| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
It is if you're TRYING to beat someone to death.
The human body is harder than you might think when used as a weapon. Fists alone are bad enough, but you start throwing in elbows and s!&! and it gets nasty REAL quick. Not even counting once you have them on the ground, the ground itself is a hell of a lot harder than a human skull in many cases.
Nobody you've ever hit has died, probably because you weren't trying to murder them (or I hope not).
Even then, accidental deaths from fisticuffs are fairly common, near as I can tell. Hit a guy wrong, smack his nose the wrong way, hit his temple just right, catch him in the throat properly, knock him down and bang his head against something, and many other things all can lead to serious injury or death, even unintentionally.
And all that is without any formal martial arts experience or any real experience fighting someone. Completely untrained, inexperienced human beings can kill another person if things go wrong (or right, depending n your intention).
In short, if it's possible to beat someone to death unintentionally, it's QUITE likely you're going to be able to beat someone to death if that's what you're TRYING to do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is if you're TRYING to beat someone to death.
The cop didn't shoot from bleeding on the ground. He shot from a good 30 feet away while he was mobile and, presumably, with backup on the way. If with a vest on, a tazer, a nightstick, police training and mace to even the odds you STILL think the guy is going to be able to kill you then wait for backup. No one else was in immediate danger and its not exactly like you're going to lose track of that guy.
The human body is harder than you might think when used as a weapon.
I've been hit with most of it at some point.
Nobody you've ever hit has died, probably because you weren't trying to murder them (or I hope not).
Even then, accidental deaths from fisticuffs are fairly common, near as I can tell. Hit a guy wrong, smack his nose the wrong way, hit his temple just right, catch him in the throat properly, knock him down and bang his head against something, and many other things all can lead to serious injury or death, even unintentionally.
Ok, compare that number with the number of times fisticuffs get broken out (which would have to be a best guestimate, because most cases of people punching each other that don't result in death don't get reported) and then figure out how many people die a year from bare handed violence. I think less than 1% is a fair estimate.
And all that is without any formal martial arts experience or any real experience fighting someone. Completely untrained, inexperienced human beings can kill another person if things go wrong (or right, depending n your intention).
CAN. But how likely are you trying to say it is? Yes, there's a risk of it happening. But there's a much bigger risk with SHOOTING someone. I think there's a serious problem with anyone taking a likely risk of taking someone's life to avoid a relatively small risk to themselves.
In short, if it's possible to beat someone to death unintentionally, it's QUITE likely you're going to be able to beat someone to death if that's what you're TRYING to do.
No. Its possible to make a full across the court shot backwards, Its more likely to do it forwards. That doesn't make it likely to do it forwards.
Ummm... personally, I would say something is wrong if a policeman can't defend himself from an unarmed person, even someone bigger, without using his tazer, gun, whatever. Certainly, some people like that do exist, but we're not talking many, are we? Again, the risk would be pretty minuscule.
Mmmmmmaybe hand-to-hand combat training, as opposed to most other guys' absence of such? Just a theory here, mind you.
My point is: We're not discussing a paraplegic anorexia patient judging whether to take someone on. Policemen are fit, healthy and have training. The idea that cops should shoot people because "if I take this guy on, there is a risk he might kill me with a punch" is, frankly, ridiculous.
I like how everyone is blaming the police instead of the scumbag methheads using their child's playpen to barricade the door.
back when I lived in PA, we never used the front door. Noone did. We all used the side door or the back door. The front door was a mud room/rumpus room that was always in disuse in every house I visited save one. It may have been the same case here.
This article has some details and statements from the Habersham County Sheriff Joey Terrell.
"When we did surveillance on the house, there were two guards standing guard at the door ... like they weren't letting anybody in," Terrell said. "We did make the buy out of the house. We took that information, along with our other information, and went to see the judge and got a warrant.""According to the confidential informant, there were no children," Terrell said. "When they made the buy, they didn't see any children or any evidence of children there, so we proceeded with our standard operation.""Due to the previous information regarding assault-type weapons at the residence, the information regarding adult male subjects standing 'guard' in front of the residence, the fact that there was no safe way to approach the residence without being detected, the possibility of the destruction of evidence, and Wanis Thonetheva's criminal history which reflected charges of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony and several charges of carrying a concealed weapon, agents contacted the Habersham County Sheriff's Office [Special Response Team] unit to assist with the execution of the search warrant and the securing of the residence," a report provided by Terrell states.Now all that being said, assuming the statements are true, I don't see that the officer did anything intentionally wrong. The county though should be at the minimum paying for the child's medical bills.
The grand jury recommended no criminal charges against any officer involved, including the case agent (who since resigned and surrendered Georgia Peace Officer certification), the members of the Habersham Special Response Team, and the deputy who tossed the mini flash bang device....
seriously? Testimony from the cops involved but a statement from the family? No testimony from witnesses?
I like how everyone is blaming the police instead of the scumbag methheads using their child's playpen to barricade the door.back when I lived in PA, we never used the front door. Noone did. We all used the side door or the back door. The front door was a mud room/rumpus room that was always in disuse in every house I visited save one. It may have been the same case here.
"When we did surveillance on the house, there were two guards standing guard at the door ... like they weren't letting anybody in," Terrell said. "We did make the buy out of the house. We took that information, along with our other information, and went to see the judge and got a warrant."
Apparently that door had been in use and guarded during the day. The playpen was placed in front of sometime afterwards.
Global Organized Play Coordinator
|
Mmmmmmaybe hand-to-hand combat training, as opposed to most other guys' absence of such? Just a theory here, mind you.
Most police receive four hours training at the academy and nothing is required after that. If the officer wants any further training, it's up to the individual to seek it out. I'm sure there may be a handful of departments that offer additional training somewhere. But, most officers out there have only the few hours at the academy that involve arm bars, wrist locks, and maintaining control of their weapon when someone is trying to take it away. Most of those thing they teach rarely work on someone larger or stronger than the officer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.SWAT kills Georgia man using info from drug addict who stole his carSure 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 didn't say you're all bad cops. I'm saying I don't care about your "not all cops" statement. There's a subtle difference there.
No one is born a police officer. No one forces you to be a cop. You aren't drafted into it.
You choose to protect and serve the public. That includes protecting us from your fellow brethren who do bad things.
There's a phenomenon that is pretty common to all groups, whether grouped by choice or circumstance (such as birth), whereby you are more likely to defend those who are similar to you than those who are different. For example, cops are more likely to defend and rationalize the actions of cops than they are non-cops. Cops have a reputation of backing each other up, which is sometimes a good thing, like when they go into dangerous situations together. Other times it's a bad thing, like when a cop unjustly shoots a civilian.
Here's the other thing. It doesn't matter how good of a cop you are. When another cop ruins someone's life, it doesn't matter that you were a saintly cop, that person's life is still ruined. There are police departments that are committing highway robbery, literally. They steal money from poor families traveling through the area. Those families don't care that you were a good cop during your career, they are still being harassed by cops.
"Not all cops" is a pointless statement. It does nothing to alleviate the problem that some cops ARE abusing their power. In this situation, I am not the problem. The cops abusing their power are. You want to be mad? Be mad at them. Go Serpico on their ass.
My statement doesn't apply to people of ethnic backgrounds, because [insert ethnic background] is not a basis for which people are chosen to be PAID to protect and serve the public.
My statement doesn't apply to people of various genders, because [insert gender] is not a basis for which people are chosen to be PAID to protect and serve the public.
My statement doesn't apply to people of various religions, because [insert religion] is not a basis for which people are chosen to be PAID to protect and serve the public.
My statement doesn't apply to people of various sexual preferences, because [insert sexual preference] is not a basis for which people are chosen to be PAID to protect and serve the public.
Your reduction of my statement fails.
|
Global Organized Play Coordinator
|
. Here's the other thing. It doesn't matter how good of a cop you are. When another cop ruins someone's life, it doesn't matter that you were a saintly cop, that person's life is still ruined. There are police departments that are committing highway robbery, literally. They steal money from poor families traveling through the area. Those families don't care that you were a good cop during your career, they are still being harassed by cops.
"Not all cops" is a pointless statement. It does nothing to alleviate the problem that some cops ARE abusing their power. In this situation, I am not the problem. The cops abusing their power are. You want to be mad? Be mad at them. Go Serpico on their ass.
I guess you think profiling is ok then? What you advised above is very similar to same reasons federal law enforcement profiled people.
Like I said, replace almost any other group where you've put the word cop and you would be rallying against the side of those profiling that group.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
[Take two]
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.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.
Nor am I interested in arguing with you, sir. I don't remember the rest of what I wrote last night, but I do recall it ended with a link to Why Cops Lie by former SF Police Commissioner Peter Keane.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Bad cops sent to jail" doesn't make headlines because that's what supposed to happen.
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.
Oh, I don't know, "bad cops sent to jail" can enrage us lefties, too.
Ex-cop Burge leaves prison, but torture victim is left seeking reparations
|
Global Organized Play Coordinator
|
Let's get this on topic. . . How many of the crooks you got in those 10 years hit children with grenades? Of all those, how many were told "meh, its fine, you don't need to go to jail"?Im going to hazard a guess that there are a lot more crooks out there breaking the law than there are corrupt cops 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 assume you either missed or ignoring where I said people who do shoddy police work should be held accountble. It's back on the last page.
|
Global Organized Play Coordinator
|
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.
If someone randomly murders 1 person, but lets 40 others live, does that mean that everything is okay or should that someone be locked up for life?
"Oh, but they do their job and don't kill innocent people 80% of the time" is not an acceptable response.
Can you name an incident where someone randomly murdered 1 person but let 40 others lI've? If so, link it and we will discuss.
You can't compare what one unit in one department did and say that it applies to every department in the country.
|
Global Organized Play Coordinator
|
. Here's the other thing. It doesn't matter how good of a cop you are. When another cop ruins someone's life, it doesn't matter that you were a saintly cop, that person's life is still ruined. There are police departments that are committing highway robbery, literally. They steal money from poor families traveling through the area. Those families don't care that you were a good cop during your career, they are still being harassed by cops.
"Not all cops" is a pointless statement. It does nothing to alleviate the problem that some cops ARE abusing their power. In this situation, I am not the problem. The cops abusing their power are. You want to be mad? Be mad at them. Go Serpico on their ass.
I guess you think profiling is ok then? What you advised above is very similar to same reasons federal law enforcement profiled people.
Like I said, replace almost any other group where you've put the word cop and you would be rallying against the side of those profiling that group.
His statement doesn't apply to people of ethnic backgrounds, because [insert ethnic background] is not a basis for which people are chosen to be PAID to protect and serve the public.
We don't grant any of the other groups you might substitute special powers to carry weapons and order citizens around. Those other groups don't investigate themselves when they're accused of crimes. Their statements aren't given extra deference when cases come to trial.
The very nature of the job demands that cops be held to a higher standard.
Since one doctor killed a person in surgery because he made a horrible error in judgement, that means all surgeons are eventually going to make an error in judgement and kill someone? I've never been a doctor but aren't medical reviews conducted by other doctors?
It's similar. The doctor didn't kill with a gun or a grenade, but he did kill due to errors made in surgery that, if not made, would have allowed the person to live.
Just because one person in a particular profession screws up, it doesn't mean everyone in that profession is going to do the same.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
A comrade of mine is a member of the New York UFT local. The UFT endorsed Sharpton's march against police brutality in the wake of the killing of Eric Garner, which, apparently, provoked quite a storm of outrage among New Yorkers in general, and the rank-and-file in particular.
Anyway, a lot of her co-workers gave her crap along the lines of "Why are you so anti-cop? My brother-in-law is a police officer, he's a good guy, why are we going to an anti-cop march?" To which she responded, "This is a march against police brutality. If, in your mind, anti-police brutality equals anti-police, which of us has the lower opinion of police officers?"
Which was clever, I thought.
Doctors are generally investigated by authority people working in various official capacities in the country, not usually doctors. In Sweden, there is Socialstyrelsen and Inspektionen för Vård och Omsorg, two political authorities, for that. When investigating, they certainly take statements from other doctors, but that is to be expected, I'd say. We have police investigating their own here too, however, and it is a mess, of course.
|
Global Organized Play Coordinator
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How is "I threw a grenade into a room without knowing who was in the room" different from "I fired a shot gun and hit someone after the slug passed through 2 walls"?I assume you either missed or ignoring where I said people who do shoddy police work should be held accountble. It's back on the last page.Let's get this on topic. . . How many of the crooks you got in those 10 years hit children with grenades? Of all those, how many were told "meh, its fine, you don't need to go to jail"?Im going to hazard a guess that there are a lot more crooks out there breaking the law than there are corrupt cops 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.
Because it is standard practice in swat when you make entry into an apartment building, to use bird shot, not slugs. The officer was trained to change ammunition when in that specific instance. He didn't change ammunition. He put someone's life in danger through his actions of not changing ammunition, which is something he is solely accountable for. It is his weapon.
The swat officer who fired the flash bang grende, hadn't been on scene when the information was gathered. He was likely at home when the incident started and called out to the scene. When he arrived on scene, he was likely told by his commander, "We've received information that there are armed guards by the doors. From the drug buy a few hours ago, There are no children present. To prevent loss of life to offers entering, we are going to use a flash bang grenade to stun the guards by the front door. Upon entry, point man and second will proceed down the hall. Numbers three and four will handcuff and guard the incapacitated by the door."
The officer that fired the weapon that has the grenade is going by the information provided by his commander. He isn't afforded the opportunity to investigate the circumstances so has to rely on the info provided by either the detective or the commander. It is solely the detective or commanders responsibility to make sure the information they bare providing is accurate. If something is inaccurate, and innocent people get hurt or killed, it is completely the fault of the commander or detective, hit the guy who came from home, received the information, and followed through with actions based on the info he was given.
|
Global Organized Play Coordinator
|
Every killer ever in the history of mankind? Do you really want me to start linking cases where mass murderers have next door neighbors that are like "I never would have thought" or "he seemed so nice"?Can you name an incident where someone randomly murdered 1 person but let 40 others lI've? If so, link it and we will discuss.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.
If someone randomly murders 1 person, but lets 40 others live, does that mean that everything is okay or should that someone be locked up for life?
"Oh, but they do their job and don't kill innocent people 80% of the time" is not an acceptable response.
Mass murderers don't usually kill neighbors. They go into a mall food court or a theatre or whatever and kill I discrimation. What I *think* you are referring to is a serial killer. They actually single out a specific type of victim and actively seek to kill that type of victim and not really deviate.
Also, please don't say "every killer in the history of mankind." For example, It's an inaccurate statement. Someone who kils a person because they struck the vehicle when they were driving drunk doesn't fit the argument you are trying to present.
|
Global Organized Play Coordinator
|
One was following procedure and the other was not?So the procedure is you're not responsible for people who are injured by your grenades but you are for people who are injured by your bullets? S$&&, sign me up for being a grenade toting cop.
I didn't say that and you know it. The procedure is for the detective and the commander to do their job, make sure all of the information they are providing to a swat team is accurate, and relay that information.
|
Global Organized Play Coordinator
|
Every killer ever in the history of mankind? Do you really want me to start linking cases where mass murderers have next door neighbors that are like "I never would have thought" or "he seemed so nice"?Can you name an incident where someone randomly murdered 1 person but let 40 others lI've? If so, link it and we will discuss.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.
If someone randomly murders 1 person, but lets 40 others live, does that mean that everything is okay or should that someone be locked up for life?
"Oh, but they do their job and don't kill innocent people 80% of the time" is not an acceptable response.
Mass murderers don't usually kill neighbors. They go into a mall food court or a theatre or whatever and kill I discrimation. What I *think* you are referring to is a serial killer. They actually single out a specific type of victim and actively seek to kill that type of victim and not really deviate.
Also, please don't say "every killer in the history of mankind." For example, It's an inaccurate statement. Someone who kils a person because they struck the vehicle when they were driving drunk doesn't fit the argument you are trying to present.
So you can't rebut my argument, so you argue with my grammar. . .
On a side note,...
Please restate your argument. What you stated confused me in what you were asking me to rebut.
|
Global Organized Play Coordinator
|
Maybe its just me, but if you're wielding a weapon I'd say you have a responsibility for what happens with that weapon.
Let's use another example and see if it helps clarify. And yes, I understand it is fictional but I'm trying to see if it helps clarify.
A doctor diagnoses a patient and says they have symptom XXXXX so what is wrong with that person is XXXXXX. They relay that information to the surgeon. The surgeon then cuts the person open to start performing the surgery on what he was advised was wrong. When he opens the person on the table up, he sees that the info he was given was wrong, that the person does not have XXXXXX, and he immediately tells the nursing staff to start sewing this person back up. When the nursing staff starts seeing the person back up, the patient goes into cardiac arrest and dies. Who should be held accountable? The doctor providing the incorrect info that led to the surgery, or the doctor who was performing the surgery based on the information he received from another professional in his same field? It was, after all,the tools used to cut the person open and the complications that arose from that, that caused the person to die, not the original doctor that provided bad info.
|
Global Organized Play Coordinator
|
Because it is standard practice in swat when you make entry into an apartment building, to use bird shot, not slugs. The officer was trained to change ammunition when in that specific instance. He didn't change ammunition. He put someone's life in danger through his actions of not changing ammunition, which is something he is solely accountable for. It is his weapon.The swat officer who fired the flash bang grende, hadn't been on scene when the information was gathered. He was likely at home when the incident started and called out to the scene. When he arrived on scene, he was likely told by his commander, "We've received information that there are armed guards by the doors. From the drug buy a few hours ago, There are no children present. To prevent loss of life to offers entering, we are going to use a flash bang grenade to stun the guards by the front door. Upon entry, point man and second will proceed down the hall. Numbers three and four will handcuff and guard the incapacitated by the door."
The officer that fired the weapon that has the grenade is going by the information provided by his commander. He isn't afforded the opportunity to investigate the circumstances so has to rely on the info provided by either the detective or the commander. It is solely the detective or commanders responsibility to make sure the information they bare providing is accurate. If something is inaccurate, and innocent people get hurt or killed, it is completely the fault of the commander or detective, hit the guy who came from home, received the information, and followed through with actions based on the info he was given.
Though I don't really disagree with the assignment of responsibility, just for the record:
As near as I can tell, this wasn't an "incident" where SWAT was called in. It was a raid. The buy and surveillance had been done the previous day* and then they'd gone off to get the warrant. Surveillance hadn't been maintained or they would have noticed that the armed...
Unfortunately the swat team is not part of the info gathering, surveillance, etc... They are called out to end a situation based on the info that was provided to them. Should the swat member who fired the grenade be held accountble? No. Should the detective or commander that didn't confirm all of the information before telling the swat team to go be held accountable? Absolutely.
As to your larger point, I 1000% agree. The person providing the wrong info should be held accountable, the Habersham County DA should open an investigation, and if shoddy police work was responsible, the officer/detective that provided bad info that led to the awful injuries of the baby should be held accountable.
I dont think anyone here is arguing against that at all. I encourage everyone on this thread to write the Habersham County DA and ask what the hell? However, the DA did his job by bringing the case to the grand jury. I believe a grand jury of citizens failed to pass a true bill on any officer in this case. If you want to hold anyone accountable, hold the citizens of Habersham County responsible. They are the ones who refused to true bill the case and send it back to the DA's office so he could seek prosecution.
I would like to stay and discuss longer. Hell, I'd love to have a beer and just chat about it because difference of opinions is what makes everyone a more rounded person. But, my daughter has the day off school so I'm headed out to spend the day with her, not stay on the message boards.
I like how everyone is blaming the police instead of the scumbag methheads using their child's playpen to barricade the door.back when I lived in PA, we never used the front door. Noone did. We all used the side door or the back door. The front door was a mud room/rumpus room that was always in disuse in every house I visited save one. It may have been the same case here."When we did surveillance on the house, there were two guards standing guard at the door ... like they weren't letting anybody in," Terrell said. "We did make the buy out of the house. We took that information, along with our other information, and went to see the judge and got a warrant."Apparently that door had been in use and guarded during the day. The playpen was placed in front of sometime afterwards.
I should have added we used the front porch regularly. My fault for omitting that.
Re: Surgeon, it would not happen that way. The surgeon would check things over with the patient carefully, do his own tests to be certain if needed, then operate. "Something serious in the patient's stomach" would be quite enough to send the patient over to the surgical wing. Now, it is not all that uncommon that surgery shows a different picture than the tests you can do from outside, and sewing things up may well be the appropriate decision. However, every operation is risky, and patients do die without malfeasance or incompetence in the picture. Consider this before getting on the operating table, folks. The surgeon getting in deep waters would happen if incompetence or malfeasance could be shown (naturally, the US legal system is pretty f*#@ed up, so of course anything could happen there).
My experience from a jury system was a case I was a spectator for in Wales. The most telling part was that the people who had a difficult time reading their own printed names on a sign stayed, the rest had to leave due to objections from the defense.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Two amusing bits on Michelle Alexander before I get ready to go troll Bomber Bernie:
1) I laughed in her introduction where she wrote
Hmmm, what made her change her mind? Read the book to find out, pinkskins!
Anyway, on behalf of crazy radicals meeting in low-capacity community churches everywhere:
Vive le Galt!
2) From what I understand, but I could be wrong, I'm not in the loop, Ms. Alexander is married to a federal prosecutor.
|
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.
Without attempting to derail the thread - I cannot "like" the above enough.
The media *loves* to focus on atrocity, in all its forms. When it happens because of someone who's supposed to be a "good guy", it's even that much more terrible (or "juicy", if you work for said media). For every "incident" involving a police officer, soldier, judge, or anyone else who wields weapons or law "for the people", there are thousands upon thousands of honest, hard-working people who dedicate their lives to doing things the right way.
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.
I'm a scientist. "Tainting the well" is often layman's speak for "not scientifically/statistically significant, but the fact that it exists at all is/will be enough for Jane Q. Public to get up in arms about it".
Considering I'm running around a bit nuts today, I can't recall if this is something referring to the FBI or CIA...but the phrase "our triumphs are secret, our failures painfully public" comes to mind too.
Carry on.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
. Here's the other thing. It doesn't matter how good of a cop you are. When another cop ruins someone's life, it doesn't matter that you were a saintly cop, that person's life is still ruined. There are police departments that are committing highway robbery, literally. They steal money from poor families traveling through the area. Those families don't care that you were a good cop during your career, they are still being harassed by cops.
"Not all cops" is a pointless statement. It does nothing to alleviate the problem that some cops ARE abusing their power. In this situation, I am not the problem. The cops abusing their power are. You want to be mad? Be mad at them. Go Serpico on their ass.
I guess you think profiling is ok then? What you advised above is very similar to same reasons federal law enforcement profiled people.
Like I said, replace almost any other group where you've put the word cop and you would be rallying against the side of those profiling that group.
No, my statements don't apply to other groups.
1) All police officers are paid with money funded by the community.
2) All police officers swear an oath
I........................DO SWEAR,, THAT - I WILL WELL AND TRULY SERVE - OUR SOVEREIGN COUNTRY AND STATE - AS A POLICE OFFICER WITHOUT FAVOR OR AFFECTION - MALICE OR ILL-WILL - UNTIL I AM LEGALLY DISCHARGED, THAT I WILL SEE AND CAUSE OUR COMMUNITY’S PEACE TO BE KEPT AND PRESERVED - AND THAT - I WILL PREVENT TO THE BEST OF MY POWER - ALL OFFENSES AGAINST THAT PEACE - AND THAT - WHILE I CONTINUE TO BE A POLICE OFFICER - I WILL - TO THE BEST OF MY SKILL AND KNOWLEDGE - DISCHARGE ALL THE DUTIES THEREOF - FAITHFULLY - ACCORDING TO LAW.
SO HELP ME GOD.
That's a sample oath. I'm sure it varies from locality to locality.
Cops have a sworn duty to protect the peace. Even if it's other cops who are disrupting it. But we don't see cops being outraged at the bad behavior of cops, or working tirelessly to put other cops behind bars. We get cops who try to convince us that the problem isn't real, or it's smaller than it seems. We get cops who try to convince us of "not all cops".
"Not all cops" will never convince me. Putting other cops behind bars will. You want me to trust you? Put a bad cop where he belongs.
Cops have a sworn duty to protect the peace. Even if it's other cops who are disrupting it. But we don't see cops being outraged at the bad behavior of cops, or working tirelessly to put other cops behind bars. We get cops who try to convince us that the problem isn't real, or it's smaller than it seems. We get cops who try to convince us of "not all cops"."Not all cops" will never convince me. Putting other cops behind bars will. You want me to trust you? Put a bad cop where he belongs.
Maybe you missed this from a couple of pages back...
I'm certainly not defending bad cops. I arrested three cops during my tenure. I had no patience for a bad cop as it gave the rest of cops bad name, including me at the time.