What I am at a loss to figure out, is why we haven’t heard of these types of things before now. When a department goes this far South, it generally becomes fairly evident.
Perhaps there was a club in the department, that went zonal as party of their identity.
I’d sure hate to think the whole department was this bad.
One grave indicator from my perspective, was the exoneration of the first to officer that zeroes in on the phone. How do you came too the conclusion they did no, or very little wrong?
You and I would do serious time for assaulting a fellow citizen like that. Officers should know better. They have it spelled out to them very clearly. They know the penalties involved. If they do it, then they deserve to get the book thrown at them.
Racially motivated attack claims bolstered by shocking "LoDo Wilding" footage
Suspect in LoDo beatings found in Indiana
Of course, while looking for stories on those incidents, I found this from yesterday:
Police "excessive force:" Denver quietly settles James Watkins suit over another LoDo incident
I think you’re probably referring to the other case, which we discussed yesterday. If you watch the video on this thread, it’s crystal clear that the guy was handed a citation, and was told to “get along, and take it up with the judge”, when he decided to escalate things. He resisted being taken into custody, and when that resistance stopped, the force stopped. What I continue to find fascinating is the following:
1. In the majority of these threads, the media are reporting the story told by a plaintiff’s attorney (as in this case.) In no other circumstance would FReeprs so uncrictically accept the spin from such a dubious source, especially when lined up against an institution that is traditionally the recipient of conservative benefit of the doubt. That’s sufficiently far out of the conservative mainstream, at least as I understand it, that it’s worth digging in to, at least a little bit.
2. There is a consistent notion that “the cops have gotten rougher/more likely to use force/more violent etc.” than they were in some unspecified past. Now, I’m an old fart, so my timeline may be longer than folks are meaning, but if you go back to the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s, that’s just plain not so. Policing was far more physical back then than now, post Rodney King. That, too, I find curious. Sure, there’s excessive use of force that occurs, but the municipal and county constabularies have never been held so accountable as they are today. These stories themselves are evidence of that scutiny, IMHO.
3. Related to 2, above, is that in both this case, and the one from downtown Denver, a “bystander” chose to involve himself in an unrelated detention/arrest. Maybe that’s the ettiquette these days, but that’s a huge change from the recent past, and shouldn’t go without comment. Maybe that’s a good thing, to stop on the street and offer your opinion, vociferously, to the officer on the validity of the traffic stop, drunk in public arrest, etc. But we, and by we I mean the, working, conservative citizenry, didn’t used to think that was such a good idea. That’s a big change in the culture, and really does deserve dissection, too.
So, I’m interested in the cultural attitude, more than anything else. The conservatives I know in person all tend to have the outlook that things have swung too far in favor of those who think that “the rules don’t apply to them (say, DUI, drunk in public, weed smokers, meth tweakers, shoplifters, robbers, burglars and the like), and away from the rule of law and civil order. Yes, we don’t much like the over-reach of big government in the economy, land use regulations, and other traditionally individual areas of responsibility, but we draw the distinction at the enforcement of the penal code, vehicle code, and other areas that haven’t really fundamentally changed in many years.
Hence my attempts to post on these threads. I’m open to the idea that I’m wrong, in fact, the opportunity to clarify my thinking keeps me coming back to FR. I just don’t get it on this particular topic yet.