f13.net

This current suit that was decided recently spawned my question:

Fired Cops receive big cash for discrimination suit (http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/19/fired.officer.ap/index.html)

In essence, these cops were caught on video punching a black handcuffed suspect after a long car chase. I believe he was punched once, and the cops claim it was because the suspect, "grabbed his testicles" although that was not evident on the video. The cops were summarily dismissed. Now, they have been awarded $1.6M because they were fired by a black chief supposedly over their race. I would have to assume that if they were black cops they wouldn't have been fired.

The details of the case are vague within the article, but the question remains: do these men have a point about how the media portrays white police officers? Granted the actions of punching a suspect in cuffs are unacceptable, but are they worthy of firing a long standing veteran over? Were they just sacfricial lambs of the media outcry against police violence? If so, would them being black have made a bit of difference to you if you are on the jury?

Yes.
No.
Yes.
Which Jury ?


(And this is probably going to get booted to politics, at which point Schild will realise that he personally doesn't care and locks it.  :D  )

I assume he means the jury that awarded the settlement.  

From my understanding it was a he said/he said case.  Where the guy in cuffs said he didn't do anything, but the cops say he did.  Lack of proof either way brings any judgement into doubt.

Yes they have a reason to be pissed.
Worth of a firing... probably not.
Yes they were lambs to the slaughter.
And I honestly don't know.  I would like to think that their skin color wouldn't have mattered, but until you are faced with it for real...

Just FYI, if he sued under Title VII, which is likely, he won't receive even close to that (probably hit the 300k damage cap) plus fees.

This has nothing to do with politics. Politics and justice aren't the same thing in my book.

If it's about race, it's about politics. I'll let this one ride only because it hasn't gotten stupid yet.

It's early.

Although I understand the frustration and andrenaline overload that cops must go through when they have to physically restrain a suspect, this kind of thing is unacceptable regardless of race. It may get more media attention because it is a white on black crime, but it isn't any more or less wrong because of the skin color of the participants.

Yes, but unless the officers had a history of beating "suspects" they shouldn't have been fired for this. Besides, if he was resisting arrest (which is seems pretty clear that he was) I believe the cops are in their right to protect themselves and subdue the "suspect". Obviously you can't shoot the guy, but a punch isn't exactly a beating.

The skin color of the parciticipants is the ONLY reason this got any kind of media coverage. Because otherwise, it's just business as usual. Suspects get a little manhandled all the time, but until someone files a complaint, it generally means jack and shit. If I remember the video I saw of it, it was an excessive punch, but probably not worth a firing unless there had been a previous pattern of said jackassery.

What do you expect the suspect to say? Yeah, I grabbed his junk and probably deserved a crack across the skull? Again, without race being brought into it, it's just a case of excessive force on the part of a policeman. And I would think that 9 times out of 10, the suspect's race will have nothing to do with how bad his treatment is; the suspect's actions WILL have an effect on whether he gets slapped across the mouth or has his ass beaten red.

Agreed, if the suspect isn't already in custody. Howver this-



is what makes it criminal in my eyes. A handcuffed suspect is no longer a physical threat, and should be catching a beating while helpless (regardless of how richly he deserves it ).

From what I recall this wasn't your average stop gone awry. The reason there were cameras everywhere is because the suspect went on a high speed rampage through Inglewood. Now, if I'm in the cop car chasing anyone at 100+ mph, I'm not nearly as relaxed as I would be on a normal drive to the office. Not to mention the fact this suspect almost killed several people along the way. Methinks I'd want to take a crack at this dumbass if he even puts up a little fight once I get him.

Too bad that what you want to do and what you can do are two different things.

Besides, excessive force is evaluated case-by-case.  If a cop was to say, "Yeah, I was so pissed off at this guy during the whole chase, I decided to smack him a few when I caught him," odds are that would be excessive force.  If he had to make a split-second decision, and was wrong in his use of force, yeah maybe...but shit...sometimes excessive force is as simple as refusing to loosen tight handcuffs, causing some damage to the suspect.

Just sayin.

Excessive force to me is beating, not just punching while resisting, but actually beating the person in shackles. Rodney King is a great example. There is a point where the subject is subdued, and beyond that point you have to stop. However, just because the handcuffs are on, that doesn't mean you've hit that point of being subdued. Sometimes you have to get the full-on leg irons hog-tying job done. That means you may have to whack a guy a few times to get him to stop wriggling. Watch an episode of Cops to see this in action.

And you are correct, just because I want to whack the guy doesn't mean I can, but I'm an accountant. Were I a cop I might feel differently, or I might have learned more control. Then again, maybe they might have less after that much time on the job.

Short synopsis of the video in question, from my deteriorating memory:

Cops have the perp on the hood of the squad car. Morse (the punching cop) is standing behind and to the right of the perp and is in the process of cuffing him. The perp grins and slowly turns his head to face Morse, at which point Morse slugs him dead in the face. That was the only blow struck, to my recollection.

You can't see any "grabbing" action but it looks like the perp faced Morse for a reason.

I am in no way excusing his actions, but many people have not seen the video and are somehow equating it to a Rodney King-style multiple-officer beatdown, which is inaccurate.

Right.  But in a legal sense, excessive force doesn't have to involve beating.  It's handled case-by-case.  I'd argue that what the officer did was excessive, especially if I was a  plaintiff's attorney in that city.

That's what unacceptable means.  There is a standard of conduct, and his boss believes he failed to meet that standard.  I don't understand why people think a cop getting fired is such a terrible apocalyptic thing.  People get fired every day for doing stupid stuff.  Pinch the delivery woman's ass?  Fired.  Take the company car out for a joyride?  Fired.  Beat the crap out of someone in handcuffs?  Fired.  Look at it this way. . if he wasn't a cop, he'd be in jail.  I'd say unemployment looks mighty fine compared to that.



True, but that's called an excuse, not a justification.  Maybe he was having a bad day.  Maybe he just found his wife sleeping with someone else.  It doesn't matter.  Those are excuses.  He either lived up the standard of conduct of his profession or he didn't.  His boss thought he didn't.

How about the fact that my delivery man doesn't get shot at protecting my ass while I sleep. I cut a lot of people some slack if they are taking a pretty dangerous and thankless job for the good of society. If you don't get that then the argument as a whole is lost on you.

The fucktard resisted arrest and got poped for it. This is a bad thing?

Try that again, but with the testosterone at about an 8 this time.

(Very) generally, your boss can fire you for any reason at all (if you don't have a contract) or any good reason (if you do).  One of the few things your boss cannot do is fire you because of your race.  Apparantly (not having seen the papers), this jury concluded that these guys were fired because of their race, and that officers of a different race would not have been fired for doing the same thing, which you can't do.  I don't think they held "you can't fire cops for doing what these guys did."  They more likely held "when you said the only reason these guys got fired is what they did, you were lying, because you fired them at least in part because of their race."  Whether or not what they did to the suspect was kosher does not have much to do with whether the firing was legal under the antidiscrimination laws.

I don't know what the evidence was, so I can't give an opinion on whether the verdict was one I agree with or not.  Rarely does someone write or blurt out that they fired someone because of their race.  These cases are often made by showing other, indirect evidence of discriminatory animus or by comparing the treatment these guys got with the treatment of other officers of different races (e.g. if this was the 10th time something like this happened, and the first 9 times the officers were black and the chief gave them a 30 day suspension, and this time the officers were white and they got fired, that could support an inference that race was the real motive).

I've actually been sort of a cop (SP Augmentee duty in the Air Force, they gave me a gun, but I only got to carry the bullet on special occasions).  Cops tend to run a little high on the testosterone levels, and a lot of times a mouthy suspect/detainee/whatever will accidentally run into a wall or two on his way to lockup.  And cops do cover for cops out of reflex, even as just an augmentee (which meant I was a cop about half the time), I couldn't get a speeding ticket on base, or likely get officially reported for any incident that didnt involve an officer or a serious violation of the UCMJ.

These guys didn't do anything that doesn't happen every day in every large city in the country, they just did it in front of a camera.  And like El Gallo pointed out, the significant question at hand was: If all other circumstances were identical, but the officers or suspect had been a different race, would they have gotten fired?  Apparently the jury felt the answer was "No".

--Dave

I agree.
To be clear, it's entirely possible that race was a factor in the firing, and if so then those legal wheels should grind as necessary.  I am not disagreeing with the jury's decision. . I don't know enough about it to know one way or the other.  I'm disagreeing with the reasoning that says that even if race wasn't a factor, the firing was inappropriate.

So, in other words: if the firing was appropriate, then race wasn't an issue. The jury thought otherwise. Just sayin'.

These cases get all wrapped up in discriminatory motive, mixed motive, pretext, burden shifting, etc. etc. They are quite complex.

You need to throw in prima facia case and shifting burdens of proof to sufficiently confuse the masses.

I got shifting burdens in there. :)

The special verdict forms in Title VII cases using the McDonell-Douglas framework are a nightmare. It's amazing when they come up with a verdict at all.

Personally I think police shouls be cut a little more slack than they do when stuff like this comes to light. They slogged him one? Yeah well, too bad for him. He broke the law so he gets less sympathy for what he got as an indirect result. If every suspect caught in the act got a punch at arrest ot really wouldn't bother me. A much worse crime would be prosecuting police officers over petty matters like a little punch. Hang the dirty cops that take bribes, etc. but if they wanna get a little rough with crims it's beter than having less police on the streets. This shouldn't be extended to people they just think are guilty though, they have to catch the person in the act. They should be fined and otherwise reprimanded to deter it, just not keel-hauled by the media and stood down over it.

Also, if a person points a gun at an officer, there should never be a question if that person gets shot to death. Same goes for close-range weapons once they get close enough to be a threat. I don't see how people can even question someone's motive when they drop a threatening person. I'd hold the lives of police over any crazy weilding a weapon any day. Maybe I'm just crazy, but it seems logical to me.

Over here there was a crazy frenchman who got shot when he got too close to officer's while weilding a knife. There was an inquiry over the matter and the 2 officer's stood down because they couldn't take all the shit they were copping. That's just stupid.



Have I made it sufficiently political yet?

In today's world where political correctness is more important than justice I'd say that most likely these white cops were made examples of.

If it had been a black cop and he hit a white man nothing much would have happened. Everyone knows white people are the great oppressors so of course these guys took a fall.

Was hitting the subject right or wrong? Probably wrong, though, like others, when you're a criminal I don't much care what happens to you.

Pardon me I didn't mean to offend your delicate sensibilities. I'm pretty sure the people that were nearly killed by this assclown would rather you just thanked the cops instead of villifying them.

I'm sure they would - but that misses the point entirely.

Which is to do with Justice, by the way.

This thread is going places.  If they decide to let Bruce back, I can only hope he'll jump in.

I don't think that it's fair to make the firing into a racial issue. The media coverage and whatnot would be partly because of race, partly because they had actual footage. However the firings would have happened regardless of race due to the publicity. We all know the media is sensationalist, tasteless, and parasitical. I think the real issues here are:

1) Should they be fired for hitting a crim they just caught?
2) Should they have been compensated?
3) Should something be considered a racial issue if the act is fireable anyway?

Yes it was a white cop caught hitting a black crim, and thus the media creams ther collective pants and shoves it in the public's faces. But that doesn't change the fact that they were fired for something they are told never to do, and to avoid a scandal (regardless of what the scandal was).

You didn't really offend anything. I was trying to point out, albeit in a snarky fashion, that you could attempt to come in here and try to discuss things rationally instead of blurting out the first rage filled thing that comes into your head.   You know, actually look at the issue and contribute instead of just spouting something that really only really fits if this was the vault and the original discussion was about nerfing paladins.

Just trying to help. :) (see, smiley, peace offering!)

The problem is that ALL the suspects they catch are assumed innocent until proven guilty, including the assclowns they find standing over a dead body with the murder weapon in their hand screaming "I kilt him, yes I did!" It's what keeps the cops from acting as judge, jury and executioner. Their philosophical role is protect and serve, not judge and punish. Again, in this case, I don't think the cop's actions clearly warrant his firing, but they most certainly do warrant punishment.

However, the media cannot be kept from turning this into what they have, simply because they have been left up to their own discretion in order to ensure that the media is not just a governmental mouthpiece. Unfortunately, the media has shown itself incapable of proper ethical restraint where profit motives are involved.

And I have no disagreement with them being punished for assaulting a suspect. Suspensions, fines, and therapy (which is punishment most of the time) are all a good thing to both discourage assault and to show the community that you don't condone it. The firings go too far for a simple hit though.

My spiel about not caring about crims being hit was a personal reaction thing, not something I'd apply when deciding official punishments. Legally they have to be assumed guilty, but on a personal level it doesn't change my reaction to the events.

Sorry I dont meant to get hacked about stuff like this but damn. I mean there is no doubt about what the guy did. He was placed under arrest and none of this would have happened if he didnt decide to be billy badass and assault a cop. At that point  he was resisting arrest and IMHO was handled apropriately. He assaulted a cop and was subdued. End of story.. not quite. See in Ga we have black cheifs of police who are the man now and have been getting caught doing this exact type of thing. Hell it was just in the news.
Did the guy grab the cops junk? Probably though it cant be seen on the tape but his actions lead one to belive the cops story. Sorry I just think the cop showed a huge amout of restraint. Some chucklehead grabs my balls and goes to squeezing hes goin to the hospital.

Would you believe my friends consider me a liberal?

While my first response was a bit virulent here is my more rational response. My thinking on this boils down to two things.

The man was a legitimate criminal. He endangered civilians and police both. from the tape I'm inclined to think he did do somethnig to the cop and that look was a sort of "what are you gonna do?". The cop hit him.

Was it wrong? Yes.

Do I blame the cop or have any sympathy for the criminal? No

Should the cop have been punished in some manner? Yes

Now..about the racial aspect.

I don't know if the cop's firing was racially motivated or not. However, I have two things to say about it.

One, I think it's a good possibility that it was. IF for no other reason than to avoid the image of white police beating up black men.  

Two, I think it is about time that people realize that racism isn't only a white person's disease. It goes all different ways. For a good example look at Spike Lee, he's one of the most racist people I've ever seen, he's so bad that I can't watch his movies.

Chris Rock is another who has taken a racist turn lately. Watch his latest comedy special. Every single joke in some way relates to how bad white people are.

All I'm saying is we need to keep an open mind and realize that it happens. I personally don't consider myself a racist or bigotted in any way (Hell I think gay marriage would be ok) but I do recognize that there are issues out there.

Just for reference, we're talking about this (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/07/17/inglewood.indictment/) case.  No car chase involved, if that makes a difference.

I found this fascinating:



So basically, a fugitive from the law recorded this incident? Boy, I bet he was unbiased..

How does a cameraman show bias in filiming an event?

He can be the biggest criminal in the history of the world but he can't make a cop hit a criminal by filming it.

Easy. He only records what makes the cops look bad. Doesn't take much skill.

"Ok, he's hitting them, makig them mad, resisting arrest. Ok, they got him cuffed and look mad.." *turns on the camera*

You've taken this from a bad place to a bad place with hats you can wrap your leftovers in.  



If you have to come out and actually say this, you may have issues.

It's not tinfoil hattery to suspect that a fugitive from the law may not be vested in potraying police in the best light.



On this forum, it's called preemptive denial. Heh. I figured someone would eventually try to paint me so figured I'd get it out of the way. At worst I may be in need of "unbunching" much like someone told Schild in the politics forum.