cops

[Carrol Cox]

At one time, though I disagreed with him often, Wojtek seemed at least
to be on "our" side, but as someone said recently, he seems to have
definitively gone over to the other side. Cops don't ordinarily beat up
"males" (violent or non-violent) because they "deserve it," whatever
that may be. They beat them up when and if they've caused trouble
(subjectively defined) for the cops in question.

Some local rural cops a year ago shot and killed a young (white) man --
he had walked out of a convenience store without paying for some minor
item. He was mentally handicapped, but no record of viciousness or
violence (and the cops knew this). The jury didn't convict the cops of
anything. About 16 years ago a young kid (15 or 16) was out after curfew
in Bloomington. A cop (a real grandfatherly type, who could have posed
for an Officer Friendly video) chased him and he hid under a car. The
cop hauled him out and kicked hard enough and repeatedly enough to
produce very large bruises all down one side of his body. The reason:
"I'll teach you to run away."

A speculation (the idea just occurred to me): Are cops apt to beat up
the core members of hardend gangs? It strikes me that might be rather
more dangerous to their future health than beating up random teenagers.

Carrol

John Thornton wrote:
> 
> You think it's the job of the police to decide who 'Deserves" to be beaten
> and who doesn't?
> John Thornton
> 
> > that those who get the raw treatment are violent males who fully
> > deserve such treatment.
> >
> > wojtek
> >
> >