Is this happening more, or is it just getting more attention? do we have any statistics? This seems weird

why is it weird, everyone has a camera now, and everyone films the police. It's always happened, now its in the light.

This is upsetting and the protestors are taking the wrong course of action. This one looks to be on them. I'm still miffed that people are upset by broken car windows and some riots but can't be bothered to make a serious stand against police who severed a man's spine and killed him.

We'll see if that was done intentionally or not in the courts, bo.

Broken car windows is one thing. Burning fucking buildings to the ground and then cutting the firehoses of firefighters is another

I didn't say it was intentional. I am hopeful that it wasn't. Still, any tactic used while in police custody that results in such an injury legitimized these protests until they grew violent.

Eric Garner's death wasn't intentional either, but it was very much preventable. The officer in that instance broke policy and I imagine this one did too if such an injury came out of it, but the simple fact that we are dealing with a needless death is the reason people are protesting.

I mean, we all know that police brutality occurs though. Here's one example that happened in my neighborhood a few years ago. Guy gets busted selling drugs in a sting operation, flees in a vehicle for about a 4 mile chase. Ditches the vehicle when he sees a roadblock. Cop tries to make the arrest as he stops the vehicle, guy is a boxer and breaks the cops nose and runs across Interstate 87. In the foot pursuit (happened in winter) one cop sprains his ankle and another breaks through the surface of a shallow frozen pond. Cops finally catch him after 2-3 hours of hide and seek. Suspect sustained many facial injuries while "running away". Cops said he must have "fallen down a hill".

What would your reaction be to that?

Sounds like a drug dealer got busted and decided to pad on 10 extra years in prison on top of what he'll already get. I don't see how that is relevant. He wasn't injured by police (unless that story turns out to be untrue, which you seem to be subtly implying but didn't actually say), he wasn't injured in custody, and he's not dead. Unlike Gray or Garner, your guy will be alive when he gets sentenced in court.

My father was an attorney on that case. They absolutely beat the shit out of him after they caught him.

These police had just been searching out in the snow, at night for several hours for this guy, and 3 of their own were seeking medical treatment because of the case. In that scenario, do you still fault them for roughing him up while in custody? I'm just trying to see what's the hard line for you.

Then I absolutely have a problem with it. Why would anyone be okay with that?

*Chase

It's needless. It's emotional, the cops are pissed for good reason. They're chasing a guy at high speeds and risking their lives and risking injury, but that's part of the job, is it not? That's what used to be so honorable about it. The guy put other people in danger, but the court is supposed to punish him, not the officers. The officers take the guy in, fill out the paperwork, and probably get lauded as heroes after being hurt on duty. Instead, I imagine your father and the rest of the people on that case gave those cops a little something to think about too.

So you think that its perfectly okay for criminals to do whatever the fuck they want to police, and then as soon as they decide to surrender, expect the police to immediately overcome their basic human instinct and adrenaline and calmly clasp them in cuffs? You don't think that's putting the bar insanely high for the police force?

I think criminals are criminals and police officers should be held to higher moral ground, if I may simply rephrase what you said. And yes, I think the bar should be high for the police force. I don't expect them to calmly cuff them, but I don't expect them to kill or debilitate anyone in the process. Is that too high? Should we go back to the age where they cut off your hand as punishment or can we stick to prison time?

"So you think that its perfectly okay for criminals to do whatever the fuck they want to police, and then as soon as they decide to surrender, expect the police to immediately overcome their basic human instinct and adrenaline and calmly clasp them in cuffs?"

It's not OK, but if criminals never did anything wrong, they wouldn't be criminals. The cops can be criminals, too, but not if they want to stay cops.

And, like any other job, if someone does happen to get hurt or killed, the officers should be held responsible for wrongful injury and/or death.

At least, putting the bar that high and expecting every officer in every police force in the nation to act like that consistently year-round? I mean, I do understand that *is* what's expected of them, and that's what we pay them for. What I'm just saying is; Why are we surprised when they do use excessive force in these situations?

I'm not surprised, but that doesn't make it right. Train them better, give them more support and tools so they don't get into situations so often, pay better so better people join the force. But don't excuse someone for murder just because they have a badge.

Exactly. It's not surprising at all. I just don't see why, unless you're simply playing devil's advocate, why people can't be upset when they fail to do their job properly so, so often (and seem to get away with it). Likewise, I don't see why police forces around the nation shouldn't adjust their practices to avoid as many of these situations as possible. It's a little bit passive to say that we should simply expect it and it isn't worth working on.

"These police had just been searching out in the snow, at night for several hours for this guy, and 3 of their own were seeking medical treatment because of the case. In that scenario, do you still fault them for roughing him up while in custody?"

The problem is that cops are supposed to be professionals, not vigilantes who take the law into their own hands. As a society we've apparently decided through our laws and court rulings that detention and not corporal punishment is the legal method of punishment for crime. Cops should abide by that. They should obey the law they enforce on the rest of us. If they aren't, they're acting illegally. I can certainly appreciate the feelings of the officers in the incident you describe, but is someone lacks the self-restraint to avoid beating people who annoy them, they should not be given the de facto right to execute or maim with impunity they have today.

"So you think that its perfectly okay for criminals to do whatever the fuck they want to police, and then as soon as they decide to surrender, expect the police to immediately overcome their basic human instinct and adrenaline and calmly clasp them in cuffs?"

Yes.

"You don't think that's putting the bar insanely high for the police force?"

With great power comes great responsibility. At least, it ought to.

i say we nuke em

""So you think that its perfectly okay for criminals to do whatever the fuck they want to police, and then as soon as they decide to surrender, expect the police to immediately overcome their basic human instinct and adrenaline and calmly clasp them in cuffs?"

Yes."

I have to agree with Tolstoy here. What is the point of having courts if we just allow the police to impose their own punishments.

I've mostly been playing devil's advocate here, bo. I'm not trying to excuse murder at all.

But in seriousness, unless some new evidence comes to light, the officer in this case probably won't be charged. From what I've seen is that he possibly sustained the spinal injury due to not being buckled in the back of a police van. Autopsy said the injuries he sustained resembled those of a car crash. That's negligence, at most.

"Autopsy said the injuries he sustained resembled those of a car crash. That's negligence, at most."

Read up on "screen tests" and let us know if you still think that.

**This case referring to the OP on Freddie Gray.

And for the record, I do agree with Tolstoy and jmo. That's how the police are expected to act and that's the standard they're held to. I just don't think that we as civilians can be too harsh on them when they don't live up to that. Everyone breaks at some point.

"But in seriousness, unless some new evidence comes to light, the officer in this case probably won't be charged."

New evidence will not come to light. The police will "lose" it or "accidentally erase it while copying".

"I just don't think that we as civilians can be too harsh on them when they don't live up to that."

We as civilians are the exact people who should be harsh. The police work for *us*, or should, at least.

Also, Tolstoy you're going to have to provide a bit more context than "screen tests". Googled it and I just got stuff about acting