This is a very good point, but it can be a pacifier. My Brother-In-Law was Chief in my hometown for about 6 years. He had an officer get caught on videotape lightly kicking a handcuffed perp in the leg (once) after he was on the ground. This was right after VHS video cameras hit the market. The people taping immediately called the television station and the media showed up at the station with the tape. They showed it to my BIL and immediately wanted to know if he was going fire the officer, suspend him, etc. My BIL answered like you stated and said he needed to investigate the issue to make a determination on the circumstances. They kept pushing, but he stood his ground. They left and didn't even end up showing it on television or talking about it because there was no big issue made out of it. In the end, the investigation revealed that as the officer was handcuffing the guy, he was telling the officer he knew where he lived, and as soon as he made bail would be 'hunting down the officer's family and killing them'. When he got up from cuffing the guy, the guy was still mouthing and he kicked at him and told him to shut up.srothstein wrote: I think most people would understand a lot better if a Chief said "I don't know what happened because I wasn't there, but we are investigating" instead of jumping on the defensive. The problem is the media is showing the people what happened and many of them see even the above statement as defensive. Long term, I still believe the communications problem can be solved, but it will take work.
Was the officer wrong in what he did? Yes, and he was put on probation for 6 months with a letter in his file because of the incident. The reason it was not more severe is the officer had a spotless record , including several commendations for his 12 years since becoming a cop.