Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

15543 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Sep 2012 at 5:42 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-09-23 06:38:18 PM  
Thank goodness the police officers' union was able to put an end to this egregious abuse of the city's power to hire and fire employees it can trust to act responsibly.
 
2012-09-23 10:05:38 PM  
It's almost as if the police aren't our friends. It's almost as if they are not to be trusted, why do they try to fool us into being so distrustful of them? Why do the fine upstanding police officers try to make us afraid of them?

I'm merely a civilian, so I maybe i should not ask such questions.
 
2012-09-23 10:14:08 PM  
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.
 
2012-09-23 10:17:46 PM  

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.


Similar to Seattle. Cop was fired and the union got him rehired because it was discriminatory to let ONE cop go for abuse when so many others had not been fired.

Don't worry, the cop apologists will be in here momentarily.
 
2012-09-23 10:51:12 PM  
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!
 
2012-09-23 10:52:18 PM  

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.
 
2012-09-23 11:20:27 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!


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.
 
2012-09-23 11:50:43 PM  
Story with much detail. Link
 
2012-09-24 12:09:18 AM  
why isnt it required that we kill all the cops?
seriously
these "people" are the worst threat to america
period

WTF
 
2012-09-24 12:11:58 AM  

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.


Public teachers shoot people in the back?
 
2012-09-24 12:53:34 AM  

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!


Is that water heavy?
 
2012-09-24 12:56:19 AM  
24.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-09-24 01:05:10 AM  
Is this the same fark that would ban people for openly criticizing police in 2002?
 
2012-09-24 01:06:13 AM  
BUT BUT BUT BUT MOST COPS ARE GOOD COPS

s13.postimage.org
 
2012-09-24 01:29:49 AM  

Because People in power are Stupid: Is this the same fark that would ban people for openly criticizing police in 2002?


They actually did that? Can't say I remember it.
 
2012-09-24 01:38:10 AM  

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.
 
2012-09-24 05:33:45 AM  

fusillade762: Because People in power are Stupid: Is this the same fark that would ban people for openly criticizing police in 2002?

They actually did that? Can't say I remember it.


me either.

/hates me some cops
 
2012-09-24 05:50:19 AM  
If we didn't have review boards or unions, none of this would have happened. Maybe we could create a force called the brown shirts. They would protect us.
 
2012-09-24 05:56:50 AM  
cop thread
 
2012-09-24 06:08:42 AM  
I'm hardly a police apologist, but I gotta say... I watched the video, and it really didn't look like the cop was using excessive force. The guy was clearly drunk and having a hard time standing up, and once he did get on his feet the cop pushed him back onto the ground with his foot. At first glance it looks sort of like a kick, but the guy doesn't react as if he'd just been kicked-instead, he actually continues to stand up. The second time, which immediately follows the first, he falls backwards onto the police car and tumbles to the ground, which is pretty much what you'd expect if he were extremely drunk and had just been pushed off balance.

This is hardly a case of the guy getting a severe beating despite obviously offering no resistance. He was clearly doing something he shouldn't have been doing, and given that he had just escaped from a patrol car and refusing orders to stay on the ground he was probably combative and would likely have bitten or spit on any officer who gave him a chance to do so. I think I might well have done the same thing in the cop's situation, and given the distance and angle of the camera it might well have looked like a kick.

Do everyone a favor, people--before you go crucifying this guy, take a look at the video and see if you might possibly have taken the same action that the cop did were you in his place. Let's save our righteous indignation for the pigs that truly deserve it, huh?
 
2012-09-24 06:14:39 AM  
Farking cops. Die.
 
2012-09-24 06:17:26 AM  
I just do not understand why people do not shoot cops at random.
 
2012-09-24 06:23:29 AM  

GuidoDelConfuso: I'm hardly a police apologist, but I gotta say... I watched the video, and it really didn't look like the cop was using excessive force. The guy was clearly drunk and having a hard time standing up, and once he did get on his feet the cop pushed him back onto the ground with his foot. At first glance it looks sort of like a kick, but the guy doesn't react as if he'd just been kicked-instead, he actually continues to stand up. The second time, which immediately follows the first, he falls backwards onto the police car and tumbles to the ground, which is pretty much what you'd expect if he were extremely drunk and had just been pushed off balance.

This is hardly a case of the guy getting a severe beating despite obviously offering no resistance. He was clearly doing something he shouldn't have been doing, and given that he had just escaped from a patrol car and refusing orders to stay on the ground he was probably combative and would likely have bitten or spit on any officer who gave him a chance to do so. I think I might well have done the same thing in the cop's situation, and given the distance and angle of the camera it might well have looked like a kick.

Do everyone a favor, people--before you go crucifying this guy, take a look at the video and see if you might possibly have taken the same action that the cop did were you in his place. Let's save our righteous indignation for the pigs that truly deserve it, huh?


You expect me to watch a video before I decide whether or not someone is guilty? Screw that! What are you this guys brother? Everyone knows cops are criminals and criminals are criminals. If they didn't do anything wrong, there wouldn't be an article on Fark about them. Obviously this cop is guilty. As are all cops!
 
2012-09-24 06:35:17 AM  

hestheone: I just do not understand why people do not shoot cops at random.



Dunno....maybe for the same reason that you haven't done it.

Hey! You could start a trend!
 
2012-09-24 06:37:04 AM  
Everyone hates the police until they need them, then it's "Why didn't you get here quicker?"
 
2012-09-24 06:40:35 AM  

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


I've heard a lot of people make the same claim as you; but I don't know anyone who has actually said that.
 
2012-09-24 06:42:38 AM  
Forget the police. That website designer should be arrested and sentenced to life with no hope of parole
 
2012-09-24 06:42:47 AM  
This is what happens when you're caught being Mexican in Sarasota County.
However, to the assholes in the thread joking about shooting at cops......... you're assholes.
 
2012-09-24 06:48:37 AM  

brianbankerus: 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.

Similar to Seattle. Cop was fired and the union got him rehired because it was discriminatory to let ONE cop go for abuse when so many others had not been fired.

Don't worry, the cop apologists will be in here momentarily.


The very next poster, in fact.
 
2012-09-24 07:03:09 AM  

brianbankerus: 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.

Similar to Seattle. Cop was fired and the union got him rehired because it was discriminatory to let ONE cop go for abuse when so many others had not been fired.

Don't worry, the cop apologists will be in here momentarily.


Arent unions great! My parenst worked at the post office and one employee there was busted for stealing mail. Instead of being fired the union protected got her retrained and she ended up with a better job. She was clean and articulate too, so they may have had something to do with it as well, diversity being almost as wondeful as a union
 
2012-09-24 07:08:39 AM  
Suspect must have: a) tripped and fallen on the sidewalk (several times). b) fallen down the stairs (several times). c) hit his head on the door of the police cruiser (several times).

See? There's a reasonable explanation for everything!
 
2012-09-24 07:09:25 AM  

Onkel Buck: brianbankerus: 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.

Similar to Seattle. Cop was fired and the union got him rehired because it was discriminatory to let ONE cop go for abuse when so many others had not been fired.

Don't worry, the cop apologists will be in here momentarily.

Arent unions great! My parenst worked at the post office and one employee there was busted for stealing mail. Instead of being fired the union protected got her retrained and she ended up with a better job. She was clean and articulate too, so they may have had something to do with it as well, diversity being almost as wondeful as a union


Must be terrible being a persecuted white male like yourself.
 
2012-09-24 07:16:50 AM  

GuidoDelConfuso: Do everyone a favor, people--before you go crucifying this guy, take a look at the video and see if you might possibly have taken the same action that the cop did were you in his place.


Watched it.

Still wouldn't have stomped on the beat-up, pepper-sprayed drunk guy.
 
2012-09-24 07:23:59 AM  
+1 Stupid to a lot of people here.
 
2012-09-24 07:26:54 AM  

brianbankerus: 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.

Similar to Seattle. Cop was fired and the union got him rehired because it was discriminatory to let ONE cop go for abuse when so many others had not been fired.

Don't worry, the cop apologists will be in here momentarily.


---

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!


That didn't take long
 
2012-09-24 07:30:54 AM  
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
 
2012-09-24 07:32:01 AM  

brianbankerus: 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.

Similar to Seattle. Cop was fired and the union got him rehired because it was discriminatory to let ONE cop go for abuse when so many others had not been fired.

Don't worry, the cop apologists will be in here momentarily.


I'd say there needs to be more civilian oversight with our police forces, but I guess that didn't help much here.

I'd also say that maybe Gov. Walker had the right idea limiting the power of public-employee unions, but I think he exempted police unions in this.

So...yeah.
 
2012-09-24 07:34:04 AM  

xanadian: I'd say there needs to be more civilian oversight with our police forces, but I guess that didn't help much here.


Actually in the article they mention that even with this case being overturned they are implementing new standards of handling incidents like this to ensure that oversight is used.
 
2012-09-24 07:40:28 AM  

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


Of course he did. Video don't lie. But cops do.

img402.imageshack.us 

Also, "investigators concluded he violated five department policies."

Oh, and the little fact that he was fired.

But if you ignore all that, yeah, sure, he's completely innocent.

Oh, and regarding the claim the cop made about "not trying to hurt him or use any more force than necessary to keep him subdued."- Um, he's laying on the ground! How much more "subdued" do you want him?!?!

It's not like the cop was threatened at all- he was sauntering around with his hands in his pockets.
 
2012-09-24 08:06:29 AM  

GuidoDelConfuso: I'm hardly a police apologist, but I gotta say... I watched the video, and it really didn't look like the cop was using excessive force. The guy was clearly drunk and having a hard time standing up, and once he did get on his feet the cop pushed him back onto the ground with his foot. At first glance it looks sort of like a kick, but the guy doesn't react as if he'd just been kicked-instead, he actually continues to stand up. The second time, which immediately follows the first, he falls backwards onto the police car and tumbles to the ground, which is pretty much what you'd expect if he were extremely drunk and had just been pushed off balance.


Optics, optics, optics. It doesn't matter what you're doing, it matters what it LOOKS like you're doing. In practice this means you never touch a downed subject with your foot unless you actually intend to do what a still photo looks like you're about to do. My question is, what did the cop think was going to happen after he pushed the drunk guy with his foot? The guy's drunk and handcuffed, he can't protect himself when he falls. He's going to get hurt for basically no reason and you're responsible for it. That's a careless use of force. It's not like he bootfarked the guy, I'm not sure that warrants a firing, I definitely wasn't there, but it doesn't sound to me like that was a very good decision. Too bad the oversight board is so hilariously biased.

I now return you to your adolescent rage. Fark: Where advocating killing everyone in a single group is A-OK!
 
2012-09-24 08:08:07 AM  
And, just one headline above this, officers use excessive force (shooting) and unarmed, horny, peeping tom suspect who was casing a Utah neighborhood. His partner, nicknamed "The Squirrel", may have been there as well.

Them cops. Ya give'em power and they'll abuse it.
 
2012-09-24 08:08:17 AM  

fredklein: Um, he's laying on the ground! How much more "subdued" do you want him?!?!


http://gifs.gifbin.com/052010/1273487123_police-brutality.gif



Nevermind.
 
2012-09-24 08:11:23 AM  
www.newdisorder.com
 
2012-09-24 08:15:29 AM  
Childers will receive back pay for the last three years.

"Sweet! A boat load of lap dances from my snitch, some more free lobster and free fuel for the boat and finally get my landlord off my ass. It's great to be me."
A society of entitlement?

If you hadn't acted like a barbarian in the first place then . . . what?
 
2012-09-24 08:22:17 AM  
Florida- Who else will beat the hell out of you?
 
2012-09-24 08:24:00 AM  

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

Of course he did. Video don't lie. But cops do.

[img402.imageshack.us image 677x150] 

Also, "investigators concluded he violated five department policies."

Oh, and the little fact that he was fired.

But if you ignore all that, yeah, sure, he's completely innocent.


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.
 
2012-09-24 08:24:36 AM  

namatad: why isnt it required that we kill all the cops?
seriously
these "people" are the worst threat to america
period

WTF


I agree that they are a threat to our liberties in America. I don't agree with a killing rampage, though. What we need is a real display of 'civil disobedience' to show those in power who are really in power. Cop and the government should fear the population but these days it's the other way around.
 
2012-09-24 08:37:57 AM  

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!


Kicking someone who is handcuffed is a farking pussy move. You condone this?
 
2012-09-24 08:42:14 AM  

devlin carnate: fredklein: CruiserTwelve: he didn't do what he had originally been accused of doing!

Of course he did. Video don't lie. But cops do.

[img402.imageshack.us image 677x150] 

Also, "investigators concluded he violated five department policies."

Oh, and the little fact that he was fired.

But if you ignore all that, yeah, sure, he's completely innocent.


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.


heroes, every damn one of them
 
2012-09-24 08:52:06 AM  
ytrewq.com

Cop: Stop falling down...
Perp: Ouch!
Cop: Stop falling down...
Perp: Ouch!
Cop: Stop falling down...
Perp: Ouch!
 
2012-09-24 08:54:47 AM  
I guess I don't get the all cops are evil. I have dealt with several in my life and no one has been a dick to me. Sure there are power hunger jerks out there but there are people like that in any job. I think their job would suck. They deal with the worst of society. You see the guy walking away after seeing the guy on the ground. I imagine he was thinking . "Great, another drunk loser I have to deal with. He is probably going to pee or vomit in my car." They have to deal with pedophiles, guys that beat their wives, accidents with body parts everywhere. It doesn't sound like much fun to me.

What would you do if all the cops were gone? Who is going to go about arresting criminals, deal with the drunks, stop the scum of society? Are you going to take care of that?

I think most cops are average decent people. The bad ones just make the news.
 
2012-09-24 08:58:18 AM  

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


You mean these guys "...members of the Civil Service Board violated the state Government-in-the-Sunshine Law..."?

Sounds like a really nice crew running things over there.
 
2012-09-24 08:58:48 AM  

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


To be honest, it's generally the gun-control nuts who might say that.
 
2012-09-24 09:10:50 AM  
We will never evolve as a country until we get rid of all law enforcement positions. Cops are not a solution, they just compound an already out of control education problem.
 
2012-09-24 09:15:28 AM  
There are stereotypes for a reason. Cops become cops for a reason. Normally making up for some serious inadequcies in their own life. I have never met a cop that didn't have some trumped up bullshiat story or who was humble. Think of nerdy kid in high school that now has a badge & gun.
 
2012-09-24 09:18:12 AM  

99.998er: There are stereotypes for a reason. Cops become cops for a reason. Normally making up for some serious inadequcies in their own life. I have never met a cop that didn't have some trumped up bullshiat story or who was humble. Think of nerdy kid in high school that now has a badge & gun.


I can't agree 100%, but I have no doubt that a LOT of cops are cops because they get a chance to be Mr. Tough Guy.

Some actually want to help make a change, but either end up corrupted, or quit law enforcement all together because they realize it has nothing to do with civil service.
 
2012-09-24 09:23:17 AM  
I say double the law enforcement salary! Shiatty job, no doubt. But also say they need to be college grads, educated in that field instead of these idiots with a HS diploma and a few weeks of "training".
 
2012-09-24 09:25:27 AM  
Just what do you folks do to have all that interaction with dick cops?
 
2012-09-24 09:26:10 AM  
blipponaut

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

You have something brown, there on your nose. Do you need a tissue?
 
2012-09-24 09:30:52 AM  

99.998er: There are stereotypes for a reason. Cops become cops for a reason. Normally making up for some serious inadequcies in their own life. I have never met a cop that didn't have some trumped up bullshiat story or who was humble. Think of nerdy kid in high school that now has a badge & gun.


Hi.
 
2012-09-24 09:33:21 AM  
GuidoDelConfuso

I'm hardly a police apologist, but I gotta say... I watched the video, and it really didn't look like the cop was using excessive force. The guy was clearly drunk and having a hard time standing up
Well ok then. See, the rest of us were just confused. We didn't know that hitting someone with your foot was the best way to assist someone to their feet.

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

Ok, I give up c.t. I was never good at "where's waldo". Which one is you?
www.upl.co
www.upl.co
 
2012-09-24 09:33:52 AM  

Braggi: Just what do you folks do to have all that interaction with dick cops?


Doin' fifty-five in a fifty-fo'
 
2012-09-24 09:40:21 AM  

CruiserTwelve: 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!


Well, the medical review found no significant injuries from the kicks, so I'd be with you, but according to a link someone else dropped in the thread: "His final disciplinary hearing was delayed for two years because members of the Civil Service Board violated the state Government-in-the-Sunshine Law while discussing the case amongst themselves" ... so forgive me if I'm not overwhelmed by the judgement of an inderpendent board that somehow can't avoid breaking the law while evaluating the law.
 
2012-09-24 09:42:30 AM  

orclover: We will never evolve as a country until we get rid of all law enforcement positions. Cops are not a solution, they just compound an already out of control education problem.


So what happens when I rob you?

You round up a posse and we skip the trial, or you accept the loss and I come back in a month?
 
2012-09-24 09:45:35 AM  

99.998er: There are stereotypes for a reason. Cops become cops for a reason. Normally making up for some serious inadequcies in their own life. I have never met a cop that didn't have some trumped up bullshiat story or who was humble. Think of nerdy kid in high school that now has a badge & gun.


So go be a cop.

For all the whining and stereotypes of what all cops are I sure don't see any of the morally superior folks taking one for the team and bettering the world.
 
2012-09-24 09:48:47 AM  
Seriously I would love for all the farkers pissed off about all the corruption to get the job, work their way up to supervisory positions and root out the bad.

Why don't I do it you may ask me? Because I don't think the majority of cops are the corrupt thugs fark makes them out to be. If I did then put up or shut up applies to me too.
 
2012-09-24 09:57:26 AM  

PallMall: [ytrewq.com image 175x150]

Cop: Stop falling down...
Perp: Ouch!
Cop: Stop falling down...
Perp: Ouch!
Cop: Stop falling down...
Perp: Ouch!


Hmm. That looks less of a kick and more of a squash. Either way, f*ck that guy. :-/
 
2012-09-24 09:57:29 AM  
ACAB
 
2012-09-24 10:03:39 AM  
So what happens when I rob you?

You round up a posse and we skip the trial, or you accept the loss and I come back in a month?


Can you let me know when you plan on doing that. I would like to rob you when you are done robbing them. And as a heads up. I plan on shooting you so you don't try and rob me later. Thought I would be nice so you can update your insurance policy.
 
2012-09-24 10:17:15 AM  
Thank God for heroes like this.

/I feel safer.
 
2012-09-24 10:18:16 AM  

Smackledorfer: orclover: We will never evolve as a country until we get rid of all law enforcement positions. Cops are not a solution, they just compound an already out of control education problem.

So what happens when I rob you?

You round up a posse and we skip the trial, or you accept the loss and I come back in a month?


You mean like after my parent's house was burglarized, and and two hours after they called the cops, one patrolman showed up, took a report on what was taken, admitted that most likely they'd never see it again, but he'd "pass it on to a detective" (who they never heard from, even when they called and left messages to see what was happening), and gave them a copy of the police report for their insurance company? I think a posse would have worked better.
 
2012-09-24 10:20:02 AM  
Probably went with the "I was trying to help him get up with my foot" or "there was a big spider on him and I was just trying
to help".
 
2012-09-24 10:28:46 AM  

brianbankerus: 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!

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.


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.

I am all for accountability for police officers actions, I just do not believe that people who only see one side of the story, and can only empathize with one party of the incident, can objectively judge police actions.
 
2012-09-24 10:29:42 AM  

99.998er: I say double the law enforcement salary! Shiatty job, no doubt. But also say they need to be college grads, educated in that field instead of these idiots with a HS diploma and a few weeks of "training".


Same problem TSA has.
There are not enough "watchers" for all the watching.

/there is a self limiting factor to this Super Nanny dealeo
 
2012-09-24 10:36:09 AM  

abhorrent1: Farking cops. Die.


You are part of the problem. Police maintain the thin blue line because they know that they cannot get a fair hearing from mouth breathing idiots who respond 'A cop shoved a guy down with his foot...die cop'. Of course they cover up to protect their own from people who have never been in the situations that they have to deal with, and the side effect is that they also cover up for truly bad and corrupt cops.
 
2012-09-24 10:40:25 AM  

devildog123: Smackledorfer: orclover: We will never evolve as a country until we get rid of all law enforcement positions. Cops are not a solution, they just compound an already out of control education problem.

So what happens when I rob you?

You round up a posse and we skip the trial, or you accept the loss and I come back in a month?

You mean like after my parent's house was burglarized, and and two hours after they called the cops, one patrolman showed up, took a report on what was taken, admitted that most likely they'd never see it again, but he'd "pass it on to a detective" (who they never heard from, even when they called and left messages to see what was happening), and gave them a copy of the police report for their insurance company? I think a posse would have worked better.


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).

Not exactly sure what you would expect a posse to do. Ride around and chase suspicious looking people (maybe shooting some of them in the chest for buying skittles).

Yeah, i know it sucks that we don't live in a police state and crime can occur, but that is the price of freedom.
 
2012-09-24 10:42:54 AM  

99.998er: There are stereotypes for a reason. Cops become cops for a reason. Normally making up for some serious inadequcies in their own life. I have never met a cop that didn't have some trumped up bullshiat story or who was humble. Think of nerdy kid in high school that now has a badge & gun.


The difficulty of believing in stereotypes is that it allows the outliers to define the norm. the majority of any population living in the middle of the bell curve is usually unremarkable. it is the edges of the curve that are very observable, and fool people outside of the population into thinking that the outliers are what the entire population must be like. yes, there are bad cops, and these are the ones you hear about. That doesn't mean that most cops are bad.
 
2012-09-24 10:43:53 AM  

BarkingUnicorn: Story with much detail. Link


In other words he was fired because it looked bad, not because of wrongdoing.
 
2012-09-24 10:49:14 AM  

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

Of course he did. Video don't lie. But cops do.

[img402.imageshack.us image 677x150] 

Also, "investigators concluded he violated five department policies."

Oh, and the little fact that he was fired.

But if you ignore all that, yeah, sure, he's completely innocent.

Oh, and regarding the claim the cop made about "not trying to hurt him or use any more force than necessary to keep him subdued."- Um, he's laying on the ground! How much more "subdued" do you want him?!?!

It's not like the cop was threatened at all- he was sauntering around with his hands in his pockets.


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

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

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? Isn't it possible that the real issue is not the actual application of force, but the perception of events?
 
2012-09-24 10:57:31 AM  

Smackledorfer: Seriously I would love for all the farkers pissed off about all the corruption to get the job, work their way up to supervisory positions and root out the bad.

Why don't I do it you may ask me? Because I don't think the majority of cops are the corrupt thugs fark makes them out to be. If I did then put up or shut up applies to me too.


I did, alas they thought my herb smoking habit made me unsuitable, change the laws and I will be there in a jiffy.
 
2012-09-24 11:03:47 AM  
Notice they didn't say he didn't kick a handcuffed citizen. He clearly did and they have the video proving it. They said the "level of force was not unreasonable" which is a blatant lie. ANY force other than picking up and moving used against a handcuffed citizen is unreasonable.
 
2012-09-24 11:04:56 AM  

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?
 
2012-09-24 11:05:07 AM  

Smackledorfer: Seriously I would love for all the farkers pissed off about all the corruption to get the job, work their way up to supervisory positions and root out the bad.

Why don't I do it you may ask me? Because I don't think the majority of cops are the corrupt thugs fark makes them out to be. If I did then put up or shut up applies to me too.


Link

About a half-dozen stories a day of cops acting above the law. And thats just the ones that get caught doing so. And, that site mainly just covers the stories related to photograhy rights.

Funny how cops always use the "but its a hard job" BS to excuse their poor behavior. I don't see firefighters or medics getting into trouble nearly this much, and they work the same streets.
 
2012-09-24 11:08:34 AM  

orclover: We will never evolve as a country until we get rid of all law enforcement positions. Cops are not a solution, they just compound an already out of control education problem.


how's that third semester treatin' ya?
 
2012-09-24 11:10:25 AM  

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


you mean punched the living crap out of a prone, handcuffed person? Yeah, I'd have trouble with that too.
 
2012-09-24 11:26:58 AM  
Childers will receive back pay for the last three years.

So when is the party?
 
2012-09-24 11:33:22 AM  

99.998er: Think of nerdy kid in high school that now has a badge & gun.


Actually, given my experience, it's usually the 2nd string high school jocks who become cops. The ones who are athletic and aggressive enough to make the team but not talented enough to be a starter.
 
2012-09-24 12:01:26 PM  

MycroftHolmes: brianbankerus: 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!

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.

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.

I am all for accountability for police officers actions, I just do not believe that people who only see one side of the story, and can only empathize with one party of the incident, can objectively judge police actions.


So, no more trial by jury. Cool.
 
2012-09-24 12:03:25 PM  
Just protcktin an swrvin here, Boss.

Let sociopaths do your policing and this is what you asked for.
 
2012-09-24 12:08:04 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.

I am all for accountability for police officers actions, I just do not believe that people who only see one side of the story, and can only empathize with one party of the incident, can objectively judge police actions.


And just imagine the quality of officer we'd get after the knee-jerk reactions all kicked in. Lets make it the shiattiest job in town, when we already have trouble getting someone we'd want doing it to take the job, and see what happens.
 
2012-09-24 12:10:23 PM  

Smackledorfer: 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.

I am all for accountability for police officers actions, I just do not believe that people who only see one side of the story, and can only empathize with one party of the incident, can objectively judge police actions.

And just imagine the quality of officer we'd get after the knee-jerk reactions all kicked in. Lets make it the shiattiest job in town, when we already have trouble getting someone we'd want doing it to take the job, and see what happens.


You pay peanuts, you get monkeys.
 
2012-09-24 12:11:24 PM  

offmymeds: Smackledorfer: 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.

I am all for accountability for police officers actions, I just do not believe that people who only see one side of the story, and can only empathize with one party of the incident, can objectively judge police actions.

And just imagine the quality of officer we'd get after the knee-jerk reactions all kicked in. Lets make it the shiattiest job in town, when we already have trouble getting someone we'd want doing it to take the job, and see what happens.

You pay peanuts, you get monkeys.


Maybe if you put the application on pizza boxes,,,
 
2012-09-24 12:19:22 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: MycroftHolmes: brianbankerus: 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!

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.

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.

I am all for accountability for police officers actions, I just do not believe that people who only see one side of the story, and can only empathize with one party of the incident, can objectively judge police actions.

So, no more trial by jury. Cool.


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

you mean punched the living crap out of a prone, handcuffed person? Yeah, I'd have trouble with that too.


Did you watch the video? He first) applied enough pressure to cause a very inebriated person to gently fall over, then second) applied pressure with his foot to hold the person down. Nowhere does that equate to enough force to punch or kick the living crap out of someone. Are you serious?
 
2012-09-24 12:20:10 PM  

LemSkroob: Smackledorfer: Seriously I would love for all the farkers pissed off about all the corruption to get the job, work their way up to supervisory positions and root out the bad.

Why don't I do it you may ask me? Because I don't think the majority of cops are the corrupt thugs fark makes them out to be. If I did then put up or shut up applies to me too.

Link

About a half-dozen stories a day of cops acting above the law. And thats just the ones that get caught doing so. And, that site mainly just covers the stories related to photograhy rights.

Funny how cops always use the "but its a hard job" BS to excuse their poor behavior. I don't see firefighters or medics getting into trouble nearly this much, and they work the same streets.


"Hi, I'm LemSkroob. I make up numbers and haven't learned enough about statistics to figure out the difference between bad incidents being publicized in a nation of 300 million people on a regular basis and events actually occurring with a high percentage frequency"

You'll note I didn't say "but it's a hard job" though. I said 'if you are morally superior (and obviously many are relative to the cops who abuse their power) and you feel the majority of cops are corrupt, you should go to the academy, take the job, and enact change'. This may be a system that can only be changed from within, but certainly it isn't a situation that is going to be fixed by over-the-top internet posting. I'm not being sarcastic when I suggest that people who find an area of society to be morally bankrupt are the people who need to enter that part of society.

Politicians are bankrupt so I don't get involved.
Lawyers are evil sharks so I don't get involved.
Cops are thugs so I won't get involved.

HEY EVERYONE, WHY IS MY YELLING ON THE INTERNET NOT CONVINCING THE POLITICIANS AND LAWYERS TO STRAIGHTEN OUT THE COPS?!!!


See the problem?

As for firefighters and emts: emts I know have gotten in trouble, and firefighters spend the majority of the day napping in the firehouse while they manage to include overtime in a 3-day week (and frankly that doesn't even bother me) - except for where the firefighters are the emts, in which case they also get in trouble. It tends to be less of an outrage story going nation-wide when someone sues an emt for farking up though. And as I always have to say in these threads: I am not defending abuse of power by cops - it is bad and should be dealt with every time it rears its ugly head. But when the side pushing the hardest for it to be dealt with also tends to show itself to be the least understanding of use of force policy and somehow more biased than the cops themselves, that isn't helping. Get your shiat together, focus on the events when and where they happen, and don't give up.

Making outrageous exaggerations while doing your best to remain an outsider to any of the processes and alienating anyone within the system with the ability to enact change? Ya, that ain't helping.
 
2012-09-24 12:20:13 PM  
I for one, am glad the police department came to its senses and reinstated this fine, upstanding officer. After all, why should the video evidence showing the Officer Childers kicking a handcuffed suspect be believed when his fellow officers have stated that he DID NOT kick the handcuffed suspect. It has been proven that police officers cannot lie. I think it should be illegal to record cops because it's quite obvious that video evidence can be easily falsified.

The only upside to this whole case is that Officer Childers has received back-pay for the last three years since his firing. I can only hope that the vast sums of money he received from the taxpayers help ease the pain he suffered when he stubbed his toe NOT KICKING the handcuffed suspect.
 
2012-09-24 12:21:38 PM  

snocone: Maybe if you put the application on pizza boxes,,,


I see them at bus stops. Because you know people with their shiat together are taking the bus in cities with shiatty public transportation (I wouldn't place that judgement on a New Yorker, I'll definitely place it on people in Detroit and Toledo).
 
2012-09-24 12:22:38 PM  

Smackledorfer: 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.

I am all for accountability for police officers actions, I just do not believe that people who only see one side of the story, and can only empathize with one party of the incident, can objectively judge police actions.

And just imagine the quality of officer we'd get after the knee-jerk reactions all kicked in. Lets make it the shiattiest job in town, when we already have trouble getting someone we'd want doing it to take the job, and see what happens.


I think you misunderstand what I propose. i am all for greater levels of accountability, but more fair judgement of actions. I would want actions to be reviewed by people familiar with law enforcement who can make a more informed evaluation of officer actions based on experience. If, after that, the officer was found to act in a way inappropriate, then i would want full levels of accountability. This should make the job better, not worse. No more political sacrificial lambs. no more second guessing from someone who has never been in the same situation.
 
2012-09-24 12:27:35 PM  
My post was sarcasm, I was agreeing with you MycroftHolmes.
 
2012-09-24 12:44:11 PM  
What I meant to say was that you pay a cop low wages, you get someone who is perhaps not quite up to expectations.
 
2012-09-24 12:48:10 PM  

Braggi: ...

I think most cops are average decent people. The bad ones just make the news.


No, it's the completely off the rails impunity which officers are afforded that makes the news. Officers generally protect their own to no end, so when the department fires one they are probably not very good officers, and probably have a history.

We need public oversight to get more of these assholes in jail/fired, not to review a proper firing and apply their 'just world' filter to give them their job back.

Anyway, the "bad ones" should make the news because generally they are being protected by the "good ones" who are "bad ones" because they allow it.
 
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 148 of 148 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report