Houston Tipping

Merkin Baller

I think “intimidation gone awry” is a much more likely scenario than the 4 cops agreeing in advance to murder another cop. 

Cropduster-80

mace1229 said:

Cropduster-80 said:

In any context why are they getting the benefit of the doubt here?

cops will do whatever to protect themselves especially when getting caught means jail.
if a cop has to choose between getting arrested and going after another cop the choice seems clear to me 

It’s entirely plausible and probable that’s exactly what happened.

did they try to murder him? Maybe not. That doesn’t mean intimidation or teaching him a lesson wasn’t the goal and he died 

there is no situation where he could go after a cop and the cop ignores it and doesn’t get his buddies to do something about it. None. That doesn’t happen period 

the additional information you want from is going to be coming from the police department so hardly objective. They are investigating themselves 

Even if this is all true, you’re still missing a big hole in the story to me. From the 3 articles I read, they all said this cop took the initial report. Nothing about being part of the investigation. He wasn’t an internal investigation cop. Sounds like someone called it with a complaint, he took the statements and passed it on. I doubt he had anything to do with it after that. Doesn’t sound like he had any direct knowledge of the incident. So there would be no motive.
The only person saying he was part of the investigation is the attorney. But that doesn’t make sense. You don’t call the police, file a report and have the same cop taking the report start the investigation. There’s a department for that. Especially for internal investigations.
It’s not adding up to me. And I’m not saying no cop would do this. But the majority aren’t willing to murder other cops.. 

if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it’s probably a duck 

It would be like if someone flew a passenger plane into sky scraper and you saying it was probably a mechanical issue. Based on context and history it probably wasn’t, and I doubt you would say that.

you may be right, but automatically coming at this from an assumption nothing wrong happened isn’t warranted based on a lot of reasons.  If it’s not this it’ll be something else tomorrow. It just makes it easier to sweep police corruption under the rug because so many people don’t want to believe it happens and excuse this crap all the time. 

You don’t have a presumption of innocence until a trial.  Before that, you are a suspect until you aren’t. 

If a cop investigates you for anything it’s because they think you did something wrong, not because they think you are innocent. Same thing here. This guy is a suspect and should be treated as such 

mace1229

Cropduster-80 said:

mace1229 said:

Cropduster-80 said:

In any context why are they getting the benefit of the doubt here?

cops will do whatever to protect themselves especially when getting caught means jail.
if a cop has to choose between getting arrested and going after another cop the choice seems clear to me 

It’s entirely plausible and probable that’s exactly what happened.

did they try to murder him? Maybe not. That doesn’t mean intimidation or teaching him a lesson wasn’t the goal and he died 

there is no situation where he could go after a cop and the cop ignores it and doesn’t get his buddies to do something about it. None. That doesn’t happen period 

the additional information you want from is going to be coming from the police department so hardly objective. They are investigating themselves 

Even if this is all true, you’re still missing a big hole in the story to me. From the 3 articles I read, they all said this cop took the initial report. Nothing about being part of the investigation. He wasn’t an internal investigation cop. Sounds like someone called it with a complaint, he took the statements and passed it on. I doubt he had anything to do with it after that. Doesn’t sound like he had any direct knowledge of the incident. So there would be no motive.
The only person saying he was part of the investigation is the attorney. But that doesn’t make sense. You don’t call the police, file a report and have the same cop taking the report start the investigation. There’s a department for that. Especially for internal investigations.
It’s not adding up to me. And I’m not saying no cop would do this. But the majority aren’t willing to murder other cops.. 

if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it’s probably a duck 

It would be like if someone flew a passenger plane into sky scraper and you saying it was probably a mechanical issue. Based on context and history it probably wasn’t, and I doubt you would say that.

you may be right, but automatically coming at this from an assumption nothing wrong happened isn’t warranted based on a lot of reasons.  If it’s not this it’ll be something else tomorrow. It just makes it easier to sweep police corruption under the rug because so many people don’t want to believe it happens and excuse this crap all the time. 

You don’t have a presumption of innocence until a trial.  Before that, you are a suspect until you aren’t. 

If a cop investigates you for anything it’s because they think you did something wrong, not because they think you are innocent. Same thing here. This guy is a suspect and should be treated as such 

It’s not walking or talking like a duck.
i see zero, other than the word of an attorney suing the department, that points to assault/murder here.
You asked what context do they deserve the benefit of the doubt. I would ask why are they guilty until proven innocent? There is literally nothing aside from accusations from the family in a lawsuit that supports any intentional act. Common sense doesn’t back it up either. There would be major flaws in policy if you investigate someone and continue to work and train with them. Those part of an investigation team usually don’t lead tactical training exercises. So that’s why I’m questioning it and not jumping to guilty until proven innocent.

I didn’t automatically come with an assumption of nothing wrong. 

I first asked where the info came from as I didn’t see the same info in any articles I read and I wanted to see what the sources were. That’s how I learned the only source is the attorney. Had that turned out different, if there was any confirmation whatsoever that he was an investigator, I might have a different opinion. I had pretty much no opinion when I asked that question.
But based on what I know as of now, the accident story seems more likely to me. It he wasn’t an investigator then there’s no motive. And doesn’t seem like he’s some internal affairs investigator about to bring this operation down.

Halifax2TheMax

Yea, I suppose this history in the context of what eventually happened to Officer Tipping couldn’t possibly lend itself to motive. Naaa, just an unfortunate accident because those happen all the time and there’s no such thing as the Blue Wall of Silence. Naaa, just a little whoopsie.

https://meaww.com/houston-tipping-whistleblower-got-sergeant-fired-over-fellow-cop-bringing-chocolate-penis-to-work

Chocolate penises brought to the work place, colleagues accused of rape, officer having a whoopsie, just a normal day in law enforcement. Nothing to see here.

Cropduster-80

I doubt the full story will ever come out, that’s unfortunate but happens all the time.  

Cropduster-80

Halifax2TheMax said:

Yea, I suppose this history in the context of what eventually happened to Officer Tipping couldn’t possibly lend itself to motive. Naaa, just an unfortunate accident because those happen all the time and there’s no such thing as the Blue Wall of Silence. Naaa, just a little whoopsie.

https://meaww.com/houston-tipping-whistleblower-got-sergeant-fired-over-fellow-cop-bringing-chocolate-penis-to-work

Chocolate penises brought to the work place, colleagues accused of rape, officer having a whoopsie, just a normal day in law enforcement. Nothing to see here.

A history of whistleblowing or a history of causing trouble? That’s how that plays. It’s victim blaming 

no way he didn’t have a huge target on him. I’m sure everyone hated him for basically doing the right thing.

Him dying is the biggest coincidence ever if it was an accident.  

Merkin Baller

Cropduster-80 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Yea, I suppose this history in the context of what eventually happened to Officer Tipping couldn’t possibly lend itself to motive. Naaa, just an unfortunate accident because those happen all the time and there’s no such thing as the Blue Wall of Silence. Naaa, just a little whoopsie.

https://meaww.com/houston-tipping-whistleblower-got-sergeant-fired-over-fellow-cop-bringing-chocolate-penis-to-work

Chocolate penises brought to the work place, colleagues accused of rape, officer having a whoopsie, just a normal day in law enforcement. Nothing to see here.

A history of whistleblowing or a history of causing trouble? That’s how that plays. It’s victim blaming 

no way he didn’t have a huge target on him. I’m sure everyone hated him for basically doing the right thing.

Him dying is the biggest coincidence ever if it was an accident.  

Coincidence…. Accident… either works.  

Gern Blansten

mace1229 said:

Cropduster-80 said:

mace1229 said:

Cropduster-80 said:

In any context why are they getting the benefit of the doubt here?

cops will do whatever to protect themselves especially when getting caught means jail.
if a cop has to choose between getting arrested and going after another cop the choice seems clear to me 

It’s entirely plausible and probable that’s exactly what happened.

did they try to murder him? Maybe not. That doesn’t mean intimidation or teaching him a lesson wasn’t the goal and he died 

there is no situation where he could go after a cop and the cop ignores it and doesn’t get his buddies to do something about it. None. That doesn’t happen period 

the additional information you want from is going to be coming from the police department so hardly objective. They are investigating themselves 

Even if this is all true, you’re still missing a big hole in the story to me. From the 3 articles I read, they all said this cop took the initial report. Nothing about being part of the investigation. He wasn’t an internal investigation cop. Sounds like someone called it with a complaint, he took the statements and passed it on. I doubt he had anything to do with it after that. Doesn’t sound like he had any direct knowledge of the incident. So there would be no motive.
The only person saying he was part of the investigation is the attorney. But that doesn’t make sense. You don’t call the police, file a report and have the same cop taking the report start the investigation. There’s a department for that. Especially for internal investigations.
It’s not adding up to me. And I’m not saying no cop would do this. But the majority aren’t willing to murder other cops.. 

if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it’s probably a duck 

It would be like if someone flew a passenger plane into sky scraper and you saying it was probably a mechanical issue. Based on context and history it probably wasn’t, and I doubt you would say that.

you may be right, but automatically coming at this from an assumption nothing wrong happened isn’t warranted based on a lot of reasons.  If it’s not this it’ll be something else tomorrow. It just makes it easier to sweep police corruption under the rug because so many people don’t want to believe it happens and excuse this crap all the time. 

You don’t have a presumption of innocence until a trial.  Before that, you are a suspect until you aren’t. 

If a cop investigates you for anything it’s because they think you did something wrong, not because they think you are innocent. Same thing here. This guy is a suspect and should be treated as such 

It’s not walking or talking like a duck.
i see zero, other than the word of an attorney suing the department, that points to assault/murder here.
You asked what context do they deserve the benefit of the doubt. I would ask why are they guilty until proven innocent? There is literally nothing aside from accusations from the family in a lawsuit that supports any intentional act. Common sense doesn’t back it up either. There would be major flaws in policy if you investigate someone and continue to work and train with them. Those part of an investigation team usually don’t lead tactical training exercises. So that’s why I’m questioning it and not jumping to guilty until proven innocent.

I didn’t automatically come with an assumption of nothing wrong. 

I first asked where the info came from as I didn’t see the same info in any articles I read and I wanted to see what the sources were. That’s how I learned the only source is the attorney. Had that turned out different, if there was any confirmation whatsoever that he was an investigator, I might have a different opinion. I had pretty much no opinion when I asked that question.
But based on what I know as of now, the accident story seems more likely to me. It he wasn’t an investigator then there’s no motive. And doesn’t seem like he’s some internal affairs investigator about to bring this operation down.

I don't disagree with you...definitely need more info

But a young healthy guy dying during training is suspect as hell. I agree he likely just took the report but if someone internally wanted to wipe this incident off the record he would be part of that record.

Merkin Baller

I'm also in agreement that more information is needed... but I'm sure as shit not inclined to give the LAPD the benefit of the doubt in the absence of more info. Do I think they intended to murder him from the onset? No, but the idea that they could have intended to intimidate him doesn't strain credulity. 

The fact alone that these officers were in this training exercise together seems odd, to say the least. 

Gern Blansten

Haven't you people seen Training Day? 

Cropduster-80

Gern Blansten said:

mace1229 said:

Cropduster-80 said:

mace1229 said:

Cropduster-80 said:

In any context why are they getting the benefit of the doubt here?

cops will do whatever to protect themselves especially when getting caught means jail.
if a cop has to choose between getting arrested and going after another cop the choice seems clear to me 

It’s entirely plausible and probable that’s exactly what happened.

did they try to murder him? Maybe not. That doesn’t mean intimidation or teaching him a lesson wasn’t the goal and he died 

there is no situation where he could go after a cop and the cop ignores it and doesn’t get his buddies to do something about it. None. That doesn’t happen period 

the additional information you want from is going to be coming from the police department so hardly objective. They are investigating themselves 

Even if this is all true, you’re still missing a big hole in the story to me. From the 3 articles I read, they all said this cop took the initial report. Nothing about being part of the investigation. He wasn’t an internal investigation cop. Sounds like someone called it with a complaint, he took the statements and passed it on. I doubt he had anything to do with it after that. Doesn’t sound like he had any direct knowledge of the incident. So there would be no motive.
The only person saying he was part of the investigation is the attorney. But that doesn’t make sense. You don’t call the police, file a report and have the same cop taking the report start the investigation. There’s a department for that. Especially for internal investigations.
It’s not adding up to me. And I’m not saying no cop would do this. But the majority aren’t willing to murder other cops.. 

if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it’s probably a duck 

It would be like if someone flew a passenger plane into sky scraper and you saying it was probably a mechanical issue. Based on context and history it probably wasn’t, and I doubt you would say that.

you may be right, but automatically coming at this from an assumption nothing wrong happened isn’t warranted based on a lot of reasons.  If it’s not this it’ll be something else tomorrow. It just makes it easier to sweep police corruption under the rug because so many people don’t want to believe it happens and excuse this crap all the time. 

You don’t have a presumption of innocence until a trial.  Before that, you are a suspect until you aren’t. 

If a cop investigates you for anything it’s because they think you did something wrong, not because they think you are innocent. Same thing here. This guy is a suspect and should be treated as such 

It’s not walking or talking like a duck.
i see zero, other than the word of an attorney suing the department, that points to assault/murder here.
You asked what context do they deserve the benefit of the doubt. I would ask why are they guilty until proven innocent? There is literally nothing aside from accusations from the family in a lawsuit that supports any intentional act. Common sense doesn’t back it up either. There would be major flaws in policy if you investigate someone and continue to work and train with them. Those part of an investigation team usually don’t lead tactical training exercises. So that’s why I’m questioning it and not jumping to guilty until proven innocent.

I didn’t automatically come with an assumption of nothing wrong. 

I first asked where the info came from as I didn’t see the same info in any articles I read and I wanted to see what the sources were. That’s how I learned the only source is the attorney. Had that turned out different, if there was any confirmation whatsoever that he was an investigator, I might have a different opinion. I had pretty much no opinion when I asked that question.
But based on what I know as of now, the accident story seems more likely to me. It he wasn’t an investigator then there’s no motive. And doesn’t seem like he’s some internal affairs investigator about to bring this operation down.

I don't disagree with you...definitely need more info

Time and time again we aren’t looking for more information we are looking for anything to point to that makes the police action ok. 

It’s all part of a larger deference to police. 

I start by listening to the family and their spokesperson first. Their story deserves to be the narrative.  If it isn’t the narrative the police can make it all disappear 

google the Harding street raid in Houston.  It was a massive scandal. Privately hired NCIS investigators are who blew the police story and investigation apart. Lying, murder, coverups.  After the police department said “nothing to see here”

mickeyrat

Gern Blansten said:

Haven't you people seen Training Day? 

excellent documentary

Gern Blansten

mickeyrat said:

Gern Blansten said:

Haven't you people seen Training Day? 

excellent documentary

lol....it's one of those movies that I always have to watch. Like Roadhouse, Tommy Boy, etc.

Cropduster-80

Gern Blansten said:

Haven't you people seen Training Day? 

I prefer the Baltimore police issues

we own this city is my go to. It might as well be a documentary.  The characters really exist 

Halifax2TheMax

Meanwhile, in Detroit, cops fired 38 shots in 3 seconds killing a black man. Guess he should have just complied, maybe said please and thank you and yes sir, no sir? But sure, there’s not a problem with policing in ‘Murica.

Edit to reflect that it was only 38 shots