This video shows the type of bad cop I often refer to,
ie, they allow other cops to commit illegal acts, but
do nothing to stop it. They even participate in
cover ups.
In this case a cooperative person in handcuffs is
assaulted by a cop, who threw him to the ground,
causing head & hand injuries. Not one of the many
other cops on the scene attempted to stop the
assault. Not one cop reported the assault. It only
came to light when the victim was hospitalized,
which triggered an investigation. The assailant
was put on paid vacation.
Such is very typical. It's extremely rare to see a
cop intervene when another cop goes rogue on
a civilian.
Should only criminals be allowed to break the law?
If you were allowed to break the law, you would have many advantages, over those who obey the law. For example, if guns were illegal to all law abiding citizens, the criminals would still get guns, but now they also would know that the law abiding will be an easy target, since they will obey the law and have no guns for self defense. The only people they will need to worry about, are those who will ignore the law, such as former navy seals or former police. These type of guys will have the same advantage as them, and they may even be better at the game of cops and robbers. They will not rob someone who plays by the same rules but will take advantage of their legal based advantage.
The cops and robbers both know this. If the cops are not allowed to act as dirty as the crooks, the crooks will know that and the cops will be more vulnerable. The criminals will know the length of a good cop's leash; they know the law. But if the cop was allowed off the leash; more options, the crook will not get as close when trying to do crime or create damage. For example, in many Democrat run cities, there cops must stand down for shoplifters. Is there now more or less shoplifting, once the leash was made known? This should be a teaching moment but the Left is denial.
What I would have done is make it known about the extra leash, and allow a few days of shoplifting, to make the crooks come out of the woodwork. On the third day, change the rules; release the leash, lock the doors and have a good beat down. Now with the rules ambiguous, the future crooks will not be sure what to do. We need more fakes and beat downs to keep the crooks off balance.
Like in sports, say you have a pickup game against another group of guys you just met. Say they start to cheat and even start to hurt the players on your team. Do you just take it and obey the law; game rules, or do you take your players aside and tell them to play by the same rules of the other team, to make it fair? I would play by their rules and hurt some of them even worse, until they ask everyone to play by fair rules. You cannot give crooks an inch or they will take a foot. If they cheat, you use their rules to take an inch out of their hide, then they will not push the issue; try to take the foot.
I believe in one set of rules for all, with the cheater setting the rules for all, since the cheater allow more options. This way it stays fair. Look at the crime statistic and compare the kills by the crooks versus the kills by police, The crooks are winning, big. This tells me the cops are not trying hard enough to make it fair, so the crooks can learn to play fair with safer rules.
If you use the rule of thumb of one set of rule for all, then it will be fair You first ask the crooks to play by fair rules. If they do not, then you use their rules against them, until they learn there is an easier way to be fair; lawful.
