Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Some More Cops Who Need to Be Fired


Dan T.
 Share

Recommended Posts

19 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:


I was trying to figure out that. It sounded like they fired him in January after an internal investigation.


 

 

This is regarding the officer that sprayed the Army officer. No the incident took place in December, when the story broke last week Officer Guiteriez was still on the job, there was no report of any discipline.  He was fired this week and only after WE saw the video. And that boys and girls is why we still have protests because without this lawsuit and the video that prompted an outcry this story gets buried.

 

As for the shooting in MN I said on other boards that I need to see the video before passing judgement.  In all honesty I was relieve that it was a tragic accident, that is more explainable than what I had feared.  And again this is another example of a suspect not acting correctly and things happen when you don't comply. Don't get me wrong, he didn't deserve to be shot. But he's not the innocent victim the Army officer was.  

Edited by Darrell Green Fan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ugggghhh..........

 

I am sick to death of this ****. There is no end in sight, no one is "learning any lesson", there is no such thing as de-escalation, and everyone I have ever known has a cop story, even the cops. Police these days are doing exactly what they have been hired and trained and encouraged to do, be a para-military occupying force that maintains some ephemeral status quo thru instilling fear in the populace. I sincerely do not consider that exaggeration or hyperbole.

 

We need to rethink the entire concept and build a new system, we are soooo far beyond repatching the patched patches and calling it enough.

 

I for one would be ok with the Dora Milaje keeping the peace

 

 

 

The True History Behind Black Panther's Dora Milaje Warriors | Time

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Larry said:


Not really replying to this one post so much as the general theme. 
 

I've got to say, I've long stated that I believe that, if a police acted with good intent to do their job, and somebody gets hurt?  The maximum penalty should be losing their job. 
 

The example I use is a cop firing at a bank robber, misses, and the bullet hits a kid a block behind him. 
 

Maybe fire the cop for poor judgement. But nothing harder. Just "nope, we don't want to run the risk it might happen again."

 

I know nothing about the case. But if it really is a case of "Aw, ****!", then I think firing, and that's all, is correct. 
 

I might even be cool with "no gun, but she can work in the evidence room". 


I disagree.  In this case and in the hypothetical you posted, both were an accident but both were reckless and negligent.  I don’t think this cop purposely or with malice shot that kid.  But her careless action still resulted in someone dying.  With power comes responsibility.  

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, LD0506 said:

We need to rethink the entire concept and build a new system, we are soooo far beyond repatching the patched patches and calling it enough.

I agree with this. I don’t think more or less funding or a few reform here and there can fix a overly violent, corrupt, and unaccountable police force.  It’s not just that though, policing costs a fortune and people are increasingly dissatisfied with the results.  It has to be rebuilt from the ground up.  Doesn’t have to happen all at once, but we can’t just keep leaning on the old ways of doing things and pretend they match the needs of a changing world.  
 

In the more distant future humans are all going to be tracked like dots on video game mini maps.  This current system of hoping someone saw something, and remembers it accurately, or that the crime lab got their questionable science right, is going to seem like the Salem witch trials.  As humans increasingly rely on, and blend with, technology, that tech is eventually going to be used for law enforcement.  It’s already started with phone data.  There won’t be a question as to who was in the room with the victim anymore.  
 

I don’t know if it will turn out to be good or bad, but that’s where things are going.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Larry said:


Not really replying to this one post so much as the general theme. 
 

I've got to say, I've long stated that I believe that, if a police acted with good intent to do their job, and somebody gets hurt?  The maximum penalty should be losing their job. 
 

The example I use is a cop firing at a bank robber, misses, and the bullet hits a kid a block behind him. 
 

Maybe fire the cop for poor judgement. But nothing harder. Just "nope, we don't want to run the risk it might happen again."

 

I know nothing about the case. But if it really is a case of "Aw, ****!", then I think firing, and that's all, is correct. 
 

I might even be cool with "no gun, but she can work in the evidence room". 

 

I don't see "somebody gets hurt"as being equivalent to "somebody is killed".

 

And if someone loses their life because a cop can't tell the difference between their taser and their gun, something is seriously wrong.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/12/2021 at 12:24 PM, Califan007 said:

 

Manslaughter charges...negligence...something should apply other than "She didn't mean to." When you entrust someone with that much power and arm them with weapons that can easily kill, the level of responsibility they hold should be through the roof and the repercussions of failing to uphold those responsibilities should be serious and swift.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/13/2021 at 1:23 AM, Larry said:


Not really replying to this one post so much as the general theme. 
 

I've got to say, I've long stated that I believe that, if a police acted with good intent to do their job, and somebody gets hurt?  The maximum penalty should be losing their job. 
 

The example I use is a cop firing at a bank robber, misses, and the bullet hits a kid a block behind him. 
 

Maybe fire the cop for poor judgement. But nothing harder. Just "nope, we don't want to run the risk it might happen again."

 

I know nothing about the case. But if it really is a case of "Aw, ****!", then I think firing, and that's all, is correct. 
 

I might even be cool with "no gun, but she can work in the evidence room". 

 

On a very general level I like your approach. Otherwise, in this climate who in their right mind would sign up to be a cop? Your BEST day is not being killed and/or not being brought up on legal charges. 

 

However, I don't know how you legislate that because you'll have a lot of families challenging the "acted with good intent" part. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This woman’s lawyer just posted this video thats speaks to this larger issue of police violence and lack of training for mental health situations. It’s not just the instances where someone dies that are the problem.  

 


 

  • Sad 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Destino said:

This woman’s lawyer just posted this video thats speaks to this larger issue of police violence and lack of training for mental health situations. It’s not just the instances where someone dies that are the problem.  

 


 

I don’t understand this.  I get that Wal-Mart can refuse to sell to her.  But why are the cops following her home?  I’m missing something.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

During the video,there's a quick blurb about how Walmart employees called the police.

Also, (from the video description). 

 

 

Quote
 
"A little bloody, a little muddy, you know how it goes.” Those are the words of Loveland Police Officer Daria Jalali, said with a smile, after her sergeant asked whether the blood all over hands was her own, or whether it belonged to the 73-year-old disabled woman – Karen Garner – that they had just violently arrested, injured, and hog-tied on the side of the road. On 4/14/21, civil rights attorney Sarah Schielke of The Life & Liberty Law Office in Loveland, Colorado filed on Plaintiff Karen Garner’s behalf a federal civil rights lawsuit against the Loveland Police Department and officers Austin Hopp, Daria Jalali, and Sergeant Phil Metzler for this outrageous attack and assault. The lawsuit also includes claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and claims targeting Loveland’s failures to train regarding the use of force on disabled unarmed citizens. Ms. Garner is 73 years old and suffers from dementia and sensory aphasia, which impairs her ability to verbally communicate and understand others’ communications. She is five feet tall and weighs 80 pounds.
On the afternoon of June 26, 2020, she was walking through a field to her home two blocks away, picking wildflowers, bothering no one, when Officer Hopp pulled up behind her, and called out to her to stop and talk to him. When she indicated she did not understand him, and turned to continue walking home, he grabbed her and violently assaulted her, twisting her arms behind her back, throwing her to the ground and handcuffing her. Just eight seconds passed between Officer Hopp reaching Ms. Garner and Officer Hopp throwing her tiny body to the ground and putting her in handcuffs. Defendant Officer Jalali then arrived and assisted Officer Hopp in violently and needlessly dislocating Ms. Garner’s shoulder, fracturing her humerus, and spraining her wrist. Then they threw her onto the ground again and hog-tied her. Throughout this attack, the only thing the terrified, disabled and injured Ms. Garner was able to utter was “I’m going home!” She cried out these words over 38 times. What little freedom and happiness Ms. Garner enjoyed in her life as an elderly adult with declining mental health was, on June 26, 2020, obliterated by the Loveland Police Department. She has become withdrawn, depressed, afraid to go outdoors. She has lost most functional use of her left arm and now requires assistance to shower and get dressed.
The district attorney’s office completely dismissed the case and charges against her. And despite the entire event being captured on bodyworn cameras, not one officer or supervisor involved in the violations of her civil rights at Loveland has been disciplined. “Ms. Garner’s experience with Loveland Police is not about bad apples,” says her attorney, Sarah Schielke. “It is about culture. And the culture in Loveland is one of lack of care, lack of humility. Loveland Police officers have enrobed themselves with a completely unaccountable authoritarian superiority. They demand total obedience and submission from everyone – including the disabled elderly – and if you don’t immediately capitulate, they will make you pay for it." “This is not community policing. This is community terrorism,” says Schielke. “Ms. Garner is one of the most vulnerable members of our community – a mother, a grandmother, a tiny, frail human with cognitive disabilities – and they treated her like an animal.” “And,” adds Schielke, “if this is what they’re doing to a terrified elderly lady with dementia, what do you think they’re doing to everyone else?” The complete unedited video from Hopp’s bodyworn camera is available at: https://youtu.be/VG0wfPMMR4k
This is not the first time Loveland Police have been sued for the violent takedown of a disabled citizen (also resulting in a dislocated shoulder). Just this past year they faced a lawsuit in Sowl v. City of Loveland, video from that incident viewable here: https://youtu.be/P-5HewucBxw Mr. Sowl’s case settled without any admission of fault or liability from Loveland in January for $290,000. NOTICE: The Life & Liberty Law Office DOES authorize the use, reuse, republication and retransmission of any of the videos on this channel for public interest and reporting purposes.
 
 

 

That was a bit difficult to watch.

  • Sad 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That second video with the old man.....where they kick his ass cause he doesn’t want to be involved with the police....illustrates what I hate so much about the police. They don’t know what the duck they are doing AT ALL and then just throw the badge around without a **** in the world. They were wrong, it made no ****ing sense, and it helped literally no one. And they didn’t pay a single consequence for it. **** the police man

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

On a very general level I like your approach. Otherwise, in this climate who in their right mind would sign up to be a cop? Your BEST day is not being killed and/or not being brought up on legal charges. 

 

I think this grossly underestimates the amount of people who crave power and authority and see being a cop as the perfect means to fill that void in their lives.  

Edited by BatteredFanSyndrome
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

I think this grossly underestimates the amount of people who crave power and authority and see being a cop as the perfect means to fill that void in their lives.  

Good point. No offense intended, but I think the job requirements and pay make it so that we aren't drawing from the top of the deck, so to speak. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

Good point. No offense intended, but I think the job requirements and pay make it so that we aren't drawing from the top of the deck, so to speak. 

I've long held the belief and haven't seen much to make me second guess it, that the allure of being a police officer for the majority is the prestige, valor, power and authority.  Obviously, there are good people out there who really do want to make a difference and serve the public.  And to your point - the pay scale and current environment, I'm sure sways these people away from law enforcement.  It's a slippery slope indeed.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, TD_washingtonredskins said:

With more scrutiny, incidents coming up almost weekly now, not-great pay, etc. I just don't see how the reform will happen. 

Without the scrutiny, reform will never happen.  So it's damned if you, damned if you don't.  But we have to try something.  Beyond the 'why' many folks enter into law enforcement, is the fact that even if you enter with the best intentions, you will be surrounded by others who do not, and should you speak out against them - you are now the black sheep.  Sort of like politics.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 quick and easy steps to improve our police.

 

1).  Reduce the amount of guns in the hands of the public by every legal means available.

2).  Increase pay and benefits + safer work environment (see #1) = higher class of potential recruits

3).  Dramatically reduce the legal justifications for pulling people over.  Beyond obvious reasons (15+ mph over, obvious intoxicated/impairment), there should be almost no roadside confrontations with the general public at all.  Ever.

 

Do these three things and we will see far less of what we’ve seen this week.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ivory tower elitist in me thinks LE should be required to have a associates degree in criminal justice. 🤓

 

Also pass something similar to the GI bill where the government provides tuition assistance to those seeking careers in LE. 

 

Police unions will never allow it tho. I think it would be a great start to rooting out the ****ty cops who are just there to be power hungry douchers. 

Edited by clietas
  • Like 3
Link to comment
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
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...