Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Some More Cops Who Need to Be Fired


Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

FTR, I have been all about de-militarizing the police.  I think a major part is getting the majority of them out of the tactical clothing and back onto a more professional looking uniform with a tie and such.  I believe the way one is dressed sets the tone for the way one acts.

Ordinarily, I’d say they don’t really need all this crap, it’s just the thugs satisfying their GI Joe wet dreams without the inconvenience of having to go into real combat. However, whether it’s the real reason or not, there is a credible terrorist threat that could require use of these kinds of weapons. Ironically enough, the terrorist threat is more internal than external, but it’s there. If Tя☭mp’s punks decide they want to come to urban areas to wreak havoc, I want the thugs to have the firepower to exterminate them. The question is whether they’d join in given that law enforcement has been infiltrated by white supremacists.

 

12 hours ago, Chew said:

He doesn't stand a chance.   See ya in 25 years, bro. 

 

Watch out for Ten-inch Tyrone in C-Block.    

Silly rabbit. On the rare occasions that thugs are actually convicted of anything, they usually get protective custody. They’re the one set of criminals the system treats with kid gloves.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, The Sisko said:

If Tя☭mp’s punks decide they want to come to urban areas to wreak havoc, I want the thugs to have the firepower to exterminate them. The question is whether they’d join in given that law enforcement has been infiltrated by white supremacists.

Be careful.  A fair number of them are trump supporters. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

City of San Antonio Plans to Pay Settlement to Woman After Detective Searched Her Vagina in Middle of the Street

 

The city of San Antonio wants to make a $205,000 payout to a woman who sued in federal court, alleging that an SAPD detective pulled down her shorts in public and inappropriately searched her vagina for drugs.

 

City council is scheduled to vote Thursday whether to fund the settlement via the city's Self-Insurance Liability Fund, according to an agenda posted online.

 

The lawsuit, filed last year by Natalie D. Simms, alleges now-retired SAPD Detective Mara Wilson conducted an illegal vaginal cavity search on Simms after she was approached by officers while she sat on a curb waiting for her boyfriend.

 

The officers asked Simms whether they could search her car for drugs, the suit charges. When the search turned up no contraband, they called for a female officer to search her person.

 

According to the allegations in the suit, Wilson, a 32-year force veteran, slid down Simms' shorts and examined her vagina in view of the street while male officers were present. The officer also pulled a tampon from Simms’ vagina and held it up, inspecting it in front of the other cops.

 

Click on the link for the full article

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, The Sisko said:

Silly rabbit. On the rare occasions that thugs are actually convicted of anything, they usually get protective custody. They’re the one set of criminals the system treats with kid gloves.

 

Isnt protective custody just a form of solitary?  It's better than being killed by a fellow prisoner, but it sounds like an awful way to do serious time.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Be careful.  A fair number of them are trump supporters. 

I was saying in that last sentence that it’s possible that the thugs might join in with the Tя☭mpets since many of them are white supremacists as well.

 

12 hours ago, Destino said:

Isnt protective custody just a form of solitary?  It's better than being killed by a fellow prisoner, but it sounds like an awful way to do serious time.  

From what I’ve read of it, sometimes. In other cases, they get transferred to other states or are put in special areas with other ex-thugs. I think I also read once that they’re allowed to do a small part of their time in the pen, then get transferred to a county jail somewhere. Regardless, if they’re out, you can be certain the C.O.’s aren’t brutalizing them like the other inmates and I’d bet money they often aren’t made to buy their own phone time and get hooked up with their personal supplies.

Edited by The Sisko
Link to post
Share on other sites

‘I’ll Shoot You In The F—king Face’: Off-Duty Deputy Allegedly Pulls Gun On Teen At San Clemente Skate Park

 

SAN CLEMENTE (CBSLA) — An Orange County sheriff’s deputy is on administrative leave after allegedly pulling a gun on a teen at a San Clemente skate park.

 

The altercation erupted Saturday night inside the skate park where a band was playing live music.

 

According to those at the park, the off-duty deputy walked over and told them to stop playing the music.

 

The skaters said they agreed to stop the music, but things escalated quickly. It was at that point that the deputy pulled a gun on one of the teens.

 

Koa, Sage, and Malcolm McClung were eyewitnesses at the skate park when the confrontation broke out.

 

“I was right next to the kid that he pulled the gun on,” said Sage.

 

The confrontation began, they say, when a man became angry over their loud music.

 

A deputy, seen in the video wearing the white cap, appeared to have pulled a small handgun from his pocket after a 16-year-old raised his a skateboard in the air.

 

According to the teen’s friends, he was protecting another friend.

 

“My friend didn’t know he was a cop. He was coming up to a friend very fast and aggressive, so my other friend jumped in and put his hand out for him to stop…The guy grabbed his hand aggressively,” said Koa. “My other friend held up his skateboard for him to stop, then the guy pulled a gun and said “‘I’ll shoot you in the f—king face if you don’t stop.'”

 

Click on the link for the full article and video

Link to post
Share on other sites

Deputy accused of sexually assaulting woman he met at bar after hot tub encounter

 

HOUSTON, Texas (KTRK) -- A Harris County Precinct 8 assistant chief deputy is accused of sexually assaulting a woman he met at a bar, according to court documents.

 

A search warrant for two phones related to the case allegedly shows that on Aug. 30, Chief Deputy Jeffery Lamar and his wife went to a bar in Pasadena where they met the victim and her wife.

 

The search warrant says the two couples hung out at the bar, drinking and singing karaoke.

 

A few drinks later, the victim and her wife offered to take Lamar and his wife home.

 

Court documents say when the couples arrived at Lamar's home, the victim and her wife were invited inside for more drinks.

 

The couples then allegedly got inside of a hot tub, where the victim told police Lamar began rubbing her thigh. She said it made her feel uncomfortable and she got out.

 

The woman told authorities that she went inside Lamar's home, wrapped herself in a towel and started to get her clothes together.

 

Lamar allegedly followed the woman inside the home, threw her on the couch and sodomized her without her consent.

 

The woman says she later went to the hospital where doctors performed a sexual assault exam.

 

According to the search warrant, the phones that were requested are believed to contain evidence of the sexual assault.

 

Click on the link for the full article

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Tennessee Deputy Sued Twice In The Same Day Over A Roadside Anal Search And A Forced Baptism

 

You've got to be a special kind of law enforcement officer to have two lawsuits filed against you in the same day. Hamilton County Deputy Daniel Wilkey is that kind of special. The Tennessee law enforcement officer managed to violate rights against enough people that two of them retained lawyers. This suggests Deputy Wilkey violates rights on a regular basis, but maybe not egregiously enough to merit a lawsuit in every case.

 

Both cases here are disturbing. And they're disturbing in very different ways. I've never read a civil rights lawsuit against an officer that included claims of a forcible religious experience, but here we are.

 

The first lawsuit [PDF], filed by Shandle Riley, alleges that Deputy Wilkey followed her to a friend's house from a nearby gas station. Once he had (sort of) pulled her over, things got weird quick.

 

First, Deputy Wilkey claimed Riley was holding meth. To prove this, he engaged in a full body patdown. Then he ordered her to take off her bra and "shake her bra and shirt" to prove she hadn't stashed any meth there. Riley asked for a female officer to be present during this "search" but the deputy told her the law doesn't require female cops to search female citizens.

 

He then asked if she had anything illegal in her car. She said she had a marijuana roach stashed in a pack of cigarettes. At that point, Deputy Wilkey became verbally abusive. Then he decided to strike a deal with the alleged criminal. We'll go to the lawsuit for that because… well, it offers the driest recounting of a positively insane situation.

 

Quote

Wilkey then approached Plaintiff and asked her if she was "saved" and believed in Jesus Christ.

 

Plaintiff stated that she believed in Jesus Christ, but that she was not "saved" by her own choice.

 

Wilkey then told Plaintiff that God was talking to him during the vehicle search, and Wilkey felt the Lord wanted him to baptize the Plaintiff.

 

Wilkey further told Plaintiff that he felt "the spirit."

 

Um. Do what now?

These are words coming from the mouth of a sworn peace officer. And that's not the end of it. The option given to Riley was to participate in this highly-unconventional baptism presided over by an officer of the law or get thrown into the gaping maw of the criminal justice system with as much force as Deputy Wilkey could muster. If Riley agreed to a baptism, Wilkey said he would only cite her for marijuana possession and speak to the judge on her behalf. Riley complied with Wilkey's demands, which included grabbing towels from her friends house and following Wilkey's cruiser out to a nearby lake.

 

At the lake, Riley and Wilkey were joined by Deputy Jacob Goforth, who did nothing as Wilkey proceeded with the "baptism."

 

Quote

Wilkey told Plaintiff that Goforth was present because, in order for a baptism to be valid, a witness must "attest" to the ritual.

 

Wilkey then stripped nearly naked, with only his boxer shorts on.

 

Wilkey then gave Plaintiff the option to strip too, but Plaintiff declined.

 

Wilkey then lead Plaintiff into the near waist deep and frigid water, placed one hand on Plaintiff's back, and his other hand on Plaintiff's breasts, and completely submerged Plaintiff under the water.

 

Wilkey held Plaintiff under water for several moments, then with his hands still positioned on her back and breasts, raised Plaintiff from the cold water.

 

The second lawsuit, filed in the same court on the same day, alleges Deputy Wilkey engaged in a suspicionless stop that turned into an impromptu roadside anal cavity search and the beating of a handcuffed man. And oh my god does it start with one of the dumbest things an officer has ever said to defend a pretextual stop. From the lawsuit [PDF]:

 

Quote

Wilkey followed Plaintiffs, and conducted a traffic stop of the Plaintiffs on the false claims of "window tint violation" and that he could smell the odor of marijuana as Wilkey followed the plaintiffs.

 

This assertion of Wilkey's exceptional olfactory senses is followed by a parade of brutalities inflicted on the passenger of the pulled-over vehicle at the hands of the deputy. Fortunately for the plaintiffs, this whole interaction was recorded.

 

 

Click on the link for the full story

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The police are only going to be able to get away with abusing people like this for so long. It may not be in my lifetime, but they will get theirs. 

 

That ****ing baptism **** is nuts. ****ing nuts. The worst day of my life would be a cop trying to baptism me. I promise you I would be murdered that day. Guaranteed. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Llevron said:

That ****ing baptism **** is nuts. ****ing nuts. The worst day of my life would be a cop trying to baptism me. I promise you I would be murdered that day. Guaranteed. 

NO ****!  That is one of the freakiest stories I've ever read, seriously. And that's about all I can say because I'm speechless. 😯😖😳🤬

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Video shows officer shoot an unarmed 16-year-old as he runs away. Police say it was justified

By Sarah Moon and Eric Levenson, CNN     Updated 4:02 PM ET, Thu October 24, 2019

(CNN)Newly released video of a fatal police shooting in April 2017 shows an officer firing a deadly shot at an unarmed 16-year-old who had jumped over a fence and was running away.

Police in Fresno, California, say that three different official departments have ruled the shooting justified.
The surveillance camera footage, provided by attorney Stuart Chandler, shows 16-year-old Isiah Murrietta Golding climb a fence and enter a small yard as he is being chased by two officers.
Murrietta Golding, wearing a gray sweater, lands on his feet and starts to run. One officer climbs the fence while the other gets into a crouching stance and fires through the fence, the video shows. Murrietta Golding then stumbles and falls to the ground.
<more at link... including awful video> 

 

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/24/us/fresno-police-shooting-unarmed-teenager/index.html?fbclid=IwAR2BhnQZdwFEEeCSZH08i0vEcF6CmcekYN85MhNuy1XNPdFxiSuXcqtNjdU

 

the ruling was that deadly force was justified because they were investigating a homicide....

.... the homicide was a fatal car crash that happened in connection wish a shooting that the deceased's BROTHER was involved with.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again the video does not line up with what the police are claiming. Now in this case maybe in all the melee they perceived him to be reaching for something, but watching the video it's pretty clear the guy was fleeing, not reaching for a weapon to shoot with.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Mr. Sinister said:

Not a good idea being a person of color and running from the cops. Way I see it, it's basically a tossup whether or not they decide to kill you.

 

Looks like a white kid to me but either way your right. Its not smart to run from the cops. It only ends one of two ways death or you pay the running tax and catch a severe ass whopping. 

 

It shouldn't be like that though. 

 

Honestly, if we didnt have the video and I could trust the police....I would say yea its justified. Dude was expected to be armed, already supposedly killed someone and could have been a threat. But watching that video...its was broad daylight. Dude was hightailing it the **** out of there. And he ran across the street and jumped a fence before he was considered dangerous enough to kill? Why wait so long. Nothing in that video made him look more dangerous than when they pulled him over the first time. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right.  Couldn't tell while he was running. But in general, it's still just not a good idea.

 

Not really sure what changed in protocol over the years, but I just (maybe ignorantly) assumed it was their job to apprehend an unarmed, fleeing suspect, not just gun them down like an Old West marshall and blow smoke off your six shooter.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Mr. Sinister said:

Not really sure what changed in protocol over the years, but I just (maybe ignorantly) assumed it was their job to apprehend an unarmed, fleeing suspect, not just gun them down like an Old West marshall and blow smoke off your six shooter.

 

I've been told, by multiple police officers in multiple states, that it used to be department policy that officers were allowed to fire at a fleeing suspect, if they had reason to believe he was fleeing a felony, or a felony arrest.  

 

Now, the ones who've told me this both said that their department had changed the rules, so that wasn't allowed any more.  And it was decades ago  So no clue if there are departments, today, for which it is still policy.  But it does seem like it used to be, a few decades ago.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

There are times when I think cops should shoot a fleeing suspect, but it depends on what they're running towards.  A potentially dangerous criminal shouldn't be allowed to endanger others.  I wouldn't want them to let a murder suspect run into a school, for example, during the school day.  

 

It seems to me that whatever the rule book might be, the public should know it.  It should be common knowledge.  What I can't understand is why there is so much confusion.  Lives are at risk, why is it the public and police still seem unclear as to when officers are allowed to beat you or fire at you?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mooka said:

Just be honest.

 

"Don't move or I'll kill you."

 

"Get down or I'll kill you.

 

"Come out of the house or we'll shoot you."

 

 

Etc.

 

"if you breathe in my presence, I'll shoot you"

 

4 hours ago, Mr. Sinister said:

Not a good idea being a person of color and running from the cops. Way I see it, it's basically a tossup whether or not they decide to kill you.

 

its a toss up either way. its really all on how the executioner is feeling that day

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/24/2019 at 9:41 AM, Llevron said:

The police are only going to be able to get away with abusing people like this for so long. It may not be in my lifetime, but they will get theirs. 

 

That ****ing baptism **** is nuts. ****ing nuts. The worst day of my life would be a cop trying to baptism me. I promise you I would be murdered that day. Guaranteed. 

It’s much better to do what you need to do to survive in the moment and then respond later at a time/place/manner of your own choosing.

On 10/25/2019 at 2:29 PM, NoCalMike said:

Once again the video does not line up with what the police are claiming. Now in this case maybe in all the melee they perceived him to be reaching for something, but watching the video it's pretty clear the guy was fleeing, not reaching for a weapon to shoot with.  

Honestly, I think they have a credible point that he was reaching. I think it’s obvious that he was reaching to pull up his pants, but it still provides just the cover the executioner needed....and yet another reason not to be saggin’ your pants. 

On 10/25/2019 at 3:56 PM, Mooka said:

Just be honest.

 

"Don't move or I'll kill you."

 

"Get down or I'll kill you.

 

"Come out of the house or we'll shoot you."

 

 

Etc.

You’re close but it’s more like "Don'tmoveorI'llkillyou*BLAM* *BLAM**BLAM**BLAM**BLAM*!”

Edited by The Sisko
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...