School cop body-slams 6th grade girl to floor

[Spungo]

a good start would be mandatory body cameras and dash cams.

This would also reduce the rate of false allegations of police brutality. Everyone wins!

 

[JSt0rm]

agreed.

a good start would be mandatory body cameras and dash cams. TAMPER proof is possible. Also huge punishment for them "forgetting" to turn them on or to many instances of them being damaged.

When they file reports that are not true they need to suspended and if it happens again fired. I'm not talking little mistakes. but blatant lies.

Also cops need to be investigated by a 100% outside source. When they get charged and go in front of a judge it has to be in a area where the cop does not work.

They wont allow any of that. We need robocops.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Are you serious? READ my first sentence, I wasn't saying the cop who did this was being alert. I was saying if a cop had to be called into the school they would have to be more alert and aware of things going on around him which may lead to something like this.

The cop who did this was in the wrong because he is the school's cop. I don't know how many more times and ways I can say this.

but if he was a county sheriff or local PD, it'd be ok?

Bolded the part that needs some clarification.

 

[VtPC83]

If it was a Sheriff or local PD I would expect that they would have an heightened sense of urgency going to a school call given all the situations that have occurred at schools recently. There they would have a more neutral stance on the student body, they would want to resolve the issue as soon as possible and probably with less gentleness than someone who was more familiar with the school and students.

Since it was the school cop I would have expected more understanding because that school cop would know the students personally probably, at least some of them. That changes the dynamic. I liken it to a beat cop who knows his beat and can de-escalate issues by being familiar with the people on his beat more easily than an unknown entity.

I'll understand if you disagree, some people won't get it but I think it makes a drastic difference.

 

[JSt0rm]

cops wont go into a shooter situation even if kids are dying. So I dont know what heightened sense of anything you are talking about. Their lives are worth more then everyone elses.

A fireman will rush into a building whose wall just collapsed to rescue you. They will put their life on the line.

Cops will sit and wait for backup while children die.

 

[VtPC83]

Not sure where you're getting this information. That was true years ago (Columbine) but policies have changed drastically since then. As soon as officers are on the scene they go in, even if there are only a couple of them. That's new policy across most of the country.

I know you have a real hard-on for cops, which is clearly evident by your comparison to hero firemen, but there are actually far more good cops than bad, you just see the bad ones more often because that's what people want to read about in the news.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

No hard-on for cops here, just ones that clearly are using their position of authority to inflict harm. If you can't see that, there's not much hope.
And again, a TRAINED police officer would have no call to body slam a 12 year old girl, basically a child, by the legal definition.
If she were my daughter I'd be talking to many, many lawyers about some recompensation

 

[VtPC83]

Right, I was referring to JStorm's opinion of police, given his clear example of how they will let children die whereas firemen would rescue them.

I agree, using position of authority to inflict unwarranted harm is wrong. However, if harm occurs due to compliance related necessities then there is some leeway there.

Have you been TRAINED as a police officer? If not then you can't say a TRAINED officer would have no call, its merely speculation. What his guy did was wrong because
1. it was excessive (which I have stated and repeated numerous times throughout this thread)
2. as the school's cop he would be familiar with the setting and should be more capable of de-escalating due to his familiarity with the students
3. he didn't submit a report that matched the video and the report was late

If she were my daughter I would rather know what truly happened before wanting compensation. What was the situation? We still don't really know.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Right, I was referring to JStorm's opinion of police, given his clear example of how they will let children die whereas firemen would rescue them.

I agree, using position of authority to inflict unwarranted harm is wrong. However, if harm occurs due to compliance related necessities then there is some leeway there.

Have you been TRAINED as a police officer? If not then you can't say a TRAINED officer would have no call, its merely speculation. What his guy did was wrong because
1. it was excessive (which I have stated and repeated numerous times throughout this thread)
2. as the school's cop he would be familiar with the setting and should be more capable of de-escalating due to his familiarity with the students
3. he didn't submit a report that matched the video and the report was late

If she were my daughter I would rather know what truly happened before wanting compensation. What was the situation? We still don't really know.

Keep apologizing for an obvious act of aggression towards a child.

 

[Subyman]

cops wont go into a shooter situation even if kids are dying. So I dont know what heightened sense of anything you are talking about. Their lives are worth more then everyone elses.

A fireman will rush into a building whose wall just collapsed to rescue you. They will put their life on the line.

Cops will sit and wait for backup while children die.

Ouch, that is a decent point. Active shooter? Wait for 100 more cops to show up and then wait for SWAT while kids are being gunned down. Kids slapping each other means the cop springs into action with a brutal body slam and a trip straight to jail.

FWIW, that paragraph was just for fun. At Sandy Hook, the police entered the building within 10 mins of the call.

 

[VtPC83]

LOL made me edit my post Subyman...

Below is for Jstorm and anyone then.

Yup, that explains a lot. The ignorance of folks on this forum about police and their policies.

Small example of policy Changes-
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-04-19-columbine-police-tactics_N.htm

http://www.oregonlive.com/gresham/index.ssf/2014/06/oregon_school_shooting_police_1.html

And please don't call me a police apologist, they need to be monitored for wrong behavior (bodycams, etc see waggy's post) but you do need to understand that they have leeway on violence for a very good reason, a reason that many people would refuse themselves; to put themselves between danger and people.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

LOL made me edit my post Subyman...

Below is for Jstorm and anyone then.

Yup, that explains a lot. The ignorance of folks on this forum about police and their policies.

Small example of policy Changes-
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-04-19-columbine-police-tactics_N.htm

http://www.oregonlive.com/gresham/index.ssf/2014/06/oregon_school_shooting_police_1.html

And please don't call me a police apologist, they need to be monitored for wrong behavior (bodycams, etc see waggy's post) but you do need to understand that they have leeway on violence for a very good reason, a reason that many people would refuse themselves; to put themselves between danger and people.

Yea, that 12 year old girl was a cross between a rabid wolverine and a psychotic grizzly
Clearly an imminent threat that needed to be contained. Leeway on violence. Bullshit. Cops are trained to handle violent offenders, and no, I have never been a cop, but if they are not getting trained for that, we have a much bigger problem.

 

[Darwin333]

what? NONE of that changes the situation at all.

He had control of her. She didn't bite him, kick him or anything when he slammed her down.

the fact he was a school cop doesn't mean shit.

Even is she did there were WAY less brutal ways to gain her compliance. I don't care what she was doing to him, at least what she could reasonably do in that situation, he could have easily twisted her arm behind her back, put her against the wall and cuff her. It's a 12 year old girl that he already had a good enough grip on that he could pull off an over the shoulder bodyslam on her. Unless she had some sort of weapon or something I can't think of a anything in that situation that could have warranted bodyslamming her face first on the concrete.

 

[thesmokingman]

LOL made me edit my post Subyman...

Below is for Jstorm and anyone then.

Yup, that explains a lot. The ignorance of folks on this forum about police and their policies.

Small example of policy Changes-
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-04-19-columbine-police-tactics_N.htm

http://www.oregonlive.com/gresham/index.ssf/2014/06/oregon_school_shooting_police_1.html

And please don't call me a police apologist, they need to be monitored for wrong behavior (bodycams, etc see waggy's post) but you do need to understand that they have leeway on violence for a very good reason, a reason that many people would refuse themselves; to put themselves between danger and people.

You gotta get over yourself equating a 12yr old girl and mass murderers.

 

[VtPC83]

You gotta get over yourself equating a 12yr old girl and mass murderers.

Please read the thread, I was responding to something Jstorm said that was totally unrelated to the 12 y/o girl in this thread.

 

[Darwin333]

agreed.

a good start would be mandatory body cameras and dash cams. TAMPER proof is possible. Also huge punishment for them "forgetting" to turn them on or to many instances of them being damaged.

When they file reports that are not true they need to suspended and if it happens again fired. I'm not talking little mistakes. but blatant lies.

Also cops need to be investigated by a 100% outside source. When they get charged and go in front of a judge it has to be in a area where the cop does not work.

Filing a false police report is a crime for us plebes so why shouldn't it be for cops? As you said, when it's provable and blatant lying.

 

[Darwin333]

Not sure where you're getting this information. That was true years ago (Columbine) but policies have changed drastically since then. As soon as officers are on the scene they go in, even if there are only a couple of them. That's new policy across most of the country.

I know you have a real hard-on for cops, which is clearly evident by your comparison to hero firemen, but there are actually far more good cops than bad, you just see the bad ones more often because that's what people want to read about in the news.

Let me ask you a serious question. If a good cop blatantly lies to cover up criminal actions of a bad cop, is he still a good cop? And I'm talking a real stand up cop who respects the community he swore an oath to and other than the covering up for bad cops he does everything right. Is that guy still a good cop?

I know that there are tons and tons of stand up LEO's, good and decent folk. My problem is the "thin blue line" culture that is in every single police department. We know this for an absolute fact because of all the stories of good cops ratting out bad cops and then having their careers absolutely ruined and even their lives threatened. We know this as an absolute fact because of all the videos of one asshole doing some fucked up shit while 4 other "good cops" sit there and do absolutely nothing when they should be arresting the "bad cop" but instead they lie for said "bad cop" or fail to report his bad/criminal behavior.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

LOL made me edit my post Subyman...

Below is for Jstorm and anyone then.

Yup, that explains a lot. The ignorance of folks on this forum about police and their policies.

Small example of policy Changes-
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-04-19-columbine-police-tactics_N.htm

http://www.oregonlive.com/gresham/index.ssf/2014/06/oregon_school_shooting_police_1.html

And please don't call me a police apologist, they need to be monitored for wrong behavior (bodycams, etc see waggy's post) but you do need to understand that they have leeway on violence for a very good reason, a reason that many people would refuse themselves; to put themselves between danger and people.

Care to comment on these numbers from a nation-wide police survey?

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/181312.pdf

14.7% or cops "sometimes, often or always" respond to verbal abuse with physical force. An additional 53% say "seldom"

That right there tells us that almost 70% of cops are breaking the law at least some of the time. (What's seldom to a cop? Once a month? Once a year? Still a large number of cops abusing people)

Using more force then necessary? 21% "sometimes, often or always", and another 62% say seldom. That's over 80% of cops overall.

50% say that cops turn a blind eye to improper conduct to other officers. So half of all cops are complicit in covering up crimes. Great, right?

58.5% disagree that cops always report serious criminal violations involving abuse. Again, over half of cops cover up crimes for other cops.

Please comment on these large numbers and explain how the majority of cops aren't breaking the law.

Right off the bat, half of all cops won't report crimes by other cops. That's illegal right? I mean cops are supposed to report and/or stop crime right?

80% of cops admit to breaking the law with either just abusing people or using more force then necessary.

These aren't small percentages, these are large percentages. Any comments?

 

[VtPC83]

Let me ask you a serious question. If a good cop blatantly lies to cover up criminal actions of a bad cop, is he still a good cop? And I'm talking a real stand up cop who respects the community he swore an oath to and other than the covering up for bad cops he does everything right. Is that guy still a good cop?

I know that there are tons and tons of stand up LEO's, good and decent folk. My problem is the "thin blue line" culture that is in every single police department. We know this for an absolute fact because of all the stories of good cops ratting out bad cops and then having their careers absolutely ruined and even their lives threatened. We know this as an absolute fact because of all the videos of one asshole doing some fucked up shit while 4 other "good cops" sit there and do absolutely nothing when they should be arresting the "bad cop" but instead they lie for said "bad cop" or fail to report his bad/criminal behavior.

I think the thin blue line is bullshit. Cops have a moral and professional obligation to be honest not only about what suspects do but also what co-workers do and what they themselves do. The definition of 'good cop' does not include a caveat about being dishonest about other cops (obviously unless the job calls for it, undercover, etc.). If police 'whistleblowers' need some form of law or protection (if they don't already have it) then they should get it so this stops.

To earn their authority and ability to subdue when necessary their honesty and integrity should be beyond reproach.

Care to comment on these numbers from a nation-wide police survey?

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/181312.pdf

These aren't small percentages, these are large percentages. Any comments?

Welp, now I'm confused, when did I ever say cops the majority of cops aren't breaking the law? It definitely wasn't in the post you quoted but to address your post;
we have to define what verbal abuse is since it can be very subjective, does it mean during the arrest, if the suspect is beligerent and preventing the officer from speaking to them or someelse or does it just mean bad mouthing?

See above about cops not reporting abuses/crimes other cops commit.

Lets be clear, I don't think cops are perfect but for the last few years they have been getting hung out to dry while doing a job no one else wants to do. Do they make mistakes, yes, but the worst mistakes are made by the vast minority whereas many think this percentage shown on the news is what the police of America represents. They are the ones you call when the shit really goes down. No one seems to remember that.

This is now the third time in this thread alone that someone has stated something about my words that I didn't actually say so I'm done responding, theres no point anymore in trying to have an actual discussion when the other half is making stuff up.

 

[Darwin333]

I think the thin blue line is bullshit. Cops have a moral and professional obligation to be honest not only about what suspects do but also what co-workers do and what they themselves do. The definition of 'good cop' does not include a caveat about being dishonest about other cops (obviously unless the job calls for it, undercover, etc.). If police 'whistleblowers' need some form of law or protection (if they don't already have it) then they should get it so this stops.

To earn their authority and ability to subdue when necessary their honesty and integrity should be beyond reproach.

They have laws on the books to protect whistleblowers but it's really hard to prove that you got shit jobs or passed over for promotion because you blew the whistle. The majority of the harassment comes from other officers, your entire workplace becomes a hostile environment, the other officers will flat out tell them that they will not respond if they call for backup (which is a threat to their lives), they find dead rats in their lockers, etc... Who would want to endure a workplace like that? Now to the credit of the cops, they all know this so I can understand why even the good cops are hesitant to turn in other cops. With that said, they are supposed to arrest the bad guys no matter who they are, they swore an oath to protect and serve.

The only way we stop this kind of crap is to go after them with the force of the law. If a cop perjures themselves they should face harsher penalties than the public because their testimony carries much more weight than the public. If they are found to cover up another officers criminal activities, including abuse of force and things like that, they are now accessories to the crime and should be charged as such. File a false police report and just like perjury, you face much harsher criminal penalties than the general public. All of these things should also result in immediate termination and the inability to work in law enforcement again if proven to be criminally egregious. ALL investigations of the police should be handled by an unbiased 3rd party who has no other interaction with the police and not the local prosecutors who depend on the testimony of the defendants peers to get convictions (convictions quite literally being their resume). Something on the Federal level would be preferable so it's standard across the country. Once they see their peers actually getting convicted and serving real jail time this shit will slow down to a crawl. As it is, for the vast majority of them they are quite literally above the law and they know it. Even if they are indicted their chances at getting convicted are absurdly low and they don't even have to cover the cost of their defense.

When you make a group of people above the law it should come as absolutely no surprise that they start acting like it.

This is now the third time in this thread alone that someone has stated something about my words that I didn't actually say so I'm done responding, theres no point anymore in trying to have an actual discussion when the other half is making stuff up.

I know this wasn't aimed at me but I come here for intelligent discourse. I know it can sometimes be tough to weed through the posts in order to find said intelligent discourse but it can be done. Just gotta ignore the dumb shit bud. Merge and I are often on the opposite sides of issues but we always have really good debates and both of us come away learning something new and at least a better understanding of the others position. Even though we are usually on opposite sides I quite enjoy my debates with him despite half the posts in the threads being pure insults or complete bullshit.

 

[piasabird]

Cops should not be allowed in school. Hire security guards. This is where a stun gun should come into play. I think sometimes for roudy teenagers that they just get what is coming to them.

 

[MajinCry]

Cops should not be allowed in school. Hire security guards. This is where a stun gun should come into play. I think sometimes for roudy teenagers that they just get what is coming to them.

Because stun-gunning students for just dangling their limbs is A-OK.

The crazy is just...EH!? It's like you guys want 19th century education, where ya can brutalize a kid for doing fuck all.

 

[Cozarkian]

Since it was the school cop I would have expected more understanding because that school cop would know the students personally probably, at least some of them. That changes the dynamic. I liken it to a beat cop who knows his beat and can de-escalate issues by being familiar with the people on his beat more easily than an unknown entity.

I'll understand if you disagree, some people won't get it but I think it makes a drastic difference.

By the same token, the school/beat cop might know which people are unlikely to respond to verbal de-escalation attempts and may be quicker to resort to violence in some situations.