More good cops in the news.

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I think you mean excessive force.

is there a real distinction between excessive force (only for law enforcement) and assault (anyone else) if your goal is to treat all individuals equally under law for attacks?

We could reasonably just have 'assault' on the books and it could cover that form of assault conducted when cops exceed a reasonable level to conduct their job.

No, i don't see it that way. Assault (putting hands on a person) is always part of the job. Searches, patdowns, and all other forms of safety measures would be considered assault . . . Unless you want to change the laws for everyone else and redifine what assault is.

I am curious as to what you call putting feet up side his head would be??

Criminal exessive force.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I think you mean excessive force.

is there a real distinction between excessive force (only for law enforcement) and assault (anyone else) if your goal is to treat all individuals equally under law for attacks?

We could reasonably just have 'assault' on the books and it could cover that form of assault conducted when cops exceed a reasonable level to conduct their job.

No, i don't see it that way. Assault (putting hands on a person) is always part of the job. Searches, patdowns, and all other forms of safety measures would be considered assault . . . Unless you want to change the laws for everyone else and redifine what assault is.

I see, so a doctor gets arrested for assault every time he gives a physical? No wonder medical costs are so high.

There's a reasonable expectation of physical interaction amongst people that can vary from job to job. Crossing that line is assault, right?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I am curious as to what you call putting feet up side his head would be??

I'd call that assault - IMO, we should try and sentence that cop exactly like I'd try and sentence some kid that that does the exact same thing to any citizen

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I think you mean excessive force.

is there a real distinction between excessive force (only for law enforcement) and assault (anyone else) if your goal is to treat all individuals equally under law for attacks?

We could reasonably just have 'assault' on the books and it could cover that form of assault conducted when cops exceed a reasonable level to conduct their job.

No, i don't see it that way. Assault (putting hands on a person) is always part of the job. Searches, patdowns, and all other forms of safety measures would be considered assault . . . Unless you want to change the laws for everyone else and redifine what assault is.

I see, so a doctor gets arrested for assault every time he gives a physical? No wonder medical costs are so high.

There's a reasonable expectation of physical interaction amongst people that can vary from job to job. Crossing that line is assault, right?

If I put my hands on you and conducted a search, it would be considered assault. I could be and should be arrested.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

If I put my hands on you and conducted a search, it would be considered assault. I could be and should be arrested.

Are you a cop? or a doctor? or a security guard? or a really hot woman? then no - you shouldn't be arrested as long as it's a clear part of your job and you have my consent directly (doc, guard, hottie), or my implied consent (as a citizen when as a cop you are conducting a lawful search).

in any other case, yeah, you should be arrested for assault - even if you are a cop, it the search is unlawful, then assault could apply without need of a 'special' definition just for cops.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

If I put my hands on you and conducted a search, it would be considered assault. I could be and should be arrested.

Are you a cop? or a doctor? or a security guard? or a really hot woman? then no - you shouldn't be arrested as long as it's a clear part of your job and you have my consent directly (doc, guard, hottie), or my implied consent (as a citizen when as a cop you are conducting a lawful search).

in any other case, yeah, you should be arrested for assault - even if you are a cop, it the search is unlawful, then assault could apply without need of a 'special' definition just for cops.

So you are in favor redefining the definition of assult then. Gotcha.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

So you are in favor redefining the definition of assult then. Gotcha.

I guess, more so, I'm just interested in a discussion about right and wrong less than just what's in the code - at least as much as a hypothetical discussion about justice and fairness can go anyway.

If we just note, hey, read this law on the books and accept it - then these discussions would be pretty lame. Or, in this case, me just putting forth opinions and you just being obtuse to my points but not offering opinions of your own.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[livendive 8]

Quote

. . . the distinction is everything and treating citizens differently because of their job is morally wrong

cops are citizens and individuals, when they break a law, there should not be any lesser or increase in treatment just because of the job description on their W-2.

Part of me is inclined to agree with this, but I partially disagree too. Despite my strong resentment of the process, I've gradually come around to believing police are necessary in our society, and that the position must include the trust of the public. My previously held opinion was that I should be able to legally defend myself from anyone threatening me [especially with a weapon], regardless of what costume/uniform they might be wearing. In the same way that impersonating a police officer is a crime because it undermines that trust so vital to the role, criminal acts committed under color of law must be vigorously prosecuted for the same reason (undermining that trust). Sadly, this is not the case, and where I think crimes ought to have bonus penalties if committed in violation of public trust, the reverse is far more common, and the criminals get slapped on the wrist, if that.

So yeah, I suppose I think assault by someone making an arrest deserves more severe penalties than a random assault, because the former encourages the next guy being arrested to run/resist if he wants to avoid a beating.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[rehmwa 2]

that is the crux, isn't it?

I can't lean that way yet. "bonus penalties" rings very wrong to me for any rationalization. It reeks of potential for abuse.

I'd rather that the cop gets the same penalty for the crime as anyone committing that crime (equal treatment under law). Violation of trust needs to be addressed by that individual not being given that job again - that's administrative to the job.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[livendive 8]

Quote

that is the crux, isn't it?

I can't lean that way yet. "bonus penalties" rings very wrong to me for any rationalization. It reeks of potential for abuse.

Agreed, insomuch as I think hate crimes are absurd. The reason someone kicks someone else's teeth in is irrelevent. They either did or didn't do it. It's presumed the attacker wasn't particularly fond of the victim, but the distinction between strong dislike and moderate hatred is silly in the extreme. That said, if I'm legally required to let one class of people search me, point weapons at me, restrain me against my will, and never fight back? Yeah, taking advantage of that authority should come with some extra risks/penalties. There has to be a trade-off.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[wmw999 2,587]

One thing to consider is that murder or harm of a police officer in the line of duty has at least an unofficial "extra oomph" to it, kind of like hurting children.

While it might not need to be formalized, maybe official oppression is, in fact, worse than unofficial. If nothing else, the presumption in the case of official oppression is that the victim cannot defend themselves without additional jeopardy.

I kind of like the thought of the same laws for everyone, but I'm not entirely sure it's possible in this case. Police have a tough job; some protection of them on the job is good. But using their office to do stuff that people can't defend themselves against because of the nature of the transaction is a little above and beyond.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[DiverMike 5]

In regards to 'hate crimes', I completely agree "The reason someone kicks someone else's teeth in is irrelevent". I disagree that what uniform you are wearing or what your job description is should incur extra penalties should you commit a crime.

Along the same lines, I also believe murder is murder and the profession of the victim should not incur extra penalties. A murdered homeless drug addict and a murdered cop are two dead human beings.

I basically don't believe that one victim or perp is better than another based on their sex, religion, race, or profession.

For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

While it might not need to be formalized, maybe official oppression is, in fact, worse than unofficial. If nothing else, the presumption in the case of official oppression is that the victim cannot defend themselves without additional jeopardy.

We've moved to the punish considerations of the cops - rather than reduction of the punishment of the burglar. This seems to be the better discussion and more useful - IMO.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[wmw999 2,587]

I agree with that. One thing we don't want to do is to remove the unofficial discretion of the court. Once we go too far down that road, we're getting into zero-tolerance territory.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

So you are in favor redefining the definition of assult then. Gotcha.

I guess, more so, I'm just interested in a discussion about right and wrong less than just what's in the code - at least as much as a hypothetical discussion about justice and fairness can go anyway.

If we just note, hey, read this law on the books and accept it - then these discussions would be pretty lame. Or, in this case, me just putting forth opinions and you just being obtuse to my points but not offering opinions of your own.

Well I guess we would need to define what "Reasonable" is.

Obviously we agree that what the cops did was wrong.

I thnk that the victim should be given his day in court, regardless of wether or not he committed a crime that led to the officers losing control of them selves during the arrest, or not.

That said, it would also offer, in a very very minimal way, the crime that led to the arrest should be considered in certain cases.

Robbery does not warrant such a forceful takedown/beating/arrest. I don't know what robbery would, (besides if he robbed me, or mine,) but that is a whole different issue. I could think of a couple of crimes that would warrant my participation in earnest. Robbery is not one though.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[billvon 3,114]

>I'd rather that the cop gets the same penalty for the crime as anyone committing
>that crime (equal treatment under law).

I would agree with that provided cops have the same rights and responsibilities as anyone else under the law - but they don't. Often they have to batter people in the performance of their duties, and often that battery is warranted. It would be foolish to put cops in jail because they broke someone's arm while arresting them for tax evasion, provided that level of force was needed for the arrest - even though an ordinary citizen would almost certainly go to jail for it.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>I'd rather that the cop gets the same penalty for the crime as anyone committing
>that crime (equal treatment under law).

I would agree with that provided cops have the same rights and responsibilities as anyone else under the law - but they don't. Often they have to batter people in the performance of their duties, and often that battery is warranted. It would be foolish to put cops in jail because they broke someone's arm while arresting them for tax evasion, provided that level of force was needed for the arrest - even though an ordinary citizen would almost certainly go to jail for it.

your statement is consistent with what I've written

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Bolas 5]

We're not seeing the whole thing (of course).

While this was a robbery conviction, was it an armed robbery? What sort of record did this person or the crew he was running with have? Did they have a history of attacking police officers or had an officer or officers in that area recently been injured or killed on the job?

Before I grab my pitchfork and light the torch, I'd want the whole story.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[david3 0]

Quote

We're not seeing the whole thing (of course).

While this was a robbery conviction, was it an armed robbery? What sort of record did this person or the crew he was running with have? Did they have a history of attacking police officers or had an officer or officers in that area recently been injured or killed on the job?

Before I grab my pitchfork and light the torch, I'd want the whole story.

When someone submits (flat on the ground, hands behind the head) you have to stop. Secure him, detain him but don’t beat him. I’ll be the first to admit I couldn’t do it. If I was all jacked up chasing someone I wouldn’t be able to turn it off but that (among many, many other reasons) is why I’m not a cop.

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

Quote

If I put my hands on you and conducted a search, it would be considered assault. I could be and should be arrested.

Are you a cop? or a doctor? or a security guard? or a really hot woman? then no - you shouldn't be arrested as long as it's a clear part of your job and you have my consent directly (doc, guard, hottie), or my implied consent (as a citizen when as a cop you are conducting a lawful search).

in any other case, yeah, you should be arrested for assault - even if you are a cop, it the search is unlawful, then assault could apply without need of a 'special' definition just for cops.

Consent does indeed mean that somebody can touch you without it being considered assault. Cops, because of their privileged position as instruments of the state, are able to touch, threaten and use force by virtue of them being "instruments of the state." While it would be nice in an ideal world to treat them the same way we do everybody else I think it would require that police not be able to legally assault somebody. As long as they have that privilege, I don't think it can ever be considered to be anywhere close to the same situation.

This is not to even consider the privileged position cops receive in any courtroom filled with he said-he said testimony.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

One thing to consider is that murder or harm of a police officer in the line of duty has at least an unofficial "extra oomph" to it, kind of like hurting children.

While it might not need to be formalized, maybe official oppression is, in fact, worse than unofficial. If nothing else, the presumption in the case of official oppression is that the victim cannot defend themselves without additional jeopardy.

I kind of like the thought of the same laws for everyone, but I'm not entirely sure it's possible in this case. Police have a tough job; some protection of them on the job is good. But using their office to do stuff that people can't defend themselves against because of the nature of the transaction is a little above and beyond.

Wendy P.

Assault on a police officer is usually a separate crime or a separate class of the same crime of assault. In my state it is a simple assault on a police officer is a felony when the same action against another civilian is a misdemeanor. It is indeed a privileged position.

Perhaps assault by a police officer should also be a higher order crime since there is so much more potential for harm and assault by a police officer is such a harmful crime to the public perception of the entire endeavor.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[doughboyshred 0]

Hate to be in the minority on this one, but I can sympathize with the cops here.

One thing I learned when I was young was that you don't run from the cops, cause if you do, and they catch you, you're gonna get the shit kicked out of you.

If the only thing that could go wrong if you get caught running is maybe a few additional charges, then there's not much motivation not to run.

Furthermore, if you are running from the cops, you're guilty. Innocent people don't run from the cops on the street.

I'm not saying what they did was right, but I would have a real hard time saying they should be severely punished.

If you're a piece of shit thief and you run from the police, you just might get your face bashed in. I don't really have a problem with that.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

you have to stop. Secure him, detain him but don’t beat him. I’ll be the first to admit I couldn’t do it.

I don't get that. Why? what isn't functioning correctly in your psyche? Do you think it's a character flaw or something admirable or even impressive?

Worse yet, some people find this attitude to be macho rather than, frankly, sad and pathetic. And it ends up being some kind of posturing.

Everyone (mature adults without seriously mental health issues) has a choice to control themselves. You CHOOSE to stop. I don't believe someone "can't" stop - it's a "won't" thing. and an crappy excuse to cross that line.

It's a seriously question. I've never heard a good reason for someone even thinking that about themselves.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

It's a seriously question. I've never heard a good reason for someone even thinking that about themselves.

I guess it would depend on who is being wronged and how.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Kennedy 0]

I don't know David, but it sounds like he has never (A) been tested and found his own answer (B) had the ability to affect others significantly, or (C) held a position where his conduct reflected on others.

As someone who has worn a badge, I can tell you that it actually works a check on the person wearing it. It's a reminder that there is more riding on you than your own reputation and conscience. When you carry a badge, your actions reflect on every other badge, and you carry a larger responsibility to the department, the public, and to fellow officers. I've heard some folks say carrying concealed cab have a similar effect because any confrontation can be worse with a gun involved.

That's why officers hate corrupt cops. They make every officer look bad. Whenever I see video of an officer striking a cuffed suspect, or stealing, or lying, it makes me sick and I hope the bastard is punished accordingly.

I don't see any value in a person not being able to control themselves, I hope they will learn discipline pride an self control, and hope to God they never become and officer.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*