GA. cops who burned baby with grenade not charged


Off-Topic Discussions

101 to 150 of 309 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge Global Organized Play Coordinator

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Why Police Lie Under Oath an Opinion Piece by Michelle Alexander, author of The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness which was first shared with me by Comrade Barrister.

Yep, an opinion piece by an author who is known to hate everything involving police. Find me a article that presents both sides of the argument nd we can discuss. Post a very one sided article and it isn't worth the time debating. I'm not looking to argue with you, by the way, which it seems you are looking for. I was just trying to offer the insight from someone who has been there and done that for a decade.

Grand Lodge Global Organized Play Coordinator

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Who's arguing? Thread's about Georgia SWAT teams; saw another story about them killing someone through gross negligence. Shared it.

I can post at least 40+ news stories where GA SWAT teams made good arrests. Do we really want to do tit for tat?i can also post stories and videos of officers who hesitated, even when they were absolutely in the right to shoot, and are now dead. Why aren't you posting any of those stories as well?

As I said, if they were in the wrong, or if the info they were given was wrong, those people who did shoddy police work should absolutely be held account able.


Michael Brock wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
SWAT kills Georgia man using info from drug addict who stole his car

Sure you can point out one or two cases a month where the cops did something wrong. How many more arrests are made where things are done correctly in that same time frame?

And to be clear, if the cops were in the wrong, then they should absolutely be held accountable for their actions. I'm not arguing with you there so not sure why you are trying to argue it here.

But they're not being held accountable. That's the problem.


Michael Brock wrote:
I also absolutely support personal cameras attached to every officer's uniform. It would absolutely protect more officers against false claims than it would catch officers doing something wrong. Of course you get people screaming not to raise taxes to support that initiative and the money has to come from somewhere. You also get the crowd that will argue it violates their right to privacy.
From a program in Rialto, CA:
Quote:

THE Rialto study began in February 2012 and will run until this July. The results from the first 12 months are striking. Even with only half of the 54 uniformed patrol officers wearing cameras at any given time, the department over all had an 88 percent decline in the number of complaints filed against officers, compared with the 12 months before the study, to 3 from 24.

Rialto’s police officers also used force nearly 60 percent less often — in 25 instances, compared with 61. When force was used, it was twice as likely to have been applied by the officers who weren’t wearing cameras during that shift, the study found. And, lest skeptics think that the officers with cameras are selective about which encounters they record, Mr. Farrar noted that those officers who apply force while wearing a camera have always captured the incident on video.

Partly, you could argue that complaints dropped because the fake complaints weren't made, but the drop in the use of force is another matter.


Michael Brock wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
SWAT kills Georgia man using info from drug addict who stole his car

Sure you can point out one or two cases a month where the cops did something wrong. How many more arrests are made where things are done correctly in that same time frame?

And to be clear, if the cops were in the wrong, then they should absolutely be held accountable for their actions. I'm not arguing with you there so not sure why you are trying to argue it here.

One or two cases a month should not be acceptable.

Grand Lodge Global Organized Play Coordinator

thejeff wrote:
Michael Brock wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
SWAT kills Georgia man using info from drug addict who stole his car

Sure you can point out one or two cases a month where the cops did something wrong. How many more arrests are made where things are done correctly in that same time frame?

And to be clear, if the cops were in the wrong, then they should absolutely be held accountable for their actions. I'm not arguing with you there so not sure why you are trying to argue it here.

But they're not being held accountable. That's the problem.

And that is absolutely the fault of elected officials, especially district attorneys.

Since there are articles that have been posted about how there should not be no knock warrants, let me offer an article where a judge refused a no knock warrant when it was absolutely necessary. You can read it HERE.


Michael: Thing is, in blatant cases where there IS evidence of wrongdoing on the cop's side of things, the story remains the same: "It's a tragic accident", "You haven't been out there, you don't know", "We need to support the police"... As you say, there needs to be scrutiny, it needs to be effective, and people must see justice be done even if it's a policeman who's done something bad. Today, we don't have that. In Sweden, we had two policemen forcing a youth to delete a recording of the two cops clearly overstepping their powers (I think it was a case of slight brutality), only the file could be partially recovered and was very clear that they threatened the youth with things like "I think you're looking a bit high, if you don't delete the file as we say you're going to have to come with us to the station". When it became a matter for the court, the court (which has no jury in Sweden, only politicians) judged that while the policemen had been wrong to do what they did, they could have potentially been right to do it and therefore no action would be taken against them.

Every such case taints the reputation of the police force as a whole, as you say. That is why we need cops to speak out against it, and work toward better accountability for cops. This is, as far as I can see, rarer than hens' teeth.

Grand Lodge Global Organized Play Coordinator

Sissyl wrote:

Michael: Thing is, in blatant cases where there IS evidence of wrongdoing on the cop's side of things, the story remains the same: "It's a tragic accident", "You haven't been out there, you don't know", "We need to support the police"... As you say, there needs to be scrutiny, it needs to be effective, and people must see justice be done even if it's a policeman who's done something bad. Today, we don't have that. In Sweden, we had two policemen forcing a youth to delete a recording of the two cops clearly overstepping their powers (I think it was a case of slight brutality), only the file could be partially recovered and was very clear that they threatened the youth with things like "I think you're looking a bit high, if you don't delete the file as we say you're going to have to come with us to the station". When it became a matter for the court, the court (which has no jury in Sweden, only politicians) judged that while the policemen had been wrong to do what they did, they could have potentially been right to do it and therefore no action would be taken against them.

Every such case taints the reputation of the police force as a whole, as you say. That is why we need cops to speak out against it, and work toward better accountability for cops. This is, as far as I can see, rarer than hens' teeth.

100% agree. And why I think internal affairs is the second most important department in every police department.

Grand Lodge Global Organized Play Coordinator

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Michael Brock wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
SWAT kills Georgia man using info from drug addict who stole his car

Sure you can point out one or two cases a month where the cops did something wrong. How many more arrests are made where things are done correctly in that same time frame?

And to be clear, if the cops were in the wrong, then they should absolutely be held accountable for their actions. I'm not arguing with you there so not sure why you are trying to argue it here.

One or two cases a month should not be acceptable.

I never said it was acceptable.


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Michael Brock wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
SWAT kills Georgia man using info from drug addict who stole his car

Sure you can point out one or two cases a month where the cops did something wrong. How many more arrests are made where things are done correctly in that same time frame?

And to be clear, if the cops were in the wrong, then they should absolutely be held accountable for their actions. I'm not arguing with you there so not sure why you are trying to argue it here.

One or two cases a month should not be acceptable.

It might be acceptable, after all it's a big country and there are a lot of people in, if the cops in those cases were actually held accountable. And if those cases weren't just the ones blatant enough to get national attention. Are they all there is, or just the tip of an iceberg?

Grand Lodge Global Organized Play Coordinator

thejeff wrote:
Michael Brock wrote:
I also absolutely support personal cameras attached to every officer's uniform. It would absolutely protect more officers against false claims than it would catch officers doing something wrong. Of course you get people screaming not to raise taxes to support that initiative and the money has to come from somewhere. You also get the crowd that will argue it violates their right to privacy.
From a program in Rialto, CA:
Quote:

THE Rialto study began in February 2012 and will run until this July. The results from the first 12 months are striking. Even with only half of the 54 uniformed patrol officers wearing cameras at any given time, the department over all had an 88 percent decline in the number of complaints filed against officers, compared with the 12 months before the study, to 3 from 24.

Rialto’s police officers also used force nearly 60 percent less often — in 25 instances, compared with 61. When force was used, it was twice as likely to have been applied by the officers who weren’t wearing cameras during that shift, the study found. And, lest skeptics think that the officers with cameras are selective about which encounters they record, Mr. Farrar noted that those officers who apply force while wearing a camera have always captured the incident on video.

Partly, you could argue that complaints dropped because the fake complaints weren't made, but the drop in the use of force is another matter.

Agreed and why I support the use of personal cameras by every officer the day they are sworn in. Like I said earlier, better hiring screening and better pay is also going to eliminate most of the "bully complex" you find in the scumbag cops out there.

I know that it is easy to lump all cops into the same boat and say that most, if not all, lie to make their cases. But, there ae more good cops than bad cops out there. and no, I'm not directing that specifically at you Jeff. That is a general statement.


Michael Brock wrote:
However, the pendulum shift is concerning. Why does everyone yell for "innocence until proven guilty" for an accused civilian, but when a cop is involved in a shooting, they aren't afforded that same opportunity? Almost immeditely after every police shooting you hear cries to arrest the officer, even if there were multiple witnesses that support a "good shooting."

This I haven't seen. I can't think of any of the cases that have had a public outcry lately where there were multiple witnesses supporting a good shooting.

The case above with the kid with the sandwich apparently shooting at the cop, is the one I think most likely to be good of those I've mentioned. Unless the cop went to a good deal of work to fake the evidence, which is a stretch.

Michael Brown. Levar Jones. David Hooks. Darrien Hunt. Eric Garner. John Crawford.


Any particular reason links to articles in the New York Times and the SF Gate by former police commissioners are disappearing?

Grand Lodge Global Organized Play Coordinator

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Any particular reason links to articles in the New York Times and the SF Gate by former police commissioners are disappearing?

I PMed you.


One more thing: In discussions like this, there is always a tendency to claim false equivalencies. People compare how many are killed by criminals and how many are killed by cops - that has never been a relevant comparison. Not even if you compare how many criminals are killed by cops and how many cops are killed by criminals. Criminals are people we will always have, wrongdoers, a failed part of society. Policemen are those supposed to protect us from them, and so given powers to do that work, sworn to do a duty. We really need to know that a) they can be trusted, b) won't use their powers wrongly, and c) will not use what the criminals are doing as an excuse for doing bad things.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yes, you did, but, alas, it said nothing about why posts of mine that didn't use the word you objected to disappeared, nor does it explain why my links to news articles from sources such as The New York Times and Russia Today are disappearing but your replies to them are unscathed.

Grand Lodge Global Organized Play Coordinator

thejeff wrote:
Michael Brock wrote:
However, the pendulum shift is concerning. Why does everyone yell for "innocence until proven guilty" for an accused civilian, but when a cop is involved in a shooting, they aren't afforded that same opportunity? Almost immeditely after every police shooting you hear cries to arrest the officer, even if there were multiple witnesses that support a "good shooting."

This I haven't seen. I can't think of any of the cases that have had a public outcry lately where there were multiple witnesses supporting a good shooting.

The case above with the kid with the sandwich apparently shooting at the cop, is the one I think most likely to be good of those I've mentioned. Unless the cop went to a good deal of work to fake the evidence, which is a stretch.

Michael Brown. Levar Jones. David Hooks. Darrien Hunt. Eric Garner. John Crawford.

I don't want to get into a debate about the Mochael Brown case. But, I'm going to hod, judgement until all the evidence is out.

There is apparently videos where witnesses are overhead saying they saw Brown charging the cop even after he was ordered to stop. The cop also allegedly had a fractured orbital bones that came from Brown striking him. It's already been shown several witnesses lied about what they saw. A lot of people make the mistake and think that someone who doesn't have a weapon, besides their fists and hands, aren't a threat when, in fact, they can kill someone with just their hands, especially when they a bigger than the person they are attacking (Brown was bigger than the cop). I will wait until all the evidence and the grand jury findings come out before I make a personal decision on it. Do I think the cop was wrong with the initial stop? You bet. It should have never escalated. Do I know if it was Brown or the cop who escalated it to the point where it turned lethal? Nope, I wasn't there and don't have all the evidence.

Grand Lodge Global Organized Play Coordinator

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Yes, you did, but, alas, it said nothing about why posts of mine that didn't use the word you objected to disappeared, nor does it explain why my links to news articles from sources such as The New York Times and Russia Today are disappearing but your replies to them are unscathed.

Sent you another PM.


Ah, now I see your second message. I disagree with almost everything in it, but as you are a staff member, which I didn't realize until now, with the power to delete posts as you see fit, I shall refrain from posting further tonight.

Grand Lodge Global Organized Play Coordinator

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Ah, now I see your second message. I disagree with almost everything in it, but as you are a staff member, which I didn't realize until now, with the power to delete posts as you see fit, I shall refrain from posting further tonight.

The only posts I removed that you posted are where you were demeaning me with a title that doesn't fit. Your post that include links to the NYT article are still here and not removed.

As I mentioned in my PM, If you want to repost your posts without the officer comment, then they will stay up.


Although, now I see posts that I thought had disappeared earlier. If I only hallucinated their earlier disappearance, I apologize for complaining about nothing.


JurgenV wrote:
But that won't keep the criminals safe and that sounds like the goal of some

Do you honestly think that thats anyone's goal? (besides the criminals?

Do you think you see that argument often enough for it to be solely from the criminals?

If not, then accept that people have legitimate concerns about the way some police are behaving. If your only counter to someone's points is a blatantly disingenuous straw-man then you may want to reevaluate your position rather than their character.


What if we just made it illegal to write bad things about the police? If nobody knows about it, it's like it never happened, right?


And make it illegal to film cops. That's brilliant! Oh! Oh! I know! We could do it like the high-ups wanted when they laid out the plans for the EGF, the European Gendarmerie Force, a pan-European police force: Make them immune to prosecution!

Liberty's Edge

LEPLEY wrote:

In all seriousness, MOST law enforcemnt make clearer better decisions and warrants are evolving to be more restrictive making police have more info before serving them. It only takes one bad decision on the fly and now ALL cops are bad. AND its the judges that approve the warrants so if there is bad info, they should request more and not approve it.

For craps sake people i come here to talk about GAMES from one of the best companies out there! Take your fergusen talk and rants to the proper forums, this is supposed to be a fun place to hang out!

Yeah. Or, you know, you could stay in the gaming topic forums?

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Michael Brock wrote:
thejeff wrote:


That said, this one may really be good. But so many others have tainted the well sufficiently you can't trust the cops to be telling the truth. Or even not fabricating evidence.

Let me give the opinion of someone who has walked a mile in those shoes. I was a crimes against children and special victims detective for almost 10 years. I didn't care whether I made ten arrests a month or no arrests in a month. My only goal was to arrest scum bags that hurt people who couldn't protect themselves. I didn't need to fabricate evidence. I based my cases solely on the evidence that was presented. Any case worth an arrest generally has five times the evidence you need to make the arrest. You just need to find it with a little work. Every officer amd detective I worked with felt the same way.

Lumping the tens of thousands of good officers and detectives into the same group as the handful of bad ones is just plain wrong. What most people forget is a police force, no matter how big or small, is a direct reflection of the community they serve because the pool of officers comes from that community. If you really want to fix the problem, it is fairly simple. Better screening during the hiring process and better pay. When communities hire people to become officers and carry weapons that can maim and kill, and they pay the, less than a McDonalds manager makes, something is wrong.

Except in cases like Ferguson and many others where the force doesn't reflect the community at all.

And unless it's really blatant and on video, with pretty much any shooting in the line of duty, no matter how poorly justified, the department rallies round and supports the officer, as often does the rest of the legal system. I'd really like to believe it's 10s of thousands of good officers and a handful of bad ones. It would be much easier if the good ones brought the bad ones down more often.

The only reason the cop in South Carolina is being charged is he was stupid enough to let his dash cam film the whole thing. That camera doesn't catch him? Good shot.


Michael Brock wrote:
A lot of people make the mistake and think that someone who doesn't have a weapon, besides their fists and hands, aren't a threat when, in fact, they can kill someone with just their hands, especially when they a bigger than the person they are attacking (Brown was bigger than the cop)

I'm about Michael Browns size, and no one I've ever hit has died. While its certainly possible to beat someone to death, its not particularly likely. That's part of the problem. From a rational perspective (which i realize doesn't always enter into it) if you do a cost/risk analysis the cop is placing what is probably less than a 1% chance of dying from fists against a what ~60%? likelihood of the other guy dying by having a clip emptied into him. It makes it look like he doesn't value life other than his own, which gets doubly problematic because there are an unfortunate number of people who don't value human life when its black.

On top of the normal problems of beating someone past what you can fix with an aspirin an ice pack and a few beers, the cop is wearings bullet proof vest, has a tazer, night stick, and most importantly, should have had a few cars full of friends on the way in 60 seconds. Someone that size? If the risk is still too big RUN. Jog em around the park till your friends show up THEN go after him.

Now the opposite happened in this case. The intel wasn't horrible: it was just slightly out of date, which happens. It doesn't matter what you're wearing, someone with assault weapons has a good chance of killing you, and while flash-bangs are dangerous they're not particularly lethal (as evidienced here: if a 1 year can survive it...)
The least lethal reasonable response to the threat was used. The response matched the risk.


I believe most police officers are good people trying to do the right thing. However, grenade to a baby's face == not ok. Ever. Sorry, try again.

Grand Lodge Global Organized Play Coordinator

bugleyman wrote:
I believe most police officers are good people trying to do the right thing. However, grenade to a baby's face == not ok. Ever. Sorry, try again.

Agree 100%


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What we need to see is the good cops starting to throw their bad cop colleagues under the bus and speak out about police corruption. A decent problem reporting system that doesn't get people threatened by the cops would also be a good idea. What many people don't realize is that accepting transparency and accountability lets you avoid having everyone judged by the behaviour of "a few bad apples". Ideally, this would not be necessary because the police sorted these things out in a way that worked already - but that is not the case. Trust is difficult to repair in all situations, even more so for people with power.

Shadow Lodge

bugleyman wrote:
I believe most police officers are good people trying to do the right thing. However, grenade to a baby's face == not ok. Ever. Sorry, try again.

Nobody said it was OK. What some people are saying is that the officer who threw the grenade shouldn't be fired/punished/etc. He took reasonable actions for the situation that he was in as he perceived it. Unfortunately, some jerk had barricaded a door with a baby's crib, with the baby still in it. Not the officer's fault...the jerk's fault.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:
I believe most police officers are good people trying to do the right thing. However, grenade to a baby's face == not ok. Ever. Sorry, try again.

But thats not the decision the officer made. The officer said -I have an empty room with I don't know WHAT in it. Its a large, organized drug ring with assault weapons. Do i really just want to send my guys around the corner- If you're going to say you don't ever throw stun grenades when you can't see your target... that kind of misses half the point of the stun grenade as an option.

Grand Lodge Global Organized Play Coordinator

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
What we need to see is the good cops starting to throw their bad cop colleagues under the bus and speak out about police corruption. A decent problem reporting system that doesn't get people threatened by the cops would also be a good idea. What many people don't realize is that accepting transparency and accountability lets you avoid having everyone judged by the behaviour of "a few bad apples". Ideally, this would not be necessary because the police sorted these things out in a way that worked already - but that is not the case. Trust is difficult to repair in all situations, even more so for people with power.

Its out there but the news doesn't cover it as much as they should. The sorry cops that killed the old woman in Atlanta during a ridiculously bad no-knock warrant all went to prison. The cops in New Orleans who were taking target practice on displaced people during Hurricane Katrina have all gone to prison. There are cops dismissed, and investigations started every day by internal affairs offices all over the country. Unfortunately, the media really only wants to cover the most controversial cases because it is what drives ratings. You never hear about the cop that was fired because he handcuffed people too tightly for the third time in six months, received two previous warnings, and was subsequently fired because he never corrected the errors of his bullying of the helpless person in handcuffs.


I find it very hard to understand the sentence "The police used the grenade correctly." Something just seems very wrong.

Shadow Lodge

thejeff wrote:
They don't seem to give an awful lot of consideration to the lives of those they attack.

If that was true, it would have been a grenade, not a flash-bang. And the baby wouldn't be injured, it would be dead.

Shadow Lodge

Michael Brock wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
What we need to see is the good cops starting to throw their bad cop colleagues under the bus and speak out about police corruption. A decent problem reporting system that doesn't get people threatened by the cops would also be a good idea. What many people don't realize is that accepting transparency and accountability lets you avoid having everyone judged by the behaviour of "a few bad apples". Ideally, this would not be necessary because the police sorted these things out in a way that worked already - but that is not the case. Trust is difficult to repair in all situations, even more so for people with power.
Its out there but the news doesn't cover it as much as they should. The sorry cops that killed the old woman in Atlanta during a ridiculously bad no-knock warrant all went to prison. The cops in New Orleans who were taking target practice on displaced people during Hurricane Katrina have all gone to prison. There are cops dismissed, and investigations started every day by internal affairs offices all over the country. Unfortunately, the media really only wants to cover the most controversial cases because it is what drives ratings. You never hear about the cop that was fired because he handcuffed people too tightly for the third time in six months, received two previous warnings, and was subsequently fired because he never corrected the errors of his bullying of the helpless person in handcuffs.

Yeah. The problem is that "Bad cops sent to jail" doesn't sell newspapers / get ratings / get hits. It's not a headline that can get liberals frothing at the mouth, so it gets buried on page 7 of the local newspaper.

Shadow Lodge

BigNorseWolf wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
I believe most police officers are good people trying to do the right thing. However, grenade to a baby's face == not ok. Ever. Sorry, try again.
But thats not the decision the officer made. The officer said -I have an empty room with I don't know WHAT in it. Its a large, organized drug ring with assault weapons. Do i really just want to send my guys around the corner- If you're going to say you don't ever throw stun grenades when you can't see your target... that kind of misses half the point of the stun grenade as an option.

Exactly.

Grand Lodge Global Organized Play Coordinator

Kthulhu wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
I believe most police officers are good people trying to do the right thing. However, grenade to a baby's face == not ok. Ever. Sorry, try again.
Nobody said it was OK. What some people are saying is that the officer who threw the grenade shouldn't be fired/punished/etc. He took reasonable actions for the situation that he was in as he perceived it. Unfortunately, some jerk had barricaded a door with a baby's crib, with the baby still in it. Not the officer's fault...the jerk's fault.

This is actually slightly off base. The officer is always responsible anytime he discharges his weapon, whether it is lethal or less lethal force. There was a case were a SWAT team entered an apartment of a barricaded crazy man who they knew was armed. The second team member through the door forgot he had slugs loaded into his shotgun. When the team took fire from the crazy man, the SWAT member fired his shot gun, injuring the crazy man. Unfortunately, the slug exited the crazy man, traveled through two other walls, and struck and injured an innocent person in the next door apartment. That officer was held accountable for injuring that neighbor even though they weren't part of the incident intitially.

Every officer is taught in the academy, and twice a year at re qualification, that they are responsible for every time their weapon is discharged. If they have even a doubt they may injure an innocent, it's best to think twice before discharging their weapon. In this particular case, the officer probably won't be charge and shouldn't be. However, the detective or commander who failed to do sufficient and complete investigation should be looked at by the local DA's office for shoddy police work.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:


Yeah. The problem is that "Bad cops sent to jail" doesn't sell newspapers / get ratings / get hits. It's not a headline that can get liberals frothing at the mouth, so it gets buried on page 7 of the local newspaper.

"Bad cops sent to jail" doesn't make headlines because that's what supposed to happen.

Sovereign Court

Michael Brock wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Michael Brock wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
SWAT kills Georgia man using info from drug addict who stole his car

Sure you can point out one or two cases a month where the cops did something wrong. How many more arrests are made where things are done correctly in that same time frame?

And to be clear, if the cops were in the wrong, then they should absolutely be held accountable for their actions. I'm not arguing with you there so not sure why you are trying to argue it here.

But they're not being held accountable. That's the problem.

And that is absolutely the fault of elected officials, especially district attorneys.

Since there are articles that have been posted about how there should not be no knock warrants, let me offer an article where a judge refused a no knock warrant when it was absolutely necessary. You can read it HERE.

This will sound harsh and I apologize in advance. I have the utmost respect for police. Though if the situation puts an officers life on the line instead of an innocent persons life, I'll agree with that decision every single time.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Michael Brock wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
SWAT kills Georgia man using info from drug addict who stole his car

Sure you can point out one or two cases a month where the cops did something wrong. How many more arrests are made where things are done correctly in that same time frame?

And to be clear, if the cops were in the wrong, then they should absolutely be held accountable for their actions. I'm not arguing with you there so not sure why you are trying to argue it here.

Here's the thing about "not all cops": I don't care.

There are too many bad cops. Maybe you didn't see them where you worked, maybe there weren't any. I still don't care.

As long as there are bad cops, cops get to deal with a reputation that includes their bad actions. If you want a clean reputation, go Serpico on their asses.

Grand Lodge Global Organized Play Coordinator

Irontruth wrote:
Michael Brock wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
SWAT kills Georgia man using info from drug addict who stole his car

Sure you can point out one or two cases a month where the cops did something wrong. How many more arrests are made where things are done correctly in that same time frame?

And to be clear, if the cops were in the wrong, then they should absolutely be held accountable for their actions. I'm not arguing with you there so not sure why you are trying to argue it here.

Here's the thing about "not all cops": I don't care.

There are too many bad cops. Maybe you didn't see them where you worked, maybe there weren't any. I still don't care.

As long as there are bad cops, cops get to deal with a reputation that includes their bad actions. If you want a clean reputation, go Serpico on their asses.

I'm sorry you feel that way. Generalizations about, and stereotyping of, any group is just not a positive way to go about life. Replace "cops" with just about any other group of people out there in your paragraph I quoted above and you should start to see what I mean. Stereotyping a whole group of people, whether it is a career, race, ethnicity, hobby, etc... is pretty unfair to the 98% of the group that doesn't fit what you've labeled them all as. I would think gamers (which all of us here are I am guessing) should know better than most what being the victim of a stereotype is like.

Shadow Lodge

There are bad ___ people. Therefore, all ____ people are bad.

Way to justify racism, sexism, and all forms of discrimination, Irontruth!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

You don't blame good cops for bad cops. You blame good cops for defending bad cops.

101 to 150 of 309 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / GA. cops who burned baby with grenade not charged All Messageboards