He retired so he can collect his pension.
Or be rehired somewhere else without having a fired-for-cause on his record.
No, I ignored the claim, if that’s what was meant by those posts, because it was incoherent, unsupported, and ultimately irrelevant.
It is absolutely ridiculous to call someone with views so far removed from actual Nazism a Nazi. Whether it’s you calling them that, or them using the name themselves, it is both wrong and silly.
But then, you spend most of your time being both wrong and silly.
Which you use to call innocent black murder victims “thugs” .
Except when white people get convicted for murdering black people, when you insist the courts got it wrong. Or when black people defend themselves against police violence, you insist they’re guilt of assault, even after courts refuse to charge.
Yeah. Opposite.
You should probably try visiting reality sometime.
And you should stay away. There’s “thugs” out there.
Fortunately the police are still allowed to arrest them, despite your wishes.
Yes, they get to denigrate and arrest an entire race of people, innocent or not. Assault and murder them. While wearing spiffy uniforms. While cowardly lickspittles like you cheer them on. Yeah, you’re the opposite of a Nazi alright.
Here is a a little different abuse of authority. At least no one was shot.
Nurse arrested for refusing to break the law.
A different video of the same arrest.
I have had the same conversation with police that this nurse did. I have never been threatened with arrest however. Much less forcibly handcuffed.
State law varies greatly in these cases. Facility and policy agency protocol also varies hugely. In my experience the police and hospital work out agreements about what is legally expected of each other.
Yes, individuals have the right to listen to racist music genres and advocate racist ideas, but people don’t have the right to be employed on the public dime. Police officers operate in the public’s trust and interest. As a taxpayer, as a citizen, I don’t want an officer of the law who even remotely sympathizes with ideas of white supremacy, because it’s common sense that it’s the application of the law that is as important as the laws themselves. Frankly, that you don’t seem to understand this perspective is an appalling lack of awareness.
Again, try visiting reality sometime. The police haven’t been even unofficially allowed to do those things for a very long time, and I don’t support or cheer those that do.
The problem you and others have with me is that I don’t support violent resistance of the police. That is a ridiculous thing to support in a country with a functioning legal system - look how much Maricopa County had to pay out to those brutalised by Arpaio.
Impressive, in the same post as you try to claim that these things don’t happen, you admit that they do happen.
Do you think that getting a settlement makes up for what they went through?
Would you sell a loved one for a million dollars? If you say yes, then I understand your perspective. If you are a normal human being and not a sociopath, you would say no.
If you said no to the question of whether you would sell a loved one for a million dollars, then how do you think these families feel? You claim they got a payday, so they should be happy and content, and not worry about the fact that the police killed their loved one, and will kill again.
Would you let me pay you a hundred thousand dollars to beat you to the point of causing permanent damage?
And that is the people who actually did win out in their day in court. For all the times when it was just the officer’s word against the officer’s victim, the officer was believed, and the victim got nothing.
So, would you let me beat you dollars for the chance, (we’ll be generous and call it 50/50, though I suspect it is more like a 5% or lower chance of getting legal recognition of the crime against you) of getting some money? Would you let me kill your child for the chance of getting a million dollars?
How dare she follow the law! Is she blind? Could she not understand that she was being ordered to violate the law by a person with authoriteh? Civilians! (What do you mean cops are civilians too? They wear uniforms just like military forces do!)
I’m reminded of the forced x-rays on Texas a few years back. I don’t recall what happens after.
I said they are not allowed to happen.
Obviously not to all of them, but that’s irrelevant.
How else do you propose compensating someone for the loss of a family member?
This isn’t about crime, it’s about compensation which is a civil issue, and has a much lower standard of proof. But obviously, without any evidence of who’s telling the truth, there is no preponderance of evidence if it’s he said/she said, so no compensation. Would you really expect it to be otherwise?
As per the story, the hospital and the police department have an agreement, and the nurse was arrested for following that agreement.
The officer lost his temper. There was no excuse for that. He should be facing charges.
One of the points in the video was that the U of U police were there and did nothing. I actually worked for the U of U security while I was a student and worked with the police department. It’s a small department and is not really treated with a lot of respect by the Salt Lake City police, who are seen to be “real police.”
However, it’s an example of how good police allow bad police to misbehave.
But they still happen, right?
By not killing their family member in the first place.
You are the one saying they have nothing to complain about because they got their payday. I’m just disagreeing with you, and saying that a financial compensation does not make up for the damage that is done.
Of course not. I expect that the cop will be believed over the victim every single time. That’s the whole problem. It is only in the cases where video evidence proves that the cop is lying out his ass that there is any possibility of compensation, and in those cases, it still takes years, and they don’t always win out anyway, even when it was proven that the cop was lying.
That is why police and police unions fought to outlaw civilian video recording, and why the so often opposed car-cams and body-cams. But even WITH video, too many still get away with too much. And too many can (and do) turn the cameras on or off, at will.
That’s not what compensation means. You seem to think that financial compensation is inadequate, so what do you propose instead?
I’m not saying that, I’m saying that the best that can be done for them is financial compensation, as we have no way of reversing events that have happened. There should also be punitive damages where appropriate to reduce further offences.
But, as should be obvious, neither financial penalties, imprisonment, nor even execution completely deter crime. I’m not sure why you think that the police should be uniquely deterred when the rest of humanity isn’t.
No matter what safeguards you put in place, harm will be done to people, whether intentionally, through negligence, or purely accidentally.
That’s one of the main reasons police should wear body cameras, along with the deterrent effect. But you are wrong, if the cop is actually proven to be lying whoever is accusing the cop will have won, as the place that can be proven is in court.
Anyway, how is actually requiring evidence, and taking the time for a full investigation and proper trial a bad thing?
Yep, unions suck. They need their powers reducing, so that bad workers can be sacked and good workers rewarded.