If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WWSB ABC 7)   Yes, the tape clearly shows me kicking a handcuffed suspect while he was on the ground, but who are you going to believe, your eyes or my cop friends? Great... now how about a three year paid vacation?   (mysuncoast.com) divider line 148
    More: Florida, Officer Christopher Childers, Sarasota Police officer, Sarasota Police Department, police misconduct, witness testimony, Adam Tebrugge, Police Chief Peter Abbott  
•       •       •

15525 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Sep 2012 at 5:42 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



148 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-24 12:52:26 PM
 
2012-09-24 12:55:39 PM

offmymeds: What I meant to say was that you pay a cop low wages, you get someone who is perhaps not quite up to expectations.


The average income is ~50k$. What do you think is fair pay? You people act like they are picking up day workers.

The "low wages" argument is just as bad as the "bbbut it's a dangerous job" or "they have little training". You kick a restrained person you are committing assault. I don't get paid extra a day to not kick people, it's part of being a law abiding citizen.
 
2012-09-24 12:58:49 PM

CruiserTwelve: devlin carnate: The SPD also had to pay out 2 separate "Please don't sue us" settlements totaling over $130k because Sgt. Oinksalot was so innocent.

Wipe off your chin before you go on parking lot duty, Cruiser 12.

The city settled two suits without going to trial. That was their choice and it happens all the time. It doesn't mean the guy did anything wrong. He had no say in the settlement.

Look, I never apologized for or agreed with the guys behavior. What I said was that the cop followed the set procedure for appealing his discipline, and it was determined through that process that he did not commit the violations he was charged with and had been terminated for. You may disagree with that finding and maybe I might disagree with that finding but that's irrelevant. The people that have the final say in the matter said his actions did not constitute a violation of policy.

Let's put it this way - I'm not defending the cop, I'm defending the system. Would you at least agree that there should be some kind of disciplinary system for cops, and should that system include an appeals process outside the department?


Holy shiat, how can anyone think that that's the takeaway from this.

If anything this is yet another posterchild of why police should NOT have collective bargaining and should NOT have this dumbass 'you were fired, but that's ok, if you complain enough and grease the right palms, you can have your job back' "appeal".

All it does is make it virtually impossible for a bad cop to actually be fired without having been finally convicted of a felony.

Cops can be like the rest of the working world....You want a system of recourse because you think you were fired unfairly or wrongfully terminated? Get in line with everyone else and handle it through the courts.

"Civil service" my ass....More like "No, I'm not like the common prole, I deserve special consideration".
 
2012-09-24 01:00:35 PM

CruiserTwelve: brianbankerus: Seattle's "citizens review board" is made up of one prosecutor, one cop, and one retired cop... they never find any merit in citizen complaints, which puts my mind at ease. I mean, they are impartial.

This wasn't a civilian review board, it was a civil service board.


That sounds even more impartial. I just feel better knowing they did their best to keep the streets safe.

And surely you know better than anyone, there's an important difference between being innocent and being not-guilty.
 
2012-09-24 01:01:03 PM

IRQ12: No, it's the completely off the rails impunity which officers are afforded that makes the news


And that's something that should make the news.

In this case we have someone who, afaict, chose to use his foot to restrain a subject instead of using his hands and likely getting pepper spray all over himself.

IRQ12: generally they are being protected by the "good ones" who are "bad ones" because they allow it.


I see where you come from with this, but here's my problem. In this situation we have a cop who went outside of policy in a way that caused no harm (directly; indirectly it cost plenty of money) and is arguably not an excessive use of force. It makes the news. Now you conclude that what, his fellow officers (for saying that he didn't kick with his foot, which he did not) are bad because they aren't calling for his blood? They aren't calling for an end to the man's career over this?

This particular cop thread is similar to the manufactured outrage political threads. Yes a lot of bad shiat happens, but when your reaction to what really out to be a non-story treats it like its Rodney King, you lose a lot of your ground.
 
2012-09-24 01:03:02 PM

IRQ12: offmymeds: What I meant to say was that you pay a cop low wages, you get someone who is perhaps not quite up to expectations.

The average income is ~50k$. What do you think is fair pay? You people act like they are picking up day workers.

The "low wages" argument is just as bad as the "bbbut it's a dangerous job" or "they have little training". You kick a restrained person you are committing assault. I don't get paid extra a day to not kick people, it's part of being a law abiding citizen.


I'm not apologizing for bad cops like the one in the article. That guy definitely should not be serving as a law enforcement official in any capacity. The 50k/year you state varies from state to state, city/town to city/town. Some places are understaffed when it comes to the number of cops in the department.
 
2012-09-24 01:03:11 PM

MycroftHolmes: You think it is more appropriate to be judged by people who are trying to judge appropriate actions for situations they have never been in? You honestly think that cops would get a fair review of their actions from politicians and elected city officials? Just read this thread and see how many idiotic 'kill all cops' and 'cops are the worst threat to america' derps there are, and tell me with a straight face that a board not made up of LEO or ex-LEO can honestly and objectively judge an LEO's actions.


In Seattle they've never found merit in a citizen's complaint yet. I haven't seen the complaints to make a judgment, but I do think it's suspect that zero percent of complaints is valid.

Very few civilians harbor ill will against law enforcement. To suggest that none of them could be impartial is wrong.
 
2012-09-24 01:13:43 PM

brianbankerus: In Seattle they've never found merit in a citizen's complaint yet. I haven't seen the complaints to make a judgment, but I do think it's suspect that zero percent of complaints is valid.


They sure should have in this case.
 
2012-09-24 01:15:40 PM

IRQ12: offmymeds: What I meant to say was that you pay a cop low wages, you get someone who is perhaps not quite up to expectations.

The average income is ~50k$. What do you think is fair pay? You people act like they are picking up day workers.

The "low wages" argument is just as bad as the "bbbut it's a dangerous job" or "they have little training". You kick a restrained person you are committing assault. I don't get paid extra a day to not kick people, it's part of being a law abiding citizen.


No one in this thread has said "bbbut its a dangerous job". Your inability to be honest in a fark thread is ironic given that you seem surprised that immoral behaviors make their way into law enforcement when a cop is defending his entire livelihood. You expect honest from a guy with 50k a year and pension are on the line (whose training and career skills aren't exactly going to transfer to a wide variety of positions), but you can't be honest in this thread?

People want, and rightly so, a police force whose ethical behavior is well above the average human being.
People want to pay them an average wage.
People want them fired for any violation of policy.

Then people are surprised when a job that clearly is going to draw the power-hungry to it winds up having people are power-hungry? Well, what did you do to attract honest, ethical, hard-working and intelligent people to the position? Not a damn thing.

You didn't do a damn thing to get that quality of employee, when in reality you should be doing extra right off the bat just to combat the natural and obvious attraction the position will have for people we all know would make poor cops.

Meanwhile, I got called out in this thread for suggesting that people who believe they are more ethical and capable than the cops they complain about go take the job. That's a serious request. I want them taking the job, and I want them doing it well. Now, if the job pays well enough, and the job isn't 'bbbut dangerous' and the training is good (that's what I"m being told in this thread. In the flight attendant thread I'm being told cops are given a gun and no training. /shrug) then shouldn't it be an attractive job?

It seems pretty unrealistic to hold those views and demand excellence. I get the sentiment but it doesn't seem to hold up.
 
2012-09-24 01:22:45 PM

PallMall: [ytrewq.com image 175x150]

Oppa Gangnam Style Before it was cool!

ytrewq.com

i1.kym-cdn.com

 
2012-09-24 01:30:00 PM

Smackledorfer: .It seems pretty unrealistic to hold those views and demand excellence. I get the sentiment but it doesn't seem to hold up.


I don't know that it's a case of 'demanding excellence' so much as it's a case of demanding accountability.

After all, I think most realize how uncommon it is for a department to fire a cop to begin with. There are already so many obstacles and so much red tape that it's just easier to do the "bad cop, no donut" paid vacation thing.

So....to then see a cop who was fired for cause turn around and use a unionized "civil service" system to put him right back to work...

But then again, like you say, it's a job for the power-hungry, just like politics, and of course that type loves to have their "perks" and job security.


Bottom line, this is why collective bargaining and "civil service" in the public safety sector isn't a good thing.
 
2012-09-24 01:52:09 PM

Karma313th: I don't know that it's a case of 'demanding excellence' so much as it's a case of demanding accountability.


I'm on board with accountability.

Karma313th: So....to then see a cop who was fired for cause turn around and use a unionized "civil service" system to put him right back to work


Unless, of course, in this case "cause" was a knee-jerk reaction to everyone saying he was kicking someone. I don't think we'd see a higher caliber of police officer if every newsworthy (and I do support all of these things, including this one where I don't think the cop was abusing his power, making the news) incident resulted in politically expedient firings. I think that would make matters worse, not better.

If a cop could go get another job with his skillset after getting fired for a policy violation like this that caused no harm, then I'd be fine with it. I've seen waiters fired for minor incidents. Those waiters had another job by the next week. I've had managers who have two firings for theft in their past still get hired by the restaurant I worked at. That's unskilled of course. But you look at other non-college trades and it isn't the end of your career in plumbing if you fark up and a contractor stops using you. So let's say you have a fairly competent person looking for a career with plans to have a family down the line. Why pick the one making 50k where a couple of complaints against you coupled with a public outcry leaves you jobless and losing your home?

There has to be a middle ground of course, between too hard to fire and the job being an unreliable source of income. I've yet to see a good suggestion that wouldn't take things straight from "some small percentage of cops get away with stuff" all the way to "No way in hell would any competent human being pick that career".

Maybe if some of the violations resulted not in career-end but in retraining and transfer to a government position that involved no use of force and let them hold onto the time put into their pensions? I don't know, just spit-balling there.
 
2012-09-24 02:06:33 PM

OnlyM3: CruiserTwelve: he didn't do what he had originally been accused of doing!


Why did you find it necessary to use a partial sentence to accuse me of something I didn't do? Let's look at the entire sentence: "It's almost like the cop exercised his due process rights and an independent board comprised of non-cops found that he didn't do what he had originally been accused of doing!"

That kinda completely changes the context of things. I wasn't saying the guy didn't do anything wrong, the civil service board was saying that. I made no judgment of the guy's guilt or innocence.

And no, I wasn't in either of those pictures. I don't know the cop and I don't know any of the cops in those pictures. I also don't know enough about the case to pass judgment on it.
 
2012-09-24 02:43:32 PM

Karma313th: After all, I think most realize how uncommon it is for a department to fire a cop to begin with. There are already so many obstacles and so much red tape that it's just easier to do the "bad cop, no donut" paid vacation thing.


Paid suspension isn't used for discipline. It's a pre-disciplinary action to protect the employer from further liability while charges are being considered. Once charges are filed, the suspension becomes unpaid.

So....to then see a cop who was fired for cause turn around and use a unionized "civil service" system to put him right back to work...

Civil Service and unions are two entirely different things. Civil Service provides a means of hiring and disciplining certain government employees to protect them from political influences. Unions exist to protect the rights of their employees

Bottom line, this is why collective bargaining and "civil service" in the public safety sector isn't a good thing.

I disagree. collective bargaining is a means of obtaining wages and benefits commensurate to the job. There's nothing evil about that. Civil Service allows for public safety employees to have a disciplinary process outside of the political arena. It protects cops from, say, getting fired for arresting the mayor for DUI. It also insulates cops from the political pressures placed upon their superiors by elected officials.
 
2012-09-24 03:04:07 PM

fredklein: FTFA: ""This was really not a strong force that was used," Shelin said, as the board deliberated. "The man was drunk as a skunk and he was going to topple over easily. And apparently, that's all he did. It was an easy push with his foot, and the man fell over."

Um, it doesn't matter if it was "an easy push" or not, it's still unnecessary force.

[img402.imageshack.us image 677x150]


come on, it was an easy kick to face for no reason on at all.
plus the guy was drunk.
 
2012-09-24 03:18:24 PM

CruiserTwelve: I disagree. collective bargaining is a means of obtaining wages and benefits commensurate to the job.


that's bullshiat.
you use collective bargaining against your community as a way to focus your monopoly power on supplying a vital public service into political power that ensures you and your fellow pigs remain unaccountable for violent and sadistic attacks upon the very members of society you have promised to protect.

you obtain wages and benefits commiserate with the job performed by being worth what you contract for.
 
2012-09-24 03:22:14 PM

Bruce Campbell: brianbankerus: In Seattle they've never found merit in a citizen's complaint yet. I haven't seen the complaints to make a judgment, but I do think it's suspect that zero percent of complaints is valid.

They sure should have in this case.


in a civilized society that would zero out his pension and he'd be in a cell for the rest of his life.
 
2012-09-24 03:23:30 PM

fredklein: FTFA: ""This was really not a strong force that was used," Shelin said, as the board deliberated. "The man was drunk as a skunk and he was going to topple over easily. And apparently, that's all he did. It was an easy push with his foot, and the man fell over."

Um, it doesn't matter if it was "an easy push" or not, it's still unnecessary force.

[img402.imageshack.us image 677x150]


I agree, but there's a difference between a firing offense and a 'hey, dude, here, I'm gonna help you into the car'. Because it sounds like the cop should have taken the guy by the shoulders (or even just grabbed his shirt shoulders) to keep him upright.

/Seriously, the guy is falling over. How do you not reach out and help them up?
//That said, still not a firing offense, just a couple weeks of retraining\some other slap on the wrist saying 'don't do that you idiot'.
 
2012-09-24 03:39:49 PM
this is also why republicans live up to their billing as asshole authoritarians.
police unions are the one case where public unions not only keep those that are unfit to serve on the public payroll but are also a clear danger to the very physical safety of the public at large yet they don't dare make a peep while waging a full out war on the teachers unions which are significantly less damaging to good governance.



PsiChick: edklein: FTFA: ""This was really not a strong force that was used," Shelin said, as the board deliberated. "The man was drunk as a skunk and he was going to topple over easily. And apparently, that's all he did. It was an easy push with his foot, and the man fell over."

Um, it doesn't matter if it was "an easy push" or not, it's still unnecessary force.

[img402.imageshack.us image 677x150]

I agree, but there's a difference between a firing offense and a 'hey, dude, here, I'm gonna help you into the car'. Because it sounds like the cop should have taken the guy by the shoulders (or even just grabbed his shirt shoulders) to keep him upright.

/Seriously, the guy is falling over. How do you not reach out and help them up?
//That said, still not a firing offense, just a couple weeks of retraining\some other slap on the wrist saying 'don't do that you idiot'.


I disagree.
the standards for acceptable conduct should be much more demanding, not less as you suggest, for the folks that have a monopoly on applying lethal force to the citizenry and enforcing laws than on your average health aid at a group home.

you'd straight up get fired DADS (department of aging and disability here in texas) for treating a patient like this if you were a health aid, why the f*ck do you want to give out get out of jail free passes for people charged with significantly more responsibility and that have the pension plans and pay checks to prove it? violent assault is not a training issue.
 
2012-09-24 03:52:58 PM

relcec: PsiChick: edklein:
I disagree.
the standards for acceptable conduct should be much more demanding, not less as you suggest, for the folks that have a monopoly on applying lethal force to the citizenry and enforcing laws than on your average health aid at a group home.

you'd straight up get fired DADS (department of aging and disability here in texas) for treating a patient like this if you were a health aid, why the f*ck do you want to give out get out of jail free passes for people charged with significantly more responsibility and that have the pension plans and pay checks to prove it? violent assault is not a training issue.


I don't hold this to a lower standard by any means--I'm saying that if you were an average bystander and worried about getting sued for helping the guy up, you'd probably nudge them with your toe. And you'd be an idiot, but pretty much within the range of normal behavior.

Should cops be taught better? Yes. But if the cop testimony\video are true, then this was an understandable, albeit stupid, mistake that should be corrected. Wasting all that time on firing the guy and hiring a new one is overkill.
 
2012-09-24 04:23:31 PM

CruiserTwelve: I disagree. collective bargaining is a means of obtaining wages and benefits commensurate to the job. There's nothing evil about that. Civil Service allows for public safety employees to have a disciplinary process outside of the political arena. It protects cops from, say, getting fired for arresting the mayor for DUI. It also insulates cops from the political pressures placed upon their superiors by elected officials.


Not going to break it down point-by-point but, you're still missing the critical point.

Why is that you believe cops are a special class that should be entitled to the protections of not only a union, but a highly institutionally minded system like the "civil service" (which, in practice, serves as nothing more but an governmental labor relations board)?

If anyone else in any other line of work screws up badly enough, violates employer policies or actually commits an offense, they're gone. And sure, if it's a high-profile issue they're absolutely going to be blackballed in their profession and it'll be "Tough break, don't let the door hit you in the ass".

So....given a public safety employee where the government holds a monopoly on the provision of service....How the hell can the public or police administration have any kind of meaningful oversight when all a bad cop has to do is go to an administrative hearing to complain and they'll order him reinstated?

It's an inherently biased and corrupt system, so...Civil service needs to go. Same deal with public safety unions and collective bargaining. 99% of the rest of us seem to manage alright without the insane job protectionism the cops have, so what....It's not good enough for them? Wouldn't surprise me with as many that seem to have the mindset that they're the exception to the rules....

Just look at the FHP/Miami PD debacle.
 
2012-09-24 04:39:04 PM

blipponaut: Everyone hates the police until they need them, then it's "Why didn't you get here quicker?"


Unfortunately, they prove their irrelevance far more often than their worth. By the way, the only reason someone might "need" the police is because modern laws have neutered Americans' ability to take care of their own problems.
 
2012-09-24 04:41:14 PM

MycroftHolmes: In the videos, the person is clearly trying to get up at the times the officer 'kicks' him.


So? The cop would rather carry him into the jail, rather than let him ... get up and walk?

As you point out, the officer is claerly not threatened or acting in fear or rage, based on his body language.

Which makes the kicks completely unnecessary, and even more egregious, as they were not done in 'the heat of the moment'.

Let me ask you this, Freddy, and it will be tough for you because it will require a little critical thinking...if the officer had used the EXACT same amount of force, but used his hands instead of his foot, would there be a problem here?

Well, 'Mikey', I believe that a cop who unnecessarily shoved (with his hands) a suspect to the floor would be just as guilty as this cop.

Isn't it possible that the real issue is not the actual application of force, but the perception of events?

I think the issue is unnecessary application of force.
 
2012-09-24 04:43:18 PM

MycroftHolmes: Nowhere does that equate to enough force to punch or kick the living crap out of someone. Are you serious?


ytrewq.com

Are YOU serious?
 
2012-09-24 04:44:29 PM
"In the video, it appears that Officer Childers kicks the suspect, Juan Perez, while handcuffed, after arresting him for disorderly intoxication. But Shelin says medical records proved Perez wasn't injured, and other witness testimony proved the force Officer Childers did use was reasonable given Perez's level of intoxication and behavior"

Ah, Childers used the ol' "no harm, no foul" defense. What'dya want to bet this guy keeps a phone book in his patrol car?
 
2012-09-24 05:03:35 PM

Karma313th: Why is that you believe cops are a special class that should be entitled to the protections of not only a union, but a highly institutionally minded system like the "civil service" (which, in practice, serves as nothing more but an governmental labor relations board)?


Police Officers are, by the nature of the job itself, in a special class in our society. Cops have the authority to take away a person's freedom. In a country where freedom is coveted and we send young men and women to die for it, having the authority to take that freedom away is huge. As a result, cops are very frequently accused of wrongdoing. In almost every criminal case, cops are accused of improprieties in the arrest and investigative process. In almost every use of force case, cops are accused of being excessive. Yet cops are expected to arrest even the most evil and violent among us. It stands to reason that cops will have to resort to force at times, and the line between necessary and excessive force is sometimes thin.

Now consider that this occurs in a very political arena. Elected officials, who rely on votes to retain their livelyhoods, have a great deal of influence in how police officers do their jobs. When there's a high profile case that has even the slightest odor of being bad, there is often a great deal of political pressure to scapegoat the police. This is why civil service was incorporated into the police hiring and disciplinary process. In theory it puts a layer of insulation between those who make the rules and those that have to enforce the rules. It prevents the city council from hiring their friends and families as cops as used to be very common. It also prevents the politicians from firing a cop just because it's politically advantageous.

Is the system perfect? Of course not, but what system is? Do bad cops get breaks from the civil service board? Yeah, it happens. But for the most part, the system does work and cops get fired and suspended and disciplined all the time. Most disciplinary cases don't even go as far as a civil service hearing. The cop accepts his discipline and goes on with his career a wiser person. You don't hear about those cases. You hear about the cases where there's video that looks, on its surface, to be a serious violation of procedure. You don't hear about the many, many cases where the cop goes before the chief and says "Yeah, I lost my temper and slugged the guy" and accepts his suspension. Cases like this are the norm, not the exception.  You hear about the bad cop getting his job back and assume the system is rigged in his favor. It's not.
 
2012-09-24 05:30:05 PM

fredklein: MycroftHolmes: Nowhere does that equate to enough force to punch or kick the living crap out of someone. Are you serious?

[ytrewq.com image 175x150]

Are YOU serious?


What is it that you think yo are seeing on that video? I see 1) relaxed body language, 2) no windup or follow through, and 3) a shift of weight pressing down on the person being subdued. This is not consistent with the idea that the person was having the crap kicked out of him (it is consistent with the lack of injuries from the alleged kick).
 
2012-09-24 05:33:28 PM

fredklein: MycroftHolmes: In the videos, the person is clearly trying to get up at the times the officer 'kicks' him.

So? The cop would rather carry him into the jail, rather than let him ... get up and walk?

As you point out, the officer is claerly not threatened or acting in fear or rage, based on his body language.

Which makes the kicks completely unnecessary, and even more egregious, as they were not done in 'the heat of the moment'.

Let me ask you this, Freddy, and it will be tough for you because it will require a little critical thinking...if the officer had used the EXACT same amount of force, but used his hands instead of his foot, would there be a problem here?

Well, 'Mikey', I believe that a cop who unnecessarily shoved (with his hands) a suspect to the floor would be just as guilty as this cop.

Isn't it possible that the real issue is not the actual application of force, but the perception of events?

I think the issue is unnecessary application of force.


Ahhh, got it. So it all basically comes down to whether or not you think the officer was appropriate in trying to immobilize or subdue a drunk who was not following verbal commands. So, in your mind, the cop wasn't wrong in how he applied the force necessary to subdue and immobilize the other party, he was wrong because he was trying to subdue him at all. Freddy, I am glad I have you favorited, you never cease to pay off.
 
2012-09-24 06:32:21 PM
Braggi
So what happens when I rob you?
You round up a posse and we skip the trial


Pretty much, yes.

For most people, mob justice is more justice than they would normally get.


MycroftHolmes
Yes, the police should have gotten out the full spectrum analyzed and used laser interferometry to pull fingerprints off of every surface and run that through the National Fingerprint Crossindex database and instantly come up with the culprits. Or, you know, they could realize that innocent until proven guilty means that unless caught in the act, the most you are going to get someone with is possession of stolen goods, and even then it is unlikely to find those people (there are a lot of pawn shops, etc., and no real way to watch them all for stolen goods).

You could have just said, "Correct; the police can't actually protect you or your property, thereby negating their reason for existence."


CruiserTwelve
That kinda completely changes the context of things. I wasn't saying the guy didn't do anything wrong, the civil service board was saying that. I made no judgment of the guy's guilt or innocence.

I would hope that they give you a medal for this masterful deflection, but I'm worried it would ricochet off and put out someone's eye when they try to pin it on you.
 
2012-09-24 06:55:19 PM

RanDomino: You could have just said, "Correct; the police can't actually protect you or your property, thereby negating their reason for existence."


I had a friend who had the custom muffler stolen off of his VW while he was at work. He saw them doing it and wrote down their license plate number. When he called the cops to report it they said there was nothing they could do because it was below X dollar amount.

Protect and serve my ass.
 
2012-09-24 07:11:19 PM

MycroftHolmes: What is it that you think yo are seeing on that video? I see 1) relaxed body language, 2) no windup or follow through, and 3) a shift of weight pressing down on the person being subdued. This is not consistent with the idea that the person was having the crap kicked out of him (it is consistent with the lack of injuries from the alleged kick).


I see a man stomping on another man.

In the later part of the video, I see a man kicking another man, causing him to fall over.
 
2012-09-24 07:15:54 PM

MycroftHolmes: So it all basically comes down to whether or not you think the officer was appropriate in trying to immobilize or subdue a drunk who was not following verbal commands.


I'm sorry. I wasn't aware that the cop's Escalation of Force chart went from 'verbal commands' straight to "stomp him into the ground' and 'kick him so he falls over'.

So, in your mind, the cop wasn't wrong in how he applied the force necessary to subdue and immobilize the other party, he was wrong because he was trying to subdue him at all.

The guy was on the ground- how much more 'subdued' can he get?

I'll say that a different way- the guy didn't need to be subdued, so any action to 'subdue' him would have been unnecessary. Kicking him, punching him, tickling him with a feather. All unnecessary.
 
2012-09-24 07:26:17 PM

fredklein: MycroftHolmes: What is it that you think yo are seeing on that video? I see 1) relaxed body language, 2) no windup or follow through, and 3) a shift of weight pressing down on the person being subdued. This is not consistent with the idea that the person was having the crap kicked out of him (it is consistent with the lack of injuries from the alleged kick).

I see a man stomping on another man.

In the later part of the video, I see a man kicking another man, causing him to fall over.


You see what you want to see. I saw a man use his foot to push a man down and keep him down. The man was not injured by the 'stomp'. you can argue semantics all you want, but the long and the short of it was the officer used sufficient force to subdue and restrain a non-cooperative subject without injuring him.
 
2012-09-24 07:26:44 PM

fredklein: MycroftHolmes: So it all basically comes down to whether or not you think the officer was appropriate in trying to immobilize or subdue a drunk who was not following verbal commands.

I'm sorry. I wasn't aware that the cop's Escalation of Force chart went from 'verbal commands' straight to "stomp him into the ground' and 'kick him so he falls over'.

So, in your mind, the cop wasn't wrong in how he applied the force necessary to subdue and immobilize the other party, he was wrong because he was trying to subdue him at all.

The guy was on the ground- how much more 'subdued' can he get?

I'll say that a different way- the guy didn't need to be subdued, so any action to 'subdue' him would have been unnecessary. Kicking him, punching him, tickling him with a feather. All unnecessary.


Let us approach this one step at a time.

If a subject is ordered to stay down and gets up, that is active resistance. getting hands on and touching pressure points is accepted as a reasonable use of force.

Now that you know that (and I don't mean you have to like it or agree with the courts; just acknowledge), is there a difference between pushing him down with a foot vs. a hand? Assume equal impact and pressure. If not, why not?
 
2012-09-24 07:31:26 PM

fredklein: MycroftHolmes: So it all basically comes down to whether or not you think the officer was appropriate in trying to immobilize or subdue a drunk who was not following verbal commands.

I'm sorry. I wasn't aware that the cop's Escalation of Force chart went from 'verbal commands' straight to "stomp him into the ground' and 'kick him so he falls over'.

So, in your mind, the cop wasn't wrong in how he applied the force necessary to subdue and immobilize the other party, he was wrong because he was trying to subdue him at all.

The guy was on the ground- how much more 'subdued' can he get?

I'll say that a different way- the guy didn't need to be subdued, so any action to 'subdue' him would have been unnecessary. Kicking him, punching him, tickling him with a feather. All unnecessary.


The man was repeatedly trying to get up. Did you watch the same video that everyone else did. I don't have audio, so I can only assume he was told not to move. So yes, if the officer was trying to immobilize him, as long as it was for a lawful reason (which has not been contested other than by you), the officer had the right to use sufficient force to enforce his commands. And yes, he was kicked with enough force to cause him to topple over. It is not uncommon for officers to take uncooperative subjects to the ground.

i think it boils down to a very fundamental thing-the existence of police offends you. The idea that someone might have absolute authority over you, no matter how ephemeral, offends you. With that as the subtext, it wouldn't matter if this cop had kicked, cajoled, or tickled the subject to enforce his orders, the fact that he issued orders is what you have an issue.
 
2012-09-24 08:01:20 PM

CruiserTwelve: Now consider that this occurs in a very political arena. Elected officials, who rely on votes to retain their livelyhoods, have a great deal of influence in how police officers do their jobs. When there's a high profile case that has even the slightest odor of being bad, there is often a great deal of political pressure to scapegoat the police. This is why civil service was incorporated into the police hiring and disciplinary process. In theory it puts a layer of insulation between those who make the rules and those that have to enforce the rules. It prevents the city council from hiring their friends and families as cops as used to be very common. It also prevents the politicians from firing a cop just because it's politically advantageous.


First, I don't buy the 'nature of the job' bit. All that means to me is that cops should be more accountable to public scrutiny BECAUSE they're vested with some of the state's powers.

Same deal as how anyone who voluntarily enters certain areas of the public arena has certain protections limited due to their status as a public figure.

Civil service also certainly doesn't prevent cronyism with police hiring since in most jurisdictions, that's been corrupted to the point where civil service may handle some of the initial minutia of arranging for an examination and making sure paperwork's in order, but police administrations have taken hiring decisions out of the hands of civil service with panel interviews, background checks and the like.

Pretty nice deal if you can swing it,

I also don't buy the 'cops have to be protected from political reprisal'. Number one, unless he royally farks up, a beat cop is never going to be targeted for "political heat". They give a damn about the little guys.

Police brass who won't make something go away or keep pressing an issue they should leave alone? Maybe, but not often.

Besides, the ADAs are far more likely to come under pressure or threat of retaliation since they're the ones who are making the call on what charges to present and the ultimate disposition of criminal cases, yet....

Funny how even in civil service counties, ADAs tend to be exempt positions and thus not covered, or afforded the "protection" you claim cops need. And yet, somehow, they're not falling like flies under heavy-handed political intimidation.
 
2012-09-24 09:21:34 PM

RanDomino: I would hope that they give you a medal.


Well thank you.
 
2012-09-24 10:21:17 PM

Lsherm: fusillade762: It seems it's nearly impossible to get a cop fired. Hell, here in Portland one shot an unarmed, fleeing man in the back and killed him. The mayor fired him but arbitrators insisted he be reinstated.

Public school teachers are the same way.


2/10 Needs more righteous indignation.
 
2012-09-24 10:24:45 PM

CruiserTwelve: The City of Sarasota's Civil Service Board has overturned the firing of a Sarasota Police officer from a 2009 incident.

Wow! It's almost like the cop exercised his due process rights and an independent board comprised of non-cops found that he didn't do what he had originally been accused of doing! How unfair!


I wonder how many of those "non-cops" were white? Just askin'.
 
2012-09-25 04:01:26 PM

MycroftHolmes: I saw a man use his foot to push a man down and keep him down.


...and that's okay??? If I did it to you, it'd be assault and battery.

The man was not injured by the 'stomp'.

So, 'no harm, no foul'?

you can argue semantics all you want, but the long and the short of it was the officer used sufficient force to subdue and restrain a non-cooperative subject without injuring him.

The guy was lying on the ground. Handcuffed. With pepper spray in his eyes. He didn't need to be subdued.
 
2012-09-25 04:04:10 PM

Smackledorfer: If a subject is ordered to stay down and gets up,


Assumes facts not in evidence.

that is active resistance. getting hands on and touching pressure points is accepted as a reasonable use of force.

Is stomping someone considered 'reasonable'? I s kicking them so hard they fall over "reasonable"??

is there a difference between pushing him down with a foot vs. a hand? Assume equal impact and pressure. If not, why not?

No. They're both wrong.
 
2012-09-25 04:09:51 PM

MycroftHolmes: The man was repeatedly trying to get up.


So? Even if/when he was able to get up, he wasn't going anywhere- they were in the parking lot of the jail.

I don't have audio, so I can only assume he was told not to move.

You know what they say about assumptions.

So yes, if the officer was trying to immobilize him, as long as it was for a lawful reason (which has not been contested other than by you),

The cop was FIRED. The city lost TWO lawsuits over his conduct. There was plenty of 'contesting' going on.

It is not uncommon for officers to take uncooperative subjects to the ground.

"Take", not "send".

i think it boils down to a very fundamental thing-the existence of police offends you.

Not quite- the existence of cops who go around kicking handcuffed people to the ground and stomping on them offends me.
 
2012-09-25 05:21:19 PM

fredklein: MycroftHolmes: The man was repeatedly trying to get up.

So? Even if/when he was able to get up, he wasn't going anywhere- they were in the parking lot of the jail.

I don't have audio, so I can only assume he was told not to move.

You know what they say about assumptions.

So yes, if the officer was trying to immobilize him, as long as it was for a lawful reason (which has not been contested other than by you),

The cop was FIRED. The city lost TWO lawsuits over his conduct. There was plenty of 'contesting' going on.

It is not uncommon for officers to take uncooperative subjects to the ground.

"Take", not "send".

i think it boils down to a very fundamental thing-the existence of police offends you.

Not quite- the existence of cops who go around kicking handcuffed people to the ground and stomping on them offends me.


fredklein: MycroftHolmes: The man was repeatedly trying to get up.

So? Even if/when he was able to get up, he wasn't going anywhere- they were in the parking lot of the jail.

I don't have audio, so I can only assume he was told not to move.

You know what they say about assumptions.

So yes, if the officer was trying to immobilize him, as long as it was for a lawful reason (which has not been contested other than by you),

The cop was FIRED. The city lost TWO lawsuits over his conduct. There was plenty of 'contesting' going on.

It is not uncommon for officers to take uncooperative subjects to the ground.

"Take", not "send".

i think it boils down to a very fundamental thing-the existence of police offends you.

Not quite- the existence of cops who go around kicking handcuffed people to the ground and stomping on them offends me.


Let me get this straight, a guy is getting taken to jail, he gets out the back window, and you think it is OK to just let him wander around? The cop took him to the ground with minimum force and then held him there.

The city did not lose a single lawsuit. Please revisit the difference between losing a lawsuit and settling. Now the city settled because they were probably afraid the jury would have idiots who say stuff like 'He was handcuffed, why not just let the staggering drunk guy being taken to jail wander around where ever he wants'

And the officer was fired...and then reinstated after a more thorough review of the facts. However, you missed my point (or deliberately tried to sidestep), no one is contesting whether or not the officer had a lawful reason to restrain him. Can you provide one bit of evidence to the contrary?

If I understand correctly, your stance breaks down to this
1. The subject did not need to be restrained, and should have been allowed to wander around unrestricted because he was handcuffed
2. If the subject was going to be restrained, he should not have been stomped on, even though this has not been demonstrated to be any different than using hands
3. The subject could be taken to the ground, but not sent (gotta be honest, I have no idea what this one means)

All in all, your stance makes almost no sense.
 
2012-09-25 05:24:08 PM

fredklein: MycroftHolmes: I saw a man use his foot to push a man down and keep him down.

...and that's okay??? If I did it to you, it'd be assault and battery.

The man was not injured by the 'stomp'.

So, 'no harm, no foul'?

you can argue semantics all you want, but the long and the short of it was the officer used sufficient force to subdue and restrain a non-cooperative subject without injuring him.

The guy was lying on the ground. Handcuffed. With pepper spray in his eyes. He didn't need to be subdued.


The guy had escaped from the back of the squad car and was actively trying to get up and walk away. Yes, he did. I am not sure how you even think this is a matter of debate.

"Once in the sallyport, Childers sat in the patrol car and waited for jail employees to help him with Perez, who was kicking and flailing in the back seat. Perez was bleeding from the mouth and sputtering mucus because of the pepper spray.

But while Childers tried to establish Perez's identity by looking at a state driver's database on his laptop computer, Perez shimmied out the car's open back window and fell on his head."

It boggles my mind that you still think they should have just let this guy wander around where ever he wanted. That is a stretch, even for you.
 
2012-09-26 04:20:01 PM

MycroftHolmes: Let me get this straight, a guy is getting taken to jail, he gets out the back window, and you think it is OK to just let him wander around?


Strawman- they guy wasn't "wandering" anywhere.

The cop took him to the ground with minimum force and then held him there.

The cop stomped on him as he lay on the ground, then allowed him to stand up, just to kick him over again. Hardly 'holding him down'.

The city did not lose a single lawsuit. Please revisit the difference between losing a lawsuit and settling.

Well, they certainly didn't WIN the lawsuits, did they?? "Lose", "Settled", they had to pay $$$ either way.

Now the city settled because they were probably afraid the jury would have idiots who say stuff like 'He was handcuffed, why not just let the staggering drunk guy being taken to jail wander around where ever he wants'

Again with the "wandering". They guy was falling-down drunk. Literally. he wasn't going anywhere.

And besides, if the cop was so concerned about the suspect "wandering", why'd he leave the window open so the guy could climb out??

If I understand correctly, your stance breaks down to this
1. The subject did not need to be restrained, and should have been allowed to wander around unrestrictedlie on the floor without being stomped on because he was handcuffed


FTFY.

2. If the subject was going to be restrained, he should not have been stomped on, even though this has not been demonstrated to be any different than using hands

Tell you what- I'll hold you with my hands, then I'll stomp you with my foot. I'll bet you can tell the difference.

3. The subject could be taken to the ground, but not sent (gotta be honest, I have no idea what this one means)

So, you really can tell the difference between tackling someone (taking them to the ground) and kicking a handcuffed suspect so he falls over (sending him to the ground)?? I retract my previous bet- evidently you are too dumb to tell the difference.
 
2012-09-26 04:25:22 PM

MycroftHolmes: The guy had escaped from the back of the squad car and was actively trying to get up and walk away. Yes, he did. I am not sure how you even think this is a matter of debate.


So, why exactly did the cop leave the car window open if he was so afraid of the guy escaping?? Either the cop was extremely stupid, and/or the cop was not really afraid of the falling-down drunk guy escaping from the fenced jail parking lot.

It boggles my mind that you still think they should have just let this guy wander around where ever he wanted. That is a stretch, even for you.

Strawman, as I have pointed out. He was not "wandering"- he could barely stand. And he couldn't go anywhere, as he was in a fenced in jail parking lot.
 
2012-09-26 07:21:53 PM

fredklein: Smackledorfer: If a subject is ordered to stay down and gets up,

Assumes facts not in evidence.

that is active resistance. getting hands on and touching pressure points is accepted as a reasonable use of force.

Is stomping someone considered 'reasonable'? I s kicking them so hard they fall over "reasonable"??

is there a difference between pushing him down with a foot vs. a hand? Assume equal impact and pressure. If not, why not?

No. They're both wrong.


Oh, you are a retard. Either you can't figure out if-then statements or you believe that there is no point at which a police officer can ask, tell, and finally make a subject stay put.
 
2012-09-26 07:24:06 PM

fredklein: Not quite- the existence of cops who go around kicking handcuffed people to the ground and stomping on them offends me.


Why call it kicking/stomping? A moment ago you just told me that if he so much as used his hands to hold an active resistant subject down that it would be wrong (and thus presumably offend you) and you pretty clearly implied they would be the same.
 
Displayed 48 of 148 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report