but who's more to blame for that? the people releasing the video, or the police officers who brought bad publicity to the department through their actions?dayarath wrote:
I don't see stories or videos of criminals being caught deterring others of doing stupid things later in their lives, why would it work with cops? Couldn't we have just waited for the release of the tape AFTER the case was closed or when the judge gave his approval?jord wrote:
Videos like this should always be made public. If it stops just one Police officer going too far it's done some good.
Releasing it while it's still under review sets the police department entirely in a really bad light.
Well, the cops are going to jail. Not much to say beyond that.
It will be outrageous if they dont
It will be outrageous if they dont
Not knowing when you're being filmed is a pretty good deterrent.dayarath wrote:
I don't see stories or videos of criminals being caught deterring others of doing stupid things later in their lives, why would it work with cops? Couldn't we have just waited for the release of the tape AFTER the case was closed or when the judge gave his approval?jord wrote:
Videos like this should always be made public. If it stops just one Police officer going too far it's done some good.
Releasing it while it's still under review sets the police department entirely in a really bad light.
And yes it does set the police department in a very bad light, just the same as it would if it was released post-review really... There's no excusing one action in that video, it's repugnant.
The police department SHOULD be set in a bad light for this. FIVE police officers committed this act. It wouldn't be a hugely wild assumption to think that maybe the training needs to be changed for that department to try to prevent this type of behavior.
...
Professional eyes are being judged by other professional eyes for unprofessional crimes. Professionality was already out the window. This shit was committed in public view, so I'd say they forfeited their right to privacy by default. By NOT showing the tape, people would suspect even more and start inventing their own exaggerated scenarios of the noble bandit and an entire police force full of corrupt thugs.dayarath wrote:
So who exactly benefits here from your entitlement to know? Aren't professional eyes already judging the tape, aren't they more than qualified enough to do so? Should the entire police department be slandered publicly (because that's what happens with the release of such footage) for the actions of 5 idiots or is its reputation unimportant?unnamednewbie13 wrote:
It's true that publicity here could potentially influence the trial with popular public opinion. Maybe the police should only beat people half to death in the privacy of interrogation rooms, huh?
What do you mean you don't see it? Are you possessed of some sort of clairvoyance in knowing when people are thinking of committing a crime, but suddenly decide not to because of some deterrence factor?dayarath wrote:
I don't see stories or videos of criminals being caught deterring others of doing stupid things later in their lives, why would it work with cops? Couldn't we have just waited for the release of the tape AFTER the case was closed or when the judge gave his approval?jord wrote:
Videos like this should always be made public. If it stops just one Police officer going too far it's done some good.
Releasing it while it's still under review sets the police department entirely in a really bad light.
The police department was already cast in a horrible light by keeping that under wraps as long as it did. One way or the other, it needed to get out, and soon.
This wasn't just a case of one cop tazing someone for being mouthy in a traffic stop. This was a group of the guys beating the crap of a guy already on the ground with his hands clearly visible while other guys ignored it.
because cops have a conscience or are supposed to havedayarath wrote:
I don't see stories or videos of criminals being caught deterring others of doing stupid things later in their lives, why would it work with cops? Couldn't we have just waited for the release of the tape AFTER the case was closed or when the judge gave his approval?jord wrote:
Videos like this should always be made public. If it stops just one Police officer going too far it's done some good.
Releasing it while it's still under review sets the police department entirely in a really bad light.
criminals have none.
apples and oranges
releasing it any time would put the department in a really bad light, unless you released it 100 years from now.
as people here have said, and i agree, the police are there to enforce the law, the courts are there to punish. The police have NO FRIKKEN business punishing anybody. The guy was down and compliant. Slap on the cuffs and take him to the station.
Imagine if it was a case of mistaken identity. It is not like the police have never been wrong before. If this could happen for an innocent man, not saying this guy is innocent, it shouldn't happen period. The police should do their job and leave punishment to the courts.
Last edited by Stubbee (2011-02-08 13:33:42)
The US economy is a giant Ponzi scheme. And 'to big to fail' is code speak for 'niahnahniahniahnah 99 percenters'
And in the same way, the cops shouldn't commit assault. And they'll go to jail for it. Where I can't see them being very popular.Macbeth wrote:
wah1188 wrote:
Shouldn't steal.
Well for the record ( again), I never condoned police brutality, my position is and has always been, I simply don't give a fuck about any misfortunes that befall a criminal. If they get stuck in a chimney and suffocate while trying to B and E, oh well, if the cops beat the fuck out of them when they are caught, oh well. If some great grandmother pulls out a pistol and shoots them dead for trying to steal her purse, I love it.
Personally, I love it when a criminal gets more than they bargain for, for their efforts.
I didin't watch the video, but I will assume it is some asshole criminal that ran into some cops with a hard on for criminals...oh well
Personally, I love it when a criminal gets more than they bargain for, for their efforts.
I didin't watch the video, but I will assume it is some asshole criminal that ran into some cops with a hard on for criminals...oh well
The cops are not supposed to hand out punishments against an "alleged" criminal you goose.
never said they are, I said I don't give a fuck what happens to criminals. The worse the betterAussieReaper wrote:
The cops are not supposed to hand out punishments against an "alleged" criminal you goose.
by the way, is this where I am supposed to go on about how I think you are dumbass and can't read what is posted?, ya know so I fit it better with the current membership, hell, might even make moderator.
Last edited by lowing (2011-02-09 01:23:53)
lowing fuck off back to D&ST
Except they aren't criminals until they've been convicted by a jury.lowing wrote:
never said they are, I said I don't give a fuck what happens to criminals. The worse the better.AussieReaper wrote:
The cops are not supposed to hand out punishments against an "alleged" criminal you goose.
Letting Police officers decide who is guilty and innocent, and who gets a beating are some of the most dangerous ideas in a civilised society.
Especially when the Police are often the dumbest, least educated and most opinionated people in that society.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-02-09 04:40:14)
Fuck Israel
More than you can carry.wah1188 wrote:
Shouldn't steal.
No, just trying not to make this a DST discussion13/f/taiwan wrote:
just a quick question: is everyone who says "Shouldn't steal," advocating the agents actions?
Instead of justifying a reason to steal, it would be more reasonable to go local church food pantry or food bank. Why commit a crime which can escalate into something worse. Being a criminal is no way of providing food on the table.AussieReaper wrote:
unless it's a loaf of bread to give to your starving family.Macbeth wrote:
wah1188 wrote:
Shouldn't steal.
Last edited by loubot (2011-02-09 07:27:15)
So you wouldn't mind if after those cops go to jail they get the shit kicked out of them?lowing wrote:
never said they are, I said I don't give a fuck what happens to criminals. The worse the better.AussieReaper wrote:
The cops are not supposed to hand out punishments against an "alleged" criminal you goose.
I hope they spend the next 20 years on a strict dickcheese diet from the dirtiest scum in the joint.
ƒ³
His name is in the title, I think it's only fair if he states his opinion.Lucien wrote:
lowing fuck off back to D&ST
Cock meat sandwich as punishment
Sorry Dilbert, a criminal is a criminal when he commits a crime. Not getting caught does not make you innocent.Dilbert_X wrote:
Except they aren't criminals until they've been convicted by a jury.lowing wrote:
never said they are, I said I don't give a fuck what happens to criminals. The worse the better.AussieReaper wrote:
The cops are not supposed to hand out punishments against an "alleged" criminal you goose.
Letting Police officers decide who is guilty and innocent, and who gets a beating are some of the most dangerous ideas in a civilised society.
Especially when the Police are often the dumbest, least educated and most opinionated people in that society.
I already feel at homeLucien wrote:
lowing fuck off back to D&ST
the court determines the proof of the crime: INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.lowing wrote:
Sorry Dilbert, a criminal is a criminal when he commits a crime. Not getting caught does not make you innocent.Dilbert_X wrote:
Except they aren't criminals until they've been convicted by a jury.lowing wrote:
never said they are, I said I don't give a fuck what happens to criminals. The worse the better.
Letting Police officers decide who is guilty and innocent, and who gets a beating are some of the most dangerous ideas in a civilised society.
Especially when the Police are often the dumbest, least educated and most opinionated people in that society.
when you are arrested you are arrested 'ON SUSPICION OF', awaiting a criminal TRIAL (which should be fair in any democratic, liberal state)
letting 10 street-pounding meatheads take justice into their own hands by unleashing a can of whoopass on a citizen is ILLEGAL
your understanding of justice is pathetic
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
you know what Ken, you got me on that one. I guess I sympathize with the police because, although far from perfect, they still try and serve their communities and deal with the scum of our society with out much appreciation or fan fare. They are alway second guessed and arm chair quarterbacked by us, AFTER the fact, as we watch frame by frame on youtube, and spout off on what they shoulda done.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
So you wouldn't mind if after those cops go to jail they get the shit kicked out of them?lowing wrote:
never said they are, I said I don't give a fuck what happens to criminals. The worse the better.AussieReaper wrote:
The cops are not supposed to hand out punishments against an "alleged" criminal you goose.
That is kinda what you sign up for when you take a position in community service.
...
justice and guilt or innocence are 2 different things.Uzique wrote:
the court determines the proof of the crime: INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.lowing wrote:
Sorry Dilbert, a criminal is a criminal when he commits a crime. Not getting caught does not make you innocent.Dilbert_X wrote:
Except they aren't criminals until they've been convicted by a jury.
Letting Police officers decide who is guilty and innocent, and who gets a beating are some of the most dangerous ideas in a civilised society.
Especially when the Police are often the dumbest, least educated and most opinionated people in that society.
when you are arrested you are arrested 'ON SUSPICION OF', awaiting a criminal TRIAL (which should be fair in any democratic, liberal state)
letting 10 street-pounding meatheads take justice into their own hands by unleashing a can of whoopass on a citizen is ILLEGAL
your understanding of justice is pathetic
what the court does is give the accused due process to determine if there is enough evidence to convict you. You are guilty or innocent based on whether or not you did it, not on what the court can prove.
In other words, if the court finds you not guilty, that doesn't mean you didn't commit the crime. likewise, if the court finds you guilty and you didn't commit the crime you are not a criminal.
all this bullshit about police being heroes of the local community annoys me. it's a profession. it's a job. it has individual motivations and incentives. these people aren't all valorous local-heroes putting their necks on the line for no reward; the public-community oriented professions have enough representation and thanks for the tasks they perform. i certainly wouldn't thank any of those officers for kicking the shit into a handcuffed, already-detained individual. what does it actually achieve?
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/