Just to reinforce what we know...JUST SAY NO.

[MSG Laigaie]

............ a cop ...let's hope he/she/it is one of the good ones. One who enforces the law, not opinion or policies. One who reports criminals in their ranks and one that really is willing to put it all on the line to honor the oath they took.................

This. I believe that by protecting the "few bad apples" the "good" LEOs lose their credibility. The ian birks and allen basses get away with what they do because "Good Cops" look the other way and allow it. I do not care what you are keeping in your heart of hearts, you can be a Saint in blue, but when you allow bad LEOs to act badly we all lose. You lose credibility and the People lose the trust they have in law enforcement.
Sorry, that is the way it is. Lose a few of those tanks and swat teams and bring us a little closer to Mayberry than chicago.

 

[Primus]

.826 percent boys..... NP matter what horror stories you post or how you flip twist and squir. It doesn't change .826 percent.

Even if there was 2 cops watching the incident while 1 did it (total of 3 cops).... you looking at 2.4 percent give or take...

The numbers don't match up to any of these notions. At all.

You can post any and every horror story you want. But there exactly that. Horror story. They are designed to sensationalize and instill fear put the people who spread them.

Cit away the sensation and loom at the numbers. No matter how you tjwst its still incredibly low.

Good luck though. Sorry for your loss.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[Firearms Iinstuctor]

Facts just tend to mess peoples preconceived notions.

 

[Maverick9]

You can post any and every horror story you want. But there exactly that. Horror story. They are designed to sensationalize and instill fear put the people who spread them.

Cit away the sensation and loom at the numbers. No matter how you tjwst its still incredibly low.

Good luck though. Sorry for your loss.

Here's some good news. ALL cops can quit taking handguns from traffic stops from LAC in the name of "Officer Safety" It's extremely safe out there boys (in blue) Settle down, now, ya hear. :
Number of cops killed by gunfire in 2013 dips to 33, lowest since 1887 That's 33 cops, 200 Million handgun owners. Probably nothing safer 0.0000165% chance/number of gun owners. (just a silly "statistic")

I might add that firearm, handgun ownership has never been higher (thanks, Mr O.)

 

[Fuller Malarkey]

.826 percent boys..... NP matter what horror stories you post or how you flip twist and squir. It doesn't change .826 percent.

Even if there was 2 cops watching the incident while 1 did it (total of 3 cops).... you looking at 2.4 percent give or take...

The numbers don't match up to any of these notions. At all.

You can post any and every horror story you want. But there exactly that. Horror story. They are designed to sensationalize and instill fear put the people who spread them.

Cit away the sensation and loom at the numbers. No matter how you tjwst its still incredibly low.

Good luck though. Sorry for your loss.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

False premise. You are not working with accurate figures, as has been spelled out to you before. CATO works with the numbers they have. Not all numbers are forthcoming due to police corruption.

More mental masterbation.

 

[Fuller Malarkey]

Facts just tend to mess peoples preconceived notions.

Do you have any? Facts that is.

 

[Primus]

False premise. You are not working with accurate figures, as has been spelled out to you before. CATO works with the numbers they have. Not all numbers are forthcoming due to police corruption.

More mental masterbation.

Lol ok fuller. Its admirable your dedication to hanging onto the bone.

Catos numbers were good enough in a previous thread to cite yo show that cops are bad. But when used to show its a miniscule number it all of a sudden becomes not good enough.

Even if you said the real number is 10 times the amount reported.... its still 8 percent...... lol

.8 is such a small number its barely a blip.

So again the previous posters assertion that the overwhelming majority of police encounters are good ones in this country.

A few guys asked for a cite to this claim and I provided it.



Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[Freedom1Man]

.826 percent boys..... NP matter what horror stories you post or how you flip twist and squir. It doesn't change .826 percent.

Even if there was 2 cops watching the incident while 1 did it (total of 3 cops).... you looking at 2.4 percent give or take...

The numbers don't match up to any of these notions. At all.

You can post any and every horror story you want. But there exactly that. Horror story. They are designed to sensationalize and instill fear put the people who spread them.

Cit away the sensation and loom at the numbers. No matter how you tjwst its still incredibly low.

Good luck though. Sorry for your loss.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

So, you believe those who stand by and watch to be okay? What about those who help cover it up like the judges, the police unions, the DA, etc?

The very group that was entrusted with "watching out" for us has a "couple of bad individuals (apples)".

So, by allowing officers to go unpunished we are saying it's okay to commit murder, rape, theft. abuse, etc so long as you're in a government issued uniform.

 

[Primus]

So, you believe those who stand by and watch to be okay? What about those who help cover it up like the judges, the police unions, the DA, etc?

The very group that was entrusted with "watching out" for us has a "couple of bad individuals (apples)".

So, by allowing officers to go unpunished we are saying it's okay to commit murder, rape, theft. abuse, etc so long as you're in a government issued uniform.

Can you repost where I've ever said any of that was ok?

You changing the topic and the assertion.

Again the asssertion was that encounters with police are overwhelmingly good. No one said a word about judges DAs or unions.

If the encounter is good then it'll never get to a DA or judge. So out of that year there was only about 6,000 opportunities (there were less then 6613 complaints/incidents) for a DA, union, etc to even get involved.

We are talking about direct contact by police with citizens and good encounters.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[Fuller Malarkey]

Lol ok fuller. Its admirable your dedication to hanging onto the bone.

Catos numbers were good enough in a previous thread to cite yo show that cops are bad. But when used to show its a miniscule number it all of a sudden becomes not good enough.

Even if you said the real number is 10 times the amount reported.... its still 8 percent...... lol

.8 is such a small number its barely a blip.

So again the previous posters assertion that the overwhelming majority of police encounters are good ones in this country.

A few guys asked for a cite to this claim and I provided it.



Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

This is where your cherry picking bites you in the ass. Cato numbers were used to substantiate that there is police misconduct in numbers large enough and with a frequency to warrant concern. It was also posted that the numbers are far from all inclusive, as nothing compels all police departments to report their incidences of misconduct. The CATO reports are essentially based on MSM reporting, and we all know police control what the MSM gets a hold of. CATO reports are compared to federal compilations of misconduct, and those agencies also note that the numbers are far from all inclusive.

So what you "provided" is more fiction than fact.

 

[Fuller Malarkey]

~SNIPPED
Again the asssertion was that encounters with police are overwhelmingly good. No one said a word about judges DAs or unions.



Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

The topic is "Just to reinforce what we know...JUST SAY NO.".......the ASSERTION was that talking to police can and will cost you.....maybe your money, your liberty or your life. The subject in the OP submitted to possible intimidation or "consent" was given under possible duress.

You took things off topic from there. If you want to contribute to the thread, post up your experiences with how police have deceived others into forfeiting their rights and have experienced harm from it, as in the OP.

 

[Primus]

The topic is "Just to reinforce what we know...JUST SAY NO.".......the ASSERTION was that talking to police can and will cost you.....maybe your money, your liberty or your life. The subject in the OP submitted to possible intimidation or "consent" was given under possible duress.

You took things off topic from there. If you want to contribute to the thread, post up your experiences with how police have deceived others into forfeiting their rights and have experienced harm from it, as in the OP.

Lol.... is this is the point in the thread where you play moderator?

I never made the assertion. Another poster did. YOU then demanded a cite among others. I provided a cite to show that assertion was correct.

Now your feelings are hurt so you'll play moderator and try to get it back unwarranted bashing.

The best part is "if you want to contribute to thread....". Oh I wasn't aware that the rule is you must AGREE and comply with the op in order to contribute to the thread.

Your responses are getting worse and worse...

"Show me a cite for that!"

Cite given

" Numbers are from police so wrong"

Umm numbers aren't just from police.

" well numbers are tip of iceburg!!"

Well iceburg must not be very bog if the tip is only .8 percent....

"Baahh get back to the topic about bad police and only respond if you agree!!"

Lol

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[eye95]

When a store owner has to install cameras to protect his customers from police harassment, is that just a bad apple?

When 32 cops invade a persons home to destroy evidence of their illegal activities was that just the apples?

Um...yes.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Um...yes.

LOL....then you are delusional.

When a whole department is in on covering up cops crimes it isn't just a few bad apples. To say that is isolated is to assume that only this one time did the the cops amost acted unanimously on an instance to cover each others asses? Which I highly doubt, they for some odd reason knew they would stand up for that thin blue line. Of course I bet they don't give each other tickets they give other civilians either.

When a store owner has to install cameras to protect his employees and customers from cops, that isn't just an isolated incident, that means it happened over and over and over again until he did something about it.

 

[OC for ME]

Can you substantiate that claim, " The overwhelming majority of LEO interactions with citizens are lawful and courteous."? <snip>

Given the number of interactions across the country between citizens and cops everyday, the number of unlawful interactions is statistically insignificant. The number of courteous interactions? Who cares, lawful is lawful and there is no burden on LE or the citizenry to be courteous. A courteous cop can violate a citizen's rights just as easily as a thug cop.

If a cop, acting in his official capacity, initiates a contact with a citizen he must have the authority to do so. If that cop wants to initiate a contact with a citizen to ask if the doughnuts in the 'C' store are fresh, then initiate away. Too many citizens relieve LE of the burden of acting within the confines of the law by conflating the "right" to talk to anyone, with the authority to act in a official capacity and initiating contact on that authority based found in the law.

 

[eye95]

Given the number of interactions across the country between citizens and cops everyday, the number of unlawful interactions is statistically insignificant. The number of courteous interactions? Who cares, lawful is lawful and there is no burden on LE or the citizenry to be courteous. A courteous cop can violate a citizen's rights just as easily as a thug cop.

If a cop, acting in his official capacity, initiates a contact with a citizen he must have the authority to do so. If that cop wants to initiate a contact with a citizen to ask if the doughnuts in the 'C' store are fresh, then initiate away. Too many citizens relieve LE of the burden of acting within the confines of the law by conflating the "right" to talk to anyone, with the authority to act in a official capacity and initiating contact on that authority based found in the law.

Thank you for the qualification on "courteous." While my experience is courtesy, I don't have information available to me about the courtesy of officers in general. We do have information about the general lawfulness of police interactions.

You do one of the best jobs around here of disagreeing with folks in a useful way. For that I am grateful.

 

[OC for ME]

Thank you for the qualification on "courteous." While my experience is courtesy, I don't have information available to me about the courtesy of officers in general. We do have information about the general lawfulness of police interactions.

My only two interactions with cops, in their official capacity, were nothing but courteous and cordial. Yet those two cops initiated contact beyond their authority. There were acting under the "authority" of department policy. Were they thugs? No, not by any measure.

I "pitched a fit" if you will, in a courteous manner, via the proper channels. The "problem" has not been encountered since.

You do one of the best jobs around here of disagreeing with folks in a useful way. For that I am grateful.

Thanks. I try to couch my hissy-fits in reasonableness. I don't always succeed, but I try.

 

[Citizen]

LOL....then you are delusional.

When a whole department is in on covering up cops crimes it isn't just a few bad apples. To say that is isolated is to assume that only this one time did the the cops amost acted unanimously on an instance to cover each others asses? Which I highly doubt, they for some odd reason knew they would stand up for that thin blue line. Of course I bet they don't give each other tickets they give other civilians either.

When a store owner has to install cameras to protect his employees and customers from cops, that isn't just an isolated incident, that means it happened over and over and over again until he did something about it.

+1

Too often the police-apologists overlook simple, reasonable inferences. For example:

In the video of a student beaten by police after a Maryland basketball game a few years ago, there are three or four beater-cops, and a few more standing around. This is the video where the video disappeared but was later "discovered". Police apologists would have us believe that the only bad cops in that department just all happened to be on that street corner at that time--both the beaters and the stand-arounders who did not step in and save the student from the criminal assault.

In the Kelly Thomas democide, there were something like six cops involved. Are we really supposed to believe that the only six bad cops in the department just all happened to be working that shift, and just all happened to be called to that scene? Really?

In the Rodney King beating video, there are between four and six cops. Are we really supposed to believe that the only bad cops in that department just happened to all be working the same shift, and all just happened to be the ones to respond to that scene? Really?

 

[OC for ME]

Former Officer Harless is the prime example of "what you see is what there is" as far as I'm concerned. Harless and his comrade in arms, the dude not doing a damn thing, except standing there.

Some how I have a difficult time separating Harless from his union buddies, and the rest of that LEA, based on the facts as they stand today. Harless did not have previously undiagnosed affliction known as Terrets Syndrome. That LEA, along with the cop union is just as "bad" as Harless.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

+1

Too often the police-apologists overlook simple, reasonable inferences. For example:

In the video of a student beaten by police after a Maryland basketball game a few years ago, there are three or four beater-cops, and a few more standing around. This is the video where the video disappeared but was later "discovered". Police apologists would have us believe that the only bad cops in that department just all happened to be on that street corner at that time--both the beaters and the stand-arounders who did not step in and save the student from the criminal assault.

In the Kelly Thomas democide, there were something like six cops involved. Are we really supposed to believe that the only six bad cops in the department just all happened to be working that shift, and just all happened to be called to that scene? Really?

In the Rodney King beating video, there are between four and six cops. Are we really supposed to believe that the only bad cops in that department just happened to all be working the same shift, and all just happened to be the ones to respond to that scene? Really?

Former Officer Harless is the prime example of "what you see is what there is" as far as I'm concerned. Harless and his comrade in arms, the dude not doing a damn thing, except standing there.

Some how I have a difficult time separating Harless from his union buddies, and the rest of that LEA, based on the facts as they stand today. Harless did not have previously undiagnosed affliction known as Terrets Syndrome. That LEA, along with the cop union is just as "bad" as Harless.

Yep it's a systemic problem anyone who says it isn't, isn't paying attention.