Posted on 05/29/2010 10:19:58 AM PDT by Drew68
“The education requirements for becoming a cop in this country are outright embarrassing. Typical prerequisite for hiring = a high school diploma or a GED. Typical “education” for career advancement = a couple of hours at community college or ITT Tech in “criminal justice.” Typical on-job training = *very* minimal physical fitness test . . .”
All too often true, but in fairness, good departments have more rigorous demands and more thorough professional development. Additionally, many departments also have psych screening which can be useful. Also, for some POs the work is not a merely a job it is a calling. These are the ones who represent about 10% of the personnel, and make about 90% of the cases. A smaller minority, like the goons in this incident, are themselves criminal, or criminally negligent.
“...two simple men I saw today...
...one to remain hung on the other’s neck...
...and passionately kissed him...”
-
So which is it?
Are you a real queer or just a queer wanna-be?
“The same control freak would not have done that to someone at his own weight and bulk and level of preparation.”
You are right, he would have tased the victim instead.
********************************
Far better than the battery.
The remedy is that individual policemen be held criminally and civilly accountable for operating outside the law. Their immediate superiors need to be likewise held accountable for negligent supervision. In those instances when the individual policemen are operating within their training guidelines those responsible for developing, legally vetting, and performing the training need to be held accountable.
The police officer had no reason to believe he was a fleeing felon. The standard is not "guilty until proven innocent."
You do not agree, therefore you can't know what you're talking about...
...and they're accusing us of being kneejerk?
I don’t bash cops per se.
I do bash violent offenders, whether they have wriggled their way into a uniform or not. I used to be paid for it.
Your comments on criminal procedure reveal a nadir of ignorance and bias that would see you removed from a jury for cause if the voir dire was minimally competent and if you answered the questions truthfully.
BTW - a competent PROSECUTOR would strike you for cause. Jurors who opine like you give grounds for appeal.
If I can think of any words more forceful than ‘ignorant’ or ‘obtuse’ or ‘oblivious’ to describe your grasp of criminal law and procedure, I may post back to you again. On the other hand, it would be a waste of pixels.
For a court trial someone is presumed innocent, but that isn't the legal standard for a police officer to use force to subdue someone.
Who cares?
I don’t want any part of this. In fact, you should ask the moderator to remove it.
Really? I missed that in the article, and all the other articles I've read about the incident.
What's your source?
Let me phrase that a little bit differently...nobody needs any reason to be anywhere, at any time.
Your response reveals your anti-cop bias. Listen, it’s not their fault that when you were a pimply faced 17 yr old you got pulled over with your date Jenny Sue and the Officer made you look like the ass-munch you probably were in front of Jenny, then the same cop probably banged her a week later...get over it.
*******************************
I repeat. Your inappropriate use of capitals is odd.
Your train of logic derails and jumps track all the time, but you are consistent with the capitals when referring to authority, or ‘Authority’, as you might put it.
Very odd.
Yes it is. The police are bound by the law just like everyone else. Or at least they are supposed to be.
...and if my Granny had wheels she'd be a motorcycle. A thread on police brutality is not really a place to exercise your imagination.
Yes they are, but they don't need a court trial to legally use force.
1. Dude was married but living with his father, fathers gf and her kids.
2. The dude was out drinking after his nightshift at the restaurant. (no evidence that he was a manager).
3. Dude paid $60 to have his buddy drive him from Olympia to Seattle (reason unknown to me)
4. Dude was identified (incorrectly, dark ally?) by women as being a person in a fight.
5. Cop attempted to question dude, dude ran.
6. Cop chased dude for 2 1/2 blocks. 7. Dude slowed down as cop was about to intercept him.
8. Dude faced cop and reached into pocket. (threw packet with unknown contents away).
9. Cop running at some speed slammed dude about five or six feet away from wall.
Done.
But any suspect is afforded the presumption of innocence and force should only be applied as necessary. Not as was used in this case.
This cop should be in jail for many, many years.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.