Police State - Official Thread

[Agnostic007]

Excessive. If I recall, the other video from the other cop car shows a better view.

[240 is Back]

NYPD union head: Cops have ‘earned the benefit of the doubt’ despite James Blake incident

"No one should ever jump to an uninformed conclusion based upon a few seconds of video," Patrick Lynch, president of the New York City Patrolmen's Benevolent Association, said in a statement titled "an open letter to all of those inclined to jump to conclusions."

[Agnostic007]

NYPD union head: Cops have ‘earned the benefit of the doubt’ despite James Blake incident

"No one should ever jump to an uninformed conclusion based upon a few seconds of video," Patrick Lynch, president of the New York City Patrolmen's Benevolent Association, said in a statement titled "an open letter to all of those inclined to jump to conclusions."

I hope you read the letter..

[avxo]

I hope you read the letter..

I did and I found it offensive: yet another instance of "you can't judge us!" from a group that see themselves as both above the law and above the public they serve. Yes, we get it - being a cop is a hard, difficult and even thankless job. Good for you for choosing to do this hard, and difficult job; thank you. Unfortunately, you can't be exempt from criticism. Unfortunately, we can't tolerate itchy trigger fingers, power-trips and overt aggression. Unfortunately, your spur-of-the-moment decisions will be judged, most often with 20/20 hindsight. Sorry, it's the nature of the beast. Don't cry. Shut up and do your job well, then at least you have the moral and ethical satisfaction of knowing that you did your best.

[Agnostic007]

To all arm-chair judges:

If you have never struggled with someone who is resisting arrest or who pulled a gun or knife on you when you approached them for breaking a law, then you are not qualified to judge the actions of police officers putting themselves in harm’s way for the public good.
   
 It is mystifying to all police officers to see pundits and editorial writers whose only expertise is writing fast-breaking, personal opinion, and who have never faced the dangers that police officers routinely do, come to instant conclusions that an officer’s actions were wrong based upon nothing but a silent video.  That is irresponsible, unjust and un-American.  Worse than that, your uninformed rhetoric is inflammatory and only serves to worsen police/community relations.

In the unfortunate case of former tennis pro, James Blake, -- who was clearly but mistakenly identified by a complainant -- there certainly can be mitigating circumstances which caused the officer to handle the situation in the manner he did.  Do they exist?  Frankly, no one will know for sure until there is a full and complete investigation.  That is why no one should ever jump to an uninformed conclusion based upon a few seconds of video.  Let all of the facts lead where they will, but police officers have earned the benefit of the doubt because of the dangers we routinely face.

The men and women of the NYPD are once again disheartened to read another the knee-jerk reaction from ivory tower pundits who enjoy the safety provided by our police department without understanding the very real risks that we take to provide that safety.  Due process is the American way of obtaining justice, not summary professional execution called for by editorial writers.


Sincerely,

Patrick J. Lynch
 President

[Agnostic007]

To All Citizens,

I would change first paragraph to -- If you have never struggled with someone who is resisting arrest or who pulled a gun or knife on you when you approached them for breaking a law, then you of all people should withhold your conclusion until you have learned all the facts. Often times a snippet of video that captures a small percentage of the interaction and circumstances can be misleading taken out of context.

It is mystifying to all police officers to see pundits and editorial writers who ...(pretty much agree with this paragraph))

In the unfortunate case .... (seems reasonable)

The men and women (probably accurate)

When I read it I didn't agree with his first line. I think in many cases, the average citizen given all the available facts, can come to a pretty good conclusion about an incident. There may be exceptions but overall, I think they can. Where we may differ is, based on my experience dealing with situations over time, I will look at a tiny snippet of video alongside a civilian and I may be able to see it differently because of things I am aware of that they may not be due to lack of experience. Even at my level of experience, I really try not to come to a conclusion unless the video is encompassing and most likely all available information is contained in it, or the facts are gathered and the puzzle can be put together.
But I can see where that first line set the tone for the rest of the letter, which I found to be reasonable.     

[avxo]

Let's address the letter bit by bit:

To all arm-chair judges:

Ad-hominem. Not a good start...

If you have never struggled with someone who is resisting arrest or who pulled a gun or knife on you when you approached them for breaking a law, then you are not qualified to judge the actions of police officers putting themselves in harm’s way for the public good.

You can't judge me - only my peers can judge me. You're peons. I protect you, so don't mouth off to me punks.
 
  

It is mystifying to all police officers to see pundits and editorial writers whose only expertise is writing fast-breaking, personal opinion, and who have never faced the dangers that police officers routinely do, come to instant conclusions that an officer’s actions were wrong based upon nothing but a silent video.

Plenty of things cops do are mystifying to non-cops too.

That is irresponsible, unjust and un-American.

It's irresponsible to exercise one's right to free speech just because cops don't like criticism? It's un-American? Really?

 

Worse than that, your uninformed rhetoric is inflammatory and only serves to worsen police/community relations.

But when police officers are anonymously quoted or union Presidents calls critics names, that's not inflammatory rhetoric?

In the unfortunate case of former tennis pro, James Blake,

Oh, an unfortunate case... a man getting bum rushed, tackled and brought to the ground by an unidentified thug without any warning is an unfortunate case...

-- who was clearly but mistakenly identified by a complainant --

The officer's job isn't to bum rush people based on a complainant's identification. It's to INVESTIGATE.

there certainly can be mitigating circumstances which caused the officer to handle the situation in the manner he did.

You mean, by bum rushing someone, tackling them and bringing them to the ground, not once having bothered to even identify himself? That's also mitigating circumstances for the person that just got tackled to shoot his attacker too, no? And Patrick J. Lynch would be singing a very different tune then, wouldn't he?

Let all of the facts lead where they will

It's easy to say "let the facts lead where they will" when, as luck would have it, you're the one doing the leading.

but police officers have earned the benefit of the doubt because of the dangers we routinely face.

No, police officers haven't "earned the benefit of the doubt." And even if they had, they'd have lost it by now, with incidents of blatant and horrific police misconduct happening with an alarming frequency and going, mostly, underpunished.

The men and women of the NYPD are once again disheartened to read another the knee-jerk reaction from ivory tower pundits who enjoy the safety provided by our police department without understanding the very real risks that we take to provide that safety.

There we go again... "I'm keeping you safe, so respect me or else!" You know who else is disheartened? The average citizen who, evidence has shown, has good reason to fear for his life when cops are around because cops shove guns in people's mouths, throw flashbangs into cribs, shoot sleeping seven year old girls in the head, smash people's phones because they contain recording of a shoot-out, severely injure inmates or people in custody, cause almost fatal car crash and have the victim arrested and charged, bust into homes and tase people or, worse still commandeer homes and arrest the owners because it suits their purpose.

If that's the safety you provide me, I don't want it.

Due process is the American way of obtaining justice, not summary professional execution called for by editorial writers.

Now, I understand that Mr. Lynch hasn't gone to law school and may not be well-versed in the subtleties of the legal system, but due process binds the State and its agents - not people, whether they are journalists of not, who remain free to write and comment.

[avxo]

To All Citizens,

I would change first paragraph to -- If you have never struggled with someone who is resisting arrest or who pulled a gun or knife on you when you approached them for breaking a law, then you of all people should withhold your conclusion until you have learned all the facts. Often times a snippet of video that captures a small percentage of the interaction and circumstances can be misleading taken out of context.

It is mystifying to all police officers to see pundits and editorial writers who ...(pretty much agree with this paragraph))

In the unfortunate case .... (seems reasonable)

The men and women (probably accurate)

When I read it I didn't agree with his first line. I think in many cases, the average citizen given all the available facts, can come to a pretty good conclusion about an incident. There may be exceptions but overall, I think they can. Where we may differ is, based on my experience dealing with situations over time, I will look at a tiny snippet of video alongside a civilian and I may be able to see it differently because of things I am aware of that they may not be due to lack of experience. Even at my level of experience, I really try not to come to a conclusion unless the video is encompassing and most likely all available information is contained in it, or the facts are gathered and the puzzle can be put together.
But I can see where that first line set the tone for the rest of the letter, which I found to be reasonable.     

See, THIS letter I can at least stomach. I may not agree 100% with it, but at least it's reasonable.

[240 is Back]

The cop trucked this dude, without warning. 

Knocked the shit out of him.   The dude made no move about anything, looks like he didn't even see it coming.   Cop never ID'd himself, never made a sound, just trucked him.

The scary thing - if this happens to any of us - someone just tackles us out of nowhere - it's probably a life/death struggle at that point.  I don't know who is beating and trying to get me to submit, just a violent man who bum rushed me. 
Can lead to a lot of unnecessary shootings. 

[Las Vegas]

To all arm-chair judges:

If you have never struggled with someone who is resisting arrest or who pulled a gun or knife on you when you approached them for breaking a law, then you are not qualified to judge the actions of police officers putting themselves in harm’s way for the public good.
   
 It is mystifying to all police officers to see pundits and editorial writers whose only expertise is writing fast-breaking, personal opinion, and who have never faced the dangers that police officers routinely do, come to instant conclusions that an officer’s actions were wrong based upon nothing but a silent video.  That is irresponsible, unjust and un-American.  Worse than that, your uninformed rhetoric is inflammatory and only serves to worsen police/community relations.

In the unfortunate case of former tennis pro, James Blake, -- who was clearly but mistakenly identified by a complainant -- there certainly can be mitigating circumstances which caused the officer to handle the situation in the manner he did.  Do they exist?  Frankly, no one will know for sure until there is a full and complete investigation.  That is why no one should ever jump to an uninformed conclusion based upon a few seconds of video.  Let all of the facts lead where they will, but police officers have earned the benefit of the doubt because of the dangers we routinely face.

The men and women of the NYPD are once again disheartened to read another the knee-jerk reaction from ivory tower pundits who enjoy the safety provided by our police department without understanding the very real risks that we take to provide that safety.  Due process is the American way of obtaining justice, not summary professional execution called for by editorial writers.


Sincerely,

Patrick J. Lynch
 President

This guy should seriously STFU.  He ought to be ashamed of himself.

[240 is Back]

"there certainly can be mitigating circumstances which caused the officer to handle the situation in the manner he did. "

"Can be".   Yes, there can be space aliens that take dumps on the sidewalk too.  This idiot is just making up scenarios which the video doesn't show.

[Las Vegas]

"there certainly can be mitigating circumstances which caused the officer to handle the situation in the manner he did. "

"Can be".   Yes, there can be space aliens that take dumps on the sidewalk too.  This idiot is just making up scenarios which the video doesn't show.

The guy is actually nuts.  Someone's brother-in-law or some shit.  No other explanation.

[Las Vegas]

Really, police need to punch the ticket on guys like this.  He's not doing them any favors.

[240 is Back]

The guy is actually nuts.  Someone's brother-in-law or some shit.  No other explanation.

they rubber stamp defend every cop, even if there's video of the cop slamming a poor hapless innocent to the ground. 

They'd defend the cop if he had just shot the guy in the face too.   we all know it.  it's the union's job, to defend the cop 100% of the time, even if video proves the cop 100% wrong. 

I'm sure they said the same thing the other 2 times this guy was charged with punching someone

[Agnostic007]

The cop trucked this dude, without warning. 

Knocked the shit out of him.   The dude made no move about anything, looks like he didn't even see it coming.  Cop never ID'd himself, never made a sound, just trucked him.

The scary thing - if this happens to any of us - someone just tackles us out of nowhere - it's probably a life/death struggle at that point.  I don't know who is beating and trying to get me to submit, just a violent man who bum rushed me. 
Can lead to a lot of unnecessary shootings. 

Just making sure you realize it was a video without audio

[avxo]

Just making sure you realize it was a video without audio

Even without audio it's clear that the officer didn't identify himself, or if he did, Blake didn't hear it or think it was directed at him. From his perspective - and made blatantly clear in the video - Blake is minding his own business and ends up tackled by someone.

[240 is Back]

Just making sure you realize it was a video without audio

dude didn't glance up.    cops fcked up here.  trying to invent a scenario of "maybe he screamed POLICE a dozen times and Blake ignored him" is silliness.  ANy reasonable person looks at the casual innocent man reading and knows he was just plain trucked without warning. 

it's like you're looking for any out, to make this tackling legal in any way.  It's a straight up dick move, an abuse of power, and one that he seems to have gotten away with . This union defending him with rubber stamp excuse for it, typical, it's why they have zero credibility.

[Las Vegas]

It looks like the poor bastard (Blake) was desperately trying to hang on to his last peaceful thought as he was being slammed around.

But what if the subject was a fighter, and instinctively knocked-out the cop?  You think the PD would own up to it, or do you think they'd try to find a way to destroy the guy?  Could they be trusted to safely take him into custody after that, even?

I don't think so.

[240 is Back]

It looks like the poor bastard (Blake) was desperately trying to hang on to his last peaceful thought as he was being slammed around.

But what if the subject was a fighter, and instinctively knocked-out the cop?  You think the PD would own up to it, or do you think they'd try to find a way to destroy the guy?  Could they be trusted to safely take him into custody after that, even?

I don't think so.

what if Blake was an armed american, and upon being trucked without police warning, fired his weapon in self defense?

everyone would cry about obama killing our police, blah blah.. but this idiot breaking protocol and not ID'ing self caused it.

[Skeletor]

It looks like the poor bastard (Blake) was desperately trying to hang on to his last peaceful thought as he was being slammed around.

But what if the subject was a fighter, and instinctively knocked-out the cop?  You think the PD would own up to it, or do you think they'd try to find a way to destroy the guy?  Could they be trusted to safely take him into custody after that, even?

I don't think so.

He'd be lucky if he didn't end up dead after being swarmed by dozens of cops. If he survived, he'd probably face felony charges while the cop would get away with it. And most likely it would be presented as another example of the "war on cops".

[240 is Back]

He'd be lucky if he didn't end up dead after being swarmed by dozens of cops. If he survived, he'd probably face felony charges while the cop would get away with it. And most likely it would be presented as another example of the "war on cops".

yes, when police being killed was double under reagan, it's all obama's fault these days.  I think that's what walker said.  Cops like this get themselves killed - creating a hugely public and violent incident.

If any of us is standing there, and I see a man tackle, pummel and choke/pin the shit out of another man - without ID'ing himself as police... and in FL, we see what looks like a very clear forcible felony... one could draw weapon and fire upon the attacker, believing Blake's life is in danger from choking.   In court, it could go either way here. 

Cop is an idiot.  Could have gotten himself shot in the back with this renegade shit. 

[Las Vegas]

I think you guys are on to something.  So instead of trying to cast doubt as to whether the cop is as fucking dangerous as we can all plainly see, these dopes should be running like hell from the situation.  Any future comment from them (about anything) is going to be laughed at, at best.

[illuminati]

No, police officers haven't "earned the benefit of the doubt." And even if they had, they'd have lost it by now, with incidents of blatant and horrific police misconduct happening with an alarming frequency and going, mostly, underpunished.


There we go again... "I'm keeping you safe, so respect me or else!" You know who else is disheartened? The average citizen who, evidence has shown, has good reason to fear for his life when cops are around because cops shove guns in people's mouths, throw flashbangs into cribs, shoot sleeping seven year old girls in the head, smash people's phones because they contain recording of a shoot-out, severely injure inmates or people in custody, cause almost fatal car crash and have the victim arrested and charged, bust into homes and tase people or, worse still commandeer homes and arrest the owners because it suits their purpose.

If that's the safety you provide me, I don't want it.


Now, I understand that Mr. Lynch hasn't gone to law school and may not be well-versed in the subtleties of the legal system, but due process binds the State and its agents - not people, whether they are journalists of not, who remain free to write and comment.

All very Good points.

As pointed out oh so many times,
Cops & there managers Clearly think they are Better
Than the people they serve, Not only Better,
More informed, more intelligent, Better at making decisions & judgement calls Etc.
Clearly the laws don't apply to them & nor should they care about them.

Fcuking ridiculous situation.
NO I DON'T HATE ALL COPS.
Some yes i do.
Just as i dislike some non cops.
It's the system that is at fault & breeds the awful attitude of cops.
They know they are virtually unaccountable & untouchable.

[Skeletor]

Infuriating Video Exposes the Grim Reality of Being Arrested for Resisting Arrest

Lancaster TX – Police Chief Cheryl Wilson was given a paid vacation on Thursday, while investigators determine if she acted appropriately by allowing one of her officers to return to duty while he was still under investigation for the use of excessive force.

Chief Wilson’s suspension stems from an incident on August 17th, when Lt. Michael Fine confronted Alexander Tucker on W. Pleasant Run Road. Lt. Fine approached Tucker, who immediately asked why he was being detained and instead of providing an answer, Fine told him that he would ‘get tased’ if he didn’t obey.

Fine proceeded to grab Tucker’s arm and lead him towards his squad car where he then assaulted and attempted to handcuff Mr. Tucker without providing any probable cause. When Mr. Tucker passively resisted his unlawful arrest and continued asking why he was being detained, Lt. Fine tased him without warning and placed him in handcuffs.

When Mr. Tucker asked what he was being arrested for, Lt. Fine replied “resisting arrest” in an attempt to justify his actions with stereotypical circular cop logic. Upon further questioning of the reason for his arrest, Lt. Fine simply replied “I’m not going to talk to you anymore.”

At the end of the video, Lt Fine exposes the grim reality of his despicable job when he tells Tucker, “You’re being placed under arrest for resisting arrest.”

According to City Manager Opal Mauldin-Robertson, the day after the incident, Chief Wilson told Assistant City Manager Rona Stringfellow and City Attorney Bob Hager that Fine’s actions were

    “serious, and appeared to, at a minimum, violate our policy.”

Chief Wilson met with Mayor Marcus Knight and Mauldin-Robinson two weeks later to watch the video of the incident and agreed to keep them informed about any decisions regarding the officer.

Lt. Fine was temporarily reassigned pending a review of his use of force. However, after a Dallas County prosecutor and a Texas Ranger both said he was justified in stopping Tucker, Chief Wilson returned him to regular duty even though the investigation had not been completed.

Mauldin-Robertson said Chief Wilson failed to notify her of Lt. Fine’s status for five days and went on to say that Wilson’s decision to return Fine to regular duty,

    “without any actions or recourse caused some questions and concerns regarding the completeness and independent review of this matter.”

Chief Wilson’s flip-flopping and inconsistent handling of this incident of excessive force by one of her officers is indicative of the problems created by the “thin blue line.” When police routinely shield each other from accountability for brutality, lawsuits and death are almost sure to follow.

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/police-chief-suspended-upholding-thin-blue-line-reversing-officers-suspension/

[Agnostic007]

Infuriating Video Exposes the Grim Reality of Being Arrested for Resisting Arrest

Lancaster TX – Police Chief Cheryl Wilson was given a paid vacation on Thursday, while investigators determine if she acted appropriately by allowing one of her officers to return to duty while he was still under investigation for the use of excessive force.

Chief Wilson’s suspension stems from an incident on August 17th, when Lt. Michael Fine confronted Alexander Tucker on W. Pleasant Run Road. Lt. Fine approached Tucker, who immediately asked why he was being detained and instead of providing an answer, Fine told him that he would ‘get tased’ if he didn’t obey.

Fine proceeded to grab Tucker’s arm and lead him towards his squad car where he then assaulted and attempted to handcuff Mr. Tucker without providing any probable cause. When Mr. Tucker passively resisted his unlawful arrest and continued asking why he was being detained, Lt. Fine tased him without warning and placed him in handcuffs.

When Mr. Tucker asked what he was being arrested for, Lt. Fine replied “resisting arrest” in an attempt to justify his actions with stereotypical circular cop logic. Upon further questioning of the reason for his arrest, Lt. Fine simply replied “I’m not going to talk to you anymore.”

At the end of the video, Lt Fine exposes the grim reality of his despicable job when he tells Tucker, “You’re being placed under arrest for resisting arrest.”

According to City Manager Opal Mauldin-Robertson, the day after the incident, Chief Wilson told Assistant City Manager Rona Stringfellow and City Attorney Bob Hager that Fine’s actions were

    “serious, and appeared to, at a minimum, violate our policy.”

Chief Wilson met with Mayor Marcus Knight and Mauldin-Robinson two weeks later to watch the video of the incident and agreed to keep them informed about any decisions regarding the officer.

Lt. Fine was temporarily reassigned pending a review of his use of force. However, after a Dallas County prosecutor and a Texas Ranger both said he was justified in stopping Tucker, Chief Wilson returned him to regular duty even though the investigation had not been completed.

Mauldin-Robertson said Chief Wilson failed to notify her of Lt. Fine’s status for five days and went on to say that Wilson’s decision to return Fine to regular duty,

    “without any actions or recourse caused some questions and concerns regarding the completeness and independent review of this matter.”

Chief Wilson’s flip-flopping and inconsistent handling of this incident of excessive force by one of her officers is indicative of the problems created by the “thin blue line.” When police routinely shield each other from accountability for brutality, lawsuits and death are almost sure to follow.

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/police-chief-suspended-upholding-thin-blue-line-reversing-officers-suspension/

I didn't get infuriated when I watched it..