Another example of poor police training

[Shad]

These people were detained for shoplifting. Though I am not certain if more was stolen, the 4 year old girl did steal a barbie doll. This was the police response.

There is a prior history between him and the cops. He is awaiting trial for assaulting two officers after a car accident. He has a drug conviction Also a DUI. I am pretty sure the assault charges motivated how the cops acted.

 

[Curious George]

There is a prior history between him and the cops. He is awaiting trial for assaulting two officers after a car accident. He has a drug charge or two. Also a DUI. I am pretty sure the assault charges are a motivate for how the cops acted.

If the cops treat him like this, then i am not surprised to find out that he has assaulted them in the past. Previous charges do not entitle the police to behave as seen in the video.

 

[Shad]

If the cops treat him like this, then i am not surprised to find out that he has assaulted them in the past.

The charges were from last year prior to this incident. Are you equally not surprised cops acted harshly to someone facing trial for assaulting cops?

Wishy-washy standard.

Previous charges do not entitle the police to behave as seen in the video.

This is troublesome as you dismiss the previous cases for the cops but are not surprised via your mischaracterization (fiction) for the suspect's acts. You are assuming a lot about the suspect without evidence.

 

[Curious George]

The charges were from last year prior to this incident. Are you equally not surprised cops acted harshly to someone facing trial for assaulting cops?

Wishy-washy standard.



This is troublesome as you dismiss the previous cases for the cops but are not surprised via your mischaracterization (fiction) for the suspect's acts. You are assuming a lot about the suspect without evidence.

I do not have a standard of expected behavior for criminals. I do have standards and expectations of professionals we empower.

 

[Shad]

I do not have a standard of expected behavior for criminals. I do have standards and expectations of professionals we empower.

Nope. You have a double-standard in which previous action can not be used to determine a threat level by cops while previous acts can be used by the suspect.

You skipped over your distortion.

 

[Curious George]

Nope. You have a double-standard in which previous action can not be used to determine a threat level by cops while previous acts can be used by the suspect.

Not at all. I have expectations for professionals we empower and am not surprised to find out that a criminal acted criminally toward police officers who seem to have be poorly trained.

 

[Shad]

Not at all. I have expectations for professionals we empower and am not surprised to find out that a criminal acted criminally toward police officers who seem to have be poorly trained.

He was not convicted. You are changing your tune ad hoc. Before you thought the suspects acts were due to mistreatment by the cops. Now you are calling it the response of a criminal. Pick one.

 

[Curious George]

He was not convicted. You are changing your tune ad hoc. Before you thought the suspects acts were due to mistreatment by the cops. Now you are calling it the response of a criminal. Pick one.

It is both. The point was that you are comparing apples to oranges. I said "If the cops treat him like this, then i am not surprised to find out that he has assaulted them in the past." That means that if the cops behave as they did here, (with poor training), i would not be surprised to find out he assaulted them in the past. However, he is a criminal. He did break the law in this instance and you explained he broke the law previously as well (or at least that is what I took your assertion to mean). So yes I view them differently. Just as I view an employee and a customer differently, just as i view a teacher and a student differently. That is hardly a "double standard." That is viewing them differently because they are categorically different and that difference is the reasoning for the disparity of expectations.

The gentleman arrested is not an officer. I do not expect him to behave as an officer. The officers are however expected to behave as professionals. If they cannot live with that then they should find a different job.

 

[Shad]

It is both.

Now it is ad hoc.

The point was that you are comparing apples to oranges. I said "If the cops treat him like this, then i am not surprised to find out that he has assaulted them in the past." That means that if the cops behave as they did here, (with poor training), i would not be surprised to find out he assaulted them in the past.

Which is a different motive as it is framed as mistreatment and misconduct. All based on a fiction in your head.

However, he is a criminal. He did break the law in this instance and you explained he broke the law previously as well (or at least that is what I took your assertion to mean).

The assault charge is still awaiting trial. The DUI and weed possession were the only two conviction with no major jail time (weed misdemeanor I assume)

So yes I view them differently. Just as I view an employee and a customer differently, just as i view a teacher and a student differently. That is hardly a "double standard." That is viewing them differently because they are categorically different and that difference is the reasoning for the disparity of expectations.

The double-standard is that you accepted a false motive (fiction) while rejecting previous action as a reason for escalation by the cops.

The gentleman arrested is not an officer. I do not expect him to behave as an officer. The officers are however expected to behave as professionals. If they cannot live with that then they should find a different job.

Which was based on your lack of knowledge of the background of the suspect.

Do you think cops should consider prior action when it involves violence against the cops?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have a hard time believing you cannot follow this.

You searched violent crime. Illegal threats of harm constituted violent crime. Now noting that this was not defining violent but violent crime we should be able to deduce that it is at least in theory possible to have violence without crime. So if the threat was not illegal, then it would just be violent and not a violent crime.

I also went to Black's Law Dictionary, the one that I can see, and it disagrees with you. Everything I can find disagrees with you. Can you not link one valid source that agrees with you?
And I did not search "violent crime" . I searched "legal definition of violence" . You made an improper assumption to justify your false claim of circular reasoning.

 

[Curious George]

Now it is ad hoc.



Which is a different motive as it is framed as mistreatment and misconduct. All based on a fiction in your head.

No, it was based on a conditional statement. No fiction involved.

The assault charge is still awaiting trial. The DUI and weed possession were the only two conviction with no major jail time (weed misdemeanor I assume)

Good to know

The double-standard is that you accepted a false motive (fiction) while rejecting previous action as a reason for escalation by the cops.

This doesn't even make sense.

Which was based on your lack of knowledge of the background of the suspect.

Uh, no.

Do you think cops should consider prior action when it involves violence against the cops?

Absolutely.

 

[Curious George]

I also went to Black's Law Dictionary, the one that I can see, and it disagrees with you. Everything I can find disagrees with you. Can you not link one valid source that agrees with you?
And I did not search "violent crime" . I searched "legal definition of violence" . You made an improper assumption to justify your false claim of circular reasoning.

I have you a cite. I even offered to take a picture of it and send it to you.

Yes i suppose it was slightly imprecise of me to say that you "searched violent crime." But your search results turned up definitions for violent crime. The logic still applies:

Illegal threats of harm constitute violent crime. Now, noting that this was not defining violent but violent crime, we should be able to deduce that it is at least in theory possible to have violence without crime. So if the threat was not illegal, then it would just be violent and not a violent crime.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have you a cite. I even offered to take a picture of it and send it to you.

Yes i suppose it was slightly imprecise of me to say that you "searched violent crime." But your search results turned up definitions for violent crime. The logic still applies:

Are you trying to say that you linked a site? Or are you merely claiming your definition? Go ahead and send a picture.

And no, you still fail to understand what was done. Once again definitions are determined by usage. What I did was not circular reasoning. I tried to use an unbiased search to see how the term is used in the law today and they showed violence to be an action. The one example that mentioned a threat had the qualifier that it had to be an illegal threat to qualify as violence in the eyes of the law. I more than supported my claims. No circular reasoning used.

 

[Curious George]

Are you trying to say that you linked a site? Or are you merely claiming your definition? Go ahead and send a picture.

And no, you still fail to understand what was done. Once again definitions are determined by usage. What I did was not circular reasoning. I tried to use an unbiased search to see how the term is used in the law today and they showed violence to be an action. The one example that mentioned a threat had the qualifier that it had to be an illegal threat to qualify as violence in the eyes of the law. I more than supported my claims. No circular reasoning used.

18 U.S. Code § 16 - Crime of violence defined

"an offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another"

Offense here is the crime portion that leaves the rest as definitive of "violent"

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45220.pdf

"an offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another"

Again offense relates to the crime portion the rest is defining violence.

Wikipedia:

Violence - Wikipedia

"These three broad categories are each divided further to reflect more specific types of violence:

• physical
• sexual
• psychological
• emotional"

Here again we saw violence is not just limited to crimes and we see violence includes threats.

:

You searched for violence - Free Law Dictionary

Please note in this link that you provided, the first definition is workplace violence which includes "verbal force."

It is almost as if every source you listed acknowledges violence is broader than your narrow interpretation.

And your pictures:

[GALLERY=media, 8985]20190630_142030 by Curious George posted Jun 30, 2019 at 4:23 PM[/GALLERY][GALLERY=media, 8984]20190630_142051 by Curious George posted Jun 30, 2019 at 4:23 PM[/GALLERY]

 

[Subduction Zone]

"an offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another"

Offense here is the crime portion that leaves the rest as definitive of "violent"


"an offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another"

Again offense relates to the crime portion the rest is defining violence.


"These three broad categories are each divided further to reflect more specific types of violence:

• physical
• sexual
• psychological
• emotional"

Here again we saw violence is not just limited to crimes and we see violence includes threats.

Please note in this link that you provided, the first definition is workplace violence which includes "verbal force."

It is almost as if every source you listed acknowledges violence is broader than your narrow interpretation.

And your pictures:

[GALLERY=media, 8985]20190630_142030 by Curious George posted Jun 30, 2019 at 4:23 PM[/GALLERY][GALLERY=media, 8984]20190630_142051 by Curious George posted Jun 30, 2019 at 4:23 PM[/GALLERY]

Your pictures cannot be seen. Did you limit who could see them? And the problem with all of those examples of "violence" is that they all have to be done as a crime. I already acknowledged that if it is an illegal activity that it can be defined as "violence". My main objection to that term it that it severely dilutes the term. It makes a "crime of violence" possible no more than name calling.

That was also why I used the chart that showed that they were in the green. They were at the lowest level of police force. The actions that those people took and their past record would have justified the use of OC spray. They did not because of the children. The very children that the mother tried to use as a human shield.

 

[Curious George]

Your pictures cannot be seen. Did you limit who could see them? And the problem with all of those examples of "violence" is that they all have to be done as a crime.

Yes to be a violent crime they must be a crime, but we are talking about defining violent.


I think i fixed pictures

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Her behavior does not excuse the police behavior.

That exactly. "Sinking to their level" rarely results in anything good. And two wrongs dont make something right.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

They ran from the police. One has to know what one is getting oneself into when one does that.

Exactly.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes to be a violent crime they must be a crime, but we are talking about defining violent.


I think i fixed pictures

Or rather how it is defined. It appears that by the various laws as long as the police followed protocol, and raising one's voice and telling people the consequences of their actions, appears to be within protocol.

 

[Curious George]

Or rather how it is defined. It appears that by the various laws as long as the police followed protocol, and raising one's voice and telling people the consequences of their actions, appears to be within protocol.

Yes but defining violence is less passive writing than how violence is defined. Either way, we are not defining violent crime so the illegal portion needn't be forced onto the term violent.