3 Arkansas officers involved in violent arrest are identified

[Epicenity]

Can you try to honestly answer my question while perched upon your high horse? Was my post accurate or not?

Sorry, I don't know which question you mean. I'll be glad to answer any question.

You accuse me of being "on the attack" but then you keep using what look to me like insults. On the other hand, I came in here and basically said "what those guys did looks wrong to to me" and I've been attacked and insulted from the get-go.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I've attacked and insulted from the get-go.

Talk about Freudian...

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I think suspension or administrative leave is pretty standard procedure when there are incidents like this, while the investigation is completed.

Those are two different things, though.

Suspension is punitive. It counts against your seniority, you aren't paid, it can be used against you in transfers and promotions, etc. and you can't do "cop stuff".

Admin leave is time off but without any of the punitive measures. It's like taking paid sick time, except it's at the department's discretion. If you can do "cop stuff" like drive your car or carry your duty weapon probably varies by policy and situation.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Those are two different things, though.

Suspension is punitive. It counts against your seniority, you aren't paid, it can be used against you in transfers and promotions, etc. and you can't do "cop stuff".

Admin leave is time off but without any of the punitive measures. It's like taking paid sick time, except it's at the department's discretion. If you can do "cop stuff" like drive your car or carry your duty weapon probably varies by policy and situation.

Thanks for the clarification! I thought it was just a difference in terminology but that makes sense.

 

[Epicenity]

Talk about Freudian...

Ha ha.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Earlier in this thread someone said you can FOIA this kind of thing. That's the made for TV fiction about how this is supposed to work. As I pointed out earlier, they are often hard to get, meaning the responsible agency does not obey the law.

It is a common tactic: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6274&context=law_lawreview

The three officers have been suspended. Hopefully qualified immunity is stripped from them.

Three Arkansas officers suspended after video of violent arrest goes viral - SRN News

(Reuters) – Three Arkansas law enforcement officers have been suspended after a video circulated widely online over the weekend showing them punching and kicking a suspect while he was on the ground outside a convenience store. The Crawford County Sheriff’s Office suspended two deputies while...

www.srnnews.com

Qualified Immunity isn't "stripped" from anyone and is not what people tend to think it is. Qualified Immunity protects certain types of gov't officials, primarily but not exclusively law enforcement, from personal liability due to changes in case law on unsettled constitutional issues. It is Ex Post Facto for civil liability, meaning you can't he held accountable for rules that did not exist prior to your act. The courts change the rules constantly through evolving case law, and the courts frequently disagree with each other.

If they violated a right that is clearly established, then QI is never an issue. The rule they broke existed before they took the action.

Much like FOIA is not absolute. I have no legal or ethical duty to provide body worn camera footage reference an active investigation. Because that would be stupid. One of the ways confessions or witness statements are judged to be credible is they know things only someone involved or present would know. Once that information is public, you lose that ability to establish credibility.

A lot of what people complain about is against how they imagine things work vs how they actually work. Dunning-Kruger meets the outrage based attention economy locks in opinions well before facts intrude, and it's rare the facts matter after the outrage opinion is formed.

 

[jamil]

I'm sure there are innocent people being jailed but also many times more guilty are let go.
This new soft on crime approach is causing the majority of problems in our country.

I’d rather a thousand guilty men go free than punish one innocent.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Thanks for the clarification! I thought it was just a difference in terminology but that makes sense.

No problem.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I’d rather a thousand guilty men go free than punish one innocent.

1001 men are on a train coming toward your town. You can choose two options:

1) They can all live in your neighborhood.
2) You can send them all to prison for life.
3) You can send them all to certain death

You cannot divide them in any way, what you choose for one you choose for all.

You know with absolute certainty 1000 of them are violent sexual predators. 1 is completely innocent of all wrong doing.

There's no right answer, it's simply a challenge to the often quoted saw you proposed, but which results in the least evil?

 

[jamil]

Another instance of someone wanting to punish someone before there is a conviction.

I'd rather wait to see the outcome of an investigation and whatever trial might come after before I talked about something like that.

I think being suspended pending an investigation is appropriate. With pay, at least until there’s a reason to go beyond that. I think for the head-slammer, maybe before.


Edit: Correction. After BBI’s explanation, administrative leave is what I think is appropriate. Except maybe for the head slammer. **** that guy. He wasn’t causing compliance. If anything he was causing the guy to instinctively try to cover his head.

 

[jamil]

1001 men are on a train coming toward your town. You can choose two options:

1) They can all live in your neighborhood.
2) You can send them all to prison for life.
3) You can send them all to certain death

You cannot divide them in any way, what you choose for one you choose for all.

You know with absolute certainty 1000 of them are violent sexual predators. 1 is completely innocent of all wrong doing.

There's no right answer, it's simply a challenge to the often quoted saw you proposed, but which results in the least evil?

That’s not reality though.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

That’s not reality though.

Neither was your "druther".

 

[KG1]

Sorry, I don't know which question you mean. I'll be glad to answer any question.

You accuse me of being "on the attack" but then you keep using what look to me like insults. On the other hand, I came in here and basically said "what those guys did looks wrong to to me" and I've been attacked and insulted from the get-go.

My question pertains to this post that you jumped me for. Was it accurate or not? You might notice that I did not hurl insults like hand grenades or engage in any name calling.

This looks pretty much like window dressing to give the appearance of fairness. Something tells me your mind has already been made up.

 

[Epicenity]

Qualified Immunity isn't "stripped" from anyone and is not what people tend to think it is. Qualified Immunity protects certain types of gov't officials, primarily but not exclusively law enforcement, from personal liability due to changes in case law on unsettled constitutional issues. It is Ex Post Facto for civil liability, meaning you can't he held accountable for rules that did not exist prior to your act. The courts change the rules constantly through evolving case law, and the courts frequently disagree with each other.

If they violated a right that is clearly established, then QI is never an issue. The rule they broke existed before they took the action.

Much like FOIA is not absolute. I have no legal or ethical duty to provide body worn camera footage reference an active investigation. Because that would be stupid. One of the ways confessions or witness statements are judged to be credible is they know things only someone involved or present would know. Once that information is public, you lose that ability to establish credibility.

A lot of what people complain about is against how they imagine things work vs how they actually work. Dunning-Kruger meets the outrage based attention economy locks in opinions well before facts intrude, and it's rare the facts matter after the outrage opinion is formed.

Thanks for the post.

 

[Epicenity]

My question pertains to this post that you jumped me for. Was it accurate or not?

Sorry, I don't see a question there. Are you asking is my mind made up? I mean, I can clearly see him using what I believe is excessive force. Yes, I believe that he did.

 

[KLB]

Sorry, I don't see a question there. Are you asking is my mind made up? I mean, I can clearly see him using what I believe is excessive force. Yes, I believe that he did.

You are making your mind up without knowing all of what happened. How many times has there been an initial story of something that told a narrative that in time turned out to be totally false.

Michael Brown is one of the biggest. Do you still believe in the "Hands up, don't shoot" narrative?

 

[KG1]

Sorry, I don't see a question there. Are you asking is my mind made up? I mean, I can clearly see him using what I believe is excessive force. Yes, I believe that he did.

Then my post was an accurate depiction. When you responded to KLB you said "fair enough that you should have said. "If they are found guilty" My observation, was it seemed to be window dressing to give the impression of fairness because it appeared to me that your mind was already made up which you acknowledge that it was.

Again, you might notice that I didn't hurl insults like Molotov cocktails or engage in any venomous name calling which you seem to be quite proficient at.

 

[Epicenity]

Then my post was an accurate depiction. When you responded to KLB you said "fair enough that you should have said. "If they are found guilty" My observation, was it seemed to be window dressing to give the impression of fairness because it appeared to me that your mind was already made up which you acknowledge that it was.

Again, you might notice that I didn't hurl insults like Molotov cocktails or engage in any venomous name calling which you seem to be quite proficient at.

I don't think you see how hostile you sound. Not matter what I say you have an issue. I said I think he did it. If he is found guilty, he should be punished. I don't know what's wrong with that.

You seem to just want to bicker and you have been using insults. Maybe you are just not used to people calling you out. Be nicer if you don't want blowback.

 

[KG1]

I don't think you see how hostile you sound. Not matter what I say you have an issue. I said I think he did it. If he is found guilty, he should be punished. I don't know what's wrong with that.

You seem to just want to bicker and you have been using insults. Maybe you are just not used to people calling you out. Be nicer if you don't want blowback.

The same could be said about you. With that I will take my leave because the course and tone of this thread will soon garner the attention of the mods. HAGN.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

That’s not reality though.

It is illustrative, though. Let the guilty go free and they continue to victimize others, do they not?

Will you let 1k guilty go if the apprehension risks a cop or soldier?