Cop found innocent of beating teenager despite video footage

[mynameisbob84]

Un-fucking-believable

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...te-video-of-him-beating-black-teen/?mobile=nc

 

[SoTxBob]

Re: Cop found innocent of beating teenager despite video foo

This was a pisser.... everyone I know thinks this was a "good ol boys" network thing. It was on local news for days after the verdict with all the protests and bitching going on. The protests were pretty well silenced when the judge said if it continued, there would be a change of venue for the other trials in this incident. Maybe tho, that would be a good thing... no loyalty to, or fear of the HPD blue line. This guy was clearly guilty and there was zero reason for him to run up behind the kid after he was on the ground and stomp on his neck. At least he's no longer a cop for HPD.

 

[mynameisbob84]

Re: Cop found innocent of beating teenager despite video foo

I just don't understand the rationale behind it. It's clear to anyone with eyes he was guilty. There's video evidence for fucks sake. And this kind of ruling is only going to incite more hatred and more unrest between law enforcement and youths who have fallen into crime or are heading that way. Didn't the L.A Riots start because of something very similar to this?

 

[camstory]

Re: Cop found innocent of beating teenager despite video foo

Because of circumstance this act of police brutality is getting some press. Huston, one of the most racially divided cities in the country, and the beating of a black man, makes for high emotionally charged story tellingnews reporting. In this case what is driving the media and public outrage is the focus on the racially aspect of white police beating a black men. I argue that you could totally remove race from the picture and the true root problem would be no less horrific. IMHO these same cops having caught up to a white man, or a Latino, or any other race, would have done the exact same thing. These Huston police don't have some heavy bent for being particular vicious toward black men - they are just plan vicious and wrong minded. Race is the hook that everyone from the media, to the politicians, to the civil rights groups use to drum up attention, - its the hook that drives public emotion and sentiment.

The vast majority of middle America refuses to believe there is any problem at all. (after all these are criminals were talking about). A small % are willing to believe there are some problems in some cities with racial police brutality. And almost none who are willing to even give a thought to the fact, that most police in the U.S. are power corrupted, gang mentality, psychopaths that while protecting us from the badies, also brutalize and violate any they feel they can, with little more reason than it was their want. If we all became gray tomorrow there would be no less police brutality. This happens everywhere all the time. Police have gotten away with it for ever b/c who is anyone going to believe a criminal and possibly 2or3 witnesses or 4 cops with a well collaborated lie? Well apparently even with video footage of the crime, we still refuse to believe our fine men in blue are capable of doing any wrong. :twocents-02cents:

 

[HoldItNow]

Re: Cop found innocent of beating teenager despite video foo

So are all of the all-white juries racist? Or just the ones that make decisions that the people prone to outrage don't agree with? What's the appropriate mixture of minorities on a jury that guarantees their decision is not racist and only stupid if they decide upon a verdict that I don't agree with? Should I assume that anyone that might have a different viewpoint on this decision is a racist as well? Am I racist for posing questions? Am I supposed to go, "Well, what do you expect in Texas?" or am I supposed to say, "The system will never convict cops!"? Can someone link me to a website that will tell me what to think so I don't see things counter to the "common" opinion?

 

[camstory]

Re: Cop found innocent of beating teenager despite video foo

On the other hand, this thought a bit of a counter to my earlier thought, but one I believe to be no less true. If your in the mix and have been for any amount of time, there are a few facts that you know and can count on. One of those being, 'If you run from the cops and they catch you, your going to get an ass beating!' Some times its a little more extreme than others, but it is never, in reality, going to be just enough force to subdue you. :lol: It doesn't make it right, but I bet homeboy was not surprised.

 

[SoTxBob]

Re: Cop found innocent of beating teenager despite video foo

So are all of the all-white juries racist? Or just the ones that make decisions that the people prone to outrage don't agree with? What's the appropriate mixture of minorities on a jury that guarantees their decision is not racist and only stupid if they decide upon a verdict that I don't agree with? Should I assume that anyone that might have a different viewpoint on this decision is a racist as well? Am I racist for posing questions? Am I supposed to go, "Well, what do you expect in Texas?" or am I supposed to say, "The system will never convict cops!"? Can someone link me to a website that will tell me what to think so I don't see things counter to the "common" opinion?

LOL.. What I see here from you is not only absurdity, but extremism as well.

IMO, it wasn't racism that took place here in this trial. The ethnicity doesn't matter in this instance [except to those wishing to stir the race pot of unrest.] It was simply a miscarriage of justice and intimidation by the courtroom full of blue uniforms. Houston cops most likely would have done this to any idiot that ran and caused this chase. The point is that the video CLEARLY has this guy running up after the kid is on the ground and stomping on his neck hard, twice, and then running off after he got his licks in. No matter the color, that was wrong. The others that will be going on trial are also seen beating and kicking the kid on the ground while they were on top of him. I'm sure you can find many copies of the 2 vids of the incident. No need to believe me when you can see for yourself.

 

[camstory]

Re: Cop found innocent of beating teenager despite video foo

am I supposed to say, "The system will never convict cops!"?

If your asking, if your supposed to believe, "The system will never convict cops?" I would answer, that, 'I can not tell you what to believe, that I personally don't chose to believe that. I would however suggest that this example strongly supports that statement.

Can someone link me to a website that will tell me what to think so I don't see things counter to the "common" opinion?

I believe this is sarcasm of some sort. In fact it seems that your whole post is meant to be sarcastic, but I don't exactly understand why? It is true that there is between the two Bob's and myself a bit of a "common" opinion. If your opinion differs, and you wish to articulate your POV, then that is what you should do. Your post tells me nothing of what you think or how you feel about the OP subject. All I get from your sarcastic post and its sarcastic tone is that you are upset with something, but it is unclear what that something is.

 

[HoldItNow]

Re: Cop found innocent of beating teenager despite video foo

So are all of the all-white juries racist? Or just the ones that make decisions that the people prone to outrage don't agree with? What's the appropriate mixture of minorities on a jury that guarantees their decision is not racist and only stupid if they decide upon a verdict that I don't agree with? Should I assume that anyone that might have a different viewpoint on this decision is a racist as well? Am I racist for posing questions? Am I supposed to go, "Well, what do you expect in Texas?" or am I supposed to say, "The system will never convict cops!"? Can someone link me to a website that will tell me what to think so I don't see things counter to the "common" opinion?

LOL.. What I see here from you is not only absurdity, but extremism as well.

IMO, it wasn't racism that took place here in this trial. The ethnicity doesn't matter in this instance [except to those wishing to stir the race pot of unrest.] It was simply a miscarriage of justice and intimidation by the courtroom full of blue uniforms. Houston cops most likely would have done this to any idiot that ran and caused this chase. The point is that the video CLEARLY has this guy running up after the kid is on the ground and stomping on his neck hard, twice, and then running off after he got his licks in. No matter the color, that was wrong. The others that will be going on trial are also seen beating and kicking the kid on the ground while they were on top of him. I'm sure you can find many copies of the 2 vids of the incident. No need to believe me when you can see for yourself.

Yes, the sarcasm is designed to reflect the attitude of the blogger. He elevated the story right to racism because he didn't agree with the verdict. That's an all too common method on the internet where the author will now place his opinion behind a protective barrier of racism. So anyone that doesn't agree with his take now has to somehow defend racism. It's a rather childish tactic to take when you find examples in the world of situations that don't work out the way you think they should.

The case wasn't a matter of "Did they beat the suspect?". They are asking the jury to send a man to prison for a year for what is classified as a misdemeanor. They don't usually put people in jail for assault, why would this case be different?

These men are no longer police officers, they have been fired from the job and in my opinion, the jury saw that as a fitting punishment for their actions. Not many people are sympathetic towards criminals so there should be no "shock" at the results of this case.

There's also a very easy explanation why juries tend to be "white". White people respond to the summons and show up for jury duty in numbers that exceed their percentage of the population. You can look up every state and see the problems they have with citizens failing to respond to summons. In Michigan, for example, only 11% of the jury pool are black despite them making up 21% of the population and that's because of non-responsiveness. To change the system, you have to be a part of it instead of just protesting after the fact.

It's also seems like a violation of the Constitution for the government officials to make statements that the jury got it "wrong". They have now declared that their opinion is greater than the judicial process which isn't too surprising in the climate where President Obama says citizens have no right to judicial process, only due process. He has been found innocent by a jury of his peers, the government has to abide by that decision. Here in Canada the government can appeal a decision but I don't believe that's the case in the US.

The man stood trial and was found to be not guilty, you don't get to pick and choose when the justice system got it "right" based on your own bias. If you don't accept one case, then you can't accept any case.

 

[bud9752]

Re: Cop found innocent of beating teenager despite video foo

The kicking and punching after the "initial" pounce apprehension on a suspect after they have "surrendered" to apprehension/arrest is indeed way to much, it is visible with many videos of arrests as the suspect is being arrested or tasered and the officers are shouting "STOP RESISTING" while that suspect is NOT resisting but RESPONDING to being BEATEN or TASERED, a natural response to the PAIN being inflicted. I personally would like to see the training that officers receive in apprehension techniques with/without taser involvement. Are they taught to ABUSE the suspects during arrest, I'm not talking about suspects that are fighting to avoid arrest but just the "normal" arrestees . If I am arrested and being punched and kicked and beaten with batons and fists, I am going to try and protect myself from being injured. When a suspect surrenders by putting their hands on their heads or out to the side indicating that they submit to arrest, any kicking/punching/tasering is indeed UNLAWFUL on the OFFICERS part. :twocents-02cents:

 

[camstory]

Re: Cop found innocent of beating teenager despite video foo

Yes, the sarcasm is designed to reflect the attitude of the blogger. He elevated the story right to racism because he didn't agree with the verdict. That's an all too common method on the internet where the author will now place his opinion behind a protective barrier of racism. So anyone that doesn't agree with his take now has to somehow defend racism. It's a rather childish tactic to take when you find examples in the world of situations that don't work out the way you think they should.

The case wasn't a matter of "Did they beat the suspect?". They are asking the jury to send a man to prison for a year for what is classified as a misdemeanor. They don't usually put people in jail for assault, why would this case be different?

These men are no longer police officers, they have been fired from the job and in my opinion, the jury saw that as a fitting punishment for their actions. Not many people are sympathetic towards criminals so there should be no "shock" at the results of this case.

There's also a very easy explanation why juries tend to be "white". White people respond to the summons and show up for jury duty in numbers that exceed their percentage of the population. You can look up every state and see the problems they have with citizens failing to respond to summons. In Michigan, for example, only 11% of the jury pool are black despite them making up 21% of the population and that's because of non-responsiveness. To change the system, you have to be a part of it instead of just protesting after the fact.

It's also seems like a violation of the Constitution for the government officials to make statements that the jury got it "wrong". They have now declared that their opinion is greater than the judicial process which isn't too surprising in the climate where President Obama says citizens have no right to judicial process, only due process. He has been found innocent by a jury of his peers, the government has to abide by that decision. Here in Canada the government can appeal a decision but I don't believe that's the case in the US.

The man stood trial and was found to be not guilty, you don't get to pick and choose when the justice system got it "right" based on your own bias. If you don't accept one case, then you can't accept any case.

Well, let me see, I think you may have got a little worked up and that is skewing your perception. There are some things here that I agree with. Lets start with those that I don't, or better yet, lets start with the things that are just plan misrepresentations of the facts.

Yes, the sarcasm is designed to reflect the attitude of the blogger. He elevated the story right to racism because he didn't agree with the verdict. That's an all too common method on the internet where the author will now place his opinion behind a protective barrier of racism. So anyone that doesn't agree with his take now has to somehow defend racism. It's a rather childish tactic to take when you find examples in the world of situations that don't work out the way you think they should.

I'm not sure who you are talking about here? If your referring to the OP I see nothing in his post that mentions race in any way. The only other references to race in this thread are to reject the idea that this case has anything to do with race. The link in the OP is to a clip of the news coverage by Ch.13 in Huston. If your complaint had been with their undeniable effort to paint this case as one of race, I could not and would not defend them. I believe that sort of news reporting is irresponsible and reckless, aimed at stirring racial tensions and agitating the local community. (IMO this sort of journalism should be a criminal act.)

But there is nothing here that I can see, that invokes race as some sort of wall for anyone to lean their bias against, or hide behind.

I'm sorry, for shredding your next thought, but you have made it irresistibly easy!

The case wasn't a matter of "Did they beat the suspect?". They are asking the jury to send a man to prison for a year for what is classified as a misdemeanor. They don't usually put people in jail for assault, why would this case be different?

Yes! the case was a matter of "Did they beat the suspect?" The prosecution was asking the jury to return a guilty verdict. I believe if that would have happened, the judge would have then had the responsibility of sentencing. A year being the maximum sentence allowable for the crime of which the officer stood accused.

Well they often put ppl in jail for assault. But whether or not a person was to go to jail, or do house arrest,or receive probation only, is not an issue. When there is overwhelming proof that a person has committed a crime, that person is found guilty.

And why should this case be any different? Because our law enforcement professionals should be held to a higher standard of conduct then the general public. These are people who we arm with deadly weapons, and all sorts of other tools, and give them special rights to use these tools as they see fit with in the guidelines of the law. We give them the power to suspend others constitutional rights to liberty. We give them the power to use overwhelming physical force in the suspension of these liberties. We have left in their charge the protection of the ppl, all the ppl, criminals included. Because of all this they are in a unique position of power and authority. Power does corrupt the best men if vigilance against its sway is not maintained.

That is why this case should be different. That is why these people, our law enforcements professionals, should be held to a higher standard, should be put under greater scrunty. The potential for abuse is to great. All vigilance and attention should be maintained that abuse does not occur.

Not many people are sympathetic towards criminals so there should be no "shock" at the results of this case.

I am not shocked, I think mynameisbob may be the only one shocked. And I think that is sad. We need to shocked when this happens, - we need to be outraged, but we have come to expect it. The matter is so un-shocking that the media feels the need to pollute it with the hate of racism.

We don't need to be sympathetic towards criminals. We need to understand that their protection under the law is every bit as relevant as any. You are right, we must respect the decisions handed down by our judicial system, whether we agree with them or not. We must also protect the rights of every one be they criminal or not.

 

[Bocefish]

Re: Cop found innocent of beating teenager despite video foo

It's pretty much a given in most cities that if you run from the po-po you're gonna get a beating when caught for making them run after you, regardless of ethnicity. That said, if the cops involved did indeed lose their jobs, I think that is punishment enough.

:twocents-02cents:

 

[camstory]

Re: Cop found innocent of beating teenager despite video foo

It's pretty much a given in most cities that if you run from the po-po you're gonna get a beating when caught for making them run after you, regardless of ethnicity. That said, if the cops involved did indeed lose their jobs, I think that is punishment enough.

:twocents-02cents:

City, Town, or Rural County Sheriff, you run and get caught, expect an ass woopin. I can understand the idea that it is no small thing for these officers to have lost their jobs, and may likely have to relocate if they want to work in law enforcement again. But whether you feel that is punishment enough, or not, I don't think it sends the right signal to acquit someone who is so obviously guilty of a crime. Besides ppl loose their jobs all the time behind crimes they commit. It is an unfortunate consequence of your actions, but not acceptable punishment for crime at any other time.

 

[Red7227]

Re: Cop found innocent of beating teenager despite video foo

Well, if you are skinny young guy and you make a bunch of old fat police chase you, expect a beating if you get caught. It would be nice if our police are all saints, but that is hoping a bit much I suspect.

Seriously though, without knowing the context of his burglary and what physical damage was done to the kid, i would not be willing to judge if the punishment was fitting to the crime.

 

[HoldItNow]

Re: Cop found innocent of beating teenager despite video foo

I'm not sure who you are talking about here? If your referring to the OP I see nothing in his post that mentions race in any way. The only other references to race in this thread are to reject the idea that this case has anything to do with race. The link in the OP is to a clip of the news coverage by Ch.13 in Huston. If your complaint had been with their undeniable effort to paint this case as one of race, I could not and would not defend them. I believe that sort of news reporting is irresponsible and reckless, aimed at stirring racial tensions and agitating the local community. (IMO this sort of journalism should be a criminal act.)

But there is nothing here that I can see, that invokes race as some sort of wall for anyone to lean their bias against, or hide behind.

I'm sorry, for shredding your next thought, but you have made it irresistibly easy!

The article that is linked to is titled "All-white jury declares white policeman innocent despite video of him beating black teenager". It's even right in the link itself. I even mentioned that I was talking about the blogger.

Yes! the case was a matter of "Did they beat the suspect?" The prosecution was asking the jury to return a guilty verdict. I believe if that would have happened, the judge would have then had the responsibility of sentencing. A year being the maximum sentence allowable for the crime of which the officer stood accused.

Well they often put ppl in jail for assault. But whether or not a person was to go to jail, or do house arrest,or receive probation only, is not an issue. When there is overwhelming proof that a person has committed a crime, that person is found guilty.

And why should this case be any different? Because our law enforcement professionals should be held to a higher standard of conduct then the general public. These are people who we arm with deadly weapons, and all sorts of other tools, and give them special rights to use these tools as they see fit with in the guidelines of the law. We give them the power to suspend others constitutional rights to liberty. We give them the power to use overwhelming physical force in the suspension of these liberties. We have left in their charge the protection of the ppl, all the ppl, criminals included. Because of all this they are in a unique position of power and authority. Power does corrupt the best men if vigilance against its sway is not maintained.

That is why this case should be different. That is why these people, our law enforcements professionals, should be held to a higher standard, should be put under greater scrunty. The potential for abuse is to great. All vigilance and attention should be maintained that abuse does not occur.

That's nice but it doesn't reflect the reality of the justice system. Official Oppression is a misdemeanor assault charge. The conviction rate for misdemeanor assault charges across the US is 16% for non-domestic violence cases, 22% for domestic violence cases. To expect that because the men on trial are ex-police officers should somehow vault their odds of being convicted beyond what is to be expected is irrational.

They also aren't on trial as police officers. They are on trial as former police officers. It's an important distinction.

I am not shocked, I think mynameisbob may be the only one shocked. And I think that is sad. We need to shocked when this happens, - we need to be outraged, but we have come to expect it. The matter is so un-shocking that the media feels the need to pollute it with the hate of racism.

We don't need to be sympathetic towards criminals. We need to understand that their protection under the law is every bit as relevant as any. You are right, we must respect the decisions handed down by our judicial system, whether we agree with them or not. We must also protect the rights of every one be they criminal or not.

Why do we need to be outraged? The police department decided that they should no longer be officers and the jury decided that this officer shouldn't go to jail for his actions in the video. Any outrage would come from the idea that the jury is wrong which is a very odd choice to make to decide that the person who is outraged knows more than the jury.

Which takes us back to the start, the inability of people to accept that their worldview isn't universally accepted and the need to then cast aspersions on those of a different viewpoint. Which, if you look, is something you did yourself in suggesting that I was 'worked up'. You tried to define my character because you objected to the things I said. A very minor form, but it's still there.

 

[camstory]

Re: Cop found innocent of beating teenager despite video foo

Well to your first point and your last. I was truly confused as to who you were referring to when you were going on about race. I don't know what a blogger is. I thought you must be referring to one of us here. I didn't for a minute think you might be talking about the person who wrote the article the op had linked. The headline, the article, and also the way the vid clip were put together all had a raciest slant IMO. But I never understood your post to be talking about that. It still seems to me to be a bit off point, as it seems obvious the OP and the post that followed were not pursuing the racial slant of the referenced media.

So it was not b/c I differed with what you were saying, - I truly thought you had got worked up and were not reading carefully enough, and thought one of us here was playing the race card.

The next thing I wonder is where you referenced the conviction rates from. I don't know what the current % is here in Contra Costa County, Ca. but 3 years ago the conviction rate for non-felony non-domestic violent crimes was 87%. for cases that went to trail. If the figures you quoted are for anyone charged, who are not convicted, that is a much different thing than the conviction rate of those taken to trail, which is what we are talking about here.

Though I just debated a point that I believe is really not relevant anyway, b/c bottom line, as I said before, I believe these men do not fall into the same brackets as the general population. I don't think that they having been fired should make and difference at all. They were police officers when they committed the crime.

My out rage does come from the idea that the jury is wrong. My outrage also comes from my belief that it is society in general that is wrong. I absolutely accept that my worldview isn't universally accepted. My notion of what is right/correct, it would seem, has nothing to do with what is universally accepted. If what I believe is that the human race in general and the ppl of the U.S. in particular have a long way to come in how we all treat each other, and that I am ahead of the curve, and have a kinder, more loving belief system than most other ppl, than that is what I believe. But hey, that's just, my opinion man.

P.S. I see that Cammi has posted while I typed my long winded post. She caught a point that I forgot to mention but very much agree with. That being, "It's a jury's job to return a verdict of guilt or innocence." Their duty is just that, and any thought of sentence should not factor into their verdict. They returned the wrong verdict The Cop Was Clearly Guilty.

 

[HoldItNow]

Re: Cop found innocent of beating teenager despite video foo

Any outrage would come from the idea that the jury is wrong which is a very odd choice to make to decide that the person who is outraged knows more than the jury.

I was shocked when OJ was acquitted. I was shocked that Casey Anthony was found not guilty. I think the majority of the public felt as I did in both of these cases. I don't find it odd at all that sometimes the general public thinks a jury got it wrong. Especially in this day in age when most high profile cases are televised and the viewers see all the evidence just as the jurors do. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution and sometimes they just do a shit job or the evidence is too circumstantial to prove the defendants guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

And thus we differ.

[.....]the jury decided that this officer shouldn't go to jail for his actions in the video.

It's a jury's job to return a verdict of guilt or innocence. Not what the sentencing/punishment should be, unless we are talking capital punishment, and yes then they are involved. A jury is not allowed to say "not guilty" just because they don't think the crime deserves a jail sentence because they were already fired. In the US, it's up to the judge to decide what punishment is appropriate.

A jury has every right to say not guilty if they don't think the crime deserves punishment. It's called jury nullification.

 

[camstory]

Re: Cop found innocent of beating teenager despite video foo

I want to ask a question. I don't know if it is relevant or not, but it seems relevant to me. If this kid had been seriously injured by this beating, or crippled from one of the stomps to the back of his head, or even possibly killed, would we feel different about it?

The fact that this kid was not seriously hurt, must have played a part in influencing the jury. I don't think it should have, but I think it must have. ppl are charged and convicted all the time for the intent of their actions, even though they were unsuccessful in realizing their intention. These cops had the intent to inflict bodily harm, the fact that they didn't do that was purely chance.

As long as we continue to let this sort of mentality remain acceptable by not convicting cops who have the misfortune to be caught of video, it will continue.

As long as fools run and get caught, they're going to receive some heavy handedness when being taken into custody. I think there has to be a line where that heavy handedness becomes unreasonable. IMO that line was well crossed by the actions caught on this video.

Eventually I hope we get to the point that inflicting unnecessary harm on another person is unpalatable. Even if that person plays for the other team, and has really pissed you off by refusing to yield to your atorataa. But until that happens, I think we need to send a message, that if you continue to this, if you are caught things will not go easy on you.

 

[Red7227]

Re: Cop found innocent of beating teenager despite video foo

Eventually I hope we get to the point that inflicting unnecessary harm on another person is unpalatable. Even if that person plays for the other team, and has really pissed you off by refusing to yield to your atorataa. But until that happens, I think we need to send a message, that if you continue to this, if you are caught things will not go easy on you.

That is what happened though, as their entire careers and livelihoods were destroyed. The punishment will make it impossible to misuse their authority in the same way again. Judges are the ones who have seen the defendants and assessed their levels of guilt and remorse. Questioning a judges conclusions on a few seconds of video is ridiculous.

 

[SoTxBob]

Re: Cop found innocent of beating teenager despite video foo

More fodder for you that love to research....

By one of the local news reports I saw, "Mr. Footstomp" was only fired from the HPD. He isn't prevented from going to county, or other municipalities and joining those PD's or constable departments, and/or should he choose, other states and being a cop there. Also, let us not forget the 'rent-a-cop' option. I hope it was a misstatement by the reporter but if not... so much for "taking away his livelihood"... His dream of being HPD, yes, that was removed.

 

[camstory]

Re: Cop found innocent of beating teenager despite video foo

Eventually I hope we get to the point that inflicting unnecessary harm on another person is unpalatable. Even if that person plays for the other team, and has really pissed you off by refusing to yield to your atorataa. But until that happens, I think we need to send a message, that if you continue to this, if you are caught things will not go easy on you.

That is what happened though, as their entire careers and livelihoods were destroyed. The punishment will make it impossible to misuse their authority in the same way again. Judges are the ones who have seen the defendants and assessed their levels of guilt and remorse. Questioning a judges conclusions on a few seconds of video is ridiculous.

Yes I accept that the jurors in this case were convinced some how that this cop was not guilty. I understand that they had to have been exposed to a great deal of relevant evidence to reach a not guilty verdict. I even think that the consequences of loosing their careers and having to re locate or find a new career is heavy enough toll to pay for their actions. But as much as I hate to say it, I think some times examples have to be made. The lose these cops will endure are huge in their life, but it is not punishment, it is consequence. With out a guilty verdict, what ppl will remember a year from now is, "they let those cops go" I would like to believe I could not be convinced no matter what to return a not guilty verdict had I been one of the jurors, but I don't really know that. I think it is unfortunate that this man was not found guilty of a crime it appears he clearly committed. It is not about the punishment, it is about what you are officially saying, by saying he was innocent.

And, "make it impossible to misuse their authority in the same way again" is just not true unfortunately. Locally there was a sheriff's officer who after almost 10 years, of receiving numerous complaints, a couple official reprimands and being transferred all over the county, was arrested for the beating of a homeless man. He was forced to resign, and ended up being convicted of a misdemeanor violation of the mans civil rights. (this approximately 2 years ago) He did six months house arrest, and he now works for BART (Bay Area Rapid transit) police. Bart cops are full fledged cops with all the powers of city or county cops.

 

[camstory]

Re: Cop found innocent of beating teenager despite video foo

He did six months house arrest, and he now works for BART (Bay Area Rapid transit) police.

Turns out he was not hired by BART, but only b/c word got out that he was going to be. Regardless there is nothing stopping these guys from being hired as cops again.

 

[sweetiebatman]

Re: Cop found innocent of beating teenager despite video foo

We have to get rid of this Namby Pamby Criminals have rights brigade, "Rehabilitation" for serious offenders is a joke and spits in the face of the decent populous who obey the law and contribute

As far as im concerned you commit a crime you lose your Liberty as well as your rights, you can rot for me, Society is better without you.

 

[Shaun__]

Re: Cop found innocent of beating teenager despite video foo

We have to get rid of this Namby Pamby Criminals have rights brigade, "Rehabilitation" for serious offenders is a joke and spits in the face of the decent populous who obey the law and contribute

As far as im concerned you commit a crime you lose your Liberty as well as your rights, you can rot for me, Society is better without you.

You know some people are innocent of the horrible crimes they are accused of. Link

 

[sweetiebatman]

Re: Cop found innocent of beating teenager despite video foo

We have to get rid of this Namby Pamby Criminals have rights brigade, "Rehabilitation" for serious offenders is a joke and spits in the face of the decent populous who obey the law and contribute

As far as im concerned you commit a crime you lose your Liberty as well as your rights, you can rot for me, Society is better without you.

You know some people are innocent of the horrible crimes they are accused of. Link

Yes of course, they are not "criminals" then if they are innocent

 

[Shaun__]

Re: Cop found innocent of beating teenager despite video foo

Yes of course, they are not "criminals" then if they are innocent

My point is that is why "criminals" get rights. Some are found to be innocent after years of being in prison, some are only found innocent years after their death.

 

[sweetiebatman]

Re: Cop found innocent of beating teenager despite video foo

I agree, but that is in the minority of cases, there is a debate in the UK at the moment where inmates get the right to vote, I say no, if you commit a crime, no matter how heinous you forgo the right to participate in society

Whilst this law my come unstuck for the 1 in 100 found to be not guilty after serving time, Its a good rule of thumb IMO

 

[sweetiebatman]

Re: Cop found innocent of beating teenager despite video foo

Woah yeah exactly, I was talking more for the convicted to be fair
and, if you run for a law enforcement officer, you are probabaly on a hiding to nothing

 

[Nordling]

Re: Cop found innocent of beating teenager despite video foo

Huh?

 

[sweetiebatman]

Re: Cop found innocent of beating teenager despite video foo

Sorry, I am kinda replying to another post further up and adding into that Chromes tendancy to misspell words for me :lol: