So, what IS a reliable basis of evaluating the conduct of police?
Originally Posted by ExNYer
You will not like my answer,
..... but it depends on what and where is the "conduct' being evaluated.
For instance: How much of the "Rodney King" tape did you see, if any?
The media showed about 18 seconds .. over and over again.
Using that as an example, ...
.......just look at what you concluded from the article (I "assume") and then read these passages from the article:
"But
one senior police official who has trained police recruits in defensive tactics had a different take.
"When I first heard it, I was like, 'C'mon,'" he said. "Then I thought it through.
We don't know what occurred. We don't know what information they had at that time. If you don't have all of the facts, it's hard to judge someone. … Anyone can be dangerous."
Sharon Mangerson, 74, doesn't see her stepfather as dangerous.
Wrana and Mangerson's mother, Helen, were married for more than 30 years. Helen died in 2005. So Wrana lived with Mangerson in the south suburbs until his health — and her health — began to fail.
She said he was a fiercely independent member of the greatest generation, honorably discharged as a sergeant after serving in India and Burma during the war.
"He was a very vital 95-year-old, let me tell you. He still played cards. He taught the 70-year-olds how to play gin rummy," she said in an interview. "I used to admire him so much because he was able to keep doing those type of things. As independent as they come, trust me."
Look at the photo of him sitting at the table ...look at his hands ... those are not "
feeble" hands.
I with the "
senior police official who has trained police recruits in defensive tactics"
... not someone who wants to make a point, sue the business or the cops, or defend the staff ...
Who made the call ... what did the caller say ... how did the caller describe what was happening ... My only point:
"If you don't have all of the facts, it's hard to judge someone."
It really makes threads boring and less "inciteful" ... and with respect to LE bashing ... not as much fun...
There's the "other side of this story" ... the "what if" side ... had the officers not responded or left the staff to deal with him and a staff member or another "guest" at the facility was seriously injured or worse by the "very vital" man.
Back to Rodney King ...
I've seen the WHOLE film ... the judicial system played out the results and I accept that solution, even when flawed. The officer who should have been punished summarily was the female highway patrol officer who had him in custody (in cuffs) and cut him loose when ordered by the "senior" officer present from another department to "hand him over to them." She should have been fired and sued for what it would be worth. Another issue was that at the time California has a statute that prohibited the use of "pepper spray" because it "contaminated the atmosphere" .. (air quality control) .. there are always issues not "covered" by the media .. the "back story"!
