Also the town/city's prosecutors need to left out of the investigation and trial. They also have conflict of interest as they depend on cops as key witnesses to get successful convictions.
Why do you only see the alleged criminal's side? Why are you making decisions only based upon what you've heard to-date when you don't have all available information? Let me spell it out for you : 1) I have yet to see the "entire" video and have stated I will wait to see that video before making any final judgment. 2) I have stated that from what I know, and if what the officers' lawyer said is true, I have no problem understanding why they did it, but disagree that they should have done it... because they're human. But... see 1). If what they said happened didn't actually happen and they are unable to provide proof, then I have no sympathy for them, and I still maintain what they did was wrong. 3) Where did I say I "believe" any of anything? I just posted the opposing side. Apparently you're not into that. 4) If the alleged criminal attacks/threatens somebody, sorry... I don't care if he's a police officer, a deacon, or a lumberjack... you get whatever's coming to you. You took a chance and placed your bet. You may have lost. People always say "cops are the professionals" and this is true. Well, I'm a professional human being, too. I don't need to be acting like a moron in public expecting not to get a beatdown. It's not like the cops went out looking for somebody to beat up in this situation - at least I don't think so.
I did a double-take at that line too. The use of force should be relative to the need, not to the offense. I'll assume everything they say about a violent and uncooperative suspect is true. I still can't fathom a justification for the brutality after he is subdued. That looked like payback.
If the responsible adults in society adheasred to this mantra, we would be doomed. There is a very good reason why due process is such an important aspect of our constitutional rights. We make it a very important point in our society to delegate responsibility of enforcement, judging and punishment to different people for a very good reasons and I hope you figure out what those reasons are. Just for clarification, Judge Dredd is post apocalypse media not a utopia media. The reason law enforcement should be considered a high skilled profession that requires a specific type of highly qualified individuals is to find the most professional type of people who are most effective at removing their tribalistic/base emotions when performing their duties.
Because human nature trumps training. I'm not defending what the officers did at all. But sharing why they did it so perhaps to understand what the actual problem is. We have an expectation of how police should behave - rightfully so. They are given power and trust to enforce the law, not break it. My point is that when groups become close knit - whether it be a baseball team or a police force, they will savagely go after anyone who they perceive as hurting one of their tribe. You think those brawls in baseball wouldn't be much worse if there wasn't a whole stadium and the TV cameras there? There's no excuse for how the police behaved here. They should be punished as criminals. But clearly whatever we are doing to try and prevent this isn't working.
Wow, this reads like a utopian mission statement. Very nicely done. But I live in the real world where we're all imperfect, and I judge accordingly.
Yes we strive to have professional cops. So the ones who slam heads on pavement after they have been restrained just because they believe the offense of the perp justifies extrajudicial punishment should be disqualified from their profession. It's personal responsibility. Not good at your job, don't have that specific job. It's steps like those that get us closer to the desired utopia. We will never reach there but we can strive for it. Or we can justify bad professional behavior by law enforcement and let us just go in a downward spiral.
How about we strive toward not allegedly threatening convenient store owners and attacking police officers? That would help, too, wouldn't it? Imagine a world where we didn't need cops? No? Not possible? Well, then... here we are in reality. I can't help how the criminal acted and I can't help how the cops acted. I can only judge how 2 imperfect sets of humans acted and be thankful I'm not contributing to either one. If you're looking for the perfect cop, then by all means, also look for the perfect citizen, too.
It's a good short-mid term measure, but I don't think more cops on the ground will help the core issue. It's much like building more highways to Katy to in order to "reduce congestion". If the victim is half as bad as rumored, I don't think sending in a counselor along would help either. I guess help in the sense the beatdowns might not be as flagrant. We're kind of at an impasse where we can't whisk away all the non-performing elements of society to jail, yet we want police to be the end-all "but with a kinder and gentler hand". Frankly, we're putting them in a position to fail, and when they do, the answers to fix the situation aren't there. At some point, cities won't be able to afford massive settlements and will likely change the law to avoid paying over 6 figures.
Aight, no need for a profession to actually be introspective and find ways to improve said profession. Instead we should just say "crime bad". No **** crime is bad. The cops are an arm of our tax payer funded system. Hence why we have more agency is reforming their methods than telling poor mentality ill people to stop doing violent crimes. My solution for less crimes has more to do with actionable solutions like properly funding mental health services in our country or providing a right to housing so on and so forth while your solution seems to be driving a van with a bullhorn around high crime neighborhoods and saying "crimes bad"
I don't see the alleged criminals side I see whats on the actual tape and there should be no "sides". There is no need to see the entire tape because the guy was on the ground and subdued and what the officers were doing did nothing to furthr subdue him. What you can't seem to understand is you can't use civilians as examples of what cops should do, they are trained far more than bouncers. The fact that you think anybody deserves a 'beatdown" by cops says a lot about you. LOL, all of this is ok just because the cops did not go out looking to beat somebody up? Da ****?
Nope i must disagree with the human element consideration on this there is NO reason for the force in with they used.
I would say there are explanations but not excuses. We can explain this action through the nature of human base instinct. But we understand that people who are paid full time to control those base instincts have a professional duty to control them or else why are they paid?
Y’all want to punish a police officer for putting his life on the line everyday and just doing his job. Meanwhile it’s crickets when it comes to Hunter Biden. Typical.
We are also talking about LEO, whom don't always have a good foundation of principles. That's a failure of our system to properly train LEO and require proper education (an associates at least). If we were talking about Doctors, Engineers, etc, then sure, I agree. This is the only reason I'm willing to look at the human element. Granted, we aren't savages, what we saw in that video should not happen, however, some individuals have no self restraint and we give this power to our LEO. No excuses, but like you said, an explanation.
Lol. I see you're going to ignore the fact I said the cops were wrong. I get it... you're one of those.
