Create Account



The Jungle is self-supported by showing advertisements via Google Adsense.
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show significantly less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Questions or concerns about this ad? Take a screenshot and comment in the thread. We do value your feedback.
Valdosta PD wrongfully slam civilian to the ground, break wrist and arrest him

#1

So this happened in February and is now just coming to light. These officers involved should be fired, arrested and any settlement money should come straight out the PD department budget, or the fired officers retirement fund. 


Whether someone has a liberal, or conservative viewpoint, a authoritative figure should not lock a thread for the sole purpose to get the last word in all the while prohibiting someone else from being able to respond.
Reply

#2

Not saying this isn't bad, but can we see the body cam footage of the officer that was already there?
Reply

#3

(06-26-2020, 08:17 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: Not saying this isn't bad, but can we see the body cam footage of the officer that was already there?


Whether someone has a liberal, or conservative viewpoint, a authoritative figure should not lock a thread for the sole purpose to get the last word in all the while prohibiting someone else from being able to respond.
Reply

#4

Also we should ask the UN to step in an investigative. There is a clear pattern of misconduct, collusion and corruption with keeping incidents like this swept under the rug.
Whether someone has a liberal, or conservative viewpoint, a authoritative figure should not lock a thread for the sole purpose to get the last word in all the while prohibiting someone else from being able to respond.
Reply

#5

I agree, that is bad. They should have given him a chance to put his hands behind his back before doing what they did.

Having said that, you can come break my wrist for 700k.
Reply

#6

(06-26-2020, 08:28 AM)Jamies_fried_chicken Wrote: Also we should ask the UN to step in an investigative. There is a clear pattern of misconduct, collusion and corruption with keeping incidents like this swept under the rug.

You want the UN to investigate a case of mistaken identity and overzealous police officers? Seems a little extreme.
Reply

#7

(06-26-2020, 08:17 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: Not saying this isn't bad, but can we see the body cam footage of the officer that was already there?

I can't believe I'm about to say this, but I agree. Same general line of logic as the Brooks case for me. It's bad, but let's see what led up to that response.
Reply

#8

(06-26-2020, 08:38 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote:
(06-26-2020, 08:28 AM)Jamies_fried_chicken Wrote: Also we should ask the UN to step in an investigative. There is a clear pattern of misconduct, collusion and corruption with keeping incidents like this swept under the rug.

You want the UN to investigate a case of mistaken identity and overzealous police officers? Seems a little extreme.

Seeing hundreds  of people freed each year from jail for being falsely arrested coupled with poorly trained officers that are in a festered culture to keep silent when civil rights are abused, yes I would welcome a UN investigation since the current government I. Office dosent seem to have a real interest stepping in.
Whether someone has a liberal, or conservative viewpoint, a authoritative figure should not lock a thread for the sole purpose to get the last word in all the while prohibiting someone else from being able to respond.
Reply

#9

Completely agree the police were in the wrong, but, gotta say it again... 350 million people, man.
Reply

#10

Police are civilians too. It's time to reclaim the language.
"It is inaccurate to say that I hate everything. I am strongly in favor of common sense, common honesty, and common decency. This makes me forever ineligible for public office." - H. L. Mencken

Reply

#11
(This post was last modified: 06-26-2020, 09:11 AM by Jamies_fried_chicken.)

(06-26-2020, 08:54 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: Completely agree the police were in the wrong, but, gotta say it again... 350 million people, man.

So of course we cannot normalize this behavior, and yes the population size makes this an anomaly. 

With that said, can we give the FBI a pass to murder how ever many people were killed in Waco because of the overall population size and that those type of events are not common?

(06-26-2020, 08:57 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: Police are civilians too. It's time to reclaim the language.

Genuinely confused by this. I may have missed the sarcasm.
Whether someone has a liberal, or conservative viewpoint, a authoritative figure should not lock a thread for the sole purpose to get the last word in all the while prohibiting someone else from being able to respond.
Reply

#12

(06-26-2020, 09:10 AM)Jamies_fried_chicken Wrote:
(06-26-2020, 08:54 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: Completely agree the police were in the wrong, but, gotta say it again... 350 million people, man.

So of course we cannot normalize this behavior, and yes the population size makes this an anomaly. 

With that said, can we give the FBI a pass to murder how ever many people were killed in Waco because of the overall population size and that those type of events are not common?

(06-26-2020, 08:57 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: Police are civilians too. It's time to reclaim the language.

Genuinely confused by this. I may have missed the sarcasm.

Referring to police as something other than civilians contributes to the over-militarization of law enforcement. You have Military and you have Civilians of which all police are the latter. Noting in the headline that the suspect in this case was a "civilian" is the wrong word because every one in that encounter was a civilian. What it should read is "citizen" because a citizen has the rights of citizenship that should afford him protection from the type of unnecessary assault he experienced. When cops view themselves as different from the people they police then we have problems with civil rights violations and one way to keep that in check is to rebuke the idea that they aren't also civilians, and therefore bound by the same laws as those they police, as well.
"It is inaccurate to say that I hate everything. I am strongly in favor of common sense, common honesty, and common decency. This makes me forever ineligible for public office." - H. L. Mencken

Reply

#13
(This post was last modified: 06-26-2020, 09:39 AM by Jamies_fried_chicken.)

(06-26-2020, 09:25 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote:
(06-26-2020, 09:10 AM)Jamies_fried_chicken Wrote: So of course we cannot normalize this behavior, and yes the population size makes this an anomaly. 

With that said, can we give the FBI a pass to murder how ever many people were killed in Waco because of the overall population size and that those type of events are not common?


Genuinely confused by this. I may have missed the sarcasm.

Referring to police as something other than civilians contributes to the over-militarization of law enforcement. You have Military and you have Civilians of which all police are the latter. Noting in the headline that the suspect in this case was a "civilian" is the wrong word because every one in that encounter was a civilian. What it should read is "citizen" because a citizen has the rights of citizenship that should afford him protection from the type of unnecessary assault he experienced. When cops view themselves as different from the people they police then we have problems with civil rights violations and one way to keep that in check is to rebuke the idea that they aren't also civilians, and therefore bound by the same laws as those they police, as well.
 Thank you for the clarification. 

Just so I understand you, the person who was unlawfully arrested was a “suspect” from your point of view? Is there a technicality in this instance where he was positively identified as a suspect then later proved innocent?

Also since you state law enforcement is not above civilians and should be considered themselves the same do they not have a level of authority within their job description that puts them above certain civil rights?
Whether someone has a liberal, or conservative viewpoint, a authoritative figure should not lock a thread for the sole purpose to get the last word in all the while prohibiting someone else from being able to respond.
Reply

#14

Police officers have qualified immunity.
Reply

#15

(06-26-2020, 09:41 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: Police officers have qualified immunity.

Good point in mentioning this. From what I could remember this only applies when they are hit with frivolous lawsuits. Otherwise law enforcement is subject to the same due process.
Whether someone has a liberal, or conservative viewpoint, a authoritative figure should not lock a thread for the sole purpose to get the last word in all the while prohibiting someone else from being able to respond.
Reply

#16

(06-26-2020, 09:37 AM)Jamies_fried_chicken Wrote:
(06-26-2020, 09:25 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: Th Thank you for the clarification. 

Just so I understand you, the person who was unlawfully arrested was a “suspect” from your point of view? Is there a technicality in this instance where he was positively identified as a suspect then later proved innocent?

Also since you state law enforcement is not above civilians and should be considered themselves the same do they not have a level of authority within their job description that puts them above certain civil rights?

He was a suspect when they stopped him, yes. Is that an issue here? Because if he'd been polite to the officers instead of belligerent he probably would've been fine. But some people don't get it that resisting or being rude to a cop doing his job just escalates the situation. That seems to be the common thread running through all of these instances people are rioting over, the person was guilty of escalation when it simply wasn't necessary. The people like TJ wan't to [BLEEP] about how awful the Pigs are. Yes, police have authority to enforce the law, but within the confines of Civil Rights law. That's why the cop killing George Floyd was wrong even though arresting him was proper. This guy got dropped and inured and the Sergeant should be on the hook for it. The other officers didn't really do anything wrong and the cam shows it. But of course some people exaggerate the situation and even talk in absurdities like bringing the UN to investigate.
"It is inaccurate to say that I hate everything. I am strongly in favor of common sense, common honesty, and common decency. This makes me forever ineligible for public office." - H. L. Mencken

Reply

#17

(06-26-2020, 09:55 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote:
(06-26-2020, 09:37 AM)Jamies_fried_chicken Wrote: Just so I understand you, the person who was unlawfully arrested was a “suspect” from your point of view? Is there a technicality in this instance where he was positively identified as a suspect then later proved innocent?

Also since you state law enforcement is not above civilians and should be considered themselves the same do they not have a level of authority within their job description that puts them above certain civil rights?

He was a suspect when they stopped him, yes. Is that an issue here? Because if he'd been polite to the officers instead of belligerent he probably would've been fine. But some people don't get it that resisting or being rude to a cop doing his job just escalates the situation. That seems to be the common thread running through all of these instances people are rioting over, the person was guilty of escalation when it simply wasn't necessary. The people like TJ wan't to [BLEEP] about how awful the Pigs are. Yes, police have authority to enforce the law, but within the confines of Civil Rights law. That's why the cop killing George Floyd was wrong even though arresting him was proper. This guy got dropped and inured and the Sergeant should be on the hook for it. The other officers didn't really do anything wrong and the cam shows it. But of course some people exaggerate the situation and even talk in absurdities like bringing the UN to investigate.

A couple of critical things that needs to be pointed out. 

He was incorrectly identified as a suspect. Law enforcement didn’t properly conduct an investigation to determine what was going on.

Furthermore and I can’t emphasize this enough the person complied by providing his identification. The initial officer didn’t run it himself to check if he had warrants, he went off of speculation.

Being belligerent or rude isn’t a crime and if that was the reason the situation escalated to where he was wrongfully arrested and sustained unnecessary injuries. Then again the officers involved need to be fired and arrested. 

I can understand people may be offended by my suggestion of welcoming a UN investigation. But I ask what is there to be afraid of?
Whether someone has a liberal, or conservative viewpoint, a authoritative figure should not lock a thread for the sole purpose to get the last word in all the while prohibiting someone else from being able to respond.
Reply

#18

(06-26-2020, 10:05 AM)Jamies_fried_chicken Wrote:
(06-26-2020, 09:55 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: He was a suspect when they stopped him, yes. Is that an issue here? Because if he'd been polite to the officers instead of belligerent he probably would've been fine. But some people don't get it that resisting or being rude to a cop doing his job just escalates the situation. That seems to be the common thread running through all of these instances people are rioting over, the person was guilty of escalation when it simply wasn't necessary. The people like TJ wan't to [BLEEP] about how awful the Pigs are. Yes, police have authority to enforce the law, but within the confines of Civil Rights law. That's why the cop killing George Floyd was wrong even though arresting him was proper. This guy got dropped and inured and the Sergeant should be on the hook for it. The other officers didn't really do anything wrong and the cam shows it. But of course some people exaggerate the situation and even talk in absurdities like bringing the UN to investigate.

A couple of critical things that needs to be pointed out. 

He was incorrectly identified as a suspect. Law enforcement didn’t properly conduct an investigation to determine what was going on.

Furthermore and I can’t emphasize this enough the person complied by providing his identification. The initial officer didn’t run it himself to check if he had warrants, he went off of speculation.

Being belligerent or rude isn’t a crime and if that was the reason the situation escalated to where he was wrongfully arrested and sustained unnecessary injuries. Then again the officers involved need to be fired and arrested. 

I can understand people may be offended by my suggestion of welcoming a UN investigation. But I ask what is there to be afraid of?

The UN is one of the most corrupt organizations on the planet.




                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"
Reply

#19

(06-26-2020, 10:13 AM)MalabarJag Wrote:
(06-26-2020, 10:05 AM)Jamies_fried_chicken Wrote: A couple of critical things that needs to be pointed out. 

He was incorrectly identified as a suspect. Law enforcement didn’t properly conduct an investigation to determine what was going on.

Furthermore and I can’t emphasize this enough the person complied by providing his identification. The initial officer didn’t run it himself to check if he had warrants, he went off of speculation.

Being belligerent or rude isn’t a crime and if that was the reason the situation escalated to where he was wrongfully arrested and sustained unnecessary injuries. Then again the officers involved need to be fired and arrested. 

I can understand people may be offended by my suggestion of welcoming a UN investigation. But I ask what is there to be afraid of?

The UN is one of the most corrupt organizations on the planet.

That’s like saying the US government is 5% less corrupt. 

I think people are more so afraid of showing the world how corrupt some in law enforcement can be.
Whether someone has a liberal, or conservative viewpoint, a authoritative figure should not lock a thread for the sole purpose to get the last word in all the while prohibiting someone else from being able to respond.
Reply

#20

(06-26-2020, 10:05 AM)Jamies_fried_chicken Wrote:
(06-26-2020, 09:55 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: He was a suspect when they stopped him, yes. Is that an issue here? Because if he'd been polite to the officers instead of belligerent he probably would've been fine. But some people don't get it that resisting or being rude to a cop doing his job just escalates the situation. That seems to be the common thread running through all of these instances people are rioting over, the person was guilty of escalation when it simply wasn't necessary. The people like TJ wan't to [BLEEP] about how awful the Pigs are. Yes, police have authority to enforce the law, but within the confines of Civil Rights law. That's why the cop killing George Floyd was wrong even though arresting him was proper. This guy got dropped and inured and the Sergeant should be on the hook for it. The other officers didn't really do anything wrong and the cam shows it. But of course some people exaggerate the situation and even talk in absurdities like bringing the UN to investigate.

A couple of critical things that needs to be pointed out. 

He was incorrectly identified as a suspect. Law enforcement didn’t properly conduct an investigation to determine what was going on.

Furthermore and I can’t emphasize this enough the person complied by providing his identification. The initial officer didn’t run it himself to check if he had warrants, he went off of speculation.

Being belligerent or rude isn’t a crime and if that was the reason the situation escalated to where he was wrongfully arrested and sustained unnecessary injuries. Then again the officers involved need to be fired and arrested. 

I can understand people may be offended by my suggestion of welcoming a UN investigation. But I ask what is there to be afraid of?

I don't understand why this conversation can't run both ways. Everyone that has posted so far has acknowledged the cop did something wrong and should be punished. Why can't everyone here recognize the other party in this interaction did something "wrong." Civil society depends on self-restraint. This goes for the officer and the people they interact with. I agree 100% that you can be belligerent to cops. It's not a crime. I just think it's a practice that doesn't help anything. 

The police officer is NOT justified in slamming the dude. Full stop. The cop was clearly overzealous. I had something similar happen to me before. Some cops are [BLEEP]. Some cops are even racist. However, it's not widespread. Can't remember the numbers, but I just posted the use of force numbers by police officers and it's remarkably low. There's room for improvement, but every video shown is not indicative of the police force as a whole. It's a rare phenomenon that is exacerbated by the law of numbers and easy access to video. This narrative will never stop.
Reply




Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)

The Jungle is self-supported by showing advertisements via Google Adsense.
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Questions or concerns about this ad? Take a screenshot and comment in the thread. We do value your feedback.


ABOUT US
The Jungle Forums is the Jaguars' biggest fan message board. Talking about the Jags since 2006, the Jungle was the team-endorsed home of all things Jaguars.

Since 2017, the Jungle is now independent of the team but still run by the same crew. We are here to support and discuss all things Jaguars and all things Duval!