Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
His life is ruined. He was too rough with the kid. He tasered him for too long and then dropped him roughly. Its not like he stood over him hitting him. He didn't know a taser could stop a heart just like the kids dad didn't know. He should have been and was disciplined appropriately.
I appreciate your sentiments. As you likely know I spent the majority of my career on these issues. I will not now discuss the rapidity of the officer's fuse before using the tazer improperly to achieve pain compliance. I will not discuss the officer dumping a limp, person, handcuffed behind their back, on a curb when soft grass was a foot away, but I will discuss an officer's responsibility to protect the health of person's in custody.Jayrod said:
The whole thing was awful, I agree. The officer was way out of line and should have been prosecuted and convicted, which he was. Apparently several other professionals in the field felt like the punishment should have been 4 years in prison, because that is what he got.
You are a reasonable fellow. That we differ only by degrees here does not make one of us right and the other wrong. I respect your opinion. The important point here is that there was accountability for the officer's actions, and his inactions.
What the heck?
I hear what you are saying, and I don't disagree really.
Unfortunately for Raja, the recorded conversation supports none of what he claims. I'm sure he had no idea the audio of the incident was being recorded by AT&T. Imagine if it wasn't - would a grand jury indict? We probably know the answer.
Yeah I'm listening to some pretty angry people here. Calling for the chief of police to resign immediately.
Is there any possible explanation for the bolded other than "we want to give officers a chance to concoct the story most likely to exonerate them while also standing up to scrutiny"? I can't think of one.
I'm curious how this plays out but death, destruction, injustice, corruption and apathy are a common occurrence down here. BR is definitely different than NO but if there's any serious protests or serious administrative action out if this is I'd be surprised. It's too damned hot right now for one thing.
Exactly. I hope they get a ton of crap for this in the press and with the public. That statement, more than anything, is indicative of the larger problem at work and the reason for all the protests- the common perception that law enforcement serves its own interests above the public interest. This was at work in Ferguson as well, where law enforcement circled the wagons for days before making any statements at all. Even if the shooting turns out to be justified (hard to imagine), the public has every right to be suspicious of whatever tale they're eventually told.
Tobias the government here is corrupt and the people apathetic and the press is compliant to disinterested.
Understood, but I think this may get some national play and exert some pressure that might not normally be there.
All for the better. The Danziger incident is the worst case of police killing and cover up I've ever read or heard about and it's still in the courts 11 years later. We have others, typically the police themselves are involved in illegal stuff. Good luck to all of us.
My experience is that police unions bargain hard for the right to have officers clear headed, rested, and under the representation of a union lawyer before making statements in a use of force investigation. Somebody mentioned this courtesy is not supplied to average citizens, and that is correct, though they are allowed access to lawyers. Most Chiefs and their command, and the civilian authorities for which they work, would likely prefer to apply the same standards to officers as they do to civilians but are prevented by collective bargaining contracts from so doing, if only for a time.
DW - from what I've read, in most departments not only do they get the 24 hours, they are also allowed to review any videos (including body cams) of the incident before they are questioned and before they fine a report.
Not uniformly. There are a couple of procedures or processes that can get conflated here as well. Directives will vary somewhat among Departments as to when incident reports must be filed and as to when investigative statements on use of force investigations begin. It is common to allow viewing of video when crafting incident reports, the classic police report as generally discussed. It is less common to allow further review of video, or even of the incident reports again before being interviewed internally, but that does happen as well. One has to remember that in use of force matters there really are two matters running side by side, the underlying criminal investigation which brought the officer into the matter, and the administrative investigation on use of force which may itself evolve, potentially quickly, into a second criminal investigation. Both matters have procedural timelines and in both matters individuals have rights and sometimes there is tension between those rights.
I'm going to go get some coffee and look at the papers (yes the newspaper...), curious if there's anything in them on this.
Myself, I would not go so far, so fast. The video tape does have audio stating or claiming the deceased had a gun. The deceased was struggling and may have reached for or even gotten ahold of a gun and brought it to bear. The video is dark and partially obstructed by a vehicle.
I was unable to make the observations from the video that you made. I am currently working off of a small monitor with poor definition. I will be interested to see if that bears out.
Memory is distorted immediately following a stressful event. Look into "critical incident amnesia" for some research.
If that's the case, why don't cops do the same for citizen suspects? Why are they interrogated as soon as possible?
I believe public confidence is enhanced somewhat when a Department's investigation of itself is transparent and is subject to review by outside agencies, though politics can never be wholly removed from such matters to everyone's satisfaction.
Because it is from such statements that probable cause to effectuate arrests arises, so that exigency needs to be addressed. Many Departments re-interview witnesses and suspects and find that they obtain additional useful information later on. the issue of memory function and developing research in that field always precedes what law enforcement practices are. This is so since law enforcement practices are subject to shaping by courts, and in many instances are negotiated by unions, and further subject to legislative whim. and political pressure from community advocacy groups, who, after all, vote.
Citizen suspects also always retain the right to remain silent. They would be well advised, in every instance, to do so.
