Replies

And then there's the failure to provide appropriate assistance to a citizen whose life was in danger. That's what cops are paid to do, and these cops didn't do their jobjs. For that alone, they should be fired. And if that's not enough, the innapropriate use of force should also be sufficient cause for termination.

First of all, we don't have a complete version of the events. You are making an assumption after the fact in order to criticize associated actions also after the fact. A child's view of reality.

The courts have officially decided that the police function is not to provide 'appropriate' (whatever that means) assistance to people in danger; they can't (are not allowed to) prevent crimes, just fix them after they happen.

Last I heard, cops aren't issued Ouija Boards.

The use of force is another issue altogether. We don't have any corroboration of what actually happened, yet. The described 'abuse' may have happenned or not. It may have been justified or not. From what was written, I have no way of knowing, nor does anyone else who was not there.

I just know that, if under those circumstances, I made the mistake of asserting my rights, claiming victimhood, getting arrogantly combative, verbally or otherwise before allowing the guys with the guns from knowing I am no danger to them, I have some serious survival deficiencies, or a total lack of brains.

“I just know that, if under those circumstances, I made the mistake of asserting my rights, claiming victimhood, getting arrogantly combative, verbally or otherwise before allowing the guys with the guns from knowing I am no danger to them, I have some serious survival deficiencies, or a total lack of brains.”

yep, lets prove our innocence and then ask politely if we can cease taking their valuable time.

First of all, we don't have a complete version of the events. You are making an assumption after the fact in order to criticize associated actions also after the fact. A child's view of reality.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Of course my comments are based on the assumption that the article is accurate. That should not even have to be stated, as it's clear from the context (which is that I'm commenting on the situation as described in the article.) I see no reason to assume the article is false in any material way—although, of course, it could be.

But your criticism is based on the opposite assumption, without any obvious reason to assume that there is any material falsehood in the article—which is a strange assumption to make, unless you have some emotional reason to assume the article is false is any material way, in the absence of any evidence to support that assumption.

I would withdraw my comment, were I to discover some material falsehood in the story. Would you withdraw yours, were you to find the article to be materially correct?

The courts have officially decided that the police function is not to provide 'appropriate' (whatever that means) assistance to people in danger; they can't (are not allowed to) prevent crimes, just fix them after they happen.

You confuse a duty to prevent crime with a duty to provide aide and assistance. You are right about the lack of any duty to prevent a crime. But you are quite wrong about the duty to provide aide to those in need of emergency services—especially in a situation where the police are themselves the proximate cause of that need.

I just know that, if under those circumstances, I made the mistake of asserting my rights, claiming victimhood, getting arrogantly combative, verbally or otherwise...

There is no evidence on the record (which in this context, is the text of the posted article) which provides any reason to assume that any of those things occurred. That makes you look like you have an agenda which prevents you from reacting to the evidence available, and requires you to assume facts that are not in evidence. Why is that?