Unless that cop is fired, he will be out and about. Sorry, but what he did was cowardly and dangerous. Just think what he might have done if there were not other cops around. Or if that kid had looked like he was going to defend himself.
So what you are saying is that the cop should be fired because of hypothetical things he may do in the future? By the same logic, he was perfectly entitled to punch the kids because as black inner-city youth, they're going to grow up to be criminals anyway even if in this particular case they may have been innocent.
Now, one minor note. Watching the video, there were three officers trying to get control of the kid. Usually when three officers are involved at the same time, the kid is putting up a fight.
We already know that blacks are magical. He may have started making with the magic.
I don't know. The fat cop in the middle pulls out the cuffs in the beginning, and it looks like he has at least one hand cuffed at the time when the plainclothes cop starts punching.
Or there had not been a lawyer with a video camera in the audience
your analogy fails on so many levels it is ridiculous, but the most glaringly obvious one is that under no circumstances ever does a cop have the right to punch people on the street, even if they have already actually committed a crime.
He should be fired because he punched a handcuffed suspect. I have no idea what bizarre leaps of "reason" led you to that straw man.
Why one earth would you assume this police officer will learn not to do "that shit again"? FFS, he didn't forget to add a constant to the solution to an indefinite integral - he punched a handcuffed and subdued suspect.
How do you know he won't learn? One fleeting misjudgment that hardly hurt the kid, should not ruin the guy's life. Demanding him to be fired on the spot in light of current information is an overreaction. If it turns out that he has a past record of similar incidents, then I would agree with you, but no need to crucify the guy until we know more.
I don't know he won't learn just like you don't know he will learn. But, given what he did, I don't think he deserves another chance.
Three observations. First, what he did was obviously and fundamentally wrong - it was not an addition error in accounting. Second, are you saying your tune would be different if he had really hurt the kid? Third, losing his job should not ruin his life. In fact, if it does, then he really was in the wrong profession.
That is your opinion. Just like my opinion is that your defense of this guy is repugnant.
Third point conceded. Getting fired is not the end of the world.
Actually the consequences are irrelevant.
Of course, in the former, only one law is broken, while in the 2nd, two laws are violated.
This is real police brutality. Are you under the impression it was imagined?
Not it is not comparable to an accounting error. Not only could the officer have intentionally inflicted grave bodily injury, he literally broke the law.
Exactly. The law recognizes that simply running a red light is not a crime equal to those of worst possible consequences. The law also recognizes murder and attempted murder as two different crimes, the latter of which has more lenient punishment and higher possibility of parole.
An ineffectual punch that might not even leave a mark is of considerably lesser degree of brutality than, say, a choke hold. All I'm saying is that things should be put in perspective, and the fact that there was no real harm done is a mitigating factor in deciding what should happen to the cop.
Which law exactly? Cops have to make judgment calls about how much force is necessary, and while he may have broken the code of conduct I'm not sure any law was broken because there was no actual harm done to the victim. And even in worse case, how much bodily damage could a single punch through a thick winter jacket have caused anyway?
You missed the point. Your example included two violations not one.
It is still real police brutality.
There is real harm here. The kid was punched by an officer of the law with the authority of the state. It sends a clear message to all concerned that police can assault suspects.
Jesus Christ. The police officer assaulted the kid. If the roles were reversed, that kid would be facing hard time.
Jesus Christ. Punching someone is against the law in most localities, regardless of the harm. And the kid was handcuffed. The only "judgment" call this police officer needed to make was to not assault the kid. And he failed, miserably.
Depending on the puncher and the victim, a whole lot. Not that it matters one iota in this case.
They are two violations because the consequences matter. Otherwise, why not just have a single law against running a red light and set the punishment to match the worst possible consequences, as you seem to be suggesting should be done?
No, not doing anything would send that message. Investigating any case and determining level of disciplinary action required based on circumstances is exactly what law enforcement agencies should do.
I doubt it. Less than 5% of resisting arrest cases end up in conviction, and that would be if he had been charged in the first place.
He did fail miserably, but fortunately there was no harm done. Also, based on the video it looks like the kid was not in cuffs when the punches were thrown.
Consequences do matter. Consider two possible assaults:
I am not suggesting none of that. The consequences in this case do matter IMO. The breach of public trust is serious enough for this officer to lose his job. You do realize that firing this man is not a criminal matter.
What do you think this outcome of this investigation is going to change?
Punching a police officer is not resisting arrest, it is assault. And if that kid had punched that police officer in the presence of other cops, he would be lucky to be alive today.
There was harm done - the police assaulted a suspect in custody, regardless of your biased portrayals.
There is no relevance to your ridiculous examples. The consequences in this situation do not matter in regards on whether this police officer should keep his job or not. We are not talking about criminal cases but abuses of the public trust.
