Poll of the Day > If you hate men who beat their wives, you'll love this story!

(+) Yeah! (+)

When my dad's former boss was a beat cop (heh), he took domestic dispute calls pretty badly. He just could not stand men who beat their families. Period. Don't know if it was a personal issue, but essentially he became aggressive enough with the guys that he wasn't allowed to go to these sorts of calls without a partner... Anyway, I guess this one dude roughed up the woman pretty badly, so he just punched him until he knocked him out, yelling things like "how do you like it when somebody bigger hits you?!" then pulled back his eyelids and hosed his eyes down with pepper spray for when he woke up, then chucked him in the back of the police car.

Good luck finding any sympathy, bro. Anyways, I love it when assholes get theirs.... This happened decades ago, and would be totally impossible to get away with today, but I just heard the story and it made me happy.
---

That cop is a menace, and wildly unprofessional. Would never condone beating women, but cops should be able to exercise restraint and maintain composure, otherwise they're no better than the criminals they're abusing, honestly.
---

I'm rolling my eyes at this topic on so many levels

Sounds psychotic, I can understand giving the beating and it was the old days but waking him up by holding his eyelids open and pepper spraying them? That's some torture shit some people think about but never actually do.
---

Your dad's friend sounds like he's as much of a piece of shit as that asshole who was beating his wife.
---

I wish he was the one who responded when I called the cops on my dad. The ones who showed up just kind of shrugged it off, then told my to leave and take my brother and me with her. They were useless.
---

If you hate men who beat their wives, you'll love this tale of rampant police brutality!
---

darkknight109 posted...

If you hate men who beat their wives, you'll love this tale of rampant police brutality!

It's only police brutality if the person committed no crime. I'm fine "three strikes = a hanging," honestly.
---

TheCyborgNinja posted...

It's only police brutality if the person committed no crime.

My god, you are such a dipshit

Rockies posted...

TheCyborgNinja posted...

It's only police brutality if the person committed no crime.

My god, you are such a dipshit

Well, I know that's not the actual law, that's just my opinion of the situation.

A bullet's a lot cheaper than three squares and a roof.
---

Far-Queue posted...

That cop is a menace, and wildly unprofessional. Would never condone beating women, but cops should be able to exercise restraint and maintain composure, otherwise they're no better than the criminals they're abusing, honestly.

Yeah

iAmAnOrphan posted...

Your dad's friend sounds like he's as much of a piece of shit as that asshole who was beating his wife.

Nah but he is definitely a cup abusing his power and engaging in brutality

Not quite as bad as a wife beater but still shitty
---

TheCyborgNinja posted...

It's only police brutality if the person committed no crime.

Cool. I guess you'd be fine having the shit kicked out of you if you got caught littering. Or speeding. Or jaywalking.

I mean hey, fuck due process, am I right?
---

Yeah, if he pulled that stuff today he'd be in prison... Actually probably not, he'd be fired after a paid administrative leave...
---

darkknight109 posted...

TheCyborgNinja posted...

It's only police brutality if the person committed no crime.

Cool. I guess you'd be fine having the shit kicked out of you if you got caught littering. Or speeding. Or jaywalking.

I mean hey, fuck due process, am I right?

Honestly, if the rules applied to everyone, I'd be down. I looooooove Singapore's justice system.
---

Zangulus posted...

TheCyborgNinja posted...

darkknight109 posted...

TheCyborgNinja posted...

It's only police brutality if the person committed no crime.

Cool. I guess you'd be fine having the shit kicked out of you if you got caught littering. Or speeding. Or jaywalking.

I mean hey, fuck due process, am I right?

Honestly, if the rules applied to everyone, I'd be down. I looooooove Singapore's justice system.

You mean one that also has due process and doesnt just beat the shit out of people without them being found guilty in a court of law?

Okay.

The guy was caught red-handed beating his wife. Fuck him. His guilt was apparent.

I get what you're saying in a general sense, and yeah, I get kind of emotional with my rhetoric about "punishing the wicked" (for some reason), and I concede I am glad for due process, but there are instances where it's meaningless. If some guy gets shot while brandishing a weapon and dies, he got punished on the spot like the dude smacking his wife around getting beat up.
---

Zangulus posted...

TheCyborgNinja posted...

The guy was caught red-handed beating his wife. Fuck him.

Nice way to completely ignore the very statement you made when confronted over it.

How long until you start claiming anyone that doesnt support this kind of vicious behavior as being supportive of the wife abuser? I mean. Thats usually how these things go.

Though. I could be wrong. In this instance.

I don't care if any of you agree with me. You're free to think I'm a nutjob.
---

Zangulus posted...

TheCyborgNinja posted...

Zangulus posted...

TheCyborgNinja posted...

The guy was caught red-handed beating his wife. Fuck him.

Nice way to completely ignore the very statement you made when confronted over it.

How long until you start claiming anyone that doesnt support this kind of vicious behavior as being supportive of the wife abuser? I mean. Thats usually how these things go.

Though. I could be wrong. In this instance.

I don't care if any of you agree with me. You're free to think I'm a nutjob.

No one has to think that.

Nope, I'm just telling a story I personally found cathartic. I understand why people are disapproving of what happened, I simply support what amounts to "Judge Dredd" for a legal system. My mom often rolls her eyes at me if we get onto this topic during a family dinner and tells me I missed my chance to join the Stasi or something...
---

TheCyborgNinja posted...

The guy was caught red-handed beating his wife. f*** him.

I'd imagine most folks wouldn't disagree that the husband deserved it but at the same time this isn't something like giving out a speeding ticket where the officer is judge, jury, and executioner and even then the ticket can still be fought in court.

Sometime officers do need to make a judgmental call even if it requires him to go beyond the norm but there are also times where said officers need to do just his duties and nothing beyond that.
---

TheCyborgNinja posted...

I understand why people are disapproving of what happened, I simply support what amounts to "Judge Dredd" for a legal system.

Even though it doesn't work?
---

InfestedAdam posted...

TheCyborgNinja posted...

The guy was caught red-handed beating his wife. f*** him.

I'd imagine most folks wouldn't disagree that the husband deserved it but at the same time this isn't something like giving out a speeding ticket where the officer is judge, jury, and executioner and even then the ticket can still be fought in court.

Sometime officers do need to make a judgmental call even if it requires him to go beyond the norm but there are also times where said officers need to do just his duties and nothing beyond that.

Oh, within the confines of the current system, you're right. I just don't like the current system.
---

darkknight109 posted...

TheCyborgNinja posted...

I understand why people are disapproving of what happened, I simply support what amounts to "Judge Dredd" for a legal system.

Even though it doesn't work?

It doesn't work because they implemented it after everything collapsed, as a means to salvage what was left. It's like Sears last year, trying to salvage itself. It was admittedly a very poor example in this instance, and veered things off a bit...

If something like the old Prussian judicial system were to be implemented, you'd get absolutism combined with certain guaranteed rights, but anti-social or subversive activities were still subject to scrutiny by the Geheimpolizei outside of all that and everyone generally toed the line as a good citizen, with the general population having carefree lives and those upsetting the social order being punished accordingly. This ideology didn't fail because it was dysfunctional, it failed because the last reigning Kaiser was an idiot who got involved in a suicidal war in a sad attempt to be number one. I had family there, so I'm not pulling this out of thin air.
---

Another coward hiding behind a badge and abusing his authority, big surprise. And of course there are always dumbasses that praise this sort of behavior.

Police are supposed to maintain civility. They're supposed to protect the average person from barbaric savagery, not be barbaric savages themselves.
---

darkknight109 posted...

If you hate men who beat their wives, you'll love this tale of rampant police brutality!

This. It's doubly problematic when you consider the incidence of false reports.

TheCyborgNinja posted...

It's only police brutality if the person committed no crime.

Not how it works by any stretch of the imagination.
---

Zeus posted...

darkknight109 posted...

If you hate men who beat their wives, you'll love this tale of rampant police brutality!

This. It's doubly problematic when you consider the incidence of false reports.

TheCyborgNinja posted...

It's only police brutality if the person committed no crime.

Not how it works by any stretch of the imagination.

"Well, I know that's not the actual law, that's just my opinion of the situation." Post #11


---

Opinions can be wrong, such as when theyre based off of misinformation or just flat-out stupidity.

The earth is flat! Thats my opinion so you cant tell me otherwise!

Vaccines cause autism!

Its okay for cops to act as judge and jury when someone does something I dont like!
---

Far-Queue posted...

Opinions can be wrong, such as when theyre based off of misinformation or just flat-out stupidity.

The earth is flat! Thats my opinion so you cant tell me otherwise!

Vaccines cause autism!

Its okay for cops to act as judge and jury when someone does something I dont like!

You're using scientific examples within a societal/judicial discussion. "How criminals should be punished" isn't in the same category as "the benefits of vaccines." You may as well bring up mortgage rates and favourite colours while we're at it. Apples and oranges. Things like "the world is round" is an objective truth. "What constitutes police brutality" is more subjective when we're talking opinions on the matter. Some opinions are wrong, like yours for lumping in things that are weighed based on different factors. Science and law aren't built upon a singular foundation, because punishment/society are complete fabrications, whereas science is "observe and report" with little deviation from evidence collected. Something not based on evidence but opinion is far more open to interpretation. Fail harder?
---

TheCyborgNinja posted...

darkknight109 posted...

TheCyborgNinja posted...

I understand why people are disapproving of what happened, I simply support what amounts to "Judge Dredd" for a legal system.

Even though it doesn't work?

It doesn't work because they implemented it after everything collapsed, as a means to salvage what was left. It's like Sears last year, trying to salvage itself. It was admittedly a very poor example in this instance, and veered things off a bit...

If something like the old Prussian judicial system were to be implemented, you'd get absolutism combined with certain guaranteed rights, but anti-social or subversive activities were still subject to scrutiny by the Geheimpolizei outside of all that and everyone generally toed the line as a good citizen, with the general population having carefree lives and those upsetting the social order being punished accordingly. This ideology didn't fail because it was dysfunctional, it failed because the last reigning Kaiser was an idiot who got involved in a suicidal war in a sad attempt to be number one. I had family there, so I'm not pulling this out of thin air.

Every study and piece of evidence from the modern world shows that treating criminals humanely - sometimes even comfortably - dramatically lowers recidivism rates. Punishing them does nothing to solve the underlying issues that made them criminals in the first place.

I mean, if you really want to scratch that revenge itch, that's your prerogative. Me? I'd rather go for efficacy and stop these guys from re-offending whenever they get out.
---

darkknight109 posted...

TheCyborgNinja posted...

darkknight109 posted...

TheCyborgNinja posted...

I understand why people are disapproving of what happened, I simply support what amounts to "Judge Dredd" for a legal system.

Even though it doesn't work?

It doesn't work because they implemented it after everything collapsed, as a means to salvage what was left. It's like Sears last year, trying to salvage itself. It was admittedly a very poor example in this instance, and veered things off a bit...

If something like the old Prussian judicial system were to be implemented, you'd get absolutism combined with certain guaranteed rights, but anti-social or subversive activities were still subject to scrutiny by the Geheimpolizei outside of all that and everyone generally toed the line as a good citizen, with the general population having carefree lives and those upsetting the social order being punished accordingly. This ideology didn't fail because it was dysfunctional, it failed because the last reigning Kaiser was an idiot who got involved in a suicidal war in a sad attempt to be number one. I had family there, so I'm not pulling this out of thin air.

Every study and piece of evidence from the modern world shows that treating criminals humanely - sometimes even comfortably - dramatically lowers recidivism rates. Punishing them does nothing to solve the underlying issues that made them criminals in the first place.

I mean, if you really want to scratch that revenge itch, that's your prerogative. Me? I'd rather go for efficacy and stop these guys from re-offending whenever they get out.

That's a fair point, one of which I was aware, but I'm of the opinion that basic human rights (access to clean water, food, health care) are important, and once in place anyone who deviates from acceptable behaviour in terms of infringing on the wellbeing of another has forfeited their rights as they were provided a fair opportunity for success and willfully betrayed the greater good through the worsening of society by those actions. I am of the opinion that the individual takes a back seat to the greater good, as the end result is actually more beneficial for every individual that way (on average).
---

TheCyborgNinja posted...

Far-Queue posted...

Opinions can be wrong, such as when theyre based off of misinformation or just flat-out stupidity.

The earth is flat! Thats my opinion so you cant tell me otherwise!

Vaccines cause autism!

Its okay for cops to act as judge and jury when someone does something I dont like!

You're using scientific examples within a societal/judicial discussion. "How criminals should be punished" isn't in the same category as "the benefits of vaccines." You may as well bring up mortgage rates and favourite colours while we're at it. Apples and oranges. Things like "the world is round" is an objective truth. "What constitutes police brutality" is more subjective when we're talking opinions on the matter. Some opinions are wrong, like yours for lumping in things that are weighed based on different factors. Science and law aren't built upon a singular foundation, because punishment/society are complete fabrications, whereas science is "observe and report" with little deviation from evidence collected. Something not based on evidence but opinion is far more open to interpretation. Fail harder?

Like I said, some opinions are wrong because they're steeped in flat-out stupidity. Like your opinion on what constitutes police brutality, for example.

But please, keep hiding your ignorance behind the whole "It's just my opinion!" argument.
---

Far-Queue posted...

TheCyborgNinja posted...

Far-Queue posted...

Opinions can be wrong, such as when theyre based off of misinformation or just flat-out stupidity.

The earth is flat! Thats my opinion so you cant tell me otherwise!

Vaccines cause autism!

Its okay for cops to act as judge and jury when someone does something I dont like!

You're using scientific examples within a societal/judicial discussion. "How criminals should be punished" isn't in the same category as "the benefits of vaccines." You may as well bring up mortgage rates and favourite colours while we're at it. Apples and oranges. Things like "the world is round" is an objective truth. "What constitutes police brutality" is more subjective when we're talking opinions on the matter. Some opinions are wrong, like yours for lumping in things that are weighed based on different factors. Science and law aren't built upon a singular foundation, because punishment/society are complete fabrications, whereas science is "observe and report" with little deviation from evidence collected. Something not based on evidence but opinion is far more open to interpretation. Fail harder?

Like I said, some opinions are wrong because they're steeped in flat-out stupidity. Like your opinion on what constitutes police brutality, for example.

But please, keep hiding your ignorance behind the whole "It's just my opinion!" argument.

I love how you completely avoided the fact that I tore down your shitty-ass examples and are refusing to acknowledge that anything regarding societal structure is just "opinion" rather than something based on hard facts (like vaccinations, etc.). You disagree with me and can't even articulate it properly, and because your point is an opinion just like mine, it's impossible to outright discredit me. I stated above that I'm not saying "based on our justice system, this instance is not police brutality." I personally consider it a punishment that fits the crime, and I'm actually willing to accept that others will feel differently, which is why I am continuing to participate in a debate rather than try to shut one down. You aren't able to participate properly, it seems, so I don't know why you're bothering. You're so set in your beliefs that you actually think they're objectively correct. They're not necessarily incorrect, they're just different than mine. You've turned this into an "agnostic versus fundamentalist (insert religion here)" situation by treating what you feel is morally right as an objective truth, which has in turn shielded you from rationality here. I respect your right to disagree with me, but you can't seem to comprehend the subject matter enough to do the same.

Maybe go make out with Big Red now, or something, ok? She loves just telling people that her opinions are facts too.
---

TheCyborgNinja posted...

anyone who deviates from acceptable behaviour in terms of infringing on the wellbeing of another has forfeited their rights as they were provided a fair opportunity for success

But do you know that they were ever given a fair opportunity for success? What if that wife beater was raised in a shitty home in an economically depressed area, with no family support and no real opportunity to succeed in life? Does that constitute a "fair opportunity"?

I've worked with kids from bad neighbourhoods before. Far more frequently than you'd think the "wife beater" behaviour is a learned one. I've seen boys who hit girls because it's what they see at home and girls who don't bother to say anything because they also see it at home and both of them assume that's just how things are supposed to work. I've seen kids who were flat out stunned - sometimes seeming insulted or hurt - when they got in trouble for doing things like that, because they were never told that it was wrong.

That's my personal suspicion on why prison models that focus on education, rehabilitation, and actually treating the prisoners with respect and decency do so well compared to those that punish - because a lot of the people who wind up there have never had that sort of behaviour modeled for them and, when actually given an opportunity to advance and succeed the way most people get from birth, they thrive. Few people are born criminals; it's no coincidence that crime and poverty so often go hand in hand.

But there's no way for the vigilante cop in your story to know that. That's what makes his behaviour so awful. Because instead of doing the moral thing and recognizing that violence is wrong, you're basically perpetrating the message that violence is OK, as long as you find the target acceptable (which, incidentally, is exactly what the wife beater thinks, so you haven't taught him anything new, just temporarily put him on the other side of the equation and made him eager to get back to being the beater rather than the beaten).
---

That guy needs to be locked up forever and TC is sick if he thinks that "story" is funny.

iAmAnOrphan posted...

Your dad's friend sounds like he's as much of a piece of shit as that asshole who was beating his wife.

Actually worse.
The wife can at least try to fight back and be legally in the clear. If the abusive husband tried to defend himself from psycho cop at all, he'd get charges added for assaulting a police officer. And probably get assaulted or tortured further in custody while restrained and literally helpless.

darkknight109 posted...

TheCyborgNinja posted...

anyone who deviates from acceptable behaviour in terms of infringing on the wellbeing of another has forfeited their rights as they were provided a fair opportunity for success

But do you know that they were ever given a fair opportunity for success? What if that wife beater was raised in a shitty home in an economically depressed area, with no family support and no real opportunity to succeed in life? Does that constitute a "fair opportunity"?

America and Canada, for instance, have areas that are outright cesspools where maybe those things aren't as common as they should be. I was talking in hypotheticals, as in "once those rights are insured, there are no excuses." It was a bit of a tangent more about the government reallocating resources and then going from there... I can see how it may have been misinterpreted.

Regardless, being abused is not a valid reason for becoming an abuser yourself, merely an explanation. As a defense, it's up there with "but all my friends were doing it." I can think of six people I know off the top of my head who suffered abuse (sexual and/or physical), and none of them paid it forward. Most of them also came from very low socio-economic backgrounds. Justifying this guy hitting his wife is literally not possible. Even if he was severely mentally ill, it is again just an explanation rather than an excuse and he should still be taken off the streets anyway. In this specific instance, it wasn't the first time, IIRC, nor was he mentally unfit, he was just a jerk that had it coming.
---

TheCyborgNinja posted...

America and Canada, for instance, have areas that are outright cesspools where maybe those things aren't as common as they should be. I was talking in hypotheticals, as in "once those rights are insured, there are no excuses."

But those rights aren't insured and never have been, so I still fail to understand why you're still supporting the vigilante cop. Speak in hypotheticals as you please - in a perfect world, no one would be denied their fair opportunity after all - but that doesn't justify applying the morals of your hypothetical to a real world situation.

TheCyborgNinja posted...

Regardless, being abused is not a valid reason for becoming an abuser yourself, merely an explanation.

A reason and an explanation are the same thing - I think you meant "justification". More on that below.

TheCyborgNinja posted...

I can think of six people I know off the top of my head who suffered abuse (sexual and/or physical), and none of them paid it forward. Most of them also came from very low socio-economic backgrounds.

That you know of. Abusers can be very good at hiding abuse.

But let's assume you're correct and none of them paid it forward in any form. Good for them. That doesn't mean the same will apply for everyone. Some people can walk through some truly hellish warzones and come out unscathed; that doesn't mean that PTSD isn't a legitimate concern that demands redress. Just because some people are unaffected doesn't mean everyone will be.

TheCyborgNinja posted...

Justifying this guy hitting his wife is literally not possible.

I agree. Fortunately, no one in this topic is doing that.

You're making a classic mistake that always seems to pop up in these sorts of discussions about the justice system, which is confusing a root-cause analysis with a justification.

No, saying the guy came from a shitty background does not justify him doing shitty things in the future, nor is anyone suggesting he should have a blank cheque for such actions. He broke the law - laws that he, as an adult, would have been well aware of - and as a result he's going to have a debt to society that will need to be paid. No one is disputing that at all.

Figuring out what makes a criminal a criminal isn't an attempt to justify their actions, it's an attempt to figure out the pathway that leads from "Normal human" to "criminal" so that we can disrupt that pathway before it ever gets to the point where a crime is being committed. Saying "just beat the shit out of the guy" is too late, because the crime has already occurred at that point.

Once the deed is done, it is done - there's no putting the genie back in the bottle. Beating the shit out of this guy will not, in any way, ameliorate the damage he has done to his victims. All it does is let your dad's boss take out his own rage issues on another human being, which - again - is just furthering a cycle. Once the abuse is done and the guy is caught, you can only choose how you will proceed - you can either be reactionary and try and punish him for what he's done (in whatever form that punishment takes), or you can be proactive and try and stop him from doing it again in the future. The latter is far, far more effective at stopping crime and preventing future victims, and that has been verified over and over again.

Cheering when a cop commits police brutality or Bubba rapes someone in the prison showers only makes sense if your sole concern is satisfying your revenge-itch; if you're actually interested in stopping crime and preventing future victims, it's completely counter-productive.
---

TheCyborgNinja posted...

Even if he was severely mentally ill, it is again just an explanation rather than an excuse and he should still be taken off the streets anyway.

Being mentally ill is absolutely an excuse, because someone who meets the criminal definition of "insane" cannot differentiate right from wrong. Yes, they should be taken off the streets in order to protect themselves and others, but that is so that they can receive treatment and care, not so they can be punished for actions that they could not reasonably have been prevented.

TheCyborgNinja posted...

In this specific instance, it wasn't the first time, IIRC, nor was he mentally unfit, he was just a jerk that had it coming.

Well, since you seem to know so much about this guy, what prompted the abuse? Why was he the way he was?

Surely you must have an answer for this. You've been eager this whole topic to extol the virtues of a cop who committed several felonies in the prosecution of his duties, so I'm assuming you have a good knowledge of this individual's background and what turned him into an abuser.
---

if true, i dont like it at all. abuse of power is nothing to be proud of.
---

I've learned on PotD that usually you can count on at least a few people to affirm batshit views, so I was pleasantly surprised to see pretty much everyone obliterate TC in this topic, especially after he was so cocky in presenting the story as something we'd enjoy.

Might I remind everyone that this is the kind of shit Arctic relished, too. Be glad that he's gone and don't forget that if he comes back.

Rockies posted...

I've learned on PotD that usually you can count on at least a few people to affirm batshit views, so I was pleasantly surprised to see pretty much everyone obliterate TC in this topic, especially after he was so cocky in presenting the story as something we'd enjoy.

It's almost heart-warming, seeing people on the opposite side of political arguments and usually verbally sparring in every topic all coming together to tell the TC off.

darkknight109 posted...

TheCyborgNinja posted...
Justifying this guy hitting his wife is literally not possible.

I agree. Fortunately, no one in this topic is doing that.

Just for funsies I'm going to do it.

https://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletter_article/In_Brief_Domestic_violence_Not_always_one_sided

Woman comes at a guy with a knife. Guy defends himself, she has a bruise he is still standing, cop comes in and tortures the guy because he didn't do his job and defuse and investigate the situation.

Or one of the couple is actually clumsy, wife gets hurt in an accident, neighbor hears a commotion, calls the cops, cop shows up and proceeds to beat the shit out of the guy while the wife cries out in horror.

Or the cop randomly goes into a house, beats the man to hell, and slaps the woman around a bit until she agrees to not say anything as he gets his rocks off.

Given that this story is coming from the guy who thought it was a good idea to beat a man into unconsciousness and then open his eyes to pepper spray him, I have to question the validity of how "Rouged up" the woman was.

Best case scenario, the guy savagely beat his wife for years and the cop beating his ass was justified and helped the woman to escape that relationship. Even in that case the cop is jeopardizing the guy going to jail at all for a one time beating and giving him a solid case to actually get a lot of money for beating up his wife. As the tax payer footing the bill, I don't want that cop anywhere near any kind of crime or law enforcement. I can't trust him not to fuck everything up.
---

lol TC tucked tail and ran from his own topic. Absolutely obliterated.
---

Cops have way too much unchecked power in this country.

I get the whole innocent until proven guilty thing, but cops who get paid leave while under investigation should be made to pay that money back should they be found guilty. Or make it so they have to put a certain amount aside in escrow in order to repay the state/town.
---

iAmAnOrphan posted...

lol TC tucked tail and ran from his own topic. Absolutely obliterated.

Yeah, maybe now he'll understand that Gamefaqs is exclusively a MANLET hive where we do not condone violence against our brothers.

#MensRightNow
---