MC police pick up ESS 5 year old; harass & assault him

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Both cops are black. One male and one female.

This was established way back. Try to keep up. Systemic racism and unequal treatment can be perpetuated by Black people in positions of institutional power.

So, you use race as a scapegoat for everything.

And the award for Non Sequitur of the Thread goes to ^^^

[Anonymous]

Even if the little boy was a terror (and it sounds like he probably was), he absolutely did not deserve this kind of treatment. Disgusting.

[Anonymous]

I haven't read this whole thread, but are they also suing the school for letting the child leave? Why was nobody paying attention?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good lord this thread is depressing. Lots of excuses being made for appalling behavior by police. Unless the attorneys are literally lying about statements made on video by police (in which case they will be sanctioned), there are no valid excuses.

And your post exemplifies why it is reasonable to not jump to conclusions. The lawyers could be lying and it isn't unheard of to see lawyers sanctioned for that. It is also quite possible -- probably more likely than them outright lying -- that they are interpreting facts in the light most favorable to their client. That doesn't mean that those same facts (and the same video) could be reasonably interpreted differently by others. It is not at all uncommon for videos (and audio in video) to be ambiguous (because of what is and is not shown, and the quality of audio and video) and open to various interpretations.

I don't understand why you and others are so offended that we should wait until the evidence comes out, or at least a summary of the evidence is presented by someone objective, and not jump to absolute conclusions of who is right or wrong based on nothing but the description of events by one parties lawyer.

In any other context, would you be so willing to assume the guilt of the accused? I doubt you would generally be willing to assume the guilt of someone accused by the police merely on account of the accusation. You should completely change your worldview and your admiral belief in innocence until proven guilty and the possibility of biased reporting because the accused here is a cop.

In no universe is it okay to scream in a 5 year old's face, not if you are a parent but certainly not if you are a police officer in a county that constantly talks about all their deescalation training. That is what the complaint alleges a police officer did. So either the lawyer is lying and will get sanctioned, or the police's conduct was horrific. There is no alternative reasonable interpretation that does not amount to the lawyers lying about what is on the tape. They either yelled in his face, or they didn't.

[Anonymous]

Cops were racist mmmkay

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good lord this thread is depressing. Lots of excuses being made for appalling behavior by police. Unless the attorneys are literally lying about statements made on video by police (in which case they will be sanctioned), there are no valid excuses.

And your post exemplifies why it is reasonable to not jump to conclusions. The lawyers could be lying and it isn't unheard of to see lawyers sanctioned for that. It is also quite possible -- probably more likely than them outright lying -- that they are interpreting facts in the light most favorable to their client. That doesn't mean that those same facts (and the same video) could be reasonably interpreted differently by others. It is not at all uncommon for videos (and audio in video) to be ambiguous (because of what is and is not shown, and the quality of audio and video) and open to various interpretations.

I don't understand why you and others are so offended that we should wait until the evidence comes out, or at least a summary of the evidence is presented by someone objective, and not jump to absolute conclusions of who is right or wrong based on nothing but the description of events by one parties lawyer.

In any other context, would you be so willing to assume the guilt of the accused? I doubt you would generally be willing to assume the guilt of someone accused by the police merely on account of the accusation. You should completely change your worldview and your admiral belief in innocence until proven guilty and the possibility of biased reporting because the accused here is a cop.

In no universe is it okay to scream in a 5 year old's face, not if you are a parent but certainly not if you are a police officer in a county that constantly talks about all their deescalation training. That is what the complaint alleges a police officer did. So either the lawyer is lying and will get sanctioned, or the police's conduct was horrific. There is no alternative reasonable interpretation that does not amount to the lawyers lying about what is on the tape. They either yelled in his face, or they didn't.

I don't agree that yelling is necessarily as black and white as you say. What was said and the context is important. Also, yelling at the kid is far from the most egregious conduct alleged in the complaint. If the only thing the cop did was (allegedly) yell, this would not be a huge deal, even if you are right that yelling would have been poor form and not in keeping with best deescalation practices.

But, even accepting everything you said, you are still wrong that it is black and white and either the cops were wrong or the lawyer is "lying" and should be sanctioned. The audio on the tape my not be great. The lawyer may reasonably allege that the cop was yelling while someone else, perhaps a lawyer hired to defend the cop, would argue that he was not what happened based on the same audio. There might be plenty of gray that would allow the lawyer to allege what he did in a non-sanctionable manner and yet have others who viewed the tape disagree.

Finally, the fact that you admit that it is possible (maybe not likely, but possible) that the lawyer is simply making up facts would be reason enough not to jump to conclusions based on what is publicly known at this point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read this whole thread, but are they also suing the school for letting the child leave? Why was nobody paying attention?

How about you read literally the first link in the thread?

[Anonymous]

DCUM, your racism is showing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read this whole thread, but are they also suing the school for letting the child leave? Why was nobody paying attention?

Because schools are not built or run as prisons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good lord this thread is depressing. Lots of excuses being made for appalling behavior by police. Unless the attorneys are literally lying about statements made on video by police (in which case they will be sanctioned), there are no valid excuses.

And your post exemplifies why it is reasonable to not jump to conclusions. The lawyers could be lying and it isn't unheard of to see lawyers sanctioned for that. It is also quite possible -- probably more likely than them outright lying -- that they are interpreting facts in the light most favorable to their client. That doesn't mean that those same facts (and the same video) could be reasonably interpreted differently by others. It is not at all uncommon for videos (and audio in video) to be ambiguous (because of what is and is not shown, and the quality of audio and video) and open to various interpretations.

I don't understand why you and others are so offended that we should wait until the evidence comes out, or at least a summary of the evidence is presented by someone objective, and not jump to absolute conclusions of who is right or wrong based on nothing but the description of events by one parties lawyer.

In any other context, would you be so willing to assume the guilt of the accused? I doubt you would generally be willing to assume the guilt of someone accused by the police merely on account of the accusation. You should completely change your worldview and your admiral belief in innocence until proven guilty and the possibility of biased reporting because the accused here is a cop.

In no universe is it okay to scream in a 5 year old's face, not if you are a parent but certainly not if you are a police officer in a county that constantly talks about all their deescalation training. That is what the complaint alleges a police officer did. So either the lawyer is lying and will get sanctioned, or the police's conduct was horrific. There is no alternative reasonable interpretation that does not amount to the lawyers lying about what is on the tape. They either yelled in his face, or they didn't.

The lawyer will not get sanctioned. Be real.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read this whole thread, but are they also suing the school for letting the child leave? Why was nobody paying attention?

We don't have all the details. We don't know. Either child walked out of the school or playground. Adults are not allowed to stop kids but they could have followed him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good lord this thread is depressing. Lots of excuses being made for appalling behavior by police. Unless the attorneys are literally lying about statements made on video by police (in which case they will be sanctioned), there are no valid excuses.

And your post exemplifies why it is reasonable to not jump to conclusions. The lawyers could be lying and it isn't unheard of to see lawyers sanctioned for that. It is also quite possible -- probably more likely than them outright lying -- that they are interpreting facts in the light most favorable to their client. That doesn't mean that those same facts (and the same video) could be reasonably interpreted differently by others. It is not at all uncommon for videos (and audio in video) to be ambiguous (because of what is and is not shown, and the quality of audio and video) and open to various interpretations.

I don't understand why you and others are so offended that we should wait until the evidence comes out, or at least a summary of the evidence is presented by someone objective, and not jump to absolute conclusions of who is right or wrong based on nothing but the description of events by one parties lawyer.

In any other context, would you be so willing to assume the guilt of the accused? I doubt you would generally be willing to assume the guilt of someone accused by the police merely on account of the accusation. You should completely change your worldview and your admiral belief in innocence until proven guilty and the possibility of biased reporting because the accused here is a cop.

In no universe is it okay to scream in a 5 year old's face, not if you are a parent but certainly not if you are a police officer in a county that constantly talks about all their deescalation training. That is what the complaint alleges a police officer did. So either the lawyer is lying and will get sanctioned, or the police's conduct was horrific. There is no alternative reasonable interpretation that does not amount to the lawyers lying about what is on the tape. They either yelled in his face, or they didn't.

The lawyer will not get sanctioned. Be real.

Right, people on this board seem to have no idea what it would actually take for the lawyer to get sanctioned for something in the complaint. For there to be even a remote chance of sanctions, there would have to be absolutely clear that the lawyer knew (which means more than knew means in lay contexts) that what he wrote was categorically false and there was no way the lawyer could contend that he thought it was a reasonable interpretation of what occurred when looking at things in the most favorable light for his client.

The threat of potential sanctions in no way makes a lawyer turn from advocate to reasonably neutral or reliable reporter of what happened.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read this whole thread, but are they also suing the school for letting the child leave? Why was nobody paying attention?

It's literally in the first sentence of the linked article in the first post.

For goodness' sake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We need to talk about whupping. I guarantee the officers, if they were black, were not telling the boy he should be “beaten.” They were saying whupped. People need to know that there is a huge difference between the percentage of white kids who are disciplined physically at home and the percentage of black kids. Like nearly all black kids are. And it’s talked about very openly and positively. So it’s a little silly seeing all these freaked out white women on here talking about a situation where two black cops told a kid his mama should whup him.

Nope. It’s really to see these inane cops posting that telling a 5 yo 30 times he needs to be beaten.

He is 50lbs wet. Clean house, fire the cops, remove cops from schools and up the education need to be a cop.

To what? They already require an A.A. degree. Will we taxpayers pay more to pay bigger salaries for folks with bachelors' degrees?

Yep. You get what you pay for. Cops already make a great salary .. more than teachers.

I'm fine with paying more taxes to pay cops more. Just checking with others. Good to know at least one other person doesn't mind.

Cool. I'm not fine with paying combative people with guns more-- or at least not with paying more of them to exist. You might be shocked to learn that you get more bang for your buck in terms of community safety with better teachers, more mental health professionals, food in kids' bellies, etc.

We need all of that plus police. You think a mental health worker will go into a home as the first responded without pilice, nope! Clearly you’ve never done that work and realize how volatile it can be.

The bolded are not in conflict.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Both cops are black. One male and one female.

This was established way back. Try to keep up. Systemic racism and unequal treatment can be perpetuated by Black people in positions of institutional power.

So, you use race as a scapegoat for everything.

Me: Systemic racism exists and can be perpetuated by anyone.

You: Oh, so everything is RACISM all the time?? Nothing but RACISM is to blame EVER???!!!!! I am very smart.