Police brutality. Have your say.

[newman]

I think it should be encouraged in high crime spots. Whimpy, nice-guy, new-age cops achieve NOTHING. Old school head-kickers got the job done.

[Just Erica]

It should be eliminated. That doesn't mean that an officer can't or shouldn't "break down" an assailant who hits them first. It means that when a police officer pulls you over for speeding, he doesn't have the right to pull you through the window by  your hair and kick  you until you're unconcious.

[Ehud]

Well, it depends if it's deserved.  Certainly if a policeman or his fellow policeman is threatened with death, he should not hesitate to use deadly force, and he shouldn't be reprimanded for protecting himself and others.  If anyone brings himself into a situation where he could be seen as endangering anyone's life, he should face the consequences from that regardless if he intended any actual threat. 

Certainly police officers should use the amount of force necessary to detain a criminal and prevent him from being a harm to others, by all means necessary, regardless if it's seen as "brutality".  I don't think police officers should use unnecessary or cruel force that doesn't suit some kind of purpose.  (other than creating a deterrent for future criminals)

THere should certainly be laws passed to prevent public access to police videos.  If a police officer has egregiously acted beyond reasonableness in inflicting harmful force against someone, and he is brought to trial, the video could be shown to the jury, but that should be it. 

[newman]

I'll tell you where police brutality is a good thing:

If you had a teenager gone off the rails...........truency at 14, petty theft at 15, drugs and gang activity at 16 and you just know at this rate the kid will be stabbed at 18 or shot at 20, wouldn't a good wallopping by the coppers be worth it if it scared them straight?

Broken bones, split lips and black eyes heal. Drog overdoses and lethal stabbings don't.

[Ehud]

I'll tell you where police brutality is a good thing:

If you had a teenager gone off the rails...........truency at 14, petty theft at 15, drugs and gang activity at 16 and you just know at this rate the kid will be stabbed at 18 or shot at 20, wouldn't a good wallopping by the coppers be worth it if it scared them straight?

Broken bones, split lips and black eyes heal. Drog overdoses and lethal stabbings don't.

Well, for those kinds of criminals, I'm not sure if a beating would do anything to scare them straight.  If they are involved in gang activity they probably have received their own share of beatings and close calls with death, so if the threat to their life in that context wouldn't scare them straight, I don't think a beating by a policeman would.  Who knows, maybe if cops gave out beatings and these types of criminals were scared of them, they would do even more to evade police. 

[Tina Greco - Melbourne]

It should be eliminated, they are not above the law.

I respect some countries are different with social values, but I can't see the excessive use of force being a need, unless the crim is going to hurt the officer, then corrective measures are to be taken.

[newman]

I'll tell you where police brutality is a good thing:

If you had a teenager gone off the rails...........truency at 14, petty theft at 15, drugs and gang activity at 16 and you just know at this rate the kid will be stabbed at 18 or shot at 20, wouldn't a good wallopping by the coppers be worth it if it scared them straight?

Broken bones, split lips and black eyes heal. Drog overdoses and lethal stabbings don't.

Well, for those kinds of criminals, I'm not sure if a beating would do anything to scare them straight.  If they are involved in gang activity they probably have received their own share of beatings and close calls with death, so if the threat to their life in that context wouldn't scare them straight, I don't think a beating by a policeman would.  Who knows, maybe if cops gave out beatings and these types of criminals were scared of them, they would do even more to evade police. 

I'm talking about teenagers just getting involved with gangs, petty crime & drugs etc. I'm positive a severe beating that makes them mess their pants would scare them straight.

Secondly, one need only look at society over the last three generations. In the 50s, cops would regularly dish out beatings to wayward teens. Now the wayward teens are all jailhouse lawyers who know they can't be touched. Look at the difference between the western world of 1958 versus 2008. Which method do you think worked better?

[Ultra Requete]

I support More teacher's and parents "brutality" when the Police must theach respect it already too late. Fifty years ago police didn't have to be brutal to enforce good beghavour becouse the kids were raised properly, and few execive hard criminals or mobsters were kept inline by their own. And besides stormtroopers can be used by bolsheviks against us; in fact they were used against patriot hilltops youths and  setlters in Israel.

But of course I voted 4th, as this is diferrent matter.

[Ehud]

I'll tell you where police brutality is a good thing:

If you had a teenager gone off the rails...........truency at 14, petty theft at 15, drugs and gang activity at 16 and you just know at this rate the kid will be stabbed at 18 or shot at 20, wouldn't a good wallopping by the coppers be worth it if it scared them straight?

Broken bones, split lips and black eyes heal. Drog overdoses and lethal stabbings don't.

Well, for those kinds of criminals, I'm not sure if a beating would do anything to scare them straight.  If they are involved in gang activity they probably have received their own share of beatings and close calls with death, so if the threat to their life in that context wouldn't scare them straight, I don't think a beating by a policeman would.  Who knows, maybe if cops gave out beatings and these types of criminals were scared of them, they would do even more to evade police. 

I'm talking about teenagers just getting involved with gangs, petty crime & drugs etc. I'm positive a severe beating that makes them mess their pants would scare them straight.

Secondly, one need only look at society over the last three generations. In the 50s, cops would regularly dish out beatings to wayward teens. Now the wayward teens are all jailhouse lawyers who know they can't be touched. Look at the difference between the western world of 1958 versus 2008. Which method do you think worked better?

Well, there are plenty of other explanations for the increase in crime since the 50s.  For one, the third world population wasn't as high back then.  Also, blacks hadn't fully gained civil rights.  Now they have fully gained civil rights and then some, and despite that, they have failed to come to financial parity with the rest of America.  Since they thought they would become equal with everyone else on every level quite shortly, and since their expectations didn't come to fruition, they have been relegated to the bottom of the social order, with little hope and increasing disparities of wealth, which is part of the reason why they commit so many crimes.  Also the nature of gangs has become more extreme.  They are more deadly, and there is more financial stake involved in gang activities which leads to more violence. 

Police violence wasn't the main factor of less crime in the past, nor was it even a substantial factor. 

[newman]

I'm talking about teenagers just getting involved with gangs, petty crime & drugs etc. I'm positive a severe beating that makes them mess their pants would scare them straight.

Secondly, one need only look at society over the last three generations. In the 50s, cops would regularly dish out beatings to wayward teens. Now the wayward teens are all jailhouse lawyers who know they can't be touched. Look at the difference between the western world of 1958 versus 2008. Which method do you think worked better?

Well, there are plenty of other explanations for the increase in crime since the 50s.  For one, the third world population wasn't as high back then.  Also, blacks hadn't fully gained civil rights.  Now they have fully gained civil rights and then some, and despite that, they have failed to come to financial parity with the rest of America.  Since they thought they would become equal with everyone else on every level quite shortly, and since their expectations didn't come to fruition, they have been relegated to the bottom of the social order, with little hope and increasing disparities of wealth, which is part of the reason why they commit so many crimes.  Also the nature of gangs has become more extreme.  They are more deadly, and there is more financial stake involved in gang activities which leads to more violence. 

Police violence wasn't the main factor of less crime in the past, nor was it even a substantial factor. 

Poverty has ZERO to do with crime.

You've heard Chaim and others talk about NYC in the old days. The working class Jews, Polaks, Italians and Irish didn't have 2 cents to rub together but they could leave their homes unlocked. Even blacks in the old days had some decency. All DESPITE poverty.

BTW, show me 'poverty' in the west. Don't tell me that ANYBODY with $200 sneakers suffers from poverty.

What we see today is all part of a big picture. Years ago society demanded personal responsibility and punishment of wrong-doers. Police brutality was merely a tool. It worked. Today we have a victim culture and a mamby-pamby approach. It's a total failure.

I say turn the clock back and START with heavy-handed policing because it will have the greatest short term effect.

[Boeregeneraal]

i say, beat the crap out of the law breakers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now where is my shambok!?  But seriously, i find it typical for erica to want to see it eliminated 

[cjd]

A well trained and disciplined police officer could use a night stick on a disruptive person in a way that will stop them however leave no lasting injury. The problem is often the first instinct of an over zealous officer is to give someone a crack on the head with the stick sending them to the hospital. I think the police should be able to place a well placed bruise on a disruptive teen or even an adult that is causing a disturbance.  In the past the night stick was a tool used to get people to disburse or stop what they were doing. It gave the officer a tool that allowed him not to use their hands or the gun.  Years ago if a cop gave a kid a poke in the ribs or bruised up an arm because the kid was doing something wrong parents would often finish the job the cop started when the wayward kid or teen got home. Today parents hear the cash register bell ringing thinking about how much of a brutality case they can build. In the long run a little old fashion discipline is fine brutality on the other hand is not good for the police officer or the person they are dealing with.

[Tina Greco - Melbourne]

It should be eliminated. That doesn't mean that an officer can't or shouldn't "break down" an assailant who hits them first. It means that when a police officer pulls you over for speeding, he doesn't have the right to pull you through the window by  your hair and kick  you until you're unconcious.

I agree 

[Ehud]

It should be eliminated. That doesn't mean that an officer can't or shouldn't "break down" an assailant who hits them first. It means that when a police officer pulls you over for speeding, he doesn't have the right to pull you through the window by  your hair and kick  you until you're unconcious.

I agree 

Obviously, a police officer shouldn't be allowed to knock a person unconscious just for speeding.  That entire concept is ridiculous and has nothing to do with newman's question.   Officers shouldn't have to wait for a criminal to attack them or anyone else, a police officer should be able to proactively respond to anyone who is believed to be a threat.

[Boeregeneraal]

It should be eliminated. That doesn't mean that an officer can't or shouldn't "break down" an assailant who hits them first. It means that when a police officer pulls you over for speeding, he doesn't have the right to pull you through the window by  your hair and kick  you until you're unconcious.

I agree 

Obviously, a police officer shouldn't be allowed to knock a person unconscious just for speeding.  That entire concept is ridiculous and has nothing to do with newman's question.   Officers shouldn't have to wait for a criminal to attack them or anyone else, a police officer should be able to proactively respond to anyone who is believed to be a threat.

Indeed! Officers should not be scared to use lethal force if nescesary. But ofcourse, political policies should be in place, that would prevent crime in the first place. take away the un-rightoeus pro-criminlpolicies of today, and you simply don't have crime problems!

[Tina Greco - Melbourne]

It should be eliminated. That doesn't mean that an officer can't or shouldn't "break down" an assailant who hits them first. It means that when a police officer pulls you over for speeding, he doesn't have the right to pull you through the window by  your hair and kick  you until you're unconcious.

I agree 

Obviously, a police officer shouldn't be allowed to knock a person unconscious just for speeding.  That entire concept is ridiculous and has nothing to do with newman's question.   Officers shouldn't have to wait for a criminal to attack them or anyone else, a police officer should be able to proactively respond to anyone who is believed to be a threat.

Its not ridiculous I was married to a Cop (second Husband) and I know some that did, you also have some that have sexual  favours. Franky nothing surprises me with them.

Of course that does not apply to the members of this forum that are Law Enforcement Officers. 

[Sarah]

Only when it is deserved or the person who is accused of a crime on the scene is at fault.

In many countries, and in the past, the police can beat and hurt a lot of innocent people.

[Sarah]

Do you think women should be beaten?


Sometimes a harsh beating doesn't solve anything, it angers a person and pushes them in some cases to rebel and cause trouble further to get their own back.


These gang members probably get more of a beating from their own gangs and families, then they would do from police if they were allowed to hurt them. If the police can beat them up, they think it gives them the right to beat the police and everyone else up themselves.

[Dr. Dan]

It should be eliminated. That doesn't mean that an officer can't or shouldn't "break down" an assailant who hits them first. It means that when a police officer pulls you over for speeding, he doesn't have the right to pull you through the window by  your hair and kick  you until you're unconcious.

It depends on why they are being "brutal". I agree that it is wrong for a cop to smack any random person to oblivion.  However, there are those who threaten cops, who are beligerent, who run away, who have weapons etc etc etc.  The truth is the cop shoudl first subdue the person from causing a danger to himself and the cop.  However, in case of squirmish in this situation, I beleive the cop has the right to protect himself and smack that person silly to subdue that person.

I belive that high crime areas have mostly these types of crazy criminals.  Therefore, i woudl not eliminate it "brutality" all together. I would, on the other hand, hope that cops woudl be more brutal in these high crime areas basically to send a signal.

You can't be nice to bad guys.  They all need to get their butts wooped.

It's only the nice guys who do petty things who surrender that shouldn't get their butts wooped. Let the courts deal with them properly.

[Scriabin]

I'll tell you where police brutality is a good thing:

If you had a teenager gone off the rails...........truency at 14, petty theft at 15, drugs and gang activity at 16 and you just know at this rate the kid will be stabbed at 18 or shot at 20, wouldn't a good wallopping by the coppers be worth it if it scared them straight?

The police should go after the bad guys instead of picking on some poor schlub with a burned-out taillight.   

[Scriabin]

Well, there are plenty of other explanations for the increase in crime since the 50s.  For one, the third world population wasn't as high back then.  Also, blacks hadn't fully gained civil rights. 

All the more reason for the big boys to create a police state.  Its all part of one big scheme.

[Ultra Requete]

Well, there are plenty of other explanations for the increase in crime since the 50s.  For one, the third world population wasn't as high back then.  Also, blacks hadn't fully gained civil rights. 

All the more reason for the big boys to create a police state.  Its all part of one big scheme.

Yes you have right, to the point that people will beg the big brother to take control.

[Merkava]

I think it should be encouraged in high crime spots. Whimpy, nice-guy, new-age cops achieve NOTHING. Old school head-kickers got the job done.

I get beaten up by these coppas on a daily basis. I may be white on the outside. But deep down inside, I'm really black. Ma skin is ma sin.

[Dr. Dan]

Do you think women should be beaten?


Sometimes a harsh beating doesn't solve anything, it angers a person and pushes them in some cases to rebel and cause trouble further to get their own back.


These gang members probably get more of a beating from their own gangs and families, then they would do from police if they were allowed to hurt them. If the police can beat them up, they think it gives them the right to beat the police and everyone else up themselves.

If it is a hoodlam or anyone who is about to kill the police man, definately.  Otherwise, to me, women shoudl be treated differently until it is proven that they shoudln't be.

[JR-Obilic]

Do i want some redneck cop with a 90 IQ to have the right to beat me if he choses?  No.  Should a police officer be allowed to use force or fire his gun if he is being threatened?  Yes.

Some peoples answers really surprise me...  What if JTF had a protest.  Would u think it's ok to get beat then???  How about if it was a Black cop who had a grudge against Jews?  Be careful what u wish for.