Two Philly Officers charged

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Bladecutter
This is the type of court case I wouldn't mind being a member of the jury.

The one piece of video evidence shown in the news story looks pretty cut and dry.
A police vehicle crashes into a person riding a scooter, causing him to violently crash.

The officers then jump out of their vehicle, pick up the (possibly injured) rider, and slam him into a brick wall. They then hit him several times, and then slam him into the ground, where you see the scooter rider immediately curl up into the fetal position, and those two officers start beating on him while he is on the ground.

What I don't see is their initial confrontation with the scooter rider.
They say that the rider slammed one of the officers into a brick wall, and repeatedly elbowed the officer in the head.

If the officers have that on the dash cam of the police car, that changes the entire event, doesn't it?

If, however, all the motorist did was blow through a red light, and this is the officer's first contact with the motorist, someone will need to explain why these two officers have a policy of assaulting motorcyclists with potential deadly force (PIT manuever as seen in the video) as a first contact.

I'm assuming there's more video to be seen, and the officers know they have it on their patrol vehicle's dash cam. I'm curious how this one will play out. If they don't have that type of evidence, I will guess that these two officers will be given plea deals, and stripped of their uniforms.

BC.


Let us assume that the scooter rider robbed an orphanage and stabbed a kitten before trying to make his escape on said scooter and was run down by the officers....

The image I'm trying to create is the assumption that the scooter rider is a bad person.

At the point in which the officers had full control over the suspect, when he's on the ground, why do the officers continue to beat him?

In my mind the scooter rider could be the worst human imaginable, but that does not excuse an officer for continuing to beat him after he's been subdued.
 
dnewton3,

I'm curious to get your analytical view on the lawyer's (and officer's)perspective in the video I posted. He makes a strong case for never talking to the police. Does your analysis agree?
 
Originally Posted By: crazyoildude
I have lots of family and friends in law enforcement and there are still some honest ones on the job.


True...there are good, honest lawyers, politicians, and used-car salesmen, too! (I suspect in similar proportions.)
 
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Originally Posted By: doitmyself
dnewton3,

I think that your view of the judicial system is just a tiny bit sugar coated and biased due to you being on the "good" side.

Based on my experience, the public needs to be aware of their rights and proceed with caution. Let me explain from the other side, and I hope you understand.

Let's assume that a person actually is 100% innocent.

Regarding law enforcement, they will try to assure you that the best thing to do is cooperate 100% by telling/doing everything up front. They will assure you that they are your friends, there to help you, and that 100% cooperation is best. They will coerce you mentally to tell/show all in the guise of "honesty is the best policy", you have nothing to hide, etc..

If you choose not to talk, they play mind games and tell you that the only reason you're doing this is because you are hiding something. They are trained to break you down, mentally.

They do this without Miranda Rights because you are not yet under arrest.


In reality, the things you confide in truth and trust can easily be turned against you in court. Example: you welcome them into your home and dirty dishes in the sink becomes (in court) filthy, unkept home.

Makes me laugh when I read/watch the news and every time an accused decides not to tell all, the immediate implication is that they are guilty and hiding things.

My advice is to be aware that everything you cooperate about can be turned against you in the court room circus.


I don't think it is a laughing matter and you seem to be biased on the other side.

And yes, you do have rights.

[Note: I am a non-attorney person but have worked in law enforcement in the past].

If you are simply a witness to a crime, it is best to give as much information as possible based on your best recollection.

Since you have rights, if you are brought in for questioning, you have the right to answer or not to answer any questions.

One question to ask is: Am I considered a witness or a suspect?

If you are being arrested, then ask for an attorney to be present during any questioning, unless you give up that right and freely answer without an attorney.

The police are there to enforce laws and protect the general public, and that includes you.

Again, I think our system works and I for one don't want to see any major changes that would benefit the 'alleged' criminal element.

The first post indeed shows that the "system" does work for both sides.


There are only two things you should EVER say to a cop.

First: "This interaction is being recorded and transmitted off-site in real time."

Then: "Am I being detained or am I free to go?"

THAT'S IT!
 
Originally Posted By: Mykl
Originally Posted By: Bladecutter
This is the type of court case I wouldn't mind being a member of the jury.

The one piece of video evidence shown in the news story looks pretty cut and dry.
A police vehicle crashes into a person riding a scooter, causing him to violently crash.

The officers then jump out of their vehicle, pick up the (possibly injured) rider, and slam him into a brick wall. They then hit him several times, and then slam him into the ground, where you see the scooter rider immediately curl up into the fetal position, and those two officers start beating on him while he is on the ground.

What I don't see is their initial confrontation with the scooter rider.
They say that the rider slammed one of the officers into a brick wall, and repeatedly elbowed the officer in the head.

If the officers have that on the dash cam of the police car, that changes the entire event, doesn't it?

If, however, all the motorist did was blow through a red light, and this is the officer's first contact with the motorist, someone will need to explain why these two officers have a policy of assaulting motorcyclists with potential deadly force (PIT manuever as seen in the video) as a first contact.

I'm assuming there's more video to be seen, and the officers know they have it on their patrol vehicle's dash cam. I'm curious how this one will play out. If they don't have that type of evidence, I will guess that these two officers will be given plea deals, and stripped of their uniforms.

BC.


Let us assume that the scooter rider robbed an orphanage and stabbed a kitten before trying to make his escape on said scooter and was run down by the officers....

The image I'm trying to create is the assumption that the scooter rider is a bad person.

At the point in which the officers had full control over the suspect, when he's on the ground, why do the officers continue to beat him?


In my mind the scooter rider could be the worst human imaginable, but that does not excuse an officer for continuing to beat him after he's been subdued.


The same reason they stomp cats to death, Taser bedridden 80-year-olds, kick teenage girls to a pulp for dropping cake, and blast terrified house pets with shotguns: the sheer JOY off thuggery!
 
Originally Posted By: crazyoildude
I have lots of family and friends in law enforcement and there are still some honest ones on the job.


I agree with this statment 100%, however, as a law abiding Citizen I have no way to know who is "honest" and who is not. Therefore, to protect myself, I must assume that none are "honest" until they prove otherwise.
 
Ironic that some would imply cops are guilty until proven innocent, but reverse that when it comes to themselves.


No - I've not watched the video yet. I'll try to do so in the next day or so.


Clearly, some of you have had bad interactions with cops! I am sorry for that; don't know that I can undo it or change your mind.

My point in this thread is that the cops got indicted; the system worked. It may not be able to stop this in real time, but it can hold them accountable afterward and while that is perhaps delayed justice, it still is justice. I don't like it when cops go rogue, but they deserve to be charged and held accountable. I wish it were not this way, but it is, at times, this bad.

I just posted this so that some of you would realize I can be very fair and see both sides. I'll praise good cops and detest bad ones; I let the evidence speak.


Why and how this turned into a debate about what to say to a cop is beyond me, but if you all want to continue that direction, you're kind of going off course here. This is about the Grand Jury system working as it should.
 
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Ironic that some would imply cops are guilty until proven innocent, but reverse that when it comes to themselves.


No - I've not watched the video yet. I'll try to do so in the next day or so.


Clearly, some of you have had bad interactions with cops! I am sorry for that; don't know that I can undo it or change your mind.

My point in this thread is that the cops got indicted; the system worked. It may not be able to stop this in real time, but it can hold them accountable afterward and while that is perhaps delayed justice, it still is justice. I don't like it when cops go rogue, but they deserve to be charged and held accountable. I wish it were not this way, but it is, at times, this bad.

I just posted this so that some of you would realize I can be very fair and see both sides. I'll praise good cops and detest bad ones; I let the evidence speak.


Why and how this turned into a debate about what to say to a cop is beyond me, but if you all want to continue that direction, you're kind of going off course here. This is about the Grand Jury system working as it should.
I would agree to honor the good cops. We need them!!! they do a job most people wouldn't or couldn't do.
 
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Why and how this turned into a debate about what to say to a cop is beyond me, but if you all want to continue that direction, you're kind of going off course here. This is about the Grand Jury system working as it should.

I'll take credit for derailing the thread. I responded to the remarks in your original post here and nearly all of your recent threads on these topics. You come across as having an unrealistic (IMO) trust in the "system". I wanted to counter that with my view that an innocent person can get tripped up by their own naivete' by sharing your trust that the truth will prevail if one puts their complete faith in law enforcement and the judicial system. No more, no less. I respect your view and agree with most of your statements about incidents over the past few months. My bias, based on experiences, is to not be so trusting. Respectful, cooperative, obey orders....yes.

Quote:
WE HAVE THE BEST LEGAL SYSTEM. IT IS NOT PERFECT; IT HAS ERRORS AT TIMES. BUT THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE TIME, IT GETS IT RIGHT.

Quote:
In short, the system is not set up to prove people innocent by trying them; they are presumed innocent until proven quilty. That presumption of innocense extends into the investigation and bringing of charges, not just at trial. We don't try people to prove them quiltless!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top