625
Great, now criminally charge him.
Asshole should be charged
Absolutely. Assault on an unarmed civilian, clear unnecessary use of force on video, over a stop for a mud flap.
Why didn’t the prosecutor charge him yet? The video isn’t enough evidence?
Presumably he was fired for forgetting to turn his camera off. Not for the action itself.
It's a PR move to try to limit fallout.
Full on criminal investigations take ages, so the firing comes now and by the time the prosecution gets round to criminal charges the police force can have distance themselves nicely in that time.
The state cops were there too and told him not to do it. I'm guessing that was also a factor.
While criminal investigation does take time, yes, that doesn't stop them from arresting people ahead of time if there's even a moderate amount of evidence. I mean, that's never stopped police from arresting "suspicious" black people (eg, someone who simply happened to be black in an area where a crime was allegedly committed by another black person; even if they look nothing alike). Police consistently treat themselves with kid gloves while treating people of colour as hyper dangerous and must be immediately arrested (or shot).
How they decide: 
Bingo, they intentionally fired him in such a way that union arbitration will get him a reinstatement where he'll get letters of recommendation and a lateral to another department.
load more comments
(1 replies)
He'll be a new hire in a neighboring County in a couple of months.
This is a resume builder for a lot of cops
Exactly, it should be fired, charged, loss of required policing license if found guilty (or if a police license board decides so, even without conviction)
Currently I'll take just fired and charged, since we don't have policing licenses as of yet.
Which is really strange because clearly they’re a liability that will attract future lawsuits and misconduct. There’s a reason hospitals don’t hire doctors and nurses who got fired from other hospitals for bad behavior. But cops don’t pay out those lawsuits.
Costs will be paid by city or county taxpayers, as the case may be. So no financial pain will ever be felt by the department that hires a shit bag like this.
It may look like you're exaggerating to the casual observer, but as an Ohioan, this exact same scenario happened in my county and the county next to me. An officer handcuffed a mentally disabled woman and drug her down the stairs by her ankles, face down, and roughed her up a bit. He was fired from the Wayne County sheriff's dept and hired onto the Holmes County sheriff's dept the next week.
good. charge his ass. police shouldn't be able to break the law and get away with it
How can you justify releasing a damn dog on someone who ain't doing shit? These kids are more often than not from questionable origin, like a racist system or family, psychopaths, not meant to be the high water mark of justice, and the people they should actually be fucking with, either slip through the nets, or are running the show. Capitalist bootlickers is all it comes down to. I couldn't imagine wanting to be a cop.
When I get pulled over now, I'm always like "damn its a kid", knowing there are zero consequences for their actions, a push from on high to make arrests in any way possible, depending on who needs to get paid that day, doesn't make me feel any better.
I got pulled over last week...for having a dealership border around the license plate. Thats it. LOL. All pretense to see if he liked my face and clothes. I don't think police should be interacting with citizens in this manner, let alone releasing fkn dogs on unarmed people.
Apparently, from another article, it's policy
For context, this city is well outside Columbus and what you'd consider ruralish trashyish
Basically once you get an hour outside the big cities in Ohio it's not much different from the south
Well it's depressing that that's the explanation.
I will never understand why the US government is happy for large sections of its country to essentially operate as if it's the 18th century. It is like someone went back in time and gave them all tractors, and coke (both types) but otherwise they're just carrying on as per.
load more comments
(1 replies)
The moment a government agent chooses to violate someone's rights, they should be assumed to have resigned their position effective instantaneously.
Their actions from that point on are those of a private individual. Their previous status as a servant of the public is no matter; they abandoned that status the moment they forswore their oath of office.
A private individual commanded a dog to attack a harmless member of the public; and the dog obeyed that command and attacked that person.
The private individual is to be charged with a felony, and the dog is to be put down as a danger to humankind.
You had me right up until putting the dog down. I get what you're going for, but the dog was doing exactly what it was trained to do. That in of itself may be a problem, but putting the dog down only serves to add a level of moral and emotional ambiguity in most people's minds. In reality 100% of the blame, culpability, and punishment should land squarely on the officer.
You're right.
To the point the person you're responding to is trying to get at though -- the whole idea of a "police dog" is fucking insane in the first place.
The things police dogs are used for are things police shouldn't be doing, or are complete bullshit. "drug sniffing" is nonsense. Chasing down and attacking people is cruel on any level, either to the person being attacked, or it's cruelty in sending a dog to attack someone armed with various weapons. Either way, the dog shouldn't be part of the situation in the first place.
I'm not sure I completely agree that dogs have no place in law enforcement. I can give a few examples:
-
Cadaver dogs and tracking hounds are an important part of criminal investigations at times.
-
Bomb sniffing dogs are definitely an important line of defense.
-
I think there is also an argument to be made that dogs are extremely useful in specific kinds of tactical situations which I would agree should be restricted to highly specialized and well trained police units.
Where we agree is that the prevelance of K9 units that are used to give false positives that lead to drug arrests, or the gratuitous use of K9 units in normal arrests is not acceptable or warranted. It is also shown to be abused time and time again. But again, I think there is more nuance to the issue which is difficult to account for during the justifiably negative emotional response people are having to this case, and the discussion needs to be had.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Yes, the person should be charged with a crime for what he did, but the dog was just following its training as a police dog. They're supposed to do what the handler tells them to do. It's not the dogs fault; it did exactly what it was supposed to do had the situation called for the dog to attack.
load more comments
(6 replies)
The fuck? I was good with everything until the end.
load more comments
(22 replies)
Now arrest them.
I like how this is considered politics and not crime.
A few days ago when this popped up, I saw a bunch of comments saying how everyone bets he gets a paid suspension at worst. I'm aware that officers are practically immune from the terrible things they do on the clock. I am at least glad all the commenters that thought no justice at all would happen were wrong.
The real question is does he lose his pension?
The tax payers demand to know.
Generally you do lose pension when fired from a police department.
The whole thing is fucking deplorable
For example: these cops are still employed by police system nearby: https://www.mahoningmatters.com/news/local/article261244587.html
load more comments
(2 replies)
Not good enough, not even close.
That's rare.
Not really... cops get fired all the time and then hired again at different places with no issues.
Firing is not enough. These officers can still get employed by other police departments.
But because we have an intentionally broken system, that officer will wait a couple months, move two counties to the left and be rehired on another force (and likely promoted).
From cannon? No? Maybe some criminal charges then at least? No?
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 28 Jul 2023
625 points (93.8% liked)
politics
19136 readers
3729 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS