Abusive LEO's, boys in blue protection and strong arming. trend or just how it is?

I could not sleep last night. having some issues with me and the pillow being friends so i stayed up watching COPS. Saw an episode that seriously disturbed me and it got me thinking quite a bit.

An officer was en-route to a shoplifting call at a 7-11. when he arrived and was running behind the store you could clearly hear a child like voice pleading and screaming loudly "please stop hitting me". over and over you heard it until the camera came into focus and there was a image of a man, mid 30's 6'2 250lbs, spider man tee, pajama pants.

he was standing with his back towards a 10 foot stone wall, clutching a stuffed animal, tears coming from his eyes as a older LEO *50's or 60s" was smashing his fully extended 36" police baton back and forth across the mans legs.

the man being hit was not combative, clearly scared, confused and crying. for almost 5 seconds i watched this so called enforcement officer beat this unarmed man in the legs, arms, stomach, and groin with a collapsible baton screaming "get on the ground"........the only response he got was cry's of "please stop hitting me". and who knows how long this had been going on before the other officer and camera crew arrived. the camera was on in the car for at least 25 seconds before the other officer arrived.

when the other officer arrived he put himself between the older LEO and the man. turned him around calmly and placed cuffs on him. and took him away.

when the new officer asked the man what happened he said in clearly scared voice "i took a candy and tried to go home, then that man started hitting me"

it was clear the man was mentally disabled. and probably had the mindset of a 5 year old. the rest of the scene was all the cops talking to each other and justifying the older officers use of force, probably to protect him in court when he gets sued for excessive use of force.


this highly disturbed me. and i started to wonder. when a cop does wrong. i mean really wrong. is there not one single officer on the force who sees this? is there not one officer who maintains his oath? or do they all just flock to protect each other..........even when one has gone too far?

And people think its ok for cops to have unions and fraternal organizations, which only heightens them hiding or putting up with this crap.

happens regularly...

even leads to the subject losing their life. I am only going to say this is what the news posted and it is from the family's side of the equation...

http://www2.wnct.com/news/2011/nov/22/4/family-police-should-have-never-tased-him-ar-1638416/

the patrolman is now sitting on a desk while an internal investigation is ongoing...

wabbit...

ps do not forget the infamous 3 hour search for the MWG on campus involving 60 LEs....MWG was carrying an umbrella...

Boy howdy, you think?

http://riverdalepress.com/stories/Angry-blue-horde-packs-courthouse,49453

November 2, 2011
Angry blue horde packs courthouse

They waved signs, sported custom protest T-shirts, chanted against Mayor Michael Bloomberg and ridiculed the New York Police Department’s white-shirted top brass. It may sound like Zuccotti Park’s Occupy Wall Street protests, but it was the Bronx Criminal Court on Oct. 28 and the protesters were primarily cops.

Crowded into a packed courtroom, in the hallways of the courthouse and in a mass outside, Police Benevolent Association members and their supporters created a raucous scene as 21 people — including 16 Bronx officers and police union officials — were arraigned for a variety of charges related to a three-year-long ticket-fixing investigation.

Inside, a horde of large PBA officials blocked the entrance to the courtroom and set up their own rules — supported by officers of the court — for who should be allowed in and out. First, family of the suspects, then current and former PBA delegates and finally officers of the 48th Precinct, which had several men implicated in the scandal.

The off-duty officers physically blocked a Riverdale Press staffer when she tried to enter the public courtroom. One court officer who would not give his name even threatened to arrest her, though what charge he would have pressed was unclear.

Click to expand...

Does anyone else remember why Rodney King got his butt beat?

The problem, as far as I have bothered to think about it, is that certain cops seem to have an all-or-nothing attitude towards compliance with orders. This seems to come from training that offers only limited ways for them to accomplish certain tasks such as, in this case, handcuffing subjects. Further, there seems to be an administrative reluctance to condone/allow accomplishing certain tasks outside of the manner taught in academy training.

So we get cops in damned-if-you-do situations because liability places their agency in damned-if-you-don't positions.

Yes, cop #2 got away with cuffing the guy in a manner not taught in the academy, without he or the guy getting injured. But what would everybody be saying if the BG or cop #2 had been injured because someone attempted to cuff the BG "improperly"?

Discuss this, instead of generalized cops-are-bad.

stay safe.

Of course not all cops are bad. But there are enough of the bad ones to make a rational-thinking person nervous.

My opinion, for what it is worth, is that several things are at the root of the excessive force problem:

1. The militarization of most, if not all, law enforcement agencies below the federal level. This is almost guaranteed to foster a "them-vs.-us" attitude on the part of too many officers.
2. The fact that police deal with the dregs of society much more frequently than they do with honest, law-abiding citizens. This gives them a highly jaundiced view of society and adds to the "them-vs,-us" attitude.
3. I strongly suspect, and some news stories from here within Alabama have borne this out, that there are some, how many I can't even begin to guess, LEOs illegally using steroids to "bulk up" so they can more easily handle criminals. In turn, this leads to what I am told is "roid rage".
4. Added to all of that is the fact that far too many agencies inadequately train their incoming officers and do not conduct adequate ongoing training.

Solutions (my SWAGs):
1. Forbid the use of military ranks and highly restrict the use of military weaponry and tactics. Disband the dedicated SWAT teams and restrict the use of SWAT to certain well-defined circumstances.
2. Make sure that officers have regular contact with honest citizens. The ride-along programs should be expanded and modified to allow those of us who are legally armed to carry when with the officer. There would have to be some fairly strict guidelines, such as "Do not unholster unless and until the uniformed officer tells you to or there is a clear need to defend the officer."
3. Require frequent random drug testing. We were required to submit to this in the military on a regular basis.
4. Set better standards for academy training and for continuing training after the academy.

Yes, I know my solutions would probably go over with a resounding 'thud' and I also realize that many here will disagree with me. But it's my uneducated stab at correcting what is rapidly becoming a very bad problem.

skidmark said:

Does anyone else remember why Rodney King got his butt beat?

The problem, as far as I have bothered to think about it, is that certain cops seem to have an all-or-nothing attitude towards compliance with orders. This seems to come from training that offers only limited ways for them to accomplish certain tasks such as, in this case, handcuffing subjects. Further, there seems to be an administrative reluctance to condone/allow accomplishing certain tasks outside of the manner taught in academy training.

So we get cops in damned-if-you-do situations because liability places their agency in damned-if-you-don't positions.

Yes, cop #2 got away with cuffing the guy in a manner not taught in the academy, without he or the guy getting injured. But what would everybody be saying if the BG or cop #2 had been injured because someone attempted to cuff the BG "improperly"?

Discuss this, instead of generalized cops-are-bad.

stay safe.

Click to expand...

Gentlemen and ladies too - discuss the facts, methods, results, but do NOT approach LEO bashing - make no mistake about that. Generalizations and broad brush approaches too are over the line.

BTW - "reality" TV isn't any more real than the $64,000. Question was years ago. It's just a new form of entertainment.

Grapeshot said:

Gentlemen and ladies too - discuss the facts, methods, results, but do NOT approach LEO bashing - make no mistake about that. Generalizations and broad brush approaches too are over the line.

Click to expand...

(sigh) Now, approaching LEO bashing, approaching generalizations, and approaching broad brushes is a violation of the Forum Rules?

(sigh) I just checked the Forum Rules. Forum Rule #6 says no general bashing of... Its says nothing about approaching bashing.

(sigh) I guess the moderators make it up as they go along. Or, worse, believe in prior restraint to "deter" a behavior, rather than just penalize the prohibited behavior after it occurs. That used to be the line, right? "Here is the line. Don't cross it, or get deleted, etc." Now, the line moved. Again. To a prior restraint. In order to avoid---a moderator having to enforce the actual rules? (rhetorical question)

(sigh, sigh, sigh)

Citizen said:

(sigh)........snip........(sigh, sigh, sigh)

Click to expand...

Ah the Don de la Mancha.

IMO - it is better to forewarn than to edit and delete - tends to encourage self moderation - especially on a subject that has been over the line so frequently before.

Grapeshot said:

SNIP IMO - it is better to forewarn than to edit and delete - tends to encourage self moderation - especially on a subject that has been over the line so frequently before.

Click to expand...

You understand you just confirmed--literally--my comment about making it up as you go along? Enforcing an opinion (you wrote, "IMO") aka arbitrary is the very core of making it up as you go along, as opposed to enforcing the rules as written.

I request--again--that we be told what the rules really are. If it is going to be these personal opinions, complete with a forceful "make no mistake", then let the Forum Rules be renamed Grapeshot's Rules, and publish those opinions as rules on the Rules page.

Originally Posted by Grapeshot

SNIP IMO - it is better to forewarn than to edit and delete - tends to encourage self moderation - especially on a subject that has been over the line so frequently before.

Click to expand...

Citizen said:

You understand you just confirmed--literally--my comment about making it up as you go along? Enforcing an opinion (you wrote, "IMO") aka arbitrary is the very core of making it up as you go along, as opposed to enforcing the rules as written.

I request--again--that we be told what the rules really are. If it is going to be these personal opinions, complete with a forceful "make no mistake", then let the Forum Rules be renamed Grapeshot's Rules, and publish those opinions as rules on the Rules page.

Click to expand...

Most definitely not so. In this post "IMO" is tied grammatically to "better to forewarn" and "encourage self moderation."

The rules on OCDO are not finite and all inclusive - can't imagine where you got this idea nor why you bring it up again, as we have been over this before. There is rational decision making involved - both subjective and objective. That is what I do.

My decisions, conduct and attitudes can always be appealed to a higher authority - you know the way. I do not pretend to be perfect, nor is my job to please people, but I will do it to the very best of my ability and follow John's instructions and his guidance.

For those that further question the rules or application thereof, please read the "irrevocable acceptance" policy and then consider rule #2.
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/misc.php?do=showrules

I only ask one thing for myself. Please don't make my job harder than it already is. I do not do this for credit, personal or monetary gain. It is quite simply my way of returning something to our community.

R e a l l y !!!

i received private msg received from grapeshot this evening...

quote: With all due respect, I do not intend to "take a breath" regarding this issue.

As your post is frivolous, somewhat condescending, and makes light of a serious point, it has been deleted. unquote

so GRAPESHOT, if YOU feel it doesnt support your particular theme you are promoting, you censure or 'delete' it for being "frivolous, somewhat condenscending, and makes light of a serious point"...good heavens, what specific forum rule was violated with those characteristics?

it would seem, citizen's thoughts and which others have expressed, was correct...under the guise of a 'moderator' you are exhibiting arbitary influence of thread themes through "IMO - it is better to forewarn than to edit and delete..." since you have proven by your actions in dealing with my post which IHMO was posted in a spirit to 'lighten' your rethoric on this thread which you inflamed with your threatening postings about your preceived violation(s) of forum criteria.

yes i intend to raise your arbitrary and now the use of censureship, to a higher authority, as, evidenced from your posted threats and actually censureship of deleting posts you are stifling the free flow of discussion (wait... something about the first amendment comes to thought).

when an individual violates the law of the land, then, and only then, should they be punished per se. ppl should not punished or threatened to be punished for someone's perception the law has been violated. there are numerous discussions throughout this forum about complaints of law enforcement against OC/CC/ who the LEO perceives they are in violation of some illdefined statute.

i reiterate my statement in the post your deleted...lighten up!! when someone crosses the line then warn, edit, or delete as a last resort after discussion w/those involved.

later mate