• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judge refuses to watch police brutality video, lets cop off

M

mtguy8787

Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
111
Reaction score
35
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Judge Finds Cop Not Guilty of Assault after Refusing to Watch Video of Assault - | Intellihub.com

Watch the video, and see what Roorda and the cop say about the suspect's behavior.

All 3 -- the judge, the cop, and Roorda, should be made an example of.

 
Time for disbarment proceeding... maybe?
 
The face isn't exactly the best place to throw a punch at someone whose ass you aren't supposed to be beating. That being said, it's clearly police brutality... Which is why he got fired.
 
Surtr said:
The face isn't exactly the best place to throw a punch at someone whose ass you aren't supposed to be beating. That being said, it's clearly police brutality... Which is why he got fired.
Click to expand...

Unions are great, until they protect criminals.
 
Surtr said:
The face isn't exactly the best place to throw a punch at someone whose ass you aren't supposed to be beating. That being said, it's clearly police brutality... Which is why he got fired.
Click to expand...

The cop tried to claim the suspect lunged at him -- he should be made an example of. Im not blaming the people who fired him -- thats not what I was saying. I was saying that cops like that deserve to be humiliated before a wide audience. People in position of authority need to be held to a higher standard, and people need to know what actually goes on in their country.

The judge refused to see the evidence and cleared the cop of charges. The fact that the cop got fired is a different issue. The cop committed assault and battery, and needs to be charged and tried fairly, not merely fired.

The union leader is also a state representative which means that such nonsense and lying from him needs to be exposed.
 
Surtr said:
Except that they didn't, as evidenced by him being fired.
Click to expand...
No, Rhoda will get the cop his job back since he wasn't convicted.
 
Which has happened. It's happening right now.

The judge refused to see the evidence and cleared the cop of charges. The fact that the cop got fired is a different issue. The cop committed assault and battery, and needs to be charged and tried fairly, not merely fired.
Click to expand...
That's what they call punching a guy in the face these days? I've done that before, and all I got was a night in jail.

The union leader is also a state representative which means that such nonsense and lying from him needs to be exposed.
Click to expand...

You mean like this?

Lord of Planar said:
No, Rhoda will get the cop his job back since he wasn't convicted.
Click to expand...
Actually yes, because he was clearly fired. Get back with me when Roorda magically succeeds. They don't have to take him back, and after seeing that video, I doubt they will.
 
St. Louis police officer found not guilty of hitting handcuffed teen : News

As I suspected, the reality is a bit more complex than the slanted OP headline. The judge didn't "refuse" to watch the video, it wasn't allowed in to evidence. Read the link to find out why.

Also, the teen was twice arrested by cops in possession of drugs and guns. In the videotaped incident in question the teen had turned a gun on the officers. But of course you don't see that part.
 

The judge wouldn't watch the video. Isn't that just special? It clearly shows the officer hit him for no reason whatsoever. The kid didn't lunge at him. No way.

As to the union fighting to get his job back? They'll probably win, and he'll have had a nice soon-to-be vacation on the taxpayers.

This points out the impunity judges have on the bench. Whatever the process is for judicial review should be initiated here. The judge should be held accountable. And responsible if this guy gets back on the force (which he will) and hurts someone else. She's incompetent.

But since I always say, "Follow the money," I'd say she's in bed with the union.

I just wish the kid would sue the former LEO civilly. He'd win.
 
Surtr said:
The face isn't exactly the best place to throw a punch at someone whose ass you aren't supposed to be beating. That being said, it's clearly police brutality... Which is why he got fired.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding me? Should all violent criminals be found not guilty if they have been fired?
 

So if there are prior crimes, that justifies assault?


The teen was not acting threateningly in anyway during the time the officer struck him. Claims of self-defense are ludicrous. Officers are only supposed to use force to subdue a threat or non-compliance. Striking the teen at a later date is not self-defense, it is nothing more than retaliation. Earlier behavior does not justify assault by the officer.

Then there is still the case of Roorda, a state representative, who thinks that video should not be used to hold officers accountable.
 
Last edited:

Yet never charged with a criminal offense? Something very wrong is going on here. It would appear that nobody cares about justice, simply playing legal games.
 
But the video never made it into evidence because the law required prosecutors to authenticate it with someone who had personal knowledge of the events. Bruce refused to testify against himself, on the same constitutional grounds as the teen.
Click to expand...

So what was wrong with the other officer present testifying? This case makes no sense at all.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Are you kidding me? Should all violent criminals be found not guilty if they have been fired?
Click to expand...

No, I'm not kidding. It's right there in black and white, he did something stupid and got punished for it. At the end of the day, all he did was punch someone in the face. I've done the same, and all I got was a night in jail. Same for a lot of people and it's "lol, he mad". A cop does it and you people break out the pitchforks and torches looking for a new witch to burn.
 

Thanks for the link and the clarification. The reality is complex—the kid, the judge, the legislator/union rep, and etc. and the ubiquitous camera catching the cop’s assault. From your link:

Prosecutors allege it shows Bruce hitting the teen unprompted. Bruce’s attorney, Joe Hogan, planned to argue it showed his client reacting in self-defense when the teen lunged at him, after earlier trying to turn a gun on Bruce’s partner, Jacob Fowler.

St. Louis police officer found not guilty of hitting handcuffed teen : News

What I see in the video (at OP’s link) is the cop “hitting the teen unprompted.” What I hear is somebody calling the kid a “mofo” and somebody laughing.

I don’t want a cop like that working in my community. Really unprofessional. I mean, the kid was handcuffed. Even if he had priors, that’s no justification for the little “tune-up.” And the cop laughed before he did it.
 
I'm going to play the devil's advocate for sec: what happened prior the video, during the arrest, etc that caused the situation to become so emotionally charged?
 
apdst said:
I'm going to play the devil's advocate for sec: what happened prior the video, during the arrest, etc that caused the situation to become so emotionally charged?
Click to expand...

Why does it matter? The guy's in handcuffs and emerging from a vehicle. Cop just wanted to get a lick in from what I saw. The grownups are supposed to have a grip.
 
nota bene said:
Why does it matter? The guy's in handcuffs and emerging from a vehicle. Cop just wanted to get a lick in from what I saw. The grownups are supposed to have a grip.
Click to expand...

It might. We don't know.
 

The crime of punching someone does not involve first holding them at gunpoint and handcuffing them - that is not simple misdemeanor assault, by any means, that is felony kidnapping while armed (try it and see for yourself). The officer did not simply do something stupid, he had a gov't vehicle, armed back-up and the legal right to kill the "armed suspect" that he (they?) "alleged" (yet never got charged) drew down on him/them.
 
What I saw in the first 15 seconds of the video was the guy emerging from a vehicle with his hands handcuffed behind his back. Somebody calls him a "mofo," and the cop laughs and slams into him.

Whatever happened previously, they'd just taken a ride, so the grownups should've had a chance to cool down. Hitting somebody in handcuffs is bully behavior. And unprofessional.
And all caught on camera.
 

Not exactly the same thing as a civilian altercation.

Did you handcuff the guy you punched before hitting him?

Was the penalty summary execution if he hit you BACK?

I'm betting the answer is "no" to both.
 

Well, I'm not breaking out the pitchfork, but an officer assaulting someone in custody and in handcuffs is different from one citizen punching another in the face.
 

Except you're a civilian, not a government imperial.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…