Last edited:
Cops pepper sprays a minor video
- Thread starter NRG
- Start date
I'm usually the first one to say that cops don't get enough respect... and granted there may be more to this story that you don't see on the tape... but that cop is an absolute a-hole and should be fired. If the Dayton PD got away with only having to pay $60K then they got lucky.
The cop was "cleared" of ANY wrongdoing!? How about wrongful arrest and assault??! just because he thought the girl shortchanged him, he could not arrest her just based on that. This is just total abuse of his position. That ass should have gotten thrown in jail. Now the taxpayer lost $60k on this ass. 
Steve
Steve
anyone have a link to the story?
Thats messed up.
Dayton Ohio baby! Oh yeah, that's what their known for! Good job!
If you have never visited Dayton Ohio......don't!!
If you have never visited Dayton Ohio......don't!!
This "cop" is a freakin example of why nobody likes the police.
From my perspective, this was a false arrest. It should have been enough when the manager told the pig that there were no $20s in the drawer. They have surveillance cameras precisely for this reason. They aren't there to spot stickup guys leaning in the window, they're to watch the cashiers.
In some states, it is legal to respond to false arrest with deadly force. I'm not sure whether OH is one of them, but IL is.
From my perspective, this was a false arrest. It should have been enough when the manager told the pig that there were no $20s in the drawer. They have surveillance cameras precisely for this reason. They aren't there to spot stickup guys leaning in the window, they're to watch the cashiers.
In some states, it is legal to respond to false arrest with deadly force. I'm not sure whether OH is one of them, but IL is.
liftshard said:
Wait, Whaaa? Please explain.
- Joined
- 30 December 2004
- Messages
- 87
liftshard said:
LOL, good luck with that.
Not surprised at all. Especially with the fact that he got off with no wrong doing.. He should not have been behind the counter... He should have gone through the proper channels just like anyone else would have had to.
Nah... he has a badge and a gun he can do what he wants... It has been ruled so, if he did not get into any trouble at all.... She had a foul mouth, but he should have never been back there to hear what she was saying...
JAO
Nah... he has a badge and a gun he can do what he wants... It has been ruled so, if he did not get into any trouble at all.... She had a foul mouth, but he should have never been back there to hear what she was saying...
JAO
I can't imagine how people stood by and let that happen. I would have had a very hard time not tossing that cop out of the place.
neuralpathways said:
In IL, the state Supreme Court ruled that you could respond to false arrest with deadly force. In fact, they were explicit. There are other states which have similar rules. You do not have to submit to false arrest in every jurisdiction.
It is your civic duty to respond with deadly force to any police officer attempting to arrest someone falsely. The police cannot be permitted to abuse their authority with impunity and it is wholly inadequate to pay their victims out of the public till while the perpetrators remain gainfully employed and able to abuse the rights of future citizens.
liftshard said:
I can see someone respond with deadly force if a police officer attempts to arrest that someone falsely but wouldn't it be a bit hard to determine if the police officer is arresting SOMEONE ELSE falsely besides some obvious situations? But I assume there are rulings/laws that cover this gray area as it can be abused.
Not sure about the deadly force issue but people have to run on what is right & wrong. Not stopping that cop was flat out wrong on the part of any guy in that place at the time esp. the manager who knew the whole deal. Plus, the women there should have been on the phone to 911 as soon as the guys had disarmed the rogue cop.
- Joined
- 30 December 2004
- Messages
- 87
liftshard said:
May I ask how you would know it is a false arrest. Not all situations may be as obvious as this particular incident, are you now making decisions that a court, jury, judge should make. What would be your justification in using deadly force against an officer, because you believe it is an unlawful arrest, only later to learn that it was in fact a lawful arrest.
Perhaps that is why every police agency have an internal affairs section to investigate such abuses.
As you stated earlier "This "cop" is a freakin example of why nobody likes the police." Let me just say that perhaps the problem with rogue police officers is directly related to where police departments must recruit from.
Banshee Wail said:
Reasonable belief justifies use of force. Just as in self-defense. Reasonability is an objective standard determined by a jury or judge as a matter of law. If you haven't been to law school, you're in way over your head in this discussion.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
You watch WAY too much television. Review boards are essentially a rubber-stamp for officers' shoots. EXCEEDINGLY rarely is an officer dismissed for such an incident. In this case a cop pepper sprayed an innocent minor - was he fired? Most shoot or use of force reviews are conducted in closed sessions at all of which victims have no representation. Cops routinely shoot and kill unarmed individuals, sometimes emptying 15 round magazines in the process. And, while the board conducts its review, they are on paid leave. The only times I have ever become aware of officers receiving rational discipline is when they are actively perpetrating serious felonies for some period of time. I.e., when it becomes so freakin obvious that it can no longer be denied by the "thin blue line."
The PDs recruit almost exclusively from the military. What is your point?
CDX_NSX said:
i think the correct link is
http://www.boalt.org/bjcl/v2/v2hemmensnf.htm
yours is the URL for the left frame on the website
CDX_NSX said:
This is a good article. The IL decision I referenced, or perhaps it was OH, was a Supreme Court reversal of lower court rulings on the legality of resistance to arrest and appears to postdate this law review article.
- Joined
- 30 December 2004
- Messages
- 87
liftshard said:
My point may be just beyond your grasp.
Police departments recruit entirely from the human race. Maybe when society in general improves so will police officers.
As for your statement about employing deadly force based on reasonable belief, that is somewhat questionable. I know what reasonable suspicion is and what probable cause is and you may certainly not employ deadly force at those levels of standards. What is funny is that you are critical that officers use deadly force against unarmed people, but your solution is to use deadly force against police officers based on a hunch or an opinion that the officers acions are unlawful. Great.
Sounds to me like you are no better than the police officers you criticize.
I also like your inference that all police shootings are criminal in nature and that all government review is corrupt. Once again, great.
And as for being in way over my head. Well, I have found myself, many, many times, in situations where I would have prayed for help from more astute and learned people, problem was they were always running the other way.
Banshee Wail said:
Are you um, developmentally challenged?
The police departments DO NOT recruit from the human race AT LARGE; they recruit directly from specific SUBSETS of the human race, i.e., those who have entered military service.
I can see right away that by confusing totally irrelevan and unrelated terms like "probable cause" and "reasonable belief" that you have not been to Law School and are in way over your head in this discussion. At what point did society morph into this animal where everyone thinks their own uninformed opinion is worth consideration?
Um, no. Reasonable belief, just like any other self-defense affirmative defense.
It sounds to me like you are developmentally challenged.
That is YOUR inference. I wrote nothing of the kind. YOU are the one who INFERRED from my writing, the above-referenced opinion. You have no clue what I can infer from my writing because I have not disclosed said inferences.
My statement was merely that departmental review of officers' shoots is FUNDAMENTALLY flawed. It has too many holes in it to be worthy of trust.
Perhaps you should listen more and talk less.
CDX_NSX said:Actually, while framed, I get the entire document with the link I provided.
No matter. If my link doesn't work for some, yours will. It's easier to read without the frames anyway.
huh, didnt work for me. regardless, thanks for the interesting reading.
