Police beating in Philly

Great Debates
61

Esprix: I agre with you about Street Vs Rendell. The first thing Street did in office was to tell Philly to eat healthier. Like no cheese steaks. Wrong thing to say in Philly.

Looking at the video tape, it seems bad at first. But if he was resisting arrest (biting is a common tactic of criminals with infectious diseases) and it was unknown as to whether or not he was still armed, I think that 90% of those kicks and punches were within reason.

The tall black officer who came in from the left side on the video and began kicking seemed to come in late and continue after he had been cuffed, but the cops near this officer pulled him back.

The worst thing about this kind of case is that everyone will lump it in with the other notorious cases of police abuse without a second thought. It’s a bit annoying when people fail to see the difference between cases that are,at least in my opinion, relatively cut and dry (Rodney King, Abner Louima, Amadou Diallo) and those that are a hell of a lot more complicated (e.g. this current one).

I go to a notoriously liberal university that has a habit of accusing cops of assault. There was a case last year in which a cop tried to move a man who was loitering in front of the local convience store. The man refused and argued and when the cop told him again to move he put his hand in his pocket. The cop then tackled him, put him in a hold, and slammed him on the ground. There turned out to be no gun in the pocket

The whole campus just buzzed with all this talk about police brutality. No one seemed to consider the other side.

It seems that many peope just accept accusations against cops to be true without considering the vast amount of grey area that might be involved in the case.

62

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by oldscratch *
**

Criminals treated like babies? Lessee we don’t yet put our babies in prisons so I don’t know where this one comes from. Criminals don’t get breastfed, don’t get pushed around in strolers, don’t (yet) have to wear diapers.

[quote]
also
** Its an insult to every person that is willing to take responsibility for his own actions.**
I agree. It would be nice if the cops would take responsibility for their actions. Unfortunately they almost never do. They feel they can treat suspects like shit, deal drugs, beat up innocent people, and get away with it.

Are you some liberal hippy guy who’s stuck in the 60’s? If cops burst in my door, the last thing I’d do is get my AK-47 and start shooting back. Is that what you’d do? Time to lay off whatever you’re smoking.

In this country it seems like criminals are being treated like babies. TVs, gyms, good food. How about a little hard labor?

“There are plenty of cases of unarmed people being attacked and brutalized by the cops.”
Where the heck are you getting this from? That’s absolutely ridiculous. I was stopped by a cop in SJ once and he wasn’t too friendly but check this out. Someone I know went back to Vietnam for a visit. The cops there stop you and get money from you. If you don’t pay, they impound your car and send you to jail for a day for a made-up reason. Why don’t you go live there for a month or so. There’s a reason why so many people immigrate to this country or die trying to come here illegally. That’s because this country has law and order.

63

When I was on the Civil Grand Jury I did a police ride along, with a VERY respectful and professional cop, a Vietnamese who was also a martial arts instructor- treated me almost as if I was his parter. Great experience.
We (the Grand Jury)investigated the Local PD, and found out they were a pretty good group. Made a few recommendations: video cameras on cars, more public info on shootings, more training on nonlethal methods, etc. One thing we did not put in, as it did not 'fit", but I wanted to was: stop police officers from calling non-police “civilians”, as it makes the “blue wall” stronger, and it is incorrect (police officers are also “civilians”).

64

He’s a :wally of the highest order. After all his antics as President of City Council, the only reason he won was because Rendell (very reluctantly) endorsed him.

Couple updates:

[ul][li]As someone mentioned, there is now uncertainty whether the cop who got shot was shot by the suspect or by friendly fire.[/li]
[li]The community, and specifically the black community, is keeping very calm about the whole thing. It is generally accepted that it wasn’t a matter of race, but rather a matter of making sure the police did not go beyond what was necessary. People are basically keeping an open mind until the investigations are finished over what happened, who did what, and what it all means. If it turns out there was excessive force, there is talk of peaceful demonstration and civil disobedience.[/li]
[li]Rev. Sharpton is on his way into town. Personally, I wish he was the one they’d kick a few times. ;)[/ul][/li]
Esprix

65

Originally posted by Mr. Zambezi:

Boy, the gun-nuts are determined to outdo themselves week after week.

We keep the power in balance by dividing up the government into executive, legislative, and judicial branches, and federal, state, and local levels, not by shooting at cops. Can you think of one single instance where shooting–or threatening–law-enforcement officials with a gun resolved a situation rather than greatly worsening it?

This is how the system–in accordance with the 2nd Amendment–is supposed to work:
If you feel a cop has abused you, you first go to his superiors and/or the courts. If the police chief refuses to hand him over, call the state government and they’ll send in the National Guard if need be. If the entire state government is corrupt and oppressive, then the Federal government will send in the 101st airborne to restore order and civil rights. And if the government in Washington has been taken over by Nazis? Then and only then do you go back to the armed citizenry, who presumably will have the local cops on their side in this instance.

The system for holding cops accountable isn’t perfect, but it’s improving, as a number of high-profile cases will attest to. Encoraging people to shoot at the police whenever they don’t like what they’re doing is a recipe for bloody chaos.

66

I said no such thing. But if a homicida cop is after me…or if I am a spouse abused by a homocidal cop (police have high rates of spousal abuse) I doubt that calling 911 is going to help. Cops are brothers of the badge.

I am not suggesting we start shooting at the cops. What I am saying is that we should trust them blindly and hope that they are going to protect us.

**Does anyone know the name of the court case that ruled that the police have no duty to protect the citizens? ** I know it is out there.

67

Mr. Zambezi,

See my reply in the other thread (housing rights).

68

First I just want to continue to stand behind what Mr.Z has said in this thread. It is somewhat hard to file a complaint against police if you are dead.

Yes I can. The black panther party for self defense, in the early days, specificly kept police from brutalizing suspects by threatening them with weapons.

69

From what I saw on the tape, it sure as heck * looked * like police brutality, but the officers certainly deserve an ivestigation and/or trial, same as anybody else gets.

I guess my confusion in this case is why it takes that many cops kicking the guy to subdue him. I understand that if you have only a few police officers trying to restrain someone who’s hell-bent on fighting back, you may need to whack him once or twice (or more, as the situation warrants). However, when you have that many officers there, I don’t see how you can’t pin somebody quickly and easily. I mean, it takes about 5 seconds for a few people to pin me (granted, I’m not fighting back with intent to hurt, but then, I’m only being restrained by two or three people, not 15-20). Why can’t one just tackle him while a couple more each pin down a limb (this is mostly a question for the actual cops on this thread, since they’re the only ones who really know what to expect in a situation like this)?

Just as a note, Baltimore City just put through a massive pay increase for the police. It should be interesting to see what effect this has on the police force (I mean, besides the obvious one of allowing the cops to make a living wage).

70

BTW: How did the suspect get a cop car? Did a cop leave the keys in his cruiser?

71

so i’m from philly, but i was in jersey at the time of the incident. my main problem with the incident is as follows.

forst of all, the police officers only stopped after a supervisor arrived on the scene. the officers did not stop because sufficient force had been exercised that the suspect was now in custody. the officers stopped becasue somebody either told them to stop, or because they realized that they were in the wrong.

second, the suspect is jsut that. a suspect. enough force was used that the suspect could have died (hell, some suspects have died simply because an officer placed them in a choke hold that the department okayed). what would have happened if the suspect had turned out to be the wrong person (pretty unlikely given the circumstances of the chase, but still a possibility), or if the suspect had been justified for doing what he did (remember that some, not all and not most but SOME philly cops have been found to be incredibly corrupt).

third, there is as of yet no evidence that the suspect shot another officer. the media has said that the wounded pfficer may have been hurt by his own gun or by friendly fire. as unlikely as this might seem to some, keep in mind that the officers approached the stolen patrol car COMPLETELY wrong, and placed themselves at grave risk of injuring one another if a shootout had erupted.

finally, i have been at the wrong end of the law a few times myself. thankfully, all i had was a bruised sense of ego and a vauge resentment against ‘the law’. i am white and male, though. i have had little reason to use force against a police officer, or to flee an arrest. but i can’t speak for all, especially those who have had the business end of a police dick shoved down their throat. it happens alot, not only in philadelphia but all over the country. that’s why the police are separate from the judicial system- the courts are to decide our punishment and and penalties.

that being said, i understand why the police would want to bust the sonofabitch’s head. they knew he stole a cruiser, they thought he shot a fellow officer, and they have all dealt with too much scum through the years. hell, the injured officer was only three years older than myself. that’;s not a long time to be a cop, but more than enough to be pissed off.

i’m not going to say that the cops should be fired, or that the suspect got what he desreved. all i know is what i saw on tv and read in the papers. both are amazingly and consistently prejudiced. so i will reserve judgement. but i will say that it looked to me like a shitload of force was exercised, and from what i saw it wasn’t warrented.

but (again, i read this in the paper) most of the blows were landed by a minority of police officers. they seem like the bad apples. i hope they get their just desserts, but i will wait until they go on trial to mak up my mind compeltely.

72

So which one is your “main problem”?

What’s wrong with stopping once sufficient force has been applied? Should they have kept on hitting him after sufficient force had been applied? Should they have stopped before sufficient force had been applied?

This doesn’t really have much bearing on the question of whether they applied more than sufficient force. If “sufficient force” brings with it the risk that the suspect dies, then the police are to take that risk. I don’t want the police refusing to shoot back just because “the suspect might die”.

Just what sort of scenario are you proposing? Are you saying that it’s possible that the person resisting arrest was not the person that stole the car? Yes, it certainly is. That’s what we have lawyers for. Did the guy accept arrest, and then call his lawyer, like an innocent person should have? No, he didn’t. Is it possible that the person resisting arrest was not the person resisting arrest? No, of course not. That’s absurd. When a cop first tries to arrest someone, they generally don’t know for sure whether the suspect did in fact commit a crime. Oncce the suspect resists arrest, however, the cops can be 100% sure that the suspect has committed at least one crime: resisting arrest.

You mean he honestly believed that he would be in physical danger is he accepted arrest? Such a claim would affect how I feel about the suspect, but it wouldn’t change how I felt about the cops. If someone were attacking me, I would want to immobilize him regardless of his motivation.

I think that a more accurate statement would be “there is no proof that he shot an officer”. There also is no proof that he didn’t. If we’re going to accuse the cops of misconduct, then it seems to me that the burden of proof should be on the accusers.

73

BluePony, you have my undying gratitude and respect. Screw all the people who “armchair quarterback” and will NEVER have any idea what you face every day.

My hubby has been on several ride-alongs, both in squad cars with gang units and in chase helicopters. He has seen a lot in his life, but nothing prepared him for what he saw on those nights. He even asked one officer if the guy could at least unlock the shotgun if he was going to leave him in the car!

And yes, the cop probably left the keys in the cruiser, either in the ignition or tucked up in the visor. It is my understanding that they do this often, so that an officer can react quickly & drive away, whether or not it’s HIS car.

The most dangerous things a cop will ever do is stop you in your car, or come to your house in response to a domestic dispute. They are the things that will most likely get him killed. So I always say, the street is NEVER the place to argue ANYTHING, and the cop is never the person to argue with. Save it for the judge, it’s his job. Keep your mouth shut, be polite, and don’t make any sudden moves. It will be no consolation to your family if you were just sticking up for yourself, or if you felt you were being “hassled by the man.”

74

[hijack]You know, I appreciate what police do; in fact, my best friend, who was the best man at my wedding, is a cop. But, man oh man, it isn’t like you got drafted. You don’t like the danger? Get a desk job. But don’t bitch about the danger level in a job you picked. You knew the score going in.[/hijack]

75

posted originally by divemaster, proof that the police do not have a duty to protect you:

Kimstu challenges Mr. Zambezi:

quote:

(Mr. Z) Actually, I believe that there was a Supreme court decision that said, in essence, that the policy have no duty to protect the citizenry from crime. I can’t seem to find it though.

(Kimstu)If you can, I’d love to see it.

Actually there are several. From http://www.ncpa.org/studies/s181/s181d.html

Courts have ruled that government does not have a specific duty to protect individuals.
quote:

Although government has taken control of the public criminal justice system, courts have ruled that it nevertheless does not have a specific duty to protect individuals. For example, New York State’s highest court ruled in 1968 that a victim who was attacked after seeking police protection to no avail had no right to protection. The court refused to create such a right, saying it would impose a crushing economic burden on the government.

Also,
quote:

In 1982, a federal court of appeals said:
. . . [T]here is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators, but it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteen Amendment or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution. The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: it tells the state to let people alone, it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order.(bolding mine)

Mr. Zambezi, I think you read the court’s mind! Very insightful analysis.

This reference was dated 1996. Within the last year, there was a Supreme Court ruling that confimrd the above. I am still working on finding the actual docket

76

Have I, in any of my posts, BITCHED about the danger? If I gave anyone the impression I BITCHED about the job, my apologies. I’ve got enough horsepower upstairs and education to get another job, even one behind a desk. I’m not that stupid that I don’t know that I can walk away from this job if I want. Duh. If it sounded like I was whining, maybe your threshold of whining should be raised a bit.

In short, I don’t know you and you don’t know me. Hopefully we’ll keep it that way. Man, you don’t even rate making that sort of call about me.

77

:::::scans his own previous post for the word “Bluepony”, doesn’t see it:::::

Nope, you didn’t bitch in your post (although you weren’t exactly celebratory about the beating you and your fellow officers took). OTOH, there are several dozen posts in this thread mentioning the dangers that cops face, and this is my first post in the thread, so why do you assume I’m talking about you? Take things personal much?

Settle down, pal. When I’m talking to you or about you, I’ll let you know.

78

When I was younger 10-14ish my mother was a police dispatcher (she was a dispatcher till she passed away) my brothers and I were always taught to respect policemen and women… We heard all the horror stories and such that occured and we gained a respect for the job… I personally disagree with what happened in philly… If it had been three or four cops that would have been okay after all he did shoot a policeman (albiet in the thumb) and was resisting arrest… This many policemen though beating on a guy is just wrong (unless he had just murdered a policeman)

79

To elaborate on my previous post above, it was NOT directed towards you, Bluepony. That’s why I didn’t quote anyone, including you, and I used a generic “you” in the address. That’s why it’s called a hijack. If you thought it WAS directed at you, sorry. It wasn’t.

Throughout this thread (and others like it, and other discussions elsewhere), I’ve heard plenty of talk to the effect of, “You don’t understand the pressure cops are under, you don’t know what they face, you don’t understand, blah, blah, blah.”

First off, folks, don’t be dense. Of COURSE people understand what police face. I daresay that that understanding is the very reason some people aren’t interested in being police officers. And, once you take that badge, you have no right to complain about what you face. That’s what the job is. It isn’t signing up to wear the Tigger costume at Disneyland. If you didn’t want to face the danger, you shouldn’t have taken the job.

Are there cops who are committed to what they do, and take the physical and mental dangers in stride, or at least as a consequence of what they do? Absolutely. Bluepony sounds like one of them. My friend Chris, mentioned above, is another. But for every one of those, there are several who act as if they were forced into the job. Well, they weren’t.

A couple of other things need to be said as well. Everyone faces pressures at work of varying degrees. I face pressures. The pressure of being assaulted or shot at? No, but I didn’t choose a job that entailed being assaulted or shot at. OTOH, I don’t have the convenience of having criminal suspects to beat the hell out of, either.

There are problems in a lot of police departments across the country. Cleveland is one (brutality, corruption). L.A. is another (brutality, framings, corruption, conspiracies). New York is another (do you have to ask?). Many urban and metropolitan departments have a big P.R. problem, and copping an attitude (no pun intended) isn’t going to help. You know an excellent way to ensure that your profession is disrespected? Treat the people whose tax dollars pay for your house, your car and your food with contempt, whether they’re convicted or not.

80

And of course being a Police officer isn’t even that dangerous. It’s one of the safer professions.
Of course that doesn’t stop cops from having a high rate of domestic abuse against their partners. 3 years ago the FOP lobbied against a bill that would have taken away the guns of abusive police men. Yeah, real great idea, let’s give someone who beats up and threatens their girlfrined a gun and a badge.