# Excessive force by Police



## TobiasRieper (Mar 14, 2008)

About twice a month a see a story on the news about excessive force by police (or police brutality) and it makes me mad. I think there should be an intense psycological test on the people that support the law, (ie. Police) test weather they will snap when it comes to criminals. I know they face alot of sh*t often, but I think they need to keep their heads straight sometimes and not beat a criminal when they are already handcuffed. The amount I see of abusive behavour by police officers on the news is way TOO OFTEN.

Whats your opinion.


----------



## Mettle (Dec 29, 2003)

Police in Montreal just shot and killed an unarmed 18 year old and started a riot. Then stood by as the rioters went to town. Morons.


----------



## Ja'eh (Jan 8, 2007)

Mettle said:


> Police in Montreal just shot and killed an unarmed 18 year old and started a riot. Then stood by as the rioters went to town. Morons.


Quebec's policing and politics have been debatable for decades.


----------



## scent troll (Apr 4, 2005)

i cant really vote on that. whats excessive force? its disputable. obviously if we're talking about some rapist or thug wielding a weapon not giving a sh*t about anyone, YES, use all the force you damn well want...but if we're talking my wife being a little bitchy getting issued a traffic ticket and the cops able to body slam her on the ground cause shes lipping off...obviously no!

it always comes down to a situation. police have the right to use force and defend themselves. they shouldnt have to take a bullet before that can deliver one...but on the same note they shouldnt have free range to do whatever however. we all know that police are still people like you and i, and like people, some have less than desirable qualities. for that reason they arent perfect and still need lines to stay in while on duety.


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

"Excessive" *by definition* is _going beyond the usual, necessary, or proper limit or degree; characterized by excess_ . So obviously it's unacceptable.

And Ocellatus - what's excessive or not will vary tremendously if you're dealing with a weapon-wielding thug or a suburban housewife, so I am not sure what you're getting at


----------



## scent troll (Apr 4, 2005)

Jewelz said:


> "Excessive" *by definition* is _going beyond the usual, necessary, or proper limit or degree; characterized by excess_ . So obviously it's unacceptable.
> 
> And Ocellatus - what's excessive or not will vary tremendously if you're dealing with a weapon-wielding thug or a suburban housewife, so I am not sure what you're getting at


i think what i was getting at is the ability or acceptable limits an officer can use in dealing with that person or this person. i used physical force as one example. can a cop just as rightfully restrain someone for running their mouth as they could for wielding a weapon? 
i think not. and its an obvious example to give substance to my point of individual basis i also stated. to accept or deny something like excessive force across the board is pretty dumb. its obviously going to depend on WHAT the force was used for. in my case, to subdue an armed criminal. but the same acceptable force used to combat someones attitude might be truely excessive and not necessary


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

Ocellatus2000 said:


> "Excessive" *by definition* is _going beyond the usual, necessary, or proper limit or degree; characterized by excess_ . So obviously it's unacceptable.
> 
> And Ocellatus - what's excessive or not will vary tremendously if you're dealing with a weapon-wielding thug or a suburban housewife, so I am not sure what you're getting at


i think what i was getting at is the ability or acceptable limits an officer can use in dealing with that person or this person. i used physical force as one example. can a cop just as rightfully restrain someone for running their mouth as they could for wielding a weapon? 
i think not. and its an obvious example to give substance to my point of individual basis i also stated. to accept or deny something like excessive force across the board is pretty dumb. its obviously going to depend on WHAT the force was used for. in my case, to subdue an armed criminal. but the same acceptable force used to combat someones attitude might be truely excessive and not necessary
[/quote]

Oh, I see, you were just talking about what's excessive depending on which situation. Good enough.

I just find it hard to believe that half of the people in the poll voted that excessive is acceptable when excessive is UNacceptable by definition - even though we may argue over what's excessive or what isn't till we're blue in the face, bottom line is whatever our individual definition of excess may be, the moment something crosses the threshold into excess is when it ceases to be acceptable.


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

I personally am disgusted how we as a society treat our police officers. I think if someone is mouthing off they should get a crack across the skull...then maybe next time they will just stfu and realize that bitching and moaning will accomplish zero. That their time to contest any injustice is in the court system...not at the time of arrest or when they get a ticket. I am so tired of seeing how disrespectful people are to not only the police...but just to others in general. It all stems back to lack of parenting. So many kids today have zero respect for anyone. How they treat the older citizens in this country is horrible.

99% of the time you see something about excessive force when people are acting like fricken idiots and run from the police. You dont see the cops walk up to a driver they pulled over for a traffic violation and crack them with a club. You see it when people try and run from the police creating a very dangerous situation for other drivers. I dont have a problem with the police using a little extra force then needed on people that dont just put their hands up and face the fact that they have been caught.


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

Grosse Gurke said:


> I personally am disgusted how we as a society treat our police officers. I think if someone is mouthing off they should get a crack across the skull...then maybe next time they will just stfu and realize that bitching and moaning will accomplish zero. *That their time to contest any injustice is in the court system.*..not at the time of arrest or when they get a ticket.


Yeah, haha, you'd rather them get a multi-million dollar settlement courtesy of the tax-payer (see King, Rodney) than the police officers show a little restraint. There are millions of deadbeats out there just waiting to get cracked across the skull so they can hit jackpot too.


----------



## JoeDizzleMPLS (Nov 5, 2007)

i think that people would be much more respectful to police officers if every police officer showed a bit more respect to the people. obviously there are certain situations where respect isn't warranted, but the problem lies with police officers that walk around thinking that they are above the law, and in effect, they become detached from the people that they are supposed to be serving.


----------



## armac (Nov 28, 2002)

joedizzlempls said:


> i think that people would be much more respectful to police officers if every police officer showed a bit more respect to the people. obviously there are certain situations where respect isn't warranted, but the problem lies with police officers that walk around thinking that they are above the law, and in effect, they become detached from the people that they are supposed to be serving.


You are a convicted felon, right?


----------



## JoeDizzleMPLS (Nov 5, 2007)

armac said:


> i think that people would be much more respectful to police officers if every police officer showed a bit more respect to the people. obviously there are certain situations where respect isn't warranted, but the problem lies with police officers that walk around thinking that they are above the law, and in effect, they become detached from the people that they are supposed to be serving.


You are a convicted felon, right?
[/quote]

yep, i was a pretty stupid teenager, not sure what that has to do with anything tho


----------



## swack (May 29, 2007)

out of line armac

however, if you are respectful towards officers, answer clearly and honestly 99.9999999999999999999999999999% of the time you will be fine.


----------



## CichlidAddict (Jul 1, 2005)

Grosse Gurke said:


> 99% of the time you see something about excessive force when people are acting like fricken idiots and run from the police. You dont see the cops walk up to a driver they pulled over for a traffic violation and crack them with a club. You see it when people try and run from the police creating a very dangerous situation for other drivers. I dont have a problem with the police using a little extra force then needed on people that dont just put their hands up and face the fact that they have been caught.


QFT. I couldn't agree more - it's always someone mouthing off, running, and/or not doing what the officer tells them. They give the officer zero respect and then whine when they get put on the ground a little too hard for their liking.


----------



## ICEE (Feb 3, 2007)

I hate pigs.


----------



## cobrafox46 (Jun 2, 2008)

armac said:


> i think that people would be much more respectful to police officers if every police officer showed a bit more respect to the people. obviously there are certain situations where respect isn't warranted, but the problem lies with police officers that walk around thinking that they are above the law, and in effect, they become detached from the people that they are supposed to be serving.


You are a convicted felon, right?
[/quote]

And you are more than likely a cop or involved with some type of law enforcement. I am guessing because that is the exact kind of rude sh*t that gives cops a bad name. Someone states an opinion and it is automatically wrong and you have to talk down to or point out something someone has done wrong. What gives you the right to ask that?? Just because someone is a felon automatically makes them trash and their opinion does not matter! I have done some dumb sh*t in my life also but I would do anything to help a fellow human being out unlike some officers!! Hell we just had an officer arrested for taking money from a charity in my town. One county over a town Marshall is being prosecuted for having a meth lab and Child molestation of his own daughter!! I have no problem with police and I am always polite to them and respect them. But like Joe said there are some that think they are above the law and go out of their way to make a situation worse than it is.


----------



## mori0174 (Mar 31, 2004)

The only thing I usually add to conversations like this is that there are bad apples in every profession. There is a psych exam for almost all officers, but each state has their own requirements. A lot of people expect perfection from police and their hiring practices. In reality, there will always be a few people who get through and make bad decisions. There will also be good officers who make a mistake. There will also be sensationalized news stories showing police wrongdoing when in reality the officers followed policy to a T.


----------



## Wide_Eyed_Wanderer (Aug 22, 2006)

I mouthed off to a policeman once and he said "shutup you pussyfuck" and he kicked me. I learned my lesson that day.


----------



## Nevermind (Aug 16, 2007)

If you dont want to get your ass handed to you by the cops, dont be a douche. I was at my buddies apartment the other day, and there was a police standoff there. Some guy had some loaded guns in the apartment with him and had threatened to stab someone, the swat team showed up there, and they forcibly removed the douchebag. Should they have not thrown him to the ground to handcuff him, even tho there were reports of loaded guns, and knives and stuff in with him?

I agree with GG totally about how police officers are treated nowadays, they are there putting their lives in harm's way, to keep us safe from idiots, and people slag them for beating a guy up who pulls a knife or something. This is to all the people who whine and bitch about cops --->


----------



## mike123 (Jul 17, 2006)

If you dont want to get your ass beat obey the law. Police have a very dangerous job, they often find themselves in dangerous positions with dangerous people, if they need to use force they should use it. Id much rather see a cop laying the smack down on some retard who broke the law than seeing some guy beat a cop.


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

Jewelz said:


> I personally am disgusted how we as a society treat our police officers. I think if someone is mouthing off they should get a crack across the skull...then maybe next time they will just stfu and realize that bitching and moaning will accomplish zero. *That their time to contest any injustice is in the court system.*..not at the time of arrest or when they get a ticket.


Yeah, haha, you'd rather them get a multi-million dollar settlement courtesy of the tax-payer (see King, Rodney) than the police officers show a little restraint. There are millions of deadbeats out there just waiting to get cracked across the skull so they can hit jackpot too.
[/quote]
Well...I was referring to arguing the validity of the ticket or the reason for the arrest. I wasnt talking about criminals suing for excessive force. I dont think a criminal should be monetarily rewarded for anything that happens because they are breaking the law. IMO....once you try to evade capture....you are free game. You run...you deserve a beatdown if they catch you. You get away...good for you. There should be a price to pay for running though. As it is...why not run? For serious crimes...there no incentive to not run. Now if you make resisting arrest punishable by a beatdown and 10 years in prison....maybe some of those petty criminals wouldnt run so often.


----------



## stackbrickz (Feb 22, 2008)

I don't know about where you guys live, But where I'm from it seems that their badges go to their heads. Not all, but most. Their not so tough with-out those badges and guns..... Give someone a little power and they get crazed it seems. I myself have very little respect for them anymore. And I can say this from experience, I was a good law abiding citizen caught up in something I had no intentions of ever being involved with. Wrong place at the wrong time. And I was beatin the f*ck down by 8 cops for being somewhere. Not even being involved in the situation at hand the were tending to. Just by being an innocent bystander. So just like NWA said years ago f*ck THE POLICE.


----------



## Shred Revolution (May 16, 2003)

Grosse Gurke said:


> I personally am disgusted how we as a society treat our police officers. I think if someone is mouthing off they should get a crack across the skull...then maybe next time they will just stfu and realize that bitching and moaning will accomplish zero. That their time to contest any injustice is in the court system...not at the time of arrest or when they get a ticket. I am so tired of seeing how disrespectful people are to not only the police...but just to others in general. It all stems back to lack of parenting. So many kids today have zero respect for anyone. How they treat the older citizens in this country is horrible.
> 
> 99% of the time you see something about excessive force when people are acting like fricken idiots and run from the police. You dont see the cops walk up to a driver they pulled over for a traffic violation and crack them with a club. You see it when people try and run from the police creating a very dangerous situation for other drivers. I dont have a problem with the police using a little extra force then needed on people that dont just put their hands up and face the fact that they have been caught.


BRAVO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GG finally said something worth reading


----------



## Piranha Dan (Nov 11, 2007)

Remember Rodney King? The 'poor innocent victim' of a beating by the LAPD? Yea, right. What that cameraman didn't catch was the part of the altercation where King, high as a kite on PCP, was trying to kill the cops with a tire iron. In that case, they were doing the dumb sh*t a favor by beating him down with their clubs, they would've been well within their rights to have just shot him.
I'd say roughly 99% of the peopel that get beat down by cops desearve it. Either they disrespect the officer, try to run, dump the drugs they're carrying, whatever. There are occasions where cops go too far, but they're few and far between, imho.


----------



## Scrappy (Oct 21, 2004)

joedizzlempls said:


> Remember Rodney King? The 'poor innocent victim' of a beating by the LAPD? Yea, right. What that cameraman didn't catch was the part of the altercation where King, high as a kite on PCP, was trying to kill the cops with a tire iron. In that case, they were doing the dumb sh*t a favor by beating him down with their clubs, they would've been well within their rights to have just shot him.
> I'd say roughly 99% of the peopel that get beat down by cops desearve it. Either they disrespect the officer, try to run, dump the drugs they're carrying, whatever. There are occasions where cops go too far, but they're few and far between, imho.


That was way BEYOND excessive force. I could care less if they roughed him up a little after they had him under control, but those cops were trying to kill him with their billyclubs.


----------



## scent troll (Apr 4, 2005)

Piranha Dan said:


> Remember Rodney King? The 'poor innocent victim' of a beating by the LAPD? Yea, right. What that cameraman didn't catch was the part of the altercation where King, high as a kite on PCP, was trying to kill the cops with a tire iron. In that case, they were doing the dumb sh*t a favor by beating him down with their clubs, they would've been well within their rights to have just shot him.
> I'd say roughly 99% of the peopel that get beat down by cops desearve it. Either they disrespect the officer, try to run, dump the drugs they're carrying, whatever. There are occasions where cops go too far, but they're few and far between, imho.


completely agree on the rodney king example. i wont back up your 99% of everyone who gets beat down deserve it. i couldnt possibly know if thats just or not. but some of the well documented examples of "police brutality" are usually very spun out of context examples.


----------



## ProdigalMarine (Jan 31, 2003)

Before you gents/ladies vote on what "excessive force" is, did you all consider the events that led UP to these so-called police brutalities?

Whatever you all see on the news, youtube or whatever media outlet, you only see a portion of the video and not the ENTIRE story. In a ways, its kinda like the "excessive force" overseas troops "utilize on poor war-torn civilians"...you all didn't see or encounter the entire story yet you judge on what happened as a result of the events.

I am in no way defending or promoting use of excessive force because I'm still learning the steps it takes to be an officer of the law at the Academy AND that I've seen a few videos where excessive force WAS used. I'm just stating that perhaps you should take a closer look at what happened instead of quickly labeling it "excessive force."


----------



## Piranha Dan (Nov 11, 2007)

^^Exactly what I'm talking about^^



Scrappy said:


> That was way BEYOND excessive force. I could care less if they roughed him up a little after they had him under control, but those cops were trying to kill him with their billyclubs.


Taking PCP makes you, among other things, not feel pain. It also gives you ridiculous strength and makes you pissed off. They beat him so bad becasuse he kept trying to get up and attack them again. Seriously, look up the facts on the case. There's a reason those cops got off scott-free.


----------



## Avatar~God (Oct 21, 2004)

Piranha Dan said:


> That was way BEYOND excessive force. I could care less if they roughed him up a little after they had him under control, but those cops were trying to kill him with their billyclubs.


Taking PCP makes you, among other things, not feel pain. It also gives you ridiculous strength and makes you pissed off. They beat him so bad becasuse he kept trying to get up and attack them again. Seriously, look up the facts on the case. There's a reason those cops got off scott-free.
[/quote]

I have been watching alot of documentaries on the war's in Iraq and Afghanistan and they often time find the terrorist using pcp and other drugs so that they dont feel pain. On one documentary a soldier was saying how they shot this house three times with a tank and shot it to hell and no normal human could survive. When they get in there, there was a guy that was extremely hurt to the point where a normal person would pass out from the pain or even die and he was just bleeding to death and still shooting at them. They found pcp on him.

As far as excessive force is concerned, I believe that most cases are thrown way out of proportion just so that people have something to bitch about. I know some cops go far and beyond what protocol calls for but the average cop knows his boundaries and are just doing what they were taught. Also think about the thousands of cases where cops do a perfect job handling bad situations and those all go unseen (not including the show "Cops") but when one cop goes too far (in any case) it gives all cops a bad name.


----------



## Piranha Dan (Nov 11, 2007)

Exactly. The only way to subdue somebody on that sh*t is to kill them or beat them to the point where they can't get up again. The cops were actually doing "poor Mr. King" a favor.


----------



## philbert (Mar 8, 2007)

honestly i think we have it pretty easy here when it comes to how the police treat us. i've traveled a lot and i've seen cops do some crazy sh*t. i when i was in ukraine i saw a cop crack a drunk guy in the neck with his billy club then kicked him down a hill. all bc the cop didn't think the guy was moving fast enough after he told him to leave. another time in monterey mexico i was probably 14 when i was there with my pops on business we saw a 2 cops beat a guy unconious at the best maybe he even died idk he stole a purse from a lady the cops were right there. he ran they chased him down and really fucked him up. a lot of ppl don't like the cops so they give them a hard time so cops get jaded and desensitized after doing it for a while


----------



## SweetRose (Nov 12, 2005)

Grosse Gurke said:


> I personally am disgusted how we as a society treat our police officers. I think if someone is mouthing off they should get a crack across the skull...then maybe next time they will just stfu and realize that bitching and moaning will accomplish zero. That their time to contest any injustice is in the court system...not at the time of arrest or when they get a ticket. I am so tired of seeing how disrespectful people are to not only the police...but just to others in general. It all stems back to lack of parenting. So many kids today have zero respect for anyone. How they treat the older citizens in this country is horrible.
> 
> 99% of the time you see something about excessive force when people are acting like fricken idiots and run from the police. You dont see the cops walk up to a driver they pulled over for a traffic violation and crack them with a club. You see it when people try and run from the police creating a very dangerous situation for other drivers. I dont have a problem with the police using a little extra force then needed on people that dont just put their hands up and face the fact that they have been caught.


Yeah, I have no sympathy for people who speed off away from the cops. They obviously don't care about all the people they endanger and almost kill, they only care about themselves. For some people, consequences are the only things that deter them from endangering others, since they lack any moral code.


----------



## Exodon_Tetra (May 10, 2005)

I live in a big city. Last month, a police officer shot an unarmed man in the back and he died. The same police officer also shot and killed an unarmed man a year and a half ago. This was his second killing of two unarmed people.


----------



## mori0174 (Mar 31, 2004)

Exodon_Tetra said:


> I live in a big city. Last month, a police officer shot an unarmed man in the back and he died. The same police officer also shot and killed an unarmed man a year and a half ago. This was his second killing of two unarmed people.


What big city do you live in and who is the officer you are talking about? I ask because the story you just threw out there doesn't make sense. So, what city and who is the officer?


----------



## Scrappy (Oct 21, 2004)

Piranha Dan said:


> That was way BEYOND excessive force. I could care less if they roughed him up a little after they had him under control, but those cops were trying to kill him with their billyclubs.


Taking PCP makes you, among other things, not feel pain. It also gives you ridiculous strength and makes you pissed off. They beat him so bad becasuse he kept trying to get up and attack them again. Seriously, look up the facts on the case. There's a reason those cops got off scott-free.
[/quote]
All is see is someone getting his ass kicked.


----------



## Piranha Dan (Nov 11, 2007)

Scrappy said:


> That was way BEYOND excessive force. I could care less if they roughed him up a little after they had him under control, but those cops were trying to kill him with their billyclubs.


Taking PCP makes you, among other things, not feel pain. It also gives you ridiculous strength and makes you pissed off. They beat him so bad becasuse he kept trying to get up and attack them again. Seriously, look up the facts on the case. There's a reason those cops got off scott-free.
[/quote]
All is see is someone getting his ass kicked. 




[/quote]
What I see is a suspect not complying with police to lay down on the ground and not move. Notice how they only hit him when he moves? if you're stupid (or high) enough to not listen to the commands of that many cops holding billy clubs you get what you desearve.


----------



## Nick G (Jul 15, 2007)

mori0174 said:


> The only thing I usually add to conversations like this is that there are bad apples in every profession. There is a psych exam for almost all officers, but each state has their own requirements. A lot of people expect perfection from police and their hiring practices. In reality, there will always be a few people who get through and make bad decisions. There will also be good officers who make a mistake. There will also be sensationalized news stories showing police wrongdoing when in reality the officers followed policy to a T.


x2

i dont agree however, that mouthing off to someone gives them the right to use force in return. 
if someone mouths off to me.... i cant hit them, i just breathe deep, and be the better person.
sure, if u touch a cop, you deserve to get ur head kicked in, but if its just words, then policement should be man enough to take it, and absolutely shouldnt have the right to return with force.


----------



## Scrappy (Oct 21, 2004)

Piranha Dan said:


> That was way BEYOND excessive force. I could care less if they roughed him up a little after they had him under control, but those cops were trying to kill him with their billyclubs.


Taking PCP makes you, among other things, not feel pain. It also gives you ridiculous strength and makes you pissed off. They beat him so bad becasuse he kept trying to get up and attack them again. Seriously, look up the facts on the case. There's a reason those cops got off scott-free.
[/quote]
All is see is someone getting his ass kicked. 




[/quote]
What I see is a suspect not complying with police to lay down on the ground and not move. Notice how they only hit him when he moves? if you're stupid (or high) enough to not listen to the commands of that many cops holding billy clubs you get what you desearve.
[/quote]
So 7 cops couldn't subdue this guy? Give me a break, they just wanted to whoop his ass. The role of police isn't to be judge, jury, and executioner. When this crap happens they just get themselves in a heap of trouble, f up any case the prosecutor has, and turn what would be a criminal into a millionaire.


----------



## Nick G (Jul 15, 2007)

^^i agree. if they wanted to subdue him, while he was laying on the ground motionless, they slap the cuffs on.
instead they just kept hitting him, slowing down, then when he tries to get up, start pummeling him again.

the fact that the cops who did this got off scott-free isnt proof at all that they were innocent.


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

Nick G said:


> i dont agree however, that mouthing off to someone gives them the right to use force in return.
> if someone mouths off to me.... i cant hit them, i just breathe deep, and be the better person.
> sure, if u touch a cop, you deserve to get ur head kicked in, but if its just words, then policement should be man enough to take it, and absolutely shouldnt have the right to return with force.


I couldnt disagree more. I think people that talk smack to a police officer should get their teeth kicked in. People need to learn to treat others with respect...and this isnt just about police officers...it is just your fellow man in general. Part of what is wrong with todays society is that there is too much disrespect going around.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

Grosse Gurke said:


> I personally am disgusted how we as a society treat our police officers. I think if someone is mouthing off they should get a crack across the skull...then maybe next time they will just stfu and realize that bitching and moaning will accomplish zero. That their time to contest any injustice is in the court system...not at the time of arrest or when they get a ticket. I am so tired of seeing how disrespectful people are to not only the police...but just to others in general. It all stems back to lack of parenting. So many kids today have zero respect for anyone. How they treat the older citizens in this country is horrible.
> 
> 99% of the time you see something about excessive force when people are acting like fricken idiots and run from the police. You dont see the cops walk up to a driver they pulled over for a traffic violation and crack them with a club. You see it when people try and run from the police creating a very dangerous situation for other drivers. I dont have a problem with the police using a little extra force then needed on people that dont just put their hands up and face the fact that they have been caught.


cracking someone across the skull is going beyond the scope of a police officers job. police officers do not issue punishment except in traffic infractions. police officers are there to enforce what is on the books. if someone is mouthing off, let the judicial system crack them across the skull, not the officer. i think frankly it's disgusting how some people will condone such acts by police officers and blame it on stress or whatever. that's complete bullshit. 2 towns over from me the chief of police was booked for a DUI as well as 3 other officers in their tenures...they all still have jobs. to protect and serve must be the biggest BS line ever written. maybe at some point in police history, but still you can hardly utter the word police followed by any point in history, without hearing about corruption.


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

r1dermon said:


> cracking someone across the skull is going beyond the scope of a police officers job. police officers do not issue punishment except in traffic infractions. police officers are there to enforce what is on the books. if someone is mouthing off, let the judicial system crack them across the skull, not the officer. i think frankly it's disgusting how some people will condone such acts by police officers and blame it on stress or whatever. that's complete bullshit. 2 towns over from me the chief of police was booked for a DUI as well as 3 other officers in their tenures...they all still have jobs. to protect and serve must be the biggest BS line ever written. maybe at some point in police history, but still you can hardly utter the word police followed by any point in history, without hearing about corruption.


The problem with this post r1der...is that you are the kind of person that needs a good beatdown....so of course you are against it. It is all about self preservation for you.


----------



## Nick G (Jul 15, 2007)

Grosse Gurke said:


> i dont agree however, that mouthing off to someone gives them the right to use force in return.
> if someone mouths off to me.... i cant hit them, i just breathe deep, and be the better person.
> sure, if u touch a cop, you deserve to get ur head kicked in, but if its just words, then policement should be man enough to take it, and absolutely shouldnt have the right to return with force.


I couldnt disagree more. I think people that talk smack to a police officer should get their teeth kicked in. People need to learn to treat others with respect...and this isnt just about police officers...it is just your fellow man in general. Part of what is wrong with todays society is that there is too much disrespect going around.
[/quote]
ok, well i agree that smack talk can result in beatings if that goes to everyone, not just police. 
as in, if im at a mets game with a phillies hat on and some drunk asshole starts yelling at me like i had anything to do with the outcome of the game (true story), and, instead of walking away, i just turn back and kick the ever loving sh*t out of him (which i really wanted to do), thats ok. 
as long as what goes for police goes for everyone else, then im ok with that. 
there is too much disrespect, i agree, im just not sure that fighting is the way to solve it.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

Grosse Gurke said:


> i dont agree however, that mouthing off to someone gives them the right to use force in return.
> if someone mouths off to me.... i cant hit them, i just breathe deep, and be the better person.
> sure, if u touch a cop, you deserve to get ur head kicked in, but if its just words, then policement should be man enough to take it, and absolutely shouldnt have the right to return with force.


I couldnt disagree more. I think people that talk smack to a police officer should get their teeth kicked in. People need to learn to treat others with respect...and this isnt just about police officers...it is just your fellow man in general. Part of what is wrong with todays society is that there is too much disrespect going around.
[/quote]

police officers are not god, if they give me sh*t, im gonna give them sh*t right back. i know my f*cking rights. police are supposed to be polite and courteous as well, many many police officers are great people and genuinely are there to help, but some are there to bust your balls no matter what, and those are the fucktards that i give a hard time to. just because you're a cop doesn't mean you're better than me or anyone else and i EXPECT to be treated as a human being and not some scumbag asshole. cops are there to bust you, that's their job. that's why they'll tell you every reason in the book why they should be able to search your car without probable cause, if they continually act like the enemy to the society of people they're supposed to protect, then they'll continually get sh*t on.

and im not talking about all cops, im talking about the few spoiling it for the many. i have a lot of respect for the law enforcement profession in general, but scumbag cops, i have no respect for at all.


----------



## armac (Nov 28, 2002)

cobrafox46 said:


> i think that people would be much more respectful to police officers if every police officer showed a bit more respect to the people. obviously there are certain situations where respect isn't warranted, but the problem lies with police officers that walk around thinking that they are above the law, and in effect, they become detached from the people that they are supposed to be serving.


You are a convicted felon, right?
[/quote]

And you are more than likely a cop or involved with some type of law enforcement. I am guessing because that is the exact kind of rude sh*t that gives cops a bad name. Someone states an opinion and it is automatically wrong and you have to talk down to or point out something someone has done wrong. What gives you the right to ask that?? Just because someone is a felon automatically makes them trash and their opinion does not matter! I have done some dumb sh*t in my life also but I would do anything to help a fellow human being out unlike some officers!! Hell we just had an officer arrested for taking money from a charity in my town. One county over a town Marshall is being prosecuted for having a meth lab and Child molestation of his own daughter!! I have no problem with police and I am always polite to them and respect them. But like Joe said there are some that think they are above the law and go out of their way to make a situation worse than it is.
[/quote]

Thaks for your insight. And good guess


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

Grosse Gurke said:


> cracking someone across the skull is going beyond the scope of a police officers job. police officers do not issue punishment except in traffic infractions. police officers are there to enforce what is on the books. if someone is mouthing off, let the judicial system crack them across the skull, not the officer. i think frankly it's disgusting how some people will condone such acts by police officers and blame it on stress or whatever. that's complete bullshit. 2 towns over from me the chief of police was booked for a DUI as well as 3 other officers in their tenures...they all still have jobs. to protect and serve must be the biggest BS line ever written. maybe at some point in police history, but still you can hardly utter the word police followed by any point in history, without hearing about corruption.


The problem with this post r1der...is that you are the kind of person that needs a good beatdown....so of course you are against it. It is all about self preservation for you.
[/quote]

am i? you can jump to conclusions without even knowing me? you sound like one of those moron cops who gets a hardon beating people down. whatever the reason is that you lead a sad life, i dont care to concern myself with it. im a productive member of society, i've never been arrested, never gotten a traffic ticket, and i know more cops than you can imagine (including 4 in my family). i have a degree in criminal justice and this is the course im guiding my life to follow. have a nice day...and remember this, you have rights...f*cking USE THEM!


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

Nick G said:


> ok, well i agree that smack talk can result in beatings if that goes to everyone, not just police.
> as in, if im at a mets game with a phillies hat on and some drunk asshole starts yelling at me like i had anything to do with the outcome of the game (true story), and, instead of walking away, i just turn back and kick the ever loving sh*t out of him (which i really wanted to do), thats ok.
> as long as what goes for police goes for everyone else, then im ok with that.
> there is too much disrespect, i agree, im just not sure that fighting is the way to solve it.


But dont you see....by not confronting the idiot....he will continue to go through his pathetic life yelling and screaming at anyone that doesnt conform to his way of thinking. Now...I am not suggesting that you should have kicked him in the head...however....if you had called over a cop for assistance and the guy had started ranting at the cop....I would not have a problem with the cop dragging the guy out of the stadium by his hair....and locking him up for a few days. People like that guy can ruin your day...and they should not be able to just walk away from that without paying a price.

I just dont have a lot of patience for rude people.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

Grosse Gurke said:


> ok, well i agree that smack talk can result in beatings if that goes to everyone, not just police.
> as in, if im at a mets game with a phillies hat on and some drunk asshole starts yelling at me like i had anything to do with the outcome of the game (true story), and, instead of walking away, i just turn back and kick the ever loving sh*t out of him (which i really wanted to do), thats ok.
> as long as what goes for police goes for everyone else, then im ok with that.
> there is too much disrespect, i agree, im just not sure that fighting is the way to solve it.


But dont you see....by not confronting the idiot....he will continue to go through his pathetic life yelling and screaming at anyone that doesnt conform to his way of thinking. Now...I am not suggesting that you should have kicked him in the head...however....if you had called over a cop for assistance and the guy had started ranting at the cop....I would not have a problem with the cop dragging the guy out of the stadium by his hair....and locking him up for a few days. People like that guy can ruin your day...and they should not be able to just walk away from that without paying a price.

*I just dont have a lot of patience for rude people.*
[/quote]

unless they're cops....?


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

r1dermon said:


> am i? you can jump to conclusions without even knowing me? you sound like one of those moron cops who gets a hardon beating people down. whatever the reason is that you lead a sad life, i dont care to concern myself with it. im a productive member of society, i've never been arrested, never gotten a traffic ticket, and i know more cops than you can imagine (including 4 in my family). i have a degree in criminal justice and this is the course im guiding my life to follow. have a nice day...and remember this, you have rights...f*cking USE THEM!


Little too much caffeine this morning?









Just relax...take a breath.....no reason to get your blood pressure up.....I was just kidding with you


----------



## cobrafox46 (Jun 2, 2008)

Nick G said:


> i dont agree however, that mouthing off to someone gives them the right to use force in return.
> if someone mouths off to me.... i cant hit them, i just breathe deep, and be the better person.
> sure, if u touch a cop, you deserve to get ur head kicked in, but if its just words, then policement should be man enough to take it, and absolutely shouldnt have the right to return with force.


I agree....... cops are supposed to be role models to youth also. If they have the right to beat somebody for saying something, kids will think the ame thing IMHO. Like the old sayin' "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me" Cops are supposed to be the mature ones and be able to take verbal abuse, instead of resorting to violence. I admire the ones that are seen on COPS the show, that just laugh when someone runs their mouth. It shows they can brush it off and not have to use aggression, violence, and abuse their badge.


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

r1dermon said:


> *I just dont have a lot of patience for rude people.*


unless they're cops....?
[/quote]
My posts have only dealt with people being held accountable for their actions. I am obviously against a police officer that would strike out at someone for no reason....or get on some power trip and abuse his power. That is not what I have been speaking too. I am saying that if someone runs from the cops...or gets up in a cops face....I have no problem with the police making them pay for it. Consequently...I wouldnt run from the cops or get in their face. To me...they are just doing their job...and if I have a problem with a ticket or something I would fight it in court...not with the officer.


----------



## Nick G (Jul 15, 2007)

i agree with you GG, im just saying that if i have to excercise self control in my life when dealing with assholes, then so should everyone else. cops should be able to take verbal abuse without retaliating with physical abuse.

obviously this applies ONLY when the abuse is verbal, if u touch a cop, then you get what u deserve.


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

Nick G said:


> i agree with you GG, im just saying that if i have to excercise self control in my life when dealing with assholes, then so should everyone else. cops should be able to take verbal abuse without retaliating with physical abuse.
> 
> obviously this applies ONLY when the abuse is verbal, if u touch a cop, then you get what u deserve.


Yeah...but woudnt the world be a better place if when someone mouthed off to another individual they got bitch slapped? Since most people are all talk anyways....it would really reduce the number of times you would need to listen to that belligerent jackass with diarrhea of the mouth.


----------



## Exodon_Tetra (May 10, 2005)

mori0174 said:


> I live in a big city. Last month, a police officer shot an unarmed man in the back and he died. The same police officer also shot and killed an unarmed man a year and a half ago. This was his second killing of two unarmed people.


What big city do you live in and who is the officer you are talking about? I ask because the story you just threw out there doesn't make sense. So, what city and who is the officer?
[/quote]

It is true. The city is being sued for 10 million and the attorney wants criminal charges on the officer who did the shooting. The victim was shot three times in the back.


----------



## ChilDawg (Apr 30, 2006)

Exodon_Tetra said:


> I live in a big city. Last month, a police officer shot an unarmed man in the back and he died. The same police officer also shot and killed an unarmed man a year and a half ago. This was his second killing of two unarmed people.


What big city do you live in and who is the officer you are talking about? I ask because the story you just threw out there doesn't make sense. So, what city and who is the officer?
[/quote]

It is true. The city is being sued for 10 million and the attorney wants criminal charges on the officer who did the shooting. The victim was shot three times in the back.
[/quote]

Cite your source.


----------



## ProdigalMarine (Jan 31, 2003)

ChilDawg said:


> I live in a big city. Last month, a police officer shot an unarmed man in the back and he died. The same police officer also shot and killed an unarmed man a year and a half ago. This was his second killing of two unarmed people.


What big city do you live in and who is the officer you are talking about? I ask because the story you just threw out there doesn't make sense. So, what city and who is the officer?
[/quote]

*It is true. The city is being sued for 10 million and the attorney wants criminal charges on the officer who did the shooting. The victim was shot three times in the back.*[/quote]

Cite your source.
[/quote]

Its "stories" like these that gives LEOs a bad name. You can't just go around saying "some cop shot two guys in the back on two seperate occasions..." without factual knowledge; because it'll get around to something extreme...

...next thing you know, I make a routine traffic stop on a guy who "heard" this story and I get two in the chest because the guy has a embedded hatred for cops.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

ProdigalMarine said:


> I live in a big city. Last month, a police officer shot an unarmed man in the back and he died. The same police officer also shot and killed an unarmed man a year and a half ago. This was his second killing of two unarmed people.


What big city do you live in and who is the officer you are talking about? I ask because the story you just threw out there doesn't make sense. So, what city and who is the officer?
[/quote]

*It is true. The city is being sued for 10 million and the attorney wants criminal charges on the officer who did the shooting. The victim was shot three times in the back.*[/quote]

Cite your source.
[/quote]

Its "stories" like these that gives LEOs a bad name. You can't just go around saying "some cop shot two guys in the back on two seperate occasions..." without factual knowledge; because it'll get around to something extreme...

...next thing you know, I make a routine traffic stop on a guy who "heard" this story and I get two in the chest because the guy has a embedded hatred for cops.
[/quote]

that's not the majority, those stories are kind of stupid to begin with. yeah, it happened...but it's a very small fractional percentage of police officers that get caught up in something of THAT magnitude when compared to all the cops in america. however, cops who for no reason feel it necessary to insult or otherwise belittle someone for no reason other than because they get off on it, is a LOT of cops in the grand scheme of things. these are the cops that should get a huge bitch slap and have their badge revoked.

way back in junior high i was on the bus, and some dildo in the back of the bus yelled out at some cops (while moving) "all pigs suck" at the officers. these cops were parked 3 cruisers in a dirt lot shooting the sh*t and drinking coffee (exactly what my tax money is supposed to be used for) and all the cops just let it go...except one...who starsky and hutch style did about 100mph in a 35mph zone with flashing blues and pulled the bus over...now GG, i agree with you, this kid deserves a punch in the head because he's a f*cking moron, but regardless he has a RIGHT so say whatever the f*ck he wants to say as long as it's not threatening...for this cop to stop the bus and verbally harrass everyone on the bus for absolutely no reason other than he wanted his balls to feel a little bigger, was way past the scope of his job. furthermore, he never found out who said it, and yet, everyone got to experience this guys dunkin donut breath as he got 2" from everyones face 1 at a time and told us how we were a bunch of "immature little shits" (he was later repremanded for cussing, which apparently is against the rules of conduct for officers in MA). anyway, that's the asshole im talking about GG when i talk about cops who are incompetant and shouldn't be on the force. they're the ones that need to take zoloft and ritalin.


----------



## mori0174 (Mar 31, 2004)

ProdigalMarine said:


> I live in a big city. Last month, a police officer shot an unarmed man in the back and he died. The same police officer also shot and killed an unarmed man a year and a half ago. This was his second killing of two unarmed people.


What big city do you live in and who is the officer you are talking about? I ask because the story you just threw out there doesn't make sense. So, what city and who is the officer?
[/quote]

*It is true. The city is being sued for 10 million and the attorney wants criminal charges on the officer who did the shooting. The victim was shot three times in the back.*[/quote]

Cite your source.
[/quote]

Its "stories" like these that gives LEOs a bad name. You can't just go around saying "some cop shot two guys in the back on two seperate occasions..." without factual knowledge; because it'll get around to something extreme...

...next thing you know, I make a routine traffic stop on a guy who "heard" this story and I get two in the chest because the guy has a embedded hatred for cops.
[/quote]

That's why I asked for a source. I suspected that it wouldn't be provided and prove true, but hey it was worth a shot. I'm going into law enforcement as well.

r1dermon, not trying to get into your guys' discussion here, but I think you guys are splitting hairs. I've read the thread and I think you all are on the same page, just a different sentence.


----------



## Exodon_Tetra (May 10, 2005)

Just a messenger here..Here is the article which the city knows well about:
http://www.insidebayarea.com/ci_10024457


----------



## ChilDawg (Apr 30, 2006)

Does anyone else see how there were mitigating circumstances in at least one of those shootings, and how there might have been some in the second one?

BTW, the attorney needs to push for charges against the officer...or else it would be much more difficult to seek damages!


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

r1dermon said:


> way back in junior high i was on the bus, and some dildo in the back of the bus yelled out at some cops (while moving) "all pigs suck" at the officers. these cops were parked 3 cruisers in a dirt lot shooting the sh*t and drinking coffee (exactly what my tax money is supposed to be used for) and all the cops just let it go...except one...who starsky and hutch style did about 100mph in a 35mph zone with flashing blues and pulled the bus over...now GG, i agree with you, this kid deserves a punch in the head because he's a f*cking moron, *but regardless he has a RIGHT so say whatever the f*ck he wants to say* as long as it's not threatening...for this cop to stop the bus and verbally harrass everyone on the bus for absolutely no reason other than he wanted his balls to feel a little bigger, was way past the scope of his job. furthermore, he never found out who said it, and yet, everyone got to experience this guys dunkin donut breath as he got 2" from everyones face 1 at a time and told us how we were a bunch of "immature little shits" (he was later repremanded for cussing, which apparently is against the rules of conduct for officers in MA). anyway, that's the asshole im talking about GG when i talk about cops who are incompetant and shouldn't be on the force. they're the ones that need to take zoloft and ritalin.


No...he really doesnt. Freedom of speech does not include berating a public servant. Say that to your boss and see how much your lawsuit will bring in for wrongful termination. Even though that cop may have acted a little extreme in that case.....do you think that kid went around yelling "all pigs suck" anymore? I cant say...but if the kid had any brains, he probably learned a lesson that day. However if the cop does nothing....what does the kid learn? That he can insult police officers and get away with it? Why should we expect police officers to put up with more on their job then other people? In almost any other line of work....the company would not put up with poor treatment of their staff by anyone. Now I am not suggesting we arrest everyone that says something derogatory to a police officer....however I dont think we write it off as part of their job. Just because it is part of a secrete service agents job to take a bullet for the president.....that doesnt mean it should be ok to shoot them.


----------



## mori0174 (Mar 31, 2004)

Exodon_Tetra said:


> Just a messenger here..Here is the article which the city knows well about:
> http://www.insidebayarea.com/ci_10024457


First case was cleared. No wrongdoing. Second case is in investigation. You have no reason to be angry at this point.


----------



## ChilDawg (Apr 30, 2006)

Exactly...and that's why we need some critical thinking in these circumstances. It's easy to get angry at "cop shoots two unarmed victims, one in the back"...and it sells papers and draws in viewers for the news...but the truth is not anything like that.


----------



## Nick G (Jul 15, 2007)

Grosse Gurke said:


> i agree with you GG, im just saying that if i have to excercise self control in my life when dealing with assholes, then so should everyone else. cops should be able to take verbal abuse without retaliating with physical abuse.
> 
> obviously this applies ONLY when the abuse is verbal, if u touch a cop, then you get what u deserve.


Yeah...but woudnt the world be a better place if when someone mouthed off to another individual they got bitch slapped? Since most people are all talk anyways....it would really reduce the number of times you would need to listen to that belligerent jackass with diarrhea of the mouth.
[/quote]
oh, it would be amazing. 
but it will never happen. first off, if i would have hit him because he mouthed off, i would have been liable for some criminal offense, or at least i think i would have. but, same situation, and im a cop .... i can hit him back? doesnt seem fair.

but i agree with mori, i think we are definately all on the same page.


----------



## Scrappy (Oct 21, 2004)

Ya, but what happens when a cop trys to kick someone's teeth in and he gets his ass kicked? Sounds like mutual combat to me.


----------



## Trigga (Jul 1, 2006)

Honestly i have only ever come across one decent cop ever in my dealings with the police. Suprisingly he was white and was a pretty nice guy who didn't seperate my friends and I and also let us have a smoke while they were running our names.

Most however have been bossy and arrogant and honestly im surprised that anyone could say exessive force is ok. Police (in canada anyways) are only allowed to use one level of force above you ie..you push them they can punch u, u punch them they can bat you, you try to stab they can shoot. But most have gone well beyond that even when i have been co operating. Maybe its the colour of my skin but even that isnt an excuse. police need to check themselves and maybe understand why the get no respect..you have give some to get some.


----------



## mori0174 (Mar 31, 2004)

Trigga said:


> Honestly i have only ever come across one decent cop ever in my dealings with the police. Suprisingly he was white and was a pretty nice guy who didn't seperate my friends and I and also let us have a smoke while they were running our names.
> 
> Most however have been bossy and arrogant and honestly im surprised that anyone could say exessive force is ok. Police (in canada anyways) are only allowed to use one level of force above you ie..you push them they can punch u, u punch them they can bat you, you try to stab they can shoot. But most have gone well beyond that even when i have been co operating. Maybe its the colour of my skin but even that isnt an excuse. police need to check themselves and maybe understand why the get no respect..you have give some to get some.


Use of force escalation works the same in the U.S. I've said this already and not many people seem too interested in talking about it. There are bad apples in every profession, every last one of them. It is very public in law enforcement because it is in the newspaper every time a police officer makes a bad decision. There is no such thing as perfection, not in hiring, not in doing a job, not in anything. I think most people in this thread are speaking from personal experience, and that is fine. The point is that each person's overall small sampling of all police officers is not an accurate representation of police officers as a whole. I really don't see how that is an unfair assertion. I'm not ignorant. I have seen many officers who are in the field to act like they are better than every person they deal with. I work at detox at the moment and see multiple officers interacting with their detainees everyday. I'm also going to be a police officer. I have dealt with more police officers than most people have ever met, but I'm not going to make a generalization from that. I do not believe that any more than a very small percentage of police officers are in it to make life hard for other people. I think the vast majority of officers go into the job to help others. Some fall off the wagon because they become jaded, which can happen in any profession.


----------



## ProdigalMarine (Jan 31, 2003)

Exodon_Tetra said:


> Just a messenger here..Here is the article which the city knows well about:
> http://www.insidebayarea.com/ci_10024457





> *Woodfox led police on a high-speed chase that started about 3:50 a.m. on Fruitvale Avenue and lasted about a mile, *eventually ending at Fruitvale and East 17th Street.
> 
> Police said Jimenez and another officer saw Woodfox driving a 1993 Buick Regal in a manner *suggesting "a dangerous DUI" and tried to pull him over, Joyner said.
> When Woodfox did stop his car, he immediately jumped out and tried to flee, making "a furtive movement" that suggested he was reaching for a weapon at his waistband, Joyner said.*
> ...


I just highlighted what I thought people should look at before accusing the officers with excessive force. I don't want to be a monday morning QB nor do I want to offer "professional" advice on the subject because of the fact that I am still learning the ropes of being a police officer.

However, in my own honest opinion from what I've learned (and off the record), the officer is partially in the wrong for encouraging the chase. We learned (still learning the guidelines) that no chase is worth someones life and not to do it UNLESS deemed life threatening. However, if a subject "furitively" reaches towards his waist; after being stopped and told to get out of the car and "not to move", i would deemed it an "imminent threat" to the officers' life.


----------



## ProdigalMarine (Jan 31, 2003)

mori0174 said:


> I'm also going to be a police officer. I have dealt with more police officers than most people have ever met, but I'm not going to make a generalization from that. I do not believe that any more than a very small percentage of police officers are in it to make life hard for other people. I think the vast majority of officers go into the job to help others. Some fall off the wagon because they become jaded, which can happen in any profession.


What agency and where? Have you started in the process or currently being processed?

Agree whole-heartedly. Not every agency is going to be perfect, you'll always have that 10% that will screw up a wet-dream. Truth in the matter, until you've PHYSICALLY step foot into the profession itself, you'll only know less than half the truth.



> that's not the majority, those stories are kind of stupid to begin with. yeah, it happened...but it's a very small fractional percentage of police officers that get caught up in something of THAT magnitude when compared to all the cops in america.


I don't remember where my instructor cited this fact, I'll have to ask...but one of the highest police officer-related deaths are from routine traffic stops (be it hit-and-run, to drugged up civilians, to homocidal maniacs). So in actuality, something of that magnitude happens every day...you just don't hear about it. Its only when the officer applies reasonable force that we hear "oh, the LEO utilized excessive force."

EDIT: Found some stats.

NJLawmen.com Line of Duty related deaths
According to this site, 69 deaths have involved some sort of routine traffic stop or domestic disturbance call. (Others are included in but I scrolled through the majority of them and most are related to routine every day police functions). 69 deaths within an 8 month period averages out to 8 officers a month.

NBC Report


> Seventy-two local, state and federal officers died from traffic-related accidents while 57, about one-third, died from shootings, the organizations said.


----------



## JoeDizzleMPLS (Nov 5, 2007)

mori0174 said:


> Honestly i have only ever come across one decent cop ever in my dealings with the police. Suprisingly he was white and was a pretty nice guy who didn't seperate my friends and I and also let us have a smoke while they were running our names.
> 
> Most however have been bossy and arrogant and honestly im surprised that anyone could say exessive force is ok. Police (in canada anyways) are only allowed to use one level of force above you ie..you push them they can punch u, u punch them they can bat you, you try to stab they can shoot. But most have gone well beyond that even when i have been co operating. Maybe its the colour of my skin but even that isnt an excuse. police need to check themselves and maybe understand why the get no respect..you have give some to get some.


Use of force escalation works the same in the U.S. I've said this already and not many people seem too interested in talking about it. There are bad apples in every profession, every last one of them. It is very public in law enforcement because it is in the newspaper every time a police officer makes a bad decision. There is no such thing as perfection, not in hiring, not in doing a job, not in anything. I think most people in this thread are speaking from personal experience, and that is fine. The point is that each person's overall small sampling of all police officers is not an accurate representation of police officers as a whole. I really don't see how that is an unfair assertion. I'm not ignorant. I have seen many officers who are in the field to act like they are better than every person they deal with. I work at detox at the moment and see multiple officers interacting with their detainees everyday. I'm also going to be a police officer. I have dealt with more police officers than most people have ever met, but I'm not going to make a generalization from that. I do not believe that any more than a very small percentage of police officers are in it to make life hard for other people. I think the vast majority of officers go into the job to help others. Some fall off the wagon because they become jaded, which can happen in any profession.
[/quote]

i agree with everything you have said so far, i have been arrested more times than i can even count and i have had nothing but respect for the officers that arrested me. in most of the situations, i was treated with respect and i made it a point to thank them and inform their superiors of their professional attitude.

most people think that just because i am a convicted felon, my perspective is rendered useless because i have a grudge against police officers, that is not true at all. i have a huge amount of respect for police officers, i made my mistakes and in no way, shape, or form hold any grudge against police officers due to the fact that they caught me after i did stupid sh*t.

i have had more experience than most when it comes to being on the wrong side of the law and i agree that there are some bad apples that make their way through the system, officers that let the power go to their head and make bad decisions, but all in all, i still feel that most have good intentions


----------



## Nick G (Jul 15, 2007)

wait so, even if a suspect is fleeing, he still poses an immediate threat? does that make sense. i just got into work, and am on my first cup of coffee, so my brain may not be working yet, but that seems like a serious crock of sh*t.


----------



## ChilDawg (Apr 30, 2006)

Nick G said:


> wait so, even if a suspect is fleeing, he still poses an immediate threat? does that make sense. i just got into work, and am on my first cup of coffee, so my brain may not be working yet, but that seems like a serious crock of sh*t.


The thought is that he was reaching for his waist like he was going to draw a weapon...which does render him a serious threat.


----------



## Nick G (Jul 15, 2007)

ChilDawg said:


> wait so, even if a suspect is fleeing, he still poses an immediate threat? does that make sense. i just got into work, and am on my first cup of coffee, so my brain may not be working yet, but that seems like a serious crock of sh*t.


The thought is that he was reaching for his waist like he was going to draw a weapon...which does render him a serious threat.
[/quote]
ok, now im more awake, and that makes sense. 
its definately a sticky situation, and part of me says that i woulda shot him in the leg, but i wouldnt begin to tell the cops how to do their job because i have never/could never imagine having been in that situation.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

Grosse Gurke said:


> way back in junior high i was on the bus, and some dildo in the back of the bus yelled out at some cops (while moving) "all pigs suck" at the officers. these cops were parked 3 cruisers in a dirt lot shooting the sh*t and drinking coffee (exactly what my tax money is supposed to be used for) and all the cops just let it go...except one...who starsky and hutch style did about 100mph in a 35mph zone with flashing blues and pulled the bus over...now GG, i agree with you, this kid deserves a punch in the head because he's a f*cking moron, *but regardless he has a RIGHT so say whatever the f*ck he wants to say* as long as it's not threatening...for this cop to stop the bus and verbally harrass everyone on the bus for absolutely no reason other than he wanted his balls to feel a little bigger, was way past the scope of his job. furthermore, he never found out who said it, and yet, everyone got to experience this guys dunkin donut breath as he got 2" from everyones face 1 at a time and told us how we were a bunch of "immature little shits" (he was later repremanded for cussing, which apparently is against the rules of conduct for officers in MA). anyway, that's the asshole im talking about GG when i talk about cops who are incompetant and shouldn't be on the force. they're the ones that need to take zoloft and ritalin.


No...he really doesnt. Freedom of speech does not include berating a public servant. Say that to your boss and see how much your lawsuit will bring in for wrongful termination. Even though that cop may have acted a little extreme in that case.....do you think that kid went around yelling "all pigs suck" anymore? I cant say...but if the kid had any brains, he probably learned a lesson that day. However if the cop does nothing....what does the kid learn? That he can insult police officers and get away with it? Why should we expect police officers to put up with more on their job then other people? In almost any other line of work....the company would not put up with poor treatment of their staff by anyone. Now I am not suggesting we arrest everyone that says something derogatory to a police officer....however I dont think we write it off as part of their job. Just because it is part of a secrete service agents job to take a bullet for the president.....that doesnt mean it should be ok to shoot them.
[/quote]

actually he does, a public servent is just that, a public servant, open to scrutiny to the people he/she serves.

secondly, my boss and a police officer are two completely different things. a police officer is not my boss, in-fact, my boss has more authority over me than a police officer. (what i can and cannot wear to work, how i have to look and present myself, how i should speak...etc...).

and lastly, it is part of their job to deal with that sh*t in a respectable manner. they represent the town they serve and it's people.

listen, i dont go out of my way to talk smack to police officers. in-fact, i love shooting the sh*t with cops who will shoot the sh*t with me. most will just pass me along as-if they're better than me, but some will actually hold a good conversation and joke around a little. the one thing to remember is we're all human, and i think cops have to realize that we're trying to co-exist, not be at the end of their leash.


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

So basically what people believe...is that if someone is fleeing the police should just let them go? What if a guy shoots 3 police officers. Then he drops the gun and starts running. Once he drops his gun and tries to flee....one of the downed officers shouldnt shoot the guy? I mean he isnt an immediate threat once he drops the gun.....

We pamper criminals too much in this country....that is why I feel officers get so jaded. They are fighting a loosing battle because we have tied their hands with so many rights for the criminal. If you catch someone in the act of a crime...and they try to flee....go ahead and shot'em. Try for the legs...but if you miss and they die....oh well. I mean really....what ever happened to "stop or I will shoot!". If you give someone a warning like that....and they continue to run....fire away.


----------



## Nick G (Jul 15, 2007)

Grosse Gurke said:


> So basically what people believe...is that if someone is fleeing the police should just let them go? What if a guy shoots 3 police officers. Then he drops the gun and starts running. Once he drops his gun and tries to flee....one of the downed officers should shoot the guy? I mean he isnt an immediate threat once he drops the gun.....


no, i retractt my previous post, i was 3/4 asleep.
it was just the mantra of "shotting someone in the back" that made me post. 
i realize now i was wrong, and that that mantra doesnt apply here.


----------



## KrBjostad (Jun 21, 2008)

I got the sh*t beat out of me by two police officers when I was 14. We were walking around in a group of about 9 people, which we found out is against town ordinance. I told them it was stupid that we couldn't all hang out together and walk around our tiny little town and got the dog sh*t beat out of me. No matter what I said I wasn't doing anything illegal, besides being in too large of a group plus the fact that I was f*cking 14. Witnesses or not the lawyer I had couldn't get anything done except get the medical bills paid, and he's now the town's judge.

The key word here is excessive, meaning more than needed, unnecessary, etc.

force can be very necessary but the power is abused much too often


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

r1dermon said:


> actually he does, a public servent is just that, a public servant, open to scrutiny to the people he/she serves.
> 
> secondly, my boss and a police officer are two completely different things. a police officer is not my boss, in-fact, my boss has more authority over me than a police officer. (what i can and cannot wear to work, how i have to look and present myself, how i should speak...etc...).
> 
> ...


It is ok for you to talk sh*t to cops....freedom of speech and all....but they are not ok to do the same thing? "I dont go out of my way to talk smack"......what a joke. you should go out of your way to not talk smack. You just preached at what an upstanding citizen you are...and then you come up with a line like that....oh wait....I get it....it is cool to talk back to the cops. As if their job isnt hard enough...they need to deal with idiots that think they are the reason we all exist. IMO....only the pathetically self-absorbed talk back to the police...especially when they are caught doing something wrong.


----------



## Nick G (Jul 15, 2007)

cant walk around in large groups?









what a weird law.

sucks u got beat up.


----------



## cobrafox46 (Jun 2, 2008)

I just have a quick story to add about the "Starksy and Hutch cops. When I was 21, I had gotten a speeding ticket for "supposedly" doing 65 in a 55. I was on my way to work in the morning and pulled up on an unmarked older police car running 50mph. I was in my 2003 Cobra and passed him making sure not to break 60mph. Well the guy pulls me over and gives me a ticket for 65mph. He says he "GUESSED" my speed to be that, WTF. I know there is training but I had just bought the car brand new and I know my speedo was not off. I went to court and told the judge exactly what happened, I gradually passed the car and I know my speedo is not off. I was only going between 58-60mph. I had not had a ticket for 4 years after having like 8 between the ages of 16-17. I had grown up now and have no need to speed. Then the officer chimes in, he is certified to guess speed blah blah blah. He guessed my speed seriously. Anyway I got blown off like a peon and had to pay the ticket. I was a little upset and said "this is bullshit" as I passed a few officers going out the door. One of them chimed in and said "what is bullshit is you coming in here and making an ass of yourself" and started laughing WTF! They were all huddled around, like 10 of them, in a bullshit session wasting our tax dollars as said above. I just shrugged it off and walked out the door. I got into my car and was leaving. Well at that time the group of other cops were watching me leave and being dicks laughing. I made sure I put my seatbelt on and stopped fully at the stop sign so they had no reason to pull me over because they were watching pretty hard. When I turned the corner , a state cop I actually drag race with was walking in and I flashed him the peace sign. I made it about 2 miles and got pulled over? Well Billy BadAss walked up and made me get out of the car and put my hands on the hood. He searched me, and the car. He was the one that said the earlier statement. He was yelling saying I flipped them off? I told him Officer Baston was walking in and I gave him the peace sign. He just denied it and continued harassing me. Anyways he brings me a ticket for not stopping at the stop sign. His exact words were "You stopped, but me and the other officers saw you run it, if you get my drift! WTF!!!!!! I wish I had a voice recorder at the time!! I had lost a lot of respect for cops for a while but I have not had any run ins with them in a while, so I am over it. I am done with my rambling


----------



## mori0174 (Mar 31, 2004)

Prodigal Marine, I'm in the hiring process with the MN State Patrol right now and am just finishing up background. They have already had me do written, physical, and oral interview. It's a really long process here in MN, typically 6 months from first app to conditional hire, don't know how long it takes down there. I also did a 3 month internship at a police department and am a reserve with the county sheriff.


----------



## ProdigalMarine (Jan 31, 2003)

mori0174 said:


> Prodigal Marine, I'm in the hiring process with the MN State Patrol right now and am just finishing up background. They have already had me do written, physical, and oral interview. It's a really long process here in MN, typically 6 months from first app to conditional hire, don't know how long it takes down there. I also did a 3 month internship at a police department and am a reserve with the county sheriff.


Depending on what jurisdiction, it'll take anywhere from 3months to a year for EVERYTHING to be complete. My current agency I'm with took 6months to do everything...they rushed my physical and medical during the 5th month to get me into the Police Academy. GL on getting the position.



> I got the sh*t beat out of me by two police officers when I was 14. We were walking around in a group of about 9 people, which we found out is against town ordinance. I told them it was stupid that we couldn't all hang out together and walk around our tiny little town and got the dog sh*t beat out of me. No matter what I said I wasn't doing anything illegal, besides being in too large of a group plus the fact that I was f*cking 14. Witnesses or not the lawyer I had couldn't get anything done except get the medical bills paid, and he's now the town's judge.


I would like to see an article about this claim where it states "local law enforcement used excessive force on group of local teens." LEOs don't go around beating a large group of teenages...however, if you were in a group of 3 or more during a certain time of day, that would fall under "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause" would be a factor. Face it, large group of teens usually equals trouble.



> So basically what people believe...is that if someone is fleeing the police should just let them go? What if a guy shoots 3 police officers. Then he drops the gun and starts running. Once he drops his gun and tries to flee....one of the downed officers shouldnt shoot the guy? I mean he isnt an immediate threat once he drops the gun.....


Depends on what the premises of the chase is. If its a misdeamor like shoplifting, than its up to police discretion. A fleeing felon is something TOTALLY different. A fleeing felon that just committed a horrendous crimes warrants a chase and warrants reasonable use of force.

As for the example with the guy who pulled a gun and than complies by putting the gun on the ground...he's still considered a threat. Not an imminent threat, but treated as such. We studied a particular case law that dealt with shooting people in the back. This particular case dealt with a minor who committed armed burglary. He broke into the house, held the people up until he robbed the place, escaped and as he was climbing over the fence, he was shot in the back. End result, unless the fleeing person was in the position to harm another life, than shooting him in the back would be considered excessive use of force.


----------



## KrBjostad (Jun 21, 2008)

Nick G said:


> > I got the sh*t beat out of me by two police officers when I was 14. We were walking around in a group of about 9 people, which we found out is against town ordinance. I told them it was stupid that we couldn't all hang out together and walk around our tiny little town and got the dog sh*t beat out of me. No matter what I said I wasn't doing anything illegal, besides being in too large of a group plus the fact that I was f*cking 14. Witnesses or not the lawyer I had couldn't get anything done except get the medical bills paid, and he's now the town's judge.
> 
> 
> I would like to see an article about this claim where it states "local law enforcement used excessive force on group of local teens." LEOs don't go around beating a large group of teenages...however, if you were in a group of 3 or more during a certain time of day, that would fall under "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause" would be a factor. Face it, large group of teens usually equals trouble.


It was actually titled "Police encounter more gang problems, and they're getting younger" or something along those lines but I'll see if I can find it. ps. I'm not a gang member and it was about 6 pm when it happened.


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

Im just arguing to argue









I do feel that we give criminals too many rights. If you are robbing someone and get shot...I dont care if you are 5 blocks away and the guy gets you with a sniper rifle....you shouldnt have been robbing someone in the first place.

I argued this with a professor in college...and I still dont get it. I have had my stereo stolen out of my car a few times....to the point I dont even put in a nice stereo anymore because I dont need to replace another window. Anyways....if I want to glue razor blades under my dash so the next idiot that tries to steel my stereo would looses a finger...I am the one that goes to jail and gets sued. Even though the idiot had zero right to be in my car...and was committing a criminal act....I am the one that will be punished. To me....once you enter another mans property to commit a crime....you should be fair game. Now...I am not into killing someone....but if I caught someone in my car....I should be able to take a bat to them....and I dont see anything wrong with that. I do know the law....and that you cant use deadly force to protect your property....but that doesnt mean I agree with it.


----------



## scent troll (Apr 4, 2005)

Grosse Gurke said:


> Im just arguing to argue
> 
> 
> 
> ...


if that wasnt so long id use that as my sig quote GG!
i absolutely 100% agree with everything you just said. spot on mate!


----------



## KrBjostad (Jun 21, 2008)

Grosse Gurke said:


> Im just arguing to argue
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Why cant you put razors in your car? Seems like that would be fairly effective.


----------



## ProdigalMarine (Jan 31, 2003)

KrBjostad said:


> Im just arguing to argue
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Why cant you put razors in your car? Seems like that would be fairly effective.








[/quote]

Because...like you, a criminal has rights.

Putting razors in your car to "deter" thefts is against the 8th amendment, its also vigilantism. Furthermore, it violates the criminals civil rights and GG would be considered in the wrong and owe that criminal a hefty amount of money. GG wouldn't be charged under a criminal charge unless his razors KILLED the guy, GG would just be civily liable. Thats my take on the entire thing...its really a catch-22.

GG what was your professors arguement as to why you couldn't put razors in your car? I agree with GG but at the same time, I have to disagree due to legal circumstances. Its like me saying "being a sworn police officer, during my off-duty time, I can go around shooting "bad" people up and arresting them and NOT be in trouble for my actions..."


----------



## Scrappy (Oct 21, 2004)

ProdigalMarine said:


> however, if you were in a group of 3 or more during a certain time of day, that would fall under "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause" would be a factor. Face it, large group of teens usually equals trouble.


A group of teens out during any time of the day doesn't automatically equate to reasonable suspicion. You've got to know what your reasonably suspicions of to effect a Terry stop. In this circumstance, the only way to meet the test of reasonable suspicion without further information is if there's a code or statute in your jurisdiction that covers curfews. But curfews are becoming very rare because they're almost always beaten when brought to the state supreme courts. If you got a call about a group of kids doing something, or witnessed something that would lead to further investigation then that's a different story.

You've got to be very careful because stuff like this can turn into profiling if you can't word your reasons for a Terry stop correctly. But saying a large group of teens usually equals trouble is absolutely profiling. It's no different than saying a large group of <insert any other group of people> is trouble. We did a lot of exercises about profiling in my cj classes and a lot of stuff that I thought I would be able to use for reasonable suspicion was profiling. My instructor was a former prosecuting attorney for Seattle and a former Attorney General's assistant. So seeing it from a trial attorney's point of view helped my understand it better.

I'm not giving you a hard time. Just giving you some stuff to think about that may keep you out of hot water in the future.


----------



## ProdigalMarine (Jan 31, 2003)

Scrappy said:


> A group of teens out during any time of the day doesn't automatically equate to reasonable suspicion. You've got to know what your reasonably suspicions of to effect a Terry stop. In this circumstance, the only way to meet the test of reasonable suspicion without further information is if there's a code or statute in your jurisdiction that covers curfews. But curfews are becoming very rare because they're almost always beaten when brought to the state supreme courts. If you got a call about a group of kids doing something, or witnessed something that would lead to further investigation then that's a different story.
> 
> You've got to be very careful because stuff like this can turn into profiling if you can't word your reasons for a Terry stop correctly. But saying a large group of teens usually equals trouble is absolutely profiling. It's no different than saying a large group of <insert any other group of people> is trouble. We did a lot of exercises about profiling in my cj classes and a lot of stuff that I thought I would be able to use for reasonable suspicion was profiling. My instructor was a former prosecuting attorney for Seattle and a former Attorney General's assistant. So seeing it from a trial attorney's point of view helped my understand it better.
> 
> I'm not giving you a hard time. Just giving you some stuff to think about that may keep you out of hot water in the future.


No offense taken. I welcome the critism from a fellow LEO...helps me out when I hit the streets.

From what I've learned about terry stops, the group of teens hanging out after hours do warrant some sort of reasonable suspicion, at least from my point of view. In VA, we have a 10pm curfew ordinance for civilians under 18.

Given the following, I came up with the reasonable suspicion (if the event was after 10pm):

Group of teenagers (9+).
Loitering on public property.

However, I do see what you mean by profiling. I guess my statement of "group of teenagers usually equal trouble" is a bit too biased. We haven't quite covered profiling yet, but when we get there, I'll see what you mean.

EDIT: Given the fact that K-whateverhernameis didn't say what time, I just figured it was sometime in the evening hours.


----------



## Avatar~God (Oct 21, 2004)

My friends and I use to get stopped by the police all the time after dark. Even when your of age they will still come over to you ask your for your id and that right there will give them time to see if you have been drinking, smoking, ext ext.... They will find any excuse out there to give you reason of them stopping you. About 80% of the time their excuse was "There were reports of teens vandalizing the houses in this area". In my neighborhood you would be lucky to see a house get toller papered, houses never get vandalized.

But i have alot of respect for cops and I believe they are given a hard time because they are the ones out there trying crack down on people. I plan on going into the academe after the Marines.


----------



## Scrappy (Oct 21, 2004)

ProdigalMarine said:


> No offense taken. I welcome the critism from a fellow LEO...helps me out when I hit the streets.
> 
> From what I've learned about terry stops, the group of teens hanging out after hours do warrant some sort of reasonable suspicion, at least from my point of view. In VA, we have a 10pm curfew ordinance for civilians under 18.
> 
> ...


Oh, I'm not an LEO. I have an AAS in Criminal Justice and an AA in English. I was planning in becoming a cop, but my dream job fell in my lap. Actually my original goal was to become an leo then work my way through law school.


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

ProdigalMarine said:


> GG what was your professors arguement as to why you couldn't put razors in your car? I agree with GG :helpsmilie:but at the same time, I have to disagree due to legal circumstances. Its like me saying "being a sworn police officer, during my off-duty time, I can go around shooting "bad" people up and arresting them and NOT be in trouble for my actions..."


It essentially comes down to the use of deadly force to protect property. You can only used deadly force when you feel your life is in danger....like the guy is in your house. Once he leaves your house...there is no longer a threat...so deadly force is not warranted. The use of razors would be the same as if I wired a shotgun under the dash and when they pulled out the stereo...they were shot. So even though the guy might not die...he could still sue me...and win...because I used deadly force to protect my property.

I still say it is crap. If I did this....and I found a finger in my car and my stereo gone....I would expect them to print it and track the guy down and get my fricken stereo back. Unfortunately that isnt how it would work


----------



## Puff (Feb 14, 2005)

excessive force is fine by me and becoming more and more necessary these days. people go out and start sh*t with a cop, then try and press charges on said cop when they get their face thrown in the mud.

dumb f*cks get away with far too much these days. back in the day if someone f*cked around with a cop they would get the sh*t beat out of them. but now with all the political correctness and generally pussyness of the world, the cops have their hands tied and cant even use force on someone who is being violent or in some way completely unreasonable.

i agree with GG. how is it fair that some f*cker tries to break into your private property (with the intention of stealing something), yet if you protect it with anything but your fists then YOU are in the wrong and go to jail/get sued. that is complete and utter bullshit.

if some sonofabitch breaks into my house, he isnt leaving with anything less than some broken bones. if they want to sue the person whose house they broke into then they should think twice, because next thing you know dudes with be installing Silence of the Lambs type holes in their basements to keep intruders in. then the police will never know (jk).

in thailand i bought a good police baton and was going to get a cheap chinese knockoff taser. i intend to use them if my property or family is threatened. i dont give a f*ck about a criminal. they are scum. too bad it wasnt like back in Medieval times when you could do something crazy like put intruders heads on pikes outside your front door. that would scare the scummy bastards off. but now you cant even protect your property until the intruder first attacks you (at least up here in canada).


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

I dont know what it is about that avatar Puff....but that thing just hypnotizes me....and not in a good way.

Anyways...in the US...if a criminal is in your home...they are free game. However if they are not in your home then you are limited in what you can do to protect your property.


----------



## ProdigalMarine (Jan 31, 2003)

Grosse Gurke said:


> Anyways...in the US...if a criminal is in your home...they are free game. However if they are not in your home then you are limited in what you can do to protect your property.


Blame the ACLU...


----------



## scent troll (Apr 4, 2005)

ProdigalMarine said:


> Anyways...in the US...if a criminal is in your home...they are free game. However if they are not in your home then you are limited in what you can do to protect your property.


Blame the ACLU...
[/quote]
well its called the castle doctrine. and i for one agree 100% with it. it basically states that any intruder in your home waves his rights and you are granted the right to use lethal force to protect yourself, your home and everyone in it by whatever means you deem credible. its not to say cases will not still be looked at, it just means as a home owner, it a burglar ends up dead after breaking into your home you will not be on the hot seat for it.

which in all honesty, why should you ever be? you were presented with a clear and present threat and had no intentions of committing an act in which would a person/persons would be dead as a result. in fact, if multiple people break into your home and said criminal ends up dead and his buddy escapes and is later prosecuted, he is by all means responsible for the death of his partner since he knowingly and willingly co-committed a crime that ended in said criminals death.


----------



## mori0174 (Mar 31, 2004)

Ocellatus2000 said:


> Anyways...in the US...if a criminal is in your home...they are free game. However if they are not in your home then you are limited in what you can do to protect your property.


Blame the ACLU...
[/quote]
well its called the castle doctrine. and i for one agree 100% with it. it basically states that any intruder in your home waves his rights and you are granted the right to use lethal force to protect yourself, your home and everyone in it by whatever means you deem credible. its not to say cases will not still be looked at, it just means as a home owner, it a burglar ends up dead after breaking into your home you will not be on the hot seat for it.

which in all honesty, why should you ever be? you were presented with a clear and present threat and had no intentions of committing an act in which would a person/persons would be dead as a result. in fact, if multiple people break into your home and said criminal ends up dead and his buddy escapes and is later prosecuted, he is by all means responsible for the death of his partner since he knowingly and willingly co-committed a crime that ended in said criminals death.
[/quote]

Just to clarify, you cannot do whatever you want and not be responsible. All the castle doctrine says in that regard is that you do not have to *retreat* if you are in your home. If you have to use lethal force to protect yourself in your home, while standing your ground, then so be it. People have gotten in hot water for shooting and/or assaulting someone who has broken into their home, if they dont have good reason.


----------



## Scrappy (Oct 21, 2004)

The Castle doctrine hasn't been adopted in every state.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

Grosse Gurke said:


> Im just arguing to argue
> 
> 
> 
> ...


unfortunately you do not decide who has committed a crime or not. that's up to our brave law enforcement men and women. the razor blades in your scenario i see nothing wrong with...of course, say you forget about them and 5 years down the road you sell the car to someone and they want to change the radio...oops.

here's a scenario people dont often consider. a guy has his shed broken into 5 times over the course of 2 months or so (hypothetical, but something like it actually did happen, it'd be a hell of a search to find an article though, as it was at least 8-10 years ago), so he decides to booby trap his shed with a shotgun and tripwire. he boobytrapped around the shed, so you didn't even have to open it to trip the wire. anyway, a while later (a few days or so), a drunk 18-20 year old kid is walking home from a party and decides to cut through this guys yard, accidently trips the wire and gets a hole blown through his chest. should the boobytrapper go to jail?

as for my previous arguments with you GG, freedom of speech is all emcompassing except for 5 categories... Obscenity, Child porn, fighting words, threats, and inciting of riots. the interesting thing (im not gonna lie, i reviewed my con law study guide...hey, it's been over a year since i was in college, gimme a break) is that threats must present a clear and imminent danger specific to the threat, fighting words must be specifically directed at a person, crowds need not apply, and for my scenario where the kid said "all pigs suck" to a group of cops, it was an expression of dissatisfaction towards the police, there was no threat, there was no personal attack at an individual, and there was no attempt at creating an act of violence required for it to be considered an incitement to riot. the basis for that traffic stop was unlawful, the speed limit was being observed and all the children were seated.

as far as giving criminals too many rights. wrong, we give cops too many rights, especially after 9/11, criminals dont get rights, as they're not criminals until they've been convicted as such. but i'll tell you this much, if i have to co-exist with criminals to get the rights proper that im due as guaranteed by the constitution, as opposed to giving up my rights in favor of a police state where everything is scrutinized and controlled by john law, im going with option A. you want to waive your rights, that's fine, but dont advocate waiving mine.


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

r1dermon said:


> here's a scenario people dont often consider. a guy has his shed broken into 5 times over the course of 2 months or so (hypothetical, but something like it actually did happen, it'd be a hell of a search to find an article though, as it was at least 8-10 years ago), so he decides to booby trap his shed with a shotgun and tripwire. he boobytrapped around the shed, so you didn't even have to open it to trip the wire. anyway, a while later (a few days or so), a drunk 18-20 year old kid is walking home from a party and decides to cut through this guys yard, accidently trips the wire and gets a hole blown through his chest. should the boobytrapper go to jail?


If he is stupid enough to set up a trap where someone only needs to walk in his yard to get shot...then yes...he should go to jail. That is just fricken stupid.


> as for my previous arguments with you GG, freedom of speech is all emcompassing except for 5 categories... Obscenity, Child porn, fighting words, threats, and inciting of riots. the interesting thing (im not gonna lie, i reviewed my con law study guide...hey, it's been over a year since i was in college, gimme a break) is that threats must present a clear and imminent danger specific to the threat, fighting words must be specifically directed at a person, crowds need not apply, and for my scenario where the kid said "all pigs suck" to a group of cops, it was an expression of dissatisfaction towards the police, there was no threat, there was no personal attack at an individual, and there was no attempt at creating an act of violence required for it to be considered an incitement to riot. the basis for that traffic stop was unlawful, the speed limit was being observed and all the children were seated.


No...freedom of speech is not all encompassing. For instance...this is a private website. If the owners of this site decide they dont want a topic discussed....it can be removed and I dont see how a court of law would overturn it. Also...you do not have freedom of speech where your job applies. Go ahead and tell your boss to f*ck off and see what happens. Freedom of speech would imply there are no consequences that can be imposed for what you say.....and that just isnt true. There might not be criminal penalties....but there certainly are penalties none the less.


> as far as giving criminals too many rights. wrong, we give cops too many rights, especially after 9/11, criminals dont get rights, as they're not criminals until they've been convicted as such. but i'll tell you this much, if i have to co-exist with criminals to get the rights proper that im due as guaranteed by the constitution, as opposed to giving up my rights in favor of a police state where everything is scrutinized and controlled by john law, im going with option A. you want to waive your rights, that's fine, but dont advocate waiving mine.


Easy to say when you are not living next to the crackwhore and her gang member boyfriend. Im fine with letting the criminal run free as well...because Im not that effected....but if I lived in North Portland....I would want a cop camped on my doorstep every night. I dont have to deal with gang members or methheads....but if I did....I would be begging for a police state. Im not willing to get shanked and robbed to prove a point.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

Grosse Gurke said:


> here's a scenario people dont often consider. a guy has his shed broken into 5 times over the course of 2 months or so (hypothetical, but something like it actually did happen, it'd be a hell of a search to find an article though, as it was at least 8-10 years ago), so he decides to booby trap his shed with a shotgun and tripwire. he boobytrapped around the shed, so you didn't even have to open it to trip the wire. anyway, a while later (a few days or so), a drunk 18-20 year old kid is walking home from a party and decides to cut through this guys yard, accidently trips the wire and gets a hole blown through his chest. should the boobytrapper go to jail?


If he is stupid enough to set up a trap where someone only needs to walk in his yard to get shot...then yes...he should go to jail. That is just fricken stupid.


> as for my previous arguments with you GG, freedom of speech is all emcompassing except for 5 categories... Obscenity, Child porn, fighting words, threats, and inciting of riots. the interesting thing (im not gonna lie, i reviewed my con law study guide...hey, it's been over a year since i was in college, gimme a break) is that threats must present a clear and imminent danger specific to the threat, fighting words must be specifically directed at a person, crowds need not apply, and for my scenario where the kid said "all pigs suck" to a group of cops, it was an expression of dissatisfaction towards the police, there was no threat, there was no personal attack at an individual, and there was no attempt at creating an act of violence required for it to be considered an incitement to riot. the basis for that traffic stop was unlawful, the speed limit was being observed and all the children were seated.


*No...freedom of speech is not all encompassing. For instance...this is a private website. If the owners of this site decide they dont want a topic discussed....it can be removed and I dont see how a court of law would overturn it. Also...you do not have freedom of speech where your job applies. Go ahead and tell your boss to f*ck off and see what happens. Freedom of speech would imply there are no consequences that can be imposed for what you say.....and that just isnt true. There might not be criminal penalties....but there certainly are penalties none the less.*


> as far as giving criminals too many rights. wrong, we give cops too many rights, especially after 9/11, criminals dont get rights, as they're not criminals until they've been convicted as such. but i'll tell you this much, if i have to co-exist with criminals to get the rights proper that im due as guaranteed by the constitution, as opposed to giving up my rights in favor of a police state where everything is scrutinized and controlled by john law, im going with option A. you want to waive your rights, that's fine, but dont advocate waiving mine.


Easy to say when you are not living next to the crackwhore and her gang member boyfriend. Im fine with letting the criminal run free as well...because Im not that effected....but if I lived in North Portland....I would want a cop camped on my doorstep every night. I dont have to deal with gang members or methheads....but if I did....I would be begging for a police state. Im not willing to get shanked and robbed to prove a point.
[/quote]

thats what im saying!!! freedom of speech protects you from the government. not from your boss. there are labor laws to do that, but most states are AT WILL work states, meaning, you show up to work because you want to be there, you can leave for any reason, just as your boss can do whatever he wants short of discrimination. you can say in a public forum (no, not an online forum like p-fury, but a "forum" in the literal sense of the word) that cops suck and you hate the way they do business. well that's fine, freedom of speech protects that. that's how a government by the people, for the people SHOULD work. but as soon as that shifts to "dont question your government, always do what they say, always listen to cops and authorities because they're always right" that's a load of BS, and that should be avoided at ALL costs.


----------



## Puff (Feb 14, 2005)

there was a story recently of a burglar who was tryign to get into a house. he got up on the roof and was checking out a skylight above the kitchen. while deciding whether to break in from that point the skylight gave way, and he fell into the house. onto the cutting board...on which there was a knife that had been left there after chopping stuff up.

burglar gets a nasty cut...

homeowner calls police...

burglar sues homeowner...and wins...

i couldnt believe that sh*t.


----------



## Scrappy (Oct 21, 2004)

Puff said:


> there was a story recently of a burglar who was tryign to get into a house. he got up on the roof and was checking out a skylight above the kitchen. while deciding whether to break in from that point the skylight gave way, and he fell into the house. onto the cutting board...on which there was a knife that had been left there after chopping stuff up.
> 
> burglar gets a nasty cut...
> 
> ...


The problem with stories like that is with the jurors. Who the hell in their right mind would let this doucebag burglar win that tort? Even if his attorney found some way that the homeowner would be liable, there's still jury nullification. F him, there's nothing his attorney can say that will make me vote in his favor. Jury nullification is one of my rights as a juror, even in a civil case. If people cast their votes based on what they believe to be moral, but not necessarily legal, this nation would be a much better place. You wouldn't see frivolous lawsuits anymore.


----------



## Puff (Feb 14, 2005)

like the fat bitch who fell off a mcdonalds toilet and hurt herself. sorry you fat broad, but if you are so fat that you cant properly position your arse on the toilet seat, then maybe you should stay inside your house.

or the other dumb person who got a coffee from mcdonalds, then decided to drive with it between their legs (cant remember if it was with or without the lid), then drove over a speedbump or pothole and spilled the coffee on their lap. then sued McDs for giving them coffee that was too hot...

seriously...some of the lawsuits that are filed in america are simply ridiculous. makes the rest of the country look bad.


----------



## cobrafox46 (Jun 2, 2008)

Puff said:


> like the fat bitch who fell off a mcdonalds toilet and hurt herself. sorry you fat broad, but if you are so fat that you cant properly position your arse on the toilet seat, then maybe you should stay inside your house.


----------



## Scrappy (Oct 21, 2004)

It's nuts that retards like that are now millionaires.


----------



## ProdigalMarine (Jan 31, 2003)

Scrappy said:


> It's nuts that retards like that are now millionaires.


Like I said...blame the ACLU.


----------



## Nick G (Jul 15, 2007)

Puff said:


> like the fat bitch who fell off a mcdonalds toilet and hurt herself. sorry you fat broad, but if you are so fat that you cant properly position your arse on the toilet seat, then maybe you should stay inside your house.
> 
> or the other dumb person who got a coffee from mcdonalds, then decided to drive with it between their legs (cant remember if it was with or without the lid), then drove over a speedbump or pothole and spilled the coffee on their lap. then sued McDs for giving them coffee that was too hot...
> 
> seriously...some of the lawsuits that are filed in america are simply ridiculous. makes the rest of the country look bad.


i agree.
maybe "people that go to mcdonalds" is the common strand too all of it.

i heard in other countries, if u sue someone and loose, you have to pay all the fees, and that discourages people from being stupid (in court) i think we should try that.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

ProdigalMarine said:


> It's nuts that retards like that are now millionaires.


Like I said...blame the ACLU.
[/quote]

ACLU has done some stupid sh*t, but they've also done some really good things in regards to protecting the publics rights and in-fact reducing the size of government.


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

r1dermon said:


> thats what im saying!!! freedom of speech protects you from the government. not from your boss. there are labor laws to do that, but most states are AT WILL work states, meaning, you show up to work because you want to be there, you can leave for any reason, just as your boss can do whatever he wants short of discrimination. you can say in a public forum (no, not an online forum like p-fury, but a "forum" in the literal sense of the word) that cops suck and you hate the way they do business. well that's fine, freedom of speech protects that. that's how a government by the people, for the people SHOULD work. but as soon as that shifts to "dont question your government, always do what they say, always listen to cops and authorities because they're always right" that's a load of BS, and that should be avoided at ALL costs.


IMO...there is a big difference between saying "the police in this town do a horrible job!"...or even "all cops suck!"..........and "all pigs suck!". The latter is using a derogatory term for police officer and that person deserves a wake up call. It is the same a stereotyping a group by race and using a racial slur to refer to that group. There are ways to voice your displeasure with people or organizations without resorting to derogatory or inflammatory language. It is called expanding your vocabulary....and it works wonders when you are in a verbal argument.

And besides&#8230;that idiot kid was just trying to showoff to his friends. It wasn't a protest. It wasn't to express the injustices the police have places upon his family&#8230;he was just acting like a dumbass and he got called on it. IMO&#8230;..the kid got off easy. Next time&#8230;tell him to say that to a gang and see what happens. You think the cop was out of line&#8230;.see what happens when you say something like that to a group that doesn't really care about the law.


----------



## KrBjostad (Jun 21, 2008)

I love the sherrifs in my area, the hi-pos, wpd, and a few haysville's officers are awesome, but for the majority the HPD they are the bottom of the totem pole. They barely passed high school, barely hireable by a police force. HPD have even had to send 5 of thier 21 officers to inpatient psych treatment for a while after they had their re-evals or whatever they're called


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

Grosse Gurke said:


> thats what im saying!!! freedom of speech protects you from the government. not from your boss. there are labor laws to do that, but most states are AT WILL work states, meaning, you show up to work because you want to be there, you can leave for any reason, just as your boss can do whatever he wants short of discrimination. you can say in a public forum (no, not an online forum like p-fury, but a "forum" in the literal sense of the word) that cops suck and you hate the way they do business. well that's fine, freedom of speech protects that. that's how a government by the people, for the people SHOULD work. but as soon as that shifts to "dont question your government, always do what they say, always listen to cops and authorities because they're always right" that's a load of BS, and that should be avoided at ALL costs.


IMO...there is a big difference between saying "the police in this town do a horrible job!"...or even "all cops suck!"..........and "all pigs suck!". The latter is using a derogatory term for police officer and that person deserves a wake up call. It is the same a *stereotyping a group by race and using a racial slur to refer to that group. There are ways to voice your displeasure with people or organizations without resorting to derogatory or inflammatory language.* It is called expanding your vocabulary....and it works wonders when you are in a verbal argument.

And besides&#8230;that idiot kid was just trying to showoff to his friends. It wasn't a protest. It wasn't to express the injustices the police have places upon his family&#8230;he was just acting like a dumbass and he got called on it. IMO&#8230;..the kid got off easy. Next time&#8230;tell him to say that to a gang and see what happens. You think the cop was out of line&#8230;.see what happens when you say something like that to a group that doesn't really care about the law.
[/quote]

hate speech is protected under the 1st amendment....im not condoning it, but it is protected under the 1st amendment.

maybe he was expressing his displeasure with the injustices the police have brought upon his family. you dont know the story, and i certainly dont claim to. cops aren't angels, they do fucked up things, and more often than people would like to know about. it's the people that pretend that they're genuinely there to help, that are in trouble. police work is a for profit business. they'll do anything for money. kind of like the gangs they supposedly keep off the streets.


----------

