Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DarkTriad" data-source="post: 537503" data-attributes="member: 3514">&quot;The question is, Did he follow his fucking orders, and quite obviously he was. You guys think you can throw a man in prison for following orders - you're all insane.&quot;They did it at Nuremburg. Not that this is remotely in the same category (jury made the right call), but &quot;following orders&quot; is not a perfect defense.&quot;No one would ever follow the law again. Who the fuck would become a cop if you're damned if you do, damned if you don't follow orders?&quot;With great difficulty. They tell us we MUST arrest for Domestic Abuse, then tell us we can only arrest one party (even if she should go too).If you ever study the Rodney King incident, the reason they were found Not Guilty in the first trial is because they had been forbidden to use humane and commonsensical techniques like simply wrestling him into handcuffs. A liberal City Councilor had said she was tired of suspects being shot while allegedly trying to wrestle the officers guns away, so they were forbidden to wrestle with combative suspects. They were required to step back, and strike with batons until the suspect complied with verbal commands and laid down on the ground with his hands behind his back. They even ran in and gang tackled him early in the incident, but as soon as he resisted they were ordered to step back and strike with batons until he complied with verbal commands.In the end, only one of the guys that hit him was convicted (he was the guy that made the 3 headshots). The supervisor was also imprisoned&nbsp; for being present even though he wasn't one of the guys that actually hit him.It also helped that they had incontrovertible evidence that King wouldn't have been hit if he had cooperated (there was another suspect in the car that complied and was arrested without incident).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DarkTriad, post: 537503, member: 3514"] "The question is, Did he follow his fucking orders, and quite obviously he was. You guys think you can throw a man in prison for following orders - you're all insane." They did it at Nuremburg. Not that this is remotely in the same category (jury made the right call), but "following orders" is not a perfect defense. "No one would ever follow the law again. Who the fuck would become a cop if you're damned if you do, damned if you don't follow orders?" With great difficulty. They tell us we MUST arrest for Domestic Abuse, then tell us we can only arrest one party (even if she should go too). If you ever study the Rodney King incident, the reason they were found Not Guilty in the first trial is because they had been forbidden to use humane and commonsensical techniques like simply wrestling him into handcuffs. A liberal City Councilor had said she was tired of suspects being shot while allegedly trying to wrestle the officers guns away, so they were forbidden to wrestle with combative suspects. They were required to step back, and strike with batons until the suspect complied with verbal commands and laid down on the ground with his hands behind his back. They even ran in and gang tackled him early in the incident, but as soon as he resisted they were ordered to step back and strike with batons until he complied with verbal commands. In the end, only one of the guys that hit him was convicted (he was the guy that made the 3 headshots). The supervisor was also imprisoned for being present even though he wasn't one of the guys that actually hit him. It also helped that they had incontrovertible evidence that King wouldn't have been hit if he had cooperated (there was another suspect in the car that complied and was arrested without incident). [/QUOTE]

Verification