Crime What did the cops do wrong today. Vol. 2

NickNick said:
Three cops just beating the shit out of someone in Arkansas
Click to expand...

That point toward the camera--chilling. But then, I'm the kind of person who would report the beating to 911 and record that too.
 
only one of those cops should still have a job after that
 
NickNick said:
Three cops just beating the shit out of someone in Arkansas
Click to expand...


As bad as the knees look, they are completely appropriate and are the techniques that officers are trained to use. The head strikes are the primary issue. The man was charged with second degree battery, resisting arrest, and terroristic threats, but that doesn’t mean those strikes are justified. If he was telling the officers he had a gun or a knife and was threatening to use it on them (terroristic threats) and was trying to get into his pants, I would say the strikes were justified.
 
Wadtucket said:
Race soldiers in blue taking every opportunity they get to harass and get into a lethal shooting situation with Black Folx for walking their dog on their own property

Par for the course in wh*te supremacist AmeriKKKa #ogun
Click to expand...

Are you being serious or sarcastic?
 
Topguntrophey said:
Click to expand...


It's quite clear that a lot of these cops are just low IQ. They're used to people reflectively complying, out of fear or the assumption the cop knows what they're talking about, when they bark random orders, and as a result the cops never bothered to learn the law and the lines that delimit the behaviour they're allowed to engage in. It's not surprising either because they never suffer any consequences for threatening the public or taking them in custody for unfounded reasons. The best outcome a member of the public can have are the unfounded charges being dropped as they enter the legal process, but the cop who issued them still doesn't get reprimanded. Even if you get the lawyers involved, for example in a particular egregious case, the city pays out and the cop might get a short suspension, but they typically won't even fire them. It actually seems like the only time meaningful consequences happen is when a case enters national news.
 
Topguntrophey said:
Click to expand...


this is embarrassingly bad. What the animal rights guy was doing was absolutely protected under the first amendment from the discussion to the filming. Holy shit does it make me angry when a police officer clearly does not know what the fuck they are talking about making all officers look stupid.

You can film police officers and anyone in public spaces and you don’t need their consent to do so. I used to be against filming witnesses and minors that are crime victims, but if that is the concern, take them out of the public eye.

These cops are clearly in the pocket of Smithfield or whatever it is called. If I were that guy, I would refuse to stop filming and refuse to stop talking to people in the hopes that they arrest me because I would sue the shit out of them.
 
Renard said:
It's quite clear that a lot of these cops are just low IQ. They're used to people reflectively complying, out of fear or the assumption the cop knows what they're talking about, when they bark random orders, and as a result the cops never bothered to learn the law and the lines that delimit the behaviour they're allowed to engage in. It's not surprising either because they never suffer any consequences for threatening the public or taking them in custody for unfounded reasons. The best outcome a member of the public can have are the unfounded charges being dropped as they enter the legal process, but the cop who issued them still doesn't get reprimanded. Even if you get the lawyers involved, for example in a particular egregious case, the city pays out and the cop might get a short suspension, but they typically won't even fire them. It actually seems like the only time meaningful consequences happen is when a case enters national news.
Click to expand...

As I say below, this one is just embarrassing. They violate this man’s first amendment rights and it pisses me off when the cops don’t know, understand, or completely ignore the constitution.
 
So, he didn't steal the bike but he was the one who was touching it when it was found?
Okey dokey.

Everyone in that story sounds like an idiot.
 
Oh no someone spit in someone’s face then assaulted the responding officers. I feel so bad for them. Give them the keys to the city and give them millions on gofundme.
 
25 characters said:
So, he didn't steal the bike but he was the one who was touching it when it was found?
Okey dokey.

Everyone in that story sounds like an idiot.
Click to expand...

- Off duty cop learned his son's bike that was parked outside the local library was stolen. He receveid word it was spotted at a local Starbucks.

- Off-Duty cop goes to Starbucks and waits to see who would come for the bike.

- The 14 year Puerto Rican American kid was sitting on his own bike then moved the other bike because it was blocking his path.

- When off-duty cop saw the kid touch his son's bike, he grabbed him, forced him to the ground and kneeded him.

- CCTV footage shows the 14 year old kid rode in on his own bike and the other bike was already at teh Starbucks before the kid arrived.

- Off-duty cops filed a report stating the kid was an "offender" and was "resisting" , but video of the incident does not show the kid resisting.

---

During the press conference, Romanucci said Vitellaro filed what is called a tactical report related to the use of force by an officer. Romanucci said in that tactical report Vitellaro referred to the 14-year-old as “an offender” and said the 14-year-old was resisting.

“Where would we be without the power of video?” Romanucci asked rhetorically. “We would have had the word of a 14-year-old vs. a Chicago police sergeant, who (the teen) could be deemed not creidable,” Romanucci said.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/19/us/michael-vitellaro-chicago-police-charged-kneel-on-teen/index.html

The charges stem from a July 1 incident where the boy was out with friends in Park Ridge. As the youth was holding his bike, he began moving another bike that was blocking his path when the officer confronted him, Antonio Romanucci, an attorney for the teen’s family, said last month.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/chicago-officer-charged-allegedly-pinning-boy-duty-rcna43875

----
Cops has been relieved of his police powers and charged with 2 felonies. The only idiot and asshole here is the off-duty cop.
 
MicroBrew said:
This is why soo many protested and believe the system will not hold cops accountable. Any civilian would have been thrown in jail.
Click to expand...

That is a false equivalency imo. Why? Because non-cops are only permitted to use force during a self-defense situation under strict circumstances.

I will say that on the surface, this use of force appears overly excessive. The knees absolutely are not excessive. That is how every cop in the country is trained-to throw knee strikes to the thigh (common perineal) nerve cluster. The strikes to the face are where it could be excessive. He was charged with second degree assault, resisting arrest, and terroristic threats. He went into a convenient store and threatened the clerk. He also reportedly attacked the officers. Not much information is available at this time. What would determine whether the head strikes are appropriate. I can’t tell from the video, but the size of the suspect is one issue. How violent was the attack on the officers? How was the guy resisting arrest? Was it just refusing to put his hands behind his back or was he really fighting to get away. Graham v Connor is the Supreme Court case that is most relevant here. Was the subject actively resisting arrest or trying to flee from a violent crime? Number of officers (3) vs number of suspects (1). Size of offender (again, can’t tell), special skills of offender, special knowledge officers have about the suspect (reported to be aggressive and violent), is the suspect armed or was the suspect armed, do the officers have reason to believe he is armed? And finally, but most important is are the officers’ actions objectively reasonable? Would a reasonable officer do the same thing given the information they had available to them at the time of the incident with no 20/20 hindsight, meaning you can’t look at the fact that he was unarmed unless the officers knew that at the time of the use of force.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

LeonardoBjj
International As police lose the war on crime in South Africa, private security companies step in
Replies
1
Views
228
LeonardoBjj
LeonardoBjj

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,225
Messages
55,475,599
Members
174,786
Latest member
Biden's Diaper

Share this page

Back
Top