• 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!

L.A. Wants $10k from Cop Falsely Accused of Racism

He didn't deserve to be accused of racism

He deserves a hefty fine for leaking the tape.

A fine for releasing a tape that is a public record subject to public disclosure to and for anyone that wants to hear it? This isn't a case of disclosure of classified information.
 
Body Cams!!!!
 
A fine for releasing a tape that is a public record subject to public disclosure to and for anyone that wants to hear it? This isn't a case of disclosure of classified information.

No, it wasn't. It was a case of him releasing information he wasn't authorized to release for his own personal benefit
 
No, it wasn't. It was a case of him releasing information he wasn't authorized to release for his own personal benefit

That's a curious way to phrase/view it. For his own personal benefit... exoneration. Considering that no one else was willing to help him.
 
That's a curious way to phrase/view it. For his own personal benefit... exoneration. Considering that no one else was willing to help him.

Nothing curious about it. There is no reasonable doubt that his exoneration benefited him. It sure didn't benefit me.

And not getting help from others is not an excuse to abuse his position.
 
Nothing curious about it. There is no reasonable doubt that his exoneration benefited him. It sure didn't benefit me.

And not getting help from others is not an excuse to abuse his position.
That's precisely why it's curious. Apparently, you expect a person to stand idly by and let their career, livelihood, and reputation be ruined, because... why? The "integrity" of the bigger organization? Because you didn't get some direct benefit?

I'd say you DID get a benefit (if you live in that jurisdiction). Your police force was saved an erroneous claim that could have been used by some as yet another example to justify violence against the police.

And how, exactly, did he abuse his position?
 
That's precisely why it's curious. Apparently, you expect a person to stand idly by and let their career, livelihood, and reputation be ruined, because... why? The "integrity" of the bigger organization? Because you didn't get some direct benefit?

I don't expect them to stand idly by. However, I don't expect them to break the law and abuse their position either
 
I don't expect them to stand idly by. However, I don't expect them to break the law and abuse their position either

How does one present a legit defense if they know there is solid evidence in their favor and the people who are custodians of it... and are supposedly on your side... refuse to let it become public?

To not speak up and defend oneself is the premise behind "stand idly by".
 
How does one present a legit defense if they know there is solid evidence in their favor and the people who are custodians of it... and are supposedly on your side... refuse to let it become public?

BY doing the same exact thing his accusers did....speak up

It does not give him the right to break the law and abuse his authority

To not speak up and defend oneself is the premise behind "stand idly by".

Nothing stopped him from speaking up or defending himself
 
BY doing the same exact thing his accusers did....speak up

It does not give him the right to break the law and abuse his authority



Nothing stopped him from speaking up or defending himself
He said/he said, eh?

Why do I believe that, if you were on the jury, you'd want more than just his words?
 
He said/he said, eh?

Gee, that sounds so unfair :roll:

Why do I believe that, if you were on the jury, you'd want more than just his words?

We're not talking about a court trial. If he had petitioned the court to force the release of the tapes, and the court agreed with him, I would oppose his being fined. Instead, he used his position to circumvent the law, and for that he should be fined
 
We're not talking about a court trial. If he had petitioned the court to force the release of the tapes, and the court agreed with him, I would oppose his being fined. Instead, he used his position to circumvent the law, and for that he should be fined
Actually, we are talking about a trial.

From the linked article...
The Ethics Commission met Monday and is pressuring Sgt. Parker -- who has acknowledged he gave TMZ the audio -- to admit wrongdoing by leaking a police tape. The Commissions lawyer -- who was extremely aggressive at the hearing -- tried cutting a deal ... admit guilt and pay $2,500. Otherwise, the Commission would gun for the retired cop's checkbook to the tune of $10k.

Sgt. Parker is not going to fold, so the case is headed for trial.
 
Actually, we are talking about a trial.

No, we were talking about his ability to defend his reputation. The trial isn't about his reputation, which is why you said he needed to have the tapes released
 
California, all that needs to be said.
 
No, we were talking about his ability to defend his reputation. The trial isn't about his reputation, which is why you said he needed to have the tapes released
I see.

There's always a new direction to go, isn't there? :roll:
 
Yes. That was so insightful and helpful.

If you knew anything about California it would be all you needed to know, as we see you are clueless on the topic. Did you have something to add?
 
I guess you forgot how you brought up his need to defend his reputation
That's precisely why it's curious. Apparently, you expect a person to stand idly by and let their career, livelihood, and reputation be ruined, because... why?
Don't be so blatantly dishonest. Why did you feel the need to take what I wrote out of context?

Here, let me refresh your memory and highlight the part that was clearly too inconvenient, as you never addressed either then or now...
Nothing curious about it. There is no reasonable doubt that his exoneration benefited him. It sure didn't benefit me.

And not getting help from others is not an excuse to abuse his position.
That's precisely why it's curious. Apparently, you expect a person to stand idly by and let their career, livelihood, and reputation be ruined, because... why? The "integrity" of the bigger organization? Because you didn't get some direct benefit?

I'd say you DID get a benefit (if you live in that jurisdiction). Your police force was saved an erroneous claim that could have been used by some as yet another example to justify violence against the police.

And how, exactly, did he abuse his position?
 
If you knew anything about California it would be all you needed to know, as we see you are clueless on the topic. Did you have something to add?
Are YOU from California? Have YOU ever lived there? If so, for how long and when?
 
Are YOU from California? Have YOU ever lived there? If so, for how long and when?
Not from there. Yes, lived there twice. None of your business. Clear it up for ya? I doubt it.
 
Back
Top Bottom