vs. Garner ruling. I'm tempted to put a Jesus and the prostitute analogy.
Right, a full grown, healthy male in controlled circumstances. The risk rate in that scenario is quite low. It's a completely different story, specifically for pregnant women and those under the influence.
I like your example except the bolded part. personable responsibility. Not a reason to use it but not a reason not to either.
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
Being a cop has got to be one of the hardest jobs imo. Damned what you do and damned when you don't. I don't get how one could defend someone who's running from the police and hit someone with a vehicle and not stop. This could have easily been avoided by her. Yeah, the cop could have tried to tackle her or apprehend her in a different manner, but when you're running from the cops - you're kinda asking for it. It's not like the guy shot her or started beating her like other "coward" cops. He just used one of his tools that helps in these types of situations.
Say what? You celebrate and put a higher value on life than I do? How do you figure? If we're using stupid logic, then how about this: I value and celebrate the lives of innocent people more than you do. Once you break the laws of the land and put others in danger, then you forfeit a majority of your rights, and your life becomes a secondary concern versus the lives of innocents. By all means, break out the prostitute analogy, it will do nothing to further your argument.
I don't think either of you believe your own argument because it's self defeating. You're doing nothing more than applying an accountability argument to the girl and using that as justification for not applying the same accountability argument to the officer.
1. Girl should be held accountable for actions.
2. Girl is clearly guilty.
3. 1 + 2 allows us to turn our heads to what the officer did.
The officer broke the law and clearly broke his department's procedures regarding use of force. That's why the PD has copted out with this protection loophole that was clearly never intended to be applied in instances where an officer wanted to detain an escaping suspect. It especially does not apply when the force was clearly unneccessary and due to lazyness on the part of an officer so fat he is not fit for duty. This is not a precedent that should be set.
In what way do you find it moral to require this victim to obey the law but excuse the officer regardless? If you want to make the argument that the rest of us are safer by detaining people in these circumstances at all costs then by all means do so. But please realize the implications of where that argument heads before doing so.
And you might find my stuff silly Trout, but it is in line with well established judicial rulings coming from some of the brightest minds this country has raised.
1. Girl should be held accountable for actions.
2. Girl is clearly guilty.
3. 1 + 2 allows us to turn our heads to what the officer did.
The officer broke the law and clearly broke his department's procedures regarding use of force. That's why the PD has copted out with this protection loophole that was clearly never intended to be applied in instances where an officer wanted to detain an escaping suspect. It especially does not apply when the force was clearly unneccessary and due to lazyness on the part of an officer so fat he is not fit for duty. This is not a precedent that should be set.
In what way do you find it moral to require this victim to obey the law but excuse the officer regardless? If you want to make the argument that the rest of us are safer by detaining people in these circumstances at all costs then by all means do so. But please realize the implications of where that argument heads before doing so.
And you might find my stuff silly Trout, but it is in line with well established judicial rulings coming from some of the brightest minds this country has raised.
Wow, thanks for giving me the chance to realize the implications of my opinion -- without that chance, who knows what would've happened.
Did the cop break the law? Also, I will make a partial argument that the rest of us are safer if the police are allowed to detain people at MOST costs. If the cop would've pulled his gun and blew her brains out, then clearly, that would not fly. If a suspect is fleeing after they've already been detained, has broken multiple laws, and has proven that they have no regard for innocent people, then yes, extreme force should be taken. We can play the what-if game all night, but the fact remains that this chick got exactly what was coming to her. Is it unfortunate? Hell yes it is, but when people make bad decisions, they usually suffer bad consequences. Welcome to the real world, sucks doesn't it?
I guess I don't see what the cop did wrong. I haven't read the procedures manual for that particular station, so I don't know, but from what I saw there is nothing in that video that says "brutality" to me. If that moron wasn't in a coma, it would be a non-issue.
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
I stopped reading Franklin's last post when he tried to tell me what I don't believe.
That is popular around here.
You don't believe that.
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to TroutBum again.
Damnit knock it off. That is like 3 times now
I'm going Ain't One Brow on this, eh?
We wouldn't have heard about it but it would still be an issue.
Background: The arguments concerning police use of force spurs out of the 4th amendment regarding what is and is not reasonable siezure (including life and freedom). Tennessee vs Garner ruled:
The same basis can be found in New Testament arguments against an eye for an eye, give a man your coat, forgiveness, the trials of humanity, and helping your fellow man improve.
The Tennessee vs. Garner case is toward the extreme, but illustrates the foundation of the force continuum extremely well. Officers are trained to match the use of force to the need. Otherwise, an inappropriate siezure of liberty would often be applied. I'm sure you'll agree that an officer should not crack a 7 year old over the head with a billy club for walking out of a candy store with a stolen tootsie roll. If that child were to run then the officer should not taser the little ******* because "he had it coming to him".
In cases like these I'm more than willing to give police the benefit of the doubt/leeway, and rightfully so. They are in heat of the moment situations and prone to human error that they cannot be held responsible for. This instance is so far over the line and all arguments presented have broken down. Again, that is why the PD has chosen the loophole that does not actually apply.
1. She was a threat to society--There is no foundation for this and the officer's previous actions specifically imply otherwise. Nothing I've read gives any details regarding her hit and run other than it was six months prior. The cop searched the girl and left her in a room, improperly secured, and then left her unattended with the door unlocked. That tells you the cop did not believe she was a threat to society. He also did not know or suspect she was high.
2. The officer clearly could have detained her by simply grabbing her hair. Going for his taser actually slowed him down. Any trained officer can attest that they are trained to utilize force appropriate to the situation to aprehend suspects, and less-than-lethal weapons are generally not approved for offensive use. This officer was clearly much larger than this woman and could have more than easily detained the handcuffed girl using traditional, and approved, tactics.
3. Less-than-lethal weapons are not approved for offensive use. They are approved to replace lethal force where appropriate, and in the unlikely instance that they will be beneficial to save the target (suicide, running crazed into traffic).
You can see why the PD is using the loophole in #3 to justify this excessive force.
We wouldn't have heard about it but it would still be an issue.
Background: The arguments concerning police use of force spurs out of the 4th amendment regarding what is and is not reasonable siezure (including life and freedom). Tennessee vs Garner ruled:
The same basis can be found in New Testament arguments against an eye for an eye, give a man your coat, forgiveness, the trials of humanity, and helping your fellow man improve.
The Tennessee vs. Garner case is toward the extreme, but illustrates the foundation of the force continuum extremely well. Officers are trained to match the use of force to the need. Otherwise, an inappropriate siezure of liberty would often be applied. I'm sure you'll agree that an officer should not crack a 7 year old over the head with a billy club for walking out of a candy store with a stolen tootsie roll. If that child were to run then the officer should not taser the little ******* because "he had it coming to him".
In cases like these I'm more than willing to give police the benefit of the doubt/leeway, and rightfully so. They are in heat of the moment situations and prone to human error that they cannot be held responsible for. This instance is so far over the line and all arguments presented have broken down. Again, that is why the PD has chosen the loophole that does not actually apply.
1. She was a threat to society--There is no foundation for this and the officer's previous actions specifically imply otherwise. Nothing I've read gives any details regarding her hit and run other than it was six months prior. The cop searched the girl and left her in a room, improperly secured, and then left her unattended with the door unlocked. That tells you the cop did not believe she was a threat to society. He also did not know or suspect she was high.
2. The officer clearly could have detained her by simply grabbing her hair. Going for his taser actually slowed him down. Any trained officer can attest that they are trained to utilize force appropriate to the situation to aprehend suspects, and less-than-lethal weapons are generally not approved for offensive use. This officer was clearly much larger than this woman and could have more than easily detained the handcuffed girl using traditional, and approved, tactics.
3. Less-than-lethal weapons are not approved for offensive use. They are approved to replace lethal force where appropriate, and in the unlikely instance that they will be beneficial to save the target (suicide, running crazed into traffic).
You can see why the PD is using the loophole in #3 to justify this excessive force.
Yup, I still don't see the excessive force. You can call it a loophole all you want, but at the end of the day, the girl broke the law and tried to run from the police. I liked your rant though, full of law, religion, speculation, and nonsense. It had too few quotes to really be a OB post, but it was close.
Well, damn. BeanClown, Archie, and now Craig.
I officially withdraw any statement I've made in this thread, as they were clearly wrong. **** THE POLICE!
You edited that while I was responding, so:
Dude, you made your mind up before you knew any of the facts and have taken an offensive tone since. Why am I supposed to believe you've given this any thought other than franklin, you stupid and your view is "mystifying"?
I agree fully. Nothing, including the officer's own actions, imply that this young girl had no regard for innocent people. This forum has implied across the spectrum everything from the girl arrested right after two hit and runs to hitting innocent people and driving off. The officer clearly did not think the girl was the crazed lunatic this forum is trying to make her out to be, and still is not claiming so in his defense. So why should we?
FWIW, I read one from the University of Florida Dept. of Defense(?) that is based on Florida and federal law. The only way this was justified under that policy was for the reason given by the PD--to defend the girl from herself.
Dude, you made your mind up before you knew any of the facts and have taken an offensive tone since. Why am I supposed to believe you've given this any thought other than franklin, you stupid and your view is "mystifying"?
I agree fully. Nothing, including the officer's own actions, imply that this young girl had no regard for innocent people. This forum has implied across the spectrum everything from the girl arrested right after two hit and runs to hitting innocent people and driving off. The officer clearly did not think the girl was the crazed lunatic this forum is trying to make her out to be, and still is not claiming so in his defense. So why should we?
FWIW, I read one from the University of Florida Dept. of Defense(?) that is based on Florida and federal law. The only way this was justified under that policy was for the reason given by the PD--to defend the girl from herself.
You're admitting right here the officer broke the law and are unwilling to hold him accountable for his violent crime, yet I'm the one spouting off speculation and nonsense?
Can you or anyone else explain it to me in more logical terms? I'd love to understand your p.o.v.