First, please link the court cases you are referring to. No point in bringing them up if your not going to provide any details. Second, I have never contested that the cop was in the wrong by not doing anything. I agree he should have stopped the other cop and that he should be punished for not doing so.
What we are disagreeing on is what the punishment should be. Why can you not understand this, I've tried to explain this in almost every comment I've posted. Unfortunately you just can't get your mind past "cops = bad" and form an unbiased thought about this SPECIFIC incident.
Basically, you think the cop should be charged exactly the same as a regular citizen would be and that is what I disagree with.
No, that guy just managed to say something that agrees with your opinion. That doesn't mean he is right. The cops purpose for being there wasn't to "stand guard while the other cop assaulted someone". He was there to make an arrest. His purpose for being there has a huge effect on why he is punished differently than if somebody guards a friend while he beats on another person. Ignore the differences between the two scenarios all you want, spend the rest of your life expecting the world to be in perfect black and white and always wonder why things just never seem to work the way you thought it would.
The moment someone in law enforcement acts contrary to their role, they _are_ a member of the public
Where the hell do you get that from? They are not suddenly members of the general public, they are cops who are breaking the law. I know it sounded poetic in your head, but that doesn't mean thats how it actually works.
Cops should be punished for breaking the law, I never said that any of these cops should not be punished. What I did say is that they should not be punished the same as an average member of the public in this case because the circumstances are very different. In many cases they should be punished more severely than a normal civilian (as in the case of the cop who beat the criminal), but the cop not intervening soon enough should not be punished as the same as a person who egged on a fight between two civilians. Please try to look at this objectively and understand why this situation is different than situations where people are typically charged as an accessory.
Where are the criminal charges any member of the public would have had to face?
A cop is not treated the same as a member of the public. Not because they don't have to be held accountable for their actions(because they def do), but because their circumstances for being in that situation are completely different. I don't know what to tell you besides what I posted in my previous comment. As I have said, the cop wasn't cheering his buddy on in a bar fight, he responded to a crime and one of his fellow officers did something very stupid. Retraining and a suspension makes sense.
The low average IQ of police officers does not give them an excuse to tacitly assist anybody physically assault someone for over a minute.
It has nothing to do with low IQ. This is a classic case of armchair quarterbacking. You can read an article from the comfort of your desk chair, watch a video of the incident in the safety of your own home, and take time to think of the best solution while browsing through slashdot articles. But to be in the middle of arresting a person who has previously been arrested for battery, at night, while the criminal is attempting to run away, you are NOT going to be in the same mindset. Things happen much quicker in real life.
There are many things that a cop should face similar (and often times greater) punishment for than an average citizen would. This is not one of them. The police officers are required by their (very unique) jobs to be present for the arrest. They can't just walk away from the situation, and they can't just arrest a fellow officer while he is making an arrest(even if he is way out of line). It is easy for us to look back on the situation and say exactly what should have happened. But assisting in an arrest of a criminal who just tried to make a run for it and who has had previous battery charges and not intervening quick enough when a fellow officer goes off the deep end is a very different scenario than cheering on your buddy in a bar fight.
Again, I'm not excusing any of these cops actions. I think they should all be punished(especially the cop who did the beating). But t don't think you can apply the same punishments for both situations I described above.
Normally I wouldn't ask this type of question, since it's none of my business, but you brought it up. What did you do? I ask because unless you are a police officer who was responding to a crime and arresting someone, your situation is not relevant to this one.
I'm not saying the cops are right because they are cops, and I'm not saying you deserved the sentence you got(because I don't know any details). But I just don't think your story applies here.
Maybe not hard enough? I've never taken a U.K. driving test, but I can def confirm that the driving tests here in the U.S. are a joke. Driving something as dangerous as a car comes with a lot of responsibility and should prob be limited to people who can prove that they can handle that responsibility.
What would you suggest then? Longer suspension? Jail time? I think 45 day suspension and mandatory retraining is an appropriate punishment for not stopping the beating soon enough. You need to take into consideration the situation. The cops were in the middle of arresting a criminal, and the criminal tried to run away. It's easy for us to say after the fact, in the safety of our computer chairs, the he should have intervened a lot sooner. But when you're out on the street at night arresting a repeat offender, your mind is probably not so quick to recognize that one of your fellow officers is committing a serious crime and that you should stop the arrest to restrain him.
Again, I'm not saying these cops where in the right. They all were wrong to a certain degree and all needed to be punished. I'm just not exactly sure what you expect his punishment should be.
Yeah, he was punished and deserved to be. What would you suggest? I'm not trying to excuse what these cops did, but a lot of people seem to be confused that a cop only got a 45 day suspension for assault with a deadly weapon (read the comment I responded to).
"This guy is the poster-child for why cell phone use in cars should be banned in more places."
"was driving at 70MPH while texting on one phone and talking on another
If we have to make an abnormally stupid person a poster boy for average people, shouldn't he be the poster boy for why using multiple cell phones in a car should be banned in more places?
Damn you horribly biased, agenda pushing slashdot summary writers!
The officer received a 45-day suspension for the beating..
No no no no nooooo. The officer who did the beating was fired and is facing criminal charges. It is one of the officers who stood by and watched that got the 45 day suspension.
Just for the record, I think this wiretapping charge is bullshit and I think all the cops involved should be punished appropriately. But the summary makes it seem like a cop only got a 45 day suspension for assault with a deadly weapon, which is incorrect and borderline flame bait.
I would like to point out that the cop who did the actual beating was fired and is facing criminal charges. The cop who is filing the complaint (and who received the 45 day suspension) is one of the officers who stood by and watched.
Please do some reading before blurting out stupid statements like that. The cop that beat the victim in the video has already been fired and is facing criminal charges. It is one of the cops that just stood by and watched that received the 45 day suspension.
With the winding down of Google Labs, Google will discontinue App Inventor as a Google product and will open source the code. Additionally, because of App Inventor’s success in the education space, we are exploring opportunities to support the educational use of App Inventor on an open source platform.
Well, technically "freak" is a word, as is "freaking". Contrary to what some may think, freaking isn't just a funny way to say fucking. had he typed "Just say the f**king word" then that would be considered self censoring, but it's perfectly reasonable to assume freaking is exactly the word he meant right there.
I wasn't implying she was going to go rambo on the thugs. What I was asking is:
Is a 90 year old woman with a gun vs. group of thugs with guns. BETTER than a 90 year old woman with her fists vs. group of thugs with their fists.
Obviously, neither is an ideal scenario, but I know which one I'd rather be the old lady in. Thugs would be worried about getting shot by an old women a lot more than they would worry about being punched by an old woman.
How about self defense? If a person shot and killed someone attacking them, does that count towards that total?
I'm not trying to disprove your numbers necessarily, but you never distinguish what is meant by gun deaths and you didn't provide any sources for your numbers. A person committing suicide by shooting themselves is just as likely to do it another way. In the case of a person shooting an attacker, that could have still ended with a death, but it could have been the victim who had died instead of the attacker. It's also pretty reasonable to assume that a state that has more guns per person would have more gun accidents per person. So it may not be as black and white as the above numbers suggest.
Yeah, and arrows are more effective than spears. And spears are more effective than swords. Why just stop at guns and bombs?
Having more effective weapons is a good thing.
Consider a 90yr old women defending her home against a group of thugs. All any of them have are their fists. How well do you think she is going to do in that scenario? Now give all of them guns. Do her chances of defending herself go up or down?
Slashdot Mirror
I have a [Google+] account and several of my friends who wanted to see it also do.. but it's empty. There's nothing happening there.
You say this like there are things "happening" on Facebook.
First, please link the court cases you are referring to. No point in bringing them up if your not going to provide any details. Second, I have never contested that the cop was in the wrong by not doing anything. I agree he should have stopped the other cop and that he should be punished for not doing so.
What we are disagreeing on is what the punishment should be. Why can you not understand this, I've tried to explain this in almost every comment I've posted. Unfortunately you just can't get your mind past "cops = bad" and form an unbiased thought about this SPECIFIC incident.
Basically, you think the cop should be charged exactly the same as a regular citizen would be and that is what I disagree with.
No, that guy just managed to say something that agrees with your opinion. That doesn't mean he is right. The cops purpose for being there wasn't to "stand guard while the other cop assaulted someone". He was there to make an arrest. His purpose for being there has a huge effect on why he is punished differently than if somebody guards a friend while he beats on another person. Ignore the differences between the two scenarios all you want, spend the rest of your life expecting the world to be in perfect black and white and always wonder why things just never seem to work the way you thought it would.
The moment someone in law enforcement acts contrary to their role, they _are_ a member of the public
Where the hell do you get that from? They are not suddenly members of the general public, they are cops who are breaking the law. I know it sounded poetic in your head, but that doesn't mean thats how it actually works.
Cops should be punished for breaking the law, I never said that any of these cops should not be punished. What I did say is that they should not be punished the same as an average member of the public in this case because the circumstances are very different. In many cases they should be punished more severely than a normal civilian (as in the case of the cop who beat the criminal), but the cop not intervening soon enough should not be punished as the same as a person who egged on a fight between two civilians. Please try to look at this objectively and understand why this situation is different than situations where people are typically charged as an accessory.
No, I do. You don't understand how to differentiate between different situations do you?
Where are the criminal charges any member of the public would have had to face?
A cop is not treated the same as a member of the public. Not because they don't have to be held accountable for their actions(because they def do), but because their circumstances for being in that situation are completely different. I don't know what to tell you besides what I posted in my previous comment. As I have said, the cop wasn't cheering his buddy on in a bar fight, he responded to a crime and one of his fellow officers did something very stupid. Retraining and a suspension makes sense.
The low average IQ of police officers does not give them an excuse to tacitly assist anybody physically assault someone for over a minute.
It has nothing to do with low IQ. This is a classic case of armchair quarterbacking. You can read an article from the comfort of your desk chair, watch a video of the incident in the safety of your own home, and take time to think of the best solution while browsing through slashdot articles. But to be in the middle of arresting a person who has previously been arrested for battery, at night, while the criminal is attempting to run away, you are NOT going to be in the same mindset. Things happen much quicker in real life.
There are many things that a cop should face similar (and often times greater) punishment for than an average citizen would. This is not one of them. The police officers are required by their (very unique) jobs to be present for the arrest. They can't just walk away from the situation, and they can't just arrest a fellow officer while he is making an arrest(even if he is way out of line). It is easy for us to look back on the situation and say exactly what should have happened. But assisting in an arrest of a criminal who just tried to make a run for it and who has had previous battery charges and not intervening quick enough when a fellow officer goes off the deep end is a very different scenario than cheering on your buddy in a bar fight.
Again, I'm not excusing any of these cops actions. I think they should all be punished(especially the cop who did the beating). But t don't think you can apply the same punishments for both situations I described above.
Normally I wouldn't ask this type of question, since it's none of my business, but you brought it up. What did you do? I ask because unless you are a police officer who was responding to a crime and arresting someone, your situation is not relevant to this one.
I'm not saying the cops are right because they are cops, and I'm not saying you deserved the sentence you got(because I don't know any details). But I just don't think your story applies here.
Maybe not hard enough? I've never taken a U.K. driving test, but I can def confirm that the driving tests here in the U.S. are a joke. Driving something as dangerous as a car comes with a lot of responsibility and should prob be limited to people who can prove that they can handle that responsibility.
What would you suggest then? Longer suspension? Jail time? I think 45 day suspension and mandatory retraining is an appropriate punishment for not stopping the beating soon enough. You need to take into consideration the situation. The cops were in the middle of arresting a criminal, and the criminal tried to run away. It's easy for us to say after the fact, in the safety of our computer chairs, the he should have intervened a lot sooner. But when you're out on the street at night arresting a repeat offender, your mind is probably not so quick to recognize that one of your fellow officers is committing a serious crime and that you should stop the arrest to restrain him.
Again, I'm not saying these cops where in the right. They all were wrong to a certain degree and all needed to be punished. I'm just not exactly sure what you expect his punishment should be.
It actually might be better to just make driving tests significantly harder. And have to be retaken more often.
Yeah, he was punished and deserved to be. What would you suggest? I'm not trying to excuse what these cops did, but a lot of people seem to be confused that a cop only got a 45 day suspension for assault with a deadly weapon (read the comment I responded to).
"This guy is the poster-child for why cell phone use in cars should be banned in more places."
"was driving at 70MPH while texting on one phone and talking on another
If we have to make an abnormally stupid person a poster boy for average people, shouldn't he be the poster boy for why using multiple cell phones in a car should be banned in more places?
Damn you horribly biased, agenda pushing slashdot summary writers!
The officer received a 45-day suspension for the beating..
No no no no nooooo. The officer who did the beating was fired and is facing criminal charges. It is one of the officers who stood by and watched that got the 45 day suspension.
Just for the record, I think this wiretapping charge is bullshit and I think all the cops involved should be punished appropriately. But the summary makes it seem like a cop only got a 45 day suspension for assault with a deadly weapon, which is incorrect and borderline flame bait.
I would like to point out that the cop who did the actual beating was fired and is facing criminal charges. The cop who is filing the complaint (and who received the 45 day suspension) is one of the officers who stood by and watched.
Please do some reading before blurting out stupid statements like that. The cop that beat the victim in the video has already been fired and is facing criminal charges. It is one of the cops that just stood by and watched that received the 45 day suspension.
Never under estimate the speed and efficiency of the internet hate machine.
I think you meant EVE is built with Stackless Python. Unless you where talking about a different EVE (I assumed EVE Online).
Additionally, David Wolber may just be upset because he won't be selling any more books...
Quoted from the original source at Google:
With the winding down of Google Labs, Google will discontinue App Inventor as a Google product and will open source the code. Additionally, because of App Inventor’s success in the education space, we are exploring opportunities to support the educational use of App Inventor on an open source platform.
source
Well, technically "freak" is a word, as is "freaking". Contrary to what some may think, freaking isn't just a funny way to say fucking. had he typed "Just say the f**king word" then that would be considered self censoring, but it's perfectly reasonable to assume freaking is exactly the word he meant right there.
/pedant
I wasn't implying she was going to go rambo on the thugs. What I was asking is:
Is a 90 year old woman with a gun vs. group of thugs with guns. BETTER than a 90 year old woman with her fists vs. group of thugs with their fists.
Obviously, neither is an ideal scenario, but I know which one I'd rather be the old lady in. Thugs would be worried about getting shot by an old women a lot more than they would worry about being punched by an old woman.
He is probably referring to this.
Out of curiosity...
Is this all murders or do accidents count too?
How about suicides?
How about self defense? If a person shot and killed someone attacking them, does that count towards that total?
I'm not trying to disprove your numbers necessarily, but you never distinguish what is meant by gun deaths and you didn't provide any sources for your numbers. A person committing suicide by shooting themselves is just as likely to do it another way. In the case of a person shooting an attacker, that could have still ended with a death, but it could have been the victim who had died instead of the attacker. It's also pretty reasonable to assume that a state that has more guns per person would have more gun accidents per person. So it may not be as black and white as the above numbers suggest.
Yeah, and arrows are more effective than spears. And spears are more effective than swords. Why just stop at guns and bombs?
Having more effective weapons is a good thing.
Consider a 90yr old women defending her home against a group of thugs. All any of them have are their fists. How well do you think she is going to do in that scenario? Now give all of them guns. Do her chances of defending herself go up or down?