"I don't play. ... I don't play." LEO gone wild

Lilisdad and Edward429451, have hit the nail on the head.

The immediate fault lies with the individual officer, who while investigating the incident, could not or would not tolerate any behavior that was not completely subservient.

The more problematic fault lies with the administration that did indeed train this officer to expect such behavior and to retaliate if it was not given. (source? How do you know that's the way he was trained?)

In such zeal to decry this incident and to denounce this officer in particular, note should be given that not all police act in this manner.

Further, note should be given that we don't know all the facts. The paper has not printed anything more than what will sell papers. The paper has not released to the public any more of the video than a small snippit, that tends to support their story. We don't know what the officer said when he first boarded the bus. The video we were allowed to view, doesn't show this. Nor does it show what happens immediately following the "grab" by the officer, the handcuffing, nor the "lecture."

If I was on a jury and shown nothing more than this small portion of the tape, I simply could not conclude anything more than an officer seemingly taking a suspect into custody. The audio portion is poor, plus the voiceover by the announcer cuts out most of what was said. As a juror however, I would have to have viewed the entire tape, and not that snippet shown by the news. Else it all boils down to, "he said, she said."

To be sure, the school reviewed the entire video and found no fault with the girl. This seems to substantiate the allegations of officer misconduct. That gives some credibility to the charges against the officer. Yet again, a portion of any blame, to my mind, would be the training the officer received and the administration that approved this training (again, not in evidence)... But that's just my opinion, based upon interaction with police in my area. YMMV

To sum then: Blame the individual, but don't blame the entire group.

As an aside: LEO: Singular. LEOs: Plural. LEO's: Contraction, singular possessive; LEO has. (damnable English language...)

As a further aside: Yes, this was an investigation. :cool:
Click to expand...
Agree with the majority of the post, except where noted.
 
Really easy way to decide if an officer's actions are out of line: ask "How would LawDog handle this situation?". Seems to work fairly well (except in cases involving animatronic Santas and armadillos)...
 
Its too bad that many just graduate from "taxi driver" or political favor. Nothing wrong with being a taxi driver, just using as an example.

Why didn't you add another sentence and tell everyone "the salaries are also the same"!!! :mad:
 
Thank you

Lilysdad and Edward.
The two things that always cross my mind when these threads arise are; what do the other LEs think about it and, what kind of recruitment/training/supervision do these people get?
 
I can vouch from personal experience that a near-death experience on a motorcycle makes for far worse than a run-of-the-mill "bad day."

I would have loved the legal authority to ruin the day - nay, the month - of a jackass who flicked a lit cigarette butt out his window which through some miracle of aerodynamics hit me in the face.

But even so, a police officer should be able to control his emotions when investigating a crime.
 
The more problematic fault lies with the administration that did indeed train this officer to expect such behavior and to retaliate if it was not given. (source? How do you know that's the way he was trained?)
Click to expand...
As I'm sure you know, training is more than what was learned at POST. More often than not, it is the directives given to officers by their superiors. Almost always in response to politics from the City Admins.

TBO, as part of that political process, that some of us admonish others to do, I ran for mayor of my town last term (I lost, but not by much). In preparing for the run, the actual process and the aftermath, I learned a lot.

One of those things were the political "orders" given to the Police Chief by the Mayor and/or city administrator, that was implimented on down the line.

So that when our little town had a major police problem, less than a year after the last mayoral election, I viewed the entire scene with just a little skepticism. We lost 6 good officers (only one due to misconduct, as all 6 were originally charged with). The one officer to stand his ground was the one officer charged with misconduct. Never went to trial. He resigned, as did the other 5 before him.

During the year that this little episode played out, the state AGs office investigated and their result was that no chargeable offenses were committed. Not to be swayed, the city charged the one officer who would not buckle under. This former officer sought office as a city councilman this year, and won that office by a landslide. Immediately after the election, the city administrator said he would resign at the end of his current contract. The mayor has said she will not run again.

There's a lot more that could be said of this, but suffice it to say that the whole thing revolved around the mayor and the city admin issuing a directive to fully enforce all city ordinances upon one segment of the city: Hispanics. (coincidence that it was the Hispanic vote that almost elected me, a white male?)

So call me jaded. But when I see such officer misconduct, I see more political stuff behind the scenes than simply an officer that is out of control. Perhaps this guy was simply out of control. Perhaps not.
 
So denying a false accusation now constitutes "passive to active resistance" warranting "contact controls," is that what you expect us to swallow.
Click to expand...
Let's see...a police officer is charged, by the public, to investigate and detain suspects, so when that officer gives a subject a lawful order (in good faith in order to attempt further investigation) and that subject refuses to comply, then pushes the officer away, the officer is obligated, by his charge, to make the subject comply.
Translation: The girl wouldn't be bullied by the cop's attempt at intimidating her into a false confession, so the cop threw a temper tantrum and dragged her, handcuffed, out of the bus.
Click to expand...
Interesting and nonsensical translation.
 
And yet.........

"Quote [mine]:

Translation: The girl wouldn't be bullied by the cop's attempt at intimidating her into a false confession, so the cop threw a temper tantrum and dragged her, handcuffed, out of the bus."

Destructo's: "Interesting and nonsensical translation."

And yet, mine is the one most consistent with both the evidence and the law, not to mention being the concensus of the board......... :rolleyes:
 
I find this thread interesting as I can see why there is a huge increase in whiny, bratty 13 year olds as evidenced by everyone's rushed attempt to jump to her defense. Kids don't have the same rights as adults, and don't have special privileges, either. She should have shut her mouth.

That being said, the officer could have taken a much better and logical approach. He pulled the bus over, boarded it, yet he fell for the oldest trick of an attention starved child. He reacted to her stupidity. What he should have done, and something I have used a few times as a special education teacher, is to just let everyone sit. "We will sit until I get the name of the one who did this. It nearly caused a serious accident."

After an eternity (which is actually 5 minutes in MTVian attention deficit time), the girl would have become much more vocal, telling the officer how he "has no rights to do this..." and "my parents will report you..." etc. etc. A vocal mob mentality will set in, with the kids eventually turning to the one who did it, and saying things like "just tell him what happened" or something to that effect.

The officer would have gotten his man without the scrunity of national attention, and the girl would have practiced for later in life when she starts hanging out with low-lifes, and telling the police how she (very vocally) knows "nothing about anything."
 
I saw that video, the girl needed her smart little butt whipped ( the board of education has been retired though ) and put on restriction. If I was the cop I'd have done the same thing, she got up yelling at a cop who had just been assaulted and was investigating who did it, he may have done it to teach her a lesson her parents obviously forgot to take the time to do, it also appeared to me at the time she is the most likely suspect.

BTW she didn't stand up saying she didn't do it until he went back and got her, she was talking smack before that while standing up. At least that's what it looks like to me.

The officer would have gotten his man without the scrunity of national attention, and the girl would have practiced for later in life when she starts hanging out with low-lifes, and telling the police how she (very vocally) knows "nothing about anything."
Click to expand...

Amen!

This girl did not go to jail, she wasn't assaulted, she was handcuffed & held for her parents to pick up because she was talking smack and was the most likely suspect. If people would dicipline their own children they wouldn't need officer friendly to do it for them. This was a situation where the cop could have been seriously hurt or killed, it wasn't a piece of paper they threw out it was a golf ball or something capable of breaking windows and causing accidents.
 
Last edited:
Specious rationalization

"she got up yelling at a cop who had just been assaulted and was investigating who did it..."

Nonsense. There was NO "assault" on the cop; he was involved in a near-collision caused by another motorist evading the golf ball thrown by an UNKOWN party on the bus. NO-ONE intentionally tried to harm the cop. Either you don't know what constitutes assault or you are desperately hoping WE don't. Either way, you lose.

"...it also appeared to me at the time she is the most likely suspect."

Given that ANYONE on that side of the bus could have thrown the ball out easily, and anyone on the far side of the bus could have gone across, tossed the ball and then returned to their seat, you either have great powers of divination or a greater need to rationalize the cop's excessive actions.

Note further that the cop had the LEAST idea of who did it; he was several links down on the chain of events.

A poor excuse for worse conduct.
 
Either you don't know what constitutes assault or you are desperately hoping WE don't. Either way, you lose.
Click to expand...

funny, I don't feel desperate:D

While technically not assault he was put in a position where he could have sustained major injury due to the criminal negligence of others. Assault was just easier to say.

As for her being a suspect she sure knew what was going on and why he was there. that at least implies knowledge, and since she took it upon herself to "try" him I suppose she learned to take a situation that could have caused a accident seriously.
 
Last edited:
Try again

"Assault was just easier to say."

Translation: Your use of the term "assault" was incorrect and now you are trying to rationalize your error.

Note also that there was no "criminal negligence of others" in this incident. Throwing the golf ball out the window was an INTENTIONAL act; ergo, it cannot be "negligence."

Another wannabe-lawyer...... :rolleyes:
 
Negligent:

not being careful or giving enough attention to people or things that are your responsibility:

- The judge said that the teacher had been negligent in allowing the children to swim in dangerous water.

The act of throwing a projectile out of a moving vehicle in a manner that can be dangerous is a criminal offense, since it is doubtful it was done to deliberately cause a accident it is negligent.

criminal negligence - (law) recklessly acting without reasonable caution and putting another person at risk of injury or death (or failing to do something with the same consequences)

as for your smartass coments :barf:
 
More pathetic excuses

"criminal negligence - (law) recklessly acting without reasonable caution..."

So now you want us to believe that there IS a reasonably cautious and perfectly legal way to throw a golf ball at a moving car in traffic.

Oh yeah; that works.......... :rolleyes:
 
I agree with one thing,paddlings should be brought back but..(no pun intended)the question arises..wouldnt it be better after one finds out exactly whom did what rather than whom did what based on my or your best guess?If one applies such "logic" in daily life, I wonder what the result would be?

...after a whole busload of kids see this ,what do you think their reaction is going to be next time they see a LEO?after the next time they witness a crime?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top