This is the kind of police the Republicans would like to see here!!

I have had a lot of dealings with the police. from what I have seen the youth of today have zero respect for athority. mostly you get what you ask for. If you spit in his face or call him a bad family name it aint gonna be good for you..

I had lost respect for the force but after seeing them in action over the last three years, they control themselves way better than I would.

And thethings that make a good policeman from a bad policeman,the good policeman when someone spits in his face and calls him names,can deal with that situation,and will not resort to this sort of action.

Now the bad policeman will not be able to handle that sort of situation,and will end up resulting in the sort of actions taken by the russian policemen.

There are a lot of good officers,and it is a shame that the bad ones slip through the net,and abuse there position,but letsbe thankfull,that there are a lot more good officers than bad ones.

But it is only the bad ones that we read abou,we never seem to see when they do things to raise money for charitys.

dualballs (imported) wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2010 5:48 pm All those nasty cops beating people for no reason. Give me a break. Next will be a forum of how 85% of incarcerated criminals in the US are not guilty. If you know anything about municipal lawsuits you would know that there is no shortage of "lawyers" out there that make their living contacting people arrested and subdued by the police and telling them to allow them to sue the city. No charge unless paid off. Many cities will pay out 6 to 8 K to avoid the expense of the trial. "Lawyer" gets 4k, low life criminal gets 2k. A win win for them as our cities go broke.

This is one of the finest examples of a "STRAW MAN" argument that I have seen in a long, long time.

If you ever made your living as a public defender while paying off student loans you would look at this a whole lot dif

_g (imported) wrote: Sat Sep 25, 2010 10:25 am ferently, mostly because your figures are way, way off.

I'm quit sure that the Teenagers did give the police reason to haul them in. But in RUSSIAN police have been GOD IE no checks on power so they can play GOD.

In the US the criminals take vacations in jail (3 squares a day plus a bed ) They get out and don't wish to work, so they steal for money. And if they kill someone it's only 7 years maybe or at the worse a life sentence do to the libels thou shell not kill. Even with a

death sentence it's years just to kill the criminals.

_g

Hi gus. I see that you enjoyed the "Dirty Har

fhunter wrote: Sat Sep 25, 2010 11:43 am ry" and "Death Wish" series of movies as much as did I.

The real world is not working that way, however.

By the words of one of the teenagers,they were returning home late: "we drank some beer and were going home".

So there is a potential reason. But is it an excuse for beatings?

This is not a first story similar story, some make to the news, how much don't?

PS. There was a saying in Sov. Union times: "bad is such a policeman, who can not accuse a telegraph pole" ("плох тот мили

ционер, который не может придраться к телеграфному столбу"). I hope that translation from Russian is right.

If you have ever shadowed an officer on a 3rd shift you would see how difficult that the job is. Unless you are very, very alert, you can get killed very easily. Let your guard down for a second or wander away from accepted protocol and you place yourself in serious danger. Sometimes, danger cannot be avoided.

However, this is NO excuse to "rough up" young men by stomping their cock and balls off.

Once they are subdued, cuff them. They won't be able to do much.

By the way, spitting on any law enforcement officer is assault and if the perpetrator is HIV positive, he may be prosecuted in some cases for attempted murder...

Yes to spit on any officer is assault,just the same as if yu touch an officer with your hand in anyway is also assault,but even if these youths did spit on them,was the assault carried out by the officers realy needed.

I would say no and infact the officers over reacted to the situation,any good officer when faced with any sort of act of violence,should thanks to is training be able to handle the situation,and not resort to sutch a beating of anyone no matter the situation.

kristoff wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2010 2:59 pm It is more likely that the cops think that the only way to see justice done is to do it themselves. They set themselves up as judge and jury, then executioner.

Agreed. It is very easy for an officer to see the police as the good guys and the people with whom they deal as the bad guys. This POV is probably justified in most cases, but it fosters thinking in absolutes and anger when justice, as they see it, is not done.

Here is another example of police hubris, though not nearly as dramatic or vicious as the case of the Russian teenager:

http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts ... source=pkg

Parents: San Jose cop pretends to arrest son for having sex with officer's stepdaughter

By Sean Webby

swebby@mercurynews.com

Posted: 09/21/2010 06:59:49 PM PDT

A San Jose police officer is being criminally investigated for handcuffing his stepdaughter's 15-year-old boyfriend and pretending to arrest him for having sex with the 14-year-old girl.

Prosecutors are probing the incident -- parts of which are caught on a smartphone video -- to see whether the officer committed a criminal false imprisonment soon after he showed up at the house on his motorcycle and in full uniform late last month.

"Not a good thing that the person you had sex with is a cop's daughter," the officer sternly says, standing over the handcuffed boy in his family's living room, according to the video. "The district attorney will probably file charges. "... A cop's daughter is not somebody you mess around with. You're stupid."

The veteran motorcycle officer, who has since been placed on administrative leave, is saying he was simply trying to scare the boy straight, according to his lawyer.

But the teenager's parents said they encountered an angry cop abusing his authority.

"He came over in full uniform and parked his motorcycle in front of our house; he didn't come over in jeans and shirt," said the boy's mother. "He didn't come over as a parent. He came over as somebody who had the authority to do whatever he wanted with us."

Compounding their disbelief, when the boy's parents reported what happened to San Jose police internal affairs, their son was later arrested for unlawful sexual intercourse. The Mercury News is not naming the officer nor the boy's parents to protect the identities of their children.

District Attorney's Office spokeswoman Amy Cornell confirmed that prosecutors are reviewing the case and have sent it back to the police for more information.

The conflict began Aug. 30, apparently soon after the officer found out that his teenage daughter had sex with her boyfriend. The two had dated since middle school, giving each other gifts that made both sets of parents concerned, according to the boy's parents. He bought her a pair of Uggs. She gave him $100 in cash. Then the boy recently showed up at a house where the girl was baby-sitting. They became intimate that night.

When the officer found out, he rode his motorcycle at the end of his shift straight from work to the boy's house, a few blocks from his own home, according to the boy's parents.

The officer knocked on the door, and the boy's mother asked him why he was there. According to the boy's parents, the officer said he had found their address after running a check on their license plate -- which, if true, could be illegal. And then he dropped the bombshell.

"I am going to arrest your son for sexual assault," the officer said, according to the parents.

When the boy got home soon afterward, the officer, according to the parents, began berating the teenager, telling him he had warned him to stay away from his daughter.

Then, he turned the boy around and placed handcuffs on him. The boy's stepfather video-recorded some of the encounter on his BlackBerry and provided it to the Mercury News.

Finally, the officer unlocked the handcuffs and brought the parents aside.

He was not going to arrest their son after all, he told them. He wanted to scare him. He handed them an arrest card that he suggested they put up on the refrigerator to make sure the boy didn't forget.

The officer's story, as recounted by his lawyer Terry Bowman, jibes with the

parents' on some levels. But he says that he never pretended to arrest the young man. He said the parents told him their son was out of control.

"He is doing (the boy's parents) a favor by attempting to lecture and educate the young man so he doesn't continue to go down the wrong path," Bowman said. "This is two sets of parents navigating the challenges of raising teenage children. The officer's goal was to help and engage in problem solving. Turning this into the blame game does not help the teens. In fact, it sets a poor example for taking personal responsibility."

Bowman said the parents thanked the officer after the encounter and shook his hand.

The stepfather said he may have done that in an effort to get the officer to leave, but the mother said she didn't recall doing that. She said she went to a Walgreens parking lot and cried.

Police said there is no written duty manual section that prohibits an officer from handling a case that involves a family member or friend.

There is a city policy that says employees must be impartial in their duties.

"We do not generally have our officers investigate cases when they have a personal conflict," said police Sgt. Ronnie Lopez, a department spokesman. "It's common sense."

Police sources say it is not uncommon for officers to stop, search and sometimes handcuff youths if the parents ask them to as part of a "scared straight" tactic. But the parents of this boy say they gave no such permission and were shocked at what the officer did.

Before they made a complaint to police, the parents of the boy say they agonized.

"He abused his power, but we didn't know what to do," his stepfather said. "I don't want any kind of payback. And if they go forward with investigating this officer, then we were worried they might go after (my son) with a charge of sex assault."

On Saturday, a San Jose detective called the boy's mother and asked to interview him. Afterward, the boy was cited for unlawful sexual intercourse -- a misdemeanor citation for two minors of a similar age who have consensual sex. Sources told the Mercury News that the officer's daughter was also cited.

The District Attorney's Office rarely prosecutes minors on such charges, generally rejecting cases that don't involve coercion.

A few comments about the case of the San Jose cop:

PeterSJC (imported) wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2010 1:41 pm Police said there is no written duty manual section that prohibits an officer from handling a case that involves a family member or friend.

Actually, the Mercury News, in a subsequent article (http://www.eunuch.org/vbulletin/newrepl ... ly&t=18847), reported that

When first interviewed for this story earlier in the week, police told the Mercury News that there was no specific written policy that dealt with officers investigating cases in which there is a personal conflict. The Mercury News has since discovered a policy that states officers "will avoid becoming officially involved in quarrels or disputes occurring in their own neighborhoods, unless the incident involves an immediate threat to human life."

There is also a section of the officer's code of ethics which states: "I will never act officiously or permit personal feelings, prejudices, animosities, or friendships to influence my decisions."

Back to the original article:

PeterSJC (imported) wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2010 1:41 pm On Saturday, a San Jose detective called the boy's mother and asked to interview him. Afterward, the boy was cited for unlawful sexual intercourse -- a misdemeanor citation for two minors of a similar age who have consensual sex. Sources told the Mercury News that the officer's daughter was also cited.The District Attorney's Office rarely prosecutes minors on such charges, generally rejecting cases that don't involve coercion.

A clear case of retaliation, it seems to me.

One of the more interesting aspects of this case is that, in the comments section after the article (not shown here), a majority opined that the officer had done nothing wrong, or that both of the kids should have been actually arrested.