Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

I mean a lot of people on this thread are jumping to conclusions that the five year old child is at fault. Is that okay with you?

So two wrongs make a right?

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

I mean a lot of people on this thread are jumping to conclusions that the five year old child is at fault. Is that okay with you?

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.

Sometimes it's not systemic racism and it's just really bad police work.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

of course they could have stopped him. he was FIVE. do you think they can’t stop a 5 year old from walking into traffic?

They aren’t allowed to block the child from exiting the door, and can’t restrain the child.

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.

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 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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

of course they could have stopped him. he was FIVE. do you think they can’t stop a 5 year old from walking into traffic?

Anonymous wrote:If I were the Mom, I’d be grateful to the officers who found and safely secured the child. Sounds like Mom is trying to use the situation to get rich. “In my day” my ass would have been whopped for leaving school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

of course they could have stopped him. he was FIVE. do you think they can’t stop a 5 year old from walking into traffic?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Why does it "sound like he probably was?" Hmmmmmm? Based on your knowledge of the case, what makes you say this?

You know that he:

-Left the school, for whatever reason

and

-Was crying, terrified, and hesitated to go with cops who were threatening him

Oh, you can say that's not the whole story, and of course it's not. But there's very little in the story which comprises 100% of your information (unless you were there!), that tells you he "was probably a terror."

Even people who think the cops were in the wrong think surely there was something egregiously wrong with the little boy and are happy to label him "a terror." Sheesh.

Anonymous wrote:If I were the Mom, I’d be grateful if the officers had found and safely secured the child. Sounds like Mom is trying to use the abuse of power to draw attention to the need for professional repercussions and better policies and training. “In my day” my ass would have been whopped for leaving school-- by my mother, who was unfortunately legally allowed to do that.

Anonymous wrote: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 wrote:

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.