That's pretty brutal. This is yet another good example as to why all cars should be outfitted with dash cams (two of them - one to film the driver's side, and one to film out the windshield).
I fail to see how this qualifies him as "another oath breaking piece of garbage."
The cop was wrong, no question about that. The dude had a right to be upset, I would too. But doesn't everyone realize cops are human too, they are going to make a mistake? This mistake didn't cost anyone harm or injury, just couple minutes of the dude's time. Has no one else ever made a turn and accidentally cut someone off and not even realize it? It happens. I thought the cop was professional, he didn't yank the dude out of the car and beat him up for refusing to produce his registration
The cop made a mistake, he was wrong, probably didn't even realize it. How does that make him a piece of garbage. I always thought I was the only one to never make a mistake, everyone else here hasn't either I guess, just these cops?
You're really going to call everyone who makes a minor mistake at their job a piece of garbage? Cashier gave me the wrong change, piece of garbage! Dude at McDonalds gave me the wrong order, piece of garbage! The mailman lost my mail, what an oath breaking piece of garbage! You must hate everyone in your life.
Wait a minute. That wasn't a minor mistake, and I think you're focusing on the wrong thing here. The cop was very clearly in the wrong, either by accident or not (I don't see how that could possibly be accidental. It looked to me like the cop was deliberately trying to "bully" his way through traffic), and his reaction was to chase the driver he almost caused an accident for and blame that driver for his own "mistake" (wasn't a mistake. That was an intentional driving move). That is a cop lying and trying to blame an innocent member of the public for his own bad behaviour. Either that, or the cop is delusional and hallucinating, or so full of himself that his brain automatically, subconsciously reversed fault, meaning the cop isn't fit to work in any case.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
That's pretty brutal. This is yet another good example as to why all cars should be outfitted with dash cams (two of them - one to film the driver's side, and one to film out the windshield).
I fail to see how this qualifies him as "another oath breaking piece of garbage."
The cop was wrong, no question about that. The dude had a right to be upset, I would too. But doesn't everyone realize cops are human too, they are going to make a mistake? This mistake didn't cost anyone harm or injury, just couple minutes of the dude's time. Has no one else ever made a turn and accidentally cut someone off and not even realize it? It happens. I thought the cop was professional, he didn't yank the dude out of the car and beat him up for refusing to produce his registration
The cop made a mistake, he was wrong, probably didn't even realize it. How does that make him a piece of garbage. I always thought I was the only one to never make a mistake, everyone else here hasn't either I guess, just these cops?
You're really going to call everyone who makes a minor mistake at their job a piece of garbage? Cashier gave me the wrong change, piece of garbage! Dude at McDonalds gave me the wrong order, piece of garbage! The mailman lost my mail, what an oath breaking piece of garbage! You must hate everyone in your life.
Wait a minute. That wasn't a minor mistake, and I think you're focusing on the wrong thing here. The cop was very clearly in the wrong, either by accident or not (I don't see how that could possibly be accidental. It looked to me like the cop was deliberately trying to "bully" his way through traffic), and his reaction was to chase the driver he almost caused an accident for and blame that driver for his own "mistake" (wasn't a mistake. That was an intentional driving move). That is a cop lying and trying to blame an innocent member of the public for his own bad behaviour. Either that, or the cop is delusional and hallucinating, or so full of himself that his brain automatically, subconsciously reversed fault, meaning the cop isn't fit to work in any case.
That comment was from 4 or 5 months ago, so trying to remember the video. He was in the wrong, that wasn't in question. You could be right. But I just tend to lean towards what is least complicated and more practical. For a cop to intentionally try to cause accidents and then write tickets just doesnt make sense. He has nothing to gain, everything to lose. One complaint may go ignored, but you realize if the department gets several complaints about him driving like this they will open an investigation, and if a pattern is found he will lose his job. There is no motive for this to be intentional, no reason for him to try and cause an accident. If he wanted to just give out fake tickets, why draw attention to himself first? Just go pick some guy who he didn't almost hit and write a fake ticket. Nothing about this being intentional makes any sense to me. Which leaves me to believe it was an accident. Maybe he was responding to a call on his radio, maybe he was looking up a license plate, who knows, and was distracted. That seems more plausible to me.
So, Derrick Stafford was convicted and sentenced to a 40 year sentence for the shooting death of the 6 year old autistic boy. The other officer will be tried later and it doesn't look good for him either. This is a very interesting turn of events, usually the court sides with officers to a fault. I can't help but wonder if the officers had been white and he victim black, would a New Orleans jury have delivered the same verdict?
I seem to remember people here defending this shooting, but maybe I am wrong. There was essentially no evidence brought forward in trial that was any different than what we had, video of the shooting and knowledge that 2 other officers on scene did not feel threatened.
As one of my stalkers you should review this very thread. I am shocked you missed the numerous posts on such a topic. Stop slacking. And don't be an idiot.
As one of my stalkers you should review this very thread. I am shocked you missed the numerous posts on such a topic. Stop slacking. And don't be an idiot.
Is this why you conceal carry? Internet stalkers? Someone challenges your way of thinking and they're a stalker? Still fearing elimination of the white race as well, I presume? Get over yourself.
As one of my stalkers you should review this very thread. I am shocked you missed the numerous posts on such a topic. Stop slacking. And don't be an idiot.
Is this why you conceal carry? Internet stalkers? Someone challenges your way of thinking and they're a stalker? Still fearing elimination of the white race as well, I presume? Get over yourself.
Go read some past posts where I defended Eeic Garner before you decide to accuse someone of something.
So defending myself is the need to get over myself. Funny.
As one of my stalkers you should review this very thread. I am shocked you missed the numerous posts on such a topic. Stop slacking. And don't be an idiot.
Is this why you conceal carry? Internet stalkers? Someone challenges your way of thinking and they're a stalker? Still fearing elimination of the white race as well, I presume? Get over yourself.
Go read some past posts where I defended Eeic Garner before you decide to accuse someone of something.
So defending myself is the need to get over myself. Funny.
I asked you why this didn't include the fourth type? The type that goes to work and comes home after work doing the best they can.
Ask yourself the same question you just asked of another person in your last post. You're losing your mind, man.
See, that's just cute. The fourth type. The fourth type must be deaf and blind lol
Or maybe just raised in a pot smoking home lol
Actually, if anyone thinks this is true or that there are only even 4 types, they are being ridiculous. We all know there are bad ones, but you better believe the goods ones are pulling 200% of their weight to get rid of the shitty ones. This isn't the 60's and 70's. Of all the cops in the country, you've probably got less than 5% who fall in to the "3" types of cop.
I'm going to take a wild guess that no one here is a cop, which therefore makes it hard to understand dealing with drug dealers/users (and I'm talking about the meth, heroine and coke stuff), drunk assholes, domestic violence, sexual assault, thieves and all around shitty human beings on a daily basis so these individuals don't inconvenience or hassle you and yours as you go about your life.
I asked you why this didn't include the fourth type? The type that goes to work and comes home after work doing the best they can.
Ask yourself the same question you just asked of another person in your last post. You're losing your mind, man.
See, that's just cute. The fourth type. The fourth type must be deaf and blind lol
Or maybe just raised in a pot smoking home lol
Actually, if anyone thinks this is true or that there are only even 4 types, they are being ridiculous. We all know there are bad ones, but you better believe the goods ones are pulling 200% of their weight to get rid of the shitty ones. This isn't the 60's and 70's. Of all the cops in the country, you've probably got less than 5% who fall in to the "3" types of cop.
I'm going to take a wild guess that no one here is a cop, which therefore makes it hard to understand dealing with drug dealers/users (and I'm talking about the meth, heroine and coke stuff), drunk assholes, domestic violence, sexual assault, thieves and all around shitty human beings on a daily basis so these individuals don't inconvenience or hassle you and yours as you go about your life.
So more than 95% of cops are pulling 200% of their weight to get rid of bad cops and practically every independent investigation of police departments in America still turns up corruption and illegal activities being covered up? Damn.
The second paragraph has nothing to do with it, the struggles of the job have nothing to do with doing it honestly and with integrity.
I asked you why this didn't include the fourth type? The type that goes to work and comes home after work doing the best they can.
Ask yourself the same question you just asked of another person in your last post. You're losing your mind, man.
See, that's just cute. The fourth type. The fourth type must be deaf and blind lol
Or maybe just raised in a pot smoking home lol
Actually, if anyone thinks this is true or that there are only even 4 types, they are being ridiculous. We all know there are bad ones, but you better believe the goods ones are pulling 200% of their weight to get rid of the shitty ones. This isn't the 60's and 70's. Of all the cops in the country, you've probably got less than 5% who fall in to the "3" types of cop.
I'm going to take a wild guess that no one here is a cop, which therefore makes it hard to understand dealing with drug dealers/users (and I'm talking about the meth, heroine and coke stuff), drunk assholes, domestic violence, sexual assault, thieves and all around shitty human beings on a daily basis so these individuals don't inconvenience or hassle you and yours as you go about your life.
So more than 95% of cops are pulling 200% of their weight to get rid of bad cops and practically every independent investigation of police departments in America still turns up corruption and illegal activities being covered up? Damn.
The second paragraph has nothing to do with it, the struggles of the job have nothing to do with doing it honestly and with integrity.
No, not how I meant it. I merely meant the 3 types is less than 5% (that's still a lot across the country mind you, around 40,000!) Not everyone of the remaining 95% are pulling 200%, but they also aren't the dead weight asshole cop who is pulling the profession down. Mostly probably keeping an even keel, much like any profession.
My point with the 2nd statement is in response to anyone claiming there are only 3 types or that to be a good cop they are deaf and blind. That's fucking bullshit and is demeaning to those dealing with that shit everyday and sticking with it. If someone beats up and robs you, you're going to want that so called deaf and blind cop as much as you discredit them when you feel safe and secure in your home right now.
I asked you why this didn't include the fourth type? The type that goes to work and comes home after work doing the best they can.
Ask yourself the same question you just asked of another person in your last post. You're losing your mind, man.
See, that's just cute. The fourth type. The fourth type must be deaf and blind lol
Or maybe just raised in a pot smoking home lol
Actually, if anyone thinks this is true or that there are only even 4 types, they are being ridiculous. We all know there are bad ones, but you better believe the goods ones are pulling 200% of their weight to get rid of the shitty ones. This isn't the 60's and 70's. Of all the cops in the country, you've probably got less than 5% who fall in to the "3" types of cop.
I'm going to take a wild guess that no one here is a cop, which therefore makes it hard to understand dealing with drug dealers/users (and I'm talking about the meth, heroine and coke stuff), drunk assholes, domestic violence, sexual assault, thieves and all around shitty human beings on a daily basis so these individuals don't inconvenience or hassle you and yours as you go about your life.
So more than 95% of cops are pulling 200% of their weight to get rid of bad cops and practically every independent investigation of police departments in America still turns up corruption and illegal activities being covered up? Damn.
The second paragraph has nothing to do with it, the struggles of the job have nothing to do with doing it honestly and with integrity.
No, not how I meant it. I merely meant the 3 types is less than 5% (that's still a lot across the country mind you, around 40,000!) Not everyone of the remaining 95% are pulling 200%, but they also aren't the dead weight asshole cop who is pulling the profession down. Mostly probably keeping an even keel, much like any profession.
My point with the 2nd statement is in response to anyone claiming there are only 3 types or that to be a good cop they are deaf and blind. That's fucking bullshit and is demeaning to those dealing with that shit everyday and sticking with it. If someone beats up and robs you, you're going to want that so called deaf and blind cop as much as you discredit them when you feel safe and secure in your home right now.
How is it possible that only 5% of police officers have seen abuses and failed to report and follow up on them? That's just ridiculous, it makes me think you have never met a cop or seen any studies or investigations that report and uncover police abuse.
For as balanced as you are on most issues that present themselves on the MT... you are extreme here.
My father-in-law was a cop and I have several friends that are cops. They are all excellent people. Now granted, in Canada, we don't have the same issues as the US which might lead to different attitudes developing within police people; however, to so easily dismiss a profession as corrupt and morally bankrupt is highly inappropriate.
You know... the MT community is funny. For example, it moves en masse to quickly defend Islam's integrity when Islamic radicals blow people up, yet by many of the same people... police are not afforded the same level of understanding.
For as balanced as you are on most issues that present themselves on the MT... you are extreme here.
My father-in-law was a cop and I have several friends that are cops. They are all excellent people. Now granted, in Canada, we don't have the same issues as the US which might lead to different attitudes developing within police people; however, to so easily dismiss a profession as corrupt and morally bankrupt is highly inappropriate.
You know... the MT community is funny. For example, it moves en masse to quickly defend Islam's integrity when Islamic radicals blow people up, yet by many of the same people... police are not afforded the same level of understanding.
Listen, I know cops too. I'm not saying they are terrible people. I'm not saying their lives are entirely without integrity or morals. What I am saying is that nearly every single cop with more than a handful of years in service has witnessed abuse and done nothing about it for a host of reasons, from the perfectly understandable up to the abhorrent. That is troubling to varying degrees, but it is just ridiculous that people want to paint this "few bad apples" portrait that conveniently takes away all pressure to maintain the strictest integrity in a profession which very much needs the strictest integrity.
I asked you why this didn't include the fourth type? The type that goes to work and comes home after work doing the best they can.
Ask yourself the same question you just asked of another person in your last post. You're losing your mind, man.
See, that's just cute. The fourth type. The fourth type must be deaf and blind lol
Or maybe just raised in a pot smoking home lol
Actually, if anyone thinks this is true or that there are only even 4 types, they are being ridiculous. We all know there are bad ones, but you better believe the goods ones are pulling 200% of their weight to get rid of the shitty ones. This isn't the 60's and 70's. Of all the cops in the country, you've probably got less than 5% who fall in to the "3" types of cop.
I'm going to take a wild guess that no one here is a cop, which therefore makes it hard to understand dealing with drug dealers/users (and I'm talking about the meth, heroine and coke stuff), drunk assholes, domestic violence, sexual assault, thieves and all around shitty human beings on a daily basis so these individuals don't inconvenience or hassle you and yours as you go about your life.
So more than 95% of cops are pulling 200% of their weight to get rid of bad cops and practically every independent investigation of police departments in America still turns up corruption and illegal activities being covered up? Damn.
The second paragraph has nothing to do with it, the struggles of the job have nothing to do with doing it honestly and with integrity.
No, not how I meant it. I merely meant the 3 types is less than 5% (that's still a lot across the country mind you, around 40,000!) Not everyone of the remaining 95% are pulling 200%, but they also aren't the dead weight asshole cop who is pulling the profession down. Mostly probably keeping an even keel, much like any profession.
My point with the 2nd statement is in response to anyone claiming there are only 3 types or that to be a good cop they are deaf and blind. That's fucking bullshit and is demeaning to those dealing with that shit everyday and sticking with it. If someone beats up and robs you, you're going to want that so called deaf and blind cop as much as you discredit them when you feel safe and secure in your home right now.
How is it possible that only 5% of police officers have seen abuses and failed to report and follow up on them? That's just ridiculous, it makes me think you have never met a cop or seen any studies or investigations that report and uncover police abuse.
Why does 5% seem ridiculous? That's a national average that I'm speculating. That means 20% of a certain department could be part of the overall 5% therefore you have an overly problematic department, but then another department has 0%. The department with 0% is never going to make the headlines and generally is ignored while the 20% will be broadcast like the problem is rampant across the profession. When you hear about these issues, it's usually a department that has fallen under bad leadership and the quality of the staff have eroded based on the climate of the workplace and co-workers; shit begets shit.
I'll ask you this, when you think of cops, do you have a negative or positive perspective? If so either way, why? Is it based on personal experience and direct word of mouth from others or media coverage? Just trying to understand where you are coming from on this.
For as balanced as you are on most issues that present themselves on the MT... you are extreme here.
My father-in-law was a cop and I have several friends that are cops. They are all excellent people. Now granted, in Canada, we don't have the same issues as the US which might lead to different attitudes developing within police people; however, to so easily dismiss a profession as corrupt and morally bankrupt is highly inappropriate.
You know... the MT community is funny. For example, it moves en masse to quickly defend Islam's integrity when Islamic radicals blow people up, yet by many of the same people... police are not afforded the same level of understanding.
Listen, I know cops too. I'm not saying they are terrible people. I'm not saying their lives are entirely without integrity or morals. What I am saying is that nearly every single cop with more than a handful of years in service has witnessed abuse and done nothing about it for a host of reasons, from the perfectly understandable up to the abhorrent. That is troubling to varying degrees, but it is just ridiculous that people want to paint this "few bad apples" portrait that conveniently takes away all pressure to maintain the strictest integrity in a profession which very much needs the strictest integrity.
I agree with you that the profession needs strict integrity.
I'll disagree with you that holding an entire profession under suspicion is prudent. I'll also disagree with you that nearly every single cop with more than a handful of years in service has witnessed abuse and done nothing about it... that's a baseless speculative argument you have thrust out there to serve your case. It's along the same lines as the '5%' speculation that you have called to question and essentially labelled baseless.
Do you feel your speculation is more legitimate than others speculation? If you don't... this is how you have come across in these last moments.
For as balanced as you are on most issues that present themselves on the MT... you are extreme here.
My father-in-law was a cop and I have several friends that are cops. They are all excellent people. Now granted, in Canada, we don't have the same issues as the US which might lead to different attitudes developing within police people; however, to so easily dismiss a profession as corrupt and morally bankrupt is highly inappropriate.
You know... the MT community is funny. For example, it moves en masse to quickly defend Islam's integrity when Islamic radicals blow people up, yet by many of the same people... police are not afforded the same level of understanding.
Listen, I know cops too. I'm not saying they are terrible people. I'm not saying their lives are entirely without integrity or morals. What I am saying is that nearly every single cop with more than a handful of years in service has witnessed abuse and done nothing about it for a host of reasons, from the perfectly understandable up to the abhorrent. That is troubling to varying degrees, but it is just ridiculous that people want to paint this "few bad apples" portrait that conveniently takes away all pressure to maintain the strictest integrity in a profession which very much needs the strictest integrity.
I agree with you that the profession needs strict integrity.
I'll disagree with you that holding an entire profession under suspicion is prudent. I'll also disagree with you that nearly every single cop with more than a handful of years in service has witnessed abuse and done nothing about it... that's a baseless speculative argument you have thrust out there to serve your case. It's along the same lines as the '5%' speculation that you have called to question and essentially labelled baseless.
Do you feel your speculation is more legitimate than others speculation? If you don't... this is how you have come across in these last moments.
Yes, I do feel it's a more legitimate speculation, because it's obvious. If you weren't Canadian, I'd bet the farm your father in law would admit to seeing abuse. Every cop I've ever known had no problem admitting it. You almost literally can't find a police department in America that hasn't splashed local headlines with a scandal, that hasn't paid money out in suits, that hasn't had uninvestigated complaints. It's just ridiculous to take the aggregate of information available in the media and say, "Yes, I have seen the proven results that transcend all geographic and social factors, but I'm refusing to extrapolate that data at all, I believe people are good and each of those instances is an unrelated, individual abberation." It could be that part of the divide here is probably in that you don't see abuse of power when the recipients are bad guys, you have shown that again and again. You don't care what cops do to scumbags, but I do. I don't feel bad for the scumbags, but I strongly believe that police are not a punitive force. Period. It's not their job to hit a restrained scumbag in the head, even if he deserves it. Period.
I asked you why this didn't include the fourth type? The type that goes to work and comes home after work doing the best they can.
Ask yourself the same question you just asked of another person in your last post. You're losing your mind, man.
See, that's just cute. The fourth type. The fourth type must be deaf and blind lol
Or maybe just raised in a pot smoking home lol
Actually, if anyone thinks this is true or that there are only even 4 types, they are being ridiculous. We all know there are bad ones, but you better believe the goods ones are pulling 200% of their weight to get rid of the shitty ones. This isn't the 60's and 70's. Of all the cops in the country, you've probably got less than 5% who fall in to the "3" types of cop.
I'm going to take a wild guess that no one here is a cop, which therefore makes it hard to understand dealing with drug dealers/users (and I'm talking about the meth, heroine and coke stuff), drunk assholes, domestic violence, sexual assault, thieves and all around shitty human beings on a daily basis so these individuals don't inconvenience or hassle you and yours as you go about your life.
So more than 95% of cops are pulling 200% of their weight to get rid of bad cops and practically every independent investigation of police departments in America still turns up corruption and illegal activities being covered up? Damn.
The second paragraph has nothing to do with it, the struggles of the job have nothing to do with doing it honestly and with integrity.
No, not how I meant it. I merely meant the 3 types is less than 5% (that's still a lot across the country mind you, around 40,000!) Not everyone of the remaining 95% are pulling 200%, but they also aren't the dead weight asshole cop who is pulling the profession down. Mostly probably keeping an even keel, much like any profession.
My point with the 2nd statement is in response to anyone claiming there are only 3 types or that to be a good cop they are deaf and blind. That's fucking bullshit and is demeaning to those dealing with that shit everyday and sticking with it. If someone beats up and robs you, you're going to want that so called deaf and blind cop as much as you discredit them when you feel safe and secure in your home right now.
How is it possible that only 5% of police officers have seen abuses and failed to report and follow up on them? That's just ridiculous, it makes me think you have never met a cop or seen any studies or investigations that report and uncover police abuse.
Why does 5% seem ridiculous? That's a national average that I'm speculating. That means 20% of a certain department could be part of the overall 5% therefore you have an overly problematic department, but then another department has 0%. The department with 0% is never going to make the headlines and generally is ignored while the 20% will be broadcast like the problem is rampant across the profession. When you hear about these issues, it's usually a department that has fallen under bad leadership and the quality of the staff have eroded based on the climate of the workplace and co-workers; shit begets shit.
I'll ask you this, when you think of cops, do you have a negative or positive perspective? If so either way, why? Is it based on personal experience and direct word of mouth from others or media coverage? Just trying to understand where you are coming from on this.
I think of the profession of policing in a generally negative way, I think of the individuals who engage in police work as normal folks like me, who have a tough job that comes with some strange conditions. Obviously it's more complicated than that though. To make generalizations, sheriff departments have a better reputation for helping people, but their structure allows for the least oversight and therefore the greatest potential for abuse. State Highway Patrol are revenue collecting ex-military folks and they act like it. City cops are somewhere in between. Of course, it goes without saying that generalizations can get you into big trouble if you take them too seriously, but those ones have been pretty spot on in my experience.
I have dealt with police abuse as an individual and I have seen much of it in the media, from local to national. I see no reason to take a mountain of data and discard it as marginal, I think it is only out of personal desire that people take nationwide trends and ignore them as anomalies.
Shit, I left this paragraph out! On the good side, State Highway Patrol is on the front line of vehicle safety and dealing with road accidents, and I admire their tenacity and dedication to serving the public in this way. City cops deal with criminals that are actively and passively threatening the community, and at it's core that is what police work is really about, why it's really necessary.
For as balanced as you are on most issues that present themselves on the MT... you are extreme here.
My father-in-law was a cop and I have several friends that are cops. They are all excellent people. Now granted, in Canada, we don't have the same issues as the US which might lead to different attitudes developing within police people; however, to so easily dismiss a profession as corrupt and morally bankrupt is highly inappropriate.
You know... the MT community is funny. For example, it moves en masse to quickly defend Islam's integrity when Islamic radicals blow people up, yet by many of the same people... police are not afforded the same level of understanding.
Listen, I know cops too. I'm not saying they are terrible people. I'm not saying their lives are entirely without integrity or morals. What I am saying is that nearly every single cop with more than a handful of years in service has witnessed abuse and done nothing about it for a host of reasons, from the perfectly understandable up to the abhorrent. That is troubling to varying degrees, but it is just ridiculous that people want to paint this "few bad apples" portrait that conveniently takes away all pressure to maintain the strictest integrity in a profession which very much needs the strictest integrity.
I agree with you that the profession needs strict integrity.
I'll disagree with you that holding an entire profession under suspicion is prudent. I'll also disagree with you that nearly every single cop with more than a handful of years in service has witnessed abuse and done nothing about it... that's a baseless speculative argument you have thrust out there to serve your case. It's along the same lines as the '5%' speculation that you have called to question and essentially labelled baseless.
Do you feel your speculation is more legitimate than others speculation? If you don't... this is how you have come across in these last moments.
Yes, I do feel it's a more legitimate speculation, because it's obvious. If you weren't Canadian, I'd bet the farm your father in law would admit to seeing abuse. Every cop I've ever known had no problem admitting it. You almost literally can't find a police department in America that hasn't splashed local headlines with a scandal, that hasn't paid money out in suits, that hasn't had uninvestigated complaints. It's just ridiculous to take the aggregate of information available in the media and say, "Yes, I have seen the proven results that transcend all geographic and social factors, but I'm refusing to extrapolate that data at all, I believe people are good and each of those instances is an unrelated, individual abberation." It could be that part of the divide here is probably in that you don't see abuse of power when the recipients are bad guys, you have shown that again and again. You don't care what cops do to scumbags, but I do. I don't feel bad for the scumbags, but I strongly believe that police are not a punitive force. Period. It's not their job to hit a restrained scumbag in the head, even if he deserves it. Period.
I am going to call bullshit on the first part of the bolded above. If you want to track back every police/sheriff's department 40 - 50 years, than this may be a little more accurate, but it's still as ridiculous as saying every company in the nation abuses power or is corrupt because they've terminated employees for policy violations or not fired/disciplined an employee for known abuse/misuse of the authority/position. Trying to isolate this problem to law enforcement is being ignorant. It's a human problem, not a profession. Humans are corrupt, human are malicious, humans are greedy and sometimes they are employed in positions that allow them to manipulate to a more public awareness.
To the second bolded part, so you're taking the mass media account of the state of law enforcement and applying it to everywhere and everyone? That is ridiculous. The police are by no means perfect, but they are less violent, corrupt and more involved in the community than they ever have been and that's because the profession is evolving as it should. Less militaristic responses to situations and people and more verbal de-escalation with less force being used.
Yes, you can probably hear a second or third hand account of a cop doing something they shouldn't have, but that one account doesn't extrapolate to an entire profession and it's workforce. That's the 5% sticking out like a sore thumb because that behavior and attitude is not being tolerated like it was even 20 years ago.
For as balanced as you are on most issues that present themselves on the MT... you are extreme here.
My father-in-law was a cop and I have several friends that are cops. They are all excellent people. Now granted, in Canada, we don't have the same issues as the US which might lead to different attitudes developing within police people; however, to so easily dismiss a profession as corrupt and morally bankrupt is highly inappropriate.
You know... the MT community is funny. For example, it moves en masse to quickly defend Islam's integrity when Islamic radicals blow people up, yet by many of the same people... police are not afforded the same level of understanding.
Listen, I know cops too. I'm not saying they are terrible people. I'm not saying their lives are entirely without integrity or morals. What I am saying is that nearly every single cop with more than a handful of years in service has witnessed abuse and done nothing about it for a host of reasons, from the perfectly understandable up to the abhorrent. That is troubling to varying degrees, but it is just ridiculous that people want to paint this "few bad apples" portrait that conveniently takes away all pressure to maintain the strictest integrity in a profession which very much needs the strictest integrity.
I agree with you that the profession needs strict integrity.
I'll disagree with you that holding an entire profession under suspicion is prudent. I'll also disagree with you that nearly every single cop with more than a handful of years in service has witnessed abuse and done nothing about it... that's a baseless speculative argument you have thrust out there to serve your case. It's along the same lines as the '5%' speculation that you have called to question and essentially labelled baseless.
Do you feel your speculation is more legitimate than others speculation? If you don't... this is how you have come across in these last moments.
Yes, I do feel it's a more legitimate speculation, because it's obvious. If you weren't Canadian, I'd bet the farm your father in law would admit to seeing abuse. Every cop I've ever known had no problem admitting it. You almost literally can't find a police department in America that hasn't splashed local headlines with a scandal, that hasn't paid money out in suits, that hasn't had uninvestigated complaints. It's just ridiculous to take the aggregate of information available in the media and say, "Yes, I have seen the proven results that transcend all geographic and social factors, but I'm refusing to extrapolate that data at all, I believe people are good and each of those instances is an unrelated, individual abberation." It could be that part of the divide here is probably in that you don't see abuse of power when the recipients are bad guys, you have shown that again and again. You don't care what cops do to scumbags, but I do. I don't feel bad for the scumbags, but I strongly believe that police are not a punitive force. Period. It's not their job to hit a restrained scumbag in the head, even if he deserves it. Period.
Wrong.
Unlike you... I have acknowledged both situations fairly in the high profile cases we have discussed: clear cut abuse cases (Rice, Thomas, etc.) and cases where force was appropriate given the situation (Brown, etc.).
Wasn't it you that suggested cops retreat into their cars and wait until that knife wielding maniac was tired or ready to give up versus take him down when he tried to attack them? You called it a tactical retreat. I mean... think of this, man. Just think of how far to the extreme you have taken your position. Your idea of good police work is for police to act as 'criminal whisperers' and have dangerous offenders taken into custody after cops have successfully convinced them of the error of their ways.
Comments
It has graphic images.
Why are they not rendering medical aid once the person has been incapacitated?
He was in the wrong, that wasn't in question.
You could be right. But I just tend to lean towards what is least complicated and more practical. For a cop to intentionally try to cause accidents and then write tickets just doesnt make sense. He has nothing to gain, everything to lose. One complaint may go ignored, but you realize if the department gets several complaints about him driving like this they will open an investigation, and if a pattern is found he will lose his job.
There is no motive for this to be intentional, no reason for him to try and cause an accident. If he wanted to just give out fake tickets, why draw attention to himself first? Just go pick some guy who he didn't almost hit and write a fake ticket.
Nothing about this being intentional makes any sense to me. Which leaves me to believe it was an accident. Maybe he was responding to a call on his radio, maybe he was looking up a license plate, who knows, and was distracted. That seems more plausible to me.
Police try to kill family dog, instead hit 4 year old child.
So, Derrick Stafford was convicted and sentenced to a 40 year sentence for the shooting death of the 6 year old autistic boy. The other officer will be tried later and it doesn't look good for him either.
This is a very interesting turn of events, usually the court sides with officers to a fault.
I can't help but wonder if the officers had been white and he victim black, would a New Orleans jury have delivered the same verdict?
I seem to remember people here defending this shooting, but maybe I am wrong. There was essentially no evidence brought forward in trial that was any different than what we had, video of the shooting and knowledge that 2 other officers on scene did not feel threatened.
your silence is deafing. Why is that?
http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/04/us/balch-springs-reaction-to-jordan-edwards-death/index.html
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
I asked you why this didn't include the fourth type? The type that goes to work and comes home after work doing the best they can.
Ask yourself the same question you just asked of another person in your last post. You're losing your mind, man.
The fourth type.
The fourth type must be deaf and blind lol
So an honest cop?
You act as if that is something that deserves special recognition.
I wasn't promoting good cops. I just pointed out that your assertion was stupid- childish in nature- because it was so limited with its bias.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
So defending myself is the need to get over myself. Funny.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
I'm going to take a wild guess that no one here is a cop, which therefore makes it hard to understand dealing with drug dealers/users (and I'm talking about the meth, heroine and coke stuff), drunk assholes, domestic violence, sexual assault, thieves and all around shitty human beings on a daily basis so these individuals don't inconvenience or hassle you and yours as you go about your life.
Damn.
The second paragraph has nothing to do with it, the struggles of the job have nothing to do with doing it honestly and with integrity.
My point with the 2nd statement is in response to anyone claiming there are only 3 types or that to be a good cop they are deaf and blind. That's fucking bullshit and is demeaning to those dealing with that shit everyday and sticking with it. If someone beats up and robs you, you're going to want that so called deaf and blind cop as much as you discredit them when you feel safe and secure in your home right now.
For as balanced as you are on most issues that present themselves on the MT... you are extreme here.
My father-in-law was a cop and I have several friends that are cops. They are all excellent people. Now granted, in Canada, we don't have the same issues as the US which might lead to different attitudes developing within police people; however, to so easily dismiss a profession as corrupt and morally bankrupt is highly inappropriate.
You know... the MT community is funny. For example, it moves en masse to quickly defend Islam's integrity when Islamic radicals blow people up, yet by many of the same people... police are not afforded the same level of understanding.
What I am saying is that nearly every single cop with more than a handful of years in service has witnessed abuse and done nothing about it for a host of reasons, from the perfectly understandable up to the abhorrent.
That is troubling to varying degrees, but it is just ridiculous that people want to paint this "few bad apples" portrait that conveniently takes away all pressure to maintain the strictest integrity in a profession which very much needs the strictest integrity.
I'll ask you this, when you think of cops, do you have a negative or positive perspective? If so either way, why? Is it based on personal experience and direct word of mouth from others or media coverage? Just trying to understand where you are coming from on this.
I'll disagree with you that holding an entire profession under suspicion is prudent. I'll also disagree with you that nearly every single cop with more than a handful of years in service has witnessed abuse and done nothing about it... that's a baseless speculative argument you have thrust out there to serve your case. It's along the same lines as the '5%' speculation that you have called to question and essentially labelled baseless.
Do you feel your speculation is more legitimate than others speculation? If you don't... this is how you have come across in these last moments.
You almost literally can't find a police department in America that hasn't splashed local headlines with a scandal, that hasn't paid money out in suits, that hasn't had uninvestigated complaints. It's just ridiculous to take the aggregate of information available in the media and say, "Yes, I have seen the proven results that transcend all geographic and social factors, but I'm refusing to extrapolate that data at all, I believe people are good and each of those instances is an unrelated, individual abberation."
It could be that part of the divide here is probably in that you don't see abuse of power when the recipients are bad guys, you have shown that again and again. You don't care what cops do to scumbags, but I do. I don't feel bad for the scumbags, but I strongly believe that police are not a punitive force. Period. It's not their job to hit a restrained scumbag in the head, even if he deserves it. Period.
Obviously it's more complicated than that though.
To make generalizations, sheriff departments have a better reputation for helping people, but their structure allows for the least oversight and therefore the greatest potential for abuse. State Highway Patrol are revenue collecting ex-military folks and they act like it. City cops are somewhere in between.
Of course, it goes without saying that generalizations can get you into big trouble if you take them too seriously, but those ones have been pretty spot on in my experience.
I have dealt with police abuse as an individual and I have seen much of it in the media, from local to national. I see no reason to take a mountain of data and discard it as marginal, I think it is only out of personal desire that people take nationwide trends and ignore them as anomalies.
On the good side, State Highway Patrol is on the front line of vehicle safety and dealing with road accidents, and I admire their tenacity and dedication to serving the public in this way.
City cops deal with criminals that are actively and passively threatening the community, and at it's core that is what police work is really about, why it's really necessary.
To the second bolded part, so you're taking the mass media account of the state of law enforcement and applying it to everywhere and everyone? That is ridiculous. The police are by no means perfect, but they are less violent, corrupt and more involved in the community than they ever have been and that's because the profession is evolving as it should. Less militaristic responses to situations and people and more verbal de-escalation with less force being used.
Yes, you can probably hear a second or third hand account of a cop doing something they shouldn't have, but that one account doesn't extrapolate to an entire profession and it's workforce. That's the 5% sticking out like a sore thumb because that behavior and attitude is not being tolerated like it was even 20 years ago.
Unlike you... I have acknowledged both situations fairly in the high profile cases we have discussed: clear cut abuse cases (Rice, Thomas, etc.) and cases where force was appropriate given the situation (Brown, etc.).
Wasn't it you that suggested cops retreat into their cars and wait until that knife wielding maniac was tired or ready to give up versus take him down when he tried to attack them? You called it a tactical retreat. I mean... think of this, man. Just think of how far to the extreme you have taken your position. Your idea of good police work is for police to act as 'criminal whisperers' and have dangerous offenders taken into custody after cops have successfully convinced them of the error of their ways.