TexasCHLforum.com

Elvis wrote: Looks like you will have alot more chances to test your theory.

You prove my point: we air our dirty laundry. Doesn't mean we have more of it.

Elvis wrote:True we don't have enough information to make an intelligent decision whether the Officers actions were proper in this situation but there are a few interesting tidbits.

Thanks for some good observations, which acknowledge both sides.

Now don't get me wrong, if the Police were out of line and abused their authority I and others in Law Enforcement will be the first to condemn their actions.

No offense, but history doesn't bear this out. I read a couple of LEO forums, but only actively participate in one, and it's been apparent to me for some time that the thin gray line and thin blue line differ in one important way: when fellow staff in corrections are found to be dirty, corrupt, or abusive, we loudly, publicly condemn them and urge full prosecution. The wagons aren't circled, there is no wall of silence, we want them gone. The sooner the better, for the safety of those who remain.

On the blue side, the departmental response to abuse cases has become almost formulaic: denial, followed promise of a full investigation, followed by an official pronouncement that no wrongdoing was found, the officer was fully justified, and the case was closed.

Now, don't get me wrong: the individual officer involved can be going through a personal Hades. No matter how innocent he is proclaimed to be by the PAO, behind the scenes he is on notice that he's in deep kimchi. He knows --and his fellow officers supporting him know-- that the political environment and public perception won't affect whether his career is blacklisted, destined for permanent Traffic Division duty.

But: All public pronouncements by the official department spokesperson are intended to minimize liability for the department (if their officer is wrong, they are liable). The most damaging wall of silence, the one from which the public draw their conclusions, is on an official departmental level.

Perhaps we should wait until we get the rest of the story before we comment.

Others have already made this point, but I have to agree: from whom will we get the rest of the story? From the department/agency trying to minimize their liability? From reporters relying on that department/agency and their public affairs officer?

This is not a bash against you, brother: just pointing out why public perception of LEO integrity is damaged even more by damage control.

srothstein wrote:Anyone care to bet he was tasered while on the bridge and fell as a result of it? There is way more o this story than what this one report has to say.

The initial reports quote independent witnesses who saw him walking, and note that he fell before police arrived.

http://www.ky3.com/news/local/25829234.html

stroo wrote:Offhand it sounds like the boy may have been using some illegal substance. Still tasing a boy with a broken back 19 times just seems excessive on the face of it.

Tasing anyone 19 times is excessive. If twice doesn't get the job done, then 3+ isn't going to have any better effect.