Not always the good guys

As they say, it is the coverup which gets you…..

So cops in California beat and taze a mentally ill man….

Ok, we don’t know what led up to this, so at first glance, one might be thinking of giving the cops the benefit of the doubt.

Until they then seize cell phones and demand that users delete any recordings of the incident.

At that point, one has to wonder what they felt they had to hide.
Further, they were complicit in (and conspired to) destruction of evidence of a crime.

If any of the police officers involved in this incident are still acting as police officers, with police powers, then the entire force is illegitimate.

I would wonder how many (cops, not bystanders) will be jailed for this?

Again: I don’t know what led up to the incident, but the evidence that the officers wanted to destroy evidence of their criminal actions is clear.

9 thoughts on “Not always the good guys

  1. Let's see…

    We don't really know what happened regarding that arrest. We don't know how active or violent the detained subject was or anything about it. We don't know if he had a weapon that he wasn't letting go of, or anything. Yeah, he got tazed–we heard that–and the dog may have been used for a compliance hold. If he's still actively resisting (and we don't know one way of the other) then all of that is kosher.

    We also don't have a single credible witness. I didn't see one person named in that story but we're supposed to just accept that the person giving the narrative to the reporter–anonymously–is telling the truth about other people having their phones taken? Sorry, but I can't accept a situation where we're supposed to give anonymous cop-hating instigators every benefit of the doubt while at the same time we're supposed to assume that the police officers are all in on some conspiracy? Not going to happen. All we see in the video is a handful of hood rats running up with cameras and heckling/harassing the police for no reason other than they want to incite trouble and I'm not willing to take the word of someone like that. Give me real verifiable facts and named witnesses that are willing to testify in a courtroom and then we can talk.

    But just because police hit or taze someone, that doesn't mean that it's wrongful or "brutality", and until I see actual evidence of someone's camera being taken or hear from an actual person willing to state on the record that he lost his camera to the police, I can't buy it. In my opinion, this is just a couple of haters trying to start the next Ferguson incident and maybe cash in on a video that shows nothing.

  2. And just to add, phones and video recorders can be temporarily collected if it's thought that they may contain evidence of a crime. The pictures and videos cannot be downloaded of viewed without a warrant, but the cameras can be held to prevent destruction or alteration of the evidence under some circumstances. If that happened and it can be justified, I again have no problem with it. But again, we only have one side of this story and it's a side rife with bias and a pretty clear agenda.

  3. Murph:

    Watch the video. At the end they discuss taking the cell videos.

    I stated that we don't know what happened to earn the beatdown. Yes, it looks excessive, but so did the Rodney King video…until you saw the whole thing.

    It isn't about the beatdown, it is about the coverup afterwards. And the High Handedness and outright destruction of evidence that is the issue.

    WTF is it with you willing to allow the Police any action? TO excuse any bad cop? To allow them any excuse that they would not give joe or jane citizen?

    There are good ones out there, but their actions are smeared by the bad ones. And by the fact that they excuse the bad cops and allow them to serve with the good ones.

  4. Hey, I want bad cops off the job and off the streets as much as anyone, but first I want to know that they're bad. Some grainy video that doesn't tell the story and the claims of an anonymous grudge-holder or two isn't enough to make that case though. If they took the phones to preserve evidence, I'm fine with that. Warrants will be requested, a judge will consider them, and the owners will get their phones back. Don't want your phone seized? Don't run up into a crime scene and start shoving it into the mix.
    Now if an investigation reveals that phones were taken and destroyed or erased, that would be something I would condemn. But I'm going to wait until someone makes an official complaint and it's investigated before I start piling on.

    There are a few bad cops out there, just like there are a few bad teachers, bad doctors, bad lawyers, etc., But you know what? The majority of decent cops don't want those guys around either. Police culture has changed and today's officers aren't very tolerant of abusive or dishonest peers who are likely to get them jammed up too.

  5. And it's articles like that that caused me to dismiss Reason as a nut fringe rag years ago. I was actually going to post the entire article that Officer Dutta wrote for the Washington Post on me own site, because, while I don't agree with everything he says, his overall message is on point. The Reason article chops it up and gives out pieces of it without the proper context, just trying to get people angry for no reason. Here. Read his entire article and you'll find it hard to disagree with. Of course if you do disagree with his premise that police have a duty and society's approval to maintain the order and detain those suspected of crimes, and that there is no cause or justification for resisting them when they are doing their job. He makes the case that there are plenty of remedies later, beginning with an official complaint all the way up to a lawsuit if you feel that you were wronged, but opposing an arrest or reasonable detention isn't an option nor does it even make sense.

    And all you need do is read the entire article here and look back at the Reason article and it's not hard to see the bias and deliberate misrepresentation that it's author is attempting to perpetrate.

  6. No, actually, I don't see the bias. I see that a cop says that you should obey him when he gives orders.

    Yes, he has his reasons for wanting you to obey, like a good peon, but they ARE NOT VALID reasons. Cop safety is not trump over my rights, no matter what the cop says. My safety is paramount on my eyes, and submitting control to a cop who may or may not be a good cop is not a good idea in my mind, especially if I am innocent.

    Making it eadier on him isn't a valid reason either.

    Now, I am not saying one should be abusive or combative either. But the tone of the was post article is still wrong. Obey and it'll go easier on you and be over quicker. Would you give that advice to a woman being raped?

    GHere is the other thing: WHen being a cop is a guarantee of honesty and integrity and him/her knowing and following the constitution, then I might be willing to consider submitting for everyone's safety.

    But when cops defend bad cops (and they do, all the time) or condone violations of the law, or of rights just for the cops CONVENIENCE then I have to assume that being a cop isn't about upholding the law, but rather about getting by and just doing a job. Yes, it is a dirty job, but that is what cops choose to do When they are willing to circumvent the law or hide their fellow officers bad behavior then they are no longer legitimate law enforcement.

    Which is what the original post was about. Not the tuneup they gave the man, but the fact that they tried to cover up their actions by confiscating and deleting videos. Not collecting them for evidence, but to destroy evidence.

    And again, the cop in the Wash post article doesn't want citizens to be nice and polite, he wants serfs to obey his orders.

  7. Being a member of society means following society's rules, and that includes submitting to lawful authority. If you don't like the way that a police officer acts, there are numerous remedies afterwards, but nothing says that you can refuse to obey resonable commands, to include producing ID when the situation warrants it, submitting to a protective or evidentiary search, submitting to lawful arrest, etc., If it's done improperly and you feel that ytour rights were violated, that's what court and the administrative complaint process is for. But you seem to have the attitude that all police are presumptively bad and just waiting for the chance to violate your rights, and that's not the case. Going back to your video, I'm still waiting for some proof that phones were stolen and erased as opposed to just being held until the video/photographs can be veiwed subject to a warrant issued by a judge. Why are you so quick to assume that anything that can be done wrongfully is being done just becsause the person accused has a gun and a badge?

    And the cop in the Washington Post article doesn't want or care about people being "serfs". He just want folks to calm down and cooperate like good members of a society are supposed to. And if he says for you to keep your hands out of your pockets while he's dealing with you, I don't think that's too much to ask, nor will I fault him for patting you down for weapons and/or placing you in handcuffs should you persist in putting your hands in your pockets after being told not to. He has the right to do so per our Supreme Court because officer safety is a compelling societal interest, not just because it's an ego thing.

Comments are closed.