|
|
Post by dr snootch on Dec 4, 2003 8:58:15 GMT -5
CINCINNATI - A coroner said the death of a 350-pound black man who was clubbed by police in a videotaped beating was caused primarily by the struggle, partly attributable to his weight, heart disease and drug use. How is it that taking a swing at a police officer is now a capital offense? Wrong? Absolutely yes. Punishable by death? Maybe that's going a little too far. Police officers seem to be the only people in this country legally allowed to kill people out of revenge. It is absolutely unreasonable that 6 trained, physically adept police officers cannot put one human being under physical restraint without killing him. Hospital orderlies routinely restrain people on drugs, suffering from psychological issues, etc without causing serious physical harm. Nightclub bouncers also encounter their fair share of drunk, violent patrons and somehow manage to almost never kill them. Why should police officers be held to lesser standards than a $9/hr. hospital orderly and bouncer? I don't believe it's a race issue and I think the folks in Cincy are doing themselves a disservice by proclaiming it so. It's an issue of revenge. Police officers killing a suspect for becoming physically combative. If this man had attacked a group of 6 high school kids who had then gotten him on the ground and beat him to death on videotape, we would be a horrified nation anxiously awaiting the life sentences the youths would likely receive. Since his run-in occurred with police officers, 'he got what he deserved.' Another travesty of American 'justice' that will undoubtedly be overlooked by the overseers at the DOJ.
|
|
|
|
Post by RS Davis on Dec 6, 2003 10:40:52 GMT -5
CINCINNATI - A coroner said the death of a 350-pound black man who was clubbed by police in a videotaped beating was caused primarily by the struggle, partly attributable to his weight, heart disease and drug use. How is it that taking a swing at a police officer is now a capital offense? Wrong? Absolutely yes. Punishable by death? Maybe that's going a little too far. Police officers seem to be the only people in this country legally allowed to kill people out of revenge. It is absolutely unreasonable that 6 trained, physically adept police officers cannot put one human being under physical restraint without killing him. Hospital orderlies routinely restrain people on drugs, suffering from psychological issues, etc without causing serious physical harm. Nightclub bouncers also encounter their fair share of drunk, violent patrons and somehow manage to almost never kill them. Why should police officers be held to lesser standards than a $9/hr. hospital orderly and bouncer? I don't believe it's a race issue and I think the folks in Cincy are doing themselves a disservice by proclaiming it so. It's an issue of revenge. Police officers killing a suspect for becoming physically combative. If this man had attacked a group of 6 high school kids who had then gotten him on the ground and beat him to death on videotape, we would be a horrified nation anxiously awaiting the life sentences the youths would likely receive. Since his run-in occurred with police officers, 'he got what he deserved.' Another travesty of American 'justice' that will undoubtedly be overlooked by the overseers at the DOJ. From what I understand of this, they only hit him in the legs because he wouldn't lie down. He kept trying to get up and fight with him. It seems the struggle he put up, the physical exertion he spent trying to escape arrest, is what did him in. A couple of points on the way out: Hospital orderlies have the benefit of sedative drugs, and bouncers only have to get the offender outside the bar, not restrain him. When the offender becomes too voilent, they have to call the police. And then the police have to come deal with the person and hope nothing bad happens. Don't get me wrong, I've known a lot of good cops and a lot of bad cops. Because of the inordinate (and unauthorized) amount of power they are afforded, it is inescapable that the bad ones have the ability to do great harm. It's a shame that this has to affect the good cops that are out there everyday, without thanks, protecting our lives and property.  - Rick |
|
|
|
Post by dr snootch on Dec 6, 2003 12:44:26 GMT -5
From what I understand of this, they only hit him in the legs because he wouldn't lie down. He kept trying to get up and fight with him. It seems the struggle he put up, the physical exertion he spent trying to escape arrest, is what did him in. A couple of points on the way out: Hospital orderlies have the benefit of sedative drugs, and bouncers only have to get the offender outside the bar, not restrain him. When the offender becomes too voilent, they have to call the police. And then the police have to come deal with the person and hope nothing bad happens. Don't get me wrong, I've known a lot of good cops and a lot of bad cops. Because of the inordinate (and unauthorized) amount of power they are afforded, it is inescapable that the bad ones have the ability to do great harm. It's a shame that this has to affect the good cops that are out there everyday, without thanks, protecting our lives and property. - Rick You bring up valid points about the differing situations with orderlies and bouncers (although, in the case of orderlies, someone still has to administer the sedative to the often violent patient.) I guess my problem is that the public response is generally, 'he got what he deserved'. I think 6 cops should, in almost every case, be able to subdue a suspect non-fatally more often than they currently do. I think cops, because of the deadly force they are legally allowed to use, should be held to much higher standards than the average citizen. And, too often it seems, they are held to lesser standards. Actions certainly do carry consequences and people should be expected to bear the consequences of their actions, but I think we need to be examining these deaths more closely and determine how police could've reacted differently in a given situation to prevent serious harm to all parties involved. |
|
|
|
Post by RS Davis on Dec 8, 2003 5:22:10 GMT -5
I guess my problem is that the public response is generally, 'he got what he deserved'. I think 6 cops should, in almost every case, be able to subdue a suspect non-fatally more often than they currently do. I think cops, because of the deadly force they are legally allowed to use, should be held to much higher standards than the average citizen. And, too often it seems, they are held to lesser standards. Actions certainly do carry consequences and people should be expected to bear the consequences of their actions, but I think we need to be examining these deaths more closely and determine how police could've reacted differently in a given situation to prevent serious harm to all parties involved. We do, indeed, need to heavily scrutinize any action that our police take which robs another human being of their life. It's also a good idea to try and teach our police officers increasingly better skills that would help them make better decisions in stressful and frightening situations. But we also need to keep in mind that officers many times have to make that decision in an instant, as even the slightest hesitation can be the difference between life and death. They are bound to sometimes make mistakes. We don't want to excuse mistakes, and certainly a person prone to such a thing should be removed from field duty, but we also have to remember that even police are innocent until proven guilty. And I think that many times, the community is more apt to presume their guilt, as tends to be the case especially when the victim is a minority member. - Rick |
|
|
|
Post by dr snootch on Dec 8, 2003 18:55:10 GMT -5
STLToday just had a series about bad cops being shuffled around the metro area due to lack of incident-reporting and lack of extensive background checks.
It's been discovered that police officers who commit violations during their probationary period are not even subject to having the violations reported to the state board. They're just moved on to the next-lowest-paying jurisdiction.
Police boards need to be held responsible for the quality of the officers they put on the streets. Uses of force need to be scrutinized, perhaps even by an outside/public agency.
|
|
|
|
Post by dr snootch on Dec 8, 2003 19:00:24 GMT -5
Don't know if this means anything or not, but here goes:
On the TV show 'Cops', they never show 6 cops beat anybody with billy clubs, they always show them tackling the guy, piling on top of him and getting him hand-cuffed.
If they can detain a 350-pound cracked-out drunk for the TV show without beating him to death, why can't they ever do it in real life?
|
|
|
|
Post by RS Davis on Dec 9, 2003 10:21:31 GMT -5
STLToday just had a series about bad cops being shuffled around the metro area due to lack of incident-reporting and lack of extensive background checks. It's been discovered that police officers who commit violations during their probationary period are not even subject to having the violations reported to the state board. They're just moved on to the next-lowest-paying jurisdiction. Police boards need to be held responsible for the quality of the officers they put on the streets. Uses of force need to be scrutinized, perhaps even by an outside/public agency. Well, that's just stupid. Typical beuracratic decision making, eh? - Rick |
|
|
|
Post by RS Davis on Dec 9, 2003 10:22:55 GMT -5
Don't know if this means anything or not, but here goes: On the TV show 'Cops', they never show 6 cops beat anybody with billy clubs, they always show them tackling the guy, piling on top of him and getting him hand-cuffed. If they can detain a 350-pound cracked-out drunk for the TV show without beating him to death, why can't they ever do it in real life? I would imagine that the odds are just against them. Police beating a suspect to death is a pretty rare thing, and the odds that the Cops people would be watching the right department on the right day would be pretty slim. - Rick |
|
