Cops at it again, 'protecting and serving'

Remove all ads!

Mordea, the reason none of us are up in arms ready to storm our respective police departments is because we all know this is the exception, not the rule. I notice you aren't posting about the police who are killed in the line of duty while tracking down murderers, stopping violent madmen with hostages, and arresting home invaders. I, again, am willing to bet that police officer deaths in the line of duty are far more common than these police abuses.

Yes, it's horrible, and I'm confident that the officers will at least loose all the money they could ever hope to earn in their livetime in the resulting lawsuit, if not end up in jail themselves. They'll be a lesson to other officers about what happens when they screw up this badly (assuming the results ever make it to the news, they usually don't).

 

An unarmed elderly man stood up in his own home? The nerve! Tase that monster into submission!

*chortle*

 

Shoshino is nails!

 

Really?

What does that have to do with the issue of abuse and Constitutional rights? Yes, some cops do their jobs, and they do it well; others don't, which is the point of this thread. So what is your point?

Good cops are amazing: They respect the law and the rights of others under the law; they only use violence when the true need arises; they go out of their way to be helpful to citizens. But I've known some that are real dirt bags as well. I've often wondered, who let some of these guys have badges? For anyone to believe that they are the "exceptions" is just nonsense and they obviously don't have much real contact with cops. As to what the percentage breakdown is? No one knows for sure. But look at waht happened after Katrina, where some of the police went on a crime spree and some actually killed citizens:

As far as abuse, this stuff goes on all the time, but it is usually not mentioned much, unless the story gets media attention, for whatever reason. The problem is, and most cops know this, there is little accountability, which gives them the power to do pretty much what they want.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/...katrina-shootings-death-penalty_n_712837.html

 

And let's not forget that when the police officer is caught red-handed flouting the law and abusing civilians, the punishment they receive is inevitably far less severe than would have been afforded to a normal civilian. If you work for the government, it seems you get extra protection under the law. Fancy that...

---------- Added 1 hours, 58 minutes and 9 seconds later... ----------

That's what cops often do. They confront people who are simply having a rough time, and then proceed to antagonise them and create a situation where none ought to have existed.

For instance, I refer you to a recent case where a woman was sleeping in her car on the side of the road after a spat with her husband. She had broken no laws. The police saw fit to arrest her for... well... nothing. She simply dared point out that by law, she didn't have to provide a breath sample. Naturally she was vulnerable and upset, so the cops did the logical thing. They smashed her face into a concrete floor. To protect and serve.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...o-dragged-woman-into-police-cell-2071277.html

I postulate that anyone who is supportive of the police lives in a gated suburbia where they have little to no contact with the cops.

Let me ask you this: How many times have the cops saved your life?

 

Shoshino is right.

We only hear when the cops go beyond the call of duty in a negative way. We do not hear how the previous 25 arrests went. We do not hear how officers get hurt during routine situations when the public goes wild.

Here in the Netherlands police officers are allowed to do a lot less. They have to ask nicely if a suspect has the time and is willing, pretty please, to get into the car. More than a year ago a crowd was threatening a handful of officers. Just before they were overrun and had retreated a few times they started shooting and killed one person. The heat those police-officers got make me sick.

I feel sorry for the old man, but if I am a cop in the US. It is dark, it is hectic, I tase everything that moves. What was the role of the dispatcher?

 

Actually, in the UK by law you do have to provide a breath sample, if an officer suspects you may have been drinking, and you are in possession of your vehicle, failure to provide a sample is an arrestable offence.

I support the police, I live in a terrace house in the middle of a busy town.

I wouldnt say saved my life, but they did catch the hit and run driver who destroyed my parked car. They are also invaluable to my job at 4am (kick out time).

The police have a very hard job in this day and age, drugs, alcohol and anti social violent behaviour are rampant, weapons are common, the police are underfunded and understaffed.

I would also like to add that Sergeant Andrews was convicted of ABH (actual bodily harm) and handed a 6 month jail sentence (for his first offence), which for the UK is a big sentence for an offence which usually carrys a fine and a suspended sentence, even for repeat offenders.

 

Exactly. You just admitted that the police need reasonable suspicion, which they did not have. Sleeping on the side of the road is hardly evidence of drunkeness. Quite frankly, it should be none of the cops business if you choose to stop on the road for a nap. I've been on numerous road trips with the family (sometimes driving for 15 hours straight) where we slept in the car on the side of the road. That an officer can harass you for simply trying to get some sleep (and therefore avoid road accidents caused by fatigue) is a disgrace.

Then I know not to take your seriously.

Not in the ghetto, I'm guessing.

Precisely. Thanks for making my point.

Hospitals are also understaffed and underfunded, but when health professionals botch the job, we don't try to make excuses for them. And their career is centred around the principle of 'do no harm', while the career of a police officer is centred around the principle of 'do harm is they resist in any way'.

Oh wow, six months for smashing a person's face in. Civilians get more than that for smoking pot.

 

Mordea, you have issues

the woman was drunk, the file from the CPS used to prosecute the officer stated "Evidence showed that the woman became verbally abusive and non-co-operative and while struggling with a female detention officer, she pushed her way out of the cells, and Sergeant Andrews intervened." she was charged with failure to provide the breath test, which the CPS decided to drop inlight of the situation.

so... anarchy then is it? where do you live? cos I reckon I could do you over and take all of your worldly possessions with relative ease, with no police to worry about, what would be my deterrant?

the ghetto.... you watch too much TV.

I dont think anyone here even thinks you are trying to make a point, so please tell me which point I have made for you by stating that the police keep the boozed up crowd calm outside the club when we close?

When medical staff 'botch' as you put it, their job we rarely hear about it, because these matters are handled internally by the hospitals own legal staff, often resulting in payouts that the public dont hear about.

the nature of the police force on the other hand has to be handled in the public eye, the IPCC is an independent organisation which is not a part of the police, and is more often then not bias against the police forces.

no... the career of a police officer is centred around "to protect and serve" - not, "protect and serve at your own risk". I wonder how well you would hold your nerve in the face of the abuse police officers recieve, especially after seeing a co-worker physically struggling with a violent and agressive subject.

once again, not in the UK, unless your in possession with intent to supply you'll never face jail for class C.

 

For me, as well, that is the big problem. But it is part of their culture and they consider it a job benefit. Every cop I have ever persoanlly known was into that whole, "we are a brotherhood" mentality. When it is on a lesser level, it's fine, but when they buy into it too deeply it opens the door to abuse.

 

I think we all agree with that.

Who, precisely, makes excuses for police brutality? When hospitals screw up, they get their pants sued off them. When police screw up, they often end up in jail. It would be helpful is we knew what the status of this case is; i.e., is it in court, were the officers disciplined, are they still police officers after this, etc.

I wonder why they just didn't tase her. That would have been a lot easier than tackling her. (And yes, that was meant as being sarcastic, in case anyone was wondering.)

 

I'll say it again: Most police officers are decent people, especially if you treat them decently. Of course there are bad seeds, but I think the opinion that the majority of them are vicious thugs grows out of severe anti-establishment attitudes and/or bad experiences with law enforcement or other authority figures.

 

I respect the police, I think they doo a good job in a tough society, I take my hat off to them

 

Just be careful. If you make any sudden movements they might tase you

 

Did we ever determine whether tasing is more dangerous than getting a beating, or even getting tackled or 'taken down?' I know there have been numerous deaths by taser, but I think the percentage is still very low, whereas tackling and beat downs may more commonly result in injury (if non-fatal).

I don't know ... if I had to choose, I might prefer getting tased to getting my face driven into the concrete and having somebody stand on my head until I was subdued.

Seriously though, I still think that what's at the heart of the problem here is that taser use usually results in immediate compliance and no serious injury, whereas take downs and beat downs may more likely result in injury (because it seems like most people resist), making taser use more preferable to the police. The problem in policy is that taser use may be creeping into the realm of 'routine' enforcement, due to it's win-win (compliance, no serious injury) nature. I suspect that the increasing number of taser-related deaths will change that though, if it hasn't begun to already.

 

I think that tasers are problematic in their own right. What is making them a bigger problem is the attitude with which they (and coercive force in general) are routinely used to react to perceived challenges to police authority.

Like when a cop tasered a man trying to put out a fire at his house after a cop demanded he cease doing so until the fire department arrives. The man wanted to save his pets and kept going - zzzap. Insane.

Or to use a taser for convenience to stop a fleeing cyclist, to then run the kid over (and apparently plant a weapon on him).

​

Or in this incident from Orlando where a cop broke an 84 year old's neck because pop, who had a few drinks, poked him in the shoulder while arguing about his car being towed. The cop then reportedly grabbed his arm and slammed the man's head into the pavement. The old man could have died over this banality, and may still, or be crippled for the rest of his life. Totally over the top.

The department reacted with this [UERL="http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/09/911-caller-cop-flipped-84yearold-face-breaking-neck/"]disingenuous gem[/URL] (adding insult to injury, and apparently focusing on the inevitable damages lawsuit against the department by the victim himself or his relatives in case the old man doesn't make it):

Naturally, she is right. Children, 6, can kill officers, too.

​

So let's be safe rather than sorry and taze, subdue them either in case a confrontation arises. And what else is a kindergarten class other than an unruly mob? Put on the riot gear and bring out the CS!

For people like the folks from the Orlando Police department calling for a 'proportional response' is apparently just a Liberal buzzword for carelessness. Personally, just to be super safe, I'd have called in an air strike. Lord, perhaps the man wasn't alone and people were hiding in ambush, ready to pounce. Thinking off it, reconnaissance by fire is a proven tactic that would have provided clues about that potential danger.

That are incidents so over the top that I laughed about them when I saw then on Sledge Hammer. As usual, reality beats satire these days. Wtf? If I look for it I can find three such stories a week. How do American police departments hire cops? How much training do they get?

An attitude of 'law enforcement' meaning imposition of the will of a cop on a citizen is a bad one. That is an authoritarian attitude. Cops will have to go to some length and take some risks. That's in the job description. The US are not a war zone. The citizens are not enemies. Force protection is not the primary mission of cops (if that was so one should lock them away in a bunker surrounded by moat, concertina wire and a minefield so nobody can harm them). It is to protect and to serve the citizenry, and if that means enduring some drunken pop poking him in the shoulder, so be it. The Orlando police department apparently does not see it that way.

 

http://www.tbd.com/articles/2010/09/family-outraged-after-officer-shoots-dog-13692.html

Family calls cops to protect them against robbers. Cops burst into the home, manhandle and beat the family and hold them hostage. The family begs the police not to shoot their defenseless dog, and the police respond by shooting the dog in the head. One of the family members gets upset, and is charged with 'insulting a police officer'. So it's a crime to insult a police officer?

By the way, the primary piece of 'evidence' consists of investigation material that the offending officers wrote themselves. "We have determined that the officers were justified in their behaviour, because the officers wrote that they were justified in their behaviour."

Gee, you're better off being robbed than calling the police to 'protect' you.

I'd say some insulting things right about now, but I'd have cop lovers calling me 'anti-establishment' and 'anti-authority', instead of actually trying to rationalise such atrocious behaviour.

---------- Added 0 hours, 2 minutes and 40 seconds later... ----------

Like the police officer who recently ran over two kids while speeding and texting on his mobile phone? Oh wait, sorry, he got two years of paid probation, not jail time.

Just imagine if one of us plebs had done the same? How much paid leave would we receive, I wonder?

 

Indulge me - Who, precisely, makes excuses for police brutality? Who thinks this is OK? And this isn't really a case of police brutality than it is gross negligence - unless you're suggesting he deliberately ran them over.

 

This one is pretty minor, but it helps reveal how cops view themselves in relation to the rest of society:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39380043/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

As I commented this one is not very serious, but he certianly abused his authority. Just going over in uniform and speaking with the teen's parents would have been enough, but instead he had to "pretend" to arrest him and that charges would be filed. Typical.