No the grand jury declined to indict.

Sooo, no charges then?

Good faith seems to mean "you showed up that day as a police officer".
You mess with the cops are you are going to lose. Protect and to Serve? Maybe protect and serve the state. Individuals cross them at their own peril. Those people are there for when things go bad. This is the quid pro quo of being a cop, and this is the world I always thought I lived in.

Yep, they rarely protect, and when they show up, things go bad.
At least that’s my experience with metropolitan police force.

It’s funny that the old man who is knocked to the ground is held to a higher standard of care than the police officer.

If the old man knocks the police officer down and cracks the officer’s head, the old man will be likely be found responsible for the injuries that he caused. But the reverse isn’t true. Weird. The police are less accountable than regular people.

Excellent point.

That's what I thought I was telling you. So... weird but not so weird.

Maybe the proud boys have it right. Protest armed to the gills.

Excellent job of showing the world as it is. Any wonder BLM supporters (or others) can't trust the cops? We can start replacing the slogan "not my president" with "not in my America", because where I want to live is a country where these kind of cowardly acts are not tolerated.

---

"The great pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do."

Attacks on police officers should be punished harsher than attacks on the general public. This is because attacking the police is an attack on the state.

But for that same exact logic, police officer that break the law or violate people's rights, should be punished harsher because that violation is the state attacking the general public. This is equally as important as the above, yet the police want the first and are violently (literally) opposed to the second. This is because they don't actually want to apply the first for the right reasons, they just want to be above the law and want to punish anyone that challenges this dangerous behavior.

The police, due to the extreme power we give them, need to be held to a higher standard than the general public. It is nuts that people are against that. Not only the power, but they are supposed to be trained professionals, yet are held to a lower standard than untrained people that are not paid by the public. It is just such a fundamental flaw in how the police are treated in this country and leads to all sorts of issues.

Don't get me wrong. I, too, want to live in utopia.

However, in practical terms there are some very real conflicts between your passages that I bolded. Part of the "extreme power" we give the cops is the power to break the law and violate people's rights when it's done as part of their job. We give them the power to enforce the law at the expense of those the police view to be culpable or hindering their job. They can speed. The can enter private property. They can detain citizens against their will. They can smack you in the head. This is at the REQUEST of the state.

To try and then go and equate citizen actions and consequences with police job related actions and consequences is not the correct approach. I know that maybe the spirit of your comment was probably meant to count moreso than the exact words, but we still need to find a better way to talk this out if we want progress.

Maybe you misunderstood me or I am misunderstanding you.

But lets take one of your examples, speeding. Yes, we allow police to speed, but only in specific situations. If a police officer speeds outside of those specific situations (which I think we all have seen), the punishment should be harsher than someone in general public going the same amount over the limit.

Update, the police officers that assaulted the man have been cleared by a grand jury, so no criminal charges, and also have recently been cleared by their decrement, so they will even be disciplined by their department.

The arbitrator, Selchick, who apparently has never decided against a cop, ruled that everything the cops did was totally what they should do, The use of force was justified because:




Also the cops were not at fault for his skull cracking open because:




So apparently, this man that everyone believes was holding things with both hands, was elderly, and not expecting a confrontation, was going to grab the cops weapon? Do they think that old people grow a third arm or something?

So the cops were so afraid of catching covid from Gugino, who was wearing a mask, they responded with violence, but no so afraid they didn't wear masks themselves? For some reason I don't think this "afraid of covid" argument would work if someone pushes a cop away that is not wearing a mask. I bet this only applies to cops.

Rather lame decision. I remember seeing the video. The cops were in the wrong.

---

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot