• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Cop snatches phone and smashes it (gets caught on video anyway)

Ok, so then I'd have to ask is perfection achievable ? I think not...The best we can hope for is that the system works when situations happen.
I would agree that perfection is not achievable. This is just my own opinion, but I think we could lower the rate from 4-5% down to 1%, if we were serious about it. I think 1% is probably the best we could ever realistically do. I do think, however, that we can do better... and should strive to do better when incidents become known.
 
You own your own business - what is the purpose of your haircut?



To look professional so when I speak, or talk to existing or potential clients, I project a confident, well groomed, confident answer to thier problems.


If I dressed like a military contractor, I don't think i'd be as successful.

These officers are supposed to be professionals, scraggily facial hair is not professional.

If you want an "Action job" with a little more danger and the ability to sport a goofy beard/goteae thing, be a bouncer.
 
I am saying that if only a minority of something is dangerous, but you interact with it many times, the danger represented is not the % of X that is dangerous, but % of X that is dangerous times the number of times you interact with it. As an analogy, if a very small minority of M&M's are poisonous, eating them by the handful is still a dangerous enterprise.



No, I was using an analogy in an analogous way. You wanted to use statistics, and you did it poorly.




Again you made an emotional argument, I corrected you with facts and statistics. Thanks for playing.


57223203.jpg
 
1. If cops, but much more importantly prosecutors, and most important of all juries, find police actions in most such cases to be justified, then your perceptions are the ones lacking reality - not mine - and it's you who has to acknowledge the difference between what you perceive as reasonable and what the majority in our communities perceive as reasonable. Prosecutors and juries, based on the provisions of law, set the community standards for police action in such cases.

2. The balance of your post is the chicken/egg argument - which comes first. I'd suggest respecting the police and the role they play by obeying the law, following reasonable instructions from officers performing their duties, and parking your self-entitled "rights" agenda is the first change that needs to take place. That's what the vast majority of those silently sitting on the sidelines, minding their own business, and living their own lives do and expect others to do. The silent majority has no time for the loud mouths and the in your face rights advocates who want to coddle and protect the criminals and miscreants of society.



Gee.....I had this conversation Monday with a veteran VPD.

Respect. It is key. This force is very good, polite, respectful of their 'clients' usually no matter what. They make mistakes. In the old days, they would all band together and try to protect their buddy.

Now, since the Robert Dziekanski murder by RCMP, police here realize one or two ass holes cost them their respect. During the cover up and trial cops in this province could not do their jobs, people flocked to any call out, cameras rolling to catch them tasering someone to death. Writing a speeding ticket became a trip to Danta's inferno as cops had to try to write it out while listening to a sting of vindictives along the lines of "hurry up killer, you're late for another muder"..all cops, not just RCMP.

This was a case of assault. It happens. Take the cop, charge him, fine him and then send him for some training that explains that video of what cops are doing clears them more often than the other way around. And the maladjusted prick might also learn that anymore, everyone is a camera and the more you try to destroy the evidence of your wrongdoing the more videos of you doing there will be.

When you get away from the secret blue shield, you actually get very good policing.

For the record I have been arrested six times, for as a peace demonstrator and two as a journalist in what they tried to say was the wrong place. Each time in the US I came away with a complete disgust and disrespect for American law enforcement.
 
Well I suppose if selling out the Republic and destroying this great experiment in freedom was the goal, that's the way to do it.

Well, glad we agree, that the uber liberal left, anarchist, demo socialists, and alike that have been prominent throughout this Presidency is destroying the nation....
 
I would agree that perfection is not achievable. This is just my own opinion, but I think we could lower the rate from 4-5% down to 1%, if we were serious about it. I think 1% is probably the best we could ever realistically do. I do think, however, that we can do better... and should strive to do better when incidents become known.

Ok, I'm with ya there....By all means call for, and work towards a better system to call abusive cops out, and get them out....I'm all for it.
 
What the hell is that supposed to mean? Look, do I support Law Enforcement? Yes. Does that mean that I give them a free pass? No...So I don't know why you feel the need to attack me.



Who said she had to go up to one of the cops there? That may have been one way, but if she felt uncomfortable, then she could go down to the police station, and file a complaint, and to the courthouse and file charges....

And think about for a second what you are saying, she was bold enough to insert herself close enough to an ongoing police operation that involved danger, but the poor wilting flower is too meek to go file charges....pfft, not buying it.



No quarrel with that statement, but you and I are not the judge.



Really? So tell me, if no charges were filed, who is going to be prosecuted?



Nope, sorry but you're wrong about that.



Now, you are conflating what the SCOTUS was ruling on...It is true that the police are not a "pro active" agency. IOW, they are not there to predict, and conversely prevent crime from happening. That would be impossible. But, if you have an ongoing operation by police, then at that point they ARE tasked with public safety...Why do you think they block off things like hostage situations?

You may not give them a free pass but you sure do spend a lot of time defending their breaking the law. And you started with the attacks first.

Why should she have to file a complaint. Did the other officers not witness the crime. Plus if like you say cops have a duty to protect them shouldn't one have protected her from the assault from the first officer. Those cops standing their watching it happen are as big a part of the problem as the one who broke her camera.

So by your logic if I kill someone and cover my tracks well enough that I am not charged than no crime happened. Do you not understand how crazy that sounds.

Really you didn't make up the part that I would blame the police if she got shot by a stray bullet. Either you can just admit you did or I can quote you. Either way you most certainly did.

Tell me how would her being back across the street, being protected by the police as you say, protect her at all. Is the bullet going to somehow stop in mid air once it crossed the curb. This had nothing to do with protecting her. They just didn't like her filming them. Plain and simple.
 
Ok, I'm with ya there....By all means call for, and work towards a better system to call abusive cops out, and get them out....I'm all for it.

Here here!

What needs to happen is cops need to start thinking that way.

After years of issues, we are now having outside law agencies investigate reports. It is an imperfect solution, but appears to be allaying fears of cover ups, there are less complaints of bias when a cop is cleared
 
Well, glad we agree, that the uber liberal left, anarchist, demo socialists, and alike that have been prominent throughout this Presidency is destroying the nation....

There's lots of stuff that erodes our freedoms and weakens the Republic. The ultra-fascist, authoritarian, Big Brother, Big War, Big Debt statists that have been prominent throughout the past Presidency and the new GOP are amongst the most damaging.
 
To look professional so when I speak, or talk to existing or potential clients, I project a confident, well groomed, confident answer to thier problems.

If I dressed like a military contractor, I don't think i'd be as successful.

These officers are supposed to be professionals, scraggily facial hair is not professional.

If you want an "Action job" with a little more danger and the ability to sport a goofy beard/goteae thing, be a bouncer.

:shrug: there are plenty of US Marshall or Police jobs that are action-oriented. That being said, he made his own decision and apparently his superior is good with it.

Of all the things to descend to, bitching about a dude having a beard untrimmed to your liking is pretty petty.

Again you made an emotional argument, I corrected you with facts and statistics.

No, I made an analogous argument, and you first tried to strawman, and then tried to turn it into a statistical argument, which you did poorly.
 
:shrug: there are plenty of US Marshall or Police jobs that are action-oriented. That being said, he made his own decision and apparently his superior is good with it.

Of all the things to descend to, bitching about a dude having a beard untrimmed to your liking is pretty petty.


The allowance for special operations to grow beards and later some regular forces was due to the culture in those areas of the middle east. Getting all decked out in tactical gear with your tactical beards, you are playing that which you are not among US citizens.

It's not professional.

Not that petty, it goes to the "cops go into battle" "we are warriors fighting a war" ill mentality that is pervasive in modern policing.


No, I made an analogous argument, and you first tried to strawman, and then tried to turn it into a statistical argument, which you did poorly.


You apparently are simply not concerned with integrity. you infered with your "analogy" that police work was dangerous, I proved you wrong. that's it, there it is, end or story.....
 
I am. I LOVE that videos like this surface. It's kinda like the gun debate, though. One bad gun owner does something stupid, and everyone rallies around that, and says we need tougher gun laws, more gun laws, less gun owners, etc etc etc.

Too often, threads like this take an OUTLIER, and paints the entire team with that brush. And I'm tired of it. I'm tired of people saying our police force sucks, and needs to be fixed, needs to have the screws put to them, etc. Because it's simply not true.

Yeah, we have a few bad apples, and thanks to technology, those bad apples are getting a LOT of attention. So address THOSE people, don't smear the entire force. Fire the bad cops, cancel their pension, and hire better replacements.

Ok, fair enough. I cannot control how others perceive me, and I know that some polar opposite of me will always believe I'm "anti-cop", but I try to not come off that way. I know that most cops are decent people, and not directly bad cops*, but there are indeed bad cops out there and they need to be outed. Bringing attention to the bad cops does not automatically equal "cop bashing".

*- I do struggle with the "thin blue line", though. I have a hard time reconciling otherwise good cops covering for outright bad cops.
 
The allowance for special operations to grow beards and later some regular forces was due to the culture in those areas of the middle east.

Nah. Loosening the grooming standards has been a part of SOF since SOF. The "oh, ME Culture" thing just got thrown out there because it sounded good.

Getting all decked out in tactical gear with your tactical beards, you are playing that which you are not among US citizens.

Interesting. So you think that dudes responding to (say) armed rioters burning down (say) LA should do so in shiny blue suits with no body armor, and with 6-shooter snub-noses? Maybe batons? We wouldn't want to accidentally strip anyone of their social security number, after all.

Or... possibly.... the use of tactical gear for tactical situations (say, when dealing with armed and violent or potentially violent criminals) doesn't actually mean that nobody around you ceases to be a US citizen?

It's not professional.

:shrug: depends on your profession.

Not that petty, it goes to the "cops go into battle" "we are warriors fighting a war" ill mentality that is pervasive in modern policing.

In many localities, the lessons we learned in COIN could be very profitably applied. That is one of the problems with your stats game - you are attempting to apply national averages to local conditions when the two are wildly divergent.

You apparently are simply not concerned with integrity. you infered with your "analogy" that police work was dangerous, I proved you wrong. that's it, there it is, end or story.....

No - I inferred with my analogy that his logic was wrong, and you attempted to shift the debate to something you felt more comfortable with, but which you still used badly.
 
1. If cops, but much more importantly prosecutors, and most important of all juries, find police actions in most such cases to be justified, then your perceptions are the ones lacking reality - not mine - and it's you who has to acknowledge the difference between what you perceive as reasonable and what the majority in our communities perceive as reasonable. Prosecutors and juries, based on the provisions of law, set the community standards for police action in such cases.

I don't buy that. Someone posted this article from American Conservative. If people in Chicago submit 10,000 complaints about police misconduct and just 19 resulted in disciplinary action (0.19%), that's a problem. Would you be shocked to learn many residents don't respect cops in Chicago? If 99% of complaints in New Jersey aren't even INVESTIGATED, is that the kind of thing that generates mutual trust and respect? Give me a break.

2. The balance of your post is the chicken/egg argument - which comes first. I'd suggest respecting the police and the role they play by obeying the law, following reasonable instructions from officers performing their duties, and parking your self-entitled "rights" agenda is the first change that needs to take place. That's what the vast majority of those silently sitting on the sidelines, minding their own business, and living their own lives do and expect others to do. The silent majority has no time for the loud mouths and the in your face rights advocates who want to coddle and protect the criminals and miscreants of society.

There's nothing there to respond to except a dismissal of any complaint about cops' misbehavior.
 
Never said they didn't....

Then why are you laughing at the prospect of them creating an app for people to videotape incidents where the rights of any citizen may be violated?
 
Nah. Loosening the grooming standards has been a part of SOF since SOF. The "oh, ME Culture" thing just got thrown out there because it sounded good.

I'm speaking to the most recent reasons given.


Interesting. So you think that dudes responding to (say) armed rioters burning down (say) LA should do so in shiny blue suits with no body armor, and with 6-shooter snub-noses? Maybe batons? We wouldn't want to accidentally strip anyone of their social security number, after all.

I didn't say that at all.

or... possibly.... the use of tactical gear for tactical situations (say, when dealing with armed and violent or potentially violent criminals) doesn't actually mean that nobody around you ceases to be a US citizen?


Or whiny bitches with cameras MIRITE!!!!!?????


:shrug: depends on your profession.

Police officer would require a upkept apperance.



In many localities, the lessons we learned in COIN could be very profitably applied. That is one of the problems with your stats game - you are attempting to apply national averages to local conditions when the two are wildly divergent.


d00d, nationwide, in 2013, 27 officers died. I don't care if it's Newark, NJ or the hamptons, 27 is a stupidly low number for 900,000 LEO's. and as far as that C3 policing, it's a specific tool, that works in specific areas, for specific circumstances and is nothing like pictures one gets when someong uses cool terms like "counter-insrugency".


No - I inferred with my analogy that his logic was wrong, and you attempted to shift the debate to something you felt more comfortable with, but which you still used badly.


you infered **** that wasn't true with your "analogy", I simply corrected your error witht he truth,
 
Of all the recent police shootings that were in the news, how many were former military?

No one said every cop abuses citizens.

It's a false comparison. Cops are not at war, no matter how "mouthy" the rabble get towards them.






He's playing that role, that he most likely never was a part of. it's a fantasy roll, that unfortunately places no LEO's as the "enemy".

Just FYI, in the research I did, the estimates I saw put ex-militarily at about 25% -ish of the overall national police force, but with the wars ending and troops coming home, I've read about programs that are taking vets as a priority. Of 720 new federally funded new positions recently (not sure exact year) 680 were slated for vets. I suspect that the percentages on vets in the force will rise over the next several years.

There is no doubt that military gear, tactics, like preemption, and culture have invaded police forces all over the country. While violent crime is going down, police related violence is on the rise.
 
Just FYI, in the research I did, the estimates I saw put ex-militarily at about 25% -ish of the overall national police force, but with the wars ending and troops coming home, I've read about programs that are taking vets as a priority. Of 720 new federally funded new positions recently (not sure exact year) 680 were slated for vets. I suspect that the percentages on vets in the force will rise over the next several years.

There is no doubt that military gear, tactics, like preemption, and culture have invaded police forces all over the country. While violent crime is going down, police related violence is on the rise.



Last I read it was 10% and deparments look for specific non combat military jobs to hire, they are worried about PTSD and **** like that, it was in military times, I will try to find it.
 
Let me just say, from the short snippet of what happened that we saw, I do NOT condone the police officers actions, however, don't we have to ask ourselves why it is that outlets like NBC are pushing this meme...? I mean, you and others that can be so easily manipulated by a 10 second snip of footage, and a narrative need to back up a moment, and check why you are falling for this silliness.
It probably has something to do with men being shot in the back while running away, and the incident being caught on video.

But, that's just a guess, of course.

There may be another reason a cop feels justified in committing assault because a citizen is recording his actions.
 
There's lots of stuff that erodes our freedoms and weakens the Republic. The ultra-fascist, authoritarian, Big Brother, Big War, Big Debt statists that have been prominent throughout the past Presidency and the new GOP are amongst the most damaging.

Well, it's a fragile balance isn't it....? Look, I doubt that you'll be pulling the lever for any GOP candidates, just as I wouldn't vote in a liberal if you paid me. But in the end both sides have dug in their heels at the furthest points of the spectrum, and are refusing to budge, so, we will have this wild swing in the foreseeable future unless some reason is injected.

The propensity to take isolated incidents and paint entire groups of people with them is not helpful, wouldn't you agree?
 
Then why are you laughing at the prospect of them creating an app for people to videotape incidents where the rights of any citizen may be violated?

Because it struck me as funny.
 
I'm speaking to the most recent reasons given.

:shrug: which was never really the reason at all. Otherwise we would have extended that to our entire deployed force during COIN operations.

I didn't say that at all.

:) One strawman deserves another.

Or whiny bitches with cameras MIRITE!!!!!?????

:shrug: I haven't defended the officers' actions in this thread.

However, I note that you are attempting (again) a strawman to attempt to spin away from a point. Are you seriously willing to state that the use of tactical gear for tactical situations (say, when dealing with armed and violent or potentially violent criminals) is wrong for our police forces?

Police officer would require a upkept apperance.

:shrug: that depends on the nature of his particular job.

d00d, nationwide, in 2013, 27 officers died.

:shrug: and how many were injured, shot at, attacked, in the neighborhoods where these incidents are occurring?

Your complaint is that many police officers are coming to view the populace as an "other", as someone who see's them as an enemy, and thus reacts to them in overly-militarized ways. But that isn't happening everywhere, now, is it? It's mostly happening where the local populace see's the police as the enemy.

and as far as that C3 policing, it's a specific tool, that works in specific areas, for specific circumstances and is nothing like pictures one gets when someong uses cool terms like "counter-insrugency".

I don't care what you choose to call it, the lessons are solid and they deserve to be applied. In many ways, in fact, much of what we fed into COIN we got from successful policing lessons, such as the Broken Windows campaign in New York.


you infered **** that wasn't true with your "analogy", I simply corrected your error witht he truth,

I said nothing about the relative danger of being a police officer from a statistical point of view with my analogy, I pointed out that his logic was flawed with my analogy.
 
It probably has something to do with men being shot in the back while running away, and the incident being caught on video.

But, that's just a guess, of course.

There may be another reason a cop feels justified in committing assault because a citizen is recording his actions.

Again not condoning the actions of the Marshall, but, from a story yesterday about the incident:

"In the video, Paez is shown standing on the sidewalk aiming a cellphone toward two men standing a short distance away, wearing black shirts with tactical vests reading “Police” across the back. As the men stand with their backs to the woman, she can be heard saying “You are making me feel unsafe, and I have a right to be here” and “You need to stay away from me, I don’t feel safe with you closer to me,” among other statements."

Now, as a reasonable person Ditto, you know it's probably not the smartest thing to do to be so close that you can taunt the police carrying out an operation like that, then continue to film...We also don't know what the "other statements" that the reporter here decided to leave out of his story....With that said...

"The U.S. Marshals Service is aware of video footage of an incident that took place Sunday in Los Angeles County involving a Deputy U.S. Marshal. The agency is currently reviewing the incident,” officials said in a statement.

“There is no situation in which an officer can intentionally grab and destroy a camera being used to lawfully record law enforcement,” said Hector Villagra, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California. “The officer’s conduct is a blatant and deliberate violation of the Constitution and his duties as an officer to abide by the law.”

With smartphones everywhere, police on notice they may be caught on camera - LA Times

So, not only is the Marshall service looking at it, but so is the ACLU...My guess is this will get resolved.
 
Because it struck me as funny.

That's cool that you find an application that helps any citizen report a violation of their civil rights as 'funny'. Very authori-chic.
 
Back
Top Bottom