Police Retribution

[MrFun]

So vigilantinism is legally permissible in United States? I learn something new everyday.

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by Winston
Hey, they had to do it. When was the last time you heard of a judge strangling the defendant?

One of my great grandfathers, on a district court here, had to chase one out of his chambers with his slami knife. A priest convicted on a morals charge, came in before his sentencing hearing with a moster size parishoner and tried to imttimidate the old frail looking judge. He ran them both out of the courthouse himself. The local newspaper, desmonstrating a level of jounalism appropriate to the the current age rather than that one had the headlin "Judge McCrory Chases Priest with Knife".

[Ecthy]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
They didn't tase him, bro.

Fixed.

[DanS]

Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola
The local newspaper, desmonstrating a level of jounalism appropriate to the the current age rather than that one had the headlin "Judge McCrory Chases Priest with Knife".

[Felch]

Originally posted by DanS
Also, I would be interested in hearing a defense of the police retribution, if anybody here would like to defend it.

Under other circumstances, I might be more inclined to favor the police. However, I heard that the officer who died, had died after shooting at and missing the suspect. So he already had a chance to kill him, and failed. No need for for this retribution.

That's my take on it. If this had been some instance where a cop was bushwacked, and his buddies were taking matters into their own hands, it would be different.

[TheStinger]

Re: Police Retribution

Originally posted by DanS
A man in the Prince George's County suburb of Washington allegedly purposely ran over a police officer, killing him. The suspect was brought into custody and put in solitary confinement. That night, the suspect died, and it was initially reported the next day that no foul play was suspected. However, later that day, the coroner ruled it a homicide by strangling.

This case has exploded on the local scene in just two days. Definitely a front page lead headline story that no doubt will be national news.

What do you think about this police retribution?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...001156_pf.html

Well if you believe in police retribution then you don't believe in the rule of law and hence civilisation

[Felch]

Re: Re: Police Retribution

Originally posted by TheStinger
Well if you believe in police retribution then you don't believe in the rule of law and hence civilisation

I personally don't believe in law as an absolute. The law is a practical tool for achieving justice. The vast majority of the time it works. However, sometimes it doesn't work, and those times individuals need to step up and take matters into their own hands.

This just isn't one of those times.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by DanS


I think more can be said, without excusing the action. One of my bosses (an old public defender) said "usually they would shoot the guy dead in the act of apprehending him." My secretary said something to the effect of "if you kill a cop, expect his friends to respond likewise."

Also, I would be interested in hearing a defense of the police retribution, if anybody here would like to defend it.

The action may be understandable, but not right. I just don't think there is much to say about this except that it's wrong - this is not how we want our cops doing their jobs. I understand their anger, but I want our professional officers of the law to be able to restrain that anger and do their jobs properly.

-Arrian

[Lorizael]

Re: Re: Re: Police Retribution

Originally posted by Felch
I personally don't believe in law as an absolute. The law is a practical tool for achieving justice. The vast majority of the time it works. However, sometimes it doesn't work, and those times individuals need to step up and take matters into their own hands.

This just isn't one of those times.

If you want to break a law that exists in every country on Earth, you're perfectly free to. Just go to Mars first.

[Donegeal]

Hi all! What a suprize, me posting here?

At this point, there is nothing to defend as everything so far is speculation.

Could it have been the guards? Yes.

Could it have been the supervisiors? Yes.

(and here is the key that makes all this talk of police retribution mearly speculation)
Could it have been suicide? Yes.

The article clearly stated that suicide could not be ruled out. Because of this, with the infomation so far provided, I don't see how any criminal charges could be brought down on any of the guards except for negligence in duty (but that is more of a departmental policy rather than criminal issue... I think). This does not, in any way, clear the county of responsibilty in the mans death. He was in custody, and it was the county's reponsibility to keep the man alive. They quite obviously failed in that regard. I fully expect a civil suit in the millions.

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by Donegeal
Hi all! What a suprize, me posting here?

At this point, there is nothing to defend as everything so far is speculation.

Could it have been the guards? Yes.

Could it have been the supervisiors? Yes.

(and here is the key that makes all this talk of police retribution mearly speculation)
Could it have been suicide? Yes.

Or is it the mild manored janitor

[Felch]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Police Retribution

Originally posted by Lorizael
If you want to break a law that exists in every country on Earth, you're perfectly free to. Just go to Mars first.

I didn't say that.

I just think that the law is nothing special. It's made by a bunch of corrupt, bought and paid for politicians in Annapolis. If they write the laws badly, **** 'em. I'd rather a just society than a law-abiding society.

In this case however, the law wasn't even given a chance. This isn't one of those justifiable incidents.

[Felch]

Originally posted by TheStinger
Or is it the mild manored janitor

NO!

Hong Kong Phooey!

[Lorizael]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Police Retribution

Originally posted by Felch
I'd rather a just society than a law-abiding society.

That's nice, but unless you can come up with an internally consistent argument for the concept of justice without the initial premise of law, what you think doesn't really matter. (You may be able to do this, btw, but I doubt you can do it without some pretty major threadjacking.)

[Felch]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Police Retribution

Originally posted by Lorizael
That's nice, but unless you can come up with an internally consistent argument for the concept of justice without the initial premise of law, what you think doesn't really matter. (You may be able to do this, btw, but I doubt you can do it without some pretty major threadjacking.)

I don't see why you so closely tie the two together. It's certainly not something that people have always done throughout history.

Easy, quick example - Jim Crow. There were laws on the books that were unjust. The laws are written by democratically elected legislatures, but they did not serve the purpose of creating a just society.

Justice is a fundamental right of all people. The law is an attempt at providing justice to the people. Our modern legal system is very good at that, but it isn't perfect.

It's similar to how democracy is a means of providing people with the benefits of a good government (accountability, consultation, etc.), but is itself not sufficient. Just as a poorly informed population might be led by a demagogue into bad government democratically, so can a poorly designed legal system deny the people the justice they deserve, by allowing guilty parties to go free on technicalities.