DogofWar1

It's worth noting you're the first person to talk about this specific instance of policing/shooting. There's probably a reason for that. In your post above, you've painted the side seeking police reforms as one that would oppose the use of force even when a suspect is known to have and has used a gun. That is definitely not the case. I, and I imagine the others who wish to see reform in this thread, am more than fine with police conduct in cases where there is a clear and demonstrated threat (as opposed to a paranoid and hypothetical one). There is a Grand Canyon's worth of difference between Bland, DuBose, Rohnert Park, and Hammond incidents compared to this Ferguson one. It's a pretty obvious difference too, in this Ferguson case someone actually has a gun, a demonstrated danger; in the previous cases, the "danger" to the officer has not been demonstrated, it's imagined by the officers, and a long stretch at that. I hope this is the case. The interesting thing that police will find is that accountability will likely be easier than they thought. Remove the bad apples, and the heat will die down. Heck, the vast majority of the people don't care about illegal searches and seizures, they're fine with that remedy being in court. Keep your beating/kill count low by tossing the few officers who make it high, and your station is suddenly a-ok. With regards to the monitoring and red tape, with great power comes great responsibility. There's a reason the standard to convict someone of a crime in the US is (or at least supposed to be...post 9-11 murky activities notwithstanding) "beyond a reasonable doubt," and also a reason why otherwise slam dunk cases can be tossed on technicalities. Freedom and Liberty are two strong ideals. We do make some small sacrifices in the name of the social contract, but we also have protections in the form of the amendments, as well as further statutes. False positives are despised and we seek to prevent them. Police have the power to take away someone's freedom and liberty. For all the monitoring and red tape that bureaucrats/employees who don't hold people's lives in their hands have to go through, both in the public and private sectors, it should be no surprise at all that accountability is asked for from those who do have such power, and that there's concern where there isn't accountability and outrage where there are abuses. If you're referring to us wanting to take away the pay/jobs of the abusive officers, certainly. If you abuse the power to take someone's liberty, that's a grave offense. if you're referring to people in this thread wanting to cut pay for police generally, I can't speak for others, but I am most definitely NOT for that. In fact, if it were up to me, tomorrow the money flowing to police around the country would increase significantly. Police are underpaid, as are teachers, and maybe other workers in plenty of industries. Police do indeed have a unique situation in that their line of work carries significant risk. I'm all for increased wages for them (of course, that means more taxes too). However, low wages do not excuse poor performance, not with so much at stake, and I think while plenty of people would want to see police paid more, they'd probably want to see some more accountability and cleanup before more tax money goes to police, which isn't unreasonable. It's interesting that you brought up soldiers, because as MrSilverMaC noted above, soldiers have a higher bar for engagement with force than police often do. Drawing a weapon can have constitutional implications, and it will often have police guideline and rule implications. Doing so when it is not appropriate is not a small matter. Cops have resigned and been fired for such things. The key is whether there's some sort of reasonable independent reason for drawing a weapon. A cop can use their experience and training, but when the situation is explained objectively, other people need to reach the same conclusion the officer did with regard to safety. One case from a short while back was the beating at the pool of the African American girl, where the cop drew his gun as people tried to help the girl mid-beating. He resigned pretty quickly and was blasted by the police chief. The initial story was that he felt threatened when the boys moved towards him. But a reasonable objective examination (boosted by the tape) shows that the alleged danger the officer felt was unsubstantiated. In those cases, drawing one's weapon is inappropriate. The pool beating case is similar to the Rohnert Park case. Is it reasonable to construe any man with a hand in their pocket as a potentially deadly threat where drawing a weapon is a reasonable response? That's a broad category, with pretty problematic implications, seeing as pockets are ubiquitous, and are meant to have hands in them. You need something more than that, just as in the pool case they needed something more than the two boys moving to try and help the girl pinned under the officer. Heck, I'd argue that two people moving towards an officer is much closer to the line than merely standing there with one's hand in one's pocket. If the pool case is inappropriate, the Rohnert Park case is doubly so. If an officer is so easily stressed that they draw their weapon even when there's no evidence of independent and objectively apparent danger, then perhaps they should be re-assigned to desk duty. An overly fearful cop is a danger to he community, all it takes is one incident where things get a little out of hand when their fears take hold of them, and someone innocent can end up dead. The "we're gonna run out of cops" argument is a bit too alarmist I think. There are plenty of cops in the US who follow the rules just fine. There are entire countries where LEOs manage to adhere to principles similar to our own rights. We've had some people mention that individuals were turned away for being "overqualified." Hire those guys. Moreover, how do we separate reasons for dropping recruitment numbers? Isn't it just as possible that people don't want to join the police, not because of the monitoring and red tape, but because they don't want to be a part of what is perceived to be (and sometimes is) a corrupt system? Think about Enron, I imagine a decent percentage of people would seek employment elsewhere because of the negative reputation and implications stemming from Enron's own conduct. Similar principles may apply here. We can't become alarmist about police recruitment numbers until we can separate those not applying because of the public's conduct from those not applying because of their potential employer's conduct.

Her previous nutritionist told her she couldn't cut the weight, not without serious health concerns. Her new nutritionist seems to have some sort of plan set up. I agree she'd prefer to bait Rousey into a 140 fight, but I think the stalling was because she both couldn't cut the weight and for baiting. Her new nutritionist must have just come up with a plan for her to cut down. Of course, now she's kinda committed. She says she's gonna make 135 by April 2016, she can't back out in March and go fight another Invicta fight at 145 without losing whatever credibility she has left. That is, I suppose, assuming Dana plays nice in terms of setting it up, though he's got understandable concerns.

YES! Oh yeah. Christmas coming 13 days early in MMA world. I'd love to see it happen, but I'll believe it when I see it. George Lockhart must be a miracle worker. Then again, next April might be long enough for her to lose the weight safely, since it's going to take her some time to do it.

Hey, I'm as opposed to 2nd hand smoke as anyone, but if you've got a right to smoke it, you've got a right to smoke it. Cop could have finished giving her the ticket and everyone could have been on their way as quickly as she could have put it out. Instead, he escalates and orders her to put it out, which he doesn't have the authority to do. Automobile exception generally requires reasonable suspicion, but searches then can only extend to areas and containers in which the potentially offending item is supposedly placed. Comes up sometimes in drunk driving cases where officers search tiny closed/locked containers and find small amounts of weed or something. Reasonable suspicion is oftentimes discussed as reasonable "articulable" suspicion, that is, you are suspicious of a specific crime occurring at the time and can state which crime. It's why the Bland case is so wacky, she asks him what she's being charged with and he's just flatly silent for like 3 seconds before doing anything else. It's not about reading minds. It's about reasonably responding to the situation. By the logic of "we don't know, therefore display maximum force," police should pull guns on EVERYONE. Again, we don't know if Granny has a gun in her bra or not. Anyone wearing a second layer of clothes in the winter could be hiding a gun. Carrying a work briefcase? Gun. That is a patently ridiculous world to live in, and most other countries (and most police standards here in the US) understand that. It's one of the reasons that cop who beat up the black girl at the pool got in trouble (and ultimately resigned), he pulled his gun on people who did not represent a sufficient threat for him to pull his gun. You can't pull your gun because you subjectively are paranoid that a threat exists while all sensory evidence says there isn't one. There are often constitutional implications (liberty w/out due process), police guideline implications (generally not allowed to do that), and common sense implications. The point about background checks in corporate America is that an officer arresting someone needs to be arresting them for the right reasons. If they've committed a crime worthy of arrest and there's evidence of it sufficient to arrest, by all means, police should arrest them. At that point mistakes are on the state records, background checking companies, and the corporation the person has applied to. However, there is a not insignificant number of cases where there is no crime and a person is arrested, or charges are effectively made up and later dropped (or nolle prosequi), or rights are violated during the stop which leads to the person being found not guilty during trial or charges being dropped before trial. In those kinds of cases, there is a very real harm to police abuses and violations that extends into job searches. It's another reason police must be held to a higher standard when performing their duties. Lax standards lead to abuses, and those abuses have far reaching consequences beyond simply how many days a person has to sit in jail. Just wondering, are you saying if we feel strongly against your entire post, or just the part about the Sovereign Citizen movement? Because I lean towards agreement on that, but feel strongly against the rest (and would contest what follows, but I want to make sure I've got my interpretation right before I respond).

For a police order to be a lawful order, it needs backing. Police can't just order you to do anything. What's his reasonable suspicion or probable cause? Why is she being ordered out of the car? More than likely it's because she didn't put out her cigarette, seeing as those two things happened back to back, but that's not sufficient for an order to exit a vehicle; not when a stop is for not using a turn signal. Meanwhile, in the video, infringement of liberty without due process of law. There's no crime happening, nor does the police justify his presence or actions at any point. A reasonable person isn't going to feel free with an officer having pulled a gun. Police NEED reasonable suspicion and probable cause to take certain actions. That's not a guideline, or, at least it's not supposed to be. Also worth noting, the guy did show both hands (though he was not legally required to), look around the 2:24 mark, both hands are out (left is pointing, right is holding camera). The officer doesn't re-holster his gun. Let us briefly pretend your unsupported-by-law standard controls here; once both hands are out, what justification does the officer have for having his gun out?

Well, what were you doing or what was the situation at the time you were searched, beat down, detained, and had guns drawn on you? You may not subjectively feel victimized, but there are defined and clear standards of what police can and can not do and when they are allowed to do it. You say you've had guns drawn and been beat down; for those to have been within the law, the ACTUAL law (not TWA's law), you have to have been doing something to warrant it. Speaking of warrants, if you were searched without a warrant, and it didn't fall into an exception, you've been victimized. You may have had a civil case against the police and didn't even know it. Further, define "confrontation" and "justifiable fear." Sandra Bland refused to put out her cigarette, which she was completely within her rights to refuse to do. Is that "confrontation?" When officers were standing beside Sam Dubose's car and he tries to flee, did they have "justifiable fear" that their lives were in danger to shoot him point blank? What about in the video a couple pages back? Is it confrontational to videotape police? Do police have a justifiable fear for their lives of anyone taping them? I've been sort of dancing around this, but the fallback position of the "pro-irresponsible cop" position tends to be the greater likelihood of guns to exist in the US. What is your stance on gun control? I also have not, and won't, say that it's purely a police problem. It's not. Corporate racism plays a role. Prosecutors and judges play a role. Legislatures waging an inane drug war play a role. Gun availability plays a role. Crappy worker protections play a role. Lots of roles played by lots of groups. But police play a huge role, and when we consider how their role intersects with other parts of the problem, their role is very likely the largest.

Depends how one defines "addressing" and "threats." With the way you've seemingly been defining them and the loose standards you've applied, there are definitely constitutional violations. And the old "I'll give up a little of my freedom for more security" argument doesn't work here. First, you've likely never been victimized by police, so it's probably not your freedom you're giving up, it's other peoples'. Secondly, other nations somehow manage to maintain peace without significant police killings and rights violations. It's lazy and privileged to accept a status quo where lots of people die and lots of people have their rights violated and lives destroyed when numerous other nations have demonstrated that it's not necessary to do that to maintain a peaceful and safe society.

No, facts are. Your privilege seems to have been gnawing at you though.

And in cases where they didn't? What, it's just the cost of doing business? Disgusting. Utterly disgusting. It devalues human life to nothing. We see every week more unarmed people dying. You can't hand-wave that. "Oh well, unarmed people keep dying? Eh, whatever, I'm sure a lot of people deserved it." We are the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA! WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE BETTER THAN THAT! You do understand how charges and convictions, for even minor crimes, create a permanent underclass in this country, right? If you're wondering why people turn to crime, or turn to drugs, or have bad acquaintances, you have no further to look than the system that forced them and their ancestors into it, and that keeps perpetuating it, with one of the primary ways of it being done being the police. You force people into low wage jobs (or unemployment) from which they have no opportunity to escape (except perhaps crime), and some are going to turn out bad. Congrats, you've just created a situation for people that allows you to justify killing those same people! Good job. America, and such! George Washington must be so proud! __________________________________________ Moreover, you say there are more crazies in the US, but provide no quantitative evidence. So yes, "may be true" is the appropriate phrase to use, though it's worth noting my use of "that may be true" was actually use in the "X may be true, BUT Y" form, which agrees with X; it doesn't dispute it as, say, saying "That's maybe true." Further, you don't discuss why we kill SO DARN MANY more people in the US than in other countries. Do we really have 100X the bad people that other countries do? Somehow I doubt that. If you're going to essentially say we've got 100X the bad people of the UK, you should probably back that up with data, or something. __________________________________________ Something else I've been wanting to bring up for a while is how damaging just a charge, not even a conviction, can be. I wrote a paper on it (hastily, due to the worst end of semester exam schedule ever, but still finished it) and the harm is surprising. I hadn't really thought about the issue before hand, but I stumbled across some statistics during one of my classes and wanted to investigate more. Police and the prosecutors who work with those police (usually off of police statements) do more damage than they know. There's a powerpoint you can download from here: http://www.shrm.org/research/surveyfindings/articles/pages/backgroundcheckcriminalchecks.aspx that details a survey of corporations looking into background checks. 31% of companies said an arrest record alone was somewhat or very influential in terms of a decision to hire or not. 37% of companies do not allow people to explain themselves before a decision on their hiring is made. That's a problematic combination if you've ever been arrested, even without a conviction. Then you add in that lots of background checking services are woefully incomplete/incorrect for a variety of reasons, biggest being a lack of uniformity in reporting standards, often to the accused's detriment, across states. Report is here, though it's kinda tough to sift through: http://www.nclc.org/images/pdf/pr-reports/broken-records-report.pdf Now, admittedly not all these issues are ones that we can lay at the feet of police. Many of them come from state reporting requirements, or alternatively, the background check companies, and mismatched records with regards to mistaken identity are unfortunate mix-ups not on the police, but outside of mismatches, an arrest (without a conviction) tends to be the starting point of issues. When police arrest someone, it has far reaching consequences for that person's life. Abuse of the power to arrest through constitutional violations should be inexcusable in the USA. This, for minorities, compounds with the racism, patent and latent, in the corporate world. Various studies have looked at hiring rates and found that corporations really put minorities at disadvantages, even with no criminal records. Throw in a criminal record of just about any kind, and congrats, enjoy minimum wage for the rest of your life. I try really hard not to take for granted the fact that I was born white upper middle class. I can do anything if I put my mind/body to it. I just wish everyone else could be so lucky.

That may be true, but let's not pretend that police culture hasn't helped push that along. There are issues outside it, but they contribute in a not insignificant way.

Police treating EVERYONE like a potential major threat is why we have way more shootings by police in this country than just about every other first world nation. http://www.globalresearch.ca/u-s-cops-kill-at-100-times-the-rate-of-other-capitalist-countries/5423183 It needs to stop. There is almost always a "grey" area with regard to "hypothetical" dangers. Friendliest old lady could be packing heat in her bra. That doesn't mean police pull guns on little old ladies when they roll up. Police in most other 1st world nations respond with force appropriate to the situation. Key word there is "respond." It goes back to the escalation issue, too often police escalate when they should be either maintaining and matching escalation or de-escalating. An officer pulling a gun on someone who has not shown themselves to be an immediate and significant threat is how you end up with dead citizens. Lots of them: http://www.killedbypolice.net/ By the end of August, police will likely have killed as many people as they did in the entirety of 2013. We're on pace for more than 1,100 deaths. Maybe so. And thankfully there's a process for that. You, as the police, go to a neutral magistrate, present evidence, and get a warrant. If they're gathering information to get a warrant, fair enough, maybe that means driving around a couple times, but the moment the police pull the gun, they've gone way beyond the reasonable. The guy's on his own property performing lawful activity. No excuse for the police. The officer should be suspended without pay for a not insignificant period of time. A month or so to start. He should feel it financially. None of this "taxpayer funded vacation" BS that keeps happening.

Well, I guess it depends how one defines "clean" record. Many of the cops who've gotten in trouble recently were fired from previous law enforcement jobs in other counties/states. They have no criminal record, so they're "clean" with regard to criminal convictions, but less so with regard to workplace violations. Personally, someone fired from the police for misconduct would not be "clean" with regards to another police job, but that's just me. As for personality, I don't have objective data on it at this time, but I too have heard anecdotal stories of people being "overqualified" for police service. People who passed everything and were near if not at the top of candidate pools in terms of both intelligence and athletics being denied without further explanation. I know a few people in VA who ran into that, as for elsewhere, I am not sure.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/08/cops-filmed-behaving-badly-say-pot-shops-camera-illegally-recorded-raid/ "We tried to destroy evidence of our misconduct, so we had an expectation of privacy." SMH

Lack of a charge against an officer does not necessarily mean no wrong conduct occurred. A clear example would be when cases against arrested individuals are thrown out on Constitutional grounds. Cops are very rarely punished for relatively "minor" infractions like illegal searches or illegal custodial interrogations; you've generally got to do something egregious and violent to actually be punished. If a case is dismissed because a cop performed an illegal search, the cop clearly did something wrong. However, the cop isn't likely to be charged with anything. The case is dismissed, and that's it. There are also two key reasons why even when abuses are actual, real, and illegal, that they may not be charged. First, the people you talk about, the cops, the police department, the prosecutor; they are all co-workers. They're as close as any long-time co-workers; probably closer actually, since their job involves potentially dangerous situations which encourages closeness and camaraderie. Even the police to prosecutor connection is almost co-worker-esque, the prosecutors work a courtroom, and when cases come up they get the information from the police. They see these guys fairly often, and are on the same side, with the prosecutor trying to get a conviction for the guy the police arrested. When there's misconduct that *could* be charged against an officer, it means that all those friend connections have to be severed, possibly permanently. Most people wouldn't call the cops on their good friends; maybe they don't actively participate in a friend's wrongdoing, but they probably don't call the cops either. Same concept here. Police go to bat for each other, even when they shouldn't. The other officers on the scene of the Sam DuBose shooting initially lied to sync up their stories with the officer who shot DuBose. Those friend bonds are strong. Second, the evidence of wrongdoing is generally in the hands of parties friendly to the offending officer. Dash cams and body cams are under police control. One of the key concerns with expanding body cam use is how do we prevent officers from turning it off or deleting videos. The balance of evidence is changing though, with the growth of smartphone use, and it's why we only now have been able to grasp the full depth and breadth of the problem, and understand that we need more Body Cams to fill the gaps where citizens don't have cameras. Videos can't lie; while what is seen may interpreted differently by different people, we cannot change the objective activities that occurred and were filmed. Unless all police encounters are filmed and the films made readily available to all the parties involved (cops, defendants, judges, attorneys, etc.) we will still have plenty of situations where the evidence is under the control of police. That won't always, or even often lead to abuses, but it does allow for abuses to happen. If officer wrongdoing is on film controlled by the police, the odds of getting it is not 100%, unfortunately. We even have cops that try to delete private citizen videos: - http://www.rt.com/usa/248761-police-assault-delete-video/ - http://www.click2houston.com/news/officer-accused-of-trying-to-destroy-cell-phone-video-of-confrontation/30146490 - https://news.vice.com/article/denver-police-attempted-to-delete-video-of-cop-pummeling-unarmed-drug-suspect-tripping-pregnant-woman When alleged misconduct happens without video/audio evidence, it often becomes a "he said, she said" situation. The vast and overwhelming majority of the time, the officer is viewed as and held to be the more trustworthy party. This has been abused in the past by bad cops, and other cops cover for them, and prosecutors are often left in the dark on that, and don't tend to question the police since they have to work with them essentially daily. There's a LOT that goes into actually charging an officer and many of the things that have to happen are often not done because it's too much trouble (charging over Constitutional violations), but even when it's not, you've got a lot of evidentiary barriers and cliques to overcome.

Video of one cop telling off another cop who is trying to conduct an illegal detention and search of some people. This cop deserves to be commended; he might only be doing his job, but being willing to stand up to others who aren't is too rare. https://video-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hvideo-xpt1/v/t43.1792-2/11276111_635982886538539_1888675187_n.mp4?efg=eyJybHIiOjE1MDAsInJsYSI6MTAyNH0%3D&rl=1500&vabr=205&oh=ff6b7b82abc23702a487a65db66d50bb&oe=55C19731

I'm trying to find this video of one cop telling another cop off for trying to illegally detain and accost some people. If I can find it, I'll post it in both threads; this one for the bad officer trying to violate rights, and the other one for the good officer trying to ensure that people's rights are protected. Edit: Found it, but I dunno how to embed, so linky https://video-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hvideo-xpt1/v/t43.1792-2/11276111_635982886538539_1888675187_n.mp4?efg=eyJybHIiOjE1MDAsInJsYSI6MTAyNH0%3D&rl=1500&vabr=205&oh=ff6b7b82abc23702a487a65db66d50bb&oe=55C19731

If we're talking volume of cases: http://www.businessinsider.com/baltimore-paid-5-million-in-4-years-for-police-brutality-lawsuits-2015-4 More than 100 rulings for Plaintiffs in alleged police brutality cases since 2011 in Baltimore. The eventual DOJ report will be very interesting. Then there's the DOJ report on Ferguson, that indicts the police department (and municipal court system) as a whole: http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/04/ferguson_police_department_report.pdf This paragraph from the summary is a powerful one, it demonstrates the huge problems that arise from police abuse of constitutional rights, even when there's no physical abuse. Cases like this are pretty close to what is seen fairly often in the PD office. It's scary and sad, and creates a permanent underclass. If you're wondering why in some African American communities there are major problems, it might have something to do with the ceiling imposed upon them by unfair (and often illegal) policing. It's hard to build a better community when you've lost your job stemming from an arrest tied to an officer's misconduct. The man in that case probably can never get a job like the one he had ever again. His ability to be successful in life has now been capped. It's a scary thought, that an officer who violates your rights can consign you literally decades of toiling for low wages with no chance of doing better. The "Cop Block" page on FB alone is terrifying. And of course there's also Homan Square in Chicago. One thing that really bugs me is we never know how many times an officer violates someone's rights and then doesn't arrest them. Like, if an officer searches your car illegally, but doesn't find anything, they might just go on their way and never report it to anyone. And if you were the victim of an illegal search that didn't result in an arrest/charges, are you at all likely to pursue that officer civilly for a violation of your rights? Probably not; I mean, jeez, just asking for an Officer's badge number these days is basically asking to be arrested. How often do these kinds of searches happen? We have no real data on that. I know that police are supposed to file reports on stuff like that, but there are clearly major reporting issues in numerous jurisdictions nationwide.

I mean, probably, but McGregor didn't really protect himself from takedowns against Mendes. Rousey probably can't get inside his reach easily, I mean the man's got silly long arms, but she's not dumb either, she probably gameplans to get inside his guard and take him down. Whether she can do that is the hard part, but if she did she can probably give him a reasonably interesting match. Don't get me wrong, she can't overwhelm McGregor standing, that's a guaranteed loss, and if Mendes couldn't capitalize on, what, 5 takedowns, there's almost no chance 10 pounds lighter Rousey could, but McGregor does have a big blind spot in takedown defense; his best tool is that he can avoid submission. I would not be surprised if Rousey gave a fight similar to Mendes. I also wouldn't be surprised if McGregor knocked her out in the first punch. Guy packs a wallop. Still a fun counterfactual.

I'd love to see McGregor-Rousey, as wacky (and definitely never happening) as that'd be. My initial feeling is that McGregor wins easy, but on second thought, Rousey can take punches (probably not nearly as many from McGregor as her usual opponents) and if she can survive to take him to the ground, since his takedown defense is so bad, she might be able to sneak in an armbar. I still figure McGregor would just overpower her on the ground, preventing an armbar and then standing up and striking her down, but who knows. It'd be interesting to see.

So? It's unfortunate that women's sports need a sex icon to truly grow, but one way or another, Carano grew WMMA. Yeah, Cyborg basically ended her career, but that doesn't change the fact that Carano helped to push the sport more towards mass recognition. Carano was Rousey before Rousey was Rousey. She was the main draw for several years there, before she fought Cyborg. Rousey picked up where she left off, though yeah, Rousey has done a ton herself. Carano is deserving of some measure of respect. Meanwhile, setting aside that Cyborg juiced up to her eyeballs non-stop until 2011, she's backed out of promises to make 135 and fight contenders, twice. She can't keep her word. She doesn't deserve a catchweight. If she can't make 135 because she juiced too much in the past, tough, shoulda thought of that beforehand. Petition Dana for a 145 class, and then keep quiet.

Carano earned it. Without Carano, there's probably no women's UFC to begin with. Rousey owes her a lot. She owes Cyborg nothing. Less than nothing, actually. Cyborg has twice agreed to fight contenders at 135, then Rousey, and has twice backed out. If anyone owes anyone anything, Cyborg owes Rousey. Rousey has been expanding women's MMA practically single-handedly. Cyborg owes Rousey a ton. Her career would be nothing more than 5 figure fights, at best, against cans. Shes had a clear path to Rousey for years, and hasn't done it. On a similar but side note, card was kinda lame. Wayyyy too long for the fights it had. I know not every card can he UFC 189 material, but at this point you've got to pair Rousey with better prelims and main card fights. You know she's gonna annihilate her opponent in no time, gotta build a card around her. Dana has the right idea though, if he pairs Mcgregor-Aldo on the same night as Rousey-Tate 3. That first fight is gonna be awesome.

These fall into the rare cases. While I was at the Fairfax PD's office interning, we saw borderline unconstitutional conduct on the part of police on almost a daily basis. Searching cars without reasonable suspicion, homes without probable cause, asking questions without Mirandizing people, asking questions post indictment, etc., etc., were all fairly commonplace. Sometimes you would see a true case of police brutality too, but those were more rare than just run of the mill Constitutional violations. Most of these people are poor. They don't have the time, funds, understanding of the legal system, or courage, to initiate a civil suit on their behalf. If they are allowed to go free they usually just thank their attorney, and go back to their lives. Some of the borderline cases do ultimately fall into the "Constitutional" category. But plenty don't, enough that it is concerning to see so often. One of the more common things that happens is lower courts are more than happy to convict, so long as the accused has an appeal. Very often, these cases get overturned on appeal, if the accused has the money to continue fighting. Problem is most don't have the money, so they take deals. And that's one of the things that makes me frustrated more than most people with the cops who commit non-violent rights violations. The US is totally weighted against someone with a criminal record, regardless of what it's for. We don't have a remedial prison system, it's purely punishment, and does nothing to ensure that people don't commit crimes in the future. Further, getting a job with a criminal record, no matter how petty a crime it was, is a huge uphill battle. Getting convicted of a crime often caps one's capabilities in society. (Heck, getting charged with one does too, since many background check compilations are woefully incomplete/inaccurate, leading to loads of false positives) When someone is convicted of a crime from evidence collected via unconstitutional procedures, the damage is two-fold. First, we ratify the police's misconduct. Second, from that misconduct, we allow someone to be shoved into a system that is completely stacked against them for the rest of their lives. This stuff happens daily just in Fairfax County alone.

Reasonably close. It's an approximation. Destino makes a good point about how even 10-20% is probably too high when it comes to cops actually cracking down on other cops because of unions and pressure from above. I hope it's not too high, but it might be. With regard to bad, it's not just killing. It's also violating people's rights at the drop of a hat. The number of killer cops is small, but the number that will gladly escalate a situation and violate someone's constitutional rights while beating them senseless (for a senseless reason), is definitely a sizable minority. Of course, cops are very rarely punished for violating people's rights if someone doesn't end up seriously injured or dead. The remedy for an illegal search is that the person they searched gets charges dropped (if any charges come up in the first place), and the cop goes right back onto the street, probably doing it again.

The prosecutors were being hit with about 10 FOIA requests all at once, the video was coming out one way or another. The prosecutors probably realized that this cop is terrible, and they didn't want their office to even have the appearance of trying to protect this guy. They saved themselves the embarrassment both of having a court rule against them, AND of being the DAs who tried to keep a very clear and obvious video of a cop murdering someone under wraps. Also, innocent until proven guilty is an important standard, one police have abused terribly. This guy will be tried in court, and probably found guilty, and the standard will be innocent until proven guilty. Problem is, how many cops have abused and murdered people and gotten a damn slap on the wrist because it was the cop's word against a "criminal," or the cop's word against a dead man. Tensing deserves to be utterly crucified in the court of public opinion. If we had less clear evidence, sure, let's reserve judgment, but holy crap we got him shooting the guy in the head, cold-blooded, on film. Like, we all basically watched a snuff film right there. He'll get his day in court. He should also be treated like the garbage he is in the meantime. Also, the "no one will want to be a cop" line is silly. So we should put up with cops violating our rights and murdering people so that people will keep taking the job? Maybe they should advertise it as a perk of the job; "after 3 years of service, you get two paid weeks of vacation and one 'beat up a minority for no reason' get out of jail free card." Cops brought this enforcement down upon themselves with these kinds of antics. There are plenty of cops who don't do this kind of stuff. They admittedly defend these killer cops too much, but remove the truly bad cops, and you've still got plenty of decent cops left.

True. Bad is relative. I guess the Bad cops are BAD Bad, and the Good cops are Good Bad, and then there are GOOD Good cops. I should amend, though, that in the tensing case, this guy, having thought about it, isn't Good Bad, he's Bad Bad. It's one thing to be complicit in a 4th amendment violation and question someone who should have a lawyer, it's another to be an accomplice to murder. Which is basically what this guy did, attempted to aid and comfort this officer who killed a guy with no provocation. One thing though, while trying to bring about systemic changes, it'll be harder if the Good Bad cops are painted as bad too. So long as they're upstanding in the absence of bad cops, they probably need to be allies. Empowering good cops to report and stop bad cops will push systemic change much quicker than going after larger chunks of the police.