Chicagos Finest???? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Chicagos Finest????


dorkweed
08-18-2011, 14:36
http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpp/news...-tape-20110817 (http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpp/news/metro/michael-adrian-archer-chicago-police-brutality-beat-up-attacked-brothers-archer-caught-on-tape-20110817)

Patchman
08-18-2011, 14:54
Let me understand.

The video, which showed the entire incident, did not show what Michael alleged to the newspaper regarding the first part of the encounter (that someone opened the door and hit him).

And after the cops did their preliminary investigation and realized they had the wrong guy, the let both Michael and his brother go. That's when the video shows Michael "respecting" the police by mouthing off, shouting and screaming at them.

And now Michael is saying this experience is going to make him too fearful of the police in the future? Oh the poor man.

OK. Got it.

The Sergeant and his cops are going to get spanked hard by Chicago hardball politics, that's for sure.

RocPO
08-18-2011, 14:56
Post a link to a video, no comments or questions? Trolling for some cop bashing are we?

dorkweed
08-18-2011, 15:10
Post a link to a video, no comments or questions? Trolling for some cop bashing are we?



How's this??
http://www.youtube.com/user/TruthBeToldByDaisy

mbramsa
08-18-2011, 23:01
Let me understand.

And after the cops did their preliminary investigation and realized they had the wrong guy, the let both Michael and his brother go. That's when the video shows Michael "respecting" the police by mouthing off, shouting and screaming at them.
.

Let me understand.

These policemen are so immature and insecure that getting mouthed off to is too much for them to take? They can't be the bigger people and just ignore the mouthy kid and leave? They had to escalate the situation and beat these unarmed non-threats up? And you think the policemen don't deserved to be spanked hard for their criminal behavior?

Got it.

wprebeck
08-19-2011, 00:52
If you think yelling and screaming in public isn't a criminal offense in virtually every state in this country, I'd suggest a refresher (or initial) course in the criminal laws of your state. Also, please post your version on how to properly take a resisting subject into custody, along with whatever training background that gives you sufficient expertise to have an informed opinion on the use of force in law enforcement.


Unless/until you can do that, your opinion means jack. Kinda like me coming to where you work and telling you how to do your job.

Morris
08-19-2011, 01:15
Is the moon full or something on CT today? I swear, between a few threads, including this one, I'd swear it was.

ricklee4570
08-19-2011, 04:04
How come if someone "mouths off" to me and I beat the hell out of them, or better yet, me and several friends beat the hell out of them, we go to jail?

groovyash
08-19-2011, 04:21
How come if someone "mouths off" to me and I beat the hell out of them, or better yet, me and several friends beat the hell out of them, we go to jail?

Well, if by mouth off you mean create a disorderly situation in violation of the law and by beat the hell out of them you mean affect an arrest then it's because we as a society got together and decided that specific people, in this case police should enforce the law, and in doing so use force when necessary but that every member of society should not in order to maintain some kind of order. If that strikes you the wrong way take it up with...err...everybody in society.

ricklee4570
08-19-2011, 04:25
Well, if by mouth off you mean create a disorderly situation in violation of the law and by beat the hell out of them you mean affect an arrest then it's because we as a society got together and decided that specific people, in this case police should enforce the law, and in doing so use force when necessary but that every member of society should not in order to maintain some kind of order. If that strikes you the wrong way take it up with...err...everybody in society.

With all due respect, how is mouthing off to a cop as you are walking away create a disorderly situation?

And I would disagree with you, as I would say that public opinion (society) does NOT agree that someone should be beaten for "mouthing off". Even if they mouth off to a cop.

I believe it is a pride thing. A cop wants respect, and when he doesnt get it, some get angry and react that way.

groovyash
08-19-2011, 04:39
With all due respect, how is mouthing off to a cop as you are walking away create a disorderly situation?

And I would disagree with you, as I would say that public opinion (society) does NOT agree that someone should be beaten for "mouthing off". Even if they mouth off to a cop.

I believe it is a pride thing. A cop wants respect, and when he doesnt get it, some get angry and react that way.

As has been pointed out yelling and screaming in a public place is creating a disorderly situation.

He wasn't "beaten" but moreso the force used wasn't for "mouthing off." Force was used for overcoming his resisting arrest.

Saying he was beaten for mouthing off is ignoring as many facts in between events as saying McVeigh was executed for a traffic violation.

IlliniGlocker
08-19-2011, 04:52
Let me understand.

The video, which showed the entire incident, did not show what Michael alleged to the newspaper regarding the first part of the encounter (that someone opened the door and hit him).

And after the cops did their preliminary investigation and realized they had the wrong guy, the let both Michael and his brother go. That's when the video shows Michael "respecting" the police by mouthing off, shouting and screaming at them.

And now Michael is saying this experience is going to make him too fearful of the police in the future? Oh the poor man.

OK. Got it.

The Sergeant and his cops are going to get spanked hard by Chicago hardball politics, that's for sure.

No you're right, being angry for being detained gives the officer the right to kick the crap out of you.

I believe the Waffen SS worked under a similar SOP

groovyash
08-19-2011, 04:56
No you're right, being angry for being detained gives the officer the right to kick the crap out of you.

I believe the Waffen SS worked under a similar SOP

Being angry for being detained doesn't give you the right to violate the law directly in from of police and then resist arrest for that violation.

I believe a child having a temper tantrum works under a similar SOP

txleapd
08-19-2011, 04:57
Let me understand.

These policemen are so immature and insecure that getting mouthed off to is too much for them to take? They can't be the bigger people and just ignore the mouthy kid and leave? They had to escalate the situation and beat these unarmed non-threats up? And you think the policemen don't deserved to be spanked hard for their criminal behavior?

Got it.

Why do scumbags, who instigate these kinds of things, get a pass for being emotional, but cops aren't allowed to actually be human beings? I hear all the time that a cop shouldn't have let his emotions show, but other people are excused by it being their right to get emotional.

The best part is that the same people who criticize police officers for having a perfectly normal human reaction (even if improper), are the first ones to criticize officers for "not having a heart", or for "acting like robots."

Can't have it both ways, people.....

ricklee4570
08-19-2011, 04:59
There are extremes. How do you defend instances where a cop walks up to a handcuffed and face down on the ground individual and starts kicking him?

ricklee4570
08-19-2011, 05:04
Why do scumbags, who instigate these kinds of things, get a pass for being emotional, but cops aren't allowed to actually be human beings? I hear all the time that a cop shouldn't have let his emotions show, but other people are excused by it being their right to get emotional.

The best part is that the same people who criticize police officers for having a perfectly normal human reaction (even if improper), are the first ones to criticize officers for "not having a heart", or for "acting like robots."

Can't have it both ways, people.....

Why do scumbags, who instigate these kinds of things, get a pass for being emotional, but cops aren't allowed to actually be human beings?

Its called being a professional.

It would be the same as a football player hitting a defenseless quarterback after the whistle has blown. Sure, he is all jacked up with emotion, but it is still wrong.

It is not excused when someone in the military shoots innocents because he is all emotional.

I used to work with people who were that way. We would have an inmate secured and they would start wailing on him. Then they would use the old excuse that we are surrounded by criminals and his emotions got the better of him.

Too many good cops out there to have a few wreck their image.

merlynusn
08-19-2011, 05:05
There are extremes. How do you defend instances where a cop walks up to a handcuffed and face down on the ground individual and starts kicking him?

It's simple. In 99.9% of the time, you can't. There is always that one where the guy is trying to get a weapon or whatnot.

ricklee4570
08-19-2011, 05:09
It's simple. In 99.9% of the time, you can't. There is always that one where the guy is trying to get a weapon or whatnot.

I agree.

I also believe 99% of the cops are good and honorable men (and women).

Too bad a few tarnish the image of so many.

txleapd
08-19-2011, 05:19
Why do scumbags, who instigate these kinds of things, get a pass for being emotional, but cops aren't allowed to actually be human beings?

Its called being a professional.

It would be the same as a football player hitting a defenseless quarterback after the whistle has blown. Sure, he is all jacked up with emotion, but it is still wrong.

It is not excused when someone in the military shoots innocents because he is all emotional.

I used to work with people who were that way. We would have an inmate secured and they would start wailing on him. Then they would use the old excuse that we are surrounded by criminals and his emotions got the better of him.

Too many good cops out there to have a few wreck their image.

My question wasn't meant to focus on the subject of professionalism (which I am quite familiar with), but to point out the hypocrisy of the majority of people who come here and criticize officers for doing one thing, while letting others slide (because it's their God given right to act like an ass), and then turn around and criticize officers again for doing what it was they wanted in the first place.

txleapd
08-19-2011, 05:30
Why do scumbags, who instigate these kinds of things, get a pass for being emotional, but cops aren't allowed to actually be human beings?

Its called being a professional.

It would be the same as a football player hitting a defenseless quarterback after the whistle has blown. Sure, he is all jacked up with emotion, but it is still wrong.

It is not excused when someone in the military shoots innocents because he is all emotional.

I used to work with people who were that way. We would have an inmate secured and they would start wailing on him. Then they would use the old excuse that we are surrounded by criminals and his emotions got the better of him.

Too many good cops out there to have a few wreck their image.

I apologize for the repeated quote.

I was talking about officers having perfectly normal human emotional reactions to a stimuli, not losing control. There is a difference.

You also infer that you are/were a CO. So, your very familiar with the broken window theory.

IlliniGlocker
08-19-2011, 05:34
Being angry for being detained doesn't give you the right to violate the law directly in from of police and then resist arrest for that violation.

I believe a child having a temper tantrum works under a similar SOP

Got it, so you can make the ultimate call and determine that I'm creating a scene (i.e. disturbing the peace) and then beat me down when I don't agree with you.

txleapd
08-19-2011, 05:40
Got it, so you can make the ultimate call and determine that I'm creating a scene (i.e. disturbing the peace) and then beat me down when I don't agree with you.

No... We get to determine if you're committing a criminal violation, and arrest you for it. If you resist arrest, then we get to beat you into handcuffs.

I can be overly simplistic too (with a hint of sarcasm).

Patchman
08-19-2011, 05:50
No you're right, being angry for being detained gives the officer the right to kick the crap out of you.

I believe the Waffen SS worked under a similar SOP

See, you read my post and you strike out by posting a sarcastic response.

Amazing how one little post can do that...

So perhaps you learned a little something about losing one's cool?

Let the investigation take it's course and see what happens at the end.

Bruce M
08-19-2011, 06:03
.... If you resist arrest, then we get to beat you into handcuffs.

...
Now that you mention is does seem like a fairly high number of people getting beat by the police seems to immediately follow them resisting arrest. I have often wondered if that is purely coincidental.

Patchman
08-19-2011, 06:04
Let me understand.

These policemen are so immature and insecure that getting mouthed off to is too much for them to take? They can't be the bigger people and just ignore the mouthy kid and leave? They had to escalate the situation and beat these unarmed non-threats up? And you think the policemen don't deserved to be spanked hard for their criminal behavior?

Got it.

Oh, I think the cops are going to get spanked real hard. But how much and how hard of that spanking will be politically motivated?

Should the cops have ignored the two and just left? In a perfect world, absolutely.

But they didn't. And make no mistake about understanding this: Shame on them for getting baited. But their response is kind of like why you felt motivated to respond to my post... with a touch of sarcasm no less.

You could have just shook your head and moved on to read another thread. But instead you chose to... what?... show that you hold the moral high ground?

Yeah, yeah. Physical beating vs. exchange of words. Totally different scale. And you'd be right in noting that. But the urge to respond is human. And they will be severely spanked for failing to rein in that urge.

huron bay
08-19-2011, 06:49
Why do scumbags, who instigate these kinds of things, get a pass for being emotional, but cops aren't allowed to actually be human beings? I hear all the time that a cop shouldn't have let his emotions show, but other people are excused by it being their right to get emotional.

The best part is that the same people who criticize police officers for having a perfectly normal human reaction (even if improper), are the first ones to criticize officers for "not having a heart", or for "acting like robots."

Can't have it both ways, people.....


if are a cop and do not know the answer to this.. that explains it all

txleapd
08-19-2011, 07:01
if are a cop and do not know the answer to this.. that explains it all

Are you a cop?

If so, you probably would have read the actual words in my posts, instead of taking what you want out of them, and understand what my point is.

If you're not, what qualifies you to criticize something you know nothing about?

Look back up a few posts of mine and try reading what I posted.

Mayhem like Me
08-19-2011, 07:46
There are extremes. How do you defend instances where a cop walks up to a handcuffed and face down on the ground individual and starts kicking him?

You don't in that situation a handcuffed suspect is not to be kicked or abused if he/she is being compliant.

Force can be used on a handcuffed suspect, but not kicks while they are cuffed and non combative.

RocPO
08-19-2011, 09:35
I think I called this in the second reply to the thread. :wavey:

Huron bay: So please, enlighten us to what YOU think cops should be? It's interesting to hear things from someone who obviously has no idea at all. I enjoy hearing "You didn't have to be an *******" after giving someone a ticket.
Basically, what it comes to, is if I don't do my job the way that particular person believes I should have, then I'm wrong. Even with all my training and experience, some jackwagon who sat on his duff watching cop shows knows more about it then I do. :rofl:

IlliniGlocker: You fail to comprehend ONE simple key aspect of a use of force. I do not decide what level of force I use to take you into custody. You do. If you want to cause a scene and I go to arrest you, you can either comply or not comply. If you don't comply, I will use the force necessary to overcome your lack of compliance. YOU are the one who decided to not go quietly into the cuffs, and fight the battle in the proper arena: the court.

Roering
08-19-2011, 11:41
"I seen them roughing up my brother," Michael Ayala said. "I was telling them, 'Could you please stop doing that to my brother.' When I said that, a cop came around, opened the door and he hit me a couple times."

Really? That's what he said? If you see multiple people roughing up your brother do you really say that?

I would have expected:
a) It would be yelling, not telling so that you get their attention and
b) It wouldn't be so polite.

Facts seem a little off.

What does one expect to accomplish by yelling at the officer's?

PuroMexicano
08-19-2011, 12:14
getting your ass kicked? :whistling:

S&WM&PAR15T&G34
08-19-2011, 14:04
Sad day for Chicago PD!

RVER
08-19-2011, 15:19
I'm confident that a thorough and transparent investigation will be completed and that swift and appropriate action will follow soon afterward... :whistling:

huron bay
08-20-2011, 07:49
Are you a cop?

If so, you probably would have read the actual words in my posts, instead of taking what you want out of them, and understand what my point is.

If you're not, what qualifies you to criticize something you know nothing about?

Look back up a few posts of mine and try reading what I posted.


28.5 years sport, and if your point is to try to validate this act, I stand by what I said. This was not a disorderly case. The police made a mistake. 1am in the morning, you just been roughed up by the police because they made a mistake? After they were aware of the situation, they should have walked away, documented the action the best they could. What I get from you is it is ok for the police to act like this. You Are wrong. When the police act like the *******s they are trying to protect society from, the only thing left is anarchy.
.

txleapd
08-20-2011, 09:08
28.5 years sport, and if your point is to try to validate this act, I stand by what I said. This was not a disorderly case. The police made a mistake. 1am in the morning, you just been roughed up by the police because they made a mistake? After they were aware of the situation, they should have walked away, documented the action the best they could. What I get from you is it is ok for the police to act like this. You Are wrong. When the police act like the *******s they are trying to protect society from, the only thing left is anarchy.
.

I see that an emotional nerve has been struck, so you made a condescending remark. I guess after 28.5 years, you're still a human being. That was actually my point, Skippy. You missed it because your either emotionally invested in the topic (so my point just didn't register), or you obviously failed to develop any reading comprehension over 28.5 years. I really hope it's the former, because that is a simple human shortcoming. The latter would just mean you spent 28.5 years doing your job poorly.

So, I urge you to read my posts again, and please quote where I attempted to "validate this act" once. Please show us where I did anything except point out the double standard which exists in the minds of some people, who tell us that we aren't allowed to feel emotions while working, but then criticize for acting like robots. I'll waited with baited breath...






P.S. I don't think you are, or ever have been, a cop. You might have worn a uniform, but a real cop would have some understanding of the emotional aspect of this job and the toll it takes on all of us. All of us who have been doing this job for the slightest amount of time have emotional baggage from the crap we've seen. That baggage is bound to slip out at least once or twice. There is no 100% way to control every single human emotion we have all the time (scientific fact). We have all allowed our emotions to get the better of us. EVERYONE (except true sociopaths). A real cop would know that.

ricklee4570
08-20-2011, 10:44
If you can't maintain a professional demeanor, then you are in the wrong line of work and have no business being a cop.

Most cops working conditions aren't like a war zone. Most never discharge a firearm in the line of duty their entire career. Its usually these individuals that freak out and abuse their power.

ottomatic
08-20-2011, 11:03
If you can't maintain a professional demeanor, then you are in the wrong line of work and have no business being a cop.

Most cops working conditions aren't like a war zone. Most never discharge a firearm in the line of duty their entire career. Its usually these individuals that freak out and abuse their power.


Let me get this straight: You correlate the abuse of power with never dicharging one's weapon?

BTW, if "maintaining a professional demeanor" includes not getting emotional when a child gets killed (because I am sure that crying is nowhere in my policy manual) then I guess I have been guilty of failing to maintain a professional image.

txleapd
08-20-2011, 11:06
If you can't maintain a professional demeanor, then you are in the wrong line of work and have no business being a cop.

Most cops working conditions aren't like a war zone. Most never discharge a firearm in the line of duty their entire career. Its usually these individuals that freak out and abuse their power.

Most cops see more critical incidents in a month than the average person does their entire lifetime.

Firing a gun is not the only tragic situation in police work.

There's a reason our profession has high alcohol abuse, suicide, and divorce rates. That reason isn't because it's police work is filled with weaklings. It's filled with people.

You can't expect a person to maintain control at all times, especially in a job with such high stress, that can come at you from any and every angle all at once.

ANYONE that claims they have never had a slip of their emotions while doing police work (or just in life in general) is either a liar, or truly clueless. We have ALL done it. Just to be clear here, I'm not talking about losing control, I'm talking about letting their emotions get the better of them. There is a difference. Anyone who expects us to be above that is expecting unattainable perfection from human beings. You can't do it either.

Mayhem like Me
08-20-2011, 11:08
If you can't maintain a professional demeanor, then you are in the wrong line of work and have no business being a cop.

Most cops working conditions aren't like a war zone. Most never discharge a firearm in the line of duty their entire career. Its usually these individuals that freak out and abuse their power.

Go do the cop job in a suburban area for 4 years and get back to me. Just because most cops don't shoot does not mean they have not been in an encounter where they could have used lethal force...

many other issues come into play when you are not observing snippets from videos.

txleapd
08-20-2011, 11:16
Most cops working conditions aren't like a war zone.

How do you know what we see on a regular basis isn't just as bad, or not worse? Recent studies show there are some scary similarities between doing police work and serving in combat.

As someone who has a little experience on both sides, I honestly believe that it was a whole lot easier being a Marine than it is being a cop.

ricklee4570
08-20-2011, 11:28
Does that go both ways? If somebody was raised in the ghetto and has a lot of emotional baggage from all the crap they have seen does that mean they get a pass.

Scientific fact we can't control every human emotion? Would that defense work for the store owner when he "mouthed off" to the cops?

What about war vets? If emotion gets the best of them and they get loud and cranky because the cop stops him thinking he is robbing his own business, will the cops let him go?

If an average ccw citizen lost control like some examples of cops losing control, nobody would want them carrying a gun.

When a cop loses the ability to maintain control of himself (like as in beating someone down for mouthing off) he should be removed from law enforcement. There are too many good cops that can uphold the law in a professional manner than to have loose cannons out there endangering everyone.

Sharky7
08-20-2011, 13:31
Does that go both ways? If somebody was raised in the ghetto and has a lot of emotional baggage from all the crap they have seen does that mean they get a pass.

Scientific fact we can't control every human emotion? Would that defense work for the store owner when he "mouthed off" to the cops?

What about war vets? If emotion gets the best of them and they get loud and cranky because the cop stops him thinking he is robbing his own business, will the cops let him go?

If an average ccw citizen lost control like some examples of cops losing control, nobody would want them carrying a gun.

When a cop loses the ability to maintain control of himself (like as in beating someone down for mouthing off) he should be removed from law enforcement. There are too many good cops that can uphold the law in a professional manner than to have loose cannons out there endangering everyone.

Not sure your analogy works, because that area is a war zone.

I read the goofiest threads on here sometimes when a CCWer freaks out when he is at a gas station and someone asks for change. Go take a walk around the near west and south sides of Chicago or in the area there around Midway at the time of night when this stop was made and see what happens to you.

None of us know what happened outside of camera view or what was said. Early word coming in that these guys have history and are 2-6ers. I'm not ready to make any kind of judgements and I think your assumptions are offensive and naive.

txleapd
08-20-2011, 17:12
Does that go both ways? If somebody was raised in the ghetto and has a lot of emotional baggage from all the crap they have seen does that mean they get a pass.

Scientific fact we can't control every human emotion? Would that defense work for the store owner when he "mouthed off" to the cops?

What about war vets? If emotion gets the best of them and they get loud and cranky because the cop stops him thinking he is robbing his own business, will the cops let him go?

If an average ccw citizen lost control like some examples of cops losing control, nobody would want them carrying a gun.

When a cop loses the ability to maintain control of himself (like as in beating someone down for mouthing off) he should be removed from law enforcement. There are too many good cops that can uphold the law in a professional manner than to have loose cannons out there endangering everyone.

Dude, you're seriously wearing me out. You're doing exactly what my very FIRST post addressed. You're giving all of these other people a pass for the exact same things you're condemning cops for doing. Losing control of their emotions. You're giving one group the benefit of the doubt, for being human, but not extending that same benefit to another, because you apparently have unrealistic expectations.

I never said it was unexceptable for the people we deal with to be emotional. It happens all the time, and we have to deal with it day in and day out. That's what dealing with people is about. It's part of the job. It's simply important to remember that cops are people too. We are subject to the same

You're also glossing over a very key point in what I've been saying. That's the difference between a cop showing his emotions (which some have equated to being unprofessional, because he can't control his emotions) and losing control of himself (like flipping out and beating the **** out of someone who doesn't need it).

As far as war vets and CCW holders, plenty of examples can be provided of them losing it as well. I would be happy to dicuss that subject with you, but that is for a different thread....

huron bay
08-20-2011, 17:15
I see that an emotional nerve has been struck, so you made a condescending remark. I guess after 28.5 years, you're still a human being. That was actually my point, Skippy. You missed it because your either emotionally invested in the topic (so my point just didn't register), or you obviously failed to develop any reading comprehension over 28.5 years. I really hope it's the former, because that is a simple human shortcoming. The latter would just mean you spent 28.5 years doing your job poorly.

So, I urge you to read my posts again, and please quote where I attempted to "validate this act" once. Please show us where I did anything except point out the double standard which exists in the minds of some people, who tell us that we aren't allowed to feel emotions while working, but then criticize for acting like robots. I'll waited with baited breath...






P.S. I don't think you are, or ever have been, a cop. You might have worn a uniform, but a real cop would have some understanding of the emotional aspect of this job and the toll it takes on all of us. All of us who have been doing this job for the slightest amount of time have emotional baggage from the crap we've seen. That baggage is bound to slip out at least once or twice. There is no 100% way to control every single human emotion we have all the time (scientific fact). We have all allowed our emotions to get the better of us. EVERYONE (except true sociopaths). A real cop would know that.

When one reads your reply, it is easy to come away with the idea that you think that ("officers having perfectly normal human emotional reactions to a stimuli, not losing control') is a reason to do what these officers did. That may be an incorrect assumption on my part but that is what it sounds like. I read your post again and I get the same outcome. You want to find any reason to justify what these guys did. Disorderly person at their own place of business at one in the morning, give me a break.
It is not ok for an officer to do what they did. They knew they screwed up. That is why the parties were not arrested.
Maybe you do not have an understanding of what the 4th Amendment is but when it is all over I would bet these officers will have an update.
Let me explain it this way. Years ago, at an in-service training, a Supreme Court Judge came to give a talk to my Department. He said that police officers had to be held to a higher standard because in all of society, the police officer is the only one who by the very nature of their job can be required to legally take someoneís life without due process. You may be required to some day shoot a violent felon in order to prevent his escape. No judge, no jury, no appeal, just you, your side arm and your judgment. It is because of this that your are dead wrong if you think it is ok for cops to use emotion or having a bad day or anything else to excuse bad behavior. Your a cop, you know how this happen, someone's nose got out of joint, got pissed off from what the parties said and it was off to the races. Other officers showed up and they backed their buddies up. They may not have even known what it was originally about.
Along the same line, our society, because of the nature of the police officers job, give officers extra protection under the law. In my state, it is a 90 day misdemeanor for assault and battery. Do it to a police officer in the lawful performance of their duty and it is a 2-5 year felony. The key words there are (lawful performance of their duty). How many times have you heard from the public, cops can speed on duty, cops can carry a concealed weapon without a permit, etc, etc. It is this way because of the nature of the job.
I stand by what I originally said. I spent 16 years working the road and 12.5 years as a first line supervisor. I know a 4th amendment violation when I see one. I have been to that point a number of times. By the way you talk, you have too. There is really only one difference between us, you think, because of the nature of police work, this type of behavior from cops is ok as long as their "real cops". I believe that the preservation of the 4th Amendment is more important than all of us.

huron bay
08-20-2011, 17:25
Txleapd, I forgot to ask you, do you think what they did was ok?

Sharky7
08-20-2011, 18:23
Txleapd, I forgot to ask you, do you think what they did was ok?

How does he know, how do you know? You got no idea what happened.

I've told people on a few occasions to start walking away or catch a case after it has been established they could be arrested. Just because he was not taken in and charged does not mean the offices knew they messed up. I've had to give fighting drunks or curfew Violators a ride home instead of arrest because the city is hopping. All of chicago is down manpower, running at minimums most days, and getting more calls.

You can ask him if he agrees to your speculation on what happened.

Detectorist
08-20-2011, 18:43
When one reads your reply, it is easy to come away with the idea that you think that ("officers having perfectly normal human emotional reactions to a stimuli, not losing control') is a reason to do what these officers did. That may be an incorrect assumption on my part but that is what it sounds like. I read your post again and I get the same outcome. You want to find any reason to justify what these guys did. Disorderly person at their own place of business at one in the morning, give me a break.
It is not ok for an officer to do what they did. They knew they screwed up. That is why the parties were not arrested.
Maybe you do not have an understanding of what the 4th Amendment is but when it is all over I would bet these officers will have an update.
Let me explain it this way. Years ago, at an in-service training, a Supreme Court Judge came to give a talk to my Department. He said that police officers had to be held to a higher standard because in all of society, the police officer is the only one who by the very nature of their job can be required to legally take someoneís life without due process. You may be required to some day shoot a violent felon in order to prevent his escape. No judge, no jury, no appeal, just you, your side arm and your judgment. It is because of this that your are dead wrong if you think it is ok for cops to use emotion or having a bad day or anything else to excuse bad behavior. Your a cop, you know how this happen, someone's nose got out of joint, got pissed off from what the parties said and it was off to the races. Other officers showed up and they backed their buddies up. They may not have even known what it was originally about.
Along the same line, our society, because of the nature of the police officers job, give officers extra protection under the law. In my state, it is a 90 day misdemeanor for assault and battery. Do it to a police officer in the lawful performance of their duty and it is a 2-5 year felony. The key words there are (lawful performance of their duty). How many times have you heard from the public, cops can speed on duty, cops can carry a concealed weapon without a permit, etc, etc. It is this way because of the nature of the job.
I stand by what I originally said. I spent 16 years working the road and 12.5 years as a first line supervisor. I know a 4th amendment violation when I see one. I have been to that point a number of times. By the way you talk, you have too. There is really only one difference between us, you think, because of the nature of police work, this type of behavior from cops is ok as long as their "real cops". I believe that the preservation of the 4th Amendment is more important than all of us.


Good post. Chicago is a tough town with many bad guys. Sometimes the brass refuses to back up their Officers even when they are right.

Dukeboy01
08-20-2011, 18:52
Most cops working conditions aren't like a war zone.

Most soldiers don't spend 40 or more hours per week for 20- 30 years in the war zone either.

No, police work for the most part does not often equal the danger and/ or horror of full-on combat. But the same phenomenon of spending hours being both mind numbingly bored and also on- edge waiting for a threat or "hot" call to appear punctuated by seconds or minutes of pure terror and adrenaline is the same.

Think of it as quality vs. quantity...

txleapd
08-20-2011, 21:49
When one reads your reply, it is easy to come away with the idea that you think that ("officers having perfectly normal human emotional reactions to a stimuli, not losing control') is a reason to do what these officers did. That may be an incorrect assumption on my part but that is what it sounds like. I read your post again and I get the same outcome. You want to find any reason to justify what these guys did. Disorderly person at their own place of business at one in the morning, give me a break.

You are continually coming to the wrong conclusion. Especially when you consider that I have never addressed this incident specifically. This is the quote I initially responded toÖ.

Let me understand.

These policemen are so immature and insecure that getting mouthed off to is too much for them to take? They can't be the bigger people and just ignore the mouthy kid and leave? They had to escalate the situation and beat these unarmed non-threats up? And you think the policemen don't deserved to be spanked hard for their criminal behavior?

Got it.

I thought I was perfectly clear in my response, that some people are given a pass for the exact same thing they condemn officers for, and that is letting their emotions show. If I was not clear, then I apologize. Continually people expect cops to take crap, and be the ďbigger peopleĒ, I think is hypocritical. I understand thatís whatís expected of us, but that doesnít make any less hypocritical. Iím not saying (nor have I ever said) that gives cops the right to lose control and beat the hell out of people for making them mad. But itís hypocritical to think itís alright for people to be able to instigate and go off, but expect cops to just be their verbal punching bags. Am I being clear? If not, I apologize again, but Iím not sure how else to say it.


It is not ok for an officer to do what they did. They knew they screwed up. That is why the parties were not arrested.

Speaking specifically of this incident, and the video, nowÖ What did they do? Iíve got to be honest, I just donít see a gang beating of these two guys. The video isnít the best, but I canít see the officers just beating the ever-living **** out of them. The one thing I did see toward the end was one cop kicking the closest guy in the ribs a few times, when it looks like the guys wasn't provoking. I donít know if this was excessive. I wasnít there. I do know that it it doesnít look good, but I also know that video doesnít always tell the whole story.

Case in point... Do you remember that incident in California a few years back where the officer is caught on video punching a hadcuffed prisoner in the back of the head? That looked bad. It turns out the suspect was still assaulting the officer by grabbing, and squeezing his scrotum. The officer was reacting with appropriate force, but that wasnít shown on video.

Neither you nor I know if those two brothers in the Chicago incident were being non-compliant. They said they were, but sometimes people lie. You and I both also know that non-compliance is more than throwing punches. I can, and have, articulated a reasonable use of force when a suspect did something like refuse to put his hands behind his back, and actively used resistance to pull his arms away toward his midsection (where people normally carry weapons). Was that the case here? I donít know. I canít tell from that video.

Iíve also had incidents where Iíve had to take someone down, in good faith, and then ended up having to brush them off, apologize, and send them on their way (without arresting them). It happens sometimes. Itís not excessive, because I reacted to the information I had at the time, and was able to clearly articulate why I did what I did. That doesn't mean that I did wrong and it's not, in and of itself, an indicator that the Chicago cops did wrong in this incident either.


Maybe you do not have an understanding of what the 4th Amendment is but when it is all over I would bet these officers will have an update.

I actually have a pretty good understanding of the 4A. I also stay up-to-date with things like case law. For example, I am familiar with the 4Aís ďobjective reasonablenessĒ standard, an officerís right to make an arrest, or investigatory stop, necessarily carries with it the right to use some degree of physical coercion, or threat, to effect it. I know that the ďreasonablenessĒ of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.

You seem to have forgotten that last part from your 28.5 years.

I know a 4th amendment violation when I see one. I have been to that point a number of times.

So, are you sure you saw one? Iím not. Iím not saying there wasnít a 4A violation. I donít know if there was. Iím not sure how you know there was oneÖ


There is really only one difference between us, you think, because of the nature of police work, this type of behavior from cops is ok as long as their "real cops".

I donít understand which behavior youíre referring toÖ The behavior of the Chicago cops, or just beating people down in general?

Iíll say it again. I donít know if what the Chicago cops did was improper. Iím not privy to their investigation.

Iíve NEVER said itís okay to just beat people down because they make you mad. I know that we have to control ourselves, even when we feel those emotions. I just still think it's hypocritical to think it's okay for other people to let their emotions come out, and be pricks to cops, but expect that cops aren't allowed to be upset with them.


I believe that the preservation of the 4th Amendment is more important than all of us.

So do I. Iím a staunch supporter of the Constitution. I also believe that cops have the same 4A rights as everyone else, and would like to seem them treated the same way. You know, the whole innocent until proven guilty part?

Iím not so quick to judge, because Iíve personally been through the ringer of the court of public perception when I didnít do anything wrong. Maybe that could be the biggest difference between the two of us.

TreverSlyFox
08-21-2011, 03:30
No you're right, being angry for being detained gives the officer the right to kick the crap out of you.

I believe the Waffen SS worked under a similar SOP

You need to brush up on your history, the Waffen SS were a German Military Force not a Police Force. The group your looking for was the Gestapo, the Secret State Police under the administration of Heinrich Himmler the Chief of German Police.

The Gestapo had the authority to investigate cases of treason (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason), espionage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage), sabotage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabotage) and criminal attacks on the Nazi Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party) and Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany). The basic Gestapo law passed by the government in 1936 gave the Gestapo carte blanche (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blank_cheque) to operate without judicial oversight (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review).

The Gestapo was specifically exempted from responsibility to administrative courts, where citizens normally could sue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawsuit) the state to conform to laws. As early as 1935, however, a Prussian administrative court had ruled that the Gestapo's actions were not subject to judicial review.

The SS officer Werner Best (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner_Best), onetime head of legal affairs in the Gestapo, summed up this policy by saying, "As long as the police carries out the will of the leadership, it is acting legally."

A further law passed later in the year gave the Gestapo responsibility for setting up and administering concentration camps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_camp).


So you see the Gestapo were acting within the legally enacted Laws of Germany and had every right to say "We didn't make the laws, we just enforced them."

Which I'm sure you've heard before along with "It wasn't our job to judge the laws we enforced." which was also used as an excuse at the trials of Nuremberg.

Any time you hear those words spoken always remember who spoke them first and what they justified with those beliefs.

4949shooter
08-21-2011, 04:04
You need to brush up on your history, the Waffen SS were a German Military Force not a Police Force. The group your looking for was the Gestapo, the Secret State Police under the administration of Heinrich Himmler the Chief of German Police.

The Gestapo had the authority to investigate cases of treason (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason), espionage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage), sabotage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabotage) and criminal attacks on the Nazi Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party) and Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany). The basic Gestapo law passed by the government in 1936 gave the Gestapo carte blanche (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blank_cheque) to operate without judicial oversight (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review).

The Gestapo was specifically exempted from responsibility to administrative courts, where citizens normally could sue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawsuit) the state to conform to laws. As early as 1935, however, a Prussian administrative court had ruled that the Gestapo's actions were not subject to judicial review.

The SS officer Werner Best (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner_Best), onetime head of legal affairs in the Gestapo, summed up this policy by saying, "As long as the police carries out the will of the leadership, it is acting legally."

A further law passed later in the year gave the Gestapo responsibility for setting up and administering concentration camps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_camp).


So you see the Gestapo were acting within the legally enacted Laws of Germany and had every right to say "We didn't make the laws, we just enforced them."

Which I'm sure you've heard before along with "It wasn't our job to judge the laws we enforced." which was also used as an excuse at the trials of Nuremberg.

Any time you hear those words spoken always remember who spoke them first and what they justified with those beliefs.

Good post.

As to the videos....yes, there are some issues that will need to be addressed by Chicago PD. There are most definately some training issues there, with some possible disciplinary action in one instant on the left video. I don't see anyone getting fired over this though, unless there is a history of multiple incidents with any of the officers in question.

Nip it in the bud now, and it shouldn't happen again. If it does happen again, then shame on them.

Patchman
08-21-2011, 04:32
You need to brush up on your history, the Waffen SS were a German Military Force not a Police Force. The group your looking for was the Gestapo, the Secret State Police under the administration of Heinrich Himmler the Chief of German Police.

The Gestapo had the authority to investigate cases of treason (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason), espionage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage), sabotage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabotage) and criminal attacks on the Nazi Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party) and Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany). The basic Gestapo law passed by the government in 1936 gave the Gestapo carte blanche (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blank_cheque) to operate without judicial oversight (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review).

The Gestapo was specifically exempted from responsibility to administrative courts, where citizens normally could sue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawsuit) the state to conform to laws. As early as 1935, however, a Prussian administrative court had ruled that the Gestapo's actions were not subject to judicial review.

The SS officer Werner Best (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner_Best), onetime head of legal affairs in the Gestapo, summed up this policy by saying, "As long as the police carries out the will of the leadership, it is acting legally."

A further law passed later in the year gave the Gestapo responsibility for setting up and administering concentration camps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_camp).


So you see the Gestapo were acting within the legally enacted Laws of Germany and had every right to say "We didn't make the laws, we just enforced them."

Which I'm sure you've heard before along with "It wasn't our job to judge the laws we enforced." which was also used as an excuse at the trials of Nuremberg.

Any time you hear those words spoken always remember who spoke them first and what they justified with those beliefs.

What's missing here of course is the fact that in Nazi Germany, laws were passed by the Nazi party, unilaterally. They did NOT have in place a multi-party system where laws were introduced, debated on. According to the U.S. House of Representatives, for every two-year Congressional session, thousands of bills are introduced. Only a lucky few hundred will, after a long journey, become laws.

And if I remember my civics classes correctly, the legislative process is this:

Bill
Every law begins as a proposal from a member of the Senate or House of Representatives. The bill's sponsor provides copies for all members of that house to read.

Standing Committee
The bill goes to a standing House or Senate committee for study and discussion in light of expert testimony. The committee releases the bill, revises it or tables it for later.

Floor Debate
A released bill eventually goes to the House or Senate floor, for further debate and amendment, if necessary. It passes or fails by a simple majority vote: 218 of 435 in the House or 51 of 100 in the Senate. Once passed, it repeats the process in the other house.

Conference Committee
After a passing vote, conference committee members from the House and Senate work out any differences between their versions of the bill. The revised bill then goes to each house for final approval and enrollment.

Law
The speaker of the house and vice president sign the enrolled bill, followed by the president, who has 10 days to sign or veto it. A vetoed bill can still become law if two-thirds of the Senate and two-thirds of the House then vote to pass it.


Once it becomes law, pretty much anyone like you and me can challenge it and the courts will review the law for constitutionality.

And lets not forget how many watchdog groups there are in this country. For every organization I support because I see them as fighting for "my" cause, at least one other exists to oppose that cause.

So to compare the U.S. with Nazi Germany or the USSR or some other well runned dictatorship is silly. Or disingenuous.

huron bay
08-21-2011, 08:17
This is where I'm coming from txleapd. I and you know that the investigation these officer's were involved with stopped when they concluded that it was ok for these guys to be at the place of business. From that time on, well if you think what they did was ok I am wasting my time.
You make my point with the following post. These are your words. This type of mindset along with being wrong reminds me of something that judge said at our in-service 20+ years ago. "Bad police work leads to bad case law". If this is the way you or any other officer on this thread feels, you are in the wrong profession. Yes, our society can and should expect for their peace keepers to maintain control all the times. If they don't, the only thing left is anarchy. When a cop loses control, who is the public suppose to call? If you want to be a cop, quit making excuses for high stress and working in the sewer of our society. I don't give a **** if your wife left you, your partner is screwing your wife, your kids are all on drugs, some maggot calls you a pig, Gestapo, or anything else, suck it up and deal with it or get the hell out. You were not drafted into this profession, you choose it. Welcome to the party. Stay safe.
From txleapd "You can't expect a person to maintain control at all times, especially in a job with such high stress, that can come at you from any and every angle all at once".

4949shooter
08-21-2011, 10:56
Cops are human. They make mistakes.

If those mistakes are not so heinous as to cause them to lose their jobs or go to jail, they should learn from their mistakes and move on. If they don't learn from their mistakes they will ended up being fired.

Anyone can have a bad day, even cops.

Let's not forget that.

huron bay
08-21-2011, 11:02
Cops are human. They make mistakes.

If those mistakes are not so heinous as to cause them to lose their jobs or go to jail, they should learn from their mistakes and move on. If they don't learn from their mistakes they will ended up being fired.

Anyone can have a bad day, even cops.

Let's not forget that.

Exactly.

txleapd
08-21-2011, 16:03
This is where I'm coming from txleapd. I and you know that the investigation these officer's were involved with stopped when they concluded that it was ok for these guys to be at the place of business. From that time on, well if you think what they did was ok I am wasting my time.]

I donít know at what point they concluded that it was ok for these guys to be at the place of business. Do you? Do you know if the cops knew it was ok for these guys to be at that place of business, when the events on the video took place? I donít. Why do you assume the did?


You make my point with the following post. These are your words. This type of mindset along with being wrong reminds me of something that judge said at our in-service 20+ years ago. "Bad police work leads to bad case law". If this is the way you or any other officer on this thread feels, you are in the wrong profession. Yes, our society can and should expect for their peace keepers to maintain control all the times. If they don't, the only thing left is anarchy. When a cop loses control, who is the public suppose to call? If you want to be a cop, quit making excuses for high stress and working in the sewer of our society. I don't give a **** if your wife left you, your partner is screwing your wife, your kids are all on drugs, some maggot calls you a pig, Gestapo, or anything else, suck it up and deal with it or get the hell out. You were not drafted into this profession, you choose it. Welcome to the party. Stay safe.

From txleapd "You can't expect a person to maintain control at all times, especially in a job with such high stress, that can come at you from any and every angle all at once".

First off, I would like to correct myself. I completely misspoke in that quote. I obviously left out three very key words. That would be ďof their emotionsĒ between the words ďmaintainĒ and ďcontrol.Ē I didnít proof read, and I can see how that would confuse someone by itselfÖ. But since that was only a small portion of my entire post, I think you just took the chance to jump on one sentence out of the eleven others in that post. I will address it further a little farther down.

I have made 11 posts in this thread (counting this one).

My first two posts directly addressed the hypocrisy I have already mentioned numerous times.

In my third post I specifically stated, Ē I was talking about officers having perfectly normal human emotional reactions to a stimuli, not losing control. There is a difference.Ē

My fourth post was a sarcastic reply about officers using force to get a suspect into custody.

My fifth post was a reply to you, about what I had previously said in my first four posts, and asked if you were a cop.

My sixth post is where I questioned your reading comprehension, because you had accused me of basically justifying police brutality, even after I pointed out that I had specifically stated the opposite. I said, ďSo, I urge you to read my posts again, and please quote where I attempted to "validate this act" once. Please show us where I did anything except point out the double standard which exists in the minds of some people, who tell us that we aren't allowed to feel emotions while working, but then criticize for acting like robots.Ē Once again, I was addressing a hypocrisy.

My seventh post, the one you quoted, was only a partial quote. I fully admit that I misspoke spoke. That is evidenced by what I said in the last paragraph of that same post. Ē ANYONE that claims they have never had a slip of their emotions while doing police work (or just in life in general) is either a liar, or truly clueless. We have ALL done it. Just to be clear here, I'm not talking about losing control, I'm talking about letting their emotions get the better of them. There is a difference. Anyone who expects us to be above that is expecting unattainable perfection from human beings. You can't do it either.Ē

My eighth post was about recent scientific studies showing that there are some similarities between the effects of serving in combat and doing police work.

In my ninth post I again addressed the hypocrisy, and said, Ē That's the difference between a cop showing his emotions (which some have equated to being unprofessional, because he can't control his emotions) and losing control of himself (like flipping out and beating the **** out of someone who doesn't need it).Ē

In my tenth post I pointed out that I had not even addressed this incident yet, and again addressed the hypocrisy that some people are given a pass for the exact same thing they condemn officers for, and that is letting their emotions show. I also said, Ē Iím not saying (nor have I ever said) that gives cops the right to lose control and beat the hell out of people for making them mad.Ē I then went to point out that video doesnít always show the whole story, gave a well known example, and pointed out that video doesnít show enough for me to condemn ANYONE right out, and that I couldnít tell if there was a 4A violation. I went on to address the 4A, and itís ďobjective reasonablenessĒ standard. I said, Ē Iíve NEVER said itís okay to just beat people down because they make you mad. I know that we have to control ourselves, even when we feel those emotions. I just still think it's hypocritical to think it's okay for other people to let their emotions come out, and be pricks to cops, but expect that cops aren't allowed to be upset with them.Ē and I pointed out that cops have the same rights, and are entitled to being considered ďinnocent until proven guiltyĒ, just like everyone else.

In four of my previous post I directly addressed what I believe to be a hypocrisy. In five of my posts I specifically stated that I am not condoning a loss of control (i.e. police brutality), but instead addressing that officers have the same emotional responses as everyone else. I misspoke in ONE sentence, and thatís now apparently your focus. If you really are a cop, I have serious doubts, because you seem to have this tendency to only see what you want. Thatís as dangerous in police work as losing control.

huron bay
08-21-2011, 17:09
You are correct, that one statement was the one that caught my attention. When you add the three words that you alluded to it gives the sentence a totally different meaning. I would agree with you 100% with your analogy.
I remember a 15 year old kid that I once took out of a car wreck. I got there just after it happened. She had a severe head wound that extended down to the neck. She was bleeding profusely and I could not stop it. She kept saying "please don't let me die". I did everything I could but it wasn't enough. She died on the way to the hospital. State Police Post contacted me on the radio and told me "she didn't make it'. I pulled my vehicle over the side of the road and cried like a baby. I donít think that made me any less a cop.
Stay Safe.

Roering
08-22-2011, 15:20
Most cops see more critical incidents in a month than the average person does their entire lifetime.

Firing a gun is not the only tragic situation in police work.

There's a reason our profession has high alcohol abuse, suicide, and divorce rates. That reason isn't because it's police work is filled with weaklings. It's filled with people.

You can't expect a person to maintain control at all times, especially in a job with such high stress, that can come at you from any and every angle all at once.

ANYONE that claims they have never had a slip of their emotions while doing police work (or just in life in general) is either a liar, or truly clueless. We have ALL done it. Just to be clear here, I'm not talking about losing control, I'm talking about letting their emotions get the better of them. There is a difference. Anyone who expects us to be above that is expecting unattainable perfection from human beings. You can't do it either.

A point I attempted to make in my thread. A point that "insulted" many apparently.

Looking at the vid, all I see is the Police coming in to the store with the suspects, swarming them which used to be (may still be) what is trained to subdue someone, getting them cuffed with a bit of struggle from the suspect, but once handcuffed it looked like it was over.

I don't see excessive force here.