From: Contempt-R-US (28 seconds) : The Killing of Fouad Kaady – In the
early afternoon of September 8, 2005, police encountered Fouad Kaady
shortly after he was in an accident that left him in shock and bleeding,
burned over much of his body. Rather than calling for medical help, the
police commanded him to lie on the pavement, even though they could see
the burned flesh hanging from his body, and even though they said he
appeared to be “in a catatonic state.” When he did not comply with their
orders, but instead continued to sit on the ground in a daze, they
tasered him repeatedly. And then, they shot him to death.

Gut wrenching… incompetence beyond comprehension. Tasers are only
part of the issue quite obviously.
http://www.videosif t.com/video/ Cops-shoot- burnt-injured- man-who-crawled- from-burning- wreck

Cops not only can, but do – every officer on the street, every single work day – decide for themselves which violations of law to take official notice of and which to ignore.

In the course of duty, a police officer in modern, urban America, witnesses an endless, continual stream of violations. She or he cannot possibly intervene in but a fraction of the violations they witness, and therefore must exercise informed discretion in setting priorities. The Supreme Court has ruled affirmatively that this is the case.

So let’s not hear any more nonsense about cops’ inability to ignore infractions and violations they don’t deem important enough to pursue. They do it all the time and they are expected to do so.

You missed my point. The police enforce the law, the courts decide the law.

We’ve seen parents prosecuted for creating child pornography after snapping a pic of their 4 year old playing in a bath tub.

Would you care to point me to such a case? Child pornography, as with most laws, also include mens rea, or intent. If there are several photos of the child in various nude poses besides in the tub, then the charge of pornography may be upheld. If that is the only nude photo among many clothed pictures, then there is no intent and no cop or prosecutor would touch it.

Further, cops are not forbidden to have opinions or enter into civil discussions in their daily life. A cop can support marijuana legalization on his own time as long as he applies the law in the execution of his duty.

Very true and they should have their own opinions. But they shouldn’t let those opinions interfere with their job. If a cop get assigned to guard an Abortion Clinic, yet his beliefs are strongly anti-abortion, would you want the cop to follow his conscience or his oath? If the cop doesn’t have enough evidence may he torture a prisoner to extract a confession because he believes the accused is guilty?

Police must follow the law even when the law is wrong. They cannot be both the enforcers as well as the arbitrators.

Really? Just “follow orders”? Taking it to the ridiculous (to make the point), ever hear of Nuremberg? Moral convictions are exactly what public servants like police officers should have.

THAT’s the attitude that has to be overcome, and only by cleaning house of those corrupt Nazi dinosaurs can it happen. But guess what? It ain’t gonna happen, because those same old warhouse cops have accumulated dirt on everybody over the years, especially everybody who might otherwise be inclined to clean house. After all, that’s how they rose to where they are today.

Now you know why those attitudes don’t change, and why they’re not gonna change, either.

“Politicians hire the boss cop and set policy. The cops that don’t follow policy get fired and more are hired until the force has the cops that suit the politicians.

The politicians should be held responsible for every bad cop or every power tripping jerk on the force.”

You’re talkin’ out your ass, son.

The politicos set departmental priorities and such, but the day-to-day management, decision-making and hire-&-fire decision are made by police brass, old-fashioned, hard-boiled authoritarians. They are the ones whose fascistic attitudes control what goes and what doesn’t, they make sure that promotion and advancement only come to those cops who toe the line and play the game – their game.

And that’s exactly what happened to Officer Perez. The local – liberal – politicos want a more modern, progressive police force, with more cops like Perez; the top dog cops ain’t gonna tolerate that pansy, commie bullshit. They’re gonna have take-charge he-men who know how to shut their mouths and follow orders; fuck what the Mayor or City Council wants.

Bush & Co? Prescott Bush in the 1940′s paid good money to have the Nazis win; I’m always fascinated when people who despise our heavy-handed President forget this and wonder what’s going on.

The politicians should be held responsible for every bad cop or every power tripping jerk on the force.

That’s just about as precise as you can say it.

Naw. The politicians may be a problem, but they’re a DIFFERENT problem.

The problem here is the bullying, cowardly, narcissistic, dishonest, self-serving fucks who use laws that may or may not be valid as an excuse to dominate the citizens they are supposed to serve and protect.

I think any cop who uses a taser on somebody should have to take a shot himself; maybe in the head or in the balls. With increasing frequency, tasers are changing from an “alternative to deadly force” to a replacement for “hey you, stop that!” or as a way for needle-dicked schoolyard bullies to make themselves feel powerful.

I totally disagree. We are entering into an age where we stand a good chance of seeing our civil liberties and privacy disappear and police powers will be increasing and increasingly used against the citizenry. This is the rise of nationalism and the beginning of the fall… unless something stems the tide.

You would seem to be advocating in your argument that police be mindless automatons who blindly enforce every law no matter what that law is. We’ve seen parents prosecuted for creating child pornography after snapping a pic of their 4 year old playing in a bath tub. I think we are going to see people dragged away at night and questioned about what books they read, who they had coffee with, or what God they pray to. I want to be wrong, and I think I’ll only be right if cops are willing participants, turning off their brains, and becoming mindless thugs.

Further, cops are not forbidden to have opinions or enter into civil discussions in their daily life. A cop can support marijuana legalization on his own time as long as he applies the law in the execution of his duty. And smart cops know that pot smokers are not a risk or a problem.

Interesting read:
Drug Warriors and Their Prey by Richard Lawrence Miller
ISBN 0275950425

I’ve argued for legalization for 30 years, have read research over that period and will still say there’s no (other than money for the ‘drug war’ and ‘moral superiority’) reason for Marijuana to be illegal.

9
Fusion

The cop is correct. If it illegal to do, even in your own home, then it is illegal.

Runs into the problem with courts agreeing that laws against sodomy performed in private cannot be enforced because of privacy.
Yeah, it’s illegal, but there are laws still on the books for things like having to carry a lamp in front of an automobile to keep from scaring the horses.

J/P=?

I think the fear that the admin is trying to beat into their officers is, essentially, “You must follow orders, even if they are illegal and unconstitutional.” But, of course, this is a violation of their oath of office, and speaks very poorly of the moral character of the Austin police force. What sort of illegal activity is being supported by this lawless attitude on the part of the lawmen? Indeed, it seems that this sort of ‘leadership’ is far more like that of a mafia than a properly run law enforcement agency.

I’m glad I don’t live in Austin, and I feel sorry for the people who have to live under such a junta.

In this case, the officers ‘extreme moral convictions’ seemed to be revolving around justice and compassion, and upholding his oath of office. We could all do better with more cops with those sort of ‘extreme’ beliefs.