GA. cops who burned baby with grenade not charged

[ShadowcatX]

Faelyn wrote:

Rysky wrote:

ShadowcatX wrote:

Faelyn wrote:

proves your uneducated

I hate it when people say things like this while failing to use proper spelling.

Ah, the your and their families. My most hated nemeses.

ShadowcatX, if you'll retread that sentence you will notice that is the correct spelling. The sentence reads "your uneducated (TL;DR) stance." Oops? So before you go on a tangent, perhaps pay attention a little better?

Except uneducated cannot modify stance because that makes no sense. I could have taken the poster to task much harder, but I didn't feel the need. Next time I will not be so lenient if that is what you are requesting.

[thejeff]

BigDTBone wrote:

Vod Canockers wrote:

On the other hand, where is the outrage for [http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/sc-cop-indicted-shooting-shrouded-mystery-25854833]Officer Kills Man Through Car Door in His Driveway[/ur]

"A prosecutor, in a rare action against a police officer, sought to charge him with voluntary manslaughter, punishable by up to 30 years in prison. But the grand jury disagreed, indicting him on a misdemeanor."

The outrage is the that the prosecutor flubbed the GJ hearing so bad as to not get the charges they were seeking. The outrage is that the GJ is letting that cop off so easy.

I'm not sure what Vod thinks we should be outraged about. I wasn't outraged about this one before because I hadn't heard about it. I'll add it to the list.

I'm very cynical about grand juries. I tend to assume they get whatever indictment the prosecutor wants. It's political cover - "I asked for manslaughter, but the grand jury said the evidence wasn't there".
I'd have to dig more into this particular case to see if that's just my cynicism or if he really was trying for a harsh penalty and flubbed it.

[Comrade Anklebiter]

houstonderek wrote:

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.

This was the first time I had heard of it.

[Rysky]

houstonderek wrote:

Rysky wrote:

houstonderek wrote:

The problem is that police see anyone who might commit a crime as a "scumbag". I believe that is the favorite term of the cop and cop lovers on this thread. Offenders are subhumans not deserving of rights. Especially BLACK offenders, to hear cops talk. They're just (and I quote several cops I've heard over the years) "animals" who "all lie" and "are all trying to get over". Except, apparently, the crackhead and tweaker snitches, they never lie ever!

Don't stereotype... About stereotype cops stereotyping... The irony is strong here.

houstonderek wrote:

Oh, yeah, and it never looks good when police candidates are rejected for having too high of an IQ score (the "official" explanation was the fear highly intelligent people would find police work boring). And the government (2nd Circuit) says it's perfectly ok and not discrimination. The IQ in question was 125. The average IQ of a cop, apparently, is 100. Maybe smart cops don't follow bad orders or look the other way as easily.

I have never heard of this. Source?

houstonderek wrote:

Cops are the perpetrators of domestic violence at twice the rate of normal citizens. Anabolic steroid use is a huge problem. Alcohol abuse is rampant (some estimates suggest 25% of cops are alcoholics). Suicide is higher among cops than the general public.

Links to these statistics please and thank you.

houstonderek wrote:

So, basically, we have a bunch of violent, steroid fueled, alcoholic, depressed people carrying guns and keeping the peace. And they're backed up by a "justice" system that bends over backward to shield them.

Find me someone who does a cop's, or a firefighter's, or an ER surgeon's job and doesn't hit one of those criteria.

Do your own research. It's all on .gov sources. If you choose to not learn about the topic, that's not my problem.

It's not that I'm not choosing, you're the one that brought statistics in without sources to back them up.

[Rysky]

ShadowcatX wrote:

Faelyn wrote:

Rysky wrote:

ShadowcatX wrote:

Faelyn wrote:

proves your uneducated

I hate it when people say things like this while failing to use proper spelling.

Ah, the your and their families. My most hated nemeses.

ShadowcatX, if you'll retread that sentence you will notice that is the correct spelling. The sentence reads "your uneducated (TL;DR) stance." Oops? So before you go on a tangent, perhaps pay attention a little better?

Except uneducated cannot modify stance because that makes no sense. I could have taken the poster to task much harder, but I didn't feel the need. Next time I will not be so lenient if that is what you are requesting.

As someone who isn't very good with grammer can you elaborate on this? The sentence looks sound to me.

[Comrade Anklebiter]

I had seen the "police have a higher rate of domestic abuse" thing before, but never looked into it.

Police Have a Much Bigger Domestic-Abuse Problem Than the NFL Does
Research suggests that family violence is two to four times higher in the law-enforcement community than in the general population. So where's the public outrage?

[Rysky]

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

I had seen the "police have a higher rate of domestic abuse" thing before, but never looked into it.

Police Have a Much Bigger Domestic-Abuse Problem Than the NFL Does
Research suggests that family violence is two to four times higher in the law-enforcement community than in the general population. So where's the public outrage?

Again, stasibo.

[Chris Lambertz]

Locking. I don't think we need the level of grar that this kind of discussion has already brought out on our messageboards.