Don't let your children out at night ... there might be cops about

It has emerged recently that in Galveston, Texas, a terrible assault was perpetrated by police officers a couple years ago.

Apparently four officers got a call about some white prostitutes in an area. So they go to investigate. Some distance from the actual site of the complaint, a breaker goes out in a house and the mother sends her twelve year old daughter out to flip a switch to restore power. The cops are outside and see the girl, who is black.

The cops get out of their vehicle and advance towards the girl, one calling her a prostitute and saying she's going with them. They grab the girl and she starts screaming and resisting and calling for her father.

Did I mention what the cops were wearing yet? Oh, I didn't?

All officers were wearing plainclothes - civilian clothes with no uniform or insignia to identify themselves. They did not show their badges or otherwise identify themselves as police as they attacked the girl. And their vehicle? An unmarked blue van.

So we have a group of men getting out of a van and trying to haul a girl off into the van. As the girl resists, the police cover her mouth and start hitting her. Yes, hitting her; on her head, face, and neck, with their fists and a flashlight. So now we have a bunch of men jumping out of a van and trying to kidnap a girl and beating her.

Her parents come out and apparently the situation deescalates a bit, though the parents are forbidden from comforting their beaten child. They learn the cops were looking for three white prostitutes in a different area. No arrests occur, and the parents take their child to the emergency room where her multiple injuries are treated.

Several weeks later, the child is arrested while at school for assaulting a public servant. This seems to be a common tactic for police to cover their tracks by trying to gain leverage against a person who might sue them, by forcing the victims to spend resources defending themselves. A mistrial is declared on the first day and a retrial has not been scheduled.

Now the family is suing the police officers involved.

News story here: http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairba...lse_arrest.php

Report about the lawsuit here: http://www.courthousenews.com/2008/0...at_Girl_12.htm

PDF of actual lawsuit here: http://www.courthousenews.com/2008/0...vestonCops.pdf

It is a shame the father didn't have a good gun handy.

I won't go on about the audacity of the police here - the events speak for themselves. But I'll say that it isn't the fact that these events occur that make me angry so much as the fact that nothing is ever done about them. Cops can kill innocent people and as long as they don't botch planting of the drugs on the bodies they can get away with it. The city and the department internal review will always find the officer's actions appropriate (as they did in this very case). We need some way to dispense justice (perhaps some elected county police overseer who can not have been an officer or prosecutor who can strip immunity and fire cops who violate the law or rights of people). Whatever the solution, continuing to allow this to occur without severe punishment will only increase the list of civilian victims.

Yes, there are good, honest cops of course. But because of the police culture we have in this country, cops hardly ever testify against one another - the whole brotherhood idea. In my view, good cops who do not speak out about injustice they witness are not good cops. Refusing to speak out, for whatever reason, especially a sense of police brotherhood, is akin to being neutral in a crisis. And I recall hearing something about a special place in the afterlife for such people.

You know, seeing the protests in Greece, I don't admire the anarchists using it as an excuse to go on a rampage. But good things can be said for standing up and making a government fear its people.

Crazed Rabbit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

It has emerged recently that in Galveston, Texas, a terrible assault was perpetrated by police officers a couple years ago.

Apparently four officers got a call about some white prostitutes in an area. So they go to investigate. Some distance from the actual site of the complaint, a breaker goes out in a house and the mother sends her twelve year old daughter out to flip a switch to restore power. The cops are outside and see the girl, who is black.

The cops get out of their vehicle and advance towards the girl, one calling her a prostitute and saying she's going with them. They grab the girl and she starts screaming and resisting and calling for her father.

Did I mention what the cops were wearing yet? Oh, I didn't?

All officers were wearing plainclothes - civilian clothes with no uniform or insignia to identify themselves. They did not show their badges or otherwise identify themselves as police as they attacked the girl. And their vehicle? An unmarked blue van.

So we have a group of men getting out of a van and trying to haul a girl off into the van. As the girl resists, the police cover her mouth and start hitting her. Yes, hitting her; on her head, face, and neck, with their fists and a flashlight. So now we have a bunch of men jumping out of a van and trying to kidnap a girl and beating her.

Her parents come out and apparently the situation deescalates a bit, though the parents are forbidden from comforting their beaten child. They learn the cops were looking for three white prostitutes in a different area. No arrests occur, and the parents take their child to the emergency room where her multiple injuries are treated.

Several weeks later, the child is arrested while at school for assaulting a public servant. This seems to be a common tactic for police to cover their tracks by trying to gain leverage against a person who might sue them, by forcing the victims to spend resources defending themselves. A mistrial is declared on the first day and a retrial has not been scheduled.

Now the family is suing the police officers involved.

News story here: http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairba...lse_arrest.php

Report about the lawsuit here: http://www.courthousenews.com/2008/0...at_Girl_12.htm

PDF of actual lawsuit here: http://www.courthousenews.com/2008/0...vestonCops.pdf

It is a shame the father didn't have a good gun handy.

I won't go on about the audacity of the police here - the events speak for themselves. But I'll say that it isn't the fact that these events occur that make me angry so much as the fact that nothing is ever done about them. Cops can kill innocent people and as long as they don't botch planting of the drugs on the bodies they can get away with it. The city and the department internal review will always find the officer's actions appropriate (as they did in this very case). We need some way to dispense justice (perhaps some elected county police overseer who can not have been an officer or prosecutor who can strip immunity and fire cops who violate the law or rights of people). Whatever the solution, continuing to allow this to occur without severe punishment will only increase the list of civilian victims.

Yes, there are good, honest cops of course. But because of the police culture we have in this country, cops hardly ever testify against one another - the whole brotherhood idea. In my view, good cops who do not speak out about injustice they witness are not good cops. Refusing to speak out, for whatever reason, especially a sense of police brotherhood, is akin to being neutral in a crisis. And I recall hearing something about a special place in the afterlife for such people.

You know, seeing the protests in Greece, I don't admire the anarchists using it as an excuse to go on a rampage. But good things can be said for standing up and making a government fear its people.

Crazed Rabbit

---

That is insane. That poor girl.

Quote:

---

It is a shame the father didn't have a good gun handy.

---

Yeah , then you could write about the poor little orphan whose daddy got killed by 4 armed men :dizzy2:
I must say I am surprised though , the police didn't shoot the dog when it attacked them

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Yeah , then you could write about the poor little orphan whose daddy got killed by 4 armed men :dizzy2:
I must say I am surprised though , the police didn't shoot the dog when it attacked them

---

Maybe they're dog lovers at heart...

Absolutely disgusting. That something like this can occur and not be punished is nothing short of outrageous. I like CR's idea of a local county police overseer. Unfortunately, I'm not really sure how on earth to keep that position from the influence of the police themselves. I'm sure there's plenty of police that have plenty of spare "sting" money to ensure their positions.:no:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Yeah , then you could write about the poor little orphan whose daddy got killed by 4 armed men :dizzy2:

---

The girl has a mother - didn't you read the story? :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

I must say I am surprised though , the police didn't shoot the dog when it attacked them

---

Yes, rather odd - they actually gave a warning.

In seriousness, fighting back against four armed men, even if you had the element of surprise, is a dangerous prospect. But I can't help but think that if such jackbooted agents met with more such resistance we would see a drop in such tactics. Unfortunately, the tree of liberty must be fertilized with the blood of good men and tyrants from time to time.

CR

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigade...iminalit%C3%A9 (sorry , I have no translation)

Those men clearly deserve to enter the french Police.

Quote:

---

The girl has a mother - didn't you read the story?

---

errrrrr.....:flowers:

This is utterly sickening and I agree with everything you said, except the bit about the gun. You even admitted it yourself that the situation de-escalated after the father came out - why would escalating it be any better?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

This is utterly sickening and I agree with everything you said, except the bit about the gun. You even admitted it yourself that the situation de-escalated after the father came out - why would escalating it be any better?

---

Pretty much.
I also absolutely don't like those brotherhood attitudes as they stop people from being honest, especially in the police force I find that very undesirable. Nothing bad about supporting one another as long as everybody actually does their job.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

It has emerged recently that in Galveston, Texas, a terrible assault was perpetrated by police officers a couple years ago.

Apparently four officers got a call about some white prostitutes in an area. So they go to investigate. Some distance from the actual site of the complaint, a breaker goes out in a house and the mother sends her twelve year old daughter out to flip a switch to restore power. The cops are outside and see the girl, who is black.

The cops get out of their vehicle and advance towards the girl, one calling her a prostitute and saying she's going with them. They grab the girl and she starts screaming and resisting and calling for her father.

Did I mention what the cops were wearing yet? Oh, I didn't?

All officers were wearing plainclothes - civilian clothes with no uniform or insignia to identify themselves. They did not show their badges or otherwise identify themselves as police as they attacked the girl. And their vehicle? An unmarked blue van.

So we have a group of men getting out of a van and trying to haul a girl off into the van. As the girl resists, the police cover her mouth and start hitting her. Yes, hitting her; on her head, face, and neck, with their fists and a flashlight. So now we have a bunch of men jumping out of a van and trying to kidnap a girl and beating her.

Her parents come out and apparently the situation deescalates a bit, though the parents are forbidden from comforting their beaten child. They learn the cops were looking for three white prostitutes in a different area. No arrests occur, and the parents take their child to the emergency room where her multiple injuries are treated.

Several weeks later, the child is arrested while at school for assaulting a public servant. This seems to be a common tactic for police to cover their tracks by trying to gain leverage against a person who might sue them, by forcing the victims to spend resources defending themselves. A mistrial is declared on the first day and a retrial has not been scheduled.

Now the family is suing the police officers involved.

News story here: http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairba...lse_arrest.php

Report about the lawsuit here: http://www.courthousenews.com/2008/0...at_Girl_12.htm

PDF of actual lawsuit here: http://www.courthousenews.com/2008/0...vestonCops.pdf

It is a shame the father didn't have a good gun handy.

I won't go on about the audacity of the police here - the events speak for themselves. But I'll say that it isn't the fact that these events occur that make me angry so much as the fact that nothing is ever done about them. Cops can kill innocent people and as long as they don't botch planting of the drugs on the bodies they can get away with it. The city and the department internal review will always find the officer's actions appropriate (as they did in this very case). We need some way to dispense justice (perhaps some elected county police overseer who can not have been an officer or prosecutor who can strip immunity and fire cops who violate the law or rights of people). Whatever the solution, continuing to allow this to occur without severe punishment will only increase the list of civilian victims.

Yes, there are good, honest cops of course. But because of the police culture we have in this country, cops hardly ever testify against one another - the whole brotherhood idea. In my view, good cops who do not speak out about injustice they witness are not good cops. Refusing to speak out, for whatever reason, especially a sense of police brotherhood, is akin to being neutral in a crisis. And I recall hearing something about a special place in the afterlife for such people.

You know, seeing the protests in Greece, I don't admire the anarchists using it as an excuse to go on a rampage. But good things can be said for standing up and making a government fear its people.

Crazed Rabbit

---

I hope that the law suit against the police succeeds. Certainly there is also an unhealthy tendancy of officialdom to close ranks over incidents like this. We can see it in action over here with the De Menezes shooting.

But your take on the story seems a little bizarre. I don't see how "It is a shame the father didn't have a good gun handy". As has been said already, I doubt that this would have resulted in "Her parents come out and apparently the situation deescalates a bit" or, if policemen however off the rails got shot, how it would then have ended with "A mistrial is declared on the first day and a retrial has not been scheduled".

Further, anybody using a phrase like "Unfortunately, the tree of liberty must be fertilized with the blood of good men and tyrants from time to time." worries me. The quote is from Jefferson I think? I can't shake the feeling that such people are unlikely to actually want to do the fertilizing themselves.

Such cases are so common here in France that I'm just a bit surprised with your astonishment. Recently a young man got badly mauled by three men of the french police, for no reason (the scene was filmed by a neighbour). The next day he was charged for assaulting authority, since one of the cops had supposedly a finger broken. They dared.

I bet if those methods also become usual in your countries, you'll all learn how to hate the police.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Yeah , then you could write about the poor little orphan whose daddy got killed by 4 armed men :dizzy2:
I must say I am surprised though , the police didn't shoot the dog when it attacked them

---

That's actually what I thought. Somehow I think trying to use a gun against four, racist police officers would have turned out poorly for both parties.

It is a shame this did happen though.

Quote:

---

Last edited by Banquo's Ghost; Today at 09:14. Reason: Edited unnecessary provocation

---

What is provocative about a dictionary definition ?
Hey , there is nothing provocative in suggesting someone needs a dictionary when they make an issue over a word they clearly didn't know the meaning of .

Sean Stewart, one of the cops who took part in this attack, was given an award for "Officer of the Year" this June: (Page 5 of this 24 page PDF)

Quote:

---

You even admitted it yourself that the situation de-escalated after the father came out - why would escalating it be any better?

---

These incidents will continue to occur until the cops get incentives not to engage in such activities. If they knew they'd get shot at while pulling this unconstitutional, unlawful crap, they'd be much more likely to just walk up and talk to people instead of doing this or no-knock raids. Sadly, innocent people would die. But innocent people are dying right now from extreme police tactics with no punishment for the cops from the law - just reviews that always clear them of wrongdoing.

So I think that escalation could serve to provide disincentives for cops committing these unconstitutional actions. There are consequences, of course. But these police tactics are getting worse and worse. People - mostly poor - are suffering more. Escalation would mean standing up to this sort of unlawful action, and putting a stop to it by making cops not want to use these extreme tactics. I think it would overall save more lives in the long run. That would be sore comfort to the loved ones of those who got killed by the cops, though.

Quote:

---

I can't shake the feeling that such people are unlikely to actually want to do the fertilizing themselves.

---

Heh. I am mainly outraged by these assaults on our rights, but another reason I want this to stop is because if cops break into my house at night on a no-knock raid I'll probably end up dead like that poor grandma in Atlanta (Since in the US, cops generally tend to break down a door and run in and not identify themselves as police when executing a no-knock raid).

Heck, some police departments have taken concealed pistol licenses as an excuse to send SWAT teams bursting into people's homes in the middle of the night for non-violent crimes. That itself defies reality - you have someone (the person with the CPL) who submitted to background checks and fingerprinting voluntarily at a police station and so the cops think the best way to arrest him is not just to send some cops knocking on his door in the day but to bust in at night. There would be so much less violence if the cops in such situations would not treat everything as a shoot out at the OK Corral. But instead the cops are looking for ways to escalate the situation. They need to learn two can play that game.

We need real legal binds against such police actions - some independent elected investigator who can fire cops and remove immunity. Or some other way of extracting justice.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Yes, there are good, honest cops of course. But because of the police culture we have in this country, cops hardly ever testify against one another - the whole brotherhood idea. In my view, good cops who do not speak out about injustice they witness are not good cops. Refusing to speak out, for whatever reason, especially a sense of police brotherhood, is akin to being neutral in a crisis. And I recall hearing something about a special place in the afterlife for such people

---

That's the real issue. There will always be corrupt, evil people in all walks of life. The problem grows out of control when you have law-abiding people covering up their wrongdoings out of a misplaced sense of loyalty. :no:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

These incidents will continue to occur until the cops get incentives not to engage in such activities. If they knew they'd get shot at while pulling this unconstitutional, unlawful crap, they'd be much more likely to just walk up and talk to people instead of doing this or no-knock raids. Sadly, innocent people would die. But innocent people are dying right now from extreme police tactics with no punishment for the cops from the law - just reviews that always clear them of wrongdoing.
....

Heck, some police departments have taken concealed pistol licenses as an excuse to send SWAT teams bursting into people's homes in the middle of the night for non-violent crimes. That itself defies reality - you have someone (the person with the CPL) who submitted to background checks and fingerprinting voluntarily at a police station and so the cops think the best way to arrest him is not just to send some cops knocking on his door in the day but to bust in at night. There would be so much less violence if the cops in such situations would not treat everything as a shoot out at the OK Corral. But instead the cops are looking for ways to escalate the situation. They need to learn two can play that game.

---

You argue very effectively against yourself.

If the citizen escalates by becoming armed, the police will assume the worse and come overwhelmingly armed - just as you write in the second paragraph. In an extreme example, knowing that those slightly potty fellows in the Waco compound were armed did not encourage the police to knock politely and engage in civil discussion. They brought tanks.

The issue, as in many countries, is unaccountable police forces encouraged by politicians to over-ride human rights for the "greater good". By removing rights first from the despised "other" - unopposed by the majority who didn't care since it didn't affect them - they now feel empowered to impose actions which most assuredly do affect the "ordinary" citizen - and they have no power to change things. "I told you so" tends to be uttered wearily by those who long since warned of this ancient pattern.

The police are servants of the law and the people. The people must be sovereign and their rights upheld. It is government's role to hold public servants to account and to preserve the rights of Man at all costs. That's rights for all.

Quote:

---

There would be so much less violence if the cops in such situations would not treat everything as a shoot out at the OK Corral.

---

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
So the answer is to make the police approach everything like it is a shootout at the OK Corral
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Quote:

---

Heck, some police departments have taken concealed pistol licenses as a bloody good reason to send SWAT teams bursting into people's homes

---

I just caught this bit at the end of the story:

Quote:

---

This is from the officers' lawyer, William Helfand:

Both the daughter and the father were arrested for assaulting a peace officer. "The father basically attacked police officers as they were trying to take the daughter into custody after she ran off."

Also, "The city has investigated the matter and found that the conduct of the police officers was appropriate under the circumstances," Helfand says. "It's unfortunate that sometimes police officers have to use force against people who are using force against them. And the evidence will show that both these folks violated the law and forcefully resisted arrest."

---

You have to wonder what world Helfand lives in where it's resisting arrest to try and save your young daughter from being dragged into an unmarked van by strange men. What on earth should his response have been?

Quote:

---

You have to wonder what world Helfand lives

---

Errrrrrrr...its the real world , have you ever considered visiting ?
Perhaps I should repeat and elaborate the message sent to Strike a while back.
Don't take **** from no-one , unless they have a badge and you do not have a cast iron case and a bloody good lawyer , if any of the conditions are not made then take the **** given and hope that your good lawyer will prevent too severe a punishment......unless of course you are not at your address and can do the deed and get away without them finding you again (multiple passports and many names are a good insurance there~;))

But anyways I have to laugh once again at some other poster whos approach is that if guns are the problem then guns are the answer , but if guns are not the answer then guns are the answer....it would probably extend to if guns are not in the equation then guns are the answer .
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
I have to ask Rabbit , is that SWAT story the one where you saw about some person with guns who was reported as barricading herself into her home and acting crazy by her neighbours that you read as "Police barricade charity giver into her home because she had guns"?:smg:

Sometimes you just make it too easy:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

You argue very effectively against yourself.:oops:

Quote:

---

unless they have a badge

---

Part of the problem (beyond the officers' incompetence) was they were in plainclothes and in an unmarked van and failed to identify themselves, was it not? That's what's laid out in the lawsuit pdf. If that's how it happened can't you see some wrong-doing in the policemen's action? Or does possession of a badge absolve one of all guilt? ~:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

You argue very effectively against yourself.

If the citizen escalates by becoming armed, the police will assume the worse and come overwhelmingly armed - just as you write in the second paragraph. In an extreme example, knowing that those slightly potty fellows in the Waco compound were armed did not encourage the police to knock politely and engage in civil discussion. They brought tanks.

---

That was only at the end of the siege. In the beginning the ATF and other agencies wanted to put on a big show, so they stormed the place with guns thinking they could look great on TV. But they were unprepared for real resistance from the compound (I believe some government forces ran out of ammunition). They could have just arrested the leader when he was outside of the compound, but they did not.

A counter example is some income tax protesters in Vermont or New Hampshire who had holed themselves up in their house with some supporters a year or two back. The authorities managed to arrest them without a fight through some trickery - because they knew the protesters were armed and ready for a fight. So the authorities - what a novel concept - avoided a potentially dangerous position. It was the fact that authorities knew the protesters were armed that caused them to avoid a direct confrontation.


Police forces around the nation have military equipment, sometimes even armored vehicles. The police have already become overwhelmingly armed. These are not confrontations when police burst into houses at night - they are incidents of men with guns oppressing and bullying people. They already prepare for huge incidents and seemingly pursue them.

The police use legal gun ownership (and a willingness to submit your fingerprints and a background check) as an excuse to send in the SWAT team - the same SWAT team they send looking for busts in minor drug possession cases. The police don't use gun ownership as an excuse to send in a more heavily armed assault team than what they send after suspected drug users - they use it as an excuse to send the assault team instead of knocking on the door with a warrant.*

The only seeming difference between military forces in Iraq who were breaking into homes looking for terrorists and police looking to bust people for minor drug possession is the color of the uniforms - and that the military was more likely to apologize if they broke down the wrong door.


I think the enthusiasm of police forces to look and act like special military forces would severely diminish if all of these raids became more what the police prepared for - armed confrontations - instead of a mass of armed men breaking into homes of frightened families. Right now we have a bunch of men trying to act macho and tough breaking into family's homes. I think they would be much more reluctant to face real danger, and more inclined to settle things in a non-confrontational manner.

This is, of course, only one avenue to ending these injustices besides restoring constitutional protections and legislating some real oversight and punishment of police violations of rights.

Quote:

---

The issue, as in many countries, is unaccountable police forces encouraged by politicians to over-ride human rights for the "greater good". By removing rights first from the despised "other" - unopposed by the majority who didn't care since it didn't affect them - they now feel empowered to impose actions which most assuredly do affect the "ordinary" citizen - and they have no power to change things. "I told you so" tends to be uttered wearily by those who long since warned of this ancient pattern.

The police are servants of the law and the people. The people must be sovereign and their rights upheld. It is government's role to hold public servants to account and to preserve the rights of Man at all costs. That's rights for all.

---

I don't know if I would completely agree with the first paragraph, but I do agree with the second.

*Speaking of warrants, a big cause behind all this is the SCOTUS agreeing to bend over for police forces on the issue of the fourth amendment. So the constitutional protections avenue is FUBAR for the foreseeable future.

CR

Quote:

---

This is, of course, only one avenue to ending these injustices besides restoring constitutional protections

---

Quote:

---

The government is afraid of the guns people have because they have to have control of the people at all times. Once you take away the guns, you can do anything to the people. You give them an inch and they take a mile. I believe we are slowly turning into a socialist government. The government is continually growing bigger and more powerful, and the people need to prepare to defend themselves against government control.

---

Quote:

---

It is a lie if we tell ourselves that the police can protect us everywhere at all times.

---

Who's who?:inquisitive:

They are called "pigs" for a reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Pigs!

---

Armed citizens with issues about government brutality. God bless America! :2thumbsup:

I love your threads about police brutality CR.

Quote:

---

Armed citizens with issues about government brutality. God bless America!

---

Hello Timothy:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Armed citizens with issues about government brutality. God bless America! :2thumbsup:

I love your threads about police brutality CR.

---

Nevermind the police brutality, the majority of them are still pigs. They spy on people, bust into people's home's, steal their stuff, kidnap them and throw them in prison on a daily basis.

Before you accuse me of hating cops, I could be much much worse. One of my friends had his cousin and his best friend shot and killed by cops (different occasions). They only thing they did to me was throw the only person I ever looked up too in jail (hes in their right now).

Quote:

---

One of my friends had his cousin and his best friend shot and killed by cops

---

What did they do ?

Quote:

---

They only thing they did to me was throw the only person I ever looked up too in jail

---

What did he do ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

These incidents will continue to occur until the cops get incentives not to engage in such activities. If they knew they'd get shot at while pulling this unconstitutional, unlawful crap, they'd be much more likely to just walk up and talk to people instead of doing this or no-knock raids.

---

That's BS. They had no way of knowing if there were armed people around or not. Your Constitution says people may carry guns - how could the cops possibly know that everyone around them was unarmed? Utter BS. The threat of retaliatory violence isn't worth anything - Australia has very restrictive gun laws and we get far fewer cases of police brutality (Though Melbourne is getting a lot of problems with over-use of Tasers). The problem is letting the police remain armed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

What did they do ?

What did he do ?

---

His cousin got off his medication for a little bit, walked around his neighborhood stark naked. Completely looney. The cops rolled up, one of them messed with him and he somehow managed to grab his nightstick and was walking around with it. Cops shot him. Media either said he attacked them or was charging at them with the nightstick. Both stories are complete lies, and even if they arent they shot a naked guy with a nightstick wtf. He showed me all the news reports of youtube, but I forgot the titles.

Not sure about his best friend.

The only person who I ever looked up too, who taught me alot of what I know. He was trying to get money for his business and his house was raided last week by narcotics (I wont elaborate). If your interested http://www.myspace.com/dynamicalg .

You ignored my post, Tribesman.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by me

Quote:

---

unless they have a badge

---

Part of the problem (beyond the officers' incompetence) was they were in plainclothes and in an unmarked van and failed to identify themselves, was it not? That's what's laid out in the lawsuit pdf. If that's how it happened can't you see some wrong-doing in the policemen's action? Or does possession of a badge absolve one of all guilt? ~:rolleyes:

---

Quote:

---

His cousin got off his medication for a little bit, walked around his neighborhood stark naked. Completely looney. The cops rolled up, one of them messed with him and he somehow managed to grab his nightstick and was walking around with it. Cops shot him. Media either said he attacked them or was charging at them with the nightstick. Both stories are complete lies, and even if they arent they shot a naked guy with a nightstick wtf.

---

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Says it all , too right they should have shot him .

Quote:

---

The only person who I ever looked up too, who taught me alot of what I know. He was trying to get money for his business and his house was raided last week by narcotics (I wont elaborate).

---

Yeah thats someone to look up to , someone who wants a business but finances it with drugs and then is dumb enough to get busted and jailed ..what a role model:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Quote:

---

You ignored my post, Tribesman

---

No I didn't .
Notice the big "IF" in your post

There's evidence that they did say "oi we're the police, here's our badges"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Says it all , too right they should have shot him .

---

Because a life isnt worth disarming a naked guy(Which I could do without any training, a cop should be able to do no problem)...after all you might touch his penis...and thats gay!

Jokes aside, I lost respect for you.

Quote:

---

There's evidence that they did say "oi we're the police, here's our badges"?

---

Is there evidence that they didn't ?

Quote:

---

Jokes aside, I lost respect for you.

---

My heart bleeds , I am shattered and devestasted that someone who says the only person he looked up to was a drug dealer who got caught has now decided to lose respect for me
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

That's BS. They had no way of knowing if there were armed people around or not. Your Constitution says people may carry guns - how could the cops possibly know that everyone around them was unarmed? Utter BS. The threat of retaliatory violence isn't worth anything - Australia has very restrictive gun laws and we get far fewer cases of police brutality (Though Melbourne is getting a lot of problems with over-use of Tasers). The problem is letting the police remain armed.

---

No, its not. If the cops are so worried about being shot, why burst into people's houses? That's more likely to get them shot than trying to resolve things peacefully - even if that means the police don't get to dress up and play special forces. Look at the example I wrote of.

And here in America we're getting problems with tasers as well - its a way to shoot people with less than lethal force, and so is becoming overused. Diabetic woman stuck in her car not listening to police orders after a traffic accident? Taser her! Non-violent school district councilman off his meds and acting strange in my high school? Taser him! Multiple times, so he screams and thrashes in front of all the kids.

Its a classic case of having a hammer and seeing every problem as a nail.

CR

Quote:

---

Is there evidence that they didn't ?

---

The lawsuit claims they didn't, and I think they forfeited the benefit of the doubt when they were on the wrong street picking up alleged prostitutes of the wrong skin color.

Quote:

---

The lawsuit claims they didn't

---

Well that settles it then , there was lawsuits claiming Obama had a fake birth certificate so that means he must have had one:idea2:
See where the big "IF" comes in Alex ?
So you have a twelve year old who was obviously scared who is going to have to tesify accurately and convincingly exactly what happened and what was said .
She will be backed up by someone who wasn't there at the start but heard some noise and then saw some commotion then went to the scene , and someone who joined them even later .
Doesn't sound like much of a case does it , even a bloody good lawyer is really going to have to perform magic for the jury with that one isn't he .:yes:

Of course, the coppers would never have an interest in covering up something like a botched vice bust...

Quote:

---

Of course, the coppers would never have an interest in covering up something like a botched vice bust...

---

What is there to cover up?
Its an open and shut example of resisting arrest .

Oh, tribesy, you and your crazy trolling. You always say the wildest things. Open and shut case - ha! We'll see how much the city settles for.

“When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified.” Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.

“These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.” Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.

"An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter." Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.

“An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.” (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).

In related news, in a survey of ER doctors, 99.8% believe police use excessive force to arrest and detain subjects, and 97.8% had actually been involved in a case of excessive force.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) – In a survey of a random sample of U.S. emergency physicians, virtually all said they believed that law enforcement officers use excessive force to arrest and detain suspects.

The sample included 315 respondents. While 99.8 percent believed excessive force is used, almost as many (97.8 percent) reported that they had managed cases that they suspected or that the patient stated had involved excessive use of force by law enforcement officers.

Nearly two thirds (65.3 percent) estimated that they had treated two or more cases of suspected excessive use of force per year among their patients, according to a report of the survey published in the January 2009 issue of the Emergency Medicine Journal.

Dr. Jared Strote of the University of Washington, Seattle, and a multicenter team also found that emergency physicians at public teaching hospitals were roughly four times more likely to report managing cases of suspected use of excessive force than those at university or community teaching emergency departments.

Blunt trauma inflicted by fists or feet was the most common type of injury cited in cases of suspected use of excessive force, followed by "overly tight" handcuffs.

Most emergency physicians (71.2 percent) admitted that they did not report cases of suspected use of excessive force by law enforcement officers.

A large majority (96.5 percent) reported that they had no departmental policies on reporting their suspicions or they did not know of a policy to guide their actions, and 93.7 percent said they had received no education or training in dealing with these situations.

However, most emergency physicians (69.5 percent) felt that it was within their scope of practice to refer cases of suspected use of excessive force for investigation and almost half (47.9 percent) felt that emergency physicians should be legally required to report cases of suspected use of excessive force by law enforcement officers.

These findings, Strote and colleagues conclude, "suggest that national emergency medicine organizations in the USA should become involved, jointly developing and advocating for guidelines to manage this complex issue."

SOURCE: Emergency Medicine Journal, January 2009.

CR

Quote:

---

Oh, tribesy, you and your crazy trolling. You always say the wildest things.

---

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Oh dear , hey Rabbit

Quote:

---

In the United States, the principle right of self-defense supported by Runyan is generally understood accepted not only by legal professionals but also by the general public. However, one exception to this general acceptance of the self-defense principle is when in the context of actions taken against the instrumentality of the government.

---

errrr...instrumentality of the government ?
errrrr...that would include a police force wouldn't it

Quote:

---

Open and shut case - ha! We'll see how much the city settles for.

---

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
For the police to justify the legality of the attempt at arrest only have to show probable cause:idea2:
So lets see , they are looking for prostitutes , they see a 5'6" female alone at night wearing not much .
Probable cause to suspect she may be engaged in prostitution ? Easy .
Try again

oh and......

Quote:

---

"An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter."

---

errrrr....well done Rabbit an entirely irrelevant ruling , congratulations:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Quote:

---

So lets see , they are looking for prostitutes , they see a 5'6" female alone at night wearing not much .

---

Wrong skin color and wrong area from the reported incident...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

For the police to justify the legality of the attempt at arrest only have to show probable cause:idea2:
So lets see , they are looking for prostitutes , they see a 5'6" female alone at night wearing not much .
Probable cause to suspect she may be engaged in prostitution ? Easy .

---

So you do not think the city will settle or lose a court judgment?

CR

Quote:

---

So you do not think the city will settle or lose a court judgment?

---

Not unless they have a really crap lawyer and the family have a bloody good one .

Quote:

---

Wrong skin color and wrong area from the reported incident...

---

Irrelevant .
Just because they had a report on one incident it doesn't mean that a routine patrol cannot act if they see something else that arouses their suspicions to possible illegal activity .
Thats why Rabbits legal precedents don't hold up in this case .
It would be different if they had arrested her as they suspected she was in the act of robbing a bank as there would be no cause for that suspicion and therefore no legal probable cause under the law , or if they arrested her claiming she was 3 white prostitutes as that wouldn't hold .
But suspicion of being a streetwalker ...hey thats easy to prove , just as it would have been easy to prove her as innocent of the allegtions if she hadn't resisted arrest .
And remember the resisting arrest continued long after it was clearly established to all witnesses that these men were police doing what they thought was their job .


As an extra
Its interesting to note considering the OP and the gun nonsense contained there that the father did have a gun handy , but fortunately he had more sense than to confront the police with it .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

As an extra
Its interesting to note considering the OP and the gun nonsense contained there that the father did have a gun handy , but fortunately he had more sense than to confront the police with it .

---

The father didn't wanna die, the most basic of common sense.

Quote:

---

The father didn't wanna die, the most basic of common sense.

---

No the basic common sense for a father would be to protect his daughter .
He saw what was happening so surely he would have picked up his gun on the way down and shot the evil men that were abducting his daughter....oh unless of course he saw what was happening and realised going down with a gun to confront the police isn't a good idea .

Huh. Around here most of the guns are out in the summer cottages and whatnot, seeing as they're hunting rifles and shotguns. Occasionally some wit out in the boonies goes nuts, starts shooting around, maybe kills his family (although those usually then shoot themselves), that sort of thing. The cops' SOP is to siege the cot until the guy either starts listening to sense and turns himself in, or they deem him to be sufficiently dangerous to require the attentions of a SWAT-equivalent assault team or sniper. In which case he heads to hospital first and gets interrogated and charged later.

And, hey, what do you know ? Incidents of police brutality and suchlike are something like zero, and the profession consistently enjoys quite high respect and regard in polls.

CR, maybe you just should have a society and law enforcement system that aren't screwed up six ways to Sunday ? Might be more helpful for this sort of thing than everybody being armed to the teeth...

I don't want to come across as a police hater, my mum is going out with a copper and he is a lovely guy, i do think the police force would encourage a higher percentage of people who are arrogant and power hungry, and the profession in itself encourages an arrogant attitude (for good reasons of personal safety maybe) im not sure what can be done about this, maybe encourage friendlier policing. Maybe as a young person who wears a hoody i am sterotyped by the cops and other people get much nicer treatment from the police, but i sterotype the profession as arrogant harsh and unfriendly with a bit of power hungryness thrown in. That said i respectfully talk to them as long as they are with me, but for a long time in mine or friends dealings with the police i have find them to be unfair overly aggressive and arrogant (a few nice ones though)

Well I can't stand the police all they do is giving silly fines. Wouldn't be so bad if they were of any use but they are lazy and uninterested, completely useless.

That rather sounds like you recently got one of those cute little slips of paper on your windshield recently.

Quote:

---

That rather sounds like you recently got one of those cute little slips of paper on your windshield recently.

---

Frag is stil upset that he got caught riding his bike in a pedestrianised area .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Frag is stil upset that he got caught riding his bike in a pedestrianised area .

---

Shopping street where it is allowed till 11:00 got the fine 11:02. I don't know how it is in Ireland but here the police has a quotum, they have to collect a certain amount of money that is there job.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Well I can't stand the police all they do is giving silly fines. Wouldn't be so bad if they were of any use but they are lazy and uninterested, completely useless.

---

Same here in the US except weed is a criminal offense so that actually gives them something to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

CR, maybe you just should have a society and law enforcement system that aren't screwed up six ways to Sunday ? Might be more helpful for this sort of thing than everybody being armed to the teeth...

---

And maybe we could have world peace as well. But like I said the SCOTUS has screwed over the American people on Constitutional protections and police departments fight anything that would have oversight over them (like the situation in the city of Atlanta - the PD is saying the commission set up to review police actions needs to be rendered meaningless).

So yes, having a nationwide change in policies and dramatically changing the culture of law enforcement would be very nice, but its also very difficult.

Tribesy, do you have any link about the homeowner having a gun, or is this just more of your BS?

CR

I'm curious what cases would you say screwed over the american people?

Specifically there were some cases that the SCOTUS removed any meaning from the fourth amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

A short list of examples:
The case were the SCOTUS said the government can set up road checkpoints to search for illegal immigrants within 100 miles of the US border (which covers 190MM people now). Of course, since 9/11 the government has been stretching the meaning to search for much more, like drugs, having drug sniffing dogs at some checkpoints - how are those supposed to find illegals?

So we have a 'border exception' - the government doesn't need at warrant if you're at the border, so federal courts have ruled they can search through all your stuff - computers and electronics - to sniff out illegal actions.

In a different case, federal courts have ruled that bringing in dozens of armed, masked, shotgun pumping police to do an 'alcohol board inspection' on a bar after the police couldn't get a warrant doesn't violate the fourth amendment. (This whole case is a prime example of abuse of power)

Or the 1983 case that stated police could use drug-sniffing dogs on your belongings without getting a warrant - in that case on luggage at an airport. In 2005, the court said police could use drug sniffing dogs at routine traffic stops with no reason or suspicion.

Earlier this year the SCOTUS said evidence found after an unlawful arrest of someone is submittable for use in court. That went against precedent.

In these two cases, the court practically demolished any requirement for the police to knock on a door and announce themselves by providing loopholes very widely exploited by the police.

CR

Hey Rabbit you see the problem there don't you ?
The constitution is a badly written piece of crap .
In this case it all hinges on one word .
unreasonable

Quote:

---

Tribesy, do you have any link about the homeowner having a gun, or is this just more of your BS?

---

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Many of those are lower level court options, where others you could make a fair case that there was reasonable cause. Such as the drug sniffing dogs at airports ruling (past history of smuggling = reasonable cause). UNITED STATES v. MARTINEZ-FUERTE is troubling and probably needs further attention.

I was confused by this statement though:

Quote:

---

"The arrest rules that the officers violated were those of state law alone," Scalia said. "It is not the province of the Fourth Amendment to enforce state law."

---

Doesn't the 14th addmendment extend the consitution to state laws?

The 14th did extend most, but not yet all, of the bill of rights to cover the states. I do think it covers the fourth.

I think it was Richards v Wisconsin and Wilson v Arkansas, the last 2 links, that removed any real requirement for the police to ever knock and announce themselves, which led to all the SWAT teams raiding homes and other outrages.

Quote:

---

The constitution is a badly written piece of crap

---

Ah yes, we should instead take direction from the numerous well written constitutions put forth by the EU.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Ah yes, we should instead take direction from the numerous well written constitutions put forth by the EU.

---

"Constitution" is really a rather major (and unfortunate) misnomer for those, as their main point was to streamline and rationalize the towering pile of diverse treaties, agreements and whatever accumulated over the decades. Which isn't exactly "constitution" material really.

Most actual European constitutions seem to work with rather less grief than the US one, though. I figure it's because they're not regarded as so sacrosanct and immutable, so actual work gets done on them as necessary...

Amendements, pfft.

Quote:

---

Ah yes, we should instead take direction from the numerous well written constitutions put forth by the EU.

---

Numerous EU constitutions ?????
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Quote:

---

Most actual European constitutions seem to work with rather less grief than the US one, though. I figure it's because they're not regarded as so sacrosanct and immutable, so actual work gets done on them as necessary...

---

Yeah like our one , if there is something that needs changing because it is out of date or unclear they write an amendment and have people vote on it , not have an endless round of court cases where judges try again and again to decide what people hundreds of years ago really meant with the words they used .

Around here altering the Constitution mainly differs from passing regular legislation in the process being much tighter screened and requiring a considerably higher majority vote in the Parliament...