Cop in America doing a bad job, again

choiboyx012 said:
Huh? It wasn’t the cops who didn’t show restraint (up until the shooting) or escalated anything. It’s Brooks who decided to resist a lawful arrest, fight, steal a weapon, runaway, and attempt to shoot the taser at the officer. It isn’t being drunk that he’s dead. It’s the rest of the above you conveniently left out, which led to the officer making an instinctive split-second decision to shoot/not shoot in a high-stress unpredictable situation. Cop made the wrong decision but he’s only reacting to Brooks’ multiple violent actions committed just seconds beforehand.
Click to expand...
Bang bang, don't disrespect me is how it went. Multiple violent actions committed my arse. What have you got to say on the individual police officer? Bit of a fecking cnut wasn't he. Your brotherhood is full to the brim with people like that and you guys do fecking nothing.
 
Suedesi said:
Man with mental illness spent nearly 5 months in jail before body cam video revealed Garfield Heights officers beat, tased and mocked him
Click to expand...
They screwed up by not turning off the body cam. When it's five cops' testimony vs only one of yours, it's easy to guess who the judges would believe. It's sad that it took nationwide protests for things like this to come to light, and makes you wonder how many more cases are unheard and forgotten. And then there are the people that sweep these incidents under the rug, and regard them as collateral damage, because those cops probably beat up and catch the right guys most of the time.
 
afrocentricity said:
I hear you, but I recall starting a fight with a bouncer twice my size, and driving a moped of a cliff into the sea... You can do things you'd never normally do when you're drunk is all I'm saying. I'm not trying to downplay anything.... and as I said earlier, in the video I watched the bystanders seem to think that the cop overreacted. We are just here judging from video...
Click to expand...
Wow you’re reckless! :lol:
 
Sky1981 said:
Unions and lawsuit
Click to expand...
There’s a small possibility that any of the “founded” disciplinary actions against him resulted in getting placed on probation. And that he can be terminated for any reason thereafter as a condition. Like it was mentioned a couple pages back getting complaints is normal, but for a 6-year veteran that’s quite a lot of complaints.
nonetheless if he isn’t on probation then the termination was premature and he can sue.
 
Looks like they do have jurisdiction:

https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/cntrng-crm/plcng/brgnl-plcng/index-en.aspx

There are two main types of policing agreements:

  • Self-administered Police Service Agreements, where a First Nation or Inuit community manages its own police service under provincial policing legislation and regulations; and
  • Community Tripartite Agreements, where a dedicated contingent of officers from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police provides policing services to a First Nation or Inuit community.
 
Fridge chutney said:
Looks like they do have jurisdiction:

https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/cntrng-crm/plcng/brgnl-plcng/index-en.aspx

There are two main types of policing agreements:

  • Self-administered Police Service Agreements, where a First Nation or Inuit community manages its own police service under provincial policing legislation and regulations; and
  • Community Tripartite Agreements, where a dedicated contingent of officers from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police provides policing services to a First Nation or Inuit community.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's not in question...just that on many reserves they are not welcome and know this so they only show up for serious stuff.

Tobacco sales are an issue of taxation and typically the tax benefits are only available to those with an indian status card (same with gasoline). Fireworks aren't terribly regulated here.
 
Grinner said:
What's the difference of posting this and posting that a victim of a police shooting has a long rap sheet to make them look bad?
Click to expand...
Because being murdered isn't a choice or a crime. Your history doesn't justify people smothering you to death.
Shooting someone in the back is a choice and your character will be questioned and judged.
Its like asking whats the difference between being punched in the face and punching someone in the face. Theres a pretty big difference.
 
Very informative videos @Suedesi

People in this thread need to watch them. There was one that you posted but its gone now I think? The time, distance, etc one? That's a good one too...
 
Last edited:
caid said:
Because being murdered isn't a choice or a crime. Your history doesn't justify people smothering you to death.
Shooting someone in the back is a choice and your character will be questioned and judged.
Its like asking whats the difference between being punched in the face and punching someone in the face. Theres a pretty big difference.
Click to expand...

None of what you posted makes any sense. Justice is supposed to blind. Think about what that means.
 
Grinner said:
What's the difference of posting this and posting that a victim of a police shooting has a long rap sheet to make them look bad?
Click to expand...

So you are equating the history of the accused with the history of the victim?

By this logic in a rape trial:

A) Past attempted sexual assaults by the accused could not be mentioned
Or
B) It would be ok to go after the victims sexual history

Edit. Removed some nonconstructive content
 
Last edited:
Grinner said:
None of what you posted makes any sense. Justice is supposed to blind. Think about what that means.
Click to expand...

I don't think it means what you think it means.

"Justice is blind" refers to all accused being treated the same the courts, not that the victim and accused are the same.

The accused and the victim are not equal parties in a trial. One side is on trial while the other is the aggrieved party. You can't have "contributing factors" to being a victim, while past actions can speak to motive or likelihood of guilt.
 
Grinner said:
What does that have to do with my question?
Click to expand...

The difference is a cop probably deserves to be shamed if he has a long record of abusing his power. He should be held to a higher standard since he is supposed to enforce the law. Also he is alive and can defend himself. A shooting victim has already been killed and listing previous unrelated crimes to somehow justify it is wrong imo.
 
No because that's not how it works in a trial. You don't give the jury a list of previous offences as it could be prejudicial. Each case is judged on the evidence and then a verdict rendered.
 
Grinner said:
No because that's not how it works in a trial. You don't give the jury a list of previous offences as it could be prejudicial. Each case is judged on the evidence and then a verdict rendered.
Click to expand...

If someone is known to have a history of violent acts, or is known to cross the line in the past, it makes it more likely they they'll do it in the future again. How the hell can you disregard the history of a police officer when it comes to the issue of a man being killed? Judging by your posts I can tell you believe in coddling the police, but this is ridiculous. They quite rightly should be held to a higher standard than the average person on the street.
 
Grinner said:
No because that's not how it works in a trial. You don't give the jury a list of previous offences as it could be prejudicial. Each case is judged on the evidence and then a verdict rendered.
Click to expand...
Something like that would actually come up in a trail. If its specifically relevant to the case
 
Grinner said:
No because that's not how it works in a trial. You don't give the jury a list of previous offences as it could be prejudicial. Each case is judged on the evidence and then a verdict rendered.
Click to expand...

But this isn't a trial, it's his job and past behaviour is definitely a part of performance review and the like. He probably shouldn't have been armed and working with the public.
 
Grinner said:
No because that's not how it works in a trial. You don't give the jury a list of previous offences as it could be prejudicial. Each case is judged on the evidence and then a verdict rendered.
Click to expand...
But this is not a trial and we're not a jury. What has been said is that a cop with such a record of complaints shouldn't have been on the beat anymore.
 
Grinner said:
No because that's not how it works in a trial. You don't give the jury a list of previous offences as it could be prejudicial. Each case is judged on the evidence and then a verdict rendered.
Click to expand...

Why are you insisting on comparing the irrelevant history of a VICTIM with the behavioural patterns of a PERPETRATOR?

This is mind blowing.
 
Grinner said:
How do you know unless you've seen the details of the complaints?
Click to expand...

Dwazza Gunnar Solskjær said:
I know it's the Mail but it doesn't seem like an assumption. Here is the original piece:

https://www.ajc.com/news/crime--law...imanded-for-use-force/dOTu99Lym4SjkmXmkt0P8M/

Seems that the Atlanta Police released the disciplinary record information so your assertion that this is an assumption is bogus. Controls and oversight that are supposed to keep citizens safe clearly failed here.
Click to expand...

... read it. He was previously reprimanded for use of force involving a firearm.
 
Grinner said:
Are you sure? Do you know what the law says on that? I don't, which is why I'm asking.
Click to expand...
You dont hand the jury a list. But prosecution can make reference to past offence when attesting to your character in certain circumstances as far as I know.
 
Maybe, and here's an idea, could just one or two people suggest the same issues to him or otherwise it looks like what it is, a pile on in the CE?
 
Grinner said:
"The documents provided by police do not go into further detail, so the circumstances of the incident and reprimand remain unclear. "
Click to expand...

Police forces aren't in the habit of reprimanding their own so it's a safe assumption that it must have been pretty bad. He also had a dozen other complaints against him. Again, safe to say letting him interact with the public while armed was not a good decision.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.