• 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!

White cop tackles black mom after she called police for help[W:295]

Objective Voice said:
I don't think anyone is disputing the traffic citation Ms. King was to have received. It's the overbearing and over-aggressive behavior of the police officer that's in question.
Click to expand...

I would dispute that too. According to the officer, she changed lanes without signaling which is not a crime when changing lanes to get out of the way of an emergency vehicle. Bogus stop. I really think police see black people (or minorities in general) as cash cows.

The courts almost always believe the police in those situations, unless there is video footage to prove them wrong. Police officers who lie should be permanently barred from positions in the justice/penal system. Officers fired for cause should be permanently barred from positions in the justice/penal system.
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
...what was she being arrested for in the first place?
Click to expand...

Exactly! Was it from the traffic violation or merely disobeying the officer's "detention" order? And why arrest someone for simply refusing to turn around in the driver's seat of their own vehicle? I could understand if she's swung at him or committed a blatant criminal act, but simply refusing to close your car door? Really?

Now, to be fair I can understand from the officer's perspective perhaps he was concerned she might have tried to flee the scene, but that's something he could have dealt with when and IF it occurred. Getting pissed off simply because someone refused to obey a simple command while being detained - NOT ARRESTED - is no reason for the officer to have conducted himself in the manner in which he did. But I'm not going to rehash this abusive arrest all over again especially since it's not the focus of the thread. My only point with using it as an example was to illustrate how these types of over-aggressive police actions take place. Again, I'll grant you that had Ms. King complied none of that would have happened. But I firmly believe that too often police officers abuse their power. And Ms. King's situation was yet another example of that abuse unfolding. A simple routine traffic stop turned into a show of force and authoritative power.

Sidenote: I noticed no one's mentioned anything concerning the conversation Ms. King had with the patrol officer on the ride to the police station. As I said, there's truth spoken on both sides. Still it's interesting that those who strongly advocate for the police are quick to point the finger at the detainee and point out their faults but never acknowledge when the police are wrong. And during the course of that conversation, the off-camera police officer told the truth. Just interesting that no one has mentioned it.
 
jonny5 said:
Maybe, but still annoying and thus to be ignored.
Click to expand...
Maybe? No, it is appropriate.
All you are saying is that you find debate annoying. Dismissing valid responses because it broke down each individual thing being replied to is indicative of someone who is not capable of providing a valid argument and shouldn't even be here attempting to debate in the first place.




Objective Voice said:
Exactly! Was it from the traffic violation or merely disobeying the officer's "detention" order? And why arrest someone for simply refusing to turn around in the driver's seat of their own vehicle? I could understand if she's swung at him or committed a blatant criminal act, but simply refusing to close your car door? Really?

Now, to be fair I can understand from the officer's perspective perhaps he was concerned she might have tried to flee the scene, but that's something he could have dealt with when and IF it occurred. Getting pissed off simply because someone refused to obey a simple command while being detained - NOT ARRESTED - is no reason for the officer to have conducted himself in the manner in which he did. But I'm not going to rehash this abusive arrest all over again especially since it's not the focus of the thread. My only point with using it as an example was to illustrate how these types of over-aggressive police actions take place. Again, I'll grant you that had Ms. King complied none of that would have happened. But I firmly believe that too often police officers abuse their power. And Ms. King's situation was yet another example of that abuse unfolding. A simple routine traffic stop turned into a show of force and authoritative power.
Click to expand...
You still have no reasonable position.
She was in the wrong and should have followed orders.


Objective Voice said:
Sidenote: I noticed no one's mentioned anything concerning the conversation Ms. King had with the patrol officer on the ride to the police station. [...] Just interesting that no one has mentioned it.
Click to expand...
Why? It is not relevant to what actually happened and no one was arguing anything about it.
So why would anyone respond to it?
 
Excon said:
Maybe? No, it is appropriate.
All you are saying is that you find debate annoying. Dismissing valid responses because it broke down each individual thing being replied to is indicative of someone who is not capable of providing a valid argument and shouldn't even be here attempting to debate in the first place?
Click to expand...

Regardless, I dont have to read it. Back to the topic.
 
jonny5 said:
Regardless, I dont have to read it. Back to the topic.
Click to expand...
Then all you are saying is that you are only here to hear your own voice, and not debate which the forum is for.
 
This thread, it delivers.

LOL!
 
UPdate:

Police say Internal Affairs has a copy of the extended video now and they also have the cell phone, but it has not been analyzed yet.

The officer involved in the incident remains on restricted duty.
Click to expand...

No evidence of racism here. The cop is just a jerk.
 
jonny5 said:
Sure. Now back to the topic.
Click to expand...
Doh!
You have to be willing to discuss and debate the topic in order to get back to it. Thus far you have admitted you are not interested.
 
dirtpoorchris said:
White cop tackles black mom after she called police for help | New York Post



If this cop misused his authority to kidnap people and help his friend or "kin" out instead of the victim then I'm all for enhanced x5 quintupled sentence because these rogue cops really need to be reigned in. Like that cop who just got sentenced to life in prison for tazing the handcuffed, non-fleeing person 12 times until they died. *applause* Every time a cop that is rogue gets away with crime it has the potential to make that whole family and maybe many more distrust the cops FOR LIFE. A cop rogue that abuses authority is 100 times more dangerous than a criminal who has no protection from the cops.
Click to expand...

Well we know the headline couldn't be "cop tackles mom after she called police" WRONG narrative ! :roll:
 
Excon said:
Doh!
You have to be willing to discuss and debate the topic in order to get back to it. Thus far you have admitted you are not interested.
Click to expand...

So stop responding then. Back to the topic.
 
jonny5 said:
Some of the time, the guy is not even white. One time it was a 'white hispanic cop'.
Click to expand...

They drop the Hispanic part it's more eye catching .
 
jonny5 said:
So stop responding then. Back to the topic.
Click to expand...
No, you reply to what was originally quoted and stop deflecting with your irrelevant bs.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Insults from this point on, however light, will result in thread bans at the very least. This is a zero tolerance warning. Posts made before this warning may still be subject to moderation.
 
Now back to the topic. Justice is being served. Hopefully the charges against the mom are dropped and the policeman is disciplined or fired, if warranted by the evidence.

FORT WORTH
Police officials say they will announce Monday whether a white police officer will be disciplined or charged — or both — for his behavior during the arrest of an African-American mother and her two teenage daughters.

The Tarrant County District Attorney’s Office will present evidence in the case to a grand jury, according to authorities. Fort Worth Police Chief Joel Fitzgerald met with the involved officer Friday afternoon, police said.

Read more here: Fort Worth police delay making decision on officer in viral video | The Star-Telegram
Click to expand...
 
jonny5 said:
Now back to the topic.
Click to expand...
Yes, lets get back to discussing the topic and address what previously wasn't.

ashurbanipal said:
jonny5 said:
No, Im saying the mere interaction with law enforcement is force. Once they decide to interact with you, you are being detained by force.
Click to expand...
OK, sure. I'm talking about using physical force--i.e. beating, detaining by putting in handcuffs and forcing into some cage, tasing, shooting, etc.


jonny5 said:
Thats why there are such laws as obstruction and interference. Youre just arguing about the amount of force used.
Click to expand...
No, the kind of force used.


jonny5 said:
And the proper place to supervise that is with supervisors.
Click to expand...
Hmmmm....I agree in principle, but ultimately, the police are civil servants and are therefore subject to judgment, individually and collectively, by the citizenry.


jonny5 said:
LEOs cant do their job if a civilian is going to question every step they make.
Click to expand...
Not every step. Just ones that result in violence. And they should be perfectly capable of doing their jobs under such circumstances. If not, we should find others who can.


jonny5 said:
So we TRUST them to make those decisions, and only steo in when there is a reason.
Click to expand...
Physical violence is a pretty good reason to step in. Citizens have a right not to suffer bodily harm, except in certain circumstances, and for reasons explained in a previous post, the presumption ought to be that any specific instance of physical force is not warranted, and the burden of proof then placed on the police to show otherwise. Where physical force is warranted, it ought to be easy to prove.


jonny5 said:
Which is the opposite of civilians, who are very limited in when they can use force.
Click to expand...
I cannot think of any legitimate difference between when a police officer should be allowed to use physical force and when a citizen should be allowed.
Click to expand...
 
Since my last post in this thread (I think it was my last) got bumped, I went back and read a bit about how the thread developed. Let me be clear about something: the principle I have proposed should be enforced in all circumstances, without leniency or over-prosecution due to race of either the police or the citizen involved. Whether the headline reads:

Black cop tackles white mom
Hispanic cop tackles Japanese mom
Japanese cop tackles black mom
Indian cop tackles Bulgarian National Basketball team

the principle should be the same. The presumption should be that violence was not warranted, and the police should have to prove that it was. Of course, if it was warranted, the officer in question ought not merely to be entirely exonerated, but the recipient of our thanks. One other caveat would be that any physical contact would have to be the sort that might result in serious injury requiring an emergency room visit. An officer taking the wrist of a cooperative suspect to handcuff him or her does not constitute violence. And officer placing a hand on the shoulder of a person to comfort them, grab their attention, or some other such is also not violence. Tackling, punching, tasing, pepper-spraying, clubbing, arm-barring, or shooting are examples of what I mean by "violence." The principle can be easily enforced without any difficulty, as far as I can see, and it should be fair to everyone.

What about cases of he said/she said? Those cases should be extremely rare in this day and age--there are almost always witnesses, if not video. If none of that is to be had, the principle stays the same. The officer can't prove violence was warranted, he/she should be subject to whatever discipline would accrue to a citizen in the same situation. Makes a damn good case for universal body cameras that are functioning at all times.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom