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.

(WBIR Knoxville)   Knox County sheriff photographed choking man receives permanent unpaid vacation from the department. THIS IS AN OUT... wait, what?   (wbir.com) divider line 249
    More: Followup, Knox County, booms and busts, police officers, holidays  
•       •       •

16124 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Apr 2014 at 7:05 AM (25 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-28 10:05:10 AM  

SpectroBoy: Let's not gloss over the fact that NONE of the other cops are stopping him. Two of them are holding the HANDCUFFED suspect while the third cop is choking him.


[i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x422]


How do you choke somebody by pinching the sides of their neck? It look like he's applying a pain suppression hold to force the little prick to put his hands behind his back.
 
2014-04-28 10:05:57 AM  

danielscissorhands: But he looks like such a wonderful guy!

[www.gannett-cdn.com image 300x400]


www.gannett-cdn.com

OFFICER FIRED FOR CHOKING KID

"Obviously.  Just look at that asshole."

www.gannett-cdn.com

HERO COP SAVES ORPHANS FROM HOUSE FIRE, GOES BACK FOR PUPPY

"Really?  He looks like an asshole who chokes people."


/Yeah, that picture thing doesn't always work the way they say it does.
 
2014-04-28 10:07:23 AM  

FullMetalPanda: Umm, so they expect this to keep happening and they just want to document it instead of prevent it?


Actually it's doesn't work out quite how you would think. Most investigations that use recordings exonerate the cop of the accusation that has been leveled. It also creates a self-reinforcing situation where the cop will be better behaved simply because they their being recorded. It's not much different than having a camera pointed at a cashier. Force is used less often and complaints of excessive force by citizens also reduce:

http://www.minnpost.com/politics-policy/2014/01/police-departments-m in nesota-focus-body-cameras

Once in a while of course they show the cop did something that the should not have done. Than you get situations like where 7 cop cars all mysteriously lost their recordings out in California a while back. The key to recordings is to make sure they can't be disabled and they aren't stored locally.

Give credit to the sheriff for acting right away to try restore public confidence and not simply reassigning the rogue cop. He also referred the rogue cop for possible criminal charges to an outside agency.
 
2014-04-28 10:07:56 AM  

lucksi: 800 people party? Jeez

"This incident provides a perfect example of why we are in the process of purchasing officer worn body cameras (video and audio recordings) so incidents like this will be fully documented."

Not that is a statement where police gets my respect. We need more of that.


Funny, often when there's a complaint against police where they control the recording device, it malfunctions.
 
2014-04-28 10:08:41 AM  
img.fark.net
 
2014-04-28 10:08:41 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Good on the leadership in that department. Police should be friends with the community, not the oppressors of it.

But still, that victim had a terribly punchable face.


I haven't even seen your face and you're terribly punchable.
 
2014-04-28 10:08:46 AM  
On a silly note.  The article I commented on at the link, is no longer the linked article.  I think they got a little whiny when I asked who "HE" was in their flashback to 2011 where a group of officers pulled over a group of teenagers in a car and had them run around a bat "He" had in his car.
 
2014-04-28 10:09:50 AM  

NIXON YOU DOLT!!!!!: SpectroBoy: Let's not gloss over the fact that NONE of the other cops are stopping him. Two of them are holding the HANDCUFFED suspect while the third cop is choking him.

If I'm the sheriff, all 3 are canned and referred for criminal charges.


And you'd be a single-term sheriff.
 
2014-04-28 10:10:50 AM  

Shadowknight: NormallyTechnos: Fire him now, then refuse to put up a defense to the union arbitration and suit afterwards..

Sheriff looks good, and after his reelection the cop will be back on payroll with back pay.

I think you vastly over estimate the power and/or motivation of the police union.


Indeed. I've been a union fire fighter in the Northeast for 6 years. I've seen 5 cops and two fire fighters fired during that time. It happens, it just doesn't always make it to the news.

I also think people are vastly overestimating the liklihood that the Knox County, Tennessee Sheriff's Office is a union shop. I don't know for certain one way or another, but I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that any organization in that part of the country is unionized.
 
2014-04-28 10:22:57 AM  

Fissile: This would never have happened in Jersey, even with a video tape.  It takes years to get a cop fired, and in the few cases it's actually happened, they end up collecting pensions, and/or being hired in some other gov job.  I'm gonna guess this cop will remain "fired" until the media attention stops and will be reinstated by this department, or hired by another department.


I know a guy that worked on a a legal team responsible for labor disputes for a city in NJ.  He actually worked on cases where a number of cops got fired for various things, so it happens and it didn't always take years.  Of course, by the time he got the case, whatever happened was so egregious that it couldn't be handled any other way.

It's pretty complicated to fire a civil servce employee.  Most people think of it as the way it is at your regular "at will" job, where you screw up and can be a memory in two weeks. For a variety of reasons, that's not true of these types of jobs.  You have to go to a labor board, which may or may not be sympathetic.  The members of the board also have their own political agendas and personal conflicts that might come into play. You also have to present a solid case, which takes a great deal of work to put together.

It's also about what can be proven, so I can't stress enough the need for more video at the street level.  In this case, if there had been no photos of the cop choking the guy, any labor case would probably get dismissed.  As it stands right now, it's much easier to fire cops for things that can be readily documented like incorrectly using their sick days, taking iffy second jobs, or abusing disability -- things that arguably aren't direct indicators of police brutality.

Of course, no matter how bad the cop was, the union would always put up a defense to the labor board.  They only stood to gain by trying.  The worst thing that could happen is that the case would be dismissed. Beat up a guy?  Take a bribe?  Threaten the lawyers at the table?  Lose your badge?  Lose your gun?

The one thing that really tended to get cops removed quickly was if they had been ordered not to wear their badge and uniform during the dispute, but did anyway.  For some reason that was like an automatic "see ya."  Apparently it was some sort of crime (along the lines of "impersonating a cop" ironically), so suddenly the city would have much more leverage in the case.
 
2014-04-28 10:24:32 AM  

J. Frank Parnell: Police, bringing one of their own to justice?

What kind of trick is this?


Justice is a pretty strong word.  If I did this to somebody at work and it was caught on camera, I wouldn't just lose me job. I'd be in jail and I'd be sued (and rightly so).  Let's see what happens to this guy before we call it justice.
 
2014-04-28 10:26:29 AM  
 pbs.twimg.com
 
2014-04-28 10:27:23 AM  

lizyrd: Shadowknight: NormallyTechnos: Fire him now, then refuse to put up a defense to the union arbitration and suit afterwards..

Sheriff looks good, and after his reelection the cop will be back on payroll with back pay.

I think you vastly over estimate the power and/or motivation of the police union.

Indeed. I've been a union fire fighter in the Northeast for 6 years. I've seen 5 cops and two fire fighters fired during that time. It happens, it just doesn't always make it to the news.

I also think people are vastly overestimating the liklihood that the Knox County, Tennessee Sheriff's Office is a union shop. I don't know for certain one way or another, but I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that any organization in that part of the country is unionized.


Frankly I'd be amazed if they weren't unionized. Every single non-federal law enforcement agency I've ever heard of is unionized. The one exception, which was the only result I could find with a cursory search, is Camden PD, which closed shop and switched jurisdiction to the non-union Camden County police, who unionized almost as soon as they hit their recruitment quota.
 
2014-04-28 10:27:52 AM  

James Rieper: It's also about what can be proven, so I can't stress enough the need for more video at the street level. In this case, if there had been no photos of the cop choking the guy, any labor case would probably get dismissed.


Funny, we seem to convict people for crimes all the time wihtout video.

It shouldn't be any more difficult for cops, unless they habitually lie to protect their own...
 
2014-04-28 10:30:10 AM  
lizyrd:   I also think people are vastly overestimating the liklihood that the Knox County, Tennessee Sheriff's Office is a union shop. I don't know for certain one way or another, but I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that any organization in that part of the country is unionized.

I agree.  First thing I thought was that if this was a union cop, he'd be on paid vacation right now waiting for it to blow over.  And no matter what the evidence, the union would somehow say it was justifiable and that the officer did what he should have in the situation.  Take, for example, the recent case of Green Bay officer Derek Wicklund, who's police union says it is "justifiable, legal and lawful" to beat the shiat out of a guy for "refusing to follow simple directions."
 
2014-04-28 10:31:20 AM  
Good for that department. But I have to say, when Tennessee is setting examples for how to handle police brutality, isn't that a sign of the apocalypse?
 
2014-04-28 10:33:33 AM  

Egoy3k: I never understand the arrests in these situations.  Kids have a loud party, cops break it up, kids get charged with public intoxication.  Well they wouldn't be out in public unless you broke up their party now would they?  I mean I can completely understand breaking up the party but unless you have them on drug possession or supplying alcohol to a minor or something how can you possibly arrest someone for being drunk in public right after you forced them to go out in public?


ak1.ostkcdn.com

 
2014-04-28 10:33:43 AM  

Private_Citizen: Good for that department. But I have to say, when Tennessee is setting examples for how to handle police brutality, isn't that a sign of the apocalypse?


Are you kidding? They choked a perfectly good white boy.
 
2014-04-28 10:35:33 AM  

optimistic_cynic: Private_Citizen: Good for that department. But I have to say, when Tennessee is setting examples for how to handle police brutality, isn't that a sign of the apocalypse?

Are you kidding? They choked a perfectly good white boy.


Well, did you really expect them to find a black boy in Knox County Tennessee?
 
2014-04-28 10:36:06 AM  

Private_Citizen: optimistic_cynic: Private_Citizen: Good for that department. But I have to say, when Tennessee is setting examples for how to handle police brutality, isn't that a sign of the apocalypse?

Are you kidding? They choked a perfectly good white boy.

Well, did you really expect them to find a black boy in Knox County Tennessee?


Good point, good point.
 
2014-04-28 10:37:21 AM  

FullMetalPanda: lucksi: 800 people party? Jeez

"This incident provides a perfect example of why we are in the process of purchasing officer worn body cameras (video and audio recordings) so incidents like this will be fully documented."

Not that is a statement where police gets my respect. We need more of that.

Umm, so they expect this to keep happening and they just want to document it instead of prevent it?


Not at all.  I can't say it works everywhere, of course, but the cameras prevent misbehavior and unnecessary escalations from both parties.

Believe it or not, many people are dicks to cops and assume the worst about them all the time, and many of these cops politely stand there, take it, and then do whatever it was they were there to do.  We want to identify these cops just as much as we want to identify the bad ones, because then we can have calm, level-headed individuals with a sense of community in positions of power, and not have to deal with entire departments of Yosemite-farking-Sam.

If there's no goodwill between cops and their communities, cameras make sense for everyone.  If there's no distrust between cops and their communities, cameras would probably make it worse, not better.
 
2014-04-28 10:41:23 AM  

BeesNuts: If there's no distrust between cops and their communities, cameras would probably make it worse, not better


I can't envision a single realistic scenario where a police officer having a camera would make a normal person act worse to cops.
 
2014-04-28 10:44:07 AM  

Egoy3k: I never understand the arrests in these situations.  Kids have a loud party, cops break it up, kids get charged with public intoxication.  Well they wouldn't be out in public unless you broke up their party now would they?  I mean I can completely understand breaking up the party but unless you have them on drug possession or supplying alcohol to a minor or something how can you possibly arrest someone for being drunk in public right after you forced them to go out in public?


newspaper.li

In all seriousness though Public Intox laws need to go the way of the dodo.  They're a holdover from the days of Prohibition and are the last gasp of the Prohibitionists to keep alcohol illegal somehow.

I'm happy to say Nevada not only has no Public Intox laws, there's actually a state law that says "it is illegal for any jurisdiction within Nevada to make public intoxication illegal".  No, seriously.  It was of course the finest law bought and paid for by the casinos, but it's still a good law to have.  We're the only one that has it as far as I know.  Plenty of states don't make public intoxication a crime, but more should take the "and none of you cities/counties can either" approach.
 
2014-04-28 10:45:27 AM  

Dick Gozinya: hej: "Authorities identified the man seen being taken into custody in the photos as 21-year-old Jarod Dotson. He was charged with public intoxication and resisting arrest."

Of course he was.

Resisting arrest has become a 'catch-all' charge now. It's like the unsportsmanlike conduct penalty in hockey: you think the player did something wrong, but cant classify it as tripping or roughing or cross-checking, etc. So, you charge them with unsportsmanlike conduct and toss them in the box.

Unfortunately, it's being overused for just about anything today when a cop wants to be a dick and detain you for no reason. They tell you that you're under arrest (for no reason) and when you ask what the charge is, they immediately slap you with resisting and claim that is why you are being detained. Then they use that time to trump up a charge against you to justify the original arrest.


Meh, it's worse than that.  If they just want a charge, it's a DC, contempt of cop.  If they want to beat you up a little, they have to charge you with resisting arrest to justify the bruises and subsequent medical attention you may or may not receive upon arrival at the jail.
 
2014-04-28 10:46:12 AM  

LazyMedia: All the whining about the cops "bullying" the drunks fails to recognize that 800 drunk college kids is about one idiot getting froggy from being a full-blown riot with cop cars turned over and set on fire. This doesn't just happen a lot on college campuses, it almost ALWAYS happens. It also doesn't look like that old, fat cop is choking the kid, just holding him by the neck (probably with his thumbs on pain pressure points, so if the kid starts to be a problem, he can control him with just a little squeeze).

There's nothing good about a block party with hundreds of drunk teenagers and kids in their early '20s milling about drunk on the street. You want to have a party for 30-40 people, fine; but 800? That's just a riot waiting to happen.


This is one of the better trolls I've seen here in a while. Nice job.
 
2014-04-28 10:46:13 AM  

liam76: BeesNuts: If there's no distrust between cops and their communities, cameras would probably make it worse, not better

I can't envision a single realistic scenario where a police officer having a camera would make a normal person act worse to cops.


Attention whore performance artist?

/oh, you said Normal Person. Nevermind.
 
2014-04-28 10:48:01 AM  

liam76: BeesNuts: If there's no distrust between cops and their communities, cameras would probably make it worse, not better

I can't envision a single realistic scenario where a police officer having a camera would make a normal person act worse to cops.


Some folks don't like to be filmed, and wouldn't understand why their local cop, who they've known for years, is suddenly acting all cold and clinical.

They wouldn't act worse.  It would just cause friction where previously there was none.  Don't squander trust like that, and don't fix what ain't broke, is all I'm saying.
 
2014-04-28 10:49:56 AM  

yukichigai: Egoy3k: I never understand the arrests in these situations.  Kids have a loud party, cops break it up, kids get charged with public intoxication.  Well they wouldn't be out in public unless you broke up their party now would they?  I mean I can completely understand breaking up the party but unless you have them on drug possession or supplying alcohol to a minor or something how can you possibly arrest someone for being drunk in public right after you forced them to go out in public?

[newspaper.li image 310x452]

In all seriousness though Public Intox laws need to go the way of the dodo.  They're a holdover from the days of Prohibition and are the last gasp of the Prohibitionists to keep alcohol illegal somehow.

I'm happy to say Nevada not only has no Public Intox laws, there's actually a state law that says "it is illegal for any jurisdiction within Nevada to make public intoxication illegal".  No, seriously.  It was of course the finest law bought and paid for by the casinos, but it's still a good law to have.  We're the only one that has it as far as I know.  Plenty of states don't make public intoxication a crime, but more should take the "and none of you cities/counties can either" approach.


Frankly I agree. Disorderly conduct covers everything that public intoxication should.
 
2014-04-28 10:50:33 AM  

LazyMedia: SpectroBoy: Let's not gloss over the fact that NONE of the other cops are stopping him. Two of them are holding the HANDCUFFED suspect while the third cop is choking him.


[i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x422]

How do you choke somebody by pinching the sides of their neck? It look like he's applying a pain suppression hold to force the little prick to put his hands behind his back.


Compressing the carotid arteries.

Losta johns like to do that to their biatches during sex. Cute.
 
2014-04-28 10:51:43 AM  

BeesNuts: liam76: BeesNuts: If there's no distrust between cops and their communities, cameras would probably make it worse, not better

I can't envision a single realistic scenario where a police officer having a camera would make a normal person act worse to cops.

Some folks don't like to be filmed, and wouldn't understand why their local cop, who they've known for years, is suddenly acting all cold and clinical.

They wouldn't act worse.  It would just cause friction where previously there was none.  Don't squander trust like that, and don't fix what ain't broke, is all I'm saying.


Also it's one step closer to an England-type nightmare scenario where all public space is constantly under video surveillance and I don't like being videotaped and I would be too anxious to go outside sober
 
2014-04-28 10:51:58 AM  

redmid17: yukichigai: Egoy3k: I never understand the arrests in these situations.  Kids have a loud party, cops break it up, kids get charged with public intoxication.  Well they wouldn't be out in public unless you broke up their party now would they?  I mean I can completely understand breaking up the party but unless you have them on drug possession or supplying alcohol to a minor or something how can you possibly arrest someone for being drunk in public right after you forced them to go out in public?

[newspaper.li image 310x452]

In all seriousness though Public Intox laws need to go the way of the dodo.  They're a holdover from the days of Prohibition and are the last gasp of the Prohibitionists to keep alcohol illegal somehow.

I'm happy to say Nevada not only has no Public Intox laws, there's actually a state law that says "it is illegal for any jurisdiction within Nevada to make public intoxication illegal".  No, seriously.  It was of course the finest law bought and paid for by the casinos, but it's still a good law to have.  We're the only one that has it as far as I know.  Plenty of states don't make public intoxication a crime, but more should take the "and none of you cities/counties can either" approach.

Frankly I agree. Disorderly conduct covers everything that public intoxication should.


Laws that forbid you behave like a human are such a waste of time and effort.
Nannys Rule!
 
2014-04-28 10:54:54 AM  

captcaveman: Control the cops with ease just by having multiple videos of any event they are involved in. They cannot lie to the monitor in a court room. Always remember, the cops work for US and the Office of Professional Standards is fully tax payer funded. You literary own the cops. Don't let them forget that for a second. When they do, fire them outright. Have no mercy on them what so ever.


Turn your volume down, please.

kthanxbye
 
2014-04-28 10:55:29 AM  

yukichigai: In all seriousness though Public Intox laws need to go the way of the dodo.  They're a holdover from the days of Prohibition and are the last gasp of the Prohibitionists to keep alcohol illegal somehow.


No it isn't. It's because drunks have the habit of acting like complete assholes in public and are often a danger to themselves and others.
 
2014-04-28 10:55:47 AM  

ransack.: BeesNuts: liam76: BeesNuts: If there's no distrust between cops and their communities, cameras would probably make it worse, not better

I can't envision a single realistic scenario where a police officer having a camera would make a normal person act worse to cops.

Some folks don't like to be filmed, and wouldn't understand why their local cop, who they've known for years, is suddenly acting all cold and clinical.

They wouldn't act worse.  It would just cause friction where previously there was none.  Don't squander trust like that, and don't fix what ain't broke, is all I'm saying.

Also it's one step closer to an England-type nightmare scenario where all public space is constantly under video surveillance and I don't like being videotaped and I would be too anxious to go outside sober


Cameras are getting everywhere. The cops are losing the shade of secret they form by shouldering together. This is good.
Pull yer pants up, close the door on yer anxiety closet and carry on. You'll get used to it.
If this chance to get our Fascist Pigs under control fails,,,

Sterner measures will not be nice.
 
2014-04-28 10:57:54 AM  

yukichigai: Plenty of states don't make public intoxication a crime, but more should take the "and none of you cities/counties can either" approach.


In California you aren't "drunk in public" until you get in other people's way:

(1) are unable to exercise care for your safety or the safety of others, OR
(2) interfere with, obstruct, or prevent others from using streets, sidewalks, or other "public ways."


Really, anything more stringent than that would mean they'd have to round up all the homeless people...
 
2014-04-28 10:58:10 AM  

peterthx: yukichigai: In all seriousness though Public Intox laws need to go the way of the dodo.  They're a holdover from the days of Prohibition and are the last gasp of the Prohibitionists to keep alcohol illegal somehow.

No it isn't. It's because drunks have the habit of acting like complete assholes in public and are often a danger to themselves and others.


Well, this here is my surprised all to hell face   %-)

Is this a good spot to mention that this is not typical behavior of humans intoxicated on marijuana?
 
2014-04-28 10:58:48 AM  

liam76: James Rieper: It's also about what can be proven, so I can't stress enough the need for more video at the street level. In this case, if there had been no photos of the cop choking the guy, any labor case would probably get dismissed.

Funny, we seem to convict people for crimes all the time wihtout video.

It shouldn't be any more difficult for cops, unless they habitually lie to protect their own...


I agree, but that's not a result of just cops lying.  If you were permitted to walk into any holding cell in America and asked if the cops abused anyone, betcha a dollar that all the hands would go up.  Did all of them get abused?  Probably not, but this is the backdrop against which you have to prove actual police misconduct.

Video is a good tool to get through at least some of that.
 
2014-04-28 10:59:34 AM  

doglover: captcaveman: You literary own the cops.

You literally don't. The Government owns the cops.

You FIGURATIVELY own it, and thus cops, but it's literally not yours.


www.soundonsight.org
 
2014-04-28 11:00:21 AM  

peterthx: yukichigai: In all seriousness though Public Intox laws need to go the way of the dodo.  They're a holdover from the days of Prohibition and are the last gasp of the Prohibitionists to keep alcohol illegal somehow.

No it isn't. It's because drunks have the habit of acting like complete assholes in public and are often a danger to themselves and others.


You sound teetotaller.
 
2014-04-28 11:00:40 AM  

yukichigai: Egoy3k: I never understand the arrests in these situations.  Kids have a loud party, cops break it up, kids get charged with public intoxication.  Well they wouldn't be out in public unless you broke up their party now would they?  I mean I can completely understand breaking up the party but unless you have them on drug possession or supplying alcohol to a minor or something how can you possibly arrest someone for being drunk in public right after you forced them to go out in public?

[newspaper.li image 310x452]

In all seriousness though Public Intox laws need to go the way of the dodo.  They're a holdover from the days of Prohibition and are the last gasp of the Prohibitionists to keep alcohol illegal somehow.

I'm happy to say Nevada not only has no Public Intox laws, there's actually a state law that says "it is illegal for any jurisdiction within Nevada to make public intoxication illegal".  No, seriously.  It was of course the finest law bought and paid for by the casinos, but it's still a good law to have.  We're the only one that has it as far as I know.  Plenty of states don't make public intoxication a crime, but more should take the "and none of you cities/counties can either" approach.


my brother got in trouble a few years back cause he was walking home form a bar after having a few beers and some cop stopped him a few blocks away and nailed him cause he blew to high or something.
 
2014-04-28 11:02:09 AM  

redmid17: yukichigai: Egoy3k: I never understand the arrests in these situations.  Kids have a loud party, cops break it up, kids get charged with public intoxication.  Well they wouldn't be out in public unless you broke up their party now would they?  I mean I can completely understand breaking up the party but unless you have them on drug possession or supplying alcohol to a minor or something how can you possibly arrest someone for being drunk in public right after you forced them to go out in public?

[newspaper.li image 310x452]

In all seriousness though Public Intox laws need to go the way of the dodo.  They're a holdover from the days of Prohibition and are the last gasp of the Prohibitionists to keep alcohol illegal somehow.

I'm happy to say Nevada not only has no Public Intox laws, there's actually a state law that says "it is illegal for any jurisdiction within Nevada to make public intoxication illegal".  No, seriously.  It was of course the finest law bought and paid for by the casinos, but it's still a good law to have.  We're the only one that has it as far as I know.  Plenty of states don't make public intoxication a crime, but more should take the "and none of you cities/counties can either" approach.

Frankly I agree. Disorderly conduct covers everything that public intoxication should.


Ayup.  That's exactly how it goes down in this state.  Cops can and will still pull rowdy drunks off the street, but the charge is Disorderly Conduct (or whatever the city/county equivalent is), not Public Intoxication.  Hell, if there's someone who is falling down drunk the cops can still take them to the drunk tank, they just can't charge them or fine them and they have to let them go when they're sober.

Really, just about any dumb thing you do that would get you arrested in another state for Public Intox will get you arrested in Nevada for DC.  The difference is our state has built-in protection from assholes like that Texas Alcohol Control Board guy writing people up in the bar for Public Intox.
 
2014-04-28 11:02:38 AM  

peterthx: yukichigai: In all seriousness though Public Intox laws need to go the way of the dodo.  They're a holdover from the days of Prohibition and are the last gasp of the Prohibitionists to keep alcohol illegal somehow.

No it isn't. It's because drunks have the habit of acting like complete assholes in public and are often a danger to themselves and others.


Then charge them for whatever they are doing that is illegal not because they might at some point, maybe, be dangerous.
 
2014-04-28 11:02:42 AM  
they just need to do that a few hundred thousand more times across the country.
 
2014-04-28 11:03:43 AM  
He didnt get fired for choking the kid. He got fired for not following protocol.

You're supposed to yell, "stop resisting," when committing battery. Every rookie cop knows this. This guy was clearley getting lazy.
 
2014-04-28 11:03:54 AM  

peterthx: yukichigai: In all seriousness though Public Intox laws need to go the way of the dodo.  They're a holdover from the days of Prohibition and are the last gasp of the Prohibitionists to keep alcohol illegal somehow.

No it isn't. It's because drunks have the habit of acting like complete assholes in public and are often a danger to themselves and others.


Exactly. If I'd been arrested for 'drunk in public' every time I came across a cop while I was drunk, I'd have to take the black ...

/but I'm usually a happy drunk
//usually
 
2014-04-28 11:04:27 AM  

Private_Citizen: Well, did you really expect them to find a black boy in Knox County Tennessee?


Given that Knox County is around 9% black, only a little behind the 12% national average, it wouldn't be that hard.
 
2014-04-28 11:06:30 AM  

ransack.: BeesNuts: liam76: BeesNuts: If there's no distrust between cops and their communities, cameras would probably make it worse, not better

I can't envision a single realistic scenario where a police officer having a camera would make a normal person act worse to cops.

Some folks don't like to be filmed, and wouldn't understand why their local cop, who they've known for years, is suddenly acting all cold and clinical.

They wouldn't act worse.  It would just cause friction where previously there was none.  Don't squander trust like that, and don't fix what ain't broke, is all I'm saying.

Also it's one step closer to an England-type nightmare scenario where all public space is constantly under video surveillance and I don't like being videotaped and I would be too anxious to go outside sober


People like this, for example.
 
2014-04-28 11:06:48 AM  
Don't forget to charge the bastard with Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Crime as well.
 
2014-04-28 11:11:16 AM  

peterthx: yukichigai: In all seriousness though Public Intox laws need to go the way of the dodo.  They're a holdover from the days of Prohibition and are the last gasp of the Prohibitionists to keep alcohol illegal somehow.

No it isn't. It's because drunks have the habit of acting like complete assholes in public and are often a danger to themselves and others.


Uhm, no, that's what Disorderly Conduct is for.

I'm having a lot of trouble pulling up a link, but go read up on the history of Prohibition sometime.  Most public intoxication laws were either enacted before Prohibition or came just after it was lifted, sometimes in fear-driven emergency sessions of the appropriate legislative body.  They absolutely are a holdover from the days when people thought alcohol was the devil.  Regardless of how they are enforced, the laws themselves in most places still classify merely being "obviously drunk" in a public place as a crime.

GRCooper: Exactly. If I'd been arrested for 'drunk in public' every time I came across a cop while I was drunk, I'd have to take the black ...


See above. :P
 
2014-04-28 11:17:06 AM  
Why audio is important. This could have been the scenario:

"You muthafarkin' pigs. You're worthless sacks of lard!"
"Yes yes. So we've heard."
"I'm gonna come back and cap all you pigs. Soon as my dad gets me out..."
"Kid, you need to be quiet."
"I'm gonna grab my dad's shotty and hunt you down, your family..."
"Oh fer Christ's sake will someone shut this drunk kid up before he goes from a night in lockup to 20 years..."
"Yah. I bet you have kids too. I'll shoot their little heads right....gack! Gurgle!"
 
Displayed 50 of 249 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report