Not to worry, At least one Bold Hero Of The Uniform will step forward to mount a defense, (probably successfully) arguing that beating on the cripple is due no more than a couple days of paid vacation. It’ll be an inspiration to all real americans.
1 Like
I don’t even…
1 Like
I thought this was legally acceptable behaviour for authories in the usa. Don’t police always do stuff like this? I thought it was allowed when the person experiencing restraint or corporal punishment didn’t follow orders, or were otherwise denying the authority’s will.
3 Likes
How about the other guys standing around laughing?
I mean, it is a cop we’re talking about here. No need to restate the obvious, right?
If they scapegoat one, the others do not exist. Q.E.D.
A video surfaces. It is of a bunch of people, standing around a cop who is handcuffed and banging his head against a desk. One of the people say “He’s getting violent!”, whips out a taser, and tases the cop. Much laughter ensues. Can you imagine the police response?
4 Likes
I’m a criminal defense attorney, and mental health issues and cavalier cops are nothing new. The real culprits are the ones smart enough not to get caught. These clowns are just that stupid… (There are mostly honest and good cops out there btw.)
Wow I’m impressed that there is an investigation and a lawsuit. I thought government agents (police officers etc.) in the US, similar to other authoritarian regimes, have some sort of legal immunity. “Equal before the law” is an important principle in a democracy.
Mr Pants specializes in criminal defence of the mentally ill. If you think this is unusual… well, think again.
1 Like
To me, the most disturbing part was how the people involved are not being charged with criminal activity. These civil lawsuits and administrative punishments are not enough. Police need to be treated like everyone else when they commit a crime. Otherwise the law is a sham.
1 Like
If memory serves, that’s the minimum you need to assert for federal court. It’s more of a “our guy is claiming sufficient damages for this to clear the jurisdictional hurdle” rather than a “this is the maximum amount we expect to win.”
Although that may just be for cases where federal jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship…
Yeah, I got nothing.
I see your point. But (a) that brings us back to the question of respect for the victim – if they put it out there and/or approve it fine, if not I have trouble with it having their identity visible – and (b) I really wonder how many of these actually provoke action rather than pointing in disgust and/or laughter and/or “someone [else] ought to do something!” slacktivism.
Making this available to the jury and others who are actually going to Do Something about it makes all kinds of sense. I’m not convinced that signal-boosting it to the general public actually increases the number of people who will try to Do Something more than text – and possibly a single still – would. And as noted above, there is potential of significant downside.
Judgement call. I respect your opinion, but I stand by my conclusions.
1 Like
I watched the video. I didn’t see uproarious laughter from anyone but I think the person recording the video likely was the leaker. It’s kind of subjective interpretation but I didn’t hear them making any noises and they seemed to be keen on catching the factual aspects of the incident.
There’s only a lawsuit because the video got leaked. As for any investigation, it seems unlikely this will go past the level of a perfunctory internal review culminating in a pat on the back and a “yah done good” from IA.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
