the rum soaked fist: internal martial arts forum

cerebus wrote:

Michael wrote:Love how the one cop suddenly realizes the squad car camera is rolling and runs back to shut it off. Also love how the first cop to hit the guy seems to be targeting his right kidney with such rage that he can't keep his footing. How about every cop there gets fired and every cop who touched him during the beating, plus the one who unplugged the camera, get threatened 1-5 years? Then sweat them out and reveal the underlying policy that condones that behavior because this is not an isolated incident, and give whoever failed to stop the policy 1-5 years? Just a thought.

There are so many other new cases you can find daily on youtube of people getting beaten and abused for doing nuttin'.

Well, there is no "policy" condoning that action. It was just human nature uncontrolled...

It may not be in writing, but it's trained, taught, accepted and just as illegal as the other expressions of human nature we have legislation against.

but it's trained, taught, accepted

Accepted? Aw, you should have been around before video. I can remember when most people wouldn't believe that cops would do such a thing. It was video, particularly the Rodney King thing that prompted them to put videos in patrol cars.

Personally, I think they got fired because they broke the law and abused their authority.

But, Mike, I wanted to ask you whether you thought having video surveillance was a good or bad thing. It's ironic that in a police state the police get caught and prosecuted. (See, I think that, in a real police state, the police were never prosecuted (sort of like this country for a while back there). One cop did turn the video off, and the tape sort of "disappeared" for a year. Btw, the guy thought all his injuries occurred in the accident and didn't even know he'd been beaten until he was told about the tape. The fact that the tape surfaced means that it was as repulsive to some people with authority as it is to us.

Surveillance cameras can be good or bad; naturally it depends upon how they're used. I don't think they were put into police cars for the benefit of citizens, but to refute claims against cops, and I'm sure there are bogus claims against cops.

As far as cops being prosecuted in a police state, it's never 100% either freedom or police state, but moving quickly toward the extreme of the latter. In a real police state, everyone is under massive surveillance, which can be used against you at any time. When you're a cop doing what you're told by your commanders you're fine, but if you get out of line whether by stealing too much or refusing an order to beat a pregnant woman trying to escape a protest she'd blundered into (Seattle 1999, WTO marches), then the surveillance is turned against you.

IOW, just because some police are getting prosecuted for their crimes does not mean we don't live in a police state. All of the legislation and infrastructure is now in place in America to have a police state, and to a large extent the only thing that remains is the authorities letting people know how the culture has changed so they will stop complaining and acting all uppity...and getting their guns.

I don't think they were put into police cars for the benefit of citizens, but to refute claims against cops, and I'm sure there are bogus claims against cops.

Absolutely true; the cameras are there to refute claims against police. But it works both ways, as we've seen.

IOW, just because some police are getting prosecuted for their crimes does not mean we don't live in a police state.

By your definition, though, all states are police states to a greater or lesser degree; and you could easily argue that

All of the legislation and infrastructure is now in place in [pick a country] to have a police state

. Where, for example, is the developed country where video surveillance is not increasingly used?

I don't think they were put into police cars for the benefit of citizens, but to refute claims against cops, and I'm sure there are bogus claims against cops.

Absolutely true; the cameras are there to refute claims against police. But it works both ways, as we've seen.

IOW, just because some police are getting prosecuted for their crimes does not mean we don't live in a police state.

By your definition, though, all states are police states to a greater or lesser degree; and you could easily argue that

All of the legislation and infrastructure is now in place in [pick a country] to have a police state

. Where, for example, is the developed country where video surveillance is not increasingly used?

Michael wrote:Well, there is no "policy" condoning that action. It was just human nature uncontrolled...

It may not be in writing, but it's trained, taught, accepted and just as illegal as the other expressions of human nature we have legislation against.[/quote]

Really? It wasn't trained, taught, or accepted when I was in law enforcement. It happened, but if you got caught doing it, they'd slam yer pee-pee in the door for it....

Ha - the righteousness....not a cop lover by any means, but fuck man... I never have had any troubles with a cop because I DONT break the law, I DONT steal cars and I DONT try to run over other cops that are just trying to their job... Cops are not super heroes, most have families, have rage just like everyone else and really like their friends to be alive at the end of the day.
Another thing, rolling up on this guy the cops dont know if he has a gun, on some PCP or whatever and truly I would have done the same, well what the first guy did but not the others, but never know.

Cops used to be know for there brutality and toughness. From what my Gramps has told me no one messed with a cop due to bones were going to be broke. Now their "peace officers" and people shoot at them, spit on them and give them no respect. Truly, give the guys a break the mother fucker was breaking the law to the point he could of killed people and the cops were fired up and scared.

I would give them a break about having rage over one of their own nearly being run over but we can't have police meting out their street justice and getting away with it. That is not their job, and they should immediately have to go and look for new ones. I know in the real world you ARE guilty until proven innocent and the cops main role is to do everything they can to incriminate you, but do you really need to be beaten before taken into custody so the cops can release some of their daily or momentarily tension?

I agree with qiphlow and see this as a problem in training and selection of officer candidates.

while cops are human, they MUST be held to a higher standard and emotionally reactionary angry men make poor policemen.

Yeh, I agree with you there Darth. They are very well trained but at the same time only human.

Ever had someone try to kill you and your buddies? I mean really kill, not just beat up in a fight? I am sure some of us have. Talk about rage, Incredible Hulk style. It was unbelievable. I wanted to murder the guys in the worst possible ways. After that, I gained a new respect for insanity and what people can do when they totally lose control.

I am not condoning police brutality, but I can understand wanting to take out someone who tries to kill you and your buddies.

The inly thing I am wondering is why beat an unconscious guy? He won't feel it, its not going to bother him until he wakes up and if no one told him any different any damage would be attributable to the car wreck. Personally if I were to beat the hell out of a guy for being a douche nozzle like that guy I would want him to be awake. That way I know he is suffering.

Oh well the police should be fired for that behavior though. Its completely understandable but at the same time they need to restrain themselves. Its not the polices job to punish, its their job to Serve and Protect.