Why should not the police beat detainees,even if theydeserve

Post Reply New Topic

I live in Poland recently had a scandal, because police officers beat up the guy who beaten their own child.

People in favor of the police officers and honestly me too.

But the guy made ​​a charge and the prosecutor want to accuse the police for overstepping their powers and brutality

I wanted to be a cop but I can not because I was rejected from military service because of epilepsy for which already had and did not suffer now and Asperger's Syndrome. Police in Poland is not the army, but the law on police is related to the Law on military recruitment, so that anyone dismissed from the conscription for medical reasons can not join the police force.

And the worst part is that the requirements for military service do not apply to women, because women are excluded from military conscription, they can joint military but their are not bound to conscription

Maybe I will turn to the Constitutional Court (The equivalent of the U.S. Supreme Court) to investigate whether these provisions are not discriminatory against men

A bit too much here, I wrote

Returning to the topic I always wanted to be a cop, because they care about the needy people.

As the case of the bastard who beaten his own child. It complains that the police beat him, and yet he deserved. If I was a cop I would beaten S O B that abuse kids or commit cruelty to animals

the police shouldnt beat detainees because summary justice is the behaviour of an uncivilised society.

All criminal suspects, regardless of how reprehensible the crimes they are accused of deserve a fair trial without duress in the eyes of the state.

The question of "deserving" is decided by the courts, not the police. The police are to investigate and arrest the likely suspect. There are not to administer punishment. In the U.S. (as opposed to Poland) the innocence of a person is -presumed- and guilt has to be -proved- in a court of law.

ruveyn

More or less the same thing i said, but i put it more eloquently IMO.

In Poland, too, unfortunately.

We all believe in the principle of innocent until proven guilty , but there are also people who do not deserve a trial, why society has wast money on such beast????

As the police will serve him his own medicine maybe he will not hurt others.

Last edited by pawelk1986 on 12 Nov 2012, 12:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Justice doesnt work that way, you can't have a fair trial for others but not for some.

Show me a state whose police use pre emptive violence and i will show you a despotic dictatorship.

Yes..but if the law doesnt preserve the rights of the scum- then the law wont protect YOUR rights and my rights while we are in police custody either.

And then police can become the tool of the state- and silencing dissidents and then you on your way to...

Well- your Polish ! Your people lived under both stalin and hitler. So you should know where that leads.

As has been said, there needs to be due process (a trial) to have a reasonable system of justice. The police can't be allowed to become judge, jury, and executioner/flogger.

Sometimes, situations are not what they seem at first. Maybe the child's mother beat the kid, but lied to the police that it was her husband, because she knows that people will believe that instantly, without reflection or investigation.

In essence, what you are arguing is that the severity of a crime should determine the degree of investigation and reflection (jury) -- but that doesn't make sense. If it's a severe crime then making sure that you have the right person and that they did what the seem to have done is even more important.

In practice, it is untrue though. People charged with crimes are jailed before being convicted all the time. Along with other rights taken away and procedures that treat the person as they were assumed guilty.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FRnh9f1NnU[/youtube] I say this guy deserved it being defiant and disorderly conduct and acting all tough when he aint after being tazed.

a plausible suspect may be detained for araignment, but not indefinitely. It the police cannot show cause for further detainment he will be freed on a writ of habeus corpus. It is illegal for the police to abuse persons detained for a hearing. Keeping a person in jail is one thing, physical abuse is another.

Detainment is a necessary evil for the police to carry out their function of investigating crimes and detaining suspects when there are grounds for detention. The only legal cause for police to get rough is if the suspect or detainee resists constraint or initiates physical action against the cops. This necessary evil is bounded by the habeus corpus rules.

ruveyn

BTW Does the person with mild Asperger's syndrome can be a good cop,

I would like to be a cop, but I can not for the reasons that described earlier

If he hurt a child he is in more danger from other inmates beating him,I have a relation that was a corrections officer at a maximum security unit.Child abusers and rapists are usually hated by the other inmates and frequently attacked.(I'm not saying this is right,it is just a fact.)
I don't beleive in police brutality,the courts decide the punishment.If cops start beating on people they think are guilty it won't be long before the innocent victim of mistaken identity is beaten.But if a cops sees a child being beaten (or anyone for that matter)then they have the right to use reasonable force to stop the attack.

By beating the dude, the cops "denied him due process" which means that they handed out punishment without an actual verdict of guilty. Of course, the guy could have just been "resisting" which is what happens over here from time to time. If I was a cop and I arrested a child abuser, they would be resisting. In fact, they might even assault me first. That's pretty much human nature there, and the cops are supposed to not give into that urge.