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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.