Some More Cops Who Need to Be Fired

[Cooked Crack]

 

[ClaytoAli]

On 4/11/2019 at 9:35 AM, Gamebreaker said:

Anyone surprised the bikers got off with no consequences for their actions? 

They have influence within the police ranks and the ability to intimidate them like the mob.

 

Something black communities don’t have. 

Edited April 14, 2019 by ClaytoAli

[LD0506]

Quote

Lawyers for the St. Louis City Counselor's Office filed a motion in U.S. District Court March 29 demanding a judge reverse a ruling that placed restrictions on when the city's police can decide a protest is "unlawful," order people to leave a rally or use chemical agents to disperse a crowd.

In the filing, the police department said it was owed "a debt of gratitude" for its conduct during a rally in 2017 despite hours of witness testimony and video footage showing police officers using violence and mace indiscriminately. Four St. Louis police officers were indicted last year in federal court for beating up an undercover cop during that same protest and trying to cover it up.

 

https://blavity.com/st-louis-police-want-a-judge-to-remove-restrictions-on-using-mace-and-tear-gas-on-non-violent-protesters

[Cooked Crack]

 

 

[ClaytoAli]

10 hours ago, Cooked Crack said:

 

 

 

Come on, racially profiled by black police officers too?

 

No reason as to why he was stopped, or that he was entering peacefully, or obeying the rules. Conclusion jumping!

[CousinsCowgirl84]

What’s wrong about being asked to see your school ID when you are inside a school building?

Edited April 20, 2019 by CousinsCowgirl84

[LD0506]

[Destino]

17 hours ago, Cooked Crack said:

 

 

I have absolutely no idea if he should have been asked for his ID.  The video doesn't show the confrontation start and the article doesn't even try to chase down what the ID policy is for entering the building.  There's a portion of the article that that interests me however:

 

Quote

“What I realized,” he added, “is every time I show my ID when I’m asked, the conversation about this remains silent.”

But, he said, he did not intend for the encounter become physical: “Neither my words nor my body at any point connoted any form of threat to them.”

 

I see this weird belief, that officers can't get physical if you don't threaten them, all the time in these discussions.  That's not how it works.  Even if some wish it were the standard the fact remains that it certainly is not.  It's extremely dangerous to mistakenly believe otherwise. 

 

[Bozo the kKklown]

 

[Destino]

That video is disturbing.  No attempts are made to peacefully arrest the kid, or even tell him that he has to give back the phone, they just beat his ass straight away.  That should be considered entirely unacceptable.     

 

That said, I'm fairly certain that it is against the law to grab items off a person being arrested and making off with them.  It could be argued easily as theft, and depending on the item it could be seen as evidence.  The action itself could be well intentioned and the person could be unaware that they shouldn't do that.... this is probably something that should be discovered before skipping immediately ahead to beating them.  Especially when dealing with children.  Not knowing stuff is kind of a defining aspect of being a minor.

[China]

Moment cops open fire on unarmed black couple near Yale campus as they sat in car singing along to R&B singer Avant because police wrongly believed their vehicle had been involved in a robbery

 

Protests erupted on the streets of Connecticut after video surfaced of a police officer opening fire on a vehicle being driven by an unarmed black couple last Tuesday.  

 

Stephanie Washington, 22, and her boyfriend Paul Witherspoon III, 21, were shot at by Hamden police officer Devin Eaton and Yale police officer Terrance Pollack as they sat unarmed in their car near Yale university's campus in New Haven. Protesters believe the duo were targeted because they are black.

 

Authorities believed that the vehicle that the couple was driving had been involved in an armed robbery of a newspaper delivery person at a local Hamden gas station around 4am, CBS News reports.

 

Click on the link for the full article and video

[China]

We found 85,000 cops who’ve been investigated for misconduct. Now you can read their records.

 

At least 85,000 law enforcement officers across the USA have been investigated or disciplined for misconduct over the past decade, an investigation by USA TODAY Network found.

 

Officers have beaten members of the public, planted evidence and used their badges to harass women. They have lied, stolen, dealt drugs, driven drunk and abused their spouses.

Despite their role as public servants, the men and women who swear an oath to keep communities safe can generally avoid public scrutiny for their misdeeds.

 

The records of their misconduct are filed away, rarely seen by anyone outside their departments. Police unions and their political allies have worked to put special protections in place ensuring some records are shielded from public view, or even destroyed.

 

Reporters from USA TODAY, its 100-plus affiliated newsrooms and the nonprofit Invisible Institute in Chicago have spent more than a year creating the biggest collection of police misconduct records.

 

Obtained from thousands of state agencies, prosecutors, police departments and sheriffs, the records detail at least 200,000 incidents of alleged misconduct, much of it previously unreported. The records obtained include more than 110,000 internal affairs investigations by hundreds of individual departments and more than 30,000 officers who were decertified by 44 state oversight agencies.

 

SEARCH DATABASE

 

Click on the link for the full article

 

[visionary]

 

[Llevron]

The entire reason he pulled her out if the car in the first place was because he feared for his life because of what she was doing in the car. 

 

What she was doing was recording what he was doing. And he knew that. He said to put the phone down. 

[grego]

What's the significance of the cell phone video? The dash cam video already shows the interaction. 

[Llevron]

15 minutes ago, grego said:

What's the significance of the cell phone video? The dash cam video already shows the interaction. 

 

He said the reason he pulled her out of the car was because she was doing something that caused him to fear for his life. We could never verify what she was actually doing until.....we had a video of her doing it. Until now we just had to take his word that he feared for his life. Now we can see exactly what she was doing and have confirmation from him that he knew what she was doing. 

 

Thats what I think, atleast. The fact that the cops withheld evidence, regardless of how substantial it is/would have been should mean something too. 

[Popeman38]

47 minutes ago, Llevron said:

He said the reason he pulled her out of the car was because she was doing something that caused him to fear for his life. We could never verify what she was actually doing until.....we had a video of her doing it. Until now we just had to take his word that he feared for his life. Now we can see exactly what she was doing and have confirmation from him that he knew what she was doing. 

 

Thats what I think, atleast. The fact that the cops withheld evidence, regardless of how substantial it is/would have been should mean something too. 

That's a fact? In the article, it indicates the department states the video was released to an Austin TV station in an open records request and was turned over to the defense in a hard drive. 

Quote

The department disputed the premise that the video was not provided, saying it was included as part of a large hard drive of evidence from the investigation. It also said Sandra Bland’s cellphone video had previously been publicly released in 2017, when it was given to an Austin television station under open records law.

 

The cop will never work in law enforcement again. The family settled with the department. 

[Llevron]

2 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

That's a fact? In the article, it indicates the department states the video was released to an Austin TV station in an open records request and was turned over to the defense in a hard drive. 

 

I guess not. But I take literally nothing any police department says with any truth. Especially this one. Its a fact that it wasn't made available to the public until 2017 per the quote you have here. 2 years after the dash cam video.

 

You can choose to believe the police if you want. I do not. 

[Popeman38]

7 minutes ago, Llevron said:

I guess not. But I take literally nothing any police department says with any truth. Especially this one. Its a fact that it wasn't made available to the public until 2017 per the quote you have here. 2 years after the dash cam video.

 

You can choose to believe the police if you want. I do not. 

First things first, it is hard to accept that it's been that long since this incident. Seems like it was last year. MAN is time flying, and I'm getting old...

 

I am a natural skeptic.  My wife calls me a defense attorney's dream because I demand that the prosecution prove the person on trial committed a crime. Having said that, the burden on those that choose to serve and protect is lower than the average Joe (meaning, they get less leeway than the average Joe). I hate that unions work very hard to have these guys "resign" and agree to never work in law enforcement again. Much like I feel about others, if you don't wanna do the time, don't commit the crime.

 

I just want to keep facts fact, and not conjecture.

[Cooked Crack]

Dude thinks it's a cap gun and still shoots moments later.

Edited May 7, 2019 by Cooked Crack

[Llevron]

53 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

First things first, it is hard to accept that it's been that long since this incident. Seems like it was last year. MAN is time flying, and I'm getting old...

 

Tell me about it. I think this was around the time I really started posting here. I remember all the stuff I was reading around that time. Makes me sad to see we have fallen even more since then. 

 

53 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

I am a natural skeptic.  My wife calls me a defense attorney's dream because I demand that the prosecution prove the person on trial committed a crime. Having said that, the burden on those that choose to serve and protect is lower than the average Joe (meaning, they get less leeway than the average Joe). I hate that unions work very hard to have these guys "resign" and agree to never work in law enforcement again. Much like I feel about others, if you don't wanna do the time, don't commit the crime.

 

I just want to keep facts fact, and not conjecture.

 

I feel you. Seriously I do. I just dont take to word of the police as fact. If anything im conflicted, as the lawyer/victims say one thing and the cops the other. I understand exactly where you come from here, we just disagree on who to trust or what "facts" are really there. And its a shame, because once you have reached that point its hard to agree on anything. 

[Popeman38]

2 minutes ago, Llevron said:

 

Tell me about it. I think this was around the time I really started posting here. I remember all the stuff I was reading around that time. Makes me sad to see we have fallen even more since then. 

 

I feel you. Seriously I do. I just dont take to word of the police as fact. If anything im conflicted, as the lawyer/victims say one thing and the cops the other. I understand exactly where you come from here, we just disagree on who to trust or what "facts" are really there. And its a shame, because once you have reached that point its hard to agree on anything. 

I don't think we disagree at all on who to trust.  

[The Sisko]

3 hours ago, Cooked Crack said:

I’ve noticed this a lot in these cop snuff vids. In most cases it’s clearly just a display for any cameras and the decision to shoot has already been made no matter what the target does. It’s not unlike the “Stop resisting” line yelled when the person clearly isn’t. It allows them after the fact to say s/he was resisting and it just wasn’t visible to the camera at which point the so-called judge will accept it.

[NoCalMike]

1 minute ago, The Sisko said:

I’ve noticed this a lot in these cop snuff vids. In most cases it’s clearly just a display for any cameras and the decision to shoot has already been made no matter what the target does. It’s not unlike the “Stop resisting” line yelled when the person clearly isn’t. It allows them after the fact to say s/he was resisting and it just wasn’t visible to the camera at which point the so-called judge will accept it.

 

That and the fact that "I feared for my life" is used as a blank check for anything.  I'd imagine a Black (or other minority, or even in a lot of cases now white folks too) American being in any situation/confrontation with a police officer are likely fearing for their life as well, but in the eyes of the law that doesn't seem to count for anything.  Hell, if I am walking down the hall in the middle of the night in my house and the cat runs by me making noise I "fear for my life" for a quick second.   It seems like the standard for "fearing for your life" has dropped so low. 

[Cooked Crack]

 

Quote

A former BART police officer who pulled Oscar Grant from a train 10 years ago and ordered his arrest before a second officer fatally shot Grant in the back lied repeatedly to investigators, telling them he felt he was “fighting for my life” when in fact he was the aggressor in the notorious incident, according to a newly released report