Bus Driver uppercut

[Wolseley]

"You want to act like a man, you get treated like a man."

I do love how she tries to claim he shouldn't have hit her.
"I'm a girl" You hit someone, you should expect to be hit back.
Don't want to get hit? Don't hit.

Everyone thinks the rule is:
"Never hit a woman"
The whole rule is: "Never hit a woman, unless she hits you first(and you have witnesses)."

Hey, women can be in the armed forces---even in combat roles now; they can be police officers, they can be longshoremen and lumberjacks and weightlifters. Seems to me that "You can't hit me, I'm a woman!" is a bit of a double standard----some of them evidently want to have their cake and eat it, too.

 

[IanCG]

How about no?
If the suspect attacks the officer, the officer should fight back. Police work is difficult and dangerous enough as it is, without having to have criminals be allowed to beat you without fighting back.

Police work is difficult, which is why police officers should be examples of patience, discipline, and law. That's their job, and while it's hard, it's something they are paid to do.

Instead, we have too many examples of cowardice, bullying and incompetence. What's worse than that are the excuses people make for these cops in order to justify their abuses.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Police work is difficult, which is why police officers should be examples of patience, discipline, and law. That's their job, and while it's hard, it's something they are paid to do.

Instead, we have too many examples of cowardice, bullying and incompetence. What's worse than that are the excuses people make for these cops in order to justify their abuses.

You still never answered my question from before

If you yell get down and they don't listen, a tazer doesn't work, 4 on 1 doesn't work, a half dozen baton shots don't work...where do you go from there?
(which is exactly what happened in the Rodney King case)

 

[LionofJudahDK]

Police work is difficult, which is why police officers should be examples of patience, discipline, and law. That's their job, and while it's hard, it's something they are paid to do.

Instead, we have too many examples of cowardice, bullying and incompetence. What's worse than that are the excuses people make for these cops in order to justify their abuses.

Yes, because those three cases, do your entire case make, right? Please.... These three cases, of which "only" the last two seem to be questionable, do not prove anything. Nor do they mean that the millions of normal police officers should just take the abuse of criminals. They're paid to keep the rest of us safe from those people you're so eagerly defending. They're NOT paid to be punching bags for criminals.
You attack a cop - you deserve whatever you get. Period.

 

[TheDag]

According to your flag, you're also from the land down under.

You don't have the kind of riff-raff down there that we have in the US.

Makes no difference. Minimum amount of force required to do the job is what should always be used. In case of this altercation that started this thread restraining them would have been minimum force. Heck cut their air supply off for a bit to get them compliant if need be. That leaves no lasting damage unless you do it to the point they pass out. You can do it in a way where it has an immeadiate impact.

 

[TheDag]

Yes, because those three cases, do your entire case make, right? Please.... These three cases, of which "only" the last two seem to be questionable, do not prove anything. Nor do they mean that the millions of normal police officers should just take the abuse of criminals. They're paid to keep the rest of us safe from those people you're so eagerly defending. They're NOT paid to be punching bags for criminals.
You attack a cop - you deserve whatever you get. Period.

I agree that a few examples does not mean every cop should be painted with the same brush just like because alot of cops do the right thing does not mean we should give a free pass to all cops to do whatever they like. Going from one extreme to the other just creates different problems. Perhaps you would rather it be like in some countries where people are afraid of the cops because if on a whim they decide to kill you then your dead.

Ever wonder why cops don't have the same freedoms they used to? The answer is because too often that trust got abused. There was also the code of silence. Instead the good cops should have been coming straight out and saying yeah they did the wrong thing. Then perhaps stricter controls would not have been required.

 

[LionofJudahDK]

because if on a whim they decide to kill you then your dead.

WillyWonka:
Please, tell me more about when that was ever the case in Western democracies.
I said nothing of the kind. And saying that people who attack cops deserve whatever they get, is not the same as saying cops should be able to kill people for looking at them wrong.

Then perhaps stricter controls would not have been required.

Funny how, when it comes to voter fraud, you need a million cases to care. But when it comes to police officers doing their job, only one or two bad cases apparently necessitates binding their right hand to their right foot.

 

[TheDag]

WillyWonka:
Please, tell me more about when that was ever the case in Western democracies.
I said nothing of the kind. And saying that people who attack cops deserve whatever they get, is not the same as saying cops should be able to kill people for looking at them wrong.

when did I say that it was in western democracies. Nor did I say you claimed it was the same so perhaps you can drop the persecution complex. I was simply pointing out that either extreme is unhealthy. You were having a go at one person saying they only had three examples. If you were honest with yourself you would know there are way more examples and we can go back hundreds of years to see that it happened hundreds of years ago as well (police abusing powers). Regardless of if it is a minority that does not mean it is a healthy attitude to say they deserve whatever they get either. As usual the healthy attitude is a balance inbetween. As I also pointed out many good cops actually stayed silent and kept to the 'code of silence' and perhaps if they had spoken up people would be able to see that they would police themselves and they would be more trusting.

Funny how, when it comes to voter fraud, you need a million cases to care. But when it comes to police officers doing their job, only one or two bad cases apparently necessitates binding their right hand to their right foot.

Nice strawman. Voter fraud has nothing to do with this topic. The main voter fraud in this country is actually within political parties for the purpose of a certain candidate getting nominated to stand for election. I haven't looked into voter fraud in the US so can't comment on it. People here don't tend to want to vote more than once! If you honestly think it is only one or two cases then you are deceiving yourself. I am sure that it is a small percentage of total cases although abuse of power seems to be getting more frequent. However as pointed out police are given a special trust by the community and greater power than the average citizen. As a result they have a greater responsibility and must be held to a higher standard. So even then your comparision fails.

 

[IanCG]

Yes, because those three cases, do your entire case make, right? Please.... These three cases, of which "only" the last two seem to be questionable, do not prove anything. Nor do they mean that the millions of normal police officers should just take the abuse of criminals. They're paid to keep the rest of us safe from those people you're so eagerly defending. They're NOT paid to be punching bags for criminals.
You attack a cop - you deserve whatever you get. Period.

And if a cop attacks you?

 

[IanCG]

You still never answered my question from before

If you yell get down and they don't listen, a tazer doesn't work, 4 on 1 doesn't work, a half dozen baton shots don't work...where do you go from there?
(which is exactly what happened in the Rodney King case)

Define "work" because they seemed to have King well cowed before the last few dozen baton hits.

 

[muslimsoldier4life]

Heck cut their air supply off for a bit to get them compliant if need be.

Hitting someone and choking them out are two different things. If you hit someone, it's self defense. If you choke someone out, then it can be spun as attempeted murder.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Define "work" because they seemed to have King well cowed before the last few dozen baton hits.

I'll define work.

If police officiers are yelling "stay down", and you're not staying down, what they're doing isn't working.

If there instructions are to "stay down", they have authority to escalate their tactics until you stay down.

 

[LionofJudahDK]

I'll define work.

If police officiers are yelling "stay down", and you're not staying down, what they're doing isn't working.

If there instructions are to "stay down", they have authority to escalate their tactics until you stay down.

This!

 

[TheDag]

I'll define work.

If police officiers are yelling "stay down", and you're not staying down, what they're doing isn't working.

If there instructions are to "stay down", they have authority to escalate their tactics until you stay down.

So you agree they were excessive in the rodney king case then. after all he was down and staying down before the end. of course if one is being hit it is only normal behaviour to avoid it.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

So you agree they were excessive in the rodney king case then. after all he was down and staying down before the end. of course if one is being hit it is only normal behaviour to avoid it.

I don't think they were excessive.

There's another good way of avoiding being hit by the police...and that is, of course, don't break the law.

Leading them on a high speed chase, followed by 3 consecutive refusals to obey their instructions? They gave him 3 chances to cooperate and attempted to use physical restraining and a taser first before taking it up a notch...I would say they did their job.

 

[Metal Minister]

I don't think they were excessive.

There's another good way of avoiding being hit by the police...and that is, of course, don't break the law.

Leading them on a high speed chase, followed by 3 consecutive refusals to obey their instructions? They gave him 3 chances to cooperate and attempted to use physical restraining and a taser first before taking it up a notch...I would say they did their job.

And so did a jury of their peers...

 

[IanCG]

And so did a jury of their peers...

Good for the jury, they're the ones who decide someone needs punishment for breaking the law, not the police.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Good for the jury, they're the ones who decide someone needs punishment for breaking the law, not the police.

Yes, but they weren't issuing a punishment. They were using elevated force to control a situation when prior attempts using lower force failed.

For example, if a person is shooting at people in a store and a cop or responsible citizen draws their weapon and takes him out, is that really considered usurping a jury or the court? I think not.

I propose that Rodney King was putting just as many lives in danger as a person performing an armed robbery. He was almost twice the legal blood/alcohol limit and was speeding through residential neighborhoods at speeds between 55-80mph. I'm sure you'd feel differently if you child was playing outside and got hit by his car...

Our police are part of our local executive branch. They have a duty to enforce the law. If the law states that you are to follow an officer's instructions while being arrested, then they have a right and civic duty to enforce that law if you're not following it...and as stated before, this includes using continuously increased force until you obey their orders.

 

[IanCG]

As far as him being dangerous, you might have had a point except he was no longer speeding drunkenly at that point. You don't shoot someone because they "had" a gun.

We get it. I believe it's excessive force, you don't. We have the same facts, different conclusions, but I'd like to err on the side of someone not getting the everloving hell beat out of them.

 

[TheDag]

I don't think they were excessive.

There's another good way of avoiding being hit by the police...and that is, of course, don't break the law.

Leading them on a high speed chase, followed by 3 consecutive refusals to obey their instructions? They gave him 3 chances to cooperate and attempted to use physical restraining and a taser first before taking it up a notch...I would say they did their job.

I know Australia is a different country but there was a case which demonstrates the point you are missing very well. A guy went to rob a store with a knife. The person had a cricket bat (similar to a baseball bat) and hit the assailant breaking his arm and causing them to drop the knife. That was deemed self defence. However the person then continued to hit them with the bat. That was assault. Police have training that ordinary people don't. So if a civilian is expected to know when to stop then police have more of a responsibility considering the training. Likewise in the Rodney King case the suggestion has been put forward that they did not stop when King stopped resisting. That is then wrong. They may have had correct actions up to that point but once he stopped they should have stopped. That is the training they are given as police officers. They failed to follow it. See it is actually possible (and not that uncommon) for both sides to be in the wrong. It isn't the black and white you like to suggest it is.