Watch a cop suplex a protester
Posted: Tue Aug 11, 2015 4:52 pm
Fast forward past the bullshit parts to about 2:20 in the video.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6c0_1439251762
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6c0_1439251762
Win...settle....it's all the same. That guy just won the ghetto lottery.Sudden Sam wrote:Yet that guy will probably win a lawsuit against the cops.
When there are witnesses present, they seem to do things by the book. Imagine that.Jsc810 wrote:Police showed amazing restraint, hard to believe that take down was all they did. No mace, no batons, no tasers, again pretty hard to believe.
At least they didn't kill him. Low bar, nowadays.MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote: When there are witnesses present, they seem to do things by the book. Imagine that.
I really don't give a fuck about them or whatever point they're trying to make. Do you have any other long term questions you would like answered?BSmack wrote:A better long term question would be to ask why people are willing to risk physical injury and incarceration to get their point across?
Have at it.88 wrote:But what about using sufficient equipment and manpower to corral every fucking one of them into a pen, like sheep, so they can be taken into into custody, processed and then prosecuted?
A wood shampoo seems reasonable.88 wrote:[
In a civil society, what should the appropriate police response be when a group of people decide to "occupy" an interstate highway in violation of the law?
Like I expected you to care?mvscal wrote:I really don't give a fuck about them or whatever point they're trying to make. Do you have any other long term questions you would like answered?BSmack wrote:A better long term question would be to ask why people are willing to risk physical injury and incarceration to get their point across?
Or not. But at least the victim's family cashed in.88 wrote:And when you present your response, please be mindful that it is already illegal for police to shoot unarmed individuals who pose no serious threat to them. And in the very few instances when a violation of such laws does occur, the police officers responsible are prosecuted.
More to this point, settlements have little to do with right or wrong. More often than not the decision to settle is based upon a municipality's attorneys deciding that going to court could result in more cost & a larger award than the reward of fighting. So to access whether an officer's actions were legal or ethically correct based on whether there is a settlement or not is completely ridiculous.88 wrote:Goobs,Goober McTuber wrote:Or not. But at least the victim's family cashed in.88 wrote:And when you present your response, please be mindful that it is already illegal for police to shoot unarmed individuals who pose no serious threat to them. And in the very few instances when a violation of such laws does occur, the police officers responsible are prosecuted.
Comparing criminal culpability to civil liability is like comparing apples to oranges. OJ was acquitted of committing a crime, but held liable for the deaths of two people. It happens. In this case, it appears that no criminal prosecution was initiated. I am not privileged to the evidence, and thus cannot express an opinion on whether that decision was proper or not. But the fact that the city paid out $300,000 and an insurance company paid $3,000,000 to settle a civil action does not mean that the decision not to prosecute the cop was wrong.