I pretty much guarantee that if you were to walk up to a person who was unable to defend himself/herself, punch that person in the face and then kick them, and if there was video of that, the local prosecutor would have no problem with going to trial on a charge of aggravated assault.
But if you're a cop, nah. No worries. Even if your department suspends you for a month, odds are your union will get it overturned.
Oh, and if you were to lock someone in a room and not give them food or water for five days, I'm pretty sure that you'd be getting more than a stern letter in your file.
WWJD: What Would Jesus Drink?
1 hour ago
5 comments:
First, get rid of qualified immunity. If they can be held liable for their actions, maybe they will think about what they are doing.
Hmm. A month's pay but. Wonder if that was consecutive or spread out over several months time. I suspect this video is now a part of a lot of Training Officers class room presentations. Yep. It's cringe worthy.
RF: My recollection is that qualified immunity applies when a cop has a reasonable belief that what fuckery he perpetrated was lawful. I have a hard time seeing where punching a manacled woman in the face is legal, at least in a First World nation.
SP, bet he serves his "suspension" over lunchtime for about 32 weeks.
I guess it's true-all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.
Snow dog your showing your prejudices just a bit there. The officer in question pretty much got hammered as much as the Chief could take it. Did the officer overreact to the attempted kick by the handcuffed woman? I think so and I've seen officers with progressive disciplinary histories fired for like actions. It would be useful to read the policy manual and use of force model utilized at the agency in question. I don't like it but an excess force response as shown in the video isn't assault nor was it a civil rights violation. But it certainly pissed me off to view it .
Post a Comment