Cop in America doing a bad job, again

vi1lain said:
'waded in' it's a forum we all 'wade in', that's the point.

You didn't have to say that I had no understanding of the law, but to throw out that 'the majority of you' don't when you don't know who is reading this thread - is very reckless, arrogant and ill-informed. To use your own words.

Also, what's unprofessional about my actions on a private forum? I'm not being paid.

Finally, what 'bias' am I using to influence opinion?
Click to expand...
no, see, thereligion is consistent on only posting in topics he has a thorough understanding of, thats why he is he so passionate about US law
 
vi1lain said:
'waded in' it's a forum we all 'wade in', that's the point.

You didn't have to say that I had no understanding of the law, but to throw out that 'the majority of you' don't when you don't know who is reading this thread - is very reckless, arrogant and ill-informed. To use your own words.

Also, what's unprofessional about my actions on a private forum? I'm not being paid.

Finally, what 'bias' am I using to influence opinion?
Click to expand...

Wade in and offer some insightful discussion and opinion then, even professional perspective as both I and @Skizzo try to do. Don't start insulting people randomly (criticise the post not the poster remember) then claim not to be in the same bracket as some of the more ill informed as you're a lawyer

Pretty sure you're better than that.
 
TheReligion said:
Can a police officer punch someone in the face? Yeah. They can pretty much do whatever they want providing the use of force is reasonable, proportionate and necessary. That also includes the use of pre-emptive strikes.
Click to expand...
he definitely isn't defending the officer though, it's just a coincidence that he posts things like this
 
Silva said:
he definitely isn't defending the officer though, it's just a coincidence that he posts things like this
Click to expand...

You literally offer nothing to the discussion here so I'll pop you on ignore.

That was in response to comments that cops can't punch people. Again, just agenda posting.
 
vi1lain said:
Ironically, i'm a lawyer.

So you shouldn't go around saying people have no understanding of the law.
Click to expand...


So here is a conundrum for you as a lawyer. Let’s say you had the option of defending OR prosecuting the officer in the beach incident in a case of excessive force. It’s a case you absolutely have to win.

Which side of the fence do you think you would have the best chance of winning the case?
 
TheReligion said:
Wade in and offer some insightful discussion and opinion then, even professional perspective as both I and @Skizzo try to do. Don't start insulting people randomly (criticise the post not the poster remember) then claim not to be in the same bracket as some of the more ill informed as you're a lawyer

Pretty sure you're better than that.
Click to expand...

I didn't insult, I just offered a suggestion. If you took it as an insult, that sounds like a personal problem.

And you shouldn't tell me what to do, i've offered plenty of insightful discussion and opinion over the years and @Skizzo will be the first to tell you that.

Just because i'm a lawyer doesn't mean that I can't call things as I see them, even if they aren't 'professional'

Mike Schatner said:
So here is a conundrum for you as a lawyer. Let’s say you had the option of defending OR prosecuting the officer in the beach incident in a case of excessive force. It’s a case you absolutely have to win.

Which side of the fence do you think you would have the best chance of winning the case?
Click to expand...

I usually send my billings before I offer my legal opinion.
So what email shall I use to invoice?
 
TheReligion said:
Where have I said that the cops in that video have acted perfectly morally and within the law?

I've offered no specific opinion of the video or officers, simply explained use of force and how punching can be acceptable as can pre-emptive strikes.

You all just jump in and start throwing insults around. As @Skizzo says, whipping yourselves up into a frenzy.
Click to expand...

MJJ said:
How about you stick to the thread topic being discussed then rather than trying to defend the actions by bringing in generalities?
Click to expand...
 
The officers posted a few pages back that forced their dog to attack a stationary target the dog didn't want to attack, who they then proceed to beat up have been charged. The police union had this to say:

Of course, the district attorney controls the grand jury and apparently sees no difference in this case and any other criminal suspect.
Click to expand...

I'm sure our resident officers will be here any minute to remind us the police definitely doesn't protect their psychopaths and that it's just an imagined narrative.
 
TheReligion said:
Wade in and offer some insightful discussion and opinion then, even professional perspective as both I and @Skizzo try to do. Don't start insulting people randomly (criticise the post not the poster remember) then claim not to be in the same bracket as some of the more ill informed as you're a lawyer

Pretty sure you're better than that.
Click to expand...

Given how sensitive you are, I can see why you feel punching somebody on the ground is a perfectly acceptable preemptive strike.
 
TheReligion said:
You literally offer nothing to the discussion here so I'll pop you on ignore.

That was in response to comments that cops can't punch people. Again, just agenda posting.
Click to expand...

Rather than repeatedly trying to sidestep the actual incident in question and insist that you're only talking in general terms to offer up (for some reason) hypothetical situations where you think punching people could be acceptable, why don't you offer an opinion on the specific case being discussed?

You keep accusing others of posting with agendas, but you're trying to shift discussion away from the incident in question in order to concentrate on hypothetical situations where you can defend the actions of police violence. That seems an awful lot like an agenda of your own.
 

Because there isn't actually any intelligent discussion going on is there? @Silva simply keeps posting random quotes and hyperlinks that no one reads and many of the others gather around like some obsessive cult demanding a pound of flesh. The moment some other perspective appears we get abuse, insults and the rest.

The whole thing is to do with excessive force so what I'm saying is very much relevant. This is the CE forum not the general.
 
Must be real emasculating being an officer in the UK, TR going around without a gun worried that when he snaps and punches someone they punch him harder and embarrass him in front of his buddies.
 
Rado_N said:
Rather than repeatedly trying to sidestep the actual incident in question and insist that you're only talking in general terms to offer up (for some reason) hypothetical situations where you think punching people could be acceptable, why don't you offer an opinion on the specific case being discussed?

You keep accusing others of posting with agendas, but you're trying to shift discussion away from the incident in question in order to concentrate on hypothetical situations where you can defend the actions of police violence. That seems an awful lot like an agenda of your own.
Click to expand...

I posted in response to the comments about how punching people shouldn't be allowed. @Eboue has responded to it now himself.

I have no agenda at all with the US police and have openly been critical of some of what I've seen in this thread. I simply find there is alot of ignorance and anti police bias here which makes it very difficult to engage in anything meaningful without getting shouted down, or insulted, due to the job you do.

The CE forum is supposed to encourage intelligent debate not have shite like this in it.
 
TheReligion said:
I posted in response to the comments about how punching people shouldn't be allowed. @Eboue has responded to it now himself.

I have no agenda at all with the US police and have openly been critical of some of what I've seen in this thread. I simply find there is alot of ignorance and anti police bias here which makes it very difficult to engage in anything meaningful without getting shouted down, or insulted, due to the job you do.

The CE forum is supposed to encourage intelligent debate not have shite like this in it.
Click to expand...

There's definitely anti-police bias here since the entire thread is set up to criticize the cops. So its obvious that any narratives that contradict that are going to be challenged.
 
TheReligion said:
I posted in response to the comments about how punching people shouldn't be allowed. @Eboue has responded to it now himself.

I have no agenda at all with the US police and have openly been critical of some of what I've seen in this thread. I simply find there is alot of ignorance and anti police bias here which makes it very difficult to engage in anything meaningful without getting shouted down, or insulted, due to the job you do.

The CE forum is supposed to encourage intelligent debate not have shite like this in it.
Click to expand...

There's unquestionably an anti-police bias, but can you not understand why that might be the case?

You work here in the UK which is very different to the climate in the US at the moment even if there are issues here. You must be able to appreciate why there is a feeling of distrust towards the police from the American public given the endless stream of incidents we see?

There is case after case of brutality and even killings and all too often the departments/cities in question defend the actions of their officers almost blindly. It's no wonder people feel the way they do.

The CE forum is meant to encourage debate, yes, but when the likes of Schatner consistently run around defending every fecked up scenario for the sake of being controversial it's difficult to avoid things spiralling.

When a video is shown of two big trained (armed) guys restraining a young girl and one of them punches her in the head twice it's mental to think there are people wanting to try and defend that, regardless of what went before it.
 
Raoul said:
There's definitely anti-police bias here since the entire thread is set up to criticize the cops. So its obvious that any narratives that contradict that are going to be challenged.
Click to expand...

The point of contention mostly arises when it goes from specific incidents into a general blanket statement against all police. Incidents and actions should absolutely be highlighted and criticized. Then when people tag officers to come give their opinion, you have others jump in and start screaming bias. If you point that out, it’s because you’re sensitive. If you ignore it, it’s because you have nothing to say. It’s quite an amusing dynamic.
 
Skizzo said:
The point of contention mostly arises when it goes from specific incidents into a general blanket statement against all police. Incidents and actions should absolutely be highlighted and criticized. Then when people tag officers to come give their opinion, you have others jump in and start screaming bias. If you point that out, it’s because you’re sensitive. If you ignore it, it’s because you have nothing to say. It’s quite an amusing dynamic.
Click to expand...


What do you call a constant parade of abuses? I'd venture say its systemic
 
How can anyone defend the punches to the back of that girl's head? Two officers were restraining her and she was face down. No need for the punches. The sickening punches are what people are referring to when they talk about "excessive force" in this case. People are not arguing that some force was not justified.
 
Skizzo said:
The point of contention mostly arises when it goes from specific incidents into a general blanket statement against all police. Incidents and actions should absolutely be highlighted and criticized. Then when people tag officers to come give their opinion, you have others jump in and start screaming bias. If you point that out, it’s because you’re sensitive. If you ignore it, it’s because you have nothing to say. It’s quite an amusing dynamic.
Click to expand...

The best way to look at these cases is literally on a case by case basis imo. Look at the specific factors that led to the altercation and whether it could've been deescalated, and if so, how could both parties have played a part in lowering the temperature to avoid what happened.
 
Raoul said:
The best way to look at these cases is literally on a case by case basis imo. Look at the specifics factors that led to the altercation and whether it could've been deescalated, and if so, how could both parties have played a part in lowering the temperature to avoid what happened.
Click to expand...
that's what's been happening since rodney king had the shit kicked out of him, it's way past that point now, there needs to be significant changes in the US judicial system that sees civil forfeiture end and thousands of abusive officers in prison
 
Raoul said:
The best way to look at these cases is literally on a case by case basis imo. Look at the specifics factors that led to the altercation and whether it could've been deescalated, and if so, how could both parties have played a part in lowering the temperature to avoid what happened.
Click to expand...

I agree. There’s no correct answer that covers all incidents one way or the other. There’s policies in place and case law, but there’s also no excuse for some of the behaviors posted in here. There are things to consider from both sides that need to be taken into account. Just as people like @vi1lain have a unique perspective to offer, officers can offer the other side. The difference is that if you say anything about the police that isn’t a scathing assessment of them, you’re considered to be blindly defending them. See @Silva and his comments above about “two cops so of course it’s escalating”

Eboue said:
What do you call a constant parade of abuses? I'd venture say its systemic
Click to expand...

What are the actual numbers? Yes there’s a constant steam of videos posted in here, but I wouldn’t say that’s an accurate representation of all law enforcement. There’s rarely any news reports to the contrary, because it doesn’t sell as well. Are there issues? Absolutely, and I don’t think anyone would say otherwise. I don’t think the actual % of incidents to active law enforcement is as widespread as it seems. I do agree, however, that any number of incidents is too many, and yes, there’s work to be done.
 
Silva said:
that's what's been happening since rodney king had the shit kicked out of him, it's way past that point now, there needs to be significant changes in the US judicial system that sees civil forfeiture end and thousands of abusive officers in prison
Click to expand...

Its definitely systemic if it keeps happening. But I only see cops as one facet of a broader problem related to a societal tension surrounding race, economics, and power.

Cops ultimately have broad judicial discretion to act according to the law, which allows them to take charge of situations in a variety of different ways that much of society may find anywhere from somewhat questionable to blatantly immoral. If that's the case, then the laws surrounding how much judicial discretion law enforcement has should be looked at, since they are the foundation of what allows cops the latitude to engage in many of these acts.
 
Mike Schatner said:
i don't need your legal opinion. You answered the question anyway.
Click to expand...

Given that the video is the only evidence thus far the answer is pretty much a no brainer - there is nothing in there to suggest that it‘s not excessive force. You could even argue that the video already presents all relevant circumstances, i.e. relevant state of affairs (person already on the ground (kind of), unarmed, not Mike Tyson and 2 v 1 numbers) before the incident and aim of the police (arrest).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.