The Police Gone Wild thread

[Koolblue13]

I'm anti cop and my cop friends know it. I assume they are all bad cops until I know better.

From the time I was little to now, when a cop is around, I feel guilty, even when I'm doing nothing. I just don't feel safe and I know my rights are not always enough to keep me free.

[big#44]

I'm anti cop and my cop friends know it. I assume they are all bad cops until I know better.

From the time I was little to now, when a cop is around, I feel guilty, even when I'm doing nothing. I just don't feel safe and I know my rights are not always enough to keep me free.

not any cops fault you have a horribly guilty conscience.

[Destino]

Wasn't sure whether to put this in the police or pit bull thread:

Officer Shoots Woman, Pit Bull Playing

LA MARQUE, Texas -- A police officer shot a woman and a dog that were playing when she thought the dog was attacking the woman, witnesses told KPRC Local 2.

Witnesses said a La Marque police officer was driving along 5th Avenue near Walnut Street at about 7:15 p.m. Wednesday, after she helped a person around the corner.

The officer heard people playing and screaming, witnesses said. A 23-year-old woman and her friend were playing with a pit bull.

Witnesses said the officer got out of the car and fired several shots toward the dog.

"The young lady started hollering and just at that time a police officer was coming down and thought the dog was attacking the lady," witness Dennis Wallace said. "I can't say that I would do anything different. The lady (the officer) drew down and started shooting. I couldn't say I wouldn't have done that."/

The woman suffered a gunshot wound to the chest. She was taken by helicopter to Memorial Hermann Hospital in stable condition.

The dog was also wounded. The dog's owner took it to a vet and it is expected to recover.

Click on the link for the full article

I can say that I certainly would have done something different.... like not shoot the "victim" in the chest and to make sure I was seeing what I thought I was seeing. This isn't the wild west MAKE SURE before you SHOOT PEOPLE for crying out loud. What an awesome day... playing with your dog until a moron with a gun decides to save you from your pet by damn near killing you and your dog.

BTW - you don't spray bullets "towards" a victim and the attacker. That's a bad way to shoot, period.

[Destino]

Police shoot homeowner 6 times while he held the intruder at gunpoint

http://www.azcentral.com/community/phoenix/articles/2009/03/18/20090318shotsue0318.html#

Wife claims she told all the cops specifically that her husband was the one with the gun... and they went in and shot him anyway. Watch the video below of his wife interviewed.

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/crime/2009/10/09/pn.cop.shoots.homeowner.cnn

Officer of course... has been cleared of any wrong doing. :doh:

[Teller]

Interesting initial post. The cop was found not guilty, AND you neglected to list the three offenses the suspect was charged with.

Ignoring the facts to be deliberately inflammatory....Rupert Murdoch would hire you in a heartbeat.

[ACW]

At least this cop's getting jail time, but a measly year+day? I'd get longer if I set someone up. And cops should be punished MORE than civilians, since they also betray the post.

http://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/st-louis-crime-beat/2009/10/09/corrupt-former-st-louis-cop-gets-year-in-jail/

[Destino]

Interesting initial post. The cop was found not guilty, AND you neglected to list the three offenses the suspect was charged with.

Ignoring the facts to be deliberately inflammatory....Rupert Murdoch would hire you in a heartbeat.

You're sort of missing the point. Part of the reason there is a "police gone wild" situation is because they are so rarely held accountable. Just look at your post: "you neglected to list the three offenses the suspect was charged with" Mind telling me what that has to do with anything? Is it impossible to go overboard with a criminal? No. But that is how people, and juries, see it. The guy was a criminal, so screw him.

Problem is cops don't decide guilt they do decide force however.... and the problem grows.

[Teller]

You're sort of missing the point. Part of the reason there is a "police gone wild" situation is because they are so rarely held accountable.

This is an utterly ignorant statement, in the classical sense of the word ignorant.

Just look at your post: "you neglected to list the three offenses the suspect was charged with" Mind telling me what that has to do with anything?

You're right. It had nothing to do with the officer being ACQUITTED. Care to tell me what his acquittal has to do with anything?

Is it impossible to go overboard with a criminal? No. But that is how people, and juries, see it. The guy was a criminal, so screw him.

Of course it's possible to go overboard, and those officers should be fired, charged, and tried. Of course, as we see here, trials don't matter when we've already passed judgement....without the evidence the jury saw.

Problem is cops don't decide guilt they do decide force however.... and the problem grows.

Are you familiar with Use of Force reports? If you think that cop on the street is the only one deciding how much force to use and if it was reasonable, you're quite simply wrong.

[Destino]

This is an utterly ignorant statement, in the classical sense of the word ignorant.

administrative leave and getting fired isn't something I consider punishment. Care to argue that police officers often see jail time when they are found responsible for something? I'd love to be wrong.

You're right. It had nothing to do with the officer being ACQUITTED. Care to tell me what his acquittal has to do with anything? Of course it's possible to go overboard, and those officers should be fired, charged, and tried. Of course, as we see here, trials don't matter when we've already passed judgement....without the evidence the jury saw.

What evidence? I really hate the argument you are using here because it drags out the possibility of magical evidence. Like all the videos people see are suddenly invalidated by some super evidence that the world is denied. If the officer was indeed innocent and this evidence existed he would cite it in public to instantly repair his image.

What actually happens is what you did. You cited that the criminal was well... a dirty rotten scum sucking criminal. The cop well he's a hero and I mean if you have to deal with criminals every day you would blah blah blah. Same damn thing you see in every thread discussing the subject.

Are you familiar with Use of Force reports? If you think that cop on the street is the only one deciding how much force to use and if it was reasonable, you're quite simply wrong.

I don't think that. But I also don't think that any of those reports agree with half of the **** in this thread.

[Teller]

What actually happens is what you did. You cited that the criminal was well... a dirty rotten scum sucking criminal. The cop well he's a hero and I mean if you have to deal with criminals every day you would blah blah blah. Same damn thing you see in every thread discussing the subject.

Did I? Quote me.

(And this IS your usual tactic.)

Go ahead, Des. Quote me.....Or STFU.

[Destino]

Did I? Quote me.

(And this IS you usual tactic.)

Go ahead, Des. Quote me.....Or STFU.

sure:

AND you neglected to list the three offenses the suspect was charged with.

to which I replied:

Just look at your post: "you neglected to list the three offenses the suspect was charged with" Mind telling me what that has to do with anything?

You immediately went to the fact that the criminal, was a criminal. Which as we previously discussed is irrelevant. It's an emotional point to make.

[Teller]

Interesting that you chose only those tiny portions of my posts, allow me to help the reading/comprehending impaired:

Of course it's possible to go overboard (with force), and those officers should be fired, charged, and tried.

Fired, charged and tried? Hmm....Sounds like you're claim that I only want admin hearings and firings is....well, bull****.

Now let's try a true/false. True or false: The jury in the original post saw/heard evidence we are not privy to. (After answering, please quote my reference to "magical evidence."

What actually happens is what you did. You cited that the criminal was well... a dirty rotten scum sucking criminal. The cop well he's a hero and I mean if you have to deal with criminals every day you would...

I still want to see this one quoted. (Or anything of the sort.) I guess wanting to see bad cops fired and prosecuted could be construed......well, no, it can't.

It's really sad to see someone with an intellect like yours to have to BOLD-FACED LIE repeatedly to formulate an argument. It also makes it explicitly clear to me who is right.

[Teller]

You immediately went to the fact that the criminal, was a criminal. Which as we previously discussed is irrelevant. It's an emotional point to make.

Um, no I didn't:

Interesting initial post. The cop was found not guilty, AND you neglected to list the three offenses the suspect was charged with.

I added the other half of the story, that the SUSPECT was CHARGED.

You called him a "criminal." Which is actually kind of refreshing. I mean, seeing you convict someone without any of the facts who ISN'T a cop. :hysterical:

[Destino]

Fired, charged and tried? Hmm....Sounds like you're claim that I only want admin hearings and firings is....well, bull****.

Where exactly did I claim that you wanted only admin hearings? You accused me of ignorance when I argued that bad cops were rarely punished. I responded challenging you to find me jail time, and no HH I'm not interested in "charges" being filed. I asked specifically about jail time. Never said YOU wanted them to avoid jail.

Now let's try a true/false. True or false: The jury in the original post saw/heard evidence we are not privy to. (After answering, please quote my reference to "magical evidence."

True. Incidents are caught on tape or witnessed and an officer is dragged through the mud. When the officer is found innocent we get this "saw/heard evidence we are not privy to" claim. This is what I call "magical evidence". We assume that there is such evidence and that no one related to the case ever talks about. Not jury members after the fact, not the person whose reputation is damaged, and not the defense attorney that has every reason to expose it. We just assume the jury saw something that totally changes the game... what I call magical evidence.

It doesn't pass the smell test. What does however is normal behavior I can post a thread showing a cop doing something amazingly bad... like beating a suspect that was just thrown from a violent car accident. (this thread exists) and you will see people excusing it. It is far more likely that juries consist of people like that then there being magical evidence.

You are free to disagree but your explanation doesn't seem logical to me.

I still want to see this one quoted. (Or anything of the sort.) I guess wanting to see bad cops fired and prosecuted could be construed......well, no, it can't.

You are reading too far into it (while attempting to teach me about reading comprehension). What I said you did was cite the crimes of the victim, something you did (and I quoted you doing), and something we agreed was irrelevant.

It's really sad to see someone with an intellect like yours to have to BOLD-FACED LIE repeatedly to formulate an argument. It also makes it explicitly clear to me who is right.

I haven't lied once.

[Destino]

I added the other half of the story, that the SUSPECT was CHARGED.

How is that half of the story in a thread about the cops actions? The guilt or innocence of the subject/criminal/person/thing involved is irrelevant. Why did you bring it up?

[Duckus]

Wasn't sure whether to put this in the police or pit bull thread:

Officer Shoots Woman, Pit Bull Playing

Wow - that is crazy. Thank god both lived.

[Teller]

I haven't lied once.

You cited that the criminal was well... a dirty rotten scum sucking criminal. The cop well he's a hero and I mean if you have to deal with criminals every day you would blah blah blah.

Where? SHOW ME. It's not hard....unless, of course, you're bold-faced lying. Period.

If citing fact equates to what you accused me of saying, then fine. But it IS fact that the cop was ACQUITTED. And it IS fact that the suspect was charged with assaulting a police officer (not totally irrelevant when the claim is excessive force, no?).

The facts are contrary to seemingly everything you have to say on this. Which is probably why you're trying to change them.

I'll tell you what. You don't even have to produce the words in question. Show me where I said ANYTHING resembling "hero" or dirty rotten scum sucking criminal. ANYTHING close.

I would love to talk to you about this issue on a factual level, Des, seriously. I KNOW you're a brilliant guy. You're a helluva lot smarter than I am. (That's why this pisses me off.) I honestly think we could BOTH learn something if we could cut through the bull****. But at this rate, that's hopeless.

If you want to shoot me a PM, please do. I've had a lot bigger run ins with people about emotional issues before (like SSM on race) and we've become good friends. And Joe for damn sure has taught me a lot about perspective, not just race. I don't know. I guess every situation is different, but the offer is there for whatever it's worth.

[Destino]

If citing fact equates to what you accused me of saying, then fine. But it IS fact that the cop was ACQUITTED. And it IS fact that the suspect was charged with assaulting a police officer (not totally irrelevant when the claim is excessive force, no?).

The facts are contrary to seemingly everything you have to say on this. Which is probably why you're trying to change them.

It's the belief of those that don't like the way police violence is going that "assaulting a police officer" charge is the standard defense. By your own logic the person charged has been convicted so that is irrelevant. I've already discussed the acquittal.

I'll tell you what. You don't even have to produce the words in question. Show me where I said ANYTHING resembling "hero" or dirty rotten scum sucking criminal. ANYTHING close.

It's an exaggeration to prove a point. The same exaggeration used to stop those talking about rape victims from doing so and the major issue at play with prosecuting police officers. The focus on the victims actions makes it impossible to prosecute. Ultimately the victims actions are irrelevant yet in every thread they become the primary focus of conversation.

If you want to shoot me a PM, please do. I've had a lot bigger run ins with people about emotional issues before (like SSM on race) and we've become good friends. And Joe for damn sure has taught me a lot about perspective, not just race. I don't know. I guess every situation is different, but the offer is there for whatever it's worth.

Don't take this too far, you're one of the people on here I enjoy debating. You're also the guy that posts the crazy thread about Reed Doughty too right? love those.

[Teller]

It's the belief of those that don't like the way police violence is going that "assaulting a police officer" charge is the standard defense. By your own logic the person charged has been convicted so that is irrelevant. I've already discussed the acquittal.

It's not the "standard defense," it's a fact in this particular case. And again, nowhere did I say he had been convicted. I called him a "suspect" and said he had been "charged." You, on the other hand called him a "criminal." That's your logic, not mine.

I'm sorry, but your problem seems to be more with the judicial system than law enforcement. Since you think all cops are members of the SS, obviously an acquittal doesn't suit your agenda. (If you can exaggerate to make a point, so can I.)

It's an exaggeration to prove a point. The same exaggeration used to stop those talking about rape victims from doing so and the major issue at play with prosecuting police officers. The focus on the victims actions makes it impossible to prosecute. Ultimately the victims actions are irrelevant yet in every thread they become the primary focus of conversation.

No woman deserves to be raped; ever. There is NO "actions of the victim" defense there.

On the other hand, while I understand your theory, it was you who injected "hero" and "scum sucking criminal" into the conversation. If the exaggeration was the problem, some internal evaluation on your end is required.

Again, I just pointed out the facts in the case....unless....nevermind. You've failed thrice to quote me already.

Don't take this too far, you're one of the people on here I enjoy debating. You're also the guy that posts the crazy thread about Reed Doughty too right? love those.

I enjoy debating you too, but you're being a douchebag on this. If we could discuss the heart of the matter, we'd probably agree more than disagree; and as I said, we'd both come away smarter.

Oh, and Reed Doughty hates you. Jus' sayin'.

[War Paint]

Like someone said earlier, I'm not anti-cop, I'm anti-bad cop. I know a cop...and he is a good cop. He is even aware of how bad some cops are. He'll even tell you, that some cops are on massive power trips. Some people get a badge and all of a sudden they get a God complex.

Some people though will always stereotype all cops being heroes. Well, not all cops are heroes. Some have mental issues.

[ljs]

Some have mental issues.

No, they all have mental issues.

Why else would you want to have a job where 99.99% of people hate you, don't want you around, try to hurt you/kill you, blame you for ruining their life, spend every holiday and nights away from your family, get verbally berated on a daily basis and have to remain professional, get nitpicked on about everything. Where you have to make split second life/death decisions that the public gets hours, days, weeks and months to scrutinize. Where you have to watch guilty people run free, see children shot in the head- and did i mention that everyone hates you? Yeah- I can see where that might drive some a lil crazy. But hey, that's a choice they make and a job that not everyone can handle.

[The Evil Genius]

So ljs - what was yours?

[ACW]

http://crimeblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2009/07/dallas-police-one-day-suspensi.html

No light, no sirens, 20 MPH speeding, 1-day suspension :doh:

[btfoom]

The funny part of these threads is that the people that most of you like to denigrate, the police, are in fact the people who keep you and your family safe.

You like to point out those RARE times when the police do something wrong, but never admit that most police officers are good, caring individuals doing work that almost ALL of you are too afraid or incapable of doing.

The really amazing part is reading how many of you intellectually challenged posters get mad when a police officer actually does his/her job. They aren't paid to let crimes go just because you, typing from your parents basement and smoking "oregano", think they should just let a 'small' crime go. How about you get mad at the criminals instead of the law enforcement agents who need to keep us safe from the idiots out there.

[Destino]

The funny part of these threads is that the people that most of you like to denigrate, the police, are in fact the people who keep you and your family safe.

And the dirty cops are the biggest threat to any law abiding citizen outside of terrorists. They can kill or harm you and represent the only threat with which you can't fight back. That is what this thread is about.

You like to point out those RARE times when the police do something wrong, but never admit that most police officers are good, caring individuals doing work that almost ALL of you are too afraid or incapable of doing.

Actually pretty much everyone in this thread agrees that the vast majority of cops are good if not great people. Also the point here is more a question of what happens after one of those RARE situations. Juries won't convict and cops tend to get away with little or no punishment.

The really amazing part is reading how many of you intellectually challenged posters get mad when a police officer actually does his/her job. They aren't paid to let crimes go just because you, typing from your parents basement and smoking "oregano", think they should just let a 'small' crime go. How about you get mad at the criminals instead of the law enforcement agents who need to keep us safe from the idiots out there.

If only I could be as smart as you are and make such convincing arguments.