Police brutality never ends

Here's another crazy police brutality video:

According to the article, 6'2", 195 lb. Deputy Paul Schene had to beat the hell out of this 15-year-old girl after she kicked her shoe off at him. She was also "lippy". The poor guy even hit his shin against the toilet when he was slamming her head into a wall.

We've all seen this story before. And for all the videos we've seen, how many more are there that we haven't seen?

Via Radley Balko

Share this

been there, done that

It is difficult for some police officers who have some time on the job to remember that thanks to the techo age anything they do can end up on TV.

Does anyone out there actually believe that for the last 100, 150 years our large cities have been safe for the taxpayers because police officers were always polite and observant of constitutional rights? If so, you live in a dream world. The good citizens have never wanted to know that some people only respond to pain and as long as no one told them they could live in their dream world, paying other people to do the nasty stuff for them.

As police officers smarten up, they will realize that they have a very well paying job that the do-gooder taxpayers don't want them to do. They will get to calls, explain why they can't resolve the problem, and go back to the station and write a report explaining why they didn't do anything.

Corruption of the police force is never a virtue

@billwald, the idea that we need to give police officers free reign to break the law in order for them to enforce the law, or even merely civil order, is patently absurd on its face.

What happens in that particular situation, as we've seen from limitless examples, is that the police become corrupt, they use their power to profit themselves with the minimum amount of work on their part. Over time the only incentive to be a police officer becomes the ability to benefit from the corruption. The individuals who are legitimately self-motivated to protect society from crime become shunned by the corrupt majority, this affects their ability and motivation to be a police officer accordingly. The result to the community is higher crime.

Excessive second guessing of the actions of police officers can become a problem, but the solution to that problem is not to turn a blind eye to police brutality and illegal activities.

The individuals who are

The individuals who are legitimately self-motivated to protect society from crime become shunned by the corrupt majority, this affects their ability and motivation to be a police officer accordingly.

But then those individuals create a competing police force which promptly gains the trust and love of the population and defeats the corrupt police. Oh wait...

Police forces: the other side

Why do people never see the other side here?

The fact is that the police forces do a very important job: prevention of crime. Personally, I would much rather have the police brutalize a 100 people/yr in every major city than the current situation we have where criminals and gangs brutalize thousands of people every year in every major city.

Viewing police brutality in a vacuum is an idiotic idea and gives extremely mistaken results. The choice is not between police brutalizing more or less people. Its a choice between police brutalizing more people or common criminals brutalizing more people. At least, on average (extreme cases like the video notwithstanding), the police wish to help the general population. Criminals generally do not.

More than two sides

Why do people never see the other side here?

There are more than two sides.

The choice is not between police brutalizing more or less people. Its a choice between police brutalizing more people or common criminals brutalizing more people.

Those are not the only two choices. A third choice is an improvement in the quality of policing, which would allow, simultaneously, a reduction in criminal brutality and also a reduction in police brutality. We know this is possible, because the police in some places are better (more effective, less corrupt) than the police in other places.

Trust your local police worked for 200 years

>@billwald, the idea that we need to give police officers free reign to break the law in order for them to enforce the law, or even merely civil order, is patently absurd on its face.

This country was founded by people who wanted to be good neighbors and/or mind their own business. Those who couldn't abide the local social contract could "go west" to rape and pillage the Indian People and kill each other - the "Wild West." After Lincoln's War, the late 1800's, the western lands became allocated and fenced. The outlaws discovered that it was easier to disappear in a large eastern city than a small western town. Prohibition gave control of the big cities to the crime families.

The Mafia added some costs to city life, bribes to city inspectors and whatever, but in general the average middle class or rich person never had any contact with the mob. Every large city had a "red light district," everyone knew where it was, and no one had to go there.

When I came to Seattle in 1962, the red light district was Pioneer Square to the Pike Place Market and up Pike Street to the top of the hill & the freeway. It was grungy during the day but safe day or night. The police ran the downtown area and kept things under control. Around 1969 someone spilled the beans and there was a big grand jury investigation. One police inspector and one beat cop went to jail. Big deal.

The big deal around that time was the Watts riot. That and the invention of cheap video cameras. In the bad old days we could take a trouble maker into an alley and talk to him. Some people, especially winos, dopers, and some crazies, only respond to pain because they are to brain dead to reason with.

About that time, the old laws about drinking in public were dumped and the Seattle-King County Board of Health decided that winos were "disabled" and were put on welfare. Seattle became internationally known as "the place where they pay you to get drunk," $230/month.

Now days the Seattle Police Department is squeaky clean but it isn't quite safe to walk downtown at noon. The winos and dopers get shuffled between Pioneer Square and Bell Town (north of Pike Place) depending upon which civic group is yelling the loudest.

For 20 years it was impossible for the SPD to fill their hiring quota. Now that hard time are back and the new contract should pay close to $90K (and I get 60% for my pension ) that problem is over. But for those and other reasons, Seattle lost 100,000 people and only recently got back to 500,000 people - but not family people.

Anyway, thanks to modern policing and phone cameras, big cities are becoming a wasteland for family people.

The problem with this is

The problem with this is that modern police forces, as we know them, didn't exist until historically recently. Moreover, there are lot of other reasons, like infrastructure, the development of the economy, etc., why families don't live in cities so much these days. Crime has been generally decreasing for years now.

Why do you think crime has been decreasing?

3 Strikes? Gated communities? Changing the way the statistics are collected? Or is it a statistical blip? Or have the bad guys switched to non-violent crimes that mostly make the business page?

Cities are safer than the suburbs. At least a city person knows the areas to avoid. Suburb people don't have a clue what their kids are doing while both parents are at work.

The video is currently

The video is currently missing, as of posting this. Below is a link where you can see the video.

http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2009/03/serving-and-protecting-run-for-your.html