This Officer needs to be fired

[sirs]

...and if warranted, brought up on charges.  Let the investigation run its course, but per the video & report, there was NOTHING to warrant the officer to have done what he did or acted the way he did

[Xavier_Onassis]

I agree with you. kicking a prone person is unacceptable, even when there are eyewitnesses, even more so when they are innocent. It is probable that the TV station refused to air this because of a sweetheart deal with the cops.That is fairly common.

[sirs]

What's "fairly common"?

- TV stations refusing to air stuff because of sweetheart deals with the cops?

- Cops routinely kicking innocent detained suspects, on the ground?


And which ever it is, I respectfully request some validation and/or proof of such a "fairly common" practice.  Just your say so, isn't going to cut it

[Kramer]

I agree with you. kicking a prone person is unacceptable, even when there are eyewitnesses, even more so when they are innocent. It is probable that the TV station refused to air this because of a sweetheart deal with the cops.That is fairly common.

I think you are lying. I looked and could not find anywhere that police have sweetheart deals with TV stations.

[BT]

From the story sirs posted:

Morris told KIRO TV that when showed the video to that station, he was told, "We're definitely not going to run this."

Morris told KIRO 7 Investigative Reporter Chris Halsne he believes the station declined to run the video to protect police.

"The station has a close relationship with police agencies because it airs Washington's Most Wanted," Morris said.

"Washington's Most Wanted is their money-maker," he said.

A few days after he shot the video, he was fired, Morris said.

"I've shot a lot of news. This, by far, is the most important news story I've ever shot," said Morris.

[Kramer]

Reporter Chris Halsne he believes the station declined to run the video to protect police.

proof, we need proof not speculation

[BT]

Either the cameraman is right and the station suppressed the video because of possible revenue loss or the station didn't air it because they didn't think it newsworthy.

What is interesting is the video was enough to trigger internal investigations inside the police department and have the mayor running for cover.

But the video might be one-sided. It may not have captured what led up to the harassment and the beat down.

[Kramer]

Either the cameraman is right and the station suppressed the video because of possible revenue loss or the station didn't air it because they didn't think it newsworthy.

What is interesting is the video was enough to trigger internal investigations inside the police department and have the mayor running for cover.

But the video might be one-sided. It may not have captured what led up to the harassment and the beat down.

You wonder just why the cops would snap like that. The two sides to every story point is a good one. Typically the TV News is liberal. Assuming this station is liberal makes me wonder if money means more to them than exposing police racist brutality.

[BT]

The bigger question is what triggers a much awarded precinct cop to lose it.

Was it frustration at a justice system that cares more for the perps than the victims?

Was it the result of taunts by the perp that he was untouchable because he was a minor.

Was the perp a member of a gang and the gang was identified as the ones doing the robberies in the entertainment district?

Who knows.

[Kramer]

The bigger question is what triggers a much awarded precinct cop to lose it.

Was it frustration at a justice system that cares more for the perps than the victims?

Was it the result of taunts by the perp that he was untouchable because he was a minor.

Was the perp a member of a gang and the gang was identified as the ones doing the robberies in the entertainment district?

Who knows.

Bush made him do it

[Xavier_Onassis]

Reporter Chris Halsne he believes the station declined to run the video to protect police.

proof, we need proof not speculation
======================================
Well, you are not going to get proof, because the TV station did not break any laws. They are not obliged to air any specific footage of anything, ever.

And if there is a deal between the station and the police, that is not going to be any written contract, either. The cops would simply deny access to the station for the popular program mentioned in the original post. Here in Miami, we had a station that ran an expose of the cops and they were shut out of the cophouse until a new chief was appointed. I do not actually give a rat's ass whether I have convinced Kramer or sirs.

[Plane]

Reporter Chris Halsne he believes the station declined to run the video to protect police.

proof, we need proof not speculation
======================================
Well, you are not going to get proof, because the TV station did not break any laws. They are not obliged to air any specific footage of anything, ever.

And if there is a deal between the station and the police, that is not going to be any written contract, either. The cops would simply deny access to the station for the popular program mentioned in the original post. Here in Miami, we had a station that ran an expose of the cops and they were shut out of the cophouse until a new chief was appointed. I do not actually give a rat's ass whether I have convinced Kramer or sirs.

I don't doubt it , this is the kind of problem that journalists deal with at every level.

They need the volentary cooperation and access of the administrations that they report on from the sheriff to the white house , and at every level officials are more or less cooperative and accessable depending on how threatened they feel.

News that is worth the risk of offence gets published , news that is more troubble than reward gets forgotten.

[sirs]

Reporter Chris Halsne he believes the station declined to run the video to protect police.  proof, we need proof not speculation
======================================
Well, you are not going to get proof, because the TV station did not break any laws. They are not obliged to air any specific footage of anything, ever.

And if there is a deal between the station and the police, that is not going to be any written contract, either. The cops would simply deny access to the station for the popular program mentioned in the original post.  

So...how do we jump from no proof <--> "fairly common" conclusion??  Pray tell, what are you using as deductive assessing

[Xavier_Onassis]

So tell us what REALLY happened, genius.

[sirs]

About what??  I'm not the one making some broadbrush claim of this kind of event being fairly common, based on your concession of no proof.  Hell, we still don't even know what you're referring to as fairly common.  Can you be any more vague?

So, you tell us Professor.....What is the specific that is "fairly common" and how do you objectively come to that assessment??