ot. wait. cops actually lie?

[spdrun]

Vigilantism is tarring and feathering someone without trial or lynching them. Gathering evidence of wrongdoing by authorities is every citizen’s right and DUTY. The evidence is then given to the victim, who can choose to seek redress from the courts. Being a witness is working within the system, not being a vigilante.

Your bomber example is nonsense, unless you want to also ban cell phones. Someone could follow the bomber, call and say, “success” or “epic fail.”

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=Blogstar]

I think the activities of filming cops especially with voice needs to be really well debated. Lots of potential problems , what if the discussions tip off entire gangs as to what the police hope to do in favor of law in order. [/quote]

So you want more laws to limit what people can record the things they already see and hear. What if they do record anyway, despite new laws? The evidence is thrown out and ignored? More laws sound like real conservative values, huh?

In the future, eyes and ears could be computers that can replay from memory. What if hearing aids had memory chips?

[spdrun]

I’m not sure that Blogstar is calling for laws as much as decorum.

[FlyerInHi]

See something, record something can just be an extension of see something say something. It can also help police catch the bad guys.

[scaredyclassic]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/02/11/alabama-cops-leave-a-grandfather-partially-paralyzed-after-frisk-goes-awry/

I think it’s not uncommon for police to see potential suspects as not fully human equals.

That is bad.

That video of the police taking down and paralyzing the 57 y.o. Indian gramps is actually pretty freaky. Are these “bad cops” acting outrageously?

Sure seems so to me and probably any normal person on the planet, but I doubt the cops thought so because they had their dash cam on the whole time.

Cops there were trying initially to blame the victim for failing to instantly submit. Without the camera of course the narrative from the police absolutely would be different.

Land of the free…

if that were my grampa, I would not be satisfied with anything less than a 10 year prison sentence for those cops…yet I’m confident those police officers thought at the time they were acting completely reasonably. Am I being hysterical? Perhaps. Perhaps these cops are part of a vanishingly small subset of police who would consider acting this way.

[CA renter]

[quote=scaredyclassic]http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/02/11/alabama-cops-leave-a-grandfather-partially-paralyzed-after-frisk-goes-awry/

I think it’s not uncommon for police to see potential suspects as not fully human equals.

That is bad.

That video of the police taking down and paralyzing the 57 y.o. Indian gramps is actually pretty freaky. Are these “bad cops” acting outrageously?

Sure seems so to me and probably any normal person on the planet, but I doubt the cops thought so because they had their dash cam on the whole time.

Cops there were trying initially to blame the victim for failing to instantly submit. Without the camera of course the narrative from the police absolutely would be different.

Land of the free…

if that were my grampa, I would not be satisfied with anything less than a 10 year prison sentence for those cops…yet I’m confident those police officers thought at the time they were acting completely reasonably. Am I being hysterical? Perhaps. Perhaps these cops are part of a vanishingly small subset of police who would consider acting this way.[/quote]

Have to disagree with you, scaredy. Clearly, these cops were trying to deal with the man in a civil, respectful way. They perceived that he was resisting them (and you know better than I if he had a right to resist), and they threw him on the ground in order to cuff him (my guess). The probably used a bit too much force, and that, combined with bad luck regarding the way he hit the ground, is what caused the problem.

Do they need to learn different techniques to take someone down? Perhaps. Did they possibly use too much force? Also possible. Was this a criminal act deserving of 10 years in jail? No, absolutely not, IMHO.

[FlyerInHi]

… And when it comes to abuse by cop, CAr’s advocacy for victims is out the window.

Focus on the injured, not the one who’s left whole.

[NotCranky]

[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=Blogstar]

I think the activities of filming cops especially with voice needs to be really well debated. Lots of potential problems , what if the discussions tip off entire gangs as to what the police hope to do in favor of law in order. [/quote]

So you want more laws to limit what people can record the things they already see and hear. What if they do record anyway, despite new laws? The evidence is thrown out and ignored? More laws sound like real conservative values, huh?

In the future, eyes and ears could be computers that can replay from memory. What if hearing aids had memory chips?[/quote]
Actually what I am searching for is actually probably closer to humanistic values. Left vs. Right is your thing.

i can understand the possible Humanitarian type need to letting cops fly under the radar. It’s a record breaking catch 22 though. They deserve some protection in the insane environment and climate they work it, but how do we stop them from keeping their abuses private and above the law?

[spdrun]

CA Renter —
(a) he wasn’t doing anything illegal. Walking on the street, looking at houses is not cause for arrest, even while “brown.”
(b) he was giving them information (phone # and “no English”) as best he could. Had they acted on that information (calling his son), violence could have been averted. Instead, they chose to resort to violence instead of investigating first.
(c) the force used was clearly excessive.

Hope they go to prison for 10 years, watch their kids grow up through a reinforced glass window, and get out with a few nasty VDs. It would serve as an example to other cops of what NOT to do. Screw those cops, hope they rot in hell.

[NotCranky]

Scaredy, surely what I have been saying on this thread comes across as unkind to you. It just feels hysterical to me. Not high level. Not philosophical at all. I am used to way better from you. Nothing wrong with raw emotion but this is an area that call for cooler heads. There are a lot of crazies out there imagining that every thing that doesn’t go the way they want it is a huge travesty of justice. There are enough dirtbags working these folks already.

Much of the back drop to these conversation is bizarre, riots and looting in Ferguson. Eyewitness lying through the teeth and the media making a big circus out this stuff. Even your thread title looks to be on the crazy train to me. Which sentient human being doesn’t know that cops lie? Just my sensibilities at play I guess.

[FlyerInHi]

How does letting abusive/criminal cops fly under the radar serve any humanitarian need? Would you please expand on this.

[NotCranky]

[quote=FlyerInHi]How does letting abusive/criminal cops fly under the radar serve any humanitarian need? Would you please expand on this.[/quote]
You can’t read. I am starting to believe that.
If you can’t understand what I am saying, don’t paraphrase for me before you ask me to elaborate. Not in that bullshit way of paraphrasing that you have anyway.

[CA renter]

[quote=spdrun]CA Renter —
(a) he wasn’t doing anything illegal. Walking on the street, looking at houses is not cause for arrest, even while “brown.”
(b) he was giving them information (phone # and “no English”) as best he could. Had they acted on that information (calling his son), violence could have been averted. Instead, they chose to resort to violence instead of investigating first.
(c) the force used was clearly excessive.

Hope they go to prison for 10 years, watch their kids grow up through a reinforced glass window, and get out with a few nasty VDs. It would serve as an example to other cops of what NOT to do. Screw those cops, hope they rot in hell.[/quote]

Right, looking at houses from the sidewalk is not illegal, but going onto people’s property and looking into their garages is questionable, if not illegal. That’s what the cops were called about. The notion that they treated him in any particular way because he was “brown” is exactly part of the problem. That is YOUR hangup, not theirs. I saw nothing at all in this video that would indicate any kind of racism or unjust treatment because of a person’s nationality or the color of their skin. They wouldn’t have treated a white many any differently.

Yes, the language barrier (and probably a cultural barrier as the man was not accustomed to dealing with U.S. law enforcement) was a problem, but it looked like a sergeant or some kind of superior officers was arriving on scene at the end (in the white car), so it’s likely that that they had called in for assistance. On the audio, you can hear one of the officers saying that the man was Indian and didn’t speak English, my guess is that he was describing this to a dispatcher so they could get help from a translator.

While I agree that the throw-down was probably rougher than necessary, they did warn the man not to resist, pull away, or walk away. He might have been lighter than they had expected, or he might have made a move at the end that amplified (not sure about the right word) the trajectory/movement of the cop and victim. Ultimately, it was bad luck that caused the man to land in the wrong way and become injured. It happens on playgrounds, football fields, gyms, etc. on a regular basis, but nobody is calling for 10-year sentences for kids/adults who accidentally injure someone in these places.

I saw absolutely no evidence of malicious intent or a desire on the part of the cops to injure the man because “he was brown.” If you can find something to the contrary, please point it out. Under no circumstances would the evidence in this video warrant a 10-year sentence, IMO.

I agree with Russ/Blogstar. People are acting hysterically and they are putting cops in a position where they will no longer be able to do their jobs. If I have to choose between living in a safe society where a few criminals get hurt when they resist arrest or assault cops, or in an society where criminals run the streets (but don’t get hurt), then it’s obvious I would choose the former, as would most people.

[CA renter]

[quote=FlyerInHi]… And when it comes to abuse by cop, CAr’s advocacy for victims is out the window.

Focus on the injured, not the one who’s left whole.[/quote]

First off, to whom are you speaking? I’m right here, so you can address me directly. You’ve done this a few times, and it comes across as creepy and slanderous instead of being genuinely interested in having an intellectual conversation about current events/topics.

Secondly, why are you making claims about me that are completely untrue — both this and your anti-union rhetoric?

[spdrun]

Unclear whether he was going on private property or not. He was on the sidewalk when the cops talked to him. The fucking chump who initially called the cop said “he’s got a toboggan on” — shows how much credence you can place in the report.

As far as the warnings, if he didn’t understand English, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that he didn’t understand the warnings. The resort to force was completely unwarranted.

I agree that this doesn’t warrant a 10-year sentence. A public hanging would be more appropriate.

[Author]

Posts