THIS is why we should be suspicious of police!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Beethoven

member
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
404
In response to this thread: http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=162387&highlight=Fear+Police

This is precisely why many of us are so suspicious of LEO's.

Links to Videos and court papers at bottom.


Link (but you may have to register to view. Article and links appear below.) http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/story/13790557p-14632251c.html



Watchdog report: Suit alleges jail brutality


Sacramento sheriff's office accused of allowing pattern of abuse by deputies


By Dorothy Korber and Christina Jewett -- Bee Staff Writers
Published 2:15 am PST Sunday, October 30, 2005


Graphic videotapes from the Sacramento County jail - one depicting an inmate lying in a pool of blood after his head hit the floor - are exhibits in a federal civil rights lawsuit alleging that excessive force is sanctioned and an ongoing practice within the Sacramento County Sheriff's Department.
The videos, filed in federal court in Sacramento last week and obtained by The Bee, are from the jail's own surveillance cameras. They were subpoenaed by attorneys for plaintiff Jafar Afshar, a mortgage broker who received the head injury after being arrested for public intoxication on June 7, 2003.

Two other incidents videotaped in the downtown Sacramento jail - both involving men arrested for drunkenness - also are exhibits in the lawsuit.

One shows construction worker Mihaita Constantin, whose nose and arm were broken by deputies after he was "taken down" in July 2003 for standing instead of sitting in the jail's drunk tank, according to a report written by Deputy Timothy Pai, one of five guards who struggled with Constantin.

The third depicts a college student, Michael Hay, whose forearm was fractured in December 2000, when Deputy Santos Ramos twisted it because Hay was not following directions quickly enough, according to Ramos' deposition.


It is not clear from the tape why Afshar is pulled backward to the floor by Deputy Brett Spaid. In an incident report written shortly afterward, Spaid said Afshar swung toward him while handing over his sock during a weapon search.

Making inmates comply with deputies' orders is important to maintaining discipline in the county jail, Undersheriff John McGinness said in an interview Friday. McGinness is second in command under Sheriff Lou Blanas and has announced that he will run in 2006 to succeed Blanas.

After viewing a copy of the video provided by The Bee, McGinness said he could not comment specifically on the tapes since they are part of pending litigation, but he would talk generally about the realities of jail.

"Disruptive behavior can become infectious," McGinness said. "It can get out of control and start a riot."

The department's legal adviser, Lt. Scott Jones, also was present at the viewing and said, "What I saw in each case was definite resistance (by the inmates), in varying degrees."

Sacramento NAACP President Betty Williams, who watched the videotapes earlier, said she was sickened by the violence they depict. Williams said her organization is a clearinghouse for citizens' complaints of police brutality from all races, including - as in these three cases - whites.

"If what the deputies did inside the jail was done in street clothes outside, there would be felony charges," she said. "But because it was done within the protective walls of the Sheriff's Department, they got a slap on the hand."

No deputies involved in the incidents were fired, the Sheriff's Department said. The department would not let the deputies speak to The Bee, and the five deputies called at home did not return calls or would not comment.

Records show that Hay was turned loose about 10 hours after his arm was broken, the charges against him dropped and his broken arm untreated. Afshar, whose scalp was sutured shut at Sutter General Hospital, also was released with no criminal charges. Afshar angrily declined comment on Friday, saying he fears that publicizing the lawsuit endangers his safety.

Hay later sued the Sheriff's Department, alleging police brutality, and obtained a settlement of $147,500 in 2002. He has since left the area, his attorney said, and could not be located.

After the jailhouse skirmish, Constantin was charged with resisting arrest and battery on law enforcement officers - a case later dismissed. He pleaded no contest to the charge that brought him to the jail: driving under the influence. He died last year in a car crash that was ruled a suicide.

A law enforcement expert cited in Afshar's lawsuit said that all three videotaped incidents show excessive force by deputies and demonstrate a pattern of using pain for punishment. The expert, retired sheriff's Lt. Timothy Twomey, is a 30-year veteran with the Sacramento County Sheriff's Department who teaches college classes in custody procedure and helped design the Sacramento jail.

Twomey's review of the three cases, according to a declaration filed with the court, led him "to the inescapable conclusion that excessive force is sanctioned and deemed by unwritten policy to be acceptable and a pattern and practice with the Sacramento County Sheriff's Department."

"Such conduct breeds other incidents of excessive force," Twomey wrote.

McGinness noted in the interview that deputies are authorized to use force when necessary. "It is imperative that officers maintain control in the interest of protecting the safety of the inmates, the staff and the public who are being protected from the inmates," he said.

The Sheriff's Department did not conduct internal investigations in either the Afshar or Constantin cases, though both injured men were transported to the hospital for emergency care.

An internal investigation was conducted after Hay filed a formal citizen's complaint with the Sheriff's Department. The deputies involved in the injury were reprimanded - not for breaking Hay's arm but for failing to report his injury, according to court documents.

Gary Gorski, Afshar's attorney, said in an interview last week that he intends to use this response to create a foundation for showing that the jail's unwritten policy condones excessive force.

"In their internal affairs investigation, they determined the use of force on Hay was correct - and that establishes this behavior as standard operating procedure in the jail," Gorski said.

The video footage shows the dramatic conclusion of events that started rather mundanely: A neighbor's complaint of loud music. An intoxicated man stumbling down the street after a night on the town. And a drunk driver pulled over by the California Highway Patrol.

The video and documents in the Afshar lawsuit describe what happened next in each case:

The first incident began late on Dec. 22, 2000, when Deputy Rebecca Eubanks went to the apartment of Michael P. Hay to tell him to turn down his music. Hay had been drinking with friends at his apartment near California State University, Sacramento, where he was a student.

Hay, then 21 and apparently drunk, told her that he would keep the noise down and added, "You know, you're kind of cute," according to his own statement.

Eubanks left, but within minutes Deputy Robert Book showed up at the apartment door. Book told investigators that Hay was belligerent and interfered with his finding out what was going on, "so I handcuffed him and walked him downstairs."

He and Eubanks arrested Hay on charges of being drunk in public. In the video, Hay keeps questioning his arrest, puzzled because he was inside his apartment, not in public.

The sheriff's own investigation indicates Hay had reason for confusion. A disciplinary letter to Deputy Book states: "At no time during your contact with Michael H. was he in 'public,' within the meaning of the statute. Therefore your arrest of Michael H. was without legal authority."

On the tape Hay jokes with a nurse who interviews him in the intake area. The nurse is heard telling him: "They like to hurt people around here," though it's not clear whether she is referring to deputies or other inmates.

Deputy Eubanks stands near her prisoner, at times talking to an unidentified male deputy. That officer turns his back to Hay and appears to make a shadow-boxing motion - a gesture expert witness Twomey said suggests that "Mr. Hay's immediate future is going to involve some sort of force."

Eubanks walks Hay to the jail's pat-down area. There he is searched by Deputy Ramos, who is wearing a Santa Claus hat.

Ramos told internal affairs investigators that Hay was intoxicated and not following directions, "so Deputy (Charles) Meeks and I proceeded to place him in twist-lock control holds." On the tape, the deputies twist both of Hay's arms behind his back.

Ramos said he heard a "popping sound," as he twisted Hay's right arm. He later told investigators he hears the sound in 60 to 70 percent of those he puts in a twist lock, but this pop was "louder."

Twomey, however, said he'd never heard such a sound in his three decades with the department.

He also wrote that the "twist lock" is a control move properly used on one arm to make someone turn in response to pain, allowing an officer to regain control. But he said he had never witnessed two twist locks being used - a maneuver the lawsuit alleges is "torture."

Hay was released later that morning, with no charges filed.

He filed an excessive force claim with the Sheriff's Department within a month. Although department policy is to start an internal affairs investigation and mete out any punishment within 90 days, the Hay case was not resolved for more than a year.

In the end, Eubanks was reprimanded for calling Book on her cell phone nine minutes after being interviewed by internal affairs. And Ramos and Deputy Tom McCue were counseled for failing to report the "popping" sound, according to the sheriff's report on the investigation.

Two years later, Jafar Afshar sat in the same seat that Hay had occupied, being interviewed by another nurse in the intake area of the jail.

After leaving the Tunel 21 nightclub in Old Sacramento, Afshar was arrested early that June morning for alleged public intoxication by two Sacramento police officers.

Afshar, then 37, served four years in the Marines, including active duty during Operation Desert Storm, according to Gorski, his lawyer. "If he had wanted to fight the deputies, they would have had their hands full," Gorski said.

In the jail video - which, unlike Hay's, has no sound - Afshar seems relaxed and the jail staff appears comfortable around him, Twomey stated in his declaration. "It is obvious that at no time did (Afshar) pose a threat requiring that he be taken down to the floor."

But Deputy Brett Spaid testified, in a court deposition filed by Gorski, that Afshar was "combative," mumbled something about Columbine and threatened to kill Spaid's family. Spaid said he did not take the threats seriously.

On the tape, Afshar is shown obeying Spaid's order to remove his shoes. Suddenly, Spaid grabs Afshar by the collar, Afshar's body shoots up and back and flips onto the hard floor.

The fall, Twomey said, caused Afshar "to smash his head, (as deputies) spun him onto his stomach and twisted both of his arms toward his shoulders."

On a scale of one to 10 for hardness, Twomey described the jail floor as a 10 and "not effective as a safety measure as it is a very hard material."

Afshar, who acknowledged in his deposition that he doesn't recall much from that night, testified that he heard someone say, "Where is your God now?" before he was knocked to the floor.

After deputies rushed Afshar away to the hospital, the video shows a pool of blood the size of a serving platter on the jail floor. He was released the next morning, all charges dropped. A year later, he filed his lawsuit.

A month after Afshar's encounter with the deputies, Mihaita Constantin also found himself in the Sacramento County jail. Constantin, then a 33-year-old immigrant from Romania, was arrested July 14, 2003, for drunk driving. His blood alcohol was more than triple the legal limit.

The video clip shows Constantin standing by the door in the jail's "sobering tank." Other inmates are seated around the perimeter of the cell.

In Deputy Timothy Pai's report of the incident, he said a deputy identified only as "Deputy Mason," badge no. 461, told Constantin to remain seated in the cell, to which Constantin said, "No." According to this account, when Constantin refused to sit a second time, he was grabbed by the shirt and placed on the floor.

Within seconds, the video shows, four more deputies rush into the cell as Constantin writhes and struggles on the floor. Other guards follow, apparently directing other inmates not to watch.

Noting that the deputies arrived within seconds, Twomey said: "It is glaringly apparent these other deputies were stacked by the door to enter the tank quickly, making it certain they knew they were going to get physically involved, which shows premeditation."

In the fracas, Constantin sustained a broken hand, fractured nose and his face was left swollen and bruised. Taken to an isolation cell, he is seen in another video handcuffed to a floor grate, bleeding and breathing hard.

Deputies' reports stated that Constantin had punched one deputy and bit another, who then hit the inmate twice in the right eye to release the bite. The deputies said they were not injured and required no medical treatment.

Constantin, who spent 48 hours in jail, was charged with two counts of battery on an officer and resisting arrest. One battery count was dismissed the day before his trial in April 2004, at which time a judge acquitted him of the rest. He got three years' probation for driving drunk.

On June 29, 2004, Constantin filed his own federal civil rights lawsuit against the Sheriff's Department. But last May 14, Placer County deputies found his body in a car crashed on a mountain slope near Blue Canyon. The coroner ruled his death a suicide. His widow has returned to Europe but is pursuing the lawsuit.

In the Afshar suit, attorneys for the Sheriff's Department have filed a motion asking U. S. District Judge Lawrence K. Karlton to reach a summary judgment in their favor. Their motion argues that the department has written policies on appropriate use of force - and points out that Afshar's own recollections of the incident are vague.

On Nov. 7, Karlton is scheduled to consider that motion, along with a counter motion by Afshar's attorneys asking for a summary judgment in his favor. The jail videotapes and other documents were filed in support of that counter motion.

Afshar's case currently is scheduled for trial in May in U.S. District Court in Sacramento.

The lawsuit seeks monetary damages and requests a court order prohibiting "further excessive force" at the jail and monitoring by outside consultants.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

VIDEOS
Quicktime video player
Jafar Afshar http://www.sacbee.com/static/live/video/afshar_final.mov

Michael P. Hay http://www.sacbee.com/static/live/video/hay_final.mov

Mihaita Constantin http://www.sacbee.com/static/live/video/constantin_final.mov

RealPlayer

Jafar Afsharhttp://www.sacbee.com/static/richmedia/mov/jail/afshar_h.ram

Michael P. Hay http://www.sacbee.com/static/richmedia/mov/jail/hay_h.ram

Mihaita Constantin http://www.sacbee.com/static/richmedia/mov/jail/constantin_h.ram


COURT PAPERS
Expert declaration on use of force - Declaration of Timothy Twomey, expert witness in the case of Jafar Afshar, filed Oct. 24. [PDF]
http://www.sacbee.com/static/richmedia/pdf/1030afshar2.pdf


Amended lawsuit against sheriff's department - Suit filed Oct. 24 by attorneys Gary W. Gorski and Daniel M. Karalash with "Demand for a Jury Trial" in the case of Jafar Afshar. [PDF]

http://www.sacbee.com/static/richmedia/pdf/1030afshar1.pdf


Facts in favor of sheriff's department - Attorneys for the Sheriff's Department on Sept. 26 asked the court for a summary judgment in the department's favor in the case of Jafar Afshar. [PDF]
http://www.sacbee.com/static/richmedia/pdf/1030afshar3.pdf


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A LOOK AT THE CASES
Three alleged instances of abuse by deputies at the Sacramento County jail, with images from court documents:

Jafar Afshar
Age: 37
Booking charges: public intoxication
Injury: split scalp
Internal investigation: none
Deputy involved: Brett Spaid

Michael P. Hay
Age: 21
Booking charges: public intoxication
Injury: broken arm
Internal investigation: Conducted
Deputies involved: Rebecca Eubanks - reprimand for talking about internal affairs investigation, plus proposed 40-hour suspension without pay; Robert Book - proposed 20-hour suspension for arresting Hay in his apartment on charges of public intoxication; Santos Ramos - counseling for not reporting injury; Tom McCue - counseling for not reporting injury

Mihaita Constantin
Age: 33
Booking charges: driving under the influence
Injury: fractured nose and hand, contusion to eye and lip, various cuts
Internal investigation: none
Deputies involved: Timothy Pai; five others identified by last name, badge number: Mason, 461; Parker, 1377; Morck, 1318, and De la Cruz, 1034

About the writer:
The Bee's Dorothy Korber can be reached at (916) 321-1061 or [email protected] and Christina Jewett can be reached at (916) 321-1201 or [email protected].

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
As usual, the operative word is "some" or "few", as with any sort of group.

One thing that might be regarded as a civic duty is to keep an ear out for rumors of this sort of behavior, in an effort to follow up and try to ensure it doesn't' either become reality or become worse.

Part of "Who will watch the watchers?"

Art
 
One thing that might be regarded as a civic duty is to keep an ear out for rumors of this sort of behavior, in an effort to follow up and try to ensure it doesn't' either become reality or become worse.

Couldnt agree more.

Sometimes the feds have to bring in a flashlight to make the cochroaches scatter. I'm all for home rule, but sometimes the locals are a bunch of no-good bastards. It sure beats having a violent uprising.

Hopefully the cops who have grown accustomed to cracking skulls as a debate tactic will get to do the perp walk.
 
These thread types are getting old, fast.

That said, I'm seeing a trend at the school i'm attending. It seems that a lot of young guys are joining to become cops so they can "whup ghansta".

That is, they want a fight, with whatever law breaker they get their hands on.

Sad, when did cops stop wanting to help people and be the good friendly guys of the community.
 
Art Eatman said:
As usual, the operative word is "some" or "few", as with any sort of group.

Obviously.

The problem is, when one is dealing with LEO's, one has no way of knowing if he is good or bad. Hence the need to have a healthy level of suspicion.


"Who will watch the watchers?"


The People.
 
walking arsenal said:
These thread types are getting old, fast.


I agree.

It would be much nicer if incidents like this simply did not happen, and if ALL (as in 100%) cops were good, decent and honest.

Until then, you are going to have to not click on threads like this if you don't want to be exposed to reality. ;)
 
When LE fails to police itself the responsibility falls on outsiders. Piked heads is remarkably effective in defining priorities and focusing attention. I don't paint with broad brushes but I do demand that legal goons be dealt with. :mad:
 
Accountability, accountability, and accountability. If we can get our shorts in a wedgie over Abu Graib, we can certainly break up this thugfest and prosecute the offenders.
 
I'll attempt to say this in the nicest way possible

The reason these threads almost always devolve into an "us vs. them" polarization is, IN MY OPINION, the result of some (not all) LEO THR members becoming overly defensive and refusing to say simply, "What THOSE cops did is wrong."

Somehow it seems that certain cops are afraid that admitting wrong doing on the part of ANY LEO is to implicate ALL of LE; and that refusing to acknowledge a fact makes it nonexistent.

Let me say that the exact opposite is true. Admitting a wrongdoing displays the integrity that all citizens are hoping to find in a police officer.

Don't play the role of Kayne West (during/after Katrina). Instead of speaking out against the wrong being done by certain people who were, incidentally, black, he spoke out against those who spoke out against their wrongdoing. Somehow, in Mr. West's way of thinking, pointing fingers at a few guilty individuals was to villainize their whole race. By ignoring or minimizing the lawlessness of certain individuals and CHOOSING to make it a racial issue, HE elevated the criminal activities committed by a few and ascribed them to the entire group and, in so doing, willingly made himself an equal to those committing the crimes and condoned their behavior.

I find no comfort in the words of those who defend corrupt police behavior by reprimanding those who wish to discuss it.
 
I did not watch the vidoes, and I will not. I will say that bad things are done by cops on boths sides of the grey walls. It is unfortunate, but it does happen. Any cop who defends those who oppress those they serve should no longer be in a position to do so. The Thin Blue Line is exactly as it sounds, THIN. When that line is crossed those who do so should be dealt with swiftly and mericlessly. These few men, and women, give those who still have an imense amount of pride in what we do a bad name.

It's not a recent development. I suspect bullies have been joining law enforcement agencies as long as there've been law enforcement agencies.

I dont necessarily believe that a wish to "whup gangstas" is the sign of a bully. I think it has much more to do with an extreme distaste for bullies. Myself, I do not look for fights to get into, but I will admit that I see no wrong in feeling good about a righteous fracas with a bad person. That is why we are out there, so those who do not can sleep easily at night.

This being said, I do see bullies get into this lone of work. I also see these same people exit quickly. They simply cannot handle the amount of accountability we have.
 
(shrugs) What those cops did was wrong.

But if you substitute the word "cop" for any other proffesion, like doctor or fireman, plumber, mechanic, etc. does it make a difference?
 
Do the job.

I did not watch the video's due to my computer at work not allowing it. But I would imagine they went to far and they should be dealt with. With that said, I think if many of you were in the profession you would have a far different outlook, better yet I can say with confidence you would have a different outlook. Having a friend/brother/sister etc... thats in the profession doesnt count, it's not the same as walking the walk and dealing with the scum day in day out. I can already predict the responses, lets see if I am correct.
 
walking arsenal,

Any professional that has another person's life entirely dependent up him needs to be held to a higher standard. My plumber cannot lock me in a cell, bind me, beat me with a baton, and expect to get away with it. Why should a police officer?

And the reason these threads devolve into "Us versus Them" is because the police them selves see themselves as an "Us" and everyone else as a "Them". The finest private citizen is still going to be less trusted than a corrupt cop.

The blue line may be thin, but it is stronger than Kevlar.
 
walking arsenal said:
(shrugs) What those cops did was wrong.

But if you substitute the word "cop" for any other proffesion, like doctor or fireman, plumber, mechanic, etc. does it make a difference?
No, it makes no difference. In fact, if I understand your point correctly, you are right; they are simply PEOPLE who did wrong. I guess that's where we err and offend honest members of law enforcement (or any group for the matter). In the process of blaming individuals, we often label them according to the group within which they reside, and other members of the group respond by defending the group as a whole. Unfortunately, these men are categorized according to their profession as police officers. Hopefully, the very noble profession of the police officer will not be categorized according to the actions of these men. Which is why it is of extreme importance for other LEO's to speak out against brutal and corrupt police activity.

BTW, Mr. Walking Arsenal, my original post was not written against you. In fact, after posting it I starting thinking that I had acted in haste. I think that perhaps I was over-sensitive or defensive of my own view and consequently launched a pre-emptive strike. I fear I may have cast the first divisive stone. I apologize if I antagonized anyone or aggravated an otherwise friendly discussion. Hopefully, my words did not draw, or catalyze the drawing of, the dividing line for which I prematurely blamed others.
 
Us VS Them

I dont think the police feel there is an "US Vs Them" mentality at all when talking about the general public. Thats far to broad a statement and as Jashobeam said, your lumping them together. Now, if your talking about "Police Vs. Drug dealers/gang members and all the other POS's running around that are nothing but leaches on society", then you would be correct, it is "US Vs Them".
 
And the reason these threads devolve into "Us versus Them" is because the police them selves see themselves as an "Us" and everyone else as a "Them".


And the other way around as well. Wonder who was first.

Jashobeam, no offense taken at all, thats why we call these things discussion boards and not duelling boards. ;)
 
Being suspicious is all well and good..... But suspicion does you no good when somthing bad happens.:banghead: In the end YOU will be seen as the bad guy until someone else proves them wrong, and that can take years if ever.:fire:

All you can really do, is know in your heart that you are in the right in defending yourself, your property and your pride. Even if everyone else says that you are wrong.

And it is true, anyone with the power to totally destroy your life should NEVER be trusted completly.:mad:
 
walking arsenal said:
(shrugs) What those cops did was wrong.

But if you substitute the word "cop" for any other proffesion, like doctor or fireman, plumber, mechanic, etc. does it make a difference?

If you defy or assault a police officer, is it any different than doing so to a doctor, fireman, plumber, mechanic, etc? Are the relevant statues and sentences different?

Why or why not?


And speaking of firemen, why are they not covered by the "acting in a illegal manner" clause of Colorado Revised Statutes 18-8-104(2)?

[blockquote]
18-8-104. Obstructing a peace officer, firefighter, emergency medical services provider, rescue specialist, or volunteer.

(1) (a) A person commits obstructing a peace officer, firefighter, emergency medical services provider, rescue specialist, or volunteer when, by using or threatening to use violence, force, physical interference, or an obstacle, such person knowingly obstructs, impairs, or hinders the enforcement of the penal law or the preservation of the peace by a peace officer, acting under color of his or her official authority; knowingly obstructs, impairs, or hinders the prevention, control, or abatement of fire by a firefighter, acting under color of his or her official authority; knowingly obstructs, impairs, or hinders the administration of medical treatment or emergency assistance by an emergency medical service provider or rescue specialist, acting under color of his or her official authority; or knowingly obstructs, impairs, or hinders the administration of emergency care or emergency assistance by a volunteer, acting in good faith to render such care or assistance without compensation at the place of an emergency or accident.

(b) To assure that animals used in law enforcement or fire prevention activities are protected from harm, a person commits obstructing a peace officer or firefighter when, by using or threatening to use violence, force, physical interference, or an obstacle, he or she knowingly obstructs, impairs, or hinders any such animal.

(2) It is no defense to a prosecution under this section that the peace officer was acting in an illegal manner, if he was acting under color of his official authority as defined in section 18-8-103 (2).

(3) Repealed.

(4) Obstructing a peace officer, firefighter, emergency medical service provider, rescue specialist, or volunteer is a class 2 misdemeanor.

(5) For purposes of this section, unless the context otherwise requires:

(a) "Emergency medical service provider" means a member of a public or private emergency medical service agency, whether that person is a volunteer or receives compensation for services rendered as such emergency medical service provider.

(b) "Rescue specialist" means a member of a public or private rescue agency, whether that person is a volunteer or receives compensation for services rendered as such rescue specialist.
[/blockquote]

(emphasis added)

Do other states have similar "acting in an illegal manner" provisions?
 
Last edited:
sam59 said:
it's not the same as walking the walk and dealing with the scum day in day out. I can already predict the responses, lets see if I am correct.
I am not sure which responses you are anticipating but I would like to make a point based upon what you stated in the above quote.

By working with scum day in and day out, do you start to see all citizens as scum, or at least believe that each citizen is capable of acting like scum? Are you wary of finding yourself in a vulnerable position with a potentially dangerous citizen?

Then how can you blame me, after hearing story after story about corrupt and/or abusive cops, for fearing finding myself in the hands of a police officer, since I have no way of knowing which of them is, or is at least capable of being, corrupt and/or abusive?

Which type of law breaking citizen do you consider to be scum?

walking the walk
I have no problem with cops who are (continuous tense) walking the walk. Are you attempting to make allowances for cops who WERE walking the walk but finally snapped when they came into contact with one too many scums?

If I were capable of understanding a cop's passive-aggressive misplacement of anger, are you insinuating that I should then find such actions acceptable? It seems we hear similar arguments from impoverished criminals who refuse to accept responsibility for their own actions but instead insist on blaming absolutely everyone and everything for their behavior.

What if this "scum" was at one time an upstanding citizen who, also, WAS a continuous walker of the walk but snapped in his turn as a result of being subjected to some last straw of personal injustice and as a result committed the crime that labeled him "scum"? Will you make allowances for him, or will you turn a blind eye to his mistreatment?

Now if this person somehow got the upper hand against a cop and brutalized him, do you think I would defend his actions or make excuses or allowances? No. Whether or not a person, ANY PERSON, is typically good and law abiding is irrelevant; no excuse should be substituted for the punishment deserved for the commission of a violent or brutal crime.
 
sam59 said:
I dont think the police feel there is an "US Vs Them" mentality at all when talking about the general public. Thats far to broad a statement and as Jashobeam said, your lumping them together. Now, if your talking about "Police Vs. Drug dealers/gang members and all the other POS's running around that are nothing but leaches on society", then you would be correct, it is "US Vs Them".

Ya Think?

When was the last time you saw a cop quoted in a news story saying that another member of his or her department made a bad shoot?

Tell me how the thin blue line protects one of their own when that one goes after a bad cop. Any bad cop.

Serpico is a true story.

It isn't called whack and stack for nothing...


I have been at the scene of 2 police whacks.
both times the cops claimed "fear for their life" one? an amputee couldn't show both his hands.

number two? "He tried to run me over with his car" while said officer was at 90 degrees to the only possible path the car could have traveled. Oh, and the car was on jack stands, with no tires mounted.

The first one, I am shamed to say, I refused to be a witness.

The second caused me to abruptly move to a new state after swearing a affidavit.

I was warned by another cop, that I had made the list for "danger to cop."
But even he wouldn't do anything to stop another whack.
Both incedents were ruled "justified", like that's a surprise.

Funny that so many people in L A, PRK run from the cops, isn't it?
They know they can't escape.
So why run?
They want to get near a crowd, with LOTS of media, so they won't be killed, by a bunch of adrnaline junkies, higher than a speed freak trying pcp.

You don't fit that mould?
GREAT.
Available evidence is that you are a minority in your profession.

My father was a cop in Chicago. He quit in 1984. said it had gotten too corrupt even for him. He doubled his income by shaking down potheads and hookers. I haven't spoken his name since told me how he paid for my first year of college. He also told me that day, not to ever join a force.

Oh. by the way.

A cop on duty has NO rights.
He gives them up to take the power and authority of an agent of the State or other government entity.
It is arguable that he regains his rights, when he goes home at night.
But then, is he not "on duty" 24/7?
---
When a person is whacked , the leo in question has no worries, because he will only be investigated by his brother leos.

Or, should I say, "Comrads."

Your "few" have driven the "us v. them" mentality into the psyche of the them.
Which, of course, is all non leo.

To you good cops, I say, this is YOUR fault. you cannot have been on a force, any force more than a month before witnessing an illeagal act by another officer under color of law. And YOU did nothing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top