No, it’s just more evidence of the binary ‘with us or against us’ mentality. One thousand cops breaking into the wrong houses and killing pets and old people is understandable, one lone moron is evidence of undeserved oppression against them.
Don’t know the details yet, but like the cops in New York that got bullets behind the ear, sooner or later there will be a backlash to police overreach by violent elements. Maybe he would have done it anyway, or maybe he was triggered by all the police brutality in the news.
Yeah I thought the story woulda coulda maybe have legs if it was similar to the Wings On Pigs Guy ; but going by the article linked it really doesn’t seem to be the case.
Maybe “lose his child” involved the kid catching a stray bullet ; but absent further details I’d interpret that statement as a custody battle or something like that. It’d be a very strange way of stating the former - in that case wouldn’t the nut have accused to police of murdering his child ?
My GOD how I wish it were just a few. Your question is invalid on it’s face. My evidence? Everything in this thread. Read it from the beginning and tell me how you define ‘few’. I will share with you how I define ‘many’.
But I will play. I, personally, am not quick to judge. When I meet a person, I try not to make assumptions about him. (sometimes I fail) I generally give police officers I meet in person the benefit of the doubt. But the ‘few’ make it very difficult.
Like these 2 NYPD officersconvicted of moonlighting as mafia hit men, and now blaming their defense lawyers. Or this Chicago cop convicted of ordering a hit on a fellow officer. Or this Los Angeles cop, a 17 year veteran convicted of murdering and directing others to murder for him. Or this Los Angeles Cop, the inspiration for the corrupt cops in ‘The Shield’, stole drugs from evidence, suspected of murding The Notorious B.I.G. A cop who shot and framed an unarmed gang member, who was left paralyzed and sentenced to 23 years in prison, based on this cop’s testimony. In his plea deal, he implicated 70 other officers. (Before his arrest and conviction, he was regarded as a tough and effective police officer, now he’s regarded as a rat)
Or this Los Angels cop, who committed murder, then served another 18 years on force until getting arrested by the cold case squad. She murdered her ex-boyfriend’s new wife.
Those not recent enough? There is this in LAPD, a special unit looking into actions of planting evidence, stealing drugs and even murder.
Each of these examples are startling enough as heinous crimes. But remember that it is DAMN hard to get the actions of a police officer to even viewed as a criminal act. The District Attorneys and members of the public seem all-to-eager to bend over backward to give officers the benefit of the doubt. Its hard even today, and it often comes to light only because bystanders caught it on video.
Earlier in this thread, we have video of a cop shooting a man to death this year. He shot him in the back multiple times as the man tried to run away, then drops a weapon on him in the presence of another officer. Had there not been video, that would have been the* official story*, that the cop was defending himself and it was a righteous shooting.
Doesn’t that give you slightest pause? That often we judge what happened based only on the officer’s testimony. Doesn’t that make you stop and think? Several posters on this board seem to think that unless a cop is caught on video killing a guy, turning to the camera and saying ‘I killed him dead and I’m glad’, he deserves a pass. And even then…
Me? I see police officers as people. People who are sometimes good and righteous public servants and sometimes evil basterds. And I think that if we give people weapons, arrest power, killing power, than we have to hold those people to a higher standard.
That’s a damn good post Typo.
Yeah, thanks Typo.
So you think that he needed to grab her hair and keep shoving her café into the ground?
He needed to sit on her to keep her from running away? If she was going to run away, why didn’t she run when he pulled his gun and chased those boys?
This was a guy that was pissed off that an uppity black girl didn’t “RESPECK MAH AUTHORITEH!!!”
I’m not sure he is a racist but I suspect he would not have treated a blonde blue eyed 14 year old girl in a bikini that way.
You’re right, the police response was not appropriate but that low level of racism is so pervasive that I guess I occasionally fail to recognize it as inappropriate anymore.
I don’t think arresting someone is the same thing as charging someone. I usually associate handcuffs with arrest but maybe I am using the wrong word. Perhaps detain is the right word. Anyway, there is something happening to all the black boys that is not happening to the white boys.
So none of the white kids were doing anything to draw attention and only the black kids were? What were all those black boys doing that the white boys were not?
I don’t see a lot of young black males walking around. Do you?
I don’t know. Maybe she broke the law.
Is there any record of this detention or only the word of his lawyer?
What officer casebolt did was indefensible and yet we have a line of people standing ready to defend him anyway.
If you turn on your hazard lights drive at a normal speed and pull into the first gas station, cops will generally be understanding about people’s safety concerns. I’ve seen people get ticketed for it but the judge always throws those out.
If the proximity of a big due (who might be a retired or off duty police officer) was enough to prevent the girl from getting up and running away the case then why did the cop have to sit on her?
My guess is that the girl didn’t need to be thrown to have her face shoved into the ground and sat on to keep her from running away. But the cop did it anyway because he was pissed off that this uppity little black girls was giving him lip and not “RESPECK MAH AUTHORITEH!!!”
Of course he was.
You don’t resign and then have your boss publicly criticize you unless that resignation was forced.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18431505&postcount=3594
“9this is not directed at you) I can’t believe that gun rights activists will cheer folks go to the armed defense of a rancher that was trespassing on and stealing from the federal government (in defense of tyranny) but will shout “law & order” when a cop manhandles a 14 year old girl. They have a very particular definition of what constitutes tyranny.”
And I’m pro-gun rights.
The “thin blue line” is an appropriate generalization. Cops look the other way for other cops all the time.
You should really get a color monitor. The world will start to make more sense.
I can make generalizations about people based on what they choose to do with their life.
People make generalizations about teachers and veterinarians and firefighters. Why not cops?
I can make a general comment that cops cover for each other. Maybe it is necessary to prevent a good cop from having his life ruined by a mistake or a bad day but the protection is extended to cops that are pretty clearly bad cops and maybe even a little bit dirty.
Do you think this sort of thing never happened before the invention of camera phones?
Its not just a few cops that were covering the actions of an even smaller number of cops. Cops covering for each other is pervasive.
You mean like muslims or something?
It might not be rational but if her husband is a cop, its understandable. They live under the threat that any day a lapse in judgment or a mistake can ruin his career and their lives. Its kind of how doctors (and their families) feel about malpractice.
He resigned after he, and his family, began receiving death threats from the lynch mob-types, and the resignation came after his boss publicly criticized him BEFORE the all of the facts were known.
The fact that 12 officers were dispatched to the scene should have suggested to “his boss” that there was more to this incident than what he was being told by the media.
'Cause the Chief of Police gets his info about police business from “the media”?
that don’t seem right